On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 19:59 +0100, Mark Schouten wrote: > Hi Onno, and all. See my reaction inline... > > > On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 17:18 +0900, Onno Benschop wrote: > If anything in what I write here is > > contradicted by what Sun says, perhaps you should ask Sun before relying > > on what I said. > > As a Sun partner, I've heard about this program some time ago. And I > must say I can't really agree with the negative feel you give this box. > I think, in general, you looked at it the wrong way. Let me get a bit > clearer on this.
Good to have more perspectives. > > > My questions related to some of what was said and I opened up with "How > > do I interface this with other stuff? As in, how do I use my software to > > talk to your hardware?" The response was not good. Basically, you need > > to use their web-interface. > > There's also a cli, I've been told. I've dealt with equipment before with a web UI which did stuff, then a CLI which was a few 'reset password' level of commands. Not saying the Sun box is like that, just that "it has a cli" doesnt mean its useful :) > > > If I wanted to have a fail over system, could I do that at a block > > level? "No, not in this release." > > That's something that would be really nice. They (Sun) are working on > getting feedback from partners to add functionality to next releases. Does this mean your passing on the request? ;) > > So, coming in the door thinking, wow, Sun has an Open Storage system > > that might be able to be managed and deployed in a Ubuntu Server > > environment, I went out the door thinking, Sun has built a system that > > could be really nice, but instead they've built another proprietary > > solution that doesn't really talk to anything else and cannot really be > > managed in anything but a single deployment. > > It's not really proprietary. It's OpenSolaris. Download and deploy it, > be my guest. It's hell. :) They've created an appliance for which > they've used Open Source software, and added some proprietary stuff to > make life more easier. If you go with the FSF concept of 'proprietary', then even though the source is available its still proprietary. That's because you cant properly exercise the 4 freedoms. If you go with the 'no source is proprietary' view, then by and large, its not a proprietary system. > Compare it to Ubuntu (Open source) and Landscape (closed source). Ubuntu > rules, landscape would be nice to have, but is closed source. (Even > worse, you cannot get the serverpart so you would depend op Canonical > for it). Just because Canonical produces proprietary support software doesn't justify other companies doing it (or making it an ok thing to do). kk > > I think you looked at this box the wrong way, rethink and compare it to > Netapp's and EMC's.. > > -- > Mark Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
