Shawn Walker wrote:
On 26/03/07, Chung Hang Christopher Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please, no entrenched GNOME or gcc.
>
> What does that mean?
It means please do not take it down the Nexenta road
of using gcc built packages and fat unstable GNOME. It
"fat unstable GNOME" -- you realise that Sun chose GNOME as the
desktop a long time ago for Solaris? I also think that your
description of GNOME is rather unfair, and rather inaccurate.
I think (or rather hope?) he means that Nexenta takes something very
close to GNOME head, builds it with gcc (which doesn't optimize as well
as sun studio compiler) and puts into the dist very little QA. The fact
that this works at all can be traced to developers and QA inside and
outside Sun working together on GNOME head. Sun's internal GNOME
desktop is much closer to GNOME head than it was a few years ago so it's
no surprise that building GNOME head for Solaris with gcc works for Nexenta.
You seem to not like GNOME very much or the most capable open source
browser we have available for the platform. It might be better if you
proposed alternatives.
It would be useful to file specific bugs against GNOME in applications
where you can prove that performance or stability is substandard. Or
get involved in the GNOME community if you have a clear suggestion as to
what should be refactored. The GNOME community is very open to
newcomers and have recently become very interested in performance.
is a real pity that firefox and thunderbird use gtk. I
am not saying everything gnome is bad but the
underlying gtk stuff is something that I have not had
a very nice experience with. Of course, the nexenta
choice of deb packaging is very nice.
What else would they use?
Yes, at the moment GNOME still is the most accessible open source
desktop which is important for U.S. government, the E.U. and elsewhere.
Though, as heard on another thread, the French Parliment just adopted a
KDE based Kubuntu even though KDE doesn't support the accessibility
framework.
I'd want sun cc compiled packages and stable sun
libraries with gcc and glibc stuff available separately.
That's what we have right now at last check.
Sun's opensolaris distribution does but the Nexenta releases I've seen
are built with gcc. gcc does make porting from GNU/Linux source much
easier but generally doesn't optimize as well as Sun Studio. It would
be interesting to hear if there are any benchmarks where Nexenta
performance is better than Nevada. My biggest pet peeve about the Sun
Studio compiler is that it defaults to no optimization while gcc
defaults to reasonable (though not great) optimization.
It sounds like Chris doesn't want to replace Sun's Nevada opensolaris
distribution with gcc built Nexenta. I'd have to agree with that,
though I do hope Sun adopts some of the things Nexenta does well without
ignoring traditional Sun customers. I'm sure Ian can contribute good
ideas on what Linux, Debian, Ubuntu and Nexenta do right. There are
certainly enough advocates of traditional Solaris stability, binary
compatibility, adherence to standards, scalability... to keep Sun's
enterprise class distribution from going too far out. Welcome Ian, I'm
sure we will all benefit from our diversity.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
