Linked by Rahul on Fri 31st Oct 2008 16:12 UTC
Linux InternetNews talks to developers and vendors about the rise of Btrfs as a successor to Ext4. Though Ext4 adds extents, Chris Mason, Btrfs developer noted that BTRFS adds a number of other features beyond that. Among those features are items like snapshotting, online file consistency checks and the ability to perform fast incremental backups. BTRFS (pronounced better FS) is currently under development in an effort led by Oracle engineer Chris Mason. With the support of Intel, Red Hat, HP, IBM, BTRFS could become the engine that brings next generation filesystem capabilities to Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 335916
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by 1c3d0g on Fri 31st Oct 2008 23:27 UTC in reply to "ZFS"
Member since:

Right on! It's exactly these things that make the Linux community look childish and ignorant of other proven technologies. Until they get over themselves and start implementing what their users (not only developers!) want, Linux will always remain a niche, at least in the desktop arena.

Then again, this happens to all O.S. to some degree. I still can't understand why Microsoft has taken a perfectly good-working TCP/IP stack from BSD and botched it up with inefficient, proprietary code and implemented that mess in Vista...

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: ZFS
by Rahul on Sat 1st Nov 2008 00:10 in reply to "RE: ZFS"
Rahul Member since:

ZFS is licensed under CDDL. This license is GPL incompatible and apparently deliberately designed to be so, because some of Sun folks were worried about losing their technology to Linux and some developers threatened to quit if their work was put under GPL (by far the most used foss license. refer ).

You can find a reference in this video linked from

Linux developers cannot possibly just take code and ignore the licensing incompatibility. So they are being prudent and implementing things from scratch in Linux taking advantage of existing Linux kernel API including the vfs and block layer. Yes, it is unfortunate that license incompatibility between free and open source software prevents it from being reused but when vendors do it deliberately, not much can be done about it

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[3]: ZFS
by TechGeek on Sat 1st Nov 2008 03:07 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS"
TechGeek Member since:

There is also the little question about who actually invented ZFS. Sun and NetApp are in a lawsuit over the patents on the file system right now. Even if Sun licensed ZFS as GPL, it would be pretty dumb to put it into the kernel until the legal questions are settled.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ZFS
by g2devi on Sat 1st Nov 2008 01:36 in reply to "RE: ZFS"
g2devi Member since:

But BTRFS developers *are* implementing what their users want. Look at all the companies involved. Linux has a different user base than Solaris and as such, have different priority. In the Solaris world, staying with the same OS version for 10 years is not unusual. In the Linux world, staying with the same OS version for 4 years is. Neither OS is wrong for its focus. They just fill different niches.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFS
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 1st Nov 2008 10:35 in reply to "RE: ZFS"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:

Just a note on Windows TCP/IP: It's not related to any BSD or other networking stack out there. There has never been any BSD code in the networking stack in any eternally released and commonly used versions of Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: ZFS
by Detlef Niehof on Sat 1st Nov 2008 11:34 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS"
Detlef Niehof Member since:

(...) There has never been any BSD code in the networking stack in any eternally released and commonly used versions of Windows.

Interesting information. I believe you mean "externally" instead of "eternally", right? Any idea how this myth (that Windows contained BSD networking code) came about?

Reply Parent Score: 1