>On 01/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >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, offending Solaris developers and OpenSolaris developers in a single >> sentence will not help you get your point across. > >I can't help it if folks are easily offended. I'm just stating things >as I see them. If that's offensive, it's the choice of the person >seeing it to be offended. > >I'm human, I can obviously be wrong. However, I don't see anything >incorrect about what I stated.
Really, you say that "Solaris" and "OpenSolaris" are stagnant and somehow Indiana is not. I find the changes in Indiana rather cosmetic and small compared (and pretty much also-ran/copy-cat) when compared to innovations in Solaris/OpenSolaris. I think you're being offensive and I don't think I'm easily offended. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
