> A article that puts my thoughts into words far more > eloquently than I > ever could: > > http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/10/26/opensolaris_naming/
Reading that sorted my thoughts. People are debating lots of different things that aren't always congruent. So I want to forget the brand naming, and ask if the community wants to endorse a standard distribution or not. Does the community want to endorse a distribution as the standard for all others to adhere to? Or does it not? Is the community happy with the level of splintering that you see in the GNU/Linux world? Or does the community want to standardize and work together in a way not really seen in operating systems today? I think endorsing a standard distro is a POWERFUL thing to choose to do. Which distro is the current standard could be changed... it doesn't have to be written in stone. But the decision has to be made to commit to standardization and all the rule-making that goes with it. Once you make that decision, the names may come naturally. "OpenSolaris Reference Distribution", "OpenSolaris Codebase", "OpenSolaris Compatible", "Built with OpenSolaris Codebase"... Consumers are taken care of because their common use of "OpenSolaris" suddenly comes to actually mean "OpenSolaris Reference Distribution". Sun Microsystems is taken care of because Solaris 11 gets two pretty "OpenSolaris Compatible" and "Built with OpenSolaris Codebase" logos. Nexenta is taken care of because they get the "Built with OpenSolaris Codebase" logo. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
