Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 84

Thread: ZFS On Linux Is Now Set For "Wide Scale Deployment"

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Candide View Post
    The question asked in this thread, "Will you use ZFS?"...
    Is there a Debian fork that has ZFS compiled in the kernel?
    Probably not what you had in mind, but since nobody else pointed it out yet, there's Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. ZFS comes as a zfsutils package and a loadable kernel module (because of the CDDL license - you should not use GPL-licensed kernel modules such as extfs at the same time).

    The installer for the Wheezy kfreebsd-amd64 release (this weekend!) allows to partition all/part of a disk for ZFS, then use it as root filesystem, as /home, /boot, or anything else. It will set up GRUB2 for you and load the zfs.ko module automatically.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    True, ZFS is covered by patents.

    But it still open source under CDDL, and several OSes use it. FreeBSD can use it, why can not Linux use it? Mac OS X use it. All OpenSolaris distros use it. Also, Linux use it. Here are all OSes that use it, it is quite a list.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Platforms
    Linux can use it through third-party distributed loadable kernel modules, or via FUSE.
    However, Linux does not have ZFS in the mainline kernel, due to CDDL being incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL), which is the license which Linux is distributed under.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    thanks a lot ryao !

    that's a more in-depth answer than I had anticipated


    I'm currently trying out ZFS/ZOL with lz4-algorithm on one of my backup disks and it looks good

    I see one issue which hinders me from using lz4 on my laptop / on the root partition: there's no liveCDs with ZOL available that support the LZ4 algorithm

    in case things go wrong I would have no access to my data at all if all partitions were using the LZ4 compression algorithm - am I correct ?

    seems like the problem took care of itself:

    http://mirror.de.sabayon.org/entropy...ges.db.pkglist

    ZFSonLinux 0.6.1 is hopefully included in Sabayon 13.04
    Last edited by kernelOfTruth; 05-03-2013 at 05:39 PM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenSLOWlaris View Post
    The same lie you spit out when trying to claim to kraftman that BSD devs are useful (when they are actually not). It's a Linux hacker that contribute LZ4. BSD contributed shit. They just use ZFS and stick with it like a man on the sinking ship.
    Kebbabert is a known troll, so it's useless to try arguing with him.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenSLOWlaris View Post
    Wrong: The CDDL is not open source, it's close source core. Open source means that the license keeps the source code and any addons or changes open for viewing (e.g. GPL). Close source core means that the original core is accessible but one has the right of taking it and closing it whether or not modified (e.g. BSD and CDDL)
    Coming up with your own, obviously wrong definition, of open Source does not make your arguments true. Even the FSF thinks that those licenses are Open Source licenses.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenSLOWlaris View Post
    Wrong: The CDDL is not open source, it's close source core. Open source means that the license keeps the source code and any addons or changes open for viewing (e.g. GPL). Close source core means that the original core is accessible but one has the right of taking it and closing it whether or not modified (e.g. BSD and CDDL)
    Well, the ZFS source code is forked. The forked version is out there, you can browse it and download it and compile it. How do you think Linux devs succeeded in getting ZFS? Because they grabbed the open source and compiled it. The closed version of ZFS, is closed and you can not get the source code. Which ZFS version do you think Linux devs use? The closed version, or the open sourced one? So, ZFS is open sourced.


    I heard they quit programming completely so your argument goes to /dev/null.
    Cool. And you have by chance, no links to back that up? So you mean that Matt Ahrens and Jeff Bonwick have quit programming? What do they now? Make hamburgers? That would be very bad for the ZFS community, because they created it and know it best. Where are your links?


    The same lie you spit out when trying to claim to kraftman that BSD devs are useful (when they are actually not).
    Af you look at my activity here, you see that I have not been logged in for a very long time, maybe a year or so. So I dont even remember all the discussions I had, and I certainly do not remember what I said to Kraftman. How can you remember that, a year ago, or even two years ago? The only reasonable conclusion is that you are Kraftman. Hi, Kraftman! I was just wondering why you did not not comment your unsubstantiated negative claims, but here you are doing what you do best: spread unsupported negative claims of non-Linux OSes with no links. That is so typical of Kraftman. And Kraftman even confessed he FUDs. Yes he wrote it.

    BTW, I still maintain that all open source devs are useful, including the BSD devs. That is a reasonable claim? Or do you wish the BSD devs to quit?


    It's a Linux hacker that contribute LZ4. BSD contributed shit. They just use ZFS and stick with it like a man on the sinking ship.
    I did not know that Yann Collet is a Linux hacker. Do you have any links that supports your claim?

    I know that Yann Collet talks a lot about FreeBSD, and here they talk about FreeBSD and Yann Collet:
    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gr.../msg00127.html



    If you dont show any links to backup your claims, then it is the final evidence we need: you are surely Kraftman. Because Kraftman never backed up his links, because he never said anything true, only negative false things. And you can never backup false things.

    BTW, is it allowed to have multiple aliases here? So you are using Kraftman and also this nickname, is it allowed to have multiple accounts? It is? I dont understand why you dont continue to use your old account "Kraftman"? Why get a new account?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    If you dont show any links to backup your claims, then it is the final evidence we need: you are surely Kraftman. Because Kraftman never backed up his links, because he never said anything true, only negative false things. And you can never backup false things.

    BTW, is it allowed to have multiple aliases here? So you are using Kraftman and also this nickname, is it allowed to have multiple accounts? It is? I dont understand why you dont continue to use your old account "Kraftman"? Why get a new account?
    Why are you lying? Kraftman was always proving his claims in flames with trolls like you. It is you who were always saying untrue things and was lying. You were proven doing so.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    True, ZFS is covered by patents.

    But it still open source under CDDL, and several OSes use it. FreeBSD can use it, why can not Linux use it? Mac OS X use it. All OpenSolaris distros use it. Also, Linux use it. Here are all OSes that use it, it is quite a list.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Platforms
    CDDL is a catastrophe.

    CDDL allows direct proprietary integration, exactly like BSD, plus adds patent grand and uncertain definition of "intellectual property".
    GPL forbids direct proprietary integration. One can't use GPL+CDDL because two conditions come in conflict.
    If Linux migrates to CDDL then all device manufacturers that use Linux will not be obligated to publish changes.
    Projects like OpenWRT, DD-WRT, Android would not happen. Linux will loose one its primary strengths - GPL.

    Also,
    Quote Originally Posted by CDDL, Section 2.1
    the Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license: [...] under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using or selling of Original Software, to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the Original Software (or portions thereof).
    .....
    no patent license is granted: (1) for code that You delete from the Original Software, or (2) for infringements caused by: (i) the modification of the Original Software, or (ii) the combination of the Original Software with other software or devices.
    So, in short: you recieve right to use patented algorythms. But if you delete parts, modify it or combine it with any hardware or software, in essence you start using the piece, the license is nullified and you are open to patent attack. So GPL gives full patent grant, but CDDL patent grant is defacto invalid.

    And finally retaliation chapter.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDDL, Section 6.2
    If You assert a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You assert such claim is referred to as “Participant”) alleging that the Participant Software (meaning the Contributor Version where the Participant is a Contributor or the Original Software where the Participant is the Initial Developer) directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights granted directly or indirectly to You by such Participant, the Initial Developer (if the Initial Developer is not the Participant) and all Contributors under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant terminate prospectively and automatically at the expiration of such 60 day notice period, unless if within such 60 day period You withdraw Your claim with respect to the Participant Software against such Participant either unilaterally or pursuant to a written agreement with Participant.
    that essentially allows patent owner or *any* software distributor to use ALL your patents as long as you accept CDDL or use its software.

    So, if Linux uses CDDL in any part then it will stop being copyleft AND any proprietary vendor will have access to all patents that currently exist in Linux.

    That said I don't understand why Tso and Co simply not implement ext5. Granted, uncompatible with ext4, but something that can actually conter this whole ZFS mess, similar to old OSS / ALSA story.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    If Linux migrates to CDDL then all device manufacturers that use Linux will not be obligated to publish changes.
    Projects like OpenWRT, DD-WRT, Android would not happen. Linux will loose one its primary strengths - GPL.
    First of all, there's no way that would ever happen, due to reasons. Secondly, even if it did, what it would actually mean would be that the CDDL version would become a fork of the Linux kernel which would co-exist with the existing GPL-licensed Linux. This is because relicensing does not cancel the license of already released versions which would still be under GPL, and thus people would be free to continue the development of the GPL-licensed Linux. In this hypothetical but practically impossible scenario, which version do you think would attract more developers? (GPL, obviously.)

    This is also why people who rant on about CLA's are often misguided. If something is released under the GPL, then that release stays under the GPL, forever, and anyone is free to fork it and continue development, as is stipulated by the GPL. Doesn't matter if the original developer decides to change the license, or go full-on closed source, because licenses cannot be changed retroactively, only for future releases. The GPL is designed to ensure that code will always stay free.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Why are you lying? Kraftman was always proving his claims in flames with trolls like you. It is you who were always saying untrue things and was lying. You were proven doing so.
    Actually Pawlerson you do have a tendency to lie and FUD as much as Kraftman, not to mention the immature writing style and use of emoticons is dead accurate to what he used to post.
    So, Kraftman, why keep making the accounts after getting banned? Do you get some sort of rush from trolling people who would rather have a technical discussion of merit?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •