On 15-Jan-08, at 9:23 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > On Jan 15, 2008 10:01 PM, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: >> >> On 15-Jan-08, at 7:55 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: >> >>> On Jan 15, 2008 7:18 PM, John Sonnenschein >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 ? >>> >>> ...and look how successful it is. Most users just want something >>> that >>> works, and that is well designed. >>> >>> They don't want a bunch of "bells, knobs, and switches." >>> >>> To be honest, I'm at the point in my development career where I just >>> want to install the OS, login and be able to start developing. >> >> your comment serves only to enhance my point. Users don't want GNU, >> they want something that works. > > Quite the opposite. Almost every program I compile or work on anymore > *demands* GNU tools. Whether it is GNU tar, GNU autoconf, GNU m4, GNU > flex, GNU bison, or GNU whatever else. > > The point is that the majority of free software (especially popular > FOSS) *requires* GNU tools to compile and will not compile when used > with any other tool, unless it works exactly like the GNU tool.
So why propagate that? Make the tools available to be sure, but have the defaults be the standards compliant versions, with an easy way to make this not be the case. The idea is to shoot for popularity, no? Enough developers using indiana with a proper userspace, the problems with requiring GNU will take care of themselves. > > I don't know about you, but I have better things to do then reinvent a > bunch of wheels. > >>> For me, Indiana is a step in that direction. >>> >>> I don't want to have to click through a bunch of prompts. >>> >>> I want a simple, elegant installer. >>> >>> Other people may curse me, but I love the fact that XP, Vista, and >>> OS >>> X pretty much just have a big "install w/ no options" button. >> >> And they even include an "Advanced" button, which you can safely >> ignore, or click if you're not interested in their defaults. > > No, actually, Vista does not. At least not in the installer GUI. > > Neither do certain versions of XP in the GUI. I haven't used windows since win98, but I know that a lot of linux users complain precisely about it's lack of options. Why reinvent something they hate? >> Did you know you can install OSX on UFS? true story. it's in the >> "Advanced" tab. Users that care can use it. Those that don't don't >> even need to know it exists > > I will admit I haven't seen the installer in anything other than > screenshots. _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
