Eric Boutilier wrote:
Given how negative this community is on Linux...
But when one looks literally *anywhere* else on opensolaris.org besides
this
list one finds the complete opposite, namely, flexibility, diversity,
non-zealotry, and non-fear. And with that in mind, it's really, really
On 6/4/07, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
Given how negative this community is on Linux...
But when one looks literally *anywhere* else on opensolaris.org besides
this
list one finds the complete opposite, namely, flexibility, diversity,
non-zealotry, and
Good point. I
don't understand why there are so many
people against
something new that can be potentially good for the
community, if they
think is not needed, they shouldn't contribute,
and that's all. I would
like to see more constructive approaches to this
issue. We have
anything to
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
...
Given how negative this community is on Linux...
But when one looks literally *anywhere* else on opensolaris.org besides this
list one finds the complete opposite, namely, flexibility, diversity,
non-zealotry, and non-fear. And with that in mind,
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
...
...
*Building a reference isn't the main goal*. What is the main goal? Making
OpenSolaris more accessible to people like this: ...
Understood, and that's precisely why I keep saying Indiana needs a reset
based on case 2007/047. Indiana's goals (e.g.
On 6/3/07, Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when one looks literally *anywhere* else on opensolaris.org besides this
list one finds the complete opposite, namely, flexibility, diversity,
non-zealotry, and non-fear. And with that in mind, it's really, really key
to note that, when it
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a so called reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the
Blastwave software
bolted in because ALL of that happened with community
people. Just my
thoughts.
I concur.
Not what I want.
Are we building an open community, or are we
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the
Blastwave software
bolted in because ALL of that happened with community
people. Just my
thoughts.
I concur.
Not what I want.
Are we building an open community, or are we
Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the
Blastwave software
bolted in because ALL of that happened with community
people. Just my
thoughts.
I concur.
Are we building an open community, or are we building products for Sun
Microsystems?
what Ian-diana is supposed to be already
I'm interested in doing what needs to be done to move forwards and without
losing those users that run Solaris 8 and 9 and 10. That is a bit of a
challenge to say the least.
Which may or may not be possible since Solaris 8/9/10 are under a
different mandate than OpenSolaris.
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/31/07, Giles Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the
Blastwave software
bolted in because ALL of that happened with community
On 5/31/07, Giles Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the
Blastwave software
bolted in because ALL of that happened with community
people. Just my
thoughts.
I concur.
Not what I want.
From: Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've
spent the better part of the last 5
There's not much I can add here, except to say that repeating the
mistakes of your competitor is most likely a Bad Idea. You have an
opportunity here to provide another compelling reason for all Linux
users to switch - don't blow it!
-John Mark
http://www.hyperic.com/
Rich Friedeman wrote:
What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one
of the existing distros ?
1) The existing distros are pretty much Solaris 11 prototypes, and Solaris 11
is wholly a Sun product. Even though the first captain of the ship Project
Indiana will be a Sun employee, the
From: James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions
that focus on different needs and different areas.
I think you're correct in capturing the power of a reference distro, but not
necessarily the effect of it. Nexenta and Belenix (as
My personal opinion is that I don't want to see a
reference distro, at
this time I just don't see any value in it. What I
do see today is
great competition and collaboration based on the
distros we have. I
think there is scope for more distros (and if I had
the time I would be
Ian,
1. We need a better answer to the question, What is OpenSolaris? Ideally,
it's something tangible, i.e., something people can download and install.
Not exactly, people can see and learn what OpenSolaris is. We already have
distros
based on OpenSolaris. I dont see useful to have such
with rising tide sometimes comes storm.
Is it going to benefit others, or is it smoke and mirrors to wrestle control
away from the community?
Will it attract new users to OpenSolaris, or will it just scuttle BeleniX by
taking users away from them back in to the fold of Sun-owned
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
with rising tide sometimes comes storm.
Is it going to benefit others, or is it smoke and mirrors to wrestle control
away from the community?
Right...enough with the conspiracy theories.
Will it attract new users to OpenSolaris, or
21 matches
Mail list logo
