|
Hi all,
>> Please give us your feedback.
>
>Sure
>
>1. Linux Journal publishes articles about LVS by people who we don't see a
whole
>lot on this mailing list
>
>2. We gave you feedback before
>
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-virtual-server&m=99132041629915&w=2
>
>and you didn't answer it then. I see it pointless to give you any more
>feedback.
I must say that this article can confuse many readers....
first : "a commercial implementation of the Linux Virtual Server (LVS)"
=> This mean that the LVS engine code is different from the OpenSource one
?
Why publishing in Linux Journal an article on LVS extremly focused on
internet appliance stuff, ... this paper is a product mercantability
publicity... Which I understand (I am not against profit), but such an
article must be more focused on internet appliance value added to LVS and
must not confuse reader with the connection between internet appliance and
LVS.
The central point is LVS... not hardware... For IA central point is
hardware so why not insist on that point ? and clearly distinguish LVS and
IA hardware ?
Most of the thinks you describe are taken from LVS papers... There is only
one occurence of the OpenSource word... Which is the LVS fondation...
The reader must not mistake with the fact that the engine is LVS, the final
functionality is LVS.... Completly OpenSource product, without LVS no EDS
product...
Reading the paper we assume internet appliance team is active with LVS
engine implementation, ... But I agree with Joe, Internet Appliance is not
really active in LVS devel/supporting... (changelog/mailing-list)
Capitalization on an OpenSource project is difficult to understand (for
community/readers) if company technical staff is not directly implicated
into the devel... or exposing a part of their additional stuff... To go
ahead with OpenSource loadbalancing...
This is not an hostile reply to your post and to IA (do not misstake), just
a clarification... for that kind of social publication...
Best regards,
Alexandre Cassen
|
