> >The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the
> community
> >cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I
> include
> >both bugs *and* RFEs in "issues".
>
> That is your view, sir. You completely, totally
> disregard the "community" here. You are not the
> community. Community is a distinct, independent
> entity with their own needs, wants and definitions of
> right and wrong. They are not here to work toward
> "your" goal of "quality code" and "resolved issues".
> To work towards creating conducive atmosphere for the
> community to thrive is absolutely the first aim of
> any open project that wants to be successful.
>
> Your comment is a very good example of not
> understanding the basics of open source projects.
> This is what most people imply when they say {When it
> comes to open source} "Sun just doesn't get it".
Well, that's what you imply, anyway.
I probably want very different things, and while it's entirely possible I'm
alone in that, it's perhaps not likely. I've seen organizations grow in
size faster than the core grew in maturity; it's usually a
disaster for the organization, for what it's allegedly trying to accomplish
(I personally suspect that any organization larger than about a dozen people,
i.e. all that can each personally hold all the others accountable, ends up being
interested in continuing to exist first, and only with constant effort manages
to keep focused on accomplishing their nominal goals), and harmful to the
participants.
I want a better Solaris. Yes, I want the rest opened up too. And more
outside participation at all levels. But with most of the expertise and
investment from one place, I'd only expect most of the work to come
from that same place, and accordingly, most of the agenda as well.
That doesn't preclude anyone from participating and thereby increasing
the outside investment. And I'd be as glad as the next person when
some sort of externally accessible SCM is fully functional, along with
some outside committers, a bit more streamlining of process (but not
to the detriment of quality!), and so on.
And I like the focus on quality over rapid introduction of new code,
although I'm certainly not opposed to the increase in desktop/laptop
support (of which quite a bit has already taken place in the last couple of
years!).
So unless you can point out _specific_ needs, wants, etc. that can't be
met either now or with actions already underway, I just don't see what
your point is. No particular license is IMO going to make that much of
a difference in a positive way, and dual-licensing would just result in the
giant sucking sound of code leaving and once modified a bit, not coming back.
I have no problem with Solaris, Linux, and the *BSDs feeding each other
ideas, but I think they'd mostly all be better off not using each others code
all that much anyway (with some major exceptions that are largely possible
except that the Linux folks just don't seem to want to go there; like porting
zfs as a loadable module for Linux).
I for one don't automatically suspect the motives of corporations (and for
example see no more reason to regard Sun with suspicion that RedHat); or
rather, I respect their motivations, as long as they have a real clue what
_enlightened_ self-interest is; and I see no reason thus far to doubt that in
the
case of Sun and OpenSolaris. As far as I can see, they've been doing the things
they said they'd do, give or take some schedule slippage. That's all you can
expect from anyone, really.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
