John Mark Walker writes: > Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following > is my best attempt at an answer: > > James Carlson wrote: > > It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions > > that focus on different needs and different areas. > > > > This is where we fundamentally disagree. An > [official|reference|experimental] OpenSolaris distribution would not > shut down this possibility. You're assuming that an OpenSolaris project > will magically fulfill all of the requirements of its users - it will > not.
I suspect it will seriously curtail the ability for other distributions to walk outside of the lines set by the reference distribution. > Look what happened with Fedora Core - "extras" repositories pop up > all over the place, giving users an easy way to supplement what came > from RedHat. It's important to note that the Extras repo is now an The situation is not analogous to that one. There isn't a "Linux reference distribution." Nobody is held accountable for being compatible with that sort of situation. Instead, there are multiple Linux-based distributions, each of which is free to do its own thing. (The most notable difference being .deb versus .rpm; but many others exist.) What's being proposed here seems quite a bit different. It's a community distribution akin to getting full system binaries from kernel.org, and expecting each of RedHat, Debian, and the others to do something "compatible." > Debian provides a different example of community collaboration, where > another community (Ubuntu) develops to fill the gaps. Debian has always > been a fully functional Linux-based operating system, and yet, there > were still gaps to be filled by downstream developers. Other communities > formed around those gaps. The end result is not the same as the Fedora > example above, but it's another example of the reference distro not > shutting out community innovation. It does however constrain it. > A healthy ecosystem is a badge of success. Our difference of opinion > stems from your belief that an official distro would cut off the > ecosystem. I don't buy that argument, because I've seen too many > examples where an official distro fed the downstream innovation. So, if the reference distribution decides that SysV packaging is the right answer, should Nexenta be expected to disappear? > > I think having a "Sun Experimental" distribution -- something even > > less structured than SX -- would be neat to have, and may well satisfy > > a fair percentage of folks interested in this new distribution. > > However, I'm not sure I understand the point of having a specific > > OpenSolaris reference distribution, or its risks. > > > > I think the experimental distro would be interesting - and maybe this > issue boils down to semantics, after all. That's possible. It's the issue of the use of "OpenSolaris" in the name that unnerves me. It puts this distribution in a special position that no other distribution holds. If that special place doesn't wield influence over the others, then what's the point? If it does, then do we understand what we're asking for? > In my mind, the real question > is... do you prefer the Fedora or Debian model? Actually neither. ;-} -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
