Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu Developers Seem To Be Really Pursuing ZFS Root Partition Support On The Desktop
Collapse
X
-
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.
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Britoid View PostZFS won't be re-licensed anytime soon.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostTechnically 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.
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; 13 February 2019, 12:42 PM.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View PostI 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).
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:
-
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostIt's not breaking the GPL anymore than your Nvidia driver.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
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.
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by hybridchemistry View PostI'd like to think I'm somewhat educated about ZFS, but I'm still kind of puzzled as to why folks want to use it as a root file system, particularly with a single drive (as I assume most Desktop installs would use). Do the ZFS permissions, quotas, etc become all that useful to Desktop installs?
Ubuntu is deploying their own utility to do that https://blog.ubuntu.com/2018/10/15/d...-zfs-with-maas
While OpenSUSE has Snapper for the same job on Btrfs.
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: