Glynn Foster writes: > In the interests of moving this on, here's the following amendments > to the proposal.
Thanks. That clears up my concerns. (So much for me standing in the way. Sorry if I disappointed someone hoping for that.) > The only other sticking point is the name, and I agree with your concerns - > though arguably that's the most exciting part of the project proposal. I'm not > trying alienate all the other current or future distributions in any of this, > and in fact, I'd encourage their participation or thoughts. I think there's a > significant benefit to all of this, and if it turns into 2 years wasted (I > believe it won't), then it will be valuable experience for us all nonetheless. No, I don't think it's time or effort wasted. I do wonder a bit what the distributors of far-afield variants ought to think of this, particularly because of the naming issue and the clear differences among the existing variants. If I were working on Nexenta, would I be pleased, uninterested, or disgusted? Should I be jumping at the chance to have my own One True Way stamped as the 'official' OpenSolaris way to build a distribution? -- 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
