For 3rd party software, I'd say that you're on your own to determine
what you need to do in order to support your customers.
If your customers do not want to see new features in patches, then
make sure you don't deliver them that way. If they do, then arrange
to make it happen.
My customers couldn't care less because they can barely cope with anything
that has "Solaris" in it, and wouldn't know the difference between a patch
and a package if it smashed them straight in their face.
I mean, I have people who are literally freaking out when they see a
datastream package and start to panic because they don't know how to install
it!
But that shouldn't stop me from delivering a top-notch quality product to
the best of my knowledge and ability, should it?
Solaris can't (and doesn't) make that determination for you.
That is true. However, Solaris, and the work of the engineers behind it,
must and should be the guideline.
Nobody knows Solaris better than you guys. If the rest of us in the outside
world can't look up to you guys, who then can we look up to?
I use Solaris as a reference when I do my own work, and I've asked many a
time here on how to do something, or why was something done by Sun engineers
when I was in my own qaundry.
But the target has always been delivering a product that would *at least*
meet or exceed Sun's own engineering standards!
I believe that you might have misunderstood what I was trying to
communicate. Granted, I might not have communicated it clearly.
Agreed, but they're not necessarily relevant architectural details
*outside* of the domain in which they're used.
Sooner or later, this whole thing, irrespective of our mutual fondness of
our dear Solaris, comes down to:
more 3rd party software for Solaris, so that more hardware could be sold.
That's the end goal.
And in regards to that, delivering quality Solaris software packaged up to
Sun's engineering standards becomes very important.
If what you're trying to assert here is that third party packages
should develop Rosetta stone encodings mapping patch IDs to features,
and thus depend on this delivery detail of Solaris, then I strongly
disagree. That's an extremely unwise thing to do, because we do _not_
document the patch stream itself as an interface on which you can
depend.
I am not asserting that, nor would I even attempt any such thing.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
