On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
>
> On the flip side, why shouldn't it be?
Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to ch
On 17/04/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I tried.
>
> It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing
> issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
> released under a License which _is_ GPL
> compatible?
So why do you think should it be released under a G
Well, I tried.
It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing
issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not
want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this
thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my
Hello. I'm a nobody.
I use Linux. I have a hard-drive. I want the best / sexiest / what ever
fs for my hard-drive, as it isn't one of those flashy flash drives,
which I presume don't need an fs (???).
I was THRILLED that the ZFS for Linux thread started. And, I was equally
horrified (and suffici
