On Mon 11/07/05 at 21:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon 07 Nov 2005 at 11:57AM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > > Dan, > > > > I think the type of discussion and interest around BrandX is likely to > > be orthogonal to that of Zones. Without completely spoiling the > > surprise, BrandX hopes to publish interfaces where Zones could take on > > personalities for RedHat, FreeBSD, AIX, Mac OS X or whatever. I imagine > > much of the discussion may focus on the specifics of using those > > interfaces and differences between the Zone personality and the real > > deal. Those discussions seem very much distinct from the Zones community. > > Ok. I wasn't aware that BrandX was a feature name. Thanks for > clarifying that. I had seem some discussions which led me to be > confused on that point-- and that the name would be much more closely > associated with zones.
The product we ship to customers will not be called BrandX. That will have a marketing-blessed name that stresses the zoneyness of it. BrandX is just the name of the infrastructure, which only engineers should ever care about. Your original message also expressed a concern that the name was a codeword whose meaning would lapse into obscurity over time. I don't see that as an issue because the term 'brand' is used throughout the documentation, the code, and even the interfaces. > As for the degree of overlap or not-- What's the point of BrandX? Is it > migration from other platforms, server consolidation, application > capture? I guess it is some of each. To the degree that it is > reinforcing that Zones is an important and useful consolidation > facility, it has overlap. > > It sounds like no one agrees with me, so I'm willing to withdraw my > objection. I would however request that the BrandX community web site > owners work with their Zones counterparts to set up appropriate cross > links. Not so fast, Sparky. I am mostly in agreement with you. BrandX really is all about zones, and some of the future enhancements we've discussed are zones features at least as much as they are BrandX features. I think there is a lot to be said for putting this community within the greater zones community. The problem right now is that there is no real mechanism in place to create nested communities. We could probably cobble something together, but a little bird (OK, a really big bird) tells me that there is already work being done to come up with a real solution to the problem. I think it makes sense to create this as a top-level community now, and then to move it into an overall Virtualization meta-community (or whatever) along with Zones and Xen if/when that capability exists. > > Further, having branded-zones-discuss really obscures what I think will > > be a hot community and one in which we've already seen tremendous interest. > > I'll ignore the implied not-hotness of the Zones community :) Yeah, you guys are so 2005. Nils _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
