> I don't know what Oracle will do, but this rationale is completely > illogical. BTRFS is still unstable and unfit for production (there's a > flashing warning at the top of the BTRFS official wiki), while ZFS has > been for years. When Oracle completes the Sun buy, they can relicense > ZFS as they wish, so for the short and middle term ZFS stays here for > sure. For the future, I don't see the point in spending money for > cloning an asset that has been bought, so personally I'd not bet on > BTRFS future (with the exception of the open source community - but if > ZFS got GPLed, I see many Linux users adopting it).
I disagree with that analysis. BTRFS improves upon ZFS in many ways [http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/] and is widely believed to be the dominating, if not yet default, Linux file system within a few years. ZFS is more stable since it has a few more years of development under it's belt, but that really only goes for Solaris and FreeBSD doesn't it? > As far as we know, Apple is > developing Yet Another Advanced File System, but who know when it will > see the light. Of course, no word about it. Possibly. I've always been longing for a file system that allows true meta-data and labeling, which breaks the age old hierarchical structure - why MUST I choose one location for my item? (Answer: Because that's how file-dialogs have always looked) And as much as I despise the practices of Apple, they are the one company (Microsoft had to give up, WinFS anyone?) who could and would do this. /Casper
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
