4 ms·
It's not clear why they don't remove both ext2 and ext3. From the article it sounds like they're equally redundant but harmless other than taking up space in a
by mc808 11y ago
It's not clear why they don't remove both ext2 and ext3. From the article it sounds like they're equally redundant but harmless other than taking up space in a directory listing. Does ext2 have "features" (read: potentially useful bugs) that are no longer present in ext4?
Edit: Ahh. Looks like I missed "good filesystem for developers to experiment with."
- azurezyq 11y agoAs the author pointed out, the ext2 is more like a canonical example of how a fs should look like. More for educational use I think.
- joshstrange 11y agoI don't doubt that at all but I'm still confused. That's was SCM is for... Not like removing it from the repo makes it disappear off the face of the earth...
- JoshTriplett 11y agoext2 is a lot smaller than ext4. Then again, if you need to build an extremely tiny system, you probably want something even tinier than ext2.
- makomk 11y agoYeah, I think it's still in use on embedded systems that need read-write filesystems. (Read-only filesystems often end up being squashfs instead for space reasons.)
- leni536 11y agoext2 doesn't have journal. I'm not sure if you can remove the journal from ext4 and use the ext4 driver, but running without journal could make sense on usb drives.
- laumars 11y agoYou can run ext4 without journaling. You can also run ext2 with the ext4 driver. The reason for keeping ext2 around is more for educational purposes rather than compatibility with removable devices.