On 10/8/07, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Mike Gerdts writes: > > 1. There will likely always be some encumbered stuff. But "it's so > > ugly it will turn you to stone" shouldn't be a sufficient reason to > > keep it closed. Arguably, this is even more of a reason to have it > > opened. > > I've had my psyche scarred by looking at pdo.c, but I do agree with > you that terminal ugliness is an insufficient reason to avoid opening > it. I don't think Dave was actually suggesting it was.
I don't think that Dave was suggesting that either. However, I think that there is a natural tendency to show off your beautiful honor student than there is to bring out your Frankenstein + Medusa love child. > The release of code intended merely for S10 support sounds like > something that may be reasonable for a discussion with Sun's support > group, rather than in the OpenSolaris Install community. I think that it is likely appropriate for both places, as it would be a partnership between OpenSolaris and a distributor. As I said before, I was bringing this particular issue up as something to fix over the next 2 - 5 years and that pdo.c was likely already a lost cause. FWIW, I was once again annoyed to read Jonathan's latest blog entry that referred to Solaris as open source. I'll stop annoying install-discuss with this now. As far as I'm concerned, pdo has officially been put in the same wasteland as LU and flash. It is abundantly clear that new installation technologies that are not yet integrated into OpenSolaris are the only things worth discussing in an OpenSolaris context. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
