Ian Murdock wrote: > 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?
I'm not clear what you are saying here - which parts of the above paragraphs are about Indiana, and which are about the OpenSolaris community? OpenSolaris is more than just Indiana, and most of the things you refer to were happening before your arrival. I guess you may have no idea who I am, but I started working on OpenSolaris over 4 years ago, in fact I believe I was the first Sun employee to start on full-time on the project. I therefore think I've got a reasonably accurate view of the historical context. As for holding people to standards, all I've seen is the not entirely unreasonable request that Sun continue to deliver the commitments to openness and transparency that it made when OpenSolaris was started. > 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? Again, I'm not at all clear why you have that impression. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't have a voice, what they are asking is that you use the mechanisms and channels we have in place for such discussions to take place. I think it is important to see the dispute in context. I haven't seen anyone say that they think Indiana is an evil idea (in fact quite the opposite), what they have been annoyed at is that decisions that affect the community were apparently taken without involving the community. The dispute is about one area of the project as a whole. I know that it is one that is close to your heart, but please let's not let this one issue result in the trashing of the entire opensolaris 'idea'. After all, we, Sun chose to go down this route in the first place, it is we who must take the responsibility of delivering on what we committed to. > I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit. That, at least, seems clear. -- Alan Burlison --
