ZFS For Linux Is Now Available To The Public!

[Wingfeather]

I know BTRFS is under a more amenable license than ZFS, but why is it being implied that it's a better filesystem? ZFS actually works - right now. BTRFS is still a long way off. One day it might reach feature-parity with ZFS and be considered stable, but that's certainly not now.

Seriously guys, zealotry makes the whole community look bad. Software is more than just its license.

[FunkyRider]

Software is not more than it's license, when those corporation jumps out in your face and asks for pile of money. This HAS happened. For MYSQL, and will for other stuff soon (Java anyone?).

Just because you don't know doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[FunkyRider]

Fuck 1 min edit.

And OpenOffice? The whole community is shifting away from it. So you can enjoy being arse raped by Oracle and pay for future 'special commerical version of' OpenOffice.

[FunkyRider]

Oracle has a terrible track record, avoid it at all cost. Otherwise when problem arise it will be too late, you are gonna get hurt, really hurt, both monetarily and mentally.

[baryluk]

Any success building from this rpm sources on 32-bit machines?

[anarki2]

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

[anarki2]

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.

[droidhacker]

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.

[KDesk]

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.

[drag]

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.