On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
<opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
>> All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS,
> and it's
>> one that is clearly being completely ignored by btrfs: ease of use.  The
> zfs
>> command set is wonderful and very English-like (for a unix command set).
>> It's simple, clear, and logical.  The grammar makes sense.  I almost never
> have
>> to refer to the man page.  The last time I looked, the commands for btrfs
>> were the usual incomprehensible gibberish with a thousand squiggles and
>> numbers.  It looked like a real freaking headache, to be honest.
> Maybe you're doing different things from me.  btrfs subvol create, delete,
> snapshot, mkfs, ...
> For me, both ZFS and BTRFS have "normal" user interfaces and/or command
> syntax.

the gramatically-correct syntax would be "btrfs create subvolume", but
the current tool/syntax is an improvement over the old ones (btrfsctl,
btrfs-vol, etc).

>> 1) Change the stupid name.   "Btrfs" is neither a pronounceable word nor a
>> good acromyn.  "ButterFS" sounds stupid.  Just call it "BFS" or something,
>> please.
> LOL.  Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
> btrfs.  Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)

... as long as you don't call it BiTterly bRoken FS :)

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to