On Jan 29, 2008 11:26 PM, John Sonnenschein <johnsonnenschein at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 29-Jan-08, at 8:39 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 2008 9:51 PM, John Sonnenschein > > <johnsonnenschein at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Shawn. > >> > >> Some of us came to OpenSolaris because we wanted an open-source > >> operating system that still cared about quality, rather than the > >> "weekend hack-fest" that the other F/LOSS operating systems have > >> become. > > > > I did too, believe it or not. > > > > However, room for both worlds has to be present. > > And it is. If you want quality, there's solaris. If you want poorly > thought out code, there's Linux.
John, that is an unfair mischarecterisation of the work of thousands of people. Whether you or I believe that they produce a quality product, insulting the members of another community in such a way is not being inclusive or respectful. I regretfully admit that in the past I too have had such an attitude in some regards. However, that ivory-tower attitude is the same one that has made many a project a niche one that soon died off or never achieved success in the view of most individuals. That "poorly thought out code" runs on millions of systems today, drives many businesses, and has an entire eco and social system that surrounds it. A good community seeks diversity by being inclusive. Having a respectful, positive, constructive view about other communities is necessary if we want other communities to have the same view of our own. > > As I said before, Sun's rules should be applied to what Sun wants to > > do. > > > > The community should be the one to decide the rules for what they do. > > I agree, and from what I hear from the community, with the exception > of a small number of people who would prefer that we become just > another linux distro, people still want ARC. > > There's a reason the ON community is the least open, and that's > probably in large part due to the responsible engineers distrust for > the vocal desktop people's calls for what amounts to the dissolution > of ARC and other quality control measures. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I am not calling for the dissolution of ARC or quality control measures. Instead, I am merely stating to everyone that the community must be empowered to make that decision itself instead of following what Sun has always done. Specifically, I believe that each CG/Project should be free to makes the decisions regarding the requirements for integration and technical review for their work. Pre-defining a community-wide policy that tries to codify technical and or other related requirements will rob our CGs and Projects of the independence and autonomy that they need. I recognise and maintain that it is a good idea for CGs such as ON to have certain requirements for integration, such as the ARC processes. However, Sun today already integrates the work of many open source projects that never went through those processes with a minimal amount of ARC review. Despite the fact that those numerous projects have never gone through the stringent review that some individuals insist is necessary, almost everyone would agree that those projects Sun has chosen to integrate have been of great benefit to Solaris users. As a result, it is my firm belief that CGs and Projects must be free to set their own guidelines surrounding review processes, etc. and that it is not appropriate to attempt to enforce a community-wide policy that is related to those areas. Going back to Roy Fielding's comments that a CG should be scoped that which it produces, let's pretend that there is a CG called SXCE that produces Solaris Express Community Edition. The SXCE CG has a requirement that all those wanting to integrate (or deliver to their WOS) must go through ARC review, etc. Not much would then change from today since any of the other CGs would have to meet the review and technical requirements if they wanted to part of what SXCE CG produces. > >> Abandoning ARC for all but the "official Sun Value-Added" Solaris > >> would be the greatest tragedy in computing since AT&T sold the rights > >> to UNIX. > > > > I think that's exaggerating a bit. > > I disagree I think that was already apparent. > >> There are plenty of open-source operating systems where weekend > >> hackers can dump their bad code. I'd prefer if Solaris remained the > >> bastion of quality in a sea of mediocrity. > > > > Solaris can remain that bastion. OpenSolaris, however, needs to be > > free to be what the community wants it to be. > > The community at large, or the "desktop is the primary platform" > community ? > > > Let's face it; Solaris was fading away; then OpenSolaris happened. > > Nonsense. Solaris is underrepresented in the $10/month webhosting > market. Large shops still prefer it. But how many of them will remain? There must be change for our community to succeed. Part of that change is allowing truly *Open* development to occur here. > > The processes of the last twenty or thirty years didn't allow Sun to > > hold its market position, so why continue to insist on them? > > see above. there's a reason IRIX is dead and Solaris lives. Because the twin behemoths of Microsoft and the UNIX wars killed them and the popularity of Linux has made the POSIX standard all but worthless to the majority of the market? -- 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
