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. This one is different - zfs is in active development, with highly welcomed features like de-duplication coming. > and the state of ZFS in FreeBSD this may not be strictly true. This was one-man's effort (though a heroic one, definitely), hardly a case to compare with. Regards, Andrey -- 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
