On Feb 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Giovanni Tirloni <gtirl...@sysdroid.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.rito...@gmail.com
> 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 higherups here, it'd be considered
absurd. I like free stuff to fool around with in my copious spare
time as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but that's not the
issue. For my company, no support contract equals 'Death of
OpenSolaris.'
OpenSolaris is not dying just because there is no support contract
available for it, yet.
Last time I looked Red Hat didn't offer support contracts for Fedora
and that project is doing quite well.
Difference here is Redhat doesn't claim Fedora as a production OS.
While CentOS is a derivative of RHEL and also comes with no support
contracts as it just recompiles RHEL source one gets the inherited
binary support through this and technical support through the community.
OpenSolaris not being as transparent and more leading edge doesn't get
the stability of binary support that Solaris has and the community is
always playing catch-up on the technical details. Which make it about
as suitable for production use as Fedora.
The commercial support contracts attempted to bridge the gap between
the lack of knowledge due to the newness and the binary stability with
patches. Without it OS is no longer really production quality.
A little scattered in my reasoning but I think I get the main idea
across.
-Ross
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
