Also, transporting natural gas from, a temporary site like most oil wells is problematic. It doesn't make sense to run pipelines to a well that will only there for a year, and natural gas doesn't compress well. This is why people who need gas in a tank use propane.

If you are correct that it increases the amount that can be recovered from an individual well site, then it follows that it therefore reduces the number of well sites required to meet world petroleum demand. After all, Texas oil fields supplied all the oil we need, we wouldn't have even be talking about drilling in Alaska or offshore.

> ZFS is not in the microsoft tradition

Balsa (Gnome email client): 2.5 MB, reads email. Optionally use libgtkhtml (315kb) to render HTML email.

Microsoft Outlook: (Microsoft email client): Several GBs. Reads email, handles calendar, embedded mail server, task list weather reports(?!?!) fax, rss, html templates, _sharing_ calendars. Loads MS Word (several GB) to partially display HTML messages.

Let's break this down into three statements and see where we disagree:

1. It appears that the Microsoft tradition is big monolithic packages that do everything. Including weather reports embedded in their email client.
Do you disagree with that?

2. Do you disagree with the statement that the Unix tradition (from ed to grep to elm and balsa) is small, focused tools?

3. Do you disagree with the statement that ZFS is a volume manager, a filesystem, a raid-like redundancy system, and a few other other things as well? In other words, that it's a big, monolithic package tat does many things. Do you disagree with that?

You LIKE ZFS. I understand that. It does a lot of cool things. It does a lot of boring things. It does a lot of things. Just like Microsoft Office.

One night, I change her password. I log into her account, and download everything. She's twerking while I do this. I can either parlay this to email access or run the same attack against gmail. I use the access to her email to reset every other password she hhas - Facebook, etc. If I want to, I can use her icloud credentials to lock her out of her phone for a while. The next morning, she reads her email and finds out that I reset her password- but only if I haven't deleted that email,while I was setting her account to forward a copy of all future emails to me.

You listed some great examples, examples of the opposite of what you probably meant to show.
Take scheduling- there what, six different interchangeable, removeable kernel modules to do scheduling in different ways, including the option to not do it at all. The scheduler only does scheduling, and nothing else. The rest of the kernel doesn't know or care about the scheduling. You mentioned filesystems as well. Yep, you can choose from dozens of different filesystems. The rest of the kernel doesn't care which filesystem you're using, because those other modules do their job and nothing more. You can use any scheduler with any filesystem.

Enter zfs, a popular volume manager similar to LVM. It just manages volumes, so you choose whichever filesystem to lay on top. Er, no. If you want to use the ZFS volume manager, you probably need to use the ZFS filesystem. That's cool, it'll also provide an extra level of resiliency on top of that great hardware raid you have. Actually, not so much. It doesn't play nicely with most enterprise storage hardware. You need to use dumb hardware and use ZFS raid to avoid problems. Wait, what? ZFS, a filesystem, is telling you which hardware to use? That's not like the interchangeable kernel modules at all.

> Drop the 'my OS does it right' bullshit because your OS isn't what you're claiming it to be,

Where did I say one approach was right and the other wrong? In fact, I said each approach has it's advantages and disadvantages. What I said is that ZFS is not designed according to the Unix tradition of "do one small thing, and do it right". Apparently you agree that's the case:

  > don't disagree with the Unix tradition in the least, compartmentalized code with strong boundaries and good interoperablility where ever possible

That's why some who appreciate the Unix approach hate systemd. It would be more at home on Windows.

Re Sun, if you look at an old Sun Solaris box, you'll find some of the was written by a guy named Ray Morris. Coincidentally, this post was also written by Ray Morris.

Yeah, that's the thing about systemd- it's not Unixy. It might be great, but it's not designed according to Unix principles.

Miley CHANGES clothes? I thought she just took them off.

Do you have an example? The storage system I'm using provides every important feature I'm aware of in ZFS, and it keeps the layers separate. As ZFS has matured, it seems to be a way of getting all of those features out-of-the-box, without needing to think about how to put it together. LVM is one volume manager provides most of the same features, though. Then put your choice of filesystem on top of LVM. Can you think of any feature that actually requires the volume manager to be stirred together with the filesystem?

-> It may also eliminate the need for CAs and certificate altogether. You just store the public half of your certs in the DNS system

That's the problem. By the time a TLS certificate comes into play, the DNS must have already been compromised (directly or via mitm). The certificate is designed to alert you if the server you're talking to isn't who you think it is - based on DNS.

Several other posting here, fans of ZFS, are saying on this very page that ZFS really needs to be accessing bare disks. it will allow you to use another block device, they say, but data corruption is highly likely.

I just double checked and the same old attack still works on iCloud. If you forget your password, you can reset it in either of two ways. Either they can email you a new password, or you can answer the challenge questions. So let's get into Miley Cyrus's account.

https://www.google.com/?q=mile...
Her mother's maiden name is Finley

https://www.google.com/?q=mile...
Her first pet was named Cocoa.

There you go, now we can reset her iCloud password and Miley's naked pictures. [voice style="ben-stein"]Wow[/voice]

> ZFS is a layer below LVM.

Typically you'd layer raid, then LVM, then the filesystem. ZFS tries to be all three. It's raid, and it's a volume manager, and it's a filesystem. There are some benefits to integration, and some drawbacks. With the raid>lvm>filesystem approach, it's trivial to add dm-cache, bcache, iscsi, or any other piece of storage technology. With ZFS, anything you want to add has to be specifically supported within ZFS.

The Unix tradition is small, single purpose tools that do one thing well. Witness sort, grep, wc, etc. Want to count the log entries that mention Slashdot? You don't need a special tool for that, just grep slashdot | wc -l . Tools like mdadm and lvm are building blocks that can be combined to suit your need, the Unix way. ZFS is a big monolithic package that does everything, much like Microsoft Word or Outlook. ZFS is more in the Microsoft tradition.

> Is this something like a 1 year or 10 year contract?

The first words of the summary are:
      Prior to the season, Microsoft and the NFL struck a 5-year, $400 million deal

> I am sure all of them could pass it if they studied for it. That is why all certifications are uselessuselessb

With enough study, you can pass the exams to be a medical doctor. That is why exams to certify that medical doctors know what they are doing are useless. Unless of course you want someone who knows about the subject at hand. I kind of want a doctor, and a security professional, who have studied their fields. Sorry you couldn't pass.

> With enough studying, almost anyone can pass it without understanding the material, just regurgitating facts.

I suppose it MIGHT be possible to do that, but that would be the hard way. Understanding the material is a lot easier than memorizing every possible question and answer.