And yet you still haven't provided objective reasons to adopt this filesystem, nor did you mention practical deficiencies given a set of use case scenarios. I can tell you've been spoiled by the GPL and like-minded individuals; your sense of entitlement is through the roof. That's once aspect of this community that I love, the entitlement is low; work ethic is high.
Because statistics don't exist that satisfy you or anyone else's burden of proof. I can provide phoronix articles putting it up against Linux FS and you say that's biased or not good enough.
I think UFS is a nightmare to maintain and lacks the performance necessary to compete, and the attitude you and others have said hasn't convinced me otherwise. It reeks of pure fucking propaganda/hivemind mentality.
AFAIK OpenBSD is far from dying, and doing quite well. OpenBSD's main thing is security without compromises, and that means they are taking more drastic actions compared to other OSes in order to achieve it. You can like it, or not, either you'll use it or leave. Simple as that. You instead would like to see them do things in a different way, because you dislike the direction the project is moving to. This is why you call DeRaadt a narcissist, because how dare they not doing the things your way. And this is quite being full of yourself from your side.
Red Herring. I didn't say it was dying. I said it made questionable decisions. I called deRaadt a narcissist because his attitude would be unacceptable in most FOSS projects. Regularly abusive and foul language directed directly at others. There's a difference between telling someone "This is a stupid argument" vs "You're a stupid idiot" -- you can google and see theo's regular verbal abuse of people in mailing lists.
As for why I don't participate in mailing lists, I have my personal reasons. I have a history with FreeBSD, stretching back years, so don't assume I have the same privileges and capabilities you do.
Probably the best thing for you is if you really want XFS for a RDBMS partition to move over to Devuan, there you can have it instantly.
RDBMS is not the main reason I want XFS. I want XFS to replace the trash that is UFS because UFS is an unreadable, unmaintainable nightmare from the 1970s. You're free to disagree, but nobody is using FreeBSD in a professional capacity with UFS -- most use ZFS. I can't and won't use ZFS anymore.
I actually consider OpenBSD to be a great product, and very good at what it does. It has a relentless focus on high quality, achieved through clean and careful implementation, and removing unnecessary features. This leads to excellent security, better than anything else in the open source and full feature space. Why does this work? Because there is a BDFL (benevolent dictator for life) who can set the project's culture. Now, Theo's way of interacting with people is not always benevolent, he can be quite harsh. But one of the significant differences between him and for example Linus is that he remains reasonable when being harsh, he doesn't have to go to anger management classes after having strong opinions, and the sponsors of OpenBSD don't but him in a penalty box.
I don't think anyone should be forced from a project for their attitudes. I simply strongly disagree with OpenBSD -- that doesn't mean they're not important for OpenSSH, Game of Trees, or other advancements for the FOSS community.
When people were trying to cancel Stallman, including the HardenedBSD dev Lattera, I was facepalming. He said some pretty bad comments, but while I dislike RMS strongly that's his project and his legacy, and it's not my place to force him from something he started.
That statement might be true for you. For much of the rest of the storage industry, ZFS is the best solution in the open/free space. In that space, it is the only file system that has two features that I consider vital: integrated RAID and volume manager, and full checksums. You can get that in commercial offerings, but not otherwise in free software.
I think ZFS has valuable features, and compared to Btrfs it's a much better filesystem for reasons I've stated. I cannot however condone its recent development track.
You are free to give the FreeBSD foundation the money required to port XFS. My educated guess would be that this would be expensive, and so perhaps you don't want to do that. You are also free to convince people that porting XFS to FreeBSD would be a good idea, in the hope that you can inspire volunteers and donors. You have been doing a spectacularly bad job at that on this forum.
I knew by the time drhowarddrfine attacked me unfairly on the foundation forum post that it wasn't gonna happen.
I mostly stay interacting here on this particular topic because people are being ignorant. I'm not interested in leading the project, nor do I have the ability to. I said that a few times before, for very reasonable concerns. Nor would I want to secure donations. The detractors like Beastie7 discard everything I say because it won't meet an impossible burden of proof. This is cult think. It's the same thing you see in other statements.
Porting XFS to FreeBSD is not something a few volunteers can do quickly; it would be a multi person-year project. It would also benefit from a professional staff; college students typically don't have the experience required to build kernel-internal file systems. So funding would need to be found.
Volunteers can do it based on the docs. I would have joined an effort, and still probably would, as a gap-filler. I'm not interested in getting paid, nor do I believe that more than a year of effort would be required by a small team to get a working driver. XFS is not some black box like ext or reiser or whatever.
Porting XFS to FreeBSD would not just be a port, since the Linux kernel and therefore XFS in it is under the GPLv2, which we all do know is incompatible to the BSD license of FreeBSD.
It's a reimplementation.
So this would be not just a port, but in reality a rewrite from scratch, which is way more labour intensive than just porting it over. This is definitely not something an unexperienced developer can simply pull off. A suitable developer would need to be proficient enough in these areas:
* file system development
* Linux kernel development and
* FreeBSD kernel development.
So there are not so many developers around for sure which might do that.
You clearly didn't read the documentation I linked in the thread this originated from. It describes the structure of an IRIX-era XFS (which other than directory structure versions, is similar to the modern Linux XFS) You don't need to know Linux kernel driver development, and as far as filesystems go it's far far simpler than either the FreeBSD UFS version, or EXT3/4 which are the standard for many linux distros.
I'm done here. That's all I can say. Spout all the bull and lies you want. Clearly, this exposes the rot that FreeBSD's community is suffering. Never in a million years did I think the Linux community toxicity would spread into anything but OpenBSD, but here we go.