3 ms·
> I find it unfortunate that all the effort that has gone into ZFS as essentially a hobbyist copy-on-write filesystem didn't go into btrfs instead. don't some
by kobalsky 4y ago
> I find it unfortunate that all the effort that has gone into ZFS as essentially a hobbyist copy-on-write filesystem didn't go into btrfs instead.
don't some BSDs and Linux share the same code base for ZFS?
Last I heard FreeBSD switched to ZfsOnLinux as upstream a few years ago before it was merged with OpenZFS.
IMO calling it a hobbyist fs is a bit unfair.
- yakak 4y agoBeing called hobbyist software derisively by the Linux community is like being knighted, I assume.
- ghaff 4y agoIt's not intended to be derisive so much as a simple matter of fact that it's 1.) Not in the mainline kernel; 2.) Isn't supported by most commercial distros; and 3.) Has somewhat ambiguous legal status. For individual use? Knock yourself out. But I wouldn't approve its use for a company unless I had very good and very specific reasons to do so.