4 ms·

They use a slightly modified Ubuntu kernel (https://github.com/proxmox/pve-kernel https://github.com/proxmox/pve-kernel), with things like ZFS added. They also

by brirec 2y ago

They use a slightly modified Ubuntu kernel (https://github.com/proxmox/pve-kernel https://github.com/proxmox/pve-kernel), with things like ZFS added. They also really are good about using proper Debian tooling, and so their kernel doesn’t cause any weird dependency issues. Right now they install proxmox-kerne-6.8.12-6 by default (using pseudo-packages called proxmox-default-kernel and proxmox-kernel-6.8 pointing at it), and offer proxmox-kernel-6.11.0-2 as an opt-in package (by installing proxmox-kernel-6.11) I’ve been using the latest opt-in kernels on all of my Proxmox nodes for a few years now, and I’ve never had any issues at all with that myself.

zozbot234 2y ago
> things like ZFS added That's a big gotcha - ZFS is non-free so of course it cannot be part of Debian proper. Hopefully we'll get feature parity via Btrfs or Bcachefs at some point in the future.
- Lariscus 2y ago
  Thats incorrect, it is free software but incompatible with the GPL.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > ZFS is non-free so of course it cannot be part of Debian proper ZFS is under the CDDL which is a perfectly good free and open-source software license, just some people view it as incompatible with GPL (IANAL, but this is apparently somewhat controversial; see the wikipedia page) so Debian doesn't distribute ZFS .ko files for Linux in binary form. They do, however, have an official package for it[1], just using DKMS to compile it locally. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... [1] https://packages.debian.org/sid/zfs-dkms https://packages.debian.org/sid/zfs-dkms
  - worthless-trash 2y ago
    If some people see it as incompatible, its not perfectly good then, is it.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      CDDL is a good license. GPLv2 is a good license. They happen to be (maybe) incompatible. That doesn't make either of them bad. I mean, would you argue that GPLv2 is bad because it's not compatible with CDDL?
      - worthless-trash 2y ago
        I think that you can include it in cddl, but not the other way around.

by brirec 2y ago

zozbot234 2y ago

> things like ZFS added That's a big gotcha - ZFS is non-free so of course it cannot be part of Debian proper. Hopefully we'll get feature parity via Btrfs or Bcachefs at some point in the future.

Lariscus 2y ago
Thats incorrect, it is free software but incompatible with the GPL.
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> ZFS is non-free so of course it cannot be part of Debian proper ZFS is under the CDDL which is a perfectly good free and open-source software license, just some people view it as incompatible with GPL (IANAL, but this is apparently somewhat controversial; see the wikipedia page) so Debian doesn't distribute ZFS .ko files for Linux in binary form. They do, however, have an official package for it[1], just using DKMS to compile it locally. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... [1] https://packages.debian.org/sid/zfs-dkms https://packages.debian.org/sid/zfs-dkms
- worthless-trash 2y ago
  If some people see it as incompatible, its not perfectly good then, is it.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    CDDL is a good license. GPLv2 is a good license. They happen to be (maybe) incompatible. That doesn't make either of them bad. I mean, would you argue that GPLv2 is bad because it's not compatible with CDDL?
    - worthless-trash 2y ago
      I think that you can include it in cddl, but not the other way around.