3 ms·

no thanks to red hat. i switched to debian for servers. fedora fortunately still supports btrfs. zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue.

by em-bee 6d ago

no thanks to red hat. i switched to debian for servers. fedora fortunately still supports btrfs. zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue. bcachefs just hit a setback, which i am hopeful will eventually be resolved.

p_l 6d ago
The copyright issue is not really that big, except from some devs who decided to sure Ubuntu :V But there's a LOT of FUD about it.
- em-bee 6d ago
  it is big enough that it prevents distributions to include zfs. and that in reality is the problem. i would not care much if all distributions decided to ignore the copyright issue like canonical does and i could therefore get reliable support for zfs. but alone the thought of having to boot a rescue system to fix my broken computer and then not having zfs support because no one built a rescue system with it included is making the risk to high.
  - p_l 6d ago
    Distributions aren't locked from distributing ZFS, the only group that actually is suing is few kernel developers w/ their lawyers who have non-standard understanding of copyright (including one that isn't norm for the linux kernel, including for filesystems).
    - em-bee 6d ago
      who is at fault doesn't really matter. the end result is that distributions aren't including it, and that kills it. unlike almost anything else which i can add to a system after booting it, filesystems need to be available from the start. until debian, fedora, suse, etc are convinced that there is no threat this just won't happen.
      - p_l 6d ago
        That's fair, yes. I guess my specific "bubble" simply didn't have that issue for a long time
rdtsc 6d ago
> zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue Well except for Ubuntu, one of the most popular Linux distros supporting it.
- ghaff 6d ago
  There's also not a lot of money in Canonical for someone (Oracle) to sue for. Red Hat (now IBM/Red Hat) and I guess even SUSE is a different equation. Red Hat just wouldn't touch ZFS because of licensing.
  - rdtsc 6d ago
    Nevertheless, Ubuntu is one the most popular linux distributions. So “can’t be done” is obviously not true since it has been done. One can say it is “dangerous” and they haven’t been sued “yet” but the deed is done already.
    - ghaff 5d ago
      So use Ubuntu. Why do you care if other distros consider it too risky given different business positions/models?
      - rdtsc 5d ago
        > So use Ubuntu. I am using Ubuntu! > Why do you care if other distros consider it too risky given different business positions/models? I don't know. Why do people comment on HN? :shrug:? It's fun and interesting to have a conversion? I was mainly responding to a GP post that said "zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue". It didn't have a subject in there. As in "I can't really get around" or "anyone can't get around". And I read it as the second version and pointed that at least one distro did get around it.
eqvinox 5d ago
> can't really get around that copyright issue. Eh. Just wait until Oracle goes bankrupt due to their AI misinvestments & see where ZFS rights end up.

by em-bee 6d ago

p_l 6d ago

The copyright issue is not really that big, except from some devs who decided to sure Ubuntu :V But there's a LOT of FUD about it.

em-bee 6d ago
it is big enough that it prevents distributions to include zfs. and that in reality is the problem. i would not care much if all distributions decided to ignore the copyright issue like canonical does and i could therefore get reliable support for zfs. but alone the thought of having to boot a rescue system to fix my broken computer and then not having zfs support because no one built a rescue system with it included is making the risk to high.
- p_l 6d ago
  Distributions aren't locked from distributing ZFS, the only group that actually is suing is few kernel developers w/ their lawyers who have non-standard understanding of copyright (including one that isn't norm for the linux kernel, including for filesystems).
  - em-bee 6d ago
    who is at fault doesn't really matter. the end result is that distributions aren't including it, and that kills it. unlike almost anything else which i can add to a system after booting it, filesystems need to be available from the start. until debian, fedora, suse, etc are convinced that there is no threat this just won't happen.
    - p_l 6d ago
      That's fair, yes. I guess my specific "bubble" simply didn't have that issue for a long time

rdtsc 6d ago

> zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue Well except for Ubuntu, one of the most popular Linux distros supporting it.

ghaff 6d ago
There's also not a lot of money in Canonical for someone (Oracle) to sue for. Red Hat (now IBM/Red Hat) and I guess even SUSE is a different equation. Red Hat just wouldn't touch ZFS because of licensing.
- rdtsc 6d ago
  Nevertheless, Ubuntu is one the most popular linux distributions. So “can’t be done” is obviously not true since it has been done. One can say it is “dangerous” and they haven’t been sued “yet” but the deed is done already.
  - ghaff 5d ago
    So use Ubuntu. Why do you care if other distros consider it too risky given different business positions/models?
    - rdtsc 5d ago
      > So use Ubuntu. I am using Ubuntu! > Why do you care if other distros consider it too risky given different business positions/models? I don't know. Why do people comment on HN? :shrug:? It's fun and interesting to have a conversion? I was mainly responding to a GP post that said "zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue". It didn't have a subject in there. As in "I can't really get around" or "anyone can't get around". And I read it as the second version and pointed that at least one distro did get around it.

eqvinox 5d ago

> can't really get around that copyright issue. Eh. Just wait until Oracle goes bankrupt due to their AI misinvestments & see where ZFS rights end up.