Eric Boutilier wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, John Sonnenschein wrote: >> On 6/20/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> d Debian? >>> >>> Thank you for making my point for me. Do we really want OpenSolaris to >>> have the same problems? That's the path we're currently on.. -ian >> >> Sorry if I don't see it as a problem per se. > > I agree. > > Ian: In this regard, Linux and Solaris/OpenSolaris evolved in very > different ways. In OpenSolaris land, there already exists the optimal > touchstone: the Nevada core (and no less important, the environment and > processes from which it generates). In Linux land the common touchstone is > just the kernel. Pardon while I wax poetic, but that is no less than a > _profoundly critical_ difference between Linux and OpenSolaris.
You don't get it. It doesn't matter if the common touchstone is just a kernel or the kernel and the entire userspace. The source code doesn't make a platform. The binaries make a platform. That's why we need OpenSolaris to be a binary distribution. Trust me. I've lived this mess for the last 10 years, and it's been my job for the past 2 to try to clean it up, which turns out to be very difficult to do after the fact.. -ian -- Ian Murdock 650-331-9324 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
