MC wrote: >> My contention is that this live CD is oriented at a desktop client, >> not a file server > > I don't know what demographic Sun is looking at for Indiana, but I > can tell you that the part of the internet that I come from is > perhaps exclusively interested in opensolaris as a ZFS file server. > So to leave that out would be a missed opportunity to say the least. > It should be pretty obvious by now that ZFS is at least as popular as > opensolaris itself... ( > http://www.google.com/trends?q=zfs%2C+dtrace%2C+opensolaris&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 > ) > > Every linux distro has GNU and gnome or KDE. Nobody has ZFS. To not > capitalize on ZFS in every way possible would be, I'd say, not good. > :) >
I'm all for capitalizing on ZFS, which is why the installer is going to provide it as the root file system, but honestly, if the zfs and zpool commands are too much for someone, I gotta wonder if we've got a hope with them, anyway ;-) > >> Since we don't yet have a JRE that can be included > > It was my understanding that the JRE would be included, so it would > make sense to plan for that. (Ian Murdock on this: > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=134939#134939 ) > > > I also see from Moinak and Anil that the JRE is reasonably sized: > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=134668#134668 > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=134696#134696 > We do not yet have a JRE that's built or packaged for Indiana, so it's speculation. But 45 MB (which is my estimation of the footprint of the Java 6 runtime including 64-bit support) is a very large chunk (~25%) of what's available working from the current package list. I'm sure we'll include the JRE once one is delivered, and that's why the current size is well under the maximum, to allow for JRE and other things we can see coming. That's about as much planning as we can do right now. > >> As the native CIFS support is expected "soon" > > I thought there was only a CIFS client project, not a CIFS server > project. :( Can you point me to the CIFS server project? True, but we know the CIFS client is going to have some size impact, too. Whether we should include something like samba that's 50% duplicative becomes a difficult call as we're allocating out the space that remains, so I'm still saying we should wait. > > As far as the space of individual components like webmin and > smcserver and Samba and SWAT go, I obviously don't know what will fit > and what won't. All I can say is that from my experience as a casual > SXCE user, I wasn't able to do much of anything with SXCE without > those tools. And it took me hours of tinkering just to read about > their existence via google searches. So I think it would be a > disservice to other new users to leave them obscured (or even worse > removed) from Indiana. Well, what fits on the CD is entirely the issue, which is why my reports of updated lists include that as information; we'll probably be at the point of having to drop one thing to include something else by the time March rolls around, if the thing to be added is of any significant size. Were your problems finding those tools something that the Image Packaging System infrastructure and appropriate tools would address satisfactorily? Dave
