James Carlson wrote: > 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.) >
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/ section "What is the OpenSolaris project?" third paragraph,,, Part of the problem here is the overloading of the term "project". Just as Sun will cause an equally confusing overloading of OpenSolaris (RT) >> 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. > IMHO this is exactly what describes a distribution, abase OS, and number of interesting and useful packages or repository, and the distributions "secret sauce", the installation tools and the packaging methodology. >> 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. I would invite yo to participate in the upcoming Requirements gathering virtual meeting that Tim Cramer is sponsoring. sse http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Indiana#OpenSolaris_Community_Strategy_Planning_Meeting for information. rich _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
