zfs discuss - Mar 2011 - ZFS Going forward after Oracle - Let''s get organized, let''s get started.

I''m curious where ZFS development is going.

I''ve been reading through the lists, and watching Oracle, Nexenta,
Illumos, and OpenIndiana for signs of life.

The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work being done,
there is next to nothing on ZFS development outside of the Oracle camp.

So, I decided to see if I could help set something in motion.

Agreeing with some of the opinions expressed here,
(http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=508798&#508798 ) I
contacted Erik Trimble and we had a very quick/brief discussion that we want to
bring to the list so a more public and wide-scope discussion can happen.

I have my ideas of where I''d like to see ZFS go, Erik doesn''t
fully agree, and has other ideas as well. We both know that the rest of the
community will have further ideas on what should be happening, and
that''s why we''re discussing it here.

However, I think it''s imperative that we don''t fracture ZFS
into 4 different OpenSource versions that are all incompatible with each-other.


I''d like to lay out some groundwork for this thread to keep it
manageable;


1)      This thread is about ZFS, not generic Solaris development, userland or
non-ZFS development in _x_Solaris.


In my mind, I see these issues as pressing and needing addressing;


1)      Action. We need an official "we''re moving on" type of
agreement, so we stop waiting for Oracle to do something. I don''t think
we''re going to see v31 anytime soon, let''s stop waiting for
it. What version do we branch from?



2)      Home? ZFS requires a home. What is the home? Is it official? Will it
always be able to live here? This home would also be in charge of version/change
management. A new version system will need to be created to diff from the Oracle
efforts going forward.


3)      Generic? Can this home be generic (i.e. lessen or remove the bias to
Solaris)? Is it practical? FreeBSD has a very robust ZFS copy, running v28 in
the beta builds. Pjd has done a lot of work porting this, and I know other
people will do a lot of work porting ZFS in the future. Can we minimize the
efforts of porting ZFS so the work can go into development and features, not
constantly adapting changes to the OS in use? More than just Solaris developers
want to contribute to ZFS.



4)      Legal? Is there anything in ZFS that needs to be removed to ensure it
has a long vibrant life in the Open Source community? Do we need a
"Lite" version much like 4.4 BSD Lite to escape AT&T? This may
need to spawn into a separate thread, as I''ve already seen a few epic
threads about that topic alone.


I think that''s plenty to get this started.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110325/bd96fedc/attachment-0001.html>

There is ZFS development happening outside of Oracle.  Many of the
active ZFS developers at a *variety* of organizations are collaborating
within the illumos community using a private e-mail list much like an
standards body Working Group (we even call ourselves the ZFS Working
Group).  And not all of the participants here are coming from Solaris
backgrounds -- we have Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS represented.
(Privacy is important to keep the discussions focused and technical.
And some participants would prefer to keep their participation
non-public.)

Generally, the questions you raise are being worked on.  We''ll have
more
to say in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, if you''re engaged in active ZFS development, or want
to
be, please contact me off-list and I''ll see about getting you added to
the private email list.

	- Garrett

On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 16:17 -0300, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> I?m curious where ZFS development is going. 
> 
>  
> 
> I?ve been reading through the lists, and watching Oracle, Nexenta,
> Illumos, and OpenIndiana for signs of life.
> 
>  
> 
> The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work being
> done, there is next to nothing on ZFS development outside of the
> Oracle camp. 
> 
>  
> 
> So, I decided to see if I could help set something in motion. 
> 
>  
> 
> Agreeing with some of the opinions expressed here,
> (http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=508798&#508798 ) I
> contacted Erik Trimble and we had a very quick/brief discussion that
> we want to bring to the list so a more public and wide-scope
> discussion can happen. 
> 
>  
> 
> I have my ideas of where I?d like to see ZFS go, Erik doesn?t fully
> agree, and has other ideas as well. We both know that the rest of the
> community will have further ideas on what should be happening, and
> that?s why we?re discussing it here.
> 
>  
> 
> However, I think it?s imperative that we don?t fracture ZFS into 4
> different OpenSource versions that are all incompatible with
> each-other. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I?d like to lay out some groundwork for this thread to keep it
> manageable;
> 
>  
> 
> 1)      This thread is about ZFS, not generic Solaris development,
> userland or non-ZFS development in _x_Solaris.  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> In my mind, I see these issues as pressing and needing addressing;
> 
>  
> 
> 1)      Action. We need an official ?we?re moving on? type of
> agreement, so we stop waiting for Oracle to do something. I don?t
> think we?re going to see v31 anytime soon, let?s stop waiting for it.
> What version do we branch from?
> 
>  
> 
> 2)      Home? ZFS requires a home. What is the home? Is it official?
> Will it always be able to live here? This home would also be in charge
> of version/change management. A new version system will need to be
> created to diff from the Oracle efforts going forward. 
> 
>  
> 
> 3)      Generic? Can this home be generic (i.e. lessen or remove the
> bias to Solaris)? Is it practical? FreeBSD has a very robust ZFS copy,
> running v28 in the beta builds. Pjd has done a lot of work porting
> this, and I know other people will do a lot of work porting ZFS in the
> future. Can we minimize the efforts of porting ZFS so the work can go
> into development and features, not constantly adapting changes to the
> OS in use? More than just Solaris developers want to contribute to
> ZFS.
> 
>  
> 
> 4)      Legal? Is there anything in ZFS that needs to be removed to
> ensure it has a long vibrant life in the Open Source community? Do we
> need a ?Lite? version much like 4.4 BSD Lite to escape AT&T? This may
> need to spawn into a separate thread, as I?ve already seen a few epic
> threads about that topic alone. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I think that?s plenty to get this started. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

On Mar 25, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> I?m curious where ZFS development is going.
Forward :-)
> I?ve been reading through the lists, and watching Oracle, Nexenta, Illumos,
and OpenIndiana for signs of life.
>  
> The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work being
done, there is next to nothing on ZFS development outside of the Oracle camp.
There is an active ZFS working group where many people contributing code to the
core
ZFS are members. I can''t speak for the group, officially, but be aware
that it does exist
under the illumos umbrella. Members include active porters to OSes other than
Solaris.
> So, I decided to see if I could help set something in motion.
>  
> Agreeing with some of the opinions expressed here,
(http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=508798&#508798 ) I
contacted Erik Trimble and we had a very quick/brief discussion that we want to
bring to the list so a more public and wide-scope discussion can happen.
>  
> I have my ideas of where I?d like to see ZFS go, Erik doesn?t fully agree,
and has other ideas as well. We both know that the rest of the community will
have further ideas on what should be happening, and that?s why we?re discussing
it here.
>  
> However, I think it?s imperative that we don?t fracture ZFS into 4
different OpenSource versions that are all incompatible with each-other.
Yes, which is why the ZFS working group exists.
> I?d like to lay out some groundwork for this thread to keep it manageable;
>  
> 1)      This thread is about ZFS, not generic Solaris development, userland
or non-ZFS development in _x_Solaris.
>  
>  
> In my mind, I see these issues as pressing and needing addressing;
>  
> 1)      Action. We need an official ?we?re moving on? type of agreement, so
we stop waiting for Oracle to do something. I don?t think we?re going to see v31
anytime soon, let?s stop waiting for it. What version do we branch from?
>  
> 2)      Home? ZFS requires a home. What is the home? Is it official? Will
it always be able to live here? This home would also be in charge of
version/change management. A new version system will need to be created to diff
from the Oracle efforts going forward.
>  
> 3)      Generic? Can this home be generic (i.e. lessen or remove the bias
to Solaris)? Is it practical? FreeBSD has a very robust ZFS copy, running v28 in
the beta builds. Pjd has done a lot of work porting this, and I know other
people will do a lot of work porting ZFS in the future. Can we minimize the
efforts of porting ZFS so the work can go into development and features, not
constantly adapting changes to the OS in use? More than just Solaris developers
want to contribute to ZFS.
>  
> 4)      Legal? Is there anything in ZFS that needs to be removed to ensure
it has a long vibrant life in the Open Source community? Do we need a ?Lite?
version much like 4.4 BSD Lite to escape AT&T? This may need to spawn into a
separate thread, as I?ve already seen a few epic threads about that topic alone.
All of these issues are currently being addressed, as well as a few more
relating to the
future growth of the technology.  Stay tuned for more info, or jump into the
illumos project
and start working on issues :-)
 -- richard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110325/f28cbb78/attachment.html>

Richard Elling <richard.elling at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work being
done, there is next to nothing on ZFS development outside of the Oracle camp.
>
> There is an active ZFS working group where many people contributing code to
the core
> ZFS are members. I can''t speak for the group, officially, but be
aware that it does exist
> under the illumos umbrella. Members include active porters to OSes other
than Solaris.
This is interesting. Where is this group hosted?

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

Ah, that''s all I really need to know. I expected it to be public, but I
completely understand the need to keep it private so it can move forward
properly.  This should hopefully provide enough record for other ZFS
well-wishers who are searching for signs of post-Oracle development.

-----Original Message-----
From: Garrett D''Amore [mailto:garrett at nexenta.com] 

There is ZFS development happening outside of Oracle.  Many of the active ZFS
developers at a *variety* of organizations are collaborating within the illumos
community using a private e-mail list much like an standards body Working Group
(we even call ourselves the ZFS Working Group).  And not all of the participants
here are coming from Solaris backgrounds -- we have Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS
represented.
(Privacy is important to keep the discussions focused and technical.
And some participants would prefer to keep their participation
non-public.)

Generally, the questions you raise are being worked on.  We''ll have
more to say in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, if you''re engaged in active ZFS development, or want
to be, please contact me off-list and I''ll see about getting you added
to the private email list.

	- Garrett

>>>>> "js" == Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at
fokus.fraunhofer.de> writes:
    js> This is interesting. Where is this group hosted?

+1

I glance at the list after years of neglect (selfishly...after almost
losing my pool), and see stuff like this: shady backroom irc-kiddie
bullshit.  please: names, mailing lists, urls, hg servers.  Many of us
have worked on legitimate open source projects before, you know.  We
know what one looks like, and it''s not enshrouded in a tangle of
passive-voice sentences and exclusive mafia language.

Of course you''re welcome to associate with one another however you
like, and maybe the hostile mailing-list-flame tone of people like me
is part of what makes you want to make all your infrastructure
private.  but if the goal of The ZFS Organization is to reassure
people they should make new ZFS pools after the Oracle implosion and
therefore fund Nexenta support (a worthy goal IMHO!), this path won''t
work on me nor my friends.  I''m confident of that.  And I would have
thought by now it''d be clear brilliant developers can survive on the
open internet, and the momentum''s usually a lot better there (not to
mention transparency/legitimacy/resiliency).  

good luck, I guess.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110405/adc240f6/attachment-0001.bin>

I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
helpers/opinions are a bad thing.  There is a set "core" of ZFS
developers who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now.
The rest of us will just muddy the waters with conflicting/divergent opinions on
direction and goals.

I''m sure once this tricky transition point is passed, that the
discussion/development will be made open and public again.

Really, as far as I''m concerned, anything that speeds up the next open
source version of ZFS is a good thing, even if it does involve some back-room
negotiations at first.

(BTW, I''m not in the secret club, as much as I''d like to be. I
decided I can help more by staying out of it for now, and let others who are
more skilled handle this).

-----Original Message-----
From: Miles Nordin
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Going forward after Oracle - Let''s get
organized, let''s get started.

I glance at the list after years of neglect (selfishly...after almost losing my
pool), and see stuff like this: shady backroom irc-kiddie bullshit.  please:
names, mailing lists, urls, hg servers.  Many of us have worked on legitimate
open source projects before, you know.  We know what one looks like, and
it''s not enshrouded in a tangle of passive-voice sentences and
exclusive mafia language.

Of course you''re welcome to associate with one another however you
like, and maybe the hostile mailing-list-flame tone of people like me is part of
what makes you want to make all your infrastructure private.  but if the goal of
The ZFS Organization is to reassure people they should make new ZFS pools after
the Oracle implosion and therefore fund Nexenta support (a worthy goal IMHO!),
this path won''t work on me nor my friends.  I''m confident of
that.  And I would have thought by now it''d be clear brilliant
developers can survive on the open internet, and the momentum''s usually
a lot better there (not to mention transparency/legitimacy/resiliency).

good luck, I guess.

On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
helpers/opinions are a bad thing.  There is a set "core" of ZFS
developers who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now.
The rest of us will just muddy the waters with conflicting/divergent opinions on
direction and goals.
>
In the real world we would be called customers, you know the people who 
actually use the product.

Developers, no matter how good, shouldn''t work in a vacuum.

If you want to see a good example of how things should be done in the 
open, follow the caiman-discuss list.

-- 
Ian.

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> > I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too
many helpers/opinions are a bad thing.  There is a set "core" of ZFS
developers who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now.
The rest of us will just muddy the waters with conflicting/divergent opinions on
direction and goals.
> >
> In the real world we would be called customers, you know the people who 
> actually use the product.
Right.  And in the real world, customers are generally not involved with
architectural discussions of products.  Their input is collected and
feed into the process, but they don''t get to sit at the whiteboard with
developers as the work on the designs.
> 
> Developers, no matter how good, shouldn''t work in a vacuum.
Agreed, and we don''t.
> 
> If you want to see a good example of how things should be done in the 
> open, follow the caiman-discuss list.
Caiman-discuss may be an excellent example of a model that can work, but
it might not be the best model for ZFS.  There are many more contentious
issues, and more contentious personalities, and other considerations
that I don''t want to get into.

Ultimately, our model is like an IEEE working group.  The members have
decided to run this list in this fashion, without any significant
dissension. 

Of course, if you don''t like this, and want to start your own group, I
encourage you to do so.

I''ll also point at zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org, which is monitored
by a
number of the members of this cabal.  That''s a great way to give
feedback.

	- Garrett

On 04/10/11 09:25 AM, Garrett D''Amore wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
>>> I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes
too many helpers/opinions are a bad thing.  There is a set "core" of
ZFS developers who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right
now. The rest of us will just muddy the waters with conflicting/divergent
opinions on direction and goals.
>>>
>> In the real world we would be called customers, you know the people who
>> actually use the product.
> Right.  And in the real world, customers are generally not involved with
> architectural discussions of products.  Their input is collected and
> feed into the process, but they don''t get to sit at the whiteboard
with
> developers as the work on the designs.
>
But they are involved in the discussions around which features should be 
there, and help to prioritise those features.

I guess my fear is the external ZFS developers have adopted the Oracle 
rather than the OpenSolaris development model.  We all know where that 
leads....

I hope my fears are misplaced.

-- 
Ian.

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Chris Forgeron <cforgeron at acsi.ca>
wrote:
> I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
helpers/opinions are a bad thing. ?There is a set "core" of ZFS
developers who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now.
The rest of us will just muddy the waters with conflicting/divergent opinions on
direction and goals.
It would be nice to have some communication from the devs about what
they''re working on. A moderated list that only a limited set of people
normally post to would be excellent.

I''d be excited to hear that there''s a new feature being worked
on,
rather than the radio silence we''ve had.

-B

-- 
Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Garrett D''Amore wrote:
>
> Right.  And in the real world, customers are generally not involved with
> architectural discussions of products.  Their input is collected and
> feed into the process, but they don''t get to sit at the whiteboard
with
> developers as the work on the designs.
We eagerly await the first dump.

The *BSD and Linux folks don''t seem to have any issue with open 
architectural discussions of development.  Then again, these are 
proven models of open development systems (whereas OpenSolaris and 
OpenDarwin were not).

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

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Garrett D''Amore <garrett at
nexenta.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> > On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> > > I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes
too
> many helpers/opinions are a bad thing.  There is a set "core" of
ZFS
> developers who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right
> now. The rest of us will just muddy the waters with conflicting/divergent
> opinions on direction and goals.
> > >
> > In the real world we would be called customers, you know the people
who
> > actually use the product.
>
> Right.  And in the real world, customers are generally not involved with
> architectural discussions of products.  Their input is collected and
> feed into the process, but they don''t get to sit at the whiteboard
with
> developers as the work on the designs.
>
>
What "real world"?  "Real world" of enterprise storage
development, or "real
world" of open-source project?  It sounds to me like you want to have your
cake and eat it too.


>
> > Developers, no matter how good, shouldn''t work in a vacuum.
>
> Agreed, and we don''t.
>
>
Except for the secret mailing list, and the fact you''ve stated
repeatedly
the code will be behind a wall until you feel it''s ready for the public
to
see, right?  How exactly are the developers not working in a vacuum?


>
> > If you want to see a good example of how things should be done in the
> > open, follow the caiman-discuss list.
>
> Caiman-discuss may be an excellent example of a model that can work, but
> it might not be the best model for ZFS.  There are many more contentious
> issues, and more contentious personalities, and other considerations
> that I don''t want to get into.
>
> Ultimately, our model is like an IEEE working group.  The members have
> decided to run this list in this fashion, without any significant
> dissension.
>
> Of course, if you don''t like this, and want to start your own
group, I
> encourage you to do so.
>
> I''ll also point at zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org, which is
monitored by a
> number of the members of this cabal.  That''s a great way to give
> feedback.
>
>        - Garrett
>
>
>
That''s mature.  "If you don''t like it, fork it
yourself".  With responses
like that, I can only imagine how quickly you''re going to build up
steam
behind your project outside of the four or so entities that have a vested
interest.  I''ve always said, the best way to build a community is by
telling
anyone who suggests perhaps they might be able to give feedback that they
should be happy you''re giving them any scraps at all (or in your case,
not
even that).


--Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110409/6b693870/attachment-0001.html>

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ian Collins <ian at ianshome.com>
wrote:
> ?On 04/10/11 09:25 AM, Garrett D''Amore wrote:
>> Right. ?And in the real world, customers are generally not involved
with
>> architectural discussions of products. ?Their input is collected and
>> feed into the process, but they don''t get to sit at the
whiteboard with
>> developers as the work on the designs.
>>
> But they are involved in the discussions around which features should be
> there, and help to prioritise those features.
>
> I guess my fear is the external ZFS developers have adopted the Oracle
> rather than the OpenSolaris development model. ?We all know where that
> leads....
>
> I hope my fears are misplaced.
My *fear* is that ZFS *does* go the way OpenSolaris did...

    Two of the biggest strengths of Solaris for me (I have been
working with Solaris since 1995) have been the reliability and the
scalability.

    Part of the reliability came from a conservative approach to new
features, yes it meant that Linux might have a new feature before
Solaris, but my Solaris systems were more reliable. Great for a
server, not so good for a Workstation. So I run Solaris on servers and
Linux on my desktop.

    The second part (scalability) is illustrated by my experience with
response time vs. system load (the technical definition). On Solaris
systems response time remains good until the load gets to at least two
times the number of CPUs (cores) and generally closer to three to four
times, while my experience with Linux is that once you get to a load
value of twice the number of CPUs (cores) the system has already
become unresponsive. I have run the load on a test T2000 (32
CPU/core/thread) to over 100 and had good response time. When the load
got to 1000+ it got unresponsive. When the load on my core2/duo Linux
desktop gets to two I might as well go get a cup of coffee.

    I saw the OpenSolaris project heading in the direction of Linux
(lots of new features, not so much about robustness and scalability)
that I feared what the future held.

    I can''t afford to have ZFS be anything less than completely
bulletproof, either in my day job or for my personal data. So far it
has been (neither at work or at home have I suffered any data loss,
even with a myriad of drive failures and failure modes). If there is
not *some* control over development direction, then I fear I will
start seeing more commonly occurring bugs that do lead to data loss.
It''s not that I don''t trust the Open Source Community, I just
don''t
see the entire Open Source Community as having the same goals (values
?) as what *I* need (and what ZFS has so far met).

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a developer (just look at any of my shell scripts
or PHP code) but a System Administrator, and I *know* it and leave
development to those with that skill set. I DO provide input in terms
of features whenever I feel I have something substantial to add. And,
YES, I have had simple feature requests REJECTED by high profile Open
Source projects such as SAMBA because I needed a feature that "no one
else could possibly want". So we modified the source code and ran our
own spin of SAMBA (and hated doing it for a whole host of reasons).
Ping me offlist if you really want to know what feature we needed (to
turn off). I do NOT want to contribute code to ZFS, but I would like
to have some input into future features. I hope this new ruling cabal
(not meant as a negative term in this context) makes allowances for
this.

-- 
{--------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players

Ian Collins <ian at ianshome.com> wrote:
> But they are involved in the discussions around which features should be 
> there, and help to prioritise those features.
>
> I guess my fear is the external ZFS developers have adopted the Oracle 
> rather than the OpenSolaris development model.  We all know where that 
> leads....
>
> I hope my fears are misplaced.
I mentioned several times already that in case that Oracle does ot like an open 
development model that allows input to ZFS from anywhere, then we need a change
in the way that ZFS features are implemented and documented.

It is no longer sufficient to have a ZFS or zpool version number but we need 
version tags with pairs of vendor/feature.

As long as this does not happen, ZFS is not ready for closed development inside 
Oracle.

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