Originally posted by drjohnnyfever
View Post
Originally posted by k1e0x
View Post
FUD all you want about the alleged unreliability of BTRFS, but being in tree means it has the eyes of the kernel world on it and is updated with evolving kernel interfaces and tested regularly. Whichever ZFS implementation you prefer surely has a much smaller audience for audit and maintenance. It is their choice (ultimately Oracles, surely, as patent and copywrite owner on most or much of the code and ideas) to not license it appropriately for consideration in mainline Linux. Don't blame Linus for behaving reasonably and following clear and responsible standards by refusing to change the rules for a known bad player who could remedy the situation themselves.
Linus is not "being a dick", he is expecting Oracle to play by the same rules everyone else does. He dislikes all out of kernel code, whether it is ZFS or a proprietary graphics driver - you do remember the infamous middle finger to NVIDIA, right? Not sure he's as "OK" with vendors linking proprietary drivers in as you think, he just isn't in a position to prevent them from exploiting a legal loophole. As the thread this article referred to illustrates, people whine about it when their precious out of tree kernel blob fails them in production, but how is Linus supposed to be responsible for the shortcomings of uncooperative third parties? He certainly has much more important matters to worry about within the actual Linux kernel. In the case of Ubuntu, since they encourage or support ZFS, it would fall to them to not push a kernel update for ZFS users that breaks their ZFS module until they have verified the module works with the new kernel.
Comment