From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Sep 26 23:09:35 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B500106566B;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:09:35 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from brett@lariat.net)
Received: from lariat.net (lariat.net [66.62.230.51])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B5E8FC18;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:09:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from WildRover.lariat.net (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.net@lariat.net
	[66.119.58.2] (may be forged))
	by lariat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19144;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:09:30 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <201109262309.RAA19144@lariat.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:09:20 -0600
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
From: Brett Glass <brett@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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 01:56:16 +0000
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Experiences with FreeBSD 9.0-BETA2
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:09:35 -0000

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