Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is
quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ?
What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one
of the existing distros ?
What special status should a reference distribution actually have ?
What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently
to other distros ?
My personal opinion is that I don't want to see a reference distro, at
this time I just don't see any value in it. What I do see today is
great competition and collaboration based on the distros we have. I
think there is scope for more distros (and if I had the time I would be
creating my own to experiement with some ideas), however I don't think
any single distro (not even the "original" Solaris from Sun) should be
elevated to "reference" at this time.
Two reasons in my view:
1. We need a better answer to the question, "What is OpenSolaris?" Ideally,
it's something tangible, i.e., something people can download and install.
The current "OpenSolaris is just the source code, like kernel.org, and Sun
and others take that code and make operating systems out of it" is
confusing.. Bottom line, the market thinks OpenSolaris is an
operating system ("OpenSolaris is the community version of Solaris..
Right?"). I consider this a big part of the "familiarity gap".
There are many (good) reasons for the confusion:
* OpenSolaris is not even 2 yet.
* The opening of Solaris isn't finished (as we've always stated)
* The market has changed substantially since we opened
* Sun's position in the market has changed substantially recently
* The perception of Solaris/OpenSolaris has changed substantially
* The attention being focused on Solaris/OpenSolaris has changed
* We've been *very* successful when *everyone* predicted utter failure.
We've been dealing with the confusion all along, but only recently has
it been a *market* issue. Before we opened it was just the pilot
community (about 300 people inside and outside). Then for the entire
first year after opening, no one outside our community really knew we
existed. Aside from a few of Sun's competitors slapping us around from
time to time, people pretty much left us alone. Most of the attention
(and hostility) towards OpenSolaris occured pre launch and most of that
was around the license announcement. Yet, we continued to release code
and build community. Also, there has been very little in the way of mass
marketing/publicity around the project, whereas we preferred community
marketing and that's where the Sun marketing people have contributed
very well.
This was all by design, actually, since we didn't want Sun to over spin
OpenSolaris while we were also saying that the project would be opened
over time and in stages (releasing code, building infrastructure, moving
projects, migrating gates, etc). In other words, we didn't want to shoot
our mouths off in the market before we had earned our way as an
engineering project. Sun is known to have an aggressive corporate voice,
but we felt that was not appropriate for OpenSolaris. This was a
deliberate decision and one that we debated often. I was supportive of
this strategy -- and lobbied hard for it, actually -- knowing full well
that there would be a time in the future for us to get more assertive.
Then, as a result of our successful first year, we started getting a lot
more attention. Now, instead of the confusion being limited to
relatively few people, it was magnified among many -- across many
markets and cultures and regions around the world. Right around the
start of year two we started promoting the project more aggressively via
conferences and other such activities, and the community became much
more popular as a result.
Bottom line: the market thinks OpenSolaris is an operating system
because OpenSolaris has been unbelievably successful.
I think a distro built entirely from open source and branded as
"OpenSolaris" would be helpful to answering the question of "What is
OpenSolaris?" but I also think that it will not solve the "familiarity
gap" entirely. From a marketing and communications perspective, you have
to consider that you have an entire world to educate. So as your team
works on Indy I'd very much support the notion of community-based
marketing (Advocacy, PR, marketing, user groups, whatever) programs to
support the effort. I'd be happy participate in those activities,
obviously, and I think you'll find a community willing to participate as
well.
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here,
Oh, the other guys pounded on us a great deal, too. :) I kept a nice
record of their quotes in my blog. It goes both ways. But I get your point.
I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've
spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess,
with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible
implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at
building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure.
-ian
Jim
--
Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
