> It seems like a file-system takes longer to stabilize than a kernel.
For good reason in my opinion. An unstable kernel will cause application glitches, unnecessary slowness or OS crashes. They are annoying but not persistent (ie a reboot and you can carry on for a bit). However an unstable file system are persistent and thus could destroy all of your data forcing you to recover from backups (assuming you're diligent enough to keep tested backups).
Plus file systems still have to deal with buggy consumer hardware and other similar edge cases (eg storage devices, power failures, etc) just like a kernel would.
It is even worse. You can recover from backups but that implies that you already know at which point you destroyed your data and how fast you discovered that – if that ever happens. Imagine you're collecting data over a substantial period of time (maybe do calculations based on it that influence how you're collecting further data) and you're very smart and backup all your data let's say every day. The problem is if your data gets defects due to the file-system it is very unlikely to detect that. You can run your system for like a year without apparent problems whatsoever. Lets say that error accumulates and you eventually detect this by accident. Your backups are pretty much worthless ...
For good reason in my opinion. An unstable kernel will cause application glitches, unnecessary slowness or OS crashes. They are annoying but not persistent (ie a reboot and you can carry on for a bit). However an unstable file system are persistent and thus could destroy all of your data forcing you to recover from backups (assuming you're diligent enough to keep tested backups).
Plus file systems still have to deal with buggy consumer hardware and other similar edge cases (eg storage devices, power failures, etc) just like a kernel would.