Shawn Walker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote: > >> 2) Go back to the original FOSS integration cases. >> There was significant discussion about this. It was >> decided that Sun had no right to make quality >> judgments about the quality of FOSS contributions >> relative to Sun contributions. (OK, we made a >> black/white judgment beyond including it or not, >> but nothing more.) >> > > I wasn't part of that discussion, but the items I've seen presented > here so far have nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with > user expectations. > Agreed. I hope my postings have been pretty clear that its not about quality. I've been trying to point out that Sun doesn't have a monopoly on quality. > As a developer / admin, I expect all tools that Sun ships or claims to > "support" to fully support all Solaris functionality. > You said "Sun ships". I'm not sure that's quite right in the context of OpenSolaris, but it probably doesn't matter. > If I am given a tool to synchronise files, and not warned about its > deficiencies relative to Solaris support, I would be one very unhappy > customer when it didn't work as expected. > In general, I actually agree with you. 100%. (Maybe more).
Unfortunately, this means that Sun must alter all FOSS to meet these expectations. If we can't push these changes to the community, we must fork. Gets rather expensive. I'd rather Sun supported 1/10th as much FOSS it imports, but did a really good job of it for what remains. It seems that this is the minority view. (Perhaps the basis for a interesting discussion on some OpenSolaris forum?) Hence, there is some line between fully integrated into Solaris, support costs and "Linux expectations". Just remember the recent, laborious threads for some projects where the community places portability more than Solaris usability. Then again, last time I looked Linux supported hardlinks, so this isn't a Solaris issue at all... Right? - jek3
