On 26/10/2007, Brandorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/26/07, John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brandorr wrote: > > > It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing > > > what Sun is going to do. > > > > So, lead it where you want it to go. Make a proposal! > > > > Don't just sit there and complain. > > > > > I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more > > > valuable brand at this point. > > > > Glad you think so. And, maybe to you, it is. All the more reason for > > you to suggest how you think we should use it! > > > > You obviously don't like my suggestions: > > > > 1) Don't wish to use the name /.*OpenSolaris.*/ ? > > no problem, do what you want... > > > > 2) Wish to use it, and are "compatible"? > > Use "___, an OpenSolaris Operating System" or > > "Compatible with OpenSolaris" > > > > 3) Wish to use it, and aren't "compatible"? > > Use "Built on OpenSolaris" or > > "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" or > > other phrases that don't imply compatibility. > > > > so again I ask you - please make a counter proposal. Be part of > > the solution! > > Proposal: No distro will be named OpenSolaris. The definition of > OpenSolaris will not be changed just to suit Sun's marketing needs. I
First of all, this isn't about suiting "Sun's marketing needs." This is about meeting user expectations and the needs of the OpenSolaris community. Having a reference distribution is about meeting user expectations. Having it named OpenSolaris is about meeting user expectations. > know this isn't a discussion of what is and isn't Sun's prerogative, > but you asked for a proposal, and I am asking Sun *NOT* to do > something, and I feel that a counterproposal should have a viable > alternative. Part of that counterprosal is a name that works. Sun is not involved here other than being owner of a trademark and asking the community to help define the usage guidelines. > How about naming Sun's new distro "SolarisNG"? Sun doesn't have a distro; the community has a distro. What Sun distro are you talking about? Project Indiana is a *proposed* distribution by members of the OpenSolaris community, many of which happen to work for Sun. > > > Why doesn't someone > > > > Why don't *you*? What do *you* want? Not, what do you think someone > > else might want... > > I want what everyone else wants. I want to belong to an inclusive open > source community, where decisions aren't driven by Sun's undisclosed > business needs. > John's proposal, as I understand, is that only people/teams that can > use the OpenSolaris trademark as a standalone brand, are people/teams > that make a product that only consists of Sun's binaries. Wrong. You need to get this idea that Sun is the one behind this; they're not. It's just saying that only the distribution designated as the reference distribution *by the OpenSolaris community* would be called OpenSolaris. The community has the ability to through communities to get a vote to happen to change what the reference distribution is. In addition, there is nothing that says Sun has to be the one to produce the binaries. > If the decision to use OpenSolaris as a distro name is for Sun or > noone, then I'd rather no one use it. So I guess I don't want > OpenSolaris to be the name of any distro. It isn't for Sun or noone. It is for the community's reference distribution that best represents OpenSolaris. > > Martin has jumped in and said > > > I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net > > > > as well as > > > > > I can better understand you now, with taking your message from above into > > > account. > > > ... > > > Maybe we can find some compromise (what a bad word) : A reference > > > thing one level higher than the basic kernel+libs OS/Net stuff. > > > You can have that called "Sun $NAME OpenSolaris", rather than > > > "$NAME OpenSolaris". > > > > so I wouldn'd write him off as "...doesn't seem to approve of the plan". > > Ah, but there is a difference. From what I understand, Martin is > proposing something along the lines of: Sun Indiana OpenSolaris > [distro/OS], where the key brand is Indiana. This is not the same > thing as the "OpenSolaris laptop distro" (Which inevitably would be > labeled as "OpenSolaris" in big letters, and laptop distro in tiny, > tiny letters.) Which is wrong. Indiana is not a Sun distribution. Indiana is a distribution proposed by a member of the OpenSolaris community that works for Sun. If someone from Intel had proposed Indiana would you then want to call it the "Intel Indiana OpenSolaris Distro"? > I want the following distros to coexist: > > SolarisNG, OpenSolaris Distro - Indiana > Belenix, OpenSolaris Distro - SolarisNG with KDE (or whatever Moinak > and team want to do) > Nexenta, OpenSolaris Distro - A backwards compatible Solaris distro > that supports both SYSV and Debian packages, as well as SYSV/Solaris > and GNU commands. > MartUX, OpenSolaris Distro > Shillix, OpenSolaris Distro Which is going to be incredibly confusing to users. When I go to Ubuntu.com, I expect to download something called Ubuntu. When I go to FreeBSD.org, I expect to download something called FreeBSD. ...the list goes on. > > If you are so dead set against actually contributing a counter proposal, > > and would rather rail against everything and anything that Sun employees > > attempt to do, there is probably nothing I can do to make you happy. > > The problem is that your current proposal makes a major assumption > that basically states that Sun's Indiana project/distro will be known > as ****OpenSolaris**** blah blah, come hell or high water. Everything > else in the propasal is predicated on that assumption. Thus, a point > by point is pretty useless, until that assumption can be agreed upon, > or is removed from the proposal. The problem with this, again, is that you are portraying the proposed reference distribution as a Sun product; it is not. It is a product of the OpenSolaris community. At this point, the majority of the OpenSolaris community happens to work for Sun. > It seems that many in the community seem to feel that the OpenSolaris > name should not be bestowed to a [proprietary, closed source] Sun > distro. Where has it ever been said that a proprietary, closed source Sun distro would receive the OpenSolaris name? > It also seems that many feel that the current definition of > OpenSolaris shouldn't change. Currently no distro can use the > OpenSolaris trademark as part of their name. I am starting to see the > wisdom of that decision by the founders of the community. Experience has proven that users expect otherwise. > My proposal boils down to not allowing distros to call themselves > OpenSolaris. (At least at this point in time). This obviously would > require Sun to name Indiana something other than OpenSolaris. Perhaps > SolarisNG? A proposal to throw away the proposal isn't much of a proposal. Even if you don't want to allow anyone to use OpenSolaris as their name you still have not properly addressed what you think should be *all of the allowed possible usages* of the trademark and what the possible restrictions might be. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
