Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenZFS Launches To Promote Open-Source ZFS

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by benmoran View Post
    http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/

    An older article from someone who worked on ZFS for a few years at Sun. He raises a few points about why the btrfs design is better.
    Originally posted by xeekei View Post
    That was very interesting, thank you. Everyone talks about ZFS like it's a gift from the gods, which made me think Btrfs wouldn't stand a chance. Now I think differently. Can't wait for Btrfs!
    I checked the Illumos repository. There is no public record of a "Valerie Aurora (formerly Henson)" working on ZFS. I will need to check with Matthew Ahrens to be certain, but I do not think that this person ever worked on ZFS in any significant capacity.

    With that said, there are plenty of articles written that one filesystem is better than another based on the author's preference. Here is one that says ZFS is better than btrfs:

    ZFS keeps winning over btrfs on many fronts. Here's a short list that explains exactly how.


    There are a few good points there and there are multiple ways that I could see about making that article better. However, I really do not care very much about pointing out what btrfs does poorly. It is unproductive.
    Last edited by ryao; 19 September 2013, 01:26 PM.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by ryao View Post
      With that said, neither of us are lawyers. However, I find the idea that Sun created the GPL out of some irrational desire to avoid the GPL to be incredible given the negative consequences of licensing Open Solaris under the GPL.
      To be clear, I meant to say:

      Originally posted by ryao View Post
      With that said, neither of us are lawyers. However, I find the idea that Sun created the CDDL out of some irrational desire to avoid the GPL to be incredible given the negative consequences of licensing Open Solaris under the GPL.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by ryao View Post
        I checked the Illumos repository. There is no public record of a "Valerie Aurora (formerly Henson)" working on ZFS. I will need to check with Matthew Ahrens to be certain, but I do not think that this person ever worked on ZFS in any significant capacity.

        With that said, there are plenty of articles written that one filesystem is better than another based on the author's preference. Here is one that says ZFS is better than btrfs:

        ZFS keeps winning over btrfs on many fronts. Here's a short list that explains exactly how.


        There are a few good points there and there are multiple ways that I could see about making that article better. However, I really do not care very much about pointing out what btrfs does poorly. It is unproductive.
        It does say "several years". Are you suggesting that this person is lying?

        Also, the post you're linking to can pretty much be summed up to "ZFS has existed longer", bringing up things like documentation and length of testing. Those things will always be true, and by that logic we should never develop anything new.
        Last edited by xeekei; 19 September 2013, 01:49 PM.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by xeekei View Post
          It does say "several years". Are you suggesting that this person is lying?
          The Wikipedia article on her says that she was at Sun in 2002, which suggests that she worked on an incredibly early version of ZFS. This would be the equivalent of someone working on btrfs around the time it was a year old, leaving to work somewhere else and then writing an article criticizing it at some point in 2014.

          I need to check with Matthew Ahrens to be certain, but I suspect that her role in ZFS' history is overstated. She would have had to have left before June 14, 2005 to have avoided any presence in the Open Solaris repository.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by xeekei View Post
            It does say "several years". Are you suggesting that this person is lying?

            Also, the post you're linking to can pretty much be summed up to "ZFS has existed longer", bringing up things like documentation and length of testing. Those things will always be true, and by that logic we should never develop anything new.
            The problem with the other article is that she didn't really list anything of significance. She had maybe one or two points where there is some ZFS weakness.

            And I think she's using her "I worked on ZFS" credentials as some kind of buttress for her weak arguments. But her opinion is not shared by all ZFS developers.

            Comment


            • #56
              So what now? ZFS is still great and I shouldn't be looking forward to Btrfs?

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                So what now? ZFS is still great and I shouldn't be looking forward to Btrfs?
                I consider ZFS to be the future of filesystems, but nothing stops people from using other filesystems.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by ryao View Post
                  To be clear, I meant to say:
                  In the words of Danese Cooper, who is no longer with Sun, one of the reasons for basing the CDDL on the Mozilla license was that the Mozilla license is GPL-incompatible. Cooper stated, at the 6th annual Debian conference, that the engineers who had written the Solaris kernel requested that the license of OpenSolaris be GPL-incompatible. "Mozilla was selected partially because it is GPL incompatible. That was part of the design when they released OpenSolaris. [...] the engineers who wrote Solaris [...] had some biases about how it should be released, and you have to respect that
                  while describing the strong preference among the engineers who wrote the code for a BSD-like license, which was in conflict with Sun's preference for something copyleft, and that waiting for legal clearance to release some parts of the code under the then unreleased GNU GPL v3 would have taken several years, and would probably also have involved massed resignations from engineers (unhappy with either the delay, the GPL, or both—this is not clear from the video)


                  Irrational hatred of GPL not in slightest and AFAIK Sun wanted to compete with Linux.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDL

                    Irrational hatred of GPL not in slightest and AFAIK Sun wanted to compete with Linux.
                    Simon Phipps (Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time), who had introduced Ms. Cooper as "the one who actually wrote the CDDL", did not immediately comment, but later in the same video, he says, referring back to the license issue, "I actually disagree with Danese to some degree"...
                    Later, in September 2006, Phipps rejected Cooper's assertion in even stronger terms.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by johnc View Post
                      You do realize that part i didnt quoted had nothing to do with ryaos assertions and my counterclaims.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X