Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Actually there is a hell of a difference. My desktop
is in the global
zone. I would hate to see it stuck in the last
century.
Last century? How much difference would there be for a GUI desktop?
And why use provocative phrases like "last century" to describe a difference
that not everyone dislikes? Not everyone who likes it pretty much the
way it is, is an inflexible old fogy, either! But I can't imagine choosing
Solaris
2.6 over Solaris 10 or later, except insofar as one had some dedicated box
already running it that could just stay stable until it died.
This comment comes from that I have just looked at building Xfce 4.4.1
for the "latest" Solaris 10.
The libraries for Gnome are that old that to build Xfce you need to
remove Gnome completely and
start from scratch. It is obvious that the Solaris version update time
is a little long for the desktop. The
current timing is focussed around the server market, most of which think
that Solaris 10 is a bit modern.
An awful lot of whining seems to be about control-H (which ought to
be trivially fixable _now_, even self-fixable by tweaking options.conf or
somesuch, plus perhaps some stuff for various X-based terminal emulators)
and default shells.
Sorry, I do not think that people wanting something fixed that is
obviously stupid can
be described as 'whining'. Re: default shell - The reason why /sbin/sh
was the default
for root has now been eliminated. People should be given a choice during
install.
Simple things like this just highlight the need for Project Indiana. Do
you want a list?
Both of those are site selectable now, AFAIK,
although conceivably useradd could be modified to take a config file or
the like that would allow something other than /bin/sh to be the default
for new accounts in the absence of -s /path/to/sh.
From the Solaris Installer?
Insofar as the ARC regarding /usr/gnu will make _non_conflicting GNUish
executables visible in /usr/bin, I have no problem with that; I don't care
how much new stuff is visible as long as some action, even if only at
install time, is required to get other than a traditional Solaris environment
as the default.
To a point I agree, but what do you call "traditional". Do you want
things never to change?
P.S. "Traditional" Solaris to me is SunOS 4.1.X
Speaking of which, I don't see why there couldn't be an install option that
would set various things (default PATH, default shell, options.conf, maybe
a couple of others) to provide an environment more approachable to those
whose expectations were based on prior experience with Linux. I think
that could be done without breaking anything for anyone, and without
two distinct distros - unless the more like Linux advocates insist that all
possible pathnames have to be aligned with the LSB,
GNU ld must replace Solaris ld.
Sorry I stop at replacing something that works very well with something
that does not.
to do with anything, unless either you're porting something and want to
do zero work beyond "./configure;make;make install"
I can tell you that it nice when that works :)
In any case, if virtual consoles could support multiple zones, and the option
of switching the screen to a zone that looked more like what you seem to
want after multiuser boot completed, such that you could run your desktop
with a non-default personality, what difference would it make what
the global zone's personality was?
I think the whole idea of forcing people who want an up to date
environment into a
zone is just backwards.
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
