Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DragonFlyBSD Lands New EXT2/3/4 File-System Driver

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Tomin View Post
    I''m guessing that besides FAT the only other filesystem supported well and widely across OSs is ISO 9660. Too bad it's not really suitable as general filesystem for file sharing purposes (e.g. on memory sticks it's read only). UDF would work but it's not widely supported.
    You don't need to use FAT32, ZFS is cross platform. FreeBSD, Linux, MacOS, Windows & Solaris/Illumos

    If you format a USB stick or something remember to use "zpool create -d ..." So that it's more compatible with older versions of ZFS.
    Last edited by k1e0x; 20 July 2020, 11:57 AM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
      As someone in a movie said "I am hard, but I am fair! There is no racial bigotry here! I do not look down on ****s, ****s, wops, or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless! "

      The only ones that matter in this case is midsize or larger company, I mean someone that can fork off some serious cash to employ a small team of cis white males to finish development and then port the filesystem to Linux. That's the ones I was talking about with my "none is giving a crap about HAMMER2" statement.
      Everyone else is irrelevant. You can take thousands of people wishing for stuff in a forum, nothing will ever happen.
      I posted a link pointing to Hammer driver port for Linux. Authored by - and lemme tell you, coincidents are hell - one Tomohiro Kusumi.. sounds Japanese, not "cis white male" at all.

      It's not only racist, it's also outright stupid. Plenty of Asian names among devs. Or are you suggesting that companies like Samsung or any of Chinese hardware vendors has "cis white males finishing development"?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by angrypie View Post
        I don't get it, are you implying Torvalds or Hartman would stop me from sending patches because they implement a filesystem from a BSD? AFAIK they are absolutely fine with it as long as it's good quality and someone is maintaining it, which is not always the case.

        You seem to be mixing up "lack of maintainers" with "high-horse attitude" because that suits your narrative of BSDs being unjustly persecuted and demoted by Teh Big Evil Penguin.
        Nope, I am simply suggesting nothing more or less than NIH syndrome combined with sense of superiority and incompetence over subject matter when it comes to OS'es they bash, displayed from top-down. Starting from top where leaders give advice that does not pertain to reality (Torvalds article about ZFS) or display outright hostility (Kroah-Hartmann, Poettering etc) in some form. That follows down to lots of end users.

        Ages a go I found following from FreeBSD Forums where this very same was discussed. Few very descriptive posts that sum it nicely. (https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/w...r-linux.40619/)
        When people choose to "hate" the alternatives to their own choices, it's usually down to either immaturity or fundamentalist extremism.

        In the case of hatred of anything non-Linux, it's probably a combination of the two: immature Linux kiddies with a "mine is better than yours" mentality and/or their almost religious adherence to the fundamentalist ideals of people like RMS.

        Some people get an emotional kick from hating something. It takes a well balanced person to avoid that temptation and just live-and-let-live.
        or
        I've used both over the past 18 years. I still have a couple of Linux boxes running business applications and a few FreeBSD boxes doing Internet facing services.

        In my view a few factors influence this...
        • Linux has a very public figurehead, Linus Torvalds. Which makes the OS seem more like a "people's OS" - whereas FreeBSD originates from an abstract "FreeBSD core" team. A bit like commercial software. Never mind that in reality both have thousands of developers - Linux has a prominent public face. The irony is that Linux is a lot more of a dictatorship (the kernel at least) than FreeBSD is.
        • There's a lot of hype surrounding the GPL, and Linux is GPL. For better or worse (personally, I believe better) FreeBSD is under the BSD license, which enables commercial use of the code without requirement to contribute back modifications.
        • Linux has had a lot more time and energy spent on UI fluff, as there are multiple competing distributions; the installer is the first thing people see and in the Linux world a flash installer is critical for your distribution to be in with a shot. Plenty of Linux users haven't done much technical stuff with the OS beyond installing it these days, and in their view, the FreeBSD installer sucks. Thus, the OS must suck!
        • Due to the popularity (in part due to the slick installers), there is more commercial software support (games and whatnot) and driver support for Linux. Thus "FreeBSD sucks!" because it didn't work out of the box with some user's hardware.
        • Most of the "haters" have never used the OS and are just bashing it because it is "cool" to do so among their peer noobs.
        • Apple make use of a few FreeBSD components in OS X. In a Linux user's eyes, Apple are evil, and thus FreeBSD is evil by association.
        • And of course... the "BSD is dying!" meme from a decade or more ago referring to some Netcraft survey.
        That there's public threads discussing this very thing should suggest it's not just MY NARRATIVE.
        Oh, or just keep an eye on future BSD-related threads here in Phoronix, almost every BSD-related thread there's somebody like pal666 or Volta popping up and spreading toxicity..
        Even new users have been created on occasion https://www.phoronix.com/forums/memb...sd-sucks-dicks
        "my narrative, lol".

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by aht0 View Post
          Users tend to mirror leaders of their favorite projects.
          Careful, that there are a lot of loud mouth primadonnas in charge of BSDs too.

          That same UFS2 support in there is literally useless, unless you happen to have 15 years old FreeBSD install somewhere you want to access. It hasn't seen any work, excepting maintenance since before last decade. Meanwhile on-disk-formats have changed in all the BSD's. But you can claim you have one more file system "supported", dont ya?
          That does not speak very nicely of any of the BSDs, changing the on-disk format for a basic filesystem is regrettable.

          How many other file systems there are of the same ilk? "supported" but next to useless?Take a look at default kernel configs and see what's by default enabled - and that's much more limited selection. But that gives you plain truth.
          I agree on the general statement that there are bullshit or even barely maintained filesystems in Linux, although the good ones with some form of support are still more than those in other OSes.

          But looking at "default kernel configs" is bullshit, there are A LOT of features that only make sense for some types of hardware, or some architecture or some usecases. You can't assume that all stuff that isn't on by default is barely maintained and broken.


          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by aht0 View Post
            I posted a link pointing to Hammer driver port for Linux.
            It's an userspace application, not a true kernel driver, AND it's not anywhere near complete (because HAMMER2 really is not, it's a distributed filesystem, most features are still TODO for that, and he is just porting what there is).

            I'm not pissing on his work, what he did is already great for a single man in his spare time.

            But I'm talking of a serious effort to both finish the development on HAMMER2 and make a kernel-side driver.

            ZFS is a kernel module, it's really NOT running in userspace.

            Tomohiro Kusumi.. sounds Japanese, not "cis white male" at all.
            Japanese and asian in general are still "cis white males" for sjws.
            To not be "white" you need to have african or native american descent.
            Or, in more simpler terms, yellow men don't exist for sjws, only white, black, reddish and brown.

            It's not only racist, it's also outright stupid.
            It sure is.

            Plenty of Asian names among devs.
            This is the reason why sjws are grouping them together with the "white", asian males are already pretty established in the industry, therefore they must be just as evil as true "white" males.

            See for example the GNOME Outreachy bullshit racist sjw program's "invitation" of the race/gender of who should apply https://www.outreachy.org/apply/eligibility/

            Outreachy expressly invites applicants who are women (both cis and trans), trans men, and genderqueer people to apply. We also expressly invite applications who are residents and nationals of the United States of America of any gender who are Black/African American, Hispanic/[email protected], Native American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. Anyone who faces systemic bias or discrimination in the technology industry of their country is invited to apply.

            Is there some "asian" in the list? No there is not.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by aht0 View Post

              Nope, I am simply suggesting nothing more or less than NIH syndrome combined with sense of superiority and incompetence over subject matter when it comes to OS'es they bash, displayed from top-down. Starting from top where leaders give advice that does not pertain to reality (Torvalds article about ZFS) or display outright hostility (Kroah-Hartmann, Poettering etc) in some form. That follows down to lots of end users.
              Is your definition of "lots of end users" actually "around 20 assholes in a couple forums"?

              Because I know of enough morons in the BSD camp too that like to piss on systemd, following the lead of bigger figures from BSD world

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                Is your definition of "lots of end users" actually "around 20 assholes in a couple forums"?

                Because I know of enough morons in the BSD camp too that like to piss on systemd, following the lead of bigger figures from BSD world
                I've worked in the computing industry for over 25 years. I see more FreeBSD in deployment today than ever before. Why? not sure, if it's replacing other Unix's like Sun or HP or it fills some technical gap, or older engineers like it. There are a lot of commercial platforms based on it too. Expensive stuff you'd never know about unless you worked in the industry.

                Use to be a rarity, I remember seeing one or two FreeBSD 4 box around.. and I also worked for a company that had OpenBSD deployments for firewall/VPN.. then around FreeBSD 8-9 release I started to see a lot more..

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

                  You don't need to use FAT32, ZFS is cross platform. FreeBSD, Linux, MacOS, Windows & Solaris/Illumos

                  If you format a USB stick or something remember to use "zpool create -d ..." So that it's more compatible with older versions of ZFS.
                  Well, that wouldn't really fly. I mean if I came to give presentation with my slideshow on a memory stick formated to ZFS and the computer had Windows 10, what would be the chances that it would either have ZFS support already or I would be allowed to install it? I could just as well format it to ext2 and the end result would be the same basically.

                  The real problem is that the two most successful desktop operating have really poor support for alternative file systems out of the box. Basically only those that Microsoft has forced us to use are widely supported anywhere and they were not selected based on their technical merits.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                    Even new users have been created on occasion https://www.phoronix.com/forums/memb...sd-sucks-dicks.
                    Is he wrong though? E.g., FreeBSD is exactly what Linux was in 1998-2001. Anything that runs on the a BSD runs just as well on Linux, so no point in using it unless you want native ZFS and don't want a illumos distro. The only non-stagnant BSD is DragonflyBSD.

                    BSD isn't dead, but on life support, since corporations feed on it for their own needs and give fuck all back. "Freedom!," you scream.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Tomin View Post

                      Well, that wouldn't really fly. I mean if I came to give presentation with my slideshow on a memory stick formated to ZFS and the computer had Windows 10, what would be the chances that it would either have ZFS support already or I would be allowed to install it? I could just as well format it to ext2 and the end result would be the same basically.

                      The real problem is that the two most successful desktop operating have really poor support for alternative file systems out of the box. Basically only those that Microsoft has forced us to use are widely supported anywhere and they were not selected based on their technical merits.
                      Mmmm.. It would work in a pinch. Windows is beta level for sure, but you just install the package here and ZFS commands and pools show up so zpool import -af and it will show up just as a regular Z:\ or whatever.

                      The beta'ness of windows isn't that ZFS will become corrupt, it's that it might bluescreen windows.. but other than that it works.

                      And yes that is the real problem.. Good news is ZFS is trying to fix that and it already runs really well on MacOS. I can't really think of any other FS other than ZFS and FAT that is supported across so many OS's.
                      Last edited by k1e0x; 20 July 2020, 04:09 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X