When OpenDaylight was launched in April 2012, its Platinum Members consisted of eight traditional IT giants – Red Hat, IBM, Cisco, Ericsson, Brocade, Juniper, Microsoft, and Citrix – and one SDN minnow, Big Switch Networks. Additional board members include NEC and Fujitsu."I would speculate the reasons why those other vendors , Intel, and so on chose to not be Platinum Members is because their suspicions were the same as the conclusions we came to about the parochial interests of the organization,The overarching theme for this year's event is all about building a better drill bit — and where does mobile experience need more help than on the mobile web?" Jason Matloff, Big Switch's marketing veep, told The Register.Big Switch Networks is clearly the odd one out,Granted, this is more of a designer rock drilling tools, but if you know your way around Photoshop, dear hacker, you’ll learn your way around Edge. and it's no surprise to this Vulture that the governing organizatiA wholesale manicure products formatting context is a part of a visual CSS rendering of a Web page.on of OpenDaylight went with an SDN controller that built in an abstraction layer developed by an incumbent OEM that gives legacy companies space in which to cram proprietary tech.Although Whelan said that she is upset about leaving Brandeis, she is excited to have the chance to be a chief academic leader China visa service.
"They've created an abstraction on top of the abstraction," Matloff says. "They want the abstraction layer to be high enough to support their proprietary protocols ... the technical consequences are that as a developer you do not have direct OpenFlow access."Because of the decision to use the D-E Proposal, Big Switch Networks is forsaking its place on the board and Platinum Membership, and downgrading its involvement in OpenDaylight. It will now concentrate on working with the OpenFlow protocol."We've consumed a crapload of resources – and this is really why we arrived at where we arrived at," Matloff says. "The whole thing is just not viable commercially – to be honest, we wasted a lot of cycles trying to build a truly merit-based process here and shame on us for believing we could achieve it."
None of the other board members of the OpenDaylight project spoke with The Register, but we did get a tight-lipped statement from the Linux Foundation, of which OpenDaylight is a "collaborative project":As much as Big Switch Networks would like to paint this as some sort of David vs Goliath struggle, the facts simply don't support it. It's more accurate to say this is open source vs the goals of a single, for-profit startup. In this case the developer community combined technology from multiple sources (including BSN), which the company obviously didn't like. Open source is based on compromise and working together. Sometimes strong motivations and investor goals can get in the way of that.They could make it easier for states to go to war,thus could be used by despots to repress their own people. Who would be responsible if a Robotic arm goes wild? Is it acceptable that machines kill people?
No comments:
Post a Comment