Quote Originally Posted by TheOrqwithVagrant View Post
If you believe this to be the reason why Kebabbert is being treated with scorn, you are likely unaware of his posting history on multiple forums. Also, seeing the words "not toeing the Party Line" in association with Kebabbert is downright funny; he's adhered to the SUN Party Line stronger than SUN themselves. And now that Oracle has acquired SUN, the trend continues.



You're reading far too much into the comment. Kebabbert is Swedish, and so am I. "Som fan laser bibeln" (like the devil reads the bible) is a common idiom in Swedish. Since the discussion is in English, I translated. The "biblical" origin of the idiom has little to no meaning anymore - Sweden is probably the most secular nation on earth. The idiom is used when someone is interpreting/quoting something very selectively, deliberately taking something out of context and twisting the meaning. Kebabbert does this a lot to "prove" Linux's inferiority to Solaris. My comment really had very little to do with the particular topic at hand, and was more in response to Kebabbert's incredibly flawed approach to arguing his points across a huge number of thread topics on multiple forums over several years.
So yes - my "attack" was certainly subjective, but it was strictly an attack on Kebbabert's methods of argument, and almost entirely unrelated to the particular thread it appeared in.
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.