4 ms·

> ZFS has first-class support on Ubuntu and is compiled into the kernel. And Ubuntu is also the only distribution which has ZFS. Using ZFS on any other distrib

> ZFS has first-class support on Ubuntu and is compiled into the kernel. And Ubuntu is also the only distribution which has ZFS. Using ZFS on any other distribution (for example RHEL, Rocky Linux, etc.) is a pain. Every update is Russian roulette in which it can break. And everyone except Ubutunu thinks it's a violation of the CDDL. Keep in mind that Oracle is the copyright holder of ZFS. So you (and Ubuntu) are violating Oracle's license terms. Would be realy interesting to see what happens if Oracle decides to sue an Ubuntu user. Would Ubuntu step in to help? > There's also real DTrace on Oracle Linux if you're ready to sell your soul: I can't run Ubuntu (for ZFS) and Oracle Linux (for DTrace) at the same time. Besides, like you said; Why would anyone want to use Oracle's Unbreakable Linux? > Well... linux has containers, and if all you need is isolation... No that's not all I need. I need things like virtual networking between my containers. > I actually think it's worse in this regard because of the link above. Depends. If you put them in a FreeBSD jail they are probably better isolated then only using systemd.

djbusby 4y ago
It's not "only Ubuntu". I'm using ZFS (not for boot or root partition) on Gentoo for some time. It's a separate package from kernel, and has to rebuild after a kernel upgrade but it works as expected.
- presto8 4y ago
  To add another anecdote: I use ZFS on NixOS for all of my partitions, including an encrypted boot partition. It has been rock solid for me.
  - spindle 4y ago
    Not only rock solid but also very easy!
jen20 4y ago
> Keep in mind that Oracle is the copyright holder of ZFS. So you (and Ubuntu) are violating Oracle's license terms. If anything IS a problem here it is violating the terms of the GPL, not the CDDL. So no, no one is violating Oracles licensing terms - and if they were, they’d have been sued in 2016 when this shipped. Do you really think ORACLE of all people is just holding back out the goodness of their hearts? Complete FUD.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > If anything IS a problem here it is violating the terms of the GPL, not the CDDL. How so? Aren't the GPL and CDDL both copyleft? > So no, no one is violating Oracles licensing terms - and if they were, they’d have been sued in 2016 when this shipped. Do you really think ORACLE of all people is just holding back out the goodness of their hearts? No, Oracle is holding back because they want more money. If they sue a little guy now, then everyone else will immediately stop using ZFS-on-Linux. They're waiting until someone with really deep pockets starts to use it before they sue.
  - trasz 4y ago
    >How so? Aren't the GPL and CDDL both copyleft? They are, but GPL is (tl;dr) incompatible with anything that's not a subset of GPL. That's because GPL is viral, and CDDL isn't. And that's why in the Open Source world you can't get license incompatibility without throwing GPL in the mix. So, yeah, it's GPL that's possibly being violated; CDDL is fine with whatever license there is. Oracle could sue you if they relicensed ZFS under GPL, but can't with CDDL because of implicit protection CDDL contains.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Isn't the whole reason that the CDDL is a problem that it is viral too? Otherwise you could just distribute the whole bundle of ZFS+Linux as GPL and be fine.
      - trasz 4y ago
        It's not, CDDL explicitly states it doesn't apply to non-CDDL-ed source files. The problem is, GPL is claimed to be the other way around, so this would mean applying GPL to CDDL sources, and you can't do that, because CDDL gives you additional protections ("freedoms") GPL doesn't, and that's GPL-incompatible.
        josephcsible 4y ago

djbusby 4y ago

It's not "only Ubuntu". I'm using ZFS (not for boot or root partition) on Gentoo for some time. It's a separate package from kernel, and has to rebuild after a kernel upgrade but it works as expected.

presto8 4y ago
To add another anecdote: I use ZFS on NixOS for all of my partitions, including an encrypted boot partition. It has been rock solid for me.
- spindle 4y ago
  Not only rock solid but also very easy!

jen20 4y ago

> Keep in mind that Oracle is the copyright holder of ZFS. So you (and Ubuntu) are violating Oracle's license terms. If anything IS a problem here it is violating the terms of the GPL, not the CDDL. So no, no one is violating Oracles licensing terms - and if they were, they’d have been sued in 2016 when this shipped. Do you really think ORACLE of all people is just holding back out the goodness of their hearts? Complete FUD.

josephcsible 4y ago
> If anything IS a problem here it is violating the terms of the GPL, not the CDDL. How so? Aren't the GPL and CDDL both copyleft? > So no, no one is violating Oracles licensing terms - and if they were, they’d have been sued in 2016 when this shipped. Do you really think ORACLE of all people is just holding back out the goodness of their hearts? No, Oracle is holding back because they want more money. If they sue a little guy now, then everyone else will immediately stop using ZFS-on-Linux. They're waiting until someone with really deep pockets starts to use it before they sue.
- trasz 4y ago
  >How so? Aren't the GPL and CDDL both copyleft? They are, but GPL is (tl;dr) incompatible with anything that's not a subset of GPL. That's because GPL is viral, and CDDL isn't. And that's why in the Open Source world you can't get license incompatibility without throwing GPL in the mix. So, yeah, it's GPL that's possibly being violated; CDDL is fine with whatever license there is. Oracle could sue you if they relicensed ZFS under GPL, but can't with CDDL because of implicit protection CDDL contains.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Isn't the whole reason that the CDDL is a problem that it is viral too? Otherwise you could just distribute the whole bundle of ZFS+Linux as GPL and be fine.
    - trasz 4y ago
      It's not, CDDL explicitly states it doesn't apply to non-CDDL-ed source files. The problem is, GPL is claimed to be the other way around, so this would mean applying GPL to CDDL sources, and you can't do that, because CDDL gives you additional protections ("freedoms") GPL doesn't, and that's GPL-incompatible.
      - josephcsible 4y ago