Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Mar 2013 23:45 UTC
Linux "Today the ZFS on Linux project reached an important milestone with the official 0.6.1 release! Over two years of use by real users has convinced us ZoL is ready for wide scale deployment on everything from desktops to super computers."
Thread beginning with comment 557185
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The license wasn't an engineers choice.

I didn't say it was the engineers choice. What I said was that the engineers pushed for a GPL incompatible license. Part of the reason CDDL was written in the way it was, was because the idea of Suns work being ripped out of OpenSolaris and pasted directly into Linux really grated with quite a number of Sun engineers. So they pushed for CDDL to be GPL incompatible. Obviously the decision still lay with upper management.

To give you an idea of what the engineers were thinking, here is a video:

Thanks, but I'm well versed in that already. In fact I've ran various different OpenSolaris OSs on production systems (as well as vanilla Solaris).

What the Sun developers created was awesome, but to be honest I think most people think OpenSolaris, euh Illumos is dead or gonna die so people are afraid to invest their time in it or bet the business on.

1stly, I hate people who claim that "open source project x is dead" just because they personally are disinterested in it. So long as a project has a community, then it's not dead. OpenSolaris still has a community and there's still spin off projects forking from it (SmartOS being one of the more interesting ones to watch).

In fact I've lost count of the number of times people have stated a *nix is dead when it still has a cult following: Plan 9, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Hurd. I've heard people make dumb claims about every single one of them.

2ndly, plenty of business do invest in OpenSolaris-based solutions: Nexenta being just one example.

But this is a bit of strange discussion to have, I've only had these discussions about Windows in the past ;-)

I'm not sure I follow. But in any case, my point was that as great as Linux is, it's not the be-all and end-all of unix-like / POSIX systems. There are times when it pays to use other platforms; for me when I need a file server, ZFS becomes one of those reasons that a non-Linux solution is preferable as I just don't like Btrfs one bit.

Edited 2013-03-30 23:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Lennie Member since:

"What I said was that the engineers pushed for a GPL incompatible license."

"Thanks, but I'm well versed in that already."

I don't think the _engineers_ _pushed_ for that:

Reply Parent Score: 3

Laurence Member since:

I guess that would depend on who you speak to. Danese Cooper, who worked as an open source evangelist for Sun, has stated that many engineers did push for a GPL incompatible license.

Obviously there'd be other reasons behind such a decision (unlike you, I'm not claiming an either/or argument) and obviously those leading public talks would dismiss the whole "GPL incompatible" argument because it's simply bad PR. So you're clearly going to find plenty of sources that cite other reasons for how CDDL turned out the way it had. But those points aren't mutually exclusive from what I've been saying either; the idea of Sun's code being copied verbatim into Linux wasn't a favorable amongst Sun engineers. It really wasn't and thus many engineers did push for CDDL to be GPL incompatible.

Reply Parent Score: 2