> Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state with > authority that Stefano really meant to ask the > question that he posed rather than something else. > In retrospect, I suppose that some of his > surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was > attempting (however unskillfully) to twist my > comment about other open source solutions being > similarly enterprise-capable into a provably-false > assertion that those other solutions offered the > *same* features that he apparently considers so > critical in ZFS rather than just comparably-useful > ones. But that didn't cross my mind at the time: I > simply answered the question that he asked, and in > passing also pointed out that those features which > he apparently considered so critical might well not > be.
dear bill, my question was honest and, as I stated before: I'm a linux user who discovered zfs and 'd like to use it to store (versioned and checksummed) valuable data. then, if there are no alternatives to zfs, I'd gladly stick with it, and unless you have a *better* solution (repeat with me: important data, 1 laptop, three disks), please don't use further my name for your guessing of an hidden plot to discover the (evident) bias of your messages. thanks --- Stefano Spinucci This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
