Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ZFS On Linux Runs Into A Snag With Linux 5.0

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

  • Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Regardless, eventually mech drives go extinct, except for pure archival purposes.
    Thats is a questionable prediction to make. Maybe yes, maybe not. You can't say for certain at this point of time.
    Maybe you can say (predict) that most casual computer users will be using solid state drives with less than 1TB capacity in the near future.

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Besides, mech drives have reached their physical limitations. There's nowhere to go..
    Not true. That new heat-assisted write technology has a potential of 4x-10x increase in bit density over the next 10 years.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by retardxfce View Post
      If you use IBM filesystems then dont be surprised there are problems. I use FAT32 for my root and home partition with my debian+XFCE desktop and I never had any issues.
      That is sooo freaking amazing. I'm impressed!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bubbles_by_day View Post
        I gotta say, the toxic dude-culture of the kernel team is sickening. I know this quote doesn't define Greg or anyone else, but it is a fitting example among countless, of a broader toxic culture.
        I don't know, he's got a point and you got a point too. Its their kernel, they do with it as they like. I like angry kernel developers, people with some character. I would prefer a microkernel, but I take what has been offered for free.

        I don't get where is the problem for you, I mean, why don't you just stick with and old LTS kernel version, and everything is fine.

        Comment


        • Well, since we're just going full on retard

          Comment


          • Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
            Its their kernel, they do with it as they like.
            I didn't suggest otherwise. But since you brought it up, no, they can't really do with as they like. Or by extension, behave any way they like. At least, not without the community fracturing with a competing fork. That would be bad for most of us, including me, professionally. I have a vested interest in seeing the kernel succeed, and I therefore have a vested interest in seeing them not f*** it up.

            I take what has been offered for free.
            Who says you have to just "take it"? Are you implying that other people should feel the same way? Just because it's FLOSS, doesn't mean we just have to put up with abuse, or watch others be abused, silently. Don't get me wrong, I don't like seeing SJW'ing on behalf of others that haven't asked for help. That said, I also don't have to remain silent. Or stick with an old LTS kernel. (Which I'm not getting the logic of - what are you suggesting that would accomplish?)

            Also, I do contribute indirectly, so the kernel is not technically "free" for me. And like many who speak out, I feel like I can only do so anonymously, even if that's not completely warranted. (My minor and indirect contributions wouldn't be worth their time to personally attack me.)

            It's possible to benefit from FLOSS software, and expect it to be done humanely. You probably wouldn't stand for the dev team of a near monopoly technology you rely on for a living, killing 20 rabbits a day for sport. That would probably cross some line. You'd probably want both: use of the kernel, without supporting that. So, where's the line? I'll tell you where it is: it's different for everyone.

            Maybe you disagree on the options available, that's fine too. Maybe just quit using the kernel and switch to BSD? Fine, if you can professionally. Get another job? Use the kernel but publicly speak out against it? Fork the kernel and manage it yourself with your own code of ethics?

            Guess what: Those are all viable, ethical, legal, moral options. Some maybe more effective than others. Some more realistic than others. But just because one person decides to use the kernel and speak out against what s/he sees as abusive behavior, is no less worthy an option than someone who chooses to use a different kernel, or fork it (which lets face it is not a real option), or something else.

            Point is, using the kernel or not, and speaking out or not, are not tied to each other. You can choose any combination. If you think some combinations have more value or worth than others, I'd suggest that's an artificial construct.

            Furthermore, the Linux kernel is not some garage project to just accept whatever happens, or f*** off. There is serious economic output poured into it from large commercial entities, millions of dollars in paid man-hours poured into it. The Linux kernel, like it or not, is a significant workhorse of the global economy. And many organizations are not happy at all with the core kernel culture. Why do you think Linus had such a public "change of heart"? Because it was genuine, or because he risked losing major financial backers, if not an outright fork?

            The kernel no longer belongs to Linus, or the kernel team. You might say, arguably, that it belongs to the world. It's a public good. Maybe you disagree with that, but at minimum, it's way beyond the scope of one man. Yet, he could still probably manage to f*** it up with bad behavior if he really set his mind to it.

            I don't get where is the problem for you
            I laid it out as best as I have time for. (More, actually. As everyone commenting could probably also say.) If you disagree with my opinion, or don't understand it, that's cool. We can agree to disagree, or not understand. I don't know you, you don't know me, the stakes couldn't possibly be lower. But that doesn't mean I can't treat you with basic respect and try to lay out a cogent argument (in part, a process which helps clarify my own thinking, thus having value beyond arguing on the internet).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by aht0 View Post
              Don't really care. Political correctness could be chased until it ends up distorting the very perception of reality, it does not affect it. There are probably people thinking God racist because snow is white. Simple facts of life remain: women base their buying decisions mostly on appearance - very few are techno-savvy and care about actual specs, gay males are much the same.

              If I have to self-censor every thought through the "political correctness" filter, this Western society ain't better than Soviet Union was. Differences are only in what's allowed or not. Sorry, I was born in USSR, present ideas/practices of political correctness are simply repugnant. I want nothing to do with that bs.
              You may think that kind of vapid commentary is edgy or "real", but honestly it just sounds like an Incel cry for help. Seriously. Blows any credibility on any subject you might otherwise legitimately have, tarnishes the whole community however minutely, and slightly reduces the signal-to-noise ratio of insightful commentary, for those that like to check in on the pulse of the community now and then.

              Also, whatever you thought you were broadcasting, all I can hear is this:

              https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-homosexuals/

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=xfcemint;n1098914]
                Thats is a questionable prediction to make. Maybe yes, maybe not. You can't say for certain at this point of time.
                Maybe you can say (predict) that most casual computer users will be using solid state drives with less than 1TB capacity in the near future.
                Why questionable? Tapes are pretty much extinct, except for niche (backup) use. But at one point tapes were used by common users. It's prediction based on past patterns.

                Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
                Not true. That new heat-assisted write technology has a potential of 4x-10x increase in bit density over the next 10 years.
                It means introducing additional complications into process. Which in turn, means making drives less reliable. I won't even start on speaking of required finer mechanical tolerances and results if these start to deviate too much. Prices of rare-earth metals may also skyrocket (mainland China controls most of these mines) because of economic issues with U.S making final prices of HDD's unappealing compared to SSD's.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bubbles_by_day View Post
                  Just because it's FLOSS, doesn't mean we just have to put up with abuse, or watch others be abused, silently.
                  To tell you the truth, I'm not much into what's happening with the kernel dev team. I don't know. So I was mostly judging by the quote you have posted.

                  In my opinion, that quote contains nothing abusive. The dev you quoted has every right to have such an opinion.

                  Originally posted by Bubbles_by_day View Post
                  That said, I also don't have to remain silent. Or stick with an old LTS kernel. (Which I'm not getting the logic of - what are you suggesting that would accomplish?)
                  Well, the pre-5.0 kernels will continue to support ZFS for the next few years. So there is no real problem.

                  Am I wrong here somewhere, I don't get what are you not getting?

                  Originally posted by Bubbles_by_day View Post
                  Furthermore, the Linux kernel is not some garage project to just accept whatever happens, or f*** off.
                  That is, more-or-less, what I think. It's a project led by Linus Torvalds. If someone doesn't like it, fork it or f-off.

                  What I think is that kernel devs have no moral obligation to put ZFS into kernel. Nor would its exclusion lead to some dramatic consequences. So, therefore, they can do what they please, or what they estimate is the best. You can't have every imagined feature built into the kernel, there must be a line: some things go in, some things don't.

                  Originally posted by Bubbles_by_day View Post
                  The kernel no longer belongs to Linus, or the kernel team.
                  Each source file of the kernel has a copyright line. The copyright line contains a name of the person or organization who is the owner of the said file.

                  That is a fact. Everything else is either interpretation or misinterpretation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                    Why questionable? Tapes are pretty much extinct, except for niche (backup) use. But at one point tapes were used by common users. It's prediction based on past patterns.
                    Nah. To make a prediction which is acceptable as an argument in a discussion, you cant just say "oh, the sales of HDDs are falling, so they will soon be extinct". By that thinking, every line that starts falling down must continue to do so, by some unknown law of nature.

                    Predicion involves having much more data, and predicions must in general be more robust.

                    What you are doing is called speculation.

                    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                    It means introducing additional complications into process. Which in turn, means making drives less reliable. I won't even start on speaking of ...
                    Most technology improvements require intoducing additional complications. That's nothing new.

                    The consensus predicion is that HDD capacity is going to increase further, and there are good reasons behind that predicion (like: plausible new technology is available).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by xfcemint View Post

                      To tell you the truth, I'm not much into what's happening with the kernel dev team. I don't know. So I was mostly judging by the quote you have posted.

                      In my opinion, that quote contains nothing abusive. The dev you quoted has every right to have such an opinion.

                      Well, the pre-5.0 kernels will continue to support ZFS for the next few years. So there is no real problem.

                      Am I wrong here somewhere, I don't get what are you not getting?

                      That is, more-or-less, what I think. It's a project led by Linus Torvalds. If someone doesn't like it, fork it or f-off.

                      What I think is that kernel devs have no moral obligation to put ZFS into kernel. Nor would its exclusion lead to some dramatic consequences. So, therefore, they can do what they please, or what they estimate is the best. You can't have every imagined feature built into the kernel, there must be a line: some things go in, some things don't.

                      Each source file of the kernel has a copyright line. The copyright line contains a name of the person or organization who is the owner of the said file.

                      That is a fact. Everything else is either interpretation or misinterpretation.
                      We seem tobe talking past each other. But at least I understand what you mean about pre-5.0 kernels, with your contextual reference to ZFS.

                      I often find that when someone says, "[I|they] have a right to say that", it means they are probably out of ideas and the conversation is over, or at least probably should be.

                      I never said anything about use of monopoly force by a state actor. Our constitutional rights have nothing to do with this. The First Amendment has nothing to do with this subject. It's a given. You have the right to say almost anything on this forum or social media, within certain legal limits...but you might get banned for it. This forum is not run with the backing of state-sponsored monopoly force. It's a private endeavor, you and I are guests. We can be kicked off at will. Similarly, you have the right to say stupid stuff on TV, but you might get fired for it.

                      Or kicked off an open source dev team. Even if it's something you originally created and still have considerable control over.

                      In none of those cases, does the First Amendment necessarily apply. Furthermore, we're talking about one random dude's opinion about decent, professional behavior, and the future of one of the most important pieces of tech and economic driver.

                      (And it's an opinion that just so happens to align closely with their own code of conduct, and decades of documented abuse that has driven away countless talented contributors, and Torvald's own apologies and promises to do better.)

                      You don't have to agree with my opinion, but to retort "that's their right" to act in ways that many find the adjective "abusive" appropriate, is meaningless and amateurish in context.

                      But relax. It's OK. There's literally nothing at stake here.

                      As for "ownership", I think it was clear I in the use of metaphorical language. That should have been obvious by implying "the world" owns it. And what I mean by that metaphor, in practical terms, is that while Torvalds or any other visible kernel (or any project) leader are free to exercise speech without threat of state retribution, they are not free from the natural, legal consequences of said free speech. Such as being run out of the Linux Foundation, the Linux Kernel Organization, etc. He is not entitled to not be run completely off of his own project, which not "his" anymore in a real-world practical sense. (Other than, as you said, the copyright on lines of code, and also the right to fork the whole thing at any time.)

                      But you don't have to take my opinion as gospel. It's a free country. However, their own opinion might matter more, as is the opinion of tech giants funding the whole endeavor. Check out their own code of conduct, and the opinions of others that might be considered "more relevant" than Random Internet Dude's (again you don't have to agree and of course there are dissenting opinions from other more reputable sources).

                      Arguably, and in Torvald's own words, the community consensus seems to be swinging towards "more civility". That's an observation, not an opinion. (Though you are still free to disagree with the observation, and/or disagree on it being a positive step. Free speech!)

                      Linux Kernel Contributor Code of Conduct

                      In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
                      (Whether you think the original quote that initiated this discussion violates that, is a matter of opinion, but also not my point. It's the overall, well-documented culture of abusiveness among the kernel team, following Torvald's lead, that's the point. You seem to be fine with their culture, which is fine. I'm not terribly concerned with what you think, because you didn't say you don't work on the kernel team. I'm more concerned with what people think who do. Either way, you don't get to say that "no one gets to have a say in their culture but themselves". Well, obviously you can say that, but it would be silly to expect to be taken seriously. So we'll just have to disagree on whether or not it's a good or even valid opinion. I think it's a grossly uninformed, fanboy-ish, knee-jerk reactionary opinion. But that's just my opinion about your opinion. [Not you as a person.] Meta.)

                      Linux Foundation Diversity & Inclusiveness

                      Linux Foundation (events) Code of Conduct

                      Linux Foundation Corporate Members

                      After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside

                      Abuse is indefensible

                      And this has long since passed the point of procrastinating and deep into pointlessness, and I need to stop! Peace.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X