[csw-maintainers] Our infrastructure on Solaris 9

Peter FELECAN pfelecan at opencsw.org
Tue Aug 6 13:49:43 CEST 2013

Laurent Blume <laurent at opencsw.org> writes:

> On 06/08/13 11:03, Peter FELECAN wrote:
>> This reasonable and doable, However, from my standpoint, it is outside
>> the scope of OpenCSW.
>> BTW, can somebody explain what hinders the adoption of Solaris 10 in a
>> private or an enterprise environment after 8 years of availability.
> Don't ask /me/, I have nfc. But it's a fact.

A fact is part of a causality chain. What's the cause of this effect? Is
this not a myth, folklore, FUD, &c?

>> The only case I know from direct experience is in a manufacturing unit
>> where a multi million euro machine tool is controlled by a Solaris 2.5.1
>> running system and the supplier ask an equivalent amount to update the
>> controller by replacing it with an unit running an old version of
>> Microsoft Windows (what a deal). There is even worse, in a similar
>> environment there is a SunOS 4.3 controller unit. Now, should we support
>> all this? The only software stack that they are using is specific to
>> that machine tool. They don't need the last shiny Python interpreter or
>> a 64 bit Guile library.
> Well, if somebody wants to do it as a paid job, and OpenCSW can
> provide an existing infrastructure that helps doing it, and OpenCSW
> benefits for it, then why not?

The point is that for such an infrastructure to exist it must be
maintained, administrated, &c. So it costs, indirectly, energy from
OpenCSW members. If someone wishes to take a contract job of this kind
he should provide also the material par of it.

>> What bothers me is that all this energy is wasted instead of spending it
>> on other venues, such as Solaris 11 native support, documentation, web
>> site, &c.
> The point is exactly that it should not be wasted. Paid-for work is
> productive. It'd be wasted if it were done for free. The thing is
> making sure that's it's worth it for OpenCSW.

Per previous point, it's certainly not.

Seriously, has any of the foundation's members a request of this kind?
If someone propose me a contract of this kind I will gladly provide a


More information about the maintainers mailing list