[indiana-discuss] Name of Distro?

[Shawn Walker]

On 20/06/07, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro at sun.com> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote, On 21/06/07 02:31:
>  > On 20/06/07, Ian Murdock <Ian.Murdock at sun.com> wrote:
>  >> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>  >> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>  >> >> On 6/20/07, Ian Murdock <Ian.Murdock at sun.com> wrote:
>  >> >> d Debian?
>  >> >>>
>  >> >>> Thank you for making my point for me. Do we really want
>  >> OpenSolaris to
>  >> >>> have the same problems? That's the path we're currently on.. -ian
>  >> >>
>  >> >> Sorry if I don't see it as a problem per se.
>  >> >
>  >> > I agree.
>  >> >
>  >> > Ian: In this regard, Linux and Solaris/OpenSolaris evolved in very
>  >> > different ways. In OpenSolaris land, there already exists the optimal
>  >> > touchstone: the Nevada core (and no less important, the environment and
>  >> > processes from which it generates). In Linux land the common
>  >> touchstone is
>  >> > just the kernel. Pardon while I wax poetic, but that is no less than a
>  >> > _profoundly critical_ difference between Linux and OpenSolaris.
>  >>
>  >> You don't get it.
>  >>
>  >> It doesn't matter if the common touchstone is just a kernel
>  >> or the kernel and the entire userspace. The source
>  >> code doesn't make a platform. The binaries make a platform.
>  >>
>  >> That's why we need OpenSolaris to be a binary distribution.
>  >>
>  >> Trust me. I've lived this mess for the last 10 years, and
>  >> it's been my job for the past 2 to try to clean it up,
>  >> which turns out to be very difficult to do after the fact..
>  >
>  > "Trust me" is not very convincing. A more reasoned response would be
>  > appreciated.
>  >
>  > So far, you haven't convinced me. Linux has been a source base for
>  > years and has experienced no ill effect in popularity (though it has
>  > in engineering arguably) from not having once place where you
>  > "download Linux (an OS)".
>
>    Would something like this help to convince you?
>
>      http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Application_Compatibility
>
>    The "Linux" community has accomplished lot of interesting stuff, but
>    it has also made many silly mistakes; of course, we should be wise
>    enough for not repeating those mistakes.

No, because the LSB has been largely unsuccessful. Especially when it
comes to C++ applications thanks to the constantly changing ABI of
gcc.

The Linux foundation, LSB, etc. do not impress me one little bit.

I've been developing on Linux for years and they have not made my job
any easier.

-- 
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright

Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss


--
This message posted from opensolaris.org