Mike Meyer writes: > it. What I found was flat out scary. To wit, from the project overview > page: > > "... the OpenSolaris project does not provide an end-user > product or complete distribution."
That doesn't mean that _nobody_ does this; it only means it's not a goal of that one project. (I'm actually not sure what of the myriad of pages you were quoting there, and I see no such text on the Indiana page, so if you could include a URL when quoting things, that'd probably help.) > This seems like the OpenSolaris project is *planning* to become the > same kind of train wreck that GNU/Linux already is. I see signs of I disagree. First of all, the Indiana project (which is producing that "OpenSolaris distribution) has not integrated with the rest of OpenSolaris yet. They're currently just a project. They're off doing their own thing, running an interesting experiment. The jury is most definitely out on which parts of the experiment succeed, which fail, and thus what happens when it finally integrates. Nobody is forcing anyone to use those bits. It's just another unintegrated project, like Crossbow or my own RBridges project yet. Until it integrates, nothing's really carved in stone. (Even then, "carved in stone" is a tough thing to say for something as malleable as software.) > that already. There appear to be a multitude of distributions with > questionable interoperability, each having their own preferred > packaging system. Indeed; that part is true, and fairly obviously _intentionally_ so. > Is this really the case? Or did I miss a document somewhere that > explains how the various distributions interrelate in such a way that > if someone says they're running "OpenSolaris XX", I'll know what's > installed beyond just the kernel? I think that if the direction of Indiana concerns you, you should send that feedback to that project team (the address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- not to the general OpenSolaris community. I believe that all projects should be free to do what they want. No matter how outrageous it might seem to others, or how unlikely it may be to be usable, every project ought to have free reign to do what it sees fit. Where the rubber meets the road is in two places: first, there's the "endorser" relationship with a community. Every project needs at least one to survive on opensolaris.org, and communities can reasonably withdraw endorsement if a given project is not going where the community wants to go, or isn't solving the problems the community wants to have solved. Second, it's in integration. Most projects need to find a way into a distribution -- either by integration with an established consolidation that delivers to distributions, or by appealing to the distributors themselves. That's a second point at which we can take a step back and say, "gee, is this something we really want?" But until we get to that point, I think it makes sense to say that going to the Indiana project with concerns about that team's direction is the best advice. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
