So you do agree there should be competing systems and then the ones that people prefer would coalesce to being the dominant.
Maybe I'm missing the point but I thought opensolaris was there to provide an operating system that the world could contribute to and get a sense of ownership as they made it the best in the world. Sun would then take the parts they thought made sense and worked really well and made that part of Sun Solaris. Am I missing the point? Bruce Rothermal Dave Miner wrote: > Philip Brown wrote: >> Dave Miner wrote: >>> >>> I wouldn't view it as quite such a benign situation. There's a >>> reason why most distributions settle on one packaging system. >> >> What you left out, is that while each [linux] distribution has "one >> packaging system", there are almost as many packaging systems, as >> major distributions. >> >> This suggests that there is a benefit in fostering diversity of >> packaging systems, across different distributions. It would seem that >> each linux distro thinks so; otherwise, they'd all be using the same >> one! >> > > My perception, which may well be inaccurate, is that they tend to be > coalescing, however, so the trend is in the direction of consolidation > around a couple. Other than Debian and RPM, I don't see that any of the > others are attracting a substantial following. > >> Sun is supposed to be "encouraging" multiple distributions. >> If sun is truely in the business of "encouraging" non-sun >> distributions, seems like sun should thereby not take actions that, >> either directly or indirectly, force opensolaris distributions to >> pick a particular one. >> >> Sun's Indiana distribution of opensolaris will use IPS? ok.... but is >> it right to pressure any and all other distributions to also use IPS? >> >> If Brian wants to use a different one for what he wants to do with >> opensolaris... seems like Sun should not get in the way of that. >> > > I'd be surprised if any of us at Sun believes we can force someone who > wants to build a distro to include a particular technology. I'm aware > that there are some in the community who have advocated for > compatibility requirements among distributions based on specific > technologies in order to use certain marks, though. I don't think the > issue here is whether Brian or anyone wants to use a different > packaging system for a distro they want to build, as Nexenta's amply > proven you can do that with the current state of affairs, and I don't > think any of us is particularly bothered by it. The allusions to > making Conary the "standard" or "successor to SVR4" are where the > contention is coming from, as far as I'm concerned. > > Dave
