On 02/11/2007, Bryan Cantrill <bmc at eng.sun.com> wrote: > > Ian, > > > All right. > > > > I don't even know where to begin. > > > > Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to > > the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called > > OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?" > > > > Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview > > has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the > > world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING? > > > > Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we > > are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP, > > to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris > > focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the > > company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside > > of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing? > > > > Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate > > in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris > > brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible, > > to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes > > a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded > > for being willing to take this step--or is this just another > > case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else? > > > > And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this > > community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of > > being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed > > repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return > > thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions? > > Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely > > abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation? > > > > Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything, > > so therefore we've given nothing? > > > > I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit. > > I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is > rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity -- > but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is > nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members > of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is > a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one > emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name > "OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived > from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply > _be_ OpenSolaris.
Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually many people in this community that do believe there should be one *reference* distribution called OpenSolaris. You didn't ask me for my vote on it; so your consensus is among yourselves; not the community. If you still think it is, then you must be using an interesting definition of consensus. > So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is > such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly > speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is > clearly such a divisive path? Such a small issue? Obviously it isn't, or our inboxes wouldn't be exploding. I also think it's a bit silly to say that the elected body is speaking with one voice. If I recall correctly, Glynn abstained. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
