Keith M. Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. I mean that mainline OpenSolaris has the greatest
value to all if it retains compatibility. This can almost
always be done in ways that do not prevent or stifle
innovative development.
In some cased (e.g. ksh) I would not call it retaining
Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Keith M. Wesolowski wrote:
[...]
From a technical standpoint, OpenSolaris and Solaris are the same...
That's where I agree more with the opposing viewpoint Joerg and others
+1
OpenSolaris (at this point in time) is a shared and sharable
Eric wites:
As time progresses OpenSolaris will run ahead of the
music, and introduce incomaptibilites with Solaris. That's
This is not the plan and is not our announced intent...
Do you mean it's not our (Sun's) intent to also help
cultivate new,
innovative ways to use (the
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Keith M. Wesolowski wrote:
[...]
From a technical standpoint, OpenSolaris and Solaris are the same...
That's where I agree more with the opposing viewpoint Joerg and others
have in this regard. First: OpenSolaris is a code base; Solaris is a
platform. Second: if we advance
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
Third: Sun is not the final arbiter of what OpenSolaris becomes;
however, it is the final arbiter of what Solaris is/becomes.
Slight clarification: Because Sun owns the copyright on the word
OpenSolaris, I suppose Sun _could_, in theory exercise
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
a) may be the safer way but is not always
necessary. Your example of
Postscript interpreter doesn't fit nearly as well
because you're
talking about (as far as I know) is an
undcoumented proprietary file
format,
Not that it matters
