On 11/2/2007 3:12 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Jason J. W. Williams wrote: > >>If the goal of the distro is draw folks like my company into the fold, >>there has to be distro unequivocally associated with the OpenSolaris >>name. Because frankly, if you're trying to grab folks from another OS >>you've got a short window of opportunity to get them to try it, and >>confusing the heck out of them because they can't figure out which >>distro is the archetypical OpenSolaris distro is prolly not something >>in Sun's or the community's best interest. If the community can't get >>out if its own way on this one, I'm not sure its wrong of Sun to make >>a unilateral decision. In my opinion, its too important to the future >>of the company that owns the trademark. >> >>I share Ian's frustration in not understanding why this concept isn't >>universally grasped/agreed with. Doesn't mean I don't understand the >>arguments, just don't agree that the community should trump on this >>one. > > > Most of the arguments here are not against having a distro named OpenSolaris, > they're against Ian (or someone else at Sun who authorized Ian) to decide > that none of the 6 existing distros could be renamed OpenSolaris, but the > new one from Project Indiana could be named OpenSolaris before anyone in > the community had seen it, and then claiming it was the community's distro. >
To put a finer point to Alan's statement, I'd suggest that the majority of comments and arguments (and we've all read hundreds of messages the last two days) support a community disto. But, what hasn't yet gained consensus is: 1. Which distro should be the community's standard [1] 2. What minimum components comprise the standard Marty [1] I'm trying like heck to avoid the term "reference". _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
