On Nov 13, 2007, at 19:43, James Carlson wrote: > John Plocher writes: >>> But that does not exclude "closed source but freely redistributable >>> bits". >>> >>> Acroread? >>> nVidia? >>> Flashplayer? >>> Realplayer? >> >> >> I wouldn't want to make those things part of the "OpenSolaris >> Reference >> Specification", though I would expect that they would all run on >> any system >> that was built with such a spec in mind. > > I think you're illustrating the point of confusion nicely, because, > based on previous discussions, I suspect rather strongly that those > are exactly the sorts of components that many of the reference- > distribution proponents are _assuming_ will be included. > > After all, could we possibly have a "reference distribution" posted on > the main web page and intended for first-time users that fails to work > right when someone clicks on a realmedia link? I don't see how such a > thing would help win OpenSolaris adoption. It seems unthinkable. > > What we come back to is that a common and minimal "reference > distribution," at least as you're describing, isn't what the rest of > the proponents (notably Sun's marketing) want to have here. Instead, > they want a single "known good" distribution that can be proposed for > all first-time users. Ignoring that desire will, I think, set us up > for future conflicts of exactly this nature. > > That's a higher bar (in some senses) and, if there can be only one > such distribution, it clearly has an impact on the acceptance and > viability of any other distribution.
Maybe that "reference" is actually the repository, not the code? S.
