On Feb 5, 2008 12:49 PM, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 12:44 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > > Thus, I stand by the claim that Nexenta, at the very least, is a fork. > > You deeply mistaken here. As far as OpenSolaris is concerned - Nexenta > is NOT a fork. We share the same code base. The integration part of > userland IS a bit different, but than again, even Solaris 10 Update4 > userland parts are differ from Solaris 10 GA, not even comparing to > Nevada builds... And Nexenta provides switchable SUN/GNU personality, > which allows as to run native Solaris applications and scripts when > required. > > So, please be careful with your "analysis".. :-)
That's just it though; currently userland is part of ON. You have diverged from ON's userland right? If and when ips becomes integrated, you will also have a different packaging system, right? Nexenta is very different in many subtle ways already. As I said before though, I don't believe Nexenta to be a *harmful* fork; just a fork :) If it was a win32 codebase project; I would call it a spoon ;) But to me, as along as a project "seeks independent development", especially with those changes never being re-integrated -- that's a fork. I don't understand why people just assume that there is a negative connotation in classifying something as a fork. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
