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 :) -- Fajar _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss