Apple Designs New File-System To Succeed HFS+

[starshipeleven]

: facepalm : lol your really something else dude. I guess your agreeing with me now.. ok

You guess wrong.
I'm always saying zfs is ok as a separate prject where it is due to its own license, while you are whining about it not being in mainline and handwaving a solution for legal risks or assuming they don't exist. Ah, and giving the fault to linux kernel license even when it is a project that predates ZFS.

[k1e0x]

btrfs has the free space issue (due to it being a CoW filesystem, they still have not even placed some arbitrary "reserved space limits" like for example there are on ext2-3-4 for other reasons) and the fact that it isn't working beyond RAID1 (both big issues). Plus assorted hiccups.

f2fs is mostly feature-complete and relatively stable afaik.

Of course btrfs's features are orders of magnitude more and more complex than f2fs so that's not a surprise.

No, I'm just explaining to you why the smart people in linux kernel decided to not merge it.

You know patent trolling, legal trolling, and so on? Unless something is CLEARLY STATED it can be an issue, sometimes even then it can be an issue. Oracle is known for its omnomnomnoms in these things too.

I can have ZFS on linux and it is production-grade, while the kernel project itself is safe from any legal trolling that would be a BIG issue.

ZFS is a very self-contained system by design, keeping it out-of-mainline isn't hurting its development.

Sooo... WTF are you saying again?

Ah, it's a thinly disguised try to say BSDs are better. No they are not, end of story.

: facepalm :

lol your really something else dude. I guess your agreeing with me now.. ok

[starshipeleven]

btrfs as is is more usable than f2fs

btrfs has the free space issue (due to it being a CoW filesystem, they still have not even placed some arbitrary "reserved space limits" like for example there are on ext2-3-4 for other reasons) and the fact that it isn't working beyond RAID1 (both big issues). Plus assorted hiccups.

f2fs is mostly feature-complete and relatively stable afaik.

Of course btrfs's features are orders of magnitude more and more complex than f2fs so that's not a surprise.

Fud on man.

No, I'm just explaining to you why the smart people in linux kernel decided to not merge it.

You know patent trolling, legal trolling, and so on? Unless something is CLEARLY STATED it can be an issue, sometimes even then it can be an issue. Oracle is known for its omnomnomnoms in these things too.

Your only hurting Linux in the end.

I can have ZFS on linux and it is production-grade, while the kernel project itself is safe from any legal trolling that would be a BIG issue.

ZFS is a very self-contained system by design, keeping it out-of-mainline isn't hurting its development.

Sooo... WTF are you saying again?

I want it to be good and I use Linux as a desktop (at least while a few distros like Gentoo still exist that I can stand) but I use FreeBSD when I want a real OS so I don't really care if you want to let Free*Desktop*.org decide your init system for you or hail high prophet Stallman and shoot yourself in the foot. : shrug :

Ah, it's a thinly disguised try to say BSDs are better. No they are not, end of story.

[alien]

btrfs as is is more usable than f2fs

btrfs is only usable if you have plenty of space to keep enough of it empty.

I use it both on my laptop and I had it on my Jolla mobile phone, and I got fed up with its stupid handling of empty(or metadata) space. Whenever the volume is more than about 80-90% full it starts reporting disk full errors while df still reports multiple dozens of GB of free space, just beceuse it ends up using all its metadata.

Especially on the Jolla it was really bad, it ended up repeatedly bricking my phone after performing updates, and this is one of the main reasons why I actually stopped using my Jolla phone. I am a techie and I can recover it with the rebalance trick, but after a while I got sick of doing it so I gave it up entirely. But this would definitely be a showstopper for the Apple's userbase, unless they ship insane amounts of storage so that the volumes would never ever get nowhere near of being full.

[k1e0x]

Techically speaking, only OSX is posix-compliant. Everyone else is "mostly" posix-compliant. (don't know about minor toy OS)

GPL isn't creating barriers, Linux existed before ZFS, so Sun could have used GPL-compatible licenses if they wanted to let people run ZFS on linux too.
Deliberate choice, Linux basically nuked Solaris and x86-64 ate most of the SPARC market, if they let ZFS go to Linux, they would have lost a major selling point.

Bullshit, it's not clearly stated anywhere, and this leaves open the door.
If someone decided to sue it could degenerate in a long drawn legal war and none on the Linux kernel side has any intention to risk that.

Distros can do whatever they want and take the risks (none in his right mind would sue Canonical, because they are the sockpuppet of MS... ah crap I said it, I wanted to say because they have never made a dime off linux, so apart from getting Shuttleworth as a sex slave they cannot really offer anyway in case they lost), but if Linux kernel gets targeted it's going to be a big fucking war as there are plenty of big interests on both sides.

"better designed operating systems" just because they have a license that is compatible with ZFS's? Really?

Fud on man. Your only hurting Linux in the end. I want it to be good and I use Linux as a desktop (at least while a few distros like Gentoo still exist that I can stand) but I use FreeBSD when I want a real OS so I don't really care if you want to let Free*Desktop*.org decide your init system for you or hail high prophet Stallman and shoot yourself in the foot. : shrug :

[pal666]

F2FS isn't btrfs. btrfs is unfinished, f2fs is already usable as-is.

btrfs as is is more usable than f2fs

[pal666]

smitty3268 pal666 starshipeleven Thaodan bug77One, we don't know how long they've been working on this project. Given that it's apple, it could've been in the works for years, with a team of hundreds working around the clock

givet that it's apple, they will shove half-baked crap down customers throats, like applemaps. and make "you are holding it wrong" excuses

[starshipeleven]

starshipeleven
You might want to take your pills this fine morning.
Your crazy is showing through again.

Let's not mix things up please.
In the other thread (you know which) I was just having some fun trolling permissive license trolls, sometimes I find funny to do that while sounding like a ravaging lunatic, but I assure you I'm just playing.

Here I'm pretty much just stating facts.

[unixfan2001]

starshipeleven

You might want to take your pills this fine morning.
Your crazy is showing through again.

[starshipeleven]

It needs a Posix compliant system.

Techically speaking, only OSX is posix-compliant. Everyone else is "mostly" posix-compliant. (don't know about minor toy OS)

So you have code that is more legal to use on Windows than it is on Linux.. thus making my point about the GPL creating barriers for open source.

GPL isn't creating barriers, Linux existed before ZFS, so Sun could have used GPL-compatible licenses if they wanted to let people run ZFS on linux too.
Deliberate choice, Linux basically nuked Solaris and x86-64 ate most of the SPARC market, if they let ZFS go to Linux, they would have lost a major selling point.

So since that's true there is no licence incompatibility with the GPL.

Bullshit, it's not clearly stated anywhere, and this leaves open the door.
If someone decided to sue it could degenerate in a long drawn legal war and none on the Linux kernel side has any intention to risk that.

Distros can do whatever they want and take the risks (none in his right mind would sue Canonical, because they are the sockpuppet of MS... ah crap I said it, I wanted to say because they have never made a dime off linux, so apart from getting Shuttleworth as a sex slave they cannot really offer anyway in case they lost), but if Linux kernel gets targeted it's going to be a big fucking war as there are plenty of big interests on both sides.

So.. you know.. suit yourself.. you can sit around and talk about imaginary licence incompatibilities and lowering boot times with systemd while better designed operating systems run over Linux. : shrug :

"better designed operating systems" just because they have a license that is compatible with ZFS's? Really?