On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Martin Bochnig <mb1x at gmx.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Shawn Walker <swalker at > opensolaris.org> > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Al Hopper <al at > logical-approach.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The pilot program, which was not public to us, is not recorded > > > > > > anywhere, and doesn't apply as far as I'm concerned. > > > > > > > > > > Thats because the Pilot (program) was done under NDA. Of course > > it > > > > > "applies" - because it formed the basis of what is now > > OpenSolaris (as > > > > > in, the Project). > > > > > > > > Only the public results of it apply; is my point. > > > > > > > > In the end, I hear people complaining about decisions not made in > > > > public all the time. > > > > > > > > Well, I have the same complaint too. > > > > > > > > Every time I bring up a point based on public information, I get > > told > > > > "we decided in some private forum differently." > > > > > > > > As a result, I don't really care what happened in the pilot. The > > only > > > > thing I have to go on is what is public today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If those promises were really made, then why is there no > > written > > > > > > record of them given how important they seem to be? > > > > > > > > > > Because it was done under NDA. Because the CAB meet privately > > with a > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I know that. But it still doesn't change the fact that I would > > > > expect, regardless of NDA, certain things to be a matter of public > > > > record due to their importance if they were so agreed upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This sounds more like a game of telephone than it does formal > > agreement. > > > > > > > > > > Again - this is very rude and obnoxious. And yet you keep > > persisting > > > > > that it did'nt happen etc. You're beginning to sound like one of > > > > > those conspiracy theorists that say that the moon landing never > > > > > happened.... > > > > > > > > If it isn't a matter of public record and no one can say what > > > > happened, then how do I know what really happened? > > > > > > > > I'm not saying anybody is lying, but like a game of telephone, the > > > > original meaning by the time it gets to people like me has probably > > > > been lost. > > > > > > > > There is no way for me to verify what was agreed to or not, and I > > > > think it utterly silly that no formal document exists for things > > that > > > > seem so important. > > > > > > > > Not only that, obviously not everyone agrees that what some people > > say > > > > was agreed upon was agreed! > > > > > > > > What else am I to think? > > > > > > Strange that *ALL* of the participants in the original conversation > > > that are now speaking up have matching stories. They are speaking up > > > now and there is no "drift" in the message. You just don't like the > > > fact that Sun made promises that don't match your goals. > > > > Actually, they don't. Just because you don't see every participant > > posting to this mailing list doesn't mean that there aren't people > > that don't disagree. > > > > I know that there are, and I have spoken with some of them. > > > > > The fact of the matter is you and I weren't there, so we have to take > > > the word of the folks that were. Implying that they are liars, or have > > > faulty memory just because you disagree with what they have to say > > > isn't the way to win an argument. > > > > In the end, I don't care. Things as important as this should have been > > written down; at the moment, they're not worth the paper they're > > written on ;) > > > > > From what I can tell, you disagree with the founding principles of the > > > OpenSolaris community, and because you want something that Sun also > > > > No, I disagree with how you interpret the founding principles. > > > > > Remember something, there are many of us who stood by and defended Sun > > > in the dark days. Now, to have Sun prove the naysayers right is a > > > painful betrayal. > > > > Only in some people's eyes. I see people merely repeating what they > > did for a long time to little result and no purpose. > > > > -- > > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > > http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > --->> > > "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - > > Robert Orben > <<---- > Indeed. > > I slowly begin to wonder whether or not you are reading this list's messages > through to the end.
Wonder no more; I really do. > You always re-iterate the same populist phrases. Maybe, but I feel as though they have a result and purpose. > Nevertheless: Putting a false statement into an infinite loop doesn't make > it more true. Your recently proposed distro-creation CG is quite redundant: > It must be going to end up in something like "IndianaAgainDistro". To my knowledge, I have made no such statements. As for the CG, Indiana is sponsored by a different CG currently and it has nothing to do with my personal reasons for proposing one. > Your line of reasoning is starting to become funny. I sometimes wonder where > you take all those unique enlightenments from. We all need a laugh now and then. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
