On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:50:33PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not sure...what are we talking about ?
> >
> > Le 22 mars 2010 ?? 18:34, Alan Coopersmith a ??crit :
> >
> >> ?????????? ???????????????????????? wrote:
> >>> Opensolaris needs the ports to survive.
> >> Why? Ports to hardware rarely seen by most users hardly seem essential.
> >
> >
> > To be considered as really "Open", the best is to be able to run on ANY
> > hardware.
> > I'm not sure of what/where is the issue.
> >
> > I could understand if Oracle don't want to put "too much" money on this
> > type of port...but they should consider to help as best effort.
>
> The license allows people who want to port to do so, but the request seemed to
> be that Oracle should fund the ports as a matter of the OS survival.
>
> I'm not saying ports are bad, just that I don't see the port to System/Z as
> particularly crucial and requiring the OGB to escalate to Oracle that of all
> the problems OpenSolaris has, this is one of the most pressing for them to
> apply funding to solve - there's a lot more things that would be far more
> useful to apply resources to fixing than ports to mainframe hardware.
That's true, although it was sad to see bug 6414867, "Revive UltraSPARC I
support" closed earlier today due to "no funding".
If Oracle don't even want these things tracked in their bug tracker then
they'll never get done.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/attachments/20100322/a112460b/attachment.bin>
