Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Jul 2009 19:16 UTC
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?
Thread beginning with comment 374267
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-05
To the person who down-voted my comment: Where was the troll, off-topic or inaccurate information in my post? *sigh* It's ridiculous that people down-vote just because they don't like what a post is saying, that's not the purpose of the system.
I said myself that I like OpenSolaris and would probably use it on my desktop with little to no issue, so I can't be trolling. The subject of discussion is our experiences with OpenSolaris, since Thom asked at the end of the article, so I can't be off-topic. There's also nothing inaccurate in my post, so it can't be that. Oh well.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-10-05
They can serve the same purpose (though ZFS and the others can serve far more purposes than simple system recovery) regardless of how they go about doing that, though there is no doubt that System Restore is junk in comparison to Time Machine and similar technologies.
Regarding how many GBs your snapshots take up with your own usage patterns, like you said this kind of stuff all depends on what you do with the system. I can't imagine that a whole lot changes on a daily basis with your home media server, which is why the ~5GB snapshot disk space usage sounds about right. Just because you only use up ~5GB with snapshots doesn't mean that's what another user should expect. Besides, it was never really my intention to talk about the possible scenario of running low on disk space and having multiple GBs of snapshots to get rid of, but rather to address the issue that as far as I'm aware it's a disk space trade-off for a feature that doesn't have an incredible amount of practical value for your average user.
If that's their response then they don't sound like they're very responsible users, but considering a lot of audio and video production occurs on Macs it's not very hard to imagine that a lot of these people appreciate the ability to easily revert to previous versions of things they have been working on. This has little to no practical value to your average desktop user who does not create content, but merely views it. If these people are not professionals or enthusiasts, then I have to ask what they're doing that makes Time Machine such a deal-killing feature, something they could never go without anymore. Of course system/network admins would probably like these features for slightly different reasons.
You don't need 512 MB of RAM *just* for ZFS. You can use ZFS on a system with only 512 MB of RAM. Very big difference.
IOW, if you have a lowly laptop or desktop with only 512 MB of RAM, total, you can still run a system using ZFS as the main filesystem.
These are pure semantics, I thought it was understood that saying a 512 MB of RAM for the filesystem was the same as saying 512 MB of RAM for the whole OS, including the filesystem.
Furthermore, just because you can run OpenSolaris with ZFS on a lowly laptop or desktop with 512 MB of RAM doesn't make it the best idea. Did you hear the story about Windows 7 being hacked down enough to run on a system with a paltry 96 MB of RAM? Sure you could do it, but it's a pain in the butt to use when you could really just use something better suited.