Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 08:56:07 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Rolf Nielsen <rmg1970swe@gmail.com> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Lev <leventelist@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Questions from a Linux refugee Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK3rr-9gF4D57Ks0fy2ub%2BzYWa3pvm1rcVEcVQVqAPkvEA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54ABF51A.3030706@gmail.com> References: <20150106115503.4870ab2e@jive> <20150106123321.31c89156.freebsd@edvax.de> <54ABF51A.3030706@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Rolf Nielsen <rmg1970swe@gmail.com> wrote: > Isn't the issue more about ext4 being GPL licensed than about > maintaining support for several filesystems? > Not at all. It's a perfectly reasonable solution to implement ext4 in base with a BSD implementation, but no one has taken this on yet. Even if importing GPLv3 in base wasn't an issue, you can't simply copy the code. Extensive kernel/VFS and userland changes would need to accompany it. It's not a trivial task otherwise it likely would have already been done. Besides, ext4 is just a poor excuse for SU so what's really the point? If you really want to use ext4 then use it natively. Same problems exist in the Linux world for it's non-native FS's. -- Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK3rr-9gF4D57Ks0fy2ub%2BzYWa3pvm1rcVEcVQVqAPkvEA>