Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:29:40 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS License and Future Message-ID: <20101105212940.GB8648@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=dKatHYLFhC35VTT4fCAKgYLKEri2yVCPtSv7g@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=dKatHYLFhC35VTT4fCAKgYLKEri2yVCPtSv7g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:11:47PM -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote: > > A while back I started the thread "Troubles on SATA drives ZFS". I > decided to bring the zpool down check each disk and re-construct the > pool. Nevertheless, I was revising one of the ZFS error message links > and Oracle made me create a developer id to access the info. This > really pissed me off even more than teh Android suit, so it got me > thinking... > > Maybe I should go back to UFS, CCD, GEOM, etc. instead of continuing > to support f***ing Oracle. ZFS was honestly very easy and seemed very > reliable and fast, but I would like the opinion and position of people > here on ZFS before I continue using it. Frankly, it may be a couple of years before Oracle even decides what it will do with ZFS in the long run. I have not started using it to any substantial degree and, considering the change in ownership, I'm unlikely to start using it if I do not have an immediate, specific use-case that calls for the capabilities of ZFS in particular. . . . on top of which, I don't feel a need to do Oracle any favors. Your mileage may vary, of course. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkzUd0QACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUAhQCeIya/rpAyTyMEUf9sgqKO5n7h ErwAoMm13z0pf+qwTBCs0mJatbdqbzhd =SiWW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101105212940.GB8648>