4 ms·

Yes, the only incompatibility arises upon distribution of binary files compiled from both ZFS sources and Linux sources. As of version 15.10, Ubuntu already pro

Yes, the only incompatibility arises upon distribution of binary files compiled from both ZFS sources and Linux sources. As of version 15.10, Ubuntu already provides for downloading and compiling the ZFS sources using dkms[1]. However, binary distribution is unquestionably more convenient. Source distribution requires installation of a compiler, which may not be desirable in all environments. For example, in a Live CD linux installer, where space is at a premium, enabling installation onto a ZFS filesystem would require the ZFS sources, the appropriate Linux headers, and a compiler to build the ZFS kernel module all to be included on the disc, instead of just the binary module. [1]: http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=zfs-dkms http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=zfs-dkms

mixedCase 11y ago
The solution seems quite obvious to me in the case of the live cd: Don't ship ZFS on it. The overwhelming majority of users reliant on a CD-ROM drive to install a distro do not need nor want ZFS on their system.
- feld 11y ago
  Are you serious? You're not serious. Are you? What?
- rcthompson 11y ago
  I disagree. As one example, Apple ships Time Machine with their OS. With ZFS you could theoretically implement the same thing only better. Automatic snapshots enabled by default, with optional replication to an external hard drive for backup, could easily be a headline feature for a new version of Ubuntu. Not to mention ZFS compression enabled by default to get more use out of tiny laptop SSDs. Certainly not everyone needs it, but I think there's a definite use case for ZFS (or btrfs, or any similar filesystem) on an ordinary desktop system, even if the user doesn't know what ZFS is.
  - mioelnir 11y ago
    Not theoretically, since it has been done. It is called LifePreserver and originated with PC-BSD years ago; thus available on FreeBSD an FreeNAS as well. I will have a good laugh if Ubuntu is porting it over as a "headline feature".
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    > With ZFS you could theoretically implement the same thing only better. OpenSolaris had that as part of its Gnome file manager. It's even open source.
ryao 11y ago
The attorneys advising members of the ZoL project and various ZoL users have consistently said that redistributing binaries is alright. The only reason few of us do it is because there are just too many binary kernel builds to reasonably support via published binaries.

mixedCase 11y ago

The solution seems quite obvious to me in the case of the live cd: Don't ship ZFS on it. The overwhelming majority of users reliant on a CD-ROM drive to install a distro do not need nor want ZFS on their system.

feld 11y ago
Are you serious? You're not serious. Are you? What?
rcthompson 11y ago
I disagree. As one example, Apple ships Time Machine with their OS. With ZFS you could theoretically implement the same thing only better. Automatic snapshots enabled by default, with optional replication to an external hard drive for backup, could easily be a headline feature for a new version of Ubuntu. Not to mention ZFS compression enabled by default to get more use out of tiny laptop SSDs. Certainly not everyone needs it, but I think there's a definite use case for ZFS (or btrfs, or any similar filesystem) on an ordinary desktop system, even if the user doesn't know what ZFS is.
- mioelnir 11y ago
  Not theoretically, since it has been done. It is called LifePreserver and originated with PC-BSD years ago; thus available on FreeBSD an FreeNAS as well. I will have a good laugh if Ubuntu is porting it over as a "headline feature".
- rbanffy 11y ago
  > With ZFS you could theoretically implement the same thing only better. OpenSolaris had that as part of its Gnome file manager. It's even open source.

ryao 11y ago

The attorneys advising members of the ZoL project and various ZoL users have consistently said that redistributing binaries is alright. The only reason few of us do it is because there are just too many binary kernel builds to reasonably support via published binaries.