On 13/07/2010 03:38, John Plocher wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Giovanni Tirlonigtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote:
Sorry for sounding so pessimist, it feels terrible to see the OpenSolaris
project going through all of this.
It feels worse to be on the OGB and still being able to do so
Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com wrote:
i think dissolving the OGB will make Oracle show its true colors about
OpenSolaris. if they want to keep it active they will probably appoint new
OGB members or just close up shop.
Let us try to understand why Jeb Dabsteel did not attent the
--- On Tue, 7/13/10, Rob McMahon rob.mcma...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
From: Rob McMahon rob.mcma...@warwick.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] [opensolaris-discuss] Were to from here?
To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 6:16 AM
On 13/07/2010 03:38, John Plocher
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com wrote:
i think dissolving the OGB will make Oracle show its true colors about
OpenSolaris. if they want to keep it active they will probably appoint new
OGB members or just close up shop.
It's not clear to us that (from
Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com wrote:
i think dissolving the OGB will make Oracle show its true colors about
OpenSolaris. if they want to keep it active they will probably appoint new
OGB members or just close up shop.
But i think is better to wait after the OpenWorld show to
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Giovanni Tirloni
gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote:
If this is carried forward, I think it's a very sensible decision by the OGB.
There is no point in pretending the OGB is what it was supposed to be (or at
least what the community expected it to be) when Oracle is
John Plocher john.ploc...@gmail.com wrote:
+-- On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Hillel Lubman shtetl...@gmail.comwrote:
| there should be no moral dilemma in forking, if Oracle/Sun is not playing
their
| role in the partnership with the community.
+--
As a matter of principle, I see no
So I listened in to most of the call and it seems that, more likely than
not, that the OGB is going to dissolve. My festering question is as
follows... if and when we turn the so-called steering wheel over to Oracle
for the community... what exactly will entail? Does this mean that we lose
control
Matthew Nawrocki wrote:
So I listened in to most of the call and it seems that, more likely than
not, that the OGB is going to dissolve. My festering question is as
follows... if and when we turn the so-called steering wheel over to
Oracle for the community... what exactly will entail? Does
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Matthew Nawrocki
matthew.nawro...@gmail.com wrote:
So I listened in to most of the call and it seems that, more likely than
not, that the OGB is going to dissolve. My festering question is as
follows... if and when we turn the so-called steering wheel over to
Matthew Nawrocki wrote:
What I mean is, with Oracle having full control, would a fork be less
likely to happen? I am afraid that Oracle could take draconian measures
to keep things bottled up. Just my two cents.
The only thing the OGB controls is the management of the community governance
i think dissolving the OGB will make Oracle show its true colors about
OpenSolaris. if they want to keep it active they will probably appoint new OGB
members or just close up shop.
But i think is better to wait after the OpenWorld show to dissolve, who knows
they may have a surprise.
.
--
Could always pool some money and take out an ad in the vein of the
Solaris x86 one ('Shame on you Larry' ?) =]
If their actions are truly driving away sales (or at least limiting
themselves to customers who want to run Oracle DB), pointing it out in
a forum used by both them and their big
I haven't kept up on the status of the slow march toward full open source so
perhaps I misunderstand, but aren't there still unreleased binary bits in the
kernel that would make this rather problematic?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Yes, a few drivers, plus the i18n bits for libc, and I think some
nfsv2 stuff. IIRC the i18n is probably the biggest missing piece, and
could probably get by without the rest (though I'd probably need to
look again to be sure)
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Ken Gunderson kgund...@teamcool.net
What I mean is, with Oracle having full control, would a fork be less likely
to happen? I am afraid that Oracle could take draconian measures to keep
things bottled up. Just my two cents.
Matt
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
If this is carried forward, I think it's a very sensible decision by the OGB.
There is no point in pretending the OGB is what it was supposed to be (or at
least what the community expected it to be) when Oracle is not willing to dance.
However, I don't think this will prompt any action from
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote:
Sorry for sounding so pessimist, it feels terrible to see the OpenSolaris
project going through all of this.
It feels worse to be on the OGB and still being able to do so little
about the problem.
Even the obvious
Even the obvious alternative (go do a fork...) is a practical
impossibility for the OGB - even though two members are
distro-creators in their own right, the OGB as the *OpenSolaris
Community Governing Board* doesn't have the resources, time or (IMHO)
moral right to hijack the community that
+-- On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Hillel Lubman shtetl...@gmail.comwrote:
| there should be no moral dilemma in forking, if Oracle/Sun is not playing
their
| role in the partnership with the community.
+--
As a matter of principle, I see no problem with forking as long as the
stewards of
20 matches
Mail list logo
