On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 21:18 +0400, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin > > <andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal > >> <email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >>>> But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. > >>>> Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. > >>>> > >>> > >>> May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :) > >>> Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any > >>> technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs > >> > >> Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) > >> some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to > >> get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with > >> zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues > >> and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; > >> btrfs is free from both. > > > > I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment— > > But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories > > of other imported FSes (XFS), > > Imported file-systems (someone more experienced may correct me if I'm > wrong) have previously been give-aways.
Definitely not true. > This one is different - zfs is > in active development, with highly welcomed features like > de-duplication coming. > I can't read the future, or really say the future directions of any of the sun projects. What I do know is that btrfs development will continue, and that Oracle's work on btrfs will not end or decrease. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
