Sorry for the delay. I have been messed up writing a simple distributed
lock manager based on corba for three days. Any of you know if Orbit
supports the thread per request concurrency model?
Well, back to the TurboLinux Cluster topic. I really dislike the tricks
the they played in their TurboCluster product. They first demostrated
the TurboCluster web server in LinuxWorld in San Francisco in March and
announces that it was their own first clustering technology, without
mentioning a word that TurboCluster is based on LVS. Although Cliff
Miller, CEO of PHT, apologized once, they still did the same thing in
the later demo and news press. After a few discussions were raised on
the Linux-HA mailing list in this May, they added an Acknowledgement
in their TurboCluster web page. Something on the page is probably not
"The first few beta versions of TCS were actually based
on the Linux Virtual Server Project code. Although we
have since completely rewritten our product, we are proud
to acknowledge the efforts that inspired our own project. "
That statements has last for 5 months, however Mike <wanger@xxxxxxxxxx>
told me that they used the exact patch from LVS project at the end of
this September. I haven't looked at their patch myself, because I have
failed to download the patch from their site over ten times. The reason
that I didn't stand up against their act after May is that I am not
good at arguing and I would rather spend more time coding and some
work that interest me. Anyway, I will download their patch this time,
and check what exactly they have done.
I agree to what Stephen said. I don't think TurboLinux have technical
accumulation to provide a "forked" Linux. Look at their community site
(http://community.turbolinux.com/), the TurboCluster is the only
R&D product that they offer to the community, however it is not in GPL
and they played the trick on the LVS. I see TurboLinux wants to be
great in the Linux community, it's good, but they don't do it in the
right way. The trick they played will finally destroy their own
reputation. They should spend more time doing some really good works.
In fact, we are not sympathized, but they are.
P.S. For people who haven't read the article about TurboCluster,
have a look at
or the slashdot site.
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:27:59 -0400, Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
> > Dear Alan, Stephen,
> > There is an article in slashdot today about
> > PHT's version of LVS and whether it should be incorporated
> > into the kernel.
> I really don't see a problem. Wensong's code is more established,
> more open, and is already being shipped on other distributions. Alan
> is incorporating it into 2.2ac. If anything goes into the main kernel
> tree, it's probably going to be Wensong's stuff, not PHT's. What PHT
> ships is up to them.
> > Got any suggestions as to what to do here? GPL will be
> > worthless if anyone can just change the variable names
> > and say it's theirs.
> As far as I know, PHT have contracted out a complete rewrite of the
> LVS code and what they are now shipping is truly their own code.
> Fine: if they don't want to use the same codebase that everybody else
> uses, they lose the big OSS advantage of having a planet full of
> testers for their product. That may be their problem, but I don't
> think it has to bother the rest of the community.
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx