[os-infrastructure] The infrastructure

Fri Jun 13 05:26:11 PDT 2008

There's a ton of stats showing that it's not just community using Windows, Linux, and MacOS.

This seems quite reasonable that you're seeing a different demand in support. Customers aren't going to want to move off their platforms & infrastructure unless they need to. Thus, you'd expect to see our support contracts lag the current market trends. Aiming for where the market's going is what we need to prepare for in order to grow.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com [mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of Alex Hanshaw
Sent: June 13, 2008 6:06 AM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true opensourcecommunity
Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] The infrastructure

Andrew

 I do not agree with your comments about platforms. In SE we have only seen movement from platforms like Tru64. Unless pushed (as in the Tru64 case) most of our enterprise customers are not moving off of Solaris, HP, AIX, VMS and the like. Linux, Windows and even the Mac are important to the community. That does not mean that the other platforms are a dying bread in enterprise class installations. I'll agree that Linux, Windows and the Mac dominate community work. That does not mean they dominate the industry or specifically the installations where we make money. I don't think the Ingres Open Source plan is to stop making money, so I for one will not be putting the Mac above Solaris on my list of priorities.

 Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com [mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Ross
Sent: 13 June 2008 03:54
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true opensourcecommunity
Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] The infrastructure

Hi Joe, All

Comments inline. My comments prefaced with AR.

-----Original Message-----
From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com [mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of Joe Abbate
Sent: June 12, 2008 7:36 PM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true open sourcecommunity
Subject: Re: [os-infrastructure] The infrastructure

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Ross wrote:
> Had we waited for the policy to be settled, it would likely be at 
> least a year, possibly more.
>   

What makes you think that? Did Emma or Bill or Roger talk to the board or present a policy proposal, and if so, was it put aside?

AR - I felt this way based on precedent and the fact I didn't see anyone seriously working on it. There's good discussion happening now. I still suspect it's going to take some time to come to consensus, put together a plan, revector resources, and execute on the plan. It's possible this may get done by the end of 2009. Unless something unexpected happens I'd expect it'd be more likely in mid to late 2009. This is up against other business priorities and when something exciting comes along, it's going to be harder to revector resources.

> When it comes down to the core of what we want as a company is to 
> enable others to do what is in their best interest and have this bring 
> value to the Ingres ecosystem.

That is your opinion but I don't know if it is shared by Ingres investors, the board, Roger, others on this list, or even major commercial customers. From what I heard from Roger at his quarterly presentations is that he is more concerned with selling Ingres commercially and working with partners that will assist in that goal.

AR - Perhaps it's just an opinion but for what it's worth, it is working as a strategy to develop geospatial, CAFÉ, bootcamp and more. External companies, people, and institutions have given us money & resources based on my opinion & track record. From what I see, the other partnerships (Jaspersoft, Alfresco, Rpath, etc.) we're working are doing much the same thing. Who says open source and commercial have to be mutually exclusive?

In any case, the above is a very broad policy that anybody could agree with. What I think Durwin, Bodo, David and myself are asking, with the "cart before the horse" comments, is whether (a) to what extent should Ingres employees be involved in organizing or driving the community, (b) to what extent should the Community Edition(s) be allowed to diverge from the Enterprise Edition(s), for example, in terms of supported platforms, (c) to what extent should internal processes be changed or disrupted to accommodate the community (for example, Alex's comments about priorities in reviewing external contributions vs. dealing with bugs from paying customers), and possibly others that have nothing to do with what tools are used. As Jo Peel put it, "Align our processes for community development. [*THEN*] Choose the best tool(s)" (my emphasis). 
And lest it be misinterpreted, when I'm talking about processes I don't mean build procedures.

AR - These are good questions, and we'll get the chance to ask them. The timing will have to be right. I know some had these questions on their mind but didn't say anything at the summit for fear of putting the execs on the spot. Add this to the potential delay factor I described above.

> I *do* think we'd be better served if we found a way to organize our 
> efforts better. Perhaps a goal per quarter. For instance, have this 
> quarter be all about polishing up the environment, defining any 
> missing procedures, and getting the build clean on major platforms.
> :-)
>   

Whenever you talk about "major platforms", you seem to be referring to major *Linux* platforms (major in terms of overall users) and possibly Windows and you're seem to be concerned only with the DBMS build. I am not cognizant of the current revenue breakdown by platform but VMS and Solaris used to be the major revenue platforms, and AFAIK both those and Windows build clean (as do the major commercial Linux platforms). In addition, Ingres doesn't just offer the DBMS; we also have other products such as OpenROAD obviously, but also Enterprise Access and EDBC, and all those have their own build procedures, supported platforms and schedules, but they all share Bugs, ServiceDesk and if I'm not mistaken Piccolo.

AR - Hopefully I can help clear up that perception. I work in server development so I'm better positioned to push server. I assure you I'm not excluding other products. Everyone's welcome to leverage subversion, trac, IRC, etc. For instance, Grant put the driver code in. Glen put the snmp agent in. Alex Trofast stored LXR, Trac, and Drupal. There's plenty of room for more and I'm glad to help anyone who's interested.

AR - It's hard to ignore the fact Linux, Windows, and MacOS are platforms that are growing rapidly and absolutely dominating the industry while other platforms are barely growing at all or are shrinking. Even our staunchest VMS or Solaris customer would likely think us foolish if we were ignoring Linux, Windows, or MacOS. The fact remains that we brought in some interns and asked them to follow our instructions to build on Windows and Linux and it took weeks to get a build going. Roger mentioned similar experiences on this list. I've heard the same comments from many other people. Clearly it's a low hanging fruit problem and worth fixing.

I agree with the "a goal (or two) per quarter" but I think it should first be expressed by Roger and then Bill and Emma could decide how best to accomplish that. It is not because I believe in strict top down management, but because I think that without a clear commitment from senior company management, we could turn our wheels for nothing. Maybe you are privy to Roger and Bill and Emma's thought on this, but it seems at least some of us are not.

AR - Perhaps a difference between me and those who haven't been through the same experiences is that I'm privy to the reaction to the items I proposed. I've helped/commiserated with a few others around the company as they went through the same process. I'll share it's never been easy. Everything is scrutinized, prioritized, and justified. Even if it's a good idea, there's still no guarantee it'll happen. There's just more things we'd like to do than we can afford to do. (typical everywhere frankly, probably tighter in a start up) I perceive that evolutionary changes revectoring existing budgets or leveraging outside money like grants, etc. tend to tip the balance to get things started. 

Andrew
_______________________________________________
opensource-infrastructure mailing list
opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
opensource-infrastructure mailing list
opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure