Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The FreeBSD Migration To OpenZFS Is Still Looking To Be A Great Change

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    no, license conflicts happen because of cddl clauses
    Yes, but it's GPL that is violated, not CDDL. SO anyone that is on the GPL side can sue.

    who cares about few crazy bsd people? ... and btw, preferred license of those mostly-anti-GPL clowns is bsd, which is gpl compatible
    Illumos (the continuation of Solaris codebase) isn't BSD, they keep using CDDL and "expect new code will generally be under this license as well. "

    An open-source Unix operating system. Contribute to illumos/illumos-gate development by creating an account on GitHub.


    let oracle release real thing.
    None would use it, waay too much work to get it into shape and use it outside of Solaris.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

      Oracle doesn't own OpenZFS in Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Illumos, macOS or Windows.
      They only own OracleZFS in Oracle Solaris.

      Even if Oracle decided to re-licence, a large chunk (maybe 50%) was written in OpenZFS and I highly doubt you'll see FreeBSD and Illumos agree to licence their bits as GPL.

      Just forget about relicence and Oracle... It's really fine how it is. CDDL is a pretty good licence all and all. (Similar to Firefox's licence)
      I understand that Oracle owns OracleZFS and not OpenZFS.
      OpenZFS is just the effort to get ZFS into Linux (and maybe other) OSes.

      Even though Oracle does not own BSD or Linux, what prevents them from releasing the same software (ZFS) under 2 or 3 different licenses?...
      And everyone that wishes may use whatever license they like...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        Because they are selling products they don't need to maintain (it's a CentOS clone) with Btrfs https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/train...oracle-linux-7

        And boldly claiming "BTRFS is production ready with Oracle Linux." as soon as 2016, no less.

        And also they are still selling Slowlaris, where they have their own secret sauce closed source ZFS, if they open the code then they instantly lose the poor sods that are locked into still buying Slowlaris to avoid massive pains to migrate data around, as Oracle's ZFS is not compatible with OpenZFS anymore.

        No.
        Yes. A ton of code was written after the ZFS fork, dealing with relicensing so much stuff is not really a walk in the park, even if Oracle somehow decided to be good for once.
        Wrong. Sun had court case with NetApp over ZFS. Sun counter-sued it and finally back in 2010 they reached settlement on undisclosed conditions. There's probably some sort of agreement between Oracle and NetApp that prevents Oracle from changing a thing about ZFS licensing because it would supposedly infringe NetApp's rights.

        Slowlaris is an idiot's term. Grow up. Modern Solaris is decently well performing, download it (free of charge) and try it. Linux is the one suffering under security mitigation's impacts more and more as time goes on. What should we call it in return? DyingTux, Shitbird..?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by aht0 View Post
          Wrong. Sun had court case with NetApp over ZFS. Sun counter-sued it and finally back in 2010 they reached settlement on undisclosed conditions. There's probably some sort of agreement between Oracle and NetApp that prevents Oracle from changing a thing about ZFS licensing because it would supposedly infringe NetApp's rights.
          That's another good theory, but I would say it's not enough to declare that what I said is wrong.

          Slowlaris is an idiot's term. Grow up.
          Slowlaris slowlaris slowlaris slowlaris slowlaris slowlaris!

          Modern Solaris is decently well performing, download it (free of charge) and try it.
          No thanks, if I want a freeware OS I install Windows 10.

          Linux is the one suffering under security mitigation
          1. still faster than Slowlaris
          2. an issue only on Intel, oh wait, Slowlaris runs only on Intel (and SPARC I guess?)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            1. still faster than Slowlaris
            2. an issue only on Intel, oh wait, Slowlaris runs only on Intel (and SPARC I guess?)
            1.For your general education, "slowlaris" was coined because pre-ZFS traditional UNIX filesystem started slowing down the performance noticeably, compared to file systems in other OS'es. With the coming of ZFS thus the reason for it went away, except bigots still love it as a label.

            2. For servers, what else is there to be run? ARM? yeah, we all see how widespread it has been adopted, not. So, it's either Intel or SPARC.

            Check RHEL license costs and equivalent Oracle Solaris license costs. Last I checked, Solaris turned out of be cheaper for equivalent licensing.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by nomadewolf View Post
              I understand that Oracle owns OracleZFS and not OpenZFS.
              OpenZFS is just the effort to get ZFS into Linux (and maybe other) OSes.
              That last line is so completely wrong as to be comical.

              OpenZFS is the umbrella project for "ZFS on OSes other than Oracle". It has nothing, specifically, to do with Linux. OpenZFS started with OpenSolaris (all of it's derivatives), then FreeBSD, then MacOS X, then Linux, then Windows, and a bunch of commercial/proprietary OSes based on the various Unix-like OSes.

              Even though Oracle does not own BSD or Linux, what prevents them from releasing the same software (ZFS) under 2 or 3 different licenses?...
              At this point, it's a moot point. Oracle's version of ZFS is incompatible with OpenZFS. In theory, it should be possible to make Oracle ZFS work with any OpenSolaris-derived OS, and it might be possible to port it to other OSes. But what would be the point? OpenZFS has features that aren't in Oracle ZFS, and works on multiple OSes already.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                1.For your general education, "slowlaris" was coined because pre-ZFS traditional UNIX filesystem started slowing down the performance noticeably, compared to file systems in other OS'es. With the coming of ZFS thus the reason for it went away, except bigots still love it as a label.
                I'm a bigot, please don't mind me.

                2. For servers, what else is there to be run?
                I heard AMD server offering is pretty serious competition.

                Check RHEL license costs and equivalent Oracle Solaris license costs. Last I checked, Solaris turned out of be cheaper for equivalent licensing.
                It's cheaper because you can't run as much stuff on it. Many commercial applications are certified for RHEL and SLES. How many are certified for Slowlaris? Only Oracle stuff and some legacy.

                Afaik the main use of Slowlaris deployments in a situation where you aren't locked in by legacy applications needing that OS is for data or database servers (Oracle), that's it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  I'm a bigot, please don't mind me.
                  I heard AMD server offering is pretty serious competition.
                  And AMD ain't running x86/x86_64 or what?

                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  It's cheaper because you can't run as much stuff on it. Many commercial applications are certified for RHEL and SLES. How many are certified for Slowlaris? Only Oracle stuff and some legacy.
                  Even more software has been certified for Windows, lol. Lot's of that RHEL/SLES commercial software is made for workstations, not servers, it's not even applicable to discussion.
                  But it's pathetic how you find another argument as soon as "Solaris is expensive" has been shown to be bullshit.
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  Afaik the main use of Slowlaris deployments in a situation where you aren't locked in by legacy applications needing that OS is for data or database servers (Oracle), that's it.
                  Nothing would stop you from using it for web stack (web server, database, php or whatever). Not technical shortcomings, which is my point.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                    And AMD ain't running x86/x86_64 or what?
                    I said "Intel", not X86_64.
                    You need hardware support to use hardware properly. Slowlaris support for AMD hardware is kind of limited, it will run but it's kind of limited.

                    Even more software has been certified for Windows, lol. Lot's of that RHEL/SLES commercial software is made for workstations, not servers, it's not even applicable to discussion.
                    I'm not aware of any RHEL/SLES workstation deployment, I was talking of server software.

                    But it's pathetic how you find another argument as soon as "Solaris is expensive" has been shown to be bullshit.
                    Are you arguing with me or with your imaginary friend? I never said Slowlaris is expensive. I may have said that it's not worth the price in the past.

                    Nothing would stop you from using it for web stack (web server, database, php or whatever). Not technical shortcomings, which is my point.
                    Why would you do that though. Debian can do the same, can run on modern hardware and it's free.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      I said "Intel", not X86_64.
                      You need hardware support to use hardware properly. Slowlaris support for AMD hardware is kind of limited, it will run but it's kind of limited.
                      You said
                      Slowlaris runs only on Intel (and SPARC I guess?)
                      Since you brought in term 'SPARC' along with the 'Intel', my assumption that you by "Intel" meant architecture was pretty much given. You'll need to be more precise, not mix & match and assume I have working crystal ball.

                      Hardware-wise there is no limitation. Oracle's Solaris runs on Ryzen and Epyc's. Driver support is definitely there. Just download image and try it on your AMD rig. Licensing is different can of worms, that may introduce artificial limitations. Illumos Solaris ran also on my Ryzen 5 rig, tho I won't guarantee it would do so on all Ryzen rigs.
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      I'm not aware of any RHEL/SLES workstation deployment, I was talking of server software.
                      Frankly, you got me stumped. I seriously tried to find Linux-specific commercial software that's supposed to run primarily on Linux servers and without alternatives on other platforms.
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      Are you arguing with me or with your imaginary friend? I never said Slowlaris is expensive. I may have said that it's not worth the price in the past.
                      Duh. It's been cheaper than Linux at least a decade that I know of.
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      Why would you do that though. Debian can do the same, can run on modern hardware and it's free.
                      Well, same argument applies to BSD and OpenIndiana. And when your needs do not specify some mystical platform-specific commercial software, there ain't much difference. You can run your flippin' webserver, opensource database and php on these non-Linux platforms equally well..

                      I'd personally avoid Debian, even the stable iteration. Well, it IS stable but only as long as you stick to strictly using it's own repos etc. Once you need to actually compile some software-package for yourself with different options/flags/functionality/whatever, breakage can pretty easily happen. And then it's a pita. It's easier on other systems. Besides, no 'blackbox' systemd nor layers and layers of shit 'managing' configurations for me, I like direct control through small set of configuration files & CLI. But that's me. Most probably go with recommendations and howto's in internet.

                      Schools these days teach Linux, rather than Solaris or BSD, did even about 20 years a go (I learned IT initially), so people tend to use what's more familiar to them and about what they can find more information in net. Bigots crying alternatives down contribute as well, people read their shit and form prejudices. Technically nothing stops using anyone anything else, as long as there's basic hardware support.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X