On 23 April 2011 20:06, John Marino <[email protected]> wrote: > This post has me so perplexed, I just have to explore further. >
Hello John, > > On 4/23/2011 2:15 AM, David Crosswell wrote: > >> Yes, I understand that. I'm looking forward to doing something with >> Hammer, but I've spoken to a couple of guys at the local Users group >> who swear they'll never use anything else but ZFS >> > You are apparently talking about random people at some local club. Yes, a 'NIX users group. > Why is their preference of filesystem impacting your intention to try out > Hammer? No, I didn't say anything like that. > What makes their opinion so special? Because they are highly qualified. One is a professor of computer sciences and runs the University BSD servers. with the help of his more advanced students to give them a little cash in hand to keep them from starving to death and give them real world experience. > > - got it running on >> FreeBSD and I looked at Dragonfly with UFS and Hammer and thought with >> ZFS they'd have every scenario covered. >> >> Who is "they"? DragonFly community? > I can't, for the life of me, see any other party referred to in that paragraph. > > Linux is working to incorporate ZFS compatibility into the kernel, >> > No, "Linux" is not. As long as ZFS has the CDDL license, it won't be > incorporated into the kernel. Yes, it will be. > People are working on putting ZFS in a module that users can manually load > in to work around license issues. Up until halfway through the 2,4 kernel, that's how it was done. If you wanted ext3, for example, it was as a module, because only ext2 was compiled in. > It's not a technical incompatibility, it's a license incompatibility for > which there is no solution other than Oracle changing the ZFS license. > Ellison's not about to let anything go, because that's the way Ellison is. The CDDL will stay as it is. It is compatible with the BSD licence however, which is why it can be employed with Debian's KFreeBSD config., for example. There's nothing wrong with loading it as a module. Debian isn't exactly in the Microsoft patent heavy market scenario, but still supplies access to contrib and non-free apps. What's so different here? > > and >> even with various filesystem developers looking at substantial jail >> sentences for killing their wives, they've still got an over abundance >> of filesystems. >> > > Again, why is Linux filesystem situation relevant to DragonFly? > I didn't say it was here. I seem to have stated that Linux have an over abundance of them. >From what I can see a F.S suitable for end users and smaller server situations, another suited to the cluster environment and another that has some valuable features wouldn't do any harm. I can't see any use for more than three. Can you? > How does Linux having too many filesystems (in your opinion) Here. You can count them if you like: *http://tinyurl.com/mym5k* > relate to DragonFly not having ZFS? I'm not following any logic train. > The train is there and quite clearly expressed, but you either can't see it, or, for some obscure, though no doubt interesting reason, don't want to. > > It's going to have to wait for a while before I learn C then. >> Regards, >> >> What? There's going to be a delay in your learning C because of which > following reason? > > A) Reiser was convicted of killing his wife > B) Linux has too many filesystems > C) Linux is putting ZFS in the kernel > D) Random people in local user groups swear by ZFS > E) Nobody is bothering to import ZFS to DragonFly. > F) Other? > None of them, quite obviously, and I fail to see why you would need to know what details of my personal existence prevent me from doing so. Have you ever been accused of being a drama queen before this? Regards, David Crosswell. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? http://www.weavers-web.org
