On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:46:39PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote: > On 5/13/07, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 03:01:32PM -0700, MC wrote: > > > Two things: > > > > > > Improvement can only take place with change or supplementation. If > > > something does not improve, it will be replaced by superior > > > alternatives. Sun wants Solaris to be successful, so change (or > > > supplementation) must occur. If POSIX told you to hang yourself, you > > > wouldn't do it, right? :) > > > > I think the major point for Ian to be be taking away from here is that > > if he thought he could turn up to Sun and change the default behaviour > > of Solaris because "nothing would break probably" and gee it up by > > putting a bunch of exclamation points in his emails to the community > > then he probably joined the wrong company. Sun has users that depend on > > the default behaviour of Solaris, they're the users who've spent all > > the money so far (because apparently nobody else gives Sun any money due > > to csh) and breaking their stuff, or making them even question whether > > their stuff is going to break, is a very bad idea indeed. > > Well, if that's what you think I've said so far, I haven't done a > very good job of articulating my thoughts. Bottom line is: We have > Zones, so we can provide two environments, one for people who are > perfectly happy with Solaris as it exists today, and another for > people who are more familiar with the "Linux" environment. So, the > fact that we don't agree which one is better isn't a showstopper.
Agreed. I don't see how it would work, but I am happy so long as
backwards compatibility is retained by default.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
pgpIyfUV5QFXP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
