Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 04:28 -0700, UNIX admin wrote: > > yep. And lets be real here, it is much easier for us > > to fix GCC compiler > > to work properly on OpenSolaris than to fix or change > > mentality of those > > "lazy" programmers... > > Let's be even more realistic then -- those people should not be programming > then, period. Those people could be students who may be writing their first program... Or scientists who cares about the result and not the process... At any rate, I woudn't blame them, instead I would greatly appreciate what they doing at their free time. Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
> yep. And lets be real here, it is much easier for us > to fix GCC compiler > to work properly on OpenSolaris than to fix or change > mentality of those > "lazy" programmers... Let's be even more realistic then -- those people should not be programming then, period. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 13:22 -0700, UNIX admin wrote: > > Right. In addition I'd like to add that porting (C, > > C++ code) to Nexenta > > == porting to Solaris. Zero differences for both > > drivers and apps. So, > > it doesn't really matter where developers will settle > > at Nexenta or at > > Solaris. Besides, all SUN userland is provided at > > /usr/sun/bin, so SUN > > personality could be provided/enabled too. > > While I can certainly see that for apps that depend on drivers, would you > please mind explaining how are you porting to Solaris when you compile and > link against GNU / Ubuntu userland? I missed the point completely... :-) -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
> Right. In addition I'd like to add that porting (C, > C++ code) to Nexenta > == porting to Solaris. Zero differences for both > drivers and apps. So, > it doesn't really matter where developers will settle > at Nexenta or at > Solaris. Besides, all SUN userland is provided at > /usr/sun/bin, so SUN > personality could be provided/enabled too. While I can certainly see that for apps that depend on drivers, would you please mind explaining how are you porting to Solaris when you compile and link against GNU / Ubuntu userland? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
> Regardless of what I think of some of the GNU tools, > if Nexenta gets more > people to try and use OpenSolaris, then it is a > worthy project IMHO. But Nexenta tries to make OpenSolaris behave, look and feel like Linux, effectively hiding the Solaris userland tools and the Solaris kernel. So in my opinion, however worthless it might be, the benefit of introducing Solaris to the Linux masses via Nexenta is questionable at best. However, I most certainly recognize the marketing value of it. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
> Few comments: > > a) too late for wishes like that; There is always hope; remember that. > b) majority of developers using GNU userland all > over, even on Windows > they prefer Cygwin over anything else; That's because they don't know any better. Our job should be to teach them to know better than that. I for one am working on bringing this to the attention of the people around me, and raising awareness of the issue. > d) we do not port Linux-only software. i.e. which is > not design to work > on any platform other than Linux, such us > kernel-specific software. FYI, > Debian new package acceptance policy saying that > software which willing > to be accepted to the main should run at least on two > architectures. > Usually it is Linux and FreeBSD... Look, I know that you do a tremendous amount of work -- I'm not actually a UNIX admin any more, but a system engineer, so I know how much work must go into a project like that. But I'm going to ask you an honest question, so I'd like you to think about it long and hard before you answer me. Can you ever see Nexenta being run in a bank for the most mission critical stuff? Or in an insurance company? Or powering an ATM? Or a life support system? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
> One thing I don't get yet is why vold been dropped > (was it?) over > rmvolmgr? And will vold co-exist with rmvolmgr? But > may be I just > misread the document... Because `vold` was always Sun's problem child, for as long as I can remember... and I have a very, very long memory. The thing never worked right. It was flaky and unreliable, even today it remains such. So at some point in time, a decision had to be made. Obviously this time around, it has been decided to reengineer. And while I'm very much against just ripping stuff out and replacing it, this time around it should be a good thing. Knowing Sun's excellent engineers, there'll most likely be backwards-compatibility as well. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
> There is a lot more Linux specific on GNOME. > > THe most important task we have with OpenSolaris is > to convince people that > trying to compile on Solaris is a must for every > OpenSource project. Actually, we should be teaching people to switch to Solaris as the main development platform to begin with, then these problems will go away. Of course, the guys that do come over expect Solaris to behave like Linux. This is obviously a problem, since Solaris is not Linux. The core of the problem is that these guys don't (yet) know or understand that Solaris is light years ahead, and that that's what they should be learning instead of trying to replicate something that's crap. That's one of the things we need to work on. > For this reason, it is important to better advertize > the free Sun Studio Tools. Agreed. These tools are fenomenal, they're free, and they're also available on Linux now. So there's no excuse not to use them. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
> You sure do not like GCC... :-) Well, I like it, even > I know it is buggy > sometimes.. No I don't, can you tell? (:-) Especially after suffering at its braindead mercy, I'd like to not have to ever have to deal with GCC again. Ever. > btw, do you know by any chance how to say Sun C > compiler to always > respect inlines statements? I tried different > switches, never worked for > me... Depends on what you're inlining. How do you know that it's not working? Did you look at the assembler output with -S? And use "inline" instead of "__inline". This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
> You can try: > > - set the optimization level to -xO4 or higher > - pass -xinline=%auto To this I'd also add, don't use "__inline" (which GCC won't bark on), but "inline" instead. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
