On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:25 PM, James Carlson wrote: > Though I mostly agree with what you've said, I do think it's important > to point out a potential misunderstanding here. > > Resource constraints aren't the important issue behind the > architectural concerns over competing solutions. A more important > issue is with _who_ pays the resulting taxes and has to deal with > chaos. > > For example, if there are two deliveries of /usr/bin/ls -- one that's > Solaris and the other that's GNU (for instance) -- do we force every > script writer depending on 'ls' to add compatibility logic to support > both? If not, then do we end up with a sea of mutually incompatible > things?
Product names are not left up to chance -- they need to be owned by the organization as a whole. I meant that CGs should be allowed to compete on solutions to overlapping problem areas, not on overlapping product names. In any case, that concern is only relevant if there is a common distribution under which conflicts can be determined, so I would expect such an ARC to be specific to one named distribution (if there is more than one). ....Roy
