[OpenIndiana-discuss] G11n consolidation - CLDR 1.9
Update... The G11n consolidation code was to be updated to CLDR 1.9 which puts it more inline with work elsewhere. I took care of the fonts and a few other things. This was by direction of the G11n team as I inquired about migrating to Unicode 6.x once released. EveryCity/Illumos is collaborating on kernel/userland fixes in Mercurial. Note this - as it is forthcoming so might as well walk on a similar line. ~ Ken Mays ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
[OpenIndiana-discuss] How to install a different OS version from scratch, NOT as an upgrade, in a separate BE (or however one might do it) on an OSol B134 machine
I have an installation of OpenSolaris b134, with lots of addons: SunRay Software, mplayer, VirtualBox... almost anything I could find got installed. Make no mistake: it is ALL useful to me and my users, so there isn't anything that can be removed out-of-hand. But: We do want to move on! OI b148 is my target, right now. I have tried to upgrade from OSol b134 to OI b147 or b148 since OI became available. I have tried everything and it's aunts, to NO avail. Is there a way to install a separate OI b148 from scratch? Like installing from the bootable DVD iso, on the same machine, w/o interfering with the existing OSol b134 environment. Is there a way to create an empty Boot Environment and install onto that? Or can one do it in some other, involved way? Note: In the last few months, I have received massive amounts of advice on upgrading b134-b148, but none of the advice has been in any way useful. SO: I have given up on the upgrade path, at least unless someone can actually provide some insight and/or sources of knowledge on how the upgrade works, what could trip it up and what one can do to push past any problems. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] How to install a different OS version from scratch, NOT as an upgrade, in a separate BE (or however one might do it) on an OSol B134 machine
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 14:27, Hans J. Albertsson hans.j.alberts...@branneriet.se wrote: I have an installation of OpenSolaris b134, with lots of addons: SunRay Software, mplayer, VirtualBox... almost anything I could find got installed. Make no mistake: it is ALL useful to me and my users, so there isn't anything that can be removed out-of-hand. But: We do want to move on! OI b148 is my target, right now. I have tried to upgrade from OSol b134 to OI b147 or b148 since OI became available. I have tried everything and it's aunts, to NO avail. you'd help us help you by telling us what everything consisted of, in detail :-) (and no, don't reply to me in person, I'm not even in front of a solaris box ATM :-() Is there a way to install a separate OI b148 from scratch? Like installing from the bootable DVD iso, on the same machine, w/o interfering with the existing OSol b134 environment. Is there a way to create an empty Boot Environment and install onto that? Or can one do it in some other, involved way? the last time I heard about this it was yes, you can do that onto a seperate disk (ie no two Solaris partitions on one disk). I wouldn't even try doing that within the same root pool ... In the last few months, I have received massive amounts of advice on upgrading b134-b148, but none of the advice has been in any way useful. see above :-) HTH Michael -- regards/mit freundlichen Grüssen Michael Schuster ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] How to install a different OS version from scratch, NOT as an upgrade, in a separate BE (or however one might do it) on an OSol B134 machine
I have the three bits of software you mention installed and had no problem with the upgrade. Just saying. Not sure what else you are having issues with In fact my system is more stable now (throws far fewer core dumps anyway). On 01/25/11 08:27 AM, Hans J. Albertsson wrote: I have an installation of OpenSolaris b134, with lots of addons: SunRay Software, mplayer, VirtualBox... almost anything I could find got installed. Make no mistake: it is ALL useful to me and my users, so there isn't anything that can be removed out-of-hand. But: We do want to move on! OI b148 is my target, right now. I have tried to upgrade from OSol b134 to OI b147 or b148 since OI became available. I have tried everything and it's aunts, to NO avail. Is there a way to install a separate OI b148 from scratch? Like installing from the bootable DVD iso, on the same machine, w/o interfering with the existing OSol b134 environment. Is there a way to create an empty Boot Environment and install onto that? Or can one do it in some other, involved way? Note: In the last few months, I have received massive amounts of advice on upgrading b134-b148, but none of the advice has been in any way useful. SO: I have given up on the upgrade path, at least unless someone can actually provide some insight and/or sources of knowledge on how the upgrade works, what could trip it up and what one can do to push past any problems. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss -- Dr. Daniel Kjar Assistant Professor of Biology Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Elmira College 1 Park Place Elmira, NY 14901 607-735-1826 http://faculty.elmira.edu/dkjar ...humans send their young men to war; ants send their old ladies -E. O. Wilson ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] How to install a different OS version from scratch, NOT as an upgrade, in a separate BE (or however one might do it) on an OSol B134 machine
On 01/25/11 06:31, Daniel Kjar wrote: installing from the bootable DVD iso, on the same machine, w/o interfering with the existing OSol b134 environment why not just run OpenIndiana in VIrtualbox? ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
[OpenIndiana-discuss] BSD Magazine mentions OpenIndiana
Hi in this month BSD (01/2011) issue, has an article comparing OpenIndiana to the BSDs on the desktop. the article starts on pg: 36 and it's a free download OI is getting exposure :-) http://bsdmag.org/ ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] BSD Magazine mentions OpenIndiana
Ta for the link ... It's interesting and probably fair :) On 25 January 2011 17:32, Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com wrote: Hi in this month BSD (01/2011) issue, has an article comparing OpenIndiana to the BSDs on the desktop. the article starts on pg: 36 and it's a free download OI is getting exposure :-) http://bsdmag.org/ ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Hi Ken, On 25 Jan 2011, at 18:50, Ken Gunderson wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 20:36 +, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: Hi All, I believe now would be a really good time for us to create our first stable branch of OpenIndiana, given the timing of some developments within the project. Was a consensus ever reached on this? Yes, we're going ahead! :-) I'm hoping to target 2010.02 but it might slip to 2010.03, depending on how much work needs to be done to secure all the packages and commit resources to monitoring security lists. We need more volunteers willing to help adopt packages they'll look after. But I think there has been mass misunderstanding on what we are intending to do, so I'll put it in the simplest possible terms. The stable branch will consist of us copying oi_148 from /dev into /release, in its entirety, along with a few bug fixes and a bunch of security fixes. We'll only make available the Text Installer ISO. We will then provide security updates for a limited, defined set of software, for a limited period (6 months, or until the next stable release is put out). No minimisation, no replacement of MTAs, no changes. Minimising the OS, or yanking out the core MTA, would require a huge amount of work and break compatibility in a big way with the upstream Oracle source we're still building. It's not something we're looking to do right now - there are much more important bits of work needing to be done. Down the road in the future, replacing Sendmail with Postfix is something we could do. But minimising the OS doesn't make sense. What's the difference between Ubuntu Server and Ubuntu Desktop? As far as I'm aware, just the package list. It's the same story with OpenIndiana - if you want to run a server, do your install from the Text Installer ISO or the Automated Installer ISO. You get a stripped down package set suitable for servers. We would like the Text Installer to be leaner and lighter, and we can potentially achieve this at a later date by refactoring some of the packages, and this is something we'd like to do. But for now, things like internationalisation (g11n), Illumos integration, and providing security patches to a stable oi_148 branch are more important. You are right though about needing more software in our repos, and this is something we do intend to do via the OIAC project, please see: http://wiki.openindiana.org/display/~guido/OI+Extra+Consolidation If you'd like to help out with this, we'd love the support. We can provide permanent build zones, help mentor you (or anybody else looking to help) and explain how to do it. It's great to volunteer, you help others and it looks good on the CV, and you get to meet people and make new friends, learn stuff and gain skills. Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Am 25.01.11 19:58, schrieb Alan Coopersmith: On 01/25/11 10:50 AM, Ken Gunderson wrote: As for the MTA discussion, Postfix is pretty much a drop in replacement for Sendmail, and my vote would be to replace Sendmail entirely. I still don't understand this subthread - if someone wants to start working on postfix as a development project for a future release, that makes sense, but doing it as a bug fix in a stable branch that's just supposed to be providing fixes for the b148 already shipped? That just seems to violate the definition of a stable branch. At the very least it should go into the development branch first to get some testing before you even consider backporting it to stable. (Not that I get a vote - that's up to the developers who actually do the work, not those of us just here to provide color commentary.) I'm not an developer nor an commiter. ;) But fully agreed, i also don't understand this discussion. In Case Sendmail works, it's in the base System and does a proper Job and is integrated in the base system. It will take time and manpower to replace Sendmail. From my perspective its a useless additional construction site. Only to mention, The Free and OpenBSD Guys also rely on Sendmail as MTA in their base systems. If somebody is in desperate need of Postfix... have a look at Ishan Dogan's third party packages. http://ihsan.dogan.ch/postfix/ just my 2 cents -- with kind regards Bernd Helber _.-|-/\-._ \-' '-. //\/\\/ \/ ../. \/ _ //___\ |. . \ / /\ ( #) |#) | | /\ -. __\ \V )./_._(\ .)/\ .- / \_'_) )-.. \ ./ / /._./ /\ '-' / '-._ v _.-' / '-.__.·' \ \/ *** ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 13:52, Alasdair Lumsden alasdai...@gmail.com said: You are right though about needing more software in our repos, and this is something we do intend to do via the OIAC project, please see: http://wiki.openindiana.org/display/~guido/OI+Extra+Consolidation If you'd like to help out with this, we'd love the support. We can provide permanent build zones, help mentor you (or anybody else looking to help) and explain how to do it. It's great to volunteer, you help others and it looks good on the CV, and you get to meet people and make new friends, learn stuff and gain skills. This is exactly the mentoring offer I've been waiting for. I'll be happy to document what I learn; hopefully this well help as well. I'm pretty good at building software, can often fix build bugs and port between Unix systems where they're incompatible, but I need experience with zones and a lot of help with making IPS packages and SMF integration. Cheers, kjw ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 21:52 +, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: Hi Ken, On 25 Jan 2011, at 18:50, Ken Gunderson wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 20:36 +, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: Hi All, I believe now would be a really good time for us to create our first stable branch of OpenIndiana, given the timing of some developments within the project. Was a consensus ever reached on this? Yes, we're going ahead! :-) I'm hoping to target 2010.02 but it might slip to 2010.03, depending on how much work needs to be done to secure all the packages and commit resources to monitoring security lists. We need more volunteers willing to help adopt packages they'll look after. But I think there has been mass misunderstanding on what we are intending to do, so I'll put it in the simplest possible terms. The stable branch will consist of us copying oi_148 from /dev into /release, in its entirety, along with a few bug fixes and a bunch of security fixes. We'll only make available the Text Installer ISO. We will then provide security updates for a limited, defined set of software, for a limited period (6 months, or until the next stable release is put out). No minimisation, no replacement of MTAs, no changes. Minimising the OS, or yanking out the core MTA, would require a huge amount of work and break compatibility in a big way with the upstream Oracle source we're still building. It's not something we're looking to do right now - there are much more important bits of work needing to be done. Down the road in the future, replacing Sendmail with Postfix is something we could do. But minimising the OS doesn't make sense. What's the difference between Ubuntu Server and Ubuntu Desktop? As far as I'm aware, just the package list. It's the same story with OpenIndiana - if you want to run a server, do your install from the Text Installer ISO or the Automated Installer ISO. You get a stripped down package set suitable for servers. We would like the Text Installer to be leaner and lighter, and we can potentially achieve this at a later date by refactoring some of the packages, and this is something we'd like to do. But for now, things like internationalisation (g11n), Illumos integration, and providing security patches to a stable oi_148 branch are more important. You are right though about needing more software in our repos, and this is something we do intend to do via the OIAC project, please see: http://wiki.openindiana.org/display/~guido/OI+Extra+Consolidation If you'd like to help out with this, we'd love the support. We can provide permanent build zones, help mentor you (or anybody else looking to help) and explain how to do it. It's great to volunteer, you help others and it looks good on the CV, and you get to meet people and make new friends, learn stuff and gain skills. Cheers, Alasdair Thank you for the clarification. I'd followed the discussion, but was unsure as to the final result. As for packages, yes, this is something I would be willing to help out on, but I am committed heavily to other projects at present and have minimal spare time. Given that, and operating on the premise that some help is better than no help, I'm willing to do what I can. The consolidation link above is prompting me for a username/pass to access. -- Ken Gunderson kgund...@teamcool.net ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
[OpenIndiana-discuss] crippling dladm set-linkprop limitations when setting allowed-ips, resulting in dladm: property list too long
I was wondering if anyone has insight into this problem I ran into. While adjusting the link properties for an existing vnic, I found that if you try to add more than 243 characters worth of comma separated IP addresses to the allowed-ips= property, it results in the error dladm: property list too long. Here is an example to show what I mean. The command (all on one line): dladm set-linkprop -t -p allowed-ips=28.42.112.131,28.42.112.132,28.42.112.133,28.42.112.134,28.42.112.135,28.42.112.136,28.42.112.137,28.42.112.138,28.42.112.139,28.42.112.140,28.42.112.141,28.42.112.142,28.42.112.143,28.42.112.144,28.42.112.145,28.42.112.146,28.42.112.147,28.42.112.148 ywo378_0 Will result in the following error: dladm: property list too long 'allowed-ips=28.42.112.131,28.42.112.132,28.42.112.133,28.42.112.134,28.42.112.135,28.42.112.136,28.42.112.137,28.42.112.138,28.42.112.139,28.42.112.140,28.42.112.141,28.42.112.142,28.42.112.143,28.42.112.144,28.42.112.145,28.42.112.146,28.42.112.147,28.42' This simply means that, depending on the IP address length, you can fit 15-30 IP addresses with comma separation into the allowed-ips property using the dladm command. Just off the top of my head, it looks like the DLADM_STRSIZE being set to 256 may be related to this issue. I am sure I am not the only security conscious person who has ran into this issue. Does anyone have any idea how to get around this limitation besides rebuilding from source code? Jonathan Kinney http://www.simplywebhosting.com ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] crippling dladm set-linkprop limitations when setting allowed-ips, resulting in dladm: property list too long
Jonathan - Though we do use dladm quite a bit, haven't run into this limitation of the allowed property... On the other hand, doesn't this property accept CIDR masking; wouldn't this go a long way toward consolidating your 'allowed' requirements? Lou - Original Message - From: Jonathan Kinney openindiana-disc...@super-geek.com To: openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:37:37 PM Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] crippling dladm set-linkprop limitations when setting allowed-ips, resulting in dladm: property list too long I was wondering if anyone has insight into this problem I ran into. While adjusting the link properties for an existing vnic, I found that if you try to add more than 243 characters worth of comma separated IP addresses to the allowed-ips= property, it results in the error dladm: property list too long. Here is an example to show what I mean. The command (all on one line): dladm set-linkprop -t -p allowed-ips=28.42.112.131,28.42.112.132,28.42.112.133,28.42.112.134,28.42.112.135,28.42.112.136,28.42.112.137,28.42.112.138,28.42.112.139,28.42.112.140,28.42.112.141,28.42.112.142,28.42.112.143,28.42.112.144,28.42.112.145,28.42.112.146,28.42.112.147,28.42.112.148 ywo378_0 Will result in the following error: dladm: property list too long 'allowed-ips=28.42.112.131,28.42.112.132,28.42.112.133,28.42.112.134,28.42.112.135,28.42.112.136,28.42.112.137,28.42.112.138,28.42.112.139,28.42.112.140,28.42.112.141,28.42.112.142,28.42.112.143,28.42.112.144,28.42.112.145,28.42.112.146,28.42.112.147,28.42' This simply means that, depending on the IP address length, you can fit 15-30 IP addresses with comma separation into the allowed-ips property using the dladm command. Just off the top of my head, it looks like the DLADM_STRSIZE being set to 256 may be related to this issue. I am sure I am not the only security conscious person who has ran into this issue. Does anyone have any idea how to get around this limitation besides rebuilding from source code? Jonathan Kinney http://www.simplywebhosting.com ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] BSD Magazine mentions OpenIndiana
On 01/26/11 07:03 AM, Jonathan Adams wrote: On 25 January 2011 17:32, Edward Martinezmindbende...@live.com wrote: Hi in this month BSD (01/2011) issue, has an article comparing OpenIndiana to the BSDs on the desktop. the article starts on pg: 36 and it's a free download OI is getting exposure :-) http://bsdmag.org/ Ta for the link ... It's interesting and probably fair :) Except for this old chestnut: OpenIndiana is a new player here, since Solaris started to develop for i386 platform just a few years ago... -- Ian. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:58 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: On 01/25/11 10:50 AM, Ken Gunderson wrote: As for the MTA discussion, Postfix is pretty much a drop in replacement for Sendmail, and my vote would be to replace Sendmail entirely. I still don't understand this subthread - if someone wants to start working on postfix as a development project for a future release, that makes sense, but doing it as a bug fix in a stable branch that's just supposed to be providing fixes for the b148 already shipped? That just seems to violate the definition of a stable branch. At the very least it should go into the development branch first to get some testing before you even consider backporting it to stable. (Not that I get a vote - that's up to the developers who actually do the work, not those of us just here to provide color commentary.) Few are going to use Sendmail for anything other than sending notices to root. It would create a better first impression if OI shipped with a modern MTA such as Postfix or Exim. Postfix, being a drop in replacement for Sendmail, would be relatively painless. There's a saying that you never get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. Also that perception is 9/10ths of reality. Sure, the *BSD ship with Sendmail, but that is mostly for historical reasons and that nobody wants to get into a holy war as to what a more modern default should be. At the time Debian opted for Exim, Sendmail was one security exploit after another waiting to happen, Postfix was not yet in existence and Qmail, the other potential contender, had an unacceptable license. Several Linux distributions ship with Postfix. Just because Oracle makes a poor decision and ships Sendmail doesn't mean OI necessarily has to follow, no? It's not a big deal to me. I was expressing agreement with others who've lobbied for Postfix. -- Ken Gunderson kgund...@teamcool.net ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Personally, whether it's sendmail, postfix, qmail or something else I couldn't care less. We all have our MTA of choice. For the mail server I pull whatever it is it out to run spamdyke/qmail with an IMAP (dovecot) interface for access from all the other machines. I've done it dozens of times over the years and it takes me less than an hour starting from source. The other machines just have to send or relay to the mail server so they could use whatever does the job. In this case, I could choose something like nullmail, but why bother? For the few cron jobs etc. that need to send messages, I wouldn't sweat whether X is better than Y. They all get the job done. On 1/25/11 10:22 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote: On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:58 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: On 01/25/11 10:50 AM, Ken Gunderson wrote: As for the MTA discussion, Postfix is pretty much a drop in replacement for Sendmail, and my vote would be to replace Sendmail entirely. I still don't understand this subthread - if someone wants to start working on postfix as a development project for a future release, that makes sense, but doing it as a bug fix in a stable branch that's just supposed to be providing fixes for the b148 already shipped? That just seems to violate the definition of a stable branch. At the very least it should go into the development branch first to get some testing before you even consider backporting it to stable. (Not that I get a vote - that's up to the developers who actually do the work, not those of us just here to provide color commentary.) Few are going to use Sendmail for anything other than sending notices to root. It would create a better first impression if OI shipped with a modern MTA such as Postfix or Exim. Postfix, being a drop in replacement for Sendmail, would be relatively painless. There's a saying that you never get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. Also that perception is 9/10ths of reality. Sure, the *BSD ship with Sendmail, but that is mostly for historical reasons and that nobody wants to get into a holy war as to what a more modern default should be. At the time Debian opted for Exim, Sendmail was one security exploit after another waiting to happen, Postfix was not yet in existence and Qmail, the other potential contender, had an unacceptable license. Several Linux distributions ship with Postfix. Just because Oracle makes a poor decision and ships Sendmail doesn't mean OI necessarily has to follow, no? It's not a big deal to me. I was expressing agreement with others who've lobbied for Postfix. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:22 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote: On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:58 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: On 01/25/11 10:50 AM, Ken Gunderson wrote: As for the MTA discussion, Postfix is pretty much a drop in replacement for Sendmail, and my vote would be to replace Sendmail entirely. I still don't understand this subthread - if someone wants to start working on postfix as a development project for a future release, that makes sense, but doing it as a bug fix in a stable branch that's just supposed to be providing fixes for the b148 already shipped? That just seems to violate the definition of a stable branch. At the very least it should go into the development branch first to get some testing before you even consider backporting it to stable. (Not that I get a vote - that's up to the developers who actually do the work, not those of us just here to provide color commentary.) Few are going to use Sendmail for anything other than sending notices to root. It would create a better first impression if OI shipped with a modern MTA such as Postfix or Exim. Postfix, being a drop in replacement for Sendmail, would be relatively painless. There's a saying that you never get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. Also that perception is 9/10ths of reality. Sure, the *BSD ship with Sendmail, but that is mostly for historical reasons and that nobody wants to get into a holy war as to what a more modern default should be. At the time Debian opted for Exim, Sendmail was one security exploit after another waiting to happen, Postfix was not yet in existence and Qmail, the other potential contender, had an unacceptable license. Several Linux distributions ship with Postfix. Just because Oracle makes a poor decision and ships Sendmail doesn't mean OI necessarily has to follow, no? It's not a big deal to me. I was expressing agreement with others who've lobbied for Postfix. -- Ken Gunderson kgund...@teamcool.net Well...I still think that for unusual situations, sendmail is probably more flexible than anything else (although very few people probably have gone to the trouble to figure out how to take advantage of that). It's had a lot of security problems over the years, but it's also received a lot of cleanup TLC and gotten much better. Postfix is probably the easiest drop-in replacement. But IMO a packaging of it should get lots of testing before going into a stable distro, and regardless of which is eventually the default or preferred choice, both should remain available. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Postfix is probably the easiest drop-in replacement. But IMO a packaging of it should get lots of testing before going into a stable distro, and regardless of which is eventually the default or preferred choice, both should remain available. I did poke around at this, but found that the fmd smtp notification uses sendmail, and has a dependancy on it, so I put the effort into getting fmd working via snmp instead. I'm probably biased, having had to hire a sendmail expert for a week to create a complex email routing server with Solaris, that I later replaced with postfix myself in an afternoon (on Centos). I'm a fan of the minimal fries with that OS approach, and then clip in your favourite packages. I'm about to update a 40Tb snv_134 storage server to OpenIndiana. I've migrated the data already, and there is a considerable difference in setup around networking and zfs ACL's especially with sharing filesystems with both nfs and smb. Mark. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
