On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Peter Tribble wrote: > On 6/22/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> ... >> In theory, by having a reference platform. But that doesn't actually >> solve the problem. People can always create incompatible >> distributions. > > They can. Nothing is ever going to prevent those who want to be > incompatible from being so. > > However, the trick is to make it easier to be compatible than not. > And that's where a base distribution that can be used as a foundation > by others will help...
Totally agree. But again it's interesting to hold theory up to a real-world case like Nexenta. My sense (IOW, I could be wrong) is that they _totally_ have the BFU process down pat. So for Nexenta, it seems the ON consolidation literally serves as their easy-to-be-compatible-with base. And therefore it follows that the tack they are on today (with regard to compatibility/incompatibility) is not at all due to the current lack of an OpenSolaris base distro...? Still I strongly agree -- it would be hugely beneficial to make it easier to be compatible, even in the face of this apparent anomoly. (There apparently will always be projects who prefer the incompatible route -- including ones like Nexenta that are really viable and well-engineered. I just hope it turns out to be a really small niche.) Compatibility Junkie, Eric > - by reusing the bits, you get compatibility for free. > Force people to build completely independent distributions from scratch, > and divergence will happen, because minor differences will start to > creep in. _______________________________________________ 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
