The divide here seems to be that OpenSolaris started life as "Solaris'
kernel.org" as opposed to the "community version of Solaris". So,
rather than creating a single binary distribution to begin with,
Sun released the source code to the kernel and some other pieces above
the kernel, built a "distribution" around it called Solaris, and
encouraged (or at least didn't discourage) others to build distros too.
In my view, that was a mistake. First of all, I'm not sure what
having multiple distros buys us. Some here have suggested that
multiple distros is what made Linux succeed where others (e.g., FreeBSD)
didn't. I disagree--Linux took off before there was any concept of a
distro (I know, I built one of the first ones, and it was done
to accelerate something that already had traction). The reason
Linux took off had more to do with the BSD lawsuit than anything
else. There were other reasons too, but that was the main one.
I _do_ know the downside of having multiple distributions:
incompatibility. The vast majority of the world sees Linux as a single
platform, but in reality it's a collection of about five _mostly_
compatible platforms. Mostly compatible doesn't cut it in the world of
SLAs though. The problem isn't users wondering "Where do I download
Linux?" as some have correctly pointed out is a non-issue. That was the
problem we solved in the early '90s when we created the first distros.
The problem today is, say, the ISV wanting to target "Linux". Ok.
What distributions? Keep in mind that from a support point of view each
distribution costs as much to support as a wholly different OS. _Mostly_
compatible doesn't cut it. I'm very surprised this argument
doesn't resonate better around here. Do we really want that for Solaris?
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
