Re: Filesystems

[David Crosswell <david.crosswell2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 23 April 2011 20:06, John Marino <dragonflybsd@marino.st> wrote:

> This post has me so perplexed, I just have to explore further.
>

Hello John,

>
> On 4/23/2011 2:15 AM, David Crosswell wrote:
>
>> Yes, I understand that. I'm looking forward to doing something with
>> Hammer, but I've spoken to a couple of guys at the local Users group
>> who swear they'll never use anything else but ZFS
>>
> You are apparently talking about random people at some local club.


Yes, a 'NIX users group.


>  Why is their preference of filesystem impacting your intention to try out
> Hammer?


No, I didn't say anything like that.


>    What makes their opinion so special?


Because they are highly qualified. One is a professor of computer sciences
and runs the University BSD servers. with the help of his more advanced
students to give them a little cash in hand to keep them from starving to
death and give them real world experience.

>
>  - got it running on
>> FreeBSD and I looked at Dragonfly with UFS and Hammer and thought with
>> ZFS they'd have every scenario covered.
>>
>>  Who is "they"?  DragonFly community?
>

I can't, for the life of me, see any other party referred to in that
paragraph.

>
>  Linux is working to incorporate ZFS compatibility into the kernel,
>>
> No, "Linux" is not.  As long as ZFS has the CDDL license, it won't be
> incorporated into the kernel.


Yes, it will be.


>  People are working on putting ZFS in a module that users can manually load
> in to work around license issues.


Up until halfway through the 2,4 kernel, that's how it was done. If you
wanted ext3, for example, it was as a module, because only ext2 was compiled
in.


>  It's not a technical incompatibility, it's a license incompatibility for
> which there is no solution other than Oracle changing the ZFS license.
>

Ellison's not about to let anything go, because that's the way Ellison is.
The CDDL will stay as it is. It is compatible with the BSD licence however,
which is why it can be employed with Debian's KFreeBSD config., for example.

There's nothing wrong with loading it as a module. Debian isn't exactly in
the Microsoft patent heavy market scenario, but still supplies access to
contrib and non-free apps. What's so different here?

>
>  and
>> even with various filesystem developers looking at substantial jail
>> sentences for killing their wives, they've still got an over abundance
>> of filesystems.
>>
>

>  Again, why is Linux filesystem situation relevant to DragonFly?
>

I didn't say it was here.
I seem to have stated that Linux have an over abundance of them.