Info on open source CGL4.0

[shiva@xxxxxxxxxxx (Shiva Kumar Yenigalla)]

Hi,

Please let me know, if some one evaluated both MV and WR solutions for 
CGL. Mainly, i am looking for feedback from some one who might have 
evaluated or used both of these options.

Regards,
Shiva

Joe MacDonald wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> [Info on open source CGL4.0] On 27/01/2010 (Wed 15:38) Florian Heigl wrote:
>
>   
>> all CGL compliance efforts by pure OSS distros have silently died a
>> few years ago, both because it is a quite challenging task to
>> undertake and maybe also due to some discouraging / inpolite posts on
>> here.
>>     
>
> I've only been involved with CGL since 2005/2006, but I hope that during
> that time nothing I've sent to the lists or to anyone who posted to the
> lists has been impolite or discouraging.  Personally I'd love to see
> lots of entries in the Registered Distributions list, both free and
> commercial (though obviously I'm somewhat biased toward one commercial
> distro in particular ;-)).
>
> It's true that right now there are no pure open distributions
> registered, but our policies (by 'our' I mean the CGL workgroup) ensure
> that we don't create any technical barriers for a completely free
> distribution from registering.  Indeed, at least one of the CGL tech
> board is a Debian developer and while Debian is not registered, I know
> that we keep them in mind while we're working on the specifications
> because they have such a strict code of conduct around acceptable
> software, they're sort of our litmus test for requirements.  If they'd
> still be able to register with all P1s implemented, that should mean
> we're still meeting our goal of defining an open and reasonable standard
> for the community.
>
>   
>> some like the half-commercial SUSE CGL seems to be dead, too and
>> Motorola HA-Linux seems to not have seen any updates.
>>     
>
> I don't know about Motorola HA-Linux, but hopefully Matthias can say
> some nice things about the CGL response to the initial SUSE registration
> (the follow-up on list looked pretty positive to me) and how we really
> do want to work with non-registered distributions to get them registered
> and presented in a way that's easy for folks like Shiva to make the best
> possible decision for them.
>
>   
>> In my opinion Montavista is a great choice and well deserves the money
>> for their work, because they're still pushing CGL forward. :)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Florian
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Shiva Kumar Yenigalla wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am looking for CGL (carrier grade linux) which compliant to CGL-4.0 
>>> specification for one of the ATCA based carrier grade system. Right now, 
>>> i am evaluating COTS packages from montavista and Windriver. But, i want 
>>> to consider the open source option also as part of my evaluation 
>>> process. Please let me know, if there is a open source distribution for 
>>> CGL.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Shiva
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lf_carrier mailing list
>>> Lf_carrier at lists.linux-foundation.org
>>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier
>>>       
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lf_carrier/attachments/20100201/dd2db3b8/attachment-0001.htm