Disappointing, because in theory filesystem level cache should be quite simple. It could be that all writes go to SSD and then in the background files are slowly copied to HDD. There could be some rules such as never cache large files (no point in having movie library on SSD, and I would say even pictures and music as well). Frequently accessed files could be kept in cache.
yes but this is block-level cache which has many flaws compared to filesystem-level cache.
exactly, even if ZFS was re-licensed to be GPLv2 compatible, it wouldn't be included in the Linux kernel as is, for many good reasons.
> To be able to use a SSD as a cache for hard drive (RAID) array is a very useful use case
Why does this need to be implemented as part of a file system though?
Because it's much more effective this way. So you can get simple rules such as "do not cache files larger than 10MB" or "do not cache *.mkv". Or that the cache remains consistent after defragmenting the disk. Block-level cache solutions have many flaws.
No, just make the file systems manage files. Let the RAID controller that's already part of Linux handle RAID. Let the volume manager that's already part of Linux handle allocating disk resources. Do one thing well. Stop reinventing the fucking wheel all the time.
Nobody forces you to use those filesystems. ext4 works just fine if you don't need these features.
It may not be in the kernel, but you can do all of that with ZFS.
Well that's the whole point. People use ext4 or btrfs because they are in the kernel and well supported.
zfs sucks for its licensing. They basically designed it on purpose to be GPL-incompatible. At this point it's better to let zfs die and work on replacements.
was the most promising Linux filesystem. To be able to use a SSD as a cache for hard drive (RAID) array is a very useful use case. And block-level caching will never be as optimal as filesystem-level caching. De-fragmenting the filesystem shouldn't invalid the cache.
Very bad news, they are becoming almost as bad as Apple if they move forward with that change in 2027.
Not only it's a huge hassle, but from what I understand you need to pay a developer fee to Apple to be able to do that (not counting that you need to buy an Apple computer) and it looks like Apple can revoke your developer license if they don't like your application.
can't you develop for Android and sideload your apps freely without having to pay anything or get any "key" from Google?
According to Google, even in the UK liquid damage is not covered:
https://support.google.com/pro...
I understand UK law may override Google's warranty terms but I am not familiar with UK law to tell. In my opinion it's false advertising if they claim a phone is IP68 but won't cover any liquid damage (which would include being gently inserted into a fresh water bucket for less than 30 minutes).
Oh that wasn't me who dropped it.
But the claim that IP68 doesn't apply to a phone being dropped in a lake is ridiculous. That was a fresh water lake, as clean as it can get (not chlorinated like a pool, not salted like the sea). Pretty sure that phone wouldn't have survived being slowly inserted 1m into distilled water for 30 minutes either. It's a scam, and that's why their warranty do not cover water damage.
When you design a phone to meet IP68 (and actually care about it more than just getting a piece of paper), you test harsher conditions, including dropping it in a lake, a pool and the ocean. If it fails even 10% of the time, you go back to the drawing board, or you do not claim IP68 compliance.
I understand an IP68 device can't necessary withstand the high pressure of a waterfall or a fireman hose, or that's it's not meant to go deep scuba diving or stay for days at the bottom of a pool. But it should be good enough to take it for a swim (including taking pictures underwater). And while salt and chlorine could damage it in the long term, there is no way that these chemicals are strong enough to break a phone seal in just 2 minutes. It should be just as good as new after a rinse in fresh water.
Is it as good as the Pixel 8 Pro IP68? Dropped for 2 minutes in shallow fresh water and stopped working.
When someone "adopts", whether it's a child (usually) or, as in this case, an embryo, it is generally understood as "relieving any previous donor from any future child support claim".
Otherwise it's not a real adoption.
If a couple takes an embryo and raise the resulting child, while keeping the possibility of suing one or both of the biological parents in case they get into trouble financially at some point, I'm sorry, but they didn't really adopt in my opinion.
Separate case I guess. But Apple is a much worst offender. At least on Android you just have to click "allow unknown sources" to install a 3rd party app store. Apple is still blocking that. And no, it's not because of security, it's because of greed.
who's "they"? Nowhere in the article they talk about the biological father consenting to the adoption.
Maybe Archerd was given a blank check during divorce. But it could be an instance of he got trapped because he never thought she would/could do that.
Ma Bell is a mean mother!
