On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:30 PM, S h i v <shivakumar.gn at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:05 AM, John Sonnenschein > <johnsonnenschein at gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay, another question then. > > > > What subset of packages are required to qualify for compatibility? > > > > Say for example I build a distro that only includes SUNWips, > > SUNWos-net ( or whatever ON will be called ) and the rest are pulled > > from another repo ( blastwave, for example ). > > > > And lets say this distro builds on top of a whole slew of weird > > packages that are mostly incompatible with anything that indiana > > includes ( say... the freebsd userspace ) compiled with a compiler > > that makes ABI compatibility an impossibility ( like gcc 2.95 ) > > > > Is it still " BreakFOO - an OpenSolaris Distribution " ? technically > > you can use IPS to pull in all the indiana stuff and make it > > compatible, and it includes a subset of packages that indiana does, > > but in and of itself it is not. > > > > It is just a matter of time before OpenSolaris is equated to Indiana > and not ON. History of the term is then forgotten. > When that happens any other community distro even those at OS.o may > not want to use the TM term to avoid confusion. With a product to use, > world associates the term with the product and the community is > assumed to revolve around it. > > Cut & slice whichever way, the result is a given. Changing the > fine-print will not help.
People act like Indiana is the hugely different thing. It really isn't. It's essentially just ON + IPS + configuration + a lot of hard work + and a few component changes I think it proves that you can have a radical increase in usability and perception without diverging very far from "canon." -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
