Let me see if I got this straight:
ZFS copied the snapshot technologies, and general way that WAFL works, which is patented by NetApp. Then released it to the open source community.
NetApp responds with 'cease/desist' method, which I'm sure SUN would do if someone were to outright copy the SUN kernel (or something else - like their nifty CPUs).
SUN is now on the high-and-mighty track of touting freedom of information and how patents are effectively evil when used to stifle competition... yet they are going to use same said patents to try to force NetApp to give up their suit?
What did I miss?
It sounds very much as if SUN copied the stuff that makes WAFL what it is, and gave it to everyone in the world as a way to hurt NetApp's business model.
I'm all for free info, and would love to see ZFS on a small storage platform (OpenFiler\FreeNAS) in my house, but this is fishy and seemingly unethical on SUNs part.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of No More Linux! Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:32 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: The End of All Filers?
Hi Scott,
In my view--keeping in mind I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL)--there are two
basic questions here:
- Does ZFS truly infringe upon the WAFL patents?
- Is the WAFL patent valid, or is there enough prior art to invalidate
the patent?
In addition to those there's also the question of whether the storagetek "virtual disk" patents are also valid or not.
My view is that the NetApp patents are not all that broad and probably aren't 100% applicable to ZFS; the storage tek patents are so broad that they would cover the modern day conception of a LUN or SNAPSHOT, not a specific implementation thereof.
FWIW, IANAL ;)
Regards, Max
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of Glenn Walker Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 1:09 PM To: No More Linux!; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
Let me see if I got this straight:
ZFS copied the snapshot technologies, and general way that WAFL works, which is patented by NetApp. Then released it to the open source community.
NetApp responds with 'cease/desist' method, which I'm sure SUN would do if someone were to outright copy the SUN kernel (or something else - like their nifty CPUs).
SUN is now on the high-and-mighty track of touting freedom of information and how patents are effectively evil when used to stifle competition... yet they are going to use same said patents to try to force NetApp to give up their suit?
What did I miss?
It sounds very much as if SUN copied the stuff that makes WAFL what it is, and gave it to everyone in the world as a way to hurt NetApp's business model.
I'm all for free info, and would love to see ZFS on a small storage platform (OpenFiler\FreeNAS) in my house, but this is fishy and seemingly unethical on SUNs part.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of No More Linux! Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:32 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: The End of All Filers?
Glenn wrote:
Let me see if I got this straight: ZFS copied the snapshot technologies, and general way that WAFL works, which is patented by NetApp. Then released it to the open source community.
You got that about right.
What did I miss?
StorageTek's Iceberg product was where a lot of the concepts came from originally.
It's a matter of the judge & jury's preference and the questions that are put before them - should you be able to implement a technology solution concept with your code if you use some of the same algorithms? Did Sun actually see the source code and steal it? Who is a llowed to copy who? Who owns the original patents?
Looks like quite a circular argument to me.
It'll be interesting to see who wins.
OK, here's what bugs me about Schwartz's comments.
He brings up FreeBSD, and Netapp's 'use' of this open-sourced OS on which Ontap is 'based' - let's just put the validity of that statement away for the time being because we'll start a whole fork of the conversation just on THAT (yeah, and Vista is based on MS-DOS 1).
He (jonathan) vilifies Netapp as hypocritical for using the open-sourced OS, yet trying to kill poor little open-sourced ZFS, insinuating that Netapp will approve of open-source when it suits them and fight it when it becomes inconvenient.
Here's the thing- BSD VOLUNTARILY open-sourced FreeBSD. It was THEIR CHOICE because THEY OWNED IT. Netapp didn't take SCO Unix (if they 'took' anything at all) and said "we'll use that, I found the code on Gopher" (well, it WAS a long time ago.).
Netapp did not voluntarily release WAFL nor would one expect them to. For Sun to open-source IP that it did not own is NOT LEGAL OR CORRECT, assuming that Netapp's patents hold up to the prior art claims (and I think they will, since ZFS and its underpinnings came later).
Someone with a cynical view could concoct a few scenarios in which Sun DELIBERATELY open-sourced ZFS because perhaps they KNEW they would get crucified in a patent battle, and by open-sourcing it, they let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. They do say that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, right? Tagging Netapp with an 'anti-open-source' label gains an instant fan-base of many Linux freaks (I say 'freaks' affectionately as I am one), and comes with some real possible economic pain for Netapp, so maybe there was a mis-calculation that netapp would just let it be. A mis-calculation, by the way, that could have severe ramifications on Mr. Schwartz's employment I'm sure. The tone of jonathan's blog does wreak a bit of mad desperation, doesn't it?
Well enough of that. I'm going out with netapp tonight in san Francisco! :-)
Glenn (the other one)
Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
Glenn wrote:
Let me see if I got this straight: ZFS copied the snapshot technologies, and general way that WAFL works, which is patented by NetApp. Then released it to the open source community.
You got that about right.
What did I miss?
StorageTek's Iceberg product was where a lot of the concepts came from originally.
It's a matter of the judge & jury's preference and the questions that are put before them - should you be able to implement a technology solution concept with your code if you use some of the same algorithms? Did Sun actually see the source code and steal it? Who is a llowed to copy who? Who owns the original patents?
Looks like quite a circular argument to me.
It'll be interesting to see who wins.
IIRC, early Data ONTAP was based off of BSDi, which is the non-free BSD.
GX uses FreeBSD, and then runs Data ONTAP GX on top of that. The roadmap has ONTAP GX running natively in future versions.
Without looking through the code to validate the patent claims, it sure sounds like Sun is just playing the FUD game.
John
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:20 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
OK, here's what bugs me about Schwartz's comments.
He brings up FreeBSD, and Netapp's 'use' of this open-sourced OS on which Ontap is 'based' - let's just put the validity of that statement away for the time being because we'll start a whole fork of the conversation just on THAT (yeah, and Vista is based on MS-DOS 1).
He (jonathan) vilifies Netapp as hypocritical for using the open-sourced OS, yet trying to kill poor little open-sourced ZFS, insinuating that Netapp will approve of open-source when it suits them and fight it when it becomes inconvenient.
Here's the thing- BSD VOLUNTARILY open-sourced FreeBSD. It was THEIR CHOICE because THEY OWNED IT. Netapp didn't take SCO Unix (if they 'took' anything at all) and said "we'll use that, I found the code on Gopher" (well, it WAS a long time ago.).
Netapp did not voluntarily release WAFL nor would one expect them to. For Sun to open-source IP that it did not own is NOT LEGAL OR CORRECT, assuming that Netapp's patents hold up to the prior art claims (and I think they will, since ZFS and its underpinnings came later).
Someone with a cynical view could concoct a few scenarios in which Sun DELIBERATELY open-sourced ZFS because perhaps they KNEW they would get crucified in a patent battle, and by open-sourcing it, they let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. They do say that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, right? Tagging Netapp with an 'anti-open-source' label gains an instant fan-base of many Linux freaks (I say 'freaks' affectionately as I am one), and comes with some real possible economic pain for Netapp, so maybe there was a mis-calculation that netapp would just let it be. A mis-calculation, by the way, that could have severe ramifications on Mr. Schwartz's employment I'm sure. The tone of jonathan's blog does wreak a bit of mad desperation, doesn't it?
Well enough of that. I'm going out with netapp tonight in san Francisco! :-)
Glenn (the other one)
Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
Glenn wrote:
Let me see if I got this straight: ZFS copied the snapshot technologies, and general way that WAFL works, which is patented by NetApp. Then released it to the open source community.
You got that about right.
What did I miss?
StorageTek's Iceberg product was where a lot of the concepts came from originally.
It's a matter of the judge & jury's preference and the questions that are put before them - should you be able to implement a technology solution concept with your code if you use some of the same algorithms? Did Sun actually see the source code and steal it? Who is a llowed to copy who? Who owns the original patents?
Looks like quite a circular argument to me.
It'll be interesting to see who wins.
FYI, FreeBSD is used primarily by GX based systems.
Classic ONTAP is proprietary, with some stuff borrowed from NetBSD (probably for portability across different processor architectures.)
Regards, Max
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:20 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
OK, here's what bugs me about Schwartz's comments.
He brings up FreeBSD, and Netapp's 'use' of this open-sourced OS on which Ontap is 'based' - let's just put the validity of that statement away for the time being because we'll start a whole fork of the conversation just on THAT (yeah, and Vista is based on MS-DOS 1).
He (jonathan) vilifies Netapp as hypocritical for using the open-sourced OS, yet trying to kill poor little open-sourced ZFS, insinuating that Netapp will approve of open-source when it suits them and fight it when it becomes inconvenient.
Here's the thing- BSD VOLUNTARILY open-sourced FreeBSD. It was THEIR CHOICE because THEY OWNED IT. Netapp didn't take SCO Unix (if they 'took' anything at all) and said "we'll use that, I found the code on Gopher" (well, it WAS a long time ago.).
Netapp did not voluntarily release WAFL nor would one expect them to. For Sun to open-source IP that it did not own is NOT LEGAL OR CORRECT, assuming that Netapp's patents hold up to the prior art claims (and I think they will, since ZFS and its underpinnings came later).
Someone with a cynical view could concoct a few scenarios in which Sun DELIBERATELY open-sourced ZFS because perhaps they KNEW they would get crucified in a patent battle, and by open-sourcing it, they let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. They do say that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, right? Tagging Netapp with an 'anti-open-source' label gains an instant fan-base of many Linux freaks (I say 'freaks' affectionately as I am one), and comes with some real possible economic pain for Netapp, so maybe there was a mis-calculation that netapp would just let it be. A mis-calculation, by the way, that could have severe ramifications on Mr. Schwartz's employment I'm sure. The tone of jonathan's blog does wreak a bit of mad desperation, doesn't it?
Well enough of that. I'm going out with netapp tonight in san Francisco! :-)
Glenn (the other one)
Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
Glenn wrote:
Let me see if I got this straight: ZFS copied the snapshot technologies, and general way that
WAFL works,
which is patented by NetApp. Then released it to the open source community.
You got that about right.
What did I miss?
StorageTek's Iceberg product was where a lot of the concepts came from originally.
It's a matter of the judge & jury's preference and the questions that are put before them - should you be able to implement a technology solution concept with your code if you use some of the same algorithms? Did Sun actually see the source code and steal it? Who is a llowed to copy who? Who owns the original patents?
Looks like quite a circular argument to me.
It'll be interesting to see who wins.
Last I heard years ago...
Portions of ONTAP we're borrowed from FreeBSD (like TCP). A number of years ago, all that borrowed code had been re-written, so much so that it could no longer be FreeBSD fragments.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: "Maxwell Reid" max.reid@saikonetworks.com
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:52:14 To:"'Glenn Dekhayser'" gdekhayser@voyantinc.com, toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
FYI, FreeBSD is used primarily by GX based systems.
Classic ONTAP is proprietary, with some stuff borrowed from NetBSD (probably for portability across different processor architectures.)
Regards, Max
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:20 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
OK, here's what bugs me about Schwartz's comments.
He brings up FreeBSD, and Netapp's 'use' of this open-sourced OS on which Ontap is 'based' - let's just put the validity of that statement away for the time being because we'll start a whole fork of the conversation just on THAT (yeah, and Vista is based on MS-DOS 1).
He (jonathan) vilifies Netapp as hypocritical for using the open-sourced OS, yet trying to kill poor little open-sourced ZFS, insinuating that Netapp will approve of open-source when it suits them and fight it when it becomes inconvenient.
Here's the thing- BSD VOLUNTARILY open-sourced FreeBSD. It was THEIR CHOICE because THEY OWNED IT. Netapp didn't take SCO Unix (if they 'took' anything at all) and said "we'll use that, I found the code on Gopher" (well, it WAS a long time ago.).
Netapp did not voluntarily release WAFL nor would one expect them to. For Sun to open-source IP that it did not own is NOT LEGAL OR CORRECT, assuming that Netapp's patents hold up to the prior art claims (and I think they will, since ZFS and its underpinnings came later).
Someone with a cynical view could concoct a few scenarios in which Sun DELIBERATELY open-sourced ZFS because perhaps they KNEW they would get crucified in a patent battle, and by open-sourcing it, they let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. They do say that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, right? Tagging Netapp with an 'anti-open-source' label gains an instant fan-base of many Linux freaks (I say 'freaks' affectionately as I am one), and comes with some real possible economic pain for Netapp, so maybe there was a mis-calculation that netapp would just let it be. A mis-calculation, by the way, that could have severe ramifications on Mr. Schwartz's employment I'm sure. The tone of jonathan's blog does wreak a bit of mad desperation, doesn't it?
Well enough of that. I'm going out with netapp tonight in san Francisco! :-)
Glenn (the other one)
Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
Glenn wrote:
Let me see if I got this straight: ZFS copied the snapshot technologies, and general way that
WAFL works,
which is patented by NetApp. Then released it to the open source community.
You got that about right.
What did I miss?
StorageTek's Iceberg product was where a lot of the concepts came from originally.
It's a matter of the judge & jury's preference and the questions that are put before them - should you be able to implement a technology solution concept with your code if you use some of the same algorithms? Did Sun actually see the source code and steal it? Who is a llowed to copy who? Who owns the original patents?
Looks like quite a circular argument to me.
It'll be interesting to see who wins.
I have no opinion nor expertise on the legal issues.
From an operations perspective ..
ZFS is a good thing. Open standards are a good thing. Cheaper and more capable hardware is a good thing. Lower operating costs are a good thing.
NetApp needs to adapt to reality.
Brian Dunbar Systems Administrator Plexus Desk: (920) 751-3364 Cell: (920) 716-2027
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of No More Linux! Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 9:31 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: The End of All Filers?
I agree to this except one thing...there has to be some profit for the folks that push above and beyond to create new things/functionality, otherwise R&D would not happen, or at least be a lot slower. We don't all want to go back to the dark ages where we had to listen to music off of tape or watch TV in low definition.
FOSS is awesome, but people still will tend to work harder when they get a Ferrari (or Tesla :p ) out of it.
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brian Dunbar Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:21 PM To: No More Linux!; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
I have no opinion nor expertise on the legal issues.
From an operations perspective ..
ZFS is a good thing. Open standards are a good thing. Cheaper and more capable hardware is a good thing. Lower operating costs are a good thing.
NetApp needs to adapt to reality.
Brian Dunbar Systems Administrator Plexus Desk: (920) 751-3364 Cell: (920) 716-2027
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of No More Linux! Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 9:31 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: The End of All Filers?
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting_from_a_troll
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may constitute a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this e-mail, and delete the message from your system. If you have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender immediately.
ZFS is a good thing - no argument
Open Standards are a good thing - agreed, and NetApp works very hard to follow many of them (and to help develop a few)
Cheaper and More Capable hardware is a good thing - yup. Sun servers aren't exactly 'commodity' though.
Lower Operating Costs are a good thing - agreed. NetApp is wonderful for lowering TCO.
It seems that NetApp, especially when compared to EMC/Hitachi/HP/ETC, does a great job at 'adopting to reality' and aggressively pricing things and providing innovation. At the same time, the point could be made that Linux on commodity hardware is more along the lines of reality (on the 4 points you mentioned) than Solaris on SUN hardware - and as a result, perhaps SUN could use a little bit of the medicine required to 'adopt to reality' as well...
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brian Dunbar Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:21 PM To: No More Linux!; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
I have no opinion nor expertise on the legal issues.
From an operations perspective ..
ZFS is a good thing. Open standards are a good thing. Cheaper and more capable hardware is a good thing. Lower operating costs are a good thing.
NetApp needs to adapt to reality.
Brian Dunbar Systems Administrator Plexus Desk: (920) 751-3364 Cell: (920) 716-2027
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of No More Linux! Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 9:31 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: The End of All Filers?
wafl vs zfs is an interesting debate but there are alot more products and technologies we use from NetApp that aids our business and lowers our support costs and administrative overhead. Think snapvault, snapmirror, flexclone, etc etc.
I am not sure I would want to buy some cheap equipment from vendor a, cheap drives from vendor b, install o/s + zfs support and now have to manage/tune/secure/etc said environment and provide the same level and reliability I currently have with our netapp infrastructure.
I have done all of that in the past soup to nuts and while it can lower budget and dollars spent cost it has the opposite effect on administrative and people costs--unless of course you "open source" your IT staff to a third world country. There is always a cost somewhere.
-- Daniel Leeds Manager, Storage Operations Edmunds, Inc. 1620 26th Street, Suite 400 South Santa Monica, CA 90404
310-309-4999 desk 310-430-0536 cell
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of Glenn Walker Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 12:05 PM To: Brian Dunbar; No More Linux!; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
ZFS is a good thing - no argument
Open Standards are a good thing - agreed, and NetApp works very hard to follow many of them (and to help develop a few)
Cheaper and More Capable hardware is a good thing - yup. Sun servers aren't exactly 'commodity' though.
Lower Operating Costs are a good thing - agreed. NetApp is wonderful for lowering TCO.
It seems that NetApp, especially when compared to EMC/Hitachi/HP/ETC, does a great job at 'adopting to reality' and aggressively pricing things and providing innovation. At the same time, the point could be made that Linux on commodity hardware is more along the lines of reality (on the 4 points you mentioned) than Solaris on SUN hardware - and as a result, perhaps SUN could use a little bit of the medicine required to 'adopt to reality' as well...
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brian Dunbar Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:21 PM To: No More Linux!; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
I have no opinion nor expertise on the legal issues.
From an operations perspective ..
ZFS is a good thing. Open standards are a good thing. Cheaper and more capable hardware is a good thing. Lower operating costs are a good thing.
NetApp needs to adapt to reality.
Brian Dunbar Systems Administrator Plexus Desk: (920) 751-3364 Cell: (920) 716-2027
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of No More Linux! Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 9:31 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: The End of All Filers?
My Oberservations:
ZFS is arguably an immature straight up WAFL clone. No performance numbers, and mixed anecdotal reviews. Not saying I don't like it or use(I do, you can do very cool things with it and zones) but ZFS + Computer != a NetApp filer.
I Don't know if ZFS it's a *technical* patent violation, but this part of the drama is very Netscape vs. Microsoft; not much SCO involved here.
Open Standards are a good thing, but this isn't a debate about standards. It's a debate about code and patents. NFS is a standard, WAFL and ZFS are not.
I think Open Source is a great thing; but CDDL is not exactly free as in freedom open source.
I think NetApp is doing to Sun what Sun did to Azul... They may not have meant to do that, but I do think Storage Tek lawyers were the first to kick the hornets nest; Most companies with IP portfolios will get more agressive with them when a company is being "dressed" for sale. I think Sun's tone deaf legal team compounded the error; I don't think they realized that NetApp is not like Azul... They have teeth and will bite back.
NetApp has been very open about posting their legal documents and filings... Sun has not. Maybe this is just inertia, and they'll throw something up soon enough, but I would be interested in seeing how they compare with Schwartz's postings.
Regards, Max
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Leeds, Daniel Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:24 PM To: Glenn Walker; Brian Dunbar; No More Linux!; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
wafl vs zfs is an interesting debate but there are alot more products and technologies we use from NetApp that aids our business and lowers our support costs and administrative overhead. Think snapvault, snapmirror, flexclone, etc etc.
I am not sure I would want to buy some cheap equipment from vendor a, cheap drives from vendor b, install o/s + zfs support and now have to manage/tune/secure/etc said environment and provide the same level and reliability I currently have with our netapp infrastructure.
I have done all of that in the past soup to nuts and while it can lower budget and dollars spent cost it has the opposite effect on administrative and people costs--unless of course you "open source" your IT staff to a third world country. There is always a cost somewhere.
-- Daniel Leeds Manager, Storage Operations Edmunds, Inc. 1620 26th Street, Suite 400 South Santa Monica, CA 90404
310-309-4999 desk 310-430-0536 cell
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of Glenn Walker Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 12:05 PM To: Brian Dunbar; No More Linux!; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
ZFS is a good thing - no argument
Open Standards are a good thing - agreed, and NetApp works very hard to follow many of them (and to help develop a few)
Cheaper and More Capable hardware is a good thing - yup. Sun servers aren't exactly 'commodity' though.
Lower Operating Costs are a good thing - agreed. NetApp is wonderful for lowering TCO.
It seems that NetApp, especially when compared to EMC/Hitachi/HP/ETC, does a great job at 'adopting to reality' and aggressively pricing things and providing innovation. At the same time, the point could be made that Linux on commodity hardware is more along the lines of reality (on the 4 points you mentioned) than Solaris on SUN hardware - and as a result, perhaps SUN could use a little bit of the medicine required to 'adopt to reality' as well...
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brian Dunbar Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:21 PM To: No More Linux!; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
I have no opinion nor expertise on the legal issues.
From an operations perspective ..
ZFS is a good thing. Open standards are a good thing. Cheaper and more capable hardware is a good thing. Lower operating costs are a good thing.
NetApp needs to adapt to reality.
Brian Dunbar Systems Administrator Plexus Desk: (920) 751-3364 Cell: (920) 716-2027
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of No More Linux! Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 9:31 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: The End of All Filers?
Actually if you read both Sun's and Netapp's blogs you will see that there is a big discrepency on how items are being presented. Dave Hitz is trying not to incorporate a lot of the hot topic words, while Jonathan Schwartz seems to be trying to encourage a bandwagon approach.
Technology stands aside, regardless of what you think of NetApp or Sun.
First the sequence of events.. Sun tried to sue NetApp, NetApp returned that by suing Sun about ZFS. Sun replied with counterclaims.
Jonathan claims Network Appliance sued Sun to try to stop the competitive impact of ZFS on their business. That's not true.
He also goes in to claim that they're upset, and associating NetApp with other corporations that just sue.
"Magical file system" ..
He claims that Sun has no interest in litigation..
In the Third paragraph, he claims "we file patents defensively". Well that is what NetApp did previously, and how they responded to Sun's original threat of litigation. So now it's ok for Sun to claim this after lambasting NetApp for doing this?
I think this whole thing is shady and puts my opinion of Sun and it's practices in a whole different light.
It's as if Jonathan Schwarz thinks we are all dumb, and can't process what we read. Sure, evaluate the claims on both sides. Nothing is ever absolute (other than that statement :). The sad thing is that there are some fanatics that will take Schwarz's blog as gospel.
I think the most annoying thing is that Jonathan Schwartz continues to mispell Network Appliance or NetApp.
I (heart) NetApps ;)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Jennifer Davis Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:02 PM To: Maxwell Reid Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: The End of All Filers?
Actually if you read both Sun's and Netapp's blogs you will see that there is a big discrepency on how items are being presented. Dave Hitz is trying not to incorporate a lot of the hot topic words, while Jonathan Schwartz seems to be trying to encourage a bandwagon approach.
Technology stands aside, regardless of what you think of NetApp or Sun.
First the sequence of events.. Sun tried to sue NetApp, NetApp returned that by suing Sun about ZFS. Sun replied with counterclaims.
Jonathan claims Network Appliance sued Sun to try to stop the competitive impact of ZFS on their business. That's not true.
He also goes in to claim that they're upset, and associating NetApp with
other corporations that just sue.
"Magical file system" ..
He claims that Sun has no interest in litigation..
In the Third paragraph, he claims "we file patents defensively". Well that is what NetApp did previously, and how they responded to Sun's original threat of litigation. So now it's ok for Sun to claim this after lambasting NetApp for doing this?
I think this whole thing is shady and puts my opinion of Sun and it's practices in a whole different light.
It's as if Jonathan Schwarz thinks we are all dumb, and can't process what we read. Sure, evaluate the claims on both sides. Nothing is ever absolute (other than that statement :). The sad thing is that there are
some fanatics that will take Schwarz's blog as gospel.
I think the most annoying thing is that Jonathan Schwartz continues to mispell Network Appliance or NetApp.
-
Brian Dunbar -
Clear, John -
Glenn Dekhayser -
Glenn Walker -
Jennifer Davis -
Leeds, Daniel -
Maxwell Reid -
No More Linux! -
Page, Jeremy -
Paul Rosham -
Scott Lowe -
Tim McCarthy