--- "Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good. He sounded like some ksh zealot. > > Oh, I am. The _creators_ of all other shells are > heretics that should have > been burned at the stake (metaphorically speaking). > But the poor misguided > fools who prefer other shells...if it doesn't get in > my way any to have them > on the system, under names that are clear as to what > they are, while I'd > prefer to see them converted to the One True Way, I > wouldn't use coercion > on them if they didn't use it on me.
? > > [...] > > > So why should Solaris be any different? If it's > > > going to have headaches, > > > it ought to be its own, thought out to satisfy > the > > > needs of its user base, > > > and not simply someone else's adopted wholesale. > > > > I am not asking Solaris to go backwards now am I? > > Break anything for any existing Solaris user = worse > than backwards. What have I asked that implies that is what I want? > Introduce new stuff in such a way that existing > users that don't want > it can simply ignore it = ok, whatever, disks are > cheap, and if not, I'll > pkgrm that stuff. nexenta put in some limited backward compatibility for stuff that expect pkg-*. I do not see why completely switching the packaging system is impossible. nexenta has done it to the minimum required with their limited resources. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
