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

  • Honestly casual users dont need zfs at all. Its planned and developed with strictly enterprise use in mind....and cause brilliant executed scalability zfs fits in home environment too ,people begun think of it like regular , PC , filesystem. Its isn't.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
      @Bubbles_by_day
      I have just red that article "After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside"

      It was kind of funny reading it. Linus is definitively not the most polite person in the world.

      Well, I definitively liked when he showed middle finger to Nvidia. Perhaps sometimes people have to be rude... to get their point, to get the attention.
      Corporations can certainly do much more damage than individual people. No matter how politely they put it through their PR outlets.

      Would the world be so much better if kernel devs were more civil? Probably no. Perhaps it would be a little better.
      All valid opinions. I disagree. Except for...

      Ok, I think you have the right to demand more civility from the kernel dev team. I think it doesn't matter much. It doesn't matter to me. But, I still think that the kernel team has every right to drop ZFS from kernel.
      ...which I mostly agree with. I have the right to "demand" more civility. (Which I never did but I agree I have the right to.)

      And the kernel team has every right to drop ZFS. Which I also agree with. But was not remotely the point. I'm not sure how this went so far off the rails to talk about "rights" and the First Amendment.

      My only point was that 1) for a member of the kernel team to dismiss ZFS so broadly and generally, as a concern for what to drop, would be a mistake. My argument is that it hurts them, and general acceptance of Linux more broadly, not me personally. No one has to agree, it's an opinion, and not really provable one way or another unless we had access to a parallel universe where the only thing different was at least silence on the issue. And 2) about general civility, which would be pointless to relitigate.

      It's relevant to my point, that this isn't a knee-jerk personal response about ZFS. In fact I don't give two s**ts that they broke support for encryption, because I don't use ZFS encryption either personally or in my job. Furthermore I'm actually kind of glad they did, because I think it might drive ZoL to work harder at being more native for Linux implementation. While I like that there's close coordination of open ZFS so that a volume works on multiple OSes, I believe that balance is currently too far on the side of Solaris-specific metaphors like memory management, that have to be shimmed and jerry-rigged around. Dropping support for the stuff that ZFS relies on for encryption, I think is stroke of personally beneficial luck. It should help provide more motivation for what I selfishly want to see, in a way that doesn't impact me personally.

      But obviously I've found enough to animate me to write this much about it. (But for many, including me, writing many words is easy. Editing it down is really hard. So volume of words is, somewhat paradoxically, inversely proportional to how much I personally care. More like a bell curve, with amount of caring on the Y axis and word count on the X.)

      So with the ZFS side of the argument actually working in my own self-interest, my objection--and word of advice if anyone on the kernel dev team cared, which they clearly don't--is over the kernel team appearing hostile to ZFS (if even just from one visible guy), and overall abusiveness of the team. It's one thing to be direct, honest, and anti-politically correct. But being belligerent assholes is completely different. With a nation on the brink of civil war and 8 billion people on the planet, that's arguably not a great idea.

      Also, women are increasingly running men out of high-paying technical and leadership positions (based on long-term projections such as college admission and graduation rates). Highly technical fields are one of the last bastions of male dominance, and that ain't going to last for long. It's no longer even white and/or native-born males dominating it. The US is not graduating enough males (let alone "Men") in STEM fields. (Which I say with some authority since that's literally what my company focuses on doing.) That's why we're seeing male greencard holders dominate highly technical paid positions. Which I'm personally fine with, that's just the expected consequence to our (general) culture of laziness, worship of stupidity and triviality, and hero/celebrity worship that we seem to be so good at collectively promoting. Personally, I go out of my way to be professional and courteous to greencard holders, to women in STEM fields, and will do so with AI as we get closer to the singularity. Because those are all going to be my boss, in turn, someday, certainly the first two. (You can't get any higher than my "title", at least in a comparatively small sea. But my days of being a silverback are rapidly approaching an end, and even in primate cultures, the leaders that last orders of magnitude longer than others, are the leaders that have the confidence and strength to be kind, courteous, even suck up to their constituents, and avoid being abusive for no reason. Asshole leaders are displaced breathtakingly quickly. The odds are overwhelming that I'm not going to be a billionaire, regardless of how hard or ruthlessly I work towards it. I'll only be dropping successively down the ladder, if I can't retire quickly enough. And odds are also pretty overwhelming that the same will be eventually said for everyone on this forum including yourself. So unless you [speaking generally] are on a solid, objectively demonstrable, non-delusional trajectory to be in the 1% of the 1% of the 1% in less than ten years, I'd get used to the idea of treating minorities and women with respect and decency, and avoid being a belligerent asshole--independent of whether or not you think that being a decent human being is disdainful "political correctness", out of basic self-preservation. Kernel devs can get away with being belligerent asshats now. It won't always be the case. And they know it, hence the updated codes of conduct.)

      But hey, that's just my opinion.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dedobot View Post
        Honestly casual users dont need zfs at all. Its planned and developed with strictly enterprise use in mind....and cause brilliant executed scalability zfs fits in home environment too ,people begun think of it like regular , PC , filesystem. Its isn't.
        What are your bases for these specific assertions? I'd love to have my mind changed with some verifiable, falsifiable references.

        I mean, those are obviously statements of opinion, inexpertly stated in such absolute terms as to be meaningless, but I'm giving benefit of doubt by reading it with less pointlessly and unsupportable authoritative phrasing, and am genuinely curious about how you came to such opinions. Not interested in more opinion to back up opinion, but if you are aware of some reasonably objective references, that you can justify the time to locate and share, I'd be really happy to read them and have my own opinions changed. After all, my opinions are also only based on personal experience and second-and-third-hand anecdote, and being keenly aware of that, I'm willing to do an about-face on my own beliefs with more objective evidence.

        Comment


        • Why don't we have an 'offshore linux' that just ignores all of these IP threat and does what is best for its own code base?

          Comment

          Working...
          X