On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ian Collins 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 nat
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> So us S11.
s/us/use/
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Victor 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 *includi
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM, hung-sheng tsao 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 p
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Orvar Korvar
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?
