Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Fri 18th Jul 2008 19:16 UTC, submitted by dockingbay94
At the heart of every networking device is an operating system that enables traffic flow. In the case of networking vendor Juniper, that operating system for the past ten years has been JUNOS, a network operating system with its roots in the open source FreeBSD operating system.
Juniper has updated JUNOS every 90 days since 1998.
Thread beginning with comment 323630
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Network Operating System
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 18th Jul 2008 21:33
in reply to "RE[2]: Network Operating System"
Member since:2005-07-06
One only needs to look at the flack Apple got for the fact that they didn't bend over backwards to provide assistance to KDE developers to get the changes merged from webkit into khtml.
There was a common saying in the Soviet Union:
"Anything that isn't forbidden is compulsory. The trick is figuring out which is which."
RE[3]: Network Operating System
by wannabe geek on Fri 18th Jul 2008 21:50
in reply to "RE[2]: Network Operating System"
Member since:2006-09-27
Depends on how you define opensource and conforming to the licence. One only needs to look at the flack Apple got for the fact that they didn't bend over backwards to provide assistance to KDE developers to get the changes merged from webkit into khtml.
For some, the mere presence of source code is enough to satisfy their definition of 'open source' whilst others claim that for something to be truly open source, it has to include the active participation of the said company in the development in a community like atmosphere.
Just for the record (I know, this is a tired old topic), there's a widely accepted and quite unambiguous definition of "open source software", if by "widely accepted" I may mean the one found in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
Of course, I won't deny that everyone is free to invent and use other definitions, but they should warn about their non-mainstream definition if they use it in articles, blog entries and the like. Doing otherwise would be misleading and bad stile.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Why can't people just accept that some times, and maybe even most of them time open source is the best solution, but it is not the only solution to every problem.
Depends on how you define opensource and conforming to the licence. One only needs to look at the flack Apple got for the fact that they didn't bend over backwards to provide assistance to KDE developers to get the changes merged from webkit into khtml.
For some, the mere presence of source code is enough to satisfy their definition of 'open source' whilst others claim that for something to be truly open source, it has to include the active participation of the said company in the development in a community like atmosphere.
As for 90 day development cycle, it would be an easy thing to do; just make sure that the updates you provide are either trivial or well tested. Give that they have only one target platform, and they can routinely test the OS, the release cycle of 90 days isn't all that difficult.