LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-27-2013, 11:04 AM   #226
Pixxt
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Distribution: Slackware, Debian,
Posts: 104

Rep: Reputation: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by gezley View Post
Utter rubbish.
One mans trash is anothers truth
Quote:
Originally Posted by gezley View Post
Do you use these operating systems or do you just rely on hearsay?
I have used diffrent BSD's of and on as long as I have been using Linux for 14 years now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gezley View Post
What makes you think the BSD devs want "anything new [in] the core of their systems"? What makes you say the various BSDs are not as fast, stable or scalable? Have you used them?
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and even 386BSD, i have not run DragonFLY yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gezley View Post
I have a NetBSD gateway idling at this very moment in time at 16M of RAM and 0.00% CPU. This gateway serves over 70 users and peaks at about 30MB of RAM and 2 or 3% CPU. It's been running flawlessly for 256 days. There are so many things in NetBSD and OpenBSD which are light years ahead of their equivalents in GNU/Linux. ZFS in FreeBSD, for example.
ZFS in FreeBSD is a outdated and broken version of ZFS thanks to the CDDL!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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gezley View Post
Linux fanboys who rubbish the BSDs just because *BSD is slow to poison itself with garbage like systemd, Mono, Gnome3, Unity and all the other toxic rubbish that has infested the GNU/Linux ecosystem in recent years are one of the biggest reasons I am fast moving away from Linux completely. To be honest it's just Slackware that's holding me here.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gezley View Post
Please do your research before you come out with nonsense about BSD. If you don't use it or know how to use it then just stay quiet.
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.
Old 05-27-2013, 11:21 AM   #227
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,197

Rep: Reputation: 164Reputation: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post

If it weren't for Slackware, I'd have dumped Linux 10 years ago!
I guess I can only agree to disagree here.

In my (humble) opinion:
*No software is perfect
*everything can be done better
 
Old 05-27-2013, 11:57 AM   #228
torimus
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 81

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
@Pixxt
Obvious troll is ... obvious
 
Old 05-27-2013, 01:56 PM   #229
edorig
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2013
Location: France
Distribution: Slackware; Scientific Linux
Posts: 106

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
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.
Old 05-27-2013, 01:59 PM   #230
Erik_FL
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 797

Rep: Reputation: 247Reputation: 247Reputation: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
ZFS is one of the most technologically advanced file systems for any UNIX and UNIX-like system. There are even patches to add it to Linux, but due to the GPL license Linux can't officially add it because ZFS is CDDL licensed software. In return Linux attempted to clone ZFS with BtrFS, but BtrFS has become a virtual quagmire of issues and problems with each kernel release. In short, BtrFS is highly unstable, dangerous to use, and very unreliable at times, however it has some of the most advanced features near that of ZFS. IMO, this is where the GPL license creates a stumbling block. If the GPL would allow for CDDL, we could get ZFS and chances are many people would probably switch over to it for their servers and workstations provided they have the hardware to support it, but this won't happen and can't.
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.
 
Old 05-27-2013, 03:00 PM   #231
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,300

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik_FL View Post
Also, the choice to implement ZFS using FUSE in Linux causes the performance to suffer even worse.
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
 
Old 05-27-2013, 03:24 PM   #232
Erik_FL
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 797

Rep: Reputation: 247Reputation: 247Reputation: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
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.
 
Old 05-28-2013, 03:50 PM   #233
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,405
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixxt View Post
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.
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.
Old 05-28-2013, 04:59 PM   #234
volkerdi
Slackware Maintainer
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware! :-)
Posts: 874

Rep: Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812
Quote:
Originally Posted by torimus View Post
As I'd agree with some of your points an idea about incorporation of ZFS in any Linux distro (Slackware included) by a decision to just disregard its license is a bit naive. It would also require a lot of work of kernel devs even Pat alone simply cann't match with all due respect to him.
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.
Old 05-28-2013, 08:27 PM   #235
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,405
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951
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?
 
Old 05-28-2013, 08:37 PM   #236
Erik_FL
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 797

Rep: Reputation: 247Reputation: 247Reputation: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
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.
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.
 
Old 05-28-2013, 08:59 PM   #237
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,405
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951
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.
 
Old 05-28-2013, 09:05 PM   #238
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
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.
Old 05-28-2013, 09:18 PM   #239
volkerdi
Slackware Maintainer
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware! :-)
Posts: 874

Rep: Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812Reputation: 1812
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
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?
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.
Old 05-28-2013, 11:24 PM   #240
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,405
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Again, drafting a new license wouldn't help, since the Linux kernel will not change its license.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
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.
That would be solely on the end-user Patrick... it's not like you're forcing them to pick a ZFS kernel and format.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 05-28-2013 at 11:25 PM.
 
  


Closed Thread

Tags
cgroups


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Slackware: Is Systemd Inevitable? LXer Syndicated Linux News 5 07-22-2013 04:54 AM
[SOLVED] slackware and systemd fl0 Slackware 512 08-29-2012 11:07 AM
slackware and systemd (OT) eloi Slackware 44 08-24-2012 04:36 PM
[SOLVED] systemd and Slackware's future kikinovak Slackware 95 07-14-2012 11:40 AM
Boot Delay 30min: systemd-analyze blame systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service BGHolmes Fedora 0 07-27-2011 09:02 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration