On 31/10/2007, Martin Bochnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Grisanzio wrote: > > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > > > >> I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: > >> "Sun OpenSolaris ...." > >> > > > > Why would "Sun OpenSolaris" make sense? Actually, that expression has > > been used (incorrectly) in the media, and it's only added to the > > confusion. Also, isn't it a benefit for the distros to share in the use > > of the brand? > > > > Jim > > > > It is the same as with all (super-)classes of objects, versus their > derived sub-classes, or even _instances_ of objects of the corresponding > classes. > Shouldn't you normally strive to strictly avoid referencing an instance > versus the actual class in the same (identical) manner? > > Renaming "Indiana" to "OpenSolaris": Wouldn't that be like renaming the > brand "Crysler" to "Automibile"? > IMO a "Crysler" is not equal to "Automobile". It would be a subclass of > it (with more nested subclasses and then n-millions of instances/leaf > nodes). > Renaming "Indiana" to "Sun OpenSolaris" would make much more sense to > me, because that's just what it is (independently from how it may or may > not be called at the end of the day).
Sorry, but that would not be true. Indiana is the result of work from more than just Sun folks. It includes ksh93 for example, and it includes efforts by other non-Sun affiliated folks as well. Calling it Sun OpenSolaris would be inaccurate. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
