5 ms·

I'm too lazy to summarize this beyond saying both ext4 and XFS have their advantages and disadvantages, and both are still under active development. ZFS is a fu

I'm too lazy to summarize this beyond saying both ext4 and XFS have their advantages and disadvantages, and both are still under active development. ZFS is a funny and problematic one that does lots of cool tricks but isn't properly free and gobbles resources. Check this: https://linuxhint.com/xfs-vs-ext4-brief-comparison/ https://linuxhint.com/xfs-vs-ext4-brief-comparison/

arp242 3y ago
ZFS (or rather, OpenZFS) is absolutely Free Software and Open Source under any definition. Richard Stallman will tell you the same thing. It just has an unfortunate license that's not GPL-compatible and this causes problems with GPL kernels (e.g. Linux), which is a very different thing than "not being properly free".
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#GPL-INCOMPATIBILITY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... However, the wiki article also notes that Ubuntu includes it by default as a binary module. That seems like a sensible thing to do from a legal perspective, since it's generally accepted that binary modules are not "linked to" the kernel in such a way as to trigger GPL provisions relating to such linkage.
- theodric 3y ago
  "Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me." -Linus Torvalds https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189841&ref=itsfoss.com https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpost...
  - stormking 3y ago
    Even Linus gets it wrong from time to time. And here he is absolutely wrong.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
ZFS is absolutely Free Software, it's just that its license isn't GPLv2 compatible. (Bearing in mind that by the same stroke, GPLv3 isn't GPLv2 compatible.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

arp242 3y ago

ZFS (or rather, OpenZFS) is absolutely Free Software and Open Source under any definition. Richard Stallman will tell you the same thing. It just has an unfortunate license that's not GPL-compatible and this causes problems with GPL kernels (e.g. Linux), which is a very different thing than "not being properly free".

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#GPL-INCOMPATIBILITY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... However, the wiki article also notes that Ubuntu includes it by default as a binary module. That seems like a sensible thing to do from a legal perspective, since it's generally accepted that binary modules are not "linked to" the kernel in such a way as to trigger GPL provisions relating to such linkage.
theodric 3y ago
"Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me." -Linus Torvalds https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189841&ref=itsfoss.com https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpost...
- stormking 3y ago
  Even Linus gets it wrong from time to time. And here he is absolutely wrong.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

ZFS is absolutely Free Software, it's just that its license isn't GPLv2 compatible. (Bearing in mind that by the same stroke, GPLv3 isn't GPLv2 compatible.)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]