On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Rayson,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote:
RH> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
RH> While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop
users.
RH> For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world
RH> population) people who just use the computers to browse the
web, check
RH> emails, do word processing, etc... don't care. Even if they do
care, I
RH> don't think those who do not backup their drive can really
understand
RH> how to use ZFS.
I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you. What's interesting about its
integration in OS X - and OS X in general - is it diffuses hitherto
"server grade" technology (UNIX, inter alia) all the way down to
everybody's grandmother's non-technical desktop/MacBook. Steve
definitely proved his point (starting with NeXT, of course); Linux
and Solaris will inevitably arrive there too. To M********'s
detriment :-)
--Toby
mostly for its
built-in reliability, free snapshots, built-in compression and
cryptography (soon) and easy to use.
ps. few days ago I encountered my first checksum error on my
desktop system on a submirror (two sata drives in a zfs
mirror). Thanks to zfs it
won't be a problem and it's already repaired.
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://milek.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
