ZFSonLinux adopts a CoC, everyone hates it, gets pushed anyways

What's more, they tried to hold a fake discussion about it to show how everyone likes the idea, after the thread goes south, they lock the thread and push the commit anyways, because your opinion doesn't mean shit, I have a blue hair cat lady I need to score good boy points with.

Attached: zfs-linux.png (400x249, 36.96K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Everyone hates it huh? Ask around and see if one of them knows how to fork a git repository.

installing random 3rd party kernel modules from a bunch of random sjw's is always a good idea

What's so great about ZFS for Lunix desktop purposes?

t. btrfs root and XFS home partition

Attached: not_sexually_confused_looking_totally_not_lesbian_heterosexual_with_interrogation_marks_over_her_head.jpg (358x358, 47.48K)

would you mind sharing your experiences with these?
t. hasn't used anything but LVM and ext4

Attached: 3db1d94ba06a389065482673c1ae7b9bcef82234c1e3857b09a16fc1a6eabf64.png (1327x1363, 1.39M)

It's meant more for big data storage. Not really something you'd need for a desktop, but something you'd definitely want to consider using on a server or NAS.


What the fuck are you even talking about?

Attached: opinion_discarded.jpg (680x680, 127.96K)


gabriel dropout

who the fuck is dumb enough to run it on a laptop?

Attached: 1456869864173-int.gif (722x720, 405.47K)

It's slow but FS snapshot rollbacks are easy as fug, which is handy when running a rolling release distro.

Why not use a distro with a proper package management like the Guix System or NixOS, which doesn't fuck up your system instead?

Considering that the FreeBSD ZFS devs switched to using zfsonlinux as upstream since that's where most of the work on zfs is happening nowdays, it's not surprising to see they've brought all their politically correct baggage with them to the zfsonlinux project.

Allow me to point you to the FreeBSD CoC which expicitly disallows virtual hugs because they're considered to be sexual harrassment.



Not content enough with their cuck license, they have to bring their cuckoldry to projects meant to work on real operating systems.

Fug, I didn't know it runs systemdick. So Guix only.

First off, it's systemd, with a lowercase d. Secondly, it's a much more convenient alternative to buggy, unmaintainable, and nonstandardized shell scripts for building an operating system.

Good thing I use Illumos.

Hey there Lennart.


Pointing out semantics like that head first is the fastest way to get your post disregarded.


Yeah, zfs on freebsd is way less sketchy.

It's a "Next gen" filesystem like btrfs, software raid, deduplication, compression of filesystem. If you run vms or databases with lots of repeating data you can dedupe it and save a fuckload of space. I think btrfs can do these things too, never messed with it. What the fuck is desktop purposes anyway. I guess snapshoting is good for backups if you don't want to go offline for backups. Also compressed filesystems can read data at higher rates than is physically possible.

i lol'd

What if BTRFS was not only finished, but also tested for decades?

of course!

Attached: freebsd-soyface.png (1170x836, 159.79K)

Do not blemish OpenBSD's good name by grouping it in with the pozzed (((freebsd))) sjws and (((backdoored))) netbsd.


I'm not that user but I use LVM + XFS and it just fucking works.
I'm waiting on redhat's VDO to be packaged on my distro and then I get compression and dedupe, which unlike the ZFS implementation of the same features, are already known to take next to nothing in resources under VDO, and can be used with any filesystem or volume manager you want or fill your needs, ensuring good software development pratices and allowing market competition.

I'm also currently trialing ZFS. No issues so far, but I haven't really shat on it to see how it reacts. I like the way datasets work, it feels weird to not have block devices, but you don't really need them, though that means simple operations like cat'ing a block device becomes a slightly more complicated undertaking which involves using some zfs-only commands that are more "featureful" but just different ways of doing the same thing. Do note that block devices technically exist under zfs' volume manager, but you're not supposed to use them for zfs filesystems, they're so you can stick a foreign filesystem such as swap in zfs' volume manager (but you require the full ZFS suite to use just the volume manager, and the filesystem itself is stuck to their volume manager and can't be separated from it).

Whenever you spot a ZFS user in the wild though, make sure you point them out the flaws of ZFS. They'll start fuming at their mouths and spouting buzzwords they heard on hackernews. Something like:

Attached: 8b16e04872a410b8bc6b4087027a772a1d6f5b7882a9340ff2b1d5335025c29d.jpg (960x778, 109.86K)

And another thing. I'm not saying companies are the pinnacle of competence, but consider that ZFS has an adoption rate of next to nothing, yet it presents these data integrity features no other filesystem is capable of, and even still, many large scale companies manage to have a perfect track record with their data without touching ZFS and sticking to "standard" tools.
It seems ZFS has all these fun things, but does not bring end results you cannot get elsewhere, and elsewhere involves using higher quality standardized and simplistic tools which work for all sorts of different purposes while performing better.

I don't doubt that there are backdoors present in either of NetBSD and OpenBSD, but I don't have a confirmation that the developers of either are juden and they have shown good behavior before, so I think that they will be fixed once found.
OpenBSD's lead even went public with it the moment a cianigger said he backdoored the OS.
FreeBSD however, glows very much. Stay away from it.

I used to use "fun" filesystems, then some day I realized it's a waste of my time and often causes more problems than it fixes. I now just use ext4 for mechanical drives and f2fs for flash, and I'm not even sure that makes any measurable difference. I don't even look at the options. I have simple backup scripts employing standard tools like rsync - The ready-made solutions always suck because you'll have to wrap your mind around what some rando soyboy thinks is a good backup scheme. No problems. Everything just works.

the one unique feature's the data deduplication
which basically means it's smart enough to not write the same thing twice. which saves you assbags with certain data sets in datacenter type situations. But if you're doing that just by the hp or dell appliances they have there own fs's that do this.

Guaranteeing right now this rule will be broken.

Referencing this commitment (notice it's out-of-band; that's for a reason) will garner complaints of bad faith. Eventually doing so will be grounds for punishment (the "lesser" punishments... for now).

Why this arrangement especially?

NetBSD is backdoored. Its userland is used on (((minix))), which is also the os chosen to be inside the (((intel me))).

Been using ZFS for about 8 years on a four disk striped parity array.
I even thoroughly evaluated BTRFS when I did a big overhaul of the server they were in.
My conclusion were that even nowadays BTRFS can only dream of the stability, performance and data integrity of ZFS, and yet kernel Puritans shit their pants like aspies when that's brought up, and insists on reinventing the wheel in the most hacky way with BTRFS, by trying to make it do something it's clearly not meant to do (that being filsystem level striped parity)

When do big companies adopt new technologies, especially when it's something as "low-level" as how their data is stored? It does happen I guess. But in my mind, the company is created, they find something that works or is an "industry standard" and then they just stick with it. After all, converting something as "low-level" as their FS setups for all their data seems like too much work to slowly convert to.

nice one

Because it's over-engineered garbage. Like lots of new stuff. All these problems have been solved before, they just end up being solved again (and again, and again) because these people literally need to justify their jobs.

I really wanna build my Server with DFly and Hammer2, but require bitrot correction. Hammer2 has bitrot detection, but cannot correct it. So you literally need a backup to copy from. RAID won't do it, since bitrot spans the raid as well.
Speaking of RAID, whilst ZFS inherently supports RAID, Hammer2 does not and requires either a RAID card or the softraid program.
Sucks man, I really wanna get free from the ZFS cuckoldry.

At this rate HAMMER2 will get a worse CoC tacked onto it somehow instead of reaching feature parity.

BTRFS corrupts your data, while ZFS doesn't.
But there is little sense in using BTRFS/ZFS/XFS for a desktop system.

HAMMER2 is the best FS there is. It's not over-engineered like ZFS is, while providing a lot of cool features.


Maybe that's the case, haven't you thought about that?
Collaborative [FL]OSS development is susceptible to the project's leadership going full retard just as any other collaborative endeavor (e.g. political movements).
And while the resulting work could be forked by developers, it isn't that simple as for low-level stuff (or even libraries) like ZFS as they would have to compete with the original thing in terms of popularity; nobody is going to install both ZFS and ZFS-fork, just as game engine developers wouldn't target both Vulkan and Vulkan-fork (if it had been forked last year due to similar CoC issues), and just like compiler developers wouldn't target both LLVM and LLVM-fork if it existed.
Some application forks have been successful though, like LibreOffice, and Gitea...
But if you're just a user (or not even that), can't program, and can't (or won't) do *keyboard activism* as many of these blue-haired retards do, then it may be best if you don't get mad about these idiotic changes, for your own health.

Attached: 634.jpg (400x300, 37.37K)

Might be my engineering background being a influence, but overengineering when it doesn't cost performance or raises the price or development effort is good since that leaves headroom for improvements, additions or stability.
If you want a schadenfreude example on overengineering something thats best kept simple, then look up Juicero, the epitome of Silicon Valley and consumeristic hipsters in a single product.

Holy shit, that's fucking sad. One of the biggest arguments for FreeBSD was the superior ZFS support. I guess it is true that FreeBSD is just merging in code they can steal from elsewhere these days.

Source your claim.

Does anyone still continue work on ReiserFS? The only argument I've heard against it is "dead wife."

I can't even fake being surprised.

Imagine actually allowing people to police your opinions for having donated your time to them.

Any of you using Stratis?

Seems ne-
lol nvm...

Anything that comes from DFBSD has a much lower chance of being SocJuud than most other OSes. It's got just enough talent behind it to be a good OS, but not so much that it draws attention from the cancer. That being said, while I like H2, it isn't a direct comparison to ZFS. It goes in a different direction than ZFS while maintaining equal quality.

Not surprising, it is a redhat creation.

Dillon would never let that happen.

Why do developers always put up with it. You might see one or two leave, but we never get a mass exodus when a CoC is rammed in, as we ought to.

If I'm mistaken, does anyone have a list of projects that have died due to CoC? A CoC graveyard of sorts.


(((freebsd))) is in the process of death.

That's a very old meme, but given , it certainly seems true.

And not only because of that. Due of the (((coc))), developers are leaving and many ports are being left unattended and susceptible to bitrot. I have also heard that the donations to the (((freebsd foundation))) are drying up since nobody, specially sane companies, wants to support such a (((pozzed))) os.

Good. Hopefully no more cucks like the whatsapp guy will fund them. If you recall, he gave FreeBSD $1 million.

Was that before the (((coc)))?

I forgot, (((coced))) and (((pozzed))) projects often waste their entire money gifts in (((outreachy))) and (((diversity))) programs, thus actually not improving the software at all.

I think so, 2014.

That's the reason then. The (((coc))) was made in like 2017 or 2018.
"Amount Raised: $528,137
Goal: $1,250,000
Donors: 329"
archive.is/ri1ot (based name)
And even more on a plebbit thread.

This is basically the promise of Rust, tbqh

What broke GNOME

GNOME isn't going anywhere though. They are embraced by both Redhat and Ubuntu.

FreeBSDgirl won after all.....
anyone remember that feminazi?

I'm pretty sure she was the prototype of all future SJWs. Very, very few people took her seriously though, until the end.

And yet their new CoC seems like some fanfic made by her, except official.

FreeBSD had the most normies (and money) of any BSD, so that's why it got CoC. The CoC is simply a method to control projects that affect normies. The CoC makes it possible for any cunt to kick out someone "problematic", where that word means someone who's giving normies too much freedom. Their nightmare scenario is if too many normies escape the botnet, the ads, the censorship, the l├╝genpresse, the usurious central banking system, etc.

Attached: l├╝genpresse_kaputt.jpg (722x770, 98.68K)

A reminder to always have a CoC that is actually lulzy.

The Gnome foundation was never broken or even being close to broken.