On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:33 AM, David Orman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suppose I just don't see the point in arguing against doing something that > helps people, especially if it isn't a large undertaking. > > There are a lot of people out there who I convince to try OSOL, and often > they come back mentioning bugs/not being able to install due to bugs that > have already been fixed. First impressions are everything. Hardware support > alone is one area where a new ISO would be helpful with. > > Additionally, things like the broken updates that occur when going from the > initial release to snv_91 (related to grub) if you didn't read the release > notes are absolute deal breakers for people new to OSOL. Things like this, > that have already been resolved, are absolute necessities in the OS (not > updating an OS isn't an option, neither is expecting "normal" users to dig > through release notes just to do an update.) > > The argument that because you haven't encountered any issues there shouldn't > be a new ISO spun seems a bit absurd. You're not exactly a typical user, > you're a _bit_ (underlined for understatement) more familiar with how things > work. If you give an average person the current 2008.5 cd, would you wager > they'd successfully be able to install it on their hardware, update it to > the most recent release, and perform all other necessary/wise things? Until > we get to that point, I think ISO builds would be wise. Once we're at that > level of usability, more infrequent ISO builds would likely suffice. They > key is getting the initial install to the point it's completely usable, and > capable of handling upgrades to newer versions seamlessly, without having > background in the OS already. > > Then again, this is all *my* opinion. :) Take it as you will!
Which I value and hear loud and clear. However ( you knew that was coming right? ) there is a key factor we need to address. Who is the target market? If the target market is the Microsoft Windows user then we are dead in the water. You would need an OS that installs itself, configures itself, makes coffee and burbs the baby all at the same time. Good luck. We will *never* hit that market segment and why in God's name would you want to? The revenue implications are horrendous. R&D costs would spin out of control as would support infrastructure to care for a 1% market segment if you are lucky. Is the target market the existing Linux user? If so then you are in far better position to hand a CDROM to John Doe Linux geek and say "boot this and then install it." With a nice pointer to some README notes. They will figure it out just fine and if they can not then again I have to ask Who cares? So what? You are not going to get 1% of the user market because you need to draw in the Linux users who are already only 2% or 3% of the entire user market. I'm talking about end users here, not servers. With all the GNOME stuff pushed into OpenSolaris then we have to assume that the target is the Linux end user. Is the target market the developer? The programer in a university somewhere? That can NOT be the case because OpenSolaris ships with no compiler and no system headers even if the compiler was included. If the target market is supposed to be the programmer then someone forget to give them GCC 4.x at the very *minimum*. So then ... who is the market ? Dennis Clarke http://www.blastwave.org/ _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
