Xen users - Sep 2007 - RE: Does it legal to analysize XEN source code and write a book about it

Please see my response to two messages below:
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:56:54 +0800
> From: "jian zhang" <cheechuang@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Xen-users] Does it legal to analysize XEN source code and
> 	write a	book about it ?
> To: xen-users <xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<c77ea6600709131856p7728d183mc31ee7293209a0c2@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Hi all:
>  Previously we have analysize Xen source code, and we have 
> wrote a book about the code. BUT now, I noticed that xen has 
> been purchased by 
> Citrix<http://www.cnetnews.com.cn/list-0-0-16406-0-1.htm>,
> so does it legal to publish that book???
Of course!  Xen is GPL, and there are several books about it already.
Indeed you can freely use the name Xen to describe it, but you should
acknowledge the trademark, which is owned by XenSource but held in trust
for the community and licensed without royalty to any vendors that
implement Xen.

More books are needed to help grow the community and continue to bring
the benefits of Xen to a wider audience.  Thanks for your work.

> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:09:58 -0600
> From: Tao Shen <taoshen1983@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Does it legal to analysize XEN source code
> 	and write	a	book about it ?
> To: jian zhang <cheechuang@gmail.com>
> 
> Well, my point is this: if you have "analysize"d Xen, perhaps 
> you shouldn''t have written a book about it, at least not in
English.
That''s not particularly nice.  Particularly given that your own
analysis
is so flawed.
> On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was 
> wondering about the issues of legality.  Is it even legal for 
> a corporation(Citrix) to purchase an open source package, of 
> which was contributed by thousands of open source developers, 
> and is it legal for a corporation(XenSource) who basically 
> combines a lot of open source package(qemu device drivers and 
> their paravirtualization based on the linux kernel) into one to sell 
> the technology as if they owned it?  
Citrix has announced that it intends to purchase XenSource, not Xen.
Xen is GPL software, community authored and owned, and always will be.
Citrix has announced that it will strengthen and enhance the community
and dedicate significantly more resource to the community than XenSource
could afford to.
> When Xen was doing their Xen 
> Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen Express separation, I knew this 
> XenSource was going to be bought.   While it''s perfectly legal for
> XenSource to provide open source service...selling support 
> packages(to amazon EC2 for example), but forcing the bundling 
> of support with an "enterprise" edition is pushing the 
> boundaries of GPL. 
I suggest you read the GPL.  XenSource ensures that at all times the
very best version of the Xen hypervisor is available to the entire
community.  The power of Xen is that there are multiple routes to market
for the core "engine": our own products, Linux distros, Sun etc etc.  

We respect the GPL to the letter.  Our product combines GPL Xen with
XenSource add-on software that enables us to serve the broad market need
for Virtualization, which is dominated by the Windows OS.  Some of what
we do is closed source - sometimes by legal requirement.  You will find
that Novell has the same approach for their (proprietary) Windows PV
drivers.  Moreover Novell will use Xen with proprietary tools and a
proprietary OS (NetWare) in OES.  All of this is entirely legal, since
the boundaries between GPL and non GPL code in the Xen code base are
explicit and very deliberate.
> At least that''s my understanding of the  GPL.  
Might I suggest that you re-read it?
> Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least 
> VMware and Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  
> Every line of it. 
There are many who differ from your view:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/14/1618241
http://www.virtual-strategy.com/article/view/2042/

The remainder of your post unfortunately contains so many inaccuracies
that it is quite honestly not worthwhile rebutting them line for line.

XenSource is wholly committed to open source as the most powerful
vehicle of innovation, and to the community as the most powerful vehicle
of delivery of powerful feature sets and powerful products.  We endorse
multiple vendors delivering the Xen hypervisor to market, in their own
differentiated products.

Simon Crosby, CTO

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 08:47 -0700, Simon Crosby wrote:
> I suggest you read the GPL.  XenSource ensures that at all times the
> very best version of the Xen hypervisor is available to the entire
> community.  The power of Xen is that there are multiple routes to market
> for the core "engine": our own products, Linux distros, Sun etc
etc.
> 
> We respect the GPL to the letter.  Our product combines GPL Xen with
> XenSource add-on software that enables us to serve the broad market need
> for Virtualization, which is dominated by the Windows OS.  Some of what
> we do is closed source - sometimes by legal requirement.  You will find
> that Novell has the same approach for their (proprietary) Windows PV
> drivers.  Moreover Novell will use Xen with proprietary tools and a
> proprietary OS (NetWare) in OES.  All of this is entirely legal, since
> the boundaries between GPL and non GPL code in the Xen code base are
> explicit and very deliberate.
The four freedoms granted by the GPL are:

0 - The freedom to run the program (for any purpose)
1 - The freedom to study the program (source is needed for this)
2 - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
3 - The freedom to improve the program and share your changes

See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

XenSource does not only respect those freedoms, they embrace them. They
are also entitled to make some money from their innovations, which they
do.

XenSource (unlike companies like Tivo) follow the license to the word as
well as the spirit of the license. 

This can not be said about many others. <ahem, vmware>.

Folks, there is no question. It is not often that you''ll see a
''fsf
fundie'' support a large commercialized effort. This is one of those
times ;)

Xen helps:

* Non profits self-monetize to make up for a lack of donations
* Schools cut electricity bills (especially in the third world)
* GNU/Linux techs learn new marketable skills enabling work from home

... I could go on. How do I know? I live and work in S.E. Asia teaching
the technology and how to use it. I''m a Zen Buddhist and
philanthropist.

This is a dead horse, please don''t continue to beat it. If you do, I am
compelled to ask you to stop.

And please, stop calling Xen ''open source'', it is free
software.

Kindly,
--Tim


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Thanks for your input.  I am amazed that most people view my inputs as 
if I don''t know what I am talking about.

Let us just be blunt with each other with facts, you may correct me if I 
am wrong:

1. Xen the hypervisor is free, and GPL''d, you may copy, distribute, do 
whatever with it.
2. XenExpress, Xen Server(windows), Xen Enterprise is just a crust, a 
Xen Hypervisor controller and an UI, similar to open source and free 
Virt-manager from redhat or the web based enomalism, running on a 
special Xen created Linux distribution.  No the Xen Hypervisor 
"controller and UI" is not GPL, and propriatary.  It just conveniently
begins with Xen as a marketing trick.
3.  In other words, you have a non-GPL''d controller application wrapped
around an opensourced Xen hypervisor running on a GPL''d but custom
Linux
distribution made by XenSource.  It''s crazy how many people on this
list
say "oh Xen is GPL, but XenEnterprise is not" As Tim Post almost made
an
impression that XenEnterprise is a complete beast compared to Xen.   
XenEnterprise''s non-GPL portion is much smaller compared to the
GPL''d
portion.
4. The issues with closed source Windows Paravirtualization is this:  
whether or not it''s merged to the Xen Server/Enterprise source tree(the
controller and UI parts, which is not GPL''d) or it''s
interfaced to the
Xen hypervisor source tree(which is GPL''d).  From a practical point of 
view, I don''t see how a paravirtualized driver can be non-dependent on 
the GPL''d Xen Hypervisor.  If it''s indeed interfaced into the 
hypervisor, then the windows paravirtualization driver should be open 
sourced, GPL''d.  I don''t know the exact software dependence
choice made
by XenSource, and you may provide more information.

Thanks,




Simon Crosby wrote:
> Please see my response to two messages below:
>
>   
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:56:54 +0800
>> From: "jian zhang" <cheechuang@gmail.com>
>> Subject: [Xen-users] Does it legal to analysize XEN source code and
>> 	write a	book about it ?
>> To: xen-users <xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<c77ea6600709131856p7728d183mc31ee7293209a0c2@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi all:
>>  Previously we have analysize Xen source code, and we have 
>> wrote a book about the code. BUT now, I noticed that xen has 
>> been purchased by 
>> Citrix<http://www.cnetnews.com.cn/list-0-0-16406-0-1.htm>,
>> so does it legal to publish that book???
>>     
>
> Of course!  Xen is GPL, and there are several books about it already.
> Indeed you can freely use the name Xen to describe it, but you should
> acknowledge the trademark, which is owned by XenSource but held in trust
> for the community and licensed without royalty to any vendors that
> implement Xen.
>
> More books are needed to help grow the community and continue to bring
> the benefits of Xen to a wider audience.  Thanks for your work.
>
>
>   
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:09:58 -0600
>> From: Tao Shen <taoshen1983@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Does it legal to analysize XEN source code
>> 	and write	a	book about it ?
>> To: jian zhang <cheechuang@gmail.com>
>>
>> Well, my point is this: if you have "analysize"d Xen, perhaps
>> you shouldn''t have written a book about it, at least not in
English.
>>     
>
> That''s not particularly nice.  Particularly given that your own
analysis
> is so flawed.
>
>   
>> On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was 
>> wondering about the issues of legality.  Is it even legal for 
>> a corporation(Citrix) to purchase an open source package, of 
>> which was contributed by thousands of open source developers, 
>> and is it legal for a corporation(XenSource) who basically 
>> combines a lot of open source package(qemu device drivers and 
>> their paravirtualization based on the linux kernel) into one to sell 
>> the technology as if they owned it?  
>>     
>
> Citrix has announced that it intends to purchase XenSource, not Xen.
> Xen is GPL software, community authored and owned, and always will be.
> Citrix has announced that it will strengthen and enhance the community
> and dedicate significantly more resource to the community than XenSource
> could afford to.
>
>   
>> When Xen was doing their Xen 
>> Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen Express separation, I knew this 
>> XenSource was going to be bought.   While it''s perfectly legal
for
>> XenSource to provide open source service...selling support 
>> packages(to amazon EC2 for example), but forcing the bundling 
>> of support with an "enterprise" edition is pushing the 
>> boundaries of GPL. 
>>     
>
> I suggest you read the GPL.  XenSource ensures that at all times the
> very best version of the Xen hypervisor is available to the entire
> community.  The power of Xen is that there are multiple routes to market
> for the core "engine": our own products, Linux distros, Sun etc
etc.
>
> We respect the GPL to the letter.  Our product combines GPL Xen with
> XenSource add-on software that enables us to serve the broad market need
> for Virtualization, which is dominated by the Windows OS.  Some of what
> we do is closed source - sometimes by legal requirement.  You will find
> that Novell has the same approach for their (proprietary) Windows PV
> drivers.  Moreover Novell will use Xen with proprietary tools and a
> proprietary OS (NetWare) in OES.  All of this is entirely legal, since
> the boundaries between GPL and non GPL code in the Xen code base are
> explicit and very deliberate.
>
>   
>> At least that''s my understanding of the  GPL.  
>>     
>
> Might I suggest that you re-read it?
>
>   
>> Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least 
>> VMware and Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  
>> Every line of it. 
>>     
>
> There are many who differ from your view:
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/14/1618241
> http://www.virtual-strategy.com/article/view/2042/
>
> The remainder of your post unfortunately contains so many inaccuracies
> that it is quite honestly not worthwhile rebutting them line for line.
>
> XenSource is wholly committed to open source as the most powerful
> vehicle of innovation, and to the community as the most powerful vehicle
> of delivery of powerful feature sets and powerful products.  We endorse
> multiple vendors delivering the Xen hypervisor to market, in their own
> differentiated products.
>
> Simon Crosby, CTO
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

>
> Thanks for your input.  I am amazed that most people view my inputs as 
> if I don''t know what I am talking about.
>
> Let us just be blunt with each other with facts, you may correct me if 
> I am wrong:
>
> 1. Xen the hypervisor is free, and GPL''d, you may copy,
distribute, do
> whatever with it.
> 2. XenExpress, Xen Server(windows), Xen Enterprise is just a crust, a 
> Xen Hypervisor controller and an UI, similar to open source and free 
> Virt-manager from redhat or the web based enomalism, running on a 
> special Xen created Linux distribution.  No the Xen Hypervisor 
> "controller and UI" is not GPL, and propriatary.  It just
conveniently
> begins with Xen as a marketing trick.
> 3.  In other words, you have a non-GPL''d controller application 
> wrapped around an opensourced Xen hypervisor running on a GPL''d
but
> custom Linux distribution made by XenSource.  It''s crazy how many 
> people on this list say "oh Xen is GPL, but XenEnterprise is not"
As
> Tim Post almost made an impression that XenEnterprise is a complete 
> beast compared to Xen.   XenEnterprise''s non-GPL portion is much 
> smaller compared to the GPL''d portion.
> 4. The issues with closed source Windows Paravirtualization is this:  
> whether or not it''s merged to the Xen Server/Enterprise source 
> tree(the controller and UI parts, which is not GPL''d) or
it''s
> interfaced to the Xen hypervisor source tree(which is GPL''d). 
From a
> practical point of view, I don''t see how a paravirtualized driver
can
> be non-dependent on the GPL''d Xen Hypervisor.  If it''s
indeed
> interfaced into the hypervisor, then the windows paravirtualization 
> driver should be open sourced, GPL''d.  I don''t know the
exact software
> dependence choice made by XenSource, and you may provide more 
> information.
>
Few more points to add:
    5.  I do know, and have read the GPL.  Notice that I said "pushing 
the boundary of the GPL?", not "against GPL".  The reason being
is that
Xen Enterprise is a GPL''d custom Linux OS wrapping around an
non-GPL''d
controller GUI application wrapping around an GPL''d Xen Hypervisor 
interfaced to a nonGPL''d Paravirtualized Windows Hypervisor Driver, and
then marketed as if the whole thing is non-GPL''d.  That''s the
issue I have.

  6. I understand that Citrix bought XenSource the company, not Xen.  
And it''s a  perfectly legal thing to do.   However, if you want to be 
brutally honest, did Citrix really just buy XenEnterprise the crust?  of 
course not, as the free Xen is as core to the company as you can 
imagine.  So yes, Citrix did buy Xen the hypervisor and kept it GPL''d.
Citrix also bought a group of highly talented people versed in Xen code, 
which is the primary reason why they did it.  So I really really don''t 
want to hear people say, Oh Citrix didn''t buy Xen the hypervisor.  
It''s
really BS.  If they bought the crust, they bought the core, it''s as 
simple as that.  The real question is then, it is ethical to wrap a thin 
layer around a core GPL''d product and sell it whole.  No, it''s
not
technically against GPL...it''s pushing it.  That''s the point I
wanted to
make and that''s what I said, and people have been all over me for it as
if I don''t understand the open source ecosystem.

7.  Some of the examples in the open source industry right now include:  
using PostgreSQL based code which is GPL''d, add a non-GPL''d
replication
suite to it, and call it enterpriseDB.  Using PostgreSQL based code, 
tweak some variables, add some non-GPL''d code (interfaced to the
GPL''d
one) to do distributed join and call it "bizgres" and
"greenplum".
MySQL''s Enterprise vs Community editions....the examples are all other 
the place.  All of them push the GPL boundary but don''t violate it.    
And what I call the "wrapper GPL" type products, and "dual
licensing".
No, it''s all perfect legal.   From an ethics
perspective...it''s arguable.

Feel free to discuss this as you see fit.


> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
> Simon Crosby wrote:
>> Please see my response to two messages below:
>>
>>  
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:56:54 +0800
>>> From: "jian zhang" <cheechuang@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: [Xen-users] Does it legal to analysize XEN source code and
>>>     write a    book about it ?
>>> To: xen-users <xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
>>> Message-ID:
>>>    
<c77ea6600709131856p7728d183mc31ee7293209a0c2@mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> Hi all:
>>>  Previously we have analysize Xen source code, and we have wrote a 
>>> book about the code. BUT now, I noticed that xen has been purchased
>>> by Citrix<http://www.cnetnews.com.cn/list-0-0-16406-0-1.htm>,
>>> so does it legal to publish that book???
>>>     
>>
>> Of course!  Xen is GPL, and there are several books about it already.
>> Indeed you can freely use the name Xen to describe it, but you should
>> acknowledge the trademark, which is owned by XenSource but held in
trust
>> for the community and licensed without royalty to any vendors that
>> implement Xen.
>>
>> More books are needed to help grow the community and continue to bring
>> the benefits of Xen to a wider audience.  Thanks for your work.
>>
>>
>>  
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:09:58 -0600
>>> From: Tao Shen <taoshen1983@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Does it legal to analysize XEN source code
>>>     and write    a    book about it ?
>>> To: jian zhang <cheechuang@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Well, my point is this: if you have "analysize"d Xen,
perhaps you
>>> shouldn''t have written a book about it, at least not in
English.
>>>     
>>
>> That''s not particularly nice.  Particularly given that your
own analysis
>> is so flawed.
>>
>>  
>>> On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was wondering
about
>>> the issues of legality.  Is it even legal for a corporation(Citrix)
>>> to purchase an open source package, of which was contributed by 
>>> thousands of open source developers, and is it legal for a 
>>> corporation(XenSource) who basically combines a lot of open source 
>>> package(qemu device drivers and their paravirtualization based on 
>>> the linux kernel) into one to sell the technology as if they owned 
>>> it?      
>>
>> Citrix has announced that it intends to purchase XenSource, not Xen.
>> Xen is GPL software, community authored and owned, and always will be.
>> Citrix has announced that it will strengthen and enhance the community
>> and dedicate significantly more resource to the community than
XenSource
>> could afford to.
>>
>>  
>>> When Xen was doing their Xen Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen 
>>> Express separation, I knew this XenSource was going to be bought.
>>> While it''s perfectly legal for XenSource to provide open
source
>>> service...selling support packages(to amazon EC2 for example), but 
>>> forcing the bundling of support with an "enterprise"
edition is
>>> pushing the boundaries of GPL.     
>>
>> I suggest you read the GPL.  XenSource ensures that at all times the
>> very best version of the Xen hypervisor is available to the entire
>> community.  The power of Xen is that there are multiple routes to
market
>> for the core "engine": our own products, Linux distros, Sun
etc etc.
>> We respect the GPL to the letter.  Our product combines GPL Xen with
>> XenSource add-on software that enables us to serve the broad market
need
>> for Virtualization, which is dominated by the Windows OS.  Some of what
>> we do is closed source - sometimes by legal requirement.  You will find
>> that Novell has the same approach for their (proprietary) Windows PV
>> drivers.  Moreover Novell will use Xen with proprietary tools and a
>> proprietary OS (NetWare) in OES.  All of this is entirely legal, since
>> the boundaries between GPL and non GPL code in the Xen code base are
>> explicit and very deliberate.
>>
>>  
>>> At least that''s my understanding of the  GPL.      
>>
>> Might I suggest that you re-read it?
>>
>>  
>>> Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least VMware and
>>> Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  Every line of it.
>>
>> There are many who differ from your view:
>> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/14/1618241
>> http://www.virtual-strategy.com/article/view/2042/
>>
>> The remainder of your post unfortunately contains so many inaccuracies
>> that it is quite honestly not worthwhile rebutting them line for line.
>>
>> XenSource is wholly committed to open source as the most powerful
>> vehicle of innovation, and to the community as the most powerful
vehicle
>> of delivery of powerful feature sets and powerful products.  We endorse
>> multiple vendors delivering the Xen hypervisor to market, in their own
>> differentiated products.
>>
>> Simon Crosby, CTO
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-users mailing list
>> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>>
>>   
>
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Tao Shen wrote:
>
>
> 7.  Some of the examples in the open source industry right now 
> include:  using PostgreSQL based code which is GPL''d, add a
non-GPL''d
> replication suite to it, and call it enterpriseDB.  Using PostgreSQL 
> based code, tweak some variables, add some non-GPL''d code
(interfaced
> to the GPL''d one) to do distributed join and call it
"bizgres" and
> "greenplum".   MySQL''s Enterprise vs Community
editions....the
> examples are all other the place.  All of them push the GPL boundary 
> but don''t violate it.    And what I call the "wrapper
GPL" type
> products, and "dual licensing".  No, it''s all perfect
legal.   From an
> ethics perspective...it''s arguable.
>
> Feel free to discuss this as you see fit.
>
Entire OS''s are built this way, such as RHEL with its additional 
Clustering tools and its RedHat Network management tools. Zmanda does it 
with the Amanda sotware as well, and there are numerous commercial 
Nagios and MRTG management toolsets that are not themselves freeware or 
open source. Tivo does their own special trick of locking down the 
software so it can''t be patched or modified, even though they publish 
source to GPL tools they change, and that led partly to the changes in 
GPLv3.

So it''s an accepted practice, as long as you don''t go over the
carefully
drawn copyright lines and pull the Netgear trick of "we''ll use
glibc,
modify it, and just not tell anyone."

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Tim Post wrote:
>   
>> 3.  In other words, you have a non-GPL''d controller
application wrapped
>> around an opensourced Xen hypervisor running on a GPL''d but
custom Linux
>> distribution made by XenSource.  It''s crazy how many people on
this list
>> say "oh Xen is GPL, but XenEnterprise is not" As Tim Post
almost made an
>> impression that XenEnterprise is a complete beast compared to Xen.
>>     
>
> Xen is free software. XenExpress, XenEnt, XenServer are not free
> software. At what point did I call it a beast?
>   
Tim, I missed a word.  "a completely different beast"...and
it''s my
interpretation of what you said about XenSource maintaining two 
different source trees and etc.
Tim, you also are too strict on the following three terms, free, GPL, 
open source as if you are an IP lawyer.  Of course Xen is free, and 
XenEnterprise is not.  The point I am making is that XenEnterprise is 
85% based on the core Xen which is free, GPL''d, and source made 
available by XenSource, and is marketed as if it''s a different
beast.
>    
>   
>> XenEnterprise''s non-GPL portion is much smaller compared to
the GPL''d
>> portion.
>>     
>
> Define smaller? Lines of code or cost of development? :) Both must be
> considered. Just looking at the screenshots of XenEnt (and the rest) I
> can tell you (off the top of my head) your looking at development costs
> in the millions. 
>   
My definition of smaller is based on perceived value and perceived 
function.  The core free Xen Hypervisor has more perceived value and 
function than the XenEnterprise the wrapping GUI application.  To most 
people that is. To prove my point, if the Xen Hypervisor is designed 
correctly, everything you can do in XenEnterprise in a GUI environment, 
you should be able to do in a command line environment. 

 If you look at the development costs in the millions, it''s actually 
cheap.  Development cost really depends on who''s developing.  People in
the US get paid 5 times as much as people in India for example.  In the 
US, 1Mil gives you about 20 programmers for a year on average, maybe 10 
good ones for a year.  I am sure Xen the hypervisor which is free, had 
way more programmer-years than the non-GPL''d GUI.  And some of the 
functions that''s in the Xen Hypervisor is not enabled in the XenExpress
as if XenExpress arbitrarily limit functionality of the core Xen 
Hypervisor to promote higher priced Server/Enterprise versions even 
though the Xen Hypervisor hasn''t changed.
>   
>> 4. The issues with closed source Windows Paravirtualization is this:  
>> whether or not it''s merged to the Xen Server/Enterprise source
tree(the
>> controller and UI parts, which is not GPL''d) or it''s
interfaced to the
>> Xen hypervisor source tree(which is GPL''d).  From a practical
point of
>> view, I don''t see how a paravirtualized driver can be
non-dependent on
>> the GPL''d Xen Hypervisor. 
>>     
>
> Someone other than me has to explain to you how hypercalls and program
> API''s work.
>   
Yes, that''s the question you and I both need answers
to.
>   
>> If it''s indeed interfaced into the 
>> hypervisor, then the windows paravirtualization driver should be open 
>> sourced, GPL''d.  
>>     
>
> That''s up to XenSource. They are under no obligation to make those
> drivers free. GPL software is not ''open source'', every
time you say that
> I have to ask you to stop.
>   
Ok, Timster.  You are correct on that "They are under no obligations to 
make it free" 
My statement uses the words "should be" as merely suggestive that 
perhaps a open standard, API for the windows paravirtualization driver 
is of more utility and beneficial to both Microsoft, XenSource, and the 
end user.  Of course XenSource doesn''t see it that way, and they see it
as another way to make money.  Legal for sure.  Alienating potential 
customers for sure.  Actually I see Xen having a common API for 
paravirtualization drivers.  Then whatever OS you install in a Xen DomU, 
the OS writer then becomes responsible for writing the Xen DomU 
paravirtualization driver.   For example, Microsoft can be making a 
Windows XP-Xen Edition with the Xen drivers...etc.  But of course if you 
are XenSource, you would like to have a monopoly of the 
paravirtualization driver development and charge people for it.


Ok Tim, I got to get 1 hour of sleep before I have to wake up again :)  
We shall continue the discussion in another time.



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

I see that great values exist in Xen and virtualization. That''s why I
am
here, on the list.  From a practical perspective, I don''t see that 
XenSource''s triple segregation of their product into Express, Server, 
Enterprise makes any sense from a revenue maximization perspective.  For 
serious users who depend on Xen(Amazon EC2) they will be paying the 
support contracts but still cheaper than VMware Infrastructure.  
Software license isn''t even considered cost for them.  For semi-serious
business users, currently Xen is on par in cost compared to VMware.   
For enthusiasts, you are stuck to Xen + Virt-manger on a stock Linux 
distro.  Quite frankly, Xen Express doesn''t cut it.  So in the end, the
only competitive advantage for Xen branded product is centered on Xen 
Enterprise for the VPS hosts.  XenSource is severely decapitating their 
potential revenue stream.

gosh i just lost another 30 minutes....got to go...30 minute naps will 
hurt for the day :) later


Tim Post wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 12:50 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>   
>> Tao Shen wrote:
>>     
>>> 7.  Some of the examples in the open source industry right now 
>>> include:  using PostgreSQL based code which is GPL''d, add
a non-GPL''d
>>> replication suite to it, and call it enterpriseDB.  Using
PostgreSQL
>>> based code, tweak some variables, add some non-GPL''d code
(interfaced
>>> to the GPL''d one) to do distributed join and call it
"bizgres" and
>>> "greenplum".   MySQL''s Enterprise vs Community
editions....the
>>> examples are all other the place.  All of them push the GPL
boundary
>>> but don''t violate it.    And what I call the "wrapper
GPL" type
>>> products, and "dual licensing".  No, it''s all
perfect legal.   From an
>>> ethics perspective...it''s arguable.
>>>       
>
> I think you have to look at things in a relative way. Relative to most
> other commercial software companies, XenSource is a saint. I''m
running
> GNU/XenLinux on my desktop, if I had this developed myself, I would have
> spent millions on it. XenSource pushed Xen, hard. XenSource is what
> ensured Xen held up to critics. XenSource ensured that Xen got its
> market share that it enjoys today.
>
> This puts money in my pocket in a few ways :
>
> 1 - I''m paid to build xen stuff for web hosts
> 2 - I''m paid to design networks that rely heavily on Xen
> 3 - I''m able to give non profits cutting edge technology for free
(I
> don''t charge them)
> 4 - I learned A LOT studying Xen, reading xen-devel and the Xen academic
> papers. I''m a much better programmer than I was after studying
Xen.
> 5 - Microkernels are now being looked at in a new light, because of Xen
> (broadly). This means, hardware makers are finally waking up to the fact
> that they _CAN_ reach beyond x86. This means new technology and new
> opportunities.
>
> What does Microsoft give you? What does Cisco give you? What does
> NetGear give you?
>
> First, Xen was made. Then XenSource made some neat programs to go with
> it that cost money. In order to imply something sinister, you would
> first have to demonstrate that XenSource knew how successful Xen (as a
> whole) would be. I don''t think that''s possible, because I
don''t think
> that they realized it until it smacked them. Please speak in proper time
> and context.
>
> As Nico said, look at RHEL. Look at the Novell-Microsoft deal, look at
> so many other things in the news as current events, then go enjoy your
> multi million dollar free hypervisor and command line tools ;)
>
> If there is a time for paranoia, this is not that time.
>
> Kindly,
> --Tim
>
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Tao Shen wrote:
> I see that great values exist in Xen and virtualization. That''s
why I
> am here, on the list.  From a practical perspective, I don''t see
that
> XenSource''s triple segregation of their product into Express,
Server,
> Enterprise makes any sense from a revenue maximization perspective.  
> For serious users who depend on Xen(Amazon EC2) they will be paying 
> the support contracts but still cheaper than VMware Infrastructure.  
> Software license isn''t even considered cost for them.  For 
> semi-serious business users, currently Xen is on par in cost compared 
> to VMware.   For enthusiasts, you are stuck to Xen + Virt-manger on a 
> stock Linux distro.  Quite frankly, Xen Express doesn''t cut it. 
So in
> the end, the only competitive advantage for Xen branded product is 
> centered on Xen Enterprise for the VPS hosts.  XenSource is severely 
> decapitating their potential revenue stream.
>
> gosh i just lost another 30 minutes....got to go...30 minute naps will 
> hurt for the day :) later
>
>
> Tim Post wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 12:50 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>  
>>> Tao Shen wrote:
>>>    
>>>> 7.  Some of the examples in the open source industry right now 
>>>> include:  using PostgreSQL based code which is GPL''d,
add a
>>>> non-GPL''d replication suite to it, and call it
enterpriseDB.  Using
>>>> PostgreSQL based code, tweak some variables, add some
non-GPL''d
>>>> code (interfaced to the GPL''d one) to do distributed
join and call
>>>> it "bizgres" and "greenplum".  
MySQL''s Enterprise vs Community
>>>> editions....the examples are all other the place.  All of them
push
>>>> the GPL boundary but don''t violate it.    And what I
call the
>>>> "wrapper GPL" type products, and "dual
licensing".  No, it''s all
>>>> perfect legal.   From an ethics perspective...it''s
arguable.
>>>>       
>>
>> I think you have to look at things in a relative way. Relative to most
>> other commercial software companies, XenSource is a saint. I''m
running
>> GNU/XenLinux on my desktop, if I had this developed myself, I would
have
>> spent millions on it. XenSource pushed Xen, hard. XenSource is what
>> ensured Xen held up to critics. XenSource ensured that Xen got its
>> market share that it enjoys today.
>>
>> This puts money in my pocket in a few ways :
>>
>> 1 - I''m paid to build xen stuff for web hosts
>> 2 - I''m paid to design networks that rely heavily on Xen
>> 3 - I''m able to give non profits cutting edge technology for
free (I
>> don''t charge them)
>> 4 - I learned A LOT studying Xen, reading xen-devel and the Xen
academic
>> papers. I''m a much better programmer than I was after studying
Xen.
>> 5 - Microkernels are now being looked at in a new light, because of Xen
>> (broadly). This means, hardware makers are finally waking up to the
fact
>> that they _CAN_ reach beyond x86. This means new technology and new
>> opportunities.
>>
>> What does Microsoft give you? What does Cisco give you? What does
>> NetGear give you?
>>
>> First, Xen was made. Then XenSource made some neat programs to go with
>> it that cost money. In order to imply something sinister, you would
>> first have to demonstrate that XenSource knew how successful Xen (as a
>> whole) would be. I don''t think that''s possible,
because I don''t think
>> that they realized it until it smacked them. Please speak in proper
time
>> and context.
>>
>> As Nico said, look at RHEL. Look at the Novell-Microsoft deal, look at
>> so many other things in the news as current events, then go enjoy your
>> multi million dollar free hypervisor and command line tools ;)
>>
>> If there is a time for paranoia, this is not that time.
Excuse me? There''s not a single line from me in what you quoted, I
think
your indenting style may have confused you. I did mention RHEL, but the 
Novell/Microsoft deal was a nasty error and a legal nightmare that cost 
Noveel Jeremy Allison, leadership in the Samba software world, and 
actually seems to have hurt their compatibility with Microsoft as a result.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 15:40 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Excuse me? There''s not a single line from me in what you quoted, I
think
> your indenting style may have confused you. 
Nope, it confused you :) I separate thoughts with periods (.)
> I did mention RHEL, but the 
> Novell/Microsoft deal was a nasty error and a legal nightmare that cost 
> Noveel Jeremy Allison, leadership in the Samba software world, and 
> actually seems to have hurt their compatibility with Microsoft as a result.
It was a _really_ bad idea. My latest bad idea completely blows that one
out of the water, but has nothing to do with software :)

Man people are so testy these days.

Best,
--Tim


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 04:16 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
> Thanks for your input.  I am amazed that most people view my inputs as 
> if I don''t know what I am talking about.
> 
> Let us just be blunt with each other with facts, you may correct me if I 
> am wrong:
> 
> 1. Xen the hypervisor is free, and GPL''d, you may copy,
distribute, do
> whatever with it.
As long as you abide by the GPL v2, yes. You can do whatever you want
with it. If you change it and distribute it, you must also make the
source code with your changes available, as XenSource does.
> 2. XenExpress, Xen Server(windows), Xen Enterprise is just a crust, a 
> Xen Hypervisor controller and an UI, similar to open source and free 
> Virt-manager from redhat or the web based enomalism, running on a 
> special Xen created Linux distribution. 
Its GNU/Linux, I don''t think XenSource did much to it save for tweaks
and hooks that allow them to easier manage local resources (i.e. disks).
I''m not sure how much they changed. Go download it, list the packages,
download the source, diff each one and you''ll find out :)
> No the Xen Hypervisor 
> "controller and UI" is not GPL, and propriatary.  It just
conveniently
> begins with Xen as a marketing trick.
I don''t know about the trick part. Their controls are proprietary.
Their
company is named XenSource, they push the development of Xen (GPL), I
don''t see why its a problem calling it "XenAnythingTheyWant".
They give
us millions of dollars worth of free software, what is there to complain
about? They have a right to profit from their endeavor too. 

Xen is not ''baitware''. Xen (GPL) fits any need that you have,
if you are
too lazy to write your own control system, that is not their fault :) If
you want more than the console tools, write your own, or hire a
programmer to write some for you. Then you can sell them too if you
like. Virtual Iron did just that.
> 3.  In other words, you have a non-GPL''d controller application
wrapped
> around an opensourced Xen hypervisor running on a GPL''d but custom
Linux
> distribution made by XenSource.  It''s crazy how many people on
this list
> say "oh Xen is GPL, but XenEnterprise is not" As Tim Post almost
made an
> impression that XenEnterprise is a complete beast compared to Xen.
Xen is free software. XenExpress, XenEnt, XenServer are not free
software. At what point did I call it a beast?
   
> XenEnterprise''s non-GPL portion is much smaller compared to the
GPL''d
> portion.
Define smaller? Lines of code or cost of development? :) Both must be
considered. Just looking at the screenshots of XenEnt (and the rest) I
can tell you (off the top of my head) your looking at development costs
in the millions. 
> 4. The issues with closed source Windows Paravirtualization is this:  
> whether or not it''s merged to the Xen Server/Enterprise source
tree(the
> controller and UI parts, which is not GPL''d) or it''s
interfaced to the
> Xen hypervisor source tree(which is GPL''d).  From a practical
point of
> view, I don''t see how a paravirtualized driver can be
non-dependent on
> the GPL''d Xen Hypervisor. 
Someone other than me has to explain to you how hypercalls and program
API''s work.
> If it''s indeed interfaced into the 
> hypervisor, then the windows paravirtualization driver should be open 
> sourced, GPL''d.  
That''s up to XenSource. They are under no obligation to make those
drivers free. GPL software is not ''open source'', every time
you say that
I have to ask you to stop.

Please go read http://gnu.org http://fsf.org for more clarification on
the definition of free software and the terms of the GNU GPL license. 

Best,
--Tim


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 12:50 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia
wrote:
> Tao Shen wrote:
> >
> >
> > 7.  Some of the examples in the open source industry right now 
> > include:  using PostgreSQL based code which is GPL''d, add a
non-GPL''d
> > replication suite to it, and call it enterpriseDB.  Using PostgreSQL 
> > based code, tweak some variables, add some non-GPL''d code
(interfaced
> > to the GPL''d one) to do distributed join and call it
"bizgres" and
> > "greenplum".   MySQL''s Enterprise vs Community
editions....the
> > examples are all other the place.  All of them push the GPL boundary 
> > but don''t violate it.    And what I call the "wrapper
GPL" type
> > products, and "dual licensing".  No, it''s all
perfect legal.   From an
> > ethics perspective...it''s arguable.
I think you have to look at things in a relative way. Relative to most
other commercial software companies, XenSource is a saint. I''m running
GNU/XenLinux on my desktop, if I had this developed myself, I would have
spent millions on it. XenSource pushed Xen, hard. XenSource is what
ensured Xen held up to critics. XenSource ensured that Xen got its
market share that it enjoys today.

This puts money in my pocket in a few ways :

1 - I''m paid to build xen stuff for web hosts
2 - I''m paid to design networks that rely heavily on Xen
3 - I''m able to give non profits cutting edge technology for free (I
don''t charge them)
4 - I learned A LOT studying Xen, reading xen-devel and the Xen academic
papers. I''m a much better programmer than I was after studying Xen.
5 - Microkernels are now being looked at in a new light, because of Xen
(broadly). This means, hardware makers are finally waking up to the fact
that they _CAN_ reach beyond x86. This means new technology and new
opportunities.

What does Microsoft give you? What does Cisco give you? What does
NetGear give you?

First, Xen was made. Then XenSource made some neat programs to go with
it that cost money. In order to imply something sinister, you would
first have to demonstrate that XenSource knew how successful Xen (as a
whole) would be. I don''t think that''s possible, because I
don''t think
that they realized it until it smacked them. Please speak in proper time
and context.

As Nico said, look at RHEL. Look at the Novell-Microsoft deal, look at
so many other things in the news as current events, then go enjoy your
multi million dollar free hypervisor and command line tools ;)

If there is a time for paranoia, this is not that time.

Kindly,
--Tim



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 06:11 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
> Tim Post wrote:
> >   
> >> 3.  In other words, you have a non-GPL''d controller
application wrapped
> >> around an opensourced Xen hypervisor running on a GPL''d
but custom Linux
> >> distribution made by XenSource.  It''s crazy how many
people on this list
> >> say "oh Xen is GPL, but XenEnterprise is not" As Tim
Post almost made an
> >> impression that XenEnterprise is a complete beast compared to Xen.
> >>     
> >
> > Xen is free software. XenExpress, XenEnt, XenServer are not free
> > software. At what point did I call it a beast?
> >   
> Tim, I missed a word.  "a completely different beast"...and
it''s my
> interpretation of what you said about XenSource maintaining two 
> different source trees and etc.
Ah, no worries. It is a different beast, its development is headed in a
_completely_ different direction. Did you read the press releases?
> Tim, you also are too strict on the following three terms, free, GPL, 
> open source as if you are an IP lawyer.  
Egads! I am NOT a lawyer. Intellectual property is a mirage, show me one
person responsible for shaping their own intellect. I am a free software
freak, I freely admit it. I was there when it started and I helped to
shape it :)
> Of course Xen is free, and 
> XenEnterprise is not.  The point I am making is that XenEnterprise is 
> 85% based on the core Xen which is free, GPL''d, and source made 
> available by XenSource, and is marketed as if it''s a different
beast.
Most of us see Xen in pieces

Piece 1 - The Hypervisor
Piece 2 - The controls
Piece 3 - The host OS (usually, GNU/Linux)

Whenever you talk about XenEnt, I''m only going to consider piece2.
XenEnt is 100% allowed to charge you for a nice re-packaging of
GNU/Linux. Stallman himself encourages that, so long as you get the four
freedoms with your OS. So, their adaptation of GNU/Linux is , if
anything, a gift. Anyone can use (most of) their efforts.

The Hypervisor is slightly modified from what I understand. Source is
available including those changes, no big deal.

The controls cost them millions to make, _of_course_ they''re going to
charge for them. Some people really like those programs. I am _HAPPY_ to
see XenSource profitable, solvent and solid. It guarantees a future for
my free software which I base my living from :)

Some people want a ''cadillac'' control system and they are more
than
happy to pay for it. I want Xen to get the biggest market share that it
can (free or not free) because Xen has fed me, my wife and my kid for a
couple of years now :)
  
> My definition of smaller is based on perceived value and perceived 
> function.  The core free Xen Hypervisor has more perceived value and 
> function than the XenEnterprise the wrapping GUI application. 
I happen to agree with you, however, many who want something that ''just
works'' will say "hyper WHAT?", they just want point and click
utopia,
XenSource delivers it. Would you rather those people went to VMWare or
Microsoft who give nothing at all to free software?
>  To most 
> people that is. To prove my point, if the Xen Hypervisor is designed 
> correctly, everything you can do in XenEnterprise in a GUI environment, 
> you should be able to do in a command line environment. 
Xen (GPL) is building blocks. Leggos. You snap the stuff together how
you want and make your own controls. That''s why it has such a big
following amongst more experienced system integrators.

System integrators are often programmers _and_ administrators, we like
Xen, it lets us do whatever the hell we want :)
>  If you look at the development costs in the millions, it''s
actually
> cheap.  
I did not say how many millions, Simon might :)
> Development cost really depends on who''s developing.  People in 
> the US get paid 5 times as much as people in India for example.  In the 
> US, 1Mil gives you about 20 programmers for a year on average, maybe 10 
> good ones for a year.  
Err, no. Most _GOOD_ programmers are about $80 hourly. 50 hours a week,
52 weeks a year. Do the math ;) 1 Mil gets your 4 programmers and a
slightly lesser paid project manager to track and oversee productivity. 
> I am sure Xen the hypervisor which is free, had 
> way more programmer-years than the non-GPL''d GUI.  And some of the
> functions that''s in the Xen Hypervisor is not enabled in the
XenExpress
> as if XenExpress arbitrarily limit functionality of the core Xen 
> Hypervisor to promote higher priced Server/Enterprise versions even 
> though the Xen Hypervisor hasn''t changed.
Actually, I believe, the HV did change. Maybe someone can post a diff
from the source packages included with XenExp or XenEnt?
> >   
> >> 4. The issues with closed source Windows Paravirtualization is
this:
> >> whether or not it''s merged to the Xen Server/Enterprise
source tree(the
> >> controller and UI parts, which is not GPL''d) or
it''s interfaced to the
> >> Xen hypervisor source tree(which is GPL''d). 
"Interfaced" is where your losing it. You need to better understand
hypercalls and API''s. Xen has ''hooks'' for any program
that speaks its
language to talk to it. That means, those programs use a method, not HV
code to do their work.
> Ok, Timster.  You are correct on that "They are under no obligations
to
> make it free" 
> My statement uses the words "should be" as merely suggestive that
> perhaps a open standard, API for the windows paravirtualization driver 
> is of more utility and beneficial to both Microsoft, XenSource, and the 
> end user.  
I agree, but we''re coming back to, they have given you a mile and you
continue to ask for more. They _NEED_ to make money too. Windows is not
free software, nobody in their right mind expects free drivers from
Microsoft, why would you expect them from XenSource? 
> Of course XenSource doesn''t see it that way, and they see it 
> as another way to make money.  Legal for sure.  
One of the _FEW_ ways that they make money, you mean. XenSource had to
get very creative to make the offerings that they have. If they give up
any more, they''ll find themselves in the hosting business as a last
resort. That would be very unfortunate. 
> Alienating potential 
> customers for sure. 
Well, I''m not a good one to guess on that. I am a FSF fundie, I have
not
used software that was not GPL since X-Windows was stable. Prior to
that, I got e-mail with PINE. I can not stand Microsoft products, I have
been annoyed with them ever since they refused to give me the source
code to EDLIN. Man I hated that editor and I was STUCK with it because
there was no alternate for DOS at the time. Once I got something that
could build and use emacs, I never went back.

I''ve also never had to deal with a single piece of spyware :)

> Ok Tim, I got to get 1 hour of sleep before I have to wake up again :)  
> We shall continue the discussion in another time.
If you stop saying words like ''trickery'', I''m happy
to discuss it. Every
time you say those words I have to ask you to stop.

Kindly,
--Tim
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 06:41 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
> I see that great values exist in Xen and virtualization. That''s
why I am
> here, on the list.  From a practical perspective, I don''t see that
> XenSource''s triple segregation of their product into Express,
Server,
> Enterprise makes any sense from a revenue maximization perspective.  For 
> serious users who depend on Xen(Amazon EC2) they will be paying the 
> support contracts but still cheaper than VMware Infrastructure. 
I have been in the hosting industry since there was a hosting industry.
I don''t think that you realize how much market share XenSource gives up
with the GPL products.

I can, right now say (for fact) that there are well over 10,000 machines
running Xen (GPL) because hosting companies pay integrators to make it
work for them.

Xen(Commercial) has to compete with its own _free_ offerings. Why
begrudge them their ability to do this?

I can name (off the top of my head) 20+ large hosting providers who no
longer pay Virtuozzo because of the free version of Xen. This means,
users have guaranteed resources and sites no longer become victims of
their own success, well, at least not like they used to.

There are many positives that you are simply not aware of, I think.
>  
> Software license isn''t even considered cost for them.  For
semi-serious
> business users, currently Xen is on par in cost compared to VMware.
That is entirely relative to what you can do in house and how much ''in
house'' costs.
> For enthusiasts, you are stuck to Xen + Virt-manger on a stock Linux 
> distro.  
Only if you use Redhat/Fedora. I write my own programs for Xen :) See
http://echoreply.us/hg/ 

All of my dom-0 hosts are Ubuntu GNU/Linux or Debian, I don''t like Red
Hat flavors, they completely clobber init and networking.
> Quite frankly, Xen Express doesn''t cut it.  So in the end, the 
> only competitive advantage for Xen branded product is centered on Xen 
> Enterprise for the VPS hosts.  XenSource is severely decapitating their 
> potential revenue stream.
Sure, it cuts it. It cuts it for many people who want to try the primo
stuff before they buy it, or someone who just wants a control layer and
devotes 99% of system resources to a single VM.

I don''t think that you realize how _MUCH_ market share XenSource gives
up.
> gosh i just lost another 30 minutes....got to go...30 minute naps will 
> hurt for the day :) later
Eeek, go sleep, or your screen saver will make you need therapy. 

Best,
--Tim



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users