A truly pathetic marketing campaign also precisely explains Microsoft's vision for an incompatible Internet, composed of "cleverly concealed web page[s] that only Internet Explorer 8 can view".
I had hoped this thread would elicit some intelligent comments about SAP MaxDB (which they open sourced some time ago), but here we are with the perennial boring anti-GPL trolling.
If you don't like the GPL, don't license your code with it! The rest of us who do, do it because we want to.
Being "off in the corner" with capabilities far beyond what anyone else offers doesn't sound like such a shameful place to me. If people won't educate themselves about what Solaris & ZFS offer, then their loss.
You don't know what you're talking about, re: ZFS. You can't duplicate it on "BSD/Linux". It is not the same thing as a Linux filesystem, nor a Linux volume manager, and the architecture of ZFS is considerably more powerful than these combined. The reasons why are public knowledge, why post without understanding them?
What ZFS does have that typical Apple Consumers would like to see it on desktops
Pretty much all of it applies equally to consumer systems.
ZFS is not miracle what is not possible to gain already with other kind setup with RAID and other filesystem
You need to study ZFS more, as you clearly know little about it. Almost no RAID systems can do what ZFS does. Hints: end to end checksumming; self-healing; copy on write;...
Hint: The extra capability largely comes from integrating both the "filesystem" and "volume manager" layers, which are separate modules in traditional configurations. Calling ZFS a "filesystem" seems to mislead a lot of people that it can be compared to other "filesystems"; and the fact that ZFS implements RAID-like redundancy leads people to think that it can be compared to other "RAID" systems. Sure, it can be compared, but conventional systems will generally lose (notably in data integrity, but also in performance, manageability, etc).
/. has its share of individualist/libertarians... MOST of whom are smart enough not to be taken in by the submission's idiotic premise. But there's always an exception...
It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.
How fond Americans are of reductionist dualities that are unhelpful, misleading and frequently downright dangerous: American pilot with The Right Stuff in an American plane would have saved everyone; dangerous European plane and computer killed hundreds. Oversimplified sniping, or childish fantasy?
If I want real facts on flying, instead of wild-assed pseudo-political trollery, I'll go read Peter Ladkin or Patrick Smith:
"The gist of the accident appears pretty clear: Air France Flight 447 was victimized by a terrible storm."
Slashdot Mirror
"Fucking Lexmark."
Not just a Microsoft tactic - it's a way of life!
n/t
A truly pathetic marketing campaign also precisely explains Microsoft's vision for an incompatible Internet, composed of "cleverly concealed web page[s] that only Internet Explorer 8 can view".
just tell your customers to unhitch their wagon from Microsoft, which is heading ever-faster toward a cliff.
It's not as if there are no better alternatives.
I had hoped this thread would elicit some intelligent comments about SAP MaxDB (which they open sourced some time ago), but here we are with the perennial boring anti-GPL trolling.
If you don't like the GPL, don't license your code with it! The rest of us who do, do it because we want to.
Better to be on that list than this one.
:-D
Amazing that this still has to be spelled out, isn't it.
Being "off in the corner" with capabilities far beyond what anyone else offers doesn't sound like such a shameful place to me. If people won't educate themselves about what Solaris & ZFS offer, then their loss.
Actually judging from the ignorant posts, 99% may be capable, but only 1% are actually doing it.
You don't know what you're talking about, re: ZFS. You can't duplicate it on "BSD/Linux". It is not the same thing as a Linux filesystem, nor a Linux volume manager, and the architecture of ZFS is considerably more powerful than these combined. The reasons why are public knowledge, why post without understanding them?
n / t
Shame I just blew my mod points by posting.
But parent is completely wrong. ZFS root/boot is fully supported by Sun, and ZFS itself is used in production in thousands of installations.
What ZFS does have that typical Apple Consumers would like to see it on desktops
Pretty much all of it applies equally to consumer systems.
ZFS is not miracle what is not possible to gain already with other kind setup with RAID and other filesystem
You need to study ZFS more, as you clearly know little about it. Almost no RAID systems can do what ZFS does. Hints: end to end checksumming; self-healing; copy on write; ...
Hint: The extra capability largely comes from integrating both the "filesystem" and "volume manager" layers, which are separate modules in traditional configurations. Calling ZFS a "filesystem" seems to mislead a lot of people that it can be compared to other "filesystems"; and the fact that ZFS implements RAID-like redundancy leads people to think that it can be compared to other "RAID" systems. Sure, it can be compared, but conventional systems will generally lose (notably in data integrity, but also in performance, manageability, etc).
Don't worry - TIME magazine is thoroughly with the program.
Interestingly, the only article positing a "computer glitch" is in American TIME magazine. Hm, wonder if somebody's paying to play. :)
Can exercise our freedom to point out their god-damned hypocrisy.
No shit. After a string of fatal crashes, the RAF won't let the SAS use its transport choppers any more.
/. has its share of individualist/libertarians... MOST of whom are smart enough not to be taken in by the submission's idiotic premise. But there's always an exception...
American pilots are non-migratory.
Yes, the possibility of an ironic interpretation did cross my mind.
As long as L. Ron Hubbard wrote the avionics software, I'm *so* boarding that plane!
You aren't the only one sighing, buddy. :)
It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.
How fond Americans are of reductionist dualities that are unhelpful, misleading and frequently downright dangerous: American pilot with The Right Stuff in an American plane would have saved everyone; dangerous European plane and computer killed hundreds. Oversimplified sniping, or childish fantasy?
If I want real facts on flying, instead of wild-assed pseudo-political trollery, I'll go read Peter Ladkin or Patrick Smith: "The gist of the accident appears pretty clear: Air France Flight 447 was victimized by a terrible storm."