Michael.Schuster@XXX>
>>>>> "ms" == Michael Schuster <Michael.Schuster@XXX writes: ms> (oh, btw: wasn't IPS created in part to get away from the ms> whole patch ... ermm ... issue? ;-) hah! yeah, it sounds like it's working extremely well for people, especially with the ZFS root. The speed and casualness with which they upgrade is stunning. The combination of IPS, ZFS, and the LiveCD idea seems to be just awesome. but this is just UI-optimisation and showmanship. IPS is the small part of what people like---it could almost be just 'tar', like BSD. I do not like IPS. I concede the idea of a single arrow of time is not stupid. I was briefly an HPUX sysadmin and got yelled at for applying all patches I could find because apparently doing this makes your system unstable. You have to apply patches only after your system starts crashing. ``It's not Solaris'' the more senior SA said. The single-arrow-of-time kool-aid retreats even farther from the HPUX best-practice: ``we are going to make something like fake dependencies among our patches, to force them into a linear progression, which will make them easier for us to regression-test.'' Great idea! Regression testing is expensive, is an ugly trade-off against security, and is extremely unpleasant frustrating repetitive work duplicated at each site that makes the whole system feel like rickety crap. Maybe if Sun regression-testing gets really good, people at the edge can start being lazier about it. And the more software bundles---not just solaris---that can come under this we-regression-test-it umbrella, the more valuable the whole ball of wares becomes. I'm not sure how many years a person needs to watch RedHat winning to learn this lesson, but it's still a good lesson. The problem is, OpenSolaris has gone much too far! It has taken away not just the spaghetti created by playing dim-sum with patches, but also the two levels of stability branches: sol8 sol9 sol10, and sol10u2 sol10u3, sol10u4. ``Single arrow of time'' should mean that the binary revision control tree follows the source revision control tree exactly, so every customer's system is in a state that could be built from a 'nightly' script. It should not mean there are no branches in the scm! Also AIUI, IPS isn't a source packaging system. It doesn't make it easier for me to get from installed-package back to source, then make one tiny tweak and rebuild. or to maintain site-local changes while still tracking upstream fixes. BSD ports/pkgsrc and Gentoo do this, and it's fantastic especially for web sites dependent on low-quality software written by screaching web2.0 monkeys with lots of dependencies where the code in the package system to build them is much more elegant than the code-feces being built. I need the package system just to document the monkey-spaghetti. Leaving this gap---I mean, creating a perhaps-deliberate mysteriousness about how the source tree is transformed into the binary packages---is a mistake. My sneaking suspicion based on hints at the bottom of the opensolaris Download web page, is of a plan is to offer only OpenSolaris for free. The old Sol10/SXCE will go back inside the wall, available by subscription only. And SXCE will, just like Sol10, lack the freedom to rebuild your system with small local changes. I don't worry as much that fear of CentOS-like ``cannibals'' will put Solaris back behind a wall because I don't think that's what'll do it. (but don't you love the way these people who believe in free markets like a religion equate `giving customers choices' with `cannibalizing other products'?) Anyway, not that. I think CYA-ist attitude is what's going to do it. There seems to be a concept built into all parts of Solaris OS, and internalized by the older customers, that of course They cannot LET you do _____ with your system because that will Generate Calls. There are people who believe a system that gives meaningful software freedom to end users cannot be supported because people will ``tamper'' with the sacred binary releases passed down from the tower. It's not enough to tell customers ``we won't support that'' because some of them will pay a lot of money, expect to get something for it, and make your life hell by bargaining. It follows in this binary-software advocate's mind that making money on support means trying to create many situations in which you can use phrases like, ``oh Gosh i WISH i could help you but i just CANT because our lawyers/licensing/property simply will not allow, you have to understand so so much code and relationships and <hazy confusing things behind wall> hands are tied nothing I can do no matter how desperately i want to help you is there anything ELSE i can help you with (not this)?'' but this is exactly why I rarely pay for support. I can't think of many times when I've had a problem and actually gotten help. When I do pay, it's usually in truth a payment to download software, and the person taking my money enjoys his private fantasy from his business-college days that he's selling me a relationship rather than a ball of bits. But if I have to talk to someone on the phone to get a URL I'm annoyed, think this MBA-heavy corporation has a shitty website, and am angry at them for wasting my time with their effort to control my future behavior by manipulating my ``experience''---if I want a mind-fuck or a snow-job I'll go to the theater where at least the players are pretty, speak well, and have some style and talent. It's happening right here in front of us---ZFS users are fleeing to OpenSolaris because the formal Sun support is slow to deliver patches, unhelpful (restore pool from backup), suspect (blame-the-sysadmin, weirdly absurd stories delivered with icy certainty). My favorite advice was ``get support that allows escalation to engineering. patch-only support is worthless.'' In other words, there's nothing on the menu they've written that will fill your belly. If you can't afford to order off the menu, don't bother. Just get a hot dog from the cart in front of their building. Before, my main disincentive to buying support was that the time I spend on the phone talking to front-line PR-techs telling me to jump through hoops would be better-spent googling forums, or digging in myself offline and trying to solve the problem. Now, added to that incentive, I have to give up source to get access to the stable branch with the best support. No, fuck that. better to wait for a slightly-more-free alternative to Nexenta, or to stick with RedHat/CentOS and use single-branch ``arrow of time'' OpenSolaris for the unstable stuff---exactly the opposite of how I imagine Sun hoped to grab some territory from Linux.
Attachment:
pgpiYk6QHxgZd.pgp
Description: PGP signature