Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What's the best backup utility with user friendlyGUI in Unix/Linux world?
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Brett Wayne wrote: > A second on Legato ... I remember working with Legato a long time ago. Did they ever solve the issue of creating _huge_ index/tracking files? In some cases, the Legato "tracking" files were much larger than the size of an incremental backup - and you needed these files in order to restore data. Like I said - my experience is dated ... just curious. 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
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: RFE: Replace /usr/css/bin/make with
> Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How different is their "make" version (or better: > What are the differences ?) ? GNU makefiles and SUN makefiles have different syntax, and this is the main difference between "gmake" and "dmake". Sun Studio "dmake" (in serial mode) is compatible with Sun "make", they both can work with Sun makefiles, but cannot work with GNU makefiles. We plan to provide a compatibility mode in "dmake", which will allow to work with GNU makefiles. > > "dmake is not very portable" (why ?) ? > > Well, I did look into the source a few years ago. > If you have the old Univertity sources, I just recommend you to to the same. I'm responsible for "dmake", and I can say that "dmake" is portable. It was ported to Linux x86 several years ago, and now "dmake" for Linux is shipped with Sun Studio 11. It is 100% compatible with Solaris "dmake" (they have the same set of features and the same [high] level of quality). A month ago I've been asked to port "dmake" to Linux SPARC (well, not an official port, just to create an experimental version). It took about 2 days to port "dmake", and to port and run regression tests. The result was unbelievable - only about 10 of 400 tests failed, and there were no critical failures (just some differences in the log files). Thanks, Nik This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A grand unification ?
> Dennis Clarke wrote: >> ALL : >> >> >> I am certainly willing to talk. And listen. Make changes. Make peace. >> >> > Here - Here, +1 I have waited a LOT of hours to see a reply. Thank you . -- Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A grand unification ?
Dennis Clarke wrote: ALL : I am certainly willing to talk. And listen. Make changes. Make peace. Here - Here, +1 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's the best backup utility with user friendly GUI in Unix/Linux world?
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 21:31, Yu-Hui Liu wrote: > Hi, there, > > Question is quite simple as subject. What's your prefer? Tivoli Storage Manager is an enterprise-level backup solution from IBM, much like Veritas Netbackup. It uses a client-server schema -- a server manages the tape library, disk storage, etc., and the client contacts the server to specify which files are to be backed up whenever its schedule rolls around. The client, itself, runs two processes dsmsched (the process response for contacting the server initially) and dsmc (the client daemon). The dsmc process runs a web server on the client, where one may specify the files to be backed up and to restore files that have been backed up previously -- it's quite nice. The only downsides of TSM is that its (1) not free (2) requires a server and (3) not available for Solaris/x86. -- Derek E. Lewis http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dlewis/weblog [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: What's the best backup utility with user friendlyGUI in Unix/Linux world?
A second on Legato ... This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Solaris on Intel Macs??
Given the progress you guys have made on getting it booted do you think these fixes will make it into an Express build I can download sometime soon ? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation
Yeah,I'm a student too and I want to take part in some project My main specialization is security,application porting and just developing This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation
>I am a student developer and i would like to work on the following idea : > >the counterpart of powernow -> a speedstep driver for opensolaris >- supporting frequency scaling for Pentium-M processors > >i have seen a threat in the laptop forum that anybody is working on this but >nothing is >released therefore the question is this a project for SoC2006 ? Someone just contributed some Enehanced Speed Step code and as part of that we now have a "pluggable" architecture for different mechanisms. I'll push one out shortly, but I'm thinking of a now which isn't "powernow" (which for me is the most compelling reason for no external release). My current thinking is "PowerStep". Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation
I am a student developer and i would like to work on the following idea : the counterpart of powernow -> a speedstep driver for opensolaris - supporting frequency scaling for Pentium-M processors i have seen a threat in the laptop forum that anybody is working on this but nothing is released therefore the question is this a project for SoC2006 ? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [Fwd: OpenSolaris attacked by Novell]
> With that said, I'll post to my blog about this "controversary article" in > the next day or two. > I for one, love your blog. I will watch for that ! -- Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] A grand unification ?
ALL : It has been nearly a year together here. We are the greatest collection of Solaris people in the world and we are divided on so many issues. I would love to see a grand unification. Any great relationship is like a separate entity onto itself and while soft pseudo-science may not be the forte of this crowd I think observation and analysis is a strength that lives here in abundance. Sun has made the greatest of leaps and taken Solaris and made it wide open. Free! Compilers and tools free! This is a move that no one would have predicted only three years ago. Maybe we can make some great leaps also and work together as teams. Perhaps we can address a few things here and then move forwards. I know that the open source dynamic is one in which people wander into a room, they do things that suit them, meet and talk, take what they need and then leave. Or they really like the room and they stay a long long while. Can we build that room to work and play in ? I am certainly willing to talk. And listen. Make changes. Make peace. Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
So far, three systems have come to pass which are impressive for auto porting code to Solaris: 1. Portaris (Gentoo's Portage for Solaris) 2. Nexenta's Autobuilder 3. Blastwave's SVN/builder (maintained by Cory) There are the others done by NetBSD, OpenPKG, and many other people porting open software to Solaris. Gentoo has one of the most impressive GUI type systems which tells you the package versions that have passed within a certain app/lib across multiple platforms. Debian's buildd system is impressive in that you can see the most current packages being compiled and if they were successful or not. Very simple, yet stability and access to the site has varied over the years. A key thing to think about for developer support. As for the Companion DVD, a lot of software on the Nevada builds are more updated so just keeping the DVD updated is good. Mainly, what software you'd find within a Suse 10 DVD. You'd want to basically load up Solaris and Suse and be able to compile and run applications within both enviroments without too many issues. Reality is this takes a little time and effort to get apps ported to Solaris and having to deal with dependancies of other libs. Time consuming for most maintainers if those libs are not available (or difficult to port because of OS implementation oddities). Other than that, the high level processes and procedures on how all of this work is going to get done... Ken Mays Earthlink, Inc. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Having trouble with HP LTO 3 drive and Solaris (10)
Gregory C. Ramos wrote: What is the correct entry for /kernel/drv/st.conf for an HP LTO-3 drive Hi Gregory, you can find the correct entries in this url: http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/uts/common/io/scsi/targets/st_conf.c#1105 Yes, that's from the Nevada release, but a quick check of the history link http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/history/on/usr/src/uts/common/io/scsi/targets/st_conf.c reveals that the relevant RFE is 5103484 HP LTO-3 (Ultrium 3) Support Required Natively in st tape target driver which was integrated (pre-FCS of s10) into s10 build 71. http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5103484 That's all a roundabout way of saying that you shouldn't have to do anything to st.conf for your HP LTO-3 drive since the support is compiled in. best regards, James C. McPherson -- Solaris Datapath Engineering Data Management Group Sun Microsystems ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [Fwd: OpenSolaris attacked by Novell]
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 07:28 am, jonathan schwartz wrote: > Gentlefolk, y'all have blogs for a reason :) Sure, but we need some guidance. Sometimes having someone like you to lead, will allow us to follow! This is one of the better pieces of bad press we've gotten, and it shows that we're threatening them. This is exactly what we should want to see. With that said, I'll post to my blog about this "controversary article" in the next day or two. -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
On Monday 17 April 2006 08:05 pm, Eric Boutilier wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Alan DuBoff wrote: > > ... > > everyone, the blastwaves, the nexentras, pkgsrc, et > > all...or is this even possible? I think it would be > > possible to give these folks an > option by having a > > common set of libs that Sun and Community participates > > in, what do you think? > > We can certainly dream... So are you thinking that we > try to establish something an /opt/groflib (GRand-unified > OpenSolaris Freeware Library), mangaged by a non-partisan > "governing" body. And encourage all stacks to contribute > to maintaining a high quality/quantity /opt/groflib, and > (more importantly, (IMO) agree to treat /opt/groflib with the > same deference as they now treat /usr/lib... Eric, I don't know yet. IOW, I would like to first understand if that is even possible. To do that I think we need to understand what each party with interest in this would need, or if they would be interested. I don't know that this would work, but yes, if we had one set of common libs that all the various projects could build off of, maybe we could control the fragmentation in the system that continues to happen with various distros of freeware. -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
(moving to companion-discuss) On Wednesday 19 April 2006 08:35 am, Eric Boutilier wrote: > I'm not sure Nexenta's implementation is the way to go though. It seems > to me that Phil's pkg-get -- being designed around Sun's implementation > of the SVr4 packaging standard -- seems like the better candidate, or > maybe something new based on the patch software (that is currently used > for updating Solaris)... I agree, but want to understand things better before saying. -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
