Wouldn't it be great if the opensolaris community creates a fs fzfs (for flash
zfs) that
could be the the filesystem for SDXC cards? Two main point for this are already
there
Sun is a member of SD Card Association and the code writting smart on a flash
should be there as well with stuff of l2a
On Sun, Jan 11 at 5:00, Fabian Wörner wrote:
>Wouldn't it be great if the opensolaris community creates a fs fzfs (for flash
>zfs) that
>could be the the filesystem for SDXC cards? Two main point for this are
>already there
>Sun is a member of SD Card Association and the code writting smart on
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
>
> My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they
> are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to
> Solaris, BSD, and OS-X.
Perhaps the philosophical issues of the "other OS's" (i.e. Linux) are
more significant t
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
>> My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they
>> are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to
>> Solaris, BSD, and OS-X.
>
> Perhaps the philosophical issues of the "other OS's" (i.e. L
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:28:36 +
Tom Bird wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> >> My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they
> >> are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to
> >> Solaris, BSD, and OS-X.
>
January 11, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:28:36 +
> Tom Bird wrote:
>
>> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
>> >> My impression is not that other OS's aren
On 11-Jan-09, at 3:28 PM, Tom Bird wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
>>> My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they
>>> are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to
>>> Solaris, BSD, and OS-X.
>>
>> Perhaps
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Toby Thain wrote:
>>
>> Nobody in their right mind is using Gentoo.
>
> Hmmm... a lot of seasoned sysadmins would disagree. A source based
> distribution has some significant advantages; I would not be surprised if
> that concept outlives binary packaging and its attendant d
>My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they
>are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to
>Solaris, BSD, and OS-X.
>
>If you wanted native support in Windows or Linux, it would require a
>significant effort from Sun.
Why is that a problem for Window
"Eric D. Mudama" wrote:
> My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they
> are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to
> Solaris, BSD, and OS-X.
The BDF folks had some cons against the CDDL but after I had a lobger
discussion with them, they understood
my post was not to start a discuss gpl<>cddl.
It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS
If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolar
Fabian Wörner wrote:
> my post was not to start a discuss gpl<>cddl.
> It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS
> If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!!
If you like to promoote ZFS, you need to understand why the party you like
to promote it to does not already
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Fabian Wörner wrote:
>
>> my post was not to start a discuss gpl<>cddl.
>> It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS
>> If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!!
>
> If you like to promoote ZFS, you need to understand why the party you like
> "tt" == Toby Thain writes:
> "j" == JZ writes:
> Nobody in their right mind is using Gentoo.
tt> a lot of seasoned sysadmins would disagree.
Gentoo makes sense for embedded projects. OpenWRT is arguably
source-based too. but Gentoo is extremely clumsy to my view: I find
> "js" == Joerg Schilling writes:
js> A GPLd ZFS would however disallow to use it on *BSD and Mac OS
js> X.
and also Solaris. which is why ZFS would not be GPL'd that way. It'd
be a choice of license. I think someone floated the same either/or
license as a ``we'll see'' possibilit
Carson Gaspar wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Fabian Wörner wrote:
>>
>>
>>> my post was not to start a discuss gpl<>cddl.
>>> It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS
>>> If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!!
>>>
>> If you like to promoote ZF
Richard Elling wrote:
> Carson Gaspar wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fabian Wörner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
my post was not to start a discuss gpl<>cddl.
It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS
If it was against anything than against exfat,
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Miles Nordin wrote:
>
> but yeah, that OTness aside, Sun's deliberately crafting their brand
> new CDDL license to be incompatible with the GPL isn't exactly in the
> spirit of free software. BSD is also not in the GPL camp, but the
> mainstream of BSD has altered their licens
Le 12 janv. 09 à 17:39, Carson Gaspar a écrit :
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Fabian Wörner wrote:
>>
>>> my post was not to start a discuss gpl<>cddl.
>>> It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS
>>> If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!!
>>
>> If you like to pro
Roch Bourbonnais wrote:
> Le 12 janv. 09 à 17:39, Carson Gaspar a écrit :
>
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> Fabian Wörner wrote:
>>>
>>>
my post was not to start a discuss gpl<>cddl.
It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS
If it was against anything than
On 14 Jan 2009, at 10:01, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> DOS/FAT filesystem implementations in appliances can be found in less
> than 8K code and data size (mostly that's code). Limited functionality
> implementations can be smaller than 1kB size.
Just for the sake of comparison, how big is the limited
On Mon, Jan 12 at 10:00, casper@sun.com wrote:
>>My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they
>>are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to
>>Solaris, BSD, and OS-X.
>>
>>If you wanted native support in Windows or Linux, it would require a
>>signific
22 matches
Mail list logo
