> Exactly. > So we have an nwam that cannot support more than a > single interface, > we cannot (semi-officially) have more than one link > to the same gateway (because that's rocket-science), > we can't print A4 to an A4-sheet from Gnome (at > least), > quite a few machines hang at boot, > we have corrupted boot archives at power failures, > we still have unsupported interfaces (wired and > wireless), > there are some lacks at multimedia support, > printing hangs some place in between, > (and what not)
Yes, because the whole thing has gone from being a traditional "big bang" development cycle to Google's "release early, release often". Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen; only history will be able to tell. One thing is certain, the Solaris you are seeing is under very, very heavy development, and even in spite of Jeff Bonwick's now famous "FCS all the time", sh*t happens. That's the way of the world, life, and the universe. > But we have a handful of forks, that work neither (as > expected). Correct, and that is BAD! However, again, historia est magistra vitae, and if history is any indicator, this is exactly what happened to Linux. So if that in turn implies that Solaris will someday be as important as Linux is today, then it's a good sign. > Would it not have been the task of > managers to focus on 'getting the core system right', > before someone creates a desktop, storage, or > whatever else, distribution? No, because what you are seeing is a massive development effort running in parallel; it's a miracle that the thing even works considering the complexity and the scale of development, and the only reason why it does is because of system engineering, something that's very rare to see nowdays (I write this from my own experience). > Uwe, > who can't contribute code, but has raised a lot of > practical issues at using OpenSolaris as 'desktop > production' machines. As long as a Unix sysadmin > encounters problems thereby, it is more urgent to > iron out those problems. Yes, and that is good so. Do you know why? I will tell you. When a "Unix sysadmin" raises an issue, it is because he has found a serious issue in the trenches. I am NOT writing about Uwe's lone desktop system here, I am writing about an issue which affects very large (think tens of thousands of systems, multiplied by tens of thousands of customers) environments. So it is thanks to the "Unix sysadmin" and the kernel engineers at Sun, that Uwe is able to do his online banking every day, get alerts on his stocks, book his flight tickes, pump the fuel into his vehicle, check his news feeds, send an SMS, make a phone call, and find fresh eggs & milk in his local "Famila", "Aldi", "Edeka", and so on. Without the issues identified by "Unix sysadmins", many of the things that Uwe takes for granted would cease to function for unspecified amounts of time, bringing then environment to a collapse in short order. And oncemore, just to set things straight, the "Unix sysadmin" watches over all issues vigilantly, and has not only made sure that Uwe can lead his life with all the above described comforts, but also that Uwe's desktop will sooner or later work as expected, because that same "Unix sysadmin" has also opened bugs and RFEs for the issues that affect Uwe's (and many other millions of users') desktop. Just thought you'd like to know. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
