Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
I would like kernel modules and userland binaries compiled on OSRI to run, unmodified, on any dist that calls itself based on OSRI. I know this sounds a little silly (and maybe pretty obvious), but for any of you that have had to develop and support software on Linux, and in particular, the Linux kernel - you know how important this stuff is. Compatiblitiy is less trivial than you might belive but without conformance tests, we cannot claim anything about compatibility of siftware or distributions. Obviously, guaranteeing a compatibility baseline for the whole system isn't practically possible. What should be made sure is that there's a conformance test where you can hand out sort of a e-badge, that tells an user that the kernel hasn't been screwed with custom patches (unlike what every major Linux distro does). This would be of interest for driver developers. While I don't expect distro makers doing their own kernel tweaking on their distros yet, you have to plan ahead so that this conformance thing is in place for the case OpenSolaris actually takes off like the Sun management (i.e. JSchwartz, Murdock and cohorts) hopes. -mg signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
[ can we please drop some of the lists from Cc: I'm getting many copies of each of these. I've set Reply-To: to advocacy-discuss, as this has gone beyond establishing guidelines for the opensolaris brand, as opposed to discussion about naming a single distribution OpenSolaris. ] On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We had this discussion long ago and we decided that it was a bad idea to allow a distribution to use the name OpenSolaris. I do not see anything that would change the constraints here. Who's this mysterious we? The OpenSolaris community. Maybe you have not been in that time. But communities priorities change over time: what was true and good for the community back in 2005 may not be true now - we've all grown up a lot over the last 2 years, along with our operating system. We're hearing the same voices with the same opinions now on this naming discussion, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere. What's next ? cheers, tim -- Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Solaris Engineering Ops http://blogs.sun.com/timf ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Quite; having a Reference Distro to develop on would help, though, as it allows customers to determine whether an ISV supplied package works on the reference distro as promised and whether the issue is unique to their distro or not. I think Indiana will be the defacto reference distro on the midterm, alone for the fact that it originates from opensolaris.org, that a lot of Sun people are involved and that it's currently the most visible one. So that's already covered for free. Until an Ubuntu-level derivate comes along and grabs the biggest share of users. What should be made sure is that there's a conformance test where you can hand out sort of a e-badge, that tells an user that the kernel hasn't been screwed with custom patches (unlike what every major Linux distro does). This would be of interest for driver developers. That's still a hard problem to solve and I think that that is not where I would expect divergence to occur first and foremost. I suppose so, but I'm talking strictly kernel. There should be at least an afterthought regarding this. Because once there's a flood of posts like OMG all drivers broke with the Moonaris 2.31 update! That's it, I'm going back to Linux! just because the Moonaris developers figured they had to introduce some homebrewn performance tweaks while still claiming to be 100% OpenSolaris, it's too probably late. Especially considering the planning time needed to create a kernel conformance test afterwards. Doesn't the kernel team have huge test suites and unit tests that can be used for this? If tweaks to the kernel break various third party drivers (and possibly internal things), they'd probably also make some of the tests fail. I would expect libraries to be missing, be in different locations, have different versions, different SONAMEs and that sort of thing; different version of GNOME etc. As said, I'm thinking kernel only currently. Shipping closed source drivers in Linux is a big pain, since it involves jokes like binary blobs and source code that has to be compiled on install time, followed by driver breaking on kernel updates. Not to mention all custom patches that differ with every distro. An advantage of OpenSolaris is that there is a stable ABI, there isn't a license involved that requires you to spill your secrets, as well a lack of militant mindset that everything closed source is the pest. -mg signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Obviously, guaranteeing a compatibility baseline for the whole system isn't practically possible. Quite; having a Reference Distro to develop on would help, though, as it allows customers to determine whether an ISV supplied package works on the reference distro as promised and whether the issue is unique to their distro or not. While standards conformance tests are nice, the experience with the Linux Standards Base referenced by Ian in his OGB concall was millions spend and not much to show for it. You can write standards tests until you are blue in the face, but it does not allow you to give any form of guarantee that applications which pass the tests will actually work. That would also require you to verify that the application only uses bits covered by the standards tests. I think that we'll sooner solve the Halting Problem than that. What should be made sure is that there's a conformance test where you can hand out sort of a e-badge, that tells an user that the kernel hasn't been screwed with custom patches (unlike what every major Linux distro does). This would be of interest for driver developers. That's still a hard problem to solve and I think that that is not where I would expect divergence to occur first and foremost. I would expect libraries to be missing, be in different locations, have different versions, different SONAMEs and that sort of thing; different version of GNOME etc. While I don't expect distro makers doing their own kernel tweaking on their distros yet, you have to plan ahead so that this conformance thing is in place for the case OpenSolaris actually takes off like the Sun management (i.e. JSchwartz, Murdock and cohorts) hopes. I'm not sure Indiana is the proper place for conformance tests or a reference distribution; quite the contrary in fact. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, guaranteeing a compatibility baseline for the whole system isn't practically possible. Quite; having a Reference Distro to develop on would help, though, as it allows customers to determine whether an ISV supplied package works on the reference distro as promised and whether the issue is unique to their distro or not. While standards conformance tests are nice, the experience with the Linux Standards Base referenced by Ian in his OGB concall was millions spend and not much to show for it. You can write standards tests until you are blue in the face, but it does not allow you to give any form of guarantee that applications which pass the tests will actually work. That would also require you to verify that the application only uses bits covered by the standards tests. It depends. For some problems it is hard to write a suffucuent test, for others it is simple but it may still be missing. Remember that I mentioned the POSIX.1-1988 archive format test I did write in 2002, it was really straightforward but nobody did it before. If we have no test, we cannot say anything abut compatibility. Is this what you prefer? That's still a hard problem to solve and I think that that is not where I would expect divergence to occur first and foremost. I would expect libraries to be missing, be in different locations, have different versions, different SONAMEs and that sort of thing; different version of GNOME etc. We need to write down a definition for the compliance and we need to write tests. It is a nice field where Sun employees may put effort in and if an independend distro finds out that other distros do not follow the rules, their makers could create a test that verifies this non-conformance. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Jon Trulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Casper replied previously, defining 'compatibility' is non-trivial. No doubt what I consider 'compatible' might have no meaning to a company like adobe, who would have other requirements. I do not seee new ideas in Caspers text. What I was trying to get across was that one of Solaris's strengths is that it is actually designed, implemented, documented, and then supported for 'a while', something which is generally alien to Linux. As an example, if an OpenSolaris Reference Implementation (OSRI) supports package manager 'Coolio', then I would expect other dists based on OSRI to also support 'Coolio', even if it also contains some other package manager. I would like kernel modules and userland binaries compiled on OSRI to run, unmodified, on any dist that calls itself based on OSRI. I know this sounds a little silly (and maybe pretty obvious), but for any of you that have had to develop and support software on Linux, and in particular, the Linux kernel - you know how important this stuff is. Compatiblitiy is less trivial than you might belive but without conformance tests, we cannot claim anything about compatibility of siftware or distributions. A reference distro has no less _and_ no more than the interface definition and grants users that software compiled on that distro to run on any other compatible distro. Well, an OSRI has to be actually *usable* as well... I am not sure whether you understand the compatibility problems that arise from having _additional_ software that does not belong to the interface definitions. If you like to compile compatible software and prove that it is compatible, you are not allowed to have _additional_ software in the compile machine. If you did, the software may depend on these bits without your knowledge. People tend to install additional software on their development machines and people tend not to have these machines in a clean known state. A distro alone cannot be a refernce. It must not even be changed for the compatibility tests. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
What we (and I assume, other 'commercial' developers) care about is the binary compatibility, stability of the kernel API, userland interface - libc, basic commands (shell, cp/rm/etc), and of course the packaging mechanism, to name a few. Kernel/Userland compatibility within major Solaris revisions is a also big plus. Compatibility is a very difficult issue to assess; even when having a reference distribution, issues like the following arise: - if the incompatibility is due to a bug in the reference distribution, does it count? - if an incompatibility is due to a difference in default $PATH, does it count There are many different ones I can think of. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? That's my point. If you want to be able to prove *why* we shouldn't have a distribution called OpenSolaris you must demonstrate the harm it would cause as the benefit has already been demonstrated and talked about. I did give several examples why it would harm other distributions. Could you please be so kind to explain why you believe that there is no harm? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. I don't believe that for a moment. Going to ubuntu.com only lets me download Ubuntu easily; but there are links that go off to other places where you can get Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Many people do know that other flavours of Ubuntu exist. With current OpenSolaris distros, we have much more variance in the feeling than with different ubuntu variants. Which is an interesting tidbit, but doesn't disprove my point. Remember that one of the goals in using the trademark is to set user expectations. This is simple: just set up a web page that points to all OpenSolaris based distributions. You cannot install OpenSolaris but an OpenSolaris based distribution. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Jon Trulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. FWIW, as a third party that develops software on Solaris, I would welcome an 'OpenSolaris Reference' distribution. This would cause problems too. It is better to define a binary compatibility guideline and to have a test for compatibility. We, the community of people who create distributions in addition need to take care that this test is complete enough. To understand this problem: If I did not push Sun to verify /usr/bin/tar against _my_ POSIX compliance test, Sun tar would still not create/read POSIX.1-1988 compliant archives although it did pass the OpenGroup tests. Note that if a distribution _adds_ this to the compatibility definitions, this would make this distro unsuitable as a reference. For the same reason, I need to correct you as I believe that believe that Sun OpenSolaris could be a reference distribution. Sun OpenSolaris would most likely include more software than the reference requires and thus make it unsuitable as a reference. A reference distro has no less _and_ no more than the interface definition and grants users that software compiled on that distro to run on any other compatible distro. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Eric Boutilier wrote: Anyway, it's only just a concern at this point (re: their acid test). I personally think things are still fine because, as I mentioned in my first post, the large majority of membership (my and some others' desires notwithstanding) has tacitly expressed a desire to not hold a vote on the naming issue yet. You have absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion, yet you keep on making it. In fact there is significant evidence to the contrary. You've exactly illustrated my earlier point: The whole point of any voting mechanism is to gauge the opinion of the electorate. Without that you get into the farcical position we see so often in the OpenSolaris 'community', where multiple small subsets of the 'community' all simultaneously claim to speak for the majority, with no evidence to support their claim. Personally I don't know what the opinion of the community is on this issue, mainly because the vast majority of the voting members choose to keep quiet. All I see is a small number of voluble individuals stating and restating their opinions and claiming that they are the 'voice of the majority'. A vote is how we gauge the collective opinion of the community, not statements from one individual or another. I find the continuing attempts to avoid addressing this fundamental issue of community governance extremely perturbing. One might be forced to draw the conclusion that it's a deliberate tactic. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * The first community project with the chance to do so is producing an alpha-level preview. So you like to call SchilliX OpenSolaris? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Alan Burlison wrote: [ ... ] Personally I don't know what the opinion of the community is on this issue, mainly because the vast majority of the voting members choose to keep quiet. All I see is a small number of voluble individuals stating and restating their opinions and claiming that they are the 'voice of the majority'. A vote is how we gauge the collective opinion of the community, not statements from one individual or another. I have to agree with Alan here. To conclude the majority approves from the the majority is silent implies that silence == approval. Such an assumption seems a bit far-fetched. That anyone opposing a proposal will have to rally their supporters and be visible about their opposition is obvious. But that someone proposing will not have to rally _their_ supporters but may assume approval-by-silence is bad governance. It's what drives people away from politics, and what gives organizations that work like this (e.g.: European Council) such a bad reputation with the people they govern. Govern by edict and your subjects will learn to hate you. People may or may not agree with what you propose, but unless you've put the question to the vote, some will be disgruntled - not because they'd object to the action as such, but because they object to the way it was done. That said, /me is now stepping back into the silent majority :) FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Alan Burlison wrote: Eric Boutilier wrote: Anyway, it's only just a concern at this point (re: their acid test). I personally think things are still fine because, as I mentioned in my first post, the large majority of membership (my and some others' desires notwithstanding) has tacitly expressed a desire to not hold a vote on the naming issue yet. You have absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion, yet you keep on making it. In fact there is significant evidence to the contrary. You've exactly illustrated my earlier point: The whole point of any voting mechanism is to gauge the opinion of the electorate. Without that you get into the farcical position we see so often in the OpenSolaris 'community', where multiple small subsets of the 'community' all simultaneously claim to speak for the majority, with no evidence to support their claim. Personally I don't know what the opinion of the community is on this issue, mainly because the vast majority of the voting members choose to keep quiet. All I see is a small number of voluble individuals stating and restating their opinions and claiming that they are the 'voice of the majority'. A vote is how we gauge the collective opinion of the community, not statements from one individual or another. ... Passing on opportunity (to indicate a vote was necessary), is another way of saying what I'm trying to say. This post explains it better than I do though: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/advocacy-discuss/2007-October/001157.html I should have also mentioned that the other reason I say things are still fine is I now believe (see earlier in this thread) that the name announcement is a tentative decision pending the outcome of the Plocher trademark policy initiative. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
EricB wrote: I should have also mentioned that the other reason I say things are still fine is I now believe (see earlier in this thread) that the name announcement is a tentative decision pending the outcome of the Plocher trademark policy initiative. 'Tentative?' hardly so, as the name has already been used for last night's release. And as for the Plocher trademark policy initiative I don't know what that refers to, I haven't been able to find anything on the advocacy community page, the trademark branding project page or the related page on genunix. Is there a web page somewhere with a draft policy on it? And if the answer to that question is No, it's all in the mail archives that's not sufficient. Expecting people to follow discussions via the archives of multiple mailing lists is not reasonable, not least because you are never sure if you are reading the current version of the proposal or not. If someone has something concrete, can we please have a page set up and the link widely disseminated? Ta. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
[Follow-up to [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 1, 2007, at 12:54, Alan Burlison wrote: If someone has something concrete, can we please have a page set up and the link widely disseminated? Ta. http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php? title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline S. We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. -- David Clark, http://ietf20.isoc.org/videos/ future_ietf_92.pdf, p.19 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On 11/1/07, EricB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I should have also mentioned that the other reason I say things are still fine is I now believe (see earlier in this thread) that the name announcement is a tentative decision pending the outcome of the Plocher trademark policy initiative. Please define fine. From my very cynical viewpoint, this is all a part of Ian's plan to bypass/destroy the existing OpenSolaris structures and processes. The constitution, ARC, a strong and independent OGB etc. They are all inconvenient for the goal of having a rapid release Solaris distro that sets the standards for the entire OpenSolaris world. Choices that would be contentious, like what shell to make sh, will just be made by Ian and his distro developers, and those choices will become mandates for the rest of the OpenSolaris world. (Where before this would be an worked out in a CG and passed to the ARC). Now, here's the thing. Making these choice, is all fine and good for a distro, but that distro shouldn't be called OpenSolaris. (Rather SolarisNG or Solaris Rapid Release, or even Indiana OpenSolaris) In other words, Ian seems to have decided that democracy is a bad way to run an open source project, and wants to install himself as benevolent dictator. (Note his comments about doing what's best for the community) Cheers, Brian Eric ___ advocacy-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
[Follow-up to [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 1, 2007, at 12:54, Alan Burlison wrote: If someone has something concrete, can we please have a page set up and the link widely disseminated? Ta. http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php? title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline I just added that link over top of the image on the Blastwave homepage. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Simon Phipps wrote: We reject: kings, presidents and voting... Re voting: I believe that we here believe in voting (community-wide) when a widely and deeply debated issue calls for it. (Which is to say, maybe a couple times every few years at most.) Eric We believe in: rough consensus and running code. -- David Clark, http://ietf20.isoc.org/videos/ future_ietf_92.pdf, p.19 ___ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Simon Phipps wrote: If someone has something concrete, can we please have a page set up and the link widely disseminated? Ta. http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline That's what I suspected was being referred to, but I wasn't sure. We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. -- David Clark, http://ietf20.isoc.org/videos/future_ietf_92.pdf, p.19 Oh goody, I like quotations: The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting. Charles Bukowski (1920 - 1994) The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. Joseph Stalin (1879 - 1953) Vote early and vote often. Al Capone (1899 - 1947) -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we don't seem to be doing enough to facilitate the other distro's existence at opensolaris.org. +1 ! Its not the decision that matters, it is *how* the decision was made. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Jon Trulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. FWIW, as a third party that develops software on Solaris, I would welcome an 'OpenSolaris Reference' distribution. This would cause problems too. It is better to define a binary compatibility guideline and to have a test for compatibility. We, the community of people who create distributions in addition need to take care that this test is complete enough. To understand this problem: If I did not push Sun to verify /usr/bin/tar against _my_ POSIX compliance test, Sun tar would still not create/read POSIX.1-1988 compliant archives although it did pass the OpenGroup tests. Note that if a distribution _adds_ this to the compatibility definitions, this would make this distro unsuitable as a reference. For the same reason, I need to correct you as I believe that believe that Sun OpenSolaris could be a reference distribution. Sun OpenSolaris would most likely include more software than the reference requires and thus make it unsuitable as a reference. As Casper replied previously, defining 'compatibility' is non-trivial. No doubt what I consider 'compatible' might have no meaning to a company like adobe, who would have other requirements. What I was trying to get across was that one of Solaris's strengths is that it is actually designed, implemented, documented, and then supported for 'a while', something which is generally alien to Linux. As an example, if an OpenSolaris Reference Implementation (OSRI) supports package manager 'Coolio', then I would expect other dists based on OSRI to also support 'Coolio', even if it also contains some other package manager. I would like kernel modules and userland binaries compiled on OSRI to run, unmodified, on any dist that calls itself based on OSRI. I know this sounds a little silly (and maybe pretty obvious), but for any of you that have had to develop and support software on Linux, and in particular, the Linux kernel - you know how important this stuff is. A reference distro has no less _and_ no more than the interface definition and grants users that software compiled on that distro to run on any other compatible distro. Well, an OSRI has to be actually *usable* as well... Jörg -- Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson against oppressor, rebel!| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brocolli, hostage. -Unknown| #include std/disclaimer.h___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we don't have to reconcile them, because they are /different/ things. Which of the following are OpenSolaris? Duh, they all are. They simply have different audiences: The OpenSolaris Operating System: At the minimalist end, we have a miniroot consisting ... Today we have SX, SXDE, Schillix, Belinix, MartUX and Nexenta as examples of various targeted distros. If I have a binary program (say, oracle or my company's accounting package...), and I want to pick a distro, Should I /expect/ my application to just work on it? /Will/ it just work? Does the distro owner have any expectations in this regard? and most importantly, How would I tell? More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we don't have to reconcile them, because they are /different/ things. Which of the following are OpenSolaris? Duh, they all are. They simply have different audiences: The OpenSolaris Operating System: At the minimalist end, we have a miniroot consisting ... Today we have SX, SXDE, Schillix, Belinix, MartUX and Nexenta as examples of various targeted distros. If I have a binary program (say, oracle or my company's accounting package...), and I want to pick a distro, Should I /expect/ my application to just work on it? /Will/ it just work? Does the distro owner have any expectations in this regard? and most importantly, How would I tell? More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor... --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Hello, I think the question of getting access to OpenSolaris could be addressed by allowing (anyone interested in doing so) to make that decision by looking at a matrix with requirements (horizontally), and how various distro's satisfy those requirements (vertically). Assuming each of the distros were using Nevada as the kernel (which is available through the OpenSolaris project, and which they do), then all distro's deserve to be referenced as OpenSolaris-based, even if such distro's come from Sun. Similar, in some ways, to the Intel-inside marketing of the mid-90's. Its based on OpenSolaris (as an adjective), but it could only be THE (noun) OpenSolaris distribution if it would clearly define the delta's/features that it has compared with: 1) other distro's and 2) how it fits into and benefits the overall OpenSolaris (adjective) project. Perhaps overly simplified, but I often feel we need to keep things simple. My $0.02. Regards, Isaac Shawn Walker wrote: On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we don't have to reconcile them, because they are /different/ things. Which of the following are OpenSolaris? Duh, they all are. They simply have different audiences: The OpenSolaris Operating System: At the minimalist end, we have a miniroot consisting ... Today we have SX, SXDE, Schillix, Belinix, MartUX and Nexenta as examples of various targeted distros. If I have a binary program (say, oracle or my company's accounting package...), and I want to pick a distro, Should I /expect/ my application to just work on it? /Will/ it just work? Does the distro owner have any expectations in this regard? and most importantly, How would I tell? More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? That's my point. If you want to be able to prove *why* we shouldn't have a distribution called OpenSolaris you must demonstrate the harm it would cause as the benefit has already been demonstrated and talked about. Not to be offensive, but other than hurt feelings, I don't see the harm in it. It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. I don't believe that for a moment. Going to ubuntu.com only lets me download Ubuntu easily; but there are links that go off to other places where you can get Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Many people do know that other flavours of Ubuntu exist. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor... --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Isaac R. wrote: I think the question of getting access to OpenSolaris could be addressed by allowing (anyone interested in doing so) to make that decision by looking at a matrix with requirements (horizontally), and how various distro's satisfy those requirements (vertically). I tend to agree, but the devil is in the details... Could you take a stab at producing this matrix - or at least the column labels for the features/requirements that you might expect to see? A concrete example would be extremely useful about now :-) Assuming each of the distros were using Nevada as the kernel (which is available through the OpenSolaris project, and which they do), then all distro's deserve to be referenced as OpenSolaris-based, even if such Sounds like your definition of compatibility is closely related to has the same kernel... I'm looking forward to seeing what your important requirements might be. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Isaac R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the question of getting access to OpenSolaris could be addressed by allowing (anyone interested in doing so) to make that decision by looking at a matrix with requirements (horizontally), and how various distro's satisfy those requirements (vertically). Assuming each of the distros were using Nevada as the kernel (which is available through the OpenSolaris project, and which they do), then all distro's deserve to be referenced as OpenSolaris-based, even if such distro's come from Sun. Similar, in some ways, to the Intel-inside marketing OpenSolaris Inside would be a nice idea. Together with a compatibility test, there could be tags like ACME RabbitOS - OpenSolaris Inside - OpenSolaris Binary compatibility type C. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. I don't believe that for a moment. Going to ubuntu.com only lets me download Ubuntu easily; but there are links that go off to other places where you can get Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Many people do know that other flavours of Ubuntu exist. With current OpenSolaris distros, we have much more variance in the feeling than with different ubuntu variants. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. I don't believe that for a moment. Going to ubuntu.com only lets me download Ubuntu easily; but there are links that go off to other places where you can get Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Many people do know that other flavours of Ubuntu exist. With current OpenSolaris distros, we have much more variance in the feeling than with different ubuntu variants. Which is an interesting tidbit, but doesn't disprove my point. Remember that one of the goals in using the trademark is to set user expectations. If, as you say, we have much more variance right now between OpenSolaris distributions than usage of the trademark should be restricted accordingly. Setting user expectations should be a primary goal for any distribution. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor... --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. I don't believe that for a moment. Going to ubuntu.com only lets me download Ubuntu easily; but there are links that go off to other places where you can get Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Many people do know that other flavours of Ubuntu exist. With current OpenSolaris distros, we have much more variance in the feeling than with different ubuntu variants. Agreed. That's why its easy to image, down the road, variants of Indiana such as (for example): OpenSolaris Indiana OpenSolaris Indiana TestDrive OpenSolaris Indiana Desktop OpenSolaris Indiana Server OpenSolaris Indiana Workstation in the same way we see (today): Ubuntu Desktop Edition Ubuntu Server Edition with room to grow in any direction in the (near-term/far-term) future. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ Graduate from sugar-coating school? Sorry - I never attended! :) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? How could that possibly be done? It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. FWIW, as a third party that develops software on Solaris, I would welcome an 'OpenSolaris Reference' distribution. Without it, we would be forced to choose one or two of the dists available to try to officially support, much as we have to do now on Linux. -- Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson against oppressor, rebel!| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brocolli, hostage. -Unknown| #include std/disclaimer.h ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On 31/10/2007, Jon Trulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? How could that possibly be done? That's not my problem; I have no interest in proving its harm. The onus of proving a point is upon the person who claimed it. It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. FWIW, as a third party that develops software on Solaris, I would welcome an 'OpenSolaris Reference' distribution. Without it, we would be forced to choose one or two of the dists available to try to officially support, much as we have to do now on Linux. Exactly! -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor... --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: On 31/10/2007, Jon Trulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? How could that possibly be done? That's not my problem; I have no interest in proving its harm. The onus of proving a point is upon the person who claimed it. heh, I think that one was for Joerg, not you :) [...] -- Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson against oppressor, rebel!| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brocolli, hostage. -Unknown| #include std/disclaimer.h ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:08:12PM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? How could that possibly be done? It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. FWIW, as a third party that develops software on Solaris, I would welcome an 'OpenSolaris Reference' distribution. Without it, we would be forced to choose one or two of the dists available to try to officially support, much as we have to do now on Linux. There's your example of harm; Jon Trulson would be supporting only the reference distribution and not the other distros. This can be expected to hold true for others. [1] Ceri [1] This can, of course, be seen to be a good thing for ISVs, but that's not the question which was one of harm to other distros. -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere pgpg0nt2RSFpx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On 31/10/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:08:12PM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro OpenSolaris and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: Sun OpenSolaris I have problems if this was not labelled with Sun as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? How could that possibly be done? It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro OpenSolaris, many people believe that this is the one and only. FWIW, as a third party that develops software on Solaris, I would welcome an 'OpenSolaris Reference' distribution. Without it, we would be forced to choose one or two of the dists available to try to officially support, much as we have to do now on Linux. There's your example of harm; Jon Trulson would be supporting only the reference distribution and not the other distros. This can be expected to hold true for others. [1] But companies already do that in the GNU/Linux world today and no reference distribution exists. So therefore, I would argue it is not harm, but help. So then, if you must conclude it is harmful, I would conclude that it is less harmful. People can choose whatever they want to support. All the proposal does is give them an incentive to focus on something and help set expectations for users. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor... --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Even better, contribute and make the project something that reflects your values - make it something you can vote *for*. -John On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What will be the point of having a vote on something that is a fait accompli? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
John Plocher wrote: Even better, contribute and make the project something that reflects your values - make it something you can vote *for*. On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What will be the point of having a vote on something that is a fait accompli? I've already answered that suggestion. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Brian Gupta wrote: On 10/31/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: So where is the announcement about step B - the vote? That would require the proposal to be finished; why don't you go help us finish it? Because I'm working up to 18 hours a day single-handedly trying to rewrite opensolaris.org. For which you should be commended; but in the meantime let's be constructive in criticism? Please? I think he is being very constructive, and has offered a solution: If Project Indiana wished to rename itself OpenSolaris, one of the CGs that sponsored Project Indiana should have their OGB facilitator make a request to the OGB to have a community-wide vote to allow Indiana to be use the name OpenSolaris. I suspect that many who are voicing opposition now, are not necessarily against Indiana being named OpenSolaris, but rather, they are voicing objection to Sun's Chief Operating Platforms Officer dictating that Project Indiana is OpenSolaris, and is the community distro. Cheers, Brian P.S. - As far as the existing distros being harmed. I would judge whether or not they are being harmed by talking to the developers responsible for the various distros. We have already had the chief developer behind MartUX express outrage, and announce his intention to leave the community over this naming issue, and it seems like Shillix's main developer is also very agitated by this unilateral move by Sun. (As he thought Shillix would be the leading candidate for a community distro). p.s. Better stop trying to publicly support your, J.'s and my positions, you are harming yourself. And you may never get an answer, except from Mr. sw. repeating his brainwashed stuff like A few people of this community accidently happen to be working for Sun, but opensolaris.org is OPENsrc and is completely independent, blaah, fooo, wrong list, etc. Thanks anyways for having tried hard. I did quit for a bunch of associated reasons, a whole bundle. The brand discussion is only part of it. But it shows how the system Sun appears to be dealing with open src: Outsourcing, dictating, gaining profits. Leaving the external fools who do something for free on their own, rather than trying to support them by any means. If Blastwave and maybe Nextenda had been ASKED and potentially involved, a lot could have happened here, I believe. At no additional cost other than #0.) listening and #1.) learning to respect the opinion of others. If everything would be open, then everything would be open. Nobody could expect getting a job, some funding or any further true support. Then I would never have complained, you know. But the way opensolaris.org is being run, by Sun, it is primarily whatever machinery solely in place to feed the press, to make investors happy, to produce propaganda. And of course to help Sun's selected elite leadership to profit from the generated PROFITS. Under those circumstances I'm no longer willing to bleed. Bleeding! Everybody knows that I had been looking for a small humble Sun-job, this had been my *dream* for many years. And actually my motivation to continue, again and again. Despite my financial disaster. Not to mention other career related targets like finishing my degree in mathematics anytime before 2040 ... Any normal company would be recruiting their enthusiast. If a multi-billion $$$ company is willing to take a first SPARC-LiveDVD for their marketing, and FOX for their flagship products (in case of FOX for SPARC effectively saving a minimum of $40K to 50K plus testing hardware, plus electricity bills, plus health insurance, plus tax), why the hell can't they simply listen (and respond) to justified questions like why Indiana, the so called community distro, needs to be a complete (sun-)re-invention of the wheel, rather than building on any true (truly externally driven) COMMUNITY with a way flatter hierarchy??? The few deciders here never responded to any of my questions of that sort. etc. etc. etc. The list is long. Constructive criticism gets ignored. Then it is not a democracy. Strictly speaking not even an instance of the discussion (see Oxford dictionary). All: Thank you for considering this, if anybody happens to try ... p.s. Above content is not OT, see my earlier messages from last week and before, thanks! Respectfully, M. Bochnig -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor... --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Ceri Davies wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:08:12PM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote: [...] FWIW, as a third party that develops software on Solaris, I would welcome an 'OpenSolaris Reference' distribution. Without it, we would be forced to choose one or two of the dists available to try to officially support, much as we have to do now on Linux. There's your example of harm; Jon Trulson would be supporting only the reference distribution and not the other distros. This can be expected to hold true for others. [1] Ceri Is that really harm? Just how incompatible are the current open solaris based dists out there? What we (and I assume, other 'commercial' developers) care about is the binary compatibility, stability of the kernel API, userland interface - libc, basic commands (shell, cp/rm/etc), and of course the packaging mechanism, to name a few. Kernel/Userland compatibility within major Solaris revisions is a also big plus. I would hope that any dist based on an 'OpenSolaris' reference, or whatever it will be called, would be consistant in these areas...? If so, then yes - we would probably develop/test only on the 'reference implementation'. Hopefully (!) the other dists based on it would be compatible in these areas, but we could make no guarantees. As it is on linux, we choose a few of the 'popular' and 'supported' dists for development and testing. If it works on other linux dists, then great. If not, too bad. We simply cannot support them all. I really hope that Solaris (in whatever incantation) never ends up this way. [1] This can, of course, be seen to be a good thing for ISVs, but that's not the question which was one of harm to other distros. I guess I just do not see the harm - indeed I would see it (a reference implementation) as a major plus, and probably a neccessity for Sun's customers. -- Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson against oppressor, rebel!| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brocolli, hostage. -Unknown| #include std/disclaimer.h ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Eric Boutilier wrote: Agreed. We're certainly being watched very closely by the rest of the FOSS/UNIX/Linux world -- and from day one we've been breaking exciting new ground in that world in tons of wonderful ways -- but utlimately, I'd argue, how we use our democratic mechanisms will be their acid test of our open-ness. Make or break, so to speak. Hmm. I would argue that the make or break is our ability to build a great product with a large userbase.. -ian -- Ian Murdock http://ianmurdock.com/ Don't look back--something might be gaining on you. --Satchel Paige ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
Ian Murdock wrote: Eric Boutilier wrote: Agreed. We're certainly being watched very closely by the rest of the FOSS/UNIX/Linux world -- and from day one we've been breaking exciting new ground in that world in tons of wonderful ways -- but ultimately, I'd argue, how we use our democratic mechanisms will be their acid test of our open-ness. Make or break, so to speak. Hmm. I would argue that the make or break is our ability to build a great product with a large userbase.. -ian Agreed. What I'm pointing out though is our (Sun's and OpenSolaris') desire for both: To build a great and ubiquitous product, and at the same time evolve into a world renowned open source steward. Anyway, it's only just a concern at this point (re: their acid test). I personally think things are still fine because, as I mentioned in my first post, the large majority of membership (my and some others' desires notwithstanding) has tacitly expressed a desire to not hold a vote on the naming issue yet. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name
[Followups to trademark-policy-dev, please. To post you will need to subscribe by first sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -John ] Ian Murdock wrote: ... The first step to a branding program is to define the OpenSolaris binary core, and I invite the community to help define it, using the Indiana bits as a first approximation, with the understanding that it is OK to make mistakes, leaps of faith and simplifying assumptions as we figure this all out. Followups set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . (At 8:04pm this evening, just as Ian was typing up his email, we experienced a ~5.6 earthquake here in San Jose. The USGS says it was effectively right under our house (9km down and 4km east, but who's counting? Coincidence? I don't think so! Thanks, Ian! :-) Ian makes a compelling point that a distro made up of everything on opensolaris.org should be called opensolaris. The question still seems to be if this view can be reconciled with Joerg's and Brian's (placeholders for many, I'm sure) minimalist perspective (i.e., OpenSolaris - the operating system - is only the kernel, libc and a shell). Maybe we don't have to reconcile them, because they are /different/ things. Which of the following are OpenSolaris? Duh, they all are. They simply have different audiences: The OpenSolaris Operating System: At the minimalist end, we have a miniroot consisting of just the stuff needed to boot and get to a shell prompt on a specific device. The audience for such a distro seems limited to those developers actually working on a particular device. Think PowerPC and CellPhones. Think small number of dozens of people. The OpenSolaris Operating System: Moving up in the world, this miniroot gains enough drivers and userland bits to become the basis for a dedicated appliance. Since the needed bits differ based entirely on what the appliance is supposed to do, and there presumably isn't any need for the user to add new functionality to a given one, the audience for such a distro is also limited to the small set of developers actually working on the appliance. Think routers, web servers, mail servers, model railroad empires; think small number of hundreds of people. The OpenSolaris Operating Environment: At some point we have a miniroot, drivers and enough userland to produce general purpose computing devices. Although one size could fit all (XXXL?), it seems reasonable to postulate laptop, desktop, blade, cluster and enterprise variations. Each of them will be characterized by their own recipe, optimized for the task at hand: Laptops care about X and GNOME, web hosting servers care about Apache, Glassfish and python. Unlike the device and appliance distros, these general purpose distros are targeted at the volume market with the expectation that their users will want to add 3rd party features to their systems. Think volume distros. Think millions of people. From a compatibility perspective, it is probably OK to ignore the embedded device and appliance distros - there really isn't any expectation that a user could take an arbitrary precompiled binary package and install it on them. This leaves the general purpose systems. If you take all their recipes and compare them, you will find a large set of common features/packages. This is what I an thinking of when I say compatibility Core for the OpenSolaris Operating Environment. Today we have SX, SXDE, Schillix, Belinix, MartUX and Nexenta as examples of various targeted distros. If I have a binary program (say, oracle or my company's accounting package...), and I want to pick a distro, Should I /expect/ my application to just work on it? /Will/ it just work? Does the distro owner have any expectations in this regard? and most importantly, How would I tell? This implies that the branding needs to communicate something about compatibility, and it should also be sensitive to the distinction between Operating System and Operating Environment. I'm going to sleep on it and see what the morning brings before I go edit the wiki... -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
