[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the
community
cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I
include
both bugs *and* RFEs in issues.
That is your view, sir. You completely, totally
disregard the community here. You are not the
community. Community is a distinct, independent
entity with their own needs, wants and definitions of
right and wrong. They are not here to work toward
your goal of quality code and resolved issues.
To work towards creating conducive atmosphere for the
community to thrive is absolutely the first aim of
any open project that wants to be successful.
Your comment is a very good example of not
understanding the basics of open source projects.
This is what most people imply when they say {When it
comes to open source} Sun just doesn't get it.
Well, that's what you imply, anyway.
I probably want very different things, and while it's entirely possible I'm
alone in that, it's perhaps not likely. I've seen organizations grow in
size faster than the core grew in maturity; it's usually a
disaster for the organization, for what it's allegedly trying to accomplish
(I personally suspect that any organization larger than about a dozen people,
i.e. all that can each personally hold all the others accountable, ends up being
interested in continuing to exist first, and only with constant effort manages
to keep focused on accomplishing their nominal goals), and harmful to the
participants.
I want a better Solaris. Yes, I want the rest opened up too. And more
outside participation at all levels. But with most of the expertise and
investment from one place, I'd only expect most of the work to come
from that same place, and accordingly, most of the agenda as well.
That doesn't preclude anyone from participating and thereby increasing
the outside investment. And I'd be as glad as the next person when
some sort of externally accessible SCM is fully functional, along with
some outside committers, a bit more streamlining of process (but not
to the detriment of quality!), and so on.
And I like the focus on quality over rapid introduction of new code,
although I'm certainly not opposed to the increase in desktop/laptop
support (of which quite a bit has already taken place in the last couple of
years!).
So unless you can point out _specific_ needs, wants, etc. that can't be
met either now or with actions already underway, I just don't see what
your point is. No particular license is IMO going to make that much of
a difference in a positive way, and dual-licensing would just result in the
giant sucking sound of code leaving and once modified a bit, not coming back.
I have no problem with Solaris, Linux, and the *BSDs feeding each other
ideas, but I think they'd mostly all be better off not using each others code
all that much anyway (with some major exceptions that are largely possible
except that the Linux folks just don't seem to want to go there; like porting
zfs as a loadable module for Linux).
I for one don't automatically suspect the motives of corporations (and for
example see no more reason to regard Sun with suspicion that RedHat); or
rather, I respect their motivations, as long as they have a real clue what
_enlightened_ self-interest is; and I see no reason thus far to doubt that in
the
case of Sun and OpenSolaris. As far as I can see, they've been doing the things
they said they'd do, give or take some schedule slippage. That's all you can
expect from anyone, really.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
[...] Again some of those folks are complaining about much of the same things that I did. (see elsewhere on the forum). I think there wasn't a need for the source to be made open if the idea was just people developing apps and creating distros on top of what Sun provides. That you believe no one else can contribute in a significant way to OpenSolaris kernel then I have to tell you that you are wrong. There are plenty of talented developers outside of Sun. Significant innovations happened outside of Sun and will continue to happen. And Solaris as a mainstream operating platform is nowhere near done - lot still needs to be done and I don't see that happening without active community involvement. Where exactly has anyone ever said that significant kernel work can only happen within Sun? I think the most that's been said is that in any community, those who do such work are a small minority. In fact, people were writing device drivers for Solaris long before OpenSolaris. Even a few filesystems, although the interface was never really standardized or public. And whether or not they were with the author's consent adopted by Sun (which I think had happened sometimes), they still had some influence (like just pointing out that it wasn't that big a deal to get it done). There's really _nothing_ to prevent you from grabbing your own copy of the source, and making huge giant massive pervasive changes to the whole darn thing if you like. There's nothing to prevent you from forming your own community around it elsewhere. Just don't expect all those who have come to value stability and reliability over the whatever benefits the Linux model of development offers to beat a path to your door. If you want it to go faster, then participate. Stephen Lau posted a ood way to help a couple of days ago. Put your money where your mouth is. Sorry to be blunt, but really.. Sorry but I already pointed out a key thing before - people are not going to participate unless you give them a right platform, unless they feel owning and driving the changes. People are not going to work for Sun (disguised as community) according to Sun's rules, for Sun's purpose. So please open up everything and make it GPLv3 (I believe GPL2/3 will continue to be the most favorite licenses in open source community for variety of reasons) and you will have people taking the source and putting it out in open and doing their things. That will bring in innovation, progress and significant changes. Most Sun people think Sun's is the only one, true way - that is wrong. That's where the conflict really is. That's where the community dissatisfaction really is. Your last two paragraphs don't follow; GPLvX != owning and driving changes, which you could do now if you wanted to, at least with your own tree. Sun can choose what, if anything, to take back whatever they like from the community. Sun can continue to enforce their processes, directions, quality etc. internally on their own tree. That way Sun won't have to be burdened with doing everything. (Sun has proved that it cannot make changes fast enough while not hurting their business interests). People can step up at a far higher level and do amazing things efficiently if they feel like they are owning and driving it. Again, CDDL vs GPL has nothing to do with that, except in the minds of those who love to believe in a One True Way and think that GPL is somehow more nearly that One True Way than anything else. You argue for the benefits of lots of people doing their own thing, yet you want one community to conform to another. That sounds like a contradiction to me. Don't stop just with _you_ can do it - Think why people are not doing it. Think what could be done in order to get people to do it. Otherwise it just becomes very narrow and very limited and isn't much of an achievement at all. But I take it that Sun isn't interested in this kind of thing at all apart from using community as a vehicle to get to Sun's goals. That ain't gonna work. I think there's plenty for them to work harder at: opening more code, or at least assisting in it (since some of it they _cannot_ open without expensive purchases of rights or expensive rewrites), getting an SCM that encourages participation out there, streamlining, and so on. And I've said that more than once before. As far as I know, those things are happening, they just aren't _done_ yet. But I think that both license and touchy-feely visions of community are largely irrelevant to getting those things done. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
[...] If Sun would just get out of the way as you suggest, and let the external folks do what they wanted, OpenSolaris would be a real mess. Wow - that is so wrong. You would not want to apply the same analogy in say a child's case, forget adults for a moment. Cause then it will never learn, never venture into depths and never take risks. You basically are saying that everyone else is a fool. That could not be right. You limit the possibilities by asserting some totally wrong assumption and being a control freak. You don't let a five year old play in the street. But you don't keep a 14 year old locked up in the house all the time, either. This community is still maturing, and probably not enough so to handle everything even if all the mechanisms were in place _now_. It _is_ certainly doing more than it used to, and plenty of things are moving faster than your descriptions suggest. We're moving to a model where changes will go into OpenSolaris first, then Sun will pull those changes into their own Solaris distribution. This will still take time to hash out and make work, a huge step that has never been attempted previously. That is all fine-n-dandy if community controls what goes into OpenSolaris. Well, even if that happens, I know I wouldn't casually change the processes, and I'm reasonably sure I can think of at least a few others that don't work for Sun that wouldn't either, because they _understand_ why things are done a certain way. Maybe someone from Sun that's been around a long time needs to do a series of blogs on how their process evolved, and just why it is the way it is, and the constant balance between quality and speed of integration (if they haven't already). Even if you think the community could do better, I think you need to start out understanding _why_ things are the way they are. Hint: I'm pretty sure it has very little to do with being a corporation. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Bob Palowoda wrote: x86 hardware support has been steadily improving over the last couple of years and the rate of improvement has accelerated in the past year. I have only failed to install on one x64 system (and I have done a lot of installs) and that was an HP DL380. So the answer is x86 hardware support is being very actively fixed. Just for those who don't know. What was the fix for the HP DL380? The client was consolidating all their old windows boxes on a couple of 8 core Opteron boxes with VMWare ESX, so we just built a Solaris virtual machine and ran with that. Cop out, but pragmatic! Hey Jim, you where looking for incentives for new bugs. How about screwdrivers? ---Bob This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: is there an identd client that works on solaris?
this is, unfortunately, x64, not sparc. For some reason they where talking about Sparc Solaris 10 on the first line. ---Bob This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: is there an identd client that works on solaris?
this is, unfortunately, x64, not sparc. For some reason they where talking about Sparc Solaris 10 on the first line. ---Bob Sorry I could have toke your comment about the patch not being sparc or your trying to be politically correct and indicate you haven't purchased an x64 from Sun. :-) In any case you might want to check this thread out for x64 Solaris. http://www.dbforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1194564.html Just browsed through it but it appears they had it running. ---Bob This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
Simon Phipps wrote: 1. There are ~800 people registered on this list. There are ~15 people in these threads making most of the comments. I conclude that there are others to hear from. I do not conclude that your view is either representative or unrepresentative, just that it is your view. 2. As I asserted just a few minutes ago in a message you must have read because you replied to it, /I have not made up my mind/. Considering various views and facts is not the same as opposition. From your emails, I got the impression that you favoured dual-licensing. My apologies for misreading your comments. This discussion was about talking to the community, and I guess the problem is: how do you do that? This mailing list is probably the best thing that is available for such a conversation. As with all community mailing lists, the number of people subscribed to it is smaller than the number of users out there, and only a smaller subset of those people will speak out on any subject. And we don't really know how big the community is in the first place (number of opensolaris.org registered user ids is probably the closest thing we have). It could be that this mailing list is not an accurate representation of the community, but I think it's the best thing we've got for discussions like this. - Frank ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Well duh..! As a community project one of the
measures of success is definitely community
participation and how big it is.
Not exactly. Success of a platform is measured by the availability of software
for that platform. Even the most advanced platform in the world is useless if
there is no software for you or me to do what we want with the computer /
supercomputer / cluster / network.
Computer history taught us that lots of software drives platform adoption,
which in turn drives even more software development for the platform.
If you need reasons - better x86{_64} support, lots
of drivers (as a testament - I have till now failed
to install Solaris on any of my 8 x86/64 machines -
Linux runs just fine there and recognizes most
hardware thrown at it), quicker resolution of
people's problems and addition of new
i86pc platform support is the best Solaris has ever seen. Most of the common
hardware is supported. Granted that some could be supported better -- Solaris
isn't perfect, but there are only so many hours in a day.
As for quicker resolution of problems, for circa $365 USD a year, you can get
24x7x365 Solaris Platinum support. Divide that by the number of days in a year,
and you get some rediculously small sum.
And if it's OK to pay money through the nose for RedHat or Microsoft support, I
don't see why paying such a rediculously low amount of dollars would be
unacceptable if one wishes high quality / better support.
features/improvements (suspend/resume anyone?), new
architecture support - lots of reasons why
OpenSolaris needs larger community. No? You think
what was not possible in last year without community
participation will be possible going forward without
community? Do you think Sun engineers are going to
spend their time fixing Joe Random's problems?
They will, if Joe Random pays the above sum. Then they have to, you see,
because then it will be their job; one effectively hires an entire army of some
of the most ingenious engineers in the computer industry, ever.
We do need more people, but not the Linux hacker kind. All those would want to
do is muck with Solaris so that it looks, works and behaves like Linux.
Unfortunately, Linux suffers from serious lack of engineering and quality
control because everything is implemented ad-hoc by people who think they know
UNIX better than profesional engineers and scientists that have spent the
better 35 years studying and working on computing challenges and problems.
Believe me, that is not what you want for Solaris; the quality would suffer,
and Solaris would no longer be what it is, and what it makes Solaris so great.
I believe that the kind of people Solaris would most benefit from are the BSD
old skoolers. Those guys actually *care* about the quality of their work, even
if they might not necessary always reach it. At the very least, they *strive*,
instead of the it works for me, that's all I care about, if it doesn't work
for you, you have the source code Linux hacker attitude; not everyone is a
UNIX programming guru; some people just want to *use* UNIX and get *stuff done*
on UNIX. Not everybody is a programmer, and assuming that everybody would have
to be is just plain wrong ideology. That's why our GNU/GPL/Linux pals don't
really have any long term future, no matter how many *millions* of hackers they
have at their disposal.
In closing, if we want to attract programming talent and expertise, we should
more closely work with, and even help the BSD community, even if we have to put
on hold what we're doing on Solaris. Eventually the two communities might jump
in for each other, and both communities would benefit. Friendship and fun
while working at it is always a nice bonus (:-)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
1) Community participation has remained very low. To date greater than 90% (very unscientific and conservative estimate) of OpenSolaris changes are driven by Sun's business interests and they come from Sun employees. (Look at commits, look at general development direction - nothing there for more x86 drivers which is what community might benefit from) If you'd like to do driver development for Solaris, what's stopping you from going to docs.sun.com and looking up the driver development guide? Look at Masayuki Murayama: nobody asked him or forced him to do anything; he just went and started cranking out NIC drivers for Solaris. And lo and behold, he's become the defacto source of NIC drivers for common hardware, even though his drivers aren't officially part of Solaris. Interesting side effect is that his drivers will be made part of Solaris now. But all he did was simply rolling up his sleeves and cranking out *good code* (I've yet to see one of his drivers crash on me, and I've been running those in production for years now). So again: build it and they will come. 2) People do not feel they own a bit or two of OpenSolaris. That feeling remains totally with Sun. (People have expressed this elsewhere in GPLv3 and Community Participation threads) Own? Why would I have to own Solaris? If I make it that far as to have my code / fixes integrated into Solaris, that's already a great professional (and for some) personal accomplishment. If one's code shows up in Solaris proper, that's a great testament to one's programming and engineering skill, considering that those integrating it into Solaris are some of the most gifted computer scientists and engineers the industry has ever seen. 3) Contributing changes remains hard (Everyone agrees and does nothing urgently about this - I am tired of hearing it is getting fixed) Please understand that one of the reasons Solaris is superior to just about any other operating system out there is because Sun engineering has implemented structured processes to development. If you should go and work for some of the biggest UNIX customers in the world, you would find that those companies *try* to mimic that, and that there is just as much engineering done before any changes to Solaris are made. I clearly see this as failure in meeting all objectives. But the case isn't closed yet. There is a lot of work on the TODO list, however, not everybody can do it properly and that's why people who can need lots of time. I believe more patience and understanding is needed. Solaris isn't about hack it up in five minutes by some pizza and beer on a Friday night deal, it's about make it work many years into the future without breaking the functionality many have come to realy dearly on. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
If Sun would just get out of the way as you suggest, and let the external folks do what they wanted, OpenSolaris would be a real mess. Wow - that is so wrong. You would not want to apply the same analogy in say a child's case, forget adults for a moment. Cause then it will never learn, never venture into depths and never take risks. You basically are saying that everyone else is a fool. That could not be right. You limit the possibilities by asserting some totally wrong assumption and being a control freak. When a child learns, it needs guidance by parents to help it interpret and understand experiences. There is more than one way to learn, but unfortunately some ways are worse than others. Right now, even as we are discussing this, children are learning and being taught to interpret their experiences in many new and different contexts. This is a process that might take a while, but eventually the attentive children will learn and will become just as capable adults as their parents. Others who were less attentive will give up and fall out. Such is the way of life. One can see it every day in schools and families; good students are good because they don't give up and because they realize that they have to *seek to understand*, and those who do not never reach that level of understanding. To apply this to the OpenSolaris case, if you let children learn without guidance, chances are high they'll create a mess in the learning process -- that is why guidance is both needed and efficient. If you let people do ad-hoc necessary changes to OpenSolaris, it would turn into a hacked-patched-up *mess* really fast. Without the experience to properly interpret the context and without the insights, one might believe certain changes to be necessary, when they are actually completely unnecessary, or when there is a better way. What you are suggesting is exactly what the GNU/GPL/Linux community did. While they have a pretty clicky-bunty operating system, the core of it is poorly engineered and can not scale. The context to understand here is scale, and what that really means. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cannot see this.Linux stays with GPLv2 and the main problem is not Linux but the fact that people working on Linux do not like to use sources from OpenSolaris. I see no reason why Linux could not take ZFS and use it directly inside Linux. GPLv2 and GPLv3 won't mix. As long as Linus insists on keeping the This is correct kernel with v2, ZFS won't migrate to Linux (because it has kernel components). Now if the Linux kernel moved to v3, that's a different story. (but one that won't happen for years). This is wrong as you do not mix ZFS and Linux when you port ZFS to Linux. It looks like you still make the mistake to believe the FSF GPL FAQ that is incorrectly based on the term linking. Now normally, linking gpl.c and harpster.c would force harpster.c to also be licensed as GPL. That's the viral nature of GPL everyone This is not true. The GPL does not use the term linking, so using linking in an explanation definitely does not help to understand what can be done and what cannot be done. I knew that using the work linking would bring this quagmire back. Sorry, folks. Well, this is the main problem when trying to discuss legal aspects of the GPL. 2) The GPL allows to use ZFS inside Linux. ZFS is a big work and the changes that are needed in order to run ZFS on Linux do not make ZFS a work derived from Linux. The few parts from the Linux code that will be needed for the port will be covered by the Wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat klause in the Copyright law. I don't believe that the majority of the legal community would agree with you. Or the Linux community for that matter. If what you said is true, then ZFS would already be in Linux. Depends on what you understand by the legal community. It you refer to the dilletantes (e.g. from Debian), you would probably find people who will not agree ;-) As long as the legal community does not prove their claims with text from the GPL, we may safely ignore them. There is a big difference between mixing code and accumulating projects. You may safely incorporate the needed small amount of code from Linux if you like to port ZFS to Linux, see: http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__24.html http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__51.html http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__57.html http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__63.html § 24 allows to incorporate other peoples code into an independent work. § 51 allows free publishing if the amount is in the extent that is needed by the special case (while there is still an independent work). § 57 allows free publishing in case that the matter is a negligible attachement § 63 requires to name the source ZFS is doubtlessly an independent work ZFS is not becoming a part of the work Linux from the port ZFS only needs a very small amount of code from Linux for the port and this amount of code is covered by § 24, § 51 and §57 As I am talking about a right that is independent of the permission from the author, a ZFS - Linux port is not afected by the GPL. As you see, Linux people could safely take ZFS and port it as long as they are redeeming the rules from the CDDL. A aimilar case is when you port a driver from Linux to Solaris (as long as you may prove that this driver has been created as independent work). You should be able to safely assume an independent work in case that the driver has been not been created by Linus Torvalds and integrated into Linux after it was mainly complete. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adding a new license to the code allows them to ditch CDDL by choosing to adopt GPL alone. If it doesn't allow them to get rid of CDDL, and we're actually planning to stop people from doing that (via the lack of patent grants?), then it opens us up to accusations of a bait-and- switch. I don't see a winning course here. See my previous mail about the Urheberrecht. ... we do not need a dual licensed OpenSolaris. What we need is a clear statement from Sun that Sun does not see any problem if Linux people would e.g. take ZFS and port it to Linux. Let us wait and see that then happens. I am sure that just the way of doing FUD against OpenSolaris from some people would become different. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
[i]In closing, if we want to attract programming talent and expertise, we should more closely work with, and even help the BSD community, even if we have to put on hold what we're doing on Solaris. Eventually the two communities might jump in for each other, and both communities would benefit. Friendship and fun while working at it is always a nice bonus (:-) [/i] Could be a form of official collaboration between BSD and OpenSolaris Community? I think,for example,to shared device driver,developers and exchange of technologies covered by BSD and CDDL license. Could be our official initiative to to build a bridge between two communities? Giacomo This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
UNIX admin wrote: We do need more people, but not the Linux hacker kind. All those would want to do is muck with Solaris so that it looks, works and behaves like Linux. Unfortunately, Linux suffers from serious lack of engineering and quality control because everything is implemented ad-hoc by people who think they know UNIX better than profesional engineers and scientists that have spent the better 35 years studying and working on computing challenges and problems. Believe me, that is not what you want for Solaris; the quality would suffer, and Solaris would no longer be what it is, and what it makes Solaris so great. I believe that the kind of people Solaris would most benefit from are the BSD old skoolers. Those guys actually *care* about the quality of their work, even if they might not necessary always reach it. At the very least, they *strive*, instead of the it works for me, that's all I care about, if it doesn't work for you, you have the source code Linux hacker attitude; not everyone is a UNIX programming guru; some people just want to *use* UNIX and get *stuff done* on UNIX. Not everybody is a programmer, and assuming that everybody would have to be is just plain wrong ideology. That's why our GNU/GPL/Linux pals don't really have any long term future, no matter how many *millions* of hackers they have at their disposal. Being a BSD somewhat-old skooler (but not old-old skooler, I wasn't in CSRG ;-)), I can say that in the *BSD world, there has always been great respect for Solaris. It has always been seen as the OS that got a great number of things right, and often, during technical discussions, at least one person always came up with let's see what Solaris did (though we couldn't look at source code). To your more general point: growing an open source OS community is somewhat of a balancing act. Putting an emphasis on code quality and educating your developers is good. But, you also have to promote yourself, otherwise you won't attract any new developers in the long run. With popularity also come annoyances. There will be much more noise on mailing lists, which can drown out the good technical discussions, leaving the early developers longing for the old days. But, without popularity, you'll be destined to occupy no more than a niche. NetBSD is an example of this. We always stressed code quality and portability, but neglected features that attract average users, and neglected promoting ourselves. Which led to NetBSD becoming probably the smallest *BSD community (though it's not easy to have hard numbers on that), despite being the first of the current *BSDs to come into existence. That's why I'm glad that there is a push to expand the OpenSolaris community from within Sun. We need to build aa fertile base to grow developers from, so to speak. However, I have strong doubts whether adding GPLv3 as a license is a good way to do this. - Frank ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On Feb 3, 2007, at 07:49, Ben Rockwood wrote: This is neither the first nor the last time this discussion will occur and frankly I don't see it as productive. You would rather Sun had not asked? Has there previously been a conclusive discussion about GPLv3 (I am aware of the discussions about GPLv2). Do you have evidence that the 18,000 registered on OpenSolaris.org (or at least the Core Contributors) would reject the GPLv3 (or embrace it)? Do you have an alternative method to consult? Would you rather the decision was made secretly? Are governance discussions unproductive by definition because they are not about code?[1] I am concerned about the creation of a hostile environment here where people do not feel free to speak. Maybe folk just assumed that I am management at Sun and therefore pro-whatever-it-is-we-hate, but I certainly feel flamed for posing a neutral set of comments. I'm rather fearful of new community members showing up and trying to join in. I hear plenty of anger, plenty of fear, plenty of mistrust of Sun, from the few voices that have spoken up. I'd like to ask people to channel that into positive proposals, comments and suggestions. Having them based where possible on data would be good too. That applies to all parties. And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance. What proposal would you make for getting people here to take their governance responsibilities seriously? It seems people are happy to hack, but when it comes to running the place (that governance, this GPLV3 decision) they would rather leave it to others. S. [1] These are not necessarily rhetorical ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On Feb 3, 2007, at 11:11, Frank Van Der Linden wrote: From your emails, I got the impression that you favoured dual- licensing. My apologies for misreading your comments. Thanks, appreciated. This discussion was about talking to the community, and I guess the problem is: how do you do that? This mailing list is probably the best thing that is available for such a conversation. As with all community mailing lists, the number of people subscribed to it is smaller than the number of users out there, and only a smaller subset of those people will speak out on any subject. And we don't really know how big the community is in the first place (number of opensolaris.org registered user ids is probably the closest thing we have). It could be that this mailing list is not an accurate representation of the community, but I think it's the best thing we've got for discussions like this. I agree with all this. As I indicated elsewhere, I think this is part of a big problem we have with governance. The CAB/OGB had ~ no support from the community as it devised the Charter and then the Constitution, and the tone of the discussion here has either been hostile or weary. This won't be the last time there's a need for community discussion (I expect the final decisions to then be made by the OGB) and assuming democracy is the right philosophy for OpenSolaris we're going to have to come up with a way to hold serious, positive-toned, inclusive discussions. Maybe what we need is a Core Contributors list? They, after all, are the ones who elect the OGB so have ultimate responsibility for the governance of the place. Perhaps such a list with strict rules about positive discussion would be the best place to explore explosive issues? S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Plenty of people have asked what a GPLv3 dual license would bring to the OpenSolaris project. It would bring a mix of positives and negatives, just as OpenSolaris now is a mix of positives and negatives. The challenge for us as a community is to hear and measure all the positives and negatives fairly and reach something approaching consensus. Perhaps via the new OGB when it gets elected (and how /is/ that voting software coming on?) I still do not see that possible benefits from dual licensing OpenSolaris would outweight the problems. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On Feb 3, 2007, at 13:41, Joerg Schilling wrote: I still do not see that possible benefits from dual licensing OpenSolaris would outweight the problems. You may well be right. I'm not convinced we've had the positive and inclusive discussion needed to reach a conclusion yet. S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think his point was that, even if there were 1000 non-Sun developers contributing to OpenSolaris, the number of application developers, students and users participating in the OpenSolaris community would still dwarf them. As I said earlier, there is a pyramid here; the same one you will find in those Linux kernel numbers: lots of small bugfixers, many module creators, some systems owners and few heavy lifters. This is doubtlessly true. We need to inform people about OpenSolaris and about it's advanced debug features. Then we will attract application developersto at least port to OpenSolaris. We may (will most likely) attract bug fixers and probably a few driver developers. We will most likely in the close future only stay with the people who do already work on the Solaris kernel, but this is no real problem. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
You know, there are people over there who say the same thing about us. I don't agree with them either. I'd say you're right, there probably are; but, people like me care as much for them as they do for me. No problem there. The thing is this: they said Sun is closed and proprietary -- you've given them most contributions of any company; they said Solaris is Slowlaris and that Linux rulez -- Solaris now runs as fast or faster than Linux; then they said Solaris is closed source and proprietary, and that open sourcing Solaris is a lie -- OpenSolaris exists for more than a year now; they complained and moaned how the tools are not gratis -- Sun has released the whole middleware stack and the compilers for free-as-in-beer. You -- we all -- consistently proved them wrong, point for point -- but what good did it bring? Those people are stuck -- no matter what we as a community and no matter what Sun did, they kept making up one excuse after another. They're still not using Solaris, still prefer GCC to Sun Studio, still complain how Solaris isn't GPL. So let me ask you all this: if Solaris is GPLed, what will the next excuse be? Those guys aren't going to accept Solaris. They're fundamentalists who don't use something based on technical merit, but based on ideological merit. And to me, that's the wrong reason to use an OS. The only way those people might ever be *compelled* to accept Solaris is if Solaris delivers everything Linux has, but in a Solaris way -- a clearly better way -- and markets that, point for point. It's the software availability and the end users and customers that will make or break Solaris -- not a few million Linux geeks stuck in their ideological dogma. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: DST and zoneinfo
What can be or is being done to remove timezone updates, to not require a libc upgrade, and not force a reboot? With every timezone and political boundry out there, jumping on the bandwagon, this is a real PITA for the current production versions of Solaris! Fix the source. In principle, I think this is fairly simple to fix: - make sure that all $TZ uses which match something g under /usr/share/lib/zoneinfo use the zoneinfo file - when the file changes, it is reloaded. The hard part is the second part; we found date conversion to be performance critical in some applications and adding a stat() to each conversion would make it too slow. Casper No concern that unexpected behavior might result from processes picking up dynamic changes to timezone rules? If not, how about caching the last time_t passed to localtime() and only checking if it had changed (or changed by some amount)? (although that could get ugly for localtime_r(), which I suppose would need read/write locks on the static variable) At least until efficient userland file event monitoring facilities are available... This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
--- Ben Rockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance. And why is that? Think about it... The governance people are not giving direction. They want to be leadership, they should be here. Or maybe the people here should be leadership... Or even maybe the people here are the leadership... Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.christophermahan.com/ TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On 2/3/07, Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance. What proposal would you make for getting people here to take their governance responsibilities seriously? It seems people are happy to hack, but when it comes to running the place (that governance, this GPLV3 decision) they would rather leave it to others. I'm fairly sure that a flamefest on a mailing list isn't the right way. Perhaps it's a necessary step, but I don't think it's conducive to substantive discussions. I'm not bothered about any rhetoric or hostility, I just don't have the time or energy at the moment to jump in. Just the volume discourages the silent majority. For what it's worth, I do take issues of governance seriously, and have a number of areas of coding where I want to get stuck in, and have a life to lead, and lots of other things. Let me turn this around - what can *I* do to make sure that I'm taking my governance responsibilities seriously? -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So unless you can point out _specific_ needs, wants, etc. that can't be met either now or with actions already underway, I just don't see what your point is. No particular license is IMO going to make that much of a difference in a positive way, and dual-licensing would just result in the giant sucking sound of code leaving and once modified a bit, not coming back. I have no problem with Solaris, Linux, and the *BSDs feeding each other ideas, but I think they'd mostly all be better off not using each others code all that much anyway (with some major exceptions that are largely possible except that the Linux folks just don't seem to want to go there; like porting zfs as a loadable module for Linux). The important point is that the Linux folks just don't seem to want to use code from OpenSolaris and you cannot change this by dual licensing. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On Feb 3, 2007, at 14:46, Peter Tribble wrote: On 2/3/07, Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance. What proposal would you make for getting people here to take their governance responsibilities seriously? It seems people are happy to hack, but when it comes to running the place (that governance, this GPLV3 decision) they would rather leave it to others. I'm fairly sure that a flamefest on a mailing list isn't the right way. Perhaps it's a necessary step, but I don't think it's conducive to substantive discussions. I would be pleased if it didn't happen like it has here. There are a few other lists I am on (notably at Apache) where controversy does not immediately lead to a flame-war (though no-one hold back from discussion). But I think it has to be expected, tolerated and perhaps welcomed as a sign of an open community. I'm hopeful the passion will soon get channelled to positive discussion (of both the pros and cons). I'm not bothered about any rhetoric or hostility, I just don't have the time or energy at the moment to jump in. Just the volume discourages the silent majority. Totally agree, it took serious effort to come to the point where I felt I could participate, and I am hardly silent majority :-) For what it's worth, I do take issues of governance seriously, and have a number of areas of coding where I want to get stuck in, and have a life to lead, and lots of other things. This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code, not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance. Let me turn this around - what can *I* do to make sure that I'm taking my governance responsibilities seriously? Well, in your case I'm pretty sure you do :-) I think that as our governance matures we'll need to encourage those on the Core Contributors list to carry this burden actively. Not 100% clear to me how that will happen yet, maybe (as I suggested elsewhere) through a list for that purpose. S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code, not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance. Right; so I don't think the non-involvement in governance is anything to go by; those who can do, those who can't govern (paraphrased) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On Feb 3, 2007, at 15:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code, not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance. Right; so I don't think the non-involvement in governance is anything to go by; those who can do, those who can't govern (paraphrased) I disagree. By choosing to be part of a self-governing open source community, participation in governance becomes a given. A community this size working on a code-base this size and wanting to use a democratic process doesn't get the option to ignore non-code issues. And rule-by-the-loudest-voice is not democracy (even if it pretends to be in certain countries). So once again I come back to the question; what practical approach do we collectively propose instead? The Constitution does not cover this yet. S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: DST and zoneinfo
No concern that unexpected behavior might result from processes picking up dynamic changes to timezone rules? If not, how about caching the last time_t passed to localtime() and only checking if it had changed (or changed by some amount)? (although that could get ugly for localtime_r(), which I suppose would need read/write locks on the static variable) Well, if the $TZ is set to something like US/Pacific and the politicians feel the need to act on the evironment again, then I would expect that such a timezone file update only leads to different outcomes for future times. And so no inconsistencies will be seen. (In principle, one can argue that it is wrong to use any form of timezone calculations for times in the future, because of politicians) But if $TZ is set to localtime and the system administrator chnages the system's timezone, then that may be a different matter; again, only cron would get really upset, I think. At least until efficient userland file event monitoring facilities are available... Indeed. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
Frank Van Der Linden wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: 1. There are ~800 people registered on this list. There are ~15 people in these threads making most of the comments. I conclude that there are others to hear from. I do not conclude that your view is either representative or unrepresentative, just that it is your view. 2. As I asserted just a few minutes ago in a message you must have read because you replied to it, /I have not made up my mind/. Considering various views and facts is not the same as opposition. From your emails, I got the impression that you favoured dual-licensing. My apologies for misreading your comments. This discussion was about talking to the community, and I guess the problem is: how do you do that? This mailing list is probably the best thing that is available for such a conversation. As with all community mailing lists, the number of people subscribed to it is smaller than the number of users out there, and only a smaller subset of those people will speak out on any subject. And we don't really know how big the community is in the first place (number of opensolaris.org registered user ids is probably the closest thing we have). As of right now, we have 21,281 registrations on the site and another 4,000 or so who are subscribed to various lists but /not/ also registered to the site. So, about 25k unique emails are registered. I have no idea how many unique addresses are subscribed to all lists at this point, though. It could be that this mailing list is not an accurate representation of the community, but I think it's the best thing we've got for discussions like this. I think the lists on opensolaris.org (177 of them currently) represent pretty well the community in the U.S. That's where the vast majority of traffic and posts come from and it's not even close. However, there are many people outside the U.S. who are just now getting into OpenSolaris but who are not actively involved in this site and on these lists. The language and cultural barriers are pretty big, as I'm learning, and sadly many of the newcomers are somewhat put off by how aggressive some of our lists are. And I have to agree with them at this point. We'll not hear from many of these people for quite some time, so, for now, I think what we see here is representative of those who choose to speak. Jim ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On Feb 3, 2007, at 15:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code, not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance. Right; so I don't think the non-involvement in governance is anything to go by; those who can do, those who can't govern (paraphrased) I disagree. By choosing to be part of a self-governing open source community, participation in governance becomes a given. A community this size working on a code-base this size and wanting to use a democratic process doesn't get the option to ignore non-code issues. And rule-by-the-loudest-voice is not democracy (even if it pretends to be in certain countries). So once again I come back to the question; what practical approach do we collectively propose instead? The Constitution does not cover this yet. Part of the governing has to do with how code is contributed and how the values of the community are maintained; coders are interested in that. But I can imagine that many people aren't really interested in the nuts and bolts of the constitution until such point that it hurts them. Programmers just want to be left alone and work; they care about governance when it interferes; not before. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're already upset, don't read further. --- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please understand that one of the reasons Solaris is superior to just about any other operating system out there is because Sun engineering has implemented structured processes to development. If you should go and work for some of the biggest UNIX customers in the world, you would find that those companies *try* to mimic that, and that there is just as much engineering done before any changes to Solaris are made. I am an admin on wikipedia, was very active before my son was born, and have some 3000+ edits logged there. It's written in PHP, with apache and mySQL, and linux (Suse, a few Debian, a few others). According to Alexa, http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=url=http://www.wikipedia.org The agglomerated wikipedia sites are generating 4 billion page views per day and are ranked 12th in the world for all traffic. Now, PHP is admittedly one of the most insecure, badly designed languages out there. It certainly does not compare to Lisp, Perl, Python, or even Ruby in style and cohesion. It does not compare with Java in enterprisey-modularization. It does not compare well to most other languages for that matter. Yet, it's Good Enough to generate 4 billion pageviews per day. mySQL could use a good taking to by postgresql people, yet, well, you know, it cranks out the pageviews. Likewise Linux is a steaming pile of hack jobs, but while it's full or faults and the engineering is, well, amateurish, it's cranking out the 4 billion page views... And at GOOG, it's cranking out 20 billion page views per day. For people who have a problem with that, look here: http://www.google.com/finance?client=igq=GOOG and see that GOOG market capitalization is $147 Billion. SUNW's is $23 Billion. For comparison, IBM's market cap it $149 Billion., Microsoft's is $295 Billion, but that only means IBM + GOOG MSFT (think about that for a moment). More comparisons: Oracle is at $90 Billion. SAP AG: $14 Billion. HP is at $111 Billion. Apple is at $84 Billion. Why am I bothering the Engineers with a few details like that? Because that's what the company CEOs look at. And if you think for a moment that the CIOs and the CEOs don't discuss Linux, you'd be sadly mistaken. Jonathan knows. He doesn't say anything out loud, but it's a well known fact: Linux has won, faults and all. And it has not won in the Academia and Computer Science realms, it has won where it matters: in the Marketplace. Heck, Microsoft is feeling the heat big time. Not from Solaris, oh no... From Linux. The same Linux you people denigrate as being pushed by a bunch on long-haired ideologues that can't put two sentences together without jumping in unison like penguins grunting GPL GNU GPL GNU Go watch the video again: http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/good_bad_and_brave and watch where Jonathan said we almost died. Sun Microsystems sells hardware. The executive team looks to you, and pays your paychecks, to make an OS that will drive purchases of the hardware. Solaris is the milk in the grocery store. You might think that people will want the Solaris because it's advanced, rock solid, and of great quality. You're wrong. For the marketplace, Linux does that well enough. That's not a differentiator. What you fail to realize is that Linus does not write paychecks. People do it because they believe. And if you think the Solaris codebase is forbidding, you ought to take a look at Linux and the GNU userland. It's daunting to most people. Yet they do it. They go in and roll up their sleeves and stay up until the wee hours of the morning and drink coffee (Hi Dennis) and they Get It Done. You people love to make fun of Monkey Boy. He's the CEO of the company ranked by Fortune to have the 7th largest profit in the Fortune 700 List: (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/performers/companies/profits/index.html) at $12 billion and change. Microsoft made more in net profit than Sun in total revenue in 1 year. And their OS are the whipping boys of Computer Scientists everywhere. Lots of CEOs want to be him. Get off your high horse. Your technology is too complex, too slow-moving, too difficult to get running, to difficult to patch, change, and too difficult to write applications for. There is a reason it's free to download and use in production: it costs as much to get it running and keep it running as it provides in benefit to the user. So in financial terms, it's value added is zero. The reason why the Sun Executive team decided to open-source it, and with the CDDL, is because SUNW does not now and will not in the future have the financial resources to continue developing Solaris as it has been in the past. They threw it over the wall because they realized it was going to die inside. It may die outside, but it may survive. It's sort of like a 14 year old thrown out of the orphanage
[osol-discuss] hp or IBM
I installed OpenSolaris11 on an old HP but am begining to feel like I should have installed on my IBM Netvista just so I could get started faster with downloading...I'm a newbie to opensolaris and configuring my ethernet card hasn't been done yet. This Kingston ethernet card doesn't appear on the driver download site as far as I can determine, but the pre-install disk I downloaded and used to check for solaris compatibility gave the driver address for downloads. Since I downloaded the audio drivers needed for the old HP 500Mhz Brio (audio works now)it seems I can follow instructions...hopefully others out there use old PCs too. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
Christopher Mahan wrote: --- Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Complexity *is* the issue. With 15 million lines of very complex code, I would argue it would take a long time for the non-Sun kernel developers to outnumber the Sun kernel developers. Actually, given the total number of kernel developers in the world, I'd wager it will never happen. I don't know how else to explain this. So either I'm not understanding your point or you're not understanding mine. You mean to say that only people from Sun are now able to comprehend and modify the complexity that is Solaris? I suggest that maybe Solaris really need some fresh blood to entangle the mess of complexity. Besides, if it's really that complex that IBM, MSFT, APPLE, GOOG, and RH people can't figure it out, what do you have to fear from the basement long-haired hippies? Hmmm? I think that is what Steve is saying. There is nothing to fear. Forking won't happen. So what is your point? Do you really think any of these companies is going to drop their OS efforts and work full bore on OpenSolaris? Not likely. And if even one of them does, OpenSolaris grows, which is all off our goals, I hope. Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.christophermahan.com/ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Christopher Mahan wrote: What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're already upset, don't read further. You make some dramatic statements. However, I think some of them are off somewhat. I wholeheartedly agree that open source needs to be embraced, and quickly and aggressively. I also agree that (sadly) code quality doesn't get you anywhere unless it is combined with outreach and marketing to build momentum. I am aware that us nerds have a tendency to stay in our little corner, caring about details and quality in code, feeling smug, while out there in the real world, others steal your thunder and make you irrelevant. Now for the parts that I disagree with. You talk about embracing the open source community and GPL(v2) as the (only?) way to reach the millions of hackers out there. Firstly, I have to object to your equation of the open source community with GPLv2. There are lots of successful open source offerings out there that are not GPL-ed (remember, this started off as a discussion about dual-licensing OpenSolaris with CDDL and GPLv3). You even mention some of those projects in the examples with your website work. Secondly, there aren't millions of hackers out there who would be actively improving OpenSolaris. Linux doesn't have millions of hackers. The realistic number for the group of developers who will actively contribute is small, it is more likely in the hundreds at any given time. I think this is one of the misunderstandings between the developers on one side and the advocates or marketing folks on the other side: the target audience for active development is not that big. The target audience for *users* is big. You need to be careful to not try to push the development community and infrastructure into a marketing tool to reach the user target audience. They are seperate. - Frank ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:21:30AM +, Simon Phipps wrote: It seems to me (as others have said) they they will gain far more from Solaris going GPLv3 than we will, so it's hardly surprising they are in favour, and by-and-large we aren't. While that's true of the ~15 people who have piped up, there are a substantial number of people we've not heard from yet. So I'd suggest it's too early to come to that conclusion. I'm sure I'm not alone in substantially agreeing with Alan Burlison et al, but not speaking up since I have nothing much to add to what they're saying. regards, john (speaking for myself) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
Christopher Mahan wrote: --- Ben Rockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance. And why is that? Think about it... The governance people are not giving direction. They want to be leadership, they should be here. Or maybe the people here should be leadership... Or even maybe the people here are the leadership... I think most of the OGB members have chimed in on this conversation. In general, governance has not been a strong community-wide conversation, but I have a feeling that will change. :) Jim ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code, not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance. Right; so I don't think the non-involvement in governance is anything to go by; those who can do, those who can't govern (paraphrased) Not sure I agree with that quote since it doesn't leave much room for me. :) And I can think of many people who are quietly doing good work that doesn't involve coding or governance or so-called leadership in any way but who still desire to be part of an open community. Jim ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Added bonus: http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/010807/PLEX_7264.pdf via /. (http://slashdot.org/articles/07/02/03/1524250.shtml) read the last line. --- Christopher Mahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're already upset, don't read further. --- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please understand that one of the reasons Solaris is superior to just about any other operating system out there is because Sun engineering has implemented structured processes to development. If you should go and work for some of the biggest UNIX customers in the world, you would find that those companies *try* to mimic that, and that there is just as much engineering done before any changes to Solaris are made. I am an admin on wikipedia, was very active before my son was born, and have some 3000+ edits logged there. It's written in PHP, with apache and mySQL, and linux (Suse, a few Debian, a few others). According to Alexa, http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=url=http://www.wikipedia.org The agglomerated wikipedia sites are generating 4 billion page views per day and are ranked 12th in the world for all traffic. Now, PHP is admittedly one of the most insecure, badly designed languages out there. It certainly does not compare to Lisp, Perl, Python, or even Ruby in style and cohesion. It does not compare with Java in enterprisey-modularization. It does not compare well to most other languages for that matter. Yet, it's Good Enough to generate 4 billion pageviews per day. mySQL could use a good taking to by postgresql people, yet, well, you know, it cranks out the pageviews. Likewise Linux is a steaming pile of hack jobs, but while it's full or faults and the engineering is, well, amateurish, it's cranking out the 4 billion page views... And at GOOG, it's cranking out 20 billion page views per day. For people who have a problem with that, look here: http://www.google.com/finance?client=igq=GOOG and see that GOOG market capitalization is $147 Billion. SUNW's is $23 Billion. For comparison, IBM's market cap it $149 Billion., Microsoft's is $295 Billion, but that only means IBM + GOOG MSFT (think about that for a moment). More comparisons: Oracle is at $90 Billion. SAP AG: $14 Billion. HP is at $111 Billion. Apple is at $84 Billion. Why am I bothering the Engineers with a few details like that? Because that's what the company CEOs look at. And if you think for a moment that the CIOs and the CEOs don't discuss Linux, you'd be sadly mistaken. Jonathan knows. He doesn't say anything out loud, but it's a well known fact: Linux has won, faults and all. And it has not won in the Academia and Computer Science realms, it has won where it matters: in the Marketplace. Heck, Microsoft is feeling the heat big time. Not from Solaris, oh no... From Linux. The same Linux you people denigrate as being pushed by a bunch on long-haired ideologues that can't put two sentences together without jumping in unison like penguins grunting GPL GNU GPL GNU Go watch the video again: http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/good_bad_and_brave and watch where Jonathan said we almost died. Sun Microsystems sells hardware. The executive team looks to you, and pays your paychecks, to make an OS that will drive purchases of the hardware. Solaris is the milk in the grocery store. You might think that people will want the Solaris because it's advanced, rock solid, and of great quality. You're wrong. For the marketplace, Linux does that well enough. That's not a differentiator. What you fail to realize is that Linus does not write paychecks. People do it because they believe. And if you think the Solaris codebase is forbidding, you ought to take a look at Linux and the GNU userland. It's daunting to most people. Yet they do it. They go in and roll up their sleeves and stay up until the wee hours of the morning and drink coffee (Hi Dennis) and they Get It Done. You people love to make fun of Monkey Boy. He's the CEO of the company ranked by Fortune to have the 7th largest profit in the Fortune 700 List: (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/performers/companies/profits/index.html) at $12 billion and change. Microsoft made more in net profit than Sun in total revenue in 1 year. And their OS are the whipping boys of Computer Scientists everywhere. Lots of CEOs want to be him. Get off your high horse. Your technology is too complex, too slow-moving, too difficult to get running, to difficult to patch, change, and too difficult to write applications for. There is a reason it's free to download and use in production: it costs as much to get it running and keep it running as it provides in benefit to the user. So in financial terms, it's value added is zero. The reason why the Sun Executive team decided to open-source it, and with the
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're already upset, don't read further. I'm certainly not upset; this is a disucssion, and I appreciate contrarian views so long as they're stated in a non-ad hominem manner. I am an admin on wikipedia, was very active before my son was born, and have some 3000+ edits logged there. It's written in PHP, with apache and mySQL, and linux (Suse, a few Debian, a few others). ... Yet, it's Good Enough to generate 4 billion pageviews per day. I get your point. The numbers speak for themselves, and Linux has results to back it up. However, what you neglected or are perhaps unaware of is that IT/CS field is unlike any other field out there. The problem with IT/CS is that it is inherently comple; extremely complex. Think of it in terms of literacy: there are *very few* people on this planet, out of 6.6 billion population, that are IT / CS literate. It's a strange side effect that stems from the fact that the field is so vast, that it is almost impossible to master it all. To have the insights and to understand what is truly a good technology and what is not, one would have to be involved with it practially since diapers, and also be extremely interested in it, to the point of eating, breathing and sleeping it. And there are indeed very few people on this planet that are like that. My point: Windows is the most widespread platform and has the highest numbers, but what does it prove? It proves that most people *don't care* what runs on the computer -- they want the *damn thing* to just *do stuff* that they want to do. In other words, they expect this extremely complex tool to be as simple to use as a washing machine and they don't know and even don't care that there might be highly advanced washing machines for professionals out there. Actually most professionals don't care how much their washing machine is capable of. I should know, I have to watch this horror every day of my life, and yes, before you rush out to write back, I'm extremely frustrated by it, because I care. In other words, people don't know any better, and they will use *whatever* as long as it is advertized enough, in one way or another. At least as far as a general consumer and as far as your average IT guy (which are *far away* from pros and engineers based on my experience). Like so many things, it's all about awareness. For people who have a problem with that, look here: http://www.google.com/finance?client=igq=GOOG and see that GOOG market capitalization is $147 Billion. SUNW's is $23 Billion. For comparison, IBM's market cap it $149 Billion., Microsoft's is $295 Billion, but that only means IBM + GOOG MSFT (think about that for a moment). Don't fall for the Wall Street numbers; the share price sways from one day to another as the wind turns; Google, at the end of the day, has only one useful product, and that's a search engine. Other than that, the huge Google has *NOTHING*, and I repeat *NOTHING* *tangible*. And to someone in a 3rd world country that has nothing to eat, is sick, and doesn't even have access to clean water to drink, which is still most of the aforementioned 6.6 billion population, your GOOG is *worthless*. Do you understand that? WORTHLESS. You can't eat it, you can't drink it. The share price is meaningless, as is the market capitalization, if any of those people would even know what market capitalization is. I think you get my point. What you fail to realize is that Linus does not write paychecks. People do it because they believe. And if you think the Solaris codebase is forbidding, you ought to take a look at Linux and the GNU userland. It's daunting to most people. Yet they do it. They go in and roll up their sleeves and stay up until the wee hours of the morning and drink coffee (Hi Dennis) and they Get It Done. People believe because they are ignorant. In fact, thay are no more enlightened than the serfs were in the middle ages and the church was stuffing religion down their throat, and they believed it, because they didn't know any better. Same scenario is playing out here, just the props and the stage have been altered. And I for one have no fear of yelling the emperor is naked!!! Get off your high horse. Your technology is too complex, too slow-moving, too difficult to get running, to difficult to patch, change, and too difficult to write applications for. Have you actually looked into writing applications for Solaris? It's actually way easier than for Linux. Let me tell you a real story: when Nvidia started on writing drivers for Solaris, they were suprised when they learned that *one version* of their drivers will work *on all* versions of Solaris, and that they didn't have to develop separate versions for every Solaris release. Linux can only dream of something like that, in fact, the very people you believe in have openly *guaranteed* that Linux will purposely
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Those guys aren't going to accept Solaris. They're fundamentalists who don't use something based on technical merit, but based on ideological merit. And to me, that's the wrong reason to use an OS. The only way those people might ever be *compelled* to accept Solaris is if Solaris delivers everything Linux has, but in a Solaris way -- a clearly better way -- and markets that, point for point. It's the software availability and the end users and customers that will make or break Solaris -- not a few million Linux geeks stuck in their ideological dogma. No sir. They do not accept Solaris because firstly they believe freedom is priceless and that a for-profit company in drivers seat driving things the deem fit, there cannot be freedom and no one likes to work for free for somebody else's cause. Secondly most use x86 and Solaris won't work there and if they are to fix it they would have to go thru some good amount of red tapism, instead of just fixing it and integrating it in the main tree. Fix both of the above and do away with your protectionist and wrong ways and you will see a surge in usage and participation. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
S Destika wrote: Secondly most use x86 and Solaris won't work there I'll admit there are some areas that need improvement, but Solaris certainly works on x86, and more Solaris users are now on x86 than SPARC, so it's getting a lot of attention to fix the deficiencies. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] virtualiztion - (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/3/07, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I broke this out of the GPLv3 discussion line ... lest it be lost in poor signal to noise level. - Original Message - Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings) From:Bob Palowoda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date:Sat, February 3, 2007 04:14 To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Bob Palowoda wrote: sorry about the snippage ... The client was consolidating all their old windows boxes on a couple of 8 core Opteron boxes with VMWare ESX, so we just built a Solaris virtual machine and ran with that. Cop out, but pragmatic! I was recently asked by an organization with piles of users for ways to consolidate some server room resources. I suggested that piles of their 1U and 2U/PC gear could collapse into an 8-core Opterons with VMWare ESX server. That was when the costs arrived. And killed it. The cost of the VMware Infrastructure 3 Enterprise for 2 processors was over $5000 USD. That is just the license for the virtualization software. For only 2 procs. So double that for an 4-way Opteron is $1 and then a Platinum support contract is about 20% of that per year. So add in $2000 a year per 4-way machine in a rack of five machines. So each machine gets slammed $10,000 for VMWare license one time cost and then the support is $2000 a year per machine per year forever! The cost of the server itself is in the zone of $16K with about 16GB of RAM and some fibre to the storage. We are at one time costs of $26K per machine and then a rack of them is $120K easily. Each rack will cost $12K a year every year for support costs. Those numbers seem pretty correct, but you forgot to add in a few things. Space along with power and cooling are the biggest factors. Your 2RU better double it and have 4RU for redundancy ( two 2RU servers) , and this can easily replace 8 boxes even if they are only 1RU boxes have just reduced space by 1/2 though it does't sound like much at 8 boxes, but scale this up by a factor of 10, you have reduced 80RU to 40RU so you have removed a full rack, along with its ups backup power, and probably reduced cooling and power costs lets say that a 1RU rack server costs $50 a month to power and double that if you want power to have ups, at least as much to cool so replacing 8 boxes with 2 you have saved at least $400 a month that is $4800 a year. We can also remove 8 sockets of kvm as well so that is less power and maintenance as well. Okay were still loosing when you look at pure hardware costs now lets look at what happens on the software and admin side of things. With Vmware ESX, yes you are paying a fortune for it, but at least at windows you get a reduction IIRC you can buy one copy of Windows2k3 and run as many virtual copies of it as you like as long as you own the license for the size box it is running on, so you just reduced your licensing costs by a factor of 4 so that can easily add upto another $4000. If you want to compare Solaris you can reduced the number of cpu/support contracts from 8 (possibly 16) to 4, so your support contracts are reduced by 50% You can also deploy new instances of Windows/Solaris/Linux in a matter of seconds not hours as is typical, and you can script your changes/patches so its like maintaining 2 or 3 boxes instead of 8. A lot of application vendors are doing the same so you are also reducing the number of software licenses needed as well and removing just one high end oracle license covers the cost of vmware and support for 3 years 45,000 or so is what i remember it being. Next comes scaling and uptime you can move vhosts from vmware server to another as needed by work load and or system downtime this alone can save a sysadmin 100's of hours a year possibly. So if you look at this and decreased in administration time you can probably remove a sysadmin from payroll or run more servers with the current staff, and this can save you 80,000 in salary plus another 40,000 in benefits. So going through the savings so far we have, 4800 in power and cooling 4000 in OS licensing 48000 if you can reduce the number of oracle licenses you need by just 1. 12 if you can just reduce one top sysadmin from the payroll I believe as you scale this up the hardware prices are less but even if you just say they are equal you are still saving loads of money even if the hardware as you can see there are still plenty of savings to go around. And if any of this keeps the company from building a new 2million dollar datacenter for another year, the saving makes the cost of vmware really small in comparison. here is a link about 2 guys using vmware in the trenches, they claim to save at least 50% of the costs by using vmware + sunrays and sun e4600 servers.
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
If you'd like to do driver development for Solaris, what's stopping you from going to docs.sun.com and looking up the driver development guide? I am frustrated to say that people repeatedly miss the point. To remind - Those drivers were written long back ago (before OpenSolaris) by single person for his own cause and he was kind enough to make them available. How long did it take before they will be in Solaris? Is that kind of speed (I wouldn't call it speed for god's sake) acceptable? Why are not 100 people like that guy rolling up their sleeves and writing/reviewing/committing more of them? Because people do not feel like it would be for their cause to make an effort. Because people feel there is nothing for them to gain there. Because they know they will have to work in somebody else's accordance and for someone else's benefits. That was the point - it needs to be looked into as to how we can increase community participation. Please understand that one of the reasons Solaris is superior to just about any other operating system out there is because Sun engineering has implemented structured processes to development. If you should go and work for some of the biggest UNIX customers in the world, you would find that those companies *try* to mimic that, and that there is just as much engineering done before any changes to Solaris are made. That is of NO USE to ME - I cannot run it on the hardware I choose. I cannot wait till the hardware in question becomes obsolete for your so called quality and process enabled drivers to show up. I do not want to buy Sun hardware for my own justifiable reasons. You forget all of that and continue trumpeting quality and process. Quality and Proceess - for what? Sun's business yes. Can I use that quality and process now, today? No. Does it work for me today? No. So what was your point again? I am trying to highlight the need for accelerating changes and getting there. But the case isn't closed yet. There is a lot of work on the TODO list, however, not everybody can do it properly and that's why people who can need lots of time. I believe more patience and understanding is needed. Solaris isn't about hack it up in five minutes by some pizza and beer on a Friday night deal, it's about make it work many years into the future without breaking the functionality many have come to realy dearly on. So Solaris is about slowness - making drivers when the hardware becomes obsolete? Letting years pass by without making things work? In other words if a restaurant makes high quality food in 4 days of time the time, each day people will flock away to other restaurants to satisfy their hunger as long the other restaurant does give them something reasonable. That's what has happened with Linux - it is good enough and does what people want it to do and it is free. Why do I need to wait for years just to make it run on my hardware when Linux runs on it today and if it doesn't run the way I like it - I can just fix it up and propagate those changes for the world to consume - easy, and makes me happy at the end. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
No sir. They do not accept Solaris because firstly they believe freedom is priceless and that a for-profit company in drivers seat driving things the deem fit, there cannot be freedom and no one likes to work for free for somebody else's cause. marketing, just marketing, changing the license won't solve the problem for the simple fact that Solaris is sun's product and most of the changes to the ON will still come from sun. In any case, evangelizm can solve the issue, CDDL is free by any standard, even the FSF thinks so, their only problem with it is that it is just not GPL compatible. That might change with GPLv3, there is some focus in license compatibility these days. Secondly most use x86 and Solaris won't work there and if they are to fix it they would have to go thru some good amount of red tapism, instead of just fixing it and integrating it in the main tree. find an application that solves the problem in hand, then pick the os that runs it the best and finally pick the right hardware for the os that should be the number one rule for any sysadmin picking hardware. Hobbyists might have some problems with hardware and solaris, I agree there, but it is not nearly as bad as you paint it. i had 0 problems getting solaris to work in my desktop and except for the wireless card everything in the laptop i'm using works, this is a Dell 640m. Red tape is a necesary evil to get high quality software and you'll find that most here agree. In fact it is that high quality that drives people to solaris, without that it would just be another linux, a product that just works fine most of the time Fix both of the above and do away with your protectionist and wrong ways and you will see a surge in usage and participation. nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
I think that maybe x86 *is* the main area where we need help from device driver writers who have done the compatibility heavy lifting for Linux already. Is there a licensing problem in getting their work onto Open Solaris for x64/x86? Would the GPLv3 even solve the problem? Outside of this camp, I think we are looking at a green field of folks who are not necessarily coming from Linux to Solaris, but maybe getting involved with kernel development for the first time by getting their feet wet with Solaris. -- mark Alan Coopersmith wrote: S Destika wrote: Secondly most use x86 and Solaris won't work there I'll admit there are some areas that need improvement, but Solaris certainly works on x86, and more Solaris users are now on x86 than SPARC, so it's getting a lot of attention to fix the deficiencies. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: don't want anything that is in Solaris. A number of core Linux developers have said we can't use ZFS because of the way its implemented. Even more Linux developers have decided that they are doing a This is true. The problem is that Linux does not use the VFS interface internally, but as Linux did implement NFS it should not be impossible. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somebody should just freaking replace Linux with latest Solaris version for sites like Wikipedia, kernel.org (running at 400+ load as of today) and see how it stands up - I doubt they'll even get past the hardware incompatibility issues. If the Engineering cannot be put to use, why even boast about it? Stop bashing Linux before Solaris can even parallel it in hardware compatibility - An OS which cannot run on hardware I want it to run on is of ZERO use to me. Looks like you did never really try to run OpenSolaris on a typical web server hardware. There is no problem to run OpenSolaris on it and it definitely outperforms Linux. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On 2/3/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: don't want anything that is in Solaris. A number of core Linux developers have said we can't use ZFS because of the way its implemented. Even more Linux developers have decided that they are doing a This is true. The problem is that Linux does not use the VFS interface internally, but as Linux did implement NFS it should not be impossible. but you are not implying we should bend over and kiss their rearends and beg them to use our stuff when they obviously don't want too? James Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it would help me posting here. Same goes with bug reports.) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/3/07, S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it would help me posting here. Same goes with bug reports.) sorry to hear that, neither of these boxes actually booted? have you run the Sun Device Detection Tool[1]? if you need help with solaris there is #opensolaris and #solaris in freenode (irc) and there are lots and lots of mailing lists including those in opensolaris.org you can always submit a bug report or rfc about your problem, the opensolaris community is trying hard to solve issues and it has improved significantly in many ways, people are running nexenta and other distros in their laptops these days, we also have a modern gnome desktop that matches any linux offering but we dont have a crystal ball we cannot know whether there is a problem or not with a device if there is no user complaining about it, and there is no reason to invest time ( remember time = money) in a device when there is no user demand nacho [1] http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/device_detect.html ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
S Destika wrote: As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it would help me posting here. Same goes with bug reports.) You never did detail the 8 different boxes. Your analysis is flawed, there's always plenty of help with hardware issues either here or more often on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias. Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: is there an identd client that works on
I you could link me/send me a copy of the one you had working up to b57 that would be fantastic. I'm running b56. Even if it doesn't work by default, it would give me a starting point. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: don't want anything that is in Solaris. A number of core Linux developers have said we can't use ZFS because of the way its implemented. Even more Linux developers have decided that they are doing a This is true. The problem is that Linux does not use the VFS interface internally, but as Linux did implement NFS it should not be impossible. but you are not implying we should bend over and kiss their rearends and beg them to use our stuff when they obviously don't want too? I believe that we should make clear that nobody from Sun likes to prevent Linux to take ZFS or Dtrace and that there is no license that prevents this from hapening. Then we could lean back and see what's going to happen. The signal is the same as (or even better than) dual licensing with GPLv3 abd it does not have the pitfall of dual licensing. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
I am frustrated to say that people repeatedly miss the point. To remind - Those drivers were written long back ago (before OpenSolaris) by single person for his own cause and he was kind enough to make them available. Incorrect. Those drivers (by Murayama-san) are still in development, and support most modern, easily accessible and mainstream hardware. Please consult Free NIC drivers for Solaris on Google and you will see what I mean. How long did it take before they will be in Solaris? Is that kind of speed (I wouldn't call it speed for god's sake) acceptable? Why are not 100 people like that guy rolling up their sleeves and writing/reviewing/committing more of them? Because people do not feel like it would be for their cause to make an effort. Because people feel there is nothing for them to gain there. Because they know they will have to work in somebody else's accordance and for someone else's benefits. That was the point - it needs to be looked into as to how we can increase community participation. I fail to see how integration in Solaris proper stopped any of us, including yourself, to download the drivers from his web page and use them. I even made my own build system around his drivers that automatically compiles them and packages them for me. Works like a charm, with or without being integrated into Solaris proper or OpenSolaris. My point: so long as software for Solaris is available, it is mostly irrelevant whether it comes with Solaris stock or not. Would it help / make things easier? Well sure it would. Is it absolutely essential or a show stopper for you to roll up your sleeves and repeat what Murayama-san did? No, it is not. So here is what I suggest: write some drivers of your own and post them on the web somewhere. Then you can take your sweet time and work out the kinks with the people who know Solaris and have them audit your code. And once you've worked the kinks out, it will show up in Solaris. Meanwhile, users can use the stuff downloaded from your web page, should they choose to do so. In the end, Solaris gets rock-solid, high-perf drivers and users get a relief measure while that is being worked out. Everybody wins. That is of NO USE to ME - I cannot run it on the hardware I choose. I cannot wait till the hardware in question becomes obsolete for your so called quality and process enabled drivers to show up. I do not want to buy Sun hardware for my own justifiable reasons. You forget all of that and continue trumpeting quality and process. Quality and Proceess - for what? Sun's business yes. Can I use that quality and process now, today? No. Does it work for me today? No. So what was your point again? I find that hard to believe. Sure I've had some very stubborn / uncooperative hardware, but in the end I forced Solaris to run on it, one way or another. Sometimes the solution was as simple as -B acpi-user-options=0x2, sometimes not. But Solaris always worked. Did you detail your problem with this hardware anywhere? Can we help you TODAY? I am trying to highlight the need for accelerating changes and getting there. And that's all fine, but if by acceleration you mean ad hoc implementation, then perhaps Solaris is not for you. Solaris and ad hoc don't go together in one sentence. Neither should acceleration mean let's change root's shell to /bin/bash because that's what I'm confortable with from Linux. If you chose to be part of the Solaris community, then choose to learn Solaris the way Solaris is. And most importantly, seek to understand why things are done the way they are. There are actually reasons why things are done the way they are, and they don't have anything to do with Sun Microsystems per se. o Solaris is about slowness - making drivers when the hardware becomes obsolete? Letting years pass by without making things work? I'm truly sorry that I don't quite understand what you're trying to communicate to me. I'm confused by your statements, since I know that Solaris supports most mainstream hardware on the i86pc platform. I run Solaris on *all* my i86pc systems, from my laptop to my desktop PC bucket to my i86pc servers. In other words if a restaurant makes high quality food in 4 days of time, each day people will flock away to other restaurants to satisfy their hunger as long the other restaurant does give them something reasonable. That's what has happened with Linux - it is good enough and does what people want it to do and it is free. Why do I need to wait for years just to make it run on my hardware when Linux runs on it today and if it doesn't run the way I like it - I can just fix it up and propagate those changes for the world to consume - easy, and makes me happy at the end. Linux might satisfy some very limited scenarios, such as a desktop PC operating system, or a deployment with a few servers. But don't risk upgrading your kernel or your drivers -- you risk losing a
Re: [osol-discuss] Howto unsubscribe from a discussion forum?
Chris Parman wrote: I just need to know how to unsubscribe from a discussion forum. I can't seem to find anything on this web site that describes how to do this. Thank's to anyone that can help. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/discussions/ Click the unsubscribe link for the relevant list. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
That's what has happened with Linux - it is good enough and does what people want it to do and it is free. Why do I need to wait for years just to make it run on my hardware when Linux runs on it today and if it doesn't run the way I like it - I can just fix it up and propagate those changes for the world to consume - easy, and makes me happy at the end. Another thing just occured to me. What is stopping you from making your own changes, just the way you like it, to Solaris and propagate them via the Internet? If they are good enough, I'm sure they will get integrated back into Solaris. If they are not, still nobody will stop you from propagating them. In fact, do you actually have any changes to the code to submit? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Also, Linux fails miserably in large enterprise deployments, because the thing is simply not designed for server farms with thousands of systems on them. That's why your local ATM, or your bank or even your insurance will never be powered by Linux and why they will always either be run on the z/OS mainframe or on Solaris. Wow thats a bunch of crazy statements right there - you have insurmountable amount of ignorance here. ATM machines run Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banrisul - they replaced MS-DOS here so your statement couldn't be more funnier!) . Plenty of banks running Linux successfully - do a google again, same with Insurance. While I am not trying to do a Linux vs. Solaris flamewar here (absolutely not) I wanted to highlight your ignorance. Gone are those days of requiring mainframes and pricey hardware and slow OS to run mission critical stuff. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/3/07, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am frustrated to say that people repeatedly miss the point. To remind - Those drivers were written long back ago (before OpenSolaris) by single person for his own cause and he was kind enough to make them available. Incorrect. Those drivers (by Murayama-san) are still in development, and support most modern, easily accessible and mainstream hardware. Please consult Free NIC drivers for Solaris on Google and you will see what I mean. How long did it take before they will be in Solaris? Is that kind of speed (I wouldn't call it speed for god's sake) acceptable? Why are not 100 people like that guy rolling up their sleeves and writing/reviewing/committing more of them? Because people do not feel like it would be for their cause to make an effort. Because people feel there is nothing for them to gain there. Because they know they will have to work in somebody else's accordance and for someone else's benefits. That was the point - it needs to be looked into as to how we can increase community participation. I fail to see how integration in Solaris proper stopped any of us, including yourself, to download the drivers from his web page and use them. I even made my own build system around his drivers that automatically compiles them and packages them for me. Works like a charm, with or without being integrated into Solaris proper or OpenSolaris. this is not just about solaris only but about the rest of the opensolaris distributions as well, they are free to include them, and i know at least nexenta actually does. http://www.gnusolaris.org/archive/elatte-unstable/net/myamanet-vfe distributions are free to include whatever software and drives they want provided they have the rights to do so. The problem here is that this thread grew to be too solaris centered and since opensolaris, you can package your own opensolaris distribution. you dont like how things in solaris are slow? get the code, integrate it, package it and distribute it, some already do, if people like your distribution, they will use it. That will even be good for solaris itself since it will provide some needed QA nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Yeah I can do that if I feel like doing it but that is not the point. Point is to make OpenSolaris a place where people can easily contribute their changes. Why would I need to discuss that sort of thing (making and propagating my own changes) on this list? What happens when number of contributors make smaller changes and distribute them on their own and finally the whole thing doesn't come together and people are required to dig 100 sources just to get their stuff to work is not good. Not plausible. What happens when a change is required in main kernel and I cannot get it in easily? There is a need for some place central to pickup and integrate these type of small changes and make the whole thing work - that place is OpenSolaris. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Solaris 10 native client with openldap on linux - password change
Hello All, I don't know if this is the right forum for this. But I hope someone here can answer this. I have a Solaris 10 (not OpenSolaris) system, which is successfully authenticating against a OpenLDAP 2.3 server running on SuSE Linux (Thanks go to Gary for his excellent documentation on this topic). What is not working (and not mentioned anywhere too) is that an LDAP user cannot change his central password from the Solaris clients using 'passwd' command. I have this working from all of my Linux clients, using PAM. But in Solaris, native LDAP client is being used, and I am not sure how to make it play nice. Any suggestions? In a similar note, why is Solaris native client better than PAM in Solaris? Would native client be able to talk to OpenLDAP's ppolicy modules too? PAM does this pretty solid from Linux clients. TIA, Prakash This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/3/07, S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah I can do that if I feel like doing it but that is not the point. Point is to make OpenSolaris a place where people can easily contribute their changes. Why would I need to discuss that sort of thing (making and propagating my own changes) on this list? What happens when number of contributors make smaller changes and distribute them on their own and finally the whole thing doesn't come together and people are required to dig 100 sources just to get their stuff to work is not good. Not plausible. What happens when a change is required in main kernel and I cannot get it in easily? There is a need for some place central to pickup and integrate these type of small changes and make the whole thing work - that place is OpenSolaris. i see, so this is a problem for opensolaris but it is somehow not a problem with linux right? most distributions ship a modified linux kernel, hell even slackware does and slackware is mantained by 1 ( yes, one, THE man ) guy. you should be able to answer those questions yourself since you already know how it is done from the linux world. also, do you thing the linux mantainers accept changes so easily? check reiser4, last time i checked it was contributed to the kernel years ago and its still in andrew's tree (-mm) nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other changes are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets merged in mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux development works at all. But more importantly this was never about accepting any and all changes - it was about making it better for people to propose changes and people to review it and then accept the quality ones. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] virtualiztion - (was GPLv3 ravings)
Dennis Clarke wrote: I hope you hear a lot of frustration here. I was expecting some sort of holy virtualization angel to swoop down and whisper the solution in my ear but what really happened was another little demon that showed up asking for more money than you can imagine. The very idea of virtualization turned out to be a sham. There was no real solution for the corporate type user. While the Solaris Zone is very very *real* solution for multiple Solaris servers there seems to be no way to cost effectively virtualize Windows servers. Any solution that I could come up with was either a hack or a that's not Fortune 500 supported solution. As James pointed out through his excellent cost breakdown, products like ESX are designed priced for the windows data centre. One other point I'd like to make is that ESX provided a low pain entry for my Solaris based application into this client, it was simply a case of installing a Solaris VM and loading it up. They didn't have to provision another box (which was one of their original objections) or change their backup software to something with a Solaris client. There are also now two more windows admins using Open Solaris at home, which has to be a good thing! Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Wow thats a bunch of crazy statements right there - you have insurmountable amount of ignorance here. ATM machines run Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banrisul - they replaced MS-DOS here so your statement couldn't be more funnier!) . Plenty of banks running Linux successfully - do a google again, same with Insurance. While I am not trying to do a Linux vs. Solaris flamewar here (absolutely not) I wanted to highlight your ignorance. Well that's why Brazilian banks aren't Swiss banks, isn't it? Gone are those days of requiring mainframes and pricey hardware and slow OS to run mission critical stuff. You would be *extremely* surprised. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
But more importantly this was never about accepting any and all changes - it was about making it better for people to propose changes and people to review it and then accept the quality ones. That's exactly how the process works now. Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an already existing bug ID and request a sponsor? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On Feb 3, 2007, at 19:26, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: In any case, evangelizm can solve the issue, CDDL is free by any standard, even the FSF thinks so, their only problem with it is that it is just not GPL compatible. That might change with GPLv3, there is some focus in license compatibility these days. Based on the advice I have most recently received, I am not expecting the GPLv3 to be compatible with any Mozilla-like (what I call Category B[1]) license. S. [1] http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/whitepapers/ Sun_Microsystems_OpenSource_Licensing.pdf ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.
IANAL, but afaik, you'd be relatively safe reverse-engineering it from outside. If you get help from @sun.com folks, you'll need to make sure they haven't seen the libc_i18n sources before-hand. I don't know this guarantee is made... Bonnie? cheers, steve On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 10:17:56PM -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote: By the way, if anyone from sun legal watches this forum, I'd like an overview of what I am and am not allowed to do with the project (if the project is approved) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an already existing bug ID and request a sponsor? Because as I have said hundred times or so - the process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and dictated by Sun based on their interests instead of community inspired - not something I can work with. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On Feb 4, 2007, at 00:26, S Destika wrote: Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an already existing bug ID and request a sponsor? Because as I have said hundred times or so - the process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and dictated by Sun based on their interests instead of community inspired - not something I can work with. It's actually working much better than I had expected - I was a negative as you about the prospect of a FOSS project with no public VCS. When non-Sun committers are able to have direct VCS access across the whole of OpenSolaris I would be in favour of largely retaining it, with the only difference being that the committers able to act as sponsors would include non-Sun staff. I'd be pleased to hear your process suggestions, but I'm afraid a process of some sort is inevitable. All non-trivial FOSS communities have a process that ensures commits are only made by people the community trusts. S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
Simon Phipps wrote: On Feb 3, 2007, at 07:49, Ben Rockwood wrote: This is neither the first nor the last time this discussion will occur and frankly I don't see it as productive. You would rather Sun had not asked? Has there previously been a conclusive discussion about GPLv3 (I am aware of the discussions about GPLv2). Do you have evidence that the 18,000 registered on OpenSolaris.org (or at least the Core Contributors) would reject the GPLv3 (or embrace it)? Do you have an alternative method to consult? Would you rather the decision was made secretly? Are governance discussions unproductive by definition because they are not about code?[1] I was not passing judgement on those who've participated in this discussion, simply answered the Why there 800 people on this list and only 15 posting question from my perspective. Others may agree, others might not. As for whether or not governance discussions are productive or not... they are so long as they lead to completion of governance. Once governance is complete and a new OGB is in place we begin work on things that are more interesting, namely refining and honing the development processes. That work can't be completed until the framework of the project is hardened. And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance. What proposal would you make for getting people here to take their governance responsibilities seriously? It seems people are happy to hack, but when it comes to running the place (that governance, this GPLV3 decision) they would rather leave it to others. Whether or not people care about governance is a personal opinion, people may feel as they wish. I think more people would care if they understood the purpose and direction of the project and how governance fits into that. This goes back to the old discussions on whether the OGB has enforcable power or not, whether or not Sun Executives can over-ride the OGB or not, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've not yet seen anyone approach the OGB for an opinion on these GPLv3 issues. That says something to me. Many of these fears of which you speak are, I think, out of a sense that no one is running the show... and that means that Sun Microsystems Inc (the faceless entity) is in control, not the OGB or engineers or people with faces regardless of who they work for. I personally don't worry so much because I happen to know who makes the decisions. I know that its real people, not some faceless entity. I'm sure lots of people don't have that luxury and are concerned. Just a possibility. benr. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])
On Feb 4, 2007, at 01:29, Ben Rockwood wrote: As for whether or not governance discussions are productive or not... they are so long as they lead to completion of governance. Once governance is complete and a new OGB is in place we begin work on things that are more interesting, namely refining and honing the development processes. That work can't be completed until the framework of the project is hardened. Note that by governance in this case I mean the question of use of the GPLv3. Apologies if that was unclear. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've not yet seen anyone approach the OGB for an opinion on these GPLv3 issues. That says something to me. Actually the OGB has had discussions on the topic which did not lead to minuted conclusions, and received an e-mail from Jonathan Schwartz apologising for his off-the-cuff question to Rich Green at JavaOne and assuring the OGB that he would not take a decision without consultation. Many of these fears of which you speak are, I think, out of a sense that no one is running the show... and that means that Sun Microsystems Inc (the faceless entity) is in control, not the OGB or engineers or people with faces regardless of who they work for. We are in an interim period when the outgoing OGB feels it has been given a remit only to run the ratification/election votes - that's an unfortunate moment for the matter to arise. But even so, I doubt we would even begin to consider making a decision about the dual- licensing recommendation to make to the copyright holder without having the discussion that's now taking place. So while I agree with you, I'm not sure anything would have been different in, say, March. S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.
Alan Hargreaves wrote: Do we have a test suite for what we have in libc_i18n.a? If so, we should make that available or at leat have someone who can run it against anything the project produces. As the missing functions don't appear to be documented (correct me if I'm wrong) someone who has access to the closed source will have to provide either tests, or test requirements for them for this exercise to succeed. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re:
project. This assumes, of course, that Sun/OpenSolaris.org/et al are contributing in good faith and adding real value to the project. So far, everything has indicated that they are. SUN did not have to do what they did, and it has a very costly and time-conuming process. When people ask me about licensing, and the issue always comes up with companies I talk to, I usually recommend the GPL, simply because it's the lingua franca of open source licensing, which my BSD friends just love to hear. I don't think unleashing another open It's always funny to me when people say this since most GPL projects (including the Linux kernel) heavily depend on BSD licensed code. Ahem. I would argue that the BSD and GPL licenses are the most common and important, but not the GPL by itself. I would go farther and say that the open source world would be a far poorer one withou the existence of the BSDs. 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 You obviously haven't read the many dissertations on the CDDL then. You would know it addresses several problems that the GPLv2 does not, including patents. Just because other projects have gotten along with the GPLv2 does not mean that they're doing ok or that they will continue do so. Also, you competely gloss over the fact that the CDDL gives *developers* more freedom than the GPL does when it comes to their work. It helps protect developers better thanks to the choice of venue clause, and it doesn't restrict our freedom to license our code the way we want to (within reason). 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 Who are you to make such a statement? Are you one of Apple's lawyers? Sorry, but unless you're a representative of Apple, you're the one lying, because you can't possibly make such a statement without being an Apple representative, or a psychic mind reader. Honestly, who gives a flying fig about Apple? (...as I type this from my Ubuntu-converted Macbook) Apparently you do, since you seem to know the exact reasons why they do and do not do things. is. I think you can succeed with CDDL, and other projects' successes bear that out, but I would point out that the GPL is probably the safest bet. Looking at You're welcome to think so, but as a contributor, I do not. and not releasing source. In Solaris' case, you have a huge competitor in Linux, which gets all of the open source love in the operating system space. My bet is that if you choose the GPL, you will grow faster than otherwise. Grow faster how long before other projects suck us dry? Grow faster how long before the issues that the GPLv2 do not address create problems? gravitate to OpenSolaris. Simply put, I don't really give a damn what the core OS is. OpenSolaris is interesting enough to me to investigate, but it's not quite compelling enough for me to junk the entire body of GNU software. So why do you have to junk the entire body of GNU software? Look at Nexenta... You're only going to do that if you give people a compelling reason to use your software, and the bottom line, at least for now, is that you haven't yet made it easy enough. Nexenta and like-minded projects can No proof has been offered as of yet that changing the license will do that. It is pure speculation at best. If enough people are causing a stink over the license that it scares away potential users, then you're already behind. -John Mark Ah, but how many people is enough people? People are people, and they may never be happy. I'm personally not willing to bet the OpenSolaris' community future on wild speculation about a license change. Other things need to happen to the project first before a license change. If we do everything else right, get all the other processes in place, and the succeess and growth doesn't happen, then, and only then should a license change be considered. In the meantime, there's little to no point and a license change would be nothing more than the result of speculation or marketing. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.
However, as for starting with all of closed bins, as I mentioned in the initial proposal, libc_i18n.a comes first. Actually,if you want this to be about community, then let people scratch their own itch. Some may want to work on libc_i18n.a first, someone else may want to work on some other thing first. I will reiterate that the project should be for everything listed on the no_source page (and everything in closed_bins). That bit *MUST* be reimplemented shoved in to ON as fast as possible. *should* be, yes. I certainly hope that it will be the thing people want to contribute to first, but there is no reason someone can't start on something else if they want to and it should be able to be done within this proposed project. The rest is not as important in as far as you can, theoretically, build a mostly working opensolaris distro without them. Everything has a particular thing that is important to them. From a technical standpoint, I would agree with you, but the project should be all inclusive. The reason why I posted a libc_i18n rewrite is because I don't want to have that finished, waiting for the rest of the emancipation project to finish before getting it in to ON. As soon as libc_i18n is done, I want it upstreamed I don't think it has to work that way. A project can have milestones and it doesn't have to wait for all of the components to be finished to be integrated (as far as I know, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) or to begin integration. Besides, someone may want to work on the SPARC disassembler before libc_18n.a and to some people that's just as important (necessary anyway on SPARC for the libc_18n.a re-implementation). -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Direct boot coming in build 57
For x86/x64 users you might want to check out the flag days entry for direct boot coming up in build 57. It's a good heads up. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/2007011901/ ---Bob This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
Apple's XCode http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a kick-ass front-end for their version of DTrace. I don't see them contributing that back to OpenSolaris. That's not shipping yet, so let's be fair and wait first before saying that please. Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Howto unsubscribe from a discussion forum?
From: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/discussions/ How do I subscribe? To subscribe to a list, you can: 1. Send an empty email to listname dash subscribe at opensolaris dot org. Replacing listname with the actual name of the list that you want to subscribe to. 2. You can also use the mailto: links below, provided for each list, to subscribe and ***unsubscribe. 3. Visit the os.org mailman site (http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo) to sign up for the lists using the mailman interface Once you have subscribed you can change your options for the web interface or by sending email to listname dash request at opensolaris dot org. For a full list of the email options, please visit the mailman website. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
On Feb 4, 2007, at 05:49, Shawn Walker wrote: They speak of the GNU Operating System and I have been approached by many, many FSF members and supporters around the world who would welcome the chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS, licensed in a way they felt ethically able to use, so that they could cut the cord that binds them to Linux. Then I doubt they will want to be here, since they will probably be ethically offended by the Assembly Exception that any GPLv3 license OpenSolaris would possibly use would have to have. Just as others have mentioned before, because we can't use the GPLv3 as is, we would likely just be blown off as a marketing ploy and the purists would still hate us. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion? We are using an assembly exception with the Java platform and GPLv2 - one written by the FSF for the Classpath project. Since the GPLv3 is constructed explicitly to allow the use of exceptions to produce compatible but different licenses by modifying the terms of the GPLv3, I expect use of exceptions to become more common. Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace the LGPL with a combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would expect us to approach the FSF and get their advice and support for the exception language we use. Based on this evidence I am nowhere near as pessimistic. The FSF members who matter (actual developers) are nowhere near as random as people have been suggesting on this list. S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/3/07, S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other changes are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets merged in mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux development works at all. ohh, i think i do, let me give you one more example, check a project called grsecurity, it is a set of kernel patches to implement PAX, RBAC and other stuff, that is not in any of the developement branches of the linux kernel and will likely never be there despite having been around for quite some time ( some years ). But more importantly this was never about accepting any and all changes - it was about making it better for people to propose changes and people to review it and then accept the quality ones. i think that is actually how the process works right now, and it will get better over time. Opensolaris is a lot of code and this is a fairly new community with many things to solve, please let it go one step at a time, slowly but safe and steadily. perhaps we could have a more sane conversation about licensing and other core things that need to be addressed by the community once the new ogb is elected, and that should happen fairly soon. There is also a draft of the constitution for those interested, and just like the gplv3 it's open for debate. nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
