> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eric D. Mudama
>
> On Sat, Aug 21 at 4:13, Orvar Korvar wrote:
> >"And by the way: Wasn't there a comment of Linus Torvals recently that
> people shound move their low-quality code into the co
On Sat, Aug 21 at 4:13, Orvar Korvar wrote:
"And by the way: Wasn't there a comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound
move their low-quality code into the codebase ??? ;)"
Anyone knows the link? Good against the Linux fanboys. :o)
Can't find the original reference, but I belie
"And by the way: Wasn't there a comment of Linus Torvals recently that people
shound move their low-quality code into the codebase ??? ;)"
Anyone knows the link? Good against the Linux fanboys. :o)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zf
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
> While there were certainly a few folks who ran OpenSolaris in production
> (who absolutely needed the new features and couldn't wait until they made
> it to Solaris 10),
Or those features that simply were never going to be backported to S10,
particularly
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
>
> there are an
> awful lot of places that actively DO NOT want the latest and greatest,
> and for good reason.
Agreed. Latest-greatest has its place, which is not 24/7 must-s
On 8/18/10 3:58 PM -0400 Linder, Doug wrote:
Erik Trimble wrote:
That said, stability vs new features has NOTHING to do with the OSS
development model. It has everything to do with the RELEASE model.
[...]
All that said, using the OSS model for actual *development* of an
Operating System is co
Erik Trimble wrote:
> That said, stability vs new features has NOTHING to do with the OSS
> development model. It has everything to do with the RELEASE model.
> [...]
> All that said, using the OSS model for actual *development* of an
> Operating System is considerably superior to using a close
On 8/18/2010 12:24 PM, Linder, Doug wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta.
Solaris lags so far behind it's not really an upgrade path.
It's often hard for OSS-minded people to believe, but there are an awful lot
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
> OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta.
> Solaris lags so far behind it's not really an upgrade path.
It's often hard for OSS-minded people to believe, but there are an awful lot of
places that actively DO NOT want the la
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM, David Magda wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2010, at 19:39, Kevin Walker wrote:
>
>> I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass rambled
>> on
>> about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into
>> cloud
>> computing and in his opinio
On Sunday 15 August 2010 11:56:22 Joerg Moellenkamp wrote:
> And by the way: Wasn't there a
> comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound move their
> low-quality code into the codebase ??? ;)
Yeah, those codes should be put into the "staging" part of the codebase, so
that (more) peo
"I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
before Oracle's cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my decision. "
Us too. :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@op
Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial
Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent.
Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the
Solaris code quality.
I think code quality has nothing to do with open-sourcing
On 8/14/10 10:18 PM -0700 Richard Elling wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at th
To be fair, he did talk some sense about how everyone was claiming to have a
product that was cloud computing, but I still don't like Oracle. With there
current Java Patent war with Google and now this with OpenSolaris, it leaves
a very bad taste in my mouth.
Will this affect ZFS being used in Fre
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 07:38 -0700, Richard Jahnel wrote:
> FWIW I'm making a significant bet that Nexenta plus Illumos will be the
> future for the space in which I operate.
>
> I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
> before Oracle's cunning plans became known
FWIW I'm making a significant bet that Nexenta plus Illumos will be the future
for the space in which I operate.
I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
before Oracle's cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my decision.
--
This message posted from ope
On Aug 14, 2010, at 19:39, Kevin Walker wrote:
I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass
rambled on
about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting
into cloud
computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing,
apart from
him... :-|
If
On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
> Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
> OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
> and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?
Markets dictate behaviour. Ora
On 8/15/10 12:39 AM +0100 Kevin Walker wrote:
and Oracle are very, very greedy...
Let's not get all soft about OpenSolaris now ... all public companies
are very, very greedy. They exist solely to make money. It's awesome
that they make things that are useful, but it's just a way to meet
the m
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mark Bennett wrote:
It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it's niche on SPARC over the
next few years.
The probability of a "retreat to SPARC" direction is virtually zero.
SPARC offers advantages in scalability, but its straight-line
performance pales compar
I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass rambled on
about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into cloud
computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing, apart from
him... :-| From that day on I felt enlightened about Oracle and how the
On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
>> Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
>> OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
>> and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at t
On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their e
"Mike M" wrote:
> Think: strategic business advantage.
>
> Oracle are not stupid, they recognize a jewel when they see one.
Too bad that they decided to throw it into acid.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de
On 8/13/2010 at 8:56 PM Eric D. Mudama wrote:
|On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
|>Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
|>OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most
interesting
|>and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at t
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?
These distributions are, in theory, th
On 8/14/10 4:01 AM +0700 "C. Bergström" wrote:
Gary Mills wrote:
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I'm interested to see how this plays out in actuality. It almost
sounded like source code wouldn't necessarily be shared until major
release were made... which would obviously make it hard for third party
ZFS vendors to "keep up" in the interim.
You
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:01:07PM -0700, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> Gary Mills wrote:
> > If this information is correct,
> >
> > http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
> >
> > further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
> > Opensolaris will become the interna
Gary Mills wrote:
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with no public distributions. The community has been
On 13-8-2010 22:43, Gary Mills wrote:
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with no public distributions.
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned.
--
-Ga
33 matches
Mail list logo
