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), and the state of ZFS in FreeBSD this
may not be strictly true.
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

Reply via email to