Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:34:41 +0200
From:      Ed Jobs <oloringr@gmail.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Any chance ZFS becoming default?
Message-ID:  <200912200034.41904.oloringr@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200912192126.15581.pieter@degoeje.nl>
References:  <6c51dbb10912190642s43ec0f2bj69047a0d5a0690ae@mail.gmail.com> <E7A4C254FF8D4B1AAB27E63078A83F3B@rivendell> <200912192126.15581.pieter@degoeje.nl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1840948.r3PBZqUzKH
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Saturday 19 December 2009 22:26, Pieter de Goeje wrote:
> Don't spread FUD please. If you had read the WIKI you would know it talks
> about sysinstall support for ZFS, not about removing UFS.

i'm sorry if my mail was misleading. we have no idea how it will be=20
implemented. my guess is that both ufs and zfs would be available through=20
sysinstall, but then again, unless we see the final implementation nothing =
is=20
sure.=20

On the original topic: zfs does not have the "experimental" tag since 8.0. =
it=20
would not be normal to add sysinstall support (and even more setting as=20
default) in a feature that was experimental. So of course it was pushed to 9

=2D-=20
Real programmers don't document. If it was hard to write, it should be hard=
 to=20
understand.

--nextPart1840948.r3PBZqUzKH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkstVQEACgkQBPpdVEWKA320pwCeNbNBm/ymOILhbqAL/X18wBiG
FAYAoOuE/OdpWvNxXMOTm2mjYqBJH+Gr
=1lKQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1840948.r3PBZqUzKH--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200912200034.41904.oloringr>