+-- James Carlson wrote: | Don't just fork off in a new direction. | | That's basic system architecture. As a complex system, Solaris won't | long survive if we don't limit the number of reinvented wheels it | carries. +--
I think we all need to balance this perspective with "why" we are doing OpenSolaris: to infuse it with the innovation that exists in the rest of the world. After all, others have developed fresh new wheels, and our customers are starting to see them as being improvements on the ones *we* have. IMHO, the conversations here should be less like "I don't like that idea, and here is why it is bad" and more like "Interesting - how can we together help you make this a successful part of our OS?". There is a lot of good thought that has gone into the AST stuff; so much so that it is surprising to me that your initial reaction is so NIH flavored. No, it isn't just like the stuff we have done for the last 15 years; isn't that exactly the point? I'm concerned that, while this kind of reaction to suggestions is both understandable and defensible, it may not be desirable in the long term. Especially if we intend to make OpenSolaris into something more than "ReadMostly Solaris Source Code"... If our system can survive with OpenWindows, CDE, GNOME, KDE, Twm/Motif, and gawd knows how many other graphical desktop environments, maybe, just maybe, it could survive with stdio and sfio... Bicycles are much more common than unicycles; tricycles are much more stable; most of us drive 4-wheeled cars. Just goes to show that sometimes more wheels can be better... -John _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
