[osol-discuss] Re: Solaris on Intel Macs??
By adding debug printfs to the grub source code; I used console_putchar(char) calls. And building a custom bootable Solaris x86 CD with the modified boot/grub/stage2_eltorito file. The character printed before the gateA20(1) call in init_bios_info() appeared on the console, the character printed after the gateA20(1) call doesn't appear on the console. The next try was with more console_putchar calls added to the gateA20() code. This narrowed it down to the loop waiting for an empty keyboard controller input buffer. Damn you're good. But this also brings up a point... do we have any DEBUG facilities in Sun GRUB like there are in the rest of Solaris? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: SUNWscpu ? Am I old fashioned and confused ?
Do we need vipw to safely edit the /etc/passwd file ? Yes, if you want sanity checks performed on the edit. SunOS/BSD Compatibility Package Commands vipw(1B) - edit the password file Well, perhaps this manpage has not be touched in 14 years because if its not broke then don't fix it. I then look for this thing : $ which vipw no vipw in /usr/xpg4/bin /sbin /bin /usr/sbin /usr/bin /usr/dt/bin /usr/openwin/bin /usr/ccs/bin e that my PATH has /usr/xpg4/bin first. My shell is What did it say up there on the top of the man page? It says SunOS/BSD, so right there at that point in time you know that we're talking /usr/ucb/, and that should be your 0.01ms answer at 03:00 AM in the morning when I wake you up and ask you where `vipw` is (;-) I recently adopted a style of doing things that may be Linux like and thus a bad thing in the strict UNIX world. I began to put my root user in a home directory of /root along with all of the dot files that get created for the root user. Oh no, et tu, Brutus? That is indeed a very Linux-centric way of doing things. But honestly, why in the world should I care if there are a bunch of root's .*rc files in /? Why, why, why?!?!?!? What difference does it make? How does it damage system's integrity? People create /usr/local/ and violate the entire System V FileSystem layout mandate, and yet we fret over whether root's files are stored in /? Or am I the only one seeing the absurdity of /root? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: SUNWscpu ? Am I old fashioned and confused ?
Do you realize what this could mean ? It could mean that separate filesystems could be abolished. At least once upon a time, way way back in the Solaris 2.5.1 days I would regularly create a separate / and /var and /usr and certainly a separate /opt on any server or workstation. These days I have made to switch to big fat root with /opt still separate. Perhaps ZFS will allow me to toss _everything_ into a ZFS hierarchy. What the... I haven't used separate FileSystems since PROM 1.x, where the / FS couldn't be booted by the PROM if it had been greater than 1GB. Look: df -h Filesystem Size Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/md/dsk/d0 16G 7.6G 8.1G49%/ /devices 0K 0K 0K 0%/devices ctfs 0K 0K 0K 0%/system/contract proc 0K 0K 0K 0%/proc mnttab 0K 0K 0K 0%/etc/mnttab swap 1.1G 648K 1.1G 1%/etc/svc/volatile objfs0K 0K 0K 0%/system/object fd 0K 0K 0K 0%/dev/fd swap 1.2G 175M 1.1G14%/tmp swap 1.1G44K 1.1G 1%/var/run Do you see that? That's one single FileSystem for everything, on an 18GB disk no less. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] However, the zfs file system /export/zfs_0 must be shared ?? What ?
Dennis Clarke wrote: What the heck is that /export/zfs_0 is already shared. ?? No its not. So I setup the share manually in /etc/dfs/dfstab thus : # vi /etc/dfs/dfstab /etc/dfs/dfstab 1 lines, 97 characters share -F nfs -o ro=isis,root=isis -d jumpstart /export/zfs_0/jumpstart/s10/SXCRb35 So why did you do that rather than what it suggested you should do which is: # zfs set sharenfs=ro=isis,root=isis zfs_0 -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [request-sponsor] Re: [osol-discuss] Contributing Code
John Levon writes: I really wish people would just remove themselves as RE when they're not doing anything, I find it really annoying. I bet there's a number of bugs that actually aren't getting fixed due to old RE entries. There's no way to tell. The standing rule I've heard is that if you see something you're interested in, and it hasn't been touched in a long time, then contact the RE to see if he'd be willing to give it up. The answer is almost always yes. That's why those fields don't get reset. It's just too easy to work around the problem, so nobody bothers fixing it. Listing bugs by time of last modification (rather than RE != NULL or dispatch/accept) might be more interesting. I still think, though, that the accepted/dispatched distinction is important, and that finding ways to encourage better use of the tools is a better plan. I have no idea how you plan to encourage people to keep information in bugster accurate, but I wish you the best of luck :) Extremely irritating cron jobs and pointed sticks come to mind. :-/ -- James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] However, the zfs file system /export/zfs_0 must be shared ?? What ?
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 14:01, Dennis Clarke wrote: I like to perform little experiments. Its my nature. ... So I wondered to myself .. just how small a footprint can SXCR have? I know that Eric Bootilier did some interesting work with the reduced core install cluster and I was thinking of starting there and then ripping out packages until the system fell over or became just barely useable. I spent some time on this too, at about the same time Eric was doing his stuff. I got production servers down to 74 packages in S10 - and you could slash that quite a bit further if you don't mind losing functionality. http://www.petertribble.co.uk/Solaris/miniinstall.html -- -Peter Tribble L.I.S., University of Hertfordshire - http://www.herts.ac.uk/ http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris Featured in Linux Format Magazine--with BeliniX DVD!
This just in from Chhandomay--the OpenSolaris feature and BeliniX DVD is out.. in the April edition of Linux Format. Congrats Moinak! thanks Dennis! Thanks ERIC! Great visibility for the OpenSolaris community! Cheers! LKR --- All: Mike Saunders published a very positive, in-depth 'how to' article for OpenSolaris in this month's Linux Format. The article was accompanied by a DVD of OpenSolaris distribution Belenix 0.4a. Linux Format is the top selling Linux publication in the UK and also has significant readership in the US. Saunders wrote the how-to and installation guide based on his own testing of OpenSolaris using the included Belenix distribution in the accompanying DVD. The combined how-to and DVD in this publication are ideal for reaching out to Linux developers and users, and should be a great lead generator for additional trial runs of OpenSolaris. Overall this is a very positive piece. Saunders opens the article by praising Solaris, highlighting "it has an excellent and well-deserved reputation of being rock-solid and speedy on multi-CPU servers its very much the OS of choice for large-scale Oracle database systems." He then goes into the benefits of running opening up Solaris to a community audience. The piece is quite technical and walks users for the steps of installing and running OpenSolaris. On the feature side, Saunders encourages users to visit the open versions of Dtrace and Solaris Zones -- highlighting these as two tremendous features of Solaris 10. Saunders highlights through the 'how-to' piece that while OpenSolaris - and Solaris in general - are decent for desktop environment, that it really shines with large servers. He mentions, " Cosmetically, Belenix is similar to many Linux distributions. Solaris was already heading in this direction before Sun open sourced it, as Solaris 10 (the current release) uses the Gnome-based JDS as its default desktop environment. It's when you dig under the surface that you uncover the astoundingly powerful features and capabilities that have kept Solaris a favourite of many admins. Theyre not the kind of features that will revolutionise a desktop experience, but on big iron machines theyre mightily valuable." The article is only available in print, but we received a PDF of the article and have attached below. Many people contributed to the success of this piece. Many thanks go to Laura Ramsey for pulling this all together under a very tight deadline, and to Moinak Ghosh, Dennis Clarke, and Eric Boutlier for contributions to the DVD. Thanks Chhandomay ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
Hey, On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 20:03 -0400, Bill Rushmore wrote: I see no reason why the community needs yet another project. We have two good places to get what we need what could a new community here provide besides usurping what has been done already? Again, I am not saying this to be arguementive, I am just still not getting why we need this. Now Sun may have need for this to address open source software for Solaris, but if I ran the show at Sun I would just put the resources that would be used for the CCD into Blastwave.) I think we need to scope this out, both in terms of process, technical and user requirements - if proposing a new project does that, then I think it's for the best. I don't think anyone can really morally stand up and say 'Use Blastwave' or 'Use X, Y and Z' without really sitting down, putting some hard thought into what we need, and figuring out what the current situation is. Political or personal problems aside, if this is going to fly, we're all going to have to make compromises for greater gain, Sun included. I'll be the first to stand up to say that I'm disappointed in how the opening in CCD has been handled, but given that I've gone through a similar thing in helping to get the JDS source and build environments opened, I'm not hugely surprised. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
Bill Rushmore writes: I see no reason why the community needs yet another project. I hope we're not heading down a path where project creation can be vetoed. The Project support on opensolaris.org should be available for all ideas -- good, bad, and even duplicate ones. The existence of a project doesn't dictate acceptance, and it is reasonable to point out areas of overlap or foreseeable issues to new projects. That's been done here and heard loud and clear. Still, a project is simply a place to discuss and maybe even prototype ideas in an open manner. If there isn't such a place, people will be driven to other venues than opensolaris.org to collaborate on as-yet unproven ideas. That seems like an unfortunate outcome worth avoiding. (Communities, of course, have stricter non-duplication rules.) To me, the initial goal of the Companion project is to get what Sun's been doing for years out in the open. That way we can all discuss the goals of each freeware-distribution mechansim objectively and see if they can be reconciled in such a way that a single source base can meet the requirements of the many constituents. I sincerely hope such reconciliation of technical goals is possible. All of that said, I'd still love to understand how it is that someone can grab the source for all of blastwave and rebuild it on their own machine. Is that possible? Planned? liane (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time) -- Liane Praza, Solaris Kernel Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://blogs.sun.com/lianep ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 20:03 -0400, Bill Rushmore wrote: I see no reason why the community needs yet another project. We have two good places to get what we need what could a new community here provide besides usurping what has been done already? Again, I am not saying this to be arguementive, I am just still not getting why we need this. Now Sun may have need for this to address open source software for Solaris, but if I ran the show at Sun I would just put the resources that would be used for the CCD into Blastwave.) I think we need to scope this out, both in terms of process, technical and user requirements - if proposing a new project does that, then I think it's for the best. I don't think anyone can really morally stand up and say 'Use Blastwave' or 'Use X, Y and Z' without really sitting down, putting some hard thought into what we need, and figuring out what the current situation is. Political or personal problems aside, if this is going to fly, we're all going to have to make compromises for greater gain, Sun included. I'll be the first to stand up to say that I'm disappointed in how the opening in CCD has been handled, but given that I've gone through a similar thing in helping to get the JDS source and build environments opened, I'm not hugely surprised. Glynn There must be a way in which we can work together. Compromises made and fences dropped. I am always trying to be a peace maker despite all my noise and passion. There must be a way to proceed with a dream that I have had for years and years. I once had this vision that Solaris users could simply jump into a The Network is the Computer sort of project and have instant access to software tools, people, documentation and a whole community that works together to solve each others problems and openly exchange ideas. The open source needs of Solaris users begs for such a construct. Blastwave was created such that people in the Solaris community could get a free account and have access to the tools and the hardware and the people. For free. They could create and share. Back when those tools were big money this was a cool thing. I have been holding in reserve a whole other domain name, OPN4.org and all other extensions. Open for users. Open for corporate and even just Open for me. I had this dream that I could somehow build a net of systems running a host of services that people could join, access use and share. For free. I'm most likely just a dreamer. -- Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
Dennis Clarke wrote: There must be a way in which we can work together. Compromises made and fences dropped. I am always trying to be a peace maker despite all my noise and passion. So that's a +1 from you in favor of Keith's proposal to set up a project area/mailing list on opensolaris.org where the Companion Software project can work together with the community to determine what the best path forward is and tear down the fence that's kept the Companion Software project internal until now? -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
Dennis Clarke writes: All of that said, I'd still love to understand how it is that someone can grab the source for all of blastwave and rebuild it on their own machine. Is that possible? Planned? Have a look at : http://svn.blastwave.org/ Please read : http://svn.blastwave.org/wiki/GettingStarted There are 478 of the packages data in there plus the entire ON src. The other 1000 or so packages are being migrated in place. This is all being done and has been in progress for 6 months. Cool! I'll take a look. Glad to see that this aspect of our goals are aligned. :) thanks, liane -- Liane Praza, Solaris Kernel Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://blogs.sun.com/lianep ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
On 4/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Rushmore writes: I see no reason why the community needs yet another project. I hope we're not heading down a path where project creation can be vetoed. The Project support on opensolaris.org should be available for all ideas -- good, bad, and even duplicate ones. The existence of a project doesn't dictate acceptance, and it is reasonable to point out areas of overlap or foreseeable issues to new projects. That's been done here and heard loud and clear. perhaps project approval is just too easy for Sun's pet projects. This project was okayed only by Sun employees, I didn't notice anyone outside of Sun giving an okay on this project, and at least one of the one of the two people that okayed the project had a vested interest in it, (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time), Perhaps persons with a vested interest in a project should recuse themselfs from the approval proccess. I feel something as important as an OpenSource instalation standards needs broarder support than just a couple members of the project approving it. It will be too easy for this project to create a standard that doesn't meet the current needs of the community, that appears to have chosen sunfreeware and blastwave as standards allready. Still, a project is simply a place to discuss and maybe even prototype ideas in an open manner. If there isn't such a place, people will be driven to other venues than opensolaris.org to collaborate on as-yet unproven ideas. That seems like an unfortunate outcome worth avoiding. this particular project seems to need more than a project offers, it really needs to be a community to support the numerous packages that this encompasses. (Communities, of course, have stricter non-duplication rules.) To me, the initial goal of the Companion project is to get what Sun's been doing for years out in the open. That way we can all discuss the goals of each freeware-distribution mechansim objectively and see if they can be reconciled in such a way that a single source base can meet the requirements of the many constituents. I sincerely hope such reconciliation of technical goals is possible. it would of been better to engnlist parties that are involved to work together on this task, so that you would have broarder support. All of that said, I'd still love to understand how it is that someone can grab the source for all of blastwave and rebuild it on their own machine. Is that possible? Planned? yes its planned, a subversion repository is being setup and will be ready for code to be added to it shortly. James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com liane (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time) -- Liane Praza, Solaris Kernel Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://blogs.sun.com/lianep ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 08:03:54PM -0400, Bill Rushmore wrote: I see no reason why the community needs yet another project. We have two good places to get what we need what could a new community here provide besides usurping what has been done already? Again, I am not saying this to be arguementive, I am just still not getting why we need this. No one is 'usurping' anything. This project team is not demanding that Blastwave be disbanded. Nor are we intending to go off and reimplement exactly what others have done and call it the Official OpenSolaris Software Distribution And All Others Suck And Must Not Be Used Because Sun Says So. That name would be way too long and does not have a convenient abbreviation (you can laugh here; that's not the real reason). The Companion has a few advantages over Blastwave. One of the most important is that we do not duplicate software which is already in current builds of Solaris (put another way, it's in another OpenSolaris consolidation). This comes at a price - we don't support older releases. Neither Blastwave nor Sunfreeware has solved this problem, and it's quite a serious one, especially where libraries are concerned. James touched on this issue in one of his earlier messages. One of the things we'd like to do with the Companion is find a really good way to gracefully retire components once they're integrated into another consolidation, while still providing the necessary functionality to users of older OS releases. Another advantage, while not a technical one, is that some Solaris customers are more comfortable using the Companion than software obtained elsewhere. I'll be the first to admit that there's no good reason - Sun provides no support whatever for this product. Nevertheless, whatever we produce will see the widest usage if it's considered Sun-blessed. The Companion also offers us a way to start testing some of the processes and tools needed by the rest of OpenSolaris. Because the process around the Companion is much lighter-weight than that used by most other consolidations, we'll be able to start simple and add more tools and process steps when other consolidations are ready to use them. Ultimately, the processes and tools we'll need for ON and other large consolidations will have to scale far better, and offer more stringent quality checks, than Blastwave's current processes can. That means it will be possible to deliver a better product with less work. I know Dennis and the many package maintainers spend tens of thousands of hours every year in support of Blastwave. With better tools - tools which they won't have to build and maintain themselves and which will in time become familiar to and comfortable for all OpenSolaris contributors - much of that time might be saved. The same could be said for Sunfreeware. Certainly Blastwave is way ahead of us in terms of distribution - if you look at the Sun pages for the Companion, they're laughable, especially dependency management (or lack thereof). I'm not convinced that pkg-get is the best solution to this problem, despite its readily apparent efficacy. In many ways it seems that pkg-get exists mainly because the right fix would have required changes to the packaging tools themselves, and the source was simply not available at the time. With that problem addressed, this issue deserves a second look. But we all recognise that the future of third-party software distribution is a network-enabled one, and it's embarrassing that Sun has done so little to move in that direction with the Companion. Even in the worst case, Sun will need to continue to offer something like the Companion. If we can't work together on this project with contributors to other efforts, there's little chance that management would desire to co-bundle the product of one of those other efforts, either. Even if that unfortunate outcome results here, it's still preferable that the Companion be developed openly. Thus, this project is still needed; projects are the basic containers for work. But more hopefully, we invite and encourage the Blastwave team and any other interested parties to participate - this is not a reimplementation or usurpation but rather an exercise in improvement and unification. One thing I think everyone will agree with is that users benefit greatly from having a single place to get the latest software, linked consistently and in a way that avoids both duplication and conflicts. In the best case, this project will deliver on this goal. We're a long way from there if the bitterness in this thread is any indication. So let me make clear that there are no preconceived notions about how the endgame is to be reached. If everyone agrees that Blastwave is ahead of the Companion in every conceivable way and that every solution chosen by Blastwave is clearly correct, perhaps this project becomes a thin wrapper around the existing Blastwave effort, providing the Sun stamp of approval that some
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
James Dickens writes: perhaps project approval is just too easy for Sun's pet projects. Or any community member's pet project... The projects page says: The process for requesting a new project requires that a community member write a proposal to the opensolaris-discuss list and at least one other community member agree with the proposal. There's no statement about employer there. If you'd like one, perhaps that's a matter to take up with the OGB? and at least one of the one of the two people that okayed the project had a vested interest in it, (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time), I said that in the interest of full-disclosure. It seemed dishonest to not reveal my participation. it would of been better to engnlist parties that are involved to work together on this task, so that you would have broarder support. I hope all interested parties will participate in the discussion once the project mailing list is open. liane -- Liane Praza, Solaris Kernel Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://blogs.sun.com/lianep ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
perhaps project approval is just too easy for Sun's pet projects. This project was okayed only by Sun employees, I didn't notice anyone outside of Sun giving an okay on this project, and at least one of the one of the two people that okayed the project had a vested interest in it, (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time), Perhaps persons with a vested interest in a project should recuse themselfs from the approval proccess. Sorry if I'm mistaken, but if nobody with a vested interest okayed things, nothing would ever get okayed. You quite obviously have a vested interest in this topic (or at least appear to have one..) Does that make your input/okay/yes/no not worthwhile? I feel something as important as an OpenSource instalation standards needs broarder support than just a couple members of the project approving it. It will be too easy for this project to create a standard that doesn't meet the current needs of the community, that appears to have chosen sunfreeware and blastwave as standards allready. I think starting a project/community to discuss this kind of collaboration as asked for by Dennis and so forth isn't creating a standard dictated by Sun. It's just a discussion forum.. Time will tell how standards come out of it, from the looks of things they will come when everybody involved comes to a general consensus. That's how things should happen, anyways. I don't agree with having packages only built one way, with no recourse in changing options. Currently, that's where I'm stuck with blastwave. I understand this is changing, but this kind of discussion would be better served by a forum *for* this kind of discussion, instead of on a general discussion list. this particular project seems to need more than a project offers, it really needs to be a community to support the numerous packages that this encompasses. So starting a project/community/whatever you want to call it in order to plan and lay out the future direction of this particular facet of OpenSolaris is bad? I don't understand your logic. It would seem to me this would benefit all of those involved, Dennis and so forth included. I don't see this as some kind of draconian Sun-run group that doesn't allow anybody any freedom, and whatever they say goes. It looks like a simple attempt to create a *place* to discuss these topics and come to agreement on what the future plan should be. If that's using Blastwave, so be it. If it's taking Blastwave and morphing it into something else, so be it. It sounds like Dennis is open to anything as long as we move *forward*. it would of been better to engnlist parties that are involved to work together on this task, so that you would have broarder support. Isn't that the idea of this? yes its planned, a subversion repository is being setup and will be ready for code to be added to it shortly. Cool, Dennis went into more detail on this in an earlier post. It sounds great, and it's a necessary step in order to progress. James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
James Dickens wrote: perhaps project approval is just too easy for Sun's pet projects. Why should it be hard for any project? Perhaps Project Approval is the wrong term - this process is not supposed to indicate any stamp of approval of a proposed solution or exclusivisity - just that there's enough people interested in it to set aside a section of the opensolaris.org website and a mailing list/forum for further discussion. Project Hosting Request would be a better description, as it's akin to asking for a spot on sourceforge for project hosting, not asking for endorsement of the project goals. +1 to this does not say The Companion CD must be the one and only way of distributing packages or even The current Companion CD is the right model. All it says is This is something related to opensolaris which can have it's own section on the website and mailing list. It doesn't preclude any other projects, presuppose any conclusions, just says Let's talk - and clearly there's a lot of people who want to talk about this, including you. As for Sun's pet projects, I don't see how that has any relevance - the ksh93-integration was certainly not one of Sun's pet projects, and it sailed through. I doubt you'ld have any problem getting a second for a Blastwave project if you decided you wanted to run the blastwave mailing lists through opensolaris.org instead of blastwave.org. And even if it was easier for Sun, so what? Given that all that creating a project does is provide web space mailing lists on servers that Sun is providing and maintaining, would it be so terrible that Sun is making use of these services to provide the community with more information and opportunities for participation than they'd otherwise get? -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, James Dickens wrote: On 4/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Rushmore writes: I see no reason why the community needs yet another project. I hope we're not heading down a path where project creation can be vetoed. The Project support on opensolaris.org should be available for all ideas -- good, bad, and even duplicate ones. The existence of a project doesn't dictate acceptance, and it is reasonable to point out areas of overlap or foreseeable issues to new projects. That's been done here and heard loud and clear. perhaps project approval is just too easy for Sun's pet projects. This project was okayed only by Sun employees, I didn't notice anyone outside of Sun giving an okay on this project, and at least one of the one of the two people that okayed the project had a vested interest in it, (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time), If you, or anyone else, sees flaw(s) in the OpenSolaris project or community request/creation process, or *any* other process, then please address it on cab-discuss. Don't punish and victimize the next person/group/organization that proposes a new project. If the *process* is flawed, correct the process. As my flight instructor would say work the problem ... work-the-problem. Perhaps persons with a vested interest in a project should recuse themselfs from the approval proccess. Again - if its an approval proccess issue and you, or anyone else, feels that it needs to be addressed, bring it up on cab-discuss and encourage the CAB/OGB to work it. And continue to work the problem until you feel that it is resolved to your satisfaction. Problems with any OpenSolaris process should not manifest themselves when someone (anyone) proposes a new project or community. And I'll tell you right now, I won't/don't support or condone any form of favoritism based on anyones' email domain name or employer. We can't possibly have a workable community if there is any form of favoritism or preferential treatment. As an aside, if I live at logical-approach.com and discuss my desire to form an OpenSolaris project with my colleagues and co-workers and we reach consensus ... it's pretty obvious that if I were to propose a new OpenSolaris project, my colleauges would probably second and third the project creation request. That seems pretty natural to me I feel something as important as an OpenSource instalation standards needs broarder support than just a couple members of the project approving it. It will be too easy for this project to create a standard that doesn't meet the current needs of the community, that appears to have chosen sunfreeware and blastwave as standards allready. Addressed above. Still, a project is simply a place to discuss and maybe even prototype ideas in an open manner. If there isn't such a place, people will be driven to other venues than opensolaris.org to collaborate on as-yet unproven ideas. That seems like an unfortunate outcome worth avoiding. this particular project seems to need more than a project offers, it really needs to be a community to support the numerous packages that this encompasses. Keith already proposed a Community and did'nt receive any CAB votes. Why? Because there are already too many communities. And I'm delighted to see Keith recover from this rejection and come back with a project creation request. (Communities, of course, have stricter non-duplication rules.) To me, the initial goal of the Companion project is to get what Sun's been doing for years out in the open. That way we can all discuss the goals of each freeware-distribution mechansim objectively and see if they can be reconciled in such a way that a single source base can meet the requirements of the many constituents. I sincerely hope such reconciliation of technical goals is possible. it would of been better to engnlist parties that are involved to work together on this task, so that you would have broarder support. All of that said, I'd still love to understand how it is that someone can grab the source for all of blastwave and rebuild it on their own machine. Is that possible? Planned? yes its planned, a subversion repository is being setup and will be ready for code to be added to it shortly. James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com liane (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time) -- Liane Praza, Solaris Kernel Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://blogs.sun.com/lianep Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Rushmore writes: I see no reason why the community needs yet another project. I hope we're not heading down a path where project creation can be vetoed. The Project support on opensolaris.org should be available for all ideas -- good, bad, and even duplicate ones. The existence of a project doesn't dictate acceptance, and it is reasonable to point out areas of overlap or foreseeable issues to new projects. That's been done here and heard loud and clear. Agreed. Still, a project is simply a place to discuss and maybe even prototype ideas in an open manner. If there isn't such a place, people will be driven to other venues than opensolaris.org to collaborate on as-yet unproven ideas. That seems like an unfortunate outcome worth avoiding. Agreed. (Communities, of course, have stricter non-duplication rules.) To me, the initial goal of the Companion project is to get what Sun's been doing for years out in the open. That way we can all discuss the goals of each freeware-distribution mechansim objectively and see if they can be reconciled in such a way that a single source base can meet the requirements of the many constituents. I sincerely hope such reconciliation of technical goals is possible. +1 All of that said, I'd still love to understand how it is that someone can grab the source for all of blastwave and rebuild it on their own machine. Is that possible? Planned? liane (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time) ^^^ Alert! Alert! Massive outbreak of sarcasm detected! Possibly a 9 on the Reichter Scale. Seek immediate shelter. Alert! Alert! :) Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
Glynn Foster wrote: Hey, On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 20:03 -0400, Bill Rushmore wrote: I see no reason why the community needs yet another project. We have two good places to get what we need what could a new community here provide besides usurping what has been done already? Again, I am not saying this to be arguementive, I am just still not getting why we need this. Now Sun may have need for this to address open source software for Solaris, but if I ran the show at Sun I would just put the resources that would be used for the CCD into Blastwave.) I think we need to scope this out, both in terms of process, technical and user requirements - if proposing a new project does that, then I think it's for the best. I don't think anyone can really morally stand up and say 'Use Blastwave' or 'Use X, Y and Z' without really sitting down, putting some hard thought into what we need, and figuring out what the current situation is... +1 but I have to admit, my gut is kinda saying the Companion project is not the best place to do the scoping. The problem is, I can't think of a better way to go about it under the circumstances. Maybe that's because no meaningful scoping could even be done as long as one of the ports systems was not open to scrutiny (that being the Companion). So now that the Companion _is_ going to be released, its mail-list and project site are the default and logical place to do the general scoping. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
Dennis Clarke wrote: There must be a way in which we can work together. Compromises made and fences dropped. I am always trying to be a peace maker despite all my noise and passion. So that's a +1 from you in favor of Keith's proposal to set up a project I blatantly disagree with the creation of yet another separate project that completely replaces services and processes that already exist and have been built at great expense by the community. Anything missing is being worked on and slowly we make progress. Month after month with great effort and care. If you would like to discuss the process then you may join the Blastwave project and get involved in making change. Its a community project that pre-dates OpenSolaris. I can tell you for sure that we do need to have an open line of discussion and I will not sit back and silently nod. I have no reason to do such a thing. There has to be some middle ground. Somewhere. I generally trust my gut instincts and I am uneasy. That is why I have sat here silent for 3 hours. Now I need time to think it through. -- Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
