Re: [osol-discuss] NV-64a 64bit to 32 bit
> I'm having a problem switching to 32 bit mode. > > Old ways of modifying menu.lst not working. > > Thanks in advance You're right. The kernel parameter "kernel/unix" used to do the trick. Now it doesn't. Sorry couldn't help. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NV-64a 64bit to 32 bit
I'm having a problem switching to 32 bit mode. Old ways of modifying menu.lst not working. Thanks in advance This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: and any lawyer worth the air he or she breathes to sufficiently dispute this in court, I think. On 8/10/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > they have a specific side they err on, and this is one of > those issues that seems to be accepted by them. Unless the putting the code into gpl tree is something we *badly want*, if there is ambiguity and scope for legal battle, err on the side that avoids litigation. No point in getting into litigations that distracts & frustrates everyone. While contributing CDDL code to GPL code might not be a problem, that part of the contributed CDDL code would need to be re-licensed or dual-licensed under GPL compatible code. On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems > because you cannot put the lock into the key.understand that the GPL > is a heavily assymetric license. If Eben Moglen has clarified *this specific issue*, it should be ok. But lock and key analogy to drive home this point is incorrect. There is a codebase X(ZFS) under CDDL and codebase Y(linux kernel), under GPL. * A 3rd party takes ZFS & Linux-kernel and creates a combined product, now do you call it ZFS incorporating Linux-kernel or the other way. * The codebase of linux-kernel is huge compared to ZFS is incidental, if ZFS code were to be 200k instead of the 80k would you still use the container analogy. What if it were 1000k instead of 80k => See, it is subject to interpretation and litigations in such situations lawyers are the only ones who stand to gain. ~Shiv ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] sparse changelog missing in 20070806
> "Thomas" == Thomas Maier-Komor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thomas> Currenlty, the changelogs are missing in 20070806. Can anybody Thomas> sched some light on this, why this is the case? Well, the "current" link still points at 20070730, so the 20070806 delivery is probably incomplete for some reason. I've cc'd Steve Lau, who should know what the story is. mike ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Need Realtek High Definition audio Driver
On 10/08/07, phani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > My system configuration AMD64. > Hardware for audio Realtek High Definition audio Driver. > I installed the driver Sun Audio driver. but it is not working properly. > > where can i download the driver for solaris Realtek HD audio. sajja, you may want to have a look at http://www.opensound.com - dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Need Realtek High Definition audio Driver
Hi, My system configuration AMD64. Hardware for audio Realtek High Definition audio Driver. I installed the driver Sun Audio driver. but it is not working properly. where can i download the driver for solaris Realtek HD audio. plese help me. thank you in advance This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/9/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: > > > > > If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would > understand > > > that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece > of code > > > licensed under the CDDL. > > > > No, that is not clear, and IANAL and neither are you it seems. > > > > While this aspect of the GPL has not been taken to court, AFAIK, most > > legal folks go under the assumption that the licenses are incompatible. > > The fact that some people without legal knowledge claim a general > unspecific > incompatibility should not be taken for serious. > > With the same way of thinking, a lock and a key may be called incompatible > because you cannot put the lock _into_ the key. The same key could be put > into the same lock.without a poroblem. > > Lawyers carefully look at the licenses and tell you different things. > Eben Moglen (at the press conference for a early GPLv3 draft) did explain > why there is no need for the "OS exception" in the GPL and that GPLd code > may use non-GPLd code. > > > The GPL only prevents you from using GPLd code in a non-GPL project > (called work > in compliance with the copyright law). The GPL does not prevent you from > using > non-GPLd code from a GPLd project. The latter is allowed because this way, > no > non-GPLd code becomes a "derived work" of the GPLd code. > > Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems > because you cannot put the lock into the key.understand that the GPL > is a heavily assymetric license. If I understand what you are saying, I'd have to say I interpret it differently. In order to compile a Linux ZFS kernel module, you need access to the kernel source code at compile time. Thus the resulting binary is a derivative of both the GPLed Linux kernel and the CDDLed ZFS code. The GPL expressly forbids this, so this child can not legally exist. (Both licenses must allow it) Brian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > The fact that some people without legal knowledge claim a general unspecific > incompatibility should not be taken for serious. What I know is that I must defer all the legal aspects to Sun's legal team, and have discussed several of these issues with them. While they agree that some things are not cast in stone (i.e., have not been taken to a court of law), they have a specific side they err on, and this is one of those issues that seems to be accepted by them. I do not get a choice in the matter, where you as an outsider of Sun can view it differently. I've personally never liked the fiasco that was created with the Linux 2.4.13 kernel, where the GPL exportt is required and if not used your code is considered to be tainting the kernel. I just do not feel the whole kernel linking has much value when placed in open source software, either it's free or it's not. I 'spose this is my problem with the GPL, in that I do feel it places restrictions on the code, and in various ways places restrictions on it's very freedom. With that said, I don't have a choice with OpenSolaris, it's the Sun lawyers that will ultimately decide, and defend what they have created. > With the same way of thinking, a lock and a key may be called incompatible > because you cannot put the lock _into_ the key. The same key could be put > into the same lock.without a poroblem. I don't see it as being so simple, I see a key that will fit but will break off in the lock, or a key that will break the lock after it is in the lock. It's not that the lock and key are incompatible, it's that they do not work together due to licensing and/or interpetation. I'm certainly in envy of you non-lawyers that understand this better than lawyers, but I can't and will not claim to be in that group. > Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems > because you cannot put the lock into the key.understand that the GPL > is a heavily assymetric license. What do you suggest when I need to deal with Sun legal? Sounds like you're saying I should not listen to them. That doesn't seem like a very good option for me since I need to work with them. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: > > > If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would understand > > that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece of > > code > > licensed under the CDDL. > > No, that is not clear, and IANAL and neither are you it seems. > > While this aspect of the GPL has not been taken to court, AFAIK, most > legal folks go under the assumption that the licenses are incompatible. The fact that some people without legal knowledge claim a general unspecific incompatibility should not be taken for serious. With the same way of thinking, a lock and a key may be called incompatible because you cannot put the lock _into_ the key. The same key could be put into the same lock.without a poroblem. Lawyers carefully look at the licenses and tell you different things. Eben Moglen (at the press conference for a early GPLv3 draft) did explain why there is no need for the "OS exception" in the GPL and that GPLd code may use non-GPLd code. The GPL only prevents you from using GPLd code in a non-GPL project (called work in compliance with the copyright law). The GPL does not prevent you from using non-GPLd code from a GPLd project. The latter is allowed because this way, no non-GPLd code becomes a "derived work" of the GPLd code. Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems because you cannot put the lock into the key.understand that the GPL is a heavily assymetric license. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] sys-unconfig hangs with ndis drivers
Hi all, I try to configure DHCP after the installation of ndis driver and run sys-unconfig as writed in documentation. But after reboot my laptop hanged at configuring ndis driver. Any help will be appreciated This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: > If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would understand > that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece of code > licensed under the CDDL. No, that is not clear, and IANAL and neither are you it seems. While this aspect of the GPL has not been taken to court, AFAIK, most legal folks go under the assumption that the licenses are incompatible. > Unfortunately, this does not seem to be possible, > given the majority of people that work with GPL'd license code > seem to be set upon making the imagined 'linking clause' reality when, in > fact, the text of the GPL contains no instances of the word 'link'. I agree with you, in principal, but in reality the legal weanies are siding with them also, and those are the folks that are most intimately familiar with law, IMO. > From my research, a ZFS or DTrace Linux port would only require the sources > be distributed separately. Binaries could still be shipped with a Linux > distribution, as the GPL is strictly a source-level license if one assumes > the imaginary 'linking clause' is, in fact, imaginary. Maybe so, but your research is not under a legal perspective, is it? IOW, if you are a lawyer, you would be in that position. > With this said, I fail to see how adopting a license that contains such > ambiguities could be beneficial towards OpenSolaris. Considering that the majority of open source software development is being done under this license, it's not something that can be ignored. In the best world all of our sources would be licensed under the BSD 3 clause, my favorite license of any to date. Only use it if you want your sources to truely be free and open, for everyone. My $0.02. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Need complete details of how to configure the network on solaris 10
phani writes: > I successfully installed the Landriver for AMD64 VIA. But I want the complete > details how to configure my TCP/IP. > I am unable to configure my TCP/IP network.. > plese anyone help me The short answer is "do sys-unconfig, reboot, and answer the questions." If you prefer to hack around with it: - Use "ifconfig -a plumb ; ifconfig -a" to get an idea of what interfaces are available. - If you're using a statically-configured address, put it in /etc/hostname.$IF, where "$IF" is one of the interfaces determined above. - If you're using DHCP instead, then just touch /etc/hostname.$IF and /etc/dhcp.$IF. - Next, you may need to figure out how to get routes. If you're using a static default router, put it in /etc/defaultrouter. If you're using statically configured arbitrary routes, use /usr/sbin/route and the "-p" option. If you're using DHCP, then the server may give you a default route and that may be enough. If you're using RIP, OSPF, or ICMP router discovery, see the routeadm command. - Next, set up the name services. If you use DHCP, this should be automatic. Otherwise, copy /etc/nsswitch.dns to /etc/nsswitch.conf and edit if necessary. Put any static definitions you need in /etc/hosts. Set up /etc/resolv.conf with your name servers and domain (if any). - Next, you might need a local host name. This is true if you're not using DHCP, or if your DHCP server doesn't offer a host name (many simple ones do not). Use /etc/nodename to set that. You can then use: - "ping -n $IPADDR" (with some external IP address) to test routing. Start with $IPADDR set to your local default router. - "nslookup" to test DNS itself (the /etc/resolv.conf file). - "getent hosts $NAME" to test name services (/etc/nsswitch.conf and the underlying resolver, such as DNS). -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[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] File Events Notification API - PSARC/2007/027
I notice that over time, rcapd can consume a fair amount of cpu, even though at any given time, it uses a reasonable enough amount. Is there any way FEN could be used to make it more efficient? Like using FEN to monitor its config file(s) rather than repeatedly stat() or whatever? Or if FEN could be used /proc in such a way as to avoid other reasons for rcapd possibly having to loop over a set of process related info? It just strikes me that in in a perfect world, rcapd would be purely event-driven, and passive unless an event informed it of the need to intervene or to update its stats. As such, it's CPU usage would increase only with churn in the resources it controlled, but would otherwise grow very little with larger numbers of projects, zones, and ultimately processes to watch; which, although I haven't looked at it operating on different scales, I suspect isn't the case now. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Need complete details of how to configure the network on solaris 10
I successfully installed the Landriver for AMD64 VIA. But I want the complete details how to configure my TCP/IP. I am unable to configure my TCP/IP network.. plese anyone help me thanks in advance This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [xwin-discuss] MWM as a light-weight
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > I think someone needs to determine if OpenSolaris is compatible with > "Open"Motif's constraint that it's only free for open-source OSs, and whether > Sun has permission to use it for their partially closed Solaris distro (I > suppose they might, since they have a license for CDE, and before CDE > made Motif (and mwm?) available for awhile; but I don't know for a fact.) I'm also curious as to whether it'd be possble for an OpenSolaris project to depend on closed bits -- in this case, Motif. If not, OpenMotif would need to be integrated, as well, and that leaves open several doors: (1) OpenMotif could co-exist with the official Open Group Motif. (2) OpenMotif could replace the official Open Group Motif. I suspect Sun would want to ensure some sort of backwards compatibility with the existing Motif. In any case its an interesting situation, and I'm sure there may be some obvious precedent for an OpenSolaris project depending on a closed bit(s). I'm just not able to think of one at the moment. Re: the licensing, that'd definitely be a concern, considering how Sun is wanting to eliminate closed bits. > I don't see any particular reason why you couldn't download the source > and play with it a bit for yourself. I'm reasonably sure I have a copy > of mwm somewhere, and had once played with it a bit and tweaked some > resources to make it have the blue-gray of the CDE default color scheme > rather than it's internal blue default, along with a few font tweaks and > such. Once that and a reasonable .mwmrc are created, I recall it > as being tolerable, given that one accepts the reduced functionality. I'm in the process of doing this. I consider 'reduced functionaity' a much better situation than leaving customers without a raft, let alone a padle, which is what the current situation is (especially, with Sun Ray users). > As for me, I'll probably just snag a copy of the last CDE binaries and > carefully put them on top of systems that no longer have CDE, like > some people (me included) have been doing for awhile with the > OpenLook deskset. Not supported, but it mostly works (I even have > some notes somewhere...). Or better, I'll cross my fingers that TOG > decides they can release CDE code. Even if they can't release Motif > itself, for me personally that's an ideological but not practical issue, > since Sun will probably have to supply the bare Motif libs (and even > headers, I guess) forever since most commercial apps still use Motif; > I don't guess I'd have too much trouble getting the CDE code to work > with that (or with OpenMotif, on OpenSolaris). I would suppose that > if CDE were released, someone (blastwave maybe?) would pick it up > even when Sun would no longer support it. Yes, I've done the old OpenLook packages on newer versions of Solaris, as well. The problem is there'd be no maintenance for CDE available to customers. Even though mwm is a fairly minimal window manager, it would be maintained if it were integrated or at least became an OpenSolaris project. > In the long run, I'd like to think that open source would do one of the > things it was originally intended to: solve the problem of orphan software, > and together with the combination of vendor and non-vendor package > based repositories (that were well-behaved together with vendor packages!), > provide for continuing easy access to orphans and even the opportunity > for providing or obtaining independent support for them. Many shops aren't going to be interested in using non-vendor packages. I think it'd be best to make a lightweight window manager/environment official as possible. Derek E. Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://delewis.blogspot.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Mario Goebbels wrote:
>> The only thing I would have done different given the limited resources in
>> engineering, would have been to license under the BSD 3 clause so that
>> anyone, any system, could have taken the code to incorporate into their
>> system, even Linux. It seems that will happen if Sun does GPL2 and/or GPL3
>> the OpenSolaris sources, and I don't know if they will do that, just that
>> they have mentioned that in the press.
>
> I don't think that going GPL is the right thing to do right now. The
> OpenSolaris project should first gather some momentum before
> reconsidering to release the bits to the lion and then just go under.
>
> See my other thread ("Okay guys, let's take our balls, give up and go
> home!") for why.
>
> -mg
>
>
If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would understand
that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece of
code licensed under the CDDL. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be
possible, given the majority of people that work with GPL'd license code
seem to be set upon making the imagined 'linking clause' reality when, in
fact, the text of the GPL contains no instances of the word 'link'. It
seems to be the case the real GPL is the FSF FAQ. Some might go as far to
say the 'the program' and 'derivative work' referred to in the GPL
encompass linking; however, this is an ambiguity, and any lawyer worth the
air he or she breathes to sufficiently dispute this in court, I think.
>From my research, a ZFS or DTrace Linux port would only require the
sources be distributed separately. Binaries could still be shipped with a
Linux distribution, as the GPL is strictly a source-level license if one
assumes the imaginary 'linking clause' is, in fact, imaginary.
With this said, I fail to see how adopting a license that contains such
ambiguities could be beneficial towards OpenSolaris.
Derek E. Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://delewis.blogspot.com
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] sparse changelog missing in 20070806
Hi, in the past weeks it was often the case that the changelog was several days after the files were available. Currenlty, the changelogs are missing in 20070806. Can anybody sched some light on this, why this is the case? TIA, Thomas P.S.: I find the sparse changelog being a perfect resource for monitoring what is currently going on - unfortunately it is about 8 clicks away from the main page of os.o. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
> The only thing I would have done different given the limited resources in
> engineering, would have been to license under the BSD 3 clause so that
> anyone, any system, could have taken the code to incorporate into their
> system, even Linux. It seems that will happen if Sun does GPL2 and/or GPL3
> the OpenSolaris sources, and I don't know if they will do that, just that
> they have mentioned that in the press.
I don't think that going GPL is the right thing to do right now. The
OpenSolaris project should first gather some momentum before
reconsidering to release the bits to the lion and then just go under.
See my other thread ("Okay guys, let's take our balls, give up and go
home!") for why.
-mg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [xwin-discuss] MWM as a light-weight
[...] > > Perhaps someone internally can comment how > "closely" mwm resembles dtwm > > without violating any NDAs? I'd be interested in > what features mwm lacks > > that dtwm has. I have no internal access, but I think you could determine pretty much all you wanted to know about that by comparing the man pages. For example, .mwmrc is a subset of .dt/dtwmrc, for all practical purposes. Mwm has no toolbar, no concept of CDE types and actions, and no integration with dtstyle (which can tell dtwm to restart if it needs to). Mwm is really just a lightweight Motif-based and Motif-friendly (in terms of window menu support and suchlike) window manager. I think someone needs to determine if OpenSolaris is compatible with "Open"Motif's constraint that it's only free for open-source OSs, and whether Sun has permission to use it for their partially closed Solaris distro (I suppose they might, since they have a license for CDE, and before CDE made Motif (and mwm?) available for awhile; but I don't know for a fact.) I don't see any particular reason why you couldn't download the source and play with it a bit for yourself. I'm reasonably sure I have a copy of mwm somewhere, and had once played with it a bit and tweaked some resources to make it have the blue-gray of the CDE default color scheme rather than it's internal blue default, along with a few font tweaks and such. Once that and a reasonable .mwmrc are created, I recall it as being tolerable, given that one accepts the reduced functionality. As for me, I'll probably just snag a copy of the last CDE binaries and carefully put them on top of systems that no longer have CDE, like some people (me included) have been doing for awhile with the OpenLook deskset. Not supported, but it mostly works (I even have some notes somewhere...). Or better, I'll cross my fingers that TOG decides they can release CDE code. Even if they can't release Motif itself, for me personally that's an ideological but not practical issue, since Sun will probably have to supply the bare Motif libs (and even headers, I guess) forever since most commercial apps still use Motif; I don't guess I'd have too much trouble getting the CDE code to work with that (or with OpenMotif, on OpenSolaris). I would suppose that if CDE were released, someone (blastwave maybe?) would pick it up even when Sun would no longer support it. In the long run, I'd like to think that open source would do one of the things it was originally intended to: solve the problem of orphan software, and together with the combination of vendor and non-vendor package based repositories (that were well-behaved together with vendor packages!), provide for continuing easy access to orphans and even the opportunity for providing or obtaining independent support for them. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] making zfs open enough [was Re: An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.]
Alan DuBoff writes: > The only thing I would have done different given the limited resources in > engineering, would have been to license under the BSD 3 clause so that > anyone, any system, could have taken the code to incorporate into their > system, even Linux. I suspect that would have been much worse. ZFS (like many things in OpenSolaris) has patented technology behind it. Among other things, the CDDL provides users with grants for those patents, so that they can actually *use* the bits provided. The BSD 3-clause license does no such thing. Each user would be on his own to negotiate a license for the patents or a retreat to some haven where patents don't apply. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that means at least "non-free" treatment for it in Linux, and possible no inclusion at all. I realize that (as non-lawyers) we're all very fond of short-and-sweet licenses on software, even if they're riddled with legal holes, and treat IPR like Mizaru. The standard BSD license is that. GPLv2 is a bit too stridently wordy but less ambiguous. The MPL and CDDL are even harder to read by mere humans. That, though, is the nature of the litigious world we live in. As for whether Linux users can incorporate ZFS, that's really up to them to figure out. Not only are we not lawyers, but we're not *their* lawyers, so we can't tell them what's acceptable and what's not. I don't think you should blame Sun for issues that are squarely in their court. > It seems that will happen if Sun does GPL2 and/or GPL3 > the OpenSolaris sources, and I don't know if they will do that, just that > they have mentioned that in the press. Oh, please, let's not have that discussion again. It hasn't been nearly long enough for it to seem to have been fun in retrospect. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[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] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:38 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: >>> Just a follow up question; when will acpi appear in OpenSolaris by >>> default? >> ACPI already is[1] it appeared as part of newboot on x86 and is >> regularly updated to the latest Intel reference code. However I suspect >> you don't really mean ACPI but some bit of functionality that you >> believe uses ACPI. So what do you really mean here. Often when people >> say that (I was confused initially as well) they mean one or more of the >> following: battery info[2], suspend/resume to ram/disk, lid events, > Power Management, when I go prtconf, and what you do mean by power management it is a very broad and vauge term. Do you mean varying the CPU speed/power or something else ? > acpi (driver not attached)" > > along with: > > cpus, instance #0 >cpu (driver not attached) >cpu (driver not attached) > > My laptop has power management which Linux and Windows supports, but B70 > complains about the lack of _PSS. without knowing exactly what the specs and make/model of your laptop are I can't say if that is expected or not. This is probably best moved to laptop-discuss where there are likely more focused people who can help you. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:33 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: > > True - I'm had a look at the page, it would be cool if there was more > > documentation about future developments. The way the page is put there > > as if nwam is complete and no more development is going to occur. > > Huh ? This is probably one of the most active and open development > projects going on via opensolaris.org. > > If you look at the page you will see that is is a multiple phase > delivery project, there are design and ui documents for phase 1 there > now (phase 0 having integrated), the discussion list is full of requests > and feedback for design and codereview. > > There are even prototype binaries for the UI for phase 1 available. > > If you can't find this out then PLEASE don't complain here in this > thread but instead tell the project team about it and help them change > their project web pages so that it is clearer. I stand corrected - and Darren, calm down, your reaction is as though I had just punched your mother. Mathew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:38 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: > > Just a follow up question; when will acpi appear in OpenSolaris by > > default? > > ACPI already is[1] it appeared as part of newboot on x86 and is > regularly updated to the latest Intel reference code. However I suspect > you don't really mean ACPI but some bit of functionality that you > believe uses ACPI. So what do you really mean here. Often when people > say that (I was confused initially as well) they mean one or more of the > following: battery info[2], suspend/resume to ram/disk, lid events, > > > [1]http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/intel/io/acpica/ > > [2] > http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/i86pc/io/battery/ Power Management, when I go prtconf, acpi (driver not attached)" along with: cpus, instance #0 cpu (driver not attached) cpu (driver not attached) My laptop has power management which Linux and Windows supports, but B70 complains about the lack of _PSS. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Can't install Open Solaris
Thank you People! I'm embarrassed I found out it was my Sony DVD ROM, it couldn't read the DVD? so I put it in my Pioneer DVD Writer and hello it worked and installed all OK. And I will look for the Drivers I need on the web. Thanks again I look forward to having every thing working as it should This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: > Just a follow up question; when will acpi appear in OpenSolaris by > default? ACPI already is[1] it appeared as part of newboot on x86 and is regularly updated to the latest Intel reference code. However I suspect you don't really mean ACPI but some bit of functionality that you believe uses ACPI. So what do you really mean here. Often when people say that (I was confused initially as well) they mean one or more of the following: battery info[2], suspend/resume to ram/disk, lid events, [1]http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/intel/io/acpica/ [2] http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/i86pc/io/battery/ -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: > True - I'm had a look at the page, it would be cool if there was more > documentation about future developments. The way the page is put there > as if nwam is complete and no more development is going to occur. Huh ? This is probably one of the most active and open development projects going on via opensolaris.org. If you look at the page you will see that is is a multiple phase delivery project, there are design and ui documents for phase 1 there now (phase 0 having integrated), the discussion list is full of requests and feedback for design and codereview. There are even prototype binaries for the UI for phase 1 available. If you can't find this out then PLEASE don't complain here in this thread but instead tell the project team about it and help them change their project web pages so that it is clearer. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
