ZFS On Linux Landing Workaround For Linux 5.0 Kernel Support

[aht0]

and that's the difference: GPL enforces you to make derviced work public - period
with BSD license you can do what you want and hence GPL code is often forbidden in companies to be safe

what the hell does that need a discussion which happened millin times in the last few decades

And you keep blindly repeating the old mantra like it's some ultimate truth. It's wishful thinking.

GPL enforces only "derived" work. Nothing else, nothing more. It's easily enough bypassable if need be. Using GPL kernel does not stop anyone from locking down their fucking products if they really want it. Nor allow you seeing what's really going on inside that part-GPL "black box". You'll get partial sources (for GPL bits) and that's all. It's as useful as book with 3/4 pages ripped off. And even these sources could be dumped on you in a form less than usable to make things even more complicated. It's following the law to the letter while cheerfully violating it in spirit.

[aht0]

You can insist on what you like. It does not affect reality.
I have bunch of linux-based devices which are essentially in a locked down state. From Android phones to Wifi AP to TV and it's STB box.. So, in my eyes locked down-GPL or locked-down-BSD/MIT/CDDL-whatever have essentially no difference. Even IF I get the sources, I won't get sources for critical pieces of code.. ever.

With that note, Im out of the discussion.

[aht0]

well, you led it to there, or it wouldn't. So..

[mattlach]

Zero & none. This is old code from oracle, they have little interest in open source since Sun was gobbled up.
I don't know why they bother, but I guess it's their time to waste. the developers should save themselves the grief.

if people are so desperate to use zfs, then use it via freenas & remote storage. I just wouldn't call zfs a user-grade file system anyway. It's suited to enterprise & admins who can spend the time tuning it for performance (plenty of old sun/oracle whitepapers on just that).

What else are we supposed to use for solid, well performing and safe redundancy? Hardware RAID? That is an absolute joke. btrfs? It is as good as dead, what with RedHat deprecating it, and Suse limiting it to only RAID10 configurations, and it wasn't even that good to begin with.

ZFS is without doubt the "end all" of file systems, and the only one I use both for booting and mass storage. And no, there is no need to tune it. It works very well out of the box with default settings, as long as you don't do something incredibly stupid.

I don't understand why we even care about Oracles licensing scheme these days. Who actually uses official Oracle ZFS? OpenZFS has been the most feature rich and widely used for years now.

[mattlach]

you have no fucking clue about licensing

I never claimed I did. There are very many things I have great understanding about. Software licensing? I have next to no knowledge in that field.

I believe that is why I started my statement with "I don't understand why" Seems to indicate my lack of understanding on the topic yes?

I was under the impression OpenZFS was an open implementation of Oracles architecture without their proprietary licensed code.

[mskarbek]

I was under the impression OpenZFS was an open implementation of Oracles architecture without their proprietary licensed code.

It is a fork of the code that once was a part of OpenSolaris - opensource, licensed under CDDL but with CLA assigned to the Sun. After Oracle acquisition of Sun code is developed in two parallel projects - OpenZFS and Oracle Solaris and produces two different outcomes based on the same core and history. OpenZFS is not compatible anymore with ZFS in Oracle Solaris.