[indiana-discuss] [Fwd: [caiman-discuss] contents for slim install]

[Emmanuel Okyere]

insightful!

On 7 Aug 2007, at 07:04, Craig McClanahan wrote:

> On 8/6/07, Ché Kristo <chekristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> maybe where it makes sense to do so, perhaps when a user tries to  
>> run say top we could spit out a url to a page explaining why tope  
>> is not there and how Solaris/Indiana does it better
>> [snip]
>
> OK, I'll bite.  I'm a Sun employee (and heavy user of Ubuntu) that is
> extremely disillusioned with everything I have seen that Open Solaris
> has done so far.
>
> I tried Solaris Developer Express (several iterations).  I really
> tried.  I can deal with the fact that it didn't know about my laptop's
> wireless hardware (Ubuntu didn't either until Fiesty).  But I can't
> deal with the historical Solaris legacy that comes with /bin/sh being
> Bourne shell, and associated atrocities.
>
> * I tried to install (from source) some typical open source software
>   like Apache 2 (yes, that particular package is available as binary,
>   but the principle here is the important thing).  Wait a  
> minute ... the
>   GNU build tools and make are *not* on the default path.  For a
>   *developer* edition?  Excuse me?
>
> * The response to my bug report on this was sad ... "use dmake ...  
> it's
>   a lot better."  I DON'T CARE  -- THE BUILD SCRIPT FOR THE CODE I
>   WANT TO BUILD USES "make" NOT "dmake"!!!
>
> * I work in the Java Tools group, so naturally it makes sense to  
> try to
>   build NetBeans from source.  Turns out you can't ... /bin/env on  
> Solaris
>   Developer Express (Bourne shell legacy) cannot handle command lines
>   that the Ant build script for NetBeans emits.  And it's not just  
> NetBeans
>   ... this limitation causes problems building *lots* of typical  
> open source
>    C/C++ software.
>
> The Internet has a vast number of OS packages available as source,
> easily compiled and installed with the typical "./config ; make ; make
> install" pattern.  Yes, binary packages are nice for end users, but
> they are useless to most developers who want to stay on the cutting
> edge of at least packages relevant to what they are working on.
>
> And the vast majority of such packages, IMHO, have Linux-ish
> assumptions in their build scripts.
>
> So, if we can't be "duck typing" compatible with Linux, again IMHO,
> Indiana is not going to be good for much.
>
> Can we fix this, please?  The planets are aligning so that people
> might actually *like* a break from backwards compatibility with
> Solaris (including backwards compatibility with some really nasty
> historical bugs :-).  PLEASE make Indiana into something that a
> Linux-familiar developer will be comfortable with -- except, of
> course, for the fact that it runs more threads and scales better to
> multicore processors :-).
>
> Give me the Linux userland, or give me Ubuntu!  :-)
>
> Craig McClanahan
> <Craig.McClanahan at sun.com>
>
> PS:  Is there a reason this list is not "reply all" by default?
> _______________________________________________
> indiana-discuss mailing list
> indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss

---
SELF-EVIDENT, adj. Evident to one's self and to nobody else. –  
Devil's Dictionary

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/attachments/20070807/16f96c4e/attachment.html>