Bill McGonigle wrote:
On 2009-01-20 1:49 AM, "C. Bergström" wrote:
If you say Solaris kernel + ubuntu/debian userland.. I'm going to
laugh..
Some of us think this is a good value proposition - can you explain
why it makes you laugh? Maybe we'd learn something.
I also see nexenta as exciting because of its transactional upgrades
and the ongoing improvement process (vs. periodic snapshots), which
OpenSolaris lacks.
I'm just waiting for full Xen DomU support in 2.0 to make Nexenta a
standard component in my toolbox.
With the current Nexenta process I don't see any real innovation and
little value (I'll explain) I just see them building onnv-gate,
converting it to deb and then trying to port any differences from Ubuntu
to work.. The repeating message I commonly hear is simply (blindly?) to
replace the Sun tools with gnu for better(?) Ubuntu/debian userland
support. (or even occasionally religious type arguments) This issue
has been beat way too much into the ground.
Unbiased I can say is that:
gnu userland has added some good/interesting interfaces
As I network and work with more developers you'd be surprised how many
have duplicated the adding of -iname to Sun find. Why isn't it
upstream..? (problem 2)
The need for a less corporate patch acceptance policy. (I'm not
suggesting to sacrifice smart licensing choices or quality, but to
follow successful similar projects)
*So back to the point..*
How are Nexenta developers determining which interfaces have enough
value to replace the Sun tools?
Is this really the most ideal approach?
What value does this current approach *exactly* add?
I'm not sure what you mean by transactional upgrades. I won't defend
IPS or SVR4 at all, but I can say that boot environments and the ability
to roll-back *are* possible. Nexenta doesn't offer any ongoing
improvement to the core onnv-gate (which dare I argue is the most
important part of this puzzle) They just lag behind Sun in terms of
resources and ability to build/release it faster. It's a lot of code
and probably easier to back-port a handful of patches than build/ship
the whole thing every two weeks. So what's this mean in terms of real
value..
I'm 100% sure Sun upstream applied the patch to fix [1].. Has Nexenta?
Have either of them shipped the fix? If it hasn't or has how was that
determined.. For me I think having and following clear policy/practices
on these things is at the core to any successful project. I'm focusing
mostly on the onnv-gate side of things. The argument does change a lot
if you switch to focus more on the desktop or additionally packaged
software. (postfix.. openoffice.. etc) Both approaches have value and
are geared towards more or less the same goal of providing a high
quality package being shipped.
Hopefully, I'm coming across unbiased.. If in some far off land the
Nexenta users/developers were open to more collaboration I'd be all for it.
Cheers,
./C
#ospkg @ irc.freenode.net
http://www.osunix.org (being updated)
[1] http://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20090107.txt
_______________________________________________
gnusol-devel mailing list
gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
