On 01/20/2013 12:09 PM, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > Or is it healthy for everyone to be aware of the alternatives, whether for > their own use or as the competition? For general use, all the major distros > are great, and arguing over which is or isn't "enterprise class" only > reveals who is a fool for marketing campaigns. But for a specific use case, > there are times when a particular distro has a clear-cut advantage. Just to be clear, it was the "based on FUD" part that raised my ire, not the "recommended an alternative" part. I'm pretty sure I've recommended Ceph myself on this list, where I've felt it might be a better fit. I go out of my way to praise XtreemFS, because I don't think they get the recognition they deserve for a fine project. Directing people toward more suitable alternatives is IMO constructive, and therefore quite suitable for the list. On the other hand, "GlusterFS failed" without details is not constructive. IMO neither is suggesting an alternative that has its own rather serious problems or limitations, without warning people of those. It can lead them to follow one mistake with a worse one. The goal should be for people to help each other solve problems. To me it seemed that the post which triggered this would solve neither GlusterFS problems nor the user's, and quite likely wasn't even intended to. Had it done either, or at least shown some possibility, I would have responded differently. I hope that helps clarify where "the line" is, at least for me.
