Shawn Walker wrote, On 21/06/07 21:06: > On 21/06/07, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> BVK Chaitanya wrote, On 21/06/07 17:41: >> > Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Calling it OpenSolaris would make things easier for beginners and >> >> would also link the project with the community. I cannot see any >> >> disadvantage on the proposal, actually. >> > >> > Where do Belenix, Nexenta, and others stand then? Are we going to >> break >> > the community just for beginners sake? Aren't they OpenSolaris >> > distributions? >> > >> > To me, it looks like calling Indiana OpenSolaris distro exactly means >> > asking other distros to stop their work and redo based on indiana. >> > >> > Indiana is too late to be called The OpenSolaris Distro. >> >> That sounds quite negative. I would rather thing that it isn't too >> late for doing the right thing.. with them. >> >> As we have discussed previously, OpenSolaris ought to be a binary >> distribution. The source code is free, so it's up to each one to >> build whatever they want, although we do need a reference binary >> distribution in which the rest of derived distribution can be based >> on (while they continue being compatible). >> >> We do know how messy it has gotten for the Linux community. I bet >> that many of us have had to deal with this problem before. It's >> nasty; and we definitely do not want to repeat it in OpenSolaris. > > I fail to see how that will happen here. We already have a reference > distribution for compatibility: Solaris 10.
I thought we were talking about the future. Anyway, returning to the name discussion: Doesn't it make sense to name the binary reference after the name of the sources from which it comes from? OpenSolaris 'the binary' comes from OpenSolaris 'the source code', and both of them are developed by OpenSolaris 'the community'. -- Greetings, alo. _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
