ZFS File system for leopard. Where does linux go from there?

[linuxmann]

I have read an article from PC world explaining how a new file system invented for Apple computer corporation could slam and blow Microsoft's Vista out of the water. The question i am asking here is: where does the linux community go from here once leopard comes out with the ZFS file system? they say it may not be completely official, but we'll see. What is ZFS you ask? It stands for Zettabyte file system, which is a 128 bit file system that can store 18 billion times more data than current 64-bit systems, A 64bit example is NTFS which is Microsoft Corp.'s file system for Windows. The rest is here http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132735-c,macos/article.html

I still prefer linux as my OS of choice. But, what will happen once this gets released?

I think this will be an interesting discussion

[Tomosaur]

You do not need 16 billion times the amount of data you can store on your current hard drive.

[Adamant1988]

I have read an article from PC world explaining how a new file system invented for Apple computer corporation could slam and blow Microsoft's Vista out of the water. The question i am asking here is: where does the linux community go from here once leopard comes out with the ZFS file system? they say it may not be completely official, but we'll see. What is ZFS you ask? It stands for Zettabyte file system, which is a 128 bit file system that can store 18 billion times more data than current 64-bit systems, A 64bit example is NTFS which is Microsoft Corp.'s file system for Windows. The rest is here http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132735-c,macos/article.html

I still prefer linux as my OS of choice. But, what will happen once this gets released?

I think this will be an interesting discussion

I know what will happen for me...
I'll be buying a Mac :) Think of all the things I could store on that hard-drive... lol.

[Nonno Bassotto]

ZFS was developed for Solaris by Sun, not for Apple. It is an open source file system that Apple can use, and they said they have plans to do so.

[linuxmann]

ok

[Adamant1988]

heh, i am worried about linux, what the future will hold for open source operating systems. this could be bad news for years to come. i use multiple operating systems so this does not hurt me significantly, but, this could do something.

No, it may be bad for Linux because the FSF has decided that instead of playing nicely with the rest of the world, we have to show them how free we are by not being legally allowed to integrate things like ZFS into the OS. /me thanks the FSF for removing my proprietary shackles and giving me a small room with no doors or windows to play in.

The possible effects of ZFS could be that we will see a lot more developer mind-share go to things like BSD and openSolaris where licensing allows for the distributions of all kinds of great things to be distributed as part of the core OS, and on the disk.

As it stands.. BSD, Mac OS X, and Solaris/openSolaris use it. I think it's Desktop-BSD that is integrating it, but I could be wrong.

Sucks to be using a GPL'd software now :(

[linuxmann]

so people are saying this 128bit form is free to distribute to other OS'es or is it sort of closed-source like? ahh, confusion!

[tehhaxorr]

Your average end user doesn't give a **** what type of filesystem is under the hood, they most likely oesn't know that such a thing exists so there is no way that this is going to allow apple to "Blow vista out of the water" What an absurd comment by your every day tech dipshits at PC world.

You could most likely use ZFS in linux if you really wanted, who cares if the GPL doesn't like it, who's going to listen to stallman and his hippy bum boys anyway?

[tehhaxorr]

/me thanks the FSF for removing my proprietary shackles and giving me a small room with no doors or windows to play in.


Quoted for agreement, the GPL isn't much better than every propietary liscence out there as far as these type of restrictions are concerned. So what if i get some source code with my GPL if i can't have some propietary technology with it.

It's not like we as the end users can't use ZFS, it's under the CDDL, we have a fair ammount of distribution rights, i'm sure sun would not care if someone shipped it with Linux, the FSF are the ones who would cry foul.

[az]

I still prefer linux as my OS of choice. But, what will happen once this gets released?


Nothing. Who cares?

As soon as there is demand for a 128-bit filesystem in linux, one will be written and implemented.

[linuxmann]

look, i did not want for this to start into a flame war. Tipically when it comes to computing power, people always want more as time goes on. Technology doubles every so often and operating systems always get more powerful. When it comes to a lot of things, people actually do care what OS they have. By the way tehhaxorr may i ask you to express your opinions politely, i don't want this closed.

[Adamant1988]

Your average end user doesn't give a **** what type of filesystem is under the hood, they most likely oesn't know that such a thing exists so there is no way that this is going to allow apple to "Blow vista out of the water" What an absurd comment by your every day tech dipshits at PC world.

You could most likely use ZFS in linux if you really wanted, who cares if the GPL doesn't like it, who's going to listen to stallman and his hippy bum boys anyway?

Unfortunately, the GPL has teeth.

[linuxmann]

Nothing. Who cares?

As soon as there is demand for a 128-bit filesystem in linux, one will be written and implemented.

True. lets wait and see.

[tehhaxorr]

Unfortunately, the GPL has teeth.

Not as far as i'm concerned, i do what i want with what i have, if i reallywanted i will do anything i want, i'll steal code, crack software, pirate movies, if i like an OSS project i'll contribute and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The FSF can cry all they want about me disregarding their rules but at the end of the day it's my life and my decision, i refuse ot pay any attention to these bloody absurd software licenses.

[Adamant1988]

Not as far as i'm concerned, i do what i want with what i have, if i reallywanted i will do anything i want, i'll steal code, crack software, pirate movies, if i like an OSS project i'll contribute and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The FSF can cry all they want about me disregarding their rules but at the end of the day it's my life and my decision, i refuse ot pay any attention to these bloody absurd software licenses.

Well, the GPL has teeth when you appear as a blip on RMS's radar. However, the GPL is one well written, enforceable license.

[juxtaposed]

You do not need 16 billion times the amount of data you can store on your current hard drive.

You'll think differently in 20 years :P


Not as far as i'm concerned, i do what i want with what i have, if i reallywanted i will do anything i want, i'll steal code, crack software, pirate movies, if i like an OSS project i'll contribute and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The FSF can cry all they want about me disregarding their rules but at the end of the day it's my life and my decision, i refuse ot pay any attention to these bloody absurd software licenses.

=)

Anyway, I think ZFS looks pretty cool. An up to date file system is needed, arn't most file systems used nowadays pretty old?

[qamelian]

Not as far as i'm concerned, i do what i want with what i have, if i reallywanted i will do anything i want, i'll steal code, crack software, pirate movies, if i like an OSS project i'll contribute and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The FSF can cry all they want about me disregarding their rules but at the end of the day it's my life and my decision, i refuse ot pay any attention to these bloody absurd software licenses.

No. At the end of the day you're potentially a thief and a criminal. If you don't want to play by the rules, get out of the game.

[Tomosaur]

You'll think differently in 20 years :P

No, I won't. The onus is to create smaller files, in bigger programs, which is why we have the endless debates about compression formats etc. In 20 years, you won't be buying and installing programs on your own machines, so you will only be using your hard drive to store files, and possibly a small OS kernel to keep things in check. Everybody with their own copy of the same program is an inefficient waste of space - and as you know, the people who manage such things are obsessed with efficiency. A desktop user does not, and will probably never, require such vast storage space. Servers / service providers etc - maybe, and for scientific purposes, the benefits are enormous. Average Joe, however - is going to be buying smaller hard drives in the future - more peripherals to abstract his stuff (MP3 players, portable video players, PDAs) etc - and he is going to be running programs over a network (ie, the internet) rather than storing a local copy of said program.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we did away with hard drives altogether for desktop systems. If we had better support for peripherals like MP3 players, and they were better integrated with our machines, then we wouldn't need hard drives to store MP3s prior to putting them on the MP3 player, for example. If the current situation regarding DRM continues as it is now, then this will almost certainly happen. The people with money don't want you storing your music on your hard drive AND your mp3 player, for a number of reasons. You can be pretty much certain that they will do whatever they can to get their own way.



Not as far as i'm concerned, i do what i want with what i have, if i reallywanted i will do anything i want, i'll steal code, crack software, pirate movies, if i like an OSS project i'll contribute and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The FSF can cry all they want about me disregarding their rules but at the end of the day it's my life and my decision, i refuse ot pay any attention to these bloody absurd software licenses.

Then you're a pathetic human being. The FSF may be irritating at times, but at least it can hold its head up high and stand for something it believes in. People like you are the reason we need people like the FSF. When you steal a piece of software, it causes the developers to get angry, and restrict their licencing. This in turn makes it harder for us - the people who reject propietary stuff for free stuff, to create the tools we need and want. In any case - they can, and will (provided they catch you) 'do something about it'. There's a massive difference between 'free software' and 'stolen software'. Just because you have no respect for the licence on the code doesn't mean you have the right to ignore that licence. If you don't like the licence, don't use the software, it's as simple as that.

[maniacmusician]

No, I won't. The onus is to create smaller files, in bigger programs, which is why we have the endless debates about compression formats etc. In 20 years, you won't be buying and installing programs on your own machines, so you will only be using your hard drive to store files, and possibly a small OS kernel to keep things in check. Everybody with their own copy of the same program is an inefficient waste of space - and as you know, the people who manage such things are obsessed with efficiency. A desktop user does not, and will probably never, require such vast storage space. Servers / service providers etc - maybe, and for scientific purposes, the benefits are enormous. Average Joe, however - is going to be buying smaller hard drives in the future - more peripherals to abstract his stuff (MP3 players, portable video players, PDAs) etc - and he is going to be running programs over a network (ie, the internet) rather than storing a local copy of said program.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we did away with hard drives altogether for desktop systems. If we had better support for peripherals like MP3 players, and they were better integrated with our machines, then we wouldn't need hard drives to store MP3s prior to putting them on the MP3 player, for example. If the current situation regarding DRM continues as it is now, then this will almost certainly happen. The people with money don't want you storing your music on your hard drive AND your mp3 player, for a number of reasons. You can be pretty much certain that they will do whatever they can to get their own way.


Then you're a pathetic human being. The FSF may be irritating at times, but at least it can hold its head up high and stand for something it believes in. People like you are the reason we need people like the FSF. When you steal a piece of software, it causes the developers to get angry, and restrict their licencing. This in turn makes it harder for us - the people who reject propietary stuff for free stuff, to create the tools we need and want. In any case - they can, and will (provided they catch you) 'do something about it'. There's a massive difference between 'free software' and 'stolen software'. Just because you have no respect for the licence on the code doesn't mean you have the right to ignore that licence. If you don't like the licence, don't use the software, it's as simple as that.
I don't think that's how it will play about. There is still a demand for storage on the part of the end user. My music collection alone is about 60GB, and then I have various other forms of multimedia content. I have a 320GB drive that's approaching capacity...and that's after constantly burning some old stuff to DVDs. I'll have to tack on another drive soon. People are also starting to "rip" stuff that they own to their computers for convenience, and that creates a demand for more space s well.

I think as folks grow more and more aware of the internet and the content that it has to offer, they'll want more and more space on their systems. 3 years ago, people were happy with computers that shipped with a 40GB hard drive. Now, 80GB is considered small, and I've seen many that ship with 160-320GB hard drives. I think as time goes on, we'll be consuming more and more space...not necessarily with system components or programs that are installed, but with actual data and multimedia content.

[az]

Well, the GPL has teeth when you appear as a blip on RMS's radar. However, the GPL is one well written, enforceable license.

You don't know what you are talking about and I would appreciate you stop spreading this idea that the GPL is somehow preventing you from running some software.

The license under which the ZFS is distributed prevents it from becoming part of the upstream linux kernel. It is the exact same reason why the proprietary Nvidia video card drivers are not part of the upstream kernel.

That in no way prevents you from using it or running it, just like you may be running proprietary kernel drivers in Ubuntu that when loaded, taint the kernel.

You are misinterpreting what the kernel developers can and can't do with the kernel tree with what you can and can't do with your own computer and your own kernel. No one is going to break down your door if you compile ZFS into your kernel.

[Nikron]

I think the most we'll get is the FUSE driver seeing as how ZFS is CDDL, which is not compatible with GPL. Sun probably did it on purpose.

[Tomosaur]

I don't think that's how it will play about. There is still a demand for storage on the part of the end user. My music collection alone is about 60GB, and then I have various other forms of multimedia content. I have a 320GB drive that's approaching capacity...and that's after constantly burning some old stuff to DVDs. I'll have to tack on another drive soon. People are also starting to "rip" stuff that they own to their computers for convenience, and that creates a demand for more space s well.

I think as folks grow more and more aware of the internet and the content that it has to offer, they'll want more and more space on their systems. 3 years ago, people were happy with computers that shipped with a 40GB hard drive. Now, 80GB is considered small, and I've seen many that ship with 160-320GB hard drives. I think as time goes on, we'll be consuming more and more space...not necessarily with system components or programs that are installed, but with actual data and multimedia content.

I can understand how you would think that - but the reality is that hard drives as we know them are rapidly becoming obsolete. Home users generally do not need them except to run software and provide the OS - both of which are problems which have been solved but need to be perfected. Emails are usually stored on some network - documents can be created and stored on websites. Music and video files are the 'bulk' of the space taken up, and as the peripheral, portable market grows, so the need for massive hard-drives in computers to accomodate such files will fall. Eventually your entire system will be nothing more than a monitor into which you plug your various peripherals. There will be no hard drive - if you want to work on a document, it won't be stored on your own local machine (although the possibility to do so will probably remain), you'll just connect transparently to some network, retrieve it, modify it, then send it back. If you want to listen to music - it's all stored on your mp3 player. Videos? Stream them or again, watch them on a portable device. Software? Same deal as documents - you'll access them remotely. Our ever growing demand for hard drive space is an indication that hard drives are not doing an effective job - which will cause the technology I described above to be developed even faster. We simply can't keep improving capacity of a hard drive, it's a different ball game from increasing processor speed, for example.

There is an imbalance between file size and storage size. The problem we have at the moment is that file sizes are improving (ie, becoming smaller) at a much slower pace than hard drive technology. Super-massive hard drives have their place, sure, but a desktop system is not one of them.

[Adamant1988]

You don't know what you are talking about and I would appreciate you stop spreading this idea that the GPL is somehow preventing you from running some software.

The license under which the ZFS is distributed prevents it from becoming part of the upstream linux kernel. It is the exact same reason why the proprietary Nvidia video card drivers are not part of the upstream kernel.

That in no way prevents you from using it or running it, just like you may be running proprietary kernel drivers in Ubuntu that when loaded, taint the kernel.

You are misinterpreting what the kernel developers can and can't do with the kernel tree with what you can and can't do with your own computer and your own kernel. No one is going to break down your door if you compile ZFS into your kernel.

But, should I choose to integrate that into my distribution and distribute it, the FSF might become a little irate. I am not ignorant of this, and I apologize if I came off as saying it was illegal to compile into the kernel privately or otherwise. But, it is on a license that cannot be shipped with a GPL distribution, severely limiting the ability to adopt it.

So, I feel you attacked me a little strongly there for stating the truth. The GPL is terribly restrictive when it comes to ability to distribute with non-GPL software, and is incredibly incompatible with most licenses out there. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't there a little hubbub recently because a BSD project attempted to integrate GPL'd code into their kernel and got caught? So, the BSD license which is the most purely free license I can think of, next to no license at all, is incompatible with the GPL. Don't you find that a little interesting?

I would appreciate an apology for the attack, but I don't expect one. Perhaps, before you tell me I'm don't know what I'm talking about, you could ask me to clarify? I understand that I don't come across clearly sometimes.

[machoo02]

But, should I choose to integrate that into my distribution and distribute it, the FSF might become a little irate ... But, it is on a license that cannot be shipped with a GPL distribution, severely limiting the ability to adopt it.
If this is true, then why hasn't the FSF cracked down on virtually every distribution (except for gNewSense and a handful of others) for shipping things such as proprietary audio/video codecs, binary video drivers, etc.?

[slimdog360]

You do not need 16 billion times the amount of data you can store on your current hard drive.

well, I have a lot of pr0n on my computer, so it could come in handy

[Adamant1988]

If this is true, then why hasn't the FSF cracked down on virtually every distribution (except for gNewSense and a handful of others) for shipping things such as proprietary audio/video codecs, binary video drivers, etc.?

This has been used as a tool when the person(s) involved caught the eye of the FSF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was there not a little scuff about this with Mepis? There's a difference between shipping the codecs, etc. independently and installing them or integrating them into the system and shipping that.

Also, the audio codecs you use typically aren't proprietary, but are patent encumbered. This doesn't effect every country, so I think the FSF has trouble litigating on the point of MP3 support, etc. because those things are probably licensed under an open license.

The problem lay with licenses that the GPL doesn't agree with. I can't from memory recall a case that actually made it to court, but I do know that the GPL has had to be used to force companies to open code, etc. I suspect that if a distribution started shipping with ZFS as a feature, a cease and desist letter from the FSF may very well follow.

[saulgoode]

This has been used as a tool when the person(s) involved caught the eye of the FSF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was there not a little scuff about this with Mepis?

Perhaps I am thinking of a different "little scuff" than you, but Mepis was confronted by the FSF for failing to provide the source code for GPLed software in a manner required by the licensing of the copyright holders.


The problem lay with licenses that the GPL doesn't agree with. I can't from memory recall a case that actually made it to court, but I do know that the GPL has had to be used to force companies to open code, etc. I suspect that if a distribution started shipping with ZFS as a feature, a cease and desist letter from the FSF may very well follow.

Maybe you consider it a problem, but there is nothing requiring you to distribute GPL software. If you don't wish to honor the licensing terms set down by the copyright holders of software then don't use it in a distributed product. You wouldn't expect someone to be able to include a copy of Windows with their game disk, why do you feel GPL software authors deserve any less respect?

[Nikron]

A distro would first of all, write boot support for ZFS, which Sun has yet to do. (OpenSolaris does have it though).

The main reason why we can have boot partition being ZFS is because then the ZFS driver would have to become part of the kernel rather than just a module. Since modules get loaded after boot, you can't obviously boot off a partition that requires a module. ZFS being CDDL and thus being incompatible with GPL, it is unlikely that ZFS will become part of the kernel. However, I read somewhere that kernel developers are looking at making a "tainted" section for all those non-free goodies.

[Adamant1988]

Perhaps I am thinking of a different "little scuff" than you, but Mepis was confronted by the FSF for failing to provide the source code for GPLed software in a manner required by the licensing of the copyright holders.
I had forgotten about that. I thought the issue lay with the Nvidia driver in particular.




Maybe you consider it a problem, but there is nothing requiring you to distribute GPL software. If you don't wish to honor the licensing terms set down by the copyright holders of software then don't use it in a distributed product. You wouldn't expect someone to be able to include a copy of Windows with their game disk, why do you feel GPL software authors deserve any less respect?

I consider it a problem when the license in question is supposedly granting freedom. Also, in these situations, licensing deals can be made, but not with the FSF, they'll have none of that. If a game developer felt including Windows would help adopt the game, then maybe they should talk to Microsoft about a licensing deal.

[thisllub]

Among ZFS' selling points is huge capacity, storage pooling, fast data snapshots and copy-on-write.


Most of you seem to be missing the point here. Size is way less important than reliability, speed and flexibility to a business. It is easy to buy more disks, much harder to make them failsafe.
Journaling filesystems like Ext3 and Reiser leave FAT systems for dead when there is a power failure. A system that can instantly rollback to immediately before a disk corruption or hardware failure would win the server market overnight.

[runningwithscissors]

I consider it a problem when the license in question is supposedly granting freedom. Also, in these situations, licensing deals can be made, but not with the FSF, they'll have none of that. If a game developer felt including Windows would help adopt the game, then maybe they should talk to Microsoft about a licensing deal.Erm... Those ARE the licensing terms. If you wish to distribute your program with GPL'ed stuff you must make the sources available. The FSF only wrote the licence and enforces it. If you wish to yell at someone, yell at the developers who choose to adopt it for their programs.

[ramjet_1953]

Free BSD 7.0 will apparently be shipping with ZFS!

Looks like I might download it, if it is included.

Should be fun to play with.

Regards,
Roger :cool:

[az]

But, should I choose to integrate that into my distribution and distribute it, the FSF might become a little irate. ...


So, you are on the verge of releasing your own distro?





So, the BSD license which is the most purely free license I can think of, next to no license at all, is incompatible with the GPL. Don't you find that a little interesting?

I am sick and tired of people who think that public domain is a pure form of software freedom. No one is pointing a gun at your head, forcing you to use GPLed software. However, there is a reason why the GPL is the most popular FLOSS license (by a huge margin) And that's because it protects your freedoms.

A BSD license does not protect my freedoms as well. Anyway, isn't this about the ZFS license? That isn't even close to a BSD license.




I would appreciate an apology for the attack, but I don't expect one. Perhaps, before you tell me I'm don't know what I'm talking about, you could ask me to clarify? I understand that I don't come across clearly sometimes.

But I still think you don't know what you are talking about.



.

The problem lay with licenses that the GPL doesn't agree with. I can't from memory recall a case that actually made it to court, but I do know that the GPL has had to be used to force companies to open code, etc.

The GPL protects your freedoms. If another license gives those freedoms away, it is by design that it is not compatible with the GPL.


.
I suspect that if a distribution started shipping with ZFS as a feature, a cease and desist letter from the FSF may very well follow.

...just like the letters from the FSF not sent to Canonical, asking them to cease and desist shipping linux-restricted-modules (which include the nvidia and ati drivers as well as some wireless cards, etc...)



.
I consider it a problem when the license in question is supposedly granting freedom. Also, in these situations, licensing deals can be made, but not with the FSF, they'll have none of that. If a game developer felt including Windows would help adopt the game, then maybe they should talk to Microsoft about a licensing deal.

Licensing deals usually exclude some players. In free software, this is not acceptable.

Is this thread supposed to be about ZFS or your problems with the GPL and the FSF?

[Tundro Walker]

You do not need 16 billion times the amount of data you can store on your current hard drive.

I'm reminded of Bill Gates who's quoted as once saying...


No one needs more than 640K RAM

It's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

[Tomosaur]

I'm reminded of Bill Gates who's quoted as once saying...



It's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

Agreed, but the problem is that we are shifting towards distributed systems, not invidivudal systems connected via a network. I'm not saying that we won't need such large sizes ever - I'm just saying that a home user will not need that. For servers and content providers, sure - they may very well need such large storage sizes - but in a world with high bandwith, portable systems, such large storage capacities will be unnecessary. You want to watch a movie? Stream it from some website. Listen to a song? Same deal, or use your mp3 player. Home users will be storing less and less on their own personal machines. The only reason why everybody is amassing vast amounts of songs and movies etc on their hard drives is because our current system is incredibly inefficient. It makes far more sense to use remote storage rather than local storage, because then you can use any computer, anywhere, and have access to the same stuff. I'd bet my money on it. You do not need such massive storage capacity, but servers etc probably will.

[stmiller]

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/070544.html

And it is open source, under a mozilla-like license:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/

So someone could possibly write a GPL'd driver from scratch. Possibly.

And looks like some are already trying it under Linux with fuse:

http://www.csamuel.org/2006/12/30/zfs-on-linux-works/

[maniacmusician]

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/070544.html

And it is open source, under a mozilla-like license:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/

So someone could possibly write a GPL'd driver from scratch. Possibly.

And looks like some are already trying it under Linux with fuse:

http://www.csamuel.org/2006/12/30/zfs-on-linux-works/
the downside is that with fuse, it runs in userspace instead of kernelspace, where it really belongs.

[insane_alien]

Agreed, but the problem is that we are shifting towards distributed systems, not invidivudal systems connected via a network. I'm not saying that we won't need such large sizes ever - I'm just saying that a home user will not need that. For servers and content providers, sure - they may very well need such large storage sizes - but in a world with high bandwith, portable systems, such large storage capacities will be unnecessary. You want to watch a movie? Stream it from some website. Listen to a song? Same deal, or use your mp3 player. Home users will be storing less and less on their own personal machines. The only reason why everybody is amassing vast amounts of songs and movies etc on their hard drives is because our current system is incredibly inefficient. It makes far more sense to use remote storage rather than local storage, because then you can use any computer, anywhere, and have access to the same stuff. I'd bet my money on it. You do not need such massive storage capacity, but servers etc probably will.

i do need massive storage. i make my own videos hence i cannot just stream them from the web.

i have 467GB of footage atm. and when high def cameras become nice and cheap i can see the space needed quadrupling very very quickly.

some home users will definitely need large storage space.

[runningwithscissors]

And like **** do I want to upload my data to third party servers.

A lot of us don't use computers to listen to songs or watch movies. Sure I don't need as much space as the average warez junkie, but I don't want to rent my storage space and OS.

I don't even use web-mail for ****'s sake.

[juxtaposed]

You want to watch a movie? Stream it from some website.

What if I'd rather have my movies on my hard drive?

Streaming from some web site means that the website can have control over whether I watch it or not, how many times I watch it, etc.


Home users will be storing less and less on their own personal machines.

I want all my media on my hard drive (or other storage medium).

I want my media under my control, and not be at the whim of some corporation.

And all those central servers would be in america, and subject to american laws.

[machoo02]

I can't from memory recall a case that actually made it to court, but I do know that the GPL has had to be used to force companies to open code, etc.Isn't this generally in cases where companies/developers have abused GPL'ed code by not providing access to the sources (like what has been documented over at http://gpl-violations.org/)

[JT673]

64-bit can already hold, what is it...2^64 -1...1.8 BILLION GB. We don't really need more...

[tehhaxorr]

Then you're a pathetic human being. The FSF may be irritating at times, but at least it can hold its head up high and stand for something it believes in. People like you are the reason we need people like the FSF. When you steal a piece of software, it causes the developers to get angry, and restrict their licencing. This in turn makes it harder for us - the people who reject propietary stuff for free stuff, to create the tools we need and want. In any case - they can, and will (provided they catch you) 'do something about it'. There's a massive difference between 'free software' and 'stolen software'. Just because you have no respect for the licence on the code doesn't mean you have the right to ignore that licence. If you don't like the licence, don't use the software, it's as simple as that.

But i stand to make no profit at all from someone else's work, thats why i don't care at all about the rules and regulations, if a business stole the software that would be a crime because you are stealing profit, but if I'm doing this for myself, using what i want when i want it, then nobody should really care.

I think the FSF are stupid in how they restrict proprietary technology, or just technology licensed differently but is still Free software. As long as the end user has the right to legally use the software and the Distro legally has the right to redistribute the software then there should be no reason for the FSF to outlaw it.

If you use any proprietary technology on your machine you have no right to criticize my opinion, you are simply being a hypocrite.

They are effectively controlling their users just like a company like Microsoft. Some freedom eh?

[argie]

But i stand to make no profit at all from someone else's work, thats why i don't care at all about the rules and regulations, if a business stole the software that would be a crime because you are stealing profit, but if I'm doing this for myself, using what i want when i want it, then nobody should really care. ...

See, look at this from the other side. You want to play our game, you play within our rules. Else you make your own game. Software piracy is a crime, regardless of intent. If you live in a democratic country and really believed strongly that this is wrong, you would gather together a group of like minded people with the objective of changing that. I remember reading somewhere about how exactly civil disobedience should be done to be done right (maybe a set of guidelines by Martin Luther King, or Gandhi or something like that) . Quite simply, when you live in a society, you automatically make a contract to abide by their rules. In exchange, you get the benefits of living in that society.

And why limit yourself to material 'profit'? If you play a football game with friends do you 'profit' materially? No, you don't, but you do 'profit' on some level. Playing with Photoshop to create wallpaper that you give away freely doesn't get you material profit but there is some gain involved. Even if you didn't give it away, the gain is the nice new wallpaper you now have. You have gained wallpaper you couldn't have otherwise by misuse of another's work. Is that not profit?

DISCLAIMER: Photoshop there is just an example. The argument about "which is freer" over licences is not worth entering because any arguments discussed here have been done to death elsewhere many times over.

I like going off on strange tangents.

[az]

The FSF can cry all they want about me disregarding their rules but at the end of the day it's my life and my decision, i refuse ot pay any attention to these bloody absurd software licenses.

But i stand to make no profit at all from someone else's work, thats why i don't care at all about the rules and regulations, if a business stole the software that would be a crime because you are stealing profit, but if I'm doing this for myself, using what i want when i want it, then nobody should really care.]


1. Regardless of what you use proprietary software for, you are never entitled to steal it.
2. The FSF doesn't give a rat's-**** what software you run. Other than writing the licence, the FSF have nothing to do with you.
3. NO! Unless you distribute your project, you don't have to run gpl-compatible software exclusively. The FSF never said you had to.



I think the FSF are stupid in how they restrict proprietary technology, or just technology licensed differently but is still Free software. .

I think you will see things a little less angily if you realize that the FSF has nothing to do with the equasion. The author of the code choses to distribute the software as free-libre software and choses to reserve the right to prevent people from turning it into proprietary software. If you dissagree with that, you should yell at the author of the software, not the FSF!




As long as the end user has the right to legally use the software and the Distro legally has the right to redistribute the software then there should be no reason for the FSF to outlaw it.]

Right.



They are effectively controlling their users just like a company like Microsoft. Some freedom eh?

You really should reveiew your facts. No one is telling you what youcan and cannot run on your computer. You are simply restricted from taking freedom away from others. You cannot take software, for which you have the freedom to obtain, use, study, modify and pass on and pass it on, but prevent others from doing the same. It makes sense to me. This is software freedom, not anarchy.

[Tomosaur]

What if I'd rather have my movies on my hard drive?

Streaming from some web site means that the website can have control over whether I watch it or not, how many times I watch it, etc.



I want all my media on my hard drive (or other storage medium).

I want my media under my control, and not be at the whim of some corporation.

And all those central servers would be in america, and subject to american laws.
The needs of the users have very little to do with the direction technology takes, I'm afraid. Big media controls technology at this point in time. If it is in their interests for you to store things remotely (which it is, because then they can control what you do with it), then you can be pretty sure that it will happen sooner or later.

I can perfectly understand people wanting to store things locally. The point is that your current objections to storing things remotely - availability, bandwith, expense etc, will all dissappear eventually. We will come to a point where the time taken to retrieve a movie or a song from the internet, is equal to the time taken to retrieve said movie or song from your hard drive. Storing things remotely will have advantages over local storage such as portability, redundancy, and will provide opportunities to do more with whatever it is you're storing. It will be a transparent process. When you create a file, you probably won't have to say 'Ok, send this file to my ftp account at this IP', it will just happen. You will be able to create a video in the UK, and fly to America and access it from any computer, without taking your own machine with you.

By no means will local storage dissappear altogether - but the need for local storage will become smaller and smaller as the technology for distributed systems improves. It makes no sense to have replicated systems all over the planet. It is less secure, more trouble to standardise, and, most importantly, enables things which the people who create the technology don't want you to be able to do. Distributed systems are in the interests of developers, institutions, and media giants. If you create your own videos, you'll still be able to do that, but rather than everything being localised automatically, you will probably have to explicitly say 'store this locally', rather than the current situation, where you say 'store this remotely' explicitly.

And the idea that the servers will be controlled by American laws is not necessarily true. I can certainly see some international consensus being drawn up if what I'm saying were to actually happen. No government wants its citizens subject to the laws of another country, so individual countries would probably make their own agreements with each other, and when you set up your machine for the first time, you'll probably be able to say 'I live in the UK, so I'm subject to UK laws' or something like that.



But i stand to make no profit at all from someone else's work, thats why i don't care at all about the rules and regulations, if a business stole the software that would be a crime because you are stealing profit, but if I'm doing this for myself, using what i want when i want it, then nobody should really care.

I think the FSF are stupid in how they restrict proprietary technology, or just technology licensed differently but is still Free software. As long as the end user has the right to legally use the software and the Distro legally has the right to redistribute the software then there should be no reason for the FSF to outlaw it.

If you use any proprietary technology on your machine you have no right to criticize my opinion, you are simply being a hypocrite.

They are effectively controlling their users just like a company like Microsoft. Some freedom eh?

Except that by pirating software, you are profiting materially. You're not supposed to have all of the benefits which that piece of software gives you, because you a) didn't pay for it, or b) didn't agree to the licence. Regardless of whether you make money or not, the fact that you have something which you didn't have before (the software) means that you have profited. Businesses are generally treated as individual people, but they have extra responsibilities because they are a business. A business can be found guilty of theft, for example, or murder. It doesn't matter one iota whether you 'agree' with the idea of paying for software or not. The creator set some conditions for the distribution of that software. If you don't meet these conditions, then you're not supposed to get the software. What if you were selling a bike, for example, and I just walked up and took it from you without paying? Regardless of whether you have a thousand other bikes, I have still stolen from you, so I should be punished and you should be compensated. That is what we're talking about here. The creator has put forth the condition of ownership of that software - essentially, that you have to pay. The creator doesn't WANT to give the software away for free, therefore if you take the software for free anyway, you have stolen. You may not think that this should be the case, but it IS the case, and in most countries at least, it IS the law. If you don't like it, emigrate. Part of living in a society is that everyone agrees on the laws and sticks to them. IF everybody were to act like you, then the whole structure would break down. Why should everyone else have to pay for the software, if you don't? The right thing to do, if you don't want to pay, is to simply cut your losses and find an alternative.

I think you're misunderstanding the role of the FSF, in any case. The whole purpose of the GPL is to protect your freedoms to share, modify, and distribute the software you use. The reason why it has to be so strict is that we've already gone so far down the wrong path, that we have to use the current system in order to escape from it. The GPL doesn't say anywhere that you can't use propietary software on the same machine as GPLd software. You just can't take GPLd software, and use it in propietary software. That is a perfectly sensible stipulation to make, because it defends the wishes of the author of the software (that their code be free, in the sense that it is open and USUALLY, although not always, freely available). In any case - the GPL is hardly forced upon developers. It is their choice to use GPLd code or not. If they do, then they are bound by the terms of the GPL. If not, then they can find the code they wish to use elsewhere, or write it themselves. The FSF isn't sitting their pointing a gun to your head saying 'YOU CAN ONLY USE GPLd SOFTWARE BWAHAHAH!', they're just saying 'if you wish to use GPL software, then you do so according to the terms set out by the GPL'. It just so happens that the GPL terms of use are UNRESTRICTIVE. The only restrictions on GPLd code generally are there to restrict YOU from restricting others. You can't deny others the freedoms the GPL gives you.

And no, using propietary software alongside GPLd software does not make me a hypocrite. What if there is no free software available to replace the propietary software? The FSF prefers to use free software, but in some cases there are simply no other options, just like sometimes there are no propietary alternatives to free software. There is nothing in the GPL which says you can't use propietary software alongside GPLd software - you just can't combine the two.

[karellen]

The needs of the users have very little to do with the direction technology takes, I'm afraid. Big media controls technology at this point in time. If it is in their interests for you to store things remotely (which it is, because then they can control what you do with it), then you can be pretty sure that it will happen sooner or later.

I can perfectly understand people wanting to store things locally. The point is that your current objections to storing things remotely - availability, bandwith, expense etc, will all dissappear eventually. We will come to a point where the time taken to retrieve a movie or a song from the internet, is equal to the time taken to retrieve said movie or song from your hard drive. Storing things remotely will have advantages over local storage such as portability, redundancy, and will provide opportunities to do more with whatever it is you're storing. It will be a transparent process. When you create a file, you probably won't have to say 'Ok, send this file to my ftp account at this IP', it will just happen. You will be able to create a video in the UK, and fly to America and access it from any computer, without taking your own machine with you.

By no means will local storage dissappear altogether - but the need for local storage will become smaller and smaller as the technology for distributed systems improves. It makes no sense to have replicated systems all over the planet. It is less secure, more trouble to standardise, and, most importantly, enables things which the people who create the technology don't want you to be able to do. Distributed systems are in the interests of developers, institutions, and media giants. If you create your own videos, you'll still be able to do that, but rather than everything being localised automatically, you will probably have to explicitly say 'store this locally', rather than the current situation, where you say 'store this remotely' explicitly.

And the idea that the servers will be controlled by American laws is not necessarily true. I can certainly see some international consensus being drawn up if what I'm saying were to actually happen. No government wants its citizens subject to the laws of another country, so individual countries would probably make their own agreements with each other, and when you set up your machine for the first time, you'll probably be able to say 'I live in the UK, so I'm subject to UK laws' or something like that.



Except that by pirating software, you are profiting materially. You're not supposed to have all of the benefits which that piece of software gives you, because you a) didn't pay for it, or b) didn't agree to the licence. Regardless of whether you make money or not, the fact that you have something which you didn't have before (the software) means that you have profited. Businesses are generally treated as individual people, but they have extra responsibilities because they are a business. A business can be found guilty of theft, for example, or murder. It doesn't matter one iota whether you 'agree' with the idea of paying for software or not. The creator set some conditions for the distribution of that software. If you don't meet these conditions, then you're not supposed to get the software. What if you were selling a bike, for example, and I just walked up and took it from you without paying? Regardless of whether you have a thousand other bikes, I have still stolen from you, so I should be punished and you should be compensated. That is what we're talking about here. The creator has put forth the condition of ownership of that software - essentially, that you have to pay. The creator doesn't WANT to give the software away for free, therefore if you take the software for free anyway, you have stolen. You may not think that this should be the case, but it IS the case, and in most countries at least, it IS the law. If you don't like it, emigrate. Part of living in a society is that everyone agrees on the laws and sticks to them. IF everybody were to act like you, then the whole structure would break down. Why should everyone else have to pay for the software, if you don't? The right thing to do, if you don't want to pay, is to simply cut your losses and find an alternative.

I think you're misunderstanding the role of the FSF, in any case. The whole purpose of the GPL is to protect your freedoms to share, modify, and distribute the software you use. The reason why it has to be so strict is that we've already gone so far down the wrong path, that we have to use the current system in order to escape from it. The GPL doesn't say anywhere that you can't use propietary software on the same machine as GPLd software. You just can't take GPLd software, and use it in propietary software. That is a perfectly sensible stipulation to make, because it defends the wishes of the author of the software (that their code be free, in the sense that it is open and USUALLY, although not always, freely available). In any case - the GPL is hardly forced upon developers. It is their choice to use GPLd code or not. If they do, then they are bound by the terms of the GPL. If not, then they can find the code they wish to use elsewhere, or write it themselves. The FSF isn't sitting their pointing a gun to your head saying 'YOU CAN ONLY USE GPLd SOFTWARE BWAHAHAH!', they're just saying 'if you wish to use GPL software, then you do so according to the terms set out by the GPL'. It just so happens that the GPL terms of use are UNRESTRICTIVE. The only restrictions on GPLd code generally are there to restrict YOU from restricting others. You can't deny others the freedoms the GPL gives you.

And no, using propietary software alongside GPLd software does not make me a hypocrite. What if there is no free software available to replace the propietary software? The FSF prefers to use free software, but in some cases there are simply no other options, just like sometimes there are no propietary alternatives to free software. There is nothing in the GPL which says you can't use propietary software alongside GPLd software - you just can't combine the two.

well and thoroughly said...:)
nice piece of writing

[saulgoode]

That is what we're talking about here. The creator has put forth the condition of ownership of that software - essentially, that you have to pay. The creator doesn't WANT to give the software away for free, ...

Quoted for truth and being well-expressed. I would add that when speaking about GPL software, the case is essentially the same. The only difference is that the creator of the software is not interested in money, what he wants is more software so that his job of programming becomes easier. If you improve his program, he wants to have access to what you did. If you give his program to someone and they improve it, he wants to have access to that as well. He does not even care if you sell his program to this other person, as long as he is guaranteed to have access to the changes.

This is the "price" of GPL software. This is what GPL authors are demanding be paid for use of their software. It is why over half of open source software is licensed under the GPL -- it provides the authors something that they desire to have, even more than money.

Is this restrictive? Yes, hold no delusions that they are giving away their software without restrictions. Is this selfish? Maybe. But to be honest, it doesn't matter whether it is or not. Creators of software have the right to choose how that software is marketed. Those who are complaining that GPL authors are not giving software away, no strings attached, might just as well complain that their neighbors aren't signing over their paychecks; you have no right to demand either.

If the complaint is that GNU has the audacity to label it "Free Software" then fair enough, "free" might be a bad choice for precisely describing its true nature (I would propose "Cooperative Software" :) ). But not every term accurately describes what it represents. "Proprietary software" is no less of a misnomer; while it does apply to 'commercial' software (equally mislabelled), it implies that there is no ownership of Free Software which is completely inaccurate. It is extremely difficult to derive simplified terminology for complex concepts, and little is gained by getting hung up on the inaccuracies of various trademarks or labelling (though being aware of the imprecision is worthwhile).

[Gargamella]

Nothing. Who cares?

As soon as there is demand for a 128-bit filesystem in linux, one will be written and implemented.

this is the right answer, and this is the same happened with 64-bit: one have been written

[maniacmusician]

Anyways, Leopard will not have ZFS http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/12/apple-no-zfs-for-leopard/

[machoo02]

But i stand to make no profit at all from someone else's work, thats why i don't care at all about the rules and regulations, if a business stole the software that would be a crime because you are stealing profit, but if I'm doing this for myself, using what i want when i want it, then nobody should really care.So by your same logic, if I decided to drop by your house one day, walk on in, help myself to a beer from your fridge and whatever else I wanted from your cabinets and wander off with some of your stuff, you wouldn't really care, would you? After all, I'm doing this for myself and not making a profit (hey..I was thirsty and hungry, and really needed a new flat panel TV for my apartment).

What's your address again?