On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:36:38AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Actually sitting down and doing something hard (like porting
> > ZFS - one way or another - to Linux), well, the word
> > procrastination comes to mind and gee, isn't it easier to
> > come up with reasons /not/ to do it?
> >
> > If someone really wanted ZFS on Linux, they'd just do it -
> > licence/patents be damned.
>
> It seems that those people are a minority who know that......
>
> ....A discussion on porting starting with a license talk means
> that there is no real technical interest on the port.
Boy, is that ever the truth. If there is technical interest in a port,
one should, um, do the port. Frankly, the license chatter emanating from
the lwn.net crowd smells like just another way of expressing NIH -- it's
a convenient excuse to not do something that they really don't want to do
anyway. (This certainly seems to be the case for DTrace and Linux,
where the license difference seems to have become an excuse to ignore
everything about DTrace and to do their own thing.) And I will confess
that I have found the sense of NIH coming out of certain segments of Linux
development to be at times so overwhelming that I have found myself
wondering: if we GPL'd Solaris, would that not give the lie to this
excuse, and expose the Linux NIH for what it is? Especially ironic about
the Linux NIH is that it seems to be a relatively new phenomenon: not
so long ago, the ability to absorb innovation from elsewhere was arguably
Linux's stock-in-trade. That era, however, seems to be indisuputably
over, viz. the stubborn reluctance to so much as glance at ZFS, DTrace
and a host of other innovations born outside of Linux...
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
