I stick with ext3.
I have had data corruption before under reiser.
My house loses power about once every couple of weeks.
Since I leave my computers on 24/7 resier has left me in the lurch.
I switced to ext3 last year, and have not had a problem since.

Franklin - sorry, I must not be explaining myself very well. The point I was trying to make was simply that within a Linux installation, I would suggest using the same file system for all Linux partitions. To say it another way, my suggestion was simply to use a single Linux file system for all the Linux partitions rather than to (for instance) use ext3 for /home, ext2 for /usr, reiser for /boot, and so forth.

To illustrate, if you had defined separate partitions for /home, /usr, /var, and /boot, then I would suggest doing this:

/dev/hda1 = /boot (reiserfs)
/dev/hda2 = /usr (reiserfs)
/dev/hda3 = /var (reiserfs)
/dev/hda5 = /home (reiserfs)

instead of this:

/dev/hda1 = /boot (reiserfs)
/dev/hda2 = /usr (ext2)
/dev/hda3 = /var (reiserfs)
/dev/hda5 = /home (ext3)

You are 100% correct that there is no problem at all with having Linux mount "foreign" file systems (ie, any of the Windows file systems such as vfat, NTFS, or whatever) and as I mentioned before doing this is often useful and/or necessary. Clearly if you are dual booting or have multiple machines using a vfat partition as a common space, then mounting that "external" partition will be a necessity. -- J.W.

I use reiser for all partitions except /boot. For boot I use ext3 which seems to make things easier for booting into mroe than one system. I think I read it in an install guide when I started ot with Slackware last year & have just stuck with it.