IMHO: eternal and happy +1!!!! Best regards, HeCSa.
On 5/30/11, Alasdair Lumsden <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ken, > > On 30 May 2011, at 22:32, Ken Gunderson wrote: > <snip> >> Your MUA doesn't wrap lines at any reasonable length, which makes >> replying inline more challenging than it should be but a few thoughts: > > Sorry. I'm using Apple mail. I looked in the preferences but nothing jumped > out, if anyone knows how to adjust this let me know. I'm going to switch to > Thunderbird on my macbook when I can find the time, which should hopefully > knock the problem on the head. > > <snip> >>> Absolutely.. this is the conclusion that I think everyone has come to. >>> It's interesting you raised this now, I was planning on firing off an >>> email tonight on this very topic. >> >> I think more than a few saw this writing on the wall long, long ago but >> were shot down as Oracle bashers so left and went back to Linux. I'm >> probably one of few coming from non Solaris background still hanging >> around?? > > I'd try not to let any of the trolls on the mailing lists influence which OS > you use; the OI devs care about OI and if you like the product and where its > going then please do stick around! And of course if you don't like where > things are going, you can get involved or give feedback. > >>> Officially, we should fork. We should update the FAQ and any other docs >>> to reflect this, once we've fleshed out exactly what we mean. >> >> +1 >> >>> If we don't fork, we're following instead of leading, and this (as you >>> pointed out) means we're just a second class citizen in the Solaris >>> ecosphere. If we want to succeed, we have to innovate, and to innovate, >>> we have to attract top developers. The only way to do this is to lead, >>> and allow people to contribute without fear of being trampled on by >>> upstream. >> >> Yes, OI doesn't have the $ and developer resources that Oracle has, but >> still in my mind has the much more potential than Solaris because in >> order to fuel those corporate resources Oracle only wants to sell to >> high end, top echelon big enterprises. This strategy may well make lots >> of money for Oracle but in so doing Solaris will still end up being >> somewhat of niche platform due to being priced out of reach of the >> typical budget conscious enterprise. Meanwhile, OI could well capture >> this "market". Attracting developers will be key. And... > > Absolutely. > >>> Forking will also help with the way things are organised. The way >>> OpenSolaris was developed within Sun, which consisted of different teams >>> around the globe working on different consolidations, with different >>> build systems (some of which are pretty horrid to work with), might work >>> for a large commercial company with paid developers, but it doesn't work >>> for an open source project like ours. It's needlessly complex, and means >>> there's a really high barrier of entry for new developers. People can't >>> easily download the source, get hacking, and install the changes they've >>> made, and get those changes easily integrated. >> >> As you rightly point out - pretty much a nightmare state of affairs, >> even for experienced developers, as some feedback I've gotten goes. >> Never mind someone who may be somewhat technical but not a coder, e.g. >> sysadmins coming from other platforms. > > Yup! > >>> We need to overhaul the way things are structured into a single unified >>> build system that is natively IPS based. There has been a lot of interest >>> in using the "userland" consolidation to do this, and collapsing the >>> other consolidations into it. For example pkg5, slim_source, g11n etc can >>> just become components of userland. It should be possible for people to >>> check out the source, make changes, and type "cd foo ; make publish ; pkg >>> install foo". Then if they want to build the ISO, do something like "make >>> live-iso" or "make text-iso". This build system should be contained in a >>> single mercurial repo and branched at each release, so security and bug >>> fixes can be kept easily in it. Bye bye mercurial patch queues. >> >> Absolutely. Although I'm not so sure IPS is necessarily the way to go. >> One advantage is that it is here now. But otoh, there are other mature >> systems out there that might be leverages, e.g. pkg_src from NetBSD or >> apt from Debian. The latter would be good from making things more >> familiar for Linux users "goal" that some advocate. > > Without starting a massive packaging debate, IPS is one of the main > non-negotiable points! It's exceptionally good and one of the foundations of > the OS. There's no way we could switch now. There's a lot of FUD out there > about IPS but I hope over time people will come to realise just how good it > is. > >>> This wouldn't just help new developers, it would help *everyone*, >>> especially the existing core devs. It would massively speed up >>> development of the OS, and the release engineering process. It would also >>> make keeping the OS up to date with bug and security fixes for the stable >>> branch, because that would be a branch we push updates to. >> >> Definitely in serious need of overhaul. >> >>> We should still leverage the Oracle upstream to import changesets that >>> are of interest to us. But we shouldn't manage our contributions as a set >>> of patches on top. >> >> And herein lies the biggest key paradigm shift. > > Yup. It's a scary one - divorcing from Oracle will make pulling in their > changes much harder. But conversely it will set us on our own course. > >>> This is what we should be aiming at for the next build after oi_151. I'm >>> due to send out another email related to the public IPS repos and the >>> version numbers used within. >> >> Rock on, Alasdair!! > > :D > > > _______________________________________________ > oi-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev > -- Sent from my mobile device HeCSa _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
