And so have countless closed-source developers/companies/applications. A vulnerability existing does not change the fact that FOSS projects should be funded more.

We aim to introduce additional paid services (not paywalled features, as we will never implement paywalled features), which will help support the project and that enhance self-hosting, making it easier and more reliable. First among the many services already planned is an end-to-end encrypted, off-site backup and restore feature, built directly into Immich. This will enable a buddy backup feature as well.

I love this.

Free features, but offering actual useful services for self-hosters (encrypted cloud backup). Great business model for a project like this.

I mean, Bernie probably isn’t the guy to be complaining about.

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/

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).

Even JC threw in the towel on bcachefs-tools due to this: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Orphans-Bcachefs-Tools

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.

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.

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.

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 major stability 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

Wireguard and PiHole. Set the Wireguard routing to the local network IPs of your homelab, and you get the same setup.

Because given the position of the people and the fork point, the lower line is not master, but main. He has accidently made a feature branch called master and rebased backwards.