[opensuse] ZFS on SuSE-anyone, Distributed File System...

newer
[opensuse] shutdown hangs after...

older
Re: [opensuse] Fine-graining Yast...

Verner Kjærsgaard

10 Jun 2008 10 Jun '08

20:35

Hi list, - has anyone tried SUN's ZFS on SuSE? Can it be done, is it at all feasible? - or another Distributed file system. I may need a file system, that will allow me to add storage ad hoc. Any hints, links? As always, thanks! -- -------------------------------------------- Med venlig hilsen/best regards Verner Kjærsgaard Novell Certified Linux Professional 10035701 www.os-academy.dk +45 56964223 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Show replies by date

Druid

11 Jun 11 Jun

00:04

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote:

...

Hi list,

- has anyone tried SUN's ZFS on SuSE? Can it be done, is it at all feasible?

- or another Distributed file system. I may need a file system, that will allow me to add storage ad hoc.

Any hints, links?

I haven't tried, but the only way to use zfs on linux would be through FUSE, in userland, due to license incompatibility. Aditionaly, zfs is not a distributed file system (but indeed would let you add storage later, as it has some sort of pool, like in an lvm volume). ZFS through FUSE would have worse performance, I guess. It was asked the advantages of ZFS, and there are lots (check the wikipedia articles), mainly end-to-end data integrity (imho) and other functionalities (copy on write, snapshots, no need to format, no need to fsck, simplified syntax for userland tools, etc). It's only possible because its layout somewhat breaks the usualy fs layout in linux, incorporating for example, the raid layer in the filesystem. This video shows a lot of what it can do: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/basics/ The closest thing in linux land would be oracle's btrfs, but its beta or alpha, dunno. Aditionaly ext4 may give you some functionalities that zfs has (snapshots, copy-on-write). For distributed file systems you would have to take a look at lustrefs (also from Sun), IBM's GPFS, Red Hat's GFS, openAFS, it varies a lot hardware/software/application-wise Storage specific filesystems, like SAM-QFS (SUN), ocfs2 (oracle) are yet another thing, and they are more suitable when there is a SAN. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Distributed_file_systems and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_disk_file_system and others for a good start Cheers Marcio --- Druid -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Evens Garde

05:26

Druid wrote:

...

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote:

...
Hi list,

- has anyone tried SUN's ZFS on SuSE? Can it be done, is it at all feasible?

- or another Distributed file system. I may need a file system, that will allow me to add storage ad hoc.

Any hints, links?

I haven't tried, but the only way to use zfs on linux would be through FUSE, in userland, due to license incompatibility.

How does your CPU figure out that a kernel module has a "incompatible" license? How do make and g++ figure out that the source code has a "incompatible" license? I have quite a bit of non-GPL code on my machine, some of them even kernal modules...and it all runs just fine. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Cristian Rodríguez

05:45

Evens Garde escribió:

...

How does your CPU figure out that a kernel module has a "incompatible" license?

Your CPU doesnt :P the kernel identifies a propietary module , adds a "taint" flag and emit a warning.

...

How do make and g++ figure out that the source code has a "incompatible" license?

huh ? what has the compiler to do with this discussion ? obviously the mission of it is to compile stuff not being your virtual lawyer, also a binary X is not derivated work of the compiler.. -- "Progress is possible only if we train ourselves to think about programs without thinking of them as pieces of executable code.” - Edsger W. Dijkstra Cristian Rodríguez R. Platform/OpenSUSE - Core Services SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Research & Development http://www.opensuse.org/

Chuck Norem

05:52

...

...
How does your CPU figure out that a kernel module has a "incompatible" license?

Wikipedia offers an explanation of the licensing issues. Here's a quote: Linux Porting ZFS to Linux is complicated by the fact that the GNU General Public License, which governs the Linux kernel, prohibits linking with code under certain licenses, such as CDDL, the license ZFS is released under.[39] One solution to this problem is to port ZFS to Linux's FUSE system so the filesystem runs in userspace instead. A project to do this was sponsored by Google's Summer of Code program in 2006, and is in Beta stage as of March 2008.[40] Running a file system outside the kernel on traditional Unix-like systems can have a significant performance impact. However, NTFS-3G (another file system driver built on FUSE) performs well when compared to other traditional file system drivers.[41] This shows that excellent performance is possible with ZFS on Linux after proper optimization. Sun Microsystems has stated that a Linux port is being investigated.[42] The full entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Evens Garde

06:25

Cristian Rodríguez wrote:

...

Evens Garde escribió:

...
How does your CPU figure out that a kernel module has a "incompatible" license?

Your CPU doesnt :P the kernel identifies a propietary module , adds a "taint" flag and emit a warning.

...
How do make and g++ figure out that the source code has a "incompatible" license?

huh ? what has the compiler to do with this discussion ? obviously the mission of it is to compile stuff not being your virtual lawyer, also a binary X is not derivated work of the compiler..

Which is my point, exactly. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philipp Thomas

00:35

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:35:10 +0200, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote:

...

- has anyone tried SUN's ZFS on SuSE? Can it be done, is it at all feasible?

No, because the License Sun choose for ZFS is incompatible with the GPL (which I think is why Sun did choose it). So unless Sun changes the license, there is no legal way to use ZFS in Linux. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

00:46

On Tuesday 10 June 2008 17:35, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:35:10 +0200, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote:

...
- has anyone tried SUN's ZFS on SuSE? Can it be done, is it at all feasible?

No, because the License Sun choose for ZFS is incompatible with the GPL (which I think is why Sun did choose it). So unless Sun changes the license, there is no legal way to use ZFS in Linux.

Don't confuse "use" with "distribute." Even if a piece of software (application, driver, file system, etc.) is not compatible with Linux's zealous free software license, it does not follow that no end use may incorporate that GPL-incompatible software into their own installation. We have not yet reached the point where processor hardware incorporates license enforcement circuits or microcode...

...

Philipp

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philipp Thomas

10:42

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:46:14 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Don't confuse "use" with "distribute."

Sorry, I meant that the license makes it impossible to directly port it to Linux.

...

Even if a piece of software (application, driver, file system, etc.) is not compatible with Linux's zealous free software license,

The GPL isn't zealous. There simply are licenses incompatible with it because they add additional restrictions. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

13:12

On Wednesday 11 June 2008 03:42, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:46:14 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
Don't confuse "use" with "distribute."

Sorry, I meant that the license makes it impossible to directly port it to Linux.

Porting is technological activity. A license cannot prevent it.

...

...
Even if a piece of software (application, driver, file system, etc.) is not compatible with Linux's zealous free software license,

The GPL isn't zealous. There simply are licenses incompatible with it because they add additional restrictions.

Yes. It's the Linux developers who are zealous.

...

Philipp

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philipp Thomas

15:50

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:12:27 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote: Sigh, seems you don't want to understand me.

...

Porting is technological activity. A license cannot prevent it.

Of cause not, but using the result of a porting can be prohibited by a license. And a ZFS kernel driver breaks the GPL. Just like binary-only kernel drivers do. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

16:56

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:12:27 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Sigh, seems you don't want to understand me.

...
Porting is technological activity. A license cannot prevent it.

Of cause not, but using the result of a porting can be prohibited by a license. And a ZFS kernel driver breaks the GPL. Just like binary-only kernel drivers do.

Sigh, it seems YOU are having problems shedding your world view.... It is not prohibited to port, or using the result. It is merely prohibited to redistribute. Joe User can do what he wishes. Mega Corp can do as they wish. Only distro packagers are prohibited. -- ----------JSA--------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philipp Thomas

18:00

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:56:27 -0700, John Andersen wrote:

...

Sigh, it seems YOU are having problems shedding your world view....

OK, then I'll make it extra precise: given that Suns CDDL is incompatible with the GPL, no one distributing a Linux kernel can also offer the ported ZFS. And because of that, porting ZFS isn't very attractive. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

18:27

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:56:27 -0700, John Andersen wrote:

...
Sigh, it seems YOU are having problems shedding your world view....

OK, then I'll make it extra precise: given that Suns CDDL is incompatible with the GPL, no one distributing a Linux kernel can also offer the ported ZFS. And because of that, porting ZFS isn't very attractive.

Ok, Granted, now that you've demonstrated you can at least appreciate the end-user's point of view. Not attractive to Distros or companies like Novell to spend any amount of time on, because they can't really distribute it. (They could spend the time, and that might be time well spent, but they could not include it in Opensuse or SLED/S.) However, it sounds like a really nifty file system, and, if a way were to be found to avoid having to have it run in userland someone like Packman or Guru could package it. Believe it or not, Philipp, I'm not on your case, I just think its important to state clearly the limitations imposed by the GPL other than stating "its prohibited to use it" or " the license makes it impossible to directly port it to Linux.". Neither of these is true. Its merely prohibited to be distributed WITH Linux. -- ----------JSA--------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Jim Flanagan

21:01

John Andersen wrote:

...

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:56:27 -0700, John Andersen wrote:

...
Sigh, it seems YOU are having problems shedding your world view....

OK, then I'll make it extra precise: given that Suns CDDL is incompatible with the GPL, no one distributing a Linux kernel can also offer the ported ZFS. And because of that, porting ZFS isn't very attractive.

Ok, Granted, now that you've demonstrated you can at least appreciate the end-user's point of view.

Not attractive to Distros or companies like Novell to spend any amount of time on, because they can't really distribute it. (They could spend the time, and that might be time well spent, but they could not include it in Opensuse or SLED/S.)

However, it sounds like a really nifty file system, and, if a way were to be found to avoid having to have it run in userland someone like Packman or Guru could package it.

Believe it or not, Philipp, I'm not on your case, I just think its important to state clearly the limitations imposed by the GPL other than stating "its prohibited to use it" or " the license makes it impossible to directly port it to Linux.".

Neither of these is true. Its merely prohibited to be distributed WITH Linux.

Not to add fuel to this already simmering fire, but the fact that a user can use a certain software package but not distribute (without making those changes public under the GPL) is a feature of the GPL. I may not be a feature of the CDDL. I'm not saying it is or isn't, I just don't know. My point is you can't assume rights under one license (for the user) is the same under a different license. I am not familiar with the CDDL at all. Licensing can be tricky. That's why they have so many high dollar attorneys in that field. Jim -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Nico Sabbi

21:54

Il Wednesday 11 June 2008 20:27:15 John Andersen ha scritto:

...

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:56:27 -0700, John Andersen wrote:

...
Sigh, it seems YOU are having problems shedding your world view....

OK, then I'll make it extra precise: given that Suns CDDL is incompatible with the GPL, no one distributing a Linux kernel can also offer the ported ZFS. And because of that, porting ZFS isn't very attractive.

Ok, Granted, now that you've demonstrated you can at least appreciate the end-user's point of view.

Not attractive to Distros or companies like Novell to spend any amount of time on, because they can't really distribute it. (They could spend the time, and that might be time well spent, but they could not include it in Opensuse or SLED/S.)

However, it sounds like a really nifty file system, and, if a way were to be found to avoid having to have it run in userland someone like Packman or Guru could package it.

I use it every day, and although it works pretty well unfortunately it's not as stable as SomeoNe wants to sell it: just follow zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org to find out. It's especially bad for running databases on top of it, unless you disable certain caching and I/O transactionality features that somehow defeat the purpose of running zfs. To me it seems that -in order to run well- applications (especially databases) must be written with a certain awareness of the features of zfs. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philipp Thomas

18:03

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:12:27 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Yes. It's the Linux developers who are zealous.

Pray tell me why using the GPL makes a developer zealous. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

18:54

On Wednesday 11 June 2008 11:03, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:12:27 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
Yes. It's the Linux developers who are zealous.

Pray tell me why using the GPL makes a developer zealous.

I didn't say that. I said the Linux developers are zealous in their attitude toward free software. It's an opinion. You don't have to agree. But their attitude towards hardware and software vendors that don't share their philosophy of free software is religious and generally counterproductive. And it's more than a little ironic that huge, extremely profitable companies can see immense bottom-line benefits from using Linux (I'm not talking about Novell now) without having to redistribute the software and systems they build and deploy on Linux while a handful of Linux kernel developers make life difficult for very many end users and hinder wider adoption of Linux by excluding non-GPL and binary-only drivers from distributions.

...

Philipp

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philipp Thomas

12 Jun 12 Jun

03:30

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:54:37 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

I didn't say that. I said the Linux developers are zealous in their attitude toward free software.

Then I'll rephrase: please tell me why you think that that attitude is zealous. I just want to understand.

...

It's an opinion. You don't have to agree. But their attitude towards hardware and software vendors that don't share their philosophy of free software is religious and generally counterproductive.

Ah yes, so forcing Linksys and other companies to make the sources of their Linux firmware open is counterproductive? Only the GPL gave the lever to do that.

...

while a handful of Linux kernel developers make life difficult for very many end users and hinder wider adoption of Linux by excluding non-GPL and binary-only drivers from distributions.

It's not only the Linux kernel developers using the GPL. GCC, binutils, findutils, shellutils and glibc all use the GPL (just to name a few). Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

04:47

On Wednesday 11 June 2008 20:30, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:54:37 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
I didn't say that. I said the Linux developers are zealous in their attitude toward free software.

Then I'll rephrase: please tell me why you think that that attitude is zealous. I just want to understand.

I don't know what more to say. They are dogmatic about a definition of free software that goes far beyond open source.

...

...
It's an opinion. You don't have to agree. But their attitude towards hardware and software vendors that don't share their philosophy of free software is religious and generally counterproductive.

Ah yes, so forcing Linksys and other companies to make the sources of their Linux firmware open is counterproductive? Only the GPL gave the lever to do that.

Now it's your turn to explain to me how that provides "a lever." And if it does, why doesn't it work for all hardware vendors?

...

...
while a handful of Linux kernel developers make life difficult for very many end users and hinder wider adoption of Linux by excluding non-GPL and binary-only drivers from distributions.

It's not only the Linux kernel developers using the GPL. GCC, binutils, findutils, shellutils and glibc all use the GPL (just to name a few).

But those things don't preclude end users of Linux from using hardware from vendors who wish to keep their intellectual property a secret. The GPL is very asymmetrical. You can use all those Gnu tools to produce proprietary software, but you can't incorporate proprietary software into the Linux kernel because of the GPL's contagion provisions. No one is helped by that. And I'm sure you know that there are more than a few developers out there, of both proprietary and open-source software, who will have nothing to do with GPL-licensed components, no matter how valuable they might be to their projects.

...

Philipp

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

05:15

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

The GPL is very asymmetrical. You can use all those Gnu tools to produce proprietary software, but you can't incorporate proprietary software into the Linux kernel because of the GPL's contagion provisions. No one is helped by that.

Further, the practice of placing binary drivers external to the device is an engineering decision that is not likely to go away any time soon. Its a sound practice which allows the same hardware to be upgraded with a new software load preserving every user's investment while extending functionality. There is only starting to be begrudging acceptance of binary firmware (which must be loaded into and run by the device) and still no acceptance what so ever of binary blob drivers (which are executed by the CPU). Modems, WIFI cards, Hardwired Nics, Video cards, some disk controllers and some printers are all affected by this today, with more of these devices on the way. Sooner or later the kernel developers will have to find a way to incorporate and/or accommodate this type of hardware and its associated binary drivers. Just saying NO isn't going to work for ever. 5 more years of Leopard development and enhancement might squeeze Linux out, not because its better, but just because Leopard does not refuse to grow and play well with others. -- ----------JSA--------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Druid

11:10

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:15 AM, John Andersen wrote:

...

(bla bla bla)

Just saying NO isn't going to work for ever. 5 more years of Leopard development and enhancement might squeeze Linux out, not because its better, but just because Leopard does not refuse to grow and play well with others.

Don't like the license? Don't use gpl software, then. It's that simple. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

17:31

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Druid wrote:

...

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:15 AM, John Andersen wrote:

...
(bla bla bla)

Just saying NO isn't going to work for ever. 5 more years of Leopard development and enhancement might squeeze Linux out, not because its better, but just because Leopard does not refuse to grow and play well with others.

Don't like the license? Don't use gpl software, then. It's that simple.

Isn't that exactly what I just said? Why should an entire operating system dwindle to obscurity simply because it fails to recognize and deal with the fact that the boundary between hardware and software have permanently changed? -- ----------JSA--------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John E. Perry

13 Jun 13 Jun

02:23

John Andersen wrote:

...

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Druid wrote:

...
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:15 AM, John Andersen wrote:

...
(bla bla bla)

Just saying NO isn't going to work for ever. 5 more years of Leopard development and enhancement might squeeze Linux out, not because its better, but just because Leopard does not refuse to grow and play well with others.

Don't like the license? Don't use gpl software, then. It's that simple.

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

Why should an entire operating system dwindle to obscurity simply because it fails to recognize and deal with the fact that the boundary between hardware and software have permanently changed?

Uh, guys, a bit of history? Unix -- bsd with it -- was headed down the tubes, unable to resist the Microsoft steamroller. No small part of that was that, while dozens of companies took bsd and made their own little mods (for which they charged tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars), no one gave anything away, either to each other, or to BSD. So, like all the rest of unix, bsd was stagnating while MS was buying people to improve their products. Linux was the first OS to buck the downward spiral because everyone who modified it had to give their mods back to the community. So linux advanced by leaps and bounds. Personally, I believe linux brought bsd back from death's door because this brilliantly successful example of the GPL at work prompted previously insular bsd programmers to break down the fences they'd built between one another. I've heard that bsd started from a better base, and I have no reason to doubt that, but linux has moved much faster until fairly recently, when bsd ideologs started cooperating more with one another. Now what could possibly reverse the move of IBM, hp, Novell, etc., etc., to point of causing linux to "dwindle to obscurity"? One more absorption of bsd into a proprietary clod -- no matter how big the clod -- isn't going to change the trend of 25 years. John Perry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Evens Garde

02:37

John E. Perry wrote:

...

John Andersen wrote:

...
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Druid wrote:

...
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:15 AM, John Andersen wrote:

...
(bla bla bla)

Just saying NO isn't going to work for ever. 5 more years of Leopard development and enhancement might squeeze Linux out, not because its better, but just because Leopard does not refuse to grow and play well with others.

Don't like the license? Don't use gpl software, then. It's that simple. Isn't that exactly what I just said?

Why should an entire operating system dwindle to obscurity simply because it fails to recognize and deal with the fact that the boundary between hardware and software have permanently changed?

Uh, guys, a bit of history?

Unix -- bsd with it -- was headed down the tubes, unable to resist the Microsoft steamroller. No small part of that was that, while dozens of companies took bsd and made their own little mods (for which they charged tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars), no one gave anything away, either to each other, or to BSD. So, like all the rest of unix, bsd was stagnating while MS was buying people to improve their products.

Linux was the first OS to buck the downward spiral because everyone who modified it had to give their mods back to the community. So linux advanced by leaps and bounds.

Personally, I believe linux brought bsd back from death's door because this brilliantly successful example of the GPL at work prompted previously insular bsd programmers to break down the fences they'd built between one another. I've heard that bsd started from a better base, and I have no reason to doubt that, but linux has moved much faster until fairly recently, when bsd ideologs started cooperating more with one another.

BSD has still under the hijacking of three non-cooperating assholes... which is why none of the three has released a new kernel in a year beginning with 200.

...

Now what could possibly reverse the move of IBM, hp, Novell, etc., etc., to point of causing linux to "dwindle to obscurity"? One more absorption of bsd into a proprietary clod -- no matter how big the clod -- isn't going to change the trend of 25 years.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Druid

04:34

henne, please kill aaron kulkis again On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Evens Garde wrote:

...

John E. Perry wrote:

...
John Andersen wrote:

...
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Druid wrote:

...
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:15 AM, John Andersen wrote:

...
(bla bla bla)

Just saying NO isn't going to work for ever. 5 more years of Leopard development and enhancement might squeeze Linux out, not because its better, but just because Leopard does not refuse to grow and play well with others.

Don't like the license? Don't use gpl software, then. It's that simple.

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

Why should an entire operating system dwindle to obscurity simply because it fails to recognize and deal with the fact that the boundary between hardware and software have permanently changed?

Uh, guys, a bit of history?

Unix -- bsd with it -- was headed down the tubes, unable to resist the Microsoft steamroller. No small part of that was that, while dozens of companies took bsd and made their own little mods (for which they charged tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars), no one gave anything away, either to each other, or to BSD. So, like all the rest of unix, bsd was stagnating while MS was buying people to improve their products.

Linux was the first OS to buck the downward spiral because everyone who modified it had to give their mods back to the community. So linux advanced by leaps and bounds.

Personally, I believe linux brought bsd back from death's door because this brilliantly successful example of the GPL at work prompted previously insular bsd programmers to break down the fences they'd built between one another. I've heard that bsd started from a better base, and I have no reason to doubt that, but linux has moved much faster until fairly recently, when bsd ideologs started cooperating more with one another.

BSD has still under the hijacking of three non-cooperating assholes... which is why none of the three has released a new kernel in a year beginning with 200.

...
Now what could possibly reverse the move of IBM, hp, Novell, etc., etc., to point of causing linux to "dwindle to obscurity"? One more absorption of bsd into a proprietary clod -- no matter how big the clod -- isn't going to change the trend of 25 years.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan

11:58

* Druid [06-13-08 07:54]:

...

henne,

please kill aaron kulkis again

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Evens Garde wrote:

...
John E. Perry wrote:

...
John Andersen wrote:

...
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Druid wrote:

...
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:15 AM, John Andersen wrote:

...
(bla bla bla)

since the entire thread has gotten out of hand and has disolved into a series of baseless rants about the rights/wrongs of the gpl and all other software licenses, why don't you move the thread to the proper location and continue the (?)discussion there: opensuse-offtopic! -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R.

12:43

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2008-06-13 at 01:34 -0300, Druid wrote:

...

henne,

please kill aaron kulkis again

Why? He hasn't insulted any one on that email, nor used bad language or anything objectionable of that sort. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIUmt1tTMYHG2NR9URAv19AJ9tGvZbmGjPaLbB3jLsjWzRaaEwOgCgjiAF PkMGTrnxjWQDXcuTocZDd+A= =fZpT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Andreas Jaeger

12:51

"Carlos E. R." writes:

...

The Friday 2008-06-13 at 01:34 -0300, Druid wrote:

...
henne,

please kill aaron kulkis again

Why? He hasn't insulted any one on that email, nor used bad language or anything objectionable of that sort.

Aaron is banned from this list - in any incarnation, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

John Andersen

02:57

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:23 PM, John E. Perry wrote:

...

Now what could possibly reverse the move of IBM, hp, Novell, etc., etc., to point of causing linux to "dwindle to obscurity"? One more absorption of bsd into a proprietary clod -- no matter how big the clod -- isn't going to change the trend of 25 years.

John Perry

Well obscurity was perhaps a tad strong. My point was not aimed at the GPL, but simply that the kernel maintainers do not seem to recognize that the structure of hardware/software boundaries is quite different today. Everything from Military fighter jets to automobiles to cell phones no longer run burned in software. Huge performance increases are made available on older platforms by simply loading new software (microcode, firmware, call it what you will). This trend is not going away. Nor is it desirable that it should. Its a design benefit of the modern era, and advancement long in coming, and extremely useful in all software driven items from Aircraft to Zunes. The microcode/firmware loaded into a video card or a WiFi chip at boot time is one example of this. /lib/firmware is the directory where this stuff is stored in a modern distribution. This is a relatively recent development. Prior to about Suse 9 (i think) there was no provision for this stuff, and loading it immediately tainted your kernel and its location was haphazard. It still taints your kernel. (And even Novell has a policy that they won't help you on any bug you run into if your kernel is tainted. Often ignored, this restriction is still there). So the kernel developers have come half way, making a standardized place for firmware while still denying its usefulness. Nihilism at its best. Things are even worse for binary blobs that run on the main CPU. (And rightfully so). But instead of designing a safe sandbox for these things to run in, they still say you can't really use them. (Ndiswrapper is a not too safe example of a sandbox). The industry is running headlong to virtualization. The kernel developers are saying if you call us, we own you. Something has to give. The sooner a proper container is developed for these types of software the better. The argument is only tangentially related to the GPL. -- ----------JSA--------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philipp Thomas

10:04

* John Andersen (jsamyth@gmail.com) [20080613 04:57]:

...

It still taints your kernel. (And even Novell has a policy that they won't help you on any bug you run into if your kernel is tainted. Often ignored, this restriction is still there).

And rightly so! If you can reproduce the bug without the tainting module, we will help. If not, ,it's the job of the vendor of the closed source module to fix the bug. We can't fix bugs in modules whose source code we do not have.

...

So the kernel developers have come half way, making a standardized place for firmware while still denying its usefulness. Nihilism at its best.

Very few deny the usefulness of firmware, but a firmware isn't a kernel driver.

...

Things are even worse for binary blobs that run on the main CPU. (And rightfully so).

In your eyes maybe, but that view isn't shared by all others.

...

But instead of designing a safe sandbox for these things to run in, they still say you can't really use them. (Ndiswrapper is a not too safe example of a sandbox).

Why should kernel developers care and invest time for people that only use what the community offers (an additional market) but refuse to give anything back to the comunity? Some argue that ndiswrapper has the same problems as binary-only drivers in regards to Licenses.

...

Something has to give. The sooner a proper container is developed for these types of software the better.

No, the sooner vendors realize that non-NDA'd documentation and open source drivers are the way to go the better. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R.

11:40

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2008-06-13 at 12:04 +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

* John Andersen (jsamyth@gmail.com) [20080613 04:57]:

...
It still taints your kernel. (And even Novell has a policy that they won't help you on any bug you run into if your kernel is tainted. Often ignored, this restriction is still there).

And rightly so! If you can reproduce the bug without the tainting module, we will help. If not, ,it's the job of the vendor of the closed source module to fix the bug. We can't fix bugs in modules whose source code we do not have.

We all understand you can not fix problems on a module that is not yours and you can't look inside. The problem is that if there is any such module loaded you may (and do some times) refuse to look at any other bug. This is similar to, say, Microsoft refusing to debug their USB infrastructure because the user has loaded drivers for the Epson scanner, both closed source. Rather, both would have to cooperate to find on which side the problem lays and solve it.

...

...
But instead of designing a safe sandbox for these things to run in, they still say you can't really use them. (Ndiswrapper is a not too safe example of a sandbox).

Why should kernel developers care and invest time for people that only use what the community offers (an additional market) but refuse to give anything back to the comunity? Some argue that ndiswrapper has the same problems as binary-only drivers in regards to Licenses.

Surely, a mid-way compromise could be reached. Both sides have their reasons, neither is fully wrong neither is fully right. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIUlyztTMYHG2NR9URAn6YAJ9UdTjfJsqtHvn2cV8OPTtt9CCF7gCfbWi2 Z8qu0NDQ1ejZ4ldt9mnPecw= =MvC7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Lars Marowsky-Bree

26 Jun 26 Jun

12:39

On 2008-06-13T13:40:33, "Carlos E. R." wrote:

...

We all understand you can not fix problems on a module that is not yours and you can't look inside. The problem is that if there is any such module loaded you may (and do some times) refuse to look at any other bug.

Correct. A kernel module has close to infinite options for screwing up the kernel (and often does ;-). Even if the bug appears "unrelated", it might very well be caused by it.

...

This is similar to, say, Microsoft refusing to debug their USB infrastructure because the user has loaded drivers for the Epson scanner, both closed source. Rather, both would have to cooperate to find on which side the problem lays and solve it.

That is what NTS will do for paying customers. It's not feasible to do for the community projects.

...

...
Why should kernel developers care and invest time for people that only use what the community offers (an additional market) but refuse to give anything back to the comunity? Some argue that ndiswrapper has the same problems as binary-only drivers in regards to Licenses. Surely, a mid-way compromise could be reached. Both sides have their reasons, neither is fully wrong neither is fully right.

Some of this is happening; USB drivers of all kinds can be in user-space, for example. The onus is on the people who want their code to be supported though, not on the community. Regards, Lars -- Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Evens Garde

12 Jun 12 Jun

06:01

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Wednesday 11 June 2008 20:30, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:54:37 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
I didn't say that. I said the Linux developers are zealous in their attitude toward free software. Then I'll rephrase: please tell me why you think that that attitude is zealous. I just want to understand.

I don't know what more to say. They are dogmatic about a definition of free software that goes far beyond open source.

All TOOOOOOOO true. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philipp Thomas

22:54

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:47:30 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

They are dogmatic about a definition of free software that goes far beyond open source.

Open source isn't a well defined term but instead has many different variations.

...

Now it's your turn to explain to me how that provides "a lever."

A company uses Linux as embedded OS. Since it distributes the device and thus the Linux kernel, the GPL demands that the company also make the sources available. Harald Welte of netfilter fame has successfully got companies like Linksys to make the sources available and the GPL gave him the lever.

...

And if it does, why doesn't it work for all hardware vendors?

...

No one is helped by that.

The developers of the kernel code are helped. Creating proprietary drivers means profiting from the work of the kernel developers without giving something back in return.

...

who will have nothing to do with GPL-licensed components, no matter how valuable they might be to their projects.

Nearly everybody uses GCC (at least the C and C++ compilers) and everybody uses the glibc (which is licensed under LGPL). Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Dominique Leuenberger

11 Jun 11 Jun

06:16

...

...
...
On 11.06.2008 at 03:35, Philipp Thomas wrote: No, because the License Sun choose for ZFS is incompatible with the GPL (which I think is why Sun did choose it). So unless Sun changes the license, there is no legal way to use ZFS in Linux.

At this time ZFS is under CDDL, but Sun already advertised that openSolaris, and also ZFS shall be put under GPL. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Cristian Rodríguez

06:29

Dominique Leuenberger escribió:

...

At this time ZFS is under CDDL, but Sun already advertised that openSolaris, and also ZFS shall be put under GPL.

So we have to wait for real actions instead of good intentions. -- "Progress is possible only if we train ourselves to think about programs without thinking of them as pieces of executable code.” - Edsger W. Dijkstra Cristian Rodríguez R. Platform/OpenSUSE - Core Services SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Research & Development http://www.opensuse.org/

Mark V

00:38

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote:

...

Hi list,

- has anyone tried SUN's ZFS on SuSE? Can it be done, is it at all feasible?

- or another Distributed file system. I may need a file system, that will allow me to add storage ad hoc.

Any hints, links?

PVFS2 might do what you need? Mark

...

As always, thanks!

-- -------------------------------------------- Med venlig hilsen/best regards Verner Kjærsgaard Novell Certified Linux Professional 10035701 www.os-academy.dk +45 56964223 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Rafa Grimán

11:16

Hi :) El Tuesday 10 June 2008, Verner Kjærsgaard escribió:

...

Hi list,

- has anyone tried SUN's ZFS on SuSE? Can it be done, is it at all feasible?

- or another Distributed file system. I may need a file system, that will allow me to add storage ad hoc.

Any hints, links?

As always, thanks!

ZFS is not a distributed file system, it doesn't provide various hosts concurrent access to one file system. ZFS is a file system that integrates volume management, RAID capabilities and file system all in one. Are you looking for distributed file systems, parallel filesystems, ...? What exactly are your needs? Rafa -- "We cannot treat computers as Humans. Computers need love." rgriman@skype.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

5789

Age (days ago)

5805

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

38 comments

19 participants

participants (19)

Andreas Jaeger
Carlos E. R.
Chuck Norem
Cristian Rodríguez
Dominique Leuenberger
Druid
Evens Garde
Jim Flanagan
John Andersen
John E. Perry
Lars Marowsky-Bree
Mark V
Nico Sabbi
Patrick Shanahan
Philipp Thomas
Philipp Thomas
Rafa Grimán
Randall R Schulz
Verner Kjærsgaard