[Rdma-developers] Re: [openib-general] OpenIB and OpenRDMA: Convergence on common RDMAAPIs and ULPs for Linux

[Bernard Metzler]

I completely agree. I think this thread was not started to get one of
the projects out of the way of the other. I would think it was started
to coordinate the development cycles of two related projects, where
one project is admittedly much more advanced, just due to the since
years now availability of IB technology.
I also think that it is not yet proven that good software must always
get created by writing something down and then reshaping it to meet
upcoming requirements. OpenRDMA has choosen to start by trying to
identify main requirements and then agreeing upon an appropriate
architecture. We did not start with discussing the style of commentary
lines, because it was assumed that the style of commentary lines is
less important and even easier to fix.
Enabling iWARP under Linux is not an easy task and we are dependent
on the open source communities help and support to make this happen.
We are not in the position nor willing to bypass this procedure - and
its always good to have fruitful discussion.

Bernard.

rdma-developers-admin at lists.sourceforge.net wrote on 31.05.2005 23:31:19:

> At 06:47 AM 5/28/2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 05:17:54AM -0700, Sukanta ganguly wrote:
> > That's a pretty bold statement. Linux grew up to be
> > popular via mass acceptance. Seems like that charter
> > has changed and a few have control over Linux and its
> > future. The "My way or the highway" philosophy has
> > gotten embedded in the Linux way of life.
> > Life is getting tough.
> 
> You're totally missing the point.  Linux is successfull exactly
> because it's lookinf for the right solution, not something the
> business people need short-term. 
> 
> Hence why some of us contend that the end-game, i.e. the right 
> solution, is not necessarily the short-term implementation that is 
> present today that just evolves creating that legacy inertia that I 
> wrote about earlier.  I think there is validity to having an 
> implementation to critique - accept, reject, modify.  I think there 
> is validity to examining industry standards as the basis for new 
> work / implementation.  If people are unwilling to discuss these 
> standards and only stay focused on their business people's short-
> term needs, then some might contend as above that Linux is evolving 
> to be much like the dreaded Pacific NW company in the end.  Not 
> intending to offend anyone but if there can be no debate without 
> implementation on what is the right solution, then people might as 
> well just go off and implement and propose their solution for 
> incorporation into the Linux kernel.  It may be that OpenIB "wins" 
> in the end or it may be that it does not.  Just having OpenIB 
> subsume control of anything iWARP or impose only DAPL for all RDMA 
> infrastructure because it just happens to be there today seems 
> rather stifling.  Just stating that some OpenIB steering group is 
> somehow empowered to decide this for Linux is also rather strange. 
> Open source is about being open and not under the control of any one
> entity in the end.   Perhaps that is no longer the case.
> 
> Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20050601/e124f46c/attachment.html>