On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:08:09PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I'd rather see us modernize our own tools. I resent abdication of > our own engineering, and the necessity of abandoning all good > innovations (like shell builtins) because some people feel its > critical that the only way to achieve these goals is to provide > these 3rd party tools. Its more offensive to me specifically > because there is no good reason why we can't use tools from the > ksh93 community (who seems to be a lot more willing to work with us > on key engineering issues than the GNU folks who are mostly fixated > on Linux) to achieve this.
Instead of re-inventing the wheel at every opportunity, it makes more sense to take the open source projects that have wide acceptance and incorporate them into our product. I think that both ksh93 and gnu fall into this category. It's much better for us to focus our engineering efforts on areas where we can actually differentiate our product from our competitors. I don't have a problem with ksh93 or the builtins, nor am I advocating an entirely GNU userland. What I am suggesting, however, is that the folks who decided to put /usr/gnu in the default path did talk to our customers, and also took note of the fact that Linux is widely adoped across the industry. > I'm also of the opinion that it is a mistake to sacrifice > familiarity for our paying Solaris 10 customers in favor of > familiarity for people coming from Linux. This is a false dilemma. It should be entirely possible for customers to configure whatever default path they desire and deploy that in their enterprise via AI. > Which group do you think contributes more towards the $$ that pay our > salaries? I would love to argue this point with you, but it's not appropriate to discuss it on a public mailing list. -j
