On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:43:42PM -0500, James Carlson wrote: > What we come back to is that a common and minimal "reference > distribution," at least as you're describing, isn't what the rest of > the proponents (notably Sun's marketing) want to have here. Instead, > they want a single "known good" distribution that can be proposed for > all first-time users. Ignoring that desire will, I think, set us up > for future conflicts of exactly this nature.
I don't think having a minimal reference ignores that desire; it does not preclude people from working on one or more distributions that seek to address that perceived need. All it does is give those people context and a place to start - a reference. It still requires them to win acceptance of their ideas in a free market for both end users and contributors. Eliminating that free market (whether by use of trademark guidelines or exclusive community endorsement) is the part of their agenda to which I'm opposed. Put another way: if Indiana is so much better than any other distribution that anyone will ever make that we should all agree on it today, why is that preemptive agreement necessary? Who would want to work on, or use, anything else? If it's not, why should we choke off other paths, especially if we could anyway provide a reference and compatibility tools of universal utility? -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
