Greg Lehey wrote:
> Of course.  But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has
> been with BSD since the beginning.  There is a similar list of items
> for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of
> the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD.

I maintain that the FreeBSD UFS *is* a port of the Heidemann
implementation from the FICUS project, which had to be done because
certain files were claimed to be "contaminated" with USL IP, and
were removed as part of the USL/UCB settlement (6 key files from 5
subsystems, which they thought we couldn't rewrite from scratch in
time to be a competitive threat).

I also maintain that the most difficult thing is getting the list
of items, and, with the information from the UFS work in hand, the
JFS specific items not on that list are trivial (there are exactly
two items, in fact: log roll forward/backward, and transaction

> > I think that everyone saying "Ut oh!  SCARY!" gives people the wrong
> > idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.
> I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I
> suppose is what you mean when you say "where are the patches?".  As I
> said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD.

I ported the entire GFS user space tools set, sans two, to FreeBSD in
about 2 hours.  If FreeBSD had the necessary hardware drivers for
shared disks, I would have finished the two that I didn't do, and then
I would have gone to Frys, bought the necessary controllers, disk, and
two scratch boxes, and finished porting the whole damn thing.  I think
I could have it all up and running in about 4 weeks, assuming the Linux
implementation actually works for more than one machine, and my test
machines were configured dual boot for Linux/FreeBSD.  Unlike IBM, the
GFS people have indicated a willingness to bend on the license issue.

When I say "trivial", I mean "trivial", as the term is used in physics
or mathematics: a well understood operation that can be performed rote,
and does not require significant original thinking to perform.

When I say "where are the patches?" I mean "that's an incredibly
stupid idea, given the license, and you aren't going to get me to do
that work without paying me, so you might as well send patches -- do
the work yourself -- because you are going to have a hell of a time
getting buy-in from anyone clued enough to do the work for you".

> If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root
> file system too.

Only, you will never be able to build a firewall, router, or other
product that ships with it statically linked into the kernel, since
that would violate the terms of the GPL (additional restrictions,
and linked code not being GPL'ed).

What good is the damn thing, if the only people who can use it are
big site admins who build their own kernels, and never expect to
sell their company to anyone (or are prepared to recompile all the
kernels on all their machines, should the company ever sell, since
they can't transfer ownership of a FreeBSD kernel with GPL'ed code
in it directly, without violating the license)?

RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
work around the letter of the GPL.  Given his religious convictions,
I can't see him *not*.  Factor that into your decision.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to