[talk] ZFS FreeBSD future confusion?

[Warner Losh]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:35 PM Isaac (.ike) Levy <ike at blackskyresearch.net>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Isaac (.ike) Levy wrote:
>
> > Aside from trying to keep up with 40-char tweets, has *anyone* in the
> > FreeBSD universe written up a clear public statement about the state of
> > things- and the future plans?
> > (Like a plain language, coherent, paragraph or two.)
>
> Oh- I sortof found the answers I wanted on page 17 in Alan Jude's slide
> deck:
>
> "Fighting the FUD
> ●This news resulted in some immediate negative gut reactions
> ●There is only one OpenZFS, we are all in this together
> ●FreeBSD will get features sooner, be more involved upstream
> ●Linux uses the SPL (Solaris Porting Layer) to run ZFS code as close to
> the illumos upstream as possible
> ●FreeBSD does similar, so using ZoL code will not inject Linux or GPL code
> into the FreeBSD kernel
> ●No Linux-KPI shims are used for ZFS code"
>
> Sounds rational.  I'm still feeling shaky, ZFS on FreeBSD is just *so
> darned good* right now.
>

Basically, ZoL and FreeBSD had Illumos as our upstream. ZoL has added a
bunch in a way that could be upstreamed, but weren't due to the extreme
slow pace of Illumos taking changes, as well as viability issues with
Illumos. FreeBSD is rebasing from Illumos to ZoL because the official
upstream of OpenZFS is moving from Illumos to ZoL because the efforts of
adding the missing bits since the fork to ZoL was much smaller than vice
versa. ZoL is an unfortunate name because it has the trigger word Linux in
it. The ZoL folks are not the LKM folks, but quite reasonable people
without the GPL politics getting in the way that caused Linux to be such a
trigger word.

Warner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.nycbug.org:8443/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190612/5d41e481/attachment.htm>