Thanks for another long reply + I am glad that I was able to explain my concerns and reasons why joining this discussion. I am also glad to see many agreements now.
Regards, Lukas Dennis Clarke wrote: > Preliminary : > > I want to write a much longer more detailed response but I > am very busy being a "worker bee" and putting snv_63 > infrastructure in place for the community to use freely. > > What I really want to say is "let's work together" and do > whatever it takes to get a better solution in place. > > Also, while I have been doing this for half a decade now I > must submit that I am not a software guru and need other > people involved. The integration and long term concerns > require considerable thought and "white board" discussions > to ensure that we can get it right. > > At the very least I will change the Blastwave homepage to > indicate that Solaris Nevada infrastructure is being added > to the stack and I also want my "How To Install Solaris 10" > document linked into the homepage. These are "worker > bee" things that no one else will do for me and its part of > the job. :-) > > On 5/6/07, Lukas Rovensky <Lukas.Rovensky at sun.com> wrote: >> Hi Dennis, >> >> thanks for the long response. > > I have another long reply. I hope that you can bear with me. > >> Dennis Clarke wrote: >> > On 5/5/07, Lukas Rovensky <lukas.rovensky at sun.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> this is a really interesting discussion -- I read all posts but I am >> >> deliberately replying to David's response. >> > >> > David Comay ? >> Yes. > > I would need to go back and read up on that. I don't have the full > context here most likely. > >> > >> >> I am from Solaris Revenue Product Engineering (== Solaris sustaining) >> > >> > I don't know what that means. >> > >> > In fact, I will say that it looks to be some sort of Sun Microsystems >> > Inc business thing. >> > >> That is true. > > Maybe we should just agree that Solaris is the commercial distribution > of OpenSolaris and that Solaris users are affected by what we discuss. > It seems entirely reasonable to do "the right thing" for Solaris users > by simply doing "the right thing" for the OpenSolaris project. > > Pretty simple and it keeps all of us from bantering about minor terms > that don't affect the larger picture. > >> >> team and one of my responsibilities is to make sure that we (== Sun) >> >> can sustain open source products in SFW, that is products, which >> >> Sun supports (see [1]). >> > >> > What do you mean by support because as far as I know you don't support >> > anything in the CCD and never did. There is and never has been so much >> > as the ability to file a bug report or get an update even when that >> > update was a security patch. >> > >> As Alan Coopersmith said -- "SFW is not the CCD - it's the bits bundled >> into Solaris directly, which are at least minimally supported." > > OKay, like PostgreSQL and Samba. Both are officially supported then > and both are right in there on the Solaris releases. Duplication makes > little sense and what we need is a common source for building, > testing, and release. Better yet let me be more open and simply say > that the duplication is an issue and that the PostgreSQL people in the > community would be better able to provide continual updates and > releases than the older slower Sun Inc. release cycle. I am sure that > we would be agree that testing and QA stages *must* exist and that > various strata of users ( production, desktop, developers + hobby > people ) must be given access to software that is also stratified in > terms of QA quality. > > To sum that up, the developer wants the "nightly" build and the > "production" shop wants the tried tested and true release from nine > months ago or more. Both should be available complete with sources. > >> > This is why a community project ( Blastwave ) was created in the first >> > place. At the very least we would have a way to get open source >> > software for Solaris that had some signs of maintainance, some support >> > in that there were people to communicate with and you could generally >> > do two things easily and freely : >> > >> > (1) get an update to a piece of software >> > >> > (2) do the update yourself on freely provided infrastructure >> > >> > In either of these cases you would be able to get a up to date >> > package released via a worldwide network of mirror sites. Quickly. >> > As of this morning there are 1680+ software titles available for >> > Solaris 8 upwards. Some of them are getting a little crusty but the >> > majority are well taken care of. >> > >> I understand why Blastwave was created + I agree it is very useful -- I >> am also one the Blastwave users (my vim comes from Blastwave). I >> personally think that it provides better value for end users than CCD. > > Thank you. I use vim all the time as well as our own builds of Apache > which derive some tweaks from the CoolStack people. In fact, the very > same build tools and build options because I was contacted by the > CoolStack people about a year ago and asked to release the software, > primarily because I could get it out to the world faster. > > Truth is, we have been working together for some time now. > >> >> So, I know about advantages and disadvantages >> >> of SFW as well as of the real problems we (Solaris sustaining) have to >> >> solve. >> > >> > ? I don't see that you have anything to solve related to this >> > discussion. ? >> > >> Well, it depends. If the current model SFW + CCD stays as it is and CCD >> gets replaced by Blastwave nothing will probably change for me and my >> team. However, if SFW and CCD gets merged then there will be a change. >> I personally think that getting rid of CCD and finding a way how to >> have just one and common way of creating and maintaining open source >> software packages is a good idea. > > This is the Grand Open Distribution Service ( GODS ? ) that would > clearly serve many purposes and resolve many ills of the past. > >> >> (Note for Brian -- in general every fix for Solaris XY goes first to >> >> Nevada >> >> and then it is integrated to Solaris 10, 9, ... and this is true not >> >> only for >> >> ON but also for SFW.) >> > >> > Again, that looks to be some sort of Sun Microsystems Inc thing >> > related to the commercial distribution called Solaris. >> > >> >> What I would like to stress is that regardless of the actual solution >> >> to be chosen (merge everything, keep SFW separate) we have to keep >> >> in mind that it has to be clear how to sustain critical open source >> >> products >> >> in the future. >> > >> > Like Apache and PostgreSQL and PHP etc ? >> > >> > http://www.blastwave.org/packages.php/apache2 >> > Version: 2.2.4,REV=2007.02.19 >> > >> > http://www.blastwave.org/packages.php/apache >> > Version: 1.3.34 >> > >> > http://www.blastwave.org/packages.php/postgresql >> > Version: 8.2.3 >> > >> > http://www.blastwave.org/packages.php/php5 >> > Version: 5.2.1,REV=2007.03.15 >> > >> > http://www.blastwave.org/packages.php/samba >> > Version: 3.0.23,REV=2006.08.09b >> > The latest "stable" release is actually 3.0.24 from Feb 2007. >> > This needs a minor update and we will get to that. >> > >> > The list is long and it does need continual maintainance. That is >> > the purpose of an open source software service, that is be continually >> > maintained. Not simply dropped onto a CDROM or DVD image and then >> > forgotten. >> > >> I understand that -- but there are also packages: >> >> SUNWapch* -- Apache 1.x and 2.x >> SUNWsmba* -- Samba >> SUNWpostgr* -- PostgreSQL 8.2 and 8.1.8 > > Yes, the duplication woes we both see. > >> These packages are currently maintained and supported by Sun and they >> are part of the SFW consolidation. So, there is a clear overlap. If >> these efforts can be merged than the situation can look like the >> following: >> >> - There is just one "base" package for the particular product - as you >> say below - this can be the starting point > > Certainly logical. > >> - Some of the packages will be maintained by people from Sun, some >> packages will be maintained by volunteers from community, and some other >> companies (than Sun) can decide to invest their resources to maintenance >> of these packages > > A true open infrastructure. In fact this is what Blastwave does > because many of the people that maintain software inside the Blastwave > build stack do so from within corporations with needs. If a given > corporation or organization ( there are numerous I can point to ) need > package X up to date and integrated with a stack of libraries then > they ( the corporation ) simply assigns a developer or two to the > task. They get free access to the build stack and all tools and they > do what they do. Eventually we release the software to the "unstable" > tree. Bug reports get filed and changes made. Updates happen > continually and the software progresses towards a "stable" tree > release. All of this has been done for years and by developers that > actually are paid employees of Solaris based customers & corporations. > >> - These packages can be then taken by any distribution based on >> OpenSolaris and the distribution can define some level of support for >> these packages > > Precisely my thoughts. The specifics need to be hammered out but we > clearly agree on these goals. > >> - What I am up to is simply to define a model, which will make possible >> to support these packages (by anyone who decides to do so) or in other >> words -- the way how the packages are created and maintained should not >> break eventual needs of a further support (e.g, an option to create a >> patch if this is necessary) > > I agree. Clearly I have more to say on this but I am staring at some > snv_63 servers here to bring online. :-) > >> >> When Sun (or anyone else) delivers an OpenSolaris based >> >> distribution then it has to be known what end users shall expect in >> terms >> >> of support and how this will be achieved. >> > >> > Are you talking about Solaris here or OpenSolaris ? >> > >> Solaris or any other OpenSolaris based distribution. > > Based on my thoughts and statements earlier ( way up near the top of > this ) we are really talking about the same goal in either case. > >> > If SchilliX has a website that tells the world about updates then >> > that takes care of that. If BeleniX gets updated continually then we >> > don't have to worry about BeleniX. If there is some grand unified >> > software service in place that will provide community built and >> > maintained software packages to end users of any or all of them then >> > we don't have to worry about that either. The software will get >> > maintained by those that need it. If Solaris users need access to an >> > up to date version of Apache 2.2.4 ( or whatever ) then they can just >> > type "pkg-get -i apache2" and viola they will have all that they need. >> > Each distro may implement the software specifics as they see fit but >> > we can certainly provide a generic starting point for all software >> > titles for all distributions. >> > >> That will be definitely great. > > A utopia of some sort. We may at least head in that direction and > achieve a democracy or some sort of republic. > >> >> There are two major categories of Solaris users today: >> >> - People who use Solaris in production environment and they need >> >> stability. They are often interested only in security fixes and >> >> not too much in the latest features. >> > >> > Again, this is Solaris and not OpenSolaris. Solaris as a product >> > has support and maintainance contracts that people can purchase and >> > when they call for support they get taken care of I presume. The open >> > source software ( like Apache ) may or may not be part of the product >> > called "Solaris". That is Sun Microsystems Inc's business and not the >> > business of SchilliX or BeleniX or marTux. >> > >> This is true. However, if SFW gets changed this will mean that the way >> how Apache is packaged can change and this can have direct impact on Sun >> Microsystems Inc's business (because Apache is now part of product >> called "Solaris"). > > agreed. > >> I am not saying that OpenSolaris community shall >> consider what is good for Sun Microsystems Inc's business or not but I >> think that people from Sun should be part of discussions concerning >> changes, which may impact Sun Microsystems Inc's business. From my >> point of view I need to understand what is / will be going on and >> evaluate how this can impact the work I do. > > At the very least we need to consider that I see some forty thousand > hits a day to the Blastwave software catalog from Solaris users. > Those users range from Solaris 8 upwards and the majority are still > Sparc users. I would safely say that the production users as well as > the developers are making their own choices and I can easily plot the > trends. This is one of the things that myself and Tom Goguen ( who > has left Sun ) spoke about many times, those overwhelming trends based > on hard data. > > Ultimately the user decides what they want to do and they put their > purchase orders in the best place as they see fit. > >> >> - People who use Solaris on a desktop -- they typically can >> >> sacrifice some stability in order to be able to get the latest >> >> features. >> > >> > You forgot developers that may have both worlds as well as strange >> > hardware all over the place. >> > >> True -- the above is just simplification of the situation. >> >> >> Similar view can be taken from the actual product's point of view. >> >> - For example, vim is important for end users but its unlikely >> >> that missing vim will cause problems in a production environment. >> > >> > Right .. so they can download the VIM package whenever they want it >> > and it gets installed . Updates provided continually as needed, >> > requested or required. >> > >> >> - However, samba is quite opposite type of product -- many people >> >> do not need to set up samba server on their laptop but samba is >> >> essential for many enterprises (Solaris servers and Window clients) >> > >> > Same as above. >> > >> >> The above simply means that different products have different >> >> support requirements and possible changes in SFW shall satisfy >> >> them. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Lukas >> >> >> >> [1] http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/freeware/ >> >> >> > >> > Let us look at that link shall we? >> > >> > That page allows a user to download the "Solaris 10 11/06 OS >> > Companion Software DVD" which is part of the release called Solaris 10 >> > Update 3. I go through some hoops and download that thing to find that >> > it contains some software packages that I need to manually pkgadd one >> > by one and resolve dependencies as I go. A bloody nightmare. All in >> > all you have maybe 150 software packages there for Solaris users. >> > >> > That page clearly says this : >> > >> > Now, you have two primary sources of freeware that work with the >> > Solaris 10 Operating System: >> > >> > **************** >> > There are in fact a number of places to get open source software >> > from that is every bit as unsupported as what you list there. >> > Actually, >> > the software found elsewhere is better supported than the CCD. >> > **************** >> > >> > 1. Freeware that is included on the Solaris 10 11/06 DVD in >> > separate and distinct modules, which is being made available as a >> > convenience to our customers >> > * technologies that users may expect to find with their >> > operating environment are now included with the Solaris environment >> > >> > **************** >> > Some of that means supported or not. Who knows. >> > It is a "convenience" to your customers. >> > **************** >> > >> Well this page clearly says that this SW ("Included with Solaris 10 >> 11/06 OS") is supported and there are two levels of support provided by >> Sun (left column of the table at the mentioned page). Majority of this >> SW is part of the SFW consolidation. >> >> > 2. Freeware that is co-packaged via the Solaris 11/06 Companion DVD >> > * other useful and popular technologies are offered as an >> > unsupported value-add DVD >> > >> > ***************** >> > unsupported. That is clear. >> > >> > Further down that page after your software list you have "Related >> > Links" in which you point to a number of places but strangely no link >> > to the Blastwave.org site that delivers tons of software to Solaris >> > users for five years. No link at all. >> > >> > I have no idea what the Companion CD is but it certainly is not up to >> > date, maintained nor supported. It is convenient software that Sun >> > Microsystems Inc. provides freely to Solaris users. It is not part and >> > parcel of the OpenSolaris project nor will it suffice to satisfy the >> > current modern user nor the future user. >> > >> > I find the whole CCD to be an afront to my senses. Something broken >> > that needs to be fixed or killed and this has been said many times >> > before in many ways for years and years now. >> > >> Again, I personally think that the way Blastwave is done and run >> provides better service to the end users than CCD. > > Well, at this point I see a clear need and as per usual I respond by > building the infrastructure and then opening the door. I will have > the homepage at Blastwave updated in the next 36 hours and the build > stack will include Solaris Nevada machines with AMD Opterons and > Niagara hardware complete with Sun Studio 11 and 12. Anyone that wants > free access for software maintainance purposes will simply need to > fill in a web based form and submit a request. > > Dennis Clarke
