Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Frank Cusack wrote: > On 8/19/10 10:48 AM +0200 Joerg Schilling wrote: > > 1) The OpenSource definition > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php section 9 makes it very > > clear that an OSS license must not restrict other software and must not > > prevent to bundle different works und

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/19/10 10:48 AM +0200 Joerg Schilling wrote: 1) The OpenSource definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php section 9 makes it very clear that an OSS license must not restrict other software and must not prevent to bundle different works under different licenses on one medium.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Apparently, I must not be using the right web form... I would update the case sometimes via the web, and it seems like no one actually saw it. Or, some other engineer comes along and asks me the same set of questions that were already answered (and recorded in the case records!). Another st

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Ross Walker wrote: > > If a shell script may be dependent on GNU 'cat', does that make the shell > > script a "derived work"? Note that GNU 'cat' could be replaced with some > > other 'cat' since 'cat' has a well defined interface. A very similar > > situation exists for loadable modules whi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Ross Walker wrote: On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: Linus is right with his primary decision, but this also applies for static linking. See Lawrence Rosen for more information, the GPL does not distinct between static an

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >> Linus is right with his primary decision, but this also applies for static >> linking. See Lawrence Rosen for more information, the GPL does not distinct >> between static and dynamic linkin

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

In message <4c6c4e30.7060...@ianshome.com>, Ian Collins writes: >If you count Monday this week as lately, we have never had to wait more >than 24 hours for replacement drives for our 45x0 or 7000 series Same here, but two weeks ago for a failed drive in an X4150. Last week SunSolve was sending

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 08/19/10 03:44 AM, Ethan Erchinger wrote: Have you dealt with Sun/Oracle support lately? lololol It's a disaster. We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over 3 weeks, Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround forever. The 7000 series support is no better, possi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Miles Nordin wrote: > > "ee" == Ethan Erchinger writes: > >ee> We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over >ee> 3 weeks, Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround >ee> forever. > > that sucks. > > but while NetApp ma

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> "ee" == Ethan Erchinger writes: ee> We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over ee> 3 weeks, Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround ee> forever. that sucks. but while NetApp may replace your disk immediately, they are an abusive partner with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Erchinger wrote: > > Frank wrote: >> Have you dealt with RedHat "Enterprise" support?  lol. > > Have you dealt with Sun/Oracle support lately? lololol  It's a disaster. > We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over 3 weeks, > Explorer data

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

+1: This thread is relevant and productive discourse that'll assist OpenSolaris orphans in pending migration choices. On 08/18/10 12:27, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Compatibility of ZFS& Linux, as well as the future development of ZFS, and the health and future of opensolaris / solaris, oracle&

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/18/10 9:29 AM -0700 Ethan Erchinger wrote: Edward wrote: I have had wonderful support, up to and including recently, on my Sun hardware. I wish we had the same luck. We've been handed off between 3 different "technicians" at this point, each one asking for the same information. Do they

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"Garrett D'Amore" wrote: > All of this is entirely legal conjecture, by people who aren't lawyers, > for issues that have not been tested by court and are clearly subject to > interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the > list, can we please either take the discussion offl

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Edward wrote: > That is really weird. What are you calling "failed?" If you're getting > either a red blinking light, or a checksum failure on a device in a zpool... > You should get your replacement with no trouble. Yes, failed, with all the normal "failed" signs, cfgadm not finding it, "FAULTE

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Garrett D'Amore > > interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the > list, can we please either take the discussion offline, or agree to > just > let the topic die (on the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ethan Erchinger > > We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over 3 weeks, > Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround forever. The > 7000 > series support is no b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

All of this is entirely legal conjecture, by people who aren't lawyers, for issues that have not been tested by court and are clearly subject to interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the list, can we please either take the discussion offline, or agree to just let the topic

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Frank wrote: > Have you dealt with RedHat "Enterprise" support? lol. Have you dealt with Sun/Oracle support lately? lololol It's a disaster. We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over 3 weeks, Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround forever. The 7000 series su

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: Linus is right with his primary decision, but this also applies for static linking. See Lawrence Rosen for more information, the GPL does not distinct between static and dynamic linking. GPLv2 does not address linking at all and only makes vague refe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Miles Nordin wrote: > > "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes: > > >> Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right > >> alongside the GPLv2 kernel code and run in the same program. > > gd> My understanding is that no, this is not possible. > > GPLv2 and CDDL are incompatible

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/17/10 3:17 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote: If Oracle really wants to keep it out of Linux, that means it wants to keep it out of FreeBSD also. Either way, to keep it out it needs to make it closed source, and as they say, the genie is already out of the bottle. I don't agree that there's a licens

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Oh, as an insmod, I think the question is quite cloudy indeed, since you get into questions about what forms a derivative product. I was looking at the original statement of the two licenses running together in the same program far too simply of course when considered with dynamic link (whic

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes: >> Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right >> alongside the GPLv2 kernel code and run in the same program. gd> My understanding is that no, this is not possible. GPLv2 and CDDL are incompatible: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/e

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: > >> On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack >> wrote: >> >> On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: >>> No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will re-re

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"Garrett D'Amore" wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:04 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote: > > > > > > And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright > > > holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some > > > just will

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/17/10 3:31 PM +0900 BM wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek wrote: Disclaimer: I use Reiser4 A "Killer FS"™. :-) LOL ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. You're saying Oracle

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:04 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote: > > > > And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright > > holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some > > just will not budge. > > Joerg is correct that

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote: And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some just will not budge. Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right alongside the GPLv2 kernel code and run in

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 17-Aug-10, at 1:05 PM, Andrej Podzimek wrote: I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples: (1) http://www.phoronix.com/sc

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples: (1) http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_ext4_btrfs&num=1 My littl

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Aug 17, 2010, at 5:44 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > Frank Cusack wrote: > >> On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: >>> No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will >>> re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive adva

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: >> No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will >> re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. > > You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux? I w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 16 Aug 2010, at 23:11, Andrej Podzimek wrote: > > My only point was: There is no published report saying that stability or > *performance* of Btrfs will be worse (or better) than that of ZFS. This is > because nobody can guess how Btrfs will perform once it's finished. (In fact > nobody eve

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

BM wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek wrote: I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples: (1) http://www

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Frank Cusack wrote: > On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: > > No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will > > re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. > > You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux? In order to get zfs into Linux,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Miles Nordin wrote: > dd> 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved. > dd> 3 * > dd> 4 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > dd> 5 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public > dd> 6 * License v2 as published by the Free Sof

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek wrote: > I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read > them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic > yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples: > > (1) http://www.phoron

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: > >> No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will >> re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. >> > > You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux? ___ zfs-discuss maili

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't retrospectively change the license on already released code but they can pu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > > > Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we > > can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned > > the copyright to s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 2010-Aug-17 07:13:07 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Miles Nordin >> >>1 /* >>2 * Copyright (C) 2008 Red Hat. All rights reserved. > >Holy crap. That's three different results.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 2010-Aug-17 06:07:52 +0800, Miles Nordin wrote: >However, if you were using ZFS along with things like infiniband >iSER/SRP/NFS-RDMA, zones, 10gig nics with cpu-affinity-optimized TCP, >xen dom0, virtualbox, dtrace, or waiting/hoping for pNFS, or if you >foolishly became addicted to proprietary

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Miles Nordin > >1 /* >2 * Copyright (C) 2008 Red Hat. All rights reserved. Holy crap. That's three different results. One said oracle, one said red hat, and one said FSF. So I wen

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> > see, that's good, and is a realistic future scenario for ZFS, AFAICT: > there can be a branch that's safe to collaborate on, which cannot go > into Solaris 11 and cannot be taken proprietary by Nexenta, either. In fact, we are in the process of creating a non-profit foundation for Illumos w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we > can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned > the copyright to some other party. BTRFS is inside the linux kernel. Copyright (C)

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet > > However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they > must > release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL. When a copyright holder releases someth

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

dd> 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved. dd> 3 * dd> 4 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or dd> 5 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public dd> 6 * License v2 as published by the Free Software Foundation. dd>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> "pj" == Peter Jeremy writes: > "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes: > "cb" == C Bergström writes: > "fc" == Frank Cusack writes: > "tc" == Tim Cook writes: pj> Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to pj> see why Oracle would continue to invest in b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > > I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start to > > write > > to the disk when gtar finished. > > As a test of ext? performance, that does seem to be lacking something! > > I guess it's a consequence of the low sound levels of modern disk dr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 15:35, Joerg Schilling wrote: > I know of ext* performance checks where people did run gtar to unpack a > linux > kernel archive and these people did nothing but metering the wall clock > time > for gtar. > > I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Andrej Podzimek wrote: > P. S. As far as Phoronix is concerned... Well, I remember how they once used > a malfunctioning and crippled Reiser4 implementation (hacked by the people > around the ZEN patchset so that it caused data corruption (!) and kernel > crashes) and "compared" it to other fi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils down to this: A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow. B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results? Have you had any issues? A: No. I *have* *not* *tested* XYZ. I think XYZ is so unstable and slow t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook wrote: > insults. Oracle can pull the plug at any time they choose. *ONE* developer > from Redhat does not change the fact that Oracle owns the rights to the > majority of the code, and can relicense it, or discontinue code updates, as > they see fit. It would be most unlikely that Or

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 12:36, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we > can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned > the copyright to some other party. 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved. 3 * 4

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sat, August 14, 2010 16:26, Andrej Podzimek wrote: > Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils down > to this: > > A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow. > B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results? > Have you had any issues? > A: No

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they must release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL. This claim would only be true in case that Oracle does not own the copyright on its' code... Can someone provide a link t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sun, August 15, 2010 09:19, David Magda wrote: > On Aug 14, 2010, at 14:54, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> From: Russ Price > >> >>> For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of >>> being prohibitively expensive. >> >> I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr doe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Peter Jeremy wrote: Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't retrospectively change the license on already released code but they can put a different (non-OSS) license on any

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16 at 11:15, Tim Cook wrote: Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he was a part of for five years. IANAL, but as my discussions with employment lawyers in my state have explained

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16 at 8:52, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> >> 2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > codest...@osunix.org>> >> >> >>Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >>"C. Bergström" >> wrote: >> >> >>I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook wrote: 2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > Joerg Schilling wrote: "C. Bergström" mailto:codest...@osunix.org>> wrote: I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook wrote: > > The real question is, WHY would they do it? What would be the business > > motivation here? Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat > > would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle > > would have relegated itself to a non-player in the Linux

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:15:12AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that > states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he > was a part of for five years. > > The "business motivation" would be to set the competition back

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

The problem is: The first time the a software release is considered stable, it takes significant time for the uptake and the moment it's really stable. ZFS was introduced almost 5 years ago to the public and just now it gets mayor uptake in the field. I still don't get it, why brtfs should be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > dual-licensed > > > > BTRFS. > > > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 11:01, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > >> >> As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements. >> > >> > No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as >> they >> > own the code. >> >> Ray's point is, how long

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> "C. Bergström" wrote: >> >> >> >>> I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS. >>> No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much >>> already to be available under anything

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:08:52AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed > > > > BTRFS. > > > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depen

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed > > > BTRFS. > > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much > > already to be available under anything,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:58:20AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > Why would they obviously want that? When the project started, they > were competing with Sun. They now own Solaris; they no longer have a > need to produce a competing product. I would be EXTREMELY surprised > to see Oracle continue to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > >> As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements. > > > > No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they > > own the code. > > Ray's point is, how long would BTRFS remain in the Linux kernel in that case? Such a licens

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Joerg Schilling wrote: "C. Bergström" wrote: I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS. No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much already to be available under anything, but GPLv2 If he really believes this, then he

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > > > > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"C. Bergström" wrote: > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed > > BTRFS. > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much > already to be available under anything, but GPLv2 If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed abou

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > >> >> On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: >> >> > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to >> release >> > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > > No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no > > longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That > > is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:48, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > >> > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has >> > dual-licensed BTRFS. >> >> Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux >> kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux > > kernel rather than die a death of a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux > kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it... > > As such, they'll need to continue to comply with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet > wrote: On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bug

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > > On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't > > retrospectively change the license on already released code

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no > longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That > is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release > modifications if they wish to distribute

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't > > retrospectively change the l

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:54:13PM -0700, Erast wrote: > > On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ > > > >I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't > >get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the f

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't > retrospectively change the license on already released code but they > can put a different (non-OSS

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why > Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more > mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort > to ZFS and leave btrfs to die.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 09:06, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, > and CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS > steps on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do this, > or that, wh

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:06 AM, "Edward Ned Harvey" wrote: > ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, and > CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS steps > on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do this, or that,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sun, August 15, 2010 21:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why > Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more > mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort > to ZFS and leave btrfs to die.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:17 PM > > (The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden > license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the > Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Sol

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"Garrett D'Amore" wrote: > (The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden > license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the > Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris kernel. I There is only a need for a mind change at the Linux

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 2010-Aug-16 08:17:10 +0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have >to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and >maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational). Agreed. And this applies

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Any code can become abandonware; where it effectively bitrots into oblivion. For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational). Hones

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook > > The cost discussion is ridiculous, period.  $400 is a steal for > support.  You'll pay 3x or more for the same thing from Redhat or > Novell. Actually, as a comparison with the mes

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn > > The $400 number is bogus since the amount that Oracle quotes now > depends on the value of the hardware that the OS will run on. For my Using the same logic, if I said MS

  1   2   >