On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Edward Pilatowicz <edward.pilatowicz at sun.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 05:01:29PM -0500, 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. > > > > As a developer / admin, I expect all tools that Sun ships or claims to > > "support" to fully support all Solaris functionality. > > > > 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. > > > > you seem to think that as a developer/admin, you're somehow entitled > to have higher expectations for software we ship. it's actually the
Yes, I do. I expect Sun to provide real value, and continue to separate themselves from the "me too" plethora of GNU/Linux distributions available. What has always set Sun apart, in my mind, is the documentation, and the general expectation of better software than what I get from GNU/Linux. > other way around. since you are a developer/admin, i think it's resonable > for "us" (the people shipping the software) to expect you to read the > documentation and figure out if a tool is appropriate for the job you Which is why I said "and not warned about its deficiencies relative to Solaris support." If the documentation clearly indicates what the limitations are, that's a different story. I would almost be completely satisfied if it was documented. However, there is a fine line here. If, for example, Sun were to ship a utility (such as a utility to change file owner) that when run, might cause me to lose all permission or ACL information, I feel as though I would have a right to be angry even if it was documented. Why would Sun ship such a hypothetical utility? -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
