On 15-Jan-08, at 5:08 PM, Glynn Foster wrote: >> >> Again, where is the loss of compatibility? Or the intent to drop >> that? Believe me, we're well aware that compatibility has been one >> of >> the more valuable attributes of Solaris. > > And will certainly be the valuable attributes of OpenSolaris. > However, absolute > compatibility out of the box *may* not be an absolute requirement - > in those > cases we could make it easy to change your path, or install packages > that aren't > by default to maintain that.
options that aren't included and easy to toggle by default don't get used, and are silly regardless. How many Ubuntu users do you know that use KDE ? I think it's of the utmost importance to include compatibility things, and make it incredibly easy to toggle on as the default ( it doesn't have to be /default/ environment, but a radio button to choose it as default on install somewhere in an "Advanced" tab is a must ). Even if only the first requirement is met, it allows ISV's to assume something about the environment that is true in all cases. If the compatibility things aren't included at all, RandomSoft can't write an app assuming that /usr/bin/sed will act a certain way, and we end up with the same problem linux has where you can never really write software for it, only certain small subsets of it. _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
