* Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-06 11:16]: > Alan Burlison wrote: > > The important point is that /bin/kstat isn't the reason perl is in > > Solaris,so it seems a bit backwards to complain that it uses it. > > I'll bite - what is the reason?
I must be tired: you're asking why would Perl have ever been integrated into Solaris? (Because then-Solaris customers asked for it, particularly system administrators, and because the then-Solaris developers wanted it as well.) - Stephen * I know I tend to be on the "let's change things" side of development here, but I am a little surprised by the assumptions that got us to this point in the discussion. At no point have I heard an actual argument why OpenSolaris's kernel and core libraries and utilities should target a small, lightweight platform. Such a choice has an impact on architecture and development practices; this impact has a cost. I've seen no suggestion that the benefit would outweigh those costs, or even what the benefit might be. Many of the points have been about complexity, bloat, or other blanket "bad" attributes--for me, those arguments as displayed so far have been incomplete and, so, unconvincing. They suggest that project teams didn't weigh their choices, and they hint at not knowing the set of technology choices and their tradeoffs available at any time. Certainly there are components implemented in the various suggested platforms that have "good" attributes--observability, availability, quality, etc.--that match or exceed those expected in OpenSolaris. -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
