[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> So much of this reminds me of all the BSD-SVR4 religion of 20 years ago. >> SunOS changed then to build something better, and my view is that's to >> a fair extent similar to what we're doing with Indiana. I keep hoping >> we can agree on the need to change and start finding ways to >> accommodate, but so far my hopes seem in vain. >> > > Which is why change for change sake is wrong and thorough analysis is > needed to determine what changes are really needed. > How can you do a thorough analysis of a change that has so many (unknown) consequences? I don't think it's possible.
Strong compatibility with previous versions is a strength of Solaris but there are some weaknesses that 20 years ago were probably good solutions. I think there is obvious need for change but that the change has to happen carefully. > And the best way to get into religious wars is to make changes to > certain defaults which some people like and some do not. > Whats funny is that the hardest thing to fight is a belief (or belief system). No amount of hard evidence can budge a strong belief. Change still needs to happen regardless of beliefs, otherwise you get stagnation. The community that is with Solaris and has been since the dawn of SunOS probably won't drop it just because it has been modernized a bit. However, if Solaris stays as it is then it may fail to attract enough new interest to perpetuate itself cleanly through another generation. my $cent++, -Tim _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
