> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Ben Rockwood <b...@cuddletech.com > <mailto:b...@cuddletech.com>> wrote: > > Think about it. Who at Oracle would answer us? Some PR person? A > marketing person? John Fowler? The engineers are members of the > OpenSolaris community and leaders in our CG's. We should get answers > from them, from within. And, conversely, Oracle should speak to us > through our own ranks. > > > These questions have been asked many times in public mailing lists and > nothing ever came back. > > I don't see what difference it would make if the OGB or someone else > from the community asked these engineers directly. They probably > aren't allowed to speak, haven't been told what the plans are or, out > of fear for their jobs, simply won't risk saying something stupid. > > In the end if Oracle cared about the OpenSolaris' community, they > wouldn't be ignoring it for this long. It's not like we are secretly > complaining in private mailing lists. The complaints are very public > and Oracle can address them any time. > > In my opinion, the delay in 2010.3 is just the tip of the iceberg. I > would respect Oracle much more if they had the courage to come up with > an official statement that included their vision for OpenSolaris, how > exactly they expect to benefit from it, what will be left to the > community, areas that need improvement, how open source fits their > business strategy, etc. > > We need things to be made crystal clear. There is no place for hidden > agendas and secret plans in an open source project. > > OpenSolaris has already taken its fair share of FUD and there are a > lot of missed expectations (including from Oracle/Sun's side). > Oracle's silence makes it look like they are avoiding telling bad news > and just buying time. If things are to end, at least lets make it a > quick funeral. > > If Oracle is going to keep developing OpenSolaris as a very controlled > open source project, a fork would be able to benefit from that > development the same way new features migrate from FreeBSD to OpenBSD > and vice-versa. > > On the other hand, If Oracle is NOT going to keep developing > OpenSolaris as an open source project or have plans to exercise even > more rigid control of the code base in a "see the code but don't > touch" fashion, a fork might be the only solution for people who care. > I'm sure we would see many more contributions from a community who's > kept in the loop then one at is kept at bay.
Standing around complaining isn't enough. Your argument is solid, I agree with you. But, we need action. The delays in 2010.03 provide us with an ability to act on something that isn't clearly out of our ability to act upon. Carpe diem quam minime credula postero. We already have good derivative options in Nexenta, Belenix, et al.... I don't want these to become the only options. If _all_ we get is that Oracle simply doesn't close the code going forward, I'll be exceptionally happy. If we get more than that we'll be very lucky. And frankly, we need to work to get something. If we simply bicker we'll just fuel the flames. Oracle may have great plans for our future, we honestly don't know... so lets work with what we've got and see where it goes. benr. _______________________________________________ ogb-discuss mailing list ogb-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
