On Saturday 03 February 2007 05:24 am, 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?
Honestly, yes, it wouldn't have been
Glynn Foster wrote On 02/07/07 15:16,:
Hey,
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
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
If the discussion were about discarding the current license and
adopting a different one, that'd be different. I don't see the same
risk of long-term community damage from that, though there are almost
certainly other issues.
There's still a potential fork issue: the current code can continue
I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/06/1448200.shtml
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
To me, this is /the/ issue in our discourse as a community. I'm happy we
got many substantive issues out on the table that were articulated
absolutely professionally (and those posts were obvious), but we also
attacked far too many people -- and entire groups and communities,
actually -- in the
So.. you're saying we should completely give up on the desktop and
attracting developers? The article you reference talks about a server
focus.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
There are a lot of GPL bigots out there.
And you *want* to appeal to them?
Seriously - why?
Are these bigots running datacentres? Are they running startups that
have a hope in hell of actually making money - as opposed to generating
PR and then just chewing their VC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On 02/08/07 00:24,:
I think your PR bacjkround has made you used to slightly more polite
discourse :-)
Actually, my specialty in Sun PR before OpenSolaris was rapid response
and competitive attack ... not very polite at all. :)
Jim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On 02/07/07 23:41,:
I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/06/1448200.shtml
Interesting thread. Seems we are slowly making progress. Bubbling up in
other conversations is really an excellent sign.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
project just because of that.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first place --
and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are still folks
who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and create proprietary
solutions. CDDL allows
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first place --
and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are still folks
who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and create proprietary
solutions. CDDL
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an
increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out to an
audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more people, making
more friends, gets
Chris Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
Hey,
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Feb 3, 2007, at 14:46, Peter Tribble wrote:
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
Hey,
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
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
Alan Burlison writes:
Simon Phipps wrote:
As with any democratic process, we won't know the answer until the
votes have been counted ;-)
Totally agree. I'm glad I don't have to vote yet because I don't know
which way I would vote.
When this discussion started I was in the Don't
James Carlson wrote:
Alan Burlison writes:
Simon Phipps wrote:
As with any democratic process, we won't know the answer until the
votes have been counted ;-)
Totally agree. I'm glad I don't have to vote yet because I don't know
which way I would vote.
When this
Seeing as how CDDL has introduced a point of contention (rightly or
wrongly), I haven't seen a strong argument for its continued existence,
other than it is in keeping with Sun's historical tendency for NIH (yes,
I expect some flamage for that). Apple was mentioned as a point for the
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
--- 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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
Alan Burlison wrote:
[snip Alan's excellent posting]
+1 from me.
1 from me (we can do shifts, right?)
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Alan Burlison wrote:
OpenSolaris is already perfectly usable by a community 10x or 100x as
large as the one we have today. I really *don't* think the license is
the main impediment we face, I think all the other issues that have been
raised around ease of participation are *far* more
John Plocher wrote:
o As good as the Java community was, releasing Java under
the GPL made it better. Under the SCSL, the vibe in
the FOSS community was Sun just doesn't get it. With
GPL, the feedback changed to Finally, they get it.
True, but you can't compare that situation to the current
Ok, so we throw a bunch of packages on OpenSolaris.org and say they're a part
of OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris is not a usable and complete system as it is
today, and even if you claim that we have all of these packages available,
they're not usable in any way without a lot of work and
John Mark Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that Eben Moglen has said that there's no meat to the GPL and
CDDL incompatibilities, at least where Nexenta is concerned, should
eventually clear out all of that riffraff, anyway. In the end, I have my
preferences and you of yours, and I
Stephen Harpster wrote:
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
you want to reach out to as many communities as possible.
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 01 February 2007 09:55 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As long as I am the only person who informs people about the fact that
Debian is no longer kosher, people will mobb me. If other people
understand the problem and inform others, it would
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if OpenSolaris under GPLv3 was usable by a community
10x or 100x as large as the one we have today? What if
every Linux distro included the core OpenSolaris technologies?
What if the FSF endorsed OpenSolaris :-)
I am still waiting to see a proof
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
friends the
Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
you want to reach out to as many
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
you want to reach out to as many communities as
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Stack against that the issues we will have to endure if we dual
license - the potential for one license to be ripped off and the
source forked *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
bit), the inability to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion
Alan DuBoff wrote:
The average user just wanted to download a distribution, install it, and use
it. They come to OpenSolaris thinking it's a distribution, since this is how
Sun has marketed it, that they have open sourced Solaris. People associate
Solaris with Xorg, gasp GNOME, and other
Alan DuBoff wrote:
That's not the point Stephen, the point is that today Xorg is not a part of
the sources that I'm calling OpenSolaris, where AlanC is considering
everything to be on the OpenSolaris site to be what OpenSolaris is.
So you want all consolidations merged into one mega source
Because some large projects have already pledged to use it. Samba comes
to mind..
Ian Collins wrote:
How do we know when GPLv3 hasn't been finalised?
I'd be interested in knowing which big projects these are.
It might just be my perspective, but I couldn't care less about the
OpenSolaris is just source. You're confusing a distribution with
OpenSolaris. kernel.org is not a Linux distribution. You don't
download it and use it. You download it, get some other pieces, put it
all together, and you have a distribution. And if you don't want to go
to that much work,
Stephen Harpster wrote:
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
you want to reach out to as many communities as possible.
Stephen Harpster wrote:
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
you want to reach out to as many communities as
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, so we throw a bunch of packages on OpenSolaris.org and say
they're a part
of OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris is not a usable and complete system as
it is
today, and even if you claim that we have all of these packages
available,
they're not usable in any
Christopher Mahan writes:
You don't install OpenSolaris; you'd install Solaris, Schillix,
Nexenta,
etc...
Casper, Thanks for that tidbit.
Would you mind exploring that a bit further? I'm now very confused...
OpenSolaris is not a Kernel, not a distro, but something in between?
Explain
--- James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher Mahan writes:
You don't install OpenSolaris; you'd install Solaris, Schillix,
Nexenta,
etc...
Casper, Thanks for that tidbit.
Would you mind exploring that a bit further? I'm now very
confused...
OpenSolaris is not a
Stephen Harpster writes:
Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what
Alan Burlison wrote:
That's an interesting collection of assertions, but I'm not sure they
are entirely correct. It really depends on what you mean by combine
with Solaris. We already have a significant amount of GPLv2 code
shipped with Solaris, so Solaris not being GPL obviously isn't
But you do build it to make sure it's working right? Where are those
builds?
Solaris Express Community Edition is a collection of builds.
There may be some other bits (I think OS-Net binaries are available)
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
you want to reach out to as many communities as
Assertion without proof.
Likewise your argument as well, but actual data is nearly impossible to
obtain until after the fact, so let's continue with our current working
theory.
Your working theory. Not our working theory.
My working theory is alienating 30% of the current community;
Stephen Harpster wrote:
That's an interesting collection of assertions, but I'm not sure they
are entirely correct. It really depends on what you mean by combine
with Solaris. We already have a significant amount of GPLv2 code
shipped with Solaris, so Solaris not being GPL obviously isn't
For the kernel, true. For userland, no. Don't forget that we're
already taking in GPLv2.
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with
But we're already doing that, so dual-licensing won't open us up any
more than we already are, so where's the benefit?
Stephen Harpster wrote:
For the kernel, true. For userland, no. Don't forget that we're
already taking in GPLv2.
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
The big
Who maintains the code on that CVS server? If there's a bug in virtual
memory, who fixes it? The experts are here in Sun, and they will
continue to work on opensolaris.org. OpenSolaris is too large and
complex for even a small set of people to maintain an entire separate fork.
OK, they
Stephen Harpster writes:
and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance stuff
only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
Which is why contributions back into OpenSolaris (the kernel anyway),
will need to be dual-licensed.
No, they won't. According
Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Stephen Harpster writes:
Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
that fork? Constantly chase
Stephen Harpster writes:
Who maintains the code on that CVS server?
Same as any other open source project -- the community built around it
does.
Would you ask that question about any other open source project?
If there's a bug in virtual
memory, who fixes it? The experts are here in Sun,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who would this bring to our community?
The entire GNU community for one.
Sorry, which community is that? There is no such thing. Do
you mean the FSF?
Yes.
We already bring in GPLv2 code. So we must therefore limit this
discussion to the
Alan Burlison wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
That's an interesting collection of assertions, but I'm not sure
they are entirely correct. It really depends on what you mean by
combine with Solaris. We already have a significant amount of
GPLv2 code shipped with Solaris, so Solaris not
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
How do we know when GPLv3 hasn't been finalised?
Because some large projects have already pledged to use it. Samba
comes to mind..
But surely the license only becomes an issue for projects that would be
integrated into Open Solaris code,
Stephen Harpster wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Stephen Harpster writes:
and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance
stuff only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
Which is why contributions back into OpenSolaris (the kernel anyway),
will
Stephen Harpster writes:
No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
reallyopensolaris.org hasn't been registered yet, and would be an
excellent place to set up a rival community.
OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
Fine. openos.org is also available,
Isn't it more likely that folks would cherry-pick projects off
of Open Solaris for forking/re-hosting?
OpenZFS.org
OpenDtrace.org
...
-- mark
James Carlson wrote:
Stephen Harpster writes:
No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
"reallyopensolaris.org" hasn't
Stephen Harpster wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Stephen Harpster writes:
and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance
stuff only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
Which is why contributions back into OpenSolaris (the kernel anyway),
will
I did not mean to say that one group is smarter or more talented than
the other. I'm simply saying that the majority of the opensolaris.org
contributers work at Sun. If say, IBM, were to pony up contributers
that out numbered Sun, I would be very happy indeed for it would mean
that
Mark A. Carlson writes:
body bgcolor=#ff text=#00
ttIsn't it more likely that folks would cherry-pick projects offbr
of Open Solaris for forking/re-hosting?br
br
OpenZFS.orgbr
OpenDtrace.orgbr
Possibly, though they'd have to deal with the new and likely highly
complex
(For what it's worth, and it may not be much, I believe the very same
issues affected the Zebra/Quagga split. Integration into Zebra was
considered by quite a few to be difficult, and the folks who started
the project apparently felt they held the important cards. Now it
seems that's not quite
Yes, but the same argument holds. This can happen today. CDDL has file
boundaries. You can create a fork of ZFS and innovate all you want. If
your innovations remain in separate files, you don't have to publish
them or contribute them back.
Mark A. Carlson wrote:
Isn't it more likely
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
Who maintains the code on that CVS server? If there's a bug in virtual
memory, who fixes it? The experts are here in Sun, and they will
continue to work on opensolaris.org. OpenSolaris is too large and
That's a dangereous assertion. What it Jeff
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Yes, but the same argument holds. This can happen today. CDDL has file
boundaries. You can create a fork of ZFS and innovate all you want. If
your innovations remain in separate files, you don't have to publish
them or contribute them back.
The entirety of this
Sorry, which community is that? There is no such thing. Do
you mean the FSF?
Yes.
I like to compare the FSF to the abolishionists and the suffragettes;
the latter two are certainly irrelevant now but the FSF is not far
behind. I'm not surprised that the FSF wants Sun's backing; but I
Richard Lowe wrote:
OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
That's nothing but random (semi-humorous I guess) nitpicking, and you
know it.
That's why I had a smiley face there.
So far, in this sub thread. You've somewhat implied that those of us
not employed by
Stephen Harpster writes:
Yes, but the same argument holds. This can happen today. CDDL has file
boundaries. You can create a fork of ZFS and innovate all you want.
In what possible instance does someone innovate without changing the
source?
I think that misses the point. People who want
With all due respect, I believe the complexity of OpenSolaris outweighs
the complexity of Zebra, Quagga, XFree86, and X.org combined. And with
that complexity you have the impracticality of maintaining it.
With respect to cherry-picking individual projects to fork, see my
previous posting.
Al Hopper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
Who maintains the code on that CVS server? If there's a bug in virtual
memory, who fixes it? The experts are here in Sun, and they will
continue to work on opensolaris.org. OpenSolaris is too large and
That's a
Stephen Harpster writes:
I did not mean to say that one group is smarter or more talented than
the other. I'm simply saying that the majority of the opensolaris.org
contributers work at Sun. If say, IBM, were to pony up contributers
that out numbered Sun, I would be very happy indeed for
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Stephen Harpster writes:
I did not mean to say that one group is smarter or more talented than
the other. I'm simply saying that the majority of the opensolaris.org
contributers work at Sun. If say, IBM, were to pony up contributers
that out
An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an
increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out
to an audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more
people, making more friends, gets more people talking about you,
participating,
You're correct. What *I'm* saying is that
with OpenSolaris as whole, that is highly unlikely given my previous
argument of complexity and maintainer knowledge
and on a per-project basis, it has already happened as with DTrace and
Xcode at Apple.
James Carlson wrote:
Stephen Harpster
Hey,
Stephen Harpster wrote:
An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an
increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out
to an audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more
people, making more friends, gets more people
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
OK, we're going in circles folks.
I did not mean that Sun has technically superior engineers to every
company out there. (Actually, I think we do, but that's not the point
of this particular argument.) The point I'm trying to make is that Sun
has *more* of them. It's quantity, not just
1 - 100 of 282 matches
Mail list logo
