zfs discuss - Apr 2010 - Oracle to no longer support ZFS on OpenSolaris?

Greetings All:

Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD mailing
list post dated 4/20/2010"

"...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."

Link here to full post here:

<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-April/215269.html>

It seems like such would be pretty outrageous and the OP either confused
or spreading FUD, but then on the other hand there''s lot of rumors
flying around about hidden agendas behind the 2010.03 delay, and Oracle
being Oracle such could be within the realm of possibilities.

Given Oracle''s information policies we''re not likely to know
if such is
indeed the case until it''s a fait accompli but I nonetheless thought
this would be the best place to inquire (or perhaps Indiana list, as I
assume OP is referencing upcoming opensolaris.com release). 

Thank you and have a nice day.

-- 
Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>

Ken Gunderson wrote:
> Greetings All:
>
> Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
> Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD
mailing
> list post dated 4/20/2010"
>
> "...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."
>   
This guy probably
1) Doesn''t know the difference between OpenSolaris and Solaris
2) Doesn''t know anything
3) Doesn''t cite a source

Stop wasting everyone''s time with speculation and FUD

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 12:27 +0700, "C. Bergstr?m"
wrote:
> Ken Gunderson wrote:
> > Greetings All:
> >
> > Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
> > Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD
mailing
> > list post dated 4/20/2010"
> >
> > "...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."
> >   
> This guy probably
> 1) Doesn''t know the difference between OpenSolaris and Solaris
> 2) Doesn''t know anything
> 3) Doesn''t cite a source
> 
> Stop wasting everyone''s time with speculation and FUD
I think from the context of my post it was pretty clear that I viewed
the OP''s thread as suspect.  Not being omnipotent, however, the
possibility exists that they may know something I do not, particularly
as the time stamp was very recent.  As I am sincerely interested in
either dispelling or confirming this as the case may be, I posted to the
place I thought most likely to offer a definitive answer.  

-- 
Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>

On 20.04.10 07:52, Ken Gunderson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 12:27 +0700, "C. Bergstr?m" wrote:
>> Ken Gunderson wrote:
>>> Greetings All:
>>>
>>> Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
>>> Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a
FreeBSD mailing
>>> list post dated 4/20/2010"
>>>
>>> "...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."
>>>
>> This guy probably
>> 1) Doesn''t know the difference between OpenSolaris and Solaris
>> 2) Doesn''t know anything
>> 3) Doesn''t cite a source
>>
>> Stop wasting everyone''s time with speculation and FUD
>
> I think from the context of my post it was pretty clear that I viewed
> the OP''s thread as suspect.  Not being omnipotent, however, the
> possibility exists that they may know something I do not, particularly
> as the time stamp was very recent.  As I am sincerely interested in
> either dispelling or confirming this as the case may be, I posted to the
> place I thought most likely to offer a definitive answer.
if you''d been watching this place since the acquisition, you''d
know that
that is not the case - this is primarily an engineering "place",
whereas
answers regarding questions like the one you''re floating come from the 
marketing/management side of the house.

The best chance for you to find out about this is to talk to your Oracle 
sales rep.

Michael
-- 
michael.schuster at oracle.com
Recursion, n.: see ''Recursion''

This is how rumors get started.
>From reading that thread, the OP didn''t seem to know much of
anything
about...
anything.  Even less so about Solaris and OpenSolaris.  I''d advise not
to
get your
news from mailing lists, especially not mailing lists for people who
don''t
use the
product you''re interested in.

Nothing like this has been said anywhere by anyone that even resembles or
approximates an Oracle representative.  So, yeah, ignore it, as the guy was
just asking dumb questions in a very poor manner about things he has
absolutely
no knowledge of, and adding assumptions on top of that, in his best but not
very
good English.  At least, that''s my impression and opinion.

Finally, Michael S. made the best recommendation...talk to your sales rep if
you''re
a paying customer.

Cheers!

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:18, Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>
wrote:
> Greetings All:
>
> Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
> Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD
mailing
> list post dated 4/20/2010"
>
> "...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."
>
> Link here to full post here:
>
> <
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-April/215269.html
> >
>
> It seems like such would be pretty outrageous and the OP either confused
> or spreading FUD, but then on the other hand there''s lot of rumors
> flying around about hidden agendas behind the 2010.03 delay, and Oracle
> being Oracle such could be within the realm of possibilities.
>
> Given Oracle''s information policies we''re not likely to
know if such is
> indeed the case until it''s a fait accompli but I nonetheless
thought
> this would be the best place to inquire (or perhaps Indiana list, as I
> assume OP is referencing upcoming opensolaris.com release).
>
> Thank you and have a nice day.
>
> --
> Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>


-- 
"You can choose your friends, you can choose the deals." - Equity
Private

"If Linux is faster, it''s a Solaris bug." - Phil Harman

Blog - http://whatderass.blogspot.com/
Twitter - @khyron4eva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100420/9b09e767/attachment.html>

Why don''t you just fix the apparently broken link to your source, then?

Regards,

Tonmaus
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

I have no idea who you''re talking to, but presumably you mean this
link:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-April/215269.html

Worked fine for me.  I didn''t post it.  I''m not the OP on this
thread or on
the FreeBSD thread.  So what "broken link" are you talking about and
to whom

were you responding?

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 06:58, Tonmaus <sequoiamobil at gmx.net> wrote:
> Why don''t you just fix the apparently broken link to your source,
then?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tonmaus
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>


-- 
"You can choose your friends, you can choose the deals." - Equity
Private

"If Linux is faster, it''s a Solaris bug." - Phil Harman

Blog - http://whatderass.blogspot.com/
Twitter - @khyron4eva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100420/953797fa/attachment.html>

> you talking about and to whom <br>were you
> responding?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
 My intention was a response to the OP, which I guess from what I am seeing in
the jive forum, happened as well. Indeed, my concern was the broken link in the
first post which would be simple to fix if intended. That not being the case
increases the smell of FUD.

-Tonmaus
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Tonmaus,
>> you talking about and to whom <br>were you
>> responding?<br><br><div
class="gmail_quote">
> My intention was a response to the OP, which I guess from what I am 
> seeing in the jive forum, happened as well. Indeed, my concern was the 
> broken link in the first post which would be simple to fix if 
> intended. That not being the case increases the smell of FUD.
Sorry. We are not mind(or intention)-readers. If you have a specific 
comment which should be directed to a specific individual, then a forum 
is not the best place to air it. Having said that, "The <...> website
appears to be down at the moment - anyone fixing it?" is more than 
acceptable. Netiquette rules. To quote you: "Why don''t you just
fix the
apparently broken link to your source, then?" is _not_ forum/list material.

Thanks... Sean.

Don''t copy the netiquette issue you are seeing, as I am talking about
nothing but an issue in a post on this forum. Why should I contact the OP off
record about this?
There is no need to read intentions either. I just made clear once more what is
obvious from board metadata anyhow.
Besides that, if we are having a dispute about netiquette, that highlights the
potential substance of the topic more than anything else.

Regards,

Tonmaus
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Oracle has no plan to move from ZFS as the principle storage platform for
Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. It remains key to both data management and to
the OS infrastructure such as root/boot, install and upgrade.
Thanks

Dominic Kay
Product Manager, Filesystems
Oracle

2010/4/20 Khyron <khyron4eva at gmail.com>
> This is how rumors get started.
>
> From reading that thread, the OP didn''t seem to know much of
anything
> about...
> anything.  Even less so about Solaris and OpenSolaris.  I''d advise
not to
> get your
> news from mailing lists, especially not mailing lists for people who
don''t
> use the
> product you''re interested in.
>
> Nothing like this has been said anywhere by anyone that even resembles or
> approximates an Oracle representative.  So, yeah, ignore it, as the guy was
>
> just asking dumb questions in a very poor manner about things he has
> absolutely
> no knowledge of, and adding assumptions on top of that, in his best but not
> very
> good English.  At least, that''s my impression and opinion.
>
> Finally, Michael S. made the best recommendation...talk to your sales rep
> if you''re
> a paying customer.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:18, Ken Gunderson <kgunders at
teamcool.net>wrote:
>
>> Greetings All:
>>
>> Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
>> Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD
mailing
>> list post dated 4/20/2010"
>>
>> "...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."
>>
>> Link here to full post here:
>>
>> <
>>
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-April/215269.html
>> >
>>
>> It seems like such would be pretty outrageous and the OP either
confused
>> or spreading FUD, but then on the other hand there''s lot of
rumors
>> flying around about hidden agendas behind the 2010.03 delay, and Oracle
>> being Oracle such could be within the realm of possibilities.
>>
>> Given Oracle''s information policies we''re not likely
to know if such is
>> indeed the case until it''s a fait accompli but I nonetheless
thought
>> this would be the best place to inquire (or perhaps Indiana list, as I
>> assume OP is referencing upcoming opensolaris.com release).
>>
>> Thank you and have a nice day.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zfs-discuss mailing list
>> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "You can choose your friends, you can choose the deals." - Equity
Private
>
> "If Linux is faster, it''s a Solaris bug." - Phil Harman
>
> Blog - http://whatderass.blogspot.com/
> Twitter - @khyron4eva
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>

-- 
Dominic Kay
+44 780 124 6099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100420/f288d6ae/attachment.html>

Khyron,
> Finally, Michael S. made the best recommendation...talk to your sales 
> rep if you''re
> a paying customer.
... but don''t expect any commitments or generic answer from them at the
moment.

I do however congratulate quoting Mr. Harman in your .sig ;-)

Regards... Sean.

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 13:57 +0100, Dominic Kay wrote:
> Oracle has no plan to move from ZFS as the principle storage platform
> for Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. It remains key to both data management
> and to the OS infrastructure such as root/boot, install and upgrade.  
> Thanks
> 
> Dominic Kay
> Product Manager, Filesystems
> Oracle
I''ll take that as a "definitive answer";) 

Much appreciated. Thank you.

-- 
Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 05:48 -0700, Tonmaus wrote:
> Don''t copy the netiquette issue you are seeing, as I am talking
about nothing but an issue in a post on this forum. Why should I contact the OP
off record about this?
> There is no need to read intentions either. I just made clear once more
what is obvious from board metadata anyhow.
> Besides that, if we are having a dispute about netiquette, that highlights
the potential substance of the topic more than anything else.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tonmaus
fwiw- the post was to a mailing list handled by the excellent, and these
days defacto standard open source, listserver Mailman. Apparently
backend processing then propagates to Jive forums after stripping URLs.
Hence the missing link when viewed via the forums, opening the potential
for confusion for the unaware.  If you want to follow the link included
in my OP, simply access via Mailman archives, where it is indeed
reproduced intact.

Thank you and have a nice day.

P.S.; Speaking of netiquette, it is also quite nice that Mailman is
smart enough to know to wrap email body text at 72-80 chars.  I''ve
never
admined Jive forum and unsure whether it''s tunable but it would be nice
if the powers that be could configure Jive to wrap emails at correct
line lengths.

-- 
Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>

Not to be a conspiracy nut but anyone anywhere could have registered 
that gmail account and supplied that answer.  It would be a lot more 
believable from Mr Kay''s Oracle or Sun account.

On 4/20/2010 9:40 AM, Ken Gunderson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 13:57 +0100, Dominic Kay wrote:
>    
>> Oracle has no plan to move from ZFS as the principle storage platform
>> for Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. It remains key to both data management
>> and to the OS infrastructure such as root/boot, install and upgrade.
>> Thanks
>>
>> Dominic Kay
>> Product Manager, Filesystems
>> Oracle
>>      
> I''ll take that as a "definitive answer";)
>
> Much appreciated. Thank you.
>
>

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Don Turnbull wrote:
> Not to be a conspiracy nut but anyone anywhere could have registered that 
> gmail account and supplied that answer.  It would be a lot more believable 
> from Mr Kay''s Oracle or Sun account.
It is true that gmail accounts are just as free and untrustworthy as 
your own temporary yahoo.com email account.

Next someone with a yahoo.com email account will be posting that Ford 
will no longer supports round tires on their trucks.  Statements to 
the contrary will not be accepted unless they come from a @ford.com 
address.

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

On Tue, Apr 20 at 11:41, Don Turnbull wrote:
>Not to be a conspiracy nut but anyone anywhere could have registered 
>that gmail account and supplied that answer.  It would be a lot more 
>believable from Mr Kay''s Oracle or Sun account.
+1

Glad I wasn''t the only one who noticed.

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

This thread starts with someone who doesn''t claim to have any  
authoritative information or attempt to cite any sources using a gmail  
account to post to a mailgroup. Now people turn around and say that  
they doubt the sourcing on this, but looking at the archives of this  
list, there are a number of posts over the years from a Dominic Kay  
using this gmail address but providing links to a Sun employee blog
(http://blogs.sun.com/dom/
). If you Google "Dominic Kay Oracle", you can find this
(http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:NuhbvEoafV4J:www.snwusa.com/ereg/popups/speakerdetails.php%3Feventid%3D8242%26speakerid%3D5987+dominic+kay+oracle&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
) cached hit as some corroboration of his role. If this is a false  
flag, it was planted three years ago and has somehow managed to pass  
without challenge in the interim. People are more than happy to say  
that they''re sceptical, but there''s a lot of data points that
indicate
that what is willing to self-identify as risking conspiracy theory  
isn''t using basic research in the public domain to see what  
potentially dispositive information can be sourced there.

ZFS is increasingly integrated into the core of Solaris. Is the same  
company that''s giving away btrfs going to require engineering a less  
powerful filesystem than zfs just so it can be a differentiator  
between OpenSolaris and Solaris? Are filesystems really on a plane of  
engineering where you want to develop them on an entirely separate  
track from OpenSolaris, where no statement contradicts the premise  
that it remains the development branch of Solaris? Even if you''re sold
on the premise that Oracle are trying to maximise revenue off of  
Solaris at the expense of products bundled with OpenSolaris, I just  
can''t get to the point where a rumour like this one seems like a  
credible formulation of how they might go about that. If anything, the  
result here is that a core component of Solaris would suffer from the  
imposition of a more convoluted development model.

These folks running the relevant business lines have already said  
publicly to the OGB that Oracle''s corporate management accepts the  
basic premise of OpenSolaris, so why pass the time waiting to learn  
how they''re going to make good on this by concocting baroque  
conspiracy theories about how they''re going to reverse themselves in  
some material fashion or passing along rumours to that effect?

Am 20 Apr 2010 um 17:51 schrieb Eric D. Mudama:
> On Tue, Apr 20 at 11:41, Don Turnbull wrote:
>> Not to be a conspiracy nut but anyone anywhere could have  
>> registered that gmail account and supplied that answer.  It would  
>> be a lot more believable from Mr Kay''s Oracle or Sun account.
>
> +1
>
> Glad I wasn''t the only one who noticed.
>
> -- 
> Eric D. Mudama
> edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100420/68f37cbe/attachment.html>

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 18:51 +0100, Bayard Bell wrote:
> This thread starts with someone who doesn''t claim to have any
> authoritative information or attempt to cite any sources using a gmail
> account to post to a mailgroup. Now people turn around and say that
Whoa!  By way of clarification: 

1) If I had authoritative information why would I bother posing the
question?

2) The source were I ran across the info that prompted my query was
cited in my initial post and present in the email sent out by the
Mailman listserver.  Noting evidence of confusion from some reading via
Jive forum interface I followed up with an explanation.

3) Rather than fan rumor and speculation by posting to
freebsd-questions, a list to which I am not subscribed, I addressed my
query to what I deemed the most appropriate source for an authoritative
answer.  Moreover, in so doing I explicitly qualified the post as
suspect.

4) I do not have, nor have ever had, a gmail address.  To the contrary
my email address is readily apparent in my signature.
>  they doubt the sourcing on this, but looking at the archives of this
> list, there are a number of posts over the years from a Dominic Kay
> using this gmail address but providing links to a Sun employee blog
> (http://blogs.sun.com/dom/). If you Google "Dominic Kay Oracle",
you
I didn''t need to, as I already knew the name.  Hence I publicly
acknowledged his reply as more than satisfactory, expressed my
gratitude, and moved on.  I don''t really see grounds for directing
these
vehement comments my way.  The misinformation has now been identified as
such and nipped in the bud, wh/I would think would be a good thing.

Thank you and have a nice day.


-- 
Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>

Ken,

The sharpest parts of my remarks weren''t directed your way, and I  
regret if that wasn''t as clear as I had thought. For clarification: I  
was referring to the thread as starting with what you forwarded by URL  
(which was sent from a gmail address to the freebsd list), and my  
objection was in the first instance to people who came back and  
questioned the reply because it came from a gmail address.

As fortuitous as it is that someone from Oracle stepped into say that  
there are no plans to strip ZFS out of OpenSolaris, my fundamental  
objection nonetheless stands: the premise that it would be pulled had  
a basic lack of credibility in both its premise and its particulars. I  
appreciate that you mean to help by quashing these kind of stories,  
but do we really mean to re-task the OpenSolaris list with challenging  
every suggestive rumour that shows up on the Internet about the impact  
of the acquisition on product roadmaps? I mean, is asking to have it  
rejected by authoritative sources really a compelling reason to  
circulate it further in the first instance? That seems to involve some  
risks (e.g. perhaps you don''t get a response, as there seem to be a  
number of people trying to get the hang of Oracle corporate  
communications policies, which seem deeply vexing to parts of the  
community that are concerned about the future of their sweat equity in  
OpenSolaris), where there are reasonable criteria for saying when this  
is unnecessary. Surely there has to be some threshold of plausibility  
before these things are passed on in a public forum, and, while I  
don''t mean to imply that forwarding the post to this list is something
singularly egregious, the two further posts quoted in my reply  
reinforced to me how low the bar was set and how much this  
participates in conspiracy theory (a rumour is posted to one list,  
forwarded to another, attracts a rebuttal, and rather than asking why  
they should credit the rumour in the first place, there remain a few  
people whose spirit of critical inquiry is singularly focused on the  
provenance of the rebuttal). Given that there are clearly some people  
for whom this wasn''t nipped in the bud in the manner you suggest,  
where these people wouldn''t necessarily have been aware of this were  
it not for your post, despite your best intentions, there remain signs  
of lingering negative effects that you''ve not addressed below. I
don''t
mean to be vehement towards you in saying any of this, but I don''t on  
the other hand mean to understate real, foreseeable, and negative  
consequences.

For such reasons, shouldn''t the standard for forwarding with a request
for clarification require that a rumour consist of what a reasonable  
person would believe based on clear attribution and credible sources?

Cheers,
Bayard

Am 20 Apr 2010 um 20:09 schrieb Ken Gunderson:
>
> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 18:51 +0100, Bayard Bell wrote:
>> This thread starts with someone who doesn''t claim to have any
>> authoritative information or attempt to cite any sources using a  
>> gmail
>> account to post to a mailgroup. Now people turn around and say that
>
> Whoa!  By way of clarification:
>
> 1) If I had authoritative information why would I bother posing the
> question?
>
> 2) The source were I ran across the info that prompted my query was
> cited in my initial post and present in the email sent out by the
> Mailman listserver.  Noting evidence of confusion from some reading  
> via
> Jive forum interface I followed up with an explanation.
>
> 3) Rather than fan rumor and speculation by posting to
> freebsd-questions, a list to which I am not subscribed, I addressed my
> query to what I deemed the most appropriate source for an  
> authoritative
> answer.  Moreover, in so doing I explicitly qualified the post as
> suspect.
>
> 4) I do not have, nor have ever had, a gmail address.  To the contrary
> my email address is readily apparent in my signature.
>
>> they doubt the sourcing on this, but looking at the archives of this
>> list, there are a number of posts over the years from a Dominic Kay
>> using this gmail address but providing links to a Sun employee blog
>> (http://blogs.sun.com/dom/). If you Google "Dominic Kay
Oracle", you
>
> I didn''t need to, as I already knew the name.  Hence I publicly
> acknowledged his reply as more than satisfactory, expressed my
> gratitude, and moved on.  I don''t really see grounds for directing
> these
> vehement comments my way.  The misinformation has now been  
> identified as
> such and nipped in the bud, wh/I would think would be a good thing.
>
> Thank you and have a nice day.
>
>
> -- 
> Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>
>

To reiterate, Oracle has no plan to move from ZFS as the principle 
storage platform for Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. It remains key to both 
data management and to the OS infrastructure such as root/boot, install 
and upgrade. 
Thanks

Dominic Kay
Product Manager, Filesystems
Oracle
+44 780 124 6099

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 06:51:01PM +0100, Bayard Bell wrote:
> These folks running the relevant business lines have already said  
> publicly to the OGB that Oracle''s corporate management accepts the
> basic premise of OpenSolaris, so why pass the time waiting to learn  
> how they''re going to make good on this by concocting baroque  
> conspiracy theories about how they''re going to reverse themselves
in
> some material fashion or passing along rumours to that effect?
It doesn''t take ''baroque conspiracy theories'', just
look at
Oracle''s track of past technology acquisitions. The burden
of proof is quite onerous, and quite in their court. Words
are not nearly enough.

It seems the technology is finished, unless a credible fork is 
forthcoming. 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100421/15469c98/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: .oracle.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1905 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100421/15469c98/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: .shc.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1868 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100421/15469c98/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: green-for-email-sig_0.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100421/15469c98/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: .qrcode.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100421/15469c98/attachment.png>

Great! Dominik, Oracle needs to silence FUD immediately. Proactive initiative.
:o)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Eugen,

Oracle has a number of technologies that they''ve acquired that have  
remained dual-licensed, and that includes acquiring InnoTech, which  
they carried forward despite being able to use it as nearly an  
existential threat to MySQL. In the case of their acquisition of  
Sleepycat, I''m aware of open-source licensing terms becoming more  
generous after the Oracle acquisition, where Oracle added a clear  
stipulation that redistribution requiring commercial licensing had to  
involve third parties, where prior to the acquisition Sleepycat had  
taken a less more expansive interpretation that covered just about any  
form of software distribution. Their record is a lot more nuanced that  
you''re prepared to acknowledge or allow. Lo and behold, open source  
technologies acquired by Oracle remain open and are used by other open  
source projects. That''s not easily squared with your insistence that  
the technology is "finished" by virtue of a change in corporate  
ownership and requires a fork to right things. How about we talk about  
the problems we are in fact having rather than letting our actions be  
guided by the most suggestive rumour that floats by?

Sorry if I''ve not made sufficient allowances for simplistic conspiracy
theories, but unless you can show some evidence of serious research  
supporting your views, the line you''re talking falls before Daniel  
Patrick Moynihan''s remark that, "Everyone is entitled to his own  
opinion, but not his own facts."

Cheers,
Bayard

Am 21 Apr 2010 um 10:40 schrieb Eugen Leitl:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 06:51:01PM +0100, Bayard Bell wrote:
>
>> These folks running the relevant business lines have already said
>> publicly to the OGB that Oracle''s corporate management accepts
the
>> basic premise of OpenSolaris, so why pass the time waiting to learn
>> how they''re going to make good on this by concocting baroque
>> conspiracy theories about how they''re going to reverse
themselves in
>> some material fashion or passing along rumours to that effect?
>
> It doesn''t take ''baroque conspiracy theories'',
just look at
> Oracle''s track of past technology acquisitions. The burden
> of proof is quite onerous, and quite in their court. Words
> are not nearly enough.
>
> It seems the technology is finished, unless a credible fork is
> forthcoming.
>
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
http://leitl.org
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100421/9ccd5884/attachment.html>

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Ken Gunderson <kgunders at teamcool.net>
wrote:
> Greetings All:
>
> Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
> Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD
mailing
> list post dated 4/20/2010"
>
> "...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."
>
> Link here to full post here:
>
>
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-April/215269.html>
I am not surprised it comes from FreeBSD mail list. :) I am amazed of
their BSD conferences when they presenting all this *BSD stuff using
Apple Macs (they claim it is a FreeBSD, just very bad version of it),
Ubuntu Linux (not yet BSD) or GNU/Microsoft Windows (oh, everybody
does that sin, right?) with a PowerPoint running on it (sure, who
wants ugly OpenOffice if there no brain enough to use LaTeX).

As for a starter, please somebody read this:
http://developers.sun.ru/techdays2010/reports/OracleSolarisTrack/TD_STP_OracleSolarisFuture_Roberts.pdf
...and thus better I suggest to refrain people broadcasting a complete
garbage from a trash dump places to spread this kind of FUD to the
public and thus just shaking an air with no meaning behind.

Take care.

-- 
Kind regards, BM

Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.

Bogdan,

Thanks for pointing this out and passing along the latest news from Oracle.

Stamp out FUD wherever possible.  At this point, unless it is said officially,
and Oracle generally keeps pretty tight lipped about products and directions,
people should regard most things as heresy.

Cheers,

Mike

---
Michael Sullivan                   
michael.p.sullivan at me.com
http://www.kamiogi.net/
Japan Mobile: +81-80-3202-2599
US Phone: +1-561-283-2034

On 23 Apr 2010, at 10:22 , BM wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Ken Gunderson <kgunders at
teamcool.net> wrote:
>> Greetings All:
>> 
>> Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
>> Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD
mailing
>> list post dated 4/20/2010"
>> 
>> "...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."
>> 
>> Link here to full post here:
>> 
>>
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-April/215269.html>
> 
> I am not surprised it comes from FreeBSD mail list. :) I am amazed of
> their BSD conferences when they presenting all this *BSD stuff using
> Apple Macs (they claim it is a FreeBSD, just very bad version of it),
> Ubuntu Linux (not yet BSD) or GNU/Microsoft Windows (oh, everybody
> does that sin, right?) with a PowerPoint running on it (sure, who
> wants ugly OpenOffice if there no brain enough to use LaTeX).
> 
> As for a starter, please somebody read this:
>
http://developers.sun.ru/techdays2010/reports/OracleSolarisTrack/TD_STP_OracleSolarisFuture_Roberts.pdf
> ...and thus better I suggest to refrain people broadcasting a complete
> garbage from a trash dump places to spread this kind of FUD to the
> public and thus just shaking an air with no meaning behind.
> 
> Take care.
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards, BM
> 
> Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

on 23/04/2010 04:22 BM said the following:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Ken Gunderson <kgunders at
teamcool.net> wrote:
>> Greetings All:
>>
>> Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following
>> Oracle''s take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD
mailing
>> list post dated 4/20/2010"
>>
>> "...Seems that Oracle won''t offer support for ZFS on
opensolaris...."
>>
>> Link here to full post here:
>>
>>
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-April/215269.html>
> 
> I am not surprised it comes from FreeBSD mail list. :)
Why this attitude about FreeBSD? Did we eat your lunch?

Have you actually bothered to follow the link?
First, it was a pure speculation inside a question.
Second, look what kind of mailing list was that (general FreeBSD-related
questions
from anyone).
Third, look from whom that came - just a random person asking a question.
[Paranoia mode: maybe it was even you.]

If, for example, I posted some nonsense about e.g. Apple on e.g. OpenSolaris
mailing list; what conclusions would you make then?
> I am amazed of
> their BSD conferences when they presenting all this *BSD stuff using
> Apple Macs (they claim it is a FreeBSD, just very bad version of it),
> Ubuntu Linux (not yet BSD) or GNU/Microsoft Windows (oh, everybody
> does that sin, right?) with a PowerPoint running on it (sure, who
> wants ugly OpenOffice if there no brain enough to use LaTeX).
What you wrote tells more about you than about FreeBSD and FreeBSD community.

P.S.
I am surprised that on this useful mostly technical mailing list such random
garbage from a random source gets posted at all.  And then gets taken seriously
even...

-- 
Andriy Gapon

On 4/21/10 3:48 PM +0100 Bayard Bell wrote:
> Oracle has a number of technologies that they''ve acquired that
have
> remained dual-licensed, and that includes acquiring InnoTech, which they
> carried forward despite being able to use it as nearly an existential
> threat to MySQL. In the case of their acquisition of Sleepycat,
I''m aware
> of open-source licensing terms becoming more generous after the Oracle
> acquisition, where Oracle added a clear stipulation that redistribution
> requiring commercial licensing had to involve third parties, where prior
> to the acquisition Sleepycat had taken a less more expansive
> interpretation that covered just about any form of software distribution.
I''m no supporter of Oracle''s business practices, but I am 90%
sure that
Sleepycat changed their license before the Oracle acquisition.  Yes,
it was particularly onerous before they went to standard GPL.

-frank