Re: [zones-discuss] Has the restriction on sharing from a zone been removed yet?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM, hung-sheng tsao laot...@gmail.com wrote: Why only in s11? You probably have no idea how expensive a backport is. Not only does it require a fair bit of labor by talented engineers, it had an enormous cost of opportunity for the vendor: those engineers' talents are wasted on a project that creates nothing new, which is a disaster in an industry where innovation is prized. Just say no to backports. Nico -- ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] Has the restriction on sharing from a zone been removed yet?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Victor jeff.j.vic...@gmail.com wrote: The general rule is convince product management that there is a business reason to invest the engineer(s) and it will get done. IMO, for backports, the bar should be much higher. The vendor should compute the cost of the backport *including* the cost of opportunity, and including the further cost of opportunity involved in encouraging more backports by the mere fact of having done one backport (if the customer believes they can put off upgrading forever then the pressure to backport more and more features will rise). If the value of doing the backport *significantly* exceeds that cost, then, sure, do the backport. The cost of backporting complex features, particularly ones that have wide ramifications, and particularly when the backport is to Solaris 10, with its awful patching mechanisms, is best understood as astronomical. A backport of Zoned NFS server should be considered as in the high 7 $ figure range, if not higher still -- after all, how do you estimate the forgone value of talented engineers working on innovative new features?? Just say no to backports. Pressure the ISVs instead to re-certify their apps. Legacy costs the customer a lot also -- there's enormous, typically unaccounted-for costs in legacy. Nico -- ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] Has the restriction on sharing from a zone been removed yet?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote: So us S11. s/us/use/ ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] Has the restriction on sharing from a zone been removed yet?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote: But adding sbm server support to a zone isn't a backport, it's a new innovative feature! It's a backport if you want it in S10. I'm sure we aren't the only site who has consolidated older fileservers into zones and would like to use native services in those zones. So us S11. Nico -- ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] Future directions of Zones?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote: There are speculations that future Microsoft Windows OS, will only be a kernel. And each program will be installed in an individual VM created for that program. Hence, the kernel would be minimalistic and not bloated. What kind of VM? If it's something like Solaris Zones, then yes, you could do this with Solaris. Indeed, Solaris TX shows how to do it. If you mean something more like VMware or VBox VMs, then Solaris Zones are not the animal that you're looking for. Nico -- ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
