Martin, this is the wrong list to get website changes implemented.. Please subscribe to website-discuss, and send an email to that list. (Derek, and Alan are the people that you need to be contacting).
Cheers, Brian On 10/23/07, Martin Bochnig <mb1x at gmx.com> wrote: > Please count me out of that brand related discussion. > I didn't get any of my questions or suggestions answered or commented, > including my offer to do something for SPARC-Indiana. Rather the > opposite: From that point on nobody even mentioned me anymore. > > In order to enjoy a monologue, I don't need to type that stuff in and > send it around the world. > > > Thank you. > p.s. the link on *http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ is still pointing to > > "marTux* ? Download <http://www.martux.org/RELEASES/> | More Info > <http://www.martux.org/READ-ME.ascii> > > marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community > Release OpenSolaris distribution for SPARC (sun4u for now, sun4v > later)." > > > > > Martin Bochnig wrote: > > Hello there ... > > > > John Plocher wrote: > > > >> [Lets take this discussion over to the new branding alias: > >> trademark-policy-dev at openSolaris.org > >> Feel free to subscribe. > >> -John] > >> > >> > > > > John, thanks for inviting me, I just subscribed. > > First I would like to say, that it isn't something like "whine whine, I > > feel MartUX comes too short" what has brought me to post to this thread > > earlier this day. And especially isn't it targeted against any single of > > the community members (kind regards to everyone, including Sara and Ian!). > > I just find the whole thing confusing (to myself, and then, what will a > > new user think, or even Linux biased parts of the press?). > > I think it can be done better, see John's excellent suggestions below. > > > > > > > >> Shawn Walker wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Unfortunately John, I can't agree with that. > >>> > >>> The problem is that users already have the expectation that clicking > >>> the "Download" button on OpenSolaris.org will let them download > >>> "OpenSolaris." > >>> > >>> > >> But it doesn't /do/ that. Instead, it takes them to a page with half > >> a dozen distro choices, none of which are branded in any consistent > >> manner: > >> > >> Solaris Express Community Edition is Sun's binary release for > >> OpenSolaris developers. It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source > >> and additional technology > >> > >> > > > > Shouldn't that be have been called OpenSolaris Express, from 20050614 on > > ... ? > > > > > >> Solaris Express Developer Edition is Sun's tested release built > >> from the OpenSolaris bits and additional technology > >> > >> > > > > Confusing, as the Developer Edition DVD also offers a classic SXCR > > boot/install option. > > Worse: The CD's also seem to offer both options at first, only to tell > > you later, that the CD version doesn't offer the "Developer" thing. > > Not to mention, that the "Developer" install ships with a version of > > SUNWspro that is not supported for building ON (has this changed, is it > > going to?) . Is that "Developer" thing actually available for SPARC? > > > > Is anybody calling this consistency? > > > > > >> BeleniX is a *NIX distribution that is built using the OpenSolaris > >> source base > >> > >> marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community > >> Release OpenSolaris distribution > >> > >> > > > > Please: I have changed the spelling to MartUX, four months or so ago. > > Plus: There is also a x64/x86 version available for 13 months now. Full > > with 9.2GB (!) of clofi compressed CSW packages. I thought somebody > > would ever adjust the description. I had written to the general discuss > > list back then. It is actually the first x86 LiveDVD that had ever been > > released. Plus the first one (whether CD or DVD) capable of fully > > booting into a working Xorg on x64 in 64bit mode. > > I guess nobody except Ken Mays had ever given it a try. No wonder, as > > most people don't have a SPARC. So they won't open that link exclusively > > pointing to a "LiveCD for SPARC". > > Here it was, now completely outdated: > > http://www.martux.org/RELEASES/x86_and_x64/DVD/ > > It is the formerly planned mBE (MartUX Blastwave Edition). > > I have offered Blastwave n times to make something like a CSW community > > distro out of it. Every single CSW maintainer can find himself in > > /etc/release! But personal issues prevented that. > > > > > >> NexentaOS is ... built on top of the OpenSolaris kernel and runtime. > >> NexentaOS integrates OpenSolaris (SunOS kernel) ... > >> > >> SchilliX is an OpenSolaris based UNIX Live CD > >> > >> In truth, all of these should be branded similarly - they are all based > >> on OpenSolaris technology, because all of them have chosen to include > >> different sets of packages. Furthermore, since there is no attempt to > >> define "OpenSolaris" or claim baseline compatibility, it is misleading > >> to say that they are either OpenSolaris-based or OpenSolaris-Compatible. > >> > >> > > > > Exactly. > > I agree in that some compatibility appcert-tool / document / program / > > project should be set up. To avoid missing lib - conflicts or > > incompatible lib versions. But basically all existing distros _are_ > > fully compatible to each other. > > > > > > > >> I would liketo see this download page eventually list ALL the various > >> distros, grouped by compatibility claims and sorted by release status > >> (releases, development in progress, ...): > >> > >> OpenSolaris Compatible Distros > >> ============================== > >> Indiana - Laptop Distro Prototype (November, 2006) > >> Indiana - Desktop/Laptop Distro (development in progress, currently > >> at build 7 out of 16) > >> ... > >> > >> Add-on package repositories > >> =========================== > >> ........ > >> ........ (mirror) > >> > >> OpenSolaris Based Distros > >> ========================= > >> Solaris Developer Express (based on ON build 70) > >> Solaris Express (based on ON build 86) > >> Schillix 0.1.2.3 (based on ON build 86) > >> Nexenta 4.5.6 (based on ON build 85) > >> MarTux 0.3 (based on ON build 87) > >> ... > >> > >> Distros using OpenSolaris Technology > >> ==================================== > >> PlocherModelTrain Appliance > >> ... > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > I love that table. > > Something like this would make most sense to me. > > Of course strictly monitored, tested and documented. > > But I get the impression nobody at Sun has ever even tested my own > > x64/x86 bits from 2006, cannot speak for the other distros. > > Why not reviewing each new distro release and posting the results? Maybe > > a contest as potential tool to increase motivation for more involvement, > > better results? > > > > > > > > > >>> Every time there is a new SXDE/SXCE release, and the news gets posted > >>> to somewhere like OSNews, there are always a handful of comments from > >>> folks confused by the number of download choices, the differences > >>> between them, and why they can't download something that's called > >>> "OpenSolaris." > >>> > >>> > >> Maybe we are exposing things at too fine a level - the confusion may > >> be because we DON'T YET have *a* release of anything - what we *do have* > >> are snapshots in time of a development process. Nobody has yet put > >> a stake in the ground and claimed to have a real product release, in > >> the sense of the ARC Release Taxonomy. > >> > >> Think this thru for a moment, factoring in the asynchronous nature of > >> repositories. What does it mean to release a distro in such an > >> environment? > >> There is "releasing the recipe", "obtaining the recipe and building a > >> distro > >> out of it", "installing that distro", and "upgrading a system that has that > >> distro installed". > >> > >> Depending on *when* you do these actions, you will get different bits. > >> In the beginning when the recipe was created and the first distro > >> image was constructed, the bits were in a known state. This state > >> is shared with everyone who downloads and installs that particular > >> distro image. Those installed images will immediately begin to diverge > >> >from the original distro bits as soon as the user does a pkg update from a > >> repository containing newer bits. The same goes for anyone who uses > >> the same recipe to recreate a distro image at a later date. > >> > >> Which of these is worthy of being called "a new release of ___"? > >> (I don't have an answer...) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Despite our best efforts over the last few years it has become clear > >>> that users have made their choice about what they expect. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > Best efforts: Please define. > > > > > > > >> and that would be? > >> > >> -John > >> > > > > Something like an installable CSW-OpenSolaris? > > I bet on that. But I guess such an option has never been considered by > > Sun, I do remember claims about Blastwave's packaging not being > > "professional enough". > > > > No flames please. > > > > %martin > > > > p.s. I don't speak for any entity except for myself. I'm not affiliated > > with any organization, including Blastwave. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
