Hacker News Reader

Comment by theodric | Hacker News Reader

I'm too lazy to summarize this beyond saying both ext4 and XFS have their advantages and disadvantages, and both are still under active development. ZFS is a funny and problematic one that does lots of cool tricks but isn't properly free and gobbles resources.

Check this: https://linuxhint.com/xfs-vs-ext4-brief-comparison/

View on HN

ZFS (or rather, OpenZFS) is absolutely Free Software and Open Source under any definition. Richard Stallman will tell you the same thing.

It just has an unfortunate license that's not GPL-compatible and this causes problems with GPL kernels (e.g. Linux), which is a very different thing than "not being properly free".

Context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib...

However, the wiki article also notes that Ubuntu includes it by default as a binary module. That seems like a sensible thing to do from a legal perspective, since it's generally accepted that binary modules are not "linked to" the kernel in such a way as to trigger GPL provisions relating to such linkage.

"Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me." -Linus Torvalds

https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpost...

Even Linus gets it wrong from time to time. And here he is absolutely wrong.

ZFS is absolutely Free Software, it's just that its license isn't GPLv2 compatible. (Bearing in mind that by the same stroke, GPLv3 isn't GPLv2 compatible.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com