Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil
Thread beginning with comment 428571
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.
... Presumably alongside these 'details' concerning ReiserFS author Hans Reiser's where abouts on Sept. 3, 2006:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/its-the-least-p/
RE[2]: ZFS for Linux definitive good
by vonbrand on Mon 7th Jun 2010 21:23
in reply to "RE: ZFS for Linux definitive good"
RE[3]: ZFS for Linux definitive good
by zlynx on Mon 7th Jun 2010 23:45
in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS for Linux definitive good"
The ReiserFS 4 fiasko was mostly due to the whole design behind it being a big, unimplementable mess. Sure, for toy cases it did work; but for corner cases it just couldn't.
I wonder what corner cases you are thinking of? I used Reiser4 as the primary filesystem for my laptop for over two years and it did everything I needed.




Member since:
2005-07-06
Bah, until ZFS is made available by Oracle in a GPL-compatible license, I consider the port to be a waste of time: as long as ZFS isn't integrated into the kernel it won't have proper testing and it won't have enough users..
A good example of this is ReiserFS4: not being accepted in the main kernel did reduce its adoption.