* David Edmondson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-13 11:45]: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:30:20AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > Although I agree that there are problems with a "give Sun hardware" > > policy, I am less convinced that there shouldn't be some contributor, > > not employed by the device manufacturer, able to test that, with the > > device installed, the software actually functions according to the > > architectural specification. > > How might this work for Sun developed or integrated devices or > platforms?
Generally, I don't want to set up a hardware escrow/swap scheme, but instead understand how we get to some commonly held level of trust. Perhaps I am mistaken in thinking that--for ON (since other consolidations/communities could have different criteria)--Sun would achieve that level of trust rapidly. Maybe not. Specifically, it depends on whether you treat Sun as one entity--and hold to a strict interpretation of my use of "employ". Certainly there have been both reviews and testing of hardware and software components within Sun where initial versions of those components were denied integration. So there's an inside-Sun set of trust relationships that either need to be exposed, or the process needs to be restructured so that equivalent community relationships get established... - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
