Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
What's amazing is that we were mocking OF 2.99 for being "static and abandoned for years" and that was 3.5 years ago! It has to be at least six years without any updates or movement now. And yet people still ask about it and deploy it? How does that happen? It has been a very, very long time since it was a very well publicized "never use" product.
-
@scottalanmiller but the OF website is nifty.
-
Which is worse, Free
BSDNAS or OpenFiler? -
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Which is worse, FreeBSD or OpenFiler?
FreeBSD is great, nothing wrong with that at all. OpenFiler has no purpose, ever. The two are totally not comparable.
-
Gah.. I meant FreeNAS sorry.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Gah.. I meant FreeNAS sorry.
FreeNAS, as well, is a good, solid product. I'm unclear why this new belief that I've said that it was not has come up. In my Jurassic Park paper I talk about it because of issues around it's cult-like community, and the problems with the idea of using non-appliance appliance products but never said that FreeNAS was questionable itself. FreeNAS is solid, it just has an unnecessary delay in updates and the overhead of unnecessary components. Why people select it is the problem, not the product itself. All of the problems that FreeNAS has (community, misuse) are so trivial that they are totally there with OpenFiler, but not ever mentioned, because the problems with OpenFiler are that the product itself is literally less than worthless. There is no association between the two things.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Gah.. I meant FreeNAS sorry.
FreeNAS, as well, is a good, solid product. I'm unclear why this new belief that I've said that it was not has come up. In my Jurassic Park paper I talk about it because of issues around it's cult-like community, and the problems with the idea of using non-appliance appliance products but never said that FreeNAS was questionable itself. FreeNAS is solid, it just has an unnecessary delay in updates and the overhead of unnecessary components. Why people select it is the problem, not the product itself. All of the problems that FreeNAS has (community, misuse) are so trivial that they are totally there with OpenFiler, but not ever mentioned, because the problems with OpenFiler are that the product itself is literally less than worthless. There is no association between the two things.
FreeNAS, as well, is a good, solid product. I'm unclear why this new belief that I've said that it was not has come up.
Because you did say it
-
@stacksofplates Read carefully what I said, I said that the IDEA was bad for all of those. Appliances without appliances, it's a bad idea. But FreeNAS is good within the context of the bad idea. Saying that the idea is bad and that people should not use things of that nature is not saying that the product is bad. You can make an excellent product that has no use case.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates Read carefully what I said, I said that the IDEA was bad for all of those. Appliances without appliances, it's a bad idea. But FreeNAS is good within the context of the bad idea. Saying that the idea is bad and that people should not use things of that nature is not saying that the product is bad. You can make an excellent product that has no use case.
"FreeNAS makes no sense, IMHO, ever.....But FreeNAS, never, because FreeBSD, at minimum is always better."
So a product that you would rarely use is always better than FreeNAS, but somehow it's a solid product...... That's not saying the idea is bad, that's saying the product is bad.
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates Read carefully what I said, I said that the IDEA was bad for all of those. Appliances without appliances, it's a bad idea. But FreeNAS is good within the context of the bad idea. Saying that the idea is bad and that people should not use things of that nature is not saying that the product is bad. You can make an excellent product that has no use case.
"FreeNAS makes no sense, IMHO, ever.....But FreeNAS, never, because FreeBSD, at minimum is always better."
So a product that you would rarely use is always better than FreeNAS, but somehow it's a solid product...... That's not saying the idea is bad, that's saying the product is bad.
Nope, it really is not. Read the words very carefully and try not to look for something being implied, it's exactly what it says. It's a good implementation of a bad idea. It's well done, but there is no reason to ever use it. The idea is what is bad.
Just like you can have a good SAN but the idea of an IPOD is bad.
FreeBSD is always better than FreeNAS, but one thing being always better doesn't make another thing bad. But it does rule it out from use cases.
-
And that FreeBSD is rarely used is not a factor. It's not rarely used because it is bad, it is rarely used because it is poorly known and it's strengths are not broad or extreme enough to overcome those factors. You are reading stuff into the statements that are not there.
-
FreeBSD is excellent, but who are you going to find to support it? Most cloud providers don't support it and most hypervisors only marginally support it and some don't even officially. It's super stable and loaded with features, nothing wrong with it at all. But that alone is not enough to cause me to use it commonly. In the context of storage, which is all that those statements are made in, we only use FreeBSD when we need ZFS RAIDZ3 or other very unique features. Otherwise we use the faster storage systems of other products. FreeBSD is not the fastest, but it has unique features. If you don't need those unique features, why would you choose it?
Make sense? Nothing there implies that it is bad. Rarely used and bad are different kinds of concepts. I rarely fly, I drove normally. But that doesn't imply that the Boeing 777 is a bad plane.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates Read carefully what I said, I said that the IDEA was bad for all of those. Appliances without appliances, it's a bad idea. But FreeNAS is good within the context of the bad idea. Saying that the idea is bad and that people should not use things of that nature is not saying that the product is bad. You can make an excellent product that has no use case.
"FreeNAS makes no sense, IMHO, ever.....But FreeNAS, never, because FreeBSD, at minimum is always better."
So a product that you would rarely use is always better than FreeNAS, but somehow it's a solid product...... That's not saying the idea is bad, that's saying the product is bad.
Nope, it really is not. Read the words very carefully and try not to look for something being implied, it's exactly what it says. It's a good implementation of a bad idea. It's well done, but there is no reason to ever use it. The idea is what is bad.
Just like you can have a good SAN but the idea of an IPOD is bad.
FreeBSD is always better than FreeNAS, but one thing being always better doesn't make another thing bad. But it does rule it out from use cases.
No. Let's dissect this word-smithing.
It's a good implementation of a bad idea.
That's not what it says at all. You are now looking for something implied. You literally said makes no sense ever, and you would never use it.
Just like you can have a good SAN but the idea of an IPOD is bad.
It's a nice straw man, but if anything the IPOD argument proves my point. In that argument the IPOD is the same as FreeNAS.
But it does rule it out from use cases.
And according to you, all use cases, which means it's a bad product. You can't have a "solid product" built on a bad idea. If you could, then it's possible to have a "solid" IPOD.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
And that FreeBSD is rarely used is not a factor. It's not rarely used because it is bad, it is rarely used because it is poorly known and it's strengths are not broad or extreme enough to overcome those factors. You are reading stuff into the statements that are not there.
No one said it was rarely used because it was bad. You are implying things that aren't there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Nothing there implies that it is bad. Rarely used and bad are different kinds of concepts.
Again, I never said that. But they aren't really. I rarely use my truck, because it's bad. They can be different, but not always.
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
That's not what it says at all. You are now looking for something implied. You literally said makes no sense ever, and you would never use it.
Correct, because the idea was bad and it was not as good as FreeBSD for the same purposes. Second best doesn't make it bad, but does mean you'd never use it. It's that simple.
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Just like you can have a good SAN but the idea of an IPOD is bad.
It's a nice straw man, but if anything the IPOD argument proves my point. In that argument the IPOD is the same as FreeNAS.
No, in my example a software appliance without support is the IPOD, FreeNAS is the SAN. If you want to make a new example go ahead, but you misunderstood my example.
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
And according to you, all use cases, which means it's a bad product. You can't have a "solid product" built on a bad idea. If you could, then it's possible to have a "solid" IPOD.
That's a decent argument, but it's an argument on its own. My argument is that the idea of an IPOD is bad, but you can have a good SAN that someone uses in an IPOD poorly. FreeNAS IS a bad idea - layering extra stuff on FreeBSD that isn't needed that weakens it, but it is solid on its own, just no use case for it. If FreeBSD didn't exist, it would be an excellent product. That's where it is different than your examples, it is surpassed, just slightly, by another product in every way (or equal.) Being second without a redeeming feature doesn't make you bad, but does rule you out from consideration.
I can accept that, but it was not my intent to say that a bad idea conceptually makes a product bad, just makes it something you wouldn't buy or choose. Especially in a case where good ideas are available.
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates Read carefully what I said, I said that the IDEA was bad for all of those. Appliances without appliances, it's a bad idea. But FreeNAS is good within the context of the bad idea. Saying that the idea is bad and that people should not use things of that nature is not saying that the product is bad. You can make an excellent product that has no use case.
"FreeNAS makes no sense, IMHO, ever.....But FreeNAS, never, because FreeBSD, at minimum is always better."
So a product that you would rarely use is always better than FreeNAS, but somehow it's a solid product...... That's not saying the idea is bad, that's saying the product is bad.
So what did you mean here by your statement if not to say that FreeBSD was bad because of rare use? If that is not what you meant, what did you mean? By what logic is FreeNAS bad by nature of being less used than FreeBSD unless that rare use is what you think makes it bad? And why mention that FreeBSD is rarely used and using that as the foundation of FreeNAS being bad if that was not the intention?
I read it the only way I could figure out to read it. What did you mean caused FreeNAS to be bad and what was the function of mentioning it in the context of FreeBSD being rarely used if you didn't mean that?
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Nothing there implies that it is bad. Rarely used and bad are different kinds of concepts.
Again, I never said that. But they aren't really. I rarely use my truck, because it's bad. They can be different, but not always.
They absolutely are different. That you can find a situation where one leads to the other does not imply that they are connected. Any example where they are not connected proves that. That's how connection works. Like being old makes you a woman. Sure many old people are women, but it's not being a woman that makes you old.
