On Feb 13, 2008 6:02 PM, Martin Bochnig <mb1x at gmx.com> wrote: > > And don't pretend that you know what happened on day one better than > > anyone else, most of the people involved in this discussion were also > > there on launch day or /very/ shortly thereafter. To state otherwise > > is simply revisionist history in the worst sense of the word. > > > In fact most, if not all, people here are using Solaris for a *way* longer > time, than Shawn does (2005, if I remember correctly, before 2005 Debian, > before Debian DR-DOS, before DR-DOS MacOS ? ). > > And yes: Before that very day Sun decided to call Sun-Solaris "OpenSolaris" I > hadn't complained a single time about what Sun feels it should or shouldn't > do with it, not a single time. > > But IF SMI calls something "OpenSolaris", THEN it must stay (or ever become) > OPEN solaris. The name is what I have the problem with. I mean, okay: Sun > really has opened up very very much of the previously closed proprietary code > and processes. But did they do so by choice? Did they do so to do their > strong loyal community "a favour" ?? Or were they forced by circumstances. It > doesn't look driven entirely full-heartedly. > > %martin >
Martin I wouldn't go so far as to say that Sun's reason for opening Solaris was disingenuous. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here that they did it mostly because it was the correct thing to do. That being said, with how well they've handled the copyrighted material ( ie, the code ) it is surprising how poorly they're handling the trademark & branding material. -- PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1 Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
