Red Hat's Stratis 2.0.1 Released For This Linux Storage Management Solution

[oiaohm]

Stop being a fear monger, the CDDL is what it is and it's proven itself over 15 years to be ok..

No it has not proven it self ok. Many people have read the legal reviews and don't use CDDL in particular ways. Its not like MPL 1.x that you can use MPL 2.0 to fix it.

I'm content with it being out of tree. Out of tree means any pool made on any Linux kernel version will work on any other Linux kernel as long as the ZFS module targets the same or newer OpenZFS unlike with other file systems where features from kernel 5.2 may or may not work on kernel 4.14. Talk to people who use BTRFS compression and ask them how fun it is that 4.14 is the safest oldest kernel they can use if they happen to use Zstd.

No there are cases where OpenZFS has features that don't work on newer or older kernels as well. I will give it is more common for the Linux LTS kernels not to back-port file system features.

How do you feel about ZFS on Windows? It has a lot of real advantages over NTFS.. would you think it cool to see Windows boot on ZFS?

Microsoft not going to touch the CDDL license. Maybe you could convince reactos but you would be pushing that uphill as this is back to the GPL 2.0 license problem again.. To boot the bootloader of Windows would have to support reading ZFS and the only open source bootloader that is able to boot windows is reactos boot loader.

Linux or Windows same problem license incompatible. So the GPL problem is not just blocking Linux is blocking booting windows straight on ZFS as well.

[Britoid]

I tell you what ZFS on Linux is great for, vendor lock in. If you format your data as XFS, you can change to any distro without having to reformat your data.

If your distro decides to piss on the GPL and upstream Linux community by bundling ZFS, you can't do that.

[skeevy420]

Microsoft not going to touch the CDDL license. Maybe you could convince reactos but you would be pushing that uphill as this is back to the GPL 2.0 license problem again.. To boot the bootloader of Windows would have to support reading ZFS and the only open source bootloader that is able to boot windows is reactos boot loader.

Linux or Windows same problem license incompatible. So the GPL problem is not just blocking Linux is blocking booting windows straight on ZFS as well.

Read today's news and think positive

[skeevy420]

I tell you what ZFS on Linux is great for, vendor lock in. If you format your data as XFS, you can change to any distro without having to reformat your data.

If your distro decides to piss on the GPL and upstream Linux community by bundling ZFS, you can't do that.

I disagree. In the past 5 years I've taken the same data disk from Arch to Antergos and back to Arch to Manjaro to repeat that a bunch to Debian to Ubuntu to Manjaro back to Arch to Suse to OpenSUSE to Fedora to Arch to Tumbleweed to Manjaro to FreeBSD. I've only ever had issues when Arch updated their kernel faster than the ZoL team could update their point release and I was always able to fix it by building ZFS from git master.

Just because you're unable to go here and follow the build instructions doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

[andrewjoy]

I tell you what ZFS on Linux is great for, vendor lock in. If you format your data as XFS, you can change to any distro without having to reformat your data.

If your distro decides to piss on the GPL and upstream Linux community by bundling ZFS, you can't do that.

How ? ZFS itself is very portable between versions of itself with feature flags. And you can build ZoL yourself.

[skeevy420]

How ? ZFS itself is very portable between versions of itself with feature flags. And you can build ZoL yourself.

He hates ZFS.

[k1e0x]

I tell you what ZFS on Linux is great for, vendor lock in. If you format your data as XFS, you can change to any distro without having to reformat your data.

If your distro decides to piss on the GPL and upstream Linux community by bundling ZFS, you can't do that.

Oh I love this!

How are you "pissing on the GPL" by fully complying with its terms?

You can comply with both the CDDL and the GPL at the same time, both licences require you to release your code. I've never seen this much hate for a open source licence. (and I come from the FreeBSD camp so your hate here for the CDDL is fairly impressive) If you really hate it that much just uninstall LibreOffice and Firefox because they are almost identical (functionally if not technically). You wouldn't want to piss on the GPL and use Firefox.

[oiaohm]

Read today's news and think positive

No that new windows loader GPL v3.0 so still incomparable with CDDL. This is a problem there need to be a ZFS implementation that not CDDL that is fully GPL compatible. Even if it only read only functionality no write. Bootloaders don't in fact need to write.

[oiaohm]

You can comply with both the CDDL and the GPL at the same time, both licences require you to release your code. I've never seen this much hate for a open source licence. (and I come from the FreeBSD camp so your hate here for the CDDL is fairly impressive) If you really hate it that much just uninstall LibreOffice and Firefox because they are almost identical (functionally if not technically). You wouldn't want to piss on the GPL and use Firefox.

I get it now you come from the camp of I am funding broke who cannot pay for certification.

Does Firefox or Libreoffice have encryption without the required certifications answer is no. Firefox MPL 2.0 is important to this. The Firefox encryption system can be integrated into a GPL work so allow it to be certified by parties who will only pay for fips certification on GPL works.

I remember the hell from the ZFS developers when the Linux kernel stopped exporting floating point controls because this broke they accelerated check-summing. The checksumming system of ZoL does not have a fips certification where part of doing that is doing the maths and calculating out the likely hood of a collisions.

Lets just say ZoL checksum method was under MPL 2.0 or BSD or some other GPL compadible license it could have be put up as a patch to the Linux kernel Crypto API that gets FIPS certification as natural matter.

Like it or not being GPL incompatible does not only mean you are not able to be intergrated into Linux it also means you miss out on the money on the table to have what you are doing in encryption and checksums certified.

Yes ZFS claim of protecting your data also does not have the required certifications to back it claim up. Brilliant right.

Carefully re-coding key parts encryption and checksumming of ZoL into GPL/Apache 2.0/MPL 2.0 compatible license would allow integration into items that parties pay for FIPS certification on. Now if I was choosing license for this particularly it would be Apache 2.0/MPL 2.0 joint license. This would allow the code to be placed in openssl, gnutls and the Linux kernel Crypto API that do get certification. I don't think Mozilla NSS would want to pick up ZFS special stuff but that license mix would allow that as well.

Remember I said before where is ZFS FIPS certification on itself. That certification does not have to be inside the ZoL project itself if the project has correctly out sourced those parts.

Samba use to have bespoke encryption they attempt FIPS certification found more flaws than hell and are now outsourcing all their encryption and checksuming to GNUTLS so they are still using FIPS certified parts but don't have to deal with the problem.

Lot people know that CDDL lack of means to integrate is causing a problem.

Basically there are a few simple realities.
1) Don't do bespoke encryption or checksums. Basically don't implement encryption/checksum stuff yourself you will get it wrong in ways you will not notice.
2) If you have to implement encryption/checksum you need a lot backing so that you can get the proper peer review of the FIPS process and other items you need to-do so it works.
3) Horrible reality the large organisations offering money for FIPS certifications on open source projects are only interested in GPL v2.0 and GPL v3.0 licensed or compatible licensed projects.

The third point there is critical k1e0x. Yes Ubuntu is deciding to provide ZFS as a install option because customers asking for it. But Canonical is not reaching into their pocket to pay for ZFS FIPS certification. Now how many parties are using ZFS who really should have FIPS certification on its checksum and encryption and are not reaching into their pocket as well.

Either key parts of ZoL(checksum/encryption) has to come GPL compatible or some how ZoL has to work out how to extract on going funding to do the ongoing FIPS certification.

Please note FIPS certification is not something you pay once and you are done its a on going tread mill. FIPS certification due to it on going costs you attempt to outsource when ever possible.

k1e0x basically your sales pitch of ZFS features is falling flat to people like because we are looking for certifications that ZoL should have by one means or another that it does not have. License incompatible with GPL resulting in not being able to integrate correctly with Linux kernel gets in way of getting these certifications that way as well as that the Linux kernel developers mainline are not going to care if they break ZoL that is uncertified junk..

Basically you are attempting to put lipstick on a pig and call it a lady and the problem is I can see the pig. It about time you see the pig of ZoL as well.

[k1e0x]

...

I don't think any of that is your problem. "Oh it's the licence.. oh wait no it's the certifications.. oh wait no it's umm... the design! ya!." Next it will be "but the developers smell bad!"

Riiigght.. sure.. You don't give a god dammed about any of that.

Be honest with yourself, you don't like it because Jonathan Schwartz said bad things about Linux and there was fear ZFS would be used to position Solaris as a better platform than Linux. OpenZFS isn't a "Linux killer", that was ~20 years ago. Long done and dusted FUD and politics (if they ever existed at all). It was childish then and it's childish now. I was there during that time.. I heard the remarks. I looked past them to the technologies and functionality it provided and seen that it was very cool actually and it was no threat to Linux. I was right. It wasn't.

OpenZFS is today just a cool technology that solves a lot of problems and has a lot of uses and that completely opensource community would like to share it with you. I can't imagine anyone would proactively try to stop technology and functionality in Linux.. but here you are.. What did you protest those winmodem drivers in 1995 too?? "Ohhh they were out of tree and uncertified!" I want to hear you say you think those developers that wrote those and helped people were bad evil people because of it. The same applies here.

Even if *you* don't like and don't use it a lot of people *do* want to. Nobody wants ZFS in Linux's kernel. It's better outside for the reasons stated.. What we do want is to extend and enhance Linux's feature set today and help Linux grow and compete against NetApp and EMC. If you don't like it, fine.. do better.. the world waits with baited breath for something to show up.. again it's only been close to 20 years.