Scott Rotondo wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> >> Behind in my mail,... >>> Because let's face it, without wine(1) I think this case is woefully >>> incomplete. And make sure to include the --red, --white, --ros?, >>> --varietal=VARIETAL, and other important options. This being FOSS we'll >>> just have to accept GNU-style long options and to -hiccup- hell with the >>> CLIP. >>> >> I know this is already approved, but I strongly advise removing the >> --rose and --varietal=WHITE_ZIN options. Solaris has a reputation of >> quality and maturity that should not be imputed by the "inclusive" >> attitudes of young FOSS developers. >> > > But white zinfandel has the third-largest market share by case volume > [1]. Clearly the community has spoken, and they find that white zin > meets their beverage needs. Who are we to impose our elitist ivory-tower > quality standards?
We are Correct(tm), and are the only ones who appreciate why White Zin is only slightly better than PassionPop. /me wanders off in a Coonwarra shiraz-induced red haze....... > Watch for future fast-tracks to implement bud(1) and coors(1). Although > some might argue that they duplicate much of the functionality of > beer(1), the implementation is completely different, and there is a > substantial installed base that demands 100% compatibility. It should be > possible to provide sufficient packaging metadata to prevent accidental > consumption of bud(1) and coors(1) by the unwary. No doubt we'd need to have one for duff(1), dufflite(1) and duffzero(1), and another one for fosters(1) too, with a See Also that mentions both bud(1) and coors(1). James -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
