[followups to trademark-policy-dev]
I. Szczesniak wrote: > On 10/31/07, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I. Szczesniak wrote: >> No one has ever promised /usr/gnu/bin would be POSIX compliant. > > I disagree. POSIX violations are BUGS and have to be fixed, otherwise > interoperability between systems is completely gone. Or are you saying > that Sun intends to ship the GNU tools as cheap 'outsourced' > alternative to the Sys5 tools and then refuse support, even in > violation of our support contract? IANAL. I'd be very surprised if the definition of support for these tools is "Sun will rewrite them to do things that they don't do (and aren't documented to do) in the reference version available from the supplier". In fact, since this is an open source discuss list, and we are talking about the GNU toolset, you might recall the longstanding tradition of "if you find something that you don't like, you are empowered to fix it and encouraged to contribute your work back to the community". The point where your comments are a bit on-topic is in the compatibility discussion we are having over in <trademark-policy-dev>. Obviously, simply having a tool called "/usr/bin/tar" isn't enough to be "compatible", you also need to adhere to some behavioral standard. The real question is "which standard?" Ship "Sun's old crufty Sys5 tools" in /usr/bin and you alienate the GNU-Linux crowd who consider being different from GNU to be a bug; Ship the "cheap 'outsourced' alternative GNU tools" instead, and you now have the "must have POSIX" crowd up in arms. Maybe the best answer is to go work on a project that delivers the best of both by doing a concerted slice/dice/merge job on both source bases - and contribute back the result to both parties... -John (who still NAL) _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
