On 2-Nov-07, at 10:16 AM, Ian Murdock wrote: > 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?"
No. > 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? No. > 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? If you ( Sun ) don't listen to the community and just show us what you're doing rather than working with us, then No. Microsoft and Apple can (and do) do that but nobody claims Win. and OSX are "open source" > Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate > in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris > brand, You have done no such thing. You dictated the "proper" usage of the brand. > <blah blah aren't we great...> > > 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? Sun absolutely ought to get some say in how the community functions and how the brand is used. However they should not get the /only/ say.
