Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [frontierkernel] Manila on Frontier Kernel?

Expand Messages
  • Bill Kearney
    ... Manila s still part of userland s commercial offerings, is it not?
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > So, have you run Manila on the new kernel? Is there any special tweaks
      > to the new frontier.root file that's needed? Any other advice?

      Manila's still part of userland's commercial offerings, is it not?
    • creecode
      Hey Bill, Yes. Not that you asked but I m going to go beyond a simple yes, in case there is some clarification needed. Manila being a commercial UserLand
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Bill,

        Yes. Not that you asked but I'm going to go beyond a simple yes, in
        case there is some clarification needed.

        Manila being a commercial UserLand product doesn't prevent someone who
        owns Manila from trying to use it with our software and us from making
        software that is compatible with Manila.

        The focus of our project here isn't about Manila or any other UserLand
        products. UserLand can participate in our project like any other
        member of this project as fits their needs.

        Toodle-loooooooo........
        creecode

        --- In frontierkernel@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...>
        wrote:

        > Manila's still part of userland's commercial offerings, is it not?
      • David Gewirtz
        ... To expand beyond Thomas answer, we purchased and own a number of Manila licenses and have a few mission critical public-facing Web sites based on Manila.
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In frontierkernel@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > > So, have you run Manila on the new kernel? Is there any special tweaks
          > > to the new frontier.root file that's needed? Any other advice?
          >
          > Manila's still part of userland's commercial offerings, is it not?
          >

          To expand beyond Thomas' answer, we purchased and own a number of
          Manila licenses and have a few mission critical public-facing Web
          sites based on Manila.

          We also have a very large, in-house built application (ZENPRESS)
          that's based solely on Frontier, which is why I've been working with
          the open source project to add some new features.

          I've decided that rather than trying to get Manila to work with the
          Frontier Kernel, I'm going to move the portion of my installation
          that's Manila-based to another machine and run it with the old
          UserLand version of Frontier. Eventually, we'll try to move those
          Manila sites off onto our own code.

          So, our migration will take two steps moving from a 9.0 Frontier.root.
          First, we'll move the 9.0 Frontier and 9.0 Manila off to a new
          machine. Then, we'll move the essential ZENPRESS elements into a new
          10.x Frontier.root and run that part of the system off a 10.x Frontier
          Kernel.

          Hope that's clear.

          -- David

          P.S. We've been running Frontier in a mission-critical role using a
          frontier.root that's been incrementally updated since 1997, so this
          migration to a new frontier.root is a _big_ job.
        • Bill Kearney
          ... Given Userland s stance on things over the years I wouldn t be so bold as to make a blanket statement like that. But hey, maybe they re fine with the
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > Manila being a commercial UserLand product doesn't prevent someone who
            > owns Manila from trying to use it with our software and us from making
            > software that is compatible with Manila.

            Given Userland's stance on things over the years I wouldn't be so bold as to
            make a blanket statement like that. But hey, maybe they're fine with the
            idea. That'd be great. Not sure what it'd do to commercial sales of
            Frontier though...

            > The focus of our project here isn't about Manila or any other UserLand
            > products. UserLand can participate in our project like any other
            > member of this project as fits their needs.

            Sure, participation's fine. When it violates copyright and/or licensing
            that's a bit beyond what most would consider normal 'participation'.

            But seeing your explanation in other threads, well, you've got a handle on
            it.
          • creecode
            Hey Bill, ... bold as to ... with the ... I m not a lawyer so take what I say in that context. How can any company compel you to not use some other software
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey Bill,

              --- In frontierkernel@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > > Manila being a commercial UserLand product doesn't prevent someone who
              > > owns Manila from trying to use it with our software and us from making
              > > software that is compatible with Manila.
              >
              > Given Userland's stance on things over the years I wouldn't be so
              bold as to
              > make a blanket statement like that. But hey, maybe they're fine
              with the
              > idea. That'd be great.

              I'm not a lawyer so take what I say in that context. How can any
              company compel you to not use some other software product with their
              software? This would be like Microsoft trying to say that you can't
              use Firefox to read HTML files on their OS.

              When I say we can make software that is compatible with Manila I mean
              that we can make software that uses Manila APIs and such.

              Obviously we can't distribute Manila.root code because it belongs to
              UserLand and that was part of the deal that kicked this whole thing
              off. Of course if someone were to use our kernel with Manila, that is
              an unsupported configuration, and that person is on their own. They
              can't expect support from UserLand or us for that configuration.

              > Not sure what it'd do to commercial sales of Frontier though...

              As I understand it, UserLand doesn't sell Frontier as a product but
              they sell Manila which happens to use their own version of Frontier.

              I don't see how someone using our kernel with Manila could harm
              UserLand's sales. If you want Manila, you gotta pay UserLand to buy
              Manila. If you want updates to Manila, you have to pay UserLand to
              get the updates.

              > When it violates copyright and/or licensing
              > that's a bit beyond what most would consider normal 'participation.'

              I'm confused by this statement. I don't think we are violating
              copyright or licensing and only UserLand can decide how their
              participation in our project fits in with their copyright/licensing.
              In fact, UserLand is/was considering using our kernel for their Radio
              UserLand product <
              http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/frontierkernel/message/2577 >.

              Just to be clear, our kernel has not been designed to work with Manila
              or be a replacement for UserLand's version of Frontier so this is
              partly a theoretical discussion.

              Toodle-looooooooooooooo.......
              creecode
            • David Gewirtz
              ... Ach, what a mess my simple question called. Let s be clear that Manila is a UserLand product and the Frontier Kernel project has no designs on it at all.
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In frontierkernel@yahoogroups.com, "creecode" <creecode@...> wrote:
                > Just to be clear, our kernel has not been designed to work with Manila
                > or be a replacement for UserLand's version of Frontier so this is
                > partly a theoretical discussion.
                >
                > Toodle-looooooooooooooo.......
                > creecode
                >

                Ach, what a mess my simple question called. Let's be clear that Manila
                is a UserLand product and the Frontier Kernel project has no designs
                on it at all.

                The confusion in this thread came about because I own a number of
                licenses to Manila and I'm also an active developer on this project.
                My goal is to wean my company's servers off of Manila and begin using
                the open source Frontier kernel to run our servers.

                I just didn't know if it was an easy thing to run Manila on the open
                source kernel (I should have known better). After some early comments,
                to keep things very clear, I'm moving the software we purchased from
                UserLand to its own dedicated server and will be running the software
                we wrote and the software that's part of the Frontier Kernel project
                on a completely separate machine.

                Now ... one other note. The UserLand guys are more than welcome to use
                this kernel as the basis for future Manila releases. In fact, I'd
                think it'd be the smart move. As far as we know, though, they're
                forking and using their own compile of Frontier with future Manila
                releases.

                By the way, for completeness, Radio UserLand is also a commercial
                UserLand property and not part of the open source release.

                -- David
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.