Hey, Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: > 1. 6 month is WAY too short in my opinion. There is nothing more painfull > than upgrading Fedora core 1 to 6 or Ubuntu abc to xyz while dist-upgrading > 3-4 > releases. Update process *should not* take more than 3 hours. I understand > this is may be impossible with customized/compiled softwares, but a base > system should update really quickly. I don't want a desktop with the > lastest Gnome version, I want a stable Solaris derived OS.
I somewhat disagree, and I think the frustration you have is partly due to the technical limitations of the upgrade process that you've experienced. While I respect your opinion for wanting a slower moving release, others would probably disagree. I for one would love to see the latest desktop advances. That's not to say either of us is wrong to want that, more like some thought needed to figure out how to handle the various preferences of our userbase. > 2. Package management is important. I know that Ian already pointed that > as a priority. This point is tightly related to the first one. Debian is > one of my favorite, if not my favorite Linux distribution out there. I > don't want to start a flamewar between dpkg/rpm/pkg/ebuilds. They all have > their strenghts and weeknesses. What makes Debian the best distribution in > package management is the strict policy that forces developpers to keep > consistancy between different packages and the quality of the provided > packages. Keep it with SRV4 packaging, I don't care. But 'pkg-get' and > 'pkg-get dist-upgrade' should be a priority. I think almost everyone would agree with their approach to wanting a well integrated piece of software, regardless of the packaging formats. > 3. There is currently a thread about changing some default feature, ie > bash backspace... I don't care neither. I have the impression that some > people think that "oh he's from the Linux world, he must be retarded". > Well, I don't care neither if it's bash, tcsh or whatever. I'll simply > change it if I don't like it. What I want to point here, is that you are > wasting times with minor details! True, but if there are millions of people all changing their default, then does that mean the default is incorrectly chosen for the majority of people? > I'm impatient to work with Dtrace/ZFS/SMF and other technologies, but > currently Solaris doesn't provide, for me, enough 'manageability'. I > simply don't have time to upgrade ~100 servers manualy. How would you do it on another platform? > PS: Ian, if you do the same job you did with Debian, trust me I'll give a > try to OpenSolaris :) I don't think anyone should presume it'll be the 'same', but if at the end of this process we have a well polished distribution that is easy to install, easy to manage, and works well for everyone, then I'll be pleased. Glynn
