Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Can't say that I'm thrilled that we seem so willing to abdicate our > engineering decisions to FOSS groups who have repeatedly shown (at > least IMO) that they often have little regard for sound architecture, > and even less regard for portability to Solaris or stable interfaces. > Oh well.... hopefully its helping to win hearts and minds somewhere, > or something like that. Be careful here. *We* are now a FOSS group. You shouldn't paint all FOSS groups with a "broad brush".
I think the issue is that we don't do a good enough job of vetting the quality/supportability/stability of FOSS. This *has always* been part of the job, dating back to the original "include FOSS in Solaris" cases. This requirement hasn't changed. Note that this is the same basic problem for Ubuntu, RedHat, whoever... Solaris just has (had?) a higher bar. The other problem is that Solaris isn't Linux. It often takes some work to port Linux targeted FOSS to advanced Solaris facilities. Maybe we could help with a document or check list of these things. I suspect FOSS maintainers get rather annoyed when the first time they find out of such things is by the ARC or the c-teams. On the other side, the maintainers should understand that it often takes more than recompile to be part of the OpenSolaris community. I think FOSS guys can be neat. I'd even let my daughter marry one (after I checked his background). :-) However, this is a different thread (er, "not the digression from the digression from the `not this case` discussion). I just felt that we should be careful to not be pejorative to FOSS. - jek3
