Google Is Exploring Potentially Using Btrfs In Android

[smitty3268]

It may be legally questionable, but it is definitely not more questionable than shipping proprietary drivers in the kernel. Which is what most Android phones do.

So a manufacturer deciding to ship ZFS will run no risk in addition to those that they already accept.

The difference is that the owners of the proprietary drivers want their code in those phones, and have no incentive to sue. The only risk is that someone with no money like the FSF will object.

ZFS is owned by Oracle, who is still in the years-long process of suing Google for daring to use Java. You really think that wouldn't be dragged into it, even just as another bargaining chip to try and bludgeon google for more money?

Anyway, on a more technical level I'm not sure ZFS is the answer anyway. It's heavily tuned for the high-end server market with multiple disks, etc. I don't think it scales down to phone level hardware all that well, which means Google would have to do a lot of modifications to it anyway in order to get anything halfway decent running. Might as well start with something simpler in that case and just add what's needed.

[chithanh]

That's why two copyleft licenses (eg. GPL and CDDL) have to explicitly allow each other.

The CDDL is only a weak copyleft like the MPL (from which it was derived) and the LGPL. It already allows combining with arbitrary other licensed code.

I highly doubt Google is going to touch anything with Oracle's name on it (and I don't blame them).

The difference is that the owners of the proprietary drivers want their code in those phones, and have no incentive to sue. The only risk is that someone with no money like the FSF will object.

ZFS is owned by Oracle, who is still in the years-long process of suing Google for daring to use Java. You really think that wouldn't be dragged into it, even just as another bargaining chip to try and bludgeon google for more money?

You got it backwards here. The incompatibility between GPL and CDDL is wholly due to GPL clauses forbidding that. No copyright holder of CDDL licensed code can stop you from shipping CDDL+GPL combined software. Only the copyright holders of the GPL code have a standing against you.

So the point made by profoundWHALE is totally correct.

[aht0]

filesystem corruption shouldn't brick the device. Think about it, if the device was bricked from bad software, then it would be bricked before they flash it at the factory. In essense, dead before being born.

With Android (at least cellular-capable devices) file system corruption would essentially brick the device.
Critical stuff like IMEI (among other things) is being stored on EFS partition. That "goes" and you can kiss goodbye your devices cellular network connectivity forever, unless you rooted it, flashed custom recovery and backed said partition up in advance.

[yogi_berra]

ZFS is owned by Oracle, who is still in the years-long process of suing Google for daring to use Java

Google clearly was in the wrong, though. None of which matters as who in the fuck wants ZFS or btrfs on a goddamn phone, tablet, or TV?

[Ronshere]

I thought Reiser is the killer FS

[aht0]

Google clearly was in the wrong, though. None of which matters as who in the fuck wants ZFS or btrfs on a goddamn phone, tablet, or TV?

It'd be like using 40 ton lorry for going to grocery store.. Though I've seen a drunk guy who used grain harvester for the exact purpose, so I guess you get all kinds of people..

[starshipeleven]

who in the fuck wants ZFS or btrfs on a goddamn phone, tablet, or TV?

Says the person that didn't read where it was explained why btrfs can be interesting for mobile too. Try the first two pages of the thread.

[starshipeleven]

It'd be like using 40 ton lorry for going to grocery store.. Though I've seen a drunk guy who used grain harvester for the exact purpose, so I guess you get all kinds of people..

btrfs wasn't designed with big iron server usecase in mind so, unlike ZFS, it is not a 40 ton lorry.

[starshipeleven]

You got it backwards here. The incompatibility between GPL and CDDL is wholly due to GPL clauses forbidding that. No copyright holder of CDDL licensed code can stop you from shipping CDDL+GPL combined software. Only the copyright holders of the GPL code have a standing against you.

So the point made by profoundWHALE is totally correct.

Can I point out that Oracle is also contributing to Linux kernel too so they do have a standing to bite if they feel like it?

[aht0]

btrfs wasn't designed with big iron server usecase in mind so, unlike ZFS, it is not a 40 ton lorry.

Android would probably refuse to work BEFORE you hit that low-end RAM limit for ZFS.

It's misconception like "ZFS was designed hurriedly and corners were cut all the time". Although it's certainly case with the Btrfs.