On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > >> It appears to me that item #2 can be broken down further. The idea of >> having a reference distribution is totally different from the >> requirement to be compatible. > > Right; AFAIK distributions like "Nexenta" would not fall under the > "compatible" definition and that would be a shame.
Totally agree. > What I would like a reference distribution to be is a starting point > for folks who want to build their own distribution... YES. > ; those initial > steps are likely to be the hardest. > > Being able to do something as simple as "make opensolaris.iso" which > would give you a *reference* distribution would be extremely worthwhile; YES. > it lowers the barrier to entry for those who want to play at that > level. > > (Including, of course, instructions on how to add stuff, etc) > >> There is some benefit from compatibility guarantees, as the binary >> compatibility guarantee in *Solaris* (not the Open one) has shown. > > Indeed, if we want *compatible*, I think you would hold *Solaris Nevada* > as the gold standard for compatibility. YES. Strongly agree on all counts. Eric
