[OpenAFS] Re: [AFS3-std] Re: IBM will not re-license OpenAFS .xg files

[Derrick Brashear]

> Maintaining OpenAFS involves, among other things:
>
> * Kernel code as well as userspace code for various UNIXes.
> * Mac OS X development (with quite a bit of OS internals involvement).
> * Windows kernel file system development.
> * High-performance threaded code with a complex lock model.
> * A custom network protocol with substantial complexity.
> * Cryptographic network security models.
>
> Some of those things (such as the Windows kernel file system work) no
> other project, open source *or* commercial, does at the level that OpenAFS
> does.  This is a level of complexity *far* beyond the typical open source
> project.  The only open source projects I can think of with equivalent
> complexity are primarily maintained by full-time, professional developers
> whose job is to work on that software, and whose salaries are paid by
> companies like Red Hat, Novell, IBM, Google, or Oracle.

Indeed, it has come back to me through 3rd party channels that Apple
has told developers
"OpenAFS is doing it, so clearly it can be done ..." as outsiders.

[...]

> * A coherent mobile story for how mobile devices and applications are
>   going to access data in AFS, including how they can authenticate without
>   using user passwords (which are increasingly a bad authentication story
>   anywhere but are particularly horrible on mobile devices).

Apple has made this somewhat harder by removing developer access to the hardware
device identifier.

Largely I find myself in agreement with the rest of this.


-- 
Derrick