Originally posted by rleigh
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu Developers Seem To Be Really Pursuing ZFS Root Partition Support On The Desktop
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostI'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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostAll 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?
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..
Comment
-
OK, just had an outburst of skepticism and tried to read the CDDL, expecting to post here some flame-bait about how everyone was complaining about too much freedom...
But, no, that license is absolutely hugging incomprehensible. Personally, I'm pretty sure I can't afford enough lawyers to run software under that license.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by gmturner View PostOK, just had an outburst of skepticism and tried to read the CDDL, expecting to post here some flame-bait about how everyone was complaining about too much freedom...
But, no, that license is absolutely hugging incomprehensible. Personally, I'm pretty sure I can't afford enough lawyers to run software under that license.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostThat'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.
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.
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.
FWIW, as of 0.8 it's just one module that is fully up-to-date with Linux 5.0rc and the zfs-utils package. We're down to two packages that all package managers can handle the dependency tracking of and there aren't anymore DKMS build order worries due to the SPL merge. It's pretty safe as long as one sticks to ZoL supported kernels...basically don't run bleeding edge git kernels without a backup kernel in place...which is something that should be done when running a bleeding edge kernel anyways...
ZFS 0.8 is the foolproof version you've been waiting for.
IMHO, the kernel locking part isn't an issue if you use a distribution that supports ZFS like Manjaro since it's the job of a distribution maintainer to make sure things like that are all compatible with each other. If the distribution is well maintained, that shouldn't happen.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by jpg44 View PostIts 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.
And of course, if Btrfs is Linux's answer to ZFS, then it sure doesn't help for Red Hat to drop it completely.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostFWIW, as of 0.8 it's just one module that is fully up-to-date with Linux 5.0rc and the zfs-utils package. We're down to two packages that all package managers can handle the dependency tracking of and there aren't anymore DKMS build order worries due to the SPL merge.
I'm really getting annoyed by how Btrfs upstream is still very far from dealing with basic shit like "a drive disappears from the array" in RAID1 and "actually dealing with a degraded array without doing a silent mess until reboot, then freaking out on boot and requiring a ton of hand-holding to fix the mess".
IMHO, the kernel locking part isn't an issue if you use a distribution that supports ZFS like Manjaro since it's the job of a distribution maintainer to make sure things like that are all compatible with each other. If the distribution is well maintained, that shouldn't happen.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment