Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

RedHat Gets Serious With Deprecation Process of Btrfs With RHEL 7.4

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 02 2017, @03:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the bazaar?-what-bazaar?-this-is-my-cathedral dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

In the release notes for RedHat Enterprise Linux 7.4 we can see the following:

The Btrfs file system has been in Technology Preview state since the initial release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. Red Hat will not be moving Btrfs to a fully supported feature and it will be removed in a future major release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The Btrfs file system did receive numerous updates from the upstream in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.4 and will remain available in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 series. However, this is the last planned update to this feature.

Red Hat will continue to invest in future technologies to address the use cases of our customers, specifically those related to snapshots, compression, NVRAM, and ease of use. We encourage feedback through your Red Hat representative on features and requirements you have for file systems and storage technology.

Btrfs, originally developed by Oracle and now also by SUSE and others, seems to have lost Red Hat as supporter. So what is ahead? RH isn't very clear. ZFS had license issues since day one, and is currently under Oracle umbrella, making a change near impossible. Does this mean improving XFS? Some other FS to be announce soon? Will Red Hat push its weight around like in other cases? Will other distros hold their ground or bow? Unix wars all over again, this time in Linux and FOSS land.

Maybe time to update it to Corporate Open Source Software, COSS, you can look but forget about having a voice among the big guys. The bazaar is dead, long live the cathedral. Or time to fork them off.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
RedHat Gets Serious With Deprecation Process of Btrfs With RHEL 7.4 | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 76 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:06AM (2 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:06AM (#548169) Journal

    The post that upset you came from "Posted Jan 21, 2016 22:25 UTC (Thu) by brine (guest, #106482)". The full posting here:

    "She left the GNOME Foundation in a better state than when she was hired as the ED, all things considered."

    This comment some what confirms the impression that most software developers have that the GNOME Foundation has given up supporting desktop and widget toolkit development in favour of perpetuating the employment of the GNOME Foundation staff by soliciting corporate funding under various 'social equality' mantras.

    Lets be clear GNOME the desktop and GTK+ the cross platform widget toolkit are essentially dead projects for the vast majority of developers that might develop an application which runs on Linux. Karen did nothing to reverse that trend and did a good deal to scare off serious developers who might contribute by marking large portions of the GNOME Foundations funding off limits to them because they have the wrong Genitalia and instead gifted that money to social vanity projects. GTK is no longer a serious competitor to QT in any respect. Every Linux desktop install in a commercial Desktop installation I have seen in the last ~5 years has run KDE. if for no other reason because any custom tools that are written now use QT or PYQT/PYSIDE so it makes utterly no sense to try to adapt the crippled GNOME desktop into a usable workspace that runs predominantly QT applications.

    Good luck with the GNOME Foundation because thats really all that is left. The desktop and the widget toolkit are a distant memory.

    I do suspect Gnome3 use less memory than KDE and is less intrusive too. Why no one forked Gnome seems weird. Maybe twm is better these days..

    RedHat will be DeadRat. But the rest of the community don't need to depend on them. I think that is the important factor. And that they may not strongly influence other project on design issues.
    I read that the invasion of Iraq was done using RedHat OS. But that should imply that they were infested with systemd. Wouldn't that be a reliability issue? "Sorry car won't boot, systemd botched init files. Please use nearest RS232 terminal.." while being shoot at....

    I missed that Linux Foundation had Microsoft as "platinum member". But that and the trash ideology does it for me. Final nail *bang*.. and then usenet *plonk* ;-)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by EEMac on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:58PM (1 child)

    by EEMac (6423) on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:58PM (#548322)

    Why no one forked Gnome seems weird.

    They [mate-desktop.org] did [linuxmint.com].