Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:09:20 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Experiences with FreeBSD 9.0-BETA2 Message-ID: <201109262309.RAA19144@lariat.net> 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
At 04:38 PM 9/26/2011, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >There was also general sentiment that the rise of ZFS would allow >just this sort of fine-grained partitioning, which is a huge >advantage of its ability to create datasets on the fly. This >perception that ZFS is most of the future probably contributed to >the lack of strong opinions regarding the default UFS partition scheme. Unfortunately, because ZFS is licensed under a viral license (not the GPL, but nonetheless one that isn't compatible with the BSD philosophy), I wouldn't want to see this happen. I'd rather see Hammer backported from Dragonfly. --Brett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201109262309.RAA19144>