[advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris"

[Martin Bochnig]

Please count me out of that brand related discussion.
I didn't get any of my questions or suggestions answered or commented, 
including my offer to do something for SPARC-Indiana. Rather the 
opposite: From that point on nobody even mentioned me anymore.

In order to enjoy a monologue, I don't need to type that stuff in and 
send it around the world.


Thank you.
p.s. the link on *http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ is still pointing to

"marTux* – Download <http://www.martux.org/RELEASES/> | More Info 
<http://www.martux.org/READ-ME.ascii>

    marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community
    Release OpenSolaris distribution for SPARC (sun4u for now, sun4v
    later)."




Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Hello there ...
>
> John Plocher wrote:
>   
>> [Lets take this discussion over to the new branding alias:
>> 	trademark-policy-dev at openSolaris.org
>> Feel free to subscribe.
>>   -John]
>>   
>>     
>
> John, thanks for inviting me, I just subscribed.
> First I would like to say, that it isn't something like "whine whine, I
> feel MartUX comes too short" what has brought me to post to this thread
> earlier this day. And especially isn't it targeted against any single of
> the community members (kind regards to everyone, including Sara and Ian!).
> I just find the whole thing confusing (to myself, and then, what will a
> new user think, or even Linux biased parts of the press?).
> I think it can be done better, see John's excellent suggestions below.
>
>
>   
>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Unfortunately John, I can't agree with that.
>>>
>>> The problem is that users already have the expectation that clicking
>>> the "Download" button on OpenSolaris.org will let them download
>>> "OpenSolaris."
>>>     
>>>       
>> But it doesn't /do/ that.  Instead, it takes them to a page with half
>> a dozen distro choices, none of which are branded in any consistent
>> manner:
>>
>>     Solaris Express Community Edition is Sun's binary release for
>>     OpenSolaris developers. It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source
>>     and additional technology
>>   
>>     
>
> Shouldn't that be have been called OpenSolaris Express, from 20050614 on
> ... ?
>
>   
>>     Solaris Express Developer Edition is Sun's tested release built
>>     from the OpenSolaris bits and additional technology
>>   
>>     
>
> Confusing, as the Developer Edition DVD also offers a classic SXCR
> boot/install option.
> Worse: The CD's also seem to offer both options at first, only to tell
> you later, that the CD version doesn't offer the "Developer" thing.
> Not to mention, that the "Developer" install ships with a version of
> SUNWspro that is not supported for building ON (has this changed, is it
> going to?) . Is that "Developer" thing actually available for SPARC?
>
> Is anybody calling this consistency?
>
>   
>>     BeleniX is a *NIX distribution that is built using the OpenSolaris
>>     source base
>>
>>     marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community
>>     Release OpenSolaris distribution
>>   
>>     
>
> Please: I have changed the spelling to MartUX, four months or so ago.
> Plus: There is also a x64/x86 version available for 13 months now. Full
> with 9.2GB (!) of clofi compressed CSW packages. I thought somebody
> would ever adjust the description. I had written to the general discuss
> list back then. It is actually the first x86 LiveDVD that had ever been
> released. Plus the first one (whether CD or DVD) capable of fully
> booting into a working Xorg on x64 in 64bit mode.
> I guess nobody except Ken Mays had ever given it a try. No wonder, as
> most people don't have a SPARC. So they won't open that link exclusively
> pointing to a "LiveCD for SPARC".
> Here it was, now completely outdated:
> http://www.martux.org/RELEASES/x86_and_x64/DVD/
> It is the formerly planned mBE (MartUX Blastwave Edition).
> I have offered Blastwave n times to make something like a CSW community
> distro out of it. Every single CSW maintainer can find himself in
> /etc/release! But personal issues prevented that.
>
>   
>>     NexentaOS is ...  built on top of the OpenSolaris kernel and runtime.
>>     NexentaOS integrates OpenSolaris (SunOS kernel) ...
>>
>>     SchilliX is an OpenSolaris based UNIX Live CD
>>
>> In truth, all of these should be branded similarly - they are all based
>> on OpenSolaris technology, because all of them have chosen to include
>> different sets of packages.  Furthermore, since there is no attempt to
>> define "OpenSolaris" or claim baseline compatibility, it is misleading
>> to say that they are either OpenSolaris-based or OpenSolaris-Compatible.
>>   
>>     
>
> Exactly.
> I agree in that some compatibility appcert-tool / document / program /
> project should be set up. To avoid missing lib - conflicts or
> incompatible lib versions. But basically all existing distros _are_
> fully compatible to each other.
>
>
>   
>> I would liketo see this download page eventually list ALL the various
>> distros, grouped by compatibility claims and sorted by release status
>> (releases, development in progress, ...):
>>
>>     OpenSolaris Compatible Distros
>>     ==============================
>> 	Indiana - Laptop Distro Prototype (November, 2006)
>> 	Indiana - Desktop/Laptop Distro (development in progress, currently at build 7 out of 16)
>> 	...
>>
>>     Add-on package repositories
>>     ===========================
>> 	........
>> 	........ (mirror)
>>
>>     OpenSolaris Based Distros
>>     =========================
>> 	Solaris Developer Express (based on ON build 70)
>> 	Solaris Express  (based on ON build 86)
>> 	Schillix 0.1.2.3 (based on ON build 86)
>> 	Nexenta  4.5.6   (based on ON build 85)
>> 	MarTux 0.3       (based on ON build 87)
>> 	...
>>
>>     Distros using OpenSolaris Technology
>>     ====================================
>> 	PlocherModelTrain Appliance
>> 	...
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
> I love that table.
> Something like this would make most sense to me.
> Of course strictly monitored, tested and documented.
> But I get the impression nobody at Sun has ever even tested my own
> x64/x86 bits from 2006, cannot speak for the other distros.
> Why not reviewing each new distro release and posting the results? Maybe
> a contest as potential tool to increase motivation for more involvement,
> better results?
>
>
>
>   
>>> Every time there is a new SXDE/SXCE release, and the news gets posted
>>> to somewhere like OSNews, there are always a handful of comments from
>>> folks confused by the number of download choices, the differences
>>> between them, and why they can't download something that's called
>>> "OpenSolaris."
>>>     
>>>       
>> Maybe we are exposing things at too fine a level - the confusion may
>> be because we DON'T YET have *a* release of anything - what we *do have*
>> are snapshots in time of a development process.  Nobody has yet put
>> a stake in the ground and claimed to have a real product release, in
>> the sense of the ARC Release Taxonomy.
>>
>> Think this thru for a moment, factoring in the asynchronous nature of
>> repositories.  What does it mean to release a distro in such an environment?
>> There is "releasing the recipe", "obtaining the recipe and building a distro
>> out of it", "installing that distro", and "upgrading a system that has that
>> distro installed".
>>
>> Depending on *when* you do these actions, you will get different bits.
>> In the beginning when the recipe was created and the first distro
>> image was constructed, the bits were in a known state.  This state
>> is shared with everyone who downloads and installs that particular
>> distro image.  Those installed images will immediately begin to diverge
>> >from the original distro bits as soon as the user does a pkg update from a
>> repository containing newer bits.  The same goes for anyone who uses
>> the same recipe to recreate a distro image at a later date.
>>
>> Which of these is worthy of being called "a new release of ___"?
>> (I don't have an answer...)
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Despite our best efforts over the last few years it has become clear
>>> that users have made their choice about what they expect.
>>>     
>>>       
>>   
>>     
>
> Best efforts: Please define.
>
>
>   
>> and that would be?
>>
>>   -John
>>     
>
> Something like an installable CSW-OpenSolaris?
> I bet on that. But I guess such an option has never been considered by
> Sun, I do remember claims about Blastwave's packaging not being
> "professional enough".
>
> No flames please.
>
> %martin
>
> p.s. I don't speak for any entity except for myself. I'm not affiliated
> with any organization, including Blastwave.
>
>
>