Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

> Damn. I was enjoying not having to deal with the fun of ZFS and DKMS, but it seems like now bcachefs will be in the same boat, either dealing with DKMS and occasional breakage or sticking with the kernel version that slowly gets more and more out of date.

Your distro could very easily include bcachefs if it wishes? Although I think the ZFS + Linux situation is mostly Linux religiosity gone wild, that very particular problem doesn't exist re: bcachefs?

The problem with bcachefs is the problem with btrfs. It mostly still doesn't work to solve the problems ZFS already solves.

> Although I think the ZFS + Linux situation is mostly Linux religiosity gone wild

I can think of non-religious reasons to want to avoid legal fights with Oracle.

> Although I think the ZFS + Linux situation is mostly Linux religiosity gone wild,

I think the Linux Kernel just doesn't want to be potentially in violation of Oracle's copyrights. That really doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, even if it feels pointless to you.

>> I can think of non-religious reasons to want to avoid legal fights with Oracle.

Oh, certainly, but that's really not the problem posed right now. Oracle's own lawyers have said they see no problem with the combination, and Ubuntu has shipped the Linux + ZFS combination for years without a lawsuit.[0][1]

In the 1990s, Microsoft/SCO, like you, would also fear monger about open source and lawsuits, and we in the OSS community mostly called this "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). Whereas now, almost 10 years into this experiment, we know more about the ZFS + Linux combination, and what Oracle will do about it, than most other open questions in OSS, and the answer is that some in OSS community have chosen to instead participate in the same kind of FUD because of a very online, very uninformed internecine licensing debate.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMPjt_RgXA&t=2260s [1]: https://ubuntu.com/blog/zfs-is-the-fs-for-containers-in-ubun...