[indiana-discuss] About SXCE, SXDE, Indiana future

[Bryan Boone]

...However, in Linux-land the distros are created by the "distro 
developer"  That is, say, the developer chooses to make a "server only" 
Debian distro.  He chooses from stable, testing, or experimental for his 
packing sources (sources.list).  He then decide which packages are 
appropriate for a "server only" distro.

Check out dsl, zenwalk, (which are minimalist linux distros) and
say Studio64 and BlueWhite64 (which require 64 bits)

Those choices are a lot of power and Linus (not on a first name basis 
there either ;)) doesn't have to look into his crystal ball to be all 
things.

Solaris even is a step ahead of Linux because it doesn't have to provide 
both 32 and 64 bit packages.

...Just a follow about MS.  The Linux scheme is very different than 
MS's.  With Linux you can choose your "basic" distro (XP home if you 
want to call it that) but with the packaging system, you can tailor it 
to say, XP "super-duper-professional" as your needs change/grow.

-Bryan


Tracy, John wrote:
> Hello Brian-
> 
> Those are interesting thoughts. Just to point out the obvious, but it
> seems like a similar scheme works (quite well) for Microsoft. They have
> a server and a desktop version of what is essentially the same operating
> system. While they may be cramming out upgrades to both at rather break
> neck speeds (it's still way slower than Red Hat or Ubuntu), their
> Windows product lines across the board leverage users' familiarity with
> their desktop software.
> 
> When that same user may one day be tasked with managing their server
> software (how many small companies grow up and have an individual that
> ends up getting tasked with administrative roles... I believe quite a
> few), there is a much smaller leap to learning the server technology.
> 
> That's also how Microsoft got into the server realm. It wasn't because
> their products were necessarily superior in server roles--instead folks
> felt more comfortable looking at something on the server they were
> already familiar with.
> 
> That being said, I am sure there are going to be a multitude of places
> where the needs of the stand alone desktop and server roles conflict. I
> don't think that one product can realistically expect to be all things
> to all people (if it does, it ends up failing everybody).
> 
> Cheers-
> John
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: indiana-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org
> [mailto:indiana-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Brian Nitz
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:05 AM
> To: Richard Elling
> Cc: Andrew Watkins; indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [indiana-discuss] About SXCE, SXDE, Indiana future
> 
> Richard Elling wrote:
>> Andrew Watkins wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder is this the starting point of Sun having 2 supported
> Operating systems, a server version (Solaris) and a desktop version
> (Indiana/OpenSolaris). I find it very hard to believe that they would be
> able to convince big business that the new Indiana would run there big
> systems.  More in line what RedHat, Ubuntu and Microsoft are doing.
>>> I know we are talking what happens after Nevada (Solaris 11?), but
> what I see happening is:
>>> - Server Version (Solaris) with long term support, getting close to
> the Indiana i.e. packages system.
>>> - Desktop Version (Solaris Desktop) with a shorter term support
> level, but may be with more up to-date desktop packages.
>>> - OpenSolaris which will be the cutting edge, with the 6 months turn
> around (No support).
> A few of us have been advocating creating a separate desktop
> distribution Sun for a while.  There was even more reason for this when
> the old Solaris installer and package manager didn't allow the kind of
> package granularity that allowed the sysadmin to configure the system to
> 
> balance the needs of a desktop user against the needs of a server.
> 
> The IPS package system and common sense install system allows much more
> granularity of install, patch and upgrade and if it is carefully
> designed, can make it possible to have one release cover the needs of
> most desktop users as well as traditional big iron Solaris users.
> 
> But if we encounter too many places where the needs of the desktop user
> conflict with the needs of the big iron server administrator, I would
> advocate steering Indiana towards the desktop user and leaving Nevada to
> 
> handle the long term stability guarantees and slow upgrade cycle that
> large companies running big servers require.  It has been my experience
> that small and large companies are fed up with being forced into an ever
> 
> more frantic upgrade cycle.  The only organizations who crave a rapid
> upgrade cycle are those with lots of money, those with critical bugs in
> their existing system, or those who profit from planned obsolescence.
> 
> Keep in mind that even Indiana can download fully QAed and stable new
> releases every day, companies must qualify their internal  and OEM
> software against this.  In some cases there is a legal or internal
> policy requirement for re qualification even if Sun (or another vendor)
> guarantees the a rock solid stable API/ABI.  Look at how reluctant Adobe
> 
> is to rebuild their acrobat reader for Solaris X86 even though Solaris
> X86 has a rapidly growing user base and even though Sun stands behind
> the portability of applications  between Sparc and X86.  Imagine trying
> to convince Adobe to release a new acroread for our platform every 6
> months.  Now imagine thousands of organizations who don't have the
> software development resources of Adobe and who must do more than the
> "./configure && make && make install" and QA that Adobe would have to do
> 
> to port acroread to Solaris 10 x86.
> 
> 
>>>
>> I disagree, that is a 1980s model.  Most of the server/desktop
>> separation in other companies
>> is because of the pricing premium expected to be extracted from
>> servers.  For Sun servers,
>> the server includes the appropriate Solaris license, so the pricing
>> model is very different
>> than software-only companies (a good thing).
>>
>> Also, with the increasing market for thin clients, that which is
> desktop
>> is also server.
>>
> So shakeout desktop bugs and stability issues in a fast upgrade cycle
> Indiana release and qualify a Sun Ray release against Indiana every year
> 
> or so to provide a stable desktop platform.
> 
>> I do agree that the cutting edge will continue to be important, that
> is
>> where the action
>> is, not the slow-paced back-end.
>>  -- richard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> indiana-discuss mailing list
>> indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> indiana-discuss mailing list
> indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> indiana-discuss mailing list
> indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss