I'm running Ubuntu 9.10 Karma with the ext4 filesystem and i have had no problems with the Intel drives. On direct reads I achieve 250 MB/sec. There are some programs that "trim" the drive, but I'm not using them. One thing people don't understand that Anand pointed out in his article is that the Intel SSD aggressively tries to keep the performance up. How they do it, is not discussed but it is evident by the benchmarks done by Anand.
If i my drive ever gets to the point where it is degraded to the point of being slower than a HDD, then I will do a secure erase.
Also, though Linux recognizes the commands, I don't think any distribution actually implements the trim command by passing to the SSD. At least this is the case in Ubuntu.
I doubt very seriously that the Intel SSD will degrade to < 200 MB/s, not unless you are doing a awful lot of writing. I have linux setup so that the tmp files go to memory since I have enough memory and I also use memory to store cache for my browser.
In my opinion the only real viable ssd that work very well are OCZ and Intel. I like the Intel because reliability. I have 2 gen 1s(80 GB) and 1 gen 2(160 GB). The only drawback to the Intel is cost and max storage. This is where OCZ has Intel beat. OCZ has a lot of scripts/programs that can be run in Linux, which Intel doesn't have. And the other feature OCZ has is "garbage collection" which suppose to work with any OS. GC tries to keep the drive at peak performance. Although Intel doesn't advertise "garbage collection", they must be doing something to keep their drives at peak performance; even without TRIM, they just don't give a name.