zfs discuss - Aug 2010 - ZFS development moving behind closed doors

If this information is correct,

    http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043

further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with no public distributions.  The community has been abandoned.

-- 
-Gary Mills-        -Unix Group-        -Computer and Network Services-

On 13-8-2010 22:43, Gary Mills wrote:
> If this information is correct,
>
>      http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
>
> further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
> Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
> with no public distributions.  The community has been abandoned.
True and very sad. I changed my LAN back to FreeBSD. It does not even 
come close to OpenSolaris but it is stable and it is developed and open. 
And it (still) has ZFS support. I wonder for how long..

Gary Mills wrote:
> If this information is correct,
>
>     http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
>
> further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
> Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
> with no public distributions.  The community has been abandoned.
>   
It was a community of system administrators and nearly no developers.  
While this may make big news the real impact is probably pretty small.  
Source code updates will get tossed over the fence and developer 
partners (Intel) will still have access to onnv-gate.

In a way i see this as a very good thing.  It will not *force* the 
existing (small) community of companies and developers to band together 
to actually work together.  From there the real open source momentum can 
happen instead of everyone depending on Sun/Oracle to give them a free 
lunch.  The first step that I''ve been adamant about is making it easier
for developers to play and get their hands on it..  If "we" can enable
that it''ll swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does or 
doesn''t do...

Just my 0.02$

./C

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:01:07PM -0700, "C. Bergstr?m"
wrote:
> Gary Mills wrote:
> > If this information is correct,
> >
> >     http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
> >
> > further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
> > Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
> > with no public distributions.  The community has been abandoned.
> >   
> It was a community of system administrators and nearly no developers.  
> While this may make big news the real impact is probably pretty small.  
> Source code updates will get tossed over the fence and developer 
> partners (Intel) will still have access to onnv-gate.
I''m interested to see how this plays out in actuality.  It almost
sounded like source code wouldn''t necessarily be shared until major
release were made... which would obviously make it hard for third party
ZFS vendors to "keep up" in the interim.

I guess most of this is still hear-say at this point, but if you''ve
read somewhere where Oracle has stated they plan to continuously share
source code and updates throughout their development processes (not
just at release time), it''d be good to see...
> 
> In a way i see this as a very good thing.  It will not *force* the 
> existing (small) community of companies and developers to band together 
> to actually work together.  From there the real open source momentum can 
> happen instead of everyone depending on Sun/Oracle to give them a free 
> lunch.  The first step that I''ve been adamant about is making it
easier
> for developers to play and get their hands on it..  If "we" can
enable
> that it''ll swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does
or
> doesn''t do...
> 
> Just my 0.02$

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
> I''m interested to see how this plays out in actuality.  It almost
> sounded like source code wouldn''t necessarily be shared until
major
> release were made... which would obviously make it hard for third party
> ZFS vendors to "keep up" in the interim.
You are right that this internal document does not describe when 
source would be released.  Perhaps it might be released after every 
update release, or it might be released every seven years.

My own feeling is that existing engineers inherited from Sun may have 
some strong personal feelings about this and may feel betrayed if 
Oracle (again) does not do what it said it was going to do.  Betrayed 
engineers may jump ship for the competition.  High caliber engineers 
are very difficult to obtain.

Bob
-- 
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

On 8/14/10 4:01 AM +0700 "C. Bergstr?m" wrote:
> Gary Mills wrote:
>> If this information is correct,
>>
>>     http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
>>
>> further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
>> Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
>> with no public distributions.  The community has been abandoned.
>>
> It was a community of system administrators and nearly no developers.
> While this may make big news the real impact is probably pretty small.
I agree!
> Source code updates will get tossed over the fence and developer partners
> (Intel) will still have access to onnv-gate.
>
> In a way i see this as a very good thing.  It will not *force* the
                                                     ^^^
You must have meant "now"?
> existing (small) community of companies and developers to band together
> to actually work together.  From there the real open source momentum can
> happen instead of everyone depending on Sun/Oracle to give them a free
> lunch.  The first step that I''ve been adamant about is making it
easier
> for developers to play and get their hands on it..  If "we" can
enable
> that it''ll swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does
or
> doesn''t do...
Interesting POV, and I agree.  Most of the many "distributions" of
OpenSolaris had very little value-add.  Nexenta was the most interesting
and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?

-frank

On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
>Interesting POV, and I agree.  Most of the many "distributions" of
>OpenSolaris had very little value-add.  Nexenta was the most interesting
>and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?
These distributions are, in theory, the "gateway drug" where people
can experiment inexpensively to try out new technologies (ZFS, dtrace,
crossbow, comstar, etc.) and eventually step up to Oracle''s "big
iron"
as their business grows.

--eric

-- 
Eric D. Mudama
edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org

On 8/13/2010 at 8:56 PM Eric D. Mudama wrote:

|On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
|>Interesting POV, and I agree.  Most of the many "distributions"
of
|>OpenSolaris had very little value-add.  Nexenta was the most
interesting
|>and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their
expense?
|
|These distributions are, in theory, the "gateway drug" where people
|can experiment inexpensively to try out new technologies (ZFS, dtrace,
|crossbow, comstar, etc.) and eventually step up to Oracle''s "big
iron"
|as their business grows.
 ============
Think: strategic business advantage.  

Oracle are not stupid, they recognize a jewel when they see one.

"Mike M" <the.lists at mgm51.com> wrote:
> Think: strategic business advantage.  
>
> Oracle are not stupid, they recognize a jewel when they see one.
Too bad that they decided to throw it into acid.....

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
>> Interesting POV, and I agree.  Most of the many
"distributions" of
>> OpenSolaris had very little value-add.  Nexenta was the most
interesting
>> and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?
>
> These distributions are, in theory, the "gateway drug" where
people
> can experiment inexpensively to try out new technologies (ZFS, dtrace,
> crossbow, comstar, etc.) and eventually step up to Oracle''s
"big iron"
> as their business grows.
I''ve never understood how OpenSolaris was supposed to get you to
Solaris.
OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta.
Solaris lags so far behind it''s not really an upgrade path.

On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
>> Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many
"distributions" of
>> OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
>> and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?
>
> These distributions are, in theory, the "gateway drug" where
people
> can experiment inexpensively to try out new technologies (ZFS, dtrace,
> crossbow, comstar, etc.) and eventually step up to Oracle''s
"big iron"
> as their business grows.
>I''ve never understood how OpenSolaris was supposed to get you to
Solaris.
>OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta.
>Solaris lags so far behind it''s not really an upgrade path.
Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial
Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent.

Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the
Solaris code quality.

It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it''s niche on SPARC
over the next few years.

Mark.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass rambled on
about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into cloud
computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing, apart from
him... :-| From that day on I felt enlightened about Oracle and how they
want do business; they are run by a CEO who is narrow minded and clearly
doesn''t understand Open Source or  cloud computing and Oracle are very,
very
greedy...

I only hope that OpenSolaris can live on the Illumos project and assist
great projects such as Nexentastor.

http://www.illumos.org/

K

On 15 August 2010 00:02, Mark Bennett <mark.bennett at public.co.nz>
wrote:
> On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
> >> Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many
"distributions" of
> >> OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most
interesting
> >> and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their
expense?
> >
> > These distributions are, in theory, the "gateway drug" where
people
> > can experiment inexpensively to try out new technologies (ZFS, dtrace,
> > crossbow, comstar, etc.) and eventually step up to Oracle''s
"big iron"
> > as their business grows.
>
> >I''ve never understood how OpenSolaris was supposed to get you
to Solaris.
> >OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta.
> >Solaris lags so far behind it''s not really an upgrade path.
>
> Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial
> Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent.
>
> Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the
> Solaris code quality.
>
> It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it''s niche on
SPARC over
> the next few years.
>
> Mark.
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100815/2679d8d4/attachment.html>

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mark Bennett wrote:
>
> It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it''s niche on
SPARC over the next few years.
The probability of a "retreat to SPARC" direction is virtually zero. 
SPARC offers advantages in scalability, but its straight-line 
performance pales compared to current Intel and AMD CPUs.  There is 
little indication that Oracle will change this situation.

Bob
-- 
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

On 8/15/10 12:39 AM +0100 Kevin Walker wrote:
> and Oracle are very, very greedy...
Let''s not get all soft about OpenSolaris now ... all public companies
are very, very greedy.  They exist solely to make money.  It''s awesome
that they make things that are useful, but it''s just a way to meet
the main objective: make money and lots of it.  In fact, as much as
they possibly can.

Sun didn''t open source Solaris out of the goodness of its heart or some
misguided CSR program.  They did it because they were desperate.  Sun''s
business plan happened to be helped along by open sourcing Solaris, but
that doesn''t make Sun less greedy.

Oracle: very, very greedy
Apple: very, very greedy
Microsoft: very, very greedy
Sun: [was] very, very greedy (just not good at it)
Fortune 1000: very, very greedy
...

On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
> Interesting POV, and I agree.  Most of the many "distributions"
of
> OpenSolaris had very little value-add.  Nexenta was the most interesting
> and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?

Markets dictate behaviour. Oracle has clearly stated their goal of focusing
the Sun-acquired assets at the Fortune-500 market.  Nexenta has a different 
market -- the rest of the world. There is plenty of room for both to be
successful.
 -- richard

-- 
Richard Elling
richard at nexenta.com   +1-760-896-4422
Enterprise class storage for everyone
www.nexenta.com

> Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial
Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent.
>
> Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the
Solaris code quality.
I think code quality has nothing to do with open-sourcing or not ... it has
something to do with development processes. And by the way: Wasn''t
there a comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound move their
low-quality code into the codebase ??????? ;)

-- 
ORACLE
Joerg Moellenkamp | Sales Consultant
Phone: +49 40 251523-460 | Mobile: +49 172 8318433
Oracle Hardware Presales - Nord

ORACLE Deutschland B.V.&  Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V.&  Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603

Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Rijnzathe 6, 3454PV De Meern, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven

Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the
environment

On Aug 14, 2010, at 19:39, Kevin Walker wrote:
> I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass  
> rambled on
> about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting  
> into cloud
> computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing,  
> apart from
> him... :-|
If this is the video you''re talking about, I think you misinterpreted  
what he meant:
> Cloud computing is not only the future of computing, but it is the  
> present, and the entire past of computing is all cloud. [...] All it  
> is is a computer connected to a network. What do you think Google  
> runs on? Do you think they run on water vapour? It''s databases,
and
> operating systems, and memory, and microprocessors, and the  
> Internet. And all of a sudden it''s none of that, it''s
"the cloud".
> [...] All "the cloud" is, is computers on a network, in terms of
> technology. In terms of business model, you can say it''s rental.
All
> SalesForce.com was, before they were cloud computing, was software- 
> as-a-service, and then they became cloud computing. [...] Our  
> industry is so bizarre: they change a term and think they invented  
> technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmrxN3GWHpM#t=45m

I don''t see any inaccurate in what said.

FWIW I''m making a significant bet that Nexenta plus Illumos will be the
future for the space in which I operate.

I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta before
Oracle''s cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my decision.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 07:38 -0700, Richard Jahnel wrote:
> FWIW I''m making a significant bet that Nexenta plus Illumos will
be the future for the space in which I operate.
> 
> I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
before Oracle''s cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my
decision.

It warms my heart to hear you say that. :-)  After all, I made a similar
bet with my career. :-)

	- Garrett

To be fair, he did talk some sense about how everyone was claiming to have a
product that was cloud computing, but I still don''t like Oracle. With
there
current Java Patent war with Google and now this with OpenSolaris, it leaves
a very bad taste in my mouth.

Will this affect ZFS being used in FreeBSD?

On 15 August 2010 15:13, David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2010, at 19:39, Kevin Walker wrote:
>
>  I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass rambled
>> on
>> about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into
>> cloud
>> computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing, apart
from
>> him... :-|
>>
>
> If this is the video you''re talking about, I think you
misinterpreted what
> he meant:
>
>  Cloud computing is not only the future of computing, but it is the
>> present, and the entire past of computing is all cloud. [...] All it is
is a
>> computer connected to a network. What do you think Google runs on? Do
you
>> think they run on water vapour? It''s databases, and operating
systems, and
>> memory, and microprocessors, and the Internet. And all of a sudden
it''s none
>> of that, it''s "the cloud". [...] All "the
cloud" is, is computers on a
>> network, in terms of technology. In terms of business model, you can
say
>> it''s rental. All SalesForce.com was, before they were cloud
computing, was
>> software-as-a-service, and then they became cloud computing. [...] Our
>> industry is so bizarre: they change a term and think they invented
>> technology.
>>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmrxN3GWHpM#t=45m
>
> I don''t see any inaccurate in what said.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100815/6bde1730/attachment.html>

On 8/14/10 10:18 PM -0700 Richard Elling wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
>> Interesting POV, and I agree.  Most of the many
"distributions" of
>> OpenSolaris had very little value-add.  Nexenta was the most
interesting
>> and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?
>
>
> Markets dictate behaviour. Oracle has clearly stated their goal of
> focusing the Sun-acquired assets at the Fortune-500 market.  Nexenta has
> a different  market -- the rest of the world. There is plenty of room for
> both to be successful.  -- richard
Great point.

"I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
before Oracle''s cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my
decision. "

Us too. :)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Sunday 15 August 2010 11:56:22 Joerg Moellenkamp
wrote:
> And by the way: Wasn''t there a
> comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound move their
> low-quality code into the codebase ??????? ;)
Yeah, those codes should be put into the "staging" part of the
codebase, so
that (more) people can work on it to insufficient quality code with a great 
idea behind better until it meets the quality of the mainline kernel.

As you rightly pointed out, this is a development model which works nicely 
with open source in an open environment where developers are all around the 
globe and have a largely varying programming skill. I don''t think that 
something like this would work in a (possibly much smaller) corporate 
environment/software engineering group.

That said, I think it''s actually a very good thing, to have this
opportunity
to push low-quality/non-conforming software into a controlled environment for 
polishing.

Cheers

Carsten

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM, David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>
wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2010, at 19:39, Kevin Walker wrote:
>
>> I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass
rambled
>> on
>> about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into
>> cloud
>> computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing, apart
from
>> him... :-|
>
> If this is the video you''re talking about, I think you
misinterpreted what
> he meant:
>
>> Cloud computing is not only the future of computing, but it is the
>> present, and the entire past of computing is all cloud. [...] All it is
is a
>> computer connected to a network. What do you think Google runs on? Do
you
>> think they run on water vapour? It''s databases, and operating
systems, and
>> memory, and microprocessors, and the Internet. And all of a sudden
it''s none
>> of that, it''s "the cloud". [...] All "the
cloud" is, is computers on a
>> network, in terms of technology. In terms of business model, you can
say
>> it''s rental. All SalesForce.com was, before they were cloud
computing, was
>> software-as-a-service, and then they became cloud computing. [...] Our
>> industry is so bizarre: they change a term and think they invented
>> technology.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmrxN3GWHpM#t=45m
>
> I don''t see any inaccurate in what said.
Indeed; even waaay before the SaaSillyness, they were know as service bureaus:

http://drcoddwasright.blogspot.com/2009/07/cloud-lucy-in-sky-with-razorblades.html

On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:

> OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta.
> Solaris lags so far behind it''s not really an upgrade path.
It''s often hard for OSS-minded people to believe, but there are an
awful lot of places that actively DO NOT want the latest and greatest, and for
good reason.  They let the pioneers get the arrows in the back.  Their main
concern is stability over all else.  Gee-whiz new features might seem great to
someone who''s used top patching their Fedora installation with 32
patches every morning, but for critical high-availability stuff that absolutely,
positive, can NEVER go down, staying comfortably in the middle ground is the
ideal strategy.  Sun''s own white papers on patching advise that the
best practice for patching is "do it when there''s a specific
reason".

Solaris isn''t "so far behind".  It''s right exactly
where the market wants it.  There are plenty of bleeding-edge operating systems
out there for those who prefer to live on the edge.  As a Solaris sysadmin,
would I like to use all the nifty geegaws on my production systems that I use on
my desktop?  Sure, in a perfect world I''d be able to do that.  But
that''s not the reality, and I''m not risking the business or my
job on anything less than ten thousand percent tested for years before adopting
it.

"Newer" != "better".
----------
Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.com.

THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL.  This e-mail message and any attachments are
proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the
recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not
print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments.  If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail
and delete this message and any attachments from your computer.

On 8/18/2010 12:24 PM, Linder, Doug wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
>
>
>> OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta.
>> Solaris lags so far behind it''s not really an upgrade path.
> It''s often hard for OSS-minded people to believe, but there are an
awful lot of places that actively DO NOT want the latest and greatest, and for
good reason.  They let the pioneers get the arrows in the back.  Their main
concern is stability over all else.  Gee-whiz new features might seem great to
someone who''s used top patching their Fedora installation with 32
patches every morning, but for critical high-availability stuff that absolutely,
positive, can NEVER go down, staying comfortably in the middle ground is the
ideal strategy.  Sun''s own white papers on patching advise that the
best practice for patching is "do it when there''s a specific
reason".
>
> Solaris isn''t "so far behind".  It''s right
exactly where the market wants it.  There are plenty of bleeding-edge operating
systems out there for those who prefer to live on the edge.  As a Solaris
sysadmin, would I like to use all the nifty geegaws on my production systems
that I use on my desktop?  Sure, in a perfect world I''d be able to do
that.  But that''s not the reality, and I''m not risking the
business or my job on anything less than ten thousand percent tested for years
before adopting it.
>
> "Newer" != "better".
> ----------
Well,

Most of the systems people like me that I know also value stability and 
conformity to expectations (i.e. standards) over new features.

That said, stability vs new features has NOTHING to do with the OSS 
development model.  It has everything to do with the RELEASE model.

Also, to answer Frank''s statement: yes, there *is* an upgrade path from
Solaris 10 to OpenSolaris. There will likely be a *better* one when what 
was OpenSolaris is productized and turned into Solaris Express, soon to 
be Solaris Next (11).

Take a look at Fedora vs RedHat Enterprise.   This is the closest Linux 
analogy we''ve come up with for showing the (former) difference between 
OpenSolaris and Solaris 10/11/etc.

While there were certainly a few folks who ran OpenSolaris in production 
(who absolutely needed the new features and couldn''t wait until they 
made it to Solaris 10), I''m going to say that 99.999% of people ran 
Solaris 10, for exactly the reasons you indicated above.

All that said, using the OSS model for actual *development* of an 
Operating System is considerably superior to using a closed model. For 
reasons I outlined previously in a post to opensolaris-discuss.

-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA

Erik Trimble wrote: 
> That said, stability vs new features has NOTHING to do with the OSS
> development model.  It has everything to do with the RELEASE model.
> [...] 
> All that said, using the OSS model for actual *development* of an
> Operating System is considerably superior to using a closed model. For
> reasons I outlined previously in a post to opensolaris-discuss.
I didn''t mean to imply there was anything wrong with the OSS
release-early-and-often model.  On the contrary, I think it''s excellent
and I fully support it.  All my personal stuff is usually the very freshest code
available that day.  I just meant to say that sometimes young OSS zealots people
get overconfident and think anyone who doesn''t always upgrade business
systems to the bleeding edge is "stodgy," "behind the
times," or "stuck in the past" when in fact it''s just
"professionalism".

Doug Linder
----------
Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.com.

THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL.  This e-mail message and any attachments are
proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the
recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not
print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments.  If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail
and delete this message and any attachments from your computer.

On 8/18/10 3:58 PM -0400 Linder, Doug wrote:
> Erik Trimble wrote:
>
>> That said, stability vs new features has NOTHING to do with the OSS
>> development model.  It has everything to do with the RELEASE model.
>> [...]
>> All that said, using the OSS model for actual *development* of an
>> Operating System is considerably superior to using a closed model. For
>> reasons I outlined previously in a post to opensolaris-discuss.
>
> I didn''t mean to imply there was anything wrong with the OSS
> release-early-and-often model.
I also didn''t mean to imply Solaris was creaky or wrong or bad
compared to OpenSolaris.  It has different requirements.

But I did mean that folks who want the latest and greatest are not
the same folks that want stability.  So people using OpenSolaris
are not the same people using Solaris.  (Of course there are shops
where both are used to different ends, but one is not a gateway
to the other.)

I agree with Erik, there is an upgrade path, but that''s just the
natural incorporation of OpenSolaris features into Solaris (same
as existed before, just "OpenSolaris" wasn''t something
available
publicly and widely).  That''s not the same as migrating to OpenSolaris.
When today''s features are in Solaris, OpenSolaris will have newer
shinier features.

> From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
> 
> there are an
> awful lot of places that actively DO NOT want the latest and greatest,
> and for good reason.  
Agreed.  Latest-greatest has its place, which is not 24/7 must-stay-up core
servers.

Each OS - sol10 vs osol (or more appropriately now ... something like fedora
vs rhel) Each OS has its place.  Each one satisfies different requirements.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
> While there were certainly a few folks who ran OpenSolaris in production
> (who absolutely needed the new features and couldn''t wait until
they made
> it to Solaris 10),
Or those features that simply were never going to be backported to S10,
particularly the in-kernel CIFS server... We were planning on migrating
from S10 to OpenSolaris, and that was one of the major reasons. If
OpenSolaris 3/2010 had actually been released, we might have even been
there now...


-- 
Paul B. Henson  |  (909) 979-6361  |  http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/
Operating Systems and Network Analyst  |  henson at csupomona.edu
California State Polytechnic University  |  Pomona CA 91768

"And by the way: Wasn''t there a comment of Linus Torvals recently
that people shound move their low-quality code into the codebase ???????
;)"

Anyone knows the link? Good against the Linux fanboys. :o)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Sat, Aug 21 at  4:13, Orvar Korvar wrote:
>"And by the way: Wasn''t there a comment of Linus Torvals
recently that people shound move their low-quality code into the codebase
??????? ;)"
>
>Anyone knows the link? Good against the Linux fanboys. :o)
Can''t find the original reference, but I believe he was arguing that
by moving code into the kernel and marking as experimental, it''s more
likely to be tested and have the bugs worked out, than if it forever
lives as patchsets.

Given the test environment, can''t say I can argue against that point
of view.

-- 
Eric D. Mudama
edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org

> From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eric D. Mudama
> 
> On Sat, Aug 21 at  4:13, Orvar Korvar wrote:
> >"And by the way: Wasn''t there a comment of Linus Torvals
recently that
> people shound move their low-quality code into the codebase ???????
;)"
> >
> >Anyone knows the link? Good against the Linux fanboys. :o)
> 
> Can''t find the original reference, but I believe he was arguing
that
> by moving code into the kernel and marking as experimental, it''s
more
> likely to be tested and have the bugs worked out, than if it forever
> lives as patchsets.
> 
> Given the test environment, can''t say I can argue against that
point
> of view.
Besides defending the point of view (checkin experimental changes to an
experimental area, to accelerate code review) ... which seems like a fair
point of view ...

Who finds it necessary to have ammunition against linux fanboys?  Linux is
good in its own way.  You got something against linux?  Just converse on the
points of merit, and both you and they will reach the best conclusions you
can, rather than pushing an agenda or encouraging unnecessary bias.

Each OS is better in its own way.