On 01/22/2013 09:28 AM, F. Ozbek wrote: > I seems to me, when Jon asked for an alternative to glusterfs and I said > to Jon you can look at > moosefs, I should be able to do that without 3 months of testing and data. It wasn't the recommendation to try MooseFS that offended me. Before I discovered some of its flaws I might have done so myself, and (as I've already mentioned in this thread) I'm still willing to recommend Ceph or XtreemFS as alternatives. It was the "failed in many ways (but we won't say how)" part that seemed non-constructive and FUDish. > However, it just turns out that we have the data and the tests, so we will > post it here. I have this feeling that the moment we do, Jeff will start > attacking us but honestly it is not for the benefit of Jeff it is for > the benefit of other's looking for an alternative. Can you clarify the difference between (potential) constructive criticism of your testing methods and interpretation of data, vs. an attack? Or is anything I say in response to be considered an attack before I even say it? No censorship has occurred here. If you're going to act like any slightly discouraging remark is a violation of free speech, what are we to make of your *preemptive* discouragement?
