[advocacy-discuss] [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris"
Brandorr
brandorr at opensolaris.org
Tue Oct 23 14:29:24 PDT 2007
Martin, this is the wrong list to get website changes implemented..
Please subscribe to website-discuss, and send an email to that list.
(Derek, and Alan are the people that you need to be contacting).
Cheers,
Brian
On 10/23/07, Martin Bochnig <mb1x at gmx.com> wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> trademark-policy-dev mailing list
> trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
>
--
- Brian Gupta
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
More information about the advocacy-discuss
mailing list