Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:34:41 +0200 From: Ed Jobs <oloringr@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Any chance ZFS becoming default? Message-ID: <200912200034.41904.oloringr@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200912192126.15581.pieter@degoeje.nl> References: <6c51dbb10912190642s43ec0f2bj69047a0d5a0690ae@mail.gmail.com> <E7A4C254FF8D4B1AAB27E63078A83F3B@rivendell> <200912192126.15581.pieter@degoeje.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1840948.r3PBZqUzKH Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Saturday 19 December 2009 22:26, Pieter de Goeje wrote: > Don't spread FUD please. If you had read the WIKI you would know it talks > about sysinstall support for ZFS, not about removing UFS. i'm sorry if my mail was misleading. we have no idea how it will be=20 implemented. my guess is that both ufs and zfs would be available through=20 sysinstall, but then again, unless we see the final implementation nothing = is=20 sure.=20 On the original topic: zfs does not have the "experimental" tag since 8.0. = it=20 would not be normal to add sysinstall support (and even more setting as=20 default) in a feature that was experimental. So of course it was pushed to 9 =2D-=20 Real programmers don't document. If it was hard to write, it should be hard= to=20 understand. --nextPart1840948.r3PBZqUzKH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkstVQEACgkQBPpdVEWKA320pwCeNbNBm/ymOILhbqAL/X18wBiG FAYAoOuE/OdpWvNxXMOTm2mjYqBJH+Gr =1lKQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1840948.r3PBZqUzKH--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200912200034.41904.oloringr>