I'm clear on everything, thank you for your input. :) I think we are talking on two different levels and that is why I keep misunderstanding you. Alan and Bev got me all sorted out! :P
Respectfully, David ----- Original Message ----- From: James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 11:37 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris? > David J. Orman writes: > > Is it or is it not true that @sun people contribute the majority of > > the code that is OSOL? I'm pretty sure my comment was fair, and in > > NO way was it intended as negative/insulting/etc. I have upmost > > respect for Sun, and I am *trusting* Sun in their intent. This > > should be viewed as positive. > > It's true ... but it also seems sort of beside the point. Take a look > at the makeup of the CAB and then decide. > > > > We've had many official declarations about our intent and > direction> > from the highest levels of the company. If you're not > moved by those, > > > then I doubt that anyone here can help. > > > > Yes, I realize that, but you (again, not attempting to be > > inflamitory, but you bring this up) stated various things in earlier > > emails that led me to believe maybe there had been a shift. > > No, there's no "shift" here. > > > It could > > completely have been my *incorrect* interpretation of your > > words. I'm not putting blame nor pointing fingers. I'm simply > > saying, I saw things said that made me believe there was something > > different going on than what I had heard "officially" prior, and I > > was needing clarification (again, obviously other people questioning > > things too, they responded!) > > I think there must be a misinterpretation here. > > > I understand that now, and that's what I asked in my previous mail > > directed at you. You replied I was incorrect, OSOL is not SX, is not > > Solaris. > > Right, and that's still true. Open Solaris is _not_ Sun Solaris. It > is where we (Sun) have, keep, maintain, and develop the source code > that (at least in part) _becomes_ Solaris. And also BeleniX and > several other products. > > Big difference. > > > It is, it's the source/upstream/whatever term you want to call it, > > but it is SX/Solaris (albiet those releases are delayed.) > > To me, it's like saying that "www.kernel.org" is RedHat. Really? How > is that true? Sure, RedHat uses (some of) those bits to make their > distribution. Sure, if you get something into www.kernel.org, RedHat > may well pick it up and use it. > > But that doesn't make them the same thing. One is the source base, > and the other is a distribution -- a product. > > > I'm not > > saying OSOL can only be used for those, obviously other distros have > > sprung up and used OSOL as their basis. Just OSOL in it's stock > > form, as a project, is what becomes SX and is what becomes > > Solaris. > > That part's correct. > > > This has been confirmed, and I am clear on things now. Your > > previous mail to me (at least through my interpretation) told me I > > was incorrect in this type of thinking. > > It's still incorrect to say that the source repository is the same > thing as the product. The distinction is important because there may > well be lots of products (distributions) that are based on the same > source, and yet are intentionally *NOT* the same. > > -- > James Carlson, KISS Network > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive > 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 > MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 > 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
