Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 19.10's ZFS TODO List Goes Public - A Lot To Of Work Left

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

  • #21
    I wonder if would be safer (data integrity) to ram without ECC ran ZFS or BTRFS?
    Cheers
    Last edited by horizonbrave; 06-05-2019, 10:01 AM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post
      Where as I'm disappointed that Torvalds hasn't decided to put his projects under the GNU umbrella, and now we live in a dystopia full of tivo boxes and ARM SoCs that had a single proprietary kernel release to run Android and get disposed of by the time the next update comes. GPL gives freedom, and it also enforces it by making sure it's hard to abuse software licensed under it.
      If you think that the same vendors that are using Linux now would also just as happily use it with a more restrictive GPLv3 license, you're delusional.

      Torvalds isn't, and he chose the license well. Going full batshit FSF will only push everyone to use *BSDs ala Sony, proprietary embedded OSes like VXWorks, or worse, embedded windows.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
        Since when? How does preventing Linux from having a industry leading file system technology "help" the users?
        CDDL license was created specifically to be incompatible with GPL.

        Pretty much all decent copyleft licenses are fine with GPL.

        they have no problem with "open source friend" Microsoft turning the Linux OS into a run time layer that you use on Windows.
        That does not violate licenses, for starters.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Britoid View Post

          Ha, if Linux was under the GNU/GPL3 umbrella do you really think all those devices would be running Linux?

          They wouldn't, they'd just choose something else and it would be of an even worse situtation.
          I wouldn't call the Android hell a "good" thing, it only makes things look worse, because people associate these shitty SoCs with Linux. I'd be fine with less hardware being supported if it meant that that hardware would respect user's freedom.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post
            I wouldn't call the Android hell a "good" thing, it only makes things look worse, because people associate these shitty SoCs with Linux. I'd be fine with less hardware being supported if it meant that that hardware would respect user's freedom.
            The issue here is that less hardware means less popularity, less popularity means less contributions and development.

            It's basically the same situation as with DRM and piracy. Perfect DRMs would actually hurt the sales of many software, as they would push the users to actually look for better alternatives, instead of pirating the same stuff, and eventually paying for it if they need to use it professionally (as that's what they already know how to use).

            Low end shit is the bait to get the companies invested in Linux. Then when they need to do something, they already have the engineers and toolchains and experience with Linux.

            Bottom line, only sith think by absolutes.
            Last edited by starshipeleven; 06-05-2019, 12:19 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              "The CDDL was designed to KILL LINUX OMG Panic!"

              Old FUD.. give me one source.. anywhere? no? Legal scholars aren't even sure it *is*. If they wanted to actually make it incompatible.. they could have done a MUCH better job. Oracle is the most sue hungry viscous company in the world and Ubuntu is so sure it *is* compatible they are willing to risk it. The only people I can find that think it isn't are pretty much the GNU (who also created the rumor because they were feeling threatened as Solaris was in competition with Linux at the time.)

              The CDDL was created in the spirit of the MPL. That is fact and you can source it. The CDDL is also a pretty nice license, go read it. It is in line with the open source spirit.
              Last edited by k1e0x; 06-05-2019, 01:47 PM.

              Comment


              • #27
                The worst part of the whole ZoL situation is how the kernel devs aren't willing to discuss alternatives and compromises with the ZoL devs and how most of the kernel dev comments come off as really hostile and negative.

                ZoL -- What if we undertook a project to rewrite it so it's 100% GPL?
                KD -- **Cricket Noises**

                ZoL -- Can you reenable that feature you just disabled since you've made exceptions for modules in the past?
                KD -- Not this time, not for you.

                ZoL -- So is there any way we can work together to figure out a compromise?
                KD -- **Cricket Noises**

                At this point I'm hoping that Microsoft will buy Oracle just to re-license ZFS...probably easier and cheaper than WinFS at this point...I mean, NTFS just sucks, Microsoft/Windows needs something better than what Linux offers if they really want to compete in the server/data storage market, and Oracle is doing a really shitty job with the best solution around.

                Think about it -- Buying Oracle for ZFS would solve a lot of Microsoft's problems.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Supporting ZFS on the /boot partition is a lot of work for no measurable benefit. Any machine with sufficient RAM and storage space to make use of ZFS easily has resources for the already-supported, standards-compliant boot partition filesystems. FAT32 and EXT3 are vastly smaller modules, which enable faster boot times because they require less time to load and less memory, and many bootstrap environments are severely limited for RAM and IO speed. For example, commodity PC hardware and in the extreme - Power9 which has 3 bootstrap stages, the first two of which are limited to a handful of megabytes per second IO speed. God help them if they implement /boot on ZFS because it will hugely increase the kernel/module load size before the Linux kernel takes over driving the IO. As is it already takes minutes to bring up a Power9 machine, even on SSD.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                    "The CDDL was designed to KILL LINUX OMG Panic!"

                    Old FUD.. give me one source.. anywhere? no? Legal scholars aren't even sure it *is*. If they wanted to actually make it incompatible.. they could have done a MUCH better job. Oracle is the most sue hungry viscous company in the world and Ubuntu is so sure it *is* compatible they are willing to risk it. The only people I can find that think it isn't are pretty much the GNU (who also created the rumor because they were feeling threatened as Solaris was in competition with Linux at the time.)

                    The CDDL was created in the spirit of the MPL. That is fact and you can source it. The CDDL is also a pretty nice license, go read it. It is in line with the open source spirit.
                    In this case, I can't care less about what the license is like, it can conform to all 4 freedoms for all I care. The issue is that it's not compatible with GNU GPL.

                    I'm also cheering for Oracle to step in and get people who push this backwards idea into court. This is nothing but a GPL violation, and I do not tolerate those. I'm willing to side with Oracle on this one, because if they do what they should, they'll be defending GNU's interests of enforcing GPL.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      You know that Oracle does have developers contributing to Linux kernel, right?

                      They can very well start suing the hell out of Canonical (and anyone else smaller than themselves) for alleged "GPL violations" at the drop of a hat.
                      When you look at it that way, couldn't anybody that contributes to the Linux kernel sue? It might be a "GPL violation" but it is not a CDDL violation. Oracles ZFS license isn't being violated. The Linux kernel license "is".

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X