Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenZFS Launches To Promote Open-Source ZFS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDL

    Irrational hatred of GPL not in slightest and AFAIK Sun wanted to compete with Linux.
    Disgruntled engineers can say anything, but such statements are not credible. Unless you can Danese Cooper's statements from those of a disgruntled engineer, they have no credibility.

    So far, I have only seen you regurgitate FUD. This raises the question of whether software that benefits from this FUD has any technical merit. If you care about promoting your own preferences in software, I suggest that you stop spreading FUD about everything else. It reflects poorly on your preferences.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by ryao View Post
      Disgruntled engineers can say anything, but such statements are not credible. Unless you can Danese Cooper's statements from those of a disgruntled engineer, they have no credibility.

      So far, I have only seen you regurgitate FUD. This raises the question of whether software that benefits from this FUD has any technical merit. If you care about promoting your own preferences in software, I suggest that you stop spreading FUD about everything else. It reflects poorly on your preferences.
      Look i came here to explain background of ZFS creation thats all and frankly im not interested in FUD-ing your effort which has very little to do with Suns politics.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by xeekei View Post
        That was very interesting, thank you. Everyone talks about ZFS like it's a gift from the gods, which made me think Btrfs wouldn't stand a chance. Now I think differently. Can't wait for Btrfs!
        Nah, this is just history repeating itself.
        There will always be some "gift from the gods OMG super ultimate filesystem" that will make everything else fall to their knees in its absolute superiority in every way.

        Last time it was reiserfs. Then hans reiser went to prison for murdering his mail order wife.
        Now its zfs.

        That's all. zfs is nothing special. Just another overly complex pile of code that will break the world.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by ryao View Post
          So far, I have only seen you regurgitate FUD. This raises the question of whether software that benefits from this FUD has any technical merit. If you care about promoting your own preferences in software, I suggest that you stop spreading FUD about everything else. It reflects poorly on your preferences.
          I have to say I am very interested in ZFS but this post of yours worries me enough to sign up and question you.
          After looking in to ZFS for a few weeks I have come across names and also came across these relating to you in-particular:
          http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/eudev/
          http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/81901

          It seems strange you would criticise others of regurgitating FUD when you yourself are part of a Gentoo project which sells itself (or benefits as you say) from nothing but FUD but when faced by other technical people at a talk, your fellows back-pedal like crazy and crawl in to a corner from what I saw.

          How can I, as someone who is now loosing interest in ZFS because of yourself being a hypocrite trust all these things great amazing things you say about ZFS? Why should I use or be more interested in ZFS over Btrfs if Btrfs is benefiting from FUD (as it seems you may be implying).

          I don't mean to pick you out, but you seem to be passionate and vocal about ZFS but some things you say, your attitude and agenda are very worrying, morally.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by xeekei View Post
            So what now? ZFS is still great and I shouldn't be looking forward to Btrfs?
            Amplidata's object storage system (a dss), looks to be pretty impressive. There's a report they commissioned that gave them a "15 9s" data reliability. Bitspread seems an interesting way to handle the problem.
            Also, you might want to keep in mind that ryao has a pretty strong reason to be a booster for zfs. It's not clear that valerie has a similar reason to be disingenuous about zfs.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
              Last time it was reiserfs. Then hans reiser went to prison for murdering his mail order wife.
              Now its zfs.

              That's all. zfs is nothing special. Just another overly complex pile of code that will break the world.
              Well, to be fair, at least zfs isn't named after its developer, so even if the zfs developer decides to one day murder their wife/husband/loveslave, it probably won't taint the reputation of the entire filesystem.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Well, to be fair, at least zfs isn't named after its developer, so even if the zfs developer decides to one day murder their wife/husband/loveslave, it probably won't taint the reputation of the entire filesystem.
                It's a shame that people blamed the filesystem for what he did. Reiser4 is really good I hear.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by liam View Post
                  Also, you might want to keep in mind that ryao has a pretty strong reason to be a booster for zfs. It's not clear that valerie has a similar reason to be disingenuous about zfs.
                  Would you elaborate on what that reason is? It cannot be money. So far, all of my contributions to ZFS have been as a volunteer and that only income that I have derived from them is a copy of Solaris Internals that someone gave me.
                  Last edited by ryao; 09-21-2013, 01:28 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                    It does say "several years". Are you suggesting that this person is lying?

                    Also, the post you're linking to can pretty much be summed up to "ZFS has existed longer", bringing up things like documentation and length of testing. Those things will always be true, and by that logic we should never develop anything new.
                    I asked Matthew Ahrens about Valerie Aurora's contributions to early ZFS development. It turns out that she was part of early ZFS development, but her contributions were small. We do not have access to whatever internal repository was used for ZFS development before it moved into Open Solaris to see what she wrote, but it is likely that little, if any, of her work is present in the modern ZFS code.

                    This is not to discredit Valerie's opinions, but they should not be considered to be those of a ZFS developer. She has no significant connection to what is known to be ZFS today.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      OpenZFS and licensing

                      Originally posted by AllanJude View Post
                      The original copyright belongs to Oracle now
                      Highlights from http://open-zfs.org/wiki/FAQ

                      > we do not have the power to change the licence of OpenZFS

                      > would require participation from everyone who has ever contributed code since the project began in 2001.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X