> I do not believe that the OpenAFS mailing lists are an appropriate forum > to discuss AuriStor. My response to Michael provided details on > AuriStor because I felt it was necessary in order to properly answer the > implied questions.
What I've learned so far from AuriStor it looks like it could be a replacement for OpenAFS on the platforms it's available. And it can more as Jeff tells us. If that strategy is good advertising depends on "cultural background". > The question of "supported platforms" is an interesting one because it > is very unclear what it means for OpenAFS to "support" a platform. What > are the criteria? Is it sufficient to say that if you can build OpenAFS > on the OS and hardware architecture that it is "supported"? Sorry, "supported" was probably a bad choice of word. But I don't know if "availabe" or "runable" or "it builds it ships" would be better. > I am quite sure there are other criteria that could be added to the mix. I know that you take "supported" very seriously. I would be happy if other software vendors (which are not into file systems) would do that as well. > * Linux > . Red Hat Enterprise Linux > (YFSI is a Red Hat Technology Partner) > . Fedora > . Debian > . Ubuntu > * Microsoft Windows > * Apple OSX and iOS > * Oracle Solaris > * IBM AIX > * Android > > Servers are supported everywhere but on Windows, iOS and Android but the > performance varies significantly based upon the OS release, processor > architecture, and underlying hardware so there are combinations that we > recommend and those we do not. > > The failure to list an OS family or Linux distribution does not imply > that YFSI will not support AuriStor on that platform. It only implies > that there has been insufficient customer interest to this point for > YFSI to expend the necessary resources on development, testing and > certification (where applicable.) Thanks for the list. I guess on "the main HW" which is amd64 for most of the OSes above. Both at work and privately I run OpenAFS on platforms that are not on the list and even in the future will not have much "customer interest". > In the end software development has to be a partnership between those > that build and those that deploy. If those that deploy do not fund > those that build there will not be sufficient development hours and > talent to build the solutions those that deploy require. I see that this partnership has stopped working in many places. It makes me sad. > P.S. My apologies for the long reply. You don't need to apologise. Harald. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
