Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>
>> The fundamental problem I have with that, is that when software that is
>> inferior (perhaps greatly so) is located in /usr/bin, the user has *no*
>> way to distinguish between "first class" software developed at Sun's
>> traditional quality standards, and various crapware that Sun has just
>>
>
> Using this kind of classification does not seem to be a good idea. Not all
> OSS is crapware and there is also crapware from Sun.
>
> It may be a good idea to classify the software on Solaris but this should
> be done based only on the quality and not based on just the origin.
>
I agree wholeheartedly, and never meant to imply that all software
written from Sun was superior, or that all FOSS was inferior. What I
*do* think we need to do though, is classify the software that has made
it through the Sun (or perhaps, better stated as OpenSolaris)
*processes* (which also generally provide some basic support guarantees,
and *tend* to weed out complete crapware). Stuff which we just pick up
from some open source repo with no intention of changing, and which has
known architectural deficiencies, shouldn't be placed in the same
category as stuff that we fully commit to supporting, and which has had
at least some architectural and cteam (and also code!) review. Put
another way, unless the FOSS is willing to rise to the same bar as our
"native" software, I don't think it should automatically get a free
ride, at least not without some way for the user to understand that this
has occurred.
-- Garrett
`
