> Actually there is a hell of a difference. My desktop > is in the global > zone. I would hate to see it stuck in the last > century.
Last century? How much difference would there be for a GUI desktop? And why use provocative phrases like "last century" to describe a difference that not everyone dislikes? Not everyone who likes it pretty much the way it is, is an inflexible old fogy, either! But I can't imagine choosing Solaris 2.6 over Solaris 10 or later, except insofar as one had some dedicated box already running it that could just stay stable until it died. An awful lot of whining seems to be about control-H (which ought to be trivially fixable _now_, even self-fixable by tweaking options.conf or somesuch, plus perhaps some stuff for various X-based terminal emulators) and default shells. Both of those are site selectable now, AFAIK, although conceivably useradd could be modified to take a config file or the like that would allow something other than /bin/sh to be the default for new accounts in the absence of -s /path/to/sh. Insofar as the ARC regarding /usr/gnu will make _non_conflicting GNUish executables visible in /usr/bin, I have no problem with that; I don't care how much new stuff is visible as long as some action, even if only at install time, is required to get other than a traditional Solaris environment as the default. Speaking of which, I don't see why there couldn't be an install option that would set various things (default PATH, default shell, options.conf, maybe a couple of others) to provide an environment more approachable to those whose expectations were based on prior experience with Linux. I think that could be done without breaking anything for anyone, and without two distinct distros - unless the more like Linux advocates insist that all possible pathnames have to be aligned with the LSB, GNU ld must replace Solaris ld, and various other (IMO) extremisms (that should have little enough to do with anything, unless either you're porting something and want to do zero work beyond "./configure;make;make install" or have an existing .bashrc file and are too lazy to be bothered with stuff like case "`uname -s`" in Linux) PATH=[whatever];export PATH;; SunOS) PATH=/usr/gnu/bin:/usr/sfw/bin:/opt/sfw/bin:/usr/xpg6/bin:/usr/xpg4/bin:/usr/ccs/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin;export PATH;; esac In any case, if virtual consoles could support multiple zones, and the option of switching the screen to a zone that looked more like what you seem to want after multiuser boot completed, such that you could run your desktop with a non-default personality, what difference would it make what the global zone's personality was? There may be some advantage to something more stable and supported than SXDE and more current than regular Solaris releases, but I don't see that the issue of what sort of personality one prefers the OS to offer has to have anything to do with a separate distro, unless what we're really dealing with here is that some of the newcomers just want to _take_over_. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
