[indiana-discuss] Indiana Wish List

[Eric Boutilier]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 4:55 AM, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>> Nevertheless, I think I see your point, and probably the following
>> wording would have been better for my post:
>>
>>    The Indiana/SX-NG/OpenSolaris/Whatever New Distro Project will be a
>>    certain assemblage of OpenSolaris (Nevada) code -- just as Solaris
>>    Express is today. That assemblage will result in a distro that is
>>    vastly different (and vastly to my liking) from Ubuntu, Fedora,
>>    SuSE, etc -- just as Solaris Express is today.
>
> I don't quite get it.

Sorry.

> Being "different from Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSE" is not very 
> descriptive.  Do I take you to mean that in your vision...

Not a prediction/vision at all really. More like an observation:

There's two parts. First, I'm saying that no matter how
GNU/Linux-like we make, say, the command-line in Nevada (and
therefore Indiana/Solaris Express) there will still be tons of
advantageous differentiators.  (Note: That statement is
referring not to your current question, but to what led up to
your question; namely, the rebuttal of my endorsment of your
original statement.)

The reason the above is true, which I think addresses your
question, is that the components of an assemblage of Nevada
(Indiana/Solaris Express) come from a broad array of projects
(such as those in the wonderfully long list found on
opensolaris.org/projects), which themselves mostly contain a
broad array of really, really key differentiators (relative to
Ubuntu, etc.), and which reflect all the varying stages of
operating systems software design/development, i.e.  from
conceptual through completion.

Eric

P.S. I trust you weren't hoping I'd detail the differences
stemming from all the Nevada projects (not to mention
Nevada-related projects, such as the ones in the Storage
Community Group, etc.) that will be differentiators vs. leading
Linux-based counterparts...


> Indiana will be a 
> whole lot like OpenSolaris is today?   I'm really not being rhetorical or 
> leading here, I'm just trying to get your view on what we're trying to build. 
> -Tim
>