David Lloyd wrote:
> But why would this stop Indiana from being released, presuming Indiana > some form of Sun blessed products? Given that the current SXCE contains > this proprietary code and it can be obtained for free, so could Indiana > contain this proprietary code and be obtained for free. I think Shawn answered this perfectly. Indiana entered the union as a free state and must remain so! >> But SXCE also serves as the beta test platform for the next release >> of Solaris. As long as Solaris is a separate distribution from >> Indiana that contains different bits, then the need for SXCE will >> continue to exist. > > Does it? Herein lies the confusion. > > Some with a sun.com address say that Indiana hasn't gone through the > significant tests to be a reference platform for a real Solaris. This is > true. > > Some with a sun.com address say that at a conference and in discussions, > SXCE was going to go away in favour of Indiana. I think this is also true. > > The above two propositions aren't contradictory, per se, but I think the > timeframe might go: > > 1. Solaris 11 is released as a product based on the current (well a > future version of the current) SXCE > > 2. Solaris 12 is released as a product based on Indiana > > The other alternative, of course, is that SXCE continues and Indiana > continues. SXCE has the elder, more horrid packaging system and a large > corporate market share much like Redhat...hmmm... > I think all of the above is true. Indiana is not Solaris is not Indiana. They are different distributions based on OpenSolaris. Solaris will likely always contain proprietary code, at least from partners. That is part of it's value add. Solaris has different engineering requirements than Indiana, again it is part of the value add that makes it attractive to its marketing target. Assuming the obvious naming, Solaris 12 will not likely be based on Indiana except inasmuch that both are based on OpenSolaris. It seems likely that there will be bits in Indiana that are not in OpenSolaris as well, for the same reason. Personally, I would love to see a cascading waterfall model of delivery, where we see a new minor version Solaris released every 2 years and a new major version released every 8 to 10 years. I don't know ultimately if Indiana will maintain the backwards compatibility required in Solaris. If so, the Solaris minor versions can be snapshots of Indiana. If not, then the major versions can be snapshots. Either way, I really would like to see some project that allows for less backwards compatibility than Solaris requires. I mean really, what kind of innovators are we if we can't come up with a paradigm shift at least once each ten years? -- blu "You've added a new disk. Do you want to replace your current drive, protect your data from a drive failure or expand your storage capacity?" - Disk management as it should be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
