This is my local theater.

Last night they announced that they hit the 3,000 subscriber mark they were shooting for and will make a go at opening.

I wish them the best, though I think there are still some very big questions to be answered about the viability of the business model. Will the studios go along with it? Will subscriptions _remain_ high enough after the buzz fades away to be a viable business? I hope so, but only time will tell. The local economy is almost entirely tourism based, and their model effectively shuts out tourists who I think will be reluctant to shell out $16 for a day pass - so long-term local support is essential.

People still run their own email servers?

One explanation I heard for the typical RAM limitation is that the Intel Ultrabook spec requires the machine to wake up from hibernation in a specified period of time - and it's short enough that even fast SSDs have trouble loading much more than 4GB of data back into memory within the allotted time - So most manufacturers are limiting their systems to 4GB to keep the free marketing and awareness that comes with being an "Intel Ultrabook (tm)".

I just happened to be on US 50 in the Sacramento area when it flew overhead. Traffic slowed to a crawl to get a peek, some people just stopped. Very cool that these things can cause that type of reaction - even as they're being mothballed.

Unfortunately the spectacle caused more than a few fender benders.

If the TSA doesn't get you in there, Larry Craig will...

You're welcome.

The remaining 2% is owned by the state... maybe he can convince them to put it up for a year's worth of maintenance on their DB servers.

... "cold" is not a flavor.

The future of ZFS and the product that was OpenSolaris has really started to take shape over the last few months and there is a lot of good work going on around it. Illumos has set up a proper foundation that will be shepherding the development of their OS and ZFS fork. They've got some good commercial backing (Nexenta, Joyent, and others), and many of the original ZFS engineers from Sun are actively involved in the development. A lot of work is going on right now in terms of revamping the versioning scheme to ensure some level of feature interoperability between "open" ZFS and "Oracle" ZFS (assuming Oracle chooses not to play ball in the long run).

If you're looking for an inbetween solution, Nexenta is at an interesting place in the market. They are an order of magnitude cheaper than the tier 1 providers, but you're not completely on your own if you still have interest in some sort of commercial support contract. For the record I'm not affiliated with them in any way other than being a satisfied customer.

I'll also echo the previous comments about ZFS dedup and RAM - you need enough memory for the entire dedup table to fit in RAM (or a fast L2ARC SSD) or performance will tank. There is a formula buried in the documentation somewhere for determining requirements based on the size of your pool.

Careful, they've also abruptly removed a few really nice features in later versions that have caused major headaches for me and many others. For example the "aclmode" property was completely removed from version 31 - completely breaking a lot of deployments that made extensive use of ACLs. Version 33 released today with Solaris 11 thankfully restores that feature after significant outcry from affected customers (I believe Illumos went forward and restored it on their own as well) - but the damage has been done in a lot of cases.

Just a word of warning to be very careful before running "zpool upgrade" as Oracle's philosophy on backward compatibility and stability of existing features seems to be quite different than that of Sun.

Last I checked the most recent ZFS on-disk version available for FreeBSD was quite old. ZFS development has been picked up in earnest by Illumos as of late with a lot of backing from companies like Nexenta and Joyent.

I'm not disputing the fact that they should return the money if they can't make good on their promise - but pointing to a bunch of other low volume US manufactured cars made by huge global automakers isn't really a fair or relevant comparison.

Every example cited there has the resources and capital of a large multi-national corporation from which to source parts and spread development/production costs of low-volume models over. Except for Panoz, which sources complete drivetrains and many other bits wholesale from Ford. Not an apples/apples comparison IMO.

Playpens with TVs?