Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
> > James Carlson wrote:
> >> .. Thus "FOSS is special."
> >
> > I believe FOSS *IS* Special - because doing a good job of integrating
> > general cross-platform FOSS into OpenSolaris is actually HARDER than
> > integrating something invented by th
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> John Plocher wrote:
>>> James Carlson wrote:
.. Thus "FOSS is special."
>>> I believe FOSS *IS* Special - because doing a good job of integrating
>>> general cross-platform FOSS into OpenSolaris is actually HARDER than
>>> integrating s
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
>> James Carlson wrote:
>>> .. Thus "FOSS is special."
>>
>> I believe FOSS *IS* Special - because doing a good job of integrating
>> general cross-platform FOSS into OpenSolaris is actually HARDER than
>> integrating something invented by the communi
John Plocher wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>> .. Thus "FOSS is special."
>
> I believe FOSS *IS* Special - because doing a good job of integrating
> general cross-platform FOSS into OpenSolaris is actually HARDER than
> integrating something invented by the community specifically for the
> OS it
John Plocher schrieb:
> We used to think that incompatible changes to interfaces found in/on
> Solaris were always Bad, and that evolutionary stability was always a
> Good Thing. What we found was that, while stability was desirable,
> being different/old/stale from what was available elsewhere w
James Carlson schrieb:
> John Plocher wrote:
>> This isn't easy - but it isn't impossible, either, given some
>> leadership and a desire to make something that works. Rather than
>> dumping a boil-the-ocean requirement on each and every FOSS project to
>> acomplish by themselves, mostly in the d
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I believe it is perfectly reasonable to allow users to push their favorite
> bits into /contrib, skip the ARC review, and allow the community to support
> those packages on a caveat emptor basis. The rest of the stuff, we should
> continue reviewing, using the same faculti
John Plocher wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>
>> .. Thus "FOSS is special."
>>
>
> I believe FOSS *IS* Special - because doing a good job of integrating
> general cross-platform FOSS into OpenSolaris is actually HARDER than
> integrating something invented by the community specifically for
James Carlson wrote:
> .. ?Thus "FOSS is special."
I believe FOSS *IS* Special - because doing a good job of integrating
general cross-platform FOSS into OpenSolaris is actually HARDER than
integrating something invented by the community specifically for the
OS itself.
The substantial case histo
J?rg Barfurth wrote:
> James Carlson schrieb:
>> The "Architecture Creating Council" is two doors down on the left. ;-}
>>
>
> I agree that multiple-supported-versions is not the only or always best
> solution for the problem of incompatibly evolving software. And that the
> problem does not depe
John Plocher wrote:
> Yes, stability is important, but it is not the only thing that
> matters. Under your words, I hear "everything will be OK if we can
> achieve interface stability; if we can't, all we can do is punt" (and,
> yes, I am taking your statements to an unwarranted extreme :-)
>
>
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> That's because setting expectations is useful. Of course, we should
> also caveat that if the upstream breaks an interface, we may break it
> too or that we may deliver multiple versions of whatever the item is.
This of course includes that if Sun breaks interfaces, th
John Plocher wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>> We used to think that incompatible changes to
>> interfaces found in/on Solaris were always Bad,
>> and that evolutionary stability was always a
>> Good Thing.
>
> Yes, stability is important, but it is not the only thing that
> matters. Under your wo
Stefan Teleman wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>
>> But when the upstream really is sensible, and doesn't deliberately break
>> their own software (or, as in many cases, isn't actively doing any work
>> anymore), then applying "Volatile" (or "External") to the interface
>> merely as a way to say "th
James Carlson wrote:
> But when the upstream really is sensible, and doesn't deliberately break
> their own software (or, as in many cases, isn't actively doing any work
> anymore), then applying "Volatile" (or "External") to the interface
> merely as a way to say "this wasn't written by one of th
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Dunno, but it should be a matter of running a case to update the
> interface taxonomy. We basically need to revive "External".
I fail to see the point in that.
"External" behaved exactly as "Volatile" does now in terms of actual
interface stability. The difference is m
James Carlson wrote:
> those who are claiming that all the software world outside
> of Sun is Volatile by mere dint of not having an SMI paycheck
> are in fact *WRONG*
I absolutely agree.
But I think there is another meme flowing thru this conversation:
> If it really is the case that the upstre
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 02:01:31PM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
> [...]
>
> Things like Gnu tools, desktops, middleware and the like are another
> matter - we live in a heterogeneous world where platform differences
> cause severe developer and end-user problems. The users of these
> programs/libra
>> but we at Sun actually have no control over these interfaces.
> Sun control is not the point here
A big difference between Solaris {2.0, 2.1, ... 2.8, 2.9, 2.10} and
OpenSolaris is the belated acknowledgment that not all problems are
best solved by freezing APIs in stone. Unfortunately, that
u
19 matches
Mail list logo
