Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 01/26/11 04:14, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: On 26 Jan 2011, at 00:00, Edward Martinez wrote: Hi Alasdair Google Summer of Code 2011 was just announce, wondering if OI can benefit by taking part? http://code.google.com/soc/ I don't know much about the Google Summer of Code, and time-wise I'm pretty over-stretched. Would you be interested in reading up on it and putting our project forward for it? Regards, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss Hi, Sorry, I too have my schedule full,:-( I was not aware how much it takes to enroll a project into GSOC program after reading some of the requirements it appears it takes more then one person with a lot of time to organize it, this is some of what google requires, I'm willing to help, if i can, i thought it would neat to get illumos to pair with OI. : *Applying to Google Summer of Code* 1. How does a mentoring organization apply? The organization should choose a single administrator to submit its application via the Google Summer of Code2011 site between February 28 - March 11, 2011. 2. What should a mentoring organization application look like? In addition to anything else your organization would like to submit as an application, Google will be asking (at least) the following questions as part of the application process: 1. Describe your organization. 2. Why is your organization applying to participate in Google Summer of Code 2011? What do you hope to gain by participating? 3. Did your organization participate in past Google Summer of Codes? If so, please summarize your involvement and the successes and challenges of your participation. 4. If your organization has not previously participated in Google Summer of Code, have you applied in the past? If so, for what year(s)? 5. What license(s) does your project use? 6. What is the URL for your Ideas page? 7. What is the main development mailing list for your organization? 8. What is the main IRC channel for your organization? 9. Does your organization have an application template you would like to see students use? If so, please provide it now. 10. Who will be your backup organization administrator? 11. What criteria did you use to select these individuals as mentors? Please be as specific as possible. 12. What is your plan for dealing with disappearing students? 13. What is your plan for dealing with disappearing mentors? 14. What steps will you take to encourage students to interact with your project's community before, during and after the program? 15. What will you do to ensure that your accepted students stick with the project after Google Summer of Code concludes? http://www.google-melange.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2011/faqs#applying ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 06:16 PM, Jonathan Adams wrote: We have infrastructure based on and supported by sendmail. I know that postfix does "everything" sendmail does ... but we have a lot of experience and history related to the Solaris version of Sendmail (and yes it is different from the one from sendmail.org) _IF_ you really want postfix to be there can we make it an alternative in the same way as network/physical:nwam and network/physical:default so as not to break compatibility, but add extra features? I am not advocating replacing sendmail and yes, make it an alternative. There is the whole /etc/alternatives on Linux distros just to handle various solutions for java, mtas, and other stuff with multiple compatible choices. The same or similar can be done. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
I also have no experience of GSOC but it would seem like a good thing to put forward. My five minute reading indicates we have until mid March to put a mentoring group forward, perhaps a joint OpenIndiana / Illumos mentoring group? we would just need some volunteer mentors and some suggested projects? If nothing comes of it, nothing lost but if we got a student or two interested its both useful work and publicity for our little bit of OSS heaven. Bye, Deano -Original Message- From: Alasdair Lumsden [mailto:alasdai...@gmail.com] Sent: 26 January 2011 12:14 To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch On 26 Jan 2011, at 00:00, Edward Martinez wrote: >Hi Alasdair > > Google Summer of Code 2011 was just announce, wondering if OI can benefit by taking part? > http://code.google.com/soc/ I don't know much about the Google Summer of Code, and time-wise I'm pretty over-stretched. Would you be interested in reading up on it and putting our project forward for it? Regards, Alasdair ___ 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
I think Alasdair has been clear, Stable will be 148 with security patches only. No matter what, how or even good reasons matter at this stage, Stable-148 is effectively locked down bar security and critical fixes. Best course of action is to get security helpers in, which will get Stable out the door ASAP and then open up these discussion for the longer Stable release schedules and choices, next one will be a biggy as we move to an illumos core. Doing this is a lot of work for the OI team, and (wo)manpower is short. If anyone has a bit of spare time, volunteering for the security team would be greatly appreciated (they will mentor if you've never done it before) or filling wiki pages or even just filling in the HCL with any data on machines you are running OI would help. We are approaching the first major milestone of the OpenIndiana and illumos projects, hopefully the second will follow fairly quickly and then we can push forward with new and exciting developments :) Just my 2p, Deano -Original Message- From: Jesus Cea [mailto:j...@jcea.es] Sent: 26 January 2011 11:48 To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26/01/11 04:22, Ken Gunderson wrote: > 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? Well, it has been ages since the last sendmail remote exploit, but I personally know quite a few guys rebuilding servers after being exploited thru Exim (just days -a week?- ago). OI 148 uses sendmail. The stable release should be minimal change, security fixes only. Any extra developer will be used to integrate Illumos. If a 3th party provides a postfix replacement for sendmail, perfect. But do not delay 148+support for the sake of it. PS: I personally use postfix too. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:j...@jabber.org _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBTUAKBJlgi5GaxT1NAQK0FAP/YqG7N+vxmWfHP70c023VuHmk28WtNeVO a9RR94z1lAZyJpu03rURazjsPw/Av8XNSCSqBcBE4G2HEubTsSbBg7phoQ27b9KZ UWeEGt+WZlgy3A2GreESSjSWEchalezFKLFxNWYKdDBEd96oLVxbJPr24JiP5QB9 o5JYLeAVPh4= =RNIN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26/01/11 12:48, Jesus Cea wrote: > OI 148 uses sendmail. The stable release should be minimal change, > security fixes only. Any extra developer will be used to integrate Illumos. Any extra developer TIME would be better spent integrating Illumos. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:j...@jabber.org _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBTUARu5lgi5GaxT1NAQKTLAP/WCWCIBdtoQNYl+NC+peEn22JmfYnUhFi u4I/T6TsvMdYKpCIOqaMtVTQ1/8OHPPsAWXuZxMJZDQ5ApVwLS2dc6F/s20WAZZ0 ndTqF9NXSEER160rleDHt7IssciFN1B1KVR3PVFKx8YvjHOMf5MjI6XTQEGvVbP8 1P8Ssf+yPdM= =2p5N -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 26 Jan 2011, at 00:00, Edward Martinez wrote: >Hi Alasdair > > Google Summer of Code 2011 was just announce, wondering if OI can benefit > by taking part? > http://code.google.com/soc/ I don't know much about the Google Summer of Code, and time-wise I'm pretty over-stretched. Would you be interested in reading up on it and putting our project forward for it? Regards, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 25 Jan 2011, at 22:38, Kevin J. Woolley wrote: > 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. Hey Kevin, Great, okay! Guido (gber on IRC) is heading up the OIAC effort - at the moment the best place to get started is with the Spec Files Extra project "SFE", which uses a tool called pkgbuild. pkgbuild takes RPM-like spec files and uses them to build software, so the main thing to do is to get started writing spec files. There's a #pkgbuild on irc.freenode.net and please do also drop by #oi-dev where myself/Guido/others can get you started. Saablover and Wilbs are also just getting started with this so you might want to chat to them. Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26/01/11 04:22, Ken Gunderson wrote: > 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? Well, it has been ages since the last sendmail remote exploit, but I personally know quite a few guys rebuilding servers after being exploited thru Exim (just days -a week?- ago). OI 148 uses sendmail. The stable release should be minimal change, security fixes only. Any extra developer will be used to integrate Illumos. If a 3th party provides a postfix replacement for sendmail, perfect. But do not delay 148+support for the sake of it. PS: I personally use postfix too. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:j...@jabber.org _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBTUAKBJlgi5GaxT1NAQK0FAP/YqG7N+vxmWfHP70c023VuHmk28WtNeVO a9RR94z1lAZyJpu03rURazjsPw/Av8XNSCSqBcBE4G2HEubTsSbBg7phoQ27b9KZ UWeEGt+WZlgy3A2GreESSjSWEchalezFKLFxNWYKdDBEd96oLVxbJPr24JiP5QB9 o5JYLeAVPh4= =RNIN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
We have infrastructure based on and supported by sendmail. I know that postfix does "everything" sendmail does ... but we have a lot of experience and history related to the Solaris version of Sendmail (and yes it is different from the one from sendmail.org) _IF_ you really want postfix to be there can we make it an alternative in the same way as network/physical:nwam and network/physical:default so as not to break compatibility, but add extra features? Jon On 26 January 2011 09:34, Christopher Chan wrote: > On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 03:32 PM, Mark wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. > > postfix will handle that just fine. It is just a packaging issue. > > >> >> 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). > > Not keen on reading and writing sendmail rulesets? Yeah, me neither. > Forgetting to use tabs just makes you go bonkers later. > > >> >> I'm a fan of the minimal "fries with that" OS approach, and then clip in >> your favourite packages. > > Well, sendmail would be minimal...you'd have to patch it to be mysql table > lookup support for example while postfix will just require enabling to get > mysql/pgsql/pcre lookups...maybe too fancy for some. > > >> >> 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. > > > I guess using samba means that I will miss out on that kind of stuff. But I > don't see considerable difference in networking unless you are talking about > nwam or more features... > > ___ > 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
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 03:32 PM, Mark wrote: 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. postfix will handle that just fine. It is just a packaging issue. 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). Not keen on reading and writing sendmail rulesets? Yeah, me neither. Forgetting to use tabs just makes you go bonkers later. I'm a fan of the minimal "fries with that" OS approach, and then clip in your favourite packages. Well, sendmail would be minimal...you'd have to patch it to be mysql table lookup support for example while postfix will just require enabling to get mysql/pgsql/pcre lookups...maybe too fancy for some. 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. I guess using samba means that I will miss out on that kind of stuff. But I don't see considerable difference in networking unless you are talking about nwam or more features... ___ 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
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 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
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 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 ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 01/25/11 13:52, 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 ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss Hi Alasdair Google Summer of Code 2011 was just announce, wondering if OI can benefit by taking part? http://code.google.com/soc/ Regards Edward ___ 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 ___ 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" 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
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
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
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.) -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
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? Opinions are easier to come by than developer time and talent so I kept mine to myself, waiting to see what shook out in the wash. Since it appears that nothing actually did, I'll offer the following. I see advantages to both waiting on IllumOS integration and getting something out now. It has been stated that "it could be many months until we have an Illumos dev build suitable for respinning as a stable branch". Could it also be significantly less time? If we're really talking "many" months here (and I assume that means more than 6, else terms like a "couple" or "few" would have been more appropriate), then I'd vote for a minimally supported release sooner rather than later. If, otoh, integration would be more on the order of 2-3 months, then I'd postpone and concentrate all available resources on making that a reality. As for the MTA discussion, Postfix is pretty much a drop in replacement for Sendmail, and my vote would be to replace Sendmail entirely. Of course Exim and others should be available (at some point in time) via the package system and it's not my intent to debate relative merits of various MTA offerings. Replacing Sendmail with Postfix is more of a pragmatic call - doing so is very low hanging fruit and nobody I know has rolled out a new Sendmail set up in many, many years now, and supporting an essentially fringe MTA as part of the core would be one less thing to worry about. Despite all it's goodness, one, if not the, primary detractor to Open Solaris's uptake was a paucity of 3rd party packages. Postponing until IllumOS integraton would allow more time for the repository to be updated and fleshed out, thereby creating a better initial impression of "fresh and up to date" Open Solaris based system. If the minimal supported server now path is chosen, then I think there really needs to be some POP3/IMAP package on the list, because it's not all just about web servers. Cyrus or Dovecot would be good choices. Regarding timing from a marketing perspective, FreeBSD is on the cusp of 8.2 release and Debian is close to 6.0 going stable. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but I think we can expect various publications to be doing reviews. Having OI included in the discussion could be a blessing, or a curse. My $0.02, for whatever it may be worth. Thanks for your indulgence. -- Ken Gunderson ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 01/18/11 05:01 PM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: On 18 Jan 2011, at 18:31, Gordon Ross wrote: Dave Miner writes: [...] Perhaps refactoring of Caiman is needed, where the Live CD ships with a pkg repo, starts a pkg server, and does an install from that. Not sure how feasible this would be. Given how complete pkg is, probably not all that hard. We looked into this a little quite some time ago. The problem with doing IPS-based installation from CD's or DVD's is that IPS's data access patterns during package installation are relatively random, not streaming, and so you will get utterly abysmal installation performance (orders of magnitude worse than anything you've ever used) when using physical CD or DVD media. That storage technology just isn't designed for random access. This doesn't apply much if you're using an ISO image as a virtual CD or using USB flash memory media. Dave Interesting. Thanks, Dave. Yes - thank you for this info, very helpful! One way around that is to do sort of a "two stage" install, where the first stage, running from the CD installs a "bare minimum" system (from a cpio image or whatever, to avoid the problems with poor random-access to the CD). Then for the second stage, boot into the new bare-minimum system and finish the install from IPS, perhaps allowing use of the CD as your repo, or a local copy, or get it off the net... This sounds like something worth exploring. There are a few options here.. just thinking out loud, a possibility would be: 1. Install the minimal base via CPIO 2. If more packages are requested than base, then extract the pkg repo to ram (tmpfs) or local disk 3. Install the additional software requested via pkg This may bump the RAM or Disk space requirements to do an install, but the OS needs a lot of that to run anyway. It will greatly increase both, in my experience, as any interesting package repo would seem to be quite large (multiple GB) and pkg has pretty substantial overhead in generating and executing a plan. Really, you'd probably be better off booting into the installed system before adding more software. Dave ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 18 Jan 2011, at 18:31, Gordon Ross wrote: > Dave Miner writes: > [...] >>> Perhaps refactoring of Caiman is needed, where the Live CD ships with a >>> pkg repo, starts a pkg server, and does an install from that. Not sure >>> how feasible this would be. Given how complete pkg is, probably not all >>> that hard. >>> >> >> We looked into this a little quite some time ago. The problem with doing >> IPS-based installation from CD's or DVD's is that IPS's data access patterns >> during package installation are relatively random, not streaming, and so you >> will get utterly abysmal installation performance (orders of magnitude worse >> than anything you've ever used) when using physical CD or DVD media. That >> storage technology just isn't designed for random access. This doesn't >> apply much if you're using an ISO image as a virtual CD or using USB flash >> memory media. >> >> Dave > > Interesting. Thanks, Dave. Yes - thank you for this info, very helpful! > One way around that is to do sort of a "two stage" install, where the > first stage, running from the CD installs a "bare minimum" system > (from a cpio image or whatever, to avoid the problems with poor > random-access to the CD). Then for the second stage, boot into the > new bare-minimum system and finish the install from IPS, perhaps > allowing use of the CD as your repo, or a local copy, or get it off > the net... This sounds like something worth exploring. There are a few options here.. just thinking out loud, a possibility would be: 1. Install the minimal base via CPIO 2. If more packages are requested than base, then extract the pkg repo to ram (tmpfs) or local disk 3. Install the additional software requested via pkg This may bump the RAM or Disk space requirements to do an install, but the OS needs a lot of that to run anyway. I also think we should add an advanced options tickbox so people can customise the size of the swap/dump zvols created. I also think it should be an option to disable the dump device - on systems with not much disk space but loads of RAM (eg 64GB Fileserver with a 64GB SSD) you can't install the OS. This applies to the text installer too (iirc it doesn't let you customise this option either). Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Dave Miner writes: [...] >> Perhaps refactoring of Caiman is needed, where the Live CD ships with a >> pkg repo, starts a pkg server, and does an install from that. Not sure >> how feasible this would be. Given how complete pkg is, probably not all >> that hard. >> > > We looked into this a little quite some time ago. The problem with doing > IPS-based installation from CD's or DVD's is that IPS's data access patterns > during package installation are relatively random, not streaming, and so you > will get utterly abysmal installation performance (orders of magnitude worse > than anything you've ever used) when using physical CD or DVD media. That > storage technology just isn't designed for random access. This doesn't > apply much if you're using an ISO image as a virtual CD or using USB flash > memory media. > > Dave Interesting. Thanks, Dave. One way around that is to do sort of a "two stage" install, where the first stage, running from the CD installs a "bare minimum" system (from a cpio image or whatever, to avoid the problems with poor random-access to the CD). Then for the second stage, boot into the new bare-minimum system and finish the install from IPS, perhaps allowing use of the CD as your repo, or a local copy, or get it off the net... ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 01/17/11 05:44 AM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: Hi Gabriel, On 01/17/11 10:07 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote: Thanks! A place to start is a place to start, and an stable server release is the most urgent one among all the other options. Great - thanks for the feedback! Some people is talking about the server-desktop question, I particularly liked the old Solaris software groups concept (reduced network, core, end user, entire)... woulnt it be posible to have a non stable distro featuring the full range of up to date software, and a stable conservative one (behind in innovation but ahead in stability) allowing to either just keep the fully suported core of software or to add as well a less supported desktop enviroment?. Wouldnt this be almost same effort, example: Well, the thing is, this is already the case. All people have to do is use the Text Installer ISO (Or the Automated Installer ISO) - this installs a much smaller subset of software which doesn't include the full Gnome desktop software. Effectively the text installer ISO is the "server release" and the Live CD ISO is the "desktop release". Perhaps we need to name them such to avoid the confusion, as it seems a lot of people on-list are confused about this. Unfortunately the Text Installer still installs quite a "fat" install, due to some packaging that needs improvement. Alan Coopersmith pointed us at some bugs on bugs.opensolaris.org related to this which was pretty helpful: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010355 - splitting tk bindings out of the core python package http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010324 - splitting X apps out of the core groff package http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6574610 - splitting glib out of the gnome-base-libs package The only differences between a server install and a desktop install are the packages installed, and they're already split up into fairly reasonable incorporations. I think the situation with OpenSolaris only having a graphical LiveCD for so long has led people to think that OpenSolaris and thus OpenIndiana is mainly a desktop OS. So I am starting to think that we should rename the Live CD to OpenIndiana-Desktop and the Text Installer to OpenIndiana-Server. Ideally the graphical installer, Caiman, would let you choose which package incorporations to install. But unfortunately I think it does a "dumb" install from a cpio archive. Perhaps refactoring of Caiman is needed, where the Live CD ships with a pkg repo, starts a pkg server, and does an install from that. Not sure how feasible this would be. Given how complete pkg is, probably not all that hard. We looked into this a little quite some time ago. The problem with doing IPS-based installation from CD's or DVD's is that IPS's data access patterns during package installation are relatively random, not streaming, and so you will get utterly abysmal installation performance (orders of magnitude worse than anything you've ever used) when using physical CD or DVD media. That storage technology just isn't designed for random access. This doesn't apply much if you're using an ISO image as a virtual CD or using USB flash memory media. Dave ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
I was thinking in terms of the installer presenting choices. If no choices are selected then the minimal installation with no extras layers gets installed. you might also call this expert mode as only the basics are there and anything else had to be installed. The installer might ask a question such as: what is the purpose of this machine? Remote/headless server, local server (full gui), local workstation (full gui), or text only workstation. that could set defaults, with perhaps advanced tab letting each "layer" to be manually selected or not. i also see I left out gui-workstation layer. greg Sent from my Droid Incredible. - Reply message - From: "Dmitry G. Kozhinov" Date: Mon, Jan 17, 2011 3:07 pm Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch To: "Discussion list for OpenIndiana" Glad you have mentioned gui-server - this is what I need :) About the idea - dual feelings about it. From one point of view, this is right (incredibly right). From the other side, this limits new users to the Unix command-line philosophy (which is the dinosaur age), and would make this great OS a niche OS, like DragonFlyBSD. Imagine a new user(s). They should learn all those command-line spells. Would they? On 18.01.2011 2:10, Gregory Youngblood wrote: > maybe the foundation could be a minimal text only base install, plus ssh, the > minimum needed to get the system up. then on top of that you can add one or > more of server, gui-server, or workstation layers. ___ 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
Glad you have mentioned gui-server - this is what I need :) About the idea - dual feelings about it. From one point of view, this is right (incredibly right). From the other side, this limits new users to the Unix command-line philosophy (which is the dinosaur age), and would make this great OS a niche OS, like DragonFlyBSD. Imagine a new user(s). They should learn all those command-line spells. Would they? On 18.01.2011 2:10, Gregory Youngblood wrote: maybe the foundation could be a minimal text only base install, plus ssh, the minimum needed to get the system up. then on top of that you can add one or more of server, gui-server, or workstation layers. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
+1 On 18.01.2011 1:35, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: * a server layer - no desktop, just a stable set of packages to build a (mail | web | database | ...) server with a text console interface. * a server desktop layer, with just the minimum window packages to manage servers with within an window environnement. This may be installed on the top of server layer. * a desktop application layer, with all "office" applications (openoffice, thunderbird, ...). This may be installed on the top of previous layers. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
+1 With maybe the addition of a workstation target that does not install some of the server specific packages as a fourth option. The more I think about it, maybe the foundation could be a minimal text only base install, plus ssh, the minimum needed to get the system up. then on top of that you can add one or more of server, gui-server, or workstation layers. Greg Sent from my Droid Incredible. - Reply message - From: "Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz" Date: Mon, Jan 17, 2011 1:35 pm Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch To: "Discussion list for OpenIndiana" Alasdair Lumsden wrote: > Hi Gabriel, > > On 01/17/11 10:07 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote: >> Thanks! >> A place to start is a place to start, and an stable server release is >> the most urgent one among all the other options. +1 I can imagine roughly three useful layers (call them and separate them as you want) : * a server layer - no desktop, just a stable set of packages to build a (mail | web | database | ...) server with a text console interface. * a server desktop layer, with just the minimum window packages to manage servers with within an window environnement. This may be installed on the top of server layer. * a desktop application layer, with all "office" applications (openoffice, thunderbird, ...). This may be installed on the top of previous layers. ___ 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
On Jan 17, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > Alasdair Lumsden wrote: >> Hi Gabriel, >> >> On 01/17/11 10:07 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote: >>> Thanks! >>> A place to start is a place to start, and an stable server release is >>> the most urgent one among all the other options. > > +1 > > I can imagine roughly three useful layers (call them and separate them as > you want) : > > * a server layer - no desktop, just a stable set of packages to build > a (mail | web | database | ...) server with a text console interface. > * a server desktop layer, with just the minimum window packages to > manage servers with within an window environnement. This may be installed > on the top of server layer. > * a desktop application layer, with all "office" applications (openoffice, > thunderbird, ...). This may be installed on the top of previous layers. There will be those that want a standalone or at any rate fully functional system with all server and workstation software. But there will also be those that want minimized workstations, without any server software other than maybe sshd and a minimal local email capability (mainly for local cron jobs and such). Some of those would even want USB storage support removed, to prevent unauthorized data transfer via thumb drive. A server-centric view of minimization doesn't really show all the possibilities people might reasonably want. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Alasdair Lumsden wrote: Hi Gabriel, On 01/17/11 10:07 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote: Thanks! A place to start is a place to start, and an stable server release is the most urgent one among all the other options. +1 I can imagine roughly three useful layers (call them and separate them as you want) : * a server layer - no desktop, just a stable set of packages to build a (mail | web | database | ...) server with a text console interface. * a server desktop layer, with just the minimum window packages to manage servers with within an window environnement. This may be installed on the top of server layer. * a desktop application layer, with all "office" applications (openoffice, thunderbird, ...). This may be installed on the top of previous layers. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
No! (the vote has begun :) I feel that Live CD is still a server OS. I suggest names like - Gnome distribution; (Actually "Live CD" is even better name - it gives an idea that you can boot from CD not touching your HDD content); - Command line distribution. Dmitry. On 17.01.2011 16:16, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote: Thank you very much for such a detailed response, actually yes, Openindiana-desktop, is more clear than the LiveCD, it makes sense. I will read the links you sent. Thanks again for all your work. BR Gab On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: Hi Gabriel, On 01/17/11 10:07 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote: Thanks! A place to start is a place to start, and an stable server release is the most urgent one among all the other options. Great - thanks for the feedback! Some people is talking about the server-desktop question, I particularly liked the old Solaris software groups concept (reduced network, core, end user, entire)... woulnt it be posible to have a non stable distro featuring the full range of up to date software, and a stable conservative one (behind in innovation but ahead in stability) allowing to either just keep the fully suported core of software or to add as well a less supported desktop enviroment?. Wouldnt this be almost same effort, example: Well, the thing is, this is already the case. All people have to do is use the Text Installer ISO (Or the Automated Installer ISO) - this installs a much smaller subset of software which doesn't include the full Gnome desktop software. Effectively the text installer ISO is the "server release" and the Live CD ISO is the "desktop release". Perhaps we need to name them such to avoid the confusion, as it seems a lot of people on-list are confused about this. Unfortunately the Text Installer still installs quite a "fat" install, due to some packaging that needs improvement. Alan Coopersmith pointed us at some bugs on bugs.opensolaris.org related to this which was pretty helpful: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010355 - splitting tk bindings out of the core python package http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010324 - splitting X apps out of the core groff package http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6574610 - splitting glib out of the gnome-base-libs package The only differences between a server install and a desktop install are the packages installed, and they're already split up into fairly reasonable incorporations. I think the situation with OpenSolaris only having a graphical LiveCD for so long has led people to think that OpenSolaris and thus OpenIndiana is mainly a desktop OS. So I am starting to think that we should rename the Live CD to OpenIndiana-Desktop and the Text Installer to OpenIndiana-Server. Ideally the graphical installer, Caiman, would let you choose which package incorporations to install. But unfortunately I think it does a "dumb" install from a cpio archive. Perhaps refactoring of Caiman is needed, where the Live CD ships with a pkg repo, starts a pkg server, and does an install from that. Not sure how feasible this would be. Given how complete pkg is, probably not all that hard. Cheers, Alasdair ___ 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 ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 01/17/11 02:44, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: we should rename the Live CD to OpenIndiana-Desktop and the Text Installer to OpenIndiana-Server this creates the impression that there are two different operating systems. But the two install different subsets of the same pool of packages, versioned together. after you're installed and running you can use pkg install to add the missing pieces of one to the other. "desktop installer for openindiana x.y" and "server installer for openindiana x.y" would make it clearer that the difference lies primarily in the installer. - Bill ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Thank you very much for such a detailed response, actually yes, Openindiana-desktop, is more clear than the LiveCD, it makes sense. I will read the links you sent. Thanks again for all your work. BR Gab On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: > Hi Gabriel, > > On 01/17/11 10:07 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote: >> >> Thanks! >> A place to start is a place to start, and an stable server release is >> the most urgent one among all the other options. > > Great - thanks for the feedback! > >> Some people is talking about the server-desktop question, I >> particularly liked the old Solaris software groups concept (reduced >> network, core, end user, entire)... woulnt it be posible to have a non >> stable distro featuring the full range of up to date software, and a >> stable conservative one (behind in innovation but ahead in stability) >> allowing to either just keep the fully suported core of software or to >> add as well a less supported desktop enviroment?. Wouldnt this be >> almost same effort, example: > > Well, the thing is, this is already the case. All people have to do is use > the Text Installer ISO (Or the Automated Installer ISO) - this installs a > much smaller subset of software which doesn't include the full Gnome desktop > software. Effectively the text installer ISO is the "server release" and the > Live CD ISO is the "desktop release". Perhaps we need to name them such to > avoid the confusion, as it seems a lot of people on-list are confused about > this. > > Unfortunately the Text Installer still installs quite a "fat" install, due > to some packaging that needs improvement. Alan Coopersmith pointed us at > some bugs on bugs.opensolaris.org related to this which was pretty helpful: > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010355 > - splitting tk bindings out of the core python package > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010324 > - splitting X apps out of the core groff package > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6574610 > - splitting glib out of the gnome-base-libs package > > The only differences between a server install and a desktop install are the > packages installed, and they're already split up into fairly reasonable > incorporations. I think the situation with OpenSolaris only having a > graphical LiveCD for so long has led people to think that OpenSolaris and > thus OpenIndiana is mainly a desktop OS. > > So I am starting to think that we should rename the Live CD to > OpenIndiana-Desktop and the Text Installer to OpenIndiana-Server. > > Ideally the graphical installer, Caiman, would let you choose which package > incorporations to install. But unfortunately I think it does a "dumb" > install from a cpio archive. > > Perhaps refactoring of Caiman is needed, where the Live CD ships with a pkg > repo, starts a pkg server, and does an install from that. Not sure how > feasible this would be. Given how complete pkg is, probably not all that > hard. > > Cheers, > > Alasdair > > ___ > 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
On 01/17/11 02:44, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: we should rename the Live CD to OpenIndiana-Desktop and the Text Installer to OpenIndiana-Server Hi, This gets my vote. I think we should put it up to a vote and let the community decide if they feel comfortable with this.:-) Regards Edward ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Hi Gabriel, On 01/17/11 10:07 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote: Thanks! A place to start is a place to start, and an stable server release is the most urgent one among all the other options. Great - thanks for the feedback! Some people is talking about the server-desktop question, I particularly liked the old Solaris software groups concept (reduced network, core, end user, entire)... woulnt it be posible to have a non stable distro featuring the full range of up to date software, and a stable conservative one (behind in innovation but ahead in stability) allowing to either just keep the fully suported core of software or to add as well a less supported desktop enviroment?. Wouldnt this be almost same effort, example: Well, the thing is, this is already the case. All people have to do is use the Text Installer ISO (Or the Automated Installer ISO) - this installs a much smaller subset of software which doesn't include the full Gnome desktop software. Effectively the text installer ISO is the "server release" and the Live CD ISO is the "desktop release". Perhaps we need to name them such to avoid the confusion, as it seems a lot of people on-list are confused about this. Unfortunately the Text Installer still installs quite a "fat" install, due to some packaging that needs improvement. Alan Coopersmith pointed us at some bugs on bugs.opensolaris.org related to this which was pretty helpful: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010355 - splitting tk bindings out of the core python package http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010324 - splitting X apps out of the core groff package http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6574610 - splitting glib out of the gnome-base-libs package The only differences between a server install and a desktop install are the packages installed, and they're already split up into fairly reasonable incorporations. I think the situation with OpenSolaris only having a graphical LiveCD for so long has led people to think that OpenSolaris and thus OpenIndiana is mainly a desktop OS. So I am starting to think that we should rename the Live CD to OpenIndiana-Desktop and the Text Installer to OpenIndiana-Server. Ideally the graphical installer, Caiman, would let you choose which package incorporations to install. But unfortunately I think it does a "dumb" install from a cpio archive. Perhaps refactoring of Caiman is needed, where the Live CD ships with a pkg repo, starts a pkg server, and does an install from that. Not sure how feasible this would be. Given how complete pkg is, probably not all that hard. Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Thanks! A place to start is a place to start, and an stable server release is the most urgent one among all the other options. Some people is talking about the server-desktop question, I particularly liked the old Solaris software groups concept (reduced network, core, end user, entire)... woulnt it be posible to have a non stable distro featuring the full range of up to date software, and a stable conservative one (behind in innovation but ahead in stability) allowing to either just keep the fully suported core of software or to add as well a less supported desktop enviroment?. Wouldnt this be almost same effort, example: release period 1 - oi_148 unstable: full set of up to date programs, server + desktop, all unstable release period 2 - oi_149 unstable: full set of up to date programs, server + desktop, all unstable - 2011.02 stable: oi_148 stable server core + oi_148 unstable optional desktop software group release period 3 oi_150 unstable full set of up to date programs, server + desktop, all unstable 2011.09 stable oi_149 stable server core + oi_149 unstable optional desktop software group ... and so on probably what I say is either too stupid or just too ovious, I was just thinking on a way to have a non critical desktop land compatible with the fully stable server release on the same installation disk... even if both of them are delayed in time in relation to the unstable new release. Cheers On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Gary Gendel wrote: > Guys, > > Kudos for the great discussion going on here. This is exactly the right > discussion to get things moving forward. As for the "You should include > ", this can go on forever and facture the community. As for choice of > MTA, everyone has their own favorite (mine happens to be a spamdyke/qmail > variant). Rather than go down the black-hole of "which is better", I > suggest that OI picks one and the community supports packaging their > favorite replacements. > > Core means different things to different people, for example... Server > installations would probably want mail, web, etc. service packages, but a > desktop installation wouldn't really need this at all. One one platform I > removed mail services entirely but then there can be no report from a cron > error, etc. I was successful at replacing it with nullmail, but that would > be a setup nightmare for most users, and is too insecure to be a viable > replacement. > > I only mention this because the installer should know the target use of the > machine so it knows what "core" really is. Few will be happy at everything > on a community requested list. > > Gary > > > ___ > 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
Guys, Kudos for the great discussion going on here. This is exactly the right discussion to get things moving forward. As for the "You should include ", this can go on forever and facture the community. As for choice of MTA, everyone has their own favorite (mine happens to be a spamdyke/qmail variant). Rather than go down the black-hole of "which is better", I suggest that OI picks one and the community supports packaging their favorite replacements. Core means different things to different people, for example... Server installations would probably want mail, web, etc. service packages, but a desktop installation wouldn't really need this at all. One one platform I removed mail services entirely but then there can be no report from a cron error, etc. I was successful at replacing it with nullmail, but that would be a setup nightmare for most users, and is too insecure to be a viable replacement. I only mention this because the installer should know the target use of the machine so it knows what "core" really is. Few will be happy at everything on a community requested list. Gary ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 16/01/11 03:50 AM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: On 15 Jan 2011, at 14:47, Ivan Wang wrote: Then I am also one of the minority here.. I do use solaris/opensolaris/openindiana as desktop and plan to continue doing so until all is lost. This goes back to my school day sitting in front of ultra1 in the lab. Old habit dies hard. Please continue openindiana's desktop viability as long as possible. Hi Ivan, We will definitely be continuing OpenIndiana on the desktop - please don't panic. The proposal is only for a new stable branch with limited support for server software. The /dev branch will continue as normal, and the project has no intentions of becoming a server only distribution. Hi Alasdair, Thanks for the clarification - these plans all sound good (and exciting!) to me. Cheers, -- Dave Koelmeyer http://davekoelmeyer.wordpress.com/ ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Hi Alan, On 15 Jan 2011, at 20:34, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > On 01/15/11 03:34 AM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: >> Unfortunately this is something we have inherited from Oracle. Some of the >> packages need to be split, so that they don't pull in such a large tree of >> dependencies. Some packages (Things like python) also have dependencies on >> things like the gnome libraries or X11 libraries - if the packages were >> split then this could improve the situation. > > Some known issues in this area are: > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010355 > - splitting tk bindings out of the core python package > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010324 > - splitting X apps out of the core groff package > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6574610 > - splitting glib out of the gnome-base-libs package > > Those are all from spec files in the jds spec-files repo, so it > should be possible for someone from OI to work with the folks on > desktop-disc...@opensolaris.org to make it happen for everyone. Thank you very much indeed for that list, that definitely helps with knowing where to start. Sounds like an ideal candidate for some collaboration! :-) Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 01/15/11 03:34 AM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: > Unfortunately this is something we have inherited from Oracle. Some of the > packages need to be split, so that they don't pull in such a large tree of > dependencies. Some packages (Things like python) also have dependencies on > things like the gnome libraries or X11 libraries - if the packages were split > then this could improve the situation. Some known issues in this area are: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010355 - splitting tk bindings out of the core python package http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7010324 - splitting X apps out of the core groff package http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6574610 - splitting glib out of the gnome-base-libs package Those are all from spec files in the jds spec-files repo, so it should be possible for someone from OI to work with the folks on desktop-disc...@opensolaris.org to make it happen for everyone. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
> > Currently the dependency chain of the packages, is erm to be polite utterly > > broken... Before we can consider a stable build, we have to fix that a text > > install takes 2.6GiB and includes so much stuff that doesn't belong. Trying > > to remove via pkg gets you nowhere as it horrible chained together > > incorrectly. It's a security nightmare, the only way I currently feel safe > > is that I have a zone that faces the world because zones (for some reason) > > install much more striped down installs. >Unfortunately this is something we have inherited from Oracle. Some of the packages need to be split, so that they don't pull in such a large tree of dependencies. Some packages (Things like python) also have dependencies on things like the gnome > libraries or X11 libraries - if the packages were split then this could improve the situation. > > It needs someone to actually sit down and work out the dependency tree and take charge of that project. Perhaps you'd be willing to help work on this? Sure, was hoping to find the time before now but haven't had the time to really learn the packaging system yet, but should have some more time soon and this is high on my list to help on (along with some driver and zfs code in illumos). > If this is something you want - i'd encourage you to hop onto #oi-dev on irc.freenode.net and get involved. Will do :) > > 6) Security info and concerns, from articles to hardening the OS to using > > VMs (Xen, Zones, Virtual box?) to isolate components. Probably just an > > extension of the wiki and/or blogs but I'm sure some of the in the trenches > > guys would be happy to write a few articles on how we got OI onto the front > > line and in use. > > The OpenIndiana Handbook would be a great place for this information: > > http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/OpenIndiana+Handbook > >If you'd like access to the wiki to work on this just say. Yes please, I've deliberately been keeping notes on the setups I've been making, for my own reference as well as writing up into wiki docs. I've got a fair experience writing articles for books, magazines and web pages and enjoy the writing process so I'll happily get some articles up :) Perhaps we should try the wikipedia model, in that we open up editing the wiki by default but using editors, to help keep things correct? Again something I have experience with (I've been an editor on one of the ShaderX books) and would happily volunteer to do in the areas I know. I really hate 'complaining' about OI because I really do appreciate how good it is, so just in case I come across of not being grateful, a big *Thanks* to everyone involved for getting us this far :) Bye, Deano de...@cloudpixies.com ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
+1 On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Alexander Sergeev wrote: > Having stable *server* branch is great - that's what I was waiting for :) > > I personally don't care about GUI part at all, nor I believe most of > server users. > > Cheers, > Alex > > ___ > 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
On 15 Jan 2011, at 14:47, Ivan Wang wrote: > Then I am also one of the minority here.. > > I do use solaris/opensolaris/openindiana as desktop and plan to > continue doing so until all is lost. > This goes back to my school day sitting in front of ultra1 in the lab. > Old habit dies hard. > > Please continue openindiana's desktop viability as long as possible. Hi Ivan, We will definitely be continuing OpenIndiana on the desktop - please don't panic. The proposal is only for a new stable branch with limited support for server software. The /dev branch will continue as normal, and the project has no intentions of becoming a server only distribution. Regards, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Then I am also one of the minority here.. I do use solaris/opensolaris/openindiana as desktop and plan to continue doing so until all is lost. This goes back to my school day sitting in front of ultra1 in the lab. Old habit dies hard. Please continue openindiana's desktop viability as long as possible. Thank you. Ivan. > Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:37:09 + > From: hairryharry > To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana > > Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch > Message-ID: <4d3178d5.8030...@tesco.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > A plea and advice. > > I suspect I am in the minority who has found solaris then OSOL and now > OI and now uses it as a desktop system and small server - CIFS for kids > home work. But coming from linux use over last 12 years have found it > rather good -feels stable, limited packages but what you generally need > and some ZFS features -time slider/snapshots, easy back ups and easy cifs. > > My plea is please not to ignore the desktop/home user, yes we are in the > minority (correct me if I am in the wrong) but if we want to use a > "solaris" based unix there currently seems no where else to go. > > I do like the idea of a stable branch and the idea of security update so > at least the core system is up to date but please ensure we can still > access a reasonably stable desktop. > > The advice please is if the overall plan is to move completely to a > server based distro and use as a desktop OS is limited should I just > stop wasting my time and step off now and return to linux. > > Thanks, > > Mike > > ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
> The Belenix team will be working with the OI team to ensure that we > have one common code base as much as possible. > > We are continuing to aim for the Desktop. Excellent!!! I can hell with multimedia applications which are a must for every desktop system. A.S. -- Apostolos Syropoulos Xanthi, Greece ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Again, I'm going to 'step forward' regarding Postfix. We use it a lot, we need it! (I'll take a shot at packaging it for the New World Order). Lou Picciano - Original Message - From: "Alasdair Lumsden" To: "Discussion list for OpenIndiana" Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:44:32 AM Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch On 15 Jan 2011, at 09:24, Matt Wilby wrote: > Maybe worth adding ZSH to the list (gets installed by default). > > Postfix perhaps? Possibly, although the default MTA is (unfortunately!) sendmail. Given the limited resources, unless someone steps forward to assist with maintaining security fixes for it I think we need to keep the list as paired back as possible. If people really want it, they'll step forward (which is good!) Cheers, Alasdair ___ 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
On 15.01.2011 13:18, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: It wouldn't be a minimal distro. We would simply republish oi_148 to /stable, then only update a small set of packages with security updates. The work involved would be backporting security fixes, recompiling the software and publishing the fixed package to the /stable branch. With this approach you have a branch based on oi_148, where only a small number of packages are maintained. This sounds like a good plan to get a release of something that is not dev, but I would not call this "stable". oi_148 works fine from my experience, but "release" or "release_candidate" are IMHO better names. Till ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Hi Alasdair, Good to list the security and bug fixes addressed in this stabilization and what will end up in the live/install distro versus IPS. How does this relate to Sol11x 2010.11 in its provided fixes? Backports from it? Newer? ~ Ken Mays --- On Sat, 1/15/11, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: > From: Alasdair Lumsden > Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch > To: "Discussion list for OpenIndiana" > Date: Saturday, January 15, 2011, 7:18 AM > On 15 Jan 2011, at 12:05, Dmitry G. > Kozhinov wrote: > > > Alasdair, > > > > I understand that the proposed stable branch would be > minimalistic to save developer time an effort, but isn't > there a danger of the opposite - that having two branches > would nearly double the labor amount? > > Hi Dmitry, > > It wouldn't be a minimal distro. We would simply republish > oi_148 to /stable, then only update a small set of packages > with security updates. > > The work involved would be backporting security fixes, > recompiling the software and publishing the fixed package to > the /stable branch. > > It would in no way double the effort involved. > > Regards, > > Alasdair > ___ > 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
On 15 Jan 2011, at 12:05, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote: > Alasdair, > > I understand that the proposed stable branch would be minimalistic to save > developer time an effort, but isn't there a danger of the opposite - that > having two branches would nearly double the labor amount? Hi Dmitry, It wouldn't be a minimal distro. We would simply republish oi_148 to /stable, then only update a small set of packages with security updates. The work involved would be backporting security fixes, recompiling the software and publishing the fixed package to the /stable branch. It would in no way double the effort involved. Regards, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Alasdair, I understand that the proposed stable branch would be minimalistic to save developer time an effort, but isn't there a danger of the opposite - that having two branches would nearly double the labor amount? Dmitry. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 15 Jan 2011, at 09:24, Matt Wilby wrote: > Maybe worth adding ZSH to the list (gets installed by default). > > Postfix perhaps? Possibly, although the default MTA is (unfortunately!) sendmail. Given the limited resources, unless someone steps forward to assist with maintaining security fixes for it I think we need to keep the list as paired back as possible. If people really want it, they'll step forward (which is good!) Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 15 Jan 2011, at 02:18, Anil wrote: > Have you guys thought about implementing pkgsrc natively for 3rd > party/userland packages? > > http://www.netbsd.org/docs/software/packages.html#platforms > > I recently came across it and it's quite interesting. I am debating to > use that in conjunction with IPS for OS/Net. Switching the whole OS from what we build currently to something like pkgsrc would be a major undertaking... We'd prefer that our end users don't have to go to third party software repositories such as OpenCSW, SFE, Blastwave or pkgsrc to get the software they want - it should all be available from us via IPS, and be easily re-buildable. To that end, we are working on: http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/OpenIndiana+Addon+Consolidations Rather than spread our efforts, it would be good for people to rally round OIAC to get it from a proposal to a reality. Guido Berhoerster (gber on IRC) is heading up the work and worth talking to if you're interested in helping. Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Hi Deano, Thanks for your feedback - I appreciate you taking the time to write a big reply. On 15 Jan 2011, at 01:20, Deano wrote: > Hi, > Sounds like an good move, however I don't think that you mentioned or > proposed how we tackle one issue of taking OI into production server (which > is possible, I go live with 3 OI servers on Monday ;) ). Good luck! I can report it works really well :-) > Currently the dependency chain of the packages, is erm to be polite utterly > broken... Before we can consider a stable build, we have to fix that a text > install takes 2.6GiB and includes so much stuff that doesn't belong. Trying > to remove via pkg gets you nowhere as it horrible chained together > incorrectly. It's a security nightmare, the only way I currently feel safe > is that I have a zone that faces the world because zones (for some reason) > install much more striped down installs. Unfortunately this is something we have inherited from Oracle. Some of the packages need to be split, so that they don't pull in such a large tree of dependencies. Some packages (Things like python) also have dependencies on things like the gnome libraries or X11 libraries - if the packages were split then this could improve the situation. It needs someone to actually sit down and work out the dependency tree and take charge of that project. Perhaps you'd be willing to help work on this? > IMHO First thing should be making a minimal server install, debootstrap > minimal. Get a unix base system, IPS package manager and wget and the rest > can come later. TBH the install a new zone gets is more like the default > install should be imho. Ironically, minimising and stripping back the operating system is much harder than building the whole thing. The more we diverge from the userland that Oracle provides, the more work we have to do for every release. I do agree with you - the text installer is too fat and the package set for a fresh zone is much better. Potentially there could be some big wins had by splitting packages like Python up, and then the text installer distro-constructor manifest could be paired back. If this is something you want - i'd encourage you to hop onto #oi-dev on irc.freenode.net and get involved. > Then have a number of repositories with different classes of supported apps, > Primary being your list and with critical fixes etc. and then secondary > being less supported apps. > Your proposal to focus on a small set of apps is correct imho, new users to > OI stable will be early adopters almost by definition, so by being honest > and saying OS is stable and great and so are these major programs, but not > everything out there is to the same level, we encourage champions to take > their favorite program and get it on the major supported list. Absolutely - it does seem like if you have a small supported software list, and some people want their favourite app supported, then we stand a greater chance of them joining the project to maintain it. So I'm hopeful this approach will attract more contributors. > Also a smaller core will make the illumos switch faster, I'm personally not > sure if stable should become before illumos integration. OI on illumos works > now, with locales being the major issues (being worked on), it doesn't feel > right to call OI stable without it using (even a WIP) the base that it > requires going forward (OI on ON isn't really stable as it's a EOL, which > implies an unstable future). As I mentioned above, ironically a smaller core would take much more time than just bashing on and integrating Illumos. > As you're worried about missing the window, as OSol users migrate to linux > or FreeBSD IMHO that is more a perception issue. OI website appears very > slow moving, even dead. Bringing some life there may help that issue, call > the WIP stable build, Early Adopter build or something like that, post EA > new builds once a week on the front page. Get silly screen shots of shell > doing zfs, or apache configuration files, all completely useless BUT > highlights that look this thing is real and running apps you, as a IT geek > are wanting to run... I also agree - the OI Website needs work. I intend to do some today. I'm no web developer though. > As a production OI deployer, I really care about > 1) Minimal install with just the programs I want, *nod* - sticking stuff in Zones makes a lot of sense for this. > 2) Critical fixes for the OS and those apps if I use the package system. > 3) A safe build environment, as there is a fair chance I'll be building app > myself at this stage (I use a separate machine for this as the safest way :) > ) Again, Zones. > 4) Something that will upgrade nicely for the say 3 years. For OI that > scream illumos IMHO While we're only proposing to support our stable branch for 6 months, the idea is that you'll be able to then upgrade to our next stable release, which will be Illumos based. > 5) A community with nice cen
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Thanks Alasdair, Good - I had hoped thats what you were suggesting. Mike Alasdair Lumsden wrote: On 15 Jan 2011, at 10:37, Hairry Harry wrote: The advice please is if the overall plan is to move completely to a server based distro and use as a desktop OS is limited should I just stop wasting my time and step off now and return to linux. Mike, I think you've misunderstood the proposal a bit. The plan isn't at all to move completely to a server based distro - I sincerely hope I didn't give that impression. The Dev branch will continue to have a full desktop and will continue to be updated from the Oracle software repositories (which are still open). The proposal for the Stable branch was for it to be a clone of the dev branch in every way, just that we'll also provide critical security updates for a small set of packages, for a fixed time period. While the stable branch is sat there only getting security updates, the /dev branch will continue to be updated, receiving the latest and greatest desktop software. Regards, Alasdair ___ 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
On 01/15/11 03:02, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: The proposal for the Stable branch was for it to be a clone of the dev branch in every way had a thought, how about creating OI into two editions: OpenIndiana server( no gui, gets security updates) OpenIndiana desktop(with gui, no security updates, aka /dev) Regards Edward ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 15 Jan 2011, at 10:37, Hairry Harry wrote: > The advice please is if the overall plan is to move completely to a > server based distro and use as a desktop OS is limited should I just > stop wasting my time and step off now and return to linux. Mike, I think you've misunderstood the proposal a bit. The plan isn't at all to move completely to a server based distro - I sincerely hope I didn't give that impression. The Dev branch will continue to have a full desktop and will continue to be updated from the Oracle software repositories (which are still open). The proposal for the Stable branch was for it to be a clone of the dev branch in every way, just that we'll also provide critical security updates for a small set of packages, for a fixed time period. While the stable branch is sat there only getting security updates, the /dev branch will continue to be updated, receiving the latest and greatest desktop software. Regards, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
The Belenix team will be working with the OI team to ensure that we have one common code base as much as possible. We are continuing to aim for the Desktop. -- Sriram On 1/15/11, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote: > Please count my vote for this also. I am using OSol as a server, but it > is much easier for me to administer it using GUI. > > On 15.01.2011 15:37, hairryharry wrote: >> My plea is please not to ignore the desktop/home user, yes we are in >> the minority > >> please ensure we can still access a reasonably stable desktop. > > ___ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > -- Sent from my mobile device == Belenix: www.belenix.org ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
[OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Having stable *server* branch is great - that's what I was waiting for :) I personally don't care about GUI part at all, nor I believe most of server users. Cheers, Alex ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Please count my vote for this also. I am using OSol as a server, but it is much easier for me to administer it using GUI. On 15.01.2011 15:37, hairryharry wrote: My plea is please not to ignore the desktop/home user, yes we are in the minority please ensure we can still access a reasonably stable desktop. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
A plea and advice. I suspect I am in the minority who has found solaris then OSOL and now OI and now uses it as a desktop system and small server - CIFS for kids home work. But coming from linux use over last 12 years have found it rather good -feels stable, limited packages but what you generally need and some ZFS features -time slider/snapshots, easy back ups and easy cifs. My plea is please not to ignore the desktop/home user, yes we are in the minority (correct me if I am in the wrong) but if we want to use a "solaris" based unix there currently seems no where else to go. I do like the idea of a stable branch and the idea of security update so at least the core system is up to date but please ensure we can still access a reasonably stable desktop. The advice please is if the overall plan is to move completely to a server based distro and use as a desktop OS is limited should I just stop wasting my time and step off now and return to linux. Thanks, Mike ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
A plea and advice. I suspect I am in the minority who has found solaris then OSOL and now OI and now uses it as a desktop system and small server - CIFS for kids home work. But coming from linux use over last 12 years have found it rather good -feels stable, limited packages but what you generally need and some ZFS features -time slider/snapshots, easy back ups and easy cifs. My plea is please not to ignore the desktop/home user, yes we are in the minority (correct me if I am in the wrong) but if we want to use a "solaris" based unix there currently seems no where else to go. I do like the idea of a stable branch and the idea of security update so at least the core system is up to date but please ensure we can still access a reasonably stable desktop. The advice please is if the overall plan is to move completely to a server based distro and use as a desktop OS is limited should I just stop wasting my time and step off now and return to linux. Thanks, Mike ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Maybe worth adding ZSH to the list (gets installed by default). Postfix perhaps? Cheers, Matt On 14/01/2011 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. > > Below I've outlined my proposal and I'd love feedback from the community and > from OI developers! > > Obviously as a new project with a small (but growing) developer base, > providing support for the whole release isn't feasible - there are literally > thousands of packages in the distribution. But we have to start somewhere, so > I'm proposing we provide limited support (outlined below) for a set of core > packages. > > > * Why? * > > > Prior to the Oracle takeover, Solaris 10 was free to use in production, and > for a long time, security updates were provided free of charge. OpenSolaris > was also free to use, and updates were available by living on the bleeding > /dev edge. People were (mostly) happy. > > Then Sun hit financial difficulties and discontinued free security updates > for Solaris 10. Then Oracle happened, ending the free use of Solaris in > production. > > This has left people wishing to use Solaris technologies on their production > servers in a difficult position. They have to pay Oracle, or use > distributions that don't provide security updates. Or switch to Linux. > > There are a great many people who would jump at the chance to use Solaris if > there were a production ready version with security and bug fixes provided > for free. > > Indeed, this is what people have come to expect from mainstream UNIX > platforms - Linux distributions such as Debian, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc, provide > updates free of charge - and this is one of the reasons they have become so > popular. > > We have a real opportunity to capitalise on the situation left by Oracle, to > capture server market share away from OpenSolaris, Solaris 10, and give users > a migration path other than switching to Linux (which a lot of people are > doing). > > There are a lot of people out there who *really really* want a stable build > of OpenIndiana - myself included, and I believe OpenIndiana's best chance of > gaining acceptance, market share, and building a thriving development > community is by capturing the server market. > > There is also a risk that if we *don't* do this, we'll become an obscure > fringe distribution, like DragonflyBSD. > > The goal here is to be the *mainstream* accepted de-facto Solaris > distribution. Something people talk about and seriously consider using. > > Solaris contains killer technologies not seen on other platforms; > technologies like ZFS, Zones, SMF, DTrace, COMSTAR, Crossbow - I couldn't > live without any one of these, and we should capitalise on this while we can. > > It's also worth keeping in mind that despite warning users that oi_147 and > oi_148 were development releases, people are already using it in production > environments, myself included, due to a lack of alternatives. The great news > is that it has proven to be exceedingly reliable, and I have no hesitation in > recommending it for busy workloads. All we need to do is add security updates > and critical bug fixes on top and we'll be in a great position. No small feat > I grant you, but we can start off small and work our way up. > > Now is also an opportune time to do this - our next release will be based on > Illumos, which has seen rapid development and will involve some integration > pain. Some have called for a stable branch after Illumos is integrated, but > it could be many months until we have an Illumos dev build suitable for > respinning as a stable branch. That's months of lost opportunity. > > So I say we do it now. > > /dev builds will continue as normal, the next one will be Illumos based - > Desktop users can continue to use our /dev builds, and internet facing > servers can use the stable branch. > > * > * What we'd provide * > * > > The release would be aimed for February, and titled "2011.02". It would be > based > on oi_148. We would only provide the Text Installer and Automated Installer > ISOs. > > We would provide security and critical bug fixes only for: > > 1. OS/Net (The core OS consolidation) > 2. A limited set of server oriented packages that have the greatest usage and > attack "surface area". The initial list I can think of includes: > > - OpenSSL > - Sendmail > - Perl 5.8.4 > - Python 2.6 > - Ruby > - zip, bzip2, gzip > - Apache HTTPD 2.2 > - PHP 5.X > - MySQL 5.X.X > - Postgresql 8.4 > - Java > - Tomcat > - GNU Coreutils > - GCC > - RSync > - ISC BIND > - Bash > - Curl > - wget > > We should also aim to provide security fixes for any bit of software in the > repo that allows an easily exploitable remote access vulnerability or root > privilege escalation, al
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Yes please! I use pkgsrc on all of my Solaris/OI machines. On the OI machines I use pkgsrc directly. On the Solaris 10 machines, I normally compile on a master server, then use pkgsrc's gensolpkg tool to generate a SVR4 package to push out. Works like a charm. A genipspkg tool would be even better for the OI machines :). -Dustin On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Anil wrote: > Have you guys thought about implementing pkgsrc natively for 3rd > party/userland packages? > > http://www.netbsd.org/docs/software/packages.html#platforms > > I recently came across it and it's quite interesting. I am debating to > use that in conjunction with IPS for OS/Net. > > Anil > Entic.net > Solaris Cloud Servers > > ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Have you guys thought about implementing pkgsrc natively for 3rd party/userland packages? http://www.netbsd.org/docs/software/packages.html#platforms I recently came across it and it's quite interesting. I am debating to use that in conjunction with IPS for OS/Net. Anil Entic.net Solaris Cloud Servers On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Deano wrote: > Hi, > Sounds like an good move, however I don't think that you mentioned or > proposed how we tackle one issue of taking OI into production server (which > is possible, I go live with 3 OI servers on Monday ;) ). > > Currently the dependency chain of the packages, is erm to be polite utterly > broken... Before we can consider a stable build, we have to fix that a text > install takes 2.6GiB and includes so much stuff that doesn't belong. Trying > to remove via pkg gets you nowhere as it horrible chained together > incorrectly. It's a security nightmare, the only way I currently feel safe > is that I have a zone that faces the world because zones (for some reason) > install much more striped down installs. > > IMHO First thing should be making a minimal server install, debootstrap > minimal. Get a unix base system, IPS package manager and wget and the rest > can come later. TBH the install a new zone gets is more like the default > install should be imho. > > Then have a number of repositories with different classes of supported apps, > Primary being your list and with critical fixes etc. and then secondary > being less supported apps. > Your proposal to focus on a small set of apps is correct imho, new users to > OI stable will be early adopters almost by definition, so by being honest > and saying OS is stable and great and so are these major programs, but not > everything out there is to the same level, we encourage champions to take > their favorite program and get it on the major supported list. > > Also a smaller core will make the illumos switch faster, I'm personally not > sure if stable should become before illumos integration. OI on illumos works > now, with locales being the major issues (being worked on), it doesn't feel > right to call OI stable without it using (even a WIP) the base that it > requires going forward (OI on ON isn't really stable as it's a EOL, which > implies an unstable future). > > As you're worried about missing the window, as OSol users migrate to linux > or FreeBSD IMHO that is more a perception issue. OI website appears very > slow moving, even dead. Bringing some life there may help that issue, call > the WIP stable build, Early Adopter build or something like that, post EA > new builds once a week on the front page. Get silly screen shots of shell > doing zfs, or apache configuration files, all completely useless BUT > highlights that look this thing is real and running apps you, as a IT geek > are wanting to run... > > As a production OI deployer, I really care about > 1) Minimal install with just the programs I want, > 2) Critical fixes for the OS and those apps if I use the package system. > 3) A safe build environment, as there is a fair chance I'll be building app > myself at this stage (I use a separate machine for this as the safest way :) > ) > 4) Something that will upgrade nicely for the say 3 years. For OI that > scream illumos IMHO > 5) A community with nice central info pool, currently the OI wiki and > webpages doesn't feel like a community, wiki access is restricted, so not > encouraging writing up notes and most of the useful information isn't on > there anyway. Half the time you end up on Oracle web pages, which makes you > wonder if this is a real OS. > 6) Security info and concerns, from articles to hardening the OS to using > VMs (Xen, Zones, Virtual box?) to isolate components. Probably just an > extension of the wiki and/or blogs but I'm sure some of the in the trenches > guys would be happy to write a few articles on how we got OI onto the front > line and in use. > > Hope this doesn't sound negative, as mostly I agree with your proposal (only > thing I really disagree on is non illumos). At the moment OI is very much a > shadow of OSol choices, which I don't think apply here, for it to go stable > it needs to shake of its old masters clothes and choose its own route. > Starting with a small server distro that just happens to have a huge repo of > other apps including desktop, allows it to find a niche and then expand out > from there. As a server (especially a storage server) OS imho its second to > none :) > > Bye, > Deano > de...@cloudpixies.com > > -Original Message- > From: Alasdair Lumsden [mailto:alasdai...@gmail.com] > Sent: 14 January 2011 20:36 > To: Discussion list
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Hi, Sounds like an good move, however I don't think that you mentioned or proposed how we tackle one issue of taking OI into production server (which is possible, I go live with 3 OI servers on Monday ;) ). Currently the dependency chain of the packages, is erm to be polite utterly broken... Before we can consider a stable build, we have to fix that a text install takes 2.6GiB and includes so much stuff that doesn't belong. Trying to remove via pkg gets you nowhere as it horrible chained together incorrectly. It's a security nightmare, the only way I currently feel safe is that I have a zone that faces the world because zones (for some reason) install much more striped down installs. IMHO First thing should be making a minimal server install, debootstrap minimal. Get a unix base system, IPS package manager and wget and the rest can come later. TBH the install a new zone gets is more like the default install should be imho. Then have a number of repositories with different classes of supported apps, Primary being your list and with critical fixes etc. and then secondary being less supported apps. Your proposal to focus on a small set of apps is correct imho, new users to OI stable will be early adopters almost by definition, so by being honest and saying OS is stable and great and so are these major programs, but not everything out there is to the same level, we encourage champions to take their favorite program and get it on the major supported list. Also a smaller core will make the illumos switch faster, I'm personally not sure if stable should become before illumos integration. OI on illumos works now, with locales being the major issues (being worked on), it doesn't feel right to call OI stable without it using (even a WIP) the base that it requires going forward (OI on ON isn't really stable as it's a EOL, which implies an unstable future). As you're worried about missing the window, as OSol users migrate to linux or FreeBSD IMHO that is more a perception issue. OI website appears very slow moving, even dead. Bringing some life there may help that issue, call the WIP stable build, Early Adopter build or something like that, post EA new builds once a week on the front page. Get silly screen shots of shell doing zfs, or apache configuration files, all completely useless BUT highlights that look this thing is real and running apps you, as a IT geek are wanting to run... As a production OI deployer, I really care about 1) Minimal install with just the programs I want, 2) Critical fixes for the OS and those apps if I use the package system. 3) A safe build environment, as there is a fair chance I'll be building app myself at this stage (I use a separate machine for this as the safest way :) ) 4) Something that will upgrade nicely for the say 3 years. For OI that scream illumos IMHO 5) A community with nice central info pool, currently the OI wiki and webpages doesn't feel like a community, wiki access is restricted, so not encouraging writing up notes and most of the useful information isn't on there anyway. Half the time you end up on Oracle web pages, which makes you wonder if this is a real OS. 6) Security info and concerns, from articles to hardening the OS to using VMs (Xen, Zones, Virtual box?) to isolate components. Probably just an extension of the wiki and/or blogs but I'm sure some of the in the trenches guys would be happy to write a few articles on how we got OI onto the front line and in use. Hope this doesn't sound negative, as mostly I agree with your proposal (only thing I really disagree on is non illumos). At the moment OI is very much a shadow of OSol choices, which I don't think apply here, for it to go stable it needs to shake of its old masters clothes and choose its own route. Starting with a small server distro that just happens to have a huge repo of other apps including desktop, allows it to find a niche and then expand out from there. As a server (especially a storage server) OS imho its second to none :) Bye, Deano de...@cloudpixies.com -Original Message- From: Alasdair Lumsden [mailto:alasdai...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 January 2011 20:36 To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana; OpenIndiana Developer mailing list Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch 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. Below I've outlined my proposal and I'd love feedback from the community and from OI developers! Obviously as a new project with a small (but growing) developer base, providing support for the whole release isn't feasible - there are literally thousands of packages in the distribution. But we have to start somewhere, so I'm proposing we provide limited support (outlined below) for a set of core packages. * Why? * P
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 01/14/11 15:53, Lou Picciano wrote: Postfix is another one we build, Alasdair - I can offer help with that, too. Lou Hi, Is it possible to add lynx to the base install, with the home page set to openindiana wiki? Regards Edward ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Postfix is another one we build, Alasdair - I can offer help with that, too. Lou - Original Message - From: "Dave" To: "Discussion list for OpenIndiana" Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 5:34:05 PM Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch This is a great plan and I will try to help where I can. I would suggest including support for Postfix as well. -- Dave On 1/14/11 1:36 PM, 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. > > Below I've outlined my proposal and I'd love feedback from the community and > from OI developers! > > Obviously as a new project with a small (but growing) developer base, > providing support for the whole release isn't feasible - there are literally > thousands of packages in the distribution. But we have to start somewhere, so > I'm proposing we provide limited support (outlined below) for a set of core > packages. > > > * Why? * > > > Prior to the Oracle takeover, Solaris 10 was free to use in production, and > for a long time, security updates were provided free of charge. OpenSolaris > was also free to use, and updates were available by living on the bleeding > /dev edge. People were (mostly) happy. > > Then Sun hit financial difficulties and discontinued free security updates > for Solaris 10. Then Oracle happened, ending the free use of Solaris in > production. > > This has left people wishing to use Solaris technologies on their production > servers in a difficult position. They have to pay Oracle, or use > distributions that don't provide security updates. Or switch to Linux. > > There are a great many people who would jump at the chance to use Solaris if > there were a production ready version with security and bug fixes provided > for free. > > Indeed, this is what people have come to expect from mainstream UNIX > platforms - Linux distributions such as Debian, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc, provide > updates free of charge - and this is one of the reasons they have become so > popular. > > We have a real opportunity to capitalise on the situation left by Oracle, to > capture server market share away from OpenSolaris, Solaris 10, and give users > a migration path other than switching to Linux (which a lot of people are > doing). > > There are a lot of people out there who *really really* want a stable build > of OpenIndiana - myself included, and I believe OpenIndiana's best chance of > gaining acceptance, market share, and building a thriving development > community is by capturing the server market. > > There is also a risk that if we *don't* do this, we'll become an obscure > fringe distribution, like DragonflyBSD. > > The goal here is to be the *mainstream* accepted de-facto Solaris > distribution. Something people talk about and seriously consider using. > > Solaris contains killer technologies not seen on other platforms; > technologies like ZFS, Zones, SMF, DTrace, COMSTAR, Crossbow - I couldn't > live without any one of these, and we should capitalise on this while we can. > > It's also worth keeping in mind that despite warning users that oi_147 and > oi_148 were development releases, people are already using it in production > environments, myself included, due to a lack of alternatives. The great news > is that it has proven to be exceedingly reliable, and I have no hesitation in > recommending it for busy workloads. All we need to do is add security updates > and critical bug fixes on top and we'll be in a great position. No small feat > I grant you, but we can start off small and work our way up. > > Now is also an opportune time to do this - our next release will be based on > Illumos, which has seen rapid development and will involve some integration > pain. Some have called for a stable branch after Illumos is integrated, but > it could be many months until we have an Illumos dev build suitable for > respinning as a stable branch. That's months of lost opportunity. > > So I say we do it now. > > /dev builds will continue as normal, the next one will be Illumos based - > Desktop users can continue to use our /dev builds, and internet facing > servers can use the stable branch. > > * > * What we'd provide * > * > > The release would be aimed for February, and titled "2011.02". It would be > based > on oi_148. We would only provide the Text Installer and Automated Insta
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
This is great news to me, I can't thank the people working on the code enough, but still, thank you all. Regards Johan On 14/01/2011 21:36, 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. Below I've outlined my proposal and I'd love feedback from the community and from OI developers! Obviously as a new project with a small (but growing) developer base, providing support for the whole release isn't feasible - there are literally thousands of packages in the distribution. But we have to start somewhere, so I'm proposing we provide limited support (outlined below) for a set of core packages. * Why? * Prior to the Oracle takeover, Solaris 10 was free to use in production, and for a long time, security updates were provided free of charge. OpenSolaris was also free to use, and updates were available by living on the bleeding /dev edge. People were (mostly) happy. Then Sun hit financial difficulties and discontinued free security updates for Solaris 10. Then Oracle happened, ending the free use of Solaris in production. This has left people wishing to use Solaris technologies on their production servers in a difficult position. They have to pay Oracle, or use distributions that don't provide security updates. Or switch to Linux. There are a great many people who would jump at the chance to use Solaris if there were a production ready version with security and bug fixes provided for free. Indeed, this is what people have come to expect from mainstream UNIX platforms - Linux distributions such as Debian, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc, provide updates free of charge - and this is one of the reasons they have become so popular. We have a real opportunity to capitalise on the situation left by Oracle, to capture server market share away from OpenSolaris, Solaris 10, and give users a migration path other than switching to Linux (which a lot of people are doing). There are a lot of people out there who *really really* want a stable build of OpenIndiana - myself included, and I believe OpenIndiana's best chance of gaining acceptance, market share, and building a thriving development community is by capturing the server market. There is also a risk that if we *don't* do this, we'll become an obscure fringe distribution, like DragonflyBSD. The goal here is to be the *mainstream* accepted de-facto Solaris distribution. Something people talk about and seriously consider using. Solaris contains killer technologies not seen on other platforms; technologies like ZFS, Zones, SMF, DTrace, COMSTAR, Crossbow - I couldn't live without any one of these, and we should capitalise on this while we can. It's also worth keeping in mind that despite warning users that oi_147 and oi_148 were development releases, people are already using it in production environments, myself included, due to a lack of alternatives. The great news is that it has proven to be exceedingly reliable, and I have no hesitation in recommending it for busy workloads. All we need to do is add security updates and critical bug fixes on top and we'll be in a great position. No small feat I grant you, but we can start off small and work our way up. Now is also an opportune time to do this - our next release will be based on Illumos, which has seen rapid development and will involve some integration pain. Some have called for a stable branch after Illumos is integrated, but it could be many months until we have an Illumos dev build suitable for respinning as a stable branch. That's months of lost opportunity. So I say we do it now. /dev builds will continue as normal, the next one will be Illumos based - Desktop users can continue to use our /dev builds, and internet facing servers can use the stable branch. * * What we'd provide * * The release would be aimed for February, and titled "2011.02". It would be based on oi_148. We would only provide the Text Installer and Automated Installer ISOs. We would provide security and critical bug fixes only for: 1. OS/Net (The core OS consolidation) 2. A limited set of server oriented packages that have the greatest usage and attack "surface area". The initial list I can think of includes: - OpenSSL - Sendmail - Perl 5.8.4 - Python 2.6 - Ruby - zip, bzip2, gzip - Apache HTTPD 2.2 - PHP 5.X - MySQL 5.X.X - Postgresql 8.4 - Java - Tomcat - GNU Coreutils - GCC - RSync - ISC BIND - Bash - Curl - wget We should also aim to provide security fixes for any bit of software in the repo that allows an easily exploitable remote access vulnerability or root privilege escalation, although we cannot guarantee to do so as monitoring security updates for over 1000 software packages is unfeasible. An example would be the recent Exim vulnerability on CentOS t
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
This is a great plan and I will try to help where I can. I would suggest including support for Postfix as well. -- Dave On 1/14/11 1:36 PM, 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. Below I've outlined my proposal and I'd love feedback from the community and from OI developers! Obviously as a new project with a small (but growing) developer base, providing support for the whole release isn't feasible - there are literally thousands of packages in the distribution. But we have to start somewhere, so I'm proposing we provide limited support (outlined below) for a set of core packages. * Why? * Prior to the Oracle takeover, Solaris 10 was free to use in production, and for a long time, security updates were provided free of charge. OpenSolaris was also free to use, and updates were available by living on the bleeding /dev edge. People were (mostly) happy. Then Sun hit financial difficulties and discontinued free security updates for Solaris 10. Then Oracle happened, ending the free use of Solaris in production. This has left people wishing to use Solaris technologies on their production servers in a difficult position. They have to pay Oracle, or use distributions that don't provide security updates. Or switch to Linux. There are a great many people who would jump at the chance to use Solaris if there were a production ready version with security and bug fixes provided for free. Indeed, this is what people have come to expect from mainstream UNIX platforms - Linux distributions such as Debian, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc, provide updates free of charge - and this is one of the reasons they have become so popular. We have a real opportunity to capitalise on the situation left by Oracle, to capture server market share away from OpenSolaris, Solaris 10, and give users a migration path other than switching to Linux (which a lot of people are doing). There are a lot of people out there who *really really* want a stable build of OpenIndiana - myself included, and I believe OpenIndiana's best chance of gaining acceptance, market share, and building a thriving development community is by capturing the server market. There is also a risk that if we *don't* do this, we'll become an obscure fringe distribution, like DragonflyBSD. The goal here is to be the *mainstream* accepted de-facto Solaris distribution. Something people talk about and seriously consider using. Solaris contains killer technologies not seen on other platforms; technologies like ZFS, Zones, SMF, DTrace, COMSTAR, Crossbow - I couldn't live without any one of these, and we should capitalise on this while we can. It's also worth keeping in mind that despite warning users that oi_147 and oi_148 were development releases, people are already using it in production environments, myself included, due to a lack of alternatives. The great news is that it has proven to be exceedingly reliable, and I have no hesitation in recommending it for busy workloads. All we need to do is add security updates and critical bug fixes on top and we'll be in a great position. No small feat I grant you, but we can start off small and work our way up. Now is also an opportune time to do this - our next release will be based on Illumos, which has seen rapid development and will involve some integration pain. Some have called for a stable branch after Illumos is integrated, but it could be many months until we have an Illumos dev build suitable for respinning as a stable branch. That's months of lost opportunity. So I say we do it now. /dev builds will continue as normal, the next one will be Illumos based - Desktop users can continue to use our /dev builds, and internet facing servers can use the stable branch. * * What we'd provide * * The release would be aimed for February, and titled "2011.02". It would be based on oi_148. We would only provide the Text Installer and Automated Installer ISOs. We would provide security and critical bug fixes only for: 1. OS/Net (The core OS consolidation) 2. A limited set of server oriented packages that have the greatest usage and attack "surface area". The initial list I can think of includes: - OpenSSL - Sendmail - Perl 5.8.4 - Python 2.6 - Ruby - zip, bzip2, gzip - Apache HTTPD 2.2 - PHP 5.X - MySQL 5.X.X - Postgresql 8.4 - Java - Tomcat - GNU Coreutils - GCC - RSync - ISC BIND - Bash - Curl - wget We should also aim to provide security fixes for any bit of software in the repo that allows an easily exploitable remote access vulnerability or root privilege escalation, although we cannot guarantee to do so as monitoring security updates for over 1000 software packages is unfeasible. An example would be the recent Exim vulnerability on CentOS t
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 14 Jan 2011, at 21:47, Lou Picciano wrote: > Fantastic. I'm in. How to help? There are lots of areas to get involved with - the Website, documentation (New manpages, Tidying up the build documentation on the wiki, etc), Illumos integration, Internationalisation, bug report triaging/assignment/cleaning, fixing bugs, evangelising (writing blog posts!). I guess it depends what areas interest you the most! What sort of things do you fancy working on? ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 14 Jan 2011, at 22:02, Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote: > This probably means no live distro. Strictly installable images. > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 16:52, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote: >> That is, no GUI? Yeah that's correct - you can still boot the live CD for oi_148 and subsequent dev builds, but the stable branch would be server oriented. The reason is that we can't provide security updates for the whole OS - there's not enough man power. Since we're only providing critical security updates for a limited set of server software, it makes sense to only provide the server install media. It's about setting expectations... Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 14 Jan 2011, at 21:46, Edward Martinez wrote: > On 01/14/11 12:36, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: >> Some have called for a stable branch after Illumos is integrated > > Hi, > > had a thought if it's feasible and if shilllix does not mind, is to use > shillix 7.2 (illumos based 147,self hosting) code to produce a stable OI > based on illumos? Hi Edward, We have Illumos installed on OI, just not integrated with the distribution construction process - Schillix wouldn't help at all as it's not IPS based. Cheers, Alasdair ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
This probably means no live distro. Strictly installable images. On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 16:52, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote: > That is, no GUI? > > On 15.01.2011 1:36, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: >> >> We would only provide the Text Installer and Automated Installer >> ISOs. > > ___ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > -- " ' With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we’re all damaged." - Jean-Luc Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie, Star Trek: TNG episode "The Drumhead" - Alex Smith (K4RNT) - Falls Church, Virginia USA ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
That is, no GUI? On 15.01.2011 1:36, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: We would only provide the Text Installer and Automated Installer ISOs. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
On 01/14/11 12:36, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: Some have called for a stable branch after Illumos is integrated Hi, had a thought if it's feasible and if shilllix does not mind, is to use shillix 7.2 (illumos based 147,self hosting) code to produce a stable OI based on illumos? Regards Edward ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
Fantastic. I'm in. How to help? Lou Picciano - Original Message - From: "Alasdair Lumsden" To: "Discussion list for OpenIndiana" , "OpenIndiana Developer mailing list" Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 3:36:16 PM Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch 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 ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
[OpenIndiana-discuss] Proposal: OpenIndiana Stable Branch
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. Below I've outlined my proposal and I'd love feedback from the community and from OI developers! Obviously as a new project with a small (but growing) developer base, providing support for the whole release isn't feasible - there are literally thousands of packages in the distribution. But we have to start somewhere, so I'm proposing we provide limited support (outlined below) for a set of core packages. * Why? * Prior to the Oracle takeover, Solaris 10 was free to use in production, and for a long time, security updates were provided free of charge. OpenSolaris was also free to use, and updates were available by living on the bleeding /dev edge. People were (mostly) happy. Then Sun hit financial difficulties and discontinued free security updates for Solaris 10. Then Oracle happened, ending the free use of Solaris in production. This has left people wishing to use Solaris technologies on their production servers in a difficult position. They have to pay Oracle, or use distributions that don't provide security updates. Or switch to Linux. There are a great many people who would jump at the chance to use Solaris if there were a production ready version with security and bug fixes provided for free. Indeed, this is what people have come to expect from mainstream UNIX platforms - Linux distributions such as Debian, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc, provide updates free of charge - and this is one of the reasons they have become so popular. We have a real opportunity to capitalise on the situation left by Oracle, to capture server market share away from OpenSolaris, Solaris 10, and give users a migration path other than switching to Linux (which a lot of people are doing). There are a lot of people out there who *really really* want a stable build of OpenIndiana - myself included, and I believe OpenIndiana's best chance of gaining acceptance, market share, and building a thriving development community is by capturing the server market. There is also a risk that if we *don't* do this, we'll become an obscure fringe distribution, like DragonflyBSD. The goal here is to be the *mainstream* accepted de-facto Solaris distribution. Something people talk about and seriously consider using. Solaris contains killer technologies not seen on other platforms; technologies like ZFS, Zones, SMF, DTrace, COMSTAR, Crossbow - I couldn't live without any one of these, and we should capitalise on this while we can. It's also worth keeping in mind that despite warning users that oi_147 and oi_148 were development releases, people are already using it in production environments, myself included, due to a lack of alternatives. The great news is that it has proven to be exceedingly reliable, and I have no hesitation in recommending it for busy workloads. All we need to do is add security updates and critical bug fixes on top and we'll be in a great position. No small feat I grant you, but we can start off small and work our way up. Now is also an opportune time to do this - our next release will be based on Illumos, which has seen rapid development and will involve some integration pain. Some have called for a stable branch after Illumos is integrated, but it could be many months until we have an Illumos dev build suitable for respinning as a stable branch. That's months of lost opportunity. So I say we do it now. /dev builds will continue as normal, the next one will be Illumos based - Desktop users can continue to use our /dev builds, and internet facing servers can use the stable branch. * * What we'd provide * * The release would be aimed for February, and titled "2011.02". It would be based on oi_148. We would only provide the Text Installer and Automated Installer ISOs. We would provide security and critical bug fixes only for: 1. OS/Net (The core OS consolidation) 2. A limited set of server oriented packages that have the greatest usage and attack "surface area". The initial list I can think of includes: - OpenSSL - Sendmail - Perl 5.8.4 - Python 2.6 - Ruby - zip, bzip2, gzip - Apache HTTPD 2.2 - PHP 5.X - MySQL 5.X.X - Postgresql 8.4 - Java - Tomcat - GNU Coreutils - GCC - RSync - ISC BIND - Bash - Curl - wget We should also aim to provide security fixes for any bit of software in the repo that allows an easily exploitable remote access vulnerability or root privilege escalation, although we cannot guarantee to do so as monitoring security updates for over 1000 software packages is unfeasible. An example would be the recent Exim vulnerability on CentOS that allowed remote root access by sending appropriately formatted emails. This area is something where we will depend on users, not OI developers, alerting the project to the issue so t
