Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Michael DeMan (OA) wrote:
Args for FreeBSD + ZFS:
- Limited budget
- We are familiar with managing FreeBSD.
- We are familiar with tuning FreeBSD.
- Licensing model
Args against OpenSolaris + ZFS:
- Hardware compatibility
- Lack of knowledge for tuning and associated costs for training staff
to learn 'yet one more operating system' they need to support.
- Licensing model
If you think about it a little bit, you will see that there is no
significant difference in the licensing model between FreeBSD+ZFS and
OpenSolaris+ZFS. It is not possible to be a "little bit pregnant".
Either one is pregnant, or one is not.
There is a huge difference practically - OpenSolaris has no free security
updates for stable releases, unlike FreeBSD. And I'm sure you don't
recommend running /dev in production.
This is offtopic, and isn't specifically related to CDDL vs BSD, just how
Sun chooses to do things. Sure, there have been claims (since before
2008.05) that it might happen some day, but until 2009.06 users can freely
get a non-vulernable Firefox or Samba or fixes for various network kernel
panics the claims are meaningless.
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-help/2009-November/015824.html
--
James Andrewartha
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
