In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:42:49 +0100
<6366413.joIO9mEPrg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> ____/ Jerry McBride on Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:25 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Kernel space: two new filesystems for Linux
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | New filesystem technology for Linux includes high capacity,
>>> | snapshots, copy-on-write, and on-the-fly corruption detection.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://apcmag.com/6468/zfs_the_ultimate_filesystem
>>>
>>
>> Roy,
>>
>> ZFS is a proprietary file system OWNED by SUN. It is not licensed under the
>> GPL and therefore is not a good thing to run on Linux.
>>
>> Please, stop advocating ZFS. At least until SUN comes to their senses and
>> releases the ZFS source under the GPL.
>
> I consistently write about why Linux does /not/ need ZFS. Where have I ever
> advocated it?
>
I for one would think of ZFS as a "nice to have". However,
it will have to compete in the filesystem space with the
likes of:
- ext2: old, venerable, still reliable; a little slow on rebooting
if something goes wrong.
- ext3: ext2+journaling, which is a nice solution for many;
solves the slow fsck problem on reboot-after-crash.
- reiserfs: I like it and it has good performance, though it may
have some issues according to yttrx.
- jfs: IBM offering. I've not fiddled with it much lately.
- vfat: Anyone silly enough to run Linux on this will probably
need to have a good reason why, though it might be good for
testing some behaviors on certain apps.
- ntfs: Ditto.
ZFS will of course taint the kernel from a licensing standpoint.
Caveat emptor.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature: Not a text file
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|