Ubuntu's New Desktop Installer Working On Auto-Install, Active Directory Integration

[F.Ultra]

Again with the try or install bullshit?
Just boot by default in the try mode, maybe showing a notification like: "Hey you are in the try mode, which means you can test the system..."
And if someone wants to install it it can start the installer from a desktop shortcut or a start menu shortcut.
Stopping every time to ask this question is very annoying and time consuming.

Yeah because when I want to install a bunch of machines I first want to wait until the install ISO loads into a full desktop before I can perform the install... Talk about asking for it to be time consuming...

Despite people saying the ZFS license and the GPL are incompatible, no one actually knows that, especially when it comes to every single legal jurisdiction in the world. It's an opinion and shouldn't be taken as an authoritative one.

I think the most telling with the ZFS license is that Sun (and then Oracle) have never moved a single inch in adding GPLv2 compatible text or simply changing to the GPLv2 to make the matter simply disappear.

[docontra]

wasnt SSSD supported to be an answer to AD (i really know neither, so i may be wrong)?

Nope, SSS (although I'll grant you SSSD is the business end of the project ) is a replacement for nscd (caching daemon for everything on nss), and for all the nss/pam modules that deal with user/group/machine databases (like LDAP -- with or without kerberos --, WINBIND/AD, pam_unix, YP/NIS, etc.). The answer(s) to AD are Samba (winbind on the client side), YP/NIS (which predates AD and is a contemporary/slightly earlier thingamabob of NT4's Domains), LDAP as a login database (with 389ds as an ostensibly turnkey option, although you can roll your own using OpenLDAP/slapd), etc. Although, with the (partial) exception of Samba, none of these implement something equivalent to group policy (gotta compliment any of these with puppet/ansible/chef/juju et al. ).

PD: I have gone the route of OpenLDAP (without Kerberos) + SSS[1] for remote-login virtual machines; due to lack of knowledge on my part when I rolled it, it is a bit janky (had to setup pam_ldap to change passwords, some updates to the user db -- particularly group memberships -- take their sweet time to apply on all VMs) but it works reliably enough. Still wish I'd known about 389ds tho

[1]: I have not replaced (nor generally recommend replacing) nss_files nor pam_unix with SSS tho; I use SSS exclusively for the OpenLDAP logins.

[oiaohm]

Despite people saying the ZFS license and the GPL are incompatible, no one actually knows that, especially when it comes to every single legal jurisdiction in the world. It's an opinion and shouldn't be taken as an authoritative one. I know of no court case where this has been determined (in the US, that's the final arbiter of copyright). In fact, in some jurisdictions, like the US, the authoritative sounding disclaimers some distros post when installing ZFS utils may be considered impermissible legal advice.

Stormcrow there has not been a GPL vs CDDL court fight and there does not need to be because precedence already exists. The problem here the court cases where parties have lost so mandating they release source code under GPL or LGPL apply is the precedence. CDDL terms says the source code must be under CDDL must be under CDDL and nothing else the binary can be any license. Then the GPL license says if you release a binary and it a derivative work you must release the source code as GPL.

The terms in CDDL and terms in GPL that are in conflict are the same type of term being you will release source code under X license and X license only. There was precedence for these terms being enforced before GPL even existed GPL did not invent the wheel here.

ZFS utils the userspace items is legal to be CDDL there is no dispute here. Closed source kernel modules mixing with the Linux kernel lot are depending on the fact the Linux kernel developers are not going to invest the time into a possible decade long legal fight due to them being big. There has been enforcement against smaller parties making closed source modules that don't have the resources to fight back by legal teams linked to Linux kernel. OpenZFS the Linux kernel developers have not taken interest in hunting down at this time.

The problem for OpenZFS is what will happen when OpenZFS is the only small party left that possible in breach of the Linux kernel GPLv2.0 module. Support of Ubuntu has been very important to keep the legal wolves of the Linux world at bay.

OpenZFS kernel module reason why it been left alone is yes there is really no question that GPL and CDDL mixing by copyright license terms is incompatible Copyright law does not end at that point. There is the fair usage arrangements. Copyright law allows making something from items where the license mix is incompatible if you can prove fair usage. ZFS with CDDL might be able to win this.

stormcrow every legal review of the GPL vs CDDL location comes to the same answer precedence(prior cases) exists for GPL and CDDL being incompatible licenses and this predates both GPL and CDDL existing and these precedence have been used in GPL and LGPL enforcement cases. Going into court and attempting to argue GPL and CDDL are compatible just will not fly. Even canonical legal department said this.

Canonical argument is that OpenZFS kernel module is not a "derivative work" so the licenses do not over lap so the interface function usage to the Linux kernel would fall under fair usage. So absolutely no argument that CDDL(OpenZFS) and GPLv2.0(Linux kernel) is compatible in fact total acceptance that they are not compatible.

There was another argument that there was no monetary harm there is a problem recent case a settlement was done in source code instead of money in USA court this presence is bad because this made source code it self a legally financial asset like like land and the law does not say monetary harm around copyright but financial harm.

OpenZFS legal position now is more unstable then when Canonical with Ubuntu decided to ship with ZFS. Yes the case ruling source code as financial asset could be part of the reason Canonical is attempting to sneak away from ZFS as this means the source code being the wrong license could the damage.

Stormcrow I will give you its not a slam dunk win yet with OpenZFS and the Linux kernel either way. The current position with presence is absolutely not favorable to OpenZFS linux kernel module its like 70/30 as in 70% chance OpenZFS would lose in court and 30% chance OpenZFS would win. Majority of copyright cases attacking party want 100% victory assured before going to court. Back when Canonical and debian decide to ship ZFS the number were 80-90% OpenZFS would most likely win vs 10-20% OpenZFS would lose. Big change in this item frame is back then the courts did not view source code as a financial asset. Source code not being financial asset being under the wrong license could not be damages under copyright law this made getting GPL/CDDL and other copyleft cases lot harder to get off ground.

[oiaohm]

I think the most telling with the ZFS license is that Sun (and then Oracle) have never moved a single inch in adding GPLv2 compatible text or simply changing to the GPLv2 to make the matter simply disappear.

The lack of or latter clause with the Linux kernel license means you need to get all party agreement to mess with the Linux kernel license without massive work. So the Linux kernel GPLv2 with linus clause over userspace usage is basically stuck in stone. There have been attempts to change it.

[mangeek]

Not being able to easily default to non-EXT4 filesystems is a bummer. I like using btrfs, and it would be pretty nice if the Ubuntu installer let me partition for UEFI with encryption and LVM, then gave me a little flexibility.

[mangeek]

It's kind of a shame that the open source world has never managed to come up with it's own answer to AD, which made everyone happy. I'll concede that it's a very, very hard problem to solve. Especially when it comes to meeting requirements like GDPR.

Uhh, there was OpenLDAP, NIS, and Kerberos and there are AD-like things 389 Directory Server. AD is the center of mass because Microsoft was (is?) so dominant in the business computing realm. It's easier to extend Linux to work with AD than it would be to get traction on an alternative. Who is going to write the stuff that makes Windows behave the way some third-party directory/policy system works? I don't even think anyone could.

[Sonadow]

Uhh, there was OpenLDAP, NIS, and Kerberos and there are AD-like things 389 Directory Server. AD is the center of mass because Microsoft was (is?) so dominant in the business computing realm. It's easier to extend Linux to work with AD than it would be to get traction on an alternative. Who is going to write the stuff that makes Windows behave the way some third-party directory/policy system works? I don't even think anyone could.

AD is the center of mass because Microsoft made it so fucking easy to create, join and manage an entire forest with just a few mouse clicks.

Telling people to use Samba and OpenLDAP to achieve AD functionality in Linux is the peak of ignorance and contempt for a user's time.

[smitty3268]

I think the most telling with the ZFS license is that Sun (and then Oracle) have never moved a single inch in adding GPLv2 compatible text or simply changing to the GPLv2 to make the matter simply disappear.

Yeah, while it's true there have never been any court cases deciding things and you can find a lawyer to argue literally anything as long as you pay them, I think it's fairly obvious that Sun designed the license initially to be incompatible. And I think it's pretty obvious they would have sued initially if people took their code and copied it into linux.

Whether they would still sue today is an open question. Maybe they wouldn't, but I feel extremely confident that their lawyers would say that they could if they wanted to. And then it would be up to a judge.

[F.Ultra]

The lack of or latter clause with the Linux kernel license means you need to get all party agreement to mess with the Linux kernel license without massive work. So the Linux kernel GPLv2 with linus clause over userspace usage is basically stuck in stone. There have been attempts to change it.

I wasn't talking about the GPLv2 of the Linux Kernel, I was talking about the CDDL of ZFS. Both Oracle and SUN have claimed that they want to get ZFS to Linux but have both been quite silent on the license issues and also refused to re-license ZFS to avoid all problems. AFAIK Oracle owns all code of ZFS and should not have any issue with re-licensing except they won't.

[stormcrow]

Main reason: maintenance. Canonical were on their own when implementing ZFS binary kernel as Linux kernel developers clearly mentioned they would never support it without having Oracle clarifying the licensing issue.

No, they weren't "on their own." There's a lot of people behind the OpenZFS project and Canonical is just packaging, testing, and distributing what they're doing. You know, like most distributions do.

Linus doesn't trust Oracle. Big woop. Linus is not a lawyer. He's not qualified to express an educated opinion on the legal enforceability of the licensing terms. Oracle v. Google? Java's pre-GPL license terms are very different than the license grant in OpenZFS. Each copyright case outcome is specific to the license terms the work is being released under. Nothing really stops Oracle from suing anyone regardless of the merits of the case. That's the major flaw in the US legal system. But then again, nothing really stops IBM from enforcing their massive patent portfolio except their continued good will towards the global developer community, and that's a far more dangerous existential threat than Oracle... yet few people point that out. IBM's got really good PR.