Really, please don't turn this thread to an aggressive flamewar. Sun's entitled to what they want with their time and money; if they think OpenSolaris is the way to go, they're free to pursue it, and personally I wish them good luck. Even if I'm not an OpenSolaris user, I think that biodiversity in software is a good thing, and contamination across different platforms can bring us nice ideas as well as we can provide nice ideas to others. They've contributed much in the years, and telling them that what they pursue is a "dead end" is not... well... nice. Please don't let things slip. Matteo On mer, 2009-07-22 at 14:06 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Lennart Poettering > <mztabzr 0pointer de> wrote: > > > Please don't turn this in pointless and off-topic flamewar > about the > point or pointlessness of Solaris. > > Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing > about is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--actual people > using said OS is what this is really about. And apparently even Sun > doesn't think so since they no longer invest the same level of > resources in it that they once did. I'm calling a duck a duck here. > It's a failure and even Sun knows that it is. There's no reason we > shouldn't be scrambling a few eggs on Solaris to advance the Linux > desktop experience. > > I know you're a veteran of the flame-war (goodness knows you've gotten > a lot of practice in the past two years) but don't immediately try to > shoot me down with accusations of triviality. Back off.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part