> Dennis Clarke wrote: >> The real issue on the table should be to get a UNIX derivitive distro >> going and not to re-invent the wheel. Just my two cents. More money below. >> >> [...] >> >> It sounds interesting and of value long term but a little outside of the >> scope of Indiana I would think. > > Not in my view.
I read way ahead and I see the 5 year and 10 year vision and that changes everything. I don't know if we can project forward further than three years with any accuracy because market forces shape so much of what we do. Who ever saw VOIP coming from back in 1999? I didn't and I expect that there may be some paradigm shifters ahead. > Yes, the #1 goal here is to get into the distro mindset. > That means thinking about process and infrastructure, > refactoring the core, integrating a package system, etc. I have a tendency to be reactionary because I have to deliver results "right now" . I also have to be fiscally responsible looking forwards at least a few quarters. Maybe more. So I tend ot look at what I have "right now" and what can I glue together right away. The dream is to change the world but with one step at a time. I tend to look at ZFS as a paradigm shift in storage technology and it would be great to get that into something bootable yesterday. Then slap a package delivery system on top. Add a patch intelligence layer and even a step-wise patch and test phase. All great wants and needs. I also know what I have right now as I watch my Kingston Memory stick boot GRUB in front of me here. > However, while these things might be a big deal for the existing > community of Solaris users, it probably doesn't help us *grow* > the community--most people coming from Linux look at a package > system as simply a cost of doing business. Put another way, > no one from Linux is going to look at a package > system and think "I've gotta have that!". They already do.. touché ... point made. > So, while we're thinking about process and infrastructure and all that, > we also need to think about the features that are the draw for the > Linux crowd. I'm not advocating that we launch ambitious new > projects, simply that we better utilize what we already > have. I agree that the former would be getting us off track. I think that I may have said the same things. OKay .. same song sheet here. > That said, even longer term thinking is in scope as long as we > don't get carried away--but that's project management 101. If > Project Indiana is really an umbrella project, it should be > producing a roadmap, gathering requirements that can inform > what projects are the most important to invest in, trying to > align the timelines of the various projects so that outsiders > get a more cohesive view into the OpenSolaris platform, > what new features are coming and when etc. (platform 101 :-). I guess we have to do all that while planning some more advanced courses. > Anyway. Not to get off track, but this is an important thing to > keep in mind as we continue to discuss things. We need a short > term set of deliverables, things we can deliver in the fall timeframe, That is what I am thinking at the moment. Even tinkering. > along with a solid plan for getting them done (resourcing etc.); > we need a medium term roadmap, things that ideally get us to the > next release of Solaris; and we need a long term vision, where > do we want this to go in the next 5 or 10 years, i.e., > how do Solaris and OpenSolaris fit together, things like that. > > That's how I'm looking at Project Indiana anyway. Thank you for the 20,000 feet up view of the landscape. It would be nice if you could post this on your blog and make it a place to point people. That would keep people like me from entering the "what are we doing" infinite loop. Dennis _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
