832
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

I wish I could have it as easy as Gort. I miss my debian but I want that ZFS built into my kernel.

[-] drew_belloc@programming.dev 35 points 1 year ago

There is so many distros that are just ubuntu without snaps, is just a matter of picking one of them

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Over time, Canonical will replace close to everything with Snaps. Ubuntu Remixes are not the solution. They just count towards Ubuntu's installed base and validate Canonical.

[-] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

What do you have to change to make it not count towards their numbers?

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Not access their repositories would be one thing because the only somewhat close approximation of installed base is through repository accesses.

[-] drew_belloc@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Honestly i agree, that's why i love that more and more debian based distros are emerging, lot of times from distros that used to be based on ubuntu

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

that’s why i love that more and more debian based distros are emerging

How many votes in Debian councils does Canonical own these days? The systemd vs Upstart discussion and vote at Debian was so protracted because Canonical bought votes in Debian's Technological Council.

[-] drew_belloc@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't knew that, the canonical influence on debian can really become a problem down the line. I will also checkout more about what canonical did along the years

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

systemd vs Upstart began almost exactly 10 years ago: https://www.phoronix.com/news/MTQ5NzQ

When I tried looking up current affiliations, I was either super clumsy in googling or potential conflicts of interests are simply not documented. https://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en.html lists the members but not who sponsors their work and googling each name individually is a bit too much for what's only superficial curiosity on my part, so I'm honestly out of the loop who is being paid by Canonical these days.

[-] drew_belloc@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Thank you, i'm going todive deeper on this when i have the time

[-] spikederailed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is what I fear as well. I'm still running Kubuntu, as I have been for years. Next time I build a system it may just be time for Debian Testing or sid. I've been messing with both on some Intel NUCs I have laying around.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Do you know if they use ubuntu's kernel? That is my sticking point.

[-] drew_belloc@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Most of them use, unless you pick something like pop os that has it's own kernel packages it will use the default ubuntu kernel

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago
[-] drew_belloc@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago

Pop os, linux mint, linux lite, etc.

The first 2 may do a lot pf changes to the base but that's what make them better them ubuntu in my opinion

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Check out the kernel packages from Proxmox, they build ZFS into a debian kernel.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yo! Best advice I've gotten, thank you!

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd consider Arch too if you're running ZFS on a client machine, there are like 5 kernel packages ready to go in the archzfs repo with ZFS baked in. I got tired of constantly rolling my own updated Debian packages for software a few years ago and made the jump to Arch and I'm really happy with it, the packaging and build system are a joy to work with compared to debs.

No disrespect intended to Debian here I just got tired of building so many packages to have updated software. EndeavourOS is a good place to start in the Arch ecosystem if you ever feel like checking it out. I run Proxmox on my server boxes as well.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I used to run arch back before the big /usr/lib migration.

I forgot what got me to change to debian but a buddy was talking up the rock hard stability and something dumb happened so I made the switch to debian.

I usually run it as a rolling release (need to point to the version type rather than the codename) in testing. More stable than arch but more recent than stable.

My big reason for wanting it built into a kernel from my source repo is then I don't have to worry about some bullshit upgrade not actually updating the kernel module like it should have. Dealt with that a few too many times when using ZFS on debian.

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I usually run it as a rolling release (need to point to the version type rather than the codename) in testing. More stable than arch but more recent than stable.

Yeah, this was me before I got tired of constantly building my own packages to have current versions of some software. I've been pretty content with Arch since I switched to it a few years ago, I still spend some time mucking with packages but nowhere near as much as before. My breaking point with Debian was a new Ryzen laptop a few years ago, I could either package my own kernel for it along with all of the platform software I needed or I could hop over to Arch and just build a patched kernel so I went for it.

My big reason for wanting it built into a kernel from my source repo is then I don't have to worry about some bullshit upgrade not actually updating the kernel module like it should have. Dealt with that a few too many times when using ZFS on debian.

There is nothing more annoying than dkms failing to build your primary storage (or NIC) module after a kernel update because ✨reasons✨ - that's a huge part of why I settled on Proxmox for my server boxes, no more unexpected ZFS breakage.

Check out the Proxmox kernel when you get a chance, you might be able to just pull packages from their repo and roll with Sid otherwise.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Dude if that's the case I'm so stoked. I don't hate Ubuntu but I think forced snaps are dumb and wrongbad. It'll be a bit before I can commit to the project sadly. I've got a work trip, a proposal and some pinball repairs on the docket first.

Should probably get a new battery for that laptop too.

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago
[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Unless I'm missing something, Gentoo uses out of tree kernel modules. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS#Installation

Ubuntu actually bakes it into the kernel for you. I prefer having it in the kernel after having to deal with failed kernel upgrades several times in a row.

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Considering that installing ZFS is optional even in Ubuntu, that just cannot be true. Out of tree means that upstream kernel.org does not bundle ZFS.

Btw, Ubuntu 21.10 corrupted ZFS partitions. Their QA is shit.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Keep in mind, Ubuntu rolls it's own kernel based on kernel.org release.

Pretty sure optional means optional to use as your FS but not optional on your kernel.

Good to know! I'll double check my version, then again, I skipped the installer and did things the advanced mode for my install so I might get to skip that issue.

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Out of tree still means not part of kernel.org upstream. You're imagining a tighter ZFS integration than is actually there in Ubuntu simply because of misunderstanding used terminology.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What are you trying to say? They all use ZFS on Linux (today named OpenZFS). Gentoo and Ubuntu aren't different in that regard. Ubuntu's QA verifiably sucks, though.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Well, you won't have that much longer.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The ZFS installer was removed from later non-LTS releases. AFAIK, even in the version with the ZFS installer, it wasn't in the kernel, it was just including the pre-compiled non-DKMS driver module that matched the kernel version.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's inaccurate. I'm was running that kernel when it came out, just the kernel no extra modules or anything get added except the libraries and commanda for ZFS and zpool. I'm on a more recent one these days and it's still the same set up.

I can't say I care about it being an option in the installer, I'd rather run an advanced install because the installer's ZFS set up was garbage, everything in one zpool, no branching no data encryption etc etc.

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
832 points (95.7% liked)

linuxmemes

21226 readers
30 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS