How about OSW (Open Software) ? Its to the point, its short (so it can be used as a vendor prefix) and is currently unused.
Steve On 5/5/07, Dennis Clarke <blastwave at gmail.com> wrote: > One or two comments .. I snipped a lot but left in the context required : > > On 5/5/07, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> wrote: > > Joseph, I mixed together a bunch of your emails, and answer the points > > below. > > > > > Also, remember, this is now OpenSolaris, so even Freeware is ambiguous. > > > > Agreed. (Freeware is out for a couple reasons. Mainly because Freeware > > isn't open source. > > The term "freeware" means about as much as "shareware" these days. > > Stick with "open source" because we all know what that is. > > > They are basically integrators, taking pieces from a variety of other > > sources. OpenSolaris.org on the other hand, primarily develops the > > pieces, with integration almost being either an unspoken given, or an > > after thought. > > Blastwave takes sources from other places and projects and then > builds the compiled results with Sun Studio 11 ( or 8 or 10 or GCC in > a pinch ) and ensures that no dependency gets left behind. This is > "integration" because those resultant packages must work on Solaris 8 > and 9 and 10. We need to make a bit of a break from the past here with > OpenSolaris. When I say "break" I do NOT mean that we break what > works well. > > More on that later. > > > Eventually, I would like to see OpenSolaris ship two distributions. 1) > > OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition, and 2) OpenSolaris Community Edition. > > OpenSolaris revelas and exposes sources. If there are > distributions they are from Sun Microsystems Inc. and NOT > OpenSolaris.org. Would you please stop talking about distributions > from Sun. We re not even remotely authorized to speak about how > Solaris gets built or what goes into it. The distributions that we > call OpenSolaris Community Release ( snv ) are built at Sun by Sun for > Sun and not by any community organization outside the Sun firewalls. > > Drop the references to the OpenSolaris distributions being "shipped". > > There are no such things in existence and those OpenSolaris > Community release things ( snv or Solaris Express ) have done nothing > but weaken this project. Why do you think that the only real > out-there-in-the-community distros that exist are SchilliX and marTux > and Nexenta? I can not even point at Nexenta because it is a hybrid > GNU/OpenSolaris thing but at least it is a community project. > > Am I getting through here loud and clear ? It this signal distorted? > > The source to whatever OpenSolaris is resides at OpenSolaris.org > and that does not mean that any distribution is released from there. > That is the job of vendors that base their distro on those sources. > Like Sun Microsystems Inc for example as well as SchilliX which was > the first ever real OpenSolaris distro. > > > Inititially these two distros, will probably be identical. (They may > > even be further broken into server/desktop, but I think that would > > best be an install option) > > Not our business. > > > > I don't have a good name suggestion. Sorry 'bout that. > > > > I think what we are talking about is either, "integration", > > "packaging", "bundling" or "distrib". (Or something similar along > > those lines) > > Let's just think in terms of what I know works. We are talking > about a single unified community based open source software > integration service that provides standards compliant software > packages to be readily installed into any OpenSolaris based > distribution. In order to achieve that we need to spec out some > standards and then ensure that an electric fence is set up around > them. We work within them and we provide and distribute the software > and the sources based on them. > > This process has worked incredibly well for years with Blastwave. > > > I think "packaging" is my first choice. > > Good term but ... I think that "integration service" is a better term. > > We need to provide more than just a "package". > > > > Merging the communities is an ARC-free move - just do it. > > > > Ok, I'll talk to Eric B. about setting up a new mailing list, once we > > agree on the name. > > I'll come back to that. > > > > > 7) Sun should start giving credit to contributors. (Ian) > > > Its been discussed a lot already and is really a separate issue. You've > > > got enough > > > here that it really should be kept separate. > > > > > > However, it is an issue (which may have stalled). Start with Simmon on > > > this one. > > > > > > Actually, I wonder if this is Sun's to decide. I *think* its something > > > in the CAB approved development ruleset. I suspect the CAB can > > > revise it. (The whole idea was for Sun to put a stake in the ground, > > > not that the stake couldn't be moved.) > > > > Agree that this is a separate issue. > > > > Could someone who is knows someone at SuSE, RedHat or Ubuntu please > > reach out and see how they handle it. You are right it is a Sun issue, > > but that doesn't mean OpenSolaris can't set it's own standard. > > Finally, I think that the contributor agreement, should have a section > > regarding wether or not, and how, one wants to be acknowledged. (Maybe > > someone want sto be anonymous.) > > Generally a package maintainer is reffered to as the "maintainer" > and that works well at Debian and Blastwave. Its open for discussion > and not a show stopper anyways. > > > >> - When appropriate blastwave maintainers will also maintain SFW > > >> - Blastwave will continue to maintain unstable S11 packages > > >Nit: last two bullets could be less ambiguous. > > > > Ok. How about?: > > > > - Leverage the experience of the Blastwave package maintains. They are > > already familiar with the packages, package authors, and stability. > > They would be natural candidates for maintaining stable OpenSolaris > > packages. > > and the infrastructure for creation, testing and delivery is in > place already. > > > - The S11 branch of blastwave will follow the OpenSolaris pathing and > > packaging standards such that the full blastwave tree could be > > considered the unstable repository/branch of the OpenSolaris > > distribution. > > > > > With this many inclusions, I don't even know who I'm responding to, but > > > why is the goal "to be integrated into OpenSolaris". Is everything FOSS > > > integrated into Red Hat, SuSE or Windows? > > > > No. As you mentioned early OpenSolaris is FOSS, and is not integrated > > into Linux. (Also forget Windows, it's irrelevant to this discussion, > > as most FOSS software is ported to MS as an afterthought.) > > > > Being less literal, a large majority of open source software targets > > Linux, so the integration is for the most part trivial. (Also when we > > say integration, we are in fact referring to making "universe" as > > large as possible. > > > > > > 9) Woo upstream developers and maintainers, to join the cause. This of > > > > course would be limited to smaller projects. (Once we have a coherent > > > > procedure and policy in place.) (Brian) > > > Why "of course limited to smaller projects"? I simply don't understand. > > > > rpm is supported on *ALL* Linux distros. Therefore, RPMs are the natural > > choice for distribution. I say smaller packages, because they are generally > > maintained by one person. They are also more prone to see more widespread > > adoption of their packages. > > > > > WHO builds the packages? > > > > OpenSolaris participants. > > The maintainers inside the infrastructure provided and compliant > with the standards and testing required. > > > > WHO distributes the packages? > > > > OpenSolaris.org. If Sun chooses to follow out network based > > distribution method, then Sun would also. > > wrong > > This is a weak link. The SDLC is a curse. > > Mirror sites work and so does automated package installation. > > More on this later. > > > > WHO supports the packages? > > big topic .. more on this later. > > Dennis >
