On Feb 5, 2008 1:14 PM, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:08 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > > 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? > > No. You mistaken. We didn't change anything related to core libraries > and applications. Changes only related to packaging but than again, > packaging supposed to be changed, or otherwise what is the value behind > any of distribution derivatives?
No, I am not mistaken. Just because you didn't change the existing userland, but added to it, makes you divergent. Remember that ON is a bundle of *all* the userland. Perhaps it is a difference in viewpoint, if so, I still say it is divergent. > > If and when ips becomes integrated, you will also have a different > > packaging system, right? > > You mistaken again - SVR4 packaging is well supported (or at least we > try to be compatible here) option for us. *And* it is NOT part of ON. No I am not. IPS != SVR4 packaging. I suspect IPS will eventually be part of ON. When that happens and as SVR4 is phased out, that will make Nexenta very divergent in terms of packaging. > > Nexenta is very different in many subtle ways already. > > That is why many people loves us. We deliver something they want and > asking us to deliver. We addressing segment of users which wants us to > be as we are today. ...and I never said that wasn't a good thing. I'm just pointing out that Nexenta is different. You have differences in your base system compared to that of a base Solaris Express system, etc. > > 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. > > Its not that, it is just that not all people understand what ON fork > really means. Just answer for yourself - is Indian a fork of OpenSolaris > (i.e ON) ? Sound strange.. It is just yet another *derivative* Since Indiana seeks to change Solaris itself; no. Especially since Sun is the one primarily developing Indiana. > distribution and delivers GNOME GUI on single CD on top of the same ON - > that's all. I stand by my claim that Nexenta is a fork. I think it is a good fork, because it meets specific needs, but nonetheless, a fork. Nexenta has diverged from the core system; whether in configuration changes, software patches, or otherwise. It is different, and thus 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
