On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Glynn Foster <glynn.fos...@sun.com> wrote: > > On 29/01/2010, at 1:41 PM, Roger Savard wrote: > >> As much as I like OpenSolaris, I just migrated my FreeBSD (RockSolid) >> infrastructure to opensolaris with ease: Tomcat, CAS-SSO, OpenLdap, Bind, >> apache2, CIFS, Postgresql ... I think it is a mistake to design OpenSolaris >> as a desktop first, Sun always shine on the server side. > > Why do you think we're designing OpenSolaris as a desktop first? Because of > the LiveCD? What about the Automated Install images, or the text based > interactive installer? Lots of room for both, and over the last couple of > releases, there's been a higher priority on getting some of the > server/enterprise features in place.
Because anytime anyone tries to offer any criticism or documents issues trying to use it as a server, the response is 'well we're concentrating on the desktop first'. I seem to recall the whole point of the project Indiana (now OpenSolaris the distribution) versus SXCE was to have a desktop oriented distribution (with the idea of trying to entice developers from other *nix variants). Hence the prioritization of the graphical installer before a text-based one (thus x86 before sparc), interactive installations before automated ones, nwam being the default, bash being the default shell, GNU utilities being the default, etc. If someone wants to argue those are appropriate for a server setting instead of a desktop, I'd like to know the name of their pharmacist =] This is generally not a bad thing (as you know I disagree with a couple of decisions, but I do try to do my talking with hg so to speak to address that) -- I suspect most people understand the constraints of limited resources and such, but it doesn't mean we get to have it both ways. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
