> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I myself would prefer open source software based on libraries already
>> >> included in Solaris (like OpenSSL) - something I can't get with
>> >> Blastwave.
>> >
>> > This is something that currently does not fit the ON OSS model from Sun.
>> >
>> > Unless we find a way that Sun makes more bits OSS, it may be that
>> > e.g. Schillix is forced to supply different libs than Sun does.
>>
>> Huh ? I truely don't understand what you are getting at here. Sun is
>> doing its bloody best to release as much code as quickly as we can.
>> What is left in ON that is closed source is closed for a reason.
>
> I am not sure if you did understand the problem.
>
> A main problem for OpenSolaris based distros is that ON is not self
> contained.
> This means that ON itself is not complete enough to make a minimal distro
> out
> of it.
>
>
> People who like to create even a minimal distro are forced to grab the
> related sources from elsewhere and to find a way to compile in a way that
> makes
> it work. This is not necessarily the same way Sun did do it....
>
Here is the list of closed binaries for Sparc and i386/x86/AMD :
http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/OpenSolaris/i386-closed.list
and
http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/OpenSolaris/sparc-closed.list
So which ones are show stoppers ?
The funny thing that I see at first glance is that .conf files are in
the closed "binary" lists. I guess they are things that are not
really "closed" because anyone can read them.
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
