Slashdot Mirror

It seems they may be entertaining the idea of keeping the code under the CDDL and dual-license it under the GPL, v3. I think it would be much more productive to skip the CDDL and switch entirely to GPLv3, as there are three big problems with keeping the CDDL:

• No GPL-only code import. More than 70% of all software available under an OSI-approved license is under the GPL (see Wheeler's essay, link below). Since Sun would require all GPL:d code they want to use to be dual-licensed as well, they can in fact only use GPL code that they can also get a CDDL-license for. This will be a tiny fraction, if any, of the vast amount of GPL:d quality code and libraries out there.

  For example, OpenSolaris on the SPARC can't be built from source today (nearly two years after it became available under the CDDL), because they lack an open source disassembler (yes, they need a disassembler, it's due to how the kernel debugger works). A well known and proven disassembler exists in the GNU binutils, ported to just about every useful processor type there is. OpenSolaris, I am told, wouldn't be able to use that, because it isn't dual-licensed under the CDDL and is unlikely to ever be.

• Fewer developers. If developers are forced to sign CA:s (contributor agreements) that make their contributions available under the CDDL, there is a risk that a section of the possible contributors from the GPL-only part of the world will not want to contribute.
• Smaller rate of adoption. This is a consequence of the previous two points. In turn, this leads to less demand for OpenSolaris skills, so there is money on the line here for people who know OpenSolaris or are thinking about learning it in order to make a living.

  For the obvious example of how GPL:d code is much more attractive and increases the rate of adoption even in cases when technically more advanced alternatives exist, consider that the BSD UNIX kernel never really took off in the way Linux has, even though in the early 90's the BSD kernel had an absolutely overwhelming technical lead at the time.

Much of the confused discussion on the opensolaris-discuss mailing list (warning: it takes days to read this and you don't particularly want to) could have been avoided, had the participants read David A. Wheeler's recently updated essay Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else. and been at least vaguely familiar with the Free Software philosophy.

So what is it about the GPL that makes developers want to use it? I can't speak for others, but in my own case it boils down to this: in 1985, when I first came across the GPL, I thought about the matter and decided that the inheritance of my life-time software development work to future generations should not be that of a jail built out of proprietary source code. This excludes the BSD-type licenses, as they allow someone else to take away one or more of the four freedoms I've worked hard for to establish at every opportunity. (Even then, it was not always possible, unfortunately.)

On the other hand, the only reason I can see why developers may want to use BSD-type licenses are that they want to deny others one or more of the four freedoms, or need to be able to. If you are one of these developers, maybe you will reconsider your position on this some day when it is financially possible for you. It is now easier than ever.

CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?thread ID=23699&tstart=0
http://lwn.net/Articles/221543/

You can find a solution(s) to your problem at one or more
of the following locations:

http://www.centos.org

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/

http://en.opensuse.org

http://www.opensolaris.org/

http://www.ecomstation.com/

http://www.redhat.com

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/

http://www.openbsd.org/

http://www.freebsd.org/

http://www.netbsd.org/

http://www.dragonflybsd.org/

http://www.osfree.org/doku/en:start

http://www.skyos.org/

http://www.freeos.com/

http://www.minix3.org/

Added to bypass the stupid slashdot lameness filter which apparently doesn't like a post full of links. WTF is wrong with the
stupid lameness filter? Jeez, what does it want, for us to type paragraphs of meaningless drivel just to get past the lameness filter?
Sheeesh. OK, this is really stupid. Why don't ajfajf al;djal a fa fa lkdf jaa fal ja;ljf af af ajf;lajf alfjalf a fjal;fjafl; jaflakjf af;laj
jalkfaj fjf af af fajjjajal jajfa f afjdlakej2233 2235t2352 dsfalkfjal f 222j2 afdkja f23 2 2 2t2352322 233252352 2323232.

Folks

The Solaris 10 DVD program looks aimed at pro users primarily.

If you want to start on SunOS (kernel) and Solaris (the OS from SUN = SunOS + userland) and you are primarily an enthusiast, may I recommend you OpenSolaris and its distributions.

OpenSolaris - It is the opensourced core OS + networking components of the Solaris OS. Solaris 10 and all future Solaris releases shall be based off it.

There are a number of distributions of OpenSolaris-

1. Solaris 10 - The official distribution from SUN and officially supported. (ROCK SOLID)

2. Solaris Express - Stable builds of development code. Supported by SUN.

3. Solaris Express Community Release (SXCR) - Bi-monthly development builds. Reasonably stabled (haven't seen it crash on the machine I have here in 3 months... 24x7 up, development server). [THIS is what you probably should be running if you want a SUN release to play with!]

4. NexentaOS - [This is what Linux folks should try] This is built off same code base but with GNU userland. It is based on Ubuntu with OpenSolaris kernel (SunOS).

5. BeleniX - A crazy fun distro of OpenSolaris. Also available as LiveCD

For more info please look at http://www.opensolaris.org/

Thank you

- A Solaris Fan

(I'm referring here to the current release of the supported Solaris 10 product. As others have noted, there's also OpenSolaris, which available from http://www.opensolaris.org/os, is well ahead of the mainstream release and provides source code, but is a somewhat less complete product bundle. Also, Solaris Express, which is a snapshot of what will become the Solaris 11 release, which like the supported product can be downloaded from Sun's website.)

Let 'em have it. Last month I downloaded Solaris Express build 53, which includes a much newer GNOME (2.16, as opposed to 2.8 or whatever in Solaris 10) and firefox 2.

QEMU actually does work on OpenSolaris and even supports the the kqemu kernel accellerator on x86.

Take a look at the OpenSolaris QEMU project page for downloads and instructions.

The main QEMU project web pages doesn't mention or link to the OpenSolaris version for some reason.

QEMU actually does work on OpenSolaris and even supports the the kqemu kernel accellerator on x86.

Take a look at the OpenSolaris QEMU project page for downloads and instructions.

The main QEMU project web pages doesn't mention or link to the OpenSolaris version for some reason.

Sure Steve, Virtualization isn't a panacea, and you've cited some of the places where it doesn't fit.

However the more common example by far in the enterprise is the deployment of a fairly small app that consumes a fraction (say ~10 pct) of a server's worth of CPU capacity. For all sorts of reasons, including ownership and independence, these tend to run on their own dedicated server.

Real cool example? Let's start with your scenario, a small ISP with a web server, mail server, and DNS server. To avoid the single point of failure, deploy all three applications across an active/standby or active/active clustered pair of physical servers, with some kind of shared-storage. Run each server (web, mail, and DNS) in its own virtual OS. Net benefit: Increased uptime _and_ reduced physical resources.

Another real cool example: How about security. Increasingly, expect to see security best practices mandate running applications within a virtual OS. For a good example of this, check out this PDF from Sun. Yes, it is Solaris specific, but expect other OS / Virtualization combos to move in this direction in the future.

There is work on Xen for OpenSolaris. The community web page doesn't look very active but check out the mailing lists and forums.

Contrast this with ZFS which is released under an open source license.

Indeed. If you should wish to make your own implementation of ZFS, you don't even need to look at the source code. Just read the (draft) spec of how things are laid out on disk with ZFS. Warning: the spec document is a PDF.

One, transparent encryption is still under development for ZFS, and two, encryption is only good for data that needs to be confidential in the relatively short term. Anything for which you really need total deniability in perpetuity, encryption is insufficient to protect you.

Secure deletes are already a 'future version' feature.

http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/3 612066

Not only secure delete but more general crypto support is planned

http://opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_groups /nlosug/nlosug-zfs-lofi.pdf [ a pdf presentation on crypto features]
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_gr oups/sgosug/10-zfs.pdf [ more general pdf presentation on ZFS ]

ZFS is relatively new (in comparison to most of the commonly used file systems). It isn't really "done" yet by any means.

Secure deletes are already a 'future version' feature.

http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/3 612066

Not only secure delete but more general crypto support is planned

http://opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_groups /nlosug/nlosug-zfs-lofi.pdf [ a pdf presentation on crypto features]
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_gr oups/sgosug/10-zfs.pdf [ more general pdf presentation on ZFS ]

ZFS is relatively new (in comparison to most of the commonly used file systems). It isn't really "done" yet by any means.

If you are actually interested and not trolling, I'd suggest you join the other 18,000 or so people over on OpenSolaris.org where the source code used to build Solaris is available under a Free license. You'll find a number of other OS distributions based on the same code - the most interesting is probably NextentaOS, which is essentially Debian with the kernel switched.

It's a hot topic and there are plenty of voices for and against. It was like this discussing the use of the GPL for the Java platform though, extensive and passionate debate right up to the last minute. In the end GPL v2 with the Classpath exception was clearly preferable, but every possible option was explored.

One key difference with Solaris though is that the base source code is already open source Free software and is in the care of the OpenSolaris community, so while Sun obviously gets a big say in what happens it's not just down to us, the community will also need to discuss it.

I don't think Solaris has a bright future. It's evolving too slow, too many restrictions, too many problems. Just look at their attempt to update their /bin/ksh from ksh88 to ksh93 - they're working on it since a year and they are still not finished. The ksh93 integration project takes an eternity or two while Linux does the same job in two weeks or a month. This shows the great failure of the Opensolaris project. They're too slow, often twelve times slower than Linux. Sun still has superior features, but at the current evolution rate it is just a matter of time when Linux becomes superior compared to Solaris and their management is deaf and blind and ignores the problem

Opensolaris can already run linux distributions as a non-global zone. Its called brandz and involved providing the API's of a particular rev of the linux kernel (2.4.21???) aparently (I'm no brandz expert, just gave it a whirl). Tis nifty. You now have linux apps running on top of a solaris kernel unmodified. Looks just like a linux box. Not sure how useful it is though. They claim a 5% performance overhead and obviously hardware drivers are likely to be a bit odd as your not running linux at all but solaris.

http://opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/

Microsoft is on the attack and they have a HUGE war chest! So a quick duck out of the way of this impending doom may just be Solaris. Whooo 'da thunk?

Now my memory is a bit vague ... How much did Novell pay for SUSE?....hummmmm ..... let be think ..... maybe I'll Google it....Yep just as I thought!

Guess Novell is just trying to bail out of a bad decision.... which of course will ruin one of the top distros.

You are incorrect that OpenSolaris "was done in such a way" to be incompatible with Linux. This old and tired myth keeps being propagated but it isn't true. Please see Simon Phipps comments at http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messa geID=55008#55008 to get an accurate picture. There were real, practical reasons that GPL wasn't chosen but it definitely was given serious consideration.

My opinion is that they are probably on a level close to Sun and its multi-million dollar R&D in pumping out Unix inovations.

Maybe Oracle wants to save money and doesn't want to pay Sun?

I'd really like to see ZFS become the standard file system if work is discontinued on Reiser4. ZFS is probably the best file system available, with virtual storage pools, snapshots, variable block sizes, and lightweight filesystem creation. Check out this ZFS demo.

Did you even do a FUCKING SEARCH on google? Threadmaster can throttle your cpu usage. Linux equivalant. Solaris can throttle cpu usage in zones. His complaint could be answered by a simple google search. He is just finding excuses...

One of the most intriguing mashups of technology that's available today via OpenSolaris is BrandZ and DTrace http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/ BrandZ allows OpenSolaris Containers/Zones to take on different OS personalities and the primary personality is one that emulates Linux. Using DTrace, one can actually dynamically trace Linux applications running (without recompilation) under OpenSolaris.

Please check out the Chime project which is about visualization software for DTrace. You can find more information at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/dtrace-chime / For those who think that DTrace is old news, I really suggest that you download one of the OpenSolaris-based distributions http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/distributions/ and play around with DTrace. Yes, it's CLI is aimed at the geek in all of us but there is software like Chime and MacOS X's upcoming Xray which will help with those who prefer a different sort of UI.

Please check out the Chime project which is about visualization software for DTrace. You can find more information at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/dtrace-chime / For those who think that DTrace is old news, I really suggest that you download one of the OpenSolaris-based distributions http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/distributions/ and play around with DTrace. Yes, it's CLI is aimed at the geek in all of us but there is software like Chime and MacOS X's upcoming Xray which will help with those who prefer a different sort of UI.

I'm still waiting for opensolaris' complete sources to go through

See cvs.opensolaris.org. Every bit that Sun can release has been released.

For a more accurate view of the reasons why CDDL was modelled after the MPL, see the following post

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messa geID=55008#55008

In particular, OpenSolaris could not have been released as an open-source project under the GPL without a massive amount of cleaning up to remove legal encumbrances. Other potential candidates, such as GPLv3, we not even on the horizon yet and if Sun had just used MPL, it would have had the same issues as CDDL. I suppose Sun could have tried GPLing things piecemeal but I suspect that few would have found that particularly interesting or useful.

Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she claims. She, along with many actual engineers, was an advocate of using GPL for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance removal} meant that this was not possible. I am still furious with her for the statement she made at DebConf, which was spiteful and an obstacle to a united FOSS movement.

I just read through your thread on osol-discuss (read it here). I think Casper's and Bryan's replies to you explain everything. I am not quite sure what your beef is. Just because OpenSolaris does not compile on sun4m anymore? Most of the Solaris 10/OpenSolaris features do not support sun4m. Of course, if you want to, you can always contribute code to the project to enable sun4m support. Good luck with that.

Backing up to a hard drive may seem reliable, but there are easy ways for you to destroy the external drive. It can be as simple as dropping it three feet to a hard surface like concrete, tile or hardwood floor. Bang, all your data just became unrecoverable. Each backup media has its points of failure. DVD-R can lose data over time, but you are making a new set every time you backup and its only needed for at most 2 or three periods between full backups. You think a $100 100GB HD is cheap, I get 100 8X DVD-Rs for $25 with stacking ring. That's 430GB for 1/4th what you paid for and its readable in almost computer these days. I have seen laptops and even some desktops with broken or poor USB ports. And DVD's in the stacking ring, some DVD wallet or binder can easily survive being dropped 3 feet onto the floor. Just keep them in a cool dry place like the basement or the stacking rings in a sealed plastic bag in the refrigerator works quite well too. Many people forget to verify that the backup is both readable and complete. I have seen too many backups that were never checked so when it was really needed, it was next to useless.

I use the freeware program scdbackup. It uses either ISO9660 or afio (tar like) for the DVD backups and you can have each DVD verified as they are made. Each DVD contains a script that will restore one file, a group of files or the entire backup to all the drives. It also splits large files into 2GB pieces for placement onto ISO9660 images as it has a 2GB file size limit. Although I use the command line "sdvdbackup_sys -conf_dir sys_inc -level 0", you can schedule it via cron or XP's Task Scheduler. It figures out the best way to place all of the files on the fewest DVDs and then simply prompts you to insert each DVD as needed. I mark on the DVDs that they are a level 0 (full) system backup, the date and that this is disk n of ### (just as on the prompt screen). Level 1 is the incremental backup.I do store lots of HTPC files both video and audio, but I back those out separately. If the main disk becomes corrupted, I use a bootable DVD (yes its Linux) with all of the tools to restore everything back to the way it was. All Windows machines backup to that main Linux box via SMB so I only need one backup to hold everything sans media files.

If you want a better way of backing up, Sun's new ZFS filesystem which is being ported to Linux and FreeBSD, uses data storage management to prevent data loss. It backs data files out to your backup media to maintain data integrity automatically. See http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/ When it is complete, I will likely move to that.

Pete

You can roll back to a build 22 via the SVN history. Shouldn't be too hard.
That presumes that s10_22 has enough of a history to exist - if it does, and it's buildable and works, you'd be right. However, I wont be holding my breath of it existing thanks to Sun.

FWIW, there is talk about reinstating sun4m class systems.
Would you be able to point to a more recent discussion, since Google is pointing to a lot of talk in 2005, but not much in 2006 outside of slashdot.
This would have to be undone, but if s10_22 could be pulled as you said, there might be some hope. Even later builds than s10_22 carry old bits in.

Solaris also runs on x86. OpenSolaris Matter of fact it might be the only commercial unix to do so.

It took 10 days for FreeBSD hacker to port ZFS to FBSD. The result is available here.

porting ZFS to OSX is not a simple matter as, for example, porting UFS or EXT2 would be

I can already mount ZFS-created file systems (with 'zfs create'
comman), create files/directories, change permissions/owner/etc., list
directories content, and perform few other minor operation.

IBM's business agenda, though, doesn't include lavishing praise on a rival operating system. It prefers Linux and its own proprietary version of Unix, called AIX. Solaris now runs on x86 computers such as IBM's System x servers as well as on Sun's own Sparc-based computers. OpenSolaris is designed to appeal to developers, who have the power to sneak software into companies the same way Linux snuck in during the 1990s.

That's hard to do when you cut out hardware documentation for entire SPARC platform - sun4cdm and limited bits of sun4u. The thing that they'd have to do is figure out how the GXT2000/3000/4x00/6x00 cards work and get them to work right - and they'd have something that IBM has so far not even documented in Linux. Otherwise I'd rather stick with IBM until they do that deed.


"OpenSolaris isn't a true open-source project, but rather a "facade," because Sun Microsystems doesn't share control of it with outsiders, executives from rival IBM say. "Sun holds it all behind the firewall"

Dunno about the facade, but their control, but they sure do hold some good stuff behind the firewall.

    Yes, Sparcstations are "ancient hardware" - but at least IBM allowed machines as old as their POWER2 workstations and servers to have "Linux Affinity" on them for at least one release. That feature is as close as IBM may get to opening AIX itself directly (in a similar way as OpenSolaris), and is something that combines the best of both worlds for what you can do with their older hardware.
    Why Sun seems to be adamant about keeping (outside of an ad hominem towards those who've objected - I saw that one bmc) sun4cdm and its hardware out of OpenSolaris (when their competition does well despite a longer hardware support cycle) speaks volumes of what they cant do.

IBM's business agenda, though, doesn't include lavishing praise on a rival operating system. It prefers Linux and its own proprietary version of Unix, called AIX. Solaris now runs on x86 computers such as IBM's System x servers as well as on Sun's own Sparc-based computers. OpenSolaris is designed to appeal to developers, who have the power to sneak software into companies the same way Linux snuck in during the 1990s.

That's hard to do when you cut out hardware documentation for entire SPARC platform - sun4cdm and limited bits of sun4u. The thing that they'd have to do is figure out how the GXT2000/3000/4x00/6x00 cards work and get them to work right - and they'd have something that IBM has so far not even documented in Linux. Otherwise I'd rather stick with IBM until they do that deed.


"OpenSolaris isn't a true open-source project, but rather a "facade," because Sun Microsystems doesn't share control of it with outsiders, executives from rival IBM say. "Sun holds it all behind the firewall"

Dunno about the facade, but their control, but they sure do hold some good stuff behind the firewall.

    Yes, Sparcstations are "ancient hardware" - but at least IBM allowed machines as old as their POWER2 workstations and servers to have "Linux Affinity" on them for at least one release. That feature is as close as IBM may get to opening AIX itself directly (in a similar way as OpenSolaris), and is something that combines the best of both worlds for what you can do with their older hardware.
    Why Sun seems to be adamant about keeping (outside of an ad hominem towards those who've objected - I saw that one bmc) sun4cdm and its hardware out of OpenSolaris (when their competition does well despite a longer hardware support cycle) speaks volumes of what they cant do.

IBM's business agenda, though, doesn't include lavishing praise on a rival operating system. It prefers Linux and its own proprietary version of Unix, called AIX. Solaris now runs on x86 computers such as IBM's System x servers as well as on Sun's own Sparc-based computers. OpenSolaris is designed to appeal to developers, who have the power to sneak software into companies the same way Linux snuck in during the 1990s.

That's hard to do when you cut out hardware documentation for entire SPARC platform - sun4cdm and limited bits of sun4u. The thing that they'd have to do is figure out how the GXT2000/3000/4x00/6x00 cards work and get them to work right - and they'd have something that IBM has so far not even documented in Linux. Otherwise I'd rather stick with IBM until they do that deed.


"OpenSolaris isn't a true open-source project, but rather a "facade," because Sun Microsystems doesn't share control of it with outsiders, executives from rival IBM say. "Sun holds it all behind the firewall"

Dunno about the facade, but their control, but they sure do hold some good stuff behind the firewall.

    Yes, Sparcstations are "ancient hardware" - but at least IBM allowed machines as old as their POWER2 workstations and servers to have "Linux Affinity" on them for at least one release. That feature is as close as IBM may get to opening AIX itself directly (in a similar way as OpenSolaris), and is something that combines the best of both worlds for what you can do with their older hardware.
    Why Sun seems to be adamant about keeping (outside of an ad hominem towards those who've objected - I saw that one bmc) sun4cdm and its hardware out of OpenSolaris (when their competition does well despite a longer hardware support cycle) speaks volumes of what they cant do.

And here's the opensolaris.org tools forum/mailing-list where the revision control decision was discussed. Besides Mercurial, several other tools were considered. This was all done out in the open.

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID =9

And here's an example of the ZFS team discussing the design of a new feature on the public forum.

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messag eID=47936

I think IBM's comments are really meant to impose FUD. If you look into the project I think you undoubtedly will see that it is open now. As more time passes and, for example, the external contribution mechanism is streamlined with the move to Mercurial, I think it will *appear* open without question to outsiders and silly handline grabbing IBM fud-filled comments will not even make slashdot.

And here's the opensolaris.org tools forum/mailing-list where the revision control decision was discussed. Besides Mercurial, several other tools were considered. This was all done out in the open.

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID =9

And here's an example of the ZFS team discussing the design of a new feature on the public forum.

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messag eID=47936

I think IBM's comments are really meant to impose FUD. If you look into the project I think you undoubtedly will see that it is open now. As more time passes and, for example, the external contribution mechanism is streamlined with the move to Mercurial, I think it will *appear* open without question to outsiders and silly handline grabbing IBM fud-filled comments will not even make slashdot.

Sun could do "simple things" to build a real OpenSolaris community if it were serious about doing so, Frye said. "They would push their design discussions out into the forums, so people can see what's going on," he suggested.

Sun could do "simple things" to build a real OpenSolaris community if it were serious about doing so, Frye said. "They would push their design discussions out into the forums, so people can see what's going on," he suggested.

There are a variety of very good Open Solaris distros now:

Belenix: http://belenix.sarovar.org/belenix_download.html/

Polaris, Solaris for PowerPC: http://www.blastware.org/

Nexenta, the Solaris/Ubuntu mix: http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/Nexenta_OS/

And of course you can go straight to the official Open Solaris Communities page here: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/communities/;jsessio nid=6E46815A1C5CC33AC6470A9439DABAA6#all/

Fight IBM FUD with Open Solaris Fact.

Well, no matter what Sun will do, we are wery close to a free software Java implementation anyway. There are free JVMs and compilers. All that is missing is the class libary, but the gerics branch of GNU Classpath are at 95.13% on JAPI tests. After all Sun did keep their word about opening Solaris and they are talking to the developers behind the free Java implementations, so I think we can trust them.

Its only been year since the release of OpenSolaris, and there are already many distributions in development. So I don't think the CDDL is everyone away.

While I don't care for the CDDL, Sun's rationale is well documented.

Yes, because Linux == KHTML. That's all Linux is. And KDE doesn't run on any other platform but Linux. Those stupid Mac users, how can they hate Linux when the rendering engine of one of the browsers for their OS is Linux!

(Here's a small sampling of platforms that KDE either runs on or is being ported to.)

The backups are most likely done via ZFS snapshots.

The backups are most likely done via ZFS snapshots.

With Apple's interest in ZFS, we may not have to wait long to find out if you're right.