> Seeing as how CDDL has introduced a point of contention (rightly or
> wrongly), I haven't seen a strong argument for its continued existence,
> other than it is in keeping with Sun's historical tendency for NIH (yes,
> I expect some flamage for that). Apple was mentioned as a point for the
> CDDL, as they supposedly wouldn't have used dtrace or zfs otherwise.
> Well, Apple has tended to do whatever it takes to use the technology
> that's available, and that has included using GPL'd software. If they're
> telling you that they would forsake the advantages of dtrace and zfs if
> it's GPL'd, then they're lying. And if they think they can hope to
> duplicate either of those projects, then they're full of crap, because
> they have neither the engineering numbers or talent to do it. And
> finally, I'm not sure what you're expecting, but Apple has a terrible
> history of contributing anything to open source projects. So... why do
> you care about Apple? Aren't they changing their name to iPods'r'Us?
> Honestly, who gives a flying fig about Apple? (...as I type this from my
> Ubuntu-converted Macbook)
I do. Apple has given us more and deeper technical feedback on the
implementation of DTrace than anyone else. We're not looking for Apple
to necessarily extend DTrace in completely novel ways, but having the
code examined by a second group of eyes from a completely disjoint
background has been very useful to us -- and in doing this, they have
found some bugs that, even if minor, we missed ourselves. I also care
about Apple because the presence of our technology on their platform
greatly expands the community for that particular technology. Do I want
DTrace on my phone? You bet -- and at the moment, Apple's looking like
the most likely vector to get us there...
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
