OpenSolaris Indiana Released 359
Lally Singh writes "The Linux-friendly OpenSolaris Indiana has been released! A new, modern package manager and all the goodies of Solaris: ZFS, DTrace, SMF, and Xen on a LiveCD that was designed for Linux users. 'Why use the OpenSolaris OS you ask? It's pretty simple, you'll find it full of unique features like the new Image Packaging System (IPS), ZFS as the default filesystem, DTrace enabled packages for extreme observability and performance tuning, and many many more. We think you'll be quite happy to came by to take a look!'"
Hey! It's Debian! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey! It's Debian! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My only real interest in Solaris is to use ZFS on a home NAS - having
What if... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's designed by (deb)Ian Murdock, with 15 years of hindsight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OPIUM: Optimal Package Install/Uninstall Manager
http://pho.ucsd.edu/rjhala/papers/opium.html [ucsd.edu]
Also worth reading are:
Search heuristics and optimisations to solve package
installability problems by constraint programming
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/report_ingi2800_C.pdf [ucl.ac.be][pdf]
Maintaining large software distribu
Re:Hey! It's [not] Debian! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey! It's Debian! (Score:5, Insightful)
GNOME is also the default for most mainstream linux distributions that Sun would want to position OpenSolaris against. RHEL, SuSE, CentOS, Ubuntu, Fedora.
You should be able to compile KDE, or you can get a precompiled package on blastwave.org.
Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are just some of the big items that get mentioned. Solaris' resource management and auditing tools are very impressive and I haven't seen anything comparable in linux that can give as much control for as little overhead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's more to free unix then Linux you know..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but this is the reason why all free software should use compatible licences
Which excludes the GPL. Linux's GPLv2 isn't even compatible with LGPLv3 due to some of the extra requirements placed on it (a problem we've encountered just after moving a large library to GPLv3 and getting complaints from developers of GPL applications that include code from places like xpdf that didn't have the 'or later' clause).
Image Packaging System? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And the stuff that isn't newly written in Java is like a throwback to the early 90's. Cryptic and hard to use. Sun uses a lot of GNU software but it's a big mix of bastardized custom stuff, stuff from the old Solaris, and GNU tools. It's difficult to get stuf
Re: (Score:2)
Except that IPS is written in Python, not Java. See the FAQ [opensolaris.org]:
"The Image Packaging System (IPS) software is a network-centric packaging system written in Python."
That much is easy enough to find. What Sun isn't saying is how this differs from existing packaging systems. i.e. The rational for creating a new packaging system rather than adopting an existing packaging system. And why is it called the "Image Packaging System"? Using the term "i
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't help much but it does help. It only took 48 hours to run the updates on a fresh install on my Blade (LOL, it's ridiculously slow, using the GUI version probably would have taken a solid week to finish running).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You use the term "underlying", but then refer to the ability to run command-line tools directly. I think you're confused. You're probably thinking of the Sun Management Center [sun.com], a graphical tool that allows you to manage your Solaris-based system. It is based on Java, but it's also sitting ABOVE the command-line tools, not below them as you
Re:Image Packaging System? (Score:4, Informative)
You may believe what you're saying, but you're probably just confused. Don't worry about it. It happens to the best of us.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why they didn't just choose apt/dpkg is probably having to do with licensing.
Re:Image Packaging System? (Score:5, Informative)
Apart from that, you can also create partial images, which is a space you as a normal user can install packages to. These link back to the libraries already installed.
I'm sure some of these features are available in existing linux packaging systems. But these are things the Opensolaris community has wanted for a long time.
Apart from these features IPS also has automatic snapshoting (using ZFS in the background), so you can revert your system back to earlier snapsots.
All in all a very effective packaging system
Re: (Score:2)
But will it ship with.... (Score:5, Funny)
Want to smash a harddrive like this guy (Score:5, Interesting)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CN6iDzesEs0 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
zpool create tank mirror c0t0d0 c0t1d0 mirror c2t0d0 c2t1d0 :-)
Yay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Project Crossbow [opensolaris.org] is one of the projects I wish was currently available now. It looks like the easiest way to set up virtual switches and networks which is a great feature to use along with zones. Right now I'm using a hack I found online to do this. Crossbow is a lot easier and integrated with SMF. I haven't really had time to really focus on making a management script for the hack yet. It's
zfs (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a crying shame the licensing issues keep it from being ported to Linux as part of the kernel
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No reason to give away the toys to the "hobbyists."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Much as they might trumpet that it is, it isn't actually proper open source. I can't take it, rip out any bits I want and use them elsewhere. No matter what the license says, if I can't do that, it isn't 'Open', and as you point out, some bits you can't.
Also, it has hardly any developers not already on Suns payroll, and those that are independent are shackled by a lack of proper tools.
Sun doesn't want
That's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the true shame... (Score:5, Interesting)
is that ZFS, despite all its goodness, lacks some incredibly basic features compared to 99% of the hardware and software RAID and LVM systems out there. You can't grow (please pay attention here) a ZFS pool except by adding similarly-redundant vdevs, and there is no way to remove a vdev from a pool, unlike LVM2.
So. Got a 4-drive RAID-Z2 array, and you want to add more space by buying another drive to add in to your 5-bay hot-swap cage? You're shit outta luck. If you have a zpool with a vdev that consists of a pair of mirrored drives, you CAN add another vdev of two drives, then another, etc. You also CAN replace the drives in a vdev with larger drives. That's kind of half-okay, but still not on par with RAID cards of a DECADE ago. Even Linux's MD can grow RAID5/6 across more devices!
Someone suggested the ability to grow redundant pools by single devices, and the reaction amongst solaris ZFS developers (!!!) was "now why would you want to do that?", and then when THAT was explained, "well shucks, I wonder how they do that" (they = almost every hardware and software RAID solution on the planet.)
Absolutely astounding that a Solaris filesystem developer would not be able to at least guess as to how a RAID5 array would be re-striped to add a new drive.
Far as I know, they've been working on the grow capability for more than a year and we have yet to see it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/expand_o_matic_raid_z
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't played around
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not exactly true. No matter what your pool config is, you can always grow it by adding any sort of top-level vdev to it. For example if you have a N-drive raidz, you can add to it a 1-drive "mirror" (no redundancy, not recommended), or a 2-drive mirror, or a 3-drive raidz, or a 4-drive raidz2, etc.
I think what you tried to say is that it is not possible to convert a N-drive raidz/raidz2 array into a (N+1)-drive array. The r
Relegated to VMWare on x86 (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are also a bunch of free network drivers for Solaris can be foun [nifty.com]
nvidia support (Score:2)
Indiana... (Score:5, Insightful)
installing now (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't take that as criticism. Cloning Ubuntu is probably the best design decision an OS team can make these days.
Personally, I don't care whether it's Solaris or Ubuntu or *BSD underneath it all, so long as it supports my hardware and runs my applications.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexenta_OS [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
More on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexenta_OS [wikipedia.org]
Linux-friendly = GPL-compliant license (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IP Issues with OpenSolaris? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Powered by Unixware 7.x! (Score:2, Funny)
What is the news ? (Score:2, Insightful)
I see no use for Dtrace as I use nothing more fancy than Matlab for analyzing my data. No fancy number crunching or developing here. I used to do a lot of heavy duty Fortran 95 programming, but that is history (which will not be repeated).
So, Sun wants me
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, this is incorrect. Ext3 can support up to 16TB (there were some bugs for kernels older than 2.6.18 for really big filesystems, but even back then 8TB was no problem). The filesize limit is 2TB, and with ext4 that limits for the filesystem and individual files with be 1024 Petabytes, or 1 Exabytes.
As far as requiring an fsck every X mounts, thats basically due to paranoia because PC class hardware, i
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still not sold (Score:4, Informative)
Secondly, with RAIDZ (or RAID5) and 4x500GB, you wouldn't end up with 2TB of disk space -- you'd end up with 1.5TB due to the overhead of the parity data.
Thirdly, you don't have to replace all of the disk drives with RAIDZ to increase the amount of disk space dramatically. You seem to be thinking of RAID5, not RAIDZ. With RAIDZ replacing one of your 500GB disk drives with a new 2TB disk drive would indeed still leave you with only 1.5TB of disk space, due to the requirement for redundancy, but if you bought a pair of 2TB disk drives to replace two of your 500GB disk drives, you would increase your disk capacity from 1.5TB to 3TB, and if you just added the pair of 2TB disk drives to the pool as a mirror, as opposed to replacing existing drives, then you'd increase your disk capacity to 3.5TB.
Fourth, no one is forcing you to use redundancy with ZFS if you don't want to suffer the redundancy/reliability overhead. You can add non-redundant disk drives to a ZFS pool.
If you want extra reliability, you have to pay for it somehow.
|>oug
Re:Still not sold (Score:4, Informative)
|>oug
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Interesting)
There is still no mighty IOKit killer on the horizon tho... Apple (and libkern, the cpp runtine) wins.
Matt
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You were correct up to this point.
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Insightful)
As a proud LDD touting, LWN gazing, MSc wielding geek; the Solaris kernel is a heck of a lot better coded, structured and organised than the Linux kernel. But alas, it lacks the many new features that have truly driven linux over the last decade.
Naturally my opinions lie with the ease of code readability and ease of initial development - these are not the same as a lkml hardened pro
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Funny)
"John was ready already; Anna made him wait."
"They offered lasagne; hamburgers, chips and salad; tacos, enchilladas and burritos; or fried frogs legs."
In no circumstance can you write "As a proud LDD touting, LWN gazing, MSc wielding geek; the Solaris kernel is a heck of a lot better coded..." without looking like a semiliterate try-hard. In general, the best advice for using a semicolon is "don't, unless you know you're sure".
As a self-confessed geek, you should know the importance of correct punctuation. It's not just helpful to compilers.
Re: (Score:2)
Someones gotta do it... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Solaris has its strengths (ZFS, etc), but it also has its weaknesses (why would you use it on an average desktop system?)
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Interesting)
They have also forcibly crashed it over a million time and it has never lost data even once. Try doing that with your home PC.
And what
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, I'm calling you on your B.S. Sun fanboy.
ZFS is *not* ready for production.
I'm a working Solaris admin. I can point to several ZFS raidz arrays that have had to be recovered from tape due to ZFS bugs losing & corrupting data.
This is clearly a case of ZFS marketing outstripping ZFS reality. They have implemented all the cool features, but have dropped the ball on robustness.
Do a sunsolve search for ZFS panics or ZFS corruption. There are a half-dozen major bugs that are still un-resolved, and won't be until Sol10u6 - if then. [u5 was just released in the last week or so]
rho
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have also forcibly crashed it over a million time and it has never lost data even once. Try doing that with your home PC.
... you don't care about your photos, docs and music???
And what
Nowadays you lose data because the *disk* dies, almost never because the filesystem gets corrupted (at least not on modern systems). Although the risk does statistically grow with the number of systems.
:-/
Last time I lost data to a filesystem problem must have been to a FAT disk, which means it must have been 10 or 15 years ago. I did lose data to hardware failures though. Several times. Recovered most of them through backups. Not all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nowadays you lose data because the *disk* dies, almost never because the filesystem gets corrupted (at least not on modern systems). Although the risk does statistically grow with the number of systems.
I wish that were the case. Friday, I was doing file backups to a fairly small (4TB) software RAID5 array (md+lvm+ext3) on a commercial file server running a vendor supported Linux distribution prior to dumping them to tape. The system hung hard during one period of high I/O.
Upon reboot two devices in the array came up with bad magic in the superblock and all was lost. The consensus seems to be that filesystem corruption caused enough confusion that the md driver decided to overwrite the superblocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Informative)
Don't want easy raid/storage expansion on your desktop? You don't want efficient storage?
Dtrace doesnt offer me anything as im not a developer
You don't want to know how your system is performing [opensolaris.org] in a way like never before? I'm not a developer, but a sysadmin and use dtrace every day to tell those pesky developers that yes, it's actually THEIR CODE that's at fault at not the server I setup for them. It's also neat to be able to easily see what process is using how much network bandwidth in realtime. That was difficult before.
SMF doesnt offer me anything i cant do with startup
I don't like the complexity of SMF, but it's self-healing for the stuff that's already built for it is cool as is it's dependancy checking.
IPS doesnt seam any better than deb or rpm
It's better than just RPM, but it's about the same as deb or yum. It's a big step foreward for what was a commercial OS.
I can tell you haven't even tried solaris 10, but give it a swig. Before solaris 10 I wrote (often rightly) wrote of Sun. Why would I pay a premium for something FreeBSD can do for free and outperforms it? The hardware is cool (see coolthreads processors...it's hyperthreading done right), it's affordable, and it's innovative. It may not be compelling enough to switch from linux or whatever if all you use from a desktop is firefox and thunderbird, but there is actually some VERY cool stuff in there. Don't write it off. There's a reason FreeBSD is taking in a lot of these features.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't want easy raid/storage expansion on your desktop? You don't want efficient storage?
ZFS is a marginal improvement at best over what's already available.
>> Dtrace doesnt offer me anything as im not a developer
> You don't want to know how your system is performing
At the level that dtrace provides? You might as well claim that most end users read the kernel source for fun.
Unless someone already has a yen for strace/truss/valgrin
Re:Still not sold (Score:4, Funny)
$59,889,696,578,085,169,569,553,930,907,991,205,216.26
worth of harddisks to my desktop instead of the puny $3,246,626,956,972,881,084.41 I can spend on a 64-bit filesystem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Informative)
It's a common misconception that raid "prevents" data corruption.
RAID only protects you against (complete) hardware failures, and "noisy" IO errors.
Consider:
You have bad data on disk, but the hard drive reads the bad data without error.
With parity, (even assuming the parity is read upon each read request, which would be a faulty assumption), raid 5 has no way of telling which disk is bad, or whether the parity is bad.
Unlike raid, ZFS has end to end checksumming, so it knows when the data on disk is bad, and it knows which copy is bad, too.
Unfortunately though, from what I've heard, ZFS isn't stable enough for production environments yet:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/Jan/15/joyent_backup_services_down_for_three_days.html [datacenterknowledge.com]
read these comments [prefetch.net]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately though, from what I've heard, ZFS isn't stable enough for production environments yet:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/Jan/15/joyent_backup_services_down_for_three_days.html [datacenterknowledge.com]
read these comments [prefetch.net]
From that same article you linked to:
UPDATE: See our follow-up story [datacenterknowledge.com] for more. Joyent was using an older version of ZFS, and the bug in question was fixed nearly a year ago.
From that article it seems that patching/updating OpenSolaris isn't the same as patching/updating Solaris. I have no personal experience in updating OpenSolaris though. OpenSolaris does seem to have the smpatch utility.
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Informative)
most raid environments don't do checksumming at every step of the data write / read process.
most raid environments cannot detect silent corruption (bad cache, bad sector, flipped bit, etc) once the data has been read or written.
most raid environments don't offer double parity.
most raid environments require that the entire raid array be initialized at once, wasting potentially hours of time for the formatting/initializing to be completed.
most raid environments when using off the shelf SATA/PATA drives can potentially go bad, even with parity... If you were doing a RAID 5 array with TB size drives, there's a potential that the MTBE can be reached while regenerating data on a replaced volume from parity causing the entire array to be toasted.
All of these things are not issues with ZFS....
ZFS is easily expandable, automatically realigns that data as you expand the pool, can have multiple sub-mount points (mounted anywhere) that can have different attributes - like compressing/shared/extended permissions/iSCSI and more on the way, like encryption, multiple compression algorithms, etc....
I've played/worked with ZFS now for over 2 years and have never lost a single bit of data - even though I've tried...
Build your RAIDZ pool on 20 drives, in 2 disk expansion units attached to 2 channels of a single SCSI card (10 drives per channel)... now shut the box down, remove all the drives, move them around between units, add an additional scsi card to the box, split the disks up between the scsi cards so they are now split 5 per channel, take one drive back out, and erase it... hold onto it for later...
Bring the box back up... the pool will come back online without problems, running degraded as one drive is missing.
now put the erased drive back in, and issue a resilver command, wait a while (not as long as a standard raid controller would take) and voila - all data that was stored on that erased drive is back and in place, and the pool is no longer running in degraded performance mode.
try any of that with a standard raid controller and your data is f0rked!
Re:Still not sold (Score:4, Funny)
Dtrace doesnt offer me anything as im not a developer
SMF doesnt offer me anything i cant do with startup
IPS doesnt seam any better than deb or rpm
Is there any reason to switch?
Re: (Score:2)
Dtrace doesnt offer me anything as im not a developer
SMF doesnt offer me anything i cant do with startup
IPS doesnt seam any better than deb or rpm
Is there any reason to switch?
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you using content of any sort (images, documents, mp3s...)? Do you care about the longevity or integrity of any of your data? Have you ever lost data? Slap a GUI on ZFS, call it "time machine" and you don't have to be "managing servers" to appreciate what ZFS can provide to Joe user.
Dtrace doesnt offer me anything as im not a developer
If you think dtrace is just for developers, you don't understand dtrace. Developers have always been able
Re:Still not sold (Score:4, Insightful)
That train already left the station.
It's not just good enough that you make something cool but you should also make it available when people want it rather than 10 years later.
Now Sun has to put on a good showing just to keep from looking silly.
Although this is ultimatey a good thing as it's one of the key benefits of free market competition.
Re:Still not sold (Score:5, Informative)
These days we see a lot of performance related calls being logged by customers
DTrace is a massive leap forwards
I would really not write off Solaris, it's far from dead
Re:Still not sold (Score:4, Funny)
Solaris : I aint'ed dead yet
Linux : Yes you are
Solaris : I'm feeling better !
Linux : You'll be stone dead in a moment
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is far from being up to par with a Solaris or AIX, or BSD.
Sad but true. And the documentation is indeed severely lacking when compared to a commercial system.
The code has apparently gotten a bit cleaner although BSD still remains more legible.
Still it doesn't change the fact that for the time being Linux is *it* (whatever that is). It's the system that has the mind share (apart from Windows of course). And for the most part it works just fine.
So while there certainly are other more advanced solutions, I don't see them taking Linux's place in the sun (ha ha) any
Re:Still not sold - OpenSolaris in Peril (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Still not sold - OpenSolaris in Peril (Score:4, Interesting)
Novell taking on SCO is one thing, Novell taking on Sun is quite another. Sun is a much bigger company than Novell and a lot more money. It's not worth the fight.
It seems like SCO stiffed Novell by not giving them their cut of the licenses, but that doesn't mean the licenses they gave were invalid. If that was the case, the issue would have come up already.
Novell gets some good publicity in their fight against SCO, but in reality, they're not much of a player in anything. SuSE isn't that popular, at some point their revenues for their legacy products will dry up, and then what's left? There revenue has been declining for years and their profits have been iffy. All they're going to get out of the SCO trial is some pats on the back since SCO doesn't have any more money.
While there's no arguing that what SCO did was messed up, I don't really see Novell in a good light either. Novell purchased the rights to Unix for $300mil. The transaction between Novell and SCO was for about $120-150Mill. So SCO paid about half of what Novell paid and only gets 5% in licensing fees and no patent or copyrights according to Novell.
This just doesn't seem right to me. Either Novell seriously screwed over SCO and they were too stupid to know it, or something else is going on. Ray Noorda, who was CEO of Novell, left to start Caldera. Noorda is undeniably the reason Novell was who they were. From what I could gather they did have a good relationship.
Bottom line, I don't understand how Novell can claim they pretty much just sold a 5% commission deal for 50% of what they paid and act like their shit doesn't stink either.
According the wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Sorry but it just seems fishy to me. How would Novell not expect that SCO/Caldera would ultimately sue. Maybe Novell was aware of a possible lawsuit to attack RedHat while they were making moves with SuSE?
Re:Still not sold - OpenSolaris in Peril (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine that the folks at Sun have been pretty nervous since last August. Imagine, paying millions of dollars to put your product in exactly the position you've been (erroneously) proclaiming your competition is in. Not smart.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As for hardware, the solaris kernel doesn't change its ABI every couple of weeks. Drivers written once continue to work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But perhaps your zealotry does not allow you to try new things...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the title is flamebait but the article is very informative and provides screenshots.
And when I say screenshots. I mean camera shots of the screen?!??!?!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The source code [opensolaris.org] (which remaps linux systems calls to open solaris and fudges inconsistencies)
Info on installing debian [sun.com] (it's designed for RedHat based linux, so it's slightly painful ... though possibly out of date).
Brand Z info [opensolaris.org]
Overview of linux support [opensolaris.org]
I haven't tried it, but there shouldn't be much overhead/performance loss.
Re:ZFS simply rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Conditioned upon Your compliance with Section 3.1 below and subject to third party intellectual property claims, the Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license
Re:Difference between Indiana and Nexenta? (Score:4, Informative)
OpenSolaris is not necessarily a "distribution". Nexenta, Shillix, etc are "distributions" built on OpenSolaris. Project Indiana as I understand it, is a distribution coming directly from the OpenSolaris project.
At first OpenSolaris wasn't supposed to come up with it's own distribution, and now that it is it did some people didn't like it. Or they didn't like that they were going to call it OpenSolaris instead of Indiana or something like that. I'm not clear on all the details.
Since Solaris will be built using OpenSolaris, Project Indiana is also kind of like an early access release of Solaris 11, without JDS.
Re:Difference between Indiana and Nexenta? (Score:4, Informative)
"Project Indiana" was just the codname for founding OpenSolaris
OpenSolaris = Bleeding-Edge Test Version of Solaris 11 (Think "Alpha")
Solaris Express = Snapshot of OpenSolaris found to be "relatively stable". (Think "Beta")
Solaris 10 = The full "retail" version, often updated with features seeping up from OpenSolaris, that needs to run fine and be perfectly stable on Big Iron.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, I think is pretty emblematic of Sun's consistently inconsistent behavior regarding their "community" OS.
It looks like they want the free dev resources AND total control, right down to naming. Which, adds up to a project that doesn't seem viable to me. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, FreeBSD has ZFS, but it's experimental for a reason. So no need to avocate this yet.
The only serious platform for ZFS yet is still Solaris, and Indiana is a welcome release.
I've also a lot of hopes in DragonflyBSD's HAMMER filesystem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You get the Blackberry answer because I'm remote.
stupid enough? I don't know about the characterization.
They had the rights to SVR4 that Solaris is based on to use it, to develop their own OS based on it, to sell it under trade secret and copyright protection but not to make it open. They then bought that right for a song from SCO because at that moment the latter needed a cash infusion to continue their jihad against Linux.
The judge in te SCO V Novell case ruled last August that SCO does not own the c