Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > >> I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: >> "Sun OpenSolaris ...." >> > > Why would "Sun OpenSolaris" make sense? Actually, that expression has > been used (incorrectly) in the media, and it's only added to the > confusion. Also, isn't it a benefit for the distros to share in the use > of the brand? > > Jim >
It is the same as with all (super-)classes of objects, versus their derived sub-classes, or even _instances_ of objects of the corresponding classes. Shouldn't you normally strive to strictly avoid referencing an instance versus the actual class in the same (identical) manner? Renaming "Indiana" to "OpenSolaris": Wouldn't that be like renaming the brand "Crysler" to "Automibile"? IMO a "Crysler" is not equal to "Automobile". It would be a subclass of it (with more nested subclasses and then n-millions of instances/leaf nodes). Renaming "Indiana" to "Sun OpenSolaris" would make much more sense to me, because that's just what it is (independently from how it may or may not be called at the end of the day). Yes, this has been discussed "iteratively" (in fact rather recursively). And not much progress has been made in terms of (binding) community findings. Prepared for cycling through it another time ... Martin _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
