Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thanks Oracle! New Patches Pending Can Reduce Linux Boot Times Up To ~49%

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

  • #61
    Oracle does not control development of OpenZFS. However it owns copyright over ZFS which OpenZFS is derived from. That makes it the entity who has the power to decide whether OpenZFS can be relicensed as GPL. As soon as it does, OpenZFS becomes GPL compatibile and a merge request can be opened to make it an in-kernel module and stop all its issues.
    That's the power Oracle has. But as long as OpenZFS is CCDL it has the far more valuable power to sue everyone distributing Linux and OpenZFS together. So far only Ubuntu dared putting the two together on the same media, and Oracle is well known to wait to sue until the oppurtune moment (see the Android Java legal dispute).

    Oracle has no such power on this particular contribution because it is natively released under the GPL. It's mostly about the license, not the grantor. GPLv2 code in Linux is good. Every other license, talk with a lawyer first. If the grantor is Oracle, the only difference is that the lawyer better be good.

    Comment


    • #62
      Who in their right mind would thank multibillion dollar company that got it's money by leaching from smaller companies until they disappear and by lawsuits on API interface? All that money (75 billion dollars) was spent on stock buybacks, not on advancements of technology and certainly not on "Oracle's Unbreakable Linux Enterprise".
      Look at their website how aggressive they are at presenting themselves as non-dead company.
      Their MySQL can't even compete any more with open source project MariaDB.
      Last edited by paupav; 06 May 2020, 09:02 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Typical phoronix hype train for feature which will only be noticeable on servers with 512GB+ of ram...

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
          makes hard crashes far more bearable
          Good slogan for your product...

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by drjohnnyfever View Post

            What are you even talking about? I did no such thing.

            My only point this whole time is that when people criticize OpenZFS and say something about Oracle they are basically automatically full of crap. The only thing Oracle has to do with OpenZFS is some old copyrights on the top of some files, nothing else. So any criticism of ZFS "because oracle" ends up being equally true of Linux itself... Because Oracle copyrights are still making their way into the Linux tree in 2020. In OpenZFS they were last added in what, 2012? So "because Oracle" is more true of Linux than it is of OpenZFS. Which is delightful irony.

            Whether you like or hate CDDL, GPL, MIT, BSD is irrelevant here. I'm only commenting on all the people who go "blah blah but Oracle" whenever ZFS comes up.

            To put a real fine point on it here. Oracle has much more to do with Linux today than it does OpenZFS. If you want to complain about OpenZFS and the complaint involves the word Oracle you need a CT scan.
            If so then you have completely misunderstood what the whole criticism of Oracle is about regarding ZFS. It's not about them retroactively changing the license (hence the straw manning), it's about them purposely not giving any official statements regarding if they will ever use the incompatibility between CDDL and GPL to sue people if ZFS would be included in the Linux kernel and relicensed to GPL2.

            So this has zero to do with Oracle copyrights as such.

            edit: so basically what I now see what @p91paul already posted.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by drjohnnyfever View Post
              As far as I can tell the Linux devs are much more hostile to OpenZFS than they are proprietary graphics drivers or proprietary platform drivers for ARM SOCs. I don't see how that makes any sense whatsoever. OpenZFS may have a license they don't prefer but that can't be any worse than having no source code at all... And even if we accept that the CDDL and GPL incompatible and a court were to rule it as such it would still be perfectly legal for an end user to build and install the kernel module. The GPL does not restrict the licenses that can be mixed by end users who don't release the software to others.
              Remind me again of which "proprietary graphics drivers" are included in the mainline Linux kernel. Also remind me again when any Linux dev did anything to Oracle that is even close to when Linus fingered nVidia and told them to fuck off?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

                Remind me again of which "proprietary graphics drivers" are included in the mainline Linux kernel. Also remind me again when any Linux dev did anything to Oracle that is even close to when Linus fingered nVidia and told them to fuck off?
                I never said proprietary graphics drivers were included in the mainline kernel. We're talking about OpenZFS which isn't in the mainline kernel either if you didn't notice. I don't know why so many people on this forum have reading comprehension issues.

                I never said Linux devs did anything to Oracle. I said the Linux devs were childishly squabbling about OpenZFS. Reading is difficult but it's important to do so carefully.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by drjohnnyfever View Post

                  I never said proprietary graphics drivers were included in the mainline kernel. We're talking about OpenZFS which isn't in the mainline kernel either if you didn't notice. I don't know why so many people on this forum have reading comprehension issues.

                  I never said Linux devs did anything to Oracle. I said the Linux devs were childishly squabbling about OpenZFS. Reading is difficult but it's important to do so carefully.
                  You said that Linux devs where more hostile towards OpenZFS than they where towards "proprietary graphics drivers", aka no mention at all about "childishly squabbling".

                  The only way a dev can be hostile to code is to exclude it from their project which the Linux devs have done for both. Further the Linux devs have and continue to put several road blocks in the way for proprietary modules (such as minimizing which of the internal API:s that can be used by non GPL:ed software and even those API:s are constantly changed).

                  However please do link to where the Linux devs are "childishly squabbling" about ZFS.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

                    You said that Linux devs where more hostile towards OpenZFS than they where towards "proprietary graphics drivers", aka no mention at all about "childishly squabbling".

                    The only way a dev can be hostile to code is to exclude it from their project which the Linux devs have done for both. Further the Linux devs have and continue to put several road blocks in the way for proprietary modules (such as minimizing which of the internal API:s that can be used by non GPL:ed software and even those API:s are constantly changed).

                    However please do link to where the Linux devs are "childishly squabbling" about ZFS.
                    Ask Linux how he feels about Android, binary blobs, binary-only drivers, and smartphone vendors. He doesn't care, and nor do I.

                    I did mention childish squabbling but I know it would be too much work for you to go back a page or two and read it.

                    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020...straight-dope/

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by drjohnnyfever View Post

                      Ask Linux how he feels about Android, binary blobs, binary-only drivers, and smartphone vendors. He doesn't care, and nor do I.

                      I did mention childish squabbling but I know it would be too much work for you to go back a page or two and read it.

                      https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020...straight-dope/
                      So Linus actual quote is:
                      Note that "we don't break users" is literally about user-space applications, and about the kernel I maintain.

                      If somebody adds a kernel module like ZFS, they are on their own. I can't maintain it, and I can not be bound by other peoples kernel changes.

                      And honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd.

                      Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so.

                      And I'm not at all interested in some "ZFS shim layer" thing either that some people seem to think would isolate the two projects. That adds no value to our side, and given Oracle's interface copyright suits (see Java), I don't think it's any real licensing win either.

                      Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me.

                      The benchmarks I've seen do not make ZFS look all that great. And as far as I can tell, it has no real maintenance behind it either any more, so from a long-term stability standpoint, why would you ever want to use it in the first place?
                      While I can agree that the last part is him doing remarks on something where he lacks knowledge, I have a hard time calling that "childish squabbling".

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X