John,
Why not GNOME as the default, its one of the most popular desktops, and is the
default on many of the major Linux distros (and Solaris)?
Ubuntu have GNOME, but they also have Kubuntu, which is the same base OS with
KDE as the default - there is no reason that once Indiana is out there that
Darren Kenny wrote:
> Ubuntu have GNOME, but they also have Kubuntu, which is the same base OS with
> KDE as the default - there is no reason that once Indiana is out there that
> you
> couldn't manage a minor fork, using KDE as the main desktop instead of GNOME
> - I
> feel that people tend to g
On 7/19/07, Darren Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> Why not GNOME as the default, its one of the most popular desktops, and is the
> default on many of the major Linux distros (and Solaris)?
>
> Ubuntu have GNOME, but they also have Kubuntu, which is the same base OS with
> KDE as the d
Manoj Joseph wrote:
> Darren Kenny wrote:
>
>> Ubuntu have GNOME, but they also have Kubuntu, which is the same base OS with
>> KDE as the default - there is no reason that once Indiana is out there that
>> you
>> couldn't manage a minor fork, using KDE as the main desktop instead of GNOME
>>
On 19-Jul-07, at 8:57 AM, Doug Scott wrote:
Manoj Joseph wrote:
Darren Kenny wrote:
Ubuntu have GNOME, but they also have Kubuntu, which is the same
base OS with
KDE as the default - there is no reason that once Indiana is out
there that you
couldn't manage a minor fork, using KDE as the
Danek and I have been poking around at packaging the last little
while; I've written down many of the issues we're juggling in a blog
post:
http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/observations_on_packaging
There's more to write, of course, and I hope to get the rest of my
notes out in s
Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
>Danek and I have been poking around at packaging the last little
>while; I've written down many of the issues we're juggling in a blog
>post:
>
>http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/observations_on_packaging
AFAIK one item is missing:
- The packaging system shoul
On Jul 19, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
>Danek and I have been poking around at packaging the last little
>while; I've written down many of the issues we're juggling in a
> blog
>post:
>
>http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/observations_on_packaging
Good stuff! We going t
Danek Duvall wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:39:11PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > AFAIK one item is missing:
> > - The packaging system should work with diskless and/or networked
> > clients, e.g. clients which get all filesystems (even the root
> > filesystem) via NFS or AFS/DFS (this featur
John Sonnenschein wrote:
>
>>> If you package Gnome with Indiana, the vast majority will just go with
>>> it, IMHO.
>>>
>>
>> If it suits their needs then really what is the problem.
>
> And if Linux suits their needs, why are we bothering trying to attract
> them at all?
Does it?
>
>>> I person
On 19-Jul-07, at 4:35 PM, Doug Scott wrote:
Also I think one thing that people forget is, if Indiana comes with
applications like Firefox, OpenOffice etc, then half on Gnome
will need
to be included anyway.
If that's a large concern for you, KOffice is smaller than
OpenOffice ( and base
* Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-19 15:19]:
> On Jul 19, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
> >
> > Danek and I have been poking around at packaging the last little
> > while; I've written down many of the issues we're juggling in a
> >blog
> > post:
> >
> > http://blogs.sun.
John Sonnenschein wrote:
>
> On 19-Jul-07, at 4:35 PM, Doug Scott wrote:
>
Also I think one thing that people forget is, if Indiana comes with
applications like Firefox, OpenOffice etc, then half on Gnome will
need
to be included anyway.
>>>
>>> If that's a large concern f
>
> On 19-Jul-07, at 4:35 PM, Doug Scott wrote:
>
Also I think one thing that people forget is, if Indiana comes with
applications like Firefox, OpenOffice etc, then half on Gnome
will need
to be included anyway.
>>>
>>> If that's a large concern for you, KOffice is smalle
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
> >
> >Danek and I have been poking around at packaging the last little
> >while; I've written down many of the issues we're juggling in a blog
> >post:
> >
> >http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/observations_on_packaging
Could you also include features presented
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:39:11PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
> AFAIK one item is missing:
> - The packaging system should work with diskless and/or networked
> clients, e.g. clients which get all filesystems (even the root
> filesystem) via NFS or AFS/DFS (this feature is very important for
> uni
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:15:37PM -0600, Joel Buckley wrote:
> Could you also include features presented in Solaris Package Companion,
> "http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/svr4_packaging/package_companion/";,
> onto the mix.
>
> Specifically, having Cluster <-> MetaCluster <-> Package relati
>> I'm getting pretty goddamn sick of condescending comments like this.
>> I'm fully aware that I can fork OpenSolaris and do whatever I like with
>> it. In much the same way that if Indiana goes the KDE route, / YOU/ can
>> bugger off and start your own GIndiana.
>
> I do not want to see these
One question I'd answer early is whether or not ZFS is going to be a
requirement for future Solaris systems or not. Because realistically, if it
isn't assumed to always be there, it probably won't be taken full advantage of.
If it IS asssumed to be there, people will be more prone to go ahead a
ing that people forget is, if Indiana
> comes with
> >>> applications like Firefox, OpenOffice etc, then half on Gnome
> >>> will need
> >>> to be included anyway.
> >>
> >> If that's a large concern for you, KOffice is smaller than
20 matches
Mail list logo
