Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: ZFS For Linux Is Now Available To The Public!

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,652

    Default ZFS For Linux Is Now Available To The Public!

    Phoronix: ZFS For Linux Is Now Available To The Public!

    For those with some extra time this holiday week in the United States, perhaps you want to try out the ZFS file-system on Linux? As was said this week when publishing ZFS benchmarks on Linux using the native kernel module developed by LLNL/KQ Infotech, the public release of this kernel module wasn't going to happen until the first week of January. Fortunately, we have been successful in overwhelming KQ Infotech with lots of interested users, so they have decided to go ahead and make the current beta ZFS Linux module available to the general public...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODgyNA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    450

    Default

    do snapshots an rollbacks work in this like with opensolaris?

    if not i would stick with btrfs, then.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    The above comment I think is pretty much the general sentiment. There isn't much interest in ZFS if BTRFS is supposed to have all the features and some, and is part of mainline Linux.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    ZFS is....
    licensed by oracle (aka satan),
    ported by some incredibly rude people (go look back in some of the older threads... the kq douchebags chimed in and made a real ass of themselves).

    All in all, totally unexciting. Btrfs is the way to go. Proper licensing, and worked on by people who aren't such freakishly retarded. There would be a better chance of convincing me to use MurderFS than ZFS.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    450

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    ZFS is....
    licensed by oracle (aka satan),
    ported by some incredibly rude people (go look back in some of the older threads... the kq douchebags chimed in and made a real ass of themselves).

    All in all, totally unexciting. Btrfs is the way to go. Proper licensing, and worked on by people who aren't such freakishly retarded. There would be a better chance of convincing me to use MurderFS than ZFS.
    lol ok.

    i thought so too. I prefer how butter is turning out.

    maybe things might change with zfs and "might" someday become a good competitor, but not for the time being. Anyway is good that people are willing to test it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    ZFS is....
    licensed by oracle (aka satan),
    ported by some incredibly rude people (go look back in some of the older threads... the kq douchebags chimed in and made a real ass of themselves).

    All in all, totally unexciting. Btrfs is the way to go. Proper licensing, and worked on by people who aren't such freakishly retarded. There would be a better chance of convincing me to use MurderFS than ZFS.
    You forget that btrfs was, as there wiki puts it: "Initially developed by Oracle".



    Not that I like Oracle very much, but saying that ZFS is bad because its made by Oracle and that btrfs rocks is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanbreon View Post
    You forget that btrfs was, as there wiki puts it: "Initially developed by Oracle".



    Not that I like Oracle very much, but saying that ZFS is bad because its made by Oracle and that btrfs rocks is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
    I did NOT say "made by", I referred to the LICENSE!!!
    BIG DIFFERENCE THERE!!!

    BTRFS is in the hands of the community to deal with under proper licensing. ZFS is NOT. ZFS is under SATAN licensing.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    I did NOT say "made by", I referred to the LICENSE!!!
    BIG DIFFERENCE THERE!!!

    BTRFS is in the hands of the community to deal with under proper licensing. ZFS is NOT. ZFS is under SATAN licensing.
    would you please stop this kind of trolling? guess who licenses software? bingo. those who make/own it.

    and zfs is not under satan license, firstly because that doesn't exist, secondly because it's cddl actually.

    do you know that cddl is basically an mpl-respin? then firefox is "satan licensed" as well?

    and don't blame oracle/sun or anything else for GPL being so incompatible with pretty much anything (it's barely compatible even with itself in earlier incarnations).

    and also don't have the incorrect feeling of btrfs being owned by the community any more than zfs is. why would that be the case? you may obtain the source code (just like for zfs), but you in no way will own any IP. you really lack points, you just say random bullshit

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anarki2 View Post
    would you please stop this kind of trolling?
    You're the one trolling.
    You ever wonder why zfs can't be in the kernel? Right... CAN'T. Because the license makes it impossible. Selected by satan himself with the specific intention to make it USELESS. Hence SATAN LICENSE.

    guess who licenses software? bingo. those who make/own it.
    Your point?

    and zfs is not under satan license, firstly because that doesn't exist, secondly because it's cddl actually.

    do you know that cddl is basically an mpl-respin? then firefox is "satan licensed" as well?
    When the license is selected by satan in order to make it useless, that is a satan license.

    and don't blame oracle/sun or anything else for GPL being so incompatible with pretty much anything (it's barely compatible even with itself in earlier incarnations).
    Why don't you just go and suck balls at oracle or something. You are clearly out of your mind.

    and also don't have the incorrect feeling of btrfs being owned by the community any more than zfs is. why would that be the case?
    BECAUSE IT IS LICENSED UNDER A REASONABLE LICENSE!!!!
    BRAIN -- USE IT -- IT WILL HELP YOU TO THINK!!!

    you may obtain the source code (just like for zfs), but you in no way will own any IP. you really lack points, you just say random bullshit
    Ownership of IP is irrelevant. What IS relevant is having the RIGHT to USE that IP as you require. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE! That ONE is licensed in a way that makes it USEFUL, the other is licensed in a way that makes it USELESS.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    ZFS is....
    licensed by oracle (aka satan),
    Oracle also known as Satan, you say? So Oracle is Satan?

    And yet, Oracle is developing BTRFS. You are too funny, man!

    Besides, have you read the forum on BTRFS? It seems incredibly unstable and flawed. Sure in five years, it will probably have matured enough. But during these five years, ZFS will have developed further (unless ZFS development is stopped). ZFS will always be five years ahead. BTRFS is just a cheap ZFS copy cat.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •