On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Jason King <jason at ansipunx.net> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:26 PM, <johansen at sun.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:08:09PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> I'd rather see us modernize our own tools. I resent abdication of >>> our own engineering, and the necessity of abandoning all good >>> innovations (like shell builtins) because some people feel its >>> critical that the only way to achieve these goals is to provide >>> these 3rd party tools. Its more offensive to me specifically >>> because there is no good reason why we can't use tools from the >>> ksh93 community (who seems to be a lot more willing to work with us >>> on key engineering issues than the GNU folks who are mostly fixated >>> on Linux) to achieve this. >> >> Instead of re-inventing the wheel at every opportunity, it makes more >> sense to take the open source projects that have wide acceptance and >> incorporate them into our product. I think that both ksh93 and gnu fall >> into this category. It's much better for us to focus our engineering >> efforts on areas where we can actually differentiate our product from >> our competitors. >> >> I don't have a problem with ksh93 or the builtins, nor am I advocating >> an entirely GNU userland. What I am suggesting, however, is that the >> folks who decided to put /usr/gnu in the default path did talk to our >> customers, and also took note of the fact that Linux is widely adoped >> across the industry. > > Yet now, I see (at least online) complaints because the 'default' > (GNU) tools can't actually make use of the features that differentiate > Opensolaris. Why are we encouraging defaults that hide the features > that set us apart from the others?
The long term goal [1] for the POSIX community is to add the missing features from BSD and GNU to the utilities in /usr/bin, using the AST tools as template. I do not think that /usr/gnu/bin in $PATH matters then. [1] Depending how fast Oracle will sponsor the putbacks from Olga. Irek
