>>>>> "pj" == Peter Jeremy <peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com> writes: >>>>> "gd" == Garrett D'Amore <garr...@nexenta.com> writes: >>>>> "cb" == C Bergström <codest...@osunix.org> writes: >>>>> "fc" == Frank Cusack <frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net> writes: >>>>> "tc" == Tim Cook <t...@cook.ms> writes:
pj> Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to
pj> see why Oracle would continue to invest in both.
So far I think the tricky parts of filesystems have been the work of 1
- 3 people. It's difficult to see why the kind of developer who's
capable of advancing those filesystems would continue to work in a
negative environment like this one, but maybe they will. Such a
developer can get money from several places, and I've never heard of
something else this crew brings to the table than money. That's a
bleak outlook on their ability to actually facilitate relevant
``investment,'' but who knows!
gd> Oracle *will* spend more on Solaris than Sun did. I believe
gd> that.
hahaha, yup. At least I believe their saying they will try to do it.
fc> all public companies are very, very greedy.
yeah, it's not helpful to anthropomorphize them, nor tell human
interest 1930's newsreel-hero stories about their supposedly genius
and/or evil leaders, nor imagine yourself into their point of view
like they are your favorite soccer team.
What's needed is clear focus on the rules of collaboration, and how
these rules determine the future of your own greedy schemes.
cb> It was a community of system administrators and nearly no
cb> developers.
sysadmins need to care about licenses because their investment cycle
in a platform is, apparently, long compared to the stability of a
publicly-traded company.
tc> *ONE* developer from Redhat does not change the fact that
tc> Oracle owns the rights to the majority of the code,
one developer making the tinyest change to line breaks and then
asserting his copyright does change everything, if it gets committed
to trunk and used as the basis for further work that can't be rolled
back.
gd> we are in the process of some enhancements to this
gd> code which will make it into Illumos, but probably not into
gd> Oracle Solaris unless they pull from Illumos. :-)
yeah, well, add your copyright to it, and thus see that it doesn't
make it into Solaris 11. Without hg, there's no longer any incentive
to sign over your copyright to them in exchange for getting your
changes committed, so not to keep it for yourself would be negligent
and silly. Good or bad, it's just reality.
FWIW, the SFLC usually suggests you get copyright assignments from
every member to a single trusted organization so the license can be
changed someday when a change might seem obviously wise. For example,
Sun was careful to get assignments from all contributors, which at one
time had good hypotheticals as well as the current bad reality: they
could have released their tree under Linux-compatible GPL some day if
convinced. ISTR some cheap talk about this right after most of Java
was released as GPL. If Sun had included some Joerg Schilling-owned
pieces in there, his one or two files would become a poison pill
making license change impossible.
However when there is no such trusted organization around, I think
copyrights held by multiple orgs like Linux has are more sustainable.
Nexenta clearly isn't a ``trusted organization,'' but having a source
tree copyrighted by both Nexenta and Oracle could make the terms more
stable than they'd be for a tree copyrighted by either alone.
I don't think the Announcement means much for ZFS, though: it means
releases will come only every year or two, which is about the maximum
pace FreeBSD can keep up with so it will actually bring Solaris and
FreeBSD closer in ZFS feature-parity not further apart.
However, if you were using ZFS along with things like infiniband
iSER/SRP/NFS-RDMA, zones, 10gig nics with cpu-affinity-optimized TCP,
xen dom0, virtualbox, dtrace, or waiting/hoping for pNFS, or if you
foolishly became addicted to proprietary SunPro and Sun's debugger,
then you might be annoyed or even set back a few years by the
Announcement since FreeBSD has none of these things.
Post-Announcement, ZFS will no longer entice people to experiment with
these features, but those who listened to the last half-decade of
apologist's, ``let's wait patiently and quietly. More code will be
liberated, even the C compiler. Just give them time,'' those suckers
have now got problems. I've got a heap of IB cards trying to convince
me to bury my head in the sand or keep ``hoping'' instead of reacting.
I wish I'd invested my time into an OS I could continue using under
consistent terms.
pgps28C1MIhcQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
