why f2fs is the default fs?
why a kernel .0?
I have problems with 3.01.
Version 3.02, build 760, is now the recommended version. For testing.
https://abf.openmandriva.org/platforms/3.0/products/38/product_build_lists/760
A note: I just downloaded 760. I didn’t test it yet.
Is Lx3.01 a stable version or not? Well Bero never has any problems…
Lx 3.01 is just a respin with updated packages so it’s as stable as anything Lx 3. Developers say it’s way better humongous number of bug fixes since 2014.
I use manual partitioning so I don’t see this. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to this humble user. I’ve tried it and btrfs and don’t see any advantage over ext4. That doesn’t mean there aren’t advantages at least on paper or in theory or for way heavy cpu uses. But I’m just a desktop user.
Probably Bero uses only a konsole and a browser 
And kvirc. And libreoffice. And mpv. And occasionally krita, gwenview, and games.
Probably avoiding anything nvidia like the plague helps though. That company is pure evil and more hostile to Linux than Microsoft these days. They should be boycotted.
I think that the ten programs you use are anyway not enough to say “All is working here”
even more if you are avoiding anything nvidia like, but this stuff is present in official repos.
How many installation have you tried?
But I’m curious to know what do you think about the title of this thread.
Should a stable version have f2fs as default and a .0 kernel?
What is wrong with F2FS file system ?
who tested f2fs in oma?
who decided that f2fs is the default?
F2FS gives an error at boot time, at least in 3.01. I forced installation in ext3 for 3.02. The error is non-blocking and, according to what I have read on the net, it’s already known (I believe that it’s some sort of problem between grub2 and f2fs). It forces, by default, to press a key to continue (this can be “fixed”, but it can be intimidating for normal users).
It would be better if:
1- The file system is adopted after asking community. I don’t know if this was the case.
2- It’s said that f2fs is better for SSD. In any case, it would be nice if F2FS is selected by default for users with SSD. At least in this part of the world, SSD are rare and expensive, and they have much more less capacity per $…
3. Why changing file system if ext2/3/4 are working ok ? Which advantages came with the new FS? Do those advantages are known or they were explained to community?
I thought f2fs was primarily for SSD’s. If so I’d also wonder why it is default file system or does it also offer advantages over ext4 on conventional drives?
Not sure what this is about but if you google Linux kernel 4.9.0 there are many articles about it involving other distros. So it isn’t just us. If it’s good enough for Ubuntu it’s good enough for, well I don’t know what.
Edit: How to Install Linux Kernel 4.9 in Ubuntu / Linux Mint | UbuntuHandbook
mint/ubuntu surely don’t release new stable iso with a .0 version kernel
but, if you are brave, you can install it later from repos
“stable” and .0 version don’t match, it is a contradiction
I think a .0 kernel version(still not patched) is good for cooker or for “experimental/unstable” version