FOG Finally Has An Update
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I must be missing something, why would FOG need/have filesystem support?
from my understanding it was unable to clone the EXT4 file system.
-
I'm sure there will be too many issues in 1.0.0 to use it in production. I am interested in seeing if they continue to update it. I cant jump on ship it when its only version 1.0.0.
-
@RAM. said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I must be missing something, why would FOG need/have filesystem support?
from my understanding it was unable to clone the EXT4 file system.
If you Google that, the top hit is where someone tells you that. Lol
-
@IRJ said:
I'm sure there will be too many issues in 1.0.0 to use it in production. I am interested in seeing if they continue to update it. I cant jump on ship it when its only version 1.0.0.
I think you are misusing the numbers. This is a real, tested prod release. Many years of production use. Don't get into the "wait for a patch" mentality. That's not how healthy software works. It took over a year for them to go from .9 to 1.0. This didn't have a pretend beta like you are imagining.
-
FOG was imaging Ext4 in 2012. It is that it's automatic partition creator for making new partitions didn't know how to mark a new partition as ext4 but they fixed that, supposedly, in the 0.33 release.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I'm sure there will be too many issues in 1.0.0 to use it in production. I am interested in seeing if they continue to update it. I cant jump on ship it when its only version 1.0.0.
I think you are misusing the numbers. This is a real, tested prod release. Many years of production use. Don't get into the "wait for a patch" mentality. That's not how healthy software works. It took over a year for them to go from .9 to 1.0. This didn't have a pretend beta like you are imagining.
Ah ok. I didnt know the history behind it. I thought it was an initial release after many years of nothing.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I'm sure there will be too many issues in 1.0.0 to use it in production. I am interested in seeing if they continue to update it. I cant jump on ship it when its only version 1.0.0.
I think you are misusing the numbers. This is a real, tested prod release. Many years of production use. Don't get into the "wait for a patch" mentality. That's not how healthy software works. It took over a year for them to go from .9 to 1.0. This didn't have a pretend beta like you are imagining.
Ah ok. I didnt know the history behind it. I thought it was an initial release after many years of nothing.
That's how closed source projects tend to number for marketing reasons. Open source frowns on that. The numbers are meaningful.
It's been being used in production for many years, since the pre-alpha 0.2 release or earlier, I think. It was very mature by 0.3.
-
@IRJ said:
I'm sure there will be too many issues in 1.0.0 to use it in production. I am interested in seeing if they continue to update it. I cant jump on ship it when its only version 1.0.0.
They had a beta before this release for testing.
-
@Bill-Kindle people coming from another community have been conditioned with heavy misuse if the term beta. It makes people think that it is something that it is not.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
@IRJ said:
I'm sure there will be too many issues in 1.0.0 to use it in production. I am interested in seeing if they continue to update it. I cant jump on ship it when its only version 1.0.0.
They had a beta before this release for testing.
I havent used FOG in years. I used to love it, though.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle people coming from another community have been conditioned with heavy misuse if the term beta. It makes people think that it is something that it is not.
Right, my bad.
Release Canidate
