Hey Guys, As someone who's come to OpenSolaris from outside the community, I think the decision is right on. And Ian's comment that he doesn't get it. It seems to me that community is important, but OpenSolaris has a larger identity issue vis-a-vis the non-community.
If the goal of the distro is draw folks like my company into the fold, there has to be distro unequivocally associated with the OpenSolaris name. Because frankly, if you're trying to grab folks from another OS you've got a short window of opportunity to get them to try it, and confusing the heck out of them because they can't figure out which distro is the archetypical OpenSolaris distro is prolly not something in Sun's or the community's best interest. If the community can't get out if its own way on this one, I'm not sure its wrong of Sun to make a unilateral decision. In my opinion, its too important to the future of the company that owns the trademark. I share Ian's frustration in not understanding why this concept isn't universally grasped/agreed with. Doesn't mean I don't understand the arguments, just don't agree that the community should trump on this one. Best Regards, Jason On 11/2/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian, > > > All right. > > > > I don't even know where to begin. > > > > Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to > > the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called > > OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?" > > > > Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview > > has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the > > world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING? > > > > Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we > > are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP, > > to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris > > focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the > > company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside > > of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing? > > > > Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate > > in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris > > brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible, > > to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes > > a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded > > for being willing to take this step--or is this just another > > case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else? > > > > And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this > > community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of > > being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed > > repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return > > thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions? > > Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely > > abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation? > > > > Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything, > > so therefore we've given nothing? > > > > I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit. > > I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is > rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity -- > but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is > nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members > of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is > a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one > emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name > "OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived > from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply > _be_ OpenSolaris. > > So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is > such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly > speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is > clearly such a divisive path? > > - Bryan > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems FishWorks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
