Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Lowe wrote: >> Yeah, I'm not sure how the commercial bits and the other bits entirely >> fit either. I certainly think Sun's commercial interest needs to be >> largely separate from opensolaris.org, perhaps the user-ish bits in >> the opensolaris.com text are users of the *Sun commercial stuff*, and >> not users in general? >> >> Either way, I still read it to suggest the separation is in part to >> leave opensolaris.org alone, or, perhaps more accurately?, to not have >> to wedge their grand marketing plan (or whatever) into the >> opensolaris.org world. > > And that's true to some extent. Engineering does a great job at > writing code, but a poor job at describing the features they're > writing to the end user. I think that's the sole reason why .org falls > down from a marketing perspective. Look at the home page - it's stale, > and doesn't encourage me as a user to even want to download and run > it. > > I don't have a strong opinion about the need for multi-domain, though > I do think it's a better phased approach than causing a lot of > refactoring on .org.
I think the (Sun-only, I guess) commercial aspects of what you proposed pretty much mandate the separation. -- Rich _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
