Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

Wow, they actually did the right thing in the end. This is fantastic. I'm all too happy to eat as much crow as you have to offer. I wonder when (if?) they'll bring back the ability to purchase OpenSolaris subscriptions online.. I'm actually so happy right now that I even appreciate Tim's cluele

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I've just found perhaps the only > written proof that OpenSolaris is supportable. For those of you who > deny that this is an issue, its existence as a supported OS has been > recently erased from every othe

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I've just found perhaps the only written proof that OpenSolaris is supportable. For those of you who deny that this is an issue, its existence as a supported OS has been recently erased from every other place I've seen on the Oracle sites. Everyone please grab a c

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 20:52 -0500, Thomas Burgess wrote: > "There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, > similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the > stack," Roberts said. "It's important to understand the plan now is to > deliver value again out o

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

Thomas Burgess wrote: "There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the stack," Roberts said. "It's important to understand the plan now is to deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

"There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the stack," Roberts said. "It's important to understand the plan now is to deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time measuring that with c

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

2010/3/1 "C. Bergström" > Troy Campbell wrote: > >> >> >> On 02/24/10 12:04 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.htm

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

Troy Campbell wrote: On 02/24/10 12:04 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell mailto:troy.campb...@fedex.com>> wrote: http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html Half way down it says: Will Oracle support

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On 02/24/10 12:04 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell mailto:troy.campb...@fedex.com>> wrote: http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html Half way down it says: Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Feb 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Giovanni Tirloni wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Jacob Ritorto > wrote: It's a kind gesture to say it'll continue to exist and all, but without commercial support from the manufacturer, it's relegated to hobbyist curiosity status for us. If I even mention

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > It's a kind gesture to say it'll continue to exist and all, but > without commercial support from the manufacturer, it's relegated to > hobbyist curiosity status for us. If I even mentioned using an > unsupported operating system to the high

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

It's a kind gesture to say it'll continue to exist and all, but without commercial support from the manufacturer, it's relegated to hobbyist curiosity status for us. If I even mentioned using an unsupported operating system to the higherups here, it'd be considered absurd. I like free stuff to fo

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Michael Schuster wrote: > perhaps this helps: > > http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Oracle-Explains-Unclear-Message-About-OpenSolaris-444787/ Not really. It doesn't explain that the page in question was an explanation of how the OpenSolaris support mo

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

perhaps this helps: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Oracle-Explains-Unclear-Message-About-OpenSolaris-444787/ Michael On 02/24/10 20:02, Troy Campbell wrote: http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html Half way down it says: Will Oracle supp

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell wrote: > > http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html > > Half way down it says: > Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? > > Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java Use

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html Half way down it says: Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java User Groups, OpenSolaris User Groups, and other Sun-related user gro

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

Oops, sorry, right, 9 months... ;-) -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Alan Coopersmith Cc: jacob.rito...@gmail.com, zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, indiana-disc...@opensolaris.org, t...@cook.ms Gesendet: 22.2.'10, 22:03 Matthias Pfützner wrote: (change in control) and the cycle of the nex

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

Matthias Pfützner wrote: > (change in control) and the cycle of the next version of OSOL (did you > notice, that it might be 2010.03, and not 2010.02, aka 7 months?) 9 months actually since 2009.06, and that change was mostly due to aligning with the Solaris 10 update release schedules so that th

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jacob Ritorto Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, indiana-disc...@opensolaris.org Gesendet: 22.2.'10, 21:46 On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Justin Lee Ewing wrote: I'm not sure how there is mistreatment when known that Solaris 10 is the current productio

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jacob Ritorto Cc: matth...@pfuetzner.de, zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, indiana-disc...@opensolaris.org Gesendet: 22.2.'10, 21:21 On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Tim Cook wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: 2010/2/22 Matt

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris (Please end this now)

From what I can gleen from the new sections of the relevant website, it appears that you /can/ get OpenSolaris support, provided you have SUN hardware and a System Service plan. The traditional "I want OS Support for running Solaris on my non-Sun hardware" plan doesn't include OpenSolaris.

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On 02/22/10 09:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jacob Ritorto mailto:jacob.rito...@gmail.com>> wrote: Since it seems you have absolutely no grasp of what's happening here, Coming from the guy proclaiming the sky is falling without actually having ANY official stat

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > > Since it seems you have absolutely no grasp of what's happening here, > Coming from the guy proclaiming the sky is falling without actually having ANY official statement whatsoever to back up that train of thought. > perhaps it would be

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Justin Lee Ewing wrote: > I'm not sure how there is mistreatment when known that Solaris 10 is the > current production-grade product and OpenSolaris, for all intents and > purposes, a beta product that is currently under active development.  I was > actually surp

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Jacob Ritorto > wrote: >> >> 2010/2/22 Matthias Pfützner : >> > You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: >> >> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" >> >> response.  We're being badly mistr

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

I'm not sure how there is mistreatment when known that Solaris 10 is the current production-grade product and OpenSolaris, for all intents and purposes, a beta product that is currently under active development. I was actually surprised when SUN provided a level of support for OpenSolaris abov

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > 2010/2/22 Matthias Pfützner : > > You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: > >> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" > >> response. We're being badly mistreated here and it's probably too > >> late to do anything about it

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: > FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" > response. We're being badly mistreated here and it's probably too > late to do anything about it. Probably the only chance to quell this > poor stewardship is to get big and loud right away. Then

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

2010/2/22 Matthias Pfützner : > You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: >> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" >> response.  We're being badly mistreated here and it's probably too >> late to do anything about it.  Probably the only chance to quell this >> poor stewardship is t