ZFS File-System On Linux Moves Along

[kernelOfTruth]

You see, btrfs has made it to mainline. ZFS will never do that - tell "thanks" to guys from Sun for their strange license. The difference? You can see it at post above my. Btrfs will work by default in many distros. ZFS will not. And it will be PITA to use it. So it about to lose their grounds as btrfs improves (and looking on commits to btrfs I can admin it's quite impressive job).

well, it might still be years to go until Btrfs is mature enough for stable & production use

for me it still throws errors and loses/screws data

until then I'll gladly use ZFSonLinux which is getting better and better (and faster, too!) btw


don't get me wrong: I'd really like to use Btrfs due to ease of accessibility over ZFS but my data integrity and presence currently is more important than using a filesystem whose fsck doesn't do too much yet and can be overwhelmed by suspending the computer/laptop and through syncing the portage-tree and thus losing complete access to the data ...

[Vim_User]

As a matter of fact all most all pieces of software that could not be incorporated with Linux lose on to ones that were able to.

Can all you guys see the lesson here?

Yeah, I really see NTFS-3G or the Nvidia and AMD blobs losing. Oh, wait ...

But anyways, why should anyone hear what a person has to say that openly accuses the OpenBSD developers of being murderers and terrorists? You have lost that little bit of credibility that you had, now go away troll.

[johnc]

0xBADCODE gives a great point, ZFS is dead because of it's ridiculous license while BTRFS with proliferate because of the GPL and that it can be incorporated into Linux.

As a matter of fact all most all pieces of software that could not be incorporated with Linux lose on to ones that were able to.

Can all you guys see the lesson here?

That it takes ten years to write a filesystem for Linux?

[benmoran]

It is a good point that not being included in the kernel is a severe limiting factor for ZFS adoption in the enterprise space. Many companies simply will not install ANYTHING outside of what comes in their Linux distribution's repos, and is supported by their vendor. For that reason btrfs usage in the enterprise space will grow as it eventually replaces ext4, and ZFS usage will likely hit a ceiling.

[Vim_User]

It was that other guy not me.

Learn to read names of the authors of the comments, you retard.

That you are the antiBSD troll with multiple accounts is obvious to anyone here.

[brosis]

well, it might still be years to go until Btrfs is mature enough for stable & production use

for me it still throws errors and loses/screws data

until then I'll gladly use ZFSonLinux which is getting better and better (and faster, too!) btw


don't get me wrong: I'd really like to use Btrfs due to ease of accessibility over ZFS but my data integrity and presence currently is more important than using a filesystem whose fsck doesn't do too much yet and can be overwhelmed by suspending the computer/laptop and through syncing the portage-tree and thus losing complete access to the data ...

ZFS is really more advanced than ext, but you better watch out. ZFS is not compatible with GPL due to CDDL - you sure know whole story. But that's what personally questions me:
- ryao once expressed here on forums that he does not want linux become popular.
- ryao is clearly anti GPL, and as you read later - he is clearly pro-proprietary.
- ryao is aggressively criticizing (trolling) BTRFS, on any matter, very often he simply lies - for example he said Dtrace is not available on Linux, so BTRFS should be inferrior to ZFS, but it is available - by exactly same manner as ZFS, as a module.
- CDDL differs from BSD in only one case - CDDL unlike BSD, offers patent grant over code. GPL also offers patent grant. But CDDL allows proprietary usage, exactly 1:1 like BSD plus has definition of "intellectual property".
- CDDL is not compatible with GPL, because GPL prohibits proprietary integration, where CDDL explicity allows it.
- ZFS on Linux has exactly same CDDL license.

So, if Linux users adapt ZFS and its very cumbersome to integrate due to GPL vs CDDL, it gives CDDL more ground to attack GPL.
If its widely integrated it gives bigger usage base to debug ZFS (more eyes).
In my opinion its true goal is to act as a method to make people migrate from GPL'ed Linux to other kernels.

So ZFS may be technologically more advanced, but its used as a weapon, and when developers write "* on Linux" stuff, yet hate Linux, it gives ground for thinking why are they acting this way.
If not this stuff, I would personally moved to ZFS long ago.

[kebabbert]

But anyways, why should anyone hear what a person has to say that openly accuses the OpenBSD developers of being murderers and terrorists? You have lost that little bit of credibility that you had, now go away troll.
...
That you are the antiBSD troll with multiple accounts is obvious to anyone here.

He is also the account user "Kraftman". So, he is not only antiBSD, he is anti-everything that is not Linux.

BTW, can you show the post where he accuses OpenBSD devs for being murders and terrorists? What account did he use then? Kraftman? I have not been logged in for over a year here, so I missed the entire thread.

[Vim_User]

He is also the account user "Kraftman". So, he is not only antiBSD, he is anti-everything that is not Linux.

BTW, can you show the post where he accuses OpenBSD devs for being murders and terrorists? What account did he use then? Kraftman? I have not been logged in for over a year here, so I missed the entire thread.

The thread was deleted shortly after he posted that and I reported it. This pathetic person accused the OpenBSD developers to be the Boston bombers.
Sadly, I don't remember which of his accounts was used to post that, but I think it was "killing BSD".

[kebabbert]

The thread was deleted shortly after he posted that and I reported it. This pathetic person accused the OpenBSD developers to be the Boston bombers.
Sadly, I don't remember which of his accounts was used to post that, but I think it was "killing BSD".

No, you must be kidding? Did he really accused the Boston bombers to be OpenBSD developers?? He must be more deluded than I thought...