Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Jul 2009 19:16 UTC
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris The Linux desktop has come a long way. It's a fully usable, stable, and secure operating system that can be used quite easily by the masses. Not too long ago, Sun figured they could do the same by starting Project Indiana, which is supposed to deliver a complete distribution of OpenSolaris in a manner similar to GNU/Linux. After using the latest version for a while, I'm wondering: why?
Permalink for comment 374253
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by OddFox
by OddFox on Mon 20th Jul 2009 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by OddFox"
Member since:

Your average desktop user would absolutely love something like ZFS with all the snapshot-y goodness, especially when it is integrated into something like TimeSlider in Nautilus. It's similar to how TimeMachine works on MacOS X, but with better technology (ZFS) behind the scenes. If Apple ever gets around to completing ZFS support in MacOS X, they'll have a truly killer feature once TimeMachine makes use of it.

When the average desktop user begins to understand even something like System Restore then I will concede that the average desktop user might appreciate something like automated snapshots. A small amount of people make a large amount of fuss over snapshots which I argue A) most average desktop users are not technical enough to understand or utilize properly and B) waste a lot of disk space when enabled by default and utilized by few. Maybe I'm just out in the dark here because nobody I talk to outside of tech enthusiasts or people creating an infrastructure that can utilize these features really care about this particular feature. It is wonderfully useful for certain environments, but I don't think the average desktop user needs this kind of functionality. I would turn it off because I frankly don't need the overhead and have never thought to myself "Gee, I really wish I could revert this file back to a previous version, or undelete something I still want after all". Most of my unintentional data-loss is because of things like a partition getting FUBAR'd, not because one way or another the files ended up deleted.

Absolute FUD. You can run ZFS on 32-bit systems with as little as 512 MB of RAM (total system RAM). You can also run in it on 64-bit systems with 64 GB of RAM. And everything in between. ZFS works better with more RAM, and can do more caching as RAM increases, but it can be tuned to run in very low memory setups.

What I said was not FUD, you explicitly confirmed what I had said which was "Half a gig to 1 gig of memory for the filesystem". 512MB = Half a gig? I realize that ZFS works better with more RAM, but my point is that I don't see its feature-set as an acceptable trade-off on your average desktop.

ZFS is a great filesystem for a lot of purposes, but I just don't see how right now anyone could seriously consider any of its features as something vital the average desktop user needs to be exposed to. Ugh, have said "average desktop user" way too many times already and just did again.

Reply Parent Score: 3