On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> 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.
Real nice.
> 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.
It totally defies explanation -- even a little bit -- how
that assertion[1] is related to the points being made above
it. If I didn't know better, I'd say you just attempted to
use a cheap rhetorical trick to deliberately divert the
subject. That's not true is it?
Eric
1. You are correct, binary distributions matter the most, by far.
And your point is?
_______________________________________________
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
