On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at Sun.COM> wrote: > > 1) First off, historical lessons from star, et. all may be interesting > > for star, but you need to understand that star history != Solaris > > history. Most of us here simply don't care about "precedent" set by > > something that the vast majority of our users have never seen or been > > exposed to. At least not for precedent's own sake. > > I thought that Sun was interested in long term interface stability. > Is this no longer true?
Since star has never been integrated into Solaris yet, any changes to the interface at this point do not affect Sun's view of interface stability from what I understand. Therefore, yes, they are still interested in long term interface stability. > > 3) Integration into OpenSolaris (well at least ON) necessarily means > > that you have to allow for other parties to maintain the code. If a > > customer with a multi-million dollar contract asks for a fix, then Sun > > engineers are going to have to come up with a fix, even if you don't > > agree. (You have the option of trying to convince C-Team via an RTI > > advocate or code review that this hypothetical "fix" is wrong, but you > > do not have veto power.) I had to yield up the same level of control > > If Sun engineers believe that there is a need for a fix and if they did > create > a patch, they are either able to convince me or the patch is wrong. What > benefit do you see from integrating a wrong patch? For example, if a customer demands a fix to a specific problem or a certain feature addition, and due to some business constraint, it gets integrated despite disagreement over *how* it was implemented. > > 5) While your Makefile/autoconfigure system may be the most excellent > > solution on the planet, the fact of the matter is that it is used by > > very few products (only the ones you authored, I believe -- feel free to > > correct me if I'm wrong). Converting all of ON (which is the only > > It is used by some people and companies who decided to use it for their > projects. > > > If OpenSolaris likes to participate in the advantages from star, Sun cannot > try to dictate the development. There is a way to create a symbiosis of > OpenSolaris and star, the keyword is collaboration. In open development *no one* can dictate what happens. Every one is free to make what changes they want to. Collaboration also does not mean that each member of a partnership always agrees or does everything the other one asks. You appear to have this belief, that if Sun decides to do something you don't agree with, that it isn't "collaborating." That definition of collaboration does not match any definition I am familiar with. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
