|
Replies:
27
-
Last Post:
Feb 6, 2007 9:15 PM
by: swalker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:46 AM
|
|
[No Body]
|
|
|
Posts:
268
From:
US
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:46 AM
in response to: Guest
|
|
Isn't it more likely that folks would cherry-pick projects off
of Open Solaris for forking/re-hosting?
OpenZFS.org
OpenDtrace.org
...
-- mark
James Carlson wrote:
<pre wrap="">Stephen Harpster writes:
</pre>
<pre wrap="">No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
"reallyopensolaris.org" hasn't been registered yet, and would be an
excellent place to set up a rival community.
</pre>
<pre wrap="">OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
</pre>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Fine. "openos.org" is also available, and easier to type.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Those who are willing to consent to dual-licensing today with the
possibility of additional licenses to be named in the future might go
to opensolaris.org. The rest would go to the other site, and use GPL
alone.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">No they won't. Where will innovation occur? That's what people really
care about. Who will work on reallyopensolaris.org and who will work on
opensolaris.org? Most of the developers, for good or bad, are employed
by Sun and will continue to develop on opensolaris.org. The rest of the
world can pull from reallyopensolaris.org, but that code base will get
old and crusty pretty fast.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I think we're coming down the the crux of the matter here.
I agree that if we think like customers and end users of Solaris then,
yes, it's innovation and branding and patch delivery and support that
matter.
However, if we think like contributors to an open source project, what
matters is the openness and speed of the process, the transparency of
the licensing, the ability to contribute *directly* to the code,
ownership of the results, and an equal footing for those involved.
Assuming that growing the opensolaris.org community is the intended
purpose, adding a new license to the mix does not in fact advance any
of those issues. It makes a rival community that _does_ address those
issues possible, while it actually adds complexity and risk to our
existing community.
That still seems like a net loss, as I'm rather convinced that the
fork will in fact happen, whether we think it's feasible or not.
(For what it's worth, and it may not be much, I believe the very same
issues affected the Zebra/Quagga split. Integration into Zebra was
considered by quite a few to be difficult, and the folks who started
the project apparently felt they held the important cards. Now it
seems that's not quite the case.)
No matter how much I think of sun.com, and it's quite a bit, I'm not
so willing to bet that the only smart, talented, capable people
available are already here.
</pre>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:57 AM
in response to: mac
|
|
Mark A. Carlson writes:
> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
> Isn't it more likely that folks would cherry-pick projects off
> of Open Solaris for forking/re-hosting?
>
> OpenZFS.org
> OpenDtrace.org
Possibly, though they'd have to deal with the new and likely highly
complex cross-consolidation dependencies they'd be introducing in the
process. I agree that'd be more in line with the usual open source
development model.
As a low-risk path to creating a usable and coherent source base and
community, I think taking the whole lot at once would be more
practical.
It looks like "openon.org" and "openosnet.org" are also available, if
someone wants 'em.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:59 AM
in response to: mac
|
|
Yes, but the same argument holds. This can happen today. CDDL has file
boundaries. You can create a fork of ZFS and innovate all you want. If
your innovations remain in separate files, you don't have to publish
them or contribute them back.
Mark A. Carlson wrote:
> Isn't it more likely that folks would cherry-pick projects off
> of Open Solaris for forking/re-hosting?
>
> OpenZFS.org
> OpenDtrace.org
> ...
>
> -- mark
>
> James Carlson wrote:
>> Stephen Harpster writes:
>>
>>>> No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
>>>> "reallyopensolaris.org" hasn't been registered yet, and would be an
>>>> excellent place to set up a rival community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Fine. "openos.org" is also available, and easier to type.
>>
>>
>>>> Those who are willing to consent to dual-licensing today with the
>>>> possibility of additional licenses to be named in the future might go
>>>> to opensolaris.org. The rest would go to the other site, and use GPL
>>>> alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No they won't. Where will innovation occur? That's what people really
>>> care about. Who will work on reallyopensolaris.org and who will work on
>>> opensolaris.org? Most of the developers, for good or bad, are employed
>>> by Sun and will continue to develop on opensolaris.org. The rest of the
>>> world can pull from reallyopensolaris.org, but that code base will get
>>> old and crusty pretty fast.
>>>
>>
>> I think we're coming down the the crux of the matter here.
>>
>> I agree that if we think like customers and end users of Solaris then,
>> yes, it's innovation and branding and patch delivery and support that
>> matter.
>>
>> However, if we think like contributors to an open source project, what
>> matters is the openness and speed of the process, the transparency of
>> the licensing, the ability to contribute *directly* to the code,
>> ownership of the results, and an equal footing for those involved.
>>
>> Assuming that growing the opensolaris.org community is the intended
>> purpose, adding a new license to the mix does not in fact advance any
>> of those issues. It makes a rival community that _does_ address those
>> issues possible, while it actually adds complexity and risk to our
>> existing community.
>>
>> That still seems like a net loss, as I'm rather convinced that the
>> fork will in fact happen, whether we think it's feasible or not.
>>
>> (For what it's worth, and it may not be much, I believe the very same
>> issues affected the Zebra/Quagga split. Integration into Zebra was
>> considered by quite a few to be difficult, and the folks who started
>> the project apparently felt they held the important cards. Now it
>> seems that's not quite the case.)
>>
>> No matter how much I think of sun.com, and it's quite a bit, I'm not
>> so willing to bet that the only smart, talented, capable people
>> available are already here.
>>
>>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
769
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:07 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Yes, but the same argument holds. This can happen today. CDDL has file
> boundaries. You can create a fork of ZFS and innovate all you want. If
> your innovations remain in separate files, you don't have to publish
> them or contribute them back.
>
The entirety of this discussion has been you saying "I don't think it will
make anything worse", and people outlining reasons that it could.
Other benefits that have been suggested have been largely shown to not
actually change anything.
I'll ask again (for the 3rd time). What is the benefit that you see coming
out of this?
Does this all come down to Sun getting good PR? Because a license change
for that reason would be, is, and always will be, entirely inappropriate.
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 3:48 PM
in response to: richlowe
|
|
An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an
increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out
to an audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more
people, making more friends, gets more people talking about you,
participating, and developing with you. Growing the population.
I think the effect of increasing the number of kernel developers will be
minimal. There aren't that many kernel developers in the world.
Richard Lowe wrote:
> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>> Yes, but the same argument holds. This can happen today. CDDL has
>> file boundaries. You can create a fork of ZFS and innovate all you
>> want. If your innovations remain in separate files, you don't have
>> to publish them or contribute them back.
>>
>
> The entirety of this discussion has been you saying "I don't think it
> will make anything worse", and people outlining reasons that it could.
>
> Other benefits that have been suggested have been largely shown to not
> actually change anything.
>
> I'll ask again (for the 3rd time). What is the benefit that you see
> coming out of this?
>
> Does this all come down to Sun getting good PR? Because a license
> change for that reason would be, is, and always will be, entirely
> inappropriate.
>
> -- Rich
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:01 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Hey,
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an
> increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out
> to an audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more
> people, making more friends, gets more people talking about you,
> participating, and developing with you. Growing the population.
There's other ways to achieve this though - a simple license change may not
necessarily be the best approach [1]. A very obvious example would be the
permission to openly distribute Solaris Express through bit torrent, or work to
reduce the bandwidth barrier by reducing the number of CDs required to get the
basic functionality working.
Glynn
[1] And a few people have commented at FooCamp this weekend that they're are
surprised we're looking at doing this - there's a lot of other open source
projects that have higher volumes of contribution, yet are still relatively
GPL incompatible.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Posted:
Feb 6, 2007 9:15 PM
in response to: gman
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Embracing more
> people, making more friends, gets more people
> talking about you,
> participating, and developing with you. Growing the
> population.
> There's other ways to achieve this though - a simple
> license change may not
> necessarily be the best approach [1]. A very obvious
> example would be the
> permission to openly distribute Solaris Express
> through bit torrent, or work to
> reduce the bandwidth barrier by reducing the number
> of CDs required to get the
> basic functionality working.
>
> Glynn
Yes, though I understand why SUN wants metrics on Solaris, it's very important to them and it helps the OpenSolaris community as well. Perhaps making an exception solely for the Solaris Express Community Release would be good, that way the main production product (Solaris GA) could be tracked relatively accurately still.
> [1] And a few people have commented at FooCamp this
> weekend that they're are
> surprised we're looking at doing this - there's a
> lot of other open source
> projects that have higher volumes of contribution,
> yet are still relatively
> GPL incompatible.
Indeed, isn't Apache's license GPL incompatible? I don't see the problem, and they're certainly successful.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re:
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:18 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Richard Lowe wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll ask again (for the 3rd time). What is the benefit that you see
>> coming out of this?
>
> An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and
> an increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's
> reaching out to an audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris.
> Embracing more people, making more friends, gets more people talking
> about you, participating, and developing with you. Growing the
> population.
>
> I think the effect of increasing the number of kernel developers will
> be minimal. There aren't that many kernel developers in the world.
But all that can be done with the existing license.
I know it's a chicken and egg situation, but developers will develop for
Opens Solaris when the user base grows and the user base will grow with
more applications. I don't think a change of license will drive that cycle.
Why not reverse the argument and ask what will bring more application
developers to Open Solaris?
To answer that, you have to look outside of the community and towards
the user base. Why should Joe or Joe CTO user chose an Open Solaris
distribution over a Linux one (let's assume they want a windows
alternative for now)? What can we offer that your typical Linux distro
does not?
These two types of user have different requirements, neither care about
the license. Solaris already has a reputation based on innovation and
quality with Joe CTO, so we can't afford to slacken in that area. There
is plenty going on the desktop and install communities to improve the
initial and day to day experience of Joe user.
These changes take time, but try loading a build form 2005 and compare
the usability with today's and you will so just how much has changed in
a year. I think we are heading in the right direction and going about
as fast as can sensibly managed without sacrificing quality.
Sun marketing also has a part to play along with the user community in
selling Solaris to big and not so big name software vendors. There must
be a way we can help them port to Solaris, maybe through beta and
community quality testing.
Cheers,
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:39 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an
> increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out
> to an audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more
> people, making more friends, gets more people talking about you,
> participating, and developing with you. Growing the population.
>
> I think the effect of increasing the number of kernel developers will be
> minimal. There aren't that many kernel developers in the world.
You keep asserting that GPLv3 will increase the appeal of OpenSolaris,
and the people in the existing community are by-and-large telling you
that it won't. I've said it before but I strongly feel that a
"neutered" GPLv3 (which is I believe the only option we have) will
generate bad PR and make OpenSolaris less attractive as a result.
It seems that it comes down to a straight choice - Sun either cozies up
to the FSF, who's only contribution to OpenSolaris seems to have been to
say that CDDL is incompatible with GPL and that people shouldn't use our
license [1], or Sun listens to the OpenSolaris community and takes their
advice. It doesn't seem there is any way of making both groups happy
simultaneously.
[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#CDDL
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
769
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:39 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an
> increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out
> to an audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more
> people, making more friends, gets more people talking about you,
> participating, and developing with you. Growing the population.
I'm not sure a license change actually does much toward this (though given
how vocal people tend to be when it comes to licensing matters, it may seem
that way).
Making it easier and faster to get the bits, and easier and more productive
to work with them would, I think, do far more. In other words, all the
missing bits of process and communication that people have been complaining
about.
I personally doubt that many users consider the specifics of a source
license when choosing what to use (though open v. closed most likely play a
part, I doubt the specifics after that point do).
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
68
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 6, 2007 7:01 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an
> increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out to an
> audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more people, making
> more friends, gets more people talking about you, participating, and
> developing with you. Growing the population.
>
> I think the effect of increasing the number of kernel developers will be
> minimal. There aren't that many kernel developers in the world.
Changing the download process for Solaris Express to something sane (no
login requirement, ftp + http + torrent, right to redistribute, no
splitting of dvds into fragments that have to be merged) would be far more
effective if that's your goal....
later,
chris
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:08 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster writes:
> Yes, but the same argument holds. This can happen today. CDDL has file
> boundaries. You can create a fork of ZFS and innovate all you want.
In what possible instance does someone "innovate" without changing the
source?
I think that misses the point. People who want to innovate want to be
able to contribute *anywhere* without worrying about ownership.
> If
> your innovations remain in separate files, you don't have to publish
> them or contribute them back.
The difference is that you're obliged to keep the original files under
CDDL and obey the rules for CDDL. If those original files are
published under GPL as well, you are no longer constrained in that way
-- you can ignore CDDL.
You're now free to create a non-CDDL fork. One in which there are
source changes to the files we originally published, but that which
*WE* cannot access. The changes are no longer under CDDL, and thus we
can't adopt them. We can't bring those changes back into Open
Solaris.
That can't happen today, but it will tomorrow if the source is
dual-licensed.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 3:51 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
You're correct. What *I'm* saying is that
with OpenSolaris as whole, that is highly unlikely given my previous
argument of complexity and maintainer knowledge
and on a per-project basis, it has already happened as with DTrace and
Xcode at Apple.
James Carlson wrote:
> Stephen Harpster writes:
>
>> Yes, but the same argument holds. This can happen today. CDDL has file
>> boundaries. You can create a fork of ZFS and innovate all you want.
>>
>
> In what possible instance does someone "innovate" without changing the
> source?
>
> I think that misses the point. People who want to innovate want to be
> able to contribute *anywhere* without worrying about ownership.
>
>
>> If
>> your innovations remain in separate files, you don't have to publish
>> them or contribute them back.
>>
>
> The difference is that you're obliged to keep the original files under
> CDDL and obey the rules for CDDL. If those original files are
> published under GPL as well, you are no longer constrained in that way
> -- you can ignore CDDL.
>
> You're now free to create a non-CDDL fork. One in which there are
> source changes to the files we originally published, but that which
> *WE* cannot access. The changes are no longer under CDDL, and thus we
> can't adopt them. We can't bring those changes back into Open
> Solaris.
>
> That can't happen today, but it will tomorrow if the source is
> dual-licensed.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
John Mark Walker
johnmark@hyperic.com
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re:
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 6:12 PM
in response to: mac
|
|
Mark A. Carlson wrote:
> Isn't it more likely that folks would cherry-pick projects off
> of Open Solaris for forking/re-hosting?
>
> OpenZFS.org
> OpenDtrace.org
> ...
Almost every organization that starts an open source project has that
fear, and it is almost always completely unfounded. There is a real
advantage to being the first mover and owning the copyright of a
project. This assumes, of course, that Sun/OpenSolaris.org/et al are
contributing in good faith and adding real value to the project.
I can't think of a single time where a company released code, built a
community, and lost the lead on project innovation to a fork - except
for one: the acrimonious Mambo / Joomla split. In that case, there were
several developers not officially associated with the lead company,
which I don't see that happening with Sun and OpenSolaris, given the
complexity of the project and the inability of any engineer to simply
casually drop in and instantly understand what's going on.
If the issue is really about Sun retaining good engineers, well that
comes down to Sun treating its employees well - nothing more, nothing
less. The fearmongering over Google hiring 3K engineers was a LOL
moment, though.
When people ask me about licensing, and the issue always comes up with
companies I talk to, I usually recommend the GPL, simply because it's
the lingua franca of open source licensing, which my BSD friends just
love to hear. I don't think unleashing another open source license on
the world actually improves things, and if you want your project to gain
more acceptance, the onus is really on you to demonstrate that your new
license offers tangible benefits over and above the GPL - not the other
way around. However, having said that, one thing of consequence that has
been mentioned here re: CDDL's superior qualities concerns the ability
of other manufacturers to ship embedded OpenSolaris units, which is why
the dual-license issue came up. In the end, I'm not sure why requiring
OEM's (and I don't know what kind of relationships exist there) to pay
for and use a proprietary license is a bad thing. In my company's case,
Hyperic follows a dual-license strategy whereby OEM's pay us to license
the software under proprietary terms. Otherwise, you download it from
SF.net and use the GPL. Given that this possibility exists, I'm not sure
I really understand the reluctance to the GPL. On the flip side, I think
the opposition to CDDL by certain folks has been entirely blown out of
proportion, but you have to remember something: *you* are attempting to
win more people to your side, which means the onus is on *you* to
demonstrate that you can play by their rules. Hence, you're not in a
position to dictate the terms of the argument. You can argue that this
is their problem, and you have a fair point, but the fact is that Sun
has a mixed history with open source that the OpenSolaris project has to
overcome. You can't simply deny that, even though over the last two
years, I've been very impressed by what has taken place in terms of open
source strategy.
Seeing as how CDDL has introduced a point of contention (rightly or
wrongly), I haven't seen a strong argument for its continued existence,
other than it is in keeping with Sun's historical tendency for NIH (yes,
I expect some flamage for that). Apple was mentioned as a point for the
CDDL, as they supposedly wouldn't have used dtrace or zfs otherwise.
Well, Apple has tended to do whatever it takes to use the technology
that's available, and that has included using GPL'd software. If they're
telling you that they would forsake the ****ntages of dtrace and zfs if
it's GPL'd, then they're lying. And if they think they can hope to
duplicate either of those projects, then they're full of ****, because
they have neither the engineering numbers or talent to do it. And
finally, I'm not sure what you're expecting, but Apple has a terrible
history of contributing anything to open source projects. So... why do
you care about Apple? Aren't they changing their name to iPods'r'Us?
Honestly, who gives a flying fig about Apple? (...as I type this from my
Ubuntu-converted Macbook)
Long ago, I was very interested in Sun and Solaris, and then I lost
interest as I got sucked into the Linux vortex. Now I'm looking at
OpenSolaris again because I've seen Sun do some great things, and
watching the OS establishment led by one of the big Linux heavies, who
shall remain nameless, jump up and down in an attempt to discredit you,
has greatly soured me on some of the corporate players currently leading
the Linux charge (full disclosure: I am the former conference director
for LinuxWorld). So... take my opinion for what it is. I think you can
succeed with CDDL, and other projects' successes bear that out, but I
would point out that the GPL is probably the safest bet. Looking at
other examples, take SugarCRM - they have their own license and have
never used the GPL, but it's not as if there are very many open source
CRM packages on the market to force their hand. Other than Centric,
there aren't any others. In Hyperic's case, we have many many
competitors in the systems management arena, and for us, using our own
license was a non-starter - we recognize that we were not in a position
to dictate terms, and we also don't want some upstart taking our code
and not releasing source. In Solaris' case, you have a huge competitor
in Linux, which gets all of the open source love in the operating system
space. My bet is that if you choose the GPL, you will grow faster than
otherwise.
If you really think about it, when it comes to expanding your audience,
I'm kind of your exhibit 1A here - I've been a long-time Linux user, but
I'm open to other things if they make sense. I've also developed a
certain familiarity with GNU tools and would really prefer to stick with
them - which is another point that gets lost in the whole "how large is
the GNU army?" debate. People tend to forget that, in addition to the
GNU zealots, there are a whole lot of people who have by now grown very
accustomed to using their tools, for the simple reason that they form
the core of Linux distributions. So... if certain GNU people jump up and
down and prevent the great OpenSolaris ****U axis from taking place,
even though I don't think that will happen, then I probably won't
gravitate to OpenSolaris. Simply put, I don't really give a **** what
the core OS is. OpenSolaris is interesting enough to me to investigate,
but it's not quite compelling enough for me to junk the entire body of
GNU software.
To me, the debate is rather silly. Then again, I have a much different
perspective from most of you. You must build that user base pyramid -
that means driving OpenSolaris adoption far and wide. You're only going
to do that if you give people a compelling reason to use your software,
and the bottom line, at least for now, is that you haven't yet made it
easy enough. Nexenta and like-minded projects can certainly help with
this, but you need to support them and help them grow. Part of growing
the pyramid means that you probably won't see a lot of outside
contribution for a while. The main thing is to get more people using it
so that they become more accustomed to how it works. If enough people
are causing a stink over the license that it scares away potential
users, then you're already behind.
-John Mark
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 6:46 PM
in response to: John Mark Walker
|
|
--- John Mark Walker <johnmark at hyperic dot com> wrote:
> Almost every organization that starts an open source project...
> [and the rest of the post.]
I'm 100% in agreement.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re:
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 9:28 PM
in response to: John Mark Walker
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> project. This assumes, of course, that
> Sun/OpenSolaris.org/et al are
> contributing in good faith and adding real value to
> the project.
So far, everything has indicated that they are. SUN did not have to do what they did, and it has a very costly and time-conuming process.
> When people ask me about licensing, and the issue
> always comes up with
> companies I talk to, I usually recommend the GPL,
> simply because it's
> the lingua franca of open source licensing, which my
> BSD friends just
> love to hear. I don't think unleashing another open
It's always funny to me when people say this since most GPL projects (including the Linux kernel) heavily depend on BSD licensed code. Ahem. I would argue that the BSD and GPL licenses are the most common and important, but not the GPL by itself. I would go farther and say that the "open source" world would be a far poorer one withou the existence of the BSDs.
> Seeing as how CDDL has introduced a point of
> contention (rightly or
> wrongly), I haven't seen a strong argument for its
> continued existence,
> other than it is in keeping with Sun's historical
> tendency for NIH (yes,
> I expect some flamage for that). Apple was mentioned
You obviously haven't read the many dissertations on the CDDL then. You would know it addresses several problems that the GPLv2 does not, including patents. Just because other projects have "gotten along" with the GPLv2 does not mean that they're doing ok or that they will continue do so.
Also, you competely gloss over the fact that the CDDL gives *developers* more freedom than the GPL does when it comes to their work. It helps protect developers better thanks to the choice of venue clause, and it doesn't restrict our freedom to license our code the way we want to (within reason).
> software. If they're
> telling you that they would forsake the advantages of
> dtrace and zfs if
> it's GPL'd, then they're lying. And if they think
Who are you to make such a statement? Are you one of Apple's lawyers? Sorry, but unless you're a representative of Apple, you're the one lying, because you can't possibly make such a statement without being an Apple representative, or a psychic mind reader.
> Honestly, who gives a flying fig about Apple? (...as
> I type this from my
> Ubuntu-converted Macbook)
Apparently you do, since you seem to know the exact reasons why they do and do not do things.
> is. I think you can
> succeed with CDDL, and other projects' successes bear
> that out, but I
> would point out that the GPL is probably the safest
> bet. Looking at
You're welcome to think so, but as a contributor, I do not.
> and not releasing source. In Solaris' case, you have
> a huge competitor
> in Linux, which gets all of the open source love in
> the operating system
> space. My bet is that if you choose the GPL, you will
> grow faster than
> otherwise.
Grow faster how long before other projects suck us dry? Grow faster how long before the issues that the GPLv2 do not address create problems?
> gravitate to OpenSolaris. Simply put, I don't really
> give a **** what
> the core OS is. OpenSolaris is interesting enough to
> me to investigate,
> but it's not quite compelling enough for me to junk
> the entire body of
> GNU software.
So why do you have to junk the "entire body of GNU software?" Look at Nexenta...
> You're only going
> to do that if you give people a compelling reason to
> use your software,
> and the bottom line, at least for now, is that you
> haven't yet made it
> easy enough. Nexenta and like-minded projects can
No proof has been offered as of yet that changing the license will do that. It is pure speculation at best.
> If enough people
> are causing a stink over the license that it scares
> away potential
> users, then you're already behind.
>
> -John Mark
Ah, but how many people is enough people? People are people, and they may never be happy. I'm personally not willing to bet the OpenSolaris' community future on wild speculation about a license change. Other things need to happen to the project first before a license change. If we do everything else right, get all the other processes in place, and the succeess and growth doesn't happen, then, and only then should a license change be considered. In the meantime, there's little to no point and a license change would be nothing more than the result of speculation or marketing.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,127
From:
US
Registered:
7/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to
you? (was Re:
Posted:
Feb 5, 2007 3:40 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Q. OpenSolaris success?
A. (my version)
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,127
From:
US
Registered:
7/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to
you? (was Re:
Posted:
Feb 5, 2007 4:10 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Q. OpenSolaris success?
- Success is when open source developers see
OpenSolaris as the #1 or #2 choice for any UNIX
development or most embeddable projects involving a
UNIX-based OS.
- When people start wearing OpenSolaris T-shirts
during halftime at the Super Bowl. Need a cool
OpenSolaris commercial for that.
- When IHVs/ISVs are providing support and maintaining
device drivers for their products as commonly as they
are for other "UNIX-related" OSes.
- When every major software developer has a copy of
the OpenSolaris Starter Kit in their bookshelf.
- When MBA students discuss OpenSolaris as commonly as
golfing, real estate, and sport cars.
- When you no longer have to ask if OpenSolaris is
successful, you just know it.
Ken Mays
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Cantrill
bmc@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 1:19 AM
in response to: John Mark Walker
|
|
> Seeing as how CDDL has introduced a point of contention (rightly or
> wrongly), I haven't seen a strong argument for its continued existence,
> other than it is in keeping with Sun's historical tendency for NIH (yes,
> I expect some flamage for that). Apple was mentioned as a point for the
> CDDL, as they supposedly wouldn't have used dtrace or zfs otherwise.
> Well, Apple has tended to do whatever it takes to use the technology
> that's available, and that has included using GPL'd software. If they're
> telling you that they would forsake the advantages of dtrace and zfs if
> it's GPL'd, then they're lying. And if they think they can hope to
> duplicate either of those projects, then they're full of ****, because
> they have neither the engineering numbers or talent to do it. And
> finally, I'm not sure what you're expecting, but Apple has a terrible
> history of contributing anything to open source projects. So... why do
> you care about Apple? Aren't they changing their name to iPods'r'Us?
> Honestly, who gives a flying fig about Apple? (...as I type this from my
> Ubuntu-converted Macbook)
I do. Apple has given us more and deeper technical feedback on the
implementation of DTrace than anyone else. We're not looking for Apple
to necessarily extend DTrace in completely novel ways, but having the
code examined by a second group of eyes from a completely disjoint
background has been very useful to us -- and in doing this, they have
found some bugs that, even if minor, we missed ourselves. I also care
about Apple because the presence of our technology on their platform
greatly expands the community for that particular technology. Do I want
DTrace on my phone? You bet -- and at the moment, Apple's looking like
the most likely vector to get us there...
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 7:42 AM
in response to: Bryan Cantrill
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
Cc: OpenSolaris » arc
|
|
[...]
> ourselves. I also care
> about Apple because the presence of our technology on
> their platform
> greatly expands the community for that particular
> technology. Do I want
> DTrace on my phone? You bet -- and at the moment,
> Apple's looking like
> the most likely vector to get us there...
Any thoughts about a forum that's either neutral or equally welcoming
to (alphabetically) Apple, FreeBSD, and Solaris users of DTrace?
Maybe dtrace-discuss is good enough for now, but once there
are significant numbers of Apple and FreeBSD users (and if those
who've led their respective efforts would also participate from time
to time), something new might be in order.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:55 AM
in response to: Guest
|
|
I did not mean to say that one group is smarter or more talented than
the other. I'm simply saying that the majority of the opensolaris.org
contributers work at Sun. If say, IBM, were to pony up contributers
that out numbered Sun, I would be very happy indeed for it would mean
that OpenSolaris was successful (and that we would have more than double
the developers we have now).
James Carlson wrote:
>
>
> No matter how much I think of sun.com, and it's quite a bit, I'm not
> so willing to bet that the only smart, talented, capable people
> available are already here.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:28 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster writes:
> I did not mean to say that one group is smarter or more talented than
> the other. I'm simply saying that the majority of the opensolaris.org
> contributers work at Sun. If say, IBM, were to pony up contributers
> that out numbered Sun, I would be very happy indeed for it would mean
> that OpenSolaris was successful (and that we would have more than double
> the developers we have now).
I'd like to know where the 420 for the IBM commitment comes from. ;-}
Seriously, I think they'd have to be downright confused to contribute
in a way that helps out Sun. I could have sworn that we were, at some
point, in competition for similar markets.
However, contributing bits that are GPL-only derivatives of our
dual-licensed code would be a savvy move on their part. It'd provide
them with an alternate Solaris-like environment to exploit, a
fractured Solaris community, and additional anti-Sun FUD to employ.
It's a big win.
And, with our requirement that all contributions are dual-licensed by
the author, we'd benefit naught.
Stephen Harpster writes:
> With all due respect, I believe the complexity of OpenSolaris outweighs
> the complexity of Zebra, Quagga, XFree86, and X.org combined. And with
> that complexity you have the impracticality of maintaining it.
Complexity is not and has never been the central issue.
The central issue is building a community. Doing that involves
providing certain components that we aren't actually in a position to
supply today (namely: open repositories, bug tracking, and perhaps
even discarding development process and/or lowering standards), but
that someone else would be able to do in very short order.
In other words, "good enough" is the enemy of "the best." It's what's
sustained and built many other groups for quite some time.
This still turns back to the argument that Solaris is somehow above
the heads of all possible open source contributors, and thus only the
acolytes here can attend to its needs without having it fall to bits.
With all due respect, that's bunkum. We do have a lot of smart folks,
and obviously a formidable army of people working on Solaris, but in
an open world we cannot (and will not) hold a monopoly on these skills
forever.
The history of those other forks has shown that, even if the original
is seen as "better" in some respects, over the longer haul, that
simply does not matter. That's what I meant by saying that I've seen
this movie before. The hero dies in the end.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
803
From:
Plano, TX
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 2:51 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, James Carlson wrote:
> Stephen Harpster writes:
> > I did not mean to say that one group is smarter or more talented than
> > the other. I'm simply saying that the majority of the opensolaris.org
> > contributers work at Sun. If say, IBM, were to pony up contributers
> > that out numbered Sun, I would be very happy indeed for it would mean
> > that OpenSolaris was successful (and that we would have more than double
> > the developers we have now).
>
> I'd like to know where the 420 for the IBM commitment comes from. ;-}
>
> Seriously, I think they'd have to be downright confused to contribute
> in a way that helps out Sun. I could have sworn that we were, at some
> point, in competition for similar markets.
>
> However, contributing bits that are GPL-only derivatives of our
> dual-licensed code would be a savvy move on their part. It'd provide
> them with an alternate Solaris-like environment to exploit, a
> fractured Solaris community, and additional anti-Sun FUD to employ.
> It's a big win.
Agreed. Or - the same point expressed differently - it would enable them
to poison the OpenSolaris project, one file at a time.
> And, with our requirement that all contributions are dual-licensed by
> the author, we'd benefit naught.
>
> Stephen Harpster writes:
> > With all due respect, I believe the complexity of OpenSolaris outweighs
> > the complexity of Zebra, Quagga, XFree86, and X.org combined. And with
> > that complexity you have the impracticality of maintaining it.
>
> Complexity is not and has never been the central issue.
Agreed. Complexity does *not* provide any insulation or isolatin from
competitive business forces. More below.
> The central issue is building a community. Doing that involves
> providing certain components that we aren't actually in a position to
> supply today (namely: open repositories, bug tracking, and perhaps
Agreed.
> even discarding development process and/or lowering standards), but
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed with common sense reservations.
> that someone else would be able to do in very short order.
>
> In other words, "good enough" is the enemy of "the best." It's what's
> sustained and built many other groups for quite some time.
Yes - we need to concentrate on being the best and improving the project.
If you really want to be the leader - you've got to run like hell and you
don't even have time to look over your shoulder. This debate is a prime
example of time spent looking over your shoulder....
> This still turns back to the argument that Solaris is somehow above
> the heads of all possible open source contributors, and thus only the
> acolytes here can attend to its needs without having it fall to bits.
> With all due respect, that's bunkum. We do have a lot of smart folks,
> and obviously a formidable army of people working on Solaris, but in
> an open world we cannot (and will not) hold a monopoly on these skills
> forever.
Agreed. In almost every instance where intelligent people have made
(business) decisions based on the mistaken concept that they have the best
brains/talent in the industry - and were somehow isolated from technical
competion because of the high calibre of their in-house talent - they have
lost that bet. Examples abound:
- Netscape did'nt feel like they needed open review of their cryptography
algorithms or its implementation (the industry norm is to solicit open
review of the algorithms and the underlying implementation) and were
very embarassed when someone figured out that their source of "random"
seed data was easily second guessed - allowing a successful brute force
attack with modest hardware resources because the guessed source of
"random" data greatly reduced the scope of the required brute force
attack.
- Intel vs. AMD where Intel figured that no-one could possibly reverse
engineer the x86 architecture - including its *numereous* bugs. Most
knowledgeable engineers would assert that Intel has *never* produced a
bug-free chip (from the simple serial UART on forward). Since its an
industry standard - "cloners" are forced to produce a "bug-for-bug"
compatible implementation. Now *that* is difficult.
- Intel vs. AMD where Intel figured that no-one could out-innovate its
thousands of engineers - even after they acquired (by hook or by crook)
most of the available industry talent. For example, the team that
developed the Alpha processor.[0]
- Microsoft where the XBox architecture was completely reverse engineered
in short order.
- Intel with the infameous Pentium Floating Point (FP) bug. Not only was
the bug found, but someone figured out which FP algorithm(s) were
implemented and the flaws in the actual implementation.
- Numereous DVD/movie encryption algorithms.
- the ill-fated wireless WPA and WPA2 encryption algorithms.
- Cisco and the well published case of the "kill the presenter" of IOS
security flaws/exploits.
I could go on and on....
[0] Summary: "you violated our patents - we can sue you into total
extinction or .. you can give us the Alpha CPU IP and the right to hire
its architects".
> The history of those other forks has shown that, even if the original
> is seen as "better" in some respects, over the longer haul, that
> simply does not matter. That's what I meant by saying that I've seen
> this movie before. The hero dies in the end.
Agreed. The history of computing is littered with the dead bodies of
technically "better" ... everything.
The only way to be the leader is to spend every waking minute of every day
running like hell to stay ahead of the pack. Develope a "technical
magnet" to attract top-tier technical talent to the Project and forget
about licensing or any other "quick fix" panacea.
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:13 PM
in response to: alhopper
|
|
OK, we're going in circles folks.
I did not mean that Sun has technically superior engineers to every
company out there. (Actually, I think we do, but that's not the point
of this particular argument.) The point I'm trying to make is that Sun
has *more* of them. It's quantity, not just quality that's the crux of
the complexity argument.
Go fork opensolaris.org now. Go ahead. CDDL will allow you to do
that. Now try and maintain it. Fix bugs. Add features. Good luck.
You can't, because no matter how many smart people you have, you don't
have *enough* of them who know all the ins-and-outs of the OpenSolaris
kernel well enough to maintain it. Although it's possible for you to
build that team up over time, a) it will take a very long time; and b)
there aren't enough kernel developers in the world, esp. those that
know, or what to learn, the OpenSolaris kernel. And even if you
satisfied a & b, by the time your team has learned enough to maintain
the kernel, the opensolaris.org kernel will have moved on to make what
you've learn obsolete.
It's possible, but improbable. Risk assessment and probabilities.
Al Hopper wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, James Carlson wrote:
>
>
>> Stephen Harpster writes:
>>
>>> I did not mean to say that one group is smarter or more talented than
>>> the other. I'm simply saying that the majority of the opensolaris.org
>>> contributers work at Sun. If say, IBM, were to pony up contributers
>>> that out numbered Sun, I would be very happy indeed for it would mean
>>> that OpenSolaris was successful (and that we would have more than double
>>> the developers we have now).
>>>
>> I'd like to know where the 420 for the IBM commitment comes from. ;-}
>>
>> Seriously, I think they'd have to be downright confused to contribute
>> in a way that helps out Sun. I could have sworn that we were, at some
>> point, in competition for similar markets.
>>
>> However, contributing bits that are GPL-only derivatives of our
>> dual-licensed code would be a savvy move on their part. It'd provide
>> them with an alternate Solaris-like environment to exploit, a
>> fractured Solaris community, and additional anti-Sun FUD to employ.
>> It's a big win.
>>
>
> Agreed. Or - the same point expressed differently - it would enable them
> to poison the OpenSolaris project, one file at a time.
>
>
>> And, with our requirement that all contributions are dual-licensed by
>> the author, we'd benefit naught.
>>
>> Stephen Harpster writes:
>>
>>> With all due respect, I believe the complexity of OpenSolaris outweighs
>>> the complexity of Zebra, Quagga, XFree86, and X.org combined. And with
>>> that complexity you have the impracticality of maintaining it.
>>>
>> Complexity is not and has never been the central issue.
>>
>
> Agreed. Complexity does *not* provide any insulation or isolatin from
> competitive business forces. More below.
>
>
>> The central issue is building a community. Doing that involves
>> providing certain components that we aren't actually in a position to
>> supply today (namely: open repositories, bug tracking, and perhaps
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> even discarding development process and/or lowering standards), but
>>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Agreed with common sense reservations.
>
>
>> that someone else would be able to do in very short order.
>>
>> In other words, "good enough" is the enemy of "the best." It's what's
>> sustained and built many other groups for quite some time.
>>
>
> Yes - we need to concentrate on being the best and improving the project.
> If you really want to be the leader - you've got to run like hell and you
> don't even have time to look over your shoulder. This debate is a prime
> example of time spent looking over your shoulder....
>
>
>> This still turns back to the argument that Solaris is somehow above
>> the heads of all possible open source contributors, and thus only the
>> acolytes here can attend to its needs without having it fall to bits.
>> With all due respect, that's bunkum. We do have a lot of smart folks,
>> and obviously a formidable army of people working on Solaris, but in
>> an open world we cannot (and will not) hold a monopoly on these skills
>> forever.
>>
>
> Agreed. In almost every instance where intelligent people have made
> (business) decisions based on the mistaken concept that they have the best
> brains/talent in the industry - and were somehow isolated from technical
> competion because of the high calibre of their in-house talent - they have
> lost that bet. Examples abound:
>
> - Netscape did'nt feel like they needed open review of their cryptography
> algorithms or its implementation (the industry norm is to solicit open
> review of the algorithms and the underlying implementation) and were
> very embarassed when someone figured out that their source of "random"
> seed data was easily second guessed - allowing a successful brute force
> attack with modest hardware resources because the guessed source of
> "random" data greatly reduced the scope of the required brute force
> attack.
>
> - Intel vs. AMD where Intel figured that no-one could possibly reverse
> engineer the x86 architecture - including its *numereous* bugs. Most
> knowledgeable engineers would assert that Intel has *never* produced a
> bug-free chip (from the simple serial UART on forward). Since its an
> industry standard - "cloners" are forced to produce a "bug-for-bug"
> compatible implementation. Now *that* is difficult.
>
> - Intel vs. AMD where Intel figured that no-one could out-innovate its
> thousands of engineers - even after they acquired (by hook or by crook)
> most of the available industry talent. For example, the team that
> developed the Alpha processor.[0]
>
> - Microsoft where the XBox architecture was completely reverse engineered
> in short order.
>
> - Intel with the infameous Pentium Floating Point (FP) bug. Not only was
> the bug found, but someone figured out which FP algorithm(s) were
> implemented and the flaws in the actual implementation.
>
> - Numereous DVD/movie encryption algorithms.
>
> - the ill-fated wireless WPA and WPA2 encryption algorithms.
>
> - Cisco and the well published case of the "kill the presenter" of IOS
> security flaws/exploits.
>
> I could go on and on....
>
> [0] Summary: "you violated our patents - we can sue you into total
> extinction or .. you can give us the Alpha CPU IP and the right to hire
> its architects".
>
>
>> The history of those other forks has shown that, even if the original
>> is seen as "better" in some respects, over the longer haul, that
>> simply does not matter. That's what I meant by saying that I've seen
>> this movie before. The hero dies in the end.
>>
>
> Agreed. The history of computing is littered with the dead bodies of
> technically "better" ... everything.
>
> The only way to be the leader is to spend every waking minute of every day
> running like hell to stay ahead of the pack. Develope a "technical
> magnet" to attract top-tier technical talent to the Project and forget
> about licensing or any other "quick fix" panacea.
>
> Regards,
>
> Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
> Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
> OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
> OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:03 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
Complexity *is* the issue. With 15 million lines of very complex code,
I would argue it would take a long time for the non-Sun kernel
developers to outnumber the Sun kernel developers. Actually, given the
total number of kernel developers in the world, I'd wager it will never
happen.
I don't know how else to explain this. So either I'm not understanding
your point or you're not understanding mine.
James Carlson wrote:
> Stephen Harpster writes:
>> With all due respect, I believe the complexity of OpenSolaris outweighs
>> the complexity of Zebra, Quagga, XFree86, and X.org combined. And with
>> that complexity you have the impracticality of maintaining it.
>>
>
> Complexity is not and has never been the central issue.
>
> The central issue is building a community. Doing that involves
> providing certain components that we aren't actually in a position to
> supply today (namely: open repositories, bug tracking, and perhaps
> even discarding development process and/or lowering standards), but
> that someone else would be able to do in very short order.
>
> In other words, "good enough" is the enemy of "the best." It's what's
> sustained and built many other groups for quite some time.
>
> This still turns back to the argument that Solaris is somehow above
> the heads of all possible open source contributors, and thus only the
> acolytes here can attend to its needs without having it fall to bits.
> With all due respect, that's bunkum. We do have a lot of smart folks,
> and obviously a formidable army of people working on Solaris, but in
> an open world we cannot (and will not) hold a monopoly on these skills
> forever.
>
> The history of those other forks has shown that, even if the original
> is seen as "better" in some respects, over the longer haul, that
> simply does not matter. That's what I meant by saying that I've seen
> this movie before. The hero dies in the end.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:57 AM
in response to: Guest
|
|
>(For what it's worth, and it may not be much, I believe the very same
>issues affected the Zebra/Quagga split. Integration into Zebra was
>considered by quite a few to be difficult, and the folks who started
>the project apparently felt they held the important cards. Now it
>seems that's not quite the case.)
XFree86 vs X.org?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:11 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
With all due respect, I believe the complexity of OpenSolaris outweighs
the complexity of Zebra, Quagga, XFree86, and X.org combined. And with
that complexity you have the impracticality of maintaining it.
With respect to cherry-picking individual projects to fork, see my
previous posting.
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>> (For what it's worth, and it may not be much, I believe the very same
>> issues affected the Zebra/Quagga split. Integration into Zebra was
>> considered by quite a few to be difficult, and the folks who started
>> the project apparently felt they held the important cards. Now it
>> seems that's not quite the case.)
>>
>
> XFree86 vs X.org?
>
> Casper
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
