3 ms·

Illumos is not Oxide. Oxide is just using a in house distribution of illumos for their needs. Illumos created is created 14 years ago by Solaris developers to s

Illumos is not Oxide. Oxide is just using a in house distribution of illumos for their needs. Illumos created is created 14 years ago by Solaris developers to swap the closed source bits by open source implementations.

dvtkrlbs 2y ago
Looking at the last commits it does not seems like majority upstream development is not done by Oxide (I did not look at it extensively)
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  user@machine:~/illumos-gate$ git log --since 2023-09-10 | grep ^Author | awk -F @ '{print $2}' | sed 's/>$//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | tail 11 mnx.io 16 grumpf.hope-2000.org 18 gmail.com 21 oxide.computer 29 hamachi.org 36 richlowe.net 37 racktopsystems.com 71 fiddaman.net 91 fingolfin.org 125 me.com I'm not going to post names because that feels a touch icky, but a little bit of cross-comparison suggests that one of those domains should be combined with oxide (read: I search for names and they work there) in a way that does probably make Oxide more than 50% of commits in the last year. Though even if that's true it doesn't make them the only player or anything.
  - asveikau 2y ago
    Considering that Oxide's CTO is a longtime prominent Solaris guy, it's not shocking. I wouldn't surprised if that's the whole reason they use ilumos.
    - jclulow 2y ago
      You can read a bit about our decision making process on the host OS and hypervisor in Oxide RFD 26: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0026 https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0026
      - asveikau 2y ago
        To be clear I'm not saying there is no good reason to use illumos; I've liked Solaris when I've encountered it; I use ZFS on my FreeBSD machines; I've enjoyed reading commentary from Cantrill who I think is a really interesting guy. I'm just saying sometimes technology choices also reflect the individuals involved just as much as anything else.

dvtkrlbs 2y ago

Looking at the last commits it does not seems like majority upstream development is not done by Oxide (I did not look at it extensively)

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
user@machine:~/illumos-gate$ git log --since 2023-09-10 | grep ^Author | awk -F @ '{print $2}' | sed 's/>$//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | tail 11 mnx.io 16 grumpf.hope-2000.org 18 gmail.com 21 oxide.computer 29 hamachi.org 36 richlowe.net 37 racktopsystems.com 71 fiddaman.net 91 fingolfin.org 125 me.com I'm not going to post names because that feels a touch icky, but a little bit of cross-comparison suggests that one of those domains should be combined with oxide (read: I search for names and they work there) in a way that does probably make Oxide more than 50% of commits in the last year. Though even if that's true it doesn't make them the only player or anything.
- asveikau 2y ago
  Considering that Oxide's CTO is a longtime prominent Solaris guy, it's not shocking. I wouldn't surprised if that's the whole reason they use ilumos.
  - jclulow 2y ago
    You can read a bit about our decision making process on the host OS and hypervisor in Oxide RFD 26: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0026 https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0026
    - asveikau 2y ago
      To be clear I'm not saying there is no good reason to use illumos; I've liked Solaris when I've encountered it; I use ZFS on my FreeBSD machines; I've enjoyed reading commentary from Cantrill who I think is a really interesting guy. I'm just saying sometimes technology choices also reflect the individuals involved just as much as anything else.