What part of Linda's e-mail suggested to you a private meeting?
S.
On Jul 12, 2007, at 16:31, Chris Mahan wrote:
Linda,
With all due respect, those of us who are interested in this
project and who do not work at Sun do not have access to the in-
person meetings and are only able to follow and participate in
conversations if they are held in public forums such as this
mailing list. Furthermore, while the transcripts of such meetings
or good summaries of such meeting might subsequently be made
available, the non-Sun community would just be a passive listener
rather than an active participant, unable to voice opinions and
concerns during such meetings.
It is with great trepidation that I feel Sun is trying to assert
its command-and-control mechanisms on a supposedly open community,
and I also feel that Alan might have offended some higher-ups and
is now going to get a no-so-gentle grilling to the tune of "don't
forget who writes your paycheck." I would like to say to that that
as far as I am concerned, Alan has done a fantastic job on
OpenSolaris and deserves to be treated with respect as both a
seasoned professional in his field as well as a sorely needed
instrument of change in Sun's OpenSolaris community-building efforts.
I understand that some things are best dealt in person, and I
especially understand how companies feel that heated arguments are
best held behind closed doors. I would just point out that in
general open-source people, geographically spread as they are, do
not have the luxury of meeting behind closed doors but rather have
developed protocols to have such discussions in the open, in
publicly available and google-searched mailing lists and forums,
and have successfully done so for many years with very good
results. The Sun employees who participate in and maintain these
public mailing lists and forums have done a tremendous job learning
from and applying these informal protocols and have, as a result,
been able to engage a wide variety of non-Sun people in discussions
relating to OpenSolaris.
It is my wish that you would be considerate of these efforts and
results and keep the community involved rather than take a
supposedly "open" process behind corporate doors.
Sincerely,
Christopher Mahan
On 7/12/07, Fellingham Linda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan,
I think this is probably a discussion that needs to happen on other
than just email exchanges. I've asked Ron B. to set up a meeting to
discuss X and OpenGL futures at a higher level.
Thanks,
Linda
On Jul 11, 2007, at 4:34 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> from a
>> pure resource management perspective, it would seem the best
>> solution is
>> to remove your team's OpenGL from Solaris altogether and ship Mesa
>> on both
>> platforms. This would also give customers the same OpenGL
>> interfaces on
>> both platforms, though without hardware acceleration on SPARC,
>> much as x86
>> users have had to suffer through for years, and would allow us to
>> ship the
>> open source OpenGL on both platforms for Indiana instead of
>> relying on your
>> closed source solution.
>
> After thinking about this some more, it may just be the best answer
> all
> around for Nevada & Indiana (but not Solaris 10) - since those will
> ship
> only with Xorg, not Xsun, and SPARC graphics has only enough
resources
> committed to Xorg to provide drivers for XVR-100, XVR-300, and
> XVR-2500,
> and of those only XVR-2500 has OpenGL hardware acceleration,
moving to
> Mesa/DRI for Nevada/Indiana will give *more* customers hardware
> acceleration
> than sticking with the current OpenGL - we'll be able to leverage
> the existing
> ATI Radeon Mesa/DRI drivers that the x86 team has ported to Solaris
> already
> and give XVR-100 & XVR-300 users hardware acceleration that they
> don't have
> today, and your team will be able to port the existing XVR-2500
> driver (which
> was originally written for Mesa/DRI, and even with Xsun I'm told
> still uses
> DRI under the hood). It will also make it possible for IHV's like
> Tadpole
> who want to provide hardware acceleration for OpenGL on their SPARC
> platforms
> to be able to do so, which will bring hardware acceleration to
another
> batch of users who can't have it with the current SPARC OpenGL.
>
> We'll have to resolve the client library ABI issues around the
> proprietary
> Sun OpenGL ABI, but that may be a smaller problem than trying to
> shoehorn
> the old code into the new world and keep it up to date.
>
> --
> -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
>
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
--
Chris Mahan
http://www.christophermahan.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cell 818.943.1850
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
