Oracle''s silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to the merger?), and who''s paying them. Assuming a worst case scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what the state is, and what the options are. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="leitl.org">leitl</a> leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 ativel.com postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Eugen Leitl wrote:> Oracle''s silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are > the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead > in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core > zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to > the merger?), and who''s paying them. Assuming a worst case > scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? > Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its > fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. > > Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what > the state is, and what the options are. >Without saying anything negative about Nexenta I would strongly recommend you go try to send a single patch to their equivalent of onnv-gate before recommending it as any sort of replacement for OpenSolaris. Generally, I think the few open source engineers who actually work with the code are taking a wait-n-see approach. If doom-n-gloom will happen there is nothing we can do to stop it and might as well enjoy the free ride while it''s there. Sending patches and encouraging the open source model for OpenSolaris directly is probably the best way to convince Oracle it makes business sense to maintain things as they are. ./C
I think Oracle have been quite clear about their plans for OpenSolaris. They have publicly said they plan to continue to support it and the community. They''re just a little distracted right now because they are in the process of on-boarding many thousand Sun employees, and trying to get them feeling happy, comfortable and at home in their new surroundings so that they can start making money again. The silence means that you''re in a queue and they forgot to turn the "hold" music on. Have patience. :-) On 02/22/10 09:22, Eugen Leitl wrote:> Oracle''s silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are > the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead > in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core > zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to > the merger?), and who''s paying them. Assuming a worst case > scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? > Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its > fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. > > Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what > the state is, and what the options are. > >-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5272 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100222/6ea6e0cb/attachment.bin>
On 02/22/10 12:00 PM, Michael Ramchand wrote:> I think Oracle have been quite clear about their plans for OpenSolaris. > They have publicly said they plan to continue to support it and the > community. > > They''re just a little distracted right now because they are in the > process of on-boarding many thousand Sun employees, and trying to get > them feeling happy, comfortable and at home in their new surroundings so > that they can start making money again. > > The silence means that you''re in a queue and they forgot to turn the > "hold" music on. Have patience. :-)Well - once thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable is the fact that you no longer can buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions. Almost every trace of it has vanished from the Sun/Oracle website and a quick call to our local Sun office confirmed that they apparently no longer sell them.> On 02/22/10 09:22, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> Oracle''s silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are >> the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead >> in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core >> zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to >> the merger?), and who''s paying them. Assuming a worst case >> scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? >> Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its >> fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. >> >> Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what >> the state is, and what the options are. >> >> > >-- Med venlig hilsen / Best Regards Henrik Johansen henrik at scannet.dk Tlf. 75 53 35 00 ScanNet Group A/S ScanNet
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:> > Oracle''s silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are > the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead > in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core > zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to > the merger?), and who''s paying them. Assuming a worst case > scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? > Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its > fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. > > Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what > the state is, and what the options are.Of course they can''t. If they''re in the know, then they''re almost certainly not in a position to talk about it in public. Asking here does not help, as I doubt if anyone from Sun/Oracle would be wise to give any response. -- -Peter Tribble petertribble.co.uk - ptribble.blogspot.com
On 22/02/10 09:40 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Eugen Leitl<eugen at leitl.org> wrote: >> >> Oracle''s silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are >> the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead >> in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core >> zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to >> the merger?), and who''s paying them. Assuming a worst case >> scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? >> Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its >> fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. >> >> Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what >> the state is, and what the options are. > > Of course they can''t. If they''re in the know, then they''re almost certainly > not in a position to talk about it in public. Asking here does not help, > as I doubt if anyone from Sun/Oracle would be wise to give any response.One more thing -- please remember that it''s not "Sunacle", "Suracle" or "Soracle", but "Oracle Corporation". Also (as Peter has mentioned) nobody who is likely to post to this mailing list would be authorised to comment or utter anything authoritative. You will just have to wait for the official word to be announced - as will we all. James C. McPherson -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems blogs.sun.com/jmcp jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
Hi Peter; ZFS is a strategic software piece for many of Sun''s offerings. Sun is constantly offering several new Technologies on ZFS (without further development ZFS is laready 5 years ahead of any other filesystem) just like Dedup. Do not forget that ZFS is also part of the 7000 series. I will happy if you can post any details or evidance on why Sun/Oracle will not invest on ZFS. Best regards Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +902123352222 Email mertol.ozyoney at sun.com -----Original Message----- From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Peter Tribble Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 1:40 PM To: Eugen Leitl Cc: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] future of OpenSolaris On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:> > Oracle''s silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are > the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead > in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core > zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to > the merger?), and who''s paying them. Assuming a worst case > scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? > Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its > fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. > > Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what > the state is, and what the options are.Of course they can''t. If they''re in the know, then they''re almost certainly not in a position to talk about it in public. Asking here does not help, as I doubt if anyone from Sun/Oracle would be wise to give any response. -- -Peter Tribble petertribble.co.uk - ptribble.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 02/22/10 06:12, Henrik Johansen wrote:> Well - once thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable is the fact > that you no longer can buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions. > > Almost every trace of it has vanished from the Sun/Oracle website and a > quick call to our local Sun office confirmed that they apparently no > longer sell them.I was actually very startled to see that since we''re using it in production here. After digging through the web for hours, I found that OpenSolaris support is now included in Solaris support. This is a win for us because we never know if a particular box, especially a dev box, is going to remain Solaris or OpenSolaris for the duration of a support purchase and now we''re free to mix and mingle. If you refer to the Solaris support web page (png attached if the mailing list allows), you''ll see that OpenSolaris is now officially part of the deal and is no longer being treated as a second class support offering. jake -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: osolSupport.png Type: image/png Size: 197827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100222/83960192/attachment.png>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Henrik Johansen <henrik at scannet.dk> wrote:> Well - once thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable is the fact that > you no longer can buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions. > > Almost every trace of it has vanished from the Sun/Oracle website and a > quick call to our local Sun office confirmed that they apparently no longer > sell them.I was actually very startled to see that OpenSolaris contracts were gone since we''re using it in production here. After digging through the web for hours, I found that OpenSolaris support is now included in Solaris support. Assuming it remains this way, this is actually a big win for us because we never know if a particular box, especially a dev box, is going to remain Solaris or OpenSolaris for the duration of a support purchase and now we''re free to mix and mingle. If you refer to the Solaris support web page (png attached if the mail list allows), you''ll see that OpenSolaris is now officially part of the deal and is no longer being treated as a second class support offering. jake -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: osolSupport.png Type: image/png Size: 197827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100222/368580a1/attachment.png>
On 02/22/10 02:33 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote:> On 02/22/10 06:12, Henrik Johansen wrote: >> Well - once thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable is the fact >> that you no longer can buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions. >> >> Almost every trace of it has vanished from the Sun/Oracle website and a >> quick call to our local Sun office confirmed that they apparently no >> longer sell them. > > I was actually very startled to see that since we''re using it in > production here. After digging through the web for hours, I found that > OpenSolaris support is now included in Solaris support. This is a win > for us because we never know if a particular box, especially a dev box, > is going to remain Solaris or OpenSolaris for the duration of a support > purchase and now we''re free to mix and mingle. If you refer to the > Solaris support web page (png attached if the mailing list allows), > you''ll see that OpenSolaris is now officially part of the deal and is no > longer being treated as a second class support offering.That would be *very* nice indeed. I have checked the URL in your screenshot but I am getting a different result (png attached). Ohwell - I''ll just have to wait and see.> jake-- Med venlig hilsen / Best Regards Henrik Johansen henrik at scannet.dk Tlf. 75 53 35 00 ScanNet Group A/S ScanNet -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screenshot.png Type: image/png Size: 188125 bytes Desc: not available URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100222/3b7c9e2b/attachment.png>
On 02/22/10 09:19, Henrik Johansen wrote:> On 02/22/10 02:33 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: >> On 02/22/10 06:12, Henrik Johansen wrote: >>> Well - once thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable is the fact >>> that you no longer can buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions. >>> >>> Almost every trace of it has vanished from the Sun/Oracle website and a >>> quick call to our local Sun office confirmed that they apparently no >>> longer sell them. >> >> I was actually very startled to see that since we''re using it in >> production here. After digging through the web for hours, I found that >> OpenSolaris support is now included in Solaris support. This is a win >> for us because we never know if a particular box, especially a dev box, >> is going to remain Solaris or OpenSolaris for the duration of a support >> purchase and now we''re free to mix and mingle. If you refer to the >> Solaris support web page (png attached if the mailing list allows), >> you''ll see that OpenSolaris is now officially part of the deal and is no >> longer being treated as a second class support offering. > > That would be *very* nice indeed. I have checked the URL in your > screenshot but I am getting a different result (png attached). > > Ohwell - I''ll just have to wait and see.Confirmed your finding Henrik. This is a showstopper for us as the higherups are already quite leery of Sun/Oracle and the future of Solaris. I''m calling Oracle to see if I can get some answers. The SUSE folks recently took a big chunk of our UNIX business here and OpenSolaris was my main tool in battling that. For us, the loss of OpenSolaris and its support likely indicates the end of Solaris altogether.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 22/02/2010 14:35, Jacob Ritorto wrote:> On 02/22/10 09:19, Henrik Johansen wrote: >> On 02/22/10 02:33 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: >>> On 02/22/10 06:12, Henrik Johansen wrote: >>>> Well - once thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable is the fact >>>> that you no longer can buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions. >>>> >>>> Almost every trace of it has vanished from the Sun/Oracle website and a >>>> quick call to our local Sun office confirmed that they apparently no >>>> longer sell them. >>> >>> I was actually very startled to see that since we''re using it in >>> production here. After digging through the web for hours, I found that >>> OpenSolaris support is now included in Solaris support. This is a win >>> for us because we never know if a particular box, especially a dev box, >>> is going to remain Solaris or OpenSolaris for the duration of a support >>> purchase and now we''re free to mix and mingle. If you refer to the >>> Solaris support web page (png attached if the mailing list allows), >>> you''ll see that OpenSolaris is now officially part of the deal and is no >>> longer being treated as a second class support offering. >> >> That would be *very* nice indeed. I have checked the URL in your >> screenshot but I am getting a different result (png attached). >> >> Ohwell - I''ll just have to wait and see. > > Confirmed your finding Henrik. This is a showstopper for us as the > higherups are already quite leery of Sun/Oracle and the future of > Solaris. I''m calling Oracle to see if I can get some answers. The SUSE > folks recently took a big chunk of our UNIX business here and > OpenSolaris was my main tool in battling that. For us, the loss of > OpenSolaris and its support likely indicates the end of Solaris altogether.Look at sun.com/service/eosl/eosl_opensolaris.html This page is stating that OpenSolaris is supported for up to 5 years. - -- Al Slater -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (SunOS) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkuCmFcACgkQz4fTOFL/EDbiBwCcCxi0PevP1Kib/e2LmcslYFSZ m/cAoIGphDXQ/r520qa28KNz2q0Dimu6 =8xN3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 02/22/10 03:35 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote:> On 02/22/10 09:19, Henrik Johansen wrote: >> On 02/22/10 02:33 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: >>> On 02/22/10 06:12, Henrik Johansen wrote: >>>> Well - once thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable is the fact >>>> that you no longer can buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions. >>>> >>>> Almost every trace of it has vanished from the Sun/Oracle website and a >>>> quick call to our local Sun office confirmed that they apparently no >>>> longer sell them. >>> >>> I was actually very startled to see that since we''re using it in >>> production here. After digging through the web for hours, I found that >>> OpenSolaris support is now included in Solaris support. This is a win >>> for us because we never know if a particular box, especially a dev box, >>> is going to remain Solaris or OpenSolaris for the duration of a support >>> purchase and now we''re free to mix and mingle. If you refer to the >>> Solaris support web page (png attached if the mailing list allows), >>> you''ll see that OpenSolaris is now officially part of the deal and is no >>> longer being treated as a second class support offering. >> >> That would be *very* nice indeed. I have checked the URL in your >> screenshot but I am getting a different result (png attached). >> >> Ohwell - I''ll just have to wait and see. > > Confirmed your finding Henrik. This is a showstopper for us as the > higherups are already quite leery of Sun/Oracle and the future of > Solaris. I''m calling Oracle to see if I can get some answers. The SUSE > folks recently took a big chunk of our UNIX business here and > OpenSolaris was my main tool in battling that. For us, the loss of > OpenSolaris and its support likely indicates the end of Solaris altogether.Well - I too am reluctant to put more OpenSolaris boxes into production until this matter has been resolved. -- Med venlig hilsen / Best Regards Henrik Johansen henrik at scannet.dk Tlf. 75 53 35 00 ScanNet Group A/S ScanNet
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Henrik Johansen <henrik at scannet.dk> wrote:> On 02/22/10 03:35 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: >> >> On 02/22/10 09:19, Henrik Johansen wrote: >>> >>> On 02/22/10 02:33 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: >>>> >>>> On 02/22/10 06:12, Henrik Johansen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well - once thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable is the fact >>>>> that you no longer can buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions. >>>>> >>>>> Almost every trace of it has vanished from the Sun/Oracle website and a >>>>> quick call to our local Sun office confirmed that they apparently no >>>>> longer sell them. >>>> >>>> I was actually very startled to see that since we''re using it in >>>> production here. After digging through the web for hours, I found that >>>> OpenSolaris support is now included in Solaris support. This is a win >>>> for us because we never know if a particular box, especially a dev box, >>>> is going to remain Solaris or OpenSolaris for the duration of a support >>>> purchase and now we''re free to mix and mingle. If you refer to the >>>> Solaris support web page (png attached if the mailing list allows), >>>> you''ll see that OpenSolaris is now officially part of the deal and is no >>>> longer being treated as a second class support offering. >>> >>> That would be *very* nice indeed. I have checked the URL in your >>> screenshot but I am getting a different result (png attached). >>> >>> Ohwell - I''ll just have to wait and see. >> >> Confirmed your finding Henrik. ?This is a showstopper for us as the >> higherups are already quite leery of Sun/Oracle and the future of >> Solaris. ?I''m calling Oracle to see if I can get some answers. ?The SUSE >> folks recently took a big chunk of our UNIX business here and >> OpenSolaris was my main tool in battling that. ?For us, the loss of >> OpenSolaris and its support likely indicates the end of Solaris >> altogether. > > Well - I too am reluctant to put more OpenSolaris boxes into production > until this matter has been resolved. > > >Look at sun.com/service/eosl/eosl_opensolaris.html > >This page is stating that OpenSolaris is supported for up to 5 years. > >- -- >Al SlaterSince we''re OT here, I''ve started a new thread in Indiana-Discuss called OpenSolaris EOSL: mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/2010-February/017593.html FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" response. We''re being badly mistreated here and it''s probably too late to do anything about it. Probably the only chance to quell this poor stewardship is to get big and loud right away. Then we can see if Oracle actually respects the notion of community.
Matthias Pfützner
2010-Feb-22 16:27 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote:> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" > response. We''re being badly mistreated here and it''s probably too > late to do anything about it. Probably the only chance to quell this > poor stewardship is to get big and loud right away. Then we can see > if Oracle actually respects the notion of community.Badly mistreated "here"? Bad words, you''re using, please change them! And, if you have a problem, escalate with your Sales-Rep! BTW: If you look at Oracle, and it''s support-contracts all over the product line/range, you can try to draw conclusions. One such conclusion might be: "simple, standard offering" and not "millions of diverse options". So, I would still opt for "wait and see"... BTW2: I''m NOT talking for Oracle, nor Sun, I simply don''t have any insight into these things, I''m just concluding like you! And: The fact, that there still is opensolaris.org does send a message! BTW3: Do NOT expect ANY official statement from Oracle here, that simply will not happen! (my sincere gut feeling!) So, talk to your Service-Sales Rep, and escalate, if need be! Matthias -- Matthias Pf?tzner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Linux will become very Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:Matthias at Pfuetzner.DE | important. D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | Germany | pfuetzner.de/matthias | Ted Nelson
2010/2/22 Matthias Pf?tzner <Matthias at pfuetzner.de>:> You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: >> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" >> response. ?We''re being badly mistreated here and it''s probably too >> late to do anything about it. ?Probably the only chance to quell this >> poor stewardship is to get big and loud right away. ?Then we can see >> if Oracle actually respects the notion of community. > > Badly mistreated "here"? > > Bad words, you''re using, please change them! And, if you have a problem, > escalate with your Sales-Rep! >Of course I will escalate with my sales rep, buy sorry, Matthias, I won''t condone having the carpet yanked out from under me and my business while putting on a happy face in the forums. This has to be addressed in public. If the word "here" offends you, please take it to mean "as a consumer group."
Oracle is reviewing the Sun product roadmap and will provide guidance to customers in accordance with Oracle''s standard product communication policies. Any resulting features and timing of release of such features as determined by Oracle''s review of roadmaps, are at the sole discretion of Oracle. All product roadmap information, whether communicated by Sun Microsystems or by Oracle, does not represent a commitment to deliver any material, code, or functionality, and should not be relied upon in making purchasing decisions. It is intended for information purposes only, and may not be incorporated into any contract. Quote from the footer on the following link. sun.com/service/eosl/eosl_opensolaris.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100222/289d6a82/attachment.html>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>wrote:> 2010/2/22 Matthias Pf?tzner <Matthias at pfuetzner.de>: > > You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: > >> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" > >> response. We''re being badly mistreated here and it''s probably too > >> late to do anything about it. Probably the only chance to quell this > >> poor stewardship is to get big and loud right away. Then we can see > >> if Oracle actually respects the notion of community. > > > > Badly mistreated "here"? > > > > Bad words, you''re using, please change them! And, if you have a problem, > > escalate with your Sales-Rep! > > > > Of course I will escalate with my sales rep, buy sorry, Matthias, I won''t > condone having the carpet yanked out from under me and my business > while putting on a happy face in the forums. This has to be addressed > in public. If the word "here" offends you, please take it to mean "as > a consumer group." > > >You haven''t had anything yanked out from under you. You found an end-of-service-life page which is fairly standard practice, then decided to freak out about it. sun.com/software/solaris/lifecycle.xml The reason there''s an end of service page is because Oracle isn''t going to be supporting 2009.06 for 30 years. I don''t see how that lead you to the conclusion they''re ending the opensolaris project, but that is one hell of a conclusion to jump to. --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100222/8e9120e5/attachment.html>
Justin Lee Ewing
2010-Feb-22 17:47 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
I''m not sure how there is mistreatment when known that Solaris 10 is the current production-grade product and OpenSolaris, for all intents and purposes, a beta product that is currently under active development. I was actually surprised when SUN provided a level of support for OpenSolaris above and beyond bug reporting and resolution. The fact that OpenSolaris has a major "release" every 6+ months does not, in my opinion, say "this is production ready" but provides a major point where significant user acceptance testing on features and bugs can be completed. This is quite different than the development repository which can and does contain variable bits. As far as the EOSL schedule goes, it is clearly a non-production schedule. Opposite to this model is Solaris 10''s support... where the entire OS since GA date is supported. Could you imagine if individual Solaris 10 Updates had an EOSL schedule like OpenSolaris? I suspect that when OpenSolaris gets to the point of being considered a production-grade product, the GA date release onward will be supported like Solaris 10 is today. Of course, this is dependent on Oracle''s decisions. Again, all this is just my opinion... take it for what it is. On 02/22/10 11:12 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote:> 2010/2/22 Matthias Pf?tzner<Matthias at pfuetzner.de>: > >> You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: >> >>> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" >>> response. We''re being badly mistreated here and it''s probably too >>> late to do anything about it. Probably the only chance to quell this >>> poor stewardship is to get big and loud right away. Then we can see >>> if Oracle actually respects the notion of community. >>> >> Badly mistreated "here"? >> >> Bad words, you''re using, please change them! And, if you have a problem, >> escalate with your Sales-Rep! >> >> > Of course I will escalate with my sales rep, buy sorry, Matthias, I won''t > condone having the carpet yanked out from under me and my business > while putting on a happy face in the forums. This has to be addressed > in public. If the word "here" offends you, please take it to mean "as > a consumer group." > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
James C. McPherson wrote:> On 22/02/10 09:40 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Eugen Leitl<eugen at leitl.org> wrote: >>> >>> Oracle''s silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are >>> the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead >>> in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core >>> zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to >>> the merger?), and who''s paying them. Assuming a worst case >>> scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? >>> Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its >>> fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. >>> >>> Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what >>> the state is, and what the options are. >> >> Of course they can''t. If they''re in the know, then they''re almost >> certainly >> not in a position to talk about it in public. Asking here does not help, >> as I doubt if anyone from Sun/Oracle would be wise to give any response. > > > One more thing -- please remember that it''s not "Sunacle", > "Suracle" or "Soracle", but "Oracle Corporation".Actually, I think my new paycheck is supposed to be from "Oracle America, Inc.". What is commonly known as Oracle is actually a group of (holding) companies tied together in ways I don''t understand. But, yes, the proper way to talk all about this now is to say "Oracle" when you mean the company, and "Sun" when you are talking about specific brand-name products. The latter will almost certainly be restricted to hardware - all software that I know of is having a ''s/Sun/Oracle/'' regex done on it.> > Also (as Peter has mentioned) nobody who is likely to post > to this mailing list would be authorised to comment or utter > anything authoritative. You will just have to wait for the > official word to be announced - as will we all. > > > > James C. McPherson > -- > Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris > Sun Microsystems > blogs.sun.com/jmcp jmcp.homeunix.com/blogNot just that, but I know that over here in Java-land, policies on a whole bunch of things are being re-thought. So, if you are concerned, please, TALK TO AN OFFICIAL rep (which is most likely your sales rep), so they can get the word back up the management chain. Engineering is really not a good place to try to push customer thoughts/feedback up into management. Without being derogatory, this is what marketing droids are for. These [engineers] aren''t the droids you''re looking for. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA
oracle.com/features/suncustomers.html link to "Oracle Plans" statement Personally I am not "freaking" I think the product is too good for Oracle to Flush the technology, who knows what the future holds. I do have the wait and see approach but until I see some drastic departure from the current path I will not be jumping ship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100222/d63518ba/attachment.html>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Tim Cook <tim at cook.ms> wrote:> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> 2010/2/22 Matthias Pf?tzner <Matthias at pfuetzner.de>: >> > You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: >> >> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" >> >> response. ?We''re being badly mistreated here and it''s probably too >> >> late to do anything about it. ?Probably the only chance to quell this >> >> poor stewardship is to get big and loud right away. ?Then we can see >> >> if Oracle actually respects the notion of community. >> > >> > Badly mistreated "here"? >> > >> > Bad words, you''re using, please change them! And, if you have a problem, >> > escalate with your Sales-Rep! >> > >> >> Of course I will escalate with my sales rep, buy sorry, Matthias, I won''t >> condone having the carpet yanked out from under me and my business >> while putting on a happy face in the forums. ?This has to be addressed >> in public. ?If the word "here" offends you, please take it to mean "as >> a consumer group." >> >> > > You haven''t had anything yanked out from under you. ? You found an > end-of-service-life page which is fairly standard practice, then decided to > freak out about it. > > sun.com/software/solaris/lifecycle.xml > > The reason there''s an end of service page is because Oracle isn''t going to > be supporting 2009.06 for 30 years.? I don''t see how that lead you to the > conclusion they''re ending the opensolaris project, but that is one hell of a > conclusion to jump to. > > --TimSince it seems you have absolutely no grasp of what''s happening here, perhaps it would be best for you to continue to sit idly by and let this happen. Thanks helping out with the crude characterisations though. Do you understand that the OpenSolaris page has a sunset in it and the Solaris page doesn''t? Have you spent enough (any) time trying to renew your contracts only to see that all mentions of OpenSolaris have been deleted from the support pages over the last few days? This, specifically, is what has been yanked out from under me and my company. This represents years of my and my team''s effort and investment.
Matthias Pfützner
2010-Feb-22 20:45 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----> Von: Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com> > Cc: Matthias at pfuetzner.de, zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org, indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org > Gesendet: 22.2.''10, 21:21 > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Tim Cook <tim at cook.ms> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> 2010/2/22 Matthias Pf?tzner <Matthias at pfuetzner.de>: >>> > You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: >>> >> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" >>> >> response. ?We''re being badly mistreated here and it''s probably too >>> >> late to do anything about it. ?Probably the only chance to quell this >>> >> poor stewardship is to get big and loud right away. ?Then we can see >>> >> if Oracle actually respects the notion of community. >>> > >>> > Badly mistreated "here"? >>> > >>> > Bad words, you''re using, please change them! And, if you have a problem, >>> > escalate with your Sales-Rep! >>> > >>> >>> Of course I will escalate with my sales rep, buy sorry, Matthias, I won''t >>> condone having the carpet yanked out from under me and my business >>> while putting on a happy face in the forums. ?This has to be addressed >>> in public. ?If the word "here" offends you, please take it to mean "as >>> a consumer group." >>> >>> >> >> You haven''t had anything yanked out from under you. ? You found an >> end-of-service-life page which is fairly standard practice, then decided to >> freak out about it. >> >> sun.com/software/solaris/lifecycle.xml >> >> The reason there''s an end of service page is because Oracle isn''t going to >> be supporting 2009.06 for 30 years.? I don''t see how that lead you to the >> conclusion they''re ending the opensolaris project, but that is one hell of a >> conclusion to jump to. >> >> --Tim > > Since it seems you have absolutely no grasp of what''s happening here, > perhaps it would be best for you to continue to sit idly by and let > this happen. Thanks helping out with the crude characterisations > though. Do you understand that the OpenSolaris page has a sunset in > it and the Solaris page doesn''t? Have you spent enough (any) time > trying to renew your contracts only to see that all mentions of > OpenSolaris have been deleted from the support pages over the last few > days? This, specifically, is what has been yanked out from under me > and my company. This represents years of my and my team''s effort and > investment. >And, honestly, that''s not something strange, is it? Two facts: 1.) Solaris is a product, maintained and produced 100% by Sun! 2.) OpenSolaris is a community effort, and Sun''s been providing the initial version of it, as well as many development resources. Still, OSOL has never been a 100% maintained and produced product of Sun! So, yes, Sun did provide support contracts for OSOL, based on a 6-month basis (as that''s the cycle for new versions of OSOL). Now, the CiC (change in control) and the cycle of the next version of OSOL (did you notice, that it might be 2010.03, and not 2010.02, aka 7 months?) do "collide", and you are drawing the "conclusion", that the internal process of checking ALL offers (and be sure, as I stated, the OSOL support contracts did not generate a margin!) and STANDARDIZING those offers entitles you to state, that support is cancled? Boy, there are way more important contracts to check then the OSOL support offerings. And I assume, ou also want to see "Sun" flourishing and providing an operative income to Oracle''s business. Because, if that will not happen, many other things might happen... And support contracts for OSOL might then be so unimportant, that nobody might ever remember, that such things even existed once... There are way more changes currently, then you seem to notice. NONE of those entitle you to state, that there will NEVER EVER be support for OSOL. Give the folks at Oracle some time to perform a thorough and intensive check of all of Sun''s former offerings, and also give them the time to figure, what to do with all those things! And, yes, make sure, that your voice is heard INSIDE Oracle. But, please, do not try to boil the ocean now by claiming end of support... And, if that should leave you "unsupported" in about two to three months time, then you could start trying to state, that there might not be a commercial support offer from Oracle for OpenSolaris... There the still is the possibility to create your own company which coukd offer support for OSOL, just like RedHat and Novell are doing with Linux. And, yes, Nexenta currenly already does that, so, there are already options out there! Again: I have no insight into what''s going on inside Oracle w.r.t. the topics discussed here! My only commen is: Try to relax a bit, and please calm down! Matthias
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Justin Lee Ewing <jlewing at jrleindustries.com> wrote:> I''m not sure how there is mistreatment when known that Solaris 10 is the > current production-grade product and OpenSolaris, for all intents and > purposes, a beta product that is currently under active development. ?I was > actually surprised when SUN provided a level of support for OpenSolaris > above and beyond bug reporting and resolution.So be it, but the point is that they did offer and push it, guaranteeing the same level of support as Solaris, etc. I (perhaps foolishly) believed it and invested heavily in it. For them to go back on this is an affront to the idea of being a reliable, trusted provider. I''d expect this sort of behaviour from some of the lesser technology companies, but not from Sun and Oracle. This is what''s supposed to set them apart. And while I respect your opinion that Solaris 10 is a "current production-grade product," to me, the reality is that it''s many versions behind in its huge number of bundled services and it''s a lot of work to trim down. Its footprint is enormous compared to OpenSoalris and its not nearly as modern. I''ve worked on it since before it was called Solaris, so I''ve lived with this for decades now. To keep up with these fresh (albeit comparatively crude) Linux variants, this paradigm had to change and OpenSolaris was the solution. Thin and modern but still tremendously more solid than the others. That''s essentially why we adopted it en masse.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>wrote:> > Since it seems you have absolutely no grasp of what''s happening here, >Coming from the guy proclaiming the sky is falling without actually having ANY official statement whatsoever to back up that train of thought.> perhaps it would be best for you to continue to sit idly by and let > this happen. Thanks helping out with the crude characterisations > though.Idly let what happen? The unconfirmed death of opensolaris that you''ve certified for us all without any actual proof?> Do you understand that the OpenSolaris page has a sunset in > it and the Solaris page doesn''t?I understand previous versions of every piece of software Oracle sells have Sunset pages, yes. If you read the page I sent you, it clearly states that every release of Opensolaris gets 5 years of support from GA. That doesn''t mean they aren''t releasing another version. That doesn''t mean they''re ending the opensolaris project. That doesn''t mean they are no longer selling support for it. Had you actually read the link I posted, you''d have figured that out. Sun provides contractual support on the OpenSolaris OS for up to five years from the product''s first General Availability (GA) date as described<sun.com/service/eosl/eosl_opensolaris.html>. OpenSolaris Package Updates are released approximately every 6 months. OpenSolaris Subscriptions entitle customers during the term of the Customer''s Subscription contract to receive support on their current version of OpenSolaris, as well as receive individual Package Updates and OpenSolaris Support Repository Package Updates when made commercially available by Sun. Sun may require a Customer to download and install Package Updates or OpenSolaris OS Updates that have been released since Customer''s previous installation of OpenSolaris, particularly when fixes have already been> Have you spent enough (any) time > trying to renew your contracts only to see that all mentions of > OpenSolaris have been deleted from the support pages over the last few > days?Can you tell me which Oracle rep you''ve spoken to who confirmed the cancellation of Opensolaris? It''s funny, nobody I''ve talked to seems to have any idea what you''re talking about. So please, a name would be wonderful so I can direct my inquiry to this as-of-yet unnamed source.> This, specifically, is what has been yanked out from under me > and my company. This represents years of my and my team''s effort and > investment. >Again, without some sort of official word, nothing has changed... It says right here those contracts are for both solaris AND opensolaris. sun.com/service/subscriptions/index.jsp Click Sun System Service Plans<sun.com/service/serviceplans/sunspectrum/index.jsp> : sun.com/service/serviceplans/sunspectrum/index.jsp Sun System Service Plans for Solaris Sun System Service Plans for the Solaris Operating System provide integrated hardware and* Solaris OS (or OpenSolaris OS)* support service coverage to help keep your systems running smoothly. This single price, complete system approach is ideal for companies running Solaris on Sun hardware. But thank you for the scare chicken little. --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100222/c444f31a/attachment.html>
Matthias Pfützner
2010-Feb-22 20:59 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----> Von: Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com> > Cc: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org, indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org > Gesendet: 22.2.''10, 21:46 > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Justin Lee Ewing > <jlewing at jrleindustries.com> wrote: >> I''m not sure how there is mistreatment when known that Solaris 10 is the >> current production-grade product and OpenSolaris, for all intents and >> purposes, a beta product that is currently under active development. ?I was >> actually surprised when SUN provided a level of support for OpenSolaris >> above and beyond bug reporting and resolution. > > So be it, but the point is that they did offer and push it, > guaranteeing the same level of support as Solaris, etc. I (perhaps > foolishly) believed it and invested heavily in it. For them to go back > on this is an affront to the idea of being a reliable, trusted > provider. I''d expect this sort of behaviour from some of the lesser > technology companies, but not from Sun and Oracle. This is what''s > supposed to set them apart.I think, we all got your point, and do agree, that there SEEMS to be a regression. But, as stated, give Oracle a bit of time, to simply CHECK each and every offering, that Sun had! Do you know, for example, that Oracle does offer LIVETIME support for products? Something, that Sun never did? So, let''s relax, sit down, and drink a cup of good tea, and let''s wait and see... And possibly talk about this topic in two months time...> And while I respect your opinion that Solaris 10 is a "current > production-grade product," to me, the reality is that it''s many > versions behind in its huge number of bundled services and it''s a lot > of work to trim down.Still, it''s a FACT, that S10 is the product, and OSOL is a community effort, and provides previee snapshots twice a year...> Its footprint is enormous compared to > OpenSoalris and its not nearly as modern. I''ve worked on it since > before it was called Solaris, so I''ve lived with this for decades now.Same here, SunOS 3.5 on a Sun 3/50...> To keep up with these fresh (albeit comparatively crude) Linux > variants, this paradigm had to change and OpenSolaris was the > solution. Thin and modern but still tremendously more solid than the > others. That''s essentially why we adopted it en masse.And as Solaris is that mature and around so long alrewady, please give the new owner the chance to get up to speed! And don''t complain after less then 4 weeks about your perceived "fate of OpenSolaris"... That''s all we''re asking here... Again: I have to repeat: I have no insight whatsoever into the proceedings at Oracle around the topics discussed here Matthias
Alan Coopersmith
2010-Feb-22 21:03 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
Matthias Pf?tzner wrote:> (change in control) and the cycle of the next version of OSOL (did you > notice, that it might be 2010.03, and not 2010.02, aka 7 months?)9 months actually since 2009.06, and that change was mostly due to aligning with the Solaris 10 update release schedules so that the resources shared between the two (such as QA) wouldn''t be overloaded trying to get both OpenSolaris 2010.12 and Solaris 10 10/09 finished up around the same time (or when many of them would be normally out for the end-of-year holidays). -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
Matthias Pfützner
2010-Feb-22 21:05 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
Oops, sorry, right, 9 months... ;-) -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----> Von: Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at Sun.COM> > Cc: jacob.ritorto at gmail.com, zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org, indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org, tim at cook.ms > Gesendet: 22.2.''10, 22:03 > > Matthias Pf?tzner wrote: >> (change in control) and the cycle of the next version of OSOL (did you >> notice, that it might be 2010.03, and not 2010.02, aka 7 months?) > > 9 months actually since 2009.06, and that change was mostly due to aligning > with the Solaris 10 update release schedules so that the resources shared > between the two (such as QA) wouldn''t be overloaded trying to get both > OpenSolaris 2010.12 and Solaris 10 10/09 finished up around the same time > (or when many of them would be normally out for the end-of-year holidays). > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com > Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
Henrik Johansen
2010-Feb-22 21:22 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
On 02/22/10 09:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote:> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com > <mailto:jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Since it seems you have absolutely no grasp of what''s happening here, > > > Coming from the guy proclaiming the sky is falling without actually > having ANY official statement whatsoever to back up that train of thought. > > perhaps it would be best for you to continue to sit idly by and let > this happen. Thanks helping out with the crude characterisations > though. > > > Idly let what happen? The unconfirmed death of opensolaris that you''ve > certified for us all without any actual proof?Well - the lack of support subscriptions *is* a death sentence for OpenSolaris in many companies and I believe that this is what the OP complained about.> Do you understand that the OpenSolaris page has a sunset in > it and the Solaris page doesn''t? > > > I understand previous versions of every piece of software Oracle sells > have Sunset pages, yes. If you read the page I sent you, it clearly > states that every release of Opensolaris gets 5 years of support from > GA. That doesn''t mean they aren''t releasing another version. That > doesn''t mean they''re ending the opensolaris project. That doesn''t mean > they are no longer selling support for it. Had you actually read the > link I posted, you''d have figured that out. > > Sun provides contractual support on the OpenSolaris OS for up to five > years from the product''s first General Availability (GA) date as > described <sun.com/service/eosl/eosl_opensolaris.html>. > OpenSolaris Package Updates are released approximately every 6 months. > OpenSolaris Subscriptions entitle customers during the term of the > Customer''s Subscription contract to receive support on their current > version of OpenSolaris, as well as receive individual Package Updates > and OpenSolaris Support Repository Package Updates when made > commercially available by Sun. Sun may require a Customer to download > and install Package Updates or OpenSolaris OS Updates that have been > released since Customer''s previous installation of OpenSolaris, > particularly when fixes have already been > > Have you spent enough (any) time > trying to renew your contracts only to see that all mentions of > OpenSolaris have been deleted from the support pages over the last few > days? > > > Can you tell me which Oracle rep you''ve spoken to who confirmed the > cancellation of Opensolaris? It''s funny, nobody I''ve talked to seems to > have any idea what you''re talking about. So please, a name would be > wonderful so I can direct my inquiry to this as-of-yet unnamed source.I have spoken to our local Oracle sales office last week because I wanted to purchase a new OpenSolaris support contract - I was informed that this was no longer possible and that Oracle is unable to provide paid support for OpenSolaris at this time.> > This, specifically, is what has been yanked out from under me > and my company. This represents years of my and my team''s effort and > investment. > > > Again, without some sort of official word, nothing has changed...I take the official Oracle website to be rather ... official ? Lets recap, shall we ? a) Almost every trace of OpenSolaris Support subscriptions vanished from the official website within the last 14 days. b) An Oracle sales rep informed me personally last week that I could no longer purchase support subscriptions for OpenSolaris. Please, do me a favor and call your local Oracle rep and ask for an Opensolaris Support subscription quote and let us know how it goes ...> It says right here those contracts are for both solaris AND opensolaris. > > sun.com/service/subscriptions/index.jsp > > Click Sun System Service Plans > <sun.com/service/serviceplans/sunspectrum/index.jsp>: > sun.com/service/serviceplans/sunspectrum/index.jsp > > > Sun System Service Plans for Solaris > > Sun System Service Plans for the Solaris Operating System provide > integrated hardware and* Solaris OS (or OpenSolaris OS)* support service > coverage to help keep your systems running smoothly. This single price, > complete system approach is ideal for companies running Solaris on Sun > hardware. >Sun System Service Plans != (Open)Solaris Support subscriptions> But thank you for the scare chicken little. > > > > > > --Tim-- Med venlig hilsen / Best Regards Henrik Johansen henrik at scannet.dk Tlf. 75 53 35 00 ScanNet Group A/S ScanNet
Erik Trimble
2010-Feb-22 22:03 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris (Please end this now)
From what I can gleen from the new sections of the relevant website, it appears that you /can/ get OpenSolaris support, provided you have SUN hardware and a System Service plan. The traditional "I want OS Support for running Solaris on my non-Sun hardware" plan doesn''t include OpenSolaris. I''d re-ask your sales rep to check that this is so (that is, if buying a Solaris Subscriiption will cover both S10 & OpenSolaris), just to be sure. They may not understand that both are now provided under the same product plan (i.e. no separate plan for OS vs S10); then again... All that said, this discussion is MARKETING, and as such, belongs on another list (such as opensolaris-discuss or better yet, directly with Oracle). Please, take if off this list, as there''s no good answer to be found here. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA
Hi,> Without saying anything negative about Nexenta I would strongly recommend > you go try to send a single patch to their equivalent of onnv-gate before > recommending it as any sort of replacement for OpenSolaris.Not sure what the above is intended to mean. To clear things, Nexenta project is open to patches. It always makes sense to send patches to the upstream project (for any project), but if there''s an instance where upstream does not integrate a patch, the Nexenta project will definitely consider adding it. This discussion is a bug/rfe report away. Code/Tracker: nexenta.org/projects/nexenta-gate Thanks, Anil
Erik Trimble <Erik.Trimble at Sun.COM> wrote:> But, yes, the proper way to talk all about this now is to say "Oracle" > when you mean the company, and "Sun" when you are talking about specific > brand-name products. The latter will almost certainly be restricted to > hardware - all software that I know of is having a ''s/Sun/Oracle/'' > regex done on it.If this is done really everywhere, then I suspect that a lot of software will no longer compile correctly. It would be interesting to know whether sun, __sun, __SunOS*, __SUNPRO*, __SUN* and similar sre still defined and what uname -s reports. 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: schily.blogspot.com URL: cdrecord.berlios.de/private ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:> > and what uname -s reports.It will surely report "OrkOS". Ork: 2. (Mythology) A mythical monster of varying descriptions; an ogre. [PJC] Goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description. --J. J. Tolkien (The Hobbit) I am glad to be able to contribute positively and constructively to this discussion. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen GraphicsMagick Maintainer, GraphicsMagick.org
oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html Half way down it says: Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java User Groups, OpenSolaris User Groups, and other Sun-related user group communities (including the Java Champions), just as Oracle actively supports hundreds of product-oriented user groups today. We will be reaching out to these groups soon. Hope this helps, Troy On 02/22/10 02:22 PM, Henrik Johansen wrote:> On 02/22/10 09:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com >> <mailto:jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> Since it seems you have absolutely no grasp of what''s happening here, >> >> >> Coming from the guy proclaiming the sky is falling without actually >> having ANY official statement whatsoever to back up that train of >> thought. >> >> perhaps it would be best for you to continue to sit idly by and let >> this happen. Thanks helping out with the crude characterisations >> though. >> >> >> Idly let what happen? The unconfirmed death of opensolaris that you''ve >> certified for us all without any actual proof? > > Well - the lack of support subscriptions *is* a death sentence for > OpenSolaris in many companies and I believe that this is what the OP > complained about. > > >> Do you understand that the OpenSolaris page has a sunset in >> it and the Solaris page doesn''t? >> >> >> I understand previous versions of every piece of software Oracle sells >> have Sunset pages, yes. If you read the page I sent you, it clearly >> states that every release of Opensolaris gets 5 years of support from >> GA. That doesn''t mean they aren''t releasing another version. That >> doesn''t mean they''re ending the opensolaris project. That doesn''t mean >> they are no longer selling support for it. Had you actually read the >> link I posted, you''d have figured that out. >> >> Sun provides contractual support on the OpenSolaris OS for up to five >> years from the product''s first General Availability (GA) date as >> described <sun.com/service/eosl/eosl_opensolaris.html>. >> OpenSolaris Package Updates are released approximately every 6 months. >> OpenSolaris Subscriptions entitle customers during the term of the >> Customer''s Subscription contract to receive support on their current >> version of OpenSolaris, as well as receive individual Package Updates >> and OpenSolaris Support Repository Package Updates when made >> commercially available by Sun. Sun may require a Customer to download >> and install Package Updates or OpenSolaris OS Updates that have been >> released since Customer''s previous installation of OpenSolaris, >> particularly when fixes have already been >> >> Have you spent enough (any) time >> trying to renew your contracts only to see that all mentions of >> OpenSolaris have been deleted from the support pages over the last few >> days? >> >> >> Can you tell me which Oracle rep you''ve spoken to who confirmed the >> cancellation of Opensolaris? It''s funny, nobody I''ve talked to seems to >> have any idea what you''re talking about. So please, a name would be >> wonderful so I can direct my inquiry to this as-of-yet unnamed source. > > I have spoken to our local Oracle sales office last week because I > wanted to purchase a new OpenSolaris support contract - I was informed > that this was no longer possible and that Oracle is unable to provide > paid support for OpenSolaris at this time. > >> >> This, specifically, is what has been yanked out from under me >> and my company. This represents years of my and my team''s effort and >> investment. >> >> >> Again, without some sort of official word, nothing has changed... > > I take the official Oracle website to be rather ... official ? > > Lets recap, shall we ? > > a) Almost every trace of OpenSolaris Support subscriptions vanished from > the official website within the last 14 days. > > b) An Oracle sales rep informed me personally last week that I could no > longer purchase support subscriptions for OpenSolaris. > > Please, do me a favor and call your local Oracle rep and ask for an > Opensolaris Support subscription quote and let us know how it goes ... > > >> It says right here those contracts are for both solaris AND opensolaris. >> >> sun.com/service/subscriptions/index.jsp >> >> Click Sun System Service Plans >> <sun.com/service/serviceplans/sunspectrum/index.jsp>: >> sun.com/service/serviceplans/sunspectrum/index.jsp >> >> >> Sun System Service Plans for Solaris >> >> Sun System Service Plans for the Solaris Operating System provide >> integrated hardware and* Solaris OS (or OpenSolaris OS)* support service >> coverage to help keep your systems running smoothly. This single price, >> complete system approach is ideal for companies running Solaris on Sun >> hardware. >> > > Sun System Service Plans != (Open)Solaris Support subscriptions > >> But thank you for the scare chicken little. >> >> >> >> >> >> --Tim > >
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell <troy.campbell at fedex.com>wrote:> > oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html > > Half way down it says: > Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? > > Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java User Groups, > OpenSolaris User Groups, and other Sun-related user group communities > (including the Java Champions), just as Oracle actively supports hundreds of > product-oriented user groups today. We will be reaching out to these groups > soon. >Supporting doesn''t necessarily mean continuing the Open Source projects! -marc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100224/43cc9c0d/attachment.html>
Michael Schuster
2010-Feb-25 08:56 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
perhaps this helps: eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Oracle-Explains-Unclear-Message-About-OpenSolaris-444787 Michael On 02/24/10 20:02, Troy Campbell wrote:> oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html > > > Half way down it says: > Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has?... -- Michael Schuster blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see ''Recursion''
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Michael Schuster <Michael.Schuster at sun.com> wrote:> perhaps this helps: > > eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Oracle-Explains-Unclear-Message-About-OpenSolaris-444787Not really. It doesn''t explain that the page in question was an explanation of how the OpenSolaris support model has worked for the past 18 months. The fact that people interpreted an unchanged 18-month old support policy (defined well before the acquisition was even mooted) as the death of the OpenSolaris project shows how crazy the world can get. I notice that the support page seems to have changed, though. In that it now says the GA period is until the next release, rather than the originally defined arbitrary 6-month timer. (You can still see the 6-month timer in the support periods for 2008.05 and 2008.11, though - notice that both of those left the GA phase before the next release happened.) Whether Oracle make changes in the future remains to be seen. I would expect them to (you can''t turn around a loss-making acquisition into a profitable subsidiary without making changes). In terms of OpenSolaris, the word is that a position statement is due shortly. -- -Peter Tribble petertribble.co.uk - ptribble.blogspot.com
It''s a kind gesture to say it''ll continue to exist and all, but without commercial support from the manufacturer, it''s relegated to hobbyist curiosity status for us. If I even mentioned using an unsupported operating system to the higherups here, it''d be considered absurd. I like free stuff to fool around with in my copious spare time as much as the next guy, don''t get me wrong, but that''s not the issue. For my company, no support contract equals ''Death of OpenSolaris.'' On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote:> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Michael Schuster > <Michael.Schuster at sun.com> wrote: >> perhaps this helps: >> >> eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Oracle-Explains-Unclear-Message-About-OpenSolaris-444787 > > Not really. It doesn''t explain that the page in question was an > explanation of how the > OpenSolaris support model has worked for the past 18 months. The fact > that people > interpreted an unchanged 18-month old support policy (defined well > before the acquisition > was even mooted) as the death of the OpenSolaris project shows how > crazy the world > can get. > > I notice that the support page seems to have changed, though. In that > it now says the > GA period is until the next release, rather than the originally > defined arbitrary > 6-month timer. (You can still see the 6-month timer in the support > periods for 2008.05 > and 2008.11, though - notice that both of those left the GA phase > before the next > release happened.) > > Whether Oracle make changes in the future remains to be seen. I would expect > them to (you can''t turn around a loss-making acquisition into a > profitable subsidiary > without making changes). > > In terms of OpenSolaris, the word is that a position statement is due shortly. > > -- > -Peter Tribble > petertribble.co.uk - ptribble.blogspot.com > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
Giovanni Tirloni
2010-Feb-25 14:11 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>wrote:> It''s a kind gesture to say it''ll continue to exist and all, but > without commercial support from the manufacturer, it''s relegated to > hobbyist curiosity status for us. If I even mentioned using an > unsupported operating system to the higherups here, it''d be considered > absurd. I like free stuff to fool around with in my copious spare > time as much as the next guy, don''t get me wrong, but that''s not the > issue. For my company, no support contract equals ''Death of > OpenSolaris.'' >OpenSolaris is not dying just because there is no support contract available for it, yet. Last time I looked Red Hat didn''t offer support contracts for Fedora and that project is doing quite well. So please be a little more realistic and say "For my company, no support contracts for OpenSolaris means that we will not use it in our mission-critical servers". That''s much more reasonable than saying the whole project is jeopardized. It''s useless to try to decide your strategy right now when things are changing. Wait for some official word from Oracle and then decide what your company is going to do. You can always install Solaris if that makes sense for you. -- Giovanni Tirloni sysdroid.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100225/b833203a/attachment.html>
Bob,> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >> and what uname -s reports. > > It will surely report "OrkOS".For OpenSolaris, "OracOS" - surely there must be Blakes 7 fans in Oracle Corp.?> I am glad to be able to contribute positively and constructively to > this discussion.Metoo ;-) ... Sean.
On 25 Feb 2010, at 14:28, Sean Sprague wrote:> Bob, > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> >>> and what uname -s reports. >> >> It will surely report "OrkOS". > > For OpenSolaris, "OracOS" - surely there must be Blakes 7 fans in Oracle Corp.?You can see all the working bits courtesy of dtrace...>> I am glad to be able to contribute positively and constructively to this discussion. > > Metoo ;-) ... Sean.I''ll get my coat. Cheers, Chris
On Feb 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Giovanni Tirloni <gtirloni at sysdroid.com> wrote:> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com > > wrote: > It''s a kind gesture to say it''ll continue to exist and all, but > without commercial support from the manufacturer, it''s relegated to > hobbyist curiosity status for us. If I even mentioned using an > unsupported operating system to the higherups here, it''d be considered > absurd. I like free stuff to fool around with in my copious spare > time as much as the next guy, don''t get me wrong, but that''s not the > issue. For my company, no support contract equals ''Death of > OpenSolaris.'' > > OpenSolaris is not dying just because there is no support contract > available for it, yet. > > Last time I looked Red Hat didn''t offer support contracts for Fedora > and that project is doing quite well.Difference here is Redhat doesn''t claim Fedora as a production OS. While CentOS is a derivative of RHEL and also comes with no support contracts as it just recompiles RHEL source one gets the inherited binary support through this and technical support through the community. OpenSolaris not being as transparent and more leading edge doesn''t get the stability of binary support that Solaris has and the community is always playing catch-up on the technical details. Which make it about as suitable for production use as Fedora. The commercial support contracts attempted to bridge the gap between the lack of knowledge due to the newness and the binary stability with patches. Without it OS is no longer really production quality. A little scattered in my reasoning but I think I get the main idea across. -Ross -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100225/0639b7fd/attachment.html>
On 02/24/10 12:04 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote:> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell <troy.campbell at fedex.com > <mailto:troy.campbell at fedex.com>> wrote: > > oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html > > Half way down it says: > Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? > > Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java User > Groups, OpenSolaris User Groups, and other Sun-related user group > communities (including the Java Champions), just as Oracle actively > supports hundreds of product-oriented user groups today. We will be > reaching out to these groups soon. > > Supporting doesn''t necessarily mean continuing the Open Source projects! >More info: itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3867771/OpenSolaris-Alive-and-Well-at-Oracle.htm> -marc
"C. Bergström"
2010-Mar-02 01:17 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
Troy Campbell wrote:> > > On 02/24/10 12:04 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell <troy.campbell at fedex.com >> <mailto:troy.campbell at fedex.com>> wrote: >> >> >> oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html >> >> >> Half way down it says: >> Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? >> >> Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java User >> Groups, OpenSolaris User Groups, and other Sun-related user group >> communities (including the Java Champions), just as Oracle actively >> supports hundreds of product-oriented user groups today. We will be >> reaching out to these groups soon. >> >> Supporting doesn''t necessarily mean continuing the Open Source projects! >> > More info: > > itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3867771/OpenSolaris-Alive-and-Well-at-Oracle.htm >"There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the stack," Roberts said. "It''s important to understand the plan now is to deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time measuring that with continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open." "This will be a balancing act, one that we''ll get right sometimes, but may not always." ------------- From the feedback data I''ve seen customers dislike this type of licensing model most. Dan may or may not be reading this, but I''d strongly discourage this approach. Without knowing more I don''t know what alternative I could recommend though.. (Too bad I missed that irc meeting..) ./C
2010/3/1 "C. Bergstr?m" <codestr0m at osunix.org>> Troy Campbell wrote: > >> >> >> On 02/24/10 12:04 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell <troy.campbell at fedex.com >>> <mailto:troy.campbell at fedex.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html >>> >>> Half way down it says: >>> Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? >>> >>> Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java User >>> Groups, OpenSolaris User Groups, and other Sun-related user group >>> communities (including the Java Champions), just as Oracle actively >>> supports hundreds of product-oriented user groups today. We will be >>> reaching out to these groups soon. >>> >>> Supporting doesn''t necessarily mean continuing the Open Source projects! >>> >>> More info: >> >> >> itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3867771/OpenSolaris-Alive-and-Well-at-Oracle.htm >> > "There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, > similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the stack," > Roberts said. "It''s important to understand the plan now is to deliver value > again out of our IP investment, while at the same time measuring that with > continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open." > > "This will be a balancing act, one that we''ll get right sometimes, but may > not always." > > ------------- > From the feedback data I''ve seen customers dislike this type of licensing > model most. Dan may or may not be reading this, but I''d strongly discourage > this approach. Without knowing more I don''t know what alternative I could > recommend though.. (Too bad I missed that irc meeting..) > > ./C > >So don''t buy the 7000 series. I find no issue with that model. --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100301/8f9caf57/attachment.html>
Thomas Burgess
2010-Mar-02 01:52 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
"There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the stack," Roberts said. "It''s important to understand the plan now is to deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time measuring that with continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open."> > "This will be a balancing act, one that we''ll get right sometimes, but may > not always." > > ------------- > From the feedback data I''ve seen customers dislike this type of licensing > model most. Dan may or may not be reading this, but I''d strongly discourage > this approach. Without knowing more I don''t know what alternative I could > recommend though.. (Too bad I missed that irc meeting..) > > ./C > > I may be wrong, but isn''t this already what they do? I mean, there is abunch of proprietary stuff in solaris that didn''t make it into opensolaris. I thought this was how they did things anyways, or am i misunderstanding something. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100301/12f45903/attachment.html>
"C. Bergström"
2010-Mar-02 02:18 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
Thomas Burgess wrote:> "There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, > similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the > stack," Roberts said. "It''s important to understand the plan now is to > deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time > measuring that with continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open." > > > "This will be a balancing act, one that we''ll get right sometimes, > but may not always." > > ------------- > >From the feedback data I''ve seen customers dislike this type of > licensing model most. Dan may or may not be reading this, but I''d > strongly discourage this approach. Without knowing more I don''t > know what alternative I could recommend though.. (Too bad I missed > that irc meeting..) > > ./C > > I may be wrong, but isn''t this already what they do? I mean, there is > a bunch of proprietary stuff in solaris that didn''t make it into > opensolaris. I thought this was how they did things anyways, or am i > misunderstanding something.Not exactly.. From my understanding.. (and I put a lot of time removing the proprietary "stuff") is that for OpenSolaris the closed parts simply weren''t available under and open source license. example.. tail/cli - Probably from 20+ years ago and it''s exact origins may not be all known libc - The wide character support in libc from IBM, who isn''t exactly open source friendly drivers - I didn''t look into specific things with drivers and just never used them. C++ runtime/compilers - no comment :) With regards to the 7000 series or other appliances which may bring the trolls further... Personally, I consider that an appliance and not OpenSolaris proper.. I don''t know where I draw the line, but I''d be disappointed if zfs didn''t have all the full features in OpenSolaris, but also surprised if the landscape and management interfaces were made open source.
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 20:52 -0500, Thomas Burgess wrote:> "There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, > similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the > stack," Roberts said. "It''s important to understand the plan now is to > deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time > measuring that with continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open." > > "This will be a balancing act, one that we''ll get right > sometimes, but may not always." > > ------------- > From the feedback data I''ve seen customers dislike this type > of licensing model most. Dan may or may not be reading this, > but I''d strongly discourage this approach. Without knowing > more I don''t know what alternative I could recommend though.. > (Too bad I missed that irc meeting..) > > ./C > > > > I may be wrong, but isn''t this already what they do? I mean, there is > a bunch of proprietary stuff in solaris that didn''t make it into > opensolaris. I thought this was how they did things anyways, or am i > misunderstanding something. >Not quite. The stuff that didn''t make it from Solaris Nevada into OpenSolaris was pretty much everything that /couldn''t/ be open-sourced, or was being EOL''d in any case. We didn''t really hold anything back there. The better analogy is what Tim Cook pointed out, which is the version of OpenSolaris that runs on the 7000-series storage devices. There''s some stuff on there that isn''t going to be putback into the OpenSolaris repos. I don''t know, and I certainly can''t speak for the project, but I suspect the type of enhancements which won''t make it out into the OpenSolaris repos are indeed ones like we ship with the 7000-series hardware. That is, I doubt that you will be able to get an "OpenSolaris with Oracle Improvements" software distro/package - the proprietary stuff will only be used as part of a package bundle, since Oracle is big on one-stop-integrated-solution things. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)
Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I''ve just found perhaps the only written proof that OpenSolaris is supportable. For those of you who deny that this is an issue, its existence as a supported OS has been recently erased from every other place I''ve seen on the Oracle sites. Everyone please grab a copy of this before they silently delete it and claim that it never existed. I''m buying a contract right now. I may just take back every mean thing I ever said about Oracle. sun.com/servicelist/ss/lgscaledcsupprt-us-eng-20091001.pdf On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Erik Trimble <Erik.Trimble at sun.com> wrote:> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 20:52 -0500, Thomas Burgess wrote: >> "There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, >> similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the >> stack," Roberts said. "It''s important to understand the plan now is to >> deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time >> measuring that with continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open." >> >> ? ? ? ? "This will be a balancing act, one that we''ll get right >> ? ? ? ? sometimes, but may not always." >> >> ? ? ? ? ------------- >> ? ? ? ? From the feedback data I''ve seen customers dislike this type >> ? ? ? ? of licensing model most. ?Dan may or may not be reading this, >> ? ? ? ? but I''d strongly discourage this approach. ?Without knowing >> ? ? ? ? more I don''t know what alternative I could recommend though.. >> ? ? ? ? (Too bad I missed that irc meeting..) >> >> ? ? ? ? ./C >> >> >> >> I may be wrong, but isn''t this already what they do? ?I mean, there is >> a bunch of proprietary stuff in solaris that didn''t make it into >> opensolaris. ?I thought this was how they did things anyways, or am i >> misunderstanding something. >> > > Not quite. The stuff that didn''t make it from Solaris Nevada into > OpenSolaris was pretty much everything that /couldn''t/ be open-sourced, > or was being EOL''d in any case. We didn''t really hold anything back > there. > > The better analogy is what Tim Cook pointed out, which is the version of > OpenSolaris that runs on the 7000-series storage devices. There''s some > stuff on there that isn''t going to be putback into the OpenSolaris > repos. > > > I don''t know, and I certainly can''t speak for the project, but I suspect > the type of enhancements which won''t make it out into the OpenSolaris > repos are indeed ones like we ship with the 7000-series hardware. That > is, I doubt that you will be able to get an "OpenSolaris with Oracle > Improvements" software distro/package - the proprietary stuff will only > be used as part of a package bundle, since Oracle is big on > one-stop-integrated-solution things. > > > -- > Erik Trimble > Java System Support > Mailstop: ?usca22-123 > Phone: ?x17195 > Santa Clara, CA > Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>wrote:> Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I''ve just found perhaps the only > written proof that OpenSolaris is supportable. For those of you who > deny that this is an issue, its existence as a supported OS has been > recently erased from every other place I''ve seen on the Oracle sites. > Everyone please grab a copy of this before they silently delete it and > claim that it never existed. I''m buying a contract right now. I may > just take back every mean thing I ever said about Oracle. > > sun.com/servicelist/ss/lgscaledcsupprt-us-eng-20091001.pdf > >Erased from every site? Assuming when I pointed out several links the first go round wasn''t enough, how bout directly on the opensolaris page itself? opensolaris.com/learn/features/availability ? Highly available open source based solutions ready to deploy on OpenSolaris with *full production support from Sun. * OpenSolaris enables developers to develop, debug, and globally deploy applications faster, with built-in innovative features and with *full production support from Sun.* * * *Full production level support Both Standard and Premium support offerings are available for deployment of Open HA Cluster 2009.06 with OpenSolaris 2009.06 with following configurations: * etc. etc. etc. So do you get paid directly by IBM then, or is it more of a "consultant" type role? --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100323/40cf4f80/attachment.html>
Wow, they actually did the right thing in the end. This is fantastic. I''m all too happy to eat as much crow as you have to offer. I wonder when (if?) they''ll bring back the ability to purchase OpenSolaris subscriptions online.. I''m actually so happy right now that I even appreciate Tim''s clueless would-be cynicisms :) On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Tim Cook <tim at cook.ms> wrote:> > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I''ve just found perhaps the only >> written proof that OpenSolaris is supportable. ?For those of you who >> deny that this is an issue, its existence as a supported OS has been >> recently erased from every other place I''ve seen on the Oracle sites. >> Everyone please grab a copy of this before they silently delete it and >> claim that it never existed. ?I''m buying a contract right now. ?I may >> just take back every mean thing I ever said about Oracle. >> >> sun.com/servicelist/ss/lgscaledcsupprt-us-eng-20091001.pdf >> > > > Erased from every site? ? Assuming when I pointed?out?several links the > first go round wasn''t enough, how bout directly on the opensolaris page > itself? > opensolaris.com/learn/features/availability > ? Highly available open source based solutions ready to deploy on > OpenSolaris with full production support from Sun. > OpenSolaris enables developers to develop, debug, and globally deploy > applications faster, with built-in innovative features and with full > production support from Sun. > > Full production level support > > Both Standard and Premium support offerings are available for deployment of > Open HA Cluster 2009.06 with OpenSolaris 2009.06 with following > configurations: > > etc. etc. etc. > ?So do you get paid directly by IBM then, or is it more of a "consultant" > type role? > --Tim > >