"I don't know how to do it myself, but I'm sure that a list of my minimum criteria would be good for the whole ecosystem.
will you please implement these changes and get back to me asap. Thanks PS. can we have a new logo and pie charts? ;-P" http://www.27bslash6.com/p2p2.html On 20 February 2014 13:30, Ray Arachelian <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/19/2014 10:34 PM, seth Nimbosa wrote: > > The reason we need a minimum of criteria for collaboration is > > precisely because the different distributions have different focus, > > approach, and use case scenarios in mind, but a set of core features > > that will make it to a unified kernel will be for everyone's benefit. > > Additional layers will be built upon this basic core and the > > abstraction of these feature-sets and their encapsulation from the > > layers below and above it will ensure that there is more or less a > > predictable and uniform way each of these layers interact together and > > how they behave on top of the core. I mean each distro-specific > > feature-set will be spun out and encapsulated into separate layers of > > development on top of the kernel (and these layers will be slightly or > > wildly different in each distribution) but the core will remain mainly > > intact but dynamically developed jointly by the different distros in > > an upstream manner. > > Indeed. That was the whole point of Illumos.org - it wasn't meant to be > an end-user distro, but rather the canonical source repository for what > once was opensolaris, to be used by the various end-user and commercial > distros, until such time as (either hell froze over or) Oracle released > the sources for Solaris 11, and it would accept upstream changes from > the various distros where appropriate. Sadly it looks like the former > is more likely. > > So ideally, illumos.org is where kernel updates should be sent to. From > the looks of it, ZFS is still being updated, as is d-trace, and various > other parts, so there is activity, but it's nowhere near the scale of > linux, or even the BSDs. > > It might be helpful to have some sort of ABI that allows opensolaris to > steal linux device drivers, or FreeBSD device drivers, either by > recompiling, or by providing a binary interface, but I've no idea how > difficult that would be. Such an interface would allow quick porting of > missing device drivers, at a cost of poor efficiency due to the extra > layers, but at least it would provide some support for hardware that > isn't supported yet. Timing sensitive device drivers wouldn't work very > well with such a scheme. (And of course there's tons of license > compatibility issues there to ameliorate.) > > > _______________________________________________ > oi-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev >
_______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
