Kaiwai Gardiner writes: > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 09:00 -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > No, it's not "stupid." > > > > It's the difference between a source base and a distribution. > > Distributors get to choose what they want to include in their > > distribution from the given source base. It must be like that -- > > otherwise, all of the distributions would be identical, and that'd be > > a bit silly. > > Incorrect - Sun could go, "hey, thats really good, we'll take the base > from the opensource community, use the contacts we have with Microsoft, > bundle Microsoft audio and video CODECs along with mp3/aac encoding - > possibly even include a dvd player with it as well" voila, value added > and differentiated from the rest of the pack.
Certainly, it could. It may well, depending on the licenses and legal issues involved. However, as I (and several others) have tried to point out repeatedly here, Sun's distribution belongs to Sun. It's Sun's choice what goes in there. The OpenSolaris community does _not_ decide that any more than the community can tell Nexenta or SchilliX or Belenix what they need to take. The community and the source base are not the same thing as the distribution. Thus, this is still the wrong place to have the discussion. If you're interested in discussing what goes in Indiana, that's great; go visit that group. I hear they're working on a distribution and thus will face these same sorts of choices. I don't know how it will eventually relate to Sun's distribution, and that sounds like an interesting question -- to ask there. If you're interested in Sun's Solaris, though, you need to contact Sun, not [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > As for x86, I really have no idea what you're talking about. Not only > > does Sun sell and support these sorts of systems, but most of us > > (myself included) do our primary development on x86. I realize that's > > a bit of a "works for me" sort of argument, but I don't see that the > > linkage in your argument is as clear as you seem to think it is. > > Works does not equate to supported; Linux supports certain sound chips, > but it doesn't mean that all the features or the features are properly > supported. It runs on my laptop but features of the laptop aren't > supported. There is a difference. Sure, there's a difference. But trying to equate support of SPARC -- where the platforms are fairly uniform and aren't released until support exists -- with x86 -- where platform design is still the Wild West -- seems pointless to me. It has been and likely always will be the case that hardware vendors shipping x86-based systems have an interest in shipping stuff that's poorly supported. Why is that? Well, you need to go talk to them. It's not as though we control the chip vendors or the system designers that intentionally produce a riot of incompatible and rapidly- obsoleted products. -- 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
