On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Michael DeMan (OA) wrote: >> >> Args for FreeBSD + ZFS: >> >> - Limited budget >> - We are familiar with managing FreeBSD. >> - We are familiar with tuning FreeBSD. >> - Licensing model >> >> Args against OpenSolaris + ZFS: >> - Hardware compatibility >> - Lack of knowledge for tuning and associated costs for training staff to >> learn 'yet one more operating system' they need to support. >> - Licensing model > > If you think about it a little bit, you will see that there is no > significant difference in the licensing model between FreeBSD+ZFS and > OpenSolaris+ZFS. It is not possible to be a "little bit pregnant". Either > one is pregnant, or one is not. >
Well, FreeBSD pretends it's possible, by shipping zfs and bearing BSD license at the same time. Regards, Andrey > Bob > -- > Bob Friesenhahn > bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
