Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 6:02 AM, Joerg Schilling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> Not true: ON contians e.g. parts of the "new" volume mamagement system only.
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> To be correct, if Indiana introduces a different packaging system, it is
>> Indiana that introduces divergence.
>>
>
> Really Joerg; that's just silly. Sun is the one spending time and
> money on Indiana and obviously plans to see it incorporated into
> Solaris.
>
> "Indiana" isn't introducing divergence; at least none relevant to this thread.
>
>
I think an analogy that might clear up what indiana is or isn't might be
to think of it like the concept cars some car makers send to to car
shows. You probably won't ever see that same exact car for sale in a
dealer, but you may see (over varying periods of time) different
features, most likely refined, and possibly even hard to recognize, from
them appear in the regular models that are later available for sale.
Indiana to me sounds like a testing ground for several projects to make
early access available to the community to what they are doing. Each of
these projects I imagine will integrate (or not) into Sun's Solaris at
varying points in the future, and the ARC reviews may or may not require
them to end up different than they appear in indiana.
I'm alright with this. It's good to have an experimental playground for
new things to be tried. I'm confident that the ARC will do it's job
well, when integration comes around for each project. If there's one
thing I've always thought Sun did well with Solaris (and my major
objection to linux) it's the real engineering, and architecture,
thought, consideration, and review that goes into Solaris.
-Kyle
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
