On 8/29/05, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't make it more simpler than this - OpenSolaris needs a third, > independent party here controlling and running the show - someone whom people > trust to be unbiased and not driven by commercial interests. (That excludes > Sun and Sun appointed people.) Other wise as I said the scale will be small - > And when I said "Sun's limited customers" I didn't mean it to say Sun is > small and has very less customers - I just wanted to point whatever 'x' that > is it is still limited compared to the BIG things OSS is capable of > producing. (See how many projects are supporting Linux - Did one of your > customers thinked/needed creating KDE, GNOME, ALSA? No. So they are still > limited to running big iron boxes to solve one specific problem.) >
I'm sorry, but I think it's too early to say it "won't scale". Since the project isn't in full throttle yet, that's an educated guess at best. > If Sun continues to be at the forefront - take my word for it, most people > will not contribute as they will always suspect the most obvious thing. > Unless Sun encourages community to be on their own and not influence things > you will never see, for example, OpenSolaris full of hardware support , > running on all sorts of lovely embedded devices etc. > I think many of us want to give the project a chance, remember the main charter is not yet ratified. I also think it's rather pessimistic to see we'll never see more hardware support for OpenSolaris just because things don't work a particular way. > Answer this - What OpenSolaris gives you in addition to what Linux already > has? If you differentiated, then there needs to be a substantial difference. > I can't see how the license matters as most projects in OSS are happy with > GPL. You have to think on what basis you will be attracting people, why will > people feel motivated to contribute. Tell me 2 (solid && logical) reasons. > This seems like more veiled arguments for the GPL, and quite honestly I think most of us have had enough licensing arguments. The project has a license, and it is necessary to use this license for now. If you want to discuss licensing don't start it under the guise of being a process discussion thread, start a licensing thread. SUN has stated many times why the license needs to be something like the CDDL and why the GPL won't work. You talk about having an open community, yet it seems you're not open to different ways of doing the same things. It is way too early in the game to see if these processes will or will not work. Half the stuff you've brought up from what I remember has already been addressed by SUN in that they've promised to address those issues as soon as possible. For example, the "official" vs. "development" code trees you spoke of. I also question your ability to critique the process since I'm not aware of you having actually participated in it yet (such as code contributions). Of course, since all the processes aren't yet established it's too early to critique everything. Personally, I've made several code contributions already, and the process has been relatively painless. The amount of work required is not that that difficult on the part of the contributor from my experience. I've contributed to several open source projects over the years, and quite frankly SUN's isn't much different from others (code contribution process wise). It's just that their initial submission part is a bit more thorough in the analysis of a contribution. But I don't see anything wrong with that. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
