Casper Bang wrote:
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?
I'm not able to understand the tech differences between the two and how
relevant they are for end users. From a business perspective, the famous
sentence #2 to Sun customers in the document "Oracle Plans to" is "spend
more money developing Solaris than Sun does now". Given that Solaris
stays here, ZFS stays here at least for the two years that BTRFS needs
to be production ready. At that point, I think that you need some huge
differences in features to have the customers migrate to a different
file system. For Linux this is different, and indeed since there aren't
two distros that agree on the same bits there will be probably both. I'm
still skeptical on Oracle spending big money on R&D for both.
I'd like to make it clear that I'm not trying any prediction. Most of
predictions are wrong even when made by people that are supposed to be
able to make them. It's' just my 2 cents. Of course if the Oracle
documents about the buy are just a pile of horseshit, any reasoning
doesn't make sense.
Leopard users can still use the open source version of ZFS (I do) and
some people have started working on the sources, so I think it will be
usable with Snow Leopard sooner or later. Given that the refusal of
integrating ZFS into Linux made a lot of people to scream, I believe
that *if* Oracle make ZFS GPLed it will take very short to have it
available in a distro.
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.
We'll see. At the moment they are at the bottom of the list, since HFS+
is the worse in the market, even worse than NTFS in my opinion.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[email protected]
--
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.
