On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > 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.
Right. But that, to me, is the difference between the GNU/Linux world (and others) and Sun. Just about anything Sun ships, I can depend on there being reliable, basic documentation for. I can tell what its support level is, whether or not I should use it, and glaring deficiencies just by typing "man <x>." > 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?) I would agree with that as well! I would rather see a small, but extremely polished, well-supported set of software from Sun, than a randoms smattering that I can tell apart. > Then again, last time I looked Linux supported hardlinks, so this isn't > a Solaris issue at all... Right? Indeed, it does. -- 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
