Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What they really need (Score 1) 276

You've never been on mass transit and been forced to be near people who (1) stink to high heaven, (2) are drunk, or (3) loud and threatening? If you haven't, then now you know why a lot of people avoid the bus. Your car might sit in traffic but at least you're not sweating, listening to obnoxious music. etc.

Oh, and by the way, the classicism(sic) is all on your side, buddy. Who's looking down their nose at the rest of us for failing to uphold moral standards he himself has set? Yeah, that's the pot calling the kettle black, pal.

Comment Re: ZFS is nice... (Score 1) 267

But it's combined by the user at runtime, not by canocal. The GPL allows an end users to do this.

This is a way that people kid themselves about the GPL. If the user were really porting ZFS on their own, combining the work and never distributing it, that would work. But the user isn't combining it. The Ubuntu developer is creating instructions which explicitly load the driver into the kernel. These instructions are either a link script that references the kernel, or a pre-linked dynamic module. Creating those instructions and distributing them to the user is tantamount to performing the act on the user's system, under your control rather than the user's.

To show this with an analogy, suppose you placed a bomb in the user's system which would go off when they loaded the ZFS module. But Judge, you might say, I am innocent because the victim is actually the person who set off the bomb. All I did was distribute a harmless unexploded bomb.

So, it's clear that you can perform actions that have effects later in time and at a different place that are your action rather than the user's. That is what building a dynamic module or linking scripts does.

There is also the problem that the pieces, Linux and ZFS, are probably distributed together. There is specific language in the GPL to catch that.

A lot of people don't realize what they get charged with when they violate the GPL (or any license). They don't get charged with violating the license terms. They are charged with copyright infringement, and their defense is that they have a license. So, the defense has to prove that they were in conformance with every license term.

This is another situation where I would have a pretty easy time making the programmer look bad when they are deposed.

Comment Re:Uh huh. (Score 2, Insightful) 378

And this is what sociopath does; concocts elaborate, vile and usually illegal schemes, convinces a bunch of underlings to execute them, and then, when caught, tries to throw them under the bus.

It's why sociopaths should be outlawed from all management positions of any kind, right down to crew shift chief at McDonald's.

Comment Re:Oh great (Score 1) 93

Neither of them have the IOPS needed for any kind modern applications. And if you don't have IOPS, you might as well go for a less expensive system that can create the same level of IOPS, with better redundancy using off the shelf drives, that have the same performance capabilities (See BackBlaze for statistics) as the "Enterprise" drives used by Dell, for half the cost.

THE ONLY reason you buy either is for "Enterprise" support. While that may be worth it to you, I personally would rather have more capacity, better redundancy and lower actual costs. And knowing what is in the pipe in the way of drives, my horizon for buying Long Term Storage is about 2-3 years, when we start seeing SSD drives in the 16 TB size with 100K IOPS per drive start showing up, completely displacing spinning drives altogether.

The problem is, most people don't have a proper horizon view of their needs and over spend now, so they don't have to spend later, only to outstrip their own predictions and need replacement storage much sooner than expected. "If you build it, they will come".

Comment Re:Oh great (Score 1) 93

Compellent and Equalogic are to of the great examples of Dell buying a competent lineup, and ruining it forever. They are forever a day late, dollar short. There is, however, a class of bosses who value "Enterprise" labels on things, because it removes them from poor decisions. Dell is the new IBM that nobody got fired for buying. And eventually, they will end up like IBM as Just Another IT Services Company. I'll let you decide if that is worth anything in the long run.

Comment Re:Oh great (Score 1) 93

Their "enterprise" level support is excellent and the products generally perform as advertised

No. They buy good products, and turn them into bad products with "Enterprise" support, which is enough to keep pointy head bosses happy. You'd be surprise how much leverage "Enterprise" matters to people.

Comment Re:ZFS is nice... (Score 1) 267

Uh, that doesn't work. The problem is that doing exactly what you've written down is contriving to avoid your copyright responsibility by deliberately creating a structure in someone else's work which you believe would be a copyright insulator. If you went ahead and did this (I'm not saying that you personally would be the one at Ubuntu to do so), I'd love to be there when you are deposed. Part of my business is to feed attorneys questions when they cross-examine you. I have in a similar situation made a programmer look really bad, and the parties settled as soon as they saw the deposition and my expert report. See also my comment regarding how Oracle v. Google has changed this issue. You can't count on an API to be a copyright insulator in any context any longer.

Comment Re:ZFS is nice... (Score 1) 267

I think you need to look at this in the context of the appeal of Oracle v. Google. We had a concept of an API being a boundary of copyright based on 17 CFR 102(b) and elucidated by Judge Walker's finding in CAI v. Altai. That stood for a long time. But Oracle v. Google essentially overturned it and we're still waiting to see what the lower court does in response.

"Lead us in a few words of silent prayer." -- Bill Peterson, former Houston Oiler football coach