Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ZFS For Linux Is Now Available To The Public!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    I did NOT say "made by", I referred to the LICENSE!!!
    BIG DIFFERENCE THERE!!!

    BTRFS is in the hands of the community to deal with under proper licensing. ZFS is NOT. ZFS is under SATAN licensing.
    would you please stop this kind of trolling? guess who licenses software? bingo. those who make/own it.

    and zfs is not under satan license, firstly because that doesn't exist, secondly because it's cddl actually.

    do you know that cddl is basically an mpl-respin? then firefox is "satan licensed" as well?

    and don't blame oracle/sun or anything else for GPL being so incompatible with pretty much anything (it's barely compatible even with itself in earlier incarnations).

    and also don't have the incorrect feeling of btrfs being owned by the community any more than zfs is. why would that be the case? you may obtain the source code (just like for zfs), but you in no way will own any IP. you really lack points, you just say random bullshit

    Comment


    • #17
      oh and i forgot to mention that btrfs has been claimed to be "going to kick ass in the future" for years, and still it lacks behind quickly-appeared-and-won ext4.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
        would you please stop this kind of trolling?
        You're the one trolling.
        You ever wonder why zfs can't be in the kernel? Right... CAN'T. Because the license makes it impossible. Selected by satan himself with the specific intention to make it USELESS. Hence SATAN LICENSE.

        guess who licenses software? bingo. those who make/own it.
        Your point?

        and zfs is not under satan license, firstly because that doesn't exist, secondly because it's cddl actually.

        do you know that cddl is basically an mpl-respin? then firefox is "satan licensed" as well?
        When the license is selected by satan in order to make it useless, that is a satan license.

        and don't blame oracle/sun or anything else for GPL being so incompatible with pretty much anything (it's barely compatible even with itself in earlier incarnations).
        Why don't you just go and suck balls at oracle or something. You are clearly out of your mind.

        and also don't have the incorrect feeling of btrfs being owned by the community any more than zfs is. why would that be the case?
        BECAUSE IT IS LICENSED UNDER A REASONABLE LICENSE!!!!
        BRAIN -- USE IT -- IT WILL HELP YOU TO THINK!!!

        you may obtain the source code (just like for zfs), but you in no way will own any IP. you really lack points, you just say random bullshit
        Ownership of IP is irrelevant. What IS relevant is having the RIGHT to USE that IP as you require. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE! That ONE is licensed in a way that makes it USEFUL, the other is licensed in a way that makes it USELESS.

        Comment


        • #19
          For me it looks like droidhackeris trolling. Stop expressing your religious sentiments, this is not the right place.

          The cddl is not a bad license, it is incompatible with GPL, but GPL is also incompatible with cddl.

          Comment


          • #20
            The problem is that the GPL was first and the CDDL was purposely designed to be incompatible. The person who was responsible for writing the stupid thing said so herself. I can give you a copy of the video if you don't believe me.

            CDDL is a fine license, but since the whole goal of the thing was to make sure to be incompatible with Linux then it's putting Solaris code in the Linux kernel via a module is on legal shaky ground unless you can get expressed permission from Oracle/Sun's legal advisers, in a form of a written license allowing it. Having the development be separate is much safer legally, but much less ideal from a technical standpoint. (if you don't understand why this would be true look up the legal definition for 'derivative works' and how distribution plays a role into the GPL licensing requirements.)

            Assurances from Sun Employees on blogs that it should be fine is not something you want to base your legal foundation for a competitive enterprise software solution.

            But besides that there is more then just licensing issues going on here.

            Btrfs is something that is very native to Linux. It's using all the Linux-VFS stuff that is already used by a dozen different Linux file systems and it's in the kernel by default now. There is significant amount of code that is being shared between Btrfs and other Linux subsystems that has been around for years and is quite proven.

            This ZFS stuff is basically going to be like shoehorning part of the Solaris kernel into Linux. It will probably work fine, but I'd still rather go with a more native approach when it's available.


            Once the Btrfs-specific parts of Btrfs get proven and more widespread usage then it's going to be far and a way a much more favorable FS then ZFS for Linux users.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
              ZFS is....
              licensed by oracle (aka satan),
              Oracle also known as Satan, you say? So Oracle is Satan?

              And yet, Oracle is developing BTRFS. You are too funny, man!

              Besides, have you read the forum on BTRFS? It seems incredibly unstable and flawed. Sure in five years, it will probably have matured enough. But during these five years, ZFS will have developed further (unless ZFS development is stopped). ZFS will always be five years ahead. BTRFS is just a cheap ZFS copy cat.

              Comment


              • #22
                BTRFS is an original load of crap work by Oracle. Just go and read BTRFS developer lists and bug reports to get a feel for how unstable BTRFS really is. ZFS was and is a master piece of original Sun Solaris engineers who thought ahead and created a scalable enterprise grade FS. BTRFS can not reach that level of stability and feature set in a million years!

                Here are the bugs you can not expect from a usable (and note, not necessarily enterprise ready by any stretch) FS:

                1. Have block level checksums but no way to use them to detect or fix anything. A corruption occurs, stays hidden and then suddenly you find files missing, and also find that btrfsck doesn't do anything. NOTHING! You are fucked! Full restore from backup!

                2. Create a large number of small files and few large files. You are fucked! With 39% space available, you have ENOSPC. You can't do anything with the FS. No operations. Only option is to restore from full backup.

                3. Do tonnes of IO for no reason. A filesystem should be quiet when user space is not writing anything. But BTRFS writes GBs per day with userspace writing only a few MBs. I call it the SSD killer!

                These are first hand experience from a BTRFS zealot: me! I ran it on my desktop for a long time and pushed it whenever I got a chance, before I realized how bad the code really was.

                I invite you to go over the mailing list and just watch the list discussions for few days!

                Its a shame that I have to run ZFS on Linux but that's the reality of Linux filesystems at this time. And I am happy that people are working on this kernel module!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                  You're the one trolling.
                  You ever wonder why zfs can't be in the kernel? Right... CAN'T. Because the license makes it impossible. Selected by satan himself with the specific intention to make it USELESS. Hence SATAN LICENSE.
                  The CDDL isn't a 'satan license'. You're out of your mind. The GPL and the CDDL aren't compatible. Does this make GPL software released under a 'satan license' too? The CDDL hasn't prevented BSD from implementing ZFS, in fact that's old news to that crowd already.

                  The GPL has been criticized endlessly for its incompatibility with other source licenses. I don't ever really see the same criticism for CDDL code, EXCEPT in situations where CDDL code would actually be useful in GPL'd software (like this scenario). This just boils down to 'Open Source' versus 'Free Software', and we all hear that enough from Richard Stallman already.

                  I really looked forward to using OpenSolaris for some projects, but Oracle stepping in put those plans to a stop. Illumos looks like it may or may not take off, who knows. Open Office splitting off? And worst of all, MySQL looks like it is in for years of deprecated development bitrot in Oracle's hands. I hate Oracle, I really do. They just waltzed into Sun HQ and turned everything inside out, shafting everyone. It is clear that making friends in the Open Source / Free Software communities is not a priority for them, making money is.

                  I don't think they (Oracle) have the same power over Solaris and Java they would have liked to since Sun started opening up those technologies, but they certainly made Solaris advancement in education and small business take a 180 in the opposite direction. Does anyone else see this Sun opening up pattern from the past few years as a precaution to a company like Oracle buying them out?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    katzekui,
                    Dont worry, OpenIndiana will release in jan or feb, a release you can use in production. OpenSolaris lives as OpenIndiana.

                    BTW, ZFS rocks.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      @kebabbert:

                      I'm not sure why you think OpenIndiana will be ready by Jan/Feb, or what metric you are using to define a release as such, but its hard to call a fork this young 'production ready'. There really is no guarantee that OpenIndiana won't fall out of sync with Solaris and break compatibility, and there is no guarantee that Solaris bugfixes will make it into OpenIndiana in a timely fashion.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        kazetsukai, I read somewhere that OpenIndiana is targeting a stable release, in jan or feb.

                        When (if) Oracle releases the Solaris 11 source code (probably when Solaris 11 is released) then OpenIndiana, Illumos and the other distros can catch up. This means that compatibility will not be broken. Those working on Illumos are several ex-Solaris kernel developers. They know the Kernel inside out. They will not break compatibility. And later, the source code will probably be released, so they can merge the Oracle code with the open distros.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X