back to article Ubuntu 16.04 LTS arrives today complete with forbidden ZFS

Canonical will today (April 21st) launch version 16.04 of its Ubuntu Linux distribution, Xenial Xerus, the new long-term-support version of the project. As the name suggests, long-term support versions of Ubuntu get, er, long-term support, a guaranteed five years from today to be precise. The Xenial Xerus will therefore be …

  1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    Priorities?

    "frustrate those looking for cutting edge enhancements" is exactly who?

    I doubt many want yet-more pointless GUI dicking around, or Firefox moving its drinks cabinet 6 inches closer to Chrome in removing useful features. Most folk like stability, and like the look and feel to stay the same unless they deliberately change it.

    For me having ZFS is a major useful step in it provides both data checksums and file system snapshots. Though it remains to be seen if this is well-used (e.g. can you snapshot the OS partition/share before any update/upgrade to allow roll-back without also rolling back your own data? Is that the default option in the upgrade manager?)

    systemd is another sore point. If you read Pottering's blogs it all sounds a good idea, and many aspects are. But the endlessly growing interdependency with it is a very bad thing, as its their borging of things that an init process has no need for (e.g. NTP) presumably because they were bored and did not want to fix bugs or, more importantly, user complaints instead.

    1. wolfetone Silver badge
      Terminator

      Re: Priorities?

      "systemd is another sore point. If you read Pottering's blogs it all sounds a good idea, and many aspects are. But the endlessly growing interdependency with it is a very bad thing, as its their borging of things that an init process has no need for (e.g. NTP) presumably because they were bored and did not want to fix bugs or, more importantly, user complaints instead."

      systemd will have it's own word processor soon.

      There's nothing you can do.

      Assimilate.

      Resistance is futile.

      1. Sam Liddicott

        Re: Priorities?

        "systemd will have it's own word processor soon"

        Systemd could well be the decent text editor that the Emacs operating system has been waiting for

        1. phuzz Silver badge

          Re: Priorities?

          "systemd will have it's own word processor soon"

          systemd is the One Ring to rule over emacs and vi alike.

          I'm pretty sure that that makes nano a hobbit in this analogy.

          1. el_oscuro

            Re: Priorities?

            You do realize that EMACS and VI are opposites, and any attempt to merge them will result in the Universe exploding and being replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable?

            1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

              Re: Priorities?

              Can someone please get to work and write "systemd in Action"...

        2. Tim99 Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: Priorities?

          @Sam Liddicot

          Why would I need a word processor when I can cat into a file, and then sed any changes I need from the terminal?

      2. Warm Braw Silver badge

        Re: Priorities?

        I suppose maybe that's why the article describes it as a "boot loader" - perhaps it will be eventually...

        1. NB

          Re: Priorities?

          it already is. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd-boot

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @NB - Re: Priorities?

            I especially loved this paragraph:

            Note: Windows 8.x+, including Windows 10, will overwrite any UEFI choices you make and install itself as the priority boot choice after every boot. Changing the boot order in the UEFI firmware will only last until the next Windows 10 boot. Know what the Change Boot Option key is for your motherboard.

            To make Windows 8.X and above respect your boot order, you must enter a Windows group policy and have it execute a batch (.bat) file on startup.

            How lovely!

            1. davidp231

              Re: @NB - Priorities?

              I've never seen that happen... mind you I use rEFInd as my boot loader. The only thing it defaults to is that last OS it booted.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Priorities?

        "systemd will have it's own word processor soon.

        There's nothing you can do.

        Assimilate."

        next version: systemdemacs

    2. Anonymice

      Re: Priorities?

      "For me having ZFS is a major useful step in it provides both data checksums and file system snapshots. Though it remains to be seen if this is well-used (e.g. can you snapshot the OS partition/share before any update/upgrade to allow roll-back without also rolling back your own data? Is that the default option in the upgrade manager?)"

      In this respect, just as with LVM snapshots - you can only snapshot whole partitions. However that shouldn't be an issue if you partition your disks properly. User data & sysem data are best kept to their own FS'.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Priorities?

        IANAFSE, but I didn't think that there was any concept of a partition in ZFS...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Priorities?

          Yyou can create multiple filesystems ("datasets") using "zfs create" and mount them on different mount points.

          Then at the individual dataset level you can set filesystem options, create snapshots etc.

          So you have the same sort of separation as you'd get with partitions or logical volumes with separate filesystems, but in a more flexible way.

          1. Adam Inistrator

            Re: Priorities?

            zfs isnt as flexible as btrfs IMO eg Cant remove physical extents and rebalance. btrfs is the default fs in suse. and apt-get automatically snapshots every upgrade and you can rollback or co-exist even version upgrades although it requires command line to do so. I doubt ZFS even comes close on that score. Pretty awesome.

            1. future research

              Re: Priorities?

              zfs isnt as flexible as btrfs IMO eg Cant remove physical extents and rebalance. btrfs is the default fs in suse. and apt-get automatically snapshots every upgrade and you can rollback or co-exist even version upgrades although it requires command line to do so. I doubt ZFS even comes close on that score. Pretty awesome.

              ZFS can now remove devices

              http://blog.delphix.com/alex/2015/01/15/openzfs-device-removal/

              at least 6 years ago opensolaris, you could do a upgrade, it would automatically snapshot the rpool and reconfigure grub for the new OS, but give the current one its own boot option for the kernel and a clone of the root filesystem pre upgrade that you could easy boot back into as if nothing have happen. (only gotcha was then manually upgrading the zpool verison on the disks that could not be understood by the old system).

              So ZFS can do the automatic snapshot and stuff, just needs to be implemented by the distribution.

      2. Bronek Kozicki Silver badge

        Re: Priorities?

        In this respect, just as with LVM snapshots - you can only snapshot whole partitions.

        that's not correct. In ZFS you can create multiple (nested or independent) filestems within single pool, and snapshot then separately. You can also create multiple independent volumes (block devices) and also snapshot them independently - these can be used to host other filesystems, while providing them with snapshotting and checksumming features implemented in the underlying block device i.e. ZFS.

        However native ZFS filesystems is often a better match for snapshotting, since it allows you to run a regular text diff against old and new files (old files are automatically mounted as read-only filesystem, as you access .zfs/snapshot hidden subdirectory). Very useful for /etc directory, if you are running ZFS on root filesystem. Oh as I wrote above, this /etc directory could be a separate filesystem with its own as-often-as-you-wish snapshots and filesystem options, without the need to create new ZFS pool (with data partitions etc).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Priorities?

      Getting the right time today is not optional. A lot of important things (i.e Kerberos...) won't work if your machine has not the correct time since the very beginning. Logs too need to have the correct timestamps since the beginning if you need to correlate them. Unless you have an hardware device to feed the correct time, you'll need NTP to get the time ASAP.

      It looks to me many complains about systemd is from people who wish to manage systems as if it was still 1970 and nothing changed in the past forty years. There are a lot of things that were optional back then, and are no longer.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Priorities?

        By all means the init system can *start* ntpd, but it shouldn't *be* ntpd.

        Having an entirely separate NTP daemon allows you to choose from multiple NTP implementations, developed and maintained separately. Indeed there is much useful work in this area (e.g. ntimed) and not having the option to swap this out is a major backwards step.

        The same applies for many other aspects of system operation - logging for example.

        See:

        http://www.muylinux.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/funny-systemd.gif

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Priorities?

          Basic services needs to be bolted inside. Having twelve ntp daemons and thirty logging systems is utterly stupid. The system needs to know which those basic services are, start them early, know their state, to be able to rely on them. Not all daemons have equal importance.

          As I said, its a matter of people unable to understand Unix is forty years old and what was good forty years ago not is no longer good. There's a Bible/Quran/<put your religious book here> approach to Unix design that hinders true innovation. Unix was never created perfect. Today, it's mostly an old system based on outdated assumptions that requires a modernization. Just, too many people are afraid of the new, it rocks their quiet outdated world and required them to learn new things...

          1. EvadingGrid

            Re: Priorities?

            No !

            Replacing old with new does not automatically mean better.

        2. Chris Fox

          Re: Priorities?

          "By all means the init system can *start* ntpd, but it shouldn't *be* ntpd."

          Reading through various threads and bug reports about ntpd and systemd, it seems that some people experience various cyclic dependencies and race conditions, the very issues that systemd was supposed to fix. Some fixes for such dependency hell involve adding hardcoded delays, the very kind of hacks that systemd was supposed to avoid. It seems the only way that systemd can live up to its hype is by taking over everything, and ceasing to be the very thing it was meant to be, an init system. It's adoption by Debian and its derivatives seems premature to say the least. And the every increasing frivolous dependencies on systemd and its libraries is most unfortunate (if you switch a Debian installation to another init sytem, why on earth does installing CUPS or, even more bizarre, GIMP *require* you to reinstate systemd?)

          For those who want a clean, elegant init system, with scripts that are usually just a few lines long, I recommend runit (as used in Voidlinux). In my experience it has faster start up and much lower memory and CPU load than systemd (which is helpful on a constrained system like an Rpi), and, unlike systemd, it is relatively easy to debug if things do go wrong. Unfortunately it can be hard to switch to runit on Debian and Ubuntu etc., given all the wierd systemd dependencies. So much for "preserving init choice".

      2. SolidSquid

        Re: Priorities?

        From what I saw, most of the complaints were more methodology related rather than functionality. People were annoyed that it was one massive bundled binary rather than a lot of smaller components which could be maintained independently

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: Priorities: "Busyware" vs "Stableware"

          People were annoyed that it was one massive bundled binary rather than a lot of smaller components which could be maintained independently

          Annoyed?

          ANNOYED?

          This seems to say more about the Clueless Tweeter "ain't doing no reading of dusty literature" Generation than about the "product" in question.

          I would be mad as hell. It would be enough to call for a good KKK-style expedition complete with wild night rides and burning torches in order to adjust attitudes.

        2. BitDr

          Re: Priorities?

          "One massive bundled binary".

          Exactly! Zero modularity. A massive potential for single point of failure. Systemd is a fine example of good intentions that aren't. To the person who commented about it not being 1970, why are you using *NIX then? Because it is better! Why is it better? Because you have (had) control, it is stable, it is robust and fixable with knowledge and a text editor. Detailed information about what is going on and troubleshooting can be had/done with the mark 1 eye-ball and a system console that, at the very least, speaks ASCII and has an RS232 port on it (finding a modern computer with an RS232 port is another issue).

          IMHO systemd is a solution in search of a problem, yes I CAN use it, and because I'm forced to I WILL use it, but I'm now pretty much through flight-testing BSD. If we can't move-forward with a Linux distro that is systemd free then BSD will be the OS of choice for our servers and will also be the direction in which all of our customer's servers are headed.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Priorities?

            I'm forced to use Linux because it is free, and people don't want to pay for software. Every day I have to face how much outdated Linux design is, how outdated its tools are, and how much workarounds I have to devise to make it work as I need. The whole POSIX standard is a big outdated mess as well.

            It's just like Emperors new clothes, nobody dares to say the emperor is actually naked...

            1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: Priorities?

              I'm forced to use Linux because it is free, and people don't want to pay for software.

              Astroturf-kun, please.

            2. Striped Lungi

              Re: Priorities?

              "Nobody dares to say the emperor is actually naked"

              I will..just give me a platform to say it from.

            3. keithpeter
              Coat

              Re: Priorities?

              "Every day I have to face how much outdated Linux design is, how outdated its tools are, and how much workarounds I have to devise to make it work as I need. "

              What are your needs?

              Can you give an example of a kernel/OS that you consider to be less outdated?

              Coat: mine's the one with a 9front .iso in the pocket

            4. John Sanders

              Re: Priorities?

              TROLL

          2. PeteA

            Re: Priorities?

            Interesting ... I'm also in the process of migrating away from Linux and onto FreeBSD largely because of (1) ZFS and (2) systemd. And yes, I'm well aware that I can run ZFS on Linux, but there are significant differences in the encryption story that (IMO) make the BSD version much more compelling.

        3. DrXym Silver badge

          Re: Priorities?

          "People were annoyed that it was one massive bundled binary rather than a lot of smaller components which could be maintained independently"

          The thing is, it isn't a massive bundled binary. It consists of dozens of executables that have well defined purposes relating to their own area of concern and run with minimal privileges. And systemd doesn't implement an NTP daemon, but it does have a service that allows it to synchronise the local date & time with a remote NTP server during bootup.

          This is bad how exactly?

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

            @DrXym Re: Priorities?

            "allows it to synchronise the local date & time with a remote NTP server during bootup. This is bad how exactly?"

            Syncing time during boot-up is a good thing. We already have ntpdate that is typically used to step-adjust during booting to correct any CMOS clock errors, so why re-implement it?

            My point is not that the goals of systemd are bad, nor that init scripts have problems, but it is the growing number of systemd dependencies that mean you can't choose what and where.

            If we want another rant, as one commentard has mentioned systemd will put a failed process in to maintenance mode, so it has to be manually restarted even after the next boot. With init a future reboot gives it another chance, which is a better thing for overall reliability (if in doubt || watchedog timeout => reboot!).

        4. John Sanders
          Linux

          Re: Priorities?

          Why does everybody keep saying it is a massive binary:

          ls -lh /lib/systemd/

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1.5M Jan 27 15:23 systemd

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-ac-power

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 51K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-activate

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 91K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-backlight

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 47K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-binfmt

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 99K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-bootchart

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 352K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-bus-proxyd

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 264K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-cgroups-agent

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 87K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-cryptsetup

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 292K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-fsck

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-fsckd

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-hibernate-resume

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 328K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-hostnamed

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 272K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-initctl

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 299K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-journald

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 336K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-localed

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 612K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-logind

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 39K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-machine-id-commit

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 51K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-modules-load

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 736K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-networkd

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 123K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-networkd-wait-online

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 35K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-quotacheck

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 35K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-random-seed

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 51K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-remount-fs

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-reply-password

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 508K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-resolved

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 308K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-resolve-host

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-rfkill

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 135K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-shutdown

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-sleep

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 91K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-socket-proxyd

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 51K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-sysctl

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1.3K Jan 18 20:54 systemd-sysv-install

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 332K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-timedated

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 135K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-timesyncd

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 431K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-udevd

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 272K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-update-utmp

          -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 31K Jan 27 15:23 systemd-user-sessions

          Stop talking about something you haven't used or know much about.

      3. Dazed and Confused

        Re: Priorities?

        It looks to me many complains about systemd is from people who wish to manage systems as if it was still 1970 and nothing changed in the past forty years.

        Most of the criticism of systemd that I see are from people who would like their systems to work and not have key things broken for them by a bit of SW that has decided to shutdown some key service because it feels like it. The Unix approach of doing one thing and doing it well has proved useful for 40 something years because it appears to be the best way of doing things. It's like writing SW using functions rather than trying to put all your code in one place and using goto's. There are many good ideas incorporated into systemd, but they would still be massively better if they were separated out into a series of individual bits that did what they were supposed to do and did that job well.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Priorities?

          "The Unix approach of doing one thing and doing it well has proved useful for 40 something years because it appears to be the best way of doing things."

          Until the one thing you're trying to do is dependent on another thing, which is in turn dependent on a few other things, meshing into an awful mess because each one is maintained by a different coder with a different methodology and none of them keep track of each other. End result? Mysterious and non-obvious incompatibilities that send your system to a screeching halt.

          Meanwhile, hardware is becoming much more versatile and interdependent in nature, resulting in highly-dynamic systems, something Init wasn't built for because hardware back then was more static in nature. Was the concept of hot-swapping, for example, even practical back then? Thus you end up with maintenance nightmares like network interfaces coming up in the wrong order (rather an important thing when one interface is outward-facing and one inward). Sounds to me like an argument over whether something's broken or not, with one side claiming it's not broken and the other saying it is.

          1. Dazed and Confused

            Re: Priorities?

            > Sounds to me like an argument over whether something's broken or not, with one side claiming it's not broken and the other saying it is.

            No most of the complaints about systemd aren't from people saying that init can't be improved upon, it can and it needs to be. It's just that systemd has taken the wrong turn in it's attempt to fix things.

            There are other attempts to produce a better init, a better init is needed sure. But an init that thinks it is also an NTPd is not what the world needs.

            1. John Sanders
              Linux

              Re: Priorities?

              Oh for FCUK sake!!!!

              systemd-timesyncd is a daemon that has been added for synchronizing the system clock across the network. It implements an SNTP client. In contrast to NTP implementations such as chrony or the NTP reference server this only implements a client side, and does not bother with the full NTP complexity, focusing only on querying time from one remote server and synchronizing the local clock to it.

              Do you guys bother to read any documentation ever? What are you point and click sysadmins?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Priorities?

          Unix was never proven useful It's just people believing it's perfect by definition (in an almost religious way) and refusing any idea that changes their way of working - and utterly blind to the many issues Unix shows today. Unix is exactly a bunch of spaghetti processes invoked by shell gotos.

          If Linux weren't free, and thereby a way to save a lots of money, Unix would have not go anywhere. The downside it's true innovation is stifled by people still thinking a design for isolated system with a few users is still good today.

          1. Roland6 Silver badge

            Re: Priorities?

            and utterly blind to the many issues Unix shows today.

            People were blind to the issues Unix showed back in the 70's and 80's - being free and able to run across a large range of differing vendors kit was deemed more important as it broke the near stranglehold of proprietary systems and introduced the world to interoperable IT, particularly when many systems shipped with, the then new Ethernet 2.0 connector and (TCP/IP) network stack... Without these, I doubt the Internet would have taken off in the way it did in the mid 90's...

          2. RegGuy1

            systemd: [Unix]'s true innovation is stifled

            Unix is a god-awful operating system. It is so flexible. It will let you experiment with it to see if you can make it worse by replacing the ageing init process, that has served millions for donkeys years perfectly well.

            What sort of operating system is that?

            Give me Windows any day where I have absolutely no control over how I can configure it -- indeed I can't even control the version; I installed version 8 but I went for a coffee an came back and it had grown into version 10. Those clever dudes at Microsoft -- let me give them my bank account details as well. What could go wrong?

        3. John Sanders
          Linux

          Re: Priorities?

          "The Unix approach of doing one thing and doing it well"

          You do realise that many things like SystemV do more than one thing and not very well?

          Are you confusing the forest for the trees?

          I have been using Systemd for two years now and found it superior in every way to SystemV/Upstart (which is what RH/CentOS/Ubuntu were using before)

          This comes from someone who was very skeptic at the beginning, I started using it reluctantly (was forced) just to realize that not only it is good, but bloody well designed.

          It is perfect? Probably not, but trust me it is way better than SystemV at managing services and dependencies between services.

          Most of the extra functionality is optional, you use it if you want it, pure and simple.

      4. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        @AC Re: Priorities?

        You missed the point completely, and others have already done my bit to point out that systemd starting NTP is fine, but reimplementing it in a manner that won't work outside of the systemd universe is a pointless waste of effort.

        It is this aspect, of making everything dependent on systemd for reasons that are often seem like no more than vanity, that is the issue.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC Priorities?

          You miss the point that critical sub-systems need to be started early and their state fully known, and as long as they are outside you have an issue because you have far less control over them.

          If a machine is the average useless hosting webserver you may not care much about time, but in many other situations the correct time is critical.

      5. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: Priorities?

        > It looks to me many complains about systemd is from people who wish to manage

        > systems as if it was still 1970 and nothing changed in the past forty years.

        The complaints are from people who didn't think the old system was that broken, and question the need to throw it out for a new and relatively untested system, designed by a guy who has a track record of designing for quite a narrow segment of the Linux market, of not listening to criticism, and failing to fix bugs. Having tried, and failed to get pulseaudio working properly on numerous headless boxes I have run into enough incorrect or incomplete documentation that I distrust his approach and dislike his hubris. Especially for an init system.

        1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
          Unhappy

          Re: Priorities?

          yes... and systemd still fails hard when a service can't start due to permissions problems (or selinux restrictions). If the service writes no log, systemd does a poor job of capturing output from the service executable so you can find out why it's dying.

          1. John Sanders
            Linux

            Re: Priorities?

            Gosh... (facepalm)

            Well, probably you are talking about a very old problem in the Selinux policies of fedora version 16 or something like that, and it was a Selinux caused problem that prevented messages going into the Journal.

            You could do this: StandardOutput=syslog+console and StandardError=syslog+console on your system unit

            The systemd.exec(5) man page explains the options you can set to control your daemon logging:

            StandardOutput= controls the redirection of stdout. Value can be one of inherit, null, tty, journal, syslog, kmsg, journal+console, syslog+console, kmsg+console or socket

            StandardError= controls the redirection of stderr. Values are the same as above with a slight difference for inherit explained in the man page.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Priorities?

          > track record of designing for quite a narrow segment of the Linux market

          Like the comments about opaque/wireframe move&resize in metacity, which boiled down to "my laptop works fine, if you're system can't keep up that's your problem not mine" which can only possibly have been written by someone who's never used a WAN in their lives.

      6. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Priorities?

        I'm not anti-systemd, I think init was awful.

        However NTP is a solved problem and was solved before systemd was a glint in the postmans eye.

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC - Re: Priorities?

        Those who actually use Kerberos and need to correlate events already know about the importance of NTP and how to set it up correctly. No need for systemd folks to nanny us. As for those who don't want to manage systems like it was still 1970, there's Windows for them. What's wrong with it ?

    4. heasus

      Re: Priorities?

      ZFS! Outstanding. This is an incredibly welcome change in behavior and brings a much needed useful fsys to linux; hats off to ubuntu. I might even consider returning to ubuntu - even with systemd.

      And, shut the hell up and go back to your cave, rms.

    5. Ian 55

      Who cares about start up times?

      I know OS suppliers like to boast that they've shaved a second off the time, but in the real world uses for Linux, kit is either on 24/7 and gets rebooted once every six months or so with kernel updates or is put into suspended mode.

      Either way, the difference between 20 or 30 seconds to boot is irrelevant - even a minute or two would not be 'too long' - and the price of systemd to shave those seconds off is too high.

      You want a faster boot? Boot off an SSD. If you need it to be quicker, you're doing something wrong.

      1. Preston Munchensonton

        Re: Who cares about start up times?

        Either way, the difference between 20 or 30 seconds to boot is irrelevant - even a minute or two would not be 'too long' - and the price of systemd to shave those seconds off is too high.

        This doesn't just apply to desktops, where that timeframe could be important to users. It also applies to physical servers, which really have never booted fast in my experience with the SAN or SCSI wait times to scan volumes, wait for FLOGI/PLOGI, etc. Just last weekend, a system maintenance had a 15 minute window just for the shutdown and reboot of an ESXi host, and that's without starting any of the guests.

        Start up times have accelerated to the point where developers should definitely spend their time solving problems that actually matter, like figuring out how to clean this systemd virus from new Linux distros.

    6. John Sanders
      Linux

      Re: Priorities?

      Regarding systemd

      Please stop saying that the init part comes with ntp or a word processor.

      Systemd is made of many parts, they are inter-related but the init process does not have an ntp client built-in, the ntp functionality is provided by a module that you can or can not use depending on your needs.

      Please make the effort to learn about systemd and stop spreading FUD.

  2. AMBxx Silver badge
    Unhappy

    LTS?

    5 years support or until the lawyers wade in over licensing.

    Not sure if open source fights like this are a sign of approaching maturity or senility.

    1. AndyS

      Re: LTS?

      > 5 years support or until the lawyers wade in over licensing.

      What? Is this something I've missed, or can you actually point at anything that resembles what you're blabbering about?

      The licence doesn't end after 5 years, Canonical will stop supporting it. Unlike with XP, you're free to set up a company to continue to support it yourself after that time, and sell support in any way you see fit.

      1. Craigness

        Re: LTS?

        RTFA

        "...no less an entity than GNU daddy Richard Stallman thinks Canonical is violating the GNU GPL because you can't blend GPL code and non-GPL code. The Software Freedom Conservancy agrees has form funding court actions that test the GPL..."

        1. AndyS

          Re: LTS?

          OK, I misread the OP as saying the legal problems would start after 5 years. He's still spouting nonsense though.

          Even if the ZFS issue is found problematic, that won't end support. Worst case scenario I can think of is that they'll stop distributing ZFS with new downloads, or similar.

          And as I pointed out, even if Canonical goes under, the product won't die.

          Where does anyone get the idea that this could kill the product as it stands? That is pure fantasy.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: LTS?

        > What? Is this something I've missed, or can you actually point at anything that resembles what you're blabbering about?

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/26/canonical_in_zfsonlinux_gpl_violation_spat/

        Or just type "ubuntu zfs licencing" into Google.

        Basically:

        * it's possible that someone with a copyright interest in the Linux kernel will sue Canonical for violating the terms of the GPL, because they have added a module to the kernel where the module itself is not covered by GPL.

        * it's possible that Oracle will sue Canonical over their use of ZFS. The CDDL is more permissive than the GPL, but there are also patent issues. The CDDL says "no patent license is granted for ... the combination of the Original Software with other software or devices"

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: LTS?

          Ubuntu doesn't use Oracle's version of ZFS. What's more, Oracle lost interest in maintaining that five years ago.

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

            Re: LTS?

            "Oracle lost interest in maintaining that five years ago"

            Oracle never lost interest in making moneyextracting money or controlling things though.

            1. Dan 55 Silver badge

              Re: LTS?

              They'd have to argue that Canonical is making them lose money on it in court... A bit difficult I would think.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Dan 55 - Re: LTS?

                Lost revenue is used as a basis to calculate how much Ubuntu should pay but it is not used to establish that infringement has been committed. Oracle would be just as happy to have Canonical shut down. To make it easier for you to understand, if I steal your property and give it away for free I'm still guilty according to the law.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: LTS?

            Oracle still has the patents though (the ones which it settled with Netapp for an undisclosed sum)

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: or until the lawyers wade in over licensing.

      This is perhaps going to be the most interesting development, who is going to send in the lawyers and against whom? and will this actually be in both the best interests of either the open source community and its customers/users.

      Perhaps someone should be telling Stallman to add his voice to those calling for Oracle, as the majority licence holder in ZFS to simply make a decree changing the licence status of ZFS - just as the University of California did over BSD, and help the open source community resolve the incompatibilities between it's legacy licences.

    3. TVU

      Re: LTS?

      "5 years support or until the lawyers wade in over licensing.

      Not sure if open source fights like this are a sign of approaching maturity or senility."

      I think that concerns over the implications of the Common Development and Distribution License that applies to OpenZFS are valid. That said, three of the four informed legal opinions I have seen so far support Canonical's position with the only dissenting opinion coming from the Software Freedom Conservancy (no surprise there then). I also strongly suspect that behind the scenes Canonical will have explored the legal position in depth so that they are in a strong and defensible position.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Btrfs is a good alternative to zfs and works well on Ubuntu 14.04.

    Not sure if btrfs is illegal though, I assume not.

    1. Anonymice

      Btrfs is *not* a stable filesystem & shouldn't be used for critical data. ZFS has a big history, albeit on other arquitectures. I've not seen any good data on the Linux port.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You are just reading outdated docs. It is stable according to the main project and latest versions.

        https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page#Stability_status

        This is where the Internet really sucks for factual information. Most blogs repeat the comments that they read on a previous blog about stability. These are just old 2007 to 2014.

        Check you have new enough kernels and packages.

        1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Does btrfs still decide the disk if full when it's not?. And then continue to maintain it's full after you delete some files?

          Honestly, having tried both btrfs (and run into this problem) and zfs, there is just no comparison. There's a reason people rave about it.

      2. Bronek Kozicki Silver badge

        There are some large deployments of ZFS on Linux, why else do you think Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is (indirectly) funding it? Other examples include NASA and CERN

      3. Adam Inistrator

        "Btrfs is *not* a stable filesystem & shouldn't be used for critical data."

        Spouting nonsense I guess. You are way out of date. It is the DEFAULT fs on SUSE and well supported on Debian/Ubuntu just for the lulz?

        1. Steve 53

          Re: New???

          The best advise a friend gave me when looking at BRTFS stability was to look at the mailing list, and see how many puppies it was killing.

          While it may be the default for boot disks, boot disks are rarely multidisk raid.

          There are a number of shortcomings with RAID5 style configuration (Write holes, poor re-balancing, etc) which made me feel decidedly uncomfortable trusting it with my data.

          Which is a shame, as from a convenience point of view, being able to simply add disks of varying sizes would have been much more convenient.

          I went with ZFS in the end. (Only about 4 months ago, so the info is reasonably current)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: New???

            BTRFS is the FS on all Netgear ReadyNAS, the OS of which is based on Debian.

            Of course a NAS is a special case of server, and they can have greater control of which features are used, but BTRFS is pretty stable on it.

          2. John Sanders

            Re: New???

            Nothing stops you from running btrfs on top of mdadm and get solid RAID5 functionality.

            That is how I have been building btrfs pools for a long time and had very little issues.

            Having said that, zfs is great.

    2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      RedHat seem to think Btrfs is ok to use

      https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Storage_Administration_Guide/ch-btrfs.html

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: RedHat seem to think Btrfs is ok to use

        Yes, but Red Hat also think systemd is okay to use.

      2. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        Re: RedHat seem to think Btrfs is ok to use

        Also many RHEL customers are sticking to version 6 and older proven stuff. They value stability and dependability over "new and probably broken on arrival or the next update".

        1. picturethis
          Thumb Up

          Re: RedHat seem to think Btrfs is ok to use

          This is pretty-much what I've been doing for the last 4 years or so. RHEL/CentOS 6.7 (the latest/last in the 6.x series) for servers and Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1/17.2 for desktops. Both for professional use and personal use.

          For me, this seems to be a good combination of "stuff that just works" and getting latest stuff (that also "just works") and still supported. I'll continue along this path until there's a path with even less overhead.

          "Overhead" being defined as my time spent screwing around with shit that should just "work". My time is worth more to me now as I get older (since I have less of it). Computers/Software are mostly just tools for me now, tools used to get more useful work done.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: RedHat seem to think Btrfs is ok to use

            RHEL/CENTOS 6 the new Windows XP/Server 2k3 except the community could decide to support those for a very long time indeed if it was deemed sensible.

      3. BitDr

        Re: RedHat seem to think Btrfs is ok to use

        Red Hat also thinks systemd and crawling into bed with Microsoft is a good idea. One of those has a history littered with the husks of its partners... the other one is just starting out on it's career path.

        [Edit] Sorry, I hit [submit] before seeing others referencing the first point.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Steve Davies 3 - Re: RedHat seem to think Btrfs is ok to use

        Maybe their lawyers know something we don't know, or maybe RedHat fears Oracle lawyers more than Ubuntu does.

  4. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Once upon a time...

    In a time oh so very long ago, the arrival of a new Ubuntu release was actually big news.

    Now?

    May I suggest it is now more of a 'Meh' moment.

    Sure, the fans will rave on about it but many here we have jumped ship to other distros as they have either outgrown it or got fed up with it.

    Mint seems as popular destination for former Ubuntu fans.

    I went to the Linux 'dark side' myself and now use CentOS. Still on CentOS 6 so that I can avoid 'systemd' for as long as possible.

    As for ZFS, I'm far too old to get excited about a filesystem. I was once very excited about one once upon a time. Well I would be wouldn't I as I wrote my own one as a student back in the 1970's. It was a new Filesystem for RT-11. It worked most of the time still, it was fun for a while. All that bit twiddling deep inside the kernel. Oh, the memories.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Once upon a time...

      But Mint releases are now based on Ubuntu LTS releases, so this is good news for anyone waiting for the next Mint release, since it means they have a stable base to work from.

      Also in the corporate world, LTS Ubuntu releases are the only ones worth considering since the normal cadence releases are supported for such a short amount of time. At work we have a corporate 14.04 image, so I'd hope to see a corporate 16.04 image sometime soon (not holding my breath though).

      I'd agree that the non-LTS Ubuntu images barely raise a 'meh', but LTS releases are newsworthy. And it's all the more welcome if they don't try to introduce new UI 'features'.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Once upon a time...

        I like my OS system releases to be meh to be honest. I like "We made everything a bit better, and we added some new things that you can completely ignore if you like but we think you'll like them"

  5. Mage Silver badge

    Centos & Mint

    Well, Centos is basically RedHat, a more sensible choice for a server than eye candy Ubuntu.

    Mint with Mate desktop is far closer to what a user workstation / netbook / laptop /desktop should be, but it and Ubuntu are basically Debian, Unbuntu with more stupid bits. I used to use Ubuntu, now I use Debian, Mint + Mate, sometimes Centos.

    1. phuzz Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Centos & Mint

      Ubuntu Server ships with no GUI, and thus no eye candy. Mint is based on Ubuntu 14.04, although they'll be moving to 16.04 now it's been released.

    2. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Re: Centos & Mint

      "Mint with Mate desktop is far closer to what a user workstation / netbook / laptop /desktop should be, but it and Ubuntu are basically Debian, Unbuntu with more stupid bits."

      - By 'stupid bits', you mean Unity?

      - Well pardon them for trying to ensure 'linux as a user OS remains relevant into the mobile age in their own way. The Gnome ui has some potential as a tablet interface ans KDE also have plans, but that doesn't mean Canonical can't also have their own vision.

      It's not as if you can't install a more traditional desktop ui also (from kde to mate or even xmonad).

      1. frank ly Silver badge

        Re: Centos & Mint

        Mint 17.3 (released January 2016, based on Ubuntu 14.04) is LTS until April 2019. Mint 18 (to be released May/June 2016, based on Ubuntu 16.04) will be LTS until 2021. It's a bit close and a big overlap.

        I got Mint 17.3 installed and hammered into shape at the end of January. After that exercise I'm going to wait at least a year before trying Mint 18.

        (I was quite happy for three years running Mint 13 which is LTS until April 2017.)

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: Centos & Mint

        "By 'stupid bits', you mean Unity?"

        I know *I* would. Unity is like "phone on a desktop", _EXACTLY_ what M$ is doing WRONG these days.

        "the mobile age" is HIGHLY overrated. *NOBODY* does "desktop things" on a phone, "Continuum" is a freaking JOKE, and "tablet interface" *ONLY* works on a fondleslab, which has a dwindling popularity if you read the market correctly (basically they're just oversized PHONES and are used in similar ways).

        So SERIOUS computing is STILL done with keyboard+mouse on a DESKTOP computer, which needs a DESKTOP interface, like Mint has. Of course, Ubu can run MATE as well. That's what I do with Ubu - MATE desktop.

        1. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: Centos & Mint

          The mobile is overrated (and over hyped) in some respects, but how many people do you see a day using mobile interfaces vs. desktop (provided you actually go out in public).

          If 'linux remains a desktop only interface it faces fading into even more into the obscurity of the server room (and maybe only seen running inside Azure).

          Serious use will always be desktop oriented, as it's done at a Desk. The IT 'desktop' paradigm could still use some work. The mouse is spectacularly poorly designed for extended use, the keyboard less so (but most layouts designed to prevent long gone mechanical parts from getting tangled).

          Unity is one of the few desktops that work really well without recourse to the thrice damned mouse (aside from tling wms)

  6. oomwat

    ZFS

    If ZFS support is implemented as an 'application' which downloads the source and then compiles it in, then that shouldn't break the GPL ... I've not looked, so I could be wrong, but that'd be the way I'd do it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ZFS

      It isn't. It's supplied as a pre-built, binary kernel module.

      1. WonkoTheSane
        Headmaster

        Re: ZFS

        I believe oomwat is suggesting it would be more legally acceptable if supplied as a DKMS module.

        See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_Support

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge

          Re: ZFS

          there are MANY reasons why a module needs to have a 'closed source' component. One of them might be FCC rules, for things like wifi drivers, where the requirements for certifying your driver would be to take steps to prevent modifying your software if the software controls things like power tables and frequencies [the things that FCC regs, well, REGULATE].

          So Broadcom WiFi will *ALWAYS* have a 'BLOB' because the FCC regs demand it. It also has a "wrapper" so you can re-compile the kernel. I'm not entirely sure how the source for the binary kernel module for ZFS actually works, but I expect that the source *IS* available. The license contention has to do with the Sun/Oracle requirements, and GPLv2 can't have "additional requirements" if it's GPL-covered. So it's being shipped as a NOT GPL component that's (as I understand it to be) dynamically loaded, "bundled" with the OS and not "a separate component" as far as Stallman and others are concerned. THEY *feel* (not think) it's a "violation", but you can bundle non-open-source software with Linux if you want. PURISTS won't, but sometimes it's needed, and the INTENT of the GPL is to allow modification of GPL-covered code and "the system still works".

          So if you can re-compile the kernel and the ZFS module for the new kernel, there should be NO issue with the GPL. If re-compiling the kernel PREVENTS you from using the ZFS module, there MAY be an issue, but if the module is "not part of the GPL code repository" then I'd say NO, it's NOT a problem, and I hope the courts agree with me. Otherwise, the "fascist enforcement" of 'open source forever' from the use of a trivial GPL component may COME BACK TO BITE ITSELF IN THE ASS. In other words, the unintended repercussion might be something the FSF and Stallman don't want to deal with even MORE than having ZFS survive as part of Ubuntu.

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
            Gimp

            Re: ZFS

            there are MANY reasons why a module needs to have a 'closed source' component

            Not a single one. Unless you like to play The Gimp in Zed's Basement.

            Also, "regulation" doesn't work by "closing source". It just doesn't. If the FCC "demands it" (haven't checked), the FCC is full of cluless idiots doing Broadcom's bidding (oh surprise!)

            If you want "tamperproof", well, you better have the appropriate chip on you board. This is known as "trustworthy computing", i.e. trustworthy from the manufacturer side while the user gets an additional bell on his collar.

            So if you can re-compile the kernel and the ZFS module for the new kernel, there should be NO issue with the GPL.

            Your personal interpretation of the GPL is well noted.

  7. thames
    Linux

    Another routine desktop upgrade.

    Most of the big changes - ZFS, LXD, Ceph, seem to be mainly relevant to the server version. Even if you wanted to use ZFS for example on the desktop, you won't get it unless you reformat your drive. Few desktop users will bother, because quite frankly few will really care about it.

    For desktop users, it looks like its mainly a series of incremental upgrades. I don't expect to really notice much difference other than that some apps will be at newer versions.

    I expect that I'll upgrade my desktop some time tomorrow or the next day when I get a bit of spare time. It's generally pretty painless. There will be more desktop configuration options, but I doubt that I'll look at them. I can't be bothered to change much other than changing which icons are in the launcher (which should carry over from the current version) and the desktop wallpaper. I suspect that most other users are the same.

    I know this doesn't make for exciting news, but I think that most desktop users aren't looking for excitement. They're looking for boring predictability with marginal improvements, and I expect 16.04 to deliver on that when it comes to the desktop.

    People looking for excitement will need to look to the server, including the new IBM mainframe support.

    1. Kubla Cant Silver badge

      Re: Another routine desktop upgrade.

      People looking for excitement will need to look to the server, including the new IBM mainframe support.

      I'm always on the lookout for excitement, but I don't think my house is big enough or my electricity supply powerful enough to run an IBM mainframe.

      1. PlinkerTind

        Re: Another routine desktop upgrade.

        "...I'm always on the lookout for excitement, but I don't think my house is big enough or my electricity supply powerful enough to run an IBM mainframe...."

        Well you can emulate an IBM Mainframe on a laptop, using the open source TurboHercules. An old 8-socket Nehalem-EX would give you 3.200 MIPS, which is a decent midsized Mainframe. If you got the latest 8-socket x86 you would get something around 10.000-15.000 MIPS. And software emulation is 5-10x slower than running native code, so if you ported the Mainframe software to x86, then the latest 8-socket x86 server would actually give 50-75.000 MIPS - which is what IBM's largest Mainframe gives today. In other words, Mainframe cpus are not really that fast. You need 20 ish Mainframe cpus to match one 8-socket x86 server. But Mainframes are extremely expensive for the performance you pay.

        1. Ian 55

          But Mainframes are extremely expensive for the performance you pay.

          Reassuringly expensive, as I am sure the IBM sales force would say.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Please drop your license. You have 20 lawsuits to comply.

    > you can't blend GPL code and non-GPL code.

    Inaccurate. You can indeed blend GPL code with non-GPL code, but only if it is under a GPL-compatible license. There are many such licenses in use, and many such blends being distributed.

    The actual problem is the CDDL, which is a minority license that nobody really uses, and is not clearly GPL-compatible (intentionally incompatible, some have said).

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Please drop your license. You have 20 lawsuits to comply.

      But what about the non-free graphics drivers from AMD and nVidia? They're supplied as blobs, so why is this any different?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Charles 9 - Re: Please drop your license. You have 20 lawsuits to comply.

        Like many others on this forum you're missing a small but important point and this fuels all the flames and rage here. The non-free binary graphic drivers are OK to use but no Linux distro is allowed to distribute them, the end-user has to click a link and get them installed. This is it, the (deliberate) confusion between the right to use ZFS which nobody denies and the right to distribute it together with other Linux binaries. As long as ZFS is not being distributed, GPL has no effect because this type of license is intended not to control but to protect the end-user against the developers and distributors with a vested interest.

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Holmes

        Re: Please drop your license. You have 20 lawsuits to comply.

        But what about the non-free graphics drivers from AMD and nVidia? They're supplied as blobs, so why is this any different?

        They don't come with a distro that says "GPL" on it. Load them into the kernel you can, of course, after download from the manufacturer's website. Also, the kernel then is considered "tainted" AFAIK, so bug reports will be downprioritized.

        Isn't free software wonderful?

    2. BitDr

      Re: Please drop your license. You have 20 lawsuits to comply.

      If there is a SHRED of doubt about a license being compatible then the only 100% safe choice is to not use it. If someone has worded things to be unclear then they have probably deliberately done-so, especially if said lack of clarity would benefit them while screwing you.

      Sometimes I wonder how I got to be such a cynic...oh yes! It was by way of observing the greedy-underhanded actions of my fellow men.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    memory requirements?

    I thought the big problem with ZFS was its vast memory requirement? 1MB of cache for every GB of disk or something..

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: memory requirements?

      ZFS is not a general purpose file system. It is true to work well it needs a lot of RAM (nothing that an actual server can't deliver), but its reliability comes at a cost. Great for some use, not so great for others.

    2. gerdesj

      Re: memory requirements?

      "I thought the big problem with ZFS was its vast memory requirement? 1MB of cache for every GB of disk or something.."

      1GB of RAM per TB of disc is the rule of thumb you were thinking. However, see http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide which simply states that 1GB or more is recommended.

      The idea of having a decent sized RAM cache is not unique to ZFS but recommended for *all* file systems.

    3. DasWezel

      Re: memory requirements?

      ZFS' memory requirements are nothing particularly out of the ordinary unless you enable deduplication.

      I tried this out on a copy of an rsync backup host with 16G of RAM and ~3T of backups to crunch. Carnage ensued.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: memory requirements?

        ECC memory is also highly recommended..

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: memory requirements?

          There are people not using it?

  10. LawAbidingCitizen

    How to make Ubuntu look good

    Do a Google search for "How to make Ubuntu 15.10 look good" - a YouTube video uploaded by Andy Turfer. I love it! Really hope that this works with Ubuntu 16.04.

    I think a lot of the flack that's directed towards Ubuntu (Canonical) is largely undeserved - it's like people just want to complain about something. Personally, I'm extremely grateful for what Canonical have done for the Linux community (and the Linux landscape in general).

    I've been exclusively using Ubuntu 15.10 since the stable release, and am looking forward to 16.04.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How to make Ubuntu look good

      "How to make Ubuntu 15.10 look good" , I always though the answer was "sudo rm -rf /" ;-)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @LawAbidingCitizen - Re: How to make Ubuntu look good

      Like for instance spying on users and selling them to Amazon ? That was a good one for Linux community.

      1. frank ly Silver badge

        Re: @LawAbidingCitizen - How to make Ubuntu look good

        I did what you said, "How to make Ubuntu 15.10 look good", and there were two results. Your comment was the first result and an article in quora.com was the second one. There were no results from a YouTube search.

        Ahhhhhh, it's called "Make Ubuntu 15.10 look good". Did Andy Turfer change the title?

  11. DrXym Silver badge

    systemd isn't hated

    It's trolled and complained about by a vocal minority. Other people don't care or appreciate it for what it does to improve boot times, logging integrity and a bunch of other things.

    1. JeffyPoooh Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: systemd isn't hated

      "...what it does to improve boot times..."

      It's an indictment of OS designers (if not humanity in general) that anyone can still form the phrase 'improve boot times' in the year 2016. This topic should have optimized into being a complete non-issue at least a decade or two ago.

      That it's still being done in such a time-wasteful manner is indicative of something deeply negative.

      1. DrXym Silver badge

        Re: systemd isn't hated

        "It's an indictment of OS designers (if not humanity in general) that anyone can still form the phrase 'improve boot times' in the year 2016."

        Er what? Most Linux dists have used systemd for years now, and before that the likes of Ubuntu were toying with other ways to concurrently launch system services. I was comparing the current situation (fast boots, no hacky launch scripts) to what it was like before and what some people appear to be yearning for.

        "That it's still being done in such a time-wasteful manner is indicative of something deeply negative."

        It isn't being done in a time wasteful manner. That's the point. Most Linux dists have adopted systemd because it brings the OS up into a usable state in an efficient timely fashion.

    2. BitDr

      Re: systemd isn't hated

      Improve boot times? PUHLEASE! If (IF!) I turn off a system (which is a rare event) it takes less than 1 minute to boot. The servers haven't been off-line for more than a year, so I might save perhaps close to 2 minutes out of the 525 600 minutes in a year? That is NOT a reason for such a massive shift in how things are done.

      Logging integrity? Never had an issue with the integrity of the logs. Answer this: "How do BINARY log files improve things"? I now need a special tool to read them so how is my life as a sys-admin somehow improved by this?

      What exactly what are the "bunch of other things" you refer to?

      <rant>

      <sarcasm>Whose brilliant idea was it to disable /var/log/messages in Mint</sarcasm>? You can (still) re-enable it... BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE DISABLED IN THE FIRST PLACE! Having a console window open with a tail -f /var/log/messages showing you what's complaining as you troubleshoot a problem is incredibly useful. Disable it by default? WTF? Did they think no one would notice? They certainly didn't advertise the change... that knowledge comes the first time you need to check the log. Surprise! Its not there. Oh! perhaps they were aiming their product at the people who rely on folks like me to fix their PC,... and one of the first things people like me want to do is check /var/log/messages!

      </rant>

      1. DrXym Silver badge

        Re: systemd isn't hated

        "Improve boot times? PUHLEASE! If (IF!) I turn off a system (which is a rare event) it takes less than 1 minute to boot."

        So please clarify if you're using systemd or not. If you're not using systemd (which I assume from your tone), then what would be the boot time if you were and do you care what systemd does if it clearly doesn't affect you?

        And if you ARE using systemd what would be the boot time if you weren't and why are you getting so worked up when your system goes 6 months without a reboot?

        And secondly, your server scenario is hardly representative. Certain servers may reboot infrequently but the same is not true for workstations, laptops, embedded devices, virtual machines etc. where startup times are important and sometimes critical.

        "Logging integrity? Never had an issue with the integrity of the logs."

        And how do you know you've never had a problem unless you can verify the integrity of the logs in the first place? In systemd you can type "journalctl --verify" and see. If you're paranoid you can even enable forward secure sealing so that groups of messages are forward secure so silently tampering or corrupting the files is extremely difficult.

        "How do BINARY log files improve things"?"

        Forward secure sealing, indexing, metadata, searching etc. If you want text it is trivial to present it as text by typing "journalctl -n 100" or whatever. And commands like dmesg are still there too.

        "Whose brilliant idea was it to disable /var/log/messages in Mint</sarcasm>? You can (still) re-enable it..."

        Why not ask Mint? Maybe they assume that someone who wants to look at messages would be capable of typing journalctl and seeing them.

        1. Ian 55

          Re: systemd isn't hated

          Come on, if you have a laptop and want a quick startup time, you put it in suspend mode, not shut it down.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    This is awesome!

    I'm a vivid FreeBSD user and as you may or may not know ZFS support has been part of that OS for quite some time. I love it. I lived the launch of ZFS on Solaris, and it was highly anticipated. Heck, us Solaris fans started being a little disappointed because several exciting features (ZFS, zones and BrandZ (virtual machines)) didn't make it into the first release of Solaris 10 but got added later on.

    And ZFS has come along way since then. It's highly useful because it allows you to completely share your valuable disk space while still allowing for filesystem separation (you know: /var vs. /usr for example). And the best part: although you'll get the most out of ZFS when you set up a mirror it is not a direct requirement. You can easily use ZFS using a single hdd as well.

    So with that congratulations to Ubuntu! I think this is very good news for Linux. ZFS is pretty exciting and it's a good thing that Linux users get to enjoy it also.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This is awesome!

      Avid freeBSD user, not vivid.

      1. Fibbles

        Re: This is awesome!

        You don't know that. Maybe his giant CRT has irradiated him.

      2. Teiwaz Silver badge

        Re: This is awesome!

        Livid 'freeBSD user'?

      3. TVU

        Re: This is awesome!

        "Avid freeBSD user, not vivid."

        Well, an avid FreeBSD user wearing a Hawaiian shirt would also qualify as a vivid FreeBSD user!

        On a more serious matter, I think it is worth pointing out that it would have been helpful if the article and some of the comments had differentiated between the use by someone else of Oracle Solaris ZFS (proprietary, and very, very likely to attract a lawsuit) and the use of OpenZFS (covered by the Common Development and Distribution License and significantly less likely to be involved in a successful lawsuit).

  13. WolfFan Silver badge

    just downloaded

    I'm gonna install it on one of my machines, replacing Win Server 2008 R2. (I might run the 2008 R2 license as a VM elsewhere. maybe even under Ubuntu.)

    Then I'm going to wait for the fireworks. And I'll keep ZFS on my system, no matter what Stallman moans about. Stallman can bite me.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @WolfFan - Re: just downloaded

      You don't get it! You're not in the wrong for running ZFS, Canonical is for distributing it illegally.

      Re-read GPL, it is intended to protect end-users like you or me unlike Microsoft license which gives them right to disable your copy of software whenever they feel it.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: @WolfFan - just downloaded

        "Re-read GPL, it is intended to protect end-users like you or me unlike Microsoft license which gives them right to disable your copy of software whenever they feel it."

        not entirely... the GPL also dictates how the software must be distributed, and restricts "incompatible" licensing with derived works. In the case of GPLv3 they go MANY steps further in preventing ANY 'closed source' component, require patent licensing, etc.. Fortunately Linux itself is still GPLv2.

        Personally, I'd like to write a utility to "open source" a BLOB or library by converting it into assembly language and/or JUST DATA, to work around this limitation (i.e. it's now compilable 'source'), and THEN let end-users decide whether or not they want to run something like that. Most likely they won't care.

        Keep in mind that as long as the GPL code can be modified, re-compiled, re-linked, etc. and then still work, it shouldn't be an issue with the GPL, for that was its intent. If it happens to link in a binary compiled object or library, or separate source code for a non-GPL-compatible licensed library, and that object/library has NOTHING to do with the GPL-covered code (say "ZFS"), then the GPL shouldn't apply to "that library". My guess is THIS is how Canonical sees it, despite the cries from the "force everything to be compatible with the GPL because it was shipped WITH Linux" crowd.

        1. Vic

          Re: @WolfFan - just downloaded

          and restricts "incompatible" licensing with derived works.

          For clarity, the GPL only restricts the redistribution on derived works involving incompatible licences.

          On your own machine, you can do what you like...

          Vic.

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: @WolfFan - just downloaded

          Re: "the GPL also dictates how the software must be distributed"

          Well yes and no! From what I can see the GPL doesn't limit me to what I can put on a CD/DVD for distribution. Hence, it seems I can sell a disk with a Linux tarball and a whole bunch of other stuff (ie. tarballs) with incompatible licences burnt onto it without falling foul. Also the GPL doesn't seem to prevent me using either a proprietary installer or an open source one with predefined/default preferences to front the installation of my CD/DVD's contents - and what is a CD/DVD by just a convenient hardcopy snapshot/cached copy of a network install...

          So it would seem that the real question is exactly how Canonical have included ZFS in its Linux distribution.

      2. WolfFan Silver badge

        Re: @WolfFan - just downloaded

        It's got nothing to do with MS. It has everything to do with Stallman trying to control other people's software. I repeat: Stallman can bite me.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Paris Hilton

          Re: @WolfFan - just downloaded

          It has everything to do with Stallman trying to control other people's software. I repeat: Stallman can bite me.

          This must be the extreme freetardist corner of the freetardist section of the freetard republic of freedom?

          1. WolfFan Silver badge

            Re: @WolfFan - just downloaded

            It has everything to do with Stallman trying to control other people's software. I repeat: Stallman can bite me.

            This must be the extreme freetardist corner of the freetardist section of the freetard republic of freedom?

            Welcome to the People's Democratic Republic of Free Software. I'm the Dear, Glorious, (not-so) Young Leader For Life. Stallman is an evil running-dog imperialist bourgeois lackey, and, worse, a splitter, and will be first against the wall once the Glorious People's Revolutionary Strike Force drags him, by the beard, out of whatever cupboard he's hiding in.

            Revolution Now! Operating Systems Want To Be Free! File Systems Want To Be Free! We will bury the imperialists!

            And, oh, yeah... Stallman can bite me.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Slow as balls

    My boot time has increased. Systemd is slower than Upstart.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @massivelySerial - Re: Slow as balls

      Tough luck! On Lennart Poettering's laptop works fine so it's your problem.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @massivelySerial - Slow as balls

        I've not checked the systemd bug reports, but I imagine they're all closed WORKSFORME.

    2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: Slow as balls

      On the plus side, it will be easy to diagnose the problem, and fix it, not when the new system(d) is so modular and transparent!

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Slow as balls

        not -> now

  15. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    I know the next thing Linux needs: A registry. Separate files are so 1970s.

  16. ATeal

    Oh hells no!

    Seriously though, why can't someone just write an actually free module for ZFS?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh hells no!

      Some of the tech behind ZFS is patented, if not by Oracle then by NetApp. Both cross-licensed each other, but it's open season for others, IINM.

  17. skies2006

    So this means it can share raw disk volumes with FreeBSD and Solaris? that's nifty. I don't doubt the code quality of ZFS-on-Linux as it was developed at a major US government lab, just like the Lustre filesystem. If it is good for DoD/DoE nuclear research centers, it is good enough for you! ;-)

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They got the 16.04 codename wrong...

    It should have been Xenial Warrior Princess

  19. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    GNOME 3.12

    All I can say is DEATH.

    Death to all Gnome developers. I'm sure full-width tabs with centred titles looked nice in screenshots, but they clearly never tested the usability on a 1920px screen.

    (Since I'm on LTS this is the first time I've seen this anti-feature)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: GNOME 3.12

      ... and my solution was to install MATE applications instead. Gnome devs managed to break every single fscking one of the apps.

      Terminal, Gedit - Retarded tabs

      Nautilus - Retarded "thought bubbles". Centred and truncated tab titles

      Eye of Gnome - Retarded overlay icons

      File roller - Looks retarded and half finished

  20. JulieM Silver badge

    Thought Experiment

    There is nothing to prevent you from distributing a single .deb file which includes unmolested Linux kernel source code, unmolested ZFS source code, and any patches required; and then, during the post-installation script, actually compiles the kernel and ZFS together before installing the resulting binaries. The licence agreements themselves say you can distribute source code; and the Law of the Land says that if you acquired it legitimately, then you must be allowed to compile and run it, otherwise it would not be fit for purpose.

    However, you can't redistribute the resulting binary without exceeding the permissions granted by one or the other licence. Which creates an interesting paradox. If two possible chains of events have the same ultimate consequence, can one be right and the other wrong?

    Given two .deb archives; one of which automatically patches and compiles the Source Code, installs the new kernel then removes the original Source Code, and the other of which simply installs identical binaries that may not legally be distributed, and without paying attention to the time taken for the installation process to complete nor the amount of disk space occupied in the meantime, there would be no discernible difference in the state of a file system after either one had been installed.

    I suppose there is a physical-world parallel with articles that might be legal to make for oneself, but not to pass to anyone else and especially not if money is changing hands. But a self-compiling .deb archive is like a kit of parts, each innoucuous in its own right, all spring-loaded to assemble themselves into position the instant they are shaken out of the box .....

    This one could run and run.

    1. Bronek Kozicki Silver badge

      Re: Thought Experiment

      Actually you need to have a binary zfs module for rescue image, i.e. CD or USB that you would use to boot your computer when there is a problem, and the computer happens to use zfs for crucial files, such root filesystem with /etc. Currently the only way is to make this rescue image yourself, but it is not practical solution for a popular distribution such as Ubuntu.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Thought Experiment

      The problem is not that distribution of ZFS binaries is forbidden, per se.

      The problem is that if you modify a GPL work (such as the Linux kernel) by merging in some outside code, then under the terms of the GPL, the whole combined work must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. But the ZFS source code is not.

      Distributing the ZFS source separately and compiling it locally gets around the problem, because you are creating the combined work locally and not distributing it any further (in either source or binary). This has been done with ZFS for a long time, but it's a pain - it means every system needs a full toolchain installed, and every kernel update is dog slow as modules need to be recompiled.

      Now, there is a huge grey area as to whether loading a third-party module into a running Linux kernel, which communicates with it via a defined ABI, is creating a single combined work or is two separate pieces of software.

      I note that if you unload the zfs module, the Linux kernel continues to run happily; and you don't need to make a single change to the Linux kernel itself to unplug ZFS from it. But according to some people, the law makes a distinction between calling code via a dynamic linking interface, versus (say) calling code using fork/exec and a pipe or socket.

      If so, it seems the law is more technically advanced than most of us.

      1. Bronek Kozicki Silver badge

        Re: Thought Experiment

        @AC all good points, but there is one more thing. License of Linux kernel does not apply to "combined work", since this term has only been added in GPL version 3, and Linux kernel is only distributed under GPL version 2 (without the option to upgrade license to GPLv3). In this version of GPL, the relevant terms apply to "derived work" which, arguably, is a different thing from "combined work". In particular, an external module not making use of any functionality which is very specific to Linux, can be argued to not constitute a "derived work". It is still an open question whether the whole distribution, or its part, can be called "derived work", and if so, what implication does it have for Ubuntu 16.04.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Thought Experiment

          But then again, what external kernel modules DOESN'T call some baseline kernel, glibc, or whatever functions SOMEWHERE? Otherwise, it's essentially not touching the kernel at all. IOW, doesn't interacting with the kernel count as derivation?

      2. JulieM Silver badge

        Re: Thought Experiment

        That's what I meant. A Linux kernel with ZFS compiled in is a derived work of both Linux and ZFS. But any attempt to distribute it would exceed the permissions afforded by either the GPL or the ZFS licence; therefore would be staring into both barrels of copyright law, just as surely as a pirate copy of Windows.

        The intent of the GPL is that nobody should be able to take code that I wrote for the benefit of everyone, and then cage it up in such a way that only a select few could receive just some of those benefits (for instance, if you restricted distribution only to certain people, did not supply the complete Source Code, or imposed new restrictions on what users could do with it). So any improvements you make, you have to share with the whole world -- or keep to yourself, and not complain when somebody else manages to make the same improvement independently.

        The ZFS licence includes a "patent retaliation" clause, which cancels your licence in the event that you attempt to use patent law to sue a developer. It also requires that you distribute the software strictly in accordance with that licence. The version of the GPL under which Linux is distributed requires you to pass on all the permissions you were given and not impose any additional restrictions on the recipient. As nice an idea as it may sound, withdrawing licence from litigants is not forbidden by the GPL. Distributing LInux+ZFS under the ZFS licence would exceed the GPL, by imposing additional restrictions; whereas distributing Linux+ZFS under the GPL would exceed the ZFS licence by removing the "patent retaliation" clause. However, nothing in either licence would prevent anyone from distributing the Linux Source Code and the ZFS Source Code in a single archive together with machine-readable instructions to compile them together. Which, historically, is exactly how it has been done. Distributing a pre-compiled kernel with ZFS is simply a matter of convenience for the end user (even although it is not allowed by either licence).

        It probably will end up being decided in court. But it will be an unusual case indeed, because it will be next to impossible to prove that anyone is being deprived of anything, or having their rights restricted, by Canonical distributing pre-compiled Linux+ZFS. If anything, end users are getting back CPU cycles that they would otherwise have wasted if they had had to compile it on their own computers -- and it is not even as though anyone actually benefits from those users being effectively deprived of CPU cycles because they would have been wasted, not paid to somebody.

        The sensible decision would be that doing something which is not permitted by a licence but is logically equivalent to something else which is permitted is to be considered Fair Dealing, but I'm getting too cynical in my old age to expect judges to make sensible decisions. In the worst case, it could diminish "copyleft" protection, opening the way for closed-source derivatives of Open Source software. If someone was allowed to distribute a modified Linux kernel under the Apache licence, for example, they need never pass a single byte of the Source Code to anyone outside their organisation; and yet it would still be considered Open Source, and we would all have permission to distribute the Source Code in theory ..... just not in practice.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Holmes

          Re: Thought Experiment

          Nicely written but:

          If someone was allowed to distribute a modified Linux kernel under the Apache licence, for example, they need never pass a single byte of the Source Code to anyone outside their organisation; and yet it would still be considered Open Source

          is totally wrong. It would not be Open Source, per definition. And putting the Apache license onto a binary would be like putting "guaranteed gluten-free" onto a concrete block. Absolutely pointless.

          1. JulieM Silver badge

            Re: Thought Experiment

            It's not pointless, if what you want is to be able to take and not have to give back.

            There is nothing in the Apache licence that actually obliges you to give out the Source Code. It just says you may, if you have it. If I were to write an app and licence it under the Apache licence, Google could take it, add a small proprietary extension of their own that made it incompatible with mine, and release it binary-only, refusing any request for Source Code. They would still be complying with the letter of the licence, even if not the spirit.

            1. FIA

              Re: Thought Experiment

              If I were to write an app and licence it under the Apache licence, Google could take it, add a small proprietary extension of their own that made it incompatible with mine, and release it binary-only, refusing any request for Source Code. They would still be complying with the letter of the licence, even if not the spirit.

              Why would they not be complying with the spirit? Surely the reasons for using things like BSD or Apache licences is because the requirement to open source derivitives isn't a factor? If the continued open sourcing of derivitives is important then use the GPL; otherwise use one of the others.

              I will accept though there have been some projects over the years that have missed this distinction; Intending to licence their project in a way that future contributions should always be fed back but picking a licence that actually allows this not to happen. WINE would be the obvious example.

              But then I never quite understand why people will spend a large amount of time writing software, but seeminly little time considering how they licence it and the future implications of this decision.

              There's a definate difference between open source and Open Source. One's where you get the words that make your software, the other's a movement. (Three part harmony entirely optional).

  21. captain_solo

    The GPL is what made Linux, unfortunately its also everything that is wrong with the whole movement.

    Anyone who complains about M$, IBM, Oracle, et al about licensing or intransigence, but supports the GPL and its fundamentalist apologists like Stallman is basically an analogue to your stereotypical college student activist. Badly misinformed, not enough life (Unix) experience to know what is actually good for humanity, and ignorantly shrill. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    In fact the actions of Stallman, etc are threatening to make the future of Linux exactly what many of the propietary Unix vendors said would happen, but instead of it being patent trolls shitting in the pool, its the very people who claim to want Linux to flourish. Power corrupts.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Holmes

      The arguments from before the War on Terror are baaackkk!!

      Do you touch yourself while trolling?

      > not enough life (Unix) experience

      LOL

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019