On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, S h i v wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Understood. As always, there are tradeoffs either way.
>>
>> We disagree on which set of tradeoffs is best.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>
> SXDE falls on one side of the trade-off that says a decade old
> features should continue to work as is because there are customers
> paying for the bread & butter of Sun engineers and SXDE being next
> Solaris version in the making it should remain in the path.
>
> Indiana falls on the other side of the trade-off where people are
> *craving* for a desktop at home, personal use, more feature reach user
> land utilities.
> Indiana is starting with a fresh slate and is able to open up newer
> possibilities.
>
> If it falls on the same side of trade-off as SXDE and is bound by the
> same constraints and ARC review uses the same scale, then I am sorry
> to say *Indiana does not need to exist*.
To my way of thinking, Indiana (the new OpenSolaris binary distro, or
whatever it ends up being called) introduces new product management
cycles on Nevada (what Marc, Ian, and Glynn are hugely engaged in doing
here); it introduces a different release cycle program; it plans to use
open decision-making; and plans to accelerate the fixing of all non
open-source bits. Finally, it was the catalyst for the idea of "project
gates" vis-a-vis preview releases. See:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.indiana/166/focus=789
So I disagree.
Eric
>
> -Shiv
> _______________________________________________
> indiana-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
