What about Intel's SSD lineup? (the MLC ones that is - because everything you have said only applies to MLC). They seem to have put all their focus on the controller and management aspect of it. I've been using their second generation one in my main computer for about a year now, and they seem pretty solid in my opinion.
I don't get what you are saying about power failure though... i mean i'm sure that is possible with some poorly designed controller/firmware. but surely most of them are smart enough to design one where in the case of power failure during page remapping for wear leveling ; ether A) mapping storage design restricts data loss to the pages being operated on B) their is a power buffer large enough to allow the controller to finish internal operations, or C) both.I'm pretty sure any of the major SSDs intended for main block device replacement implement something along those lines.
We use raw flash, with linux and JFFS2 or UBIFS. Which is a filesystem designed to run on flash, raw flash. Wake me when "SSD" offers that solution.
(TRIM is not a solution, it's a workaround)
For non esoteric circumstances, it seems quite committing to adopt a file-system that specifically caters for MLC NAND's wear and granularity limitations. As great as it is for bringing large fast SSDs to us for cheap right now... it certainly wont be around for long, there are probably going to be lots of different types of solid state storage technologies competing for the place of block storage device, can you imagine having a different file-system for every single one?.
Another problem with offloading MLC page management to the file-system is that you are also then committing to retaining wear leveling data and page pools. it just completely stops it being an easy swappable wipeable block device... IMO leave the management specific to the storage technology on the technology, keep the file-system as relevant to data / OS as possible
Also if your going to be purist enough to complain about TRIM being a work around then you might as well also call SATA a work around... the next level is bootable pcie, wakeup... everything is a workaround, if it doesn't work with current technology it doesn't sell, if it doesn't sell it wont get developed.
When introduced in such a black and white manner it's difficult to bother reading the original article, but when read in context he isn't being quite as dismissive or blunt as saying it's completely irrelevant.
A better way of rephrasing his opinion is that he doesn't think it's relevant in the interest of popularising free software. As a disclaimer he also acknowledges how this isn't the sole purpose of free software, and how BSD has relevance to other people. Here is an extract pertaining to the discussion of BSD's relevance:
LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups, udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are irrelevant ?
Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a burden, and holds us back for little benefit. I am pretty sure those other systems are not irrelevant for everbody, after all there are people hacking on them. I just don't think it's really in our interest to let us being held back by them if we want to make sure Linux enters the mainstream all across the board (and not just on servers and mobile phones, and not in reduced ways like Android). They are irrelevant to get Free Software into everybody's hand, and I think that is and should be our goal. But hey, that's just me saying this. I am sure people do Free Software for a number of reasons. I have mine, and others have others.
I find this part interesting though
Quite obviously the patent in question is not anything to do with the game itself (the content that actually sells), but the trivial concept of buying the full version of the game.
Keeping that in mind, is it possible to retroactively re-licence portions of the product that are in violation of the patent and publish those as some kind of open source i.e publish a text-file containing the wording of that dialogue box and give it an MIT licence. I'm just thinking of how something like BSD which is itself a kind of free open source clone of proprietary code, is today used as part of other proprietary systems that are not free (think Apple, Sun etc). or is the unix that it derived from so old that the patents no longer apply?
Also software like Open Office which quite clearly aims to mimic the functions of an entire software suite is not in violation of patents simply because it is free. Is it possible to segment software in this way to make it clear that what you are selling is not the functionality that is patented regardless of whether it is something significant as an entire software suite or something as patent troll-esque as this "buy the full version" thing?
Slashdot Mirror
What about Intel's SSD lineup? (the MLC ones that is - because everything you have said only applies to MLC). They seem to have put all their focus on the controller and management aspect of it. I've been using their second generation one in my main computer for about a year now, and they seem pretty solid in my opinion.
I don't get what you are saying about power failure though... i mean i'm sure that is possible with some poorly designed controller/firmware. but surely most of them are smart enough to design one where in the case of power failure during page remapping for wear leveling ; ether A) mapping storage design restricts data loss to the pages being operated on B) their is a power buffer large enough to allow the controller to finish internal operations, or C) both.I'm pretty sure any of the major SSDs intended for main block device replacement implement something along those lines.
We use raw flash, with linux and JFFS2 or UBIFS. Which is a filesystem designed to run on flash, raw flash. Wake me when "SSD" offers that solution. (TRIM is not a solution, it's a workaround)
For non esoteric circumstances, it seems quite committing to adopt a file-system that specifically caters for MLC NAND's wear and granularity limitations. As great as it is for bringing large fast SSDs to us for cheap right now... it certainly wont be around for long, there are probably going to be lots of different types of solid state storage technologies competing for the place of block storage device, can you imagine having a different file-system for every single one?.
Another problem with offloading MLC page management to the file-system is that you are also then committing to retaining wear leveling data and page pools. it just completely stops it being an easy swappable wipeable block device... IMO leave the management specific to the storage technology on the technology, keep the file-system as relevant to data / OS as possible
Also if your going to be purist enough to complain about TRIM being a work around then you might as well also call SATA a work around... the next level is bootable pcie, wakeup... everything is a workaround, if it doesn't work with current technology it doesn't sell, if it doesn't sell it wont get developed.
If focusing on the topic heading i would agree..
When introduced in such a black and white manner it's difficult to bother reading the original article, but when read in context he isn't being quite as dismissive or blunt as saying it's completely irrelevant.
A better way of rephrasing his opinion is that he doesn't think it's relevant in the interest of popularising free software. As a disclaimer he also acknowledges how this isn't the sole purpose of free software, and how BSD has relevance to other people. Here is an extract pertaining to the discussion of BSD's relevance:
LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups, udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are irrelevant ?
Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a burden, and holds us back for little benefit. I am pretty sure those other systems are not irrelevant for everbody, after all there are people hacking on them. I just don't think it's really in our interest to let us being held back by them if we want to make sure Linux enters the mainstream all across the board (and not just on servers and mobile phones, and not in reduced ways like Android). They are irrelevant to get Free Software into everybody's hand, and I think that is and should be our goal. But hey, that's just me saying this. I am sure people do Free Software for a number of reasons. I have mine, and others have others.
Bing will easily attract the million of viewers that Google was providing.
Really? this is the thing with the written word, i just cannot tell whether that is supposed to be read with sarcastic emphasis
I find this part interesting though Quite obviously the patent in question is not anything to do with the game itself (the content that actually sells), but the trivial concept of buying the full version of the game. Keeping that in mind, is it possible to retroactively re-licence portions of the product that are in violation of the patent and publish those as some kind of open source i.e publish a text-file containing the wording of that dialogue box and give it an MIT licence. I'm just thinking of how something like BSD which is itself a kind of free open source clone of proprietary code, is today used as part of other proprietary systems that are not free (think Apple, Sun etc). or is the unix that it derived from so old that the patents no longer apply? Also software like Open Office which quite clearly aims to mimic the functions of an entire software suite is not in violation of patents simply because it is free. Is it possible to segment software in this way to make it clear that what you are selling is not the functionality that is patented regardless of whether it is something significant as an entire software suite or something as patent troll-esque as this "buy the full version" thing?