Yea, What is the deal with this? I am so bummed :( What the heck was Sun's CEO
talking about the other day? And why the heck did Apple not include at least
non-default ZFS support in Leopard? If no ZFS in Leapard, then what is all the
Apple-induced-hype about? A trapezoidal Dock table? A
On 12-Jun-07, at 9:23 AM, Sunstar Dude wrote:
Yea, What is the deal with this? ...
Can anyone explain the absence of ZFS in Leopard??? I signed up for
this forum just to post this.
Steve giveth and Steve taketh away.
--Toby
This message posted from opensolaris.org
we know time machine requires an extra disk (local or remote) so its
reasonable to guess the non bootable time machine disk could use zfs.
someone with a Leopard dvd (Rick Mann) could answer this...
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Yeah this is pretty sad, we had such plans for actually using our apple
(PPC) hardware in our datacenter for something other than AFP and web
serving.
It also shows how limited apples vision seems to be. For 2 CEO's not to be
on the same page demonstrates that there is something else going on
On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Andy Lubel wrote:
Yeah this is pretty sad, we had such plans for actually using our
apple
(PPC) hardware in our datacenter for something other than AFP and web
serving.
It also shows how limited apples vision seems to be.
I think you are jumping to conclusions
Apple's strength is the desktop, Sun's is the datacenter.
There's no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there's no need to have
HFS+ in the datacenter.
There is a need to improve ZFS in the datacenter, however, and I wish Sun had
invested their time in getting dynamic LUN expansion going
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Robert Smicinski wrote:
Apple's strength is the desktop, Sun's is the datacenter.
Agreed, to a large extent.
There's no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there's no need
to have HFS+ in the datacenter.
I strongly disagree with the first clause of that sentence.
Group,
Isn't Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive
personal computer / small business environment?
IE, Plug and play.
Thus, even though ZFS is able to work as the default
FS, should it be the default FS for the small system
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:54 -0700, Erblichs wrote:
Group,
Isn't Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive
personal computer / small business environment?
IE, Plug and play.
Warning, real case to follow, not a what if scenario:
Over the past 10 years, I've been
On 12-Jun-07, at 1:54 PM, Erblichs wrote:
Group,
Isn't Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive
personal computer / small business environment?
IE, Plug and play.
Thus, even though ZFS is able to work as the default
FS, should it be the
I agree wholeheartedly. This ZFS is a must for desktop, small
business and enterprise. I've been hanging out in #zfs and reading
quite a bit over the last couple weeks and I will never trust my data
again unless I have ZFS in place. I look to transfer this to my
clients' setups as well somehow
My guess is that Jonathan's WWDC pre-announcement last week is was probably why
there's no ZFS in the WWDC beta.
Anybody remember what happend to ATI when they did that? It wasn't good.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
On June 12, 2007 12:08:05 PM -0700 Deron Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that Jonathan's WWDC pre-announcement last week is was
probably why there's no ZFS in the WWDC beta.
I'm sure the discs were made long before Jonathan's statement.
-frank
Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn't want ZFS in OS X - Solaris competition
- and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X that Steve Jobs would
drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this was intentionally done by Schwartz
to keep ZFS out of a competing OS. Just a thought.
Whatever
On 12-Jun-07, at 4:38 PM, Sunstar Dude wrote:
Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn't want ZFS in OS X - Solaris
competition - and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X
that Steve Jobs would drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this
was intentionally done by Schwartz to keep
Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn't want ZFS in OS X - Solaris competition
- and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X that Steve Jobs would
drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this was intentionally done by Schwartz
to keep ZFS out of a competing OS. Just a thought.
Whatever
16 matches
Mail list logo
