One mans trash is anothers truth I have used diffrent BSD's of and on as long as I have been using Linux for 14 years now. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and even 386BSD, i have not run DragonFLY yet. ZFS in FreeBSD is a outdated and broken version of ZFS thanks to the CDDL! Must run Solaris to get the latest goodies and bug fixes.

Hey its only fair, the amount of trash talking that the BSD losers...umm users have spewed towards Linux for 20 years has been brain numbing. The beauty of the Linux ecosystem is I never had to touch those things to have a good working system.

BSD's are slow, unstable, with devs who are out of touch with reality. The BSD community very cult like, they bash anything not BSD and really have rage and hatred for anything GNU, GPL, and Linux. The best thing about the BSD's IMHO is the sane filesystem layout of folders and files, and the sane init systems, I would love to take that and drop in a Linux kernel with the GNU core utilities for my perfect system. I like the BSD's but Linux has eclipsed them many moons ago.

1 members found this post helpful.

I guess I can only agree to disagree here.

In my (humble) opinion:
*No software is perfect
*everything can be done better

@Pixxt
Obvious troll is ... obvious

Concerning ZFS, the real problem with Linux is that it is not stable on 32bit systems.
For the rest, ZFS cannot be packaged with the source of the Linux Kernel but
"there is nothing in either license that prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module
or in the form of source code." In principle, a distro could ship a Linux Kernel with a zfs binary module,
and could make the sources available as two separate packages.

As to this thread, it has degenerated into another System V against BSD war of religion. Wouldn't systemd by forbidden by the SVID anyway ?

1 members found this post helpful.

I don't think that licensing is the primary reason for ZFS not being used with Linux. After all, many software packages are maintained separately from the kernel even if they are kernel extensions or drivers. ZFS still requires more processing and memory resources (to be practical) than are in most consumer PCs. Also, the choice to implement ZFS using FUSE in Linux causes the performance to suffer even worse. The race to cheap junk in consumer PCs, non-standard hardware (and now UEFI firmware) plus the fragmentation of Linux all contribute to Linux troubles more than the licensing issues. However, I do agree about the merits of ZFS. I would much rather hear a decree that Linux will use ZFS than Linux will use systemd.

The ZFS implementation using FUSE is something older (being maintained at http://zfs-fuse.net/ which currently can not be reached). It is not the same as is being offered at http://zfsonlinux.org/ - which is a native Linux kernel port.

Eric

Hmm, what sauce goes best with Crow? Thanks for the correction. I really do want to experiment with ZFS because it seems to be a very well designed file-system.

Never believe in truths. Believe in facts. The facts are in on BSD and you know very little and have been repeatedly called out on them. All you state are opinions and bias towards an OS you clearly have no hard experience in usage, implementation, distribution, and maintenance. If you knew anything about BSD is that BSD is widely used by DataCenters, Server Farms, Government Agencies, and even Small Businesses. There are MANY implementations of BSD that you missed besides those you listed including TrueOS, PC-BSD, and many others including Apple OS-X. None of them use BSD because it's fast. They use it because it's very stable of a system due to it's consolidated design which dwarfs the Linux's developer's efforts, and they use it because systems like OpenBSD have some of the highest levels of security by design. It's not about speed. Not at all. It's about keeping the system safe, secure, and stable for long term periods. If you even had a hint about what BSD is about, that's the first thing you learn... period.

The developers are hardly out-of-touch. Get on the mailing list and you'll find out how quickly they are in-touch with reality, and how little you the user know. As I pointed out to you, but you purposely ignored in sheer ignorance, IF YOU WANT IT IN FREEBSD, YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR IT!!! I don't think anyone could have told you any clearer, and it's even noted in the FreeBSD wiki's, FAQs, and other documentation that nothing gets added to FreeBSD unless it's requested. All the UNIX/BSD based systems operate under this mandate to keep the system's small, portable, and low-maintenance. Slackware is one of the few Linux distributions that follows this mantra as well.

I've asked for stuff in BSD myself, only to be told, "it's already in there in a port, and here's how you add it". The BSD people are HARDLY arrogant, selfish, egotistical bastards. They're actually very mature, open-minded, and selfless when it come to their system, but they do frown on ignorance and stupidity like nothing else. You do have to approach them with some level of humility, but in that they will respect you, help you, and guide you.

As far as ZFS is concerned, you are very much wrong. Oracle releases ZFS in the Solaris code they publish and the BSD authors implement what they can and patch in what is needed for their BSD kernel. Remember, Solaris and BSD are two DIFFERENT operating systems as is Illumos and even Linux. No two systems will have the same implementation of a file system because each's needs will be different. it doesn't matter how old ZFS is on BSD. ReiserFSv3 on Linux is old and very dated, but for low-end systems it's very useful because it scales well on older hardware whereas EXT4 scales better on high end stuff. ZFS is great for scalable high-end systems where UFS is more for low end.

Again, you are not very educated in how things work in a system and know very little about what you are talking about. I suggest before you prattle on again about being an obvious troll that is all but too obvious, you should approach with some humility into what you know, think you know, and don't know with some level of respect. Showing no respect towards things will get you nowhere. Even I can respect Lennart Poeterring for wanting to make something better, like an INIT system for Linux, but I don't respect the fact that he's doing so only for his own personal gain at our expense.

Now kindly please take any snoodie comments elsewhere.

1 members found this post helpful.

Even if it "just worked", it wouldn't happen here. There are already several cases where a license violation would be useful, and is easy. I can think of a few cases where all it takes to use GNU readline is a ./configure flag, but since that library is GPL (not LGPL), and there's a license incompatibility with the software in question, it doesn't happen.

As far as I'm concerned, people who write software are free to use any license they like. I'll respect their choices. Intentionally ignoring a license incompatibility really isn't much different than piracy in my opinion.

3 members found this post helpful.

Very true Pat. However, here's the 64,000 dollar question.

If Slackware, at installation time, offered a source only custom compile of a ZFS enabled kernel to which a user could build and install before any apps are made, and then also supported post-compile to format the ./ partition for ZFS rather than EXT4, BtrFS, etc. would that still be legal since it's only optional?

I agree. If we want organizations to respect the GNU Public License then we must respect other licenses. Open Source software is being attacked enough because of software patent litigation. Willfully violating licenses will not help that cause at all.

True enough, however promoting better compatibility between licenses should be on the forefront of the efforts as well. Having the CDDL and GPL at each others throats isn't helping. Perhaps it might be near time that GNU needs to redraft another revision of the GPL that is CDDL compatible.

Again, drafting a new license wouldn't help, since the Linux kernel will not change its license.

1 members found this post helpful.

That would probably be legal. However, I'd take it as violating the spirit but not the letter of the license, so I wouldn't do it. Finding a loophole is not honoring the wishes of the developers, even if it's technically allowed by law.

2 members found this post helpful.

I though that if a project goes GPL, then since all code is published and made available, that it can be re-licensed without any need for dramatics.

However, yes, the Linux kernel would take a miracle for them to change, but if they did, it would more that certainty benefit them and everyone else.

That would be solely on the end-user Patrick... it's not like you're forcing them to pick a ZFS kernel and format.