No, comment is not true. You can use ZFS or BTFS, both of which are open source. ZFS just happens to be historically funded by Oracle, which is a good thing.
Oracle funding doesn’t sound like a good thing at all since they’re basically CIA cloud ran by one of the most influential Zionists. But an unstable filesystem sounds even worse.
Google managed to backdoor Linux and Firefox with their “FOSS” libWebp. Took literally years until some security researcher not affiliated with any of them found the bug by chance and made a public report, and by then it had already been explited by NSO for ages. If they had worked for Google (or Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/any of the other corporations that just imported Google’s libWebp code without looking at it) they would have gotten silenced and the exploit would still be there as a gift to Israel. Turns out just because it’s auditable doesn’t mean it gets audited before it’s too late.
In this situation it works well, IMO. For some more context, ZFS was created by Sun (FOSS). Oacle bought them and built Oracle ZFS out of it. OpenZFS forked at that point from Sun code, and that’s what we use in Linux/etc. The Oracle variant supplies support to the FOSS variant. So Oracle has no control over OpenZFS.
“Major stability problems”. Hilarious. Get one person that actually uses bcachefs to confirm that. Good luck.
Kent has stability problems and drives me crazy but that is a baseless hit piece. Bcachefs is a solid fs.
Linus has not pushed back on the quality of bcachefs other than to say it is too unproven to rely on (too new). What Linus objected to was the process violations and the attitude of the lead developer.
Given how much Linus and the other LKML devs wanted to get rid of Kent, the fact that it took so long to dump him tells us that they really wanted to keep bcachefs (the technology).
There may have been more data loss bugs in btrfs and even OpenZFS than bcachefs since it was added to the kernel. I have many bcachefs systems. I have one btrfs system. Guess which one has caused me problems.
Fair enough on “major”. Edited that. But it has stability issues that aren’t handled well enough for RCs, so it’s not a hit piece to state that fact. Those stability issues may come from it being new, but it’s still an issue. Saying it’s because they want to “get rid of Kent” is just as much of a hit piece, too.
Simply put, only small bug fixes are allowed after the post-merge phase to integrate changes into the current kernel cycle. However, Overstreet’s PR included more than just fixes; it continued to develop new features, which always carry risks. That’s why Torvalds was unhappy with it. As a result, the changes were rejected.
…
Currently, the file system is being actively developed. Although it shows great potential with impressive features and strong data reliability, it’s not yet stable enough to be adopted by major Linux distributions as a proven and reliable solution.
YMMV, but my production systems will stick with ZFS since it’s kernel release updates are clear when there are “upgrades” vs “updates”, as you do those manually when it alerts you.
“Stable” in this context doesnt mean “your PC will definately crash and you will lose data!”, bcachefs is well past that. It means that the development is too active to be considered production ready since the code changes are too large to confirm the scary bit won’t happen (as much as can be).
No, comment is not true. You can use ZFS or BTFS, both of which are open source. ZFS just happens to be historically funded by Oracle, which is a good thing.
The reason is bcachefs has
majorstability problems (that don’t allow it to meet kernel release schedules). https://hackaday.com/2025/06/10/the-ongoing-bcachefs-filesystem-stability-controversy/@BombOmOm@lemmy.world
@nixon@sh.itjust.works
Oracle funding doesn’t sound like a good thing at all since they’re basically CIA cloud ran by one of the most influential Zionists. But an unstable filesystem sounds even worse.
Open ZFS is now the main branch as far as I remember.
Everyone always says “Companies should fund FOSS instead of spending money on big corpos!”, yet then this.
It’s FOSS. It’s auditable. Funding is a good thing.
Google managed to backdoor Linux and Firefox with their “FOSS” libWebp. Took literally years until some security researcher not affiliated with any of them found the bug by chance and made a public report, and by then it had already been explited by NSO for ages. If they had worked for Google (or Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/any of the other corporations that just imported Google’s libWebp code without looking at it) they would have gotten silenced and the exploit would still be there as a gift to Israel. Turns out just because it’s auditable doesn’t mean it gets audited before it’s too late.
That’s true, but we also know that funding can come with stipulations. Oracle is an especially sketchy company.
But that counts for all big tech I guess.
So not using Linux at all then? Most of the development is paid for by big tech.
My comment moreso pertains to the “which is a good thing” part of the previous one.
In this situation it works well, IMO. For some more context, ZFS was created by Sun (FOSS). Oacle bought them and built Oracle ZFS out of it. OpenZFS forked at that point from Sun code, and that’s what we use in Linux/etc. The Oracle variant supplies support to the FOSS variant. So Oracle has no control over OpenZFS.
Thank You!!
“Major stability problems”. Hilarious. Get one person that actually uses bcachefs to confirm that. Good luck.
Kent has stability problems and drives me crazy but that is a baseless hit piece. Bcachefs is a solid fs.
Linus has not pushed back on the quality of bcachefs other than to say it is too unproven to rely on (too new). What Linus objected to was the process violations and the attitude of the lead developer.
Given how much Linus and the other LKML devs wanted to get rid of Kent, the fact that it took so long to dump him tells us that they really wanted to keep bcachefs (the technology).
There may have been more data loss bugs in btrfs and even OpenZFS than bcachefs since it was added to the kernel. I have many bcachefs systems. I have one btrfs system. Guess which one has caused me problems.
Fair enough on “major”. Edited that. But it has stability issues that aren’t handled well enough for RCs, so it’s not a hit piece to state that fact. Those stability issues may come from it being new, but it’s still an issue. Saying it’s because they want to “get rid of Kent” is just as much of a hit piece, too.
The dev is unstable. And he made the kernel process chaotic. But the filesystem itself is pretty solid. Do you have a link to stability issues?
My understanding is the stability risks come from active development additions vs “fixes” during that stage of the development cycle.
https://linuxiac.com/torvalds-expresses-regret-over-merging-bcachefs-into-kernel/
…
YMMV, but my production systems will stick with ZFS since it’s kernel release updates are clear when there are “upgrades” vs “updates”, as you do those manually when it alerts you.
“Stable” in this context doesnt mean “your PC will definately crash and you will lose data!”, bcachefs is well past that. It means that the development is too active to be considered production ready since the code changes are too large to confirm the scary bit won’t happen (as much as can be).
Even JC threw in the towel on
bcachefs-toolsdue to this: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Orphans-Bcachefs-ToolsThis is a bot lollllll