Thanks for putting up a focused (at least intend to be) thread on the subject. Now, I've been tracking indiana-discuss last week or so, but still feel there is a conflict on what indiana should be.
Current consensus seems like indiana is to be a minimum/core distro for other distro to refer, to build upon. On the other hand, I've also seen in various posts that indiana should reach to greater audience and to the face of opensolaris.org, something people point to when asked about os.o Now here is what I see as a conflict, what will be for a representative distro like indiana if it's only a minimum/core distro, and lacks comparative appeal and functionalities to catch eyes of targeted audience? How could it attract people accustomed to Ubuntu or Fedora, and those who mostly uses linux as their desktop? Also, in the Fedora/RHEL analogy, Actually Fedora is not only a "core" distro for RHEL, but also an indicator of what to come in RHEL, it's more like current SXCE rather than a barebone OS. Often it's Fedora got everything new and should-be-cool stuffs rather than the other way around. So if there will be further summary/clarification of project indiana, I hope this positioning question could be addressed more. Please feel free to move this discussion to fitting thread, and please free free to correct if I got things wrong. Cheers, Ivan. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
