Talk:Oracle ZFS

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on ZFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://zfs.macosforge.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article mentions datasets, but does not explain what that is.  -- Juergen 87.175.215.51 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  datasets 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ZFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714005700/http://shell.peach.ne.jp/aoyama/ to http://shell.peach.ne.jp/aoyama/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170223222515/https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/en_US/entry/you_say_zeta_i_say to https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/en_US/entry/you_say_zeta_i_say
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We have 2 articles covering pretty much 3 almost-identical/overlapping "meanings" of ZFS (as seen from a Wikipedia perspective). They probably have 99% overlap. They are:
# ZFS the filing system, covering what ZFS is and how it works, and its history as a filing system, and then two specific major implementations of ZFS:
# Oracle's ZFS (an implementation by Oracle) and 
# illumos and OpenZFS's ZFS (a second implementation technically managed by two teams, also refers to the project/team; their implementation was originally based on Oracle's wayyy back in 2006 but has been independent for many years). 
The implementations of ZFS themselves are probably about 99.9%  identical for the purposes of our coverage. Once ZFS itself is described, the histories of Oracle's and OpenZFS' versions, and any differences, would probably fit into quite a modestly sized/small section however we organize these topics.
Right now the ZFS article is a bit disingenuous. Our article on OpenZFS is fine, but our coverage of ZFS in depth (where users looking up the filing system will inevitably go), is within our article at ZFS ... and that article portrays ZFS as an Oracle product, and written by Oracle, despite that for over 10 years it's been two distinct forks, one of which has nothing at all to do with Oracle since about the days of the Pentium 4.
What to do? I don't want to leave the ZFS article representing ZFS as "Oracle", because 50% of it isn't, and that 50% is also used in far more operating systems and operating system installations than Oracle's. On the other hand to merge them (which feels sensible TBH) would replace OpenZFS by either a redirect to ZFS, or a short article with two sections ("details of ZFS" + "OpenZFS" history) almost all of which would be repeated pretty much identically or in more detail in ZFS anyhow. I've patched it a bit but it still needs dealing with.
I feel like these two articles really should be fully merged from a strictly wiki perspective, and the merged article should then emphasize both variants equally and cover their history. It would add almost nothing (lengthwise) to the ZFS article. Normal handling of very similar/overlapping topics also suggests this approach. But I have a bit of a concern that this could upset some users who might potentially be quite attached to continuing to have a specific OpenZFS-specific article. 
An alternative would be to redo the split, and refactor into two articles called ZFS and Implementations of ZFS, the first covering the file system, the second covering the two variants and their histories.
Hence this RFC, to seek community views on covering these topics in a single article that's neutral to both implementations, or two articles splitting the topic between ZFS itself vs specific implementations. How should these related topics be presented?
I've also specifically asked User:Dsimic's comments, as the contributor who has made the majority of edits at OpenZFS.
FT2 (Talk | email) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of issue

message: Refactor.  The article is quite long and I like the techie stuff away from the history stuff as I'm likely to be interested in one or the other at any particular point in time.  Currently mulling about article naming and a couple of other issues.  May be a bit of a pity to disrupt the openZFS article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Hi, fellow Wikipedians!
As ZFS is a trademark belonging to Oracle, I don't think it's appropriate to lump together the open-source fork and the closed-source repo. Besides, the development of Oracle ZFS is pretty much unknown now because of its closed-source nature. Any publicly available feature additions should go to OpenZFS. Tomskyhaha (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating ZFS and OpenZFS 

message: I removed glossary and advice in these edits:
It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to teach how to use ZFS. If anyone is interested in writing a detailed guide to ZFS, they can post it on the OpenZFS wiki or on Wikibooks. There are some manuals for open-source projects on Wikibooks already. 
As noted in WP:!:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:
# Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.The how-to restriction does not apply to the project namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
# Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
Tomskyhaha (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice and glossary removed 

message: *Suggestion I could move this back to ZFS per the status quo but I don't particularly want to revert 's good faith edits to the article. What if we were to move History and implementations of ZFS to ZFS with the idea of making this a general article about the file system, suitable for the general reader? Then the other two articles could stay where they are. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the suggestion per  and refinement by ; albeit not planning at this time to assist in any implementation.  It is hopefully a normalisation that has the potential for reducing WP:CFORK and should have the potential to able to appeal to those needing an overview of ZFS or have touched it and are interested to see its progression.  Small details pertaining to particular version are best left to the manuals or WikiBooks.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Count me in. This approach could solve the links to ZFS problem mentioned by  while not blurring the line between Oracle ZFS, OpenZFS and other distributions / implementations. Tomskyhaha (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be desirable to move Oracle ZFS to ZFS (Oracle filesystem), ZFS (proprietary filesystem) or something similar, as  noted above, Oracle ZFS is not supported by popular usage. Tomskyhaha (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  The current title seems to be a good-faith but misguided attempt at natural disambiguation. Certes (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I can also help.  I have a computing background and Sun experience but have never used any form of ZFS in anger.  I think that most of the Oracle ZFS article is actually about ZFS in general and should move into ZFS.  For example (or if you enjoy irony), compare OpenZFS#Deduplication with Oracle ZFS#Deduplication. Certes (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Looks fine to me. Although the article name Oracle ZFS might warrant further discussion. --Tomskyhaha (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: How do we best go about reorganising the articles?  A 2018 RfC and subsequent edits left us with three articles: ZFS, Oracle ZFS and OpenZFS.  The last two have substantial duplication: the white parts of  and the text omitted from it.  Do we want ZFS to contain details common to all ZFS versions, with the other two articles opening with a brief summary but concentrating on Oracle-specific and OpenZFS-specific details?  Essentially it would mean moving the white text, suitably organised, into ZFS.  That would split both the history and the technical detail across three articles but may still be the best way to proceed.  What do others think?  Certes (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. Although the article name Oracle ZFS might warrant further discussion. --Tomskyhaha (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post RM 

message: proposes merging this article (currently titled Oracle ZFS) with ZFS.  There is clear continuity between the subject matter of ZFS (the pre-2010 open-source versions) and this article (Oracle's proprietary releases).  However, much of the content of ZFS (#Features, #Limitations, #Data recovery) applies to OpenZFS as much as to [Oracle] ZFS, which is why it was duplicated and is now a separate article.  We shouldn't give the impression that ZFS is an Oracle product and these are its exclusive features.
If we do plan to merge, we should first agree which of the two pages lives on as the "main article" (probably this one, as its history is longer) and what its title should be (I !vote for "ZFS" with a prominent hatnote to OpenZFS).  Pinging , who moved this article from the title ZFS last month. Certes (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregard. I see this discussion already took place recently and the decision was to leave it as is. I don't really support that decision, but I will respect it. Removing hatnote. Kstern (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger