←back to thread

222 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.198s | source
Show context
betaby ◴[] No.45076609[source]
The sad part, that despite the years of the development BTRS never reached the parity with ZFS. And yesterday's news "Josef Bacik who is a long-time Btrfs developer and active co-maintainer alongside David Sterba is leaving Meta. Additionally, he's also stepping back from Linux kernel development as his primary job." see https://www.phoronix.com/news/Josef-Bacik-Leaves-Meta

There is no 'modern' ZFS-like fs in Linux nowadays.

replies(4): >>45076793 #>>45076833 #>>45078150 #>>45080011 #
tw04 ◴[] No.45080011[source]
There's literally ZFS-on-linux and it works great. And yes, I will once again say Linus is completely wrong about ZFS and the multiple times he's spoken about it, it's abundantly clear he's never used it or bothered to spend any time researching its features and functionality.

https://zfsonlinux.org/

replies(5): >>45080040 #>>45080220 #>>45081040 #>>45082703 #>>45084105 #
evanjrowley ◴[] No.45080040[source]
Sometimes I wonder how someone so talented could be so wrong about ZFS, and it makes me wonder if his negative responses to ZFS discussions could be a way of creating plausible deniability in case Oracle's lawyers ever learn how to spell ZFS.
replies(4): >>45080084 #>>45082153 #>>45082326 #>>45083316 #
1. p_l ◴[] No.45082326[source]
Oracle lawyers know how to spell ZFS.

But Sun ensured that they can only gnash their teeth.

The source of "license incompatibility" btw is the same as from using GPLv3 code in kernel - CDDL adds an extra restriction in form of patent protections (just like Apache 2)