On 07/05/07, Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > I think my point behind that is important because the definition of
> > what it is seems to be constantly changing. When the project first
> > started, there were relatively few consolidations available, and ON
> > was the primary one (though if I remember right DTrace was the first).
> DTrace just found a way out the door early. Its not a consolidation -
> its part of ON. ("ON" = OS/Networking - I discovered not all are familiar
> with the term "ON".) DTrace is a project/community.
>
> If "ON" was the intended endpoint, we would have called it "OpenSunOS". 8^)
> > Everyone may disagree with me; I may even be the lone voice in the
> > wilderness, yet my feeling is that right now the word "OpenSolaris"
> > has a rather vague definition.
> I agree.
>
> Its a community (oops, a collection of communities).
> Its a disto (???)
> Its a floor wax.
> Its a desert topping. 8^)
Mmm...shimmer!
> I think we are all talking without having recently read the top level
> mission
> statements. I'm guilty of this also, but I believe:
>
> 1) It was to concentrate on the "ON" stuff, only because that is
> the code
> that the OpenSolaris community are the ultimate maintainers of.
That was my original interpretation as well, though when I though I
asked about that, it seemed that was not the case.
> 2) It was to "host" the other parts of Solaris (all of them), but
> change to
> the bits we weren't the ultimate maintainers of was to be
> minimized.
I hope that is the case.
> Example: JDS customizes Gnome. The customization are "fair game"
> to the OpenSolaris community, but generic Gnome enhancements
> should visit gnome.org.
Indeed! The more changes that go upstream; the better. The Salmon must
survive! :)
> These aren't the full definition you are looking for, but they are a
> couple of
> points which seemed to be worth making.
Just about right.
To me, a reference distribution that focused primarily on ON only as a
minimal system would be great. The tighter the focus, the less
resources needed to keep it going as well...
Though I'm certain some would groan at the comparison, the
"Componentised Linux" idea that Ian's previous company put forth was a
good example to me.
A very basic reference system where you could easily drop in other
consolidations (such as JDS, etc.) to exactly the kind of distribution
you needed.
That is what I'm hoping this proposal will end up as.
--
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
