I was saying a subjective attack has no place in this particular forum, as it adds not to the debate (subjective attacks, or attacks on anything other htan the subject) generally don't add to the debate; that you have no *objective* criticism of his attacks also speaks volumes. Sun's (and now Oracle's) position on ZFS is not news (it is also, in point of fact, Red Hat's (RHI) position, which is why they want to add it). Kebabbert's position does, in fact mirror it (to an extent, I actually share that position) - in my case, it is strictly due to the merits of ZFS over competing filesystems available on other operating systems (not just Linux, but the BSDs, Windows, and MacOS as well). Because, for now, Solaris is the only way to actually get ZFS, Oracle has a window of opportunity going forward (one that Sun also had, but chose not to take advantage of). Sun *could* have chosen to use Solaris Express (if not OpenSolaris) as a back-door into general-purpose computing - the reason why they didn't was twofold - they were concerned about cannibalizing their hardware business (which was in trouble already, for different reasons), and they didn't want to hork off the open-source community (which Sun always has had a strained relationship with). Oracle has an even worse relationship with the open-source community than Sun ever did (and it's almost entirely driven by Larry Ellison) - their purchase of Sun was basically rubbing salt into those wounds. the open-source community (and RHI in particular, their biggest player in the enterprise space), sees, in ZFS, a wedge into greater acceptance in the enterprise; it's not news to anyone that ZFS has remained the best filesystem in terms of security and scalability. While ext4 and even btrfs/reiserfs have improved, none have ZFS' track record in the enterprise (NTFS doesn't have it, either). The big obstacle has been licensing issues (if not of ZFS, then of Solaris Express or OpenSolaris). HYowever, if Oracle fixes those, it has two choices - either it surrenders Solaris entirely, or it can choose to take on Linux (not just in the enterprise, but even at the desktop). That is, I suspect, the open-source community's greatest fear.
Originally Posted by TheOrqwithVagrant
Meh ZFS is pretty good but as soon as Btrfs picks up it'll be substantially better. If it can get clustering..then it can and will be the next Louis Armstrong FS.
ZFS is a lot more than "pretty good"; it's a good contender for "king of filesystems" at the moment. BTRFS is promising, but it remains to be seen whether the current problems it has are merely implementation issues. If it turns out there are core design flaws - always a possibility - then the outlook may be less rosy.
Originally Posted by NoEffex
Hey, anyone recall what was the relation of Oracle Solaris with Linux developer and Linux problems.
Originally Posted by PGHammer
i don't think gnu/Linux or the open source community has anything to fear from Solaris, at all. I think that is about as likely as LibreOffice fearing OpenOffice.
it is unlikely that the community would adopt Solaris at all, given that Oracle is running the project. ZFS is great, but if the licensing was changed (to an open license) people would just port it to Linux. there would be little to no reason to switch to Solaris, there just isn't enough of a user-base, development or developers targeting the platform.
i also couldn't see myslef using it at work either. enterprise linux works fine - where there is also a bigger, much more mature community. which in turn means better support, more software, etc.
Oracle isn't going to be able to do much with Solaris, they may find a target audience / continue supporting current customers, but i highly doubt it will be anything beyond that.