Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Fri 25th Jul 2008 16:08 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Daniel Phillips has announced the prototype design of a new linux filesystem (implementation has only begun). The most interesting thing seems to be a different way of implementing versioning: "Unlike the currently fashionable recursive copy on write designs with one tree root per version, Tux3 stores all its versioning information in the leaves of btrees using the versioned pointer algorithm. This method promises a significant shrinkage of metadata for heavily versioned filesystems as compared to ZFS and Btrfs".
Thread beginning with comment 324593
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Porting HAMMER fs from DragonFlyBSD to Linux
by renox on Fri 25th Jul 2008 20:27
in reply to "RE[2]: Porting HAMMER fs from DragonFlyBSD to Linux"
Member since:2005-07-06
This is entirely a function of the GPL licensing of Linux, and has nothing to do with the licensing of ZFS
I don't know what you've been drinking but it must be strong!
If ZFS was licensed with BSD 2 clause for example instead of CDDL, then there wouldn't have been any issue with reusing ZFS code inside the Linux kernel.
CDDL is GPL incompatible because Sun wanted to avoid the risk of having their code reused inside the Linux kernel.
The CDDL was written at a time when ~70% of opensource projects are under the GPL, yet it's GPL-incompatible and that's the fault of the GPL?
Bullshit!
You may dislike the GPL, but at least it was written to defend the liberty of the users, the CDDL was written to protect Sun from Free Software competition (Linux), barf!
RE[4]: Porting HAMMER fs from DragonFlyBSD to Linux
by Weeman on Fri 25th Jul 2008 21:08
in reply to "RE[3]: Porting HAMMER fs from DragonFlyBSD to Linux"
Member since:2006-03-20
You may dislike the GPL, but at least it was written to defend the liberty of the users, the CDDL was written to protect Sun from Free Software competition (Linux), barf!
CDDL is similar to the BSD license, except that it requires the original code to stay opened, while additions can be kept closed.
And why is everyone hailing BSD when it comes integrating external stuff? You GPL freaks are all about code communism, yet steal things from the BSD world and don't and can't give back because of your GPL.
RE[4]: Porting HAMMER fs from DragonFlyBSD to Linux
by fernandotcl on Fri 25th Jul 2008 21:18
in reply to "RE[3]: Porting HAMMER fs from DragonFlyBSD to Linux"
Member since:2007-08-12
"This is entirely a function of the GPL licensing of Linux, and has nothing to do with the licensing of ZFS
I don't know what you've been drinking but it must be strong! If ZFS was licensed with BSD 2 clause for example instead of CDDL, then there wouldn't have been any issue with reusing ZFS code inside the Linux kernel. CDDL is GPL incompatible because Sun wanted to avoid the risk of having their code reused inside the Linux kernel. The CDDL was written at a time when ~70% of opensource projects are under the GPL, yet it's GPL-incompatible and that's the fault of the GPL? Bullshit! You may dislike the GPL, but at least it was written to defend the liberty of the users, the CDDL was written to protect Sun from Free Software competition (Linux), barf! " I think the point is, the CDDL is not incompatible with the GPL, it's the GPL that is incompatible with the CDDL.
And an observation: the CDDL was written to protect Sun from Linux competition (allegedly), but the act of open sourcing their operating system should be considered a great thing by itself.
It seems to me that some people believe that Sun is inherently evil because they didn't choose the GPL. I guess it's a lose-lose situation. If you open up your sources, the community will criticize your license. If you keep your sources closed, the community will criticize your lack of acts that "defend the liberty of the users". Making money is evil, apparently.
Some people will keep whining and whining until they manage to make you go their way or give up and ignore them.
EDIT: Oh, and people seem to think that you can simply copy and paste Solaris code in Linux. Yea, it works just like that. Linux doesn't support RBAC? No problemo, just copy rbac.c over and run make.
Edited 2008-07-25 21:22 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-05-26
This is entirely a function of the GPL licensing of Linux, and has nothing to do with the licensing of ZFS: Apple is also working on ZFS as well, and there's no conflict there between whatever they're linking to that's proprietary and not released to the general public, and the rest of the code (BSD license, I believe).
Everything in life has a price: in the GPL license, you end up being restricted from using someone else's closed code because of an insistence on license purity, while with MIT/BSD the price you pay is there's no guarantee that you'll get any of the interesting changes, but you can use it (or anyone else) anywhere without a big deal. The question is: what are your goals, and what price are you willing and able to pay, because both licenses may have advantages to you, and also both may have advantages to you, all as a matter of context.