That comment was a comment.

Does XFS have license issues? Wasn't it release as GPL in 2000?

Amen to that Sir

From what I can tell they are hoping to make this a production release this year or next.

I always figured this was because it was a RHEL specific project. Looking at the website in the past everything was very specifi to RHEL. With that said I've got in running on Archlinux in the past, even as a root system for kicks.

Thank you, john

As in HDF5 for scientific data?

I would only add, use dm-integrity underneath everything except ZFS and /boot. ZFS includes it already and most boot loaders don’t understand it. For everything else it provides a cheap and effective way to tell if the drive is lying about reading a sector correctly.

I'm wondering if you watched the first half of this video? He spends most of the time explaining his answer to your point. He doesn't like stacks, and wants everything in one system so it can be managed from a single tool. He even said this repeatedly in the course of his presentation. You can disagree with that, of course, but he does make it clear why he holds that view. If you want your alternative view to have any traction you need to present arguments against the perceived need for single tool maintenance. So when you say you are unsure "what is even the point" it says to me that you fell asleep in class

I'm ALSO wondering if you watched the performance tests at the end of the presentation: where BTRFS was much worse than the other three tested systems. So you don't care about FS performance either? Or you were still asleep? Let me guess: you spent time learning BTRFS and don't want to retrain? That is a fair point for some existing users, but it's a point to be balanced against the suggested advantages on offer from Stratis. Existing skill sets are an important issue but not an automatic deal killer. Apologies if my guess is wrong, but I'm then very curious why you are defending the least well performing option?

@@trueriver1950 my apologies, it's unclear to me what you're responding? Never once did my response go into benchmarks, or performance. That said, when my colleagues at Red Hat internally announced Stratosphere, it was actually really slow, but in my own anecdotal testing. XFS however, by itself is really fast, but apparently not with stratosphere daemon orchestrating. Conversely, I've never thought of BTRFS as slow. I think your whole rant is much about nothing.

@@JonDisnard I used to use btrfs, but it was really inefficient on my SSD, with insane write amplification and random slowdowns. And a few times it would get some problem that was practically impossible to fix. I wanted something less buggy, so a few months ago I switched to ext4, and so far it's been just a million times better. (And on rotating disks I'm using ZFS, which has been just perfect.)

It is there. Linux supports BeOS. If your distribution of Linux does not have BeOS built-in, you can compile your Linux kernel from source supporting that. Last time I compiled a kernel the version is 5 point something. I believe that the latest kernel still has the BeOS code there.

It's possible. You can copy your current system to another storage with other FS, make changes in /etc/fstab, and maybe /boot and that's it.

I've given up waiting on BTRFS RAID5/6 for data (although I do use its RAID1 for the system). Watching BCacheFS with interest, but in the meantime OpenZFS has been great for data I care about.

Me too

Some of us (me) would like to see a Stratus comparison that also includes OpenZFS, which seems to include pretty much everything in Stratus. It also is easy enough to use for both root an boot.

OpenZFS remains under the widely feared and loathed CDDL 1.O that Sun (not Oracle) applied when they released the source.

The client is python, the server is written in rust. Which part do you think is responsible for handling the actual file system.

Exactly. It's Red Hat trying to have a volume Managing filesystem, instead of going with BTRFS.

The client is python, the server is written in rust. Which part do you think is responsible for handling the actual file system.

Is Rust, with its undeniable benefits, yet stable enough for critical usages? I'm not trolling; I don't use Rust, but have the impression that it still is developing and changing more quickly than I would like as the basis for a production grade file system. Ditto Python. And then I read this morning that the Red Hat branch of IBM announced they will stop relea0sing RHEL source, which might include that for the Stratus server and supporting software.

It's all fun ans games until you depend ln someone else to fix stuff, develop the functionality you need or have to live with whatever rules they're pushing down ln you because you own nothing and can't modify anything. You talk as if the FOSS movement came from folk who just wanted to be cool and whatnot, and not because of necessity.

@@andrebrait actually your statement suggest 2 subjects that are not opposed to each other. The bad people who foisted proprietary software (Billy G.?) were all doing it to STOP innovation being freely distributed.

@@andrebrait What unique value or necessity does FOSS afford us that we didn't have before? The best word processors, spreadsheets, CAD programs and operating systems are still closed and commercial. It has neither increased innovation nor lived up to its spurious claims of protecting user freedoms. In fact, FOSS has lead to an even more onerous trend of software as a service and cloud computing where the user's own data and accessibility are locked up behind a paywall. Ironically, it is the large software companies, such as Microsoft, Google and Oracle, who have benefited the most from FOSS. Their smaller less capitalized competitors are forced to not only compete against them, but also against inferior FOSS products. There was once a thriving market for shareware and low cost software products developed and supported by individuals and small companies, but they're no longer viable business models. It becomes no surprise why large companies enthusiastically support FOSS. In addition to solidifying their monopoly, they also get to capitalize on the free labor of eager and passionate FOSS developers under the auspices of FOSS ideals. None of these large software corporations would dare release the source to any of their flagship products, such as Google search or Windows. FOSS has also decimated the opportunities of the once growing middle class of professional software developers. Despite the astounding growth of the computer industry over past decades, the software developer job market hasn't grown at anywhere near the same pace. FOSS enables the technical infrastructure to outsource software development to lower cost global labor markets. Moreover, FOSS lacks the financial barriers such as license, training and support fees of traditional closed software, eliminating a significant advantage of domestic software developers in a global marketplace. In summary, FOSS has been an absolute disaster to software quality, the developer economy, and to the very freedoms it purports to champion and protect.

Funny, your use of "anti-intellectual" seems so narrow. Extremely creative people working in Linux to contribute to so many others, seems like a very good thing.

everyone replying here fell hard for the bait