Comments on: OpenSolaris/Solaris Relationships, updated http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/ thoughts on open spaces Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:16:54 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Stephen Lau http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-34084 Stephen Lau Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:20:42 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/#comment-34084 <p>Hi Luke, Agreed - the scale was meant to apply to the OpenSolaris-descended half, rather than the Solaris 10 half. I'll try to denote it differently in my next version of the drawing.</p> <p>SXDE is more stable in both senses. SXDE won't contain any more additional bugfixes than a matching SXCE release (since, at some point - they will both coincide on the same build) - but the SXDE release cycle is slower, in order to ensure that... at any given time, the current SXDE release will be stable in the "does not crash/break" sense.</p> <p>We ensure it's more stable by limiting the bugfixes going into the builds prior to the SXDE release build, as well as doing more rigorous testing on it.</p> <p>This is as opposed to the SXCE release cycle which releases every build (well, almost every build... b58 excepted) regardless.</p> Hi Luke, Agreed – the scale was meant to apply to the OpenSolaris-descended half, rather than the Solaris 10 half. I’ll try to denote it differently in my next version of the drawing.

SXDE is more stable in both senses. SXDE won’t contain any more additional bugfixes than a matching SXCE release (since, at some point – they will both coincide on the same build) – but the SXDE release cycle is slower, in order to ensure that… at any given time, the current SXDE release will be stable in the “does not crash/break” sense.

We ensure it’s more stable by limiting the bugfixes going into the builds prior to the SXDE release build, as well as doing more rigorous testing on it.

This is as opposed to the SXCE release cycle which releases every build (well, almost every build… b58 excepted) regardless.

]]> By: Luke http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-34061 Luke Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:48:24 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/#comment-34061 <p>Just to clarify my last comment... I see that the Solaris 10 binary distribution is down where it should be, but there's an oval bubble depicting Solaris 10 source code in the "open, unstable and unsupported" position. That source code is not open, nor unstable. Perhaps it could be argued that it is not supported in that form.</p> <p>I think that open/closed, stable/unstable and supported/unsupported are three different things, and it's confusing to have them on the same scale.</p> <p>Another question: is SXDE really more stable than SXCE? I mean stable in a "does not crash/break" sense rather than a "does not change" sense. Does SXDE contain any additional bugfixes that were not contained in the matching SXCE release?</p> Just to clarify my last comment… I see that the Solaris 10 binary distribution is down where it should be, but there’s an oval bubble depicting Solaris 10 source code in the “open, unstable and unsupported” position. That source code is not open, nor unstable. Perhaps it could be argued that it is not supported in that form.

I think that open/closed, stable/unstable and supported/unsupported are three different things, and it’s confusing to have them on the same scale.

Another question: is SXDE really more stable than SXCE? I mean stable in a “does not crash/break” sense rather than a “does not change” sense. Does SXDE contain any additional bugfixes that were not contained in the matching SXCE release?

]]> By: Luke http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-34059 Luke Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:35:13 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/#comment-34059 <p>Nice! Though Solaris 10's position on the vertical scale is now wrong: it looks like you're saying that Solaris 10 is open, unstable and unsupported.</p> Nice! Though Solaris 10’s position on the vertical scale is now wrong: it looks like you’re saying that Solaris 10 is open, unstable and unsupported.

]]> By: that’s whacked » OpenSolaris/Solaris Relationships http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-34009 that’s whacked » OpenSolaris/Solaris Relationships Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:13:55 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/#comment-34009 <p>[...] UPDATED POST HERE [...]</p> [...] UPDATED POST HERE [...]

]]>