| > That assumes too much You've been assuming a crap load of stuff as well when it suits your argument. Like having a pre-prepared USB key to begin with. > For example, that you have a network connection while booted from the live media. You may not have one; then you cannot run apt/yum and you need persistent media that you prepared somewhere else. (Happened to me). Indeed. You might also not have a CD drive on the host (happened to me), or any blank CD-Rs, or a CD burner on your workstation. Or the internet connection might not work on your workstation either. But then most of those arguments can be made for creating a USB key as well so your point is moot. In fact my latest workstation (Macbook Pro) only has USB-C so I couldn't use my USB keys when I went to install Linux on that. My point is, if you're looking for ways to nitpick, there are plenty for your examples as well. In fact there will be a thousand different exceptions for any solution you could dream up. Thus is the nature of working in IT. > Just installing minimal distro on USB takes a better chunk of that time. Arguably yes but that also takes longer and your original point was about getting stuff done as quickly as possible. So you're now contradicting yourself. > When you are doing something non-standard - and installing ZFS on Linux is pretty nonstandard - you know in advance that the normal live media won't work. Except the whole point of this tangent is me demonstrating where it does work. > It's prudent to have something prepared, if/when SHTF event occurs. Now you're arguing a different point to the point I was discussing. I'm not going to disagree with you there (since I've already discussed I run a PXE server for situations like these) but that wasn't the topic we were discussing. I seriously just think you're now just arguing for the sake of winning an internet argument. I'm not going to argue with you that a CD is better than USB because it's pretty obvious that isn't the case. But that wasn't the point I was discussing. So for the benefit of my own sanity can we please get back onto topic: you can use live CDs to repair a degraded system running ZFS. Sure there will be occasions when you cannot; but that's the case when doing anything in IT (and thus why use sysadmins get to command such a good wage). But generally you can. And I literally have. Many times in fact. So enough with the dumb "death by a thousand paper cuts" and goal post moving arguments please. |
You are still conveniently ignoring what I said: if you want to install system with ZFS root, you have to make it. That's also the reason why I have it. I just didn't throw it away after the installation.
> Except the whole point of this tangent is me demonstrating where it does work.
Yes, if everything is aligned right, it can work.
> I seriously just think you're now just arguing for the sake of winning an internet argument.
You are free to think whatever you want.
> you can use live CDs to repair a degraded system running ZFS.
Yes, under certain conditions. How they apply in your environment is up to you to assess.
> Sure there will be occasions when you cannot; but that's the case when doing anything in IT (and thus why use sysadmins get to command such a good wage). But generally you can. And I literally have. Many times in fact. So enough with the dumb "death by a thousand paper cuts" and goal post moving arguments please.
It's not goal post moving, it's what happens. Having a livecd that supports your configuration is advantageous to not having it. Being able to download a ready-mady one is advantageous to having to make it. Etc.
So when I can choose between freebsd or opensolaris iso and native system that fully support whatever I need (that was the original issue, remember?), of course I will choose the latter, or having the latter available is preferred.