Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:47:21 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Experiences with FreeBSD 9.0-BETA2 Message-ID: <4E8100F9.8050509@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261837340.882@multics.mit.edu> References: <201109260053.SAA25795@lariat.net> <201109260927.02540.jhb@freebsd.org> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261359100.882@multics.mit.edu> <201109262035.OAA17199@lariat.net> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261837340.882@multics.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/26/2011 15:38, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > This perception that ZFS is most of the future probably contributed to > the lack of strong opinions regarding the default UFS partition scheme. Can we please stop saying that there were no contrary opinions stated? I personally expressed a preference (call it strong if that helps) for split partition scheme, as did several other people, all with worked examples. Nathan chose to go "one big partition" in spite of that input. Given that he was the one doing the work on the installer I personally decided to take a step back and see how it played out. But let's not pretend that this wasn't Nathan's decision. Meanwhile, if based on feedback from early adopters we need to tweak the layout, that's not life threatening. There is still time. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E8100F9.8050509>