16 ms·

Sweet! Next stop, Microsoft should get officially have ZFS running on Windows (There is a port of it already) There is some sort of a bitterness in the Linux c

by vkaku 8y ago

Sweet! Next stop, Microsoft should get officially have ZFS running on Windows (There is a port of it already) There is some sort of a bitterness in the Linux community when people talk about ZFS or DTrace. But it's the consumer who is affected by it. For their sake, I hope they don't take the 'We have BtrFS/eBPF/X' path.

qalmakka 8y ago
This. They really need a newer, more modern filesystem, especially since Apple has done away with HFS+ and has introduced APFS. ReFS is really dead in the water, and ZFS would give them a powerful, battle-tested filesystem which they could use as a real selling point for Windows Server. Also things such as Windows updates and system restore would benefit a lot from ZFS's native snapshotting capabilities. Merging DTrace implicitly means they are fine with both the CDDL and Oracle's patents, and thus that ZFS wouldn't be an issue for them.
- vbernat 8y ago
  DTrace has switched to GPL for the kernel part (see https://oss.oracle.com/projects/DTrace/ https://oss.oracle.com/projects/DTrace/).
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    From that page, it looks like dtrace is GPL for the entire linux port.
    - ezannoni 8y ago
      Hi, Yes, it's GPL (and we got rid of the separate kernel module). The utils portion is UPL. It's available with new kernels (including 5.0) on github as well. https://github.com/oracle/dtrace-utils https://github.com/oracle/dtrace-utils https://github.com/oracle/libdtrace-ctf https://github.com/oracle/libdtrace-ctf https://github.com/ezannoni/dtrace-linux-kernel https://github.com/ezannoni/dtrace-linux-kernel We are working on a Fedora version of the kernel patches. We are also discussing with the BPF team (on netdev) how to provide DTrace functionality integrated with the Linux Kernel.
  - simcop2387 8y ago
    Neat, I hadn't heard about that before. Wonder how much that will affect adoption in the linux world.
  - hs86 8y ago
    They imported DTrace from FreeBSD which is still CDDL licensed.
- fetbaffe 8y ago
  Microsoft has already developt ReFS for this, however I don't know the adaption rate of ReFS on Windows servers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS
- Neil44 8y ago
  Adopting ZFS would take away from Storage Spaces, So sadly I don’t see it happening.
  - delfinom 8y ago
    Storage Spaces would just build around ZFS?
    - Neil44 8y ago
      Theres just such duplication of functionality I don't see them bothering.
  - qalmakka 8y ago
    What's the advantage of storage spaces compared with a software RAID solution such as ZFS's RAIDZ?
- otterley 8y ago
  NTFS is in some ways arguably still more advanced than ZFS: think reparse points, alternate streams, transactions, BitLocker integration, and shrinkable volumes, to name a few. Also, NTFS already has snapshots via Volume Shadow Copy. ZFS is great but it’s not going to be a viable replacement as it exists today.
  - setquk 8y ago
    Not a lot of this matters in the real world. The real shame is the shitty small file performance due to MFT contention on NTFS.
    - otterley 8y ago
      It absolutely matters: a fair amount of software, both enterprise and consumer, already uses these features. Malware detection, for example, makes heavy use of reparse points.
      - blattimwind 8y ago
        Windows Update and Windows Installer use NTFS transactions.
        setquk 8y ago
        From Microsoft's documentation: Microsoft strongly recommends developers utilize alternative means to achieve your application s needs. Many scenarios that TxF was developed for can be achieved through simpler and more readily available techniques. Furthermore, TxF may not be available in future versions of Microsoft Windows. For more information, and alternatives to TxF, please see Alternatives to using Transactional NTFS. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/fileio/about-transactional-ntfs https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/fileio/abou...
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        I'm pretty convinced that documentation is BS. I could be wrong I guess, but I honestly don't see them removing TxF anytime soon. They didn't exactly build their business on breaking backwards-compatibility of APIs.
- fxfan 8y ago
  Wait- how do you find NTFS underpowered? You make vague claims offering nothing of substance.
  - Macha 8y ago
    My experience is that NTFS is quite slow compared to ext4 on my machine (both via Windows and via ntfs-3g). Particularly for operations around large numbers of small files like moving/deleting a .git directory.
    - j16sdiz 8y ago
      Core NTFS is fast. When you feel slow, it is the abstraction layers and plugable interfaces above it. - and they are API. Replacing the core won't help the performance. They need to remove some abstraction and break some application.
  - qalmakka 8y ago
    NTFS holds up quite well when compared with more "traditional" filesystems such as XFS, ext4 and UFS (except the choppy I/O performance, but as someone else said above it might be more of an issue of the subsystems above it); it has much more functionality of almost anyone of those I mentioned above (for instance, I really don't understand why so few filesystems support transparent compression). I think that filesystems like ZFS and Btrfs are simply one step ahead than anything else, not only in features but also in tooling and UX. Send/receive, CoW snapshots, checksumming are all tremendous features that I think would fit fantastically into the Windows workflow, if Microsoft really managed to integrate them well. For instance, I think a ZFS-based Windows update would be able to do away with transactions and rely instead on datasets to snapshot the system, apply an update and rollback everything if something broke, exposing to power users the tools to clearly understand and rollback their systems themselves by hand. Obviously all of this can be achieved by rewriting everything from scratch as in house, specific platforms, but I just feel that continuing to replicate in NTFS/ReFS features other open and widely supported filesystems have had for almost a decade is just not the best way forward, and it's not really better for anyone.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mixedCase 8y ago
  bcachefs is profiling itself to finally up the Linux file system game. It doesn't look like it will be upstreamed this year, but it appears to be usable and it's being done by someone who really seems to understand file systems and knows of the trade-offs different FS have made and how they played out.
- johannes1234321 8y ago
  > Merging DTrace implicitly means they are fine with both the CDDL and Oracle's patents, and thus that ZFS wouldn't be an issue for them. Mind that DTrace was ported by Oracle (at least partially) to Oracle Linux first. They haven't done that for ZFS (instead they created bttrfs, before owning Sun)
- Sylamore 8y ago
  I wouldn't say that ReFS is dead in the water, I just think they shifted the focus to supporting virtualization features first to enable S2D/SDN. ReFS is still being developed and enhanced, the work is mostly in server SKU: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs/refs-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs...
bibyte 8y ago
> For their sake, I hope they don't take the 'We have BtrFS/eBPF/X' path. To my eyes at least they are pretty much helpless to do anything about it because of the licences. Do you have any ideas as to how they could work around the licencing issues ? Edit: I am talking about Linux not Windows.
- saghm 8y ago
  Not suggesting this should actually be done by other distros, but from what I understand, Ubuntu basically just ignored the license and included it anyways
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    They didn't ignore the license; they looked at it, and concluded that ZFS wasn't a derivative work of Linux and therefore it was safe to run CDDL modules on a GPL kernel. There is some disagreement as to whether this is actually valid, but it's no blatant disregard.
    - yourbandsucks 8y ago
      Honest question, who could claim to be damaged by someone running ZFS on linux? The closest I can get is 'unlicensed derivative work' regarding implementing a struct of function pointers, which is really contentious and unsettled (oracle v google, APIs copyrightable, etc). I'm not a lawyer or anything close, but who would possibly have standing and motive to sue? There's, what, a dozen people at most who have copyright on those struct definitions? And API copyrightability is still unsettled? Maybe the lawyers were too conservative, and the engineers who listened to them were applying the wrong model? Someone tell me why I'm wrong.
- jen20 8y ago
  The licensing issue for Windows is different to Linux. ZFS as released by Sun was under the CDDL. The source of incompatibility with ZFS and DTrace on Linux (until recently) was from the GPL, not from the CDDL. Windows (and, indeed MacOS - which has shipped DTrace for years), have no such restriction - the CDDL allows inclusion in larger proprietary works.
anth_anm 8y ago
Apparently NTFS is too integrated to replace it.
devchix 8y ago
Heh, think about the bitterness in the OpenSolaris community (and the Sun diaspora). Way way back in S10, ZFS, DTrace, zones, and this other weird creature called SMF, they were all going places!
AsyncAwait 8y ago
Sun decided a long time ago it does not want it to be part of Linux, as per its license. It's not us being bitter, I just don't understand why we should get out of our way to accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be on Linux. Personally, I'd rather see more resources poured into bcachefs[1]. 1 - https://bcachefs.org https://bcachefs.org
- throw0101a 8y ago
  > Sun decided a long time ago it does not want it to be part of Linux, as per its license. [citation needed] Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, has stated this is not the case: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#GPL_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... The only person who has made this claim is Danese Cooper, and she has been directly contradicted by her boss at the time (Phipps). (Improving bcachefs, or whatever, is independent of the CDDL question.)
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, has stated this is not the case: Of course he did. There's nothing to gain from admitting it. It's the sort of statement akin to 'Facebook deeply values your privacy', as in of course they're going to say that. On the other hand, submitting the license to the OSI, but not the FSF to be consulted on compatibility before using it suggests otherwise.
    - throw0101a 8y ago
      Per Phipps in September 2006, a few months after DebConf (July 2006): """ > > It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on > the CDDL > issues. Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she claims. She, along with many actual engineers, was an advocate of using GPL for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance removal} meant that this was not possible. I am still furious with her for the statement she made at DebConf, which was spiteful and an obstacle to a united FOSS movement. """ * https://marc.info/?l=opensolaris-discuss&m=115740406507420 https://marc.info/?l=opensolaris-discuss&m=115740406507420 Cooper is, AFAICT, the only one that made the claim: was it ever corroborated by anyone else? Phipps and Cantrill dispute it: are/were there others? Edit: it seems that not even GPLv3 (which they considered) is not compatible with GPLv2 (which Linux uses), so even if they did that it would be a problem. One main thing (IIRC) that was of concern was patent license grants.
snvzz 8y ago
The only reason Linux doesn't have Dtrace is because NiH. Same as with kqueue vs epoll and so on.
seotut2 8y ago
I don't understand this attitude. Why the love for Microsoft, after all the abuse it's shown towards other players in the OS market, all the monopolistic behavior, all the ... There have been better, cleaner, leaner, FOSS operating systems out there for decades, why support, or even give mindshare to something like Windows?
- Krasnol 8y ago
  Because here in reality Windows is still everywhere and it seems to stay for quite some time. So why not being happy that it's being improved? Also: https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.t...
  - magduf 8y ago
    These "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" articles are mostly BS, and just keep repeating the same, tired garbage arguments. I'll refute a few points: Notice that a lot of this one is about NVIDIA. The solution is simple: don't use it. Desktop Linux works great on Intel and AMD, where the driver support is excellent. NVIDIA isn't the only GPU vendor out there. Printers work much better in Linux than in Windows, and it's been this way for a very long time. The exception is cheap, crappy inkjets. Solution: don't use cheap, crappy inkjets. Inkjets are a scam. Games are always on this list. I don't care about games. Many of the other points in your list are completely obsolete. For business use, most of these factors are a non-issue. Being able to play AAA games is not important for a business computer, nor for many (most?) home computers. I know gamers can't conceive of this, but not everyone plays recent AAA video games.
    - Krasnol 8y ago
      So to wrap this up, your solutions are: - spend more money - I don't care about it - something undefined is obsolete - ignoring that most business runs on MS products and compatibility issues are a thing This attitude is one reason that was not on the list. It's one that one should not forget though as it hits hard for those who are determined to make it work. They found themselves confronted by a self centered community of semi-gods who think the world should arrange around what they assume it is.
blablabla123 8y ago
Yes remembering this makes me think twice to switch over to Linux again from macOS. On the other hand Windows, BSD and Solaris run on far less devices...
glasslion 8y ago
What about an official package management tool first

by vkaku 8y ago

qalmakka 8y ago

This. They really need a newer, more modern filesystem, especially since Apple has done away with HFS+ and has introduced APFS. ReFS is really dead in the water, and ZFS would give them a powerful, battle-tested filesystem which they could use as a real selling point for Windows Server. Also things such as Windows updates and system restore would benefit a lot from ZFS's native snapshotting capabilities. Merging DTrace implicitly means they are fine with both the CDDL and Oracle's patents, and thus that ZFS wouldn't be an issue for them.

vbernat 8y ago
DTrace has switched to GPL for the kernel part (see https://oss.oracle.com/projects/DTrace/ https://oss.oracle.com/projects/DTrace/).
- lallysingh 8y ago
  From that page, it looks like dtrace is GPL for the entire linux port.
  - ezannoni 8y ago
    Hi, Yes, it's GPL (and we got rid of the separate kernel module). The utils portion is UPL. It's available with new kernels (including 5.0) on github as well. https://github.com/oracle/dtrace-utils https://github.com/oracle/dtrace-utils https://github.com/oracle/libdtrace-ctf https://github.com/oracle/libdtrace-ctf https://github.com/ezannoni/dtrace-linux-kernel https://github.com/ezannoni/dtrace-linux-kernel We are working on a Fedora version of the kernel patches. We are also discussing with the BPF team (on netdev) how to provide DTrace functionality integrated with the Linux Kernel.
- simcop2387 8y ago
  Neat, I hadn't heard about that before. Wonder how much that will affect adoption in the linux world.
- hs86 8y ago
  They imported DTrace from FreeBSD which is still CDDL licensed.
fetbaffe 8y ago
Microsoft has already developt ReFS for this, however I don't know the adaption rate of ReFS on Windows servers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS
Neil44 8y ago
Adopting ZFS would take away from Storage Spaces, So sadly I don’t see it happening.
- delfinom 8y ago
  Storage Spaces would just build around ZFS?
  - Neil44 8y ago
    Theres just such duplication of functionality I don't see them bothering.
- qalmakka 8y ago
  What's the advantage of storage spaces compared with a software RAID solution such as ZFS's RAIDZ?
otterley 8y ago
NTFS is in some ways arguably still more advanced than ZFS: think reparse points, alternate streams, transactions, BitLocker integration, and shrinkable volumes, to name a few. Also, NTFS already has snapshots via Volume Shadow Copy. ZFS is great but it’s not going to be a viable replacement as it exists today.
- setquk 8y ago
  Not a lot of this matters in the real world. The real shame is the shitty small file performance due to MFT contention on NTFS.
  - otterley 8y ago
    It absolutely matters: a fair amount of software, both enterprise and consumer, already uses these features. Malware detection, for example, makes heavy use of reparse points.
    - blattimwind 8y ago
      Windows Update and Windows Installer use NTFS transactions.
      - setquk 8y ago
        From Microsoft's documentation: Microsoft strongly recommends developers utilize alternative means to achieve your application s needs. Many scenarios that TxF was developed for can be achieved through simpler and more readily available techniques. Furthermore, TxF may not be available in future versions of Microsoft Windows. For more information, and alternatives to TxF, please see Alternatives to using Transactional NTFS. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/fileio/about-transactional-ntfs https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/fileio/abou...
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        I'm pretty convinced that documentation is BS. I could be wrong I guess, but I honestly don't see them removing TxF anytime soon. They didn't exactly build their business on breaking backwards-compatibility of APIs.
fxfan 8y ago
Wait- how do you find NTFS underpowered? You make vague claims offering nothing of substance.
- Macha 8y ago
  My experience is that NTFS is quite slow compared to ext4 on my machine (both via Windows and via ntfs-3g). Particularly for operations around large numbers of small files like moving/deleting a .git directory.
  - j16sdiz 8y ago
    Core NTFS is fast. When you feel slow, it is the abstraction layers and plugable interfaces above it. - and they are API. Replacing the core won't help the performance. They need to remove some abstraction and break some application.
- qalmakka 8y ago
  NTFS holds up quite well when compared with more "traditional" filesystems such as XFS, ext4 and UFS (except the choppy I/O performance, but as someone else said above it might be more of an issue of the subsystems above it); it has much more functionality of almost anyone of those I mentioned above (for instance, I really don't understand why so few filesystems support transparent compression). I think that filesystems like ZFS and Btrfs are simply one step ahead than anything else, not only in features but also in tooling and UX. Send/receive, CoW snapshots, checksumming are all tremendous features that I think would fit fantastically into the Windows workflow, if Microsoft really managed to integrate them well. For instance, I think a ZFS-based Windows update would be able to do away with transactions and rely instead on datasets to snapshot the system, apply an update and rollback everything if something broke, exposing to power users the tools to clearly understand and rollback their systems themselves by hand. Obviously all of this can be achieved by rewriting everything from scratch as in house, specific platforms, but I just feel that continuing to replicate in NTFS/ReFS features other open and widely supported filesystems have had for almost a decade is just not the best way forward, and it's not really better for anyone.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mixedCase 8y ago
bcachefs is profiling itself to finally up the Linux file system game. It doesn't look like it will be upstreamed this year, but it appears to be usable and it's being done by someone who really seems to understand file systems and knows of the trade-offs different FS have made and how they played out.
johannes1234321 8y ago
> Merging DTrace implicitly means they are fine with both the CDDL and Oracle's patents, and thus that ZFS wouldn't be an issue for them. Mind that DTrace was ported by Oracle (at least partially) to Oracle Linux first. They haven't done that for ZFS (instead they created bttrfs, before owning Sun)
Sylamore 8y ago
I wouldn't say that ReFS is dead in the water, I just think they shifted the focus to supporting virtualization features first to enable S2D/SDN. ReFS is still being developed and enhanced, the work is mostly in server SKU: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs/refs-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs...

bibyte 8y ago

> For their sake, I hope they don't take the 'We have BtrFS/eBPF/X' path. To my eyes at least they are pretty much helpless to do anything about it because of the licences. Do you have any ideas as to how they could work around the licencing issues ? Edit: I am talking about Linux not Windows.

saghm 8y ago
Not suggesting this should actually be done by other distros, but from what I understand, Ubuntu basically just ignored the license and included it anyways
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  They didn't ignore the license; they looked at it, and concluded that ZFS wasn't a derivative work of Linux and therefore it was safe to run CDDL modules on a GPL kernel. There is some disagreement as to whether this is actually valid, but it's no blatant disregard.
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    Honest question, who could claim to be damaged by someone running ZFS on linux? The closest I can get is 'unlicensed derivative work' regarding implementing a struct of function pointers, which is really contentious and unsettled (oracle v google, APIs copyrightable, etc). I'm not a lawyer or anything close, but who would possibly have standing and motive to sue? There's, what, a dozen people at most who have copyright on those struct definitions? And API copyrightability is still unsettled? Maybe the lawyers were too conservative, and the engineers who listened to them were applying the wrong model? Someone tell me why I'm wrong.
jen20 8y ago
The licensing issue for Windows is different to Linux. ZFS as released by Sun was under the CDDL. The source of incompatibility with ZFS and DTrace on Linux (until recently) was from the GPL, not from the CDDL. Windows (and, indeed MacOS - which has shipped DTrace for years), have no such restriction - the CDDL allows inclusion in larger proprietary works.

anth_anm 8y ago

Apparently NTFS is too integrated to replace it.

devchix 8y ago

Heh, think about the bitterness in the OpenSolaris community (and the Sun diaspora). Way way back in S10, ZFS, DTrace, zones, and this other weird creature called SMF, they were all going places!

AsyncAwait 8y ago

Sun decided a long time ago it does not want it to be part of Linux, as per its license. It's not us being bitter, I just don't understand why we should get out of our way to accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be on Linux. Personally, I'd rather see more resources poured into bcachefs[1]. 1 - https://bcachefs.org https://bcachefs.org

throw0101a 8y ago
> Sun decided a long time ago it does not want it to be part of Linux, as per its license. [citation needed] Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, has stated this is not the case: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#GPL_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... The only person who has made this claim is Danese Cooper, and she has been directly contradicted by her boss at the time (Phipps). (Improving bcachefs, or whatever, is independent of the CDDL question.)
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, has stated this is not the case: Of course he did. There's nothing to gain from admitting it. It's the sort of statement akin to 'Facebook deeply values your privacy', as in of course they're going to say that. On the other hand, submitting the license to the OSI, but not the FSF to be consulted on compatibility before using it suggests otherwise.
  - throw0101a 8y ago
    Per Phipps in September 2006, a few months after DebConf (July 2006): """ > > It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on > the CDDL > issues. Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she claims. She, along with many actual engineers, was an advocate of using GPL for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance removal} meant that this was not possible. I am still furious with her for the statement she made at DebConf, which was spiteful and an obstacle to a united FOSS movement. """ * https://marc.info/?l=opensolaris-discuss&m=115740406507420 https://marc.info/?l=opensolaris-discuss&m=115740406507420 Cooper is, AFAICT, the only one that made the claim: was it ever corroborated by anyone else? Phipps and Cantrill dispute it: are/were there others? Edit: it seems that not even GPLv3 (which they considered) is not compatible with GPLv2 (which Linux uses), so even if they did that it would be a problem. One main thing (IIRC) that was of concern was patent license grants.

snvzz 8y ago

The only reason Linux doesn't have Dtrace is because NiH. Same as with kqueue vs epoll and so on.

seotut2 8y ago

I don't understand this attitude. Why the love for Microsoft, after all the abuse it's shown towards other players in the OS market, all the monopolistic behavior, all the ... There have been better, cleaner, leaner, FOSS operating systems out there for decades, why support, or even give mindshare to something like Windows?

Krasnol 8y ago
Because here in reality Windows is still everywhere and it seems to stay for quite some time. So why not being happy that it's being improved? Also: https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.t...
- magduf 8y ago
  These "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" articles are mostly BS, and just keep repeating the same, tired garbage arguments. I'll refute a few points: Notice that a lot of this one is about NVIDIA. The solution is simple: don't use it. Desktop Linux works great on Intel and AMD, where the driver support is excellent. NVIDIA isn't the only GPU vendor out there. Printers work much better in Linux than in Windows, and it's been this way for a very long time. The exception is cheap, crappy inkjets. Solution: don't use cheap, crappy inkjets. Inkjets are a scam. Games are always on this list. I don't care about games. Many of the other points in your list are completely obsolete. For business use, most of these factors are a non-issue. Being able to play AAA games is not important for a business computer, nor for many (most?) home computers. I know gamers can't conceive of this, but not everyone plays recent AAA video games.
  - Krasnol 8y ago
    So to wrap this up, your solutions are: - spend more money - I don't care about it - something undefined is obsolete - ignoring that most business runs on MS products and compatibility issues are a thing This attitude is one reason that was not on the list. It's one that one should not forget though as it hits hard for those who are determined to make it work. They found themselves confronted by a self centered community of semi-gods who think the world should arrange around what they assume it is.

blablabla123 8y ago

Yes remembering this makes me think twice to switch over to Linux again from macOS. On the other hand Windows, BSD and Solaris run on far less devices...

glasslion 8y ago

What about an official package management tool first