Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:03:04 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>,Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r344316 - head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs Message-ID: <6CE7079F-5B74-4DCF-AA38-AE2CB5175067@cschubert.com> In-Reply-To: <1235DF70-2954-4421-9CF3-AA0538B24720@gmail.com> References: <201902192335.x1JNZu53080578@repo.freebsd.org> <20190219234328.wrmteippr6vbg2fr@mutt-hbsd> <20190220075613.GC84455@FreeBSD.org> <1235DF70-2954-4421-9CF3-AA0538B24720@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On February 20, 2019 9:01:53 AM PST, Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail=2Ecom> = wrote: > >> On Feb 19, 2019, at 23:56, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd=2Eorg> >wrote: >>=20 >>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Shawn Webb wrote: >>> At the risk of painting a bikeshed a lovely color of neon purple, >I'm >>> curious about if/how these types of commits get merged upstream to >>> (OpenZFS|Illumos|ZFS On Linux|where ever ZFS upstream is now|I'm >very >>> confused|is anyone else confused where upstream is?)=2E >>>=20 >>> Who is upstream? Is work like this going to remain as a downstream >>> patch to ZFS? Or is FreeBSD going to work to upstream this type of >>> work? >>=20 >> I've always felt that we should've become upstream to everyone else >> the moment we knew Oracle would eat Sun (20 April 2009), and never >> understood why it didn't happen and now, ten years later, we're >talking >> about ZFS on fucking Linux becoming our upstream=2E Something'd got >very >> wrong here and I'd like to know what and why=2E > >As others have pointed out, FreeBSD has less developer inertia than >Linux, and there are (seemingly) less developers or interested parties >in running an openindiana based stack=2E > >Also: better OS support for other general purpose >infrastructure/usecases with items like multitenancy via >containerization/CGroups2, Java, etc, and mindshare around this and >other things=2E > >The only thing really holding ZoL back in Linux is the fact that (due >to licensing) it won=E2=80=99t ever be in the Linux kernel=2E > >-Enji Exactly=2E This and the fact that our user base is considerably smaller, w= e don't have the gravitas and must settle being dictated to=2E POSIX is dea= d=2E I suppose a person could get on top of the soapbox again but =2E=2E=2E A way forward might be two pronged=2E Yes, maintain ZoF based on ZoL, illu= mos, or both, and a Linux KPI layer to allow ZoL (and anything else for tha= t matter) to be imported into ports=2E However maintaining a great shim to = the exclusion of good native support is existential=2E --=20 Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use=2E Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy=2ESchubert@cschubert=2Ecom> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD=2Eorg> Web: http://www=2EFreeBSD=2Eorg The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few=2E
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6CE7079F-5B74-4DCF-AA38-AE2CB5175067>