Tim Foster wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 05:55 -0600, Eric Ray wrote: >> To arrive at common ground, we'll all have to compromise >> and prioritize. > > Hear hear! > >> How about the following proposal. The current goal is to >> deliver an open solaris-based distribution that provides >> a minimal system with WM, user-friendly install, single-user >> client appropriate behavior, and a packaging system that >> makes it easy to pull in additional useful pieces. >> The distro is sufficiently minimal to constitute a >> really "minimized" system > > Perhaps a suggested change in the above paragraph: > > s/constitute/be able to easily produce/g > > - minimal OS purists would probably baulk at putting X, let alone a > window manager on their machines, but so long as packaging is there, it > should be easy to strip down Indiana into something even smaller. > ( actually, is the SUNWCmreq cluster enough here ?) >
SUNWCmreq isn't going to meet any mainstream idea of a desktop distribution. Like Tim, I find the "minimal" terminology here distracting. The project has to have a clear statement of what it will be initially - is it a desktop that will attract people to OpenSolaris, or a minimal base core to be used in building a bunch of distros? I believe that Ian and Glynn have expressed strongly the former. I also believe there's a fair consensus on that point, and "minimal" is a loaded term that shouldn't be used in that context. Dave _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
