> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Van Damme > > And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not > being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms > of Oracle not really getting the point about open source development.
The thing that's really strange is ... BTRFS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but oracle is and always has been a major contributor there? 'Course, for all I know, it could be sabotage. ;-) I mean ... BTRFS ... Is years away from what I would be comfortable deploying in production... But if you've got a huge compute cluster, what are you supposed to do? Pay for solaris on every one? Of course that's ridiculous. Of course in such a situation, you want the "centos" instead of the "rhel." But what if there was a major closed-source feature unavailable in centos or openindiana? Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band together and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana... It's a real risk. I guess, all things considered, the price for solaris is entirely reasonable when you're building a fileserver. It's really just desktops and laptops and compute farms which suffer. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
