On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:42:36 +0100, Jon wrote in message <20120510104236.GL8272@debian>:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:22:35AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:18:28 +0100, Jon wrote in message > > <20120509181828.GG8272@debian>: > > > > > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:07:51PM +0100, Lists wrote: > > > > I'm looking at using ZFS for a box that will serve as a > > > > storage/backup box. I'm aware of Debian/kFreeBSD, which seems > > > > to be > > > > ..if you're paranoid enough to worry about Debian/GNU Linux, > > you may also want to consider Debian/GNU Hurd as a third way > > to rescue your back-up data. > > I don't understand your response, here, but I think you may have > misunderstood mine. ..it is (at least in theory) possible to crack both GNU/Linux and */kfreeBSD at the same time, and it is also possible to attack GNU Hurd at the same time as the former 2, even if I agree with Microsoft FUD that by extension holds it's less likely because of the wee windfall that can be had from attacking the decidedly _small_ etc number of people running GNU Hurd. But that could change, like it has with GNU Linux. ..bottom line is beavers have multiple lodge exits for a reason, predators. With enough exits, they escape and qualify as "paranoid enough." ;o) > ZFS has been neatly integrated into FreeBSD and there are no license > incompatibilities. Debian KFreeBSD is arguably the most reliable way > to use ZFS and Debian together. (The OP's question was based on the > premise that they definitely NEED ZFS. Perhaps they don't?) > > Debian KFreeBSD is a supported architecture for Debian, so you aren't > wandering 'off reservation' by doing this, and you would be with the > various zfs-on-linux projects. > > However, if you are comfortable and familiar with administering Debian > GNU/Linux, you might be slightly wary of running KFreeBSD "on the > metal". Running it as a VM instead gives you the opportunity to use > your familiar, trusted OS on the "outside", but with the stable and > supported ZFS system on the "inside". ..aye, but researching OP's 2 links further, I found this neat wee litigation trap: ;o) http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue http://zfs-fuse.net/releases/0.7.0 even has a neat wee box "License" right next to a neat wee clicky linky box "CDDL" that I hoped would explain the terms of the CDDL. ..instead, it brought me to the software patent plaintiff headlined in todays http://groklaw.net/ which fortunately does have a bunch of reliable links to the CDDL: prrrr ;o) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110810152617279&query=CDDL http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=CDDL&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type=all&author=0&mode=search ...and, to the GPLs: ;o) http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050131065655645 -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120510184053.6a7eb...@celsius.lan
