| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SolidIce and the SPICE protocol?SolidIce and the SPICE protocol?Posted Sep 11, 2008 21:02 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)In reply to: SolidIce and the SPICE protocol? by SEJeff Parent article: Red Hat acquires Qumranet
Mark Shuttleworth has a tendency...to speak out of place. No one should take anything Mark Shuttleworth says at a Conference or in his blog or in an interview at face value. He's a very very good...wordsmith.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/50699/comments/43
"N.B. - the roadmap has to be approved yet and some further detail
Now maybe you read the phrase 'thinking about it seriously' as meaning 'firm commitment to a specific timeline and roadmap' but I'm not sure the Ubuntu community members who have so far commented on that bugreport do.
The problem isn't Ubuntu as a community. The problem is Canonical and its desire to centrally control how the Ubuntu contributor community is allowed to grow and interact through the control of Launchpad.
The problems with just Lauchpad's Rosetta translation component makes a pretty good read as an impetus as to why the Ubuntu community needs to see Launchpad opened up so that the Ubuntu community can dig in and adapt the tool that Canonical has created to better serve the Ubuntu community's desire to work better with upstream projects.
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
Active, dedicated Ubuntu community members have been calling for open access to a critical piece of the infrastructure which they rely on to do they work they are doing. They have been doing that for far longer than I have been talking about it. I don't really care whose motivations you find compelling. Nor do I care if I'm cast as "the enemy" what matter is Launchpad as it stands right now is an impediment towards closer collaboration between the Ubuntu contributors and the upstream projects.
-jef"...next up Canonical's self-serving double standard with regard to Ubuntu's trademark when it comes to the Netbook remix"spaleta
(Log in to post comments)
SolidIce and the SPICE protocol? Posted Sep 11, 2008 21:12 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]
Jef,
I agree with you completely. THis is kind of OT for this article though. Care to take a bet on how long before the SPICE protocol is fully documented with non-emcumbered OSS code out? I'd give it 2 years.
SolidIce and the SPICE protocol? Posted Sep 11, 2008 21:44 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Difficult to know.
I think the the Netscape Directory codebase took longer than that to fully open..but that was much more than a protocal definition. That directory codebase release had to be staged, the gui admin tools came later because they essentially had to be written and couldn't be opened.
Advanced Message Queuing Protocol isn't a good example either because it was a from the ground up specification that Red Hat has been working on with partners.
The closest previous example maybe when Red Hat purchased Sistina in 2003 and then subsequently open sourced their GFS implementation about a year later. I wouldn't expect it to be faster than how long it took to get GFS opened.
But it really comes down to what the legal particulars of the codebase in question.
Of course none of that historical comparison should keep anyone from prodding Red Hat to do it as fast as possible.
-jef
|
|
||||||||||||