On 2010-Aug-16 08:17:10 +0800, Garrett D'Amore <garr...@nexenta.com> wrote: >For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have >to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and >maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational).
Agreed. And this applies to OpenSolaris (or Illumos or any other fork) as well. >Honestly, I think both ZFS and btrfs will continue to be invested in by >Oracle. Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort to ZFS and leave btrfs to die. Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't retrospectively change the license on already released code but they can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code. -- Peter Jeremy
pgpuCWzXnMlHq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
