Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote:
If a shell script may be dependent on GNU 'cat', does that make the shell
script a derived work? Note that GNU 'cat' could be replaced with some
other 'cat' since 'cat' has a well defined interface. A very similar
situation exists for loadable
Apparently, I must not be using the right web form...
I would update the case sometimes via the web, and it seems like no one
actually saw it. Or, some other engineer comes along and asks me the
same set of questions that were already answered (and recorded in the
case records!).
Another
On 8/19/10 10:48 AM +0200 Joerg Schilling wrote:
1) The OpenSource definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php section 9 makes it very
clear that an OSS license must not restrict other software and must not
prevent to bundle different works under different licenses on one medium.
Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
gd == Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com writes:
Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right
alongside the GPLv2 kernel code and run in the same program.
gd My understanding is that no, this is not possible.
GPLv2 and CDDL
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Linus is right with his primary decision, but this also applies for static
linking. See Lawrence Rosen for more information, the GPL does not distinct
between static and dynamic linking.
GPLv2 does not address linking at all and only makes vague
Frank wrote:
Have you dealt with RedHat Enterprise support? lol.
Have you dealt with Sun/Oracle support lately? lololol It's a disaster.
We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over 3 weeks,
Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround forever. The 7000
series
All of this is entirely legal conjecture, by people who aren't lawyers,
for issues that have not been tested by court and are clearly subject to
interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the
list, can we please either take the discussion offline, or agree to just
let the
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ethan Erchinger
We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over 3 weeks,
Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround forever. The
7000
series support is no better,
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Garrett D'Amore
interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the
list, can we please either take the discussion offline, or agree to
just
let the topic die (on the basis
Edward wrote:
That is really weird. What are you calling failed? If you're
getting
either a red blinking light, or a checksum failure on a device in a
zpool...
You should get your replacement with no trouble.
Yes, failed, with all the normal failed signs, cfgadm not finding it,
FAULTED in
Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
All of this is entirely legal conjecture, by people who aren't lawyers,
for issues that have not been tested by court and are clearly subject to
interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the
list, can we please either take the
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
ee == Ethan Erchinger et...@plaxo.com writes:
ee We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over
ee 3 weeks, Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround
ee forever.
that sucks.
but
In message 4c6c4e30.7060...@ianshome.com, Ian Collins writes:
If you count Monday this week as lately, we have never had to wait more
than 24 hours for replacement drives for our 45x0 or 7000 series
Same here, but two weeks ago for a failed drive in an X4150.
Last week SunSolve was sending my
On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Linus is right with his primary decision, but this also applies for static
linking. See Lawrence Rosen for more information, the GPL does not distinct
between
Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Linus is right with his primary decision, but this also applies for static
linking. See Lawrence Rosen for more information, the GPL does
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek and...@podzimek.org wrote:
I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples:
(1)
BM wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek and...@podzimek.org wrote:
I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some
On 16 Aug 2010, at 23:11, Andrej Podzimek wrote:
My only point was: There is no published report saying that stability or
*performance* of Btrfs will be worse (or better) than that of ZFS. This is
because nobody can guess how Btrfs will perform once it's finished. (In fact
nobody even
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
You're saying Oracle wants to keep
I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples:
(1) http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=zfs_ext4_btrfsnum=1
My little
On 17-Aug-10, at 1:05 PM, Andrej Podzimek wrote:
I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I
often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on
this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples:
(1)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote:
And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright
holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some
just will not budge.
Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right alongside the
GPLv2 kernel code and run
On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net
wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive
On 8/17/10 3:31 PM +0900 BM wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek and...@podzimek.org
wrote:
Disclaimer: I use Reiser4
A Killer FS™. :-)
LOL
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:04 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote:
And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright
holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some
just
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Frank Cusack
frank+lists/z...@linetwo.netwrote:
On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net
wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license
gd == Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com writes:
Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right
alongside the GPLv2 kernel code and run in the same program.
gd My understanding is that no, this is not possible.
GPLv2 and CDDL are incompatible:
Oh, as an insmod, I think the question is quite cloudy indeed, since you
get into questions about what forms a derivative product.
I was looking at the original statement of the two licenses running
together in the same program far too simply of course when
considered with dynamic link
Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
(The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden
license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the
Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris kernel. I
There is only a need for a mind
From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:17 PM
(The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden
license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the
Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris
On Sun, August 15, 2010 21:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why
Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more
mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort
to ZFS and leave btrfs to die.
Or
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, and
CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS steps
on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do
On Mon, August 16, 2010 09:06, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS,
and CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS
steps on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do this,
or that, why
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com
wrote:
Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why
Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more
mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort
to
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:54:13PM -0700, Erast wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no
longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That
is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release
modifications if they wish to distribute it
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change the license on already released
Tim Cook wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
mailto:d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to
release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it...
As such, they'll need to continue to
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die a
On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:48, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die a death of anonymity
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no
longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That
is not true. Anyone ELSE
On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to
release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
If he really believes this, then he seems to be
Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
If he really
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
own the code.
Ray's point is, how long would BTRFS remain in the Linux kernel in that case?
Such a
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
Why would they obviously want that? When the project started, they
were competing with Sun. They now own Solaris; they no longer have a
need to produce a competing product. I would be EXTREMELY surprised
to see Oracle continue to
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:58:20AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:08:52AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it
2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under
On Mon, August 16, 2010 11:01, Joerg Schilling wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as
they
own the code.
Ray's point is, how long would
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris
The problem is: The first time the a software release is considered
stable, it takes significant time for the uptake and the moment it's
really stable. ZFS was introduced almost 5 years ago to the public and
just now it gets mayor uptake in the field. I still don't get it, why
brtfs should be
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:15:12AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that
states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he
was a part of for five years.
The business motivation would be to set the competition back a
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
The real question is, WHY would they do it? What would be the business
motivation here? Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat
would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle
would have relegated itself to a non-player in the
Tim Cook wrote:
2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
mailto:codest...@osunix.org
Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
mailto:codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already
2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
Tim Cook wrote:
2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org mailto:
codest...@osunix.org
Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
mailto:codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee
On Mon, Aug 16 at 8:52, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part
On Mon, Aug 16 at 11:15, Tim Cook wrote:
Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that states
if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he was a part
of for five years.
IANAL, but as my discussions with employment lawyers in my state have
explained
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
can put a different (non-OSS) license on any
On Sun, August 15, 2010 09:19, David Magda wrote:
On Aug 14, 2010, at 14:54, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Russ Price
For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of
being prohibitively expensive.
I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr does move it out of
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
insults. Oracle can pull the plug at any time they choose. *ONE* developer
from Redhat does not change the fact that Oracle owns the rights to the
majority of the code, and can relicense it, or discontinue code updates, as
they see fit.
It would be most
Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils down
to this:
A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow.
B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results?
Have you had any issues?
A: No. I *have* *not* *tested* XYZ. I think XYZ is so unstable and slow
Andrej Podzimek and...@podzimek.org wrote:
P. S. As far as Phoronix is concerned... Well, I remember how they once used
a malfunctioning and crippled Reiser4 implementation (hacked by the people
around the ZEN patchset so that it caused data corruption (!) and kernel
crashes) and compared
On Mon, August 16, 2010 15:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I know of ext* performance checks where people did run gtar to unpack a
linux
kernel archive and these people did nothing but metering the wall clock
time
for gtar.
I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start to
write
to the disk when gtar finished.
As a test of ext? performance, that does seem to be lacking something!
I guess it's a consequence of the low sound levels of modern disk
pj == Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com writes:
gd == Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com writes:
cb == C Bergström codest...@osunix.org writes:
fc == Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net writes:
tc == Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
pj Given that both provide similar
dd 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved.
dd 3 *
dd 4 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
dd 5 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
dd 6 * License v2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
dd
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet
However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they
must
release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL.
When a copyright holder releases something
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we
can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned
the copyright to some other party.
BTRFS is inside the linux kernel.
Copyright (C)
see, that's good, and is a realistic future scenario for ZFS, AFAICT:
there can be a branch that's safe to collaborate on, which cannot go
into Solaris 11 and cannot be taken proprietary by Nexenta, either.
In fact, we are in the process of creating a non-profit foundation for
Illumos
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.comwrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we
can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned
the
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
can
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux?
___
zfs-discuss
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack
frank+lists/z...@linetwo.netwrote:
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
You're saying Oracle wants to
On Aug 14, 2010, at 14:54, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Russ Price
For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of
being prohibitively expensive.
I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr does move it out of
peoples'
basements generally, and keeps sol10
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, David Magda wrote:
But that US$ 400 was only if you wanted support. For the last little while
you could run Solaris 10 legally without a support contract without issues.
The $400 number is bogus since the amount that Oracle quotes now
depends on the value of the
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, David Magda wrote:
But that US$ 400 was only if you wanted support. For the last little while
you could run Solaris 10 legally without a support contract without issues.
The $400
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jerome Warnier
Do not forget Btrfs is mainly developed by ... Oracle. Will it survive
better than Free Solaris/ZFS?
It's gpl. Just as zfs is cddl. They cannot undo, or revoke the free
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
The $400 number is bogus since the amount that Oracle quotes now
depends on the value of the hardware that the OS will run on. For my
Using the same logic, if I said MS
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
The cost discussion is ridiculous, period. $400 is a steal for
support. You'll pay 3x or more for the same thing from Redhat or
Novell.
Actually, as a comparison with the message
Any code can become abandonware; where it effectively bitrots into
oblivion.
For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have
to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and
maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational).
On 2010-Aug-16 08:17:10 +0800, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have
to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and
maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational).
Agreed.
On 08/13/10 09:02 PM, C. Bergström wrote:
Erast wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they
On 08/13/2010 10:21 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Very few people would bother paying for solaris/zfs if they couldn't try it
for free and get a good taste of what it's valuable for.
My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by any or
all of: missing features,
On 14-8-2010 14:58, Russ Price wrote:
6. Abandon ZFS completely and go back to LVM/MD-RAID. I ran it for
years before switching to ZFS, and it works - but it's a bitter pill
to swallow after drinking the ZFS Kool-Aid.
Nice summary. ;-)
I switched to FreeBSD for the moment and it works very
3. Just stick with b134. Actually, I've managed to compile my way up to b142,
but I'm having trouble getting beyond it - my attempts to install later
versions just result in new boot environments with the old kernel, even with
the latest pkg-gate code in place. Still, even if I get the latest
@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
3. Just stick with b134. Actually, I've managed to compile my way up
to b142, but I'm having trouble getting beyond it - my attempts to
install later versions just result in new boot environments with the
old kernel, even
On 08/14/10 09:36 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
Oracle will spend *more* money on OpenSolaris development than Sun did.
At least, as a Sun customer, that's the line they were trying to
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price
For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of
being
prohibitively expensive.
I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr does move it out of peoples'
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrej Podzimek
Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a
serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using
I will much sooner pay for
On 8/14/10 Aug 14, 2:57 PM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a
serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using
I will much sooner pay for sol11 instead of use btrfs. Stability speed
On 8/13/10 11:21 PM -0400 Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris.
What rock do you live under?
Very few people would bother paying
On 8/14/10 7:58 AM -0500 Russ Price wrote:
My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by
any or all of: missing features, artificial limits on functionality, or a
restrictive license. I consider the latter most likely, much like the OTN
On 8/14/10 3:15 PM -0400 Dave
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Russ Price rjp_...@fubegra.net wrote:
4. FreeBSD. I could live with it if I had to, but I'm not fond of its
packaging system; the last time I tried it I couldn't get the package tools
to pull a quick binary update. Even IPS works better. I could go to the
ports
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrej Podzimek
Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a
serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using
I will much sooner pay for sol11
On 8/14/10 1:12 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
Wow, what leads you guys to even imagine that S11 wouldn't contain
comstar, etc.? *Of course* it will contain most of the bits that
are current today in OpenSolaris.
That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would
stay because
That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would
stay because its used by the Fishworks appliance... however, COMSTAR is
a competitive advantage for DIY storage solutions. Maybe they will rip
it out of S11 and make it an add-on or something. That would suck.
I guess the
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
