On 01/11/2007, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 10:21:15AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >If the project team were content to be known as Indiana or some other > > >name that does not imply the community's exclusive endorsement without > > >our consent, the entire controversy would evaporate very quickly. > > > > > > +1 > > > > And while rapid iteration and prototyping is fine for an "Indiana" > > distribution, it's NOT fine for a reference distribution. > > > > Reference distribution implies "ARC[1]" and "non controversial". > > > I very much agree. > If something calls itself OpenSolaris, then I expect it to be just that > and not what others have dubbed "linuxaris". Whatever Indiana wants to > try out is fine as long as it doesn't pretend to be Solaris when it > clearly doesn't want to be.
Solaris is Solaris; OpenSolaris is a separate thing. To imply OpenSolaris is Solaris is a mistake no matter which distribution represents it. You also shouldn't make implications without claims. So far, Indiana has done nothing permanent that causes deviation from Solaris or OpenSolaris origins (unless stagnation matches your definition). -- 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
