On Feb 7, 2008 10:13 PM, Moinak Ghosh <Moinak.Ghosh at sun.com> wrote:
> Sriram Narayanan wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2008 8:11 PM, Moinak Ghosh <Moinak.Ghosh at sun.com> wrote: > > > >> Sriram Narayanan wrote: > >> > >>> All: > >>> > >>> Difficult situations in life come unannounced. It'll take me a few > >>> hours to snap out of my present state of mind where I'm > >>> troubleshooting some problems, so I'm not ging to respond on the > >>> ogb-discuss just yet. > >>> > >>> But it'd be interesting to see the outcome of this discussion. > >>> > >>> Brian's given instructions on how to participate in the OGB > >>> discussions toward the end of his email. > >>> > >>> > >> Views bordering on Paranoia IMHO. I disagree. Indiana is meant to > provide > >> an easy to use software repository (like Debian) and the tools and > >> software > >> needed to make distro-building easier. AFAIK nowhere it is mentioned > that > >> a distro built out of OpenSolaris sources is not OpenSolaris. If one > >> does not > >> want to use the binary repository then that is his wish. Isn't > >> Nexenta (built > >> out of source) for eg. OpenSolaris under the hood. It is TM > >> restrictions that > >> you cannot just call it OpenSolaris. > >> Again do you want to call every OpenSolaris distro as OpenSolaris - > not > >> sensible I think :) > >> > >> > > > > Moinak, I'm at the moment not as paranoid as Brian might appear to be, > > but from his mail and from other reading in the past, I've feared that > > Belenix might later be edged out of the list of OpenSolaris > > distributions. > > > > I don't think so. Indiana derived a whole lot of technologies out of > BeleniX > by way of the LiveKit: > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/livemedia/ > (I don't think many people realize this fact) > > and the Fully Open X project: > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/fox/ > > FOX was initially developed on and for BeleniX. Some of the critical > technologies for LiveCD: HSFS filesystem enhancement and Lofi > compression developed on BeleniX have now been integrated into > OpenSolaris. > > Now things have come full circle and the future roadmap for BeleniX > is taking it in a direction where it will be leveraging tools and > software being > developed in the Indiana effort - Caiman, Distro Constructor etc. In > a sense > BeleniX will be the KDE variant of Indiana (Kindiana), all development > happening in open repositories and enabling more leaders from the > community to take it forward. Taking the Kubuntu/Ubuntu analogy .. will BeleniX be the Kubuntu of the OpenSolaris world? But again, I dont have clarity on whether OpenSolaris will be a world ( Community or codebase or both) or whether it will be a distro. Extrapolating it a little further, will the BeleniX KDE packages be put into Indiana? In the future will BeleniX have to adhere to set of standards use the word OpenSolaris? > > I feel this way because of what happened with the Apache Harmony > > project - the common understanding based on reading the ASF's open > > letter to Sun is that Sun has failed to provide the TCK needed to > > certify Harmony as a Java implementation. > > > > That is something not entirely relevant in this context. I have no clue > about that issue but there are probably legal encumbrances to the TCK. > Indiana is all unencumbered stuff all open. It is a reference base impt. > for SUN and the Community. Indiana is a distro-enabler, not a distro > killer. > > > Second, what's with all the Consix/Non-Opensolaris naming ? Why not > > simply call the code base OpenSolaris and then state that Indiana is a > > distro that showcases the various technologies that are being > > developed as part of the OpenSolaris eco system ? > > > > Naming controversy ... no comments :) > > > Having typed that, I realize that such a thing just might happen - > > indeed it's already happening. Indiana is indeed a distro that > > showcases the various technologies of the OpenSolaris eco system. > > > > I'd feel disappointed if tomorrow, an independently developed distro > > such as Belenix would not be allowed to use the word OpenSolaris for > > any reason that I can't imagine at the moment. > > > > BeleniX is using the word OpenSolaris today. It is based on OpenSolaris, > innovating on OpenSolaris. > > Regards, > Moinak. > > > > >> Regards, > >> Moinak. > >> > >> > >> > >>> -- Sriram > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> > >>> Date: Feb 7, 2008 4:34 PM > >>> Subject: [ug-bosug] OpenSolaris.org: Do we build a distro? Let your > >>> voice be heard. (Today by noon) OGB concall info enclosed. > >>> To: OpenSolaris Governing Board Discussions < > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org> > >>> > >>> > >>> Community, > >>> > >>> First let me apologize. I have been loath to write to a captive > >>> community. Please address all responses to me or to > >>> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org rather than risking further traffic to a > >>> widely distributed list. (I only address the community because I feel > >>> that it is a topic of utmost importance to our identity as an open > >>> community.) > >>> > >>> Shawn Walker has a proposal before the OGB that will be voted on later > >>> today. His proposal basically is asking to create a distro building > >>> community. Supposedly it is agnostic, but in reality it seems to be a > >>> precursor to an official "Indiana Project == OpenSolaris Binary > >>> distro" move by our benevolent sponsors. > >>> > >>> Many of us signed on to be developers and advocates to something quite > >>> different than what the leaders of the "Disto CG" believe. The distro > >>> CG core sponsors want to make an Official OpenSolaris distro, and set > >>> preconditions on what it means to be an OpenSolaris Disto. (As a > >>> member of the real distro building community I resent the arrogance of > >>> this). In particular the Indiana team has expressed that only binaries > >>> built by the Indiana team can be used to make an "OpenSolaris distro". > >>> This I disagree with, as anyone should be able to take the OpenSolaris > >>> source code and make an "OpenSolaris distro". (I believe that > >>> diversity is going to be our future strength.) > >>> > >>> I also feel that Keith's denigration of the OpenSolaris code base to a > >>> name such as Cosnix is misguided. Our code base is called OpenSolaris. > >>> "OpenSolaris" refers to our code base and our community. (And nothing > >>> else). (Frankly, I don't know what is happening in the secret > >>> negotiations between the OGB and Sun regarding the OpenSolaris > >>> trademark, but my heart fears for the worst. IE: Sun no longer feels > >>> it is in their business interests to have OpenSolaris simply refer to > >>> a code base, but rather a brand for a Sun product, which we now know > >>> as Project Indiana.) > >>> > >>> This issue may seem to be a simple thing but it is really a proxy for > >>> our identity. Is OpenSolaris.org a diverse community, or do we want to > >>> create a distro and build a singular community around it? (BTW - I > >>> have strong technical disagreements with the approach the Indiana team > >>> has approached packaging, which I hope explains my trespassing of your > >>> inbox). > >>> > >>> Please subscribe to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org and make your opinions > >>> known regarding both this proposal and whether the Indiana team will > >>> determine our fate. This is important on both fronts, as the OGB needs > >>> to know how to represent the community. To subscribe please just send > >>> an email to ogb-discuss-subscribe at opensolaris.com and follow the > >>> instructions in the email response. Please make your opinions known > >>> even if you disagree with me, as if left unresolved this will continue > >>> to be a contentious issue for the community. (Remember make your > >>> opinions known on ogb-discuss. They need to know how to represent us.) > >>> > >>> Although writing to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org prior to the meeting > >>> today, is probably the best way to make your voice heard, you can also > >>> try calling in on the following numbers at 12 PST (3PM EST): > >>> > >>> Participant Passcode: 6266208 > >>> > >>> Country Toll Numbers > Freephone/Toll Free > >>> > ============================================================================== > >>> CANADA > 866-675-9751 > >>> NETHERLANDS 31-20-717-6836 > 0800-343-4332 > >>> NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4608 > 0800-441-636 > >>> USA 1-210-795-0500 > 1-877-807-6997 > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Brian Gupta > >>> Solaris Advocate > >>> OpenSolaris.org Member > >>> > >>> On Jan 22, 2008 5:38 PM, Keith M Wesolowski <Keith.Wesolowski at sun.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:46:38AM -0500, James Carlson wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> One community group in charge of all distributions seems too broad. > >>>>>> For making the decisions about the distro itself, like each > distro's > >>>>>> release plans, it would seem a separate community group is > necessary > >>>>>> - for example, why would Ian have a vote on Schillix release plans > or > >>>>>> Joerg a vote on Indiana release plans? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Actually, I think we'll need to get to that point, at least in some > >>>>> cases. > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems impractical to me to say that the release binding and > >>>>> schedule in use for something as big as ON is just "whatever." It > >>>>> needs to be something that the consumers of ON (that is, the > >>>>> distributors) agree on. If they can't all agree on one setting, > then > >>>>> they'll need to fork ON into separate streams to contain various > kinds > >>>>> of content, because there will inevitably be world-changing features > >>>>> (such as SMF in the past) that can integrate into a release of one > >>>>> binding, but not another. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> The way I've started thinking about this problem (and Mr. Walker's > >>>> proposal) is to define some nomenclature. Whether you like my names > >>>> is not really important; the fact is that these things exist, or > could > >>>> exist. Nothing here should be taken to be a grant of trademark > rights > >>>> or a statement of SMI's position, etc. > >>>> > >>>> Consix - The consolidations that exist currently, whether or not > >>>> represented by a functioning Community Group. This is the > >>>> freely-distributable portion of the content that makes up > >>>> Solaris Express. Consix is not itself a product but is > >>>> available for others to consume. > >>>> > >>>> Consix Community - The remains of the organisation originally formed > >>>> as the OpenSolaris Community. This organisation is > >>>> interested in the maintenance and development of Consix. > >>>> > >>>> OpenSolaris - A product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SMI). This > product > >>>> may or may not be based in whole or in part on Consix (see > >>>> below). > >>>> > >>>> OpenSolaris Community - A community of users and distribution > >>>> developers interested in OpenSolaris, the OpenSolaris > >>>> Distribution Constructor, and the OpenSolaris workalikes > >>>> created thereby. > >>>> > >>>> OpenSolaris Distribution Constructor - A product of SMI that enables > >>>> third parties to create OpenSolaris workalikes in ways that > >>>> allow them certain uses of SMI's trademarks. > >>>> > >>>> Note that the OpenSolaris Community and the Consix Community could in > >>>> theory be parts of the same organisation; this isn't meant to suggest > >>>> a particular political structure but rather a description of roles. > >>>> > >>>> The first question we need to answer is whether OpenSolaris consumes > >>>> Consix. There are (at least) two possible models here. In one model > >>>> - let us call it Alpha - Consix continues to exist as a separate > >>>> collection of technology independently developed by the Consix > >>>> Community, and the OpenSolaris Community takes snapshots or releases > >>>> of Consix from time to time to develop into its distribution > products. > >>>> In the second model - Beta - Consix, if it exists at all, is entirely > >>>> separate from OpenSolaris. Instead, the OpenSolaris Community forks > >>>> from Consix at inception and never looks back. > >>>> > >>>> Model Alpha does indeed require some mechanism by which consumers of > >>>> Consix - prominent but not exclusive among them the OpenSolaris > >>>> Community - must agree on release bindings and schedules. This > >>>> suggests a need for some arbitration or steering committee within the > >>>> Consix Community. The $64,000 question, of course, is how it would > be > >>>> structured. > >>>> > >>>> Model Beta does not really have this same problem, because the > >>>> OpenSolaris Community owns its entire source base. Workalike > >>>> distributions are by design and intent subordinate to OpenSolaris > >>>> itself, so the people responsible for managing OpenSolaris's > >>>> repositories have all necessary authority to make decisions about > >>>> releases and bindings. In this model, the Consix Community still > >>>> needs some way to determine when to change utsname and what it means, > >>>> but I think the Consix Community would have less difficulty with > >>>> contributor-driven decision-making if the OpenSolaris folks can go > >>>> their own way. > >>>> > >>>> It's not clear to me whether this proposal is intended to be a part > of > >>>> the Consix Community or the OpenSolaris Community (that is, which > >>>> model is assumed). Nor is it clear that it fits well into either. > >>>> > >>>> The Consix Community has adopted a set of "Community Groups" that are > >>>> in effect SIGs. They are narrow in scope and rarely encompass > >>>> conflicting interests. Mr. Walker's proposal does not adhere to that > >>>> model at all. There is no doubt that something has to replace the > >>>> historic W-teams, but I do not see why a Distribution CG would do > this > >>>> more effectively than Mr. Coopersmith's previous proposals or some > >>>> other mechanism. And I'm troubled by your suggestion that the right > >>>> of suffrage derives primarily from consumption rather than > production; > >>>> that's not an idea found anywhere in the Consix Constitution. Still, > >>>> as the OpenSolaris CG rather than the Distribution CG, a proposal not > >>>> too unlike this one might fit neatly into the Consix Community: one > >>>> may note that a single distribution appears to fit very neatly into > >>>> the definition of a Community Group as described by the Consix > >>>> Constitution and as envisioned by Mr. Fielding. > >>>> > >>>> If this is intended for the OpenSolaris Community, I think it needs > to > >>>> be considered in light of whatever kind of governance structure that > >>>> community will want. If they intend to inherit as if by fork(2) the > >>>> OpenSolaris Constitution, they need to think about how your plan fits > >>>> in. Frankly, it seems to me that what you are proposing is not a new > >>>> Consix CG but rather the OpenSolaris Community itself, under which > >>>> there might exist political subdivisions for the various OpenSolaris > >>>> workalikes but de facto absolute control of shared technical strategy > >>>> lies with the trademark holder. > >>>> > >>>> Inherent in my thoughts here is the idea that Consix and OpenSolaris > >>>> aren't really compatible ideologically. Maybe I'm wrong about that. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" > >>>> FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any > direction!" > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> ogb-discuss mailing list > >>>> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > >>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> - Brian Gupta > >>> > >>> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ug-bosug mailing list > >>> List-Unsubscribe: mailto:ug-bosug-unsubscribe at opensolaris.org > >>> List-Owner: mailto:ug-bosug-owner at opensolaris.org > >>> List-Archives: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=54 > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ug-bosug mailing list > >>> List-Unsubscribe: mailto:ug-bosug-unsubscribe at opensolaris.org > >>> List-Owner: mailto:ug-bosug-owner at opensolaris.org > >>> List-Archives: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=54 > >>> > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > ug-bosug mailing list > List-Unsubscribe: mailto:ug-bosug-unsubscribe at opensolaris.org > List-Owner: mailto:ug-bosug-owner at opensolaris.org > List-Archives: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=54 > -- Manish Chakravarty http://manish-chaks.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ug-bosug/attachments/20080207/3c60b30b/attachment.html>
