Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-22 Thread Glynn Foster
Hey Mark, On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 00:24 -0500, Mark Sweeney wrote: Actually, I am convinced about the advantages of open source development, it was one of the primary reasons I joined Sun; I thought the fact that my work would be released would be cool. I'm looking forward to community

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-22 Thread Al Hopper
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: Hey Mark, On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 00:24 -0500, Mark Sweeney wrote: Actually, I am convinced about the advantages of open source development, it was one of the primary reasons I joined Sun; I thought the fact that my work would be released would be

[osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Mark Sweeney
Thanks Stephen and Eric. My intent is to produce a community. The development effort will be in-house, then released as open source once it is completed. I have been asked by Stephen Hahn to articulate how a CIFS community is needed, meaningful, and separate. It is needed in the sense that,

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Eric Schrock
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:54:43PM -0500, Mark Sweeney wrote: Furthermore, these other FS's have communities, so unless we want to send the message out that CIFS will be a second class citizen on Solaris, I think it would be reasonable to match the level of exposure this gets on the site

[osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Don Traub
I also prefer a community, but CIFS goes beyond just the client work we're doing and opening up. There's client and server-side, both native and public-domain (like Samba). It's far more than just SMBFS. That's just one implementation aspect of supporting CIFS on Solaris. Even more broadly,

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Richard Lowe
Mark Sweeney wrote: Thanks Stephen and Eric. My intent is to produce a community. The development effort will be in-house, then released as open source once it is completed. I'm not sure if this is just confusion stemming from the wording, or if there are other issues involved. But

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Alan Coopersmith
Eric Schrock wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:54:43PM -0500, Mark Sweeney wrote: Furthermore, these other FS's have communities, so unless we want to send the message out that CIFS will be a second class citizen on Solaris, I think it would be reasonable to match the level of exposure this

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Mark Sweeney
Eric Shrock, I want to host a community which already exists, the 'CIFS community', on the OpenSolaris website. I want to do this since we have several implementations that work on Solaris of CIFS already and especially since there is a native OpenSolaris client coming out, which has been

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread James C. McPherson
I think it's appropriate at this point to request the creation of a Storage community, which could be an umbrella for the various filesystems as well as technologies such as fibre-channel and scsi/sas. [Incidentally, the NWS consolidation has moved a huge step closer to being released under

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Eric Schrock
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 04:34:57PM -0500, Mark Sweeney wrote: I want to host a community which already exists, the 'CIFS community', on the OpenSolaris website. I want to do this since we have several implementations that work on Solaris of CIFS already and especially since there is a

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Mark Sweeney
I doubt the majority of people would object to have more code offered to them for free after Sun has paid a significant amount of money/time/resources developing it. It's like christmas all over again! As for developing in house, It's just the logistics of getting it done with quality and

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Mark Sweeney
to other past decisions, I meant to say that organization is a good justification. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Mark Sweeney - Original Message - From: Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:49 pm Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-19 Thread Glynn Foster
Hey, On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 17:27 -0500, Mark Sweeney wrote: I doubt the majority of people would object to have more code offered to them for free after Sun has paid a significant amount of money/time/resources developing it. It's like christmas all over again! Okay, I'll bite. Sounds like

[osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-18 Thread Eric Boutilier
you need to decide whether your efforts require a project or a community. If your intent is to produce code or a structured best practice document or some other form of collaboratively authored product, then I recommend that you request a CIFS project, in which case you need to send mail

[osol-discuss] Re: CIFS group creation request.

2006-01-16 Thread Mark Sweeney
Hi Octave, Yep, it will be supported on x86 and sparc. Thanks for the interest. Mark This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org