On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 13:57 +1030, Karl Goetz wrote: > > 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 :)
As far as I know, it's meant to be useful. But really, if you want to see how it works: http://www.sun.com/tryandbuy/applyonline.jsp I'm sure it will end up there. :) > > 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? ;) IIRC This was allready on the nice-to-have list. > > > 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. Like I said, they've added proprietary stuff. It's not all open, but it's not all closed. The (technical) features of the box are Open, the easy-administration stuff isn't. > > 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). I'm not sure if I should take this seriously. :) -- Mark Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
