Hi Ian, I have been (quietly) so far following this long discussion and may as well put in my 2 cents (several other people have contributed a lot more). I would rather download and install something called "Sun OpenSolaris" than "OpenSolaris". I trust Sun to have gone through all the testing needed to ensure a working system, and I expect Sun's version to be the best of the current technology. I also understand that if there is a distribution called simply OpenSolaris, many people will not bother looking at other distributions. If I was trying to get into the RedHat (or pick your favorite Linux distribution), I would be very upset with the name "OpenSolaris". It's only a naming issue (and, I guess, the way the name was chosen), that people are upset about. So, why not qualify the name by showing its roots (i.e, Sun)? I'm sorry, maybe I just don't get it... Maybe this argument is about something else entirely?
max 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?" > > 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? > > 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? > > Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate > in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris > brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible, > to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes > a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded > for being willing to take this step--or is this just another > case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else? > > And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this > community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of > being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed > repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, 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? > > I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit. > > -ian >
