Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Levente Polyak Re-Elected Arch Linux Project Leader

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

  • #11
    I'm a simple man. Just yescrypt instead of sha512 for password hashing.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by stargeizer View Post
      Canonical has lawyers that can defend their claims in court, if Oracle or the FSF sues them. (I doubt the FSF would sue Canonical anyways, but this also can be used as a precedent to allow any incompatible open or closed source module in the kernel in the future, and Oracle has business relationship with Canonical, and hey, maybe Canonical are already paying some money to Oracle behind the scenes to keep them in line, who knows?). Oracle might not have any rights over the software itself (OpenZFS, that is), but has the trademarks of ZFS, and can sue based on that name.

      Kernel devs doesn't want any of that, so OpenZFS is out for the time being. I doubt Archlinux have the resources to waste on lawyers, so no *ZFS by default, but as usual, YMMV, and in any case, consult your local lawyer.
      How does FreeBSD, NetBSD, and the various Illumos distributions get away with ZFS if the very name makes it possible where Oracle can sue them? The latter two aren't even OpenZFS they are ZFS as it was in the last version of OpenSolaris with bug fixes. FreeBSD of course recently rebased to the OpenZFS version used by Linux.

      Comment


      • #13
        What do you hope to see out of Arch Linux over the next two years?
        Replace the package gpg signatures with signify.
        https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/...p-problem.html

        Comment


        • #14
          > What do you hope to see out of Arch Linux over the next two years? Let us know in the forums.

          - the switch from SVN package repos to git
          - a web frontend for outside collaborators to submit patches for all packages (and have issues/bugs integrated in the same place)
          - automated package CI build pipelines
          - x86_64-v3 / x86_64-v4
          - signed package repo databases
          - "Alternatives system" for pacman (switch between different versions/implementations of certain packages/things)
          - various pacman improvements (more multithreading, optdepends prompts, proper transactions, etc)
          - official ArchWiki dark theme

          Comment


          • #15
            What do you hope to see out of Arch Linux over the next two years?
            Move PKGBUILDs to their Gitlab instance instead of the current svn2git monorepo abomination, that and x86_64-v3

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by kylew77 View Post

              How does FreeBSD, NetBSD, and the various Illumos distributions get away with ZFS if the very name makes it possible where Oracle can sue them? The latter two aren't even OpenZFS they are ZFS as it was in the last version of OpenSolaris with bug fixes. FreeBSD of course recently rebased to the OpenZFS version used by Linux.
              MIT/BSD software license is fully compatible with CDDL, so Oracle can't touch them on any licensing basis, only the Trademark usage could be used, but that's debatable.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post

                "Considering Oracle's litigious nature and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so" - Linus

                Canonical is in hot water with that, and this for basically zero benefit. Oracle will sue them when the time comes, zero doubt about that.
                What comes next from Canonical? Ubuntu on NTFS That would probably be more useful then Ubuntu on ZFS though.

                "the benchmarks I've seen do not make ZFS look all that great. Don't use ZFS. It's that simple." - Linus

                ZFS, simply said, was nice and shiny 15 years ago, but today its just a mediocre choice under a selection of much better filesystems that are right in the kernel.
                I'm going to say this only once. Linus is not a lawyer. He might not feel safe over it, but that doesn't mean he's got any valid reason to be so. You should absolutely not take his opinion on the matter as a given.

                I get tired of the boiler plate notifications giving legal advice when people wish to install OpenZFS on their computer without the attestation of the lawyer that created the statement. It's illegal in most states of the US to give legal advice if you're not a lawyer (fact). OpenZFS is incompatible with the GPL (legal opinion requiring the sign off of a lawyer which I never see on those boiler plates). That may be different elsewhere in the world, and I realize Debian, Ubuntu, etc have install bases around the world. But in the US, don't take the word (opinion) of a non-lawyer except in a few narrow cases (Which you can look up. Don't rely on my word. It's called administrative law). You'll almost always be lead astray.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by DanL View Post

                  There's nothing for you to be sorry for. Alexmitter needs to stop making baseless claims.
                  https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionari...english/zealot

                  He can't, he doesn't have that option.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by halo9en View Post
                    I'm a simple man. Just yescrypt instead of sha512 for password hashing.
                    This is actaully a cool request. Thanks for making it worth the time to read through the comments.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Ok, Linus might not be a lawyer, but since he works for the Linux Foundation, and so, it has a law firm contracted. Probably he already received some legal advice around contentious packages and ZFS it's just one of them. Of course his opinions are his own, and nobody should follow him like a prophet or similar. He's the ultimate authority over the linux kernel, tho. So since he already has a position about ZFS, the vanilla kernel will not get anything to do with the ZFS code until Oracle sign a permission to use their code/trademark in a GPL project.

                      Of course, everyone can do whatever they want with the compilled kernel, and if you already talked with your employer's lawyers and they give their thumbs up, just use OpenZFS and be done with it. (Well, last time i saw the dmesg messages, the OpenZFS module will taint the kernel, so no bug reports from you will be accepted in LKML...). And of course you can do whatever you want with your machine at home.
                      Last edited by stargeizer; 23 February 2022, 09:50 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X