[osol-discuss] SVOSUG - REMINDER - July 25, *Tues* meeting The Zen of Xen 7:30pm SCA03
** SPECIAL ADDED ATTRACTION * Folks, I'm glad to announce that we have a special added attraction. Recently, Jim Mauro and Richard McDougall updated and came out with a new edition of their Solaris Internals book. Both of these dynamic duo will be giving a short presentation and will be at our meeting tomorrow/today (depending on your sleeping patterns). Please feel free to bring your books and have Jim and Richard sign them, they said they would be more than happy to do so. A great opportunity to be able to meet both of these folks and ask any questions you might have. ** SPECIAL ADDED ATTRACTION * And of course, the main presentation of the evening. I hear rumor that Todd Clayton and be on hand with Tim Marsland. Will John Danielson show up to be on hand also? You'll have to show up or call in to find out, I don't know myself! LOL! Hi folks, Please make note, the meeting is moved to Tuesday night due to a scheduling conflict in the room we hold our meeting in at the Sun Santa Clara campus, upstairs from the auditorium. This will be next Tuesday, July 25th, 2006. The meeting is moved to Tues rather than Thurs as we have been doing, so that we can have the same space we've been using. This month we have a treat for all, and Sun Fellow, Tim Marsland will be speaking on The Zen of Xen. This is a much talked about topic for many folks and Tim Co. have delivered code to OpenSolaris so that Xen can run under Solaris. We will have a call-in number so that remote folks can hear and be a part of our meeting. Please use the call-in info below. This is limted to the first 125 users. When: Tuesday*, July 25th, 2006 Where: Sun's Santa Clara Campus Auditorium (upstairs) What: The Zen of Xen Time: 7:30pm-10:00pm Map: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/aland/scasj_dirmap.pdf Call-in Info: Toll Free: 866-545-5227 Intnl/pay: 865-673-6950 Conference: 809-64-14 -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] bug database improvement
as already stated last year http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=787tstart=15 the public view on the bug database could be improved. Any progress on this to report? bbr This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: ONNV
+1. A small question, why not ON11? Does it has anything different? Just curious. :-) Same reason it's not ON-NV; life goes on after Solaris Nevada. I suggest the community be named OS-NET; ONNV has the NV disambiguator which ON lacks. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ONNV - ON community renaming proposal
Eric Lowe writes: And while you're at it, would you create a Nevada project which is sponsored by the ON community? Or is everyone content with the current structure as-is? I have at least one point of confusion about this plan. I suspect it's probably something that someone has discussed somewhere before, but I can't find a reference to it. The point of having a Nevada project would be, I assume, to manage release content and (at least indirectly) schedules. But aren't those issues that _should_ ultimately be decided by each distribution? Should we be committing every Open Solaris based distribution to obeying the ebb and flow of Sun Solaris release schedules? When they come into conflict, what's the right dividing line between needing to pick and choose the components that belong in a given release, and coordinating those decisions across distributions? (My guess is that the underlying issue is that ON is too big. :-/) -- 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] Re: Solaris on Intel Macs??
Alan, May I be so bold as to inquire as to which model and any caveats that you may have encountered? Thank you in advance. -- Darren -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan DuBoff Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:17 PM To: Everett F Batey II; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Solaris on Intel Macs?? On Monday 24 July 2006 01:46 pm, Everett F Batey II wrote: Anyone running Parallels Desktop (sold on Apple Website), just appeared, for Sol x86 10? /Everett / 805 340-6471 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, but there are a couple folks that have this running like this and like it. I just installed Solaris to one and running it on the metal. -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: ONNV
Steve == Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve The initial leaders will be: Steve mjnelson (Mark J. Nelson) Steve dduvall (Danek Duvall) Steve dm120769 (Dave Marker) Steve petede (Pete Dennis) Steve stevel (Stephen Lau) Steve garypen (Gary Pennington) Let me ask a process question here. This is the second proposed project I've seen in a week that has had more than 1 or 2 leaders. What is it about the way we set up projects in OpenSolaris that causes us to want more than 1 or 2 leaders? Is it something structural? When we have so many leaders, I begin to wonder who's left to follow the leaders. Thanks. -- Dave Marquardt Sun Microsystems, Inc. Austin, TX +1 512 401-1077 (SUN internal: x64077) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: ONNV
Dave Marquardt writes: Let me ask a process question here. This is the second proposed project I've seen in a week that has had more than 1 or 2 leaders. What is it about the way we set up projects in OpenSolaris that causes us to want more than 1 or 2 leaders? Is it something structural? When we have so many leaders, I begin to wonder who's left to follow the leaders. Thanks. At least for me, a major annoyance is that as a non-leader but as a mere project contributor, I must beg one of the leaders to update the web page when one of my own documents changes. I consider it to be a fairly irritating issue -- especially as I'm not fortunately enough to be a networking leader. I do think we need some way to allow authorized write access to the common project web pages that does not involve special rituals. -- 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] Project Proposal: ONNV
Dave Marquardt wrote: Let me ask a process question here. This is the second proposed project I've seen in a week that has had more than 1 or 2 leaders. What is it about the way we set up projects in OpenSolaris that causes us to want more than 1 or 2 leaders? Is it something structural? In terms of the opensolaris.org website, leader == person who can edit the community/project web pages.(It looks like a wiki, takes custom syntax like a wiki, but has far more restrictive permissions than most wikis.) -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: ONNV
Joey Guo wrote: A small question, why not ON11? Does it has anything different? Just curious. :-) Because when we were wrapping up Solaris 10, and needed to start working on the next version, management marketing hadn't decided yet what that would be, so the name Nevada was chosen to represent the next version. (If you go back to the first 15 builds or so, uname reported 5.10.1, which would have been Solaris 10.1 - it then changed to 5.11, which logically would be Solaris 11, but until marketing actually announces it's decided to follow the pattern, we can't know it will be 11.) If you go back in the old code names, you can see previous mistakes trapped in time, such as on81, which became Solaris 9 instead of 8.1, and on28, which became Solaris 8 instead of 2.8. A neutral name like Nevada avoids betting marketing won't change their mind before release. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: ONNV
* James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-25 07:30]: Dave Marquardt writes: Let me ask a process question here. This is the second proposed project I've seen in a week that has had more than 1 or 2 leaders. What is it about the way we set up projects in OpenSolaris that causes us to want more than 1 or 2 leaders? Is it something structural? When we have so many leaders, I begin to wonder who's left to follow the leaders. Thanks. At least for me, a major annoyance is that as a non-leader but as a mere project contributor, I must beg one of the leaders to update the web page when one of my own documents changes. I consider it to be a fairly irritating issue -- especially as I'm not fortunately enough to be a networking leader. I do think we need some way to allow authorized write access to the common project web pages that does not involve special rituals. Yes. Splitting the editorial and administrative aspects of project leadership is a planned change. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: ONNV
Dave Marquardt wrote: Steve == Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve The initial leaders will be: Steve mjnelson (Mark J. Nelson) Steve dduvall (Danek Duvall) Steve dm120769 (Dave Marker) Steve petede (Pete Dennis) Steve stevel (Stephen Lau) Steve garypen (Gary Pennington) Let me ask a process question here. This is the second proposed project I've seen in a week that has had more than 1 or 2 leaders. What is it about the way we set up projects in OpenSolaris that causes us to want more than 1 or 2 leaders? Is it something structural? When we have so many leaders, I begin to wonder who's left to follow the leaders. Thanks. My rationale for the leaders were the engineers on the ONNV C-team: Tech lead (mjnelson), assistant tech lead (petede) Gatekeeper (dduvall) assistant gatekeeper (dm120769) + two engineers from the tonic/opensolaris i-team who have been working on SCM related issues: myself and garypen. Since this project will involve a fair bit of work between the two teams, it made sense to have representatives from both teams - and having two of each representative (tech lead, gatekeeper, and SCM) made sense in case one was gone for vacation or something. cheers, steve -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris Weekly News #21
Hey, LIVE from the O'Reilly Conference in Portland, Oregon I bring you the latest news from OpenSolaris - it's been a busy week, and a bloody miracle I've managed to get it out :) Glynn == John Levon announced [1] that a new Xen release was now available, for both binaries and source code, adding support for Solaris domain 0, 64-bit, MP, and working Solaris features like DTrace among many other updates [2]. 1. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-announce/2006-July/000192.html 2. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/xen/relnotes/ Steve Lau announced [3] new builds for ON, including the nightly and Mecurial changesets. 3. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-announce/2006-July/000194.html Eric Boutilier announced [4] that 3 historical ARC cases had now been published - PSARC 2004/471 'dispadmin(1M) -d behavior change, -u option', PSARC 2005/485 'Zone Rename', and PSARC 2006/134 'logadm(1m) $zonename keyword'. 4. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/arc-discuss/2006-July/34.html Sara Dornsife mailed [5] with a proposal for the trademark plan for OpenSolaris. Sara mentioned that this was a significant achievement, allowing a 3rd party to grant 3rd parties permission to use a Sun trademark. 5. http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/private/cab-discuss/2006-July/000568.html Ken Mays announced [6] that the latest GNOME development 2.16 packages had been merged into Blastwave. 6. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/desktop-discuss/2006-July/001545.html Andrei Dorofeev mailed [7] with a heads up for new updated ipw/iwi wireless drivers for build 44 of Nevada, because the current ones caused a panic. The 0.5 package should only be used for post 44 builds. 7. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/laptop-discuss/2006-July/001532.html Sara Dornsife invited [8] anyone who came around to the booth at OSCON to a free orange OpenSolaris shirt. 8. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-mktg/2006-July/001542.html Dan Price reported [9] that he had made significant cleanups to webrev [10], adding a PDF version of the review materials. 9. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-July/000742.html 10. http://cr.grommit.com/ Bryan O'Sullivan announced [11] that Mercurial 0.9.1 [12] was now released including a huge number of new features and performance updates. 11. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-July/000760.html 12. http://selenic.com/mercurial/release Linda Bernal posted [13] new search mockups of the bugs.opensolaris.org. Linda mentioned that she didn't yet have a timeline for these changes. 13. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/website-discuss/2006-July/000724.html Teresa Giacomini proposed [14] a new project proposal, the OpenSolaris starter kit, focusing on installation of an OpenSolaris distribution on an x86/x64 laptop. 14. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-July/018605.html Victor Li proposed [15] a new project for iSNS server, for RFC4171 Internet Storage Name Service. 15. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-July/018644.html Alexey Starovoytov proposed two projects [16][17] for the support of GCCfss and gcc 4 in ON, and integration of GCCfss into SFW. 16. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-July/018650.html 17. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-July/018651.html Anders Persson proposed [18] a project for MIB support into OpenSolaris, for several new RFC's that specify new MIBs for IP, ICMP, TCP and UDP. 18. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-July/018669.html Nils Nieuwejaar announced [19] that a new build of BrandZ was available, bringing things in sync with Nevada build 43, also introducing a new installer. 19. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-July/018693.html Danek Duvall proposed [20] that the current ONNV community should be renamed to just ON, where ONNV would more likely become a project instead. Steve Lau followed up [21] with a project proposal, which would host the main ON mercurial repository. 20. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-July/018710.html 21. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-July/018733.html ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: ONNV
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Dave Marquardt wrote: Let me ask a process question here. This is the second proposed project I've seen in a week that has had more than 1 or 2 leaders. What is it about the way we set up projects in OpenSolaris that causes us to want more than 1 or 2 leaders? Is it something structural? In terms of the opensolaris.org website, leader == person who can edit the community/project web pages.(It looks like a wiki, takes custom syntax like a wiki, but has far more restrictive permissions than most wikis.) I should point out that the Governance document (currently under review on cab-discuss) tries to clear this up a bit. Issues with the web site aside, the term leader will likely be superceded by core contributor. The idea is for each subcommunity to be able to implement their own rules for updates and the like, provided those rules are within the spirit of the Charter and Governance doc. Under thos cirucmstances, there's no reason why a community couldn't open up their wiki pages to people like James Carlson. The Governance doc is still a work in progress, but we (the CAB) think that it is nearing completion. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Solaris on Intel Macs??
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 06:39 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan, May I be so bold as to inquire as to which model and any caveats that you may have encountered? Thank you in advance. -- Darren Sure, I'm running it on a MacBook Pro 15, but I think it will work on any of the new models, including the mini-mac, but don't know for certain. There's a gent by my office that is running Parellels on a mini-mac and a similar MacBook Pro, but I wanted to run it on the metal and understand what does and what doesn't work properly. If you have one, and you want to get it running, post here as JanS is really the person that helped me get it going, and I know that Jan tracks this mailing list. I have also heard of at least one person who made his unbootable by trying to get it booting, and then had to start all over again. There's work to do, but there is a NIC driver which can be downloaded from Marvell/SysKonnect. It has a few rough areas, but seems to work. No wifi, and none of the others stuff like ambient sensor or stuff like that work. -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: integrate GCCfss into SFW
Michael, Rainer Orth wrote: I think here's an important misunderstanding: this is not how free software works. If Sun as a vendor or the OpenSolaris community as a whole rely on GCC in some way (as Sun has done for the initial amd64 port), it is their responsibility to test GCC on their platform, make sure that it continues to work seamlessly, and make sure that new features requiring platform-specific code are supported on Solaris as well. Sun has done the first two things: 1) tested gcc 3.4.3 on the platform 2) make sure that it (gcc 3.4.3) continues to work seamlessly (we don't have the expertise for this at Sun, so thus the contract with CSL) But, Sun has not done the third item (support new features as they come out). Why not? Well, I think there's an important distinction between supporting *a* gcc compiler in S10 (which is critical for many users/customers/developers of Solaris/OpenSolaris), and supporting the gcc compiler release stream (certainly nice, but not critical for most user/customers/developers). while this is somewhat understandable from Sun's point of view, I don't think this is wise: gcc is critical infrastructure for many Solaris users, and they see that it works seamlessly on other platforms (both Linux and commercial unices like AIX and Mac OS X), with full support for all languages, as of every release. They will often depend on it, and newer features/runtime library support whatsoever, in recent releases, only to find that this is not equally the case on Solaris. Sun did choose gcc 3.4.3 (branch) as the first supported gcc compiler. I don't think that necessarily implies any timetable for Solaris/OpenSolaris support of subsequent versions. Solaris/OpenSolaris should be able to support new versions when it makes sense to do so, not just when the next version comes out. I think we have two issues here: which GCC releases to bundle with (Open)Solaris, and which GCC releases are well supported on (Open)Solaris. The former question certainly needs to be investigated carefully, considering support costs, migration problems etc. This is the same for Linux distributions etc. which probably don't ship every available GCC release, but select one and stay with that for the release's livetime. The latter question is different, IMO: since GCC is quite a moving target, catching up with recent developments after months or even years of neglect can be cumbersome and costly, and since many Solaris users have come to depend on newer GCC versions even if they are not bundled with Solaris, it is our responsibility as a community that Solaris becomes and remains a first-class citizen for GCC development. So, when does it make sense to do so? I think this thread is an excellent start at this discussion, because we're getting at some of the core issues involved in deciding when and how to upgrade gcc: - gcc compiler library changes causing binary incompatibility - stability - support (including the branch question) - changes needed for OpenSolaris itself (which haven't all been made yet) Are there others that I've missed? I can't see any offhand. But this addresses only the question when to integrate a newer version. Nobody else will do this for us. This is how other vendors like IBM, HP, Apple and the Linux distributors handle this: many of them invest considerable time and man power to GCC development. There's a built-in assumption in this statement that free software works the same way for everybody (it's an Appeal to Common Practice, I think. I just learned that term on Slashdot, which I was reading during the day for educational reasons only, I swear! :-) :-). I don't think it works the same for everybody -- even companies that depend upon free software as a critical part of their product do not invest time and manpower into development. In my experience (open source XML parsers), vendor participation in open source development was the exception, rather than the rule, even from companies who used the open source component as the core of their application. This may be a possible cause of action for software that is relatively platform-independent. For highly platform dependent stuff like a compiler and its runtime libraries, I don't think this works out: unless the users of the platform (i.e. the OpenSolaris community) make sure GCC is tested regulary, bugs and regressions are reported as soon as they are detected, preferably fix them themselves (or pay someone to do so), and implement new features requiring platform dependent code, GCC's support for the platform is guaranteed to deteriorate quickly (as I've observed myself e.g. for Tru64 UNIX and IRIX), and it will require a considerable effort to get this fixed at some later point in time. Therefore I think it makes more sense, both for Sun and the community, to make sure GCC works seamlessly for every release, even if
[osol-discuss] IMPT: Site Maintenance Tomorrow (07/26)
All, We are making changes to our machine configurations tomorrow so we will be taking down the site for approximately 1 hour. We will the provide specific outage times tomorrow at 10:30 AM PDT. Mail lists should function properly during this time. Please refer any questions or comments to website-discuss. Thanks, Derek -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: ONNV
so the name Nevada was chosen to represent the next version. [...] A neutral name like Nevada avoids betting marketing won't change their mind before release. If the community is going to be ON (which I'm not thrilled with; I'd rather see it called something a little less esoteric), then why not call the project Nevada instead of ONNV? Many people, even not directly part of the community, recognize the name Nevada and it would be less confusing than ONNV. -spp This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
