Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Developers Seem To Be Really Pursuing ZFS Root Partition Support On The Desktop

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

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    All they have to do is put it in a non-free repo (even tho it does not belong there, it's more permissively licensed than Linux itself.) and they are good. The end user can decide to install whatever they want.
    That's still a work around though. I personally don't care. In either case I'm not the one that risks getting sued by Oracle or any other random gold digger that contributed to the kernel. It's the distro that ships it which does risk this.

    This *is* a good thing too.. It's light years ahead of NTFS.. isn't actual proprietary software the enemy? Or are we going to say your open source isn't good enough for my open source and wait for Microsoft to make something better?
    Meh, the only reason I'm not switching is that there isn't yet a single goddamn distro of those that advertise ZFS that managed to make a foolproof ZFS kernel module update procedure yet without having to use a LTS kernel. Serously it's 3 packages that need to be recompiled in a specific order, and there must be a way to keep the kernel locked to the last compatible version with the ZFS package. What is so fucking hard about that.

    When I have some time I'll probably try with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and hope its superior package manager can deal with this arduous task.

    ZoL also offered to replace all of Oracles code in a massive rewrite and dual-license it GPL-CDDL. Kernel dev's went silent on that offer so... it isn't a problem with the ZoL team..
    So, why didn't ZoL actually go through with this project? Until they change the license so they can be included in the kernel then yes it is still their own problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpg44
    replied
    Its kind of odd people seem to be so interested in ZFS when Linux has its own GPL filesystem called btrfs which works very well. Why doesnt Canonical start acting like they are not insane and help improve btrfs? You probably cant legally or morally do ZFS in a distro because of the licensing. I am not fond of BSD licenses because companies should give back their improvements rather than take take take.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoMiNeLa10
    replied
    Originally posted by Britoid View Post
    ZFS won't be re-licensed anytime soon.
    Which is fine by my terms, just one more reason to hate Oracle.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoMiNeLa10
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    I'm glad Linux is moving forward and getting a terrific file system out to every day users. Good job! Data integrity for everyone! .. and it's about time.
    What about supporting development of state of art file systems, such as HAMMER2? ZFS is already out there, but I haven't seen people calling to start work on a port to Linux.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoMiNeLa10
    replied
    Originally posted by rleigh View Post
    "Waging war" is a very absurd and hyperbolic comment. Why would you want to "wage war" on a top-notch open-source filesystem; arguably the best filesystem which is available for Linux today.
    ZFS can cure cancer for all I care, the reason why it doesn't belong in Linux is the license, and that by itself is a good enough reason. I would support the idea of adding an intentional panic when the module is loaded in the mainline kernel.

    Leave a comment:


  • k1e0x
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Technically speaking the NVIDIA driver is breaking GPL and they are using GPL-reserved interfaces.

    They sidestep the GPL by having the end user compile it in their system, but that's a legal hoop.

    Kernel devs said many times that they are "tolerated", but not liked.

    Yeah, btrfs is getting better and better every day.
    All they have to do is put it in a non-free repo (even tho it does not belong there, it's more permissively licensed than Linux itself.) and they are good. The end user can decide to install whatever they want. This *is* a good thing too.. It's light years ahead of NTFS.. isn't actual proprietary software the enemy? Or are we going to say your open source isn't good enough for my open source and wait for Microsoft to make something better?

    ZoL also offered to replace all of Oracles code in a massive rewrite and dual-license it GPL-CDDL. Kernel dev's went silent on that offer so... it isn't a problem with the ZoL team..
    Last edited by k1e0x; 02-13-2019, 12:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rleigh
    replied
    Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post
    I hope Linux developers will wage a war against ZFS, as it will enforce the GNU GPL, and with enough pressure it might cause Oracle to re-license their file system under acceptable terms (not that I care about the file system).
    The ZFS CDDL licence permits combining with other software licences, including proprietary ones, so long as you comply with the licence terms. This was a requirement for using OpenSolaris which also included some proprietary bits not owned by Sun. The incompatibility stems from the GPL, which does not allow this. However, since Linux specifically permits third-party modules under non-GPL licenses, this isn't a problem in practice.

    As for Oracle relicensing it, OpenZFS has been maintained independently of Oracle for many years now. Even if Oracle relicense the original ZFS implementation, it will require every OpenZFS contributor to also relicense their contributions. That might be impossible.

    "Waging war" is a very absurd and hyperbolic comment. Why would you want to "wage war" on a top-notch open-source filesystem; arguably the best filesystem which is available for Linux today.

    Leave a comment:


  • mskarbek
    replied
    Originally posted by MrMorden View Post

    Snapshots are moderately useful (although you can get some of that capability with LVM); being able to quickly zfs send those snapshots to a file server and have them available forever is crazy useful.
    I have dracut module that snapshots root dataset during each boot combined with dnf plugin that is doing the same during each packages change. This combined with regular home dataset snapshots and send/receive sync with external storage and you can sleep peacefully.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    It's not breaking the GPL anymore than your Nvidia driver.
    Technically speaking the NVIDIA driver is breaking GPL and they are using GPL-reserved interfaces.

    They sidestep the GPL by having the end user compile it in their system, but that's a legal hoop.

    Kernel devs said many times that they are "tolerated", but not liked.

    I'm glad Linux is moving forward and getting a terrific file system out to every day users. Good job! Data integrity for everyone! .. and it's about time.
    Yeah, btrfs is getting better and better every day.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

    The hell?? lol

    It's not breaking the GPL anymore than your Nvidia driver. The difference is ZFS is actually open source.. Nvidia isn't. (you've no problem with that tho right?) And Oracle does not control the license to ZoL or OpenZFS.

    I'm glad Linux is moving forward and getting a terrific file system out to every day users. Good job! Data integrity for everyone! .. and it's about time.
    As it is, Linus Torvalds himself has already settled this argument for us:

    Basically:
    - anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_
    works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived
    work.
    - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
    Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around
    with core code, you're derived, no question about it.

    Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem
    module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the
    first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just
    because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface
    to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that
    judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray
    area.

    Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to
    tell the AFS guys so.

    Does that mean that any kernel module is automatically not a derived work?
    HELL NO! It has nothing to do with modules per se, except that non-modules
    clearly are derived works (if they are so central to the kenrel that you
    can't load them as a module, they are clearly derived works just by virtue
    of being very intimate - and because the GPL expressly mentions linking).

    So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just
    one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't
    derived.
    There we go. AFS and ZFS are both kernel modules for Unix-styled file systems, use incompatible-with-GPL licenses, and share similar features to works that exist in the kernel. Because of that, any case brought before a court would likely win in ZFS's favor and potentially weaken the GPL at the same time.
    Last edited by skeevy420; 02-13-2019, 09:42 AM. Reason: added link

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X