I lack the ability to downvote you, but this comment is clearly a series of fallacies. You've assumed at least two things I don't see in evidence:
a) That the customers Sun served in 2004 didn't care about anything ten years away. That their time scale for data on disk was less than a decade. And that marketing to them about how ZFS planned for the future was not effective.
b) That building a 128-bit filesystem (as opposed to a 64-bit filesystem) substantially impacted the amount of time it took to engineer the filesystem or impacted the adoption rate by customers. Clearly those are not facts in evidence. Since we know that an integer behaves pretty much the same regardless of whether it's 32, 64, or 128 bits, it's probably safer to assume the opposite.
I take the opposite lesson: I think when planning your startup, a little thought into "are we representing data in a way which we can extend into the future?" is not a terrible idea, especially when the choice is between a 32, 64, or 128 bit integer.
a) That the customers Sun served in 2004 didn't care about anything ten years away. That their time scale for data on disk was less than a decade. And that marketing to them about how ZFS planned for the future was not effective.
b) That building a 128-bit filesystem (as opposed to a 64-bit filesystem) substantially impacted the amount of time it took to engineer the filesystem or impacted the adoption rate by customers. Clearly those are not facts in evidence. Since we know that an integer behaves pretty much the same regardless of whether it's 32, 64, or 128 bits, it's probably safer to assume the opposite.
I take the opposite lesson: I think when planning your startup, a little thought into "are we representing data in a way which we can extend into the future?" is not a terrible idea, especially when the choice is between a 32, 64, or 128 bit integer.