similar to: Native ZFS on Linux

On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? > > There is no licensing issue, but

On 06/01/2015 07:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >>>> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than

> > > OK, plese note that I am not willing to tolerate anti-oss claims and will > continue to correct similar false claims. If you don't like those > discussions > at all, you should try to avoid false claims and the need for corrections. > If I were RedHat, including a non GPL filesystem into my operating system would make me sweat a bit. Intel were facing a similar

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > >

Hello All, Just a short note to add my vote for a HUGE round of applause to the CentOS team for their untiring efforts in getting releases out the door. I've just upgraded several servers to 5.6 and it all "just works". None of the team's work is easy to accomplish, especially when less-than-useful complaints keep popping up from thoughtless users who don't appreciate

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > > no such maintained web page. > > I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. I thought I don't need to make advertizing for

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > >>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people. >> >> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS enemies. > > The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am not an OSS enemy: > > http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue It is

Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > > > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is > >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the > >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a

On 12/18/2013, 04:00 , lists at benjamindsmith.com wrote: > I may be being presumptuous, and if so, I apologize in advance... > > It sounds to me like you might consider a disk-to-disk backup solution. > I could suggest dirvish, BackupPC, or our own home-rolled rsync-based > solution that works rather well:http://www.effortlessis.com/backupbuddy/ > > Note that with these

Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is > the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the > ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a fairy tale about an alleged licensing

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > > >> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal > >> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same > >> process at runtime unless there is an alternate

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my > > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown. > > > > Not sure why it matters with a standalone

<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about > bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than > I remembered. If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > >> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades? > >> > >> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a > >> dual

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at

Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> said: > Note that it is without doubt that ZFS was not derived from the Linux kernel > and thus cannot be a derived work. All that matters for CentOS is: 1: Red Hat doesn't ship ZFS because of Red Hat's lawyers' interpretation of GPL+CDDL 2: Arguing about it here will not change #1 3: CentOS

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it > became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement > include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution? In 1990, when I started using ksh88, it was totally commercial. Binaries were $$$ and source was

Hi all, What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools, preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is required? TIA, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer

Joerg Schilling wrote: > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling >> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: >> > > >> > If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective work" and the GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > >>> > >> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause' > >> license, or BSD-old: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses > > > > Do you like to