On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, James C. McPherson wrote: > No. The issues start with Sun getting in the way of OpenSolaris > having an open, BSD-licensed driver for hardware which is > incredibly popular.
We do know that Sun has been working with Vendors to open their drivers, and while I don't know where LSI stands, others are and have been receptive to open sourcing device drivers. While it appears that Sun is "getting in the way", Sun has been working with vendors to open their drivers. As it stands we have little, if any modern SCSI support on OpenSolaris. Sun has been ecouraging their partners to open their drivers and provide them to OpenSolaris. Yet the community (and some inside Sun) claim foul saying that OpenSolaris should be seperated from Sun's interest. But in this case, Sun's interest is in the communities interest also. Should Sun just let the community fend for itself on drivers with the vendors or write their own? In the best world both would take place. > This "getting in the way" appears to stem > primarily from being told by LSI words to the effect of "We're > really truly going to sign the appropriate legal agreements > real soon now so you can have our megasas driver" ... Unfortunately legal gets in the way and rears it's ugly head, we can't change that. > This second issue is one that has always been on my mind > and which I have given some thought to from time to time. > I have not, as yet, been able to come up with a mostly > foolproof way of working around it. Of course, not actually > having LSI's driver has made it rather difficult to even > test hypotheses. Indiana will need a seperate gate, not only for drivers, but for other open source software that Sun elects not to accept to Solaris. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
