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".
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-03-01
But it is kinda weird that they are all for sharing code but yet they have a problem with giving back to diffenrent bsd licensed projects don't you think? Now who's the hypocrite?
problem is, the BSD license ( and BSD licensed projects) actually is about, unidirectional spreading of the code, as wide as possibile - with no contributing back required (of course it's welcome, but it's not mandated)
giving away the code for others to use it and integrate it ( or parts of it) in their own projects (relicensing is also possible) in order to it to be considered the reference implementation of what it represents (be it a specification, an algorithm, or a combination thereof, such as a "unix" variant) is an intended result
and it has to be that way, given the environment the BSD license was born (academic research, whose results were to be openly available)
otoh, the gpl requires code contributions in return - not only that, it requires the code to stay open, thus remaining "free" being protected from those menacing its "freedom"
bu that was meant to satisfy the first requirement of "free software" as a distributed development method ( apart from any social and ethical implication, that is ): to ensure that sw development is done cooperatively among peers, the SW is required to stay "free"
but then that SW is not intended as, and will hardly become, an industry standard reference implementation
closed source developers will have to develop their own (based on the BSD one, maybe), but that is often the goal in this case...
bottom line, given their respective goals and backgrounds, expecting the same from the GPL and the BSD ( or projects using oneof them) is not fair towards either ...
Member since:2006-10-06
problem is, the BSD license ( and BSD licensed projects) actually is about, unidirectional spreading of the code, as wide as possibile - with no contributing back required (of course it's welcome, but it's not mandated)
giving away the code for others to use it and integrate it ( or parts of it) in their own projects (relicensing is also possible) in order to it to be considered the reference implementation of what it represents (be it a specification, an algorithm, or a combination thereof, such as a "unix" variant) is an intended result
and it has to be that way, given the environment the BSD license was born (academic research, whose results were to be openly available)
otoh, the gpl requires code contributions in return - not only that, it requires the code to stay open, thus remaining "free" being protected from those menacing its "freedom"
bu that was meant to satisfy the first requirement of "free software" as a distributed development method ( apart from any social and ethical implication, that is ): to ensure that sw development is done cooperatively among peers, the SW is required to stay "free"
but then that SW is not intended as, and will hardly become, an industry standard reference implementation
closed source developers will have to develop their own (based on the BSD one, maybe), but that is often the goal in this case...
bottom line, given their respective goals and backgrounds, expecting the same from the GPL and the BSD ( or projects using oneof them) is not fair towards either ...
Nice post no imflamatory outburst i'll try to keep the same standard. But you failed to answer my question isnt it kinda backwards so to say that you are for sharing code and yet not doing it with the project you use code from?
I don't expect anything from either licens. I just asked who was the hypocrite when one side says take what you want and the other side says we are all for sharing code but only if we have to..?
Member since:
2006-10-06
But it's always interesting to see that some BSD-fanatics believe that everyone may take the code, modify it and don't give anything back EXCEPT the Linux-people, they are obviously not allowed to use BSD-code.
What a hypocrite.
Now i don't care about your bitch fight over which licens is the best but i must admit that i don't agree with you calling the bsdl camp hypocrites. Yes the bsdl allows people to take the code without giving back but the gpl people tell anyone who care and those who don't aswell that they are about sharing code. Thats all find they should be able to tell that to anyone. But it is kinda weird that they are all for sharing code but yet they have a problem with giving back to diffenrent bsd licensed projects don't you think? Now who's the hypocrite?