3 ms·

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.