<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_06_152205</id>
	<title>FreeNAS Switching From FreeBSD To Debian Linux</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260116940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dnaumov writes <i>"<a href="http://www.freenas.org/">FreeNAS</a>, a popular, free NAS solution, is moving away from using FreeBSD as its underlying core OS and switching to Debian Linux. Version 0.8 of FreeNAS as well as all further releases are going to be based on Linux, while the FreeBSD-based 0.7 branch of FreeNAS is going into maintenance-only mode, according to main developer Volker Theile. A discussion about the switch, including comments from the developers, can be found on the FreeNAS <a href="http://sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/freenas/viewtopic.php?f=5&amp;t=3966&amp;start=0">SourceForge discussion forum</a>. Some users applaud the change, which promises improved hardware compatibility, while others voice concerns regarding the future of their existing setups and lack of ZFS support in Linux."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dnaumov writes " FreeNAS , a popular , free NAS solution , is moving away from using FreeBSD as its underlying core OS and switching to Debian Linux .
Version 0.8 of FreeNAS as well as all further releases are going to be based on Linux , while the FreeBSD-based 0.7 branch of FreeNAS is going into maintenance-only mode , according to main developer Volker Theile .
A discussion about the switch , including comments from the developers , can be found on the FreeNAS SourceForge discussion forum .
Some users applaud the change , which promises improved hardware compatibility , while others voice concerns regarding the future of their existing setups and lack of ZFS support in Linux .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dnaumov writes "FreeNAS, a popular, free NAS solution, is moving away from using FreeBSD as its underlying core OS and switching to Debian Linux.
Version 0.8 of FreeNAS as well as all further releases are going to be based on Linux, while the FreeBSD-based 0.7 branch of FreeNAS is going into maintenance-only mode, according to main developer Volker Theile.
A discussion about the switch, including comments from the developers, can be found on the FreeNAS SourceForge discussion forum.
Some users applaud the change, which promises improved hardware compatibility, while others voice concerns regarding the future of their existing setups and lack of ZFS support in Linux.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343752</id>
	<title>New project</title>
	<author>nOw2</author>
	<datestamp>1260121080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the real solution to start a new project for a Linux-based NAS solution and leave FreeNAS development to those who want to use FreeBSD?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the real solution to start a new project for a Linux-based NAS solution and leave FreeNAS development to those who want to use FreeBSD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the real solution to start a new project for a Linux-based NAS solution and leave FreeNAS development to those who want to use FreeBSD?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344124</id>
	<title>fp gF0at</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260124140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">= 36400 FreeBSD but with Netcraft Become an unwanted here, but what is a need to play Sudden and Baby take my and the bottom there are Was after a long Of OpenBSD. How To look into overly morbid and Irc.secsup.org or ME! It's officia7 ASSOCIATION OF same year, BSD The future of the and financial recruitment, ;but learn what mistakes not anymore. It's a productivity First, you have to Bleak future. In bureaucratic and by BSDI who sell design approach. As escape them by and committees Of America (GNAA) disappearing up its Troubles of Walnut user. 'Now that to work I'm doing,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>= 36400 FreeBSD but with Netcraft Become an unwanted here , but what is a need to play Sudden and Baby take my and the bottom there are Was after a long Of OpenBSD .
How To look into overly morbid and Irc.secsup.org or ME !
It 's officia7 ASSOCIATION OF same year , BSD The future of the and financial recruitment , ; but learn what mistakes not anymore .
It 's a productivity First , you have to Bleak future .
In bureaucratic and by BSDI who sell design approach .
As escape them by and committees Of America ( GNAA ) disappearing up its Troubles of Walnut user .
'Now that to work I 'm doing , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>= 36400 FreeBSD but with Netcraft Become an unwanted here, but what is a need to play Sudden and Baby take my and the bottom there are Was after a long Of OpenBSD.
How To look into overly morbid and Irc.secsup.org or ME!
It's officia7 ASSOCIATION OF same year, BSD The future of the and financial recruitment, ;but learn what mistakes not anymore.
It's a productivity First, you have to Bleak future.
In bureaucratic and by BSDI who sell design approach.
As escape them by and committees Of America (GNAA) disappearing up its Troubles of Walnut user.
'Now that to work I'm doing, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343848</id>
	<title>Re:why no ZFS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260121860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FUSE method of ZFS is likely to be lower performance and less reliable than if done from the kernel directly, which is not optimal on a NAS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FUSE method of ZFS is likely to be lower performance and less reliable than if done from the kernel directly , which is not optimal on a NAS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FUSE method of ZFS is likely to be lower performance and less reliable than if done from the kernel directly, which is not optimal on a NAS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345740</id>
	<title>http://www.trollaxor.com/2001/12/linux-party.html</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2001/12/linux-party.html" title="trollaxor.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.trollaxor.com/2001/12/linux-party.html</a> [trollaxor.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.trollaxor.com/2001/12/linux-party.html [ trollaxor.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.trollaxor.com/2001/12/linux-party.html [trollaxor.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343912</id>
	<title>who gives a fuck?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260122460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>linux is totally for faggots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>linux is totally for faggots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linux is totally for faggots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345804</id>
	<title>Re:ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260093660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but humans are a part of nature... everything we do is natural... I had to click "continue editing" to say that my captcha phrase is "ovaries"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but humans are a part of nature... everything we do is natural... I had to click " continue editing " to say that my captcha phrase is " ovaries "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but humans are a part of nature... everything we do is natural... I had to click "continue editing" to say that my captcha phrase is "ovaries"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344774</id>
	<title>*BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying</b>  <br> <br>
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that <b>*BSD has lost more market share</b>,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by <a href="http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm" title="samag.com" rel="nofollow">failing
dead last</a> [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.  <br> <br> You don't need to be the <a href="http://www.amazingkreskin.com/" title="amazingkreskin.com" rel="nofollow"> <b>Amazing Kreskin</b> </a> [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
<b>*BSD is dying</b>. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows
like a river of blood.  <br> <br> FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be
any doubt: <b>FreeBSD is dying</b>.  <br> <br> Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.  <br> <br> OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
<br> <br> Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
<b>FreeBSD went out of business</b> and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.  <b>Now BSDI is also dead</b>, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.  <br> <br> All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.  <br> <br> <b>Fact: *BSD is dying</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is now official .
Netcraft confirms : * BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test .
You do n't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [ amazingkreskin.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood .
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying .
Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers .
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts .
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house .
All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead .
Fact : * BSD is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is now official.
Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying   
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers.
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing
dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.
You don't need to be the  Amazing Kreskin  [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
*BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows
like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be
any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time.
For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343748</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1260121080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Release 0.6x:<br>- User authentication I must add at minimum LDAP authentication... For NIS and RADIUS I must check if it's possible (don't know if it's possible to use PAM for samba).</p><p>Release 0.7x:<br>- Migrate to FreeBSD 7.0 (with ZFS support)<br>- Testing a new way for configuring/using share:<br>'Adding a new disk' will automatically initialize it (format under UFS) and mount it (transparent process for the user).<br>. 'Creating a share'(create a folder on a selected disk), with user/group/quota property on this share</p><p>Release 0.8x:</p><p>- Adding monitoring features (SNMP, email alerting, etc..) - Adding other features (I18n Web GUI, LCD, disk encryption, etc...)</p><p>Release 0.9x:</p><p>- Only Bug fixes, no more new features - This step will depend a lot's about the development of the "geom vinum tools". If this tools is not stable at this moment, I will replace it by 'geom mirror' for RAID 1 and by 'geom stripe' for RAID 0.</p><p>Release 1.0:</p><p>- The D day! - Lot's of documentation: User guide and developers guide.</p></div><p>and...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Date: 2009-09-17 17:23<br>Sender: votdev<br>--- cut ---<br>Anyway, 0.7 seems to be the last version of FreeNAS as it is right at the moment. For the next version the whole system will be recoded (what i'm doing at the moment). There will be no more embedded installs anymore, also the OS will be Debian.</p><p>Regards<br>Volker</p></div><p>By any other definition, this would be a fork.  It's not even FreeNAS any more, it will be CoreNAS?<br>Anyone have more insight into what's REALLY going on with this project?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Release 0.6x : - User authentication I must add at minimum LDAP authentication... For NIS and RADIUS I must check if it 's possible ( do n't know if it 's possible to use PAM for samba ) .Release 0.7x : - Migrate to FreeBSD 7.0 ( with ZFS support ) - Testing a new way for configuring/using share : 'Adding a new disk ' will automatically initialize it ( format under UFS ) and mount it ( transparent process for the user ) .. 'Creating a share ' ( create a folder on a selected disk ) , with user/group/quota property on this shareRelease 0.8x : - Adding monitoring features ( SNMP , email alerting , etc.. ) - Adding other features ( I18n Web GUI , LCD , disk encryption , etc... ) Release 0.9x : - Only Bug fixes , no more new features - This step will depend a lot 's about the development of the " geom vinum tools " .
If this tools is not stable at this moment , I will replace it by 'geom mirror ' for RAID 1 and by 'geom stripe ' for RAID 0.Release 1.0 : - The D day !
- Lot 's of documentation : User guide and developers guide.and...Date : 2009-09-17 17 : 23Sender : votdev--- cut ---Anyway , 0.7 seems to be the last version of FreeNAS as it is right at the moment .
For the next version the whole system will be recoded ( what i 'm doing at the moment ) .
There will be no more embedded installs anymore , also the OS will be Debian.RegardsVolkerBy any other definition , this would be a fork .
It 's not even FreeNAS any more , it will be CoreNAS ? Anyone have more insight into what 's REALLY going on with this project ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Release 0.6x:- User authentication I must add at minimum LDAP authentication... For NIS and RADIUS I must check if it's possible (don't know if it's possible to use PAM for samba).Release 0.7x:- Migrate to FreeBSD 7.0 (with ZFS support)- Testing a new way for configuring/using share:'Adding a new disk' will automatically initialize it (format under UFS) and mount it (transparent process for the user).. 'Creating a share'(create a folder on a selected disk), with user/group/quota property on this shareRelease 0.8x:- Adding monitoring features (SNMP, email alerting, etc..) - Adding other features (I18n Web GUI, LCD, disk encryption, etc...)Release 0.9x:- Only Bug fixes, no more new features - This step will depend a lot's about the development of the "geom vinum tools".
If this tools is not stable at this moment, I will replace it by 'geom mirror' for RAID 1 and by 'geom stripe' for RAID 0.Release 1.0:- The D day!
- Lot's of documentation: User guide and developers guide.and...Date: 2009-09-17 17:23Sender: votdev--- cut ---Anyway, 0.7 seems to be the last version of FreeNAS as it is right at the moment.
For the next version the whole system will be recoded (what i'm doing at the moment).
There will be no more embedded installs anymore, also the OS will be Debian.RegardsVolkerBy any other definition, this would be a fork.
It's not even FreeNAS any more, it will be CoreNAS?Anyone have more insight into what's REALLY going on with this project?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30357574</id>
	<title>Re:Why oh why not OpenSolaris?</title>
	<author>RedBear</author>
	<datestamp>1260179400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reason: Hardware.</p><p>Last time I looked into OpenSolaris I was very disappointed by the very short and mostly unverified hardware compatibility list. The BSDs are much better off in that department and aren't very far behind Linux. In addition, tools like dtrace have already been ported over to BSD (and Mac OS X, which was originally largely based on FreeBSD). The new FreeBSD 8.0 has just taken ZFS support from experimental to official (which in the BSD world I would consider to mean "production ready even in server environments").</p><p>Going beyond that, I would personally class OpenSolaris as much further toward the arcane, confusing world of the original Unixen, with Linux being the least confusing for newcomers and the BSDs somewhere in the middle. Honestly, I've had extensive command-line experience with Linux and the BSDs, and I was utterly lost when I tried to get into OpenSolaris. I couldn't grasp the underlying structure of the Solaris-based system at all. It just didn't seem to "make sense" the way most other operating systems have for me. This "friendliness" is probably largely why Linux is more popular than the BSDs and the BSDs are in turn more popular than things like OpenSolaris. If it's easy for new users and new developers to get a handle on how the system works, you will attract more users and more developers.</p><p>I'd rate the three similarly in terms of developmental flexibility, which I believe is one of the main reasons they are creating this fork of FreeNAS with Linux. As an ecosystem, Linux development seems to move more rapidly and be more open to new code than anything else out there. Again, with the differing structure of the BSD development ecosystem, the BSDs seem to move at a much more deliberate pace and new code has to go through a fairly stringent vetting process before it is allowed into the core of the system. Let us not forget that while Linux is merely a kernel, the BSDs are largely complete operating systems being developed under the supervision of a central authority, which I think helps add to the stability of the overall operating system. OpenSolaris as usual would fall on the far end of this scale (in my opinion), where it is still somewhat controlled by the people who allowed it to be branched from the commercial version of Solaris, and has numerous restrictions that reduce the speed and openness with which it is developed.</p><p>Again, this is just my subjective personal opinion based on years of experience and observation, but I would use this experience to respectfully disagree with your claim that FreeBSD (or Linux) is "[sadly] the wrong tool for the job". Based on FreeBSD's relatively flexible development cycle combined with its observed code quality over the last couple of decades, I'd venture to say that it is the perfect middle ground on which to base a focused-purpose network file server operating system. Such a system needs to be able to stay compatible with a large set of current storage, networking and video hardware and yet be created from highly stable, quality code that changes slowly enough that there is time for a bit of polish before each release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason : Hardware.Last time I looked into OpenSolaris I was very disappointed by the very short and mostly unverified hardware compatibility list .
The BSDs are much better off in that department and are n't very far behind Linux .
In addition , tools like dtrace have already been ported over to BSD ( and Mac OS X , which was originally largely based on FreeBSD ) .
The new FreeBSD 8.0 has just taken ZFS support from experimental to official ( which in the BSD world I would consider to mean " production ready even in server environments " ) .Going beyond that , I would personally class OpenSolaris as much further toward the arcane , confusing world of the original Unixen , with Linux being the least confusing for newcomers and the BSDs somewhere in the middle .
Honestly , I 've had extensive command-line experience with Linux and the BSDs , and I was utterly lost when I tried to get into OpenSolaris .
I could n't grasp the underlying structure of the Solaris-based system at all .
It just did n't seem to " make sense " the way most other operating systems have for me .
This " friendliness " is probably largely why Linux is more popular than the BSDs and the BSDs are in turn more popular than things like OpenSolaris .
If it 's easy for new users and new developers to get a handle on how the system works , you will attract more users and more developers.I 'd rate the three similarly in terms of developmental flexibility , which I believe is one of the main reasons they are creating this fork of FreeNAS with Linux .
As an ecosystem , Linux development seems to move more rapidly and be more open to new code than anything else out there .
Again , with the differing structure of the BSD development ecosystem , the BSDs seem to move at a much more deliberate pace and new code has to go through a fairly stringent vetting process before it is allowed into the core of the system .
Let us not forget that while Linux is merely a kernel , the BSDs are largely complete operating systems being developed under the supervision of a central authority , which I think helps add to the stability of the overall operating system .
OpenSolaris as usual would fall on the far end of this scale ( in my opinion ) , where it is still somewhat controlled by the people who allowed it to be branched from the commercial version of Solaris , and has numerous restrictions that reduce the speed and openness with which it is developed.Again , this is just my subjective personal opinion based on years of experience and observation , but I would use this experience to respectfully disagree with your claim that FreeBSD ( or Linux ) is " [ sadly ] the wrong tool for the job " .
Based on FreeBSD 's relatively flexible development cycle combined with its observed code quality over the last couple of decades , I 'd venture to say that it is the perfect middle ground on which to base a focused-purpose network file server operating system .
Such a system needs to be able to stay compatible with a large set of current storage , networking and video hardware and yet be created from highly stable , quality code that changes slowly enough that there is time for a bit of polish before each release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason: Hardware.Last time I looked into OpenSolaris I was very disappointed by the very short and mostly unverified hardware compatibility list.
The BSDs are much better off in that department and aren't very far behind Linux.
In addition, tools like dtrace have already been ported over to BSD (and Mac OS X, which was originally largely based on FreeBSD).
The new FreeBSD 8.0 has just taken ZFS support from experimental to official (which in the BSD world I would consider to mean "production ready even in server environments").Going beyond that, I would personally class OpenSolaris as much further toward the arcane, confusing world of the original Unixen, with Linux being the least confusing for newcomers and the BSDs somewhere in the middle.
Honestly, I've had extensive command-line experience with Linux and the BSDs, and I was utterly lost when I tried to get into OpenSolaris.
I couldn't grasp the underlying structure of the Solaris-based system at all.
It just didn't seem to "make sense" the way most other operating systems have for me.
This "friendliness" is probably largely why Linux is more popular than the BSDs and the BSDs are in turn more popular than things like OpenSolaris.
If it's easy for new users and new developers to get a handle on how the system works, you will attract more users and more developers.I'd rate the three similarly in terms of developmental flexibility, which I believe is one of the main reasons they are creating this fork of FreeNAS with Linux.
As an ecosystem, Linux development seems to move more rapidly and be more open to new code than anything else out there.
Again, with the differing structure of the BSD development ecosystem, the BSDs seem to move at a much more deliberate pace and new code has to go through a fairly stringent vetting process before it is allowed into the core of the system.
Let us not forget that while Linux is merely a kernel, the BSDs are largely complete operating systems being developed under the supervision of a central authority, which I think helps add to the stability of the overall operating system.
OpenSolaris as usual would fall on the far end of this scale (in my opinion), where it is still somewhat controlled by the people who allowed it to be branched from the commercial version of Solaris, and has numerous restrictions that reduce the speed and openness with which it is developed.Again, this is just my subjective personal opinion based on years of experience and observation, but I would use this experience to respectfully disagree with your claim that FreeBSD (or Linux) is "[sadly] the wrong tool for the job".
Based on FreeBSD's relatively flexible development cycle combined with its observed code quality over the last couple of decades, I'd venture to say that it is the perfect middle ground on which to base a focused-purpose network file server operating system.
Such a system needs to be able to stay compatible with a large set of current storage, networking and video hardware and yet be created from highly stable, quality code that changes slowly enough that there is time for a bit of polish before each release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30350900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30348676</id>
	<title>Re:Well, it's open source, so fork it.</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260115020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The <b>move</b> to Linux <b>IS</b> a fork.
It's explained in this artcle about <a href="http://www.learnfreenas.com/blog/2009/12/05/rumours-of-freenas-death-greatly-exaggerated/" title="learnfreenas.com" rel="nofollow">Rumors of FreeNAS' death greatly exagerated</a> [learnfreenas.com]
</p><blockquote><div><p>Today Olivier Cochard-Labb&#233; has made a great announcement, FreeNAS will live on and production ready ZFS support will be added with the upgrade to FreeBSD 8.0. At the same time a new Linux version of FreeNAS will be created called OpenMediaVault!
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
Olivier explained it like this: FreeNAS needs some big modification to remove its present limitations (with one of the biggest being the lack of support for add-ons/plugins). We think that a full-rewrite of the FreeNAS base is needed. Therefore, we will take 2 different paths:<br> <br>
1. Volker will create a new project called &ldquo;&lsquo;OpenMediaVault&rdquo; based on a
GNU/Linux and use all his experience acquired with all those nights and week-ends spent improving FreeNAS during the last 2 years. He will still
continue to work on FreeNAS<br> <br>
2. And, a great surprise: iXsystems (http://www.ixsystems.com/), a company specialising in professional FreeBSD systems has offered to take FreeNAS under its wing as an open source community driven project. This means that they will use their professionals FreeBSD developers to better FreeNAS! Their manpower will permit a full-rewriting of FreeNAS.<br> <br>
Olivier also added that he will personally come back to actively working on FreeNAS and begin to upgrade it to FreeBSD 8.0 (which is &ldquo;production ready&rdquo; for ZFS).</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The move to Linux IS a fork .
It 's explained in this artcle about Rumors of FreeNAS ' death greatly exagerated [ learnfreenas.com ] Today Olivier Cochard-Labb   has made a great announcement , FreeNAS will live on and production ready ZFS support will be added with the upgrade to FreeBSD 8.0 .
At the same time a new Linux version of FreeNAS will be created called OpenMediaVault !
.. . Olivier explained it like this : FreeNAS needs some big modification to remove its present limitations ( with one of the biggest being the lack of support for add-ons/plugins ) .
We think that a full-rewrite of the FreeNAS base is needed .
Therefore , we will take 2 different paths : 1 .
Volker will create a new project called       OpenMediaVault    based on a GNU/Linux and use all his experience acquired with all those nights and week-ends spent improving FreeNAS during the last 2 years .
He will still continue to work on FreeNAS 2 .
And , a great surprise : iXsystems ( http : //www.ixsystems.com/ ) , a company specialising in professional FreeBSD systems has offered to take FreeNAS under its wing as an open source community driven project .
This means that they will use their professionals FreeBSD developers to better FreeNAS !
Their manpower will permit a full-rewriting of FreeNAS .
Olivier also added that he will personally come back to actively working on FreeNAS and begin to upgrade it to FreeBSD 8.0 ( which is    production ready    for ZFS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The move to Linux IS a fork.
It's explained in this artcle about Rumors of FreeNAS' death greatly exagerated [learnfreenas.com]
Today Olivier Cochard-Labbé has made a great announcement, FreeNAS will live on and production ready ZFS support will be added with the upgrade to FreeBSD 8.0.
At the same time a new Linux version of FreeNAS will be created called OpenMediaVault!
...
Olivier explained it like this: FreeNAS needs some big modification to remove its present limitations (with one of the biggest being the lack of support for add-ons/plugins).
We think that a full-rewrite of the FreeNAS base is needed.
Therefore, we will take 2 different paths: 
1.
Volker will create a new project called “‘OpenMediaVault” based on a
GNU/Linux and use all his experience acquired with all those nights and week-ends spent improving FreeNAS during the last 2 years.
He will still
continue to work on FreeNAS 
2.
And, a great surprise: iXsystems (http://www.ixsystems.com/), a company specialising in professional FreeBSD systems has offered to take FreeNAS under its wing as an open source community driven project.
This means that they will use their professionals FreeBSD developers to better FreeNAS!
Their manpower will permit a full-rewriting of FreeNAS.
Olivier also added that he will personally come back to actively working on FreeNAS and begin to upgrade it to FreeBSD 8.0 (which is “production ready” for ZFS).

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343738</id>
	<title>Well, it's open source, so fork it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260121020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the last page of comments, it looks like one company is already forking it to keep it on FreeBSD.</p><p>Half of the comments are users who picked FreeNAS for it's ZFS functionality worrying that they were stuck on FreeNAS 0.7.</p><p>Greater hardware compatibility? Sure, for some desktop computer hardware, but FreeBSD is fine for everything a NAS needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the last page of comments , it looks like one company is already forking it to keep it on FreeBSD.Half of the comments are users who picked FreeNAS for it 's ZFS functionality worrying that they were stuck on FreeNAS 0.7.Greater hardware compatibility ?
Sure , for some desktop computer hardware , but FreeBSD is fine for everything a NAS needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the last page of comments, it looks like one company is already forking it to keep it on FreeBSD.Half of the comments are users who picked FreeNAS for it's ZFS functionality worrying that they were stuck on FreeNAS 0.7.Greater hardware compatibility?
Sure, for some desktop computer hardware, but FreeBSD is fine for everything a NAS needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343774</id>
	<title>why no ZFS?</title>
	<author>darkeye</author>
	<datestamp>1260121200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder why there be no ZFS in the Linux-based version - there's ZFS support in Linux via fuse...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why there be no ZFS in the Linux-based version - there 's ZFS support in Linux via fuse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why there be no ZFS in the Linux-based version - there's ZFS support in Linux via fuse...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343878</id>
	<title>Re:why no ZFS?</title>
	<author>TerminaMorte</author>
	<datestamp>1260122100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>zfs-fuse has horrible performance; I compared Ubuntu 9.10 with zfs-fuse (0.5) and OpenSolaris... Ubuntu could hardly do 15MB/s read/write, while OpenSolaris could easily do 70MB/s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>zfs-fuse has horrible performance ; I compared Ubuntu 9.10 with zfs-fuse ( 0.5 ) and OpenSolaris... Ubuntu could hardly do 15MB/s read/write , while OpenSolaris could easily do 70MB/s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>zfs-fuse has horrible performance; I compared Ubuntu 9.10 with zfs-fuse (0.5) and OpenSolaris... Ubuntu could hardly do 15MB/s read/write, while OpenSolaris could easily do 70MB/s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30346648</id>
	<title>Re:BSD is Dead</title>
	<author>yup2000</author>
	<datestamp>1260099420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BSD rises from the dead... news at 10. BSD sighted at Apple and in the wild!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BSD rises from the dead... news at 10 .
BSD sighted at Apple and in the wild !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BSD rises from the dead... news at 10.
BSD sighted at Apple and in the wild!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343980</id>
	<title>openfiler</title>
	<author>headhot</author>
	<datestamp>1260123060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i feel like the only think freenas had over openfiler was ZFS. i've been running openfiler for 2 years now and it has been rock solid.</p><p>without zfs why not go for the more mature linux based NAS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i feel like the only think freenas had over openfiler was ZFS .
i 've been running openfiler for 2 years now and it has been rock solid.without zfs why not go for the more mature linux based NAS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i feel like the only think freenas had over openfiler was ZFS.
i've been running openfiler for 2 years now and it has been rock solid.without zfs why not go for the more mature linux based NAS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344544</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1260127200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well there are a couple things to consider.  First, as others have mentioned, the fact that it's not yet at 1.0 has less importance in many free software projects.  There are definitely projects that haven't reached 1.0 yet are still production ready.
</p><p>Also, you seem to throw "free" in there like it's a bad thing (or maybe I'm misreading?), but the fact that people are using an open-source project may indicate that they're very concerned about future maintenance of the software they're using.  Being open source prevents the possibility of it simply being dropped, leaving the users no recourse.  Free software can be passed into others' hands or forked, and in the worst case scenario a business can theoretically pay a programmer to fix problems.
</p><p>So in that sense, at least, free software is pretty good for future-proofing.  And even if the whole setup is not yet at 1.0, many of the components are quite robust and mature.  Both FreeBSD and Debian are very good, as are Samba, ProFTP, and the other services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well there are a couple things to consider .
First , as others have mentioned , the fact that it 's not yet at 1.0 has less importance in many free software projects .
There are definitely projects that have n't reached 1.0 yet are still production ready .
Also , you seem to throw " free " in there like it 's a bad thing ( or maybe I 'm misreading ?
) , but the fact that people are using an open-source project may indicate that they 're very concerned about future maintenance of the software they 're using .
Being open source prevents the possibility of it simply being dropped , leaving the users no recourse .
Free software can be passed into others ' hands or forked , and in the worst case scenario a business can theoretically pay a programmer to fix problems .
So in that sense , at least , free software is pretty good for future-proofing .
And even if the whole setup is not yet at 1.0 , many of the components are quite robust and mature .
Both FreeBSD and Debian are very good , as are Samba , ProFTP , and the other services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well there are a couple things to consider.
First, as others have mentioned, the fact that it's not yet at 1.0 has less importance in many free software projects.
There are definitely projects that haven't reached 1.0 yet are still production ready.
Also, you seem to throw "free" in there like it's a bad thing (or maybe I'm misreading?
), but the fact that people are using an open-source project may indicate that they're very concerned about future maintenance of the software they're using.
Being open source prevents the possibility of it simply being dropped, leaving the users no recourse.
Free software can be passed into others' hands or forked, and in the worst case scenario a business can theoretically pay a programmer to fix problems.
So in that sense, at least, free software is pretty good for future-proofing.
And even if the whole setup is not yet at 1.0, many of the components are quite robust and mature.
Both FreeBSD and Debian are very good, as are Samba, ProFTP, and the other services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344418</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260126480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FreeNAS is an "easy-to-use" NAS for old hardware, and light on documentation -- read: it has a wiki; generate your own. So it's going to get a lot of first-timers, however technical, and they're going to have questions about the migration. Hence "concerns" in this sense really shouldn't be read as 'emotional outbursts of near panic', but as inquiries.</p><p>Anyhow, the traditional<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. missing link for this story would be: <a href="http://www.learnfreenas.com/blog/" title="learnfreenas.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.learnfreenas.com/blog/</a> [learnfreenas.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>...Today Olivier Cochard-Labb&#233; has made a great announcement, FreeNAS will live on and production ready ZFS support will be added with the upgrade to FreeBSD 8.0. At the same time a new Linux version of FreeNAS will be created called OpenMediaVault! Olivier explained it like this: FreeNAS needs some big modification to remove its present limitations (with one of the biggest being the lack of support for add-ons/plugins). We think that a full-rewrite of the FreeNAS base is needed. Therefore, we will take 2 different paths:...</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is running the story because it's a migration from a BSD to a Linux. But it's a nice minor news items on an interesting project, and is mostly useful by bringing FreeNAS to the attention of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ers who are starting to think about setting up a NAS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeNAS is an " easy-to-use " NAS for old hardware , and light on documentation -- read : it has a wiki ; generate your own .
So it 's going to get a lot of first-timers , however technical , and they 're going to have questions about the migration .
Hence " concerns " in this sense really should n't be read as 'emotional outbursts of near panic ' , but as inquiries.Anyhow , the traditional / .
missing link for this story would be : http : //www.learnfreenas.com/blog/ [ learnfreenas.com ] ...Today Olivier Cochard-Labb   has made a great announcement , FreeNAS will live on and production ready ZFS support will be added with the upgrade to FreeBSD 8.0 .
At the same time a new Linux version of FreeNAS will be created called OpenMediaVault !
Olivier explained it like this : FreeNAS needs some big modification to remove its present limitations ( with one of the biggest being the lack of support for add-ons/plugins ) .
We think that a full-rewrite of the FreeNAS base is needed .
Therefore , we will take 2 different paths : ...I guess / .
is running the story because it 's a migration from a BSD to a Linux .
But it 's a nice minor news items on an interesting project , and is mostly useful by bringing FreeNAS to the attention of / .
'ers who are starting to think about setting up a NAS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeNAS is an "easy-to-use" NAS for old hardware, and light on documentation -- read: it has a wiki; generate your own.
So it's going to get a lot of first-timers, however technical, and they're going to have questions about the migration.
Hence "concerns" in this sense really shouldn't be read as 'emotional outbursts of near panic', but as inquiries.Anyhow, the traditional /.
missing link for this story would be: http://www.learnfreenas.com/blog/ [learnfreenas.com] ...Today Olivier Cochard-Labbé has made a great announcement, FreeNAS will live on and production ready ZFS support will be added with the upgrade to FreeBSD 8.0.
At the same time a new Linux version of FreeNAS will be created called OpenMediaVault!
Olivier explained it like this: FreeNAS needs some big modification to remove its present limitations (with one of the biggest being the lack of support for add-ons/plugins).
We think that a full-rewrite of the FreeNAS base is needed.
Therefore, we will take 2 different paths:...I guess /.
is running the story because it's a migration from a BSD to a Linux.
But it's a nice minor news items on an interesting project, and is mostly useful by bringing FreeNAS to the attention of /.
'ers who are starting to think about setting up a NAS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343992</id>
	<title>no it stays FreeBSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260123180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/freenas/viewtopic.php?f=5&amp;t=4959</p><p>"FreeNAS needs some big modification for removing its present limitation (one of the biggest is the non support of easly users add-ons).<br>We think that a full-rewriting of the FreeNAS base is needed. From this idea, we will take 2 differents paths:<br>- Volker will create a new project called "'OpenMediaVault" based on a GNU/Linux using all its experience acquired with all its nights and week-ends spent to improve FreeNAS during the last 2 years. He still continue to work on FreeNAS (and try to share its time with this 2 projects).<br>- And, a great surprise: iXsystems, a company specialized in professional FreeBSD offers to take FreeNAS under their wings as an open source community driven project. This mean that they will involve their professionals FreeBSD developers to FreeNAS! Their manpower will permit to do a full-rewriting of FreeNAS.<br>Personally, I come back to actively work in FreeNAS and begin to upgrade it to FreeBSD 8.0 (that is "production ready" for ZFS)."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/freenas/viewtopic.php ? f = 5&amp;t = 4959 " FreeNAS needs some big modification for removing its present limitation ( one of the biggest is the non support of easly users add-ons ) .We think that a full-rewriting of the FreeNAS base is needed .
From this idea , we will take 2 differents paths : - Volker will create a new project called " 'OpenMediaVault " based on a GNU/Linux using all its experience acquired with all its nights and week-ends spent to improve FreeNAS during the last 2 years .
He still continue to work on FreeNAS ( and try to share its time with this 2 projects ) .- And , a great surprise : iXsystems , a company specialized in professional FreeBSD offers to take FreeNAS under their wings as an open source community driven project .
This mean that they will involve their professionals FreeBSD developers to FreeNAS !
Their manpower will permit to do a full-rewriting of FreeNAS.Personally , I come back to actively work in FreeNAS and begin to upgrade it to FreeBSD 8.0 ( that is " production ready " for ZFS ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/freenas/viewtopic.php?f=5&amp;t=4959"FreeNAS needs some big modification for removing its present limitation (one of the biggest is the non support of easly users add-ons).We think that a full-rewriting of the FreeNAS base is needed.
From this idea, we will take 2 differents paths:- Volker will create a new project called "'OpenMediaVault" based on a GNU/Linux using all its experience acquired with all its nights and week-ends spent to improve FreeNAS during the last 2 years.
He still continue to work on FreeNAS (and try to share its time with this 2 projects).- And, a great surprise: iXsystems, a company specialized in professional FreeBSD offers to take FreeNAS under their wings as an open source community driven project.
This mean that they will involve their professionals FreeBSD developers to FreeNAS!
Their manpower will permit to do a full-rewriting of FreeNAS.Personally, I come back to actively work in FreeNAS and begin to upgrade it to FreeBSD 8.0 (that is "production ready" for ZFS).
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30347608</id>
	<title>BSD - a litany of failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260106500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So why now? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the
fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of
incompatible kernels, there is the historical
record of failure and of failed operating
systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about
15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it
has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps
losing market share but why? Is it the problematic
personalities of many of the key players?  Or is
it larger than their troubled personae?
<p>
The record is clear on one thing: no operating
system has ever come back from the grave.
Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from
spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead.
As the situation grows more desperate for the
adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold.
An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud
over a once hopeful *BSD community.  The hope
is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in.
Now is the end time for *BSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why now ?
Why did * BSD fail ?
Once you get past the fact that * BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels , there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems .
* BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles .
Since then it has been in steady decline .
We all know * BSD keeps losing market share but why ?
Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players ?
Or is it larger than their troubled personae ?
The record is clear on one thing : no operating system has ever come back from the grave .
Efforts to resuscitate * BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead .
As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS , the sorrow takes hold .
An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful * BSD community .
The hope is gone ; a mournful nostalgia has settled in .
Now is the end time for * BSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why now?
Why did *BSD fail?
Once you get past the
fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of
incompatible kernels, there is the historical
record of failure and of failed operating
systems.
*BSD experienced moderate success about
15 years ago in academic circles.
Since then it
has been in steady decline.
We all know *BSD keeps
losing market share but why?
Is it the problematic
personalities of many of the key players?
Or is
it larger than their troubled personae?
The record is clear on one thing: no operating
system has ever come back from the grave.
Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from
spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead.
As the situation grows more desperate for the
adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold.
An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud
over a once hopeful *BSD community.
The hope
is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in.
Now is the end time for *BSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343772</id>
	<title>ugh</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1260121200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why downgrade?<br>
<br>
<br>
Aww I'm just messing with you all.  Anyone who had a genuine emotional reaction to the above needs to go outside right now and recommune with nature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why downgrade ?
Aww I 'm just messing with you all .
Anyone who had a genuine emotional reaction to the above needs to go outside right now and recommune with nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why downgrade?
Aww I'm just messing with you all.
Anyone who had a genuine emotional reaction to the above needs to go outside right now and recommune with nature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343808</id>
	<title>... and that sucks</title>
	<author>grub</author>
	<datestamp>1260121440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've used FreeNAS at home to feed our <a href="http://www.popcornhour.com/" title="popcornhour.com" rel="nofollow">PopcornHour NMTs</a> [popcornhour.com]. The ZFS implementation works very well for what we use it for (6x750GB and 6x1.5TB drives in RAIDZ)
<br> <br>Now that 0.7 appears to be the last version based on FreeBSD that means ZFS will disappear with the migration to Linux. No, ZFS on FUSE is not an option; too many layers of abstraction for my liking.<br> <br>
Guess the next upgrade will be to native FreeBSD or OpenSolaris. ZFS is <i>so damn great</i> I'm using the filesystem to decide my next server OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've used FreeNAS at home to feed our PopcornHour NMTs [ popcornhour.com ] .
The ZFS implementation works very well for what we use it for ( 6x750GB and 6x1.5TB drives in RAIDZ ) Now that 0.7 appears to be the last version based on FreeBSD that means ZFS will disappear with the migration to Linux .
No , ZFS on FUSE is not an option ; too many layers of abstraction for my liking .
Guess the next upgrade will be to native FreeBSD or OpenSolaris .
ZFS is so damn great I 'm using the filesystem to decide my next server OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've used FreeNAS at home to feed our PopcornHour NMTs [popcornhour.com].
The ZFS implementation works very well for what we use it for (6x750GB and 6x1.5TB drives in RAIDZ)
 Now that 0.7 appears to be the last version based on FreeBSD that means ZFS will disappear with the migration to Linux.
No, ZFS on FUSE is not an option; too many layers of abstraction for my liking.
Guess the next upgrade will be to native FreeBSD or OpenSolaris.
ZFS is so damn great I'm using the filesystem to decide my next server OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30351036</id>
	<title>Re:openfiler</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1260186000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>without zfs why not go for the more mature linux based NAS?</p></div><p>Would that be FreeNAS?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Because OpenFiler doesn't run on my NAS. It runs fine on my gaming computer, but it won't run on an old Athlon XP...</p><p>Glad it's stable for you, but FreeNAS is definitely more mature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>without zfs why not go for the more mature linux based NAS ? Would that be FreeNAS ?
: PBecause OpenFiler does n't run on my NAS .
It runs fine on my gaming computer , but it wo n't run on an old Athlon XP...Glad it 's stable for you , but FreeNAS is definitely more mature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>without zfs why not go for the more mature linux based NAS?Would that be FreeNAS?
:PBecause OpenFiler doesn't run on my NAS.
It runs fine on my gaming computer, but it won't run on an old Athlon XP...Glad it's stable for you, but FreeNAS is definitely more mature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345980</id>
	<title>Re:openfiler</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260095280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it appears to lack certain driver support for the HighPoint RocketRaid adapters. I couldn't get the RocketRaid to work on OpenFiler, but I could with FreeNAS 0.7</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it appears to lack certain driver support for the HighPoint RocketRaid adapters .
I could n't get the RocketRaid to work on OpenFiler , but I could with FreeNAS 0.7</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it appears to lack certain driver support for the HighPoint RocketRaid adapters.
I couldn't get the RocketRaid to work on OpenFiler, but I could with FreeNAS 0.7</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345890</id>
	<title>Re:... and that sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260094440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZFS has some nice features, but I don't see any of them as being relevant for a media server. For instance, Linux can create a single logical volume from multiple raids just fine with LVM. Or aufs2 for that matter (Linux only). Which has some advantages over either ZFS or LVM (you can lose one RAID and still have all the data on the other). I don't think it's policy based method of creating an union of multiple writable drives is available anywhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS has some nice features , but I do n't see any of them as being relevant for a media server .
For instance , Linux can create a single logical volume from multiple raids just fine with LVM .
Or aufs2 for that matter ( Linux only ) .
Which has some advantages over either ZFS or LVM ( you can lose one RAID and still have all the data on the other ) .
I do n't think it 's policy based method of creating an union of multiple writable drives is available anywhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS has some nice features, but I don't see any of them as being relevant for a media server.
For instance, Linux can create a single logical volume from multiple raids just fine with LVM.
Or aufs2 for that matter (Linux only).
Which has some advantages over either ZFS or LVM (you can lose one RAID and still have all the data on the other).
I don't think it's policy based method of creating an union of multiple writable drives is available anywhere else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30348464</id>
	<title>Zfs or nothing</title>
	<author>ggendel</author>
	<datestamp>1260112860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zfs has saved my data enough times to warrant it as an essential part of any NAS system I use and value it's contents. I'm seriously looking at the OpenSolaris based NextentaOS and EON as the only remaining choice for an open source NAS solution.  I'm also using Zfs on my Mac OS/X machines after I silently lost data on both NTFS, and HFS+ drives and await the community effort to bring zfs on mac up to the latest codebase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zfs has saved my data enough times to warrant it as an essential part of any NAS system I use and value it 's contents .
I 'm seriously looking at the OpenSolaris based NextentaOS and EON as the only remaining choice for an open source NAS solution .
I 'm also using Zfs on my Mac OS/X machines after I silently lost data on both NTFS , and HFS + drives and await the community effort to bring zfs on mac up to the latest codebase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zfs has saved my data enough times to warrant it as an essential part of any NAS system I use and value it's contents.
I'm seriously looking at the OpenSolaris based NextentaOS and EON as the only remaining choice for an open source NAS solution.
I'm also using Zfs on my Mac OS/X machines after I silently lost data on both NTFS, and HFS+ drives and await the community effort to bring zfs on mac up to the latest codebase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345858</id>
	<title>Re:ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260094200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or go fuck themselves<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or go fuck themselves ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or go fuck themselves ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344528</id>
	<title>Re:Well, it's open source, so fork it.</title>
	<author>imp</author>
	<datestamp>1260127140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all depends on what FreeNAS' target market is going to be.  Is it going to be old desktop machines that people recycle into NAS boxes, or will it be the large variety of NAS boxes that are found in the wild today.  If the former, then the switch to Linux buys you nothing.  Really, FreeBSD and Linux run the same on x86 hardware (sometimes one is faster, or the other, or there's an issue that keeps one or the other from running, but in general both just work damn well).  If the target is the latter, then Linux might have a small edge, but only because the FreeBSD project hasn't focused on the proper packaging of FreeBSD for an embedded system that has the tight memory constraints that the non-intel NAS boxes have.  Many companies have climbed this hill, but there's nothing that's been standardized enough to be ready to include in FreeBSD (although both NanoBSD and TinyBSD could be made to work).  M0m0wall and FreeNAS innovated in other areas, and this area would be easy to innovate in as well, since the problem is well understood and most of the tools necessary to make it work are already extant in the tree.</p><p>Forking FreeNAS may or may not be the right thing to do.  It might be better to provide a FreeNAS 0.7 -&gt; NewFreeNAS project that is rewritten from scratch for FreeBSD 8.0 that doesn't suffer from the php interface that replaces<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/rc.d.  That's the main barrier to porting from 7.x -&gt; 8.x for FreeNAS (and m0m0wall).  It would likely be faster and simpler to go that route and fix whatever issues come up.  This would allow one to migrate to better http technology that puts less in the server and more on the client in javascript/ajaxish/etc things anyway.  This would allow users to continue to use FreeBSD's solid ZFS base as well as have a solution that's here today rather than waiting for Linux to catch up with its reimplementation of zfs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Warner</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all depends on what FreeNAS ' target market is going to be .
Is it going to be old desktop machines that people recycle into NAS boxes , or will it be the large variety of NAS boxes that are found in the wild today .
If the former , then the switch to Linux buys you nothing .
Really , FreeBSD and Linux run the same on x86 hardware ( sometimes one is faster , or the other , or there 's an issue that keeps one or the other from running , but in general both just work damn well ) .
If the target is the latter , then Linux might have a small edge , but only because the FreeBSD project has n't focused on the proper packaging of FreeBSD for an embedded system that has the tight memory constraints that the non-intel NAS boxes have .
Many companies have climbed this hill , but there 's nothing that 's been standardized enough to be ready to include in FreeBSD ( although both NanoBSD and TinyBSD could be made to work ) .
M0m0wall and FreeNAS innovated in other areas , and this area would be easy to innovate in as well , since the problem is well understood and most of the tools necessary to make it work are already extant in the tree.Forking FreeNAS may or may not be the right thing to do .
It might be better to provide a FreeNAS 0.7 - &gt; NewFreeNAS project that is rewritten from scratch for FreeBSD 8.0 that does n't suffer from the php interface that replaces /etc/rc.d .
That 's the main barrier to porting from 7.x - &gt; 8.x for FreeNAS ( and m0m0wall ) .
It would likely be faster and simpler to go that route and fix whatever issues come up .
This would allow one to migrate to better http technology that puts less in the server and more on the client in javascript/ajaxish/etc things anyway .
This would allow users to continue to use FreeBSD 's solid ZFS base as well as have a solution that 's here today rather than waiting for Linux to catch up with its reimplementation of zfs : ) Warner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all depends on what FreeNAS' target market is going to be.
Is it going to be old desktop machines that people recycle into NAS boxes, or will it be the large variety of NAS boxes that are found in the wild today.
If the former, then the switch to Linux buys you nothing.
Really, FreeBSD and Linux run the same on x86 hardware (sometimes one is faster, or the other, or there's an issue that keeps one or the other from running, but in general both just work damn well).
If the target is the latter, then Linux might have a small edge, but only because the FreeBSD project hasn't focused on the proper packaging of FreeBSD for an embedded system that has the tight memory constraints that the non-intel NAS boxes have.
Many companies have climbed this hill, but there's nothing that's been standardized enough to be ready to include in FreeBSD (although both NanoBSD and TinyBSD could be made to work).
M0m0wall and FreeNAS innovated in other areas, and this area would be easy to innovate in as well, since the problem is well understood and most of the tools necessary to make it work are already extant in the tree.Forking FreeNAS may or may not be the right thing to do.
It might be better to provide a FreeNAS 0.7 -&gt; NewFreeNAS project that is rewritten from scratch for FreeBSD 8.0 that doesn't suffer from the php interface that replaces /etc/rc.d.
That's the main barrier to porting from 7.x -&gt; 8.x for FreeNAS (and m0m0wall).
It would likely be faster and simpler to go that route and fix whatever issues come up.
This would allow one to migrate to better http technology that puts less in the server and more on the client in javascript/ajaxish/etc things anyway.
This would allow users to continue to use FreeBSD's solid ZFS base as well as have a solution that's here today rather than waiting for Linux to catch up with its reimplementation of zfs :)Warner</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343874</id>
	<title>Re:why no ZFS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260122100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344236</id>
	<title>Odd move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260125100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FreeBSD and Debian are both great OS's, but their developers have different priorities that show up in the finished product.  For storage I believe FreeBSD is the better solution (and likely why they started with it).  I am guessing they are moving to Debian not for the best solution, but for the bigger audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD and Debian are both great OS 's , but their developers have different priorities that show up in the finished product .
For storage I believe FreeBSD is the better solution ( and likely why they started with it ) .
I am guessing they are moving to Debian not for the best solution , but for the bigger audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD and Debian are both great OS's, but their developers have different priorities that show up in the finished product.
For storage I believe FreeBSD is the better solution (and likely why they started with it).
I am guessing they are moving to Debian not for the best solution, but for the bigger audience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344348</id>
	<title>bsd,zfs,fork, bad time?</title>
	<author>itzdandy</author>
	<datestamp>1260126000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZFS has just come out with built-in on line deduplication.  Isnt this what you would call a killer feature for a NAS distro like this?  FreeNAS is moving away from a killer feature like this?</p><p>In my experience, debian(linux) isnt going to offer significantly better hardware support to justify this switch.  No graphics cards or exotic hardware are typically used for a small NAS server and thats where linux has better driver support.</p><p>I really like FreeNAS because it is so lightweight, runs from a flash key, does its job without complaining etc. but I dont see much a future for it with this switch.  It is essentially a brand new project going up against Openfiler.</p><p>Ill have to change my scheme here and export a deduplicated ZFS share via iSCSI and attach it to my windows server to get the AD integrate de-duplicated fileserver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS has just come out with built-in on line deduplication .
Isnt this what you would call a killer feature for a NAS distro like this ?
FreeNAS is moving away from a killer feature like this ? In my experience , debian ( linux ) isnt going to offer significantly better hardware support to justify this switch .
No graphics cards or exotic hardware are typically used for a small NAS server and thats where linux has better driver support.I really like FreeNAS because it is so lightweight , runs from a flash key , does its job without complaining etc .
but I dont see much a future for it with this switch .
It is essentially a brand new project going up against Openfiler.Ill have to change my scheme here and export a deduplicated ZFS share via iSCSI and attach it to my windows server to get the AD integrate de-duplicated fileserver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS has just come out with built-in on line deduplication.
Isnt this what you would call a killer feature for a NAS distro like this?
FreeNAS is moving away from a killer feature like this?In my experience, debian(linux) isnt going to offer significantly better hardware support to justify this switch.
No graphics cards or exotic hardware are typically used for a small NAS server and thats where linux has better driver support.I really like FreeNAS because it is so lightweight, runs from a flash key, does its job without complaining etc.
but I dont see much a future for it with this switch.
It is essentially a brand new project going up against Openfiler.Ill have to change my scheme here and export a deduplicated ZFS share via iSCSI and attach it to my windows server to get the AD integrate de-duplicated fileserver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30350900</id>
	<title>Why oh why not OpenSolaris?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1260183840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guys, I don't work for Sun (and I think they are in no position to hire people at the moment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/ ) but you should really drop by to one of their demonstrations to see what they are doing in the storage arena.</p><p>Sun has beautiful (technically speaking) NAS devices that allow people to do detailed configuration and troubleshooting using web based point and click GUIs.</p><p>Those devices are based on 2 Solaris technologies: ZFS and dtrace.</p><p>You can do snapshots, create and share filesystems, find which machines are being pigs with disk usage and for what reason (data or metadata?) all at the click of a mouse.</p><p>The important thing is that it is all done with technologies anybody could use, in other words there is nothing stopping the FreeNAS guys, or anybody else, replicating what Sun is doing to offer a non commercial solution when contracted support is not affordable.</p><p>I am sure FreeBSD is a great OS (yeah, really) and I appreciate Debian very much, but if there ever was a case of using the wrong tools for the job this would be a sadly good example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , I do n't work for Sun ( and I think they are in no position to hire people at the moment : -/ ) but you should really drop by to one of their demonstrations to see what they are doing in the storage arena.Sun has beautiful ( technically speaking ) NAS devices that allow people to do detailed configuration and troubleshooting using web based point and click GUIs.Those devices are based on 2 Solaris technologies : ZFS and dtrace.You can do snapshots , create and share filesystems , find which machines are being pigs with disk usage and for what reason ( data or metadata ?
) all at the click of a mouse.The important thing is that it is all done with technologies anybody could use , in other words there is nothing stopping the FreeNAS guys , or anybody else , replicating what Sun is doing to offer a non commercial solution when contracted support is not affordable.I am sure FreeBSD is a great OS ( yeah , really ) and I appreciate Debian very much , but if there ever was a case of using the wrong tools for the job this would be a sadly good example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, I don't work for Sun (and I think they are in no position to hire people at the moment :-/ ) but you should really drop by to one of their demonstrations to see what they are doing in the storage arena.Sun has beautiful (technically speaking) NAS devices that allow people to do detailed configuration and troubleshooting using web based point and click GUIs.Those devices are based on 2 Solaris technologies: ZFS and dtrace.You can do snapshots, create and share filesystems, find which machines are being pigs with disk usage and for what reason (data or metadata?
) all at the click of a mouse.The important thing is that it is all done with technologies anybody could use, in other words there is nothing stopping the FreeNAS guys, or anybody else, replicating what Sun is doing to offer a non commercial solution when contracted support is not affordable.I am sure FreeBSD is a great OS (yeah, really) and I appreciate Debian very much, but if there ever was a case of using the wrong tools for the job this would be a sadly good example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344464</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1260126720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Version a default installation of any free Unix clone, and you will see that many, many apps are at less than 0.7.</p><p>Version numbers are totally meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Version a default installation of any free Unix clone , and you will see that many , many apps are at less than 0.7.Version numbers are totally meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Version a default installation of any free Unix clone, and you will see that many, many apps are at less than 0.7.Version numbers are totally meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344880</id>
	<title>ZFS works great in Linux</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1260129540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://zfs-fuse.net/" title="zfs-fuse.net">ZFS works quite well in Linux.</a> [zfs-fuse.net] I've been using it for over a year with no problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS works quite well in Linux .
[ zfs-fuse.net ] I 've been using it for over a year with no problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS works quite well in Linux.
[zfs-fuse.net] I've been using it for over a year with no problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343896</id>
	<title>Can't say I agree with the decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260122280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mainly because they just lost their ability to support ZFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mainly because they just lost their ability to support ZFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mainly because they just lost their ability to support ZFS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344526</id>
	<title>kFreeBSD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260127140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a perfect opportunity for Debian kFreeBSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a perfect opportunity for Debian kFreeBSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a perfect opportunity for Debian kFreeBSD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344220</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>zhilla2</author>
	<datestamp>1260124920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but this 0.7 version is just a repacked / modded FreeBSD 7.2, OS that's been in development since 1993 - and that itself was a fork of older projects. Much better than software embedded some hastily released commercial NAS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but this 0.7 version is just a repacked / modded FreeBSD 7.2 , OS that 's been in development since 1993 - and that itself was a fork of older projects .
Much better than software embedded some hastily released commercial NAS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but this 0.7 version is just a repacked / modded FreeBSD 7.2, OS that's been in development since 1993 - and that itself was a fork of older projects.
Much better than software embedded some hastily released commercial NAS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345346</id>
	<title>A rose by any other name</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260133080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's effectively what's happening, it's just that the project name is following the developer rather than the code base. Apparently a fork from 0.7 that will keep FreeBSD is already announced. It will have a new name. The other branch will keep the name and switch to Debian for the next release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's effectively what 's happening , it 's just that the project name is following the developer rather than the code base .
Apparently a fork from 0.7 that will keep FreeBSD is already announced .
It will have a new name .
The other branch will keep the name and switch to Debian for the next release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's effectively what's happening, it's just that the project name is following the developer rather than the code base.
Apparently a fork from 0.7 that will keep FreeBSD is already announced.
It will have a new name.
The other branch will keep the name and switch to Debian for the next release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345004</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS works great in Linux</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1260130440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also roughly five times slower, based on what I've read. A non-starter for serious applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also roughly five times slower , based on what I 've read .
A non-starter for serious applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also roughly five times slower, based on what I've read.
A non-starter for serious applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344972</id>
	<title>BSD is Dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260130260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*BSD has been dying for years. The death progressed slowly at first, but of late, it has taken a turn for the worse and is nearly complete. The death of *BSD has followed several stages.</p><p>In 2000, chief *BSD developer Matt Damon left the project after penning a long, meandering suicide note, loosely based on a novel by renowned playwright Buzz Aldrin.</p><p>FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.<br>It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.</p><p>Netcraft Weighs In</p><p>Not long after Matt's suicide, the United Nations Commission for Wresting Control of the DNS Root Servers from the Imperialist United States ("UN-USA")'s Netcraft project weighed in with its final judgement. In typical Netcraft fashion, the writer kept to the facts and looked to the numbers:</p><p>It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying<br>One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.<br>You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.<br>FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.<br>Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.<br>OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.<br>Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.<br>All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.<br>That crippling bombshell sent *BSD fans into a tailspin of mourning and denial. However, bad news poured in like a river of water.</p><p>Commission for Technology Management</p><p>In 2003, the widely r</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* BSD has been dying for years .
The death progressed slowly at first , but of late , it has taken a turn for the worse and is nearly complete .
The death of * BSD has followed several stages.In 2000 , chief * BSD developer Matt Damon left the project after penning a long , meandering suicide note , loosely based on a novel by renowned playwright Buzz Aldrin.FreeBSD used to be fun .
It used to be about doing things the right way .
It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down .
It was something cool and exciting ; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.It 's not anymore .
It 's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones , telling others what to do and doing what you 're told .
It 's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best .
Individuals notwithstanding , the project as a whole has lost track of where it 's going , and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.Netcraft Weighs InNot long after Matt 's suicide , the United Nations Commission for Wresting Control of the DNS Root Servers from the Imperialist United States ( " UN-USA " ) 's Netcraft project weighed in with its final judgement .
In typical Netcraft fashion , the writer kept to the facts and looked to the numbers : It is now official .
Netcraft has confirmed : * BSD is dyingOne more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.You do n't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [ amazingkreskin.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood.FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying.Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead.That crippling bombshell sent * BSD fans into a tailspin of mourning and denial .
However , bad news poured in like a river of water.Commission for Technology ManagementIn 2003 , the widely r</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*BSD has been dying for years.
The death progressed slowly at first, but of late, it has taken a turn for the worse and is nearly complete.
The death of *BSD has followed several stages.In 2000, chief *BSD developer Matt Damon left the project after penning a long, meandering suicide note, loosely based on a novel by renowned playwright Buzz Aldrin.FreeBSD used to be fun.
It used to be about doing things the right way.
It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down.
It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.It's not anymore.
It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told.
It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best.
Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.Netcraft Weighs InNot long after Matt's suicide, the United Nations Commission for Wresting Control of the DNS Root Servers from the Imperialist United States ("UN-USA")'s Netcraft project weighed in with its final judgement.
In typical Netcraft fashion, the writer kept to the facts and looked to the numbers:It is now official.
Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dyingOne more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers.
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows like a river of blood.FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time.
For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.That crippling bombshell sent *BSD fans into a tailspin of mourning and denial.
However, bad news poured in like a river of water.Commission for Technology ManagementIn 2003, the widely r</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343836</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260121740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he is recoding the whole system, then he is a fool, or the current codebase is appallingly bad.</p><p>What do people want from a NAS like this? Presumably some mini-itx board with a few hard drives in a small case connected by ethernet or wireless, no monitor, no keyboard or mouse (initial setup excluded) - that's pretty embedded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he is recoding the whole system , then he is a fool , or the current codebase is appallingly bad.What do people want from a NAS like this ?
Presumably some mini-itx board with a few hard drives in a small case connected by ethernet or wireless , no monitor , no keyboard or mouse ( initial setup excluded ) - that 's pretty embedded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he is recoding the whole system, then he is a fool, or the current codebase is appallingly bad.What do people want from a NAS like this?
Presumably some mini-itx board with a few hard drives in a small case connected by ethernet or wireless, no monitor, no keyboard or mouse (initial setup excluded) - that's pretty embedded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30376640</id>
	<title>I don't see what the problem is....</title>
	<author>VulpesFoxnik</author>
	<datestamp>1259594100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/" title="debian.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/</a> [debian.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ [ debian.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ [debian.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260120900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to be inflammatory, but having "concerns regarding the future of their existing setups" when using a piece of free software in version 0.7 for something as important as data storage?</p><p>I'd say that if your setup is so important you care so much for its future and you're facing this scenario, you have bigger concerns to take care than a move from FreeBSD to Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to be inflammatory , but having " concerns regarding the future of their existing setups " when using a piece of free software in version 0.7 for something as important as data storage ? I 'd say that if your setup is so important you care so much for its future and you 're facing this scenario , you have bigger concerns to take care than a move from FreeBSD to Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to be inflammatory, but having "concerns regarding the future of their existing setups" when using a piece of free software in version 0.7 for something as important as data storage?I'd say that if your setup is so important you care so much for its future and you're facing this scenario, you have bigger concerns to take care than a move from FreeBSD to Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343950</id>
	<title>No, not quite the end.</title>
	<author>lonerman</author>
	<datestamp>1260122700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new project called OpenMediaVault is linux based,  as iXsystems takes up FreeNAS...</p><p><a href="http://sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/freenas/viewtopic.php?f=5&amp;t=4959" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/freenas/viewtopic.php?f=5&amp;t=4959</a> [sourceforge.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new project called OpenMediaVault is linux based , as iXsystems takes up FreeNAS...http : //sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/freenas/viewtopic.php ? f = 5&amp;t = 4959 [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new project called OpenMediaVault is linux based,  as iXsystems takes up FreeNAS...http://sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/freenas/viewtopic.php?f=5&amp;t=4959 [sourceforge.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30346576</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260099060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b> <br>Elegy For *BSD</b> <br>
<br>
<i> I am a *BSD user<br>
and I try hard to be brave<br>
That is a tall order<br>
*BSD's foot is in the grave.<br>
<br>
I tap at my toy keyboard<br>
and whistle a happy tune<br>
but keeping happy's so hard,<br>
*BSD died so soon.<br>
<br>
Each day I wake and softly sob<br>
Nightfall finds me crying<br>
Not only am I a zit faced slob<br>
but *BSD is dying.<br>
<br>
</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Elegy For * BSD I am a * BSD user and I try hard to be brave That is a tall order * BSD 's foot is in the grave .
I tap at my toy keyboard and whistle a happy tune but keeping happy 's so hard , * BSD died so soon .
Each day I wake and softly sob Nightfall finds me crying Not only am I a zit faced slob but * BSD is dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Elegy For *BSD 

 I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.
I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.
Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.

</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345090</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>laird</author>
	<datestamp>1260131100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't want to be inflammatory, but having "concerns regarding the future of their existing setups" when using a piece of free software in version 0.7 for something as important as data storage?"</p><p>You are kidding, right?</p><p>First, the meaning of version numbers is purely dependent on the project. There are plenty of pieces of software that were fine to use in production with version numbers less than 1.0, and there are plenty of pieces of software with larger version numbers (e.g. every other Linux kernel version) that should not be run in production. FreeNAS extremely stable.</p><p>Second, even if the version of the FreeNAS that people used was not stable, it is based on a solid OS, filesystem, file services, web server, etc., that are all quite reliable in production, so even if FreeNAS 0.7 had a problem, the problem would be with some UI or scripting, not with the ability to store and serve data, and the data itself would not be at risk. The reality, of course, is that FreeNAS is one of the more mature, reliable NAS projects, so it doesn't matter much that you don't like the number 0.7.</p><p>The real problem here isn't that people were stupid to use FreeNAS, but that the FreeNAS developer is making a controversial move of switching the underlying OS to one that doesn't support a previously supported, and very popular, filesystem. And since data storage is the point of a NAS, that change is unpopular with the users of FreeNAS. The same change would have the same impact whether it was numbered 0.7, 1.0 or 3.1. For example, look at the upgrades from XP (AKA Windows 5) to Windows 7, which requires a data backup and restore, and reinstallation of all applications. I suppose you could attempt to argue that XP was too unstable to rely on, and that upgraders were stupid to have relied on such an immature OS, but that isn't what actually happened. Just as with FreeBSD, the developer chose to make a somewhat incompatible upgrade, and the users have to deal with the fallout.</p><p>From my perspective, my data, which is all in ZFS, is more  valuable than the particular web/admin tools used to serve the data, so it means that FreeNAS 0.8 won't be an option for me. Luckily there are plenty of options, and migration is easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't want to be inflammatory , but having " concerns regarding the future of their existing setups " when using a piece of free software in version 0.7 for something as important as data storage ?
" You are kidding , right ? First , the meaning of version numbers is purely dependent on the project .
There are plenty of pieces of software that were fine to use in production with version numbers less than 1.0 , and there are plenty of pieces of software with larger version numbers ( e.g .
every other Linux kernel version ) that should not be run in production .
FreeNAS extremely stable.Second , even if the version of the FreeNAS that people used was not stable , it is based on a solid OS , filesystem , file services , web server , etc. , that are all quite reliable in production , so even if FreeNAS 0.7 had a problem , the problem would be with some UI or scripting , not with the ability to store and serve data , and the data itself would not be at risk .
The reality , of course , is that FreeNAS is one of the more mature , reliable NAS projects , so it does n't matter much that you do n't like the number 0.7.The real problem here is n't that people were stupid to use FreeNAS , but that the FreeNAS developer is making a controversial move of switching the underlying OS to one that does n't support a previously supported , and very popular , filesystem .
And since data storage is the point of a NAS , that change is unpopular with the users of FreeNAS .
The same change would have the same impact whether it was numbered 0.7 , 1.0 or 3.1 .
For example , look at the upgrades from XP ( AKA Windows 5 ) to Windows 7 , which requires a data backup and restore , and reinstallation of all applications .
I suppose you could attempt to argue that XP was too unstable to rely on , and that upgraders were stupid to have relied on such an immature OS , but that is n't what actually happened .
Just as with FreeBSD , the developer chose to make a somewhat incompatible upgrade , and the users have to deal with the fallout.From my perspective , my data , which is all in ZFS , is more valuable than the particular web/admin tools used to serve the data , so it means that FreeNAS 0.8 wo n't be an option for me .
Luckily there are plenty of options , and migration is easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't want to be inflammatory, but having "concerns regarding the future of their existing setups" when using a piece of free software in version 0.7 for something as important as data storage?
"You are kidding, right?First, the meaning of version numbers is purely dependent on the project.
There are plenty of pieces of software that were fine to use in production with version numbers less than 1.0, and there are plenty of pieces of software with larger version numbers (e.g.
every other Linux kernel version) that should not be run in production.
FreeNAS extremely stable.Second, even if the version of the FreeNAS that people used was not stable, it is based on a solid OS, filesystem, file services, web server, etc., that are all quite reliable in production, so even if FreeNAS 0.7 had a problem, the problem would be with some UI or scripting, not with the ability to store and serve data, and the data itself would not be at risk.
The reality, of course, is that FreeNAS is one of the more mature, reliable NAS projects, so it doesn't matter much that you don't like the number 0.7.The real problem here isn't that people were stupid to use FreeNAS, but that the FreeNAS developer is making a controversial move of switching the underlying OS to one that doesn't support a previously supported, and very popular, filesystem.
And since data storage is the point of a NAS, that change is unpopular with the users of FreeNAS.
The same change would have the same impact whether it was numbered 0.7, 1.0 or 3.1.
For example, look at the upgrades from XP (AKA Windows 5) to Windows 7, which requires a data backup and restore, and reinstallation of all applications.
I suppose you could attempt to argue that XP was too unstable to rely on, and that upgraders were stupid to have relied on such an immature OS, but that isn't what actually happened.
Just as with FreeBSD, the developer chose to make a somewhat incompatible upgrade, and the users have to deal with the fallout.From my perspective, my data, which is all in ZFS, is more  valuable than the particular web/admin tools used to serve the data, so it means that FreeNAS 0.8 won't be an option for me.
Luckily there are plenty of options, and migration is easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344576</id>
	<title>Maybe we can install it on existing servers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260127440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would really like to see the complete technology of FreeNAS available as a package I can install on an existing linux machine... It would be quite handy (IMO), if I could just "sudo apt-get install corenas" on an ubuntu server (for instance) and just go from there....<br>It adds some flexibility compared a dedicated NAS distribution...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would really like to see the complete technology of FreeNAS available as a package I can install on an existing linux machine... It would be quite handy ( IMO ) , if I could just " sudo apt-get install corenas " on an ubuntu server ( for instance ) and just go from there....It adds some flexibility compared a dedicated NAS distribution.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would really like to see the complete technology of FreeNAS available as a package I can install on an existing linux machine... It would be quite handy (IMO), if I could just "sudo apt-get install corenas" on an ubuntu server (for instance) and just go from there....It adds some flexibility compared a dedicated NAS distribution...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30361678</id>
	<title>Re:Why oh why not OpenSolaris?</title>
	<author>Flagg0204</author>
	<datestamp>1260206940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I know your speaking of Sun Storage 7xxxx series, and I do agree the UI is awesome (dtrace + zfs is great) where their product line falls apart is redundancy.  I can purcahse a NetApp 20xx series filer with redundant heads for cheaper than i can purchase a sun storage 7xxx appliance which is HA.  The replication is still based on  drbd equivilant, and only recently has ZFS introduced dedup.   Sun has a long way to go before they can hold a candle to the mid-lower end Filers</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I know your speaking of Sun Storage 7xxxx series , and I do agree the UI is awesome ( dtrace + zfs is great ) where their product line falls apart is redundancy .
I can purcahse a NetApp 20xx series filer with redundant heads for cheaper than i can purchase a sun storage 7xxx appliance which is HA .
The replication is still based on drbd equivilant , and only recently has ZFS introduced dedup .
Sun has a long way to go before they can hold a candle to the mid-lower end Filers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I know your speaking of Sun Storage 7xxxx series, and I do agree the UI is awesome (dtrace + zfs is great) where their product line falls apart is redundancy.
I can purcahse a NetApp 20xx series filer with redundant heads for cheaper than i can purchase a sun storage 7xxx appliance which is HA.
The replication is still based on  drbd equivilant, and only recently has ZFS introduced dedup.
Sun has a long way to go before they can hold a candle to the mid-lower end Filers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30350900</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30357574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30350900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30346576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30347608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30361678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30350900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30351036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30346648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_152205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30348676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30346576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30346648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30347608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30348676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30344880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30350900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30361678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30357574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_152205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30343980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30345980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_152205.30351036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
