Karyn, Thanks for taking the time to look over the document and for your great comments.
We went through all your feedback and here are our comments: (please see below) Karyn Ritter wrote: > 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. > Yes. we discussed this point and we will add a line item in section 8.3.2 which will include: Material provided requires only one DVD capable system (Must Have) Interactive material provided requires more than one DVD capable system (Nice to Have) > 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. We added a new section > > Update "Similarly, the media" to be "Similarly, the media kit". In > the same area, tools should probably be included in the media kit. > Done! > 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. > we have taken the word "diligent" out. > * 3 Classification: You should simplify the definition of "must have" > to "solution must address" rather than "solution must not fail to > address". Done! > > * 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. We have changed the classification to "Must Have" > * 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. We deleted section 4.2 from the document. > > - 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. > We changed it to upgrading. We added a new line item -Sun upgrade manager (Nice to Have) > * 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? > Please explain.... > * 5.3 Comparison with FreeBSD: Why FreeBSD vs. NetBSD? We have heard more from FreeBSD than from NetBSD, if you choose different. Why? > > * 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. Done! > > * 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). We added a new line item which will give the user an overview of ways to participate > * 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. > We consolidated a lot of the requirements and we used "process for > fixing bugs & requesting enhancement > - Why do you want to have "Release cycles and commercial > distributions" included? Other folks have suggested that providing students how things are done in a commercial way are useful to have. > - Requesting enhancements is similar enough to fixing bugs, that > they should probably be bundled together. Done! I'll be finishing up on updating this document and we will start working on the solution document. Kind Regards, Maria > > 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 >> >> >
