4 ms·
This is somewhat understandable. But to be clear, this is also an extraordinary set of circumstances -- a very recent, but marked stable kernel, on rolling rel
by mustache_kimono 4y ago
This is somewhat understandable.
But to be clear, this is also an extraordinary set of circumstances -- a very recent, but marked stable kernel, on rolling release distro, with a back ported set of changes, breaking a dkms ZFS build.
The user was notified and was able to take remedial action. My only issue would have been -- I'm not sure Arch made this very easy.
FWIW I use Ubuntu LTS and ZFS on root works great. IMHO every distro should just ship ZFS. Ubuntu has proven this is just not a practical difficulty anymore. Let's quit the charade of making users compile their own kernel modules for each kernel release.
- mhio 4y agoIt's not a charade, it's the looming shadow of Oracle lawyers.
- mustache_kimono 4y agoWho I'd note haven't done anything so far? This is what is so mysterious to me -- if this is the blockbuster case some on Reddit have made it out to be, why hasn't there been a suit against Canonical?
- mhio 4y agoDoes the "blockbuster case" line of thought you've seen suggest it should be easy for Oracle? From the differing legal opinions I've read it seems a legal quagmire. That's a quagmire that _both_ sides of the argument have to wade in to, just Oracle gets to choose if and when that happens. They might just be a bit gun shy after their last 10 year long open source case.
- mst 4y agoOddities have been seen on other distros, and if it's a server, trying to deal with it remotely has additional challenges. Ubuntu seems to be doing reasonably well at not shipping ZFS related oddities so far, but not everybody runs Ubuntu.