I'm replying to all in case people have different opinions.
I'd like to start off by saying that I think this is a great thing to
do, and that it is definitely not the easiest effort to target in
getting more students on board -- especially under time constraints.
Hopefully my comments won't make the list of requirements longer: my
hope is that the requirements will just be even more focused.
Meta-comments:
* I understand that the requirements have already shifted at least
slightly to point out that there will be multiple CDs: installable
ISO images will be separate from training and other materials.
* Have you all considered what the user experience will be for the
training DVD? For example, will the training DVD give a high-level
install demonstration that is watched before installation or was the
intention to provide step-by-step instructions on installation? If
the latter, multiple DVD players will be needed in order to be
effective.
Anyway, understanding how the user will make use of what is being
provided will help when you are coming up with solutions.
* From a format perspective, I think it would be clearer to lists
motivations before details, but that may just be me...
Now on to specifics:
* 2.1 Business opportunities: I think "installing" OpenSolaris is also
something that should be included. If not in the initial release of
this kit, in a future one. What I mean is instructions for how to
build OpenSolaris and BFU to the bits that were just built. Come to
think of it, there isn't anything specified here about building
OpenSolaris, and that should probably be included in any case. If
nothing else, a pointer to the developer's guide should be provided.
Update "Similarly, the media" to be "Similarly, the media kit". In
the same area, tools should probably be included in the media kit.
Similar to my meta-comment about usage, are there some things you
want to provide as part of this kit that don't require "diligent"
study? Just thinking that we should make some things easy to
understand if possible.
* 3 Classification: You should simplify the definition of "must have"
to "solution must address" rather than "solution must not fail to
address".
* 4.1.1 Details: I think the pointers should be higher priorities than
the actual (current) compatibility list. They get old so quickly,
that knowing where to find the latest information will be crucial.
* 4.2.1 Details:
- I don't know what this requirement is -- "Installation of..."
does not indicate what is being shown here. While you don't want
to include solutions in the requirements, something else is
needed here.
- I think these requirements should be eliminated with the focus
on "multibooting" instead: it is safe to assume that no students
will install Solaris exclusively on their laptops/desktops.
- SPARC should be a need or nice to have since it is unlikely that
students will have SPARC systems.
- I don't think there are many differences between x86 and x64
installation and booting, so you probably just need to focus on
the differences.
- I'm not sure what you need to show for booting...
* 4.4.1 Details: Is the second requirement referring to upgrading?
Using what mechanism(s)? This should be spelled out more clearly.
Luckily, upgrading is pretty well documented.
* 5.1.1 Details: Do you really need to include the BSD->SunOS history?
Seems like you don't need to go that far back in the history, but
maybe that is completely appropriate...
* 5.2 Comparison with Linux: Are you comparing Solaris to Linux or to
a Linux distribution?
* 5.3 Comparison with FreeBSD: Why FreeBSD vs. NetBSD?
* 5.4.1 Details: I think SMF needs to be a "must have". Since SMF is
on by default and is something that other Unix-based distributions
don't have, it seems particularly relevant.
* 6.3: Giving an overview of the ways people can participate and the
associated processes seems like it would be useful (e.g.,
joining/starting a project).
* 7.2.1 Details:
- I think the "Fixing bugs" item should be re-worded to at least
be in the right order, though it would probably be best to just
say "Process for fixing bugs" or something.
- Why do you want to have "Release cycles and commercial
distributions" included?
- Requesting enhancements is similar enough to fixing bugs, that
they should probably be bundled together.
Thanks,
Karyn
Maria Lopez wrote:
> All,
>
> We appreciate the feedback we have received so far and look forward to
> receiving a more complete participation. If you have not yet responded,
> please due so by *Monday, 2/13* or if you need more time, please let me
> know.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Maria
>
> Maria Lopez wrote On 02/01/06 10:51,:
>> To All:
>>
>> We are working on producing an OpenSolaris training DVD focused
>> primarily for university students. We would very much appreciate your
>> feedback on the attached requirements document. This document includes
>> requirements in the following categories:
>>
>> * Install & boot the latest Solaris development build
>> * Understand the key differences between OpenSolaris and other operating
>> systems
>> * Have an awareness of the online resources available for further assistance
>> * Have a familiarity with the OpenSolaris community development process
>>
>> We have classified the requirements in the following categories:
>>
>> *Must have*: Solution cannot fail to address this requirement
>> *Need to have*: Quality of solution is critically impaired by failing
>> to address this requirement
>> *Nice to have*: Quality of solution is enhanced by meeting this
>> requirement
>>
>> Please pay close attention to the classifications and let us know if
>> you wish to adjust accordingly or if you feel something is missing in
>> the requirements.
>>
>> Please take some time to read over this draft and send along your
>> feedback by *February 8th*(if at all possible). Thank you very
>> much for your help!
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Maria
>
