Brian Gupta writes: > > GNU/Linux has had a long and illustrious history of ignoring standards > > when it suits them. I have no interest in seeing Solaris travel down > > that same path. > > The opposite could be said about Solaris. A) Solaris has an > illustrious history of adopting useless standards,
That part is pretty well true. Anyone remember XFN? In fairness, I think the people who worked on that were actually trying to do something more ambitious: they were trying to define and popularize a new standard. Doing that means taking some risks. Specifically, it means implementing something that perhaps nobody will use. Compared with the usual approach of implementing things long after everyone else has them, I believe it's a risk I wish more people would take. > and b) solaris has > an illustrious history of not meeting a needs if there is any conflict > with a standard. I don't believe that's true at all. We go to _great_ lengths to separate out standards-conformant environments from legacy and things that are evolving. This requires quite a bit of engineering work, and it's something that I see few other platforms looking at closely. Too many end up mixing evolving and legacy bits (causing breakage for existing customers) or fail to separate out standards (thus falling short of the goal). Can you cite relevant cases where Solaris (or, rather, you mean to say "Sun engineering") has done what you're suggesting? Are any of them non-trivial? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
