On 6/20/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> On 6/20/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> d Debian?
>>>
>>> Thank you for making my point for me. Do we really want OpenSolaris to
>>> have the same problems? That's the path we're currently on.. -ian
>>
>> Sorry if I don't see it as a problem per se.
>
> I agree.
>
> Ian: In this regard, Linux and Solaris/OpenSolaris evolved in very
> different ways. In OpenSolaris land, there already exists the optimal
> touchstone: the Nevada core (and no less important, the environment and
> processes from which it generates). In Linux land the common touchstone is
> just the kernel. Pardon while I wax poetic, but that is no less than a
> _profoundly critical_ difference between Linux and OpenSolaris.
You don't get it.
It doesn't matter if the common touchstone is just a kernel
or the kernel and the entire userspace. The source
code doesn't make a platform. The binaries make a platform.
I'm sorry... what? Yeah, it doesn't matter if the pile of code called
"OpenSolaris" is just the SunOS kernel, or if it's the whole of ON,
and yes the binaries make a platform... but how does this relate to
the current discussion? The binary distribution shouldn't be called
"OpenSolaris" any more than Ubuntu should be called simply
"GNU/Linux".
It's not an equivalence relation between the two of them
That's why we need OpenSolaris to be a binary distribution.
Trust me. I've lived this mess for the last 10 years, and
it's been my job for the past 2 to try to clean it up,
which turns out to be very difficult to do after the fact..
Linux being a mess has nothing to do with us.
--
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Availiable on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
