> No, it's not disqualified, of course. But Sun is taking a posture that > shows that "all Community members are equals, but Sun is more equal than > the others", to paraphrase Orwell. And Sun can change the rules if the > ones that were established do not fit the current PR plan.
I think you are using "PR plan" in a derogatory manner. But yes, the literary reference hadn't escaped me either :) >> Do the other distros feel penalised by this? (Genuine question). I >> think many of us wanted to have a distro with the name OpenSolaris, and >> that now it is a possibility, and that the community is very welcome to >> join in the definition, creation and use of it. If that is to the >> disadvantage of others and it is considered that Sun has acted in bad >> faith, I agree that is serious. But I don't think that is the case. > > I can't answer for them. But I know that I'm educating people around me > about what OpenSolaris is by its current definition. And it's obvious > that if there were a distro called OpenSolaris, they would never look > any further. Could you explain what you mean by this? They wouldn't look at any other distro? Or they wouldn't ask the question? (didn't understand). Do you mean it would be good or bad if there were such a distro then? >> Well, like many others here, I do the former and I don't think we're >> talking about adapting the whole project, > > You are trying to change its very definition. I translated it, and its > FAQ, so I'm quite sure about how the OpenSolaris Project is currently > defined, in two languages. We're in the realm of semantics. OpenSolaris is defined on OpenSolaris.org not to include a distro. But many of the people we seek to attract still don't get this and if we feel that OpenSolaris is defined by what it says on openSolaris.org and fr.opensolaris.org/ et al, then we can be change it if we think it is a good idea. However, this does not equate to "adapting the whole project", as what is there today, remains. > The demand from people that pretended they couldn't find the download > link? I've seen some posts and pointers to blogs that weren't exactly > accurate in their description of the difficulty to get a distro. > They *are* there. Already. Right Now. So why eclipse them with a new one? Well, which distro do you recommend? I end up recommending them all depending on what someone likes, but the latest and greatest is SXCE, which is a turn-off for many, for a variety of reasons (btw, I like it, and I use it). And Ian's point is that unless we start off with a reference distro for other distros to innovate on top of, we risk fragmentation of the platform, like Linux has today. >> I understand, and can see that for you this is a question of principle. > > Yes, but it's practical as well. If Sun seems to tighten its grip again > on OpenSolaris, it won't look good, after all the talk on freedom and > all. And it will alienate long-time Solaris enthusiasts. Sure - that would really not be a good thing to see. Other than the name issue, do you think Indiana runs the risk of doing this? (I hope not, but we must understand this). I mean, Sun surely has the right to invest and to steer the project provided it happens in the open, right? (Serious question) Patrick _______________________________________________ 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
