All,
(The company which I work for has authorized me to engage the CentOS community and make a proposal with regard to a whitebox JBoss distribution.)
OCI currently provides support for JBoss and other related technologies. During the course of our work, we are now finding it difficult to manage patches between releases without rolling our own distribution. We also have several clients who need to re-distribute in their own products.
I'm sure most of you are familiar with certain policies which prevent the JBoss name from being used for redistribution.
So my proposal is this:
I would like to propose a new open source project (a sister project, if you will) which aims at providing a CentOS analogue to JBoss: CentAS. This project will be commercially sponsored by OCI (in terms of manpower to create the distribution). Everything free, everything open, and most definitely no trademark restrictions.
Mainly we are concerned with the JBoss source only, but this certainly opens up some doors for packaging/distribution within CentOS, leading perhaps to an open alternative to Red Hat's application.
Thoughts?
Steven Stallion wrote:
I'm sure most of you are familiar with certain policies which prevent the JBoss name from being used for redistribution.
Not really, what are these policies ?
Steven Stallion wrote:
All,
(The company which I work for has authorized me to engage the CentOS community and make a proposal with regard to a whitebox JBoss distribution.)
OCI currently provides support for JBoss and other related technologies. During the course of our work, we are now finding it difficult to manage patches between releases without rolling our own distribution. We also have several clients who need to re-distribute in their own products.
I'm sure most of you are familiar with certain policies which prevent the JBoss name from being used for redistribution.
So my proposal is this:
I would like to propose a new open source project (a sister project, if you will) which aims at providing a CentOS analogue to JBoss: CentAS. This project will be commercially sponsored by OCI (in terms of manpower to create the distribution). Everything free, everything open, and most definitely no trademark restrictions.
Mainly we are concerned with the JBoss source only, but this certainly opens up some doors for packaging/distribution within CentOS, leading perhaps to an open alternative to Red Hat's application.
Thoughts?
Now that CentOS has got a good build of java-openjdk, we (the main centos devels) have every intention of rebuilding the RHWAS (including the JBoss bits).
Assuming the JBoss server bits build correctly, we can do this.
One part of "all free" would be a gpl'ed version of java (which java-openjdk is).
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Now that CentOS has got a good build of java-openjdk, we (the main centos devels) have every intention of rebuilding the RHWAS (including the JBoss bits).
Assuming the JBoss server bits build correctly, we can do this.
One part of "all free" would be a gpl'ed version of java (which java-openjdk is).
Thats great to hear.
How would you guys feel if we were to take care of the JBoss portion while you guys take care of packaging? (We have to do this anyway, so we may as well donate the work out!)
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Steven Stallion wrote:
How would you guys feel if we were to take care of the JBoss portion while you guys take care of packaging? (We have to do this anyway, so we may as well donate the work out!)
Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by 'taking care of' ?
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Steven Stallion wrote:
How would you guys feel if we were to take care of the JBoss portion while you guys take care of packaging? (We have to do this anyway, so we may as well donate the work out!)
Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by 'taking care of' ?
Essentially we can take care of starting the project, building the initial site for it, and initial work on the code. Mind you, this is not a difficult task, its just a matter of getting it out there for others to use and hack on.
Does that help?
Steven Stallion wrote:
How would you guys feel if we were to take care of the JBoss portion while you guys take care of packaging? (We have to do this anyway, so we may as well donate the work out!)
Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by 'taking care of' ?
Essentially we can take care of starting the project, building the initial site for it, and initial work on the code. Mind you, this is not a difficult task, its just a matter of getting it out there for others to use and hack on.
Does that help?
Not really, no. From your initial email you seemed to imply that it was packaging and bug tracking that might be involved, but your reply here implies something completely different.
I dont see why one might need a new website or start a new project to do this sort of a thing. Also why do you need to get 'some bits out there for people to hack on', What is broken within the JBoss communities ? Or are you saying that there are no JBoss communities and that its not open source ?
Perhaps I am missing the big-picture. Could someone clarify the situation please ?
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Not really, no. From your initial email you seemed to imply that it was packaging and bug tracking that might be involved, but your reply here implies something completely different.
I dont see why one might need a new website or start a new project to do this sort of a thing. Also why do you need to get 'some bits out there for people to hack on', What is broken within the JBoss communities ? Or are you saying that there are no JBoss communities and that its not open source ?
Perhaps I am missing the big-picture. Could someone clarify the situation please ?
Since Red Hat acquired JBoss in 2006, they extend their trademark policies to encompass not just JBoss, but Hibernate as well.
What this means, is that for anyone who wishes to make a redistribution of JBoss with any modification must remove all mention of Red Hat trademarks, and logos; that is unless there is a signed agreement/partnership between Red Hat and the interested party.
(All of this is covered in detail within the JBoss EULA and Red Hat trademark guidelines)
The project we are proposing is a whiteboxed JBoss distribution; it simply takes a given release of JBoss, and makes the modifications necessary to comply with the Red Hat terms. This is very important; it allows other companies/organizations to distribute a modified version either as a service, or as a part of their product.
Hello,
I've been trying to get in contact with some of the development team regarding i586 support in C5, I was kindly pointed in this direction.
Reading the archive I can see that it's not a planned feature excerpt below:
"The problem is that we do not want to support i586 on c5 and forward because the anaconda changes required to make install possible are much harder than on CentOS-4.
With the development of the c5 liveCD and that also depending on anaconda, we do not think that i586 support is really worth the risk of incompatibility that major changes to anaconda can cause.
Also ... the C5 openssl and glibc do NOW build on i586, however they are not guaranteed to do so in the future. We have already had the centos-4 glibc NOT building on i586 and that causing problems in the past.
We will support i586 on CentOS-4 until 2012, but I don't see us supporting it at this time on CentOS-5. That could change."
I'd just like to throw my 2pence/2Cents in and explain why I think it should be supported, and then offer some help in developing it.
While most people seem to think that i586 is totally obsolete, I still use a few modern systems that use i586 instruction sets and may even consider a few more. For example I run a Via Epia ME6000 (600Mhz) as a silent HTPC with 1G ram.
With the over abundance of processing power in a modern computer and the proliferation of embedded type system running at home by hobbyists' and enthusiasts for asterisk and other single application. Given that Chips like the i586 Geode and Via Epia are popular it seems a little backward to me to stop supporting it.
Of course there are other distributions that will cover these. But I'm a Centos Fan and would prefer to continue running it on all my machines rather than only some.
So to this end I'd like to try and get some movement behind this. Knowing that first it looks like I'm going to have to get the powers that be to agree that it could be included if enough work could be done.
Manuel
on 4-4-2008 4:26 AM Manuel Tuthill spake the following:
Hello,
I've been trying to get in contact with some of the development team regarding i586 support in C5, I was kindly pointed in this direction.
Reading the archive I can see that it's not a planned feature excerpt below:
"The problem is that we do not want to support i586 on c5 and forward because the anaconda changes required to make install possible are much harder than on CentOS-4.
With the development of the c5 liveCD and that also depending on anaconda, we do not think that i586 support is really worth the risk of incompatibility that major changes to anaconda can cause.
Also ... the C5 openssl and glibc do NOW build on i586, however they are not guaranteed to do so in the future. We have already had the centos-4 glibc NOT building on i586 and that causing problems in the past.
We will support i586 on CentOS-4 until 2012, but I don't see us supporting it at this time on CentOS-5. That could change."
I'd just like to throw my 2pence/2Cents in and explain why I think it should be supported, and then offer some help in developing it.
While most people seem to think that i586 is totally obsolete, I still use a few modern systems that use i586 instruction sets and may even consider a few more. For example I run a Via Epia ME6000 (600Mhz) as a silent HTPC with 1G ram.
With the over abundance of processing power in a modern computer and the proliferation of embedded type system running at home by hobbyists' and enthusiasts for asterisk and other single application. Given that Chips like the i586 Geode and Via Epia are popular it seems a little backward to me to stop supporting it.
Of course there are other distributions that will cover these. But I'm a Centos Fan and would prefer to continue running it on all my machines rather than only some.
So to this end I'd like to try and get some movement behind this. Knowing that first it looks like I'm going to have to get the powers that be to agree that it could be included if enough work could be done.
Manuel
I doubt that hijacking a thread will endear you to the developers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_hijacking
On 04/04/2008, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
I doubt that hijacking a thread will endear you to the developers!
How has Manuel hijacked this thread? He seems to have started it, AFAIAW.
Alan.
on 4-4-2008 11:11 AM Alan Bartlett spake the following:
On 04/04/2008, *Scott Silva* <ssilva@sgvwater.com mailto:ssilva@sgvwater.com> wrote:
I doubt that hijacking a thread will endear you to the developers!How has Manuel hijacked this thread? He seems to have started it, AFAIAW.
Alan.
Just because he changed the subject of the message doesn't mean he started a new thread. Look here and follow the thread to where the subject changes. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.centos.devel/2960
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
Just because he changed the subject of the message doesn't mean he started a new thread.
I know what happened here. Alan uses gmail (so do I). gmail users do not see this kind of hijacking very well because gmail starts a new (what it calls) "conversation" when the subject is changed.
Akemi
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:41:20PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
Just because he changed the subject of the message doesn't mean he started a new thread.
I know what happened here. Alan uses gmail (so do I). gmail users do not see this kind of hijacking very well because gmail starts a new (what it calls) "conversation" when the subject is changed.
Alright Alan, re-post your message as a _new_ thread and everyone will be happy. ;-)
On 04/04/2008, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
I know what happened here. Alan uses gmail (so do I). gmail users do not see this kind of hijacking very well because gmail starts a new (what it calls) "conversation" when the subject is changed.
Akemi has, as is usually the case, "got it in one".
Alan.
On 04/04/2008, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
Just because he changed the subject of the message doesn't mean he started a new thread. Look here and follow the thread to where the subject changes. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.centos.devel/2960
Thanks for the advice Scott. Apologies to all who have had their "fur rubbed up the wrong way" by my message.
Alan.
I doubt that hijacking a thread will endear you to the developers!
Wow I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest. Sorry guys that was not my intention. Somehow I think if I would have posted to the old thread I would get accused of thread necromancy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_%28Internet%29
Reading the note on thread hijacking I do not think I'm guilty but while I'm happy to have a drawn out discussion on netiquette I'm fairly sure that here isn't the right place. If anyone would like to continue the discussion I'd be happy to respond off list, or you can grab me on IRC #centos(Lawbringer).
Is it possible to now return to discussing the possibility of i586 support under C5?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Manuel Tuthill wrote: |> I doubt that hijacking a thread will endear you to the developers!
| Reading the note on thread hijacking I do not think I'm guilty but while I'm | happy to have a drawn out discussion on netiquette I'm fairly sure that here | isn't the right place. If anyone would like to continue the discussion I'd | be happy to respond off list, or you can grab me on IRC #centos(Lawbringer). | | Is it possible to now return to discussing the possibility of i586 support | under C5?
Guilty as charged based on the evidence found in the headers of your own message:
From: "Manuel Tuthill" Manuel@Nebula-IT.co.uk To: "'The CentOS developers mailing list.'" centos-devel@centos.org References: 47F51DEC.9070204@ociweb.com 47F53D35.7050502@centos.org 47F53DDF.4080104@ociweb.com 47F54952.7030506@karan.org 47F548E8.8040407@ociweb.com47F54D97.5090901@karan.org 47F54DFD.6000605@ociweb.com Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:26:21 +0100 Message-ID: 009b01c89646$be2a4ee0$0201a8c0@luke
So we should return to the subject of "CentOS and JBoss" as by your request.
If you want to start a new thread then do so. But do it with a fresh message and not a reply. This branch is pretty much dead.
Hugo.
- -- hvdkooij@vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/ PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc
A: Yes. >Q: Are you sure? >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images.
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Hugo van der Kooij hvdkooij@vanderkooij.org wrote:
So we should return to the subject of "CentOS and JBoss" as by your request.
Don't you think the message got across after hammering on Manual a few times already. Please, at the very least be a bit constructive, and address the particular issue, which is quite interesting.
Thanks, Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel de Kok wrote: | On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Hugo van der Kooij | hvdkooij@vanderkooij.org wrote: |> So we should return to the subject of "CentOS and JBoss" as by your |> request. | | Don't you think the message got across after hammering on Manual a few | times already. Please, at the very least be a bit constructive, and | address the particular issue, which is quite interesting.
The issue is interresting enough to have it's own thread and not be tucked away after another thread. That way future generations will be able to find it in the archives.
Hugo.
- -- hvdkooij@vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/ PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc
A: Yes. >Q: Are you sure? >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images.
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Hugo van der Kooij hvdkooij@vanderkooij.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel de Kok wrote: | On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Hugo van der Kooij | hvdkooij@vanderkooij.org wrote: |> So we should return to the subject of "CentOS and JBoss" as by your |> request. | | Don't you think the message got across after hammering on Manual a few | times already. Please, at the very least be a bit constructive, and | address the particular issue, which is quite interesting.
The issue is interresting enough to have it's own thread and not be tucked away after another thread. That way future generations will be able to find it in the archives.
The last time I checked people don't find things by manually browsing the archive, they use ${THEIR_FAVORITE_SEARCH_ENGINE}. Yes, it breaks threading. That sucks. Can we discuss that topic now?
-- Daniel
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Manuel Tuthill Manuel@nebula-it.co.uk wrote:
While most people seem to think that i586 is totally obsolete, I still use a few modern systems that use i586 instruction sets and may even consider a few more. For example I run a Via Epia ME6000 (600Mhz) as a silent HTPC with 1G ram.
For correctness' sake: the Epia is a i686, it just doesn't implement conditional moves. According to the Intel IA32 documentation software should check availability of this instruction before using it. The problem is that gcc emits cmov instructions for >= i686 archs.
To be honest, I am not sure if i585 support is worth the extra maintenance. It's supported by CentOS-4, which is supported until 2012. (Normally, I'd say it's worth the work, but CentOS has different goals than most other distributions, namely being compatible with the upstream distribution.)
-- Daniel
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Now that CentOS has got a good build of java-openjdk, we (the main centos devels) have every intention of rebuilding the RHWAS (including the JBoss bits).
which I mentioned to Stallion, and being aware of hughes' efforts I pointed him to this list.
Assuming the JBoss server bits build correctly, we can do this.
One part of "all free" would be a gpl'ed version of java (which java-openjdk is).
As hughes was not active in IRC [probably some silly excuse like: $JOB], I would briefly mention that Steven Stallion and I spoke in IRC and then by telephone Wednesday a bit.
I stressed my strong interest that anything which was using (or wanting to assert some possible affiliation with) CentOS as a base be well packaged which probably elicited this from him:
How would you guys feel if we were to take care of the JBoss portion while you guys take care of packaging? (We have to do this anyway, so we may as well donate the work out!)
and of course I had in the back of my mind the downstream and lateral projects which do not respect the packaging system, or do not strive to avoid incompatabilities which confuse the updater and the package management tool.
We also talked though mark elidation matters a bit.
-- Russ herrold
-
Akemi Yagi -
Alan Bartlett -
Daniel de Kok -
Hugo van der Kooij -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Manuel Tuthill -
R P Herrold -
Ralph Angenendt -
Ray Van Dolson -
Scott Silva -
Steven Stallion