Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn. > > You seem to be of the opinion that a strong leader is necessary to the > success of a project. > > Might I point out that the governance structure of FreeBSD (the most > successful of the BSD's, and arguably the second most successful open- > source operating system project in the world ) is governed by > committers (analogous to our "core contributors" ) electing a 9-member > core leadership team every 2 years who are responsible for overall > project direction and granting of CVS commit access to new members. Which only supports my proposal; in my view. The groups you mention have more power than our OGB does, and because of their limited size, they are able to reach consensus far easier than our much larger group of core contributors. In addition; they provide the strong, clear, inspired leadership of those communities. My proposal is not solely about electing a single leader; it is also about empowering the OGB. Your particular point is certainly worth considering; and provoking productive discussion is one of the central purposes of this proposal. Thanks for your feedback, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Shawn. You seem to be of the opinion that a strong leader is necessary to the success of a project. Might I point out that the governance structure of FreeBSD (the most successful of the BSD's, and arguably the second most successful open- source operating system project in the world ) is governed by committers (analogous to our "core contributors" ) electing a 9-member core leadership team every 2 years who are responsible for overall project direction and granting of CVS commit access to new members. On 5-Nov-07, at 7:35 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > This proposal is intended to provoke productive discussion, > surrounding our current governance structure, by highlighting some of > the deficiencies that currently exist. While not exhaustive, it > attempts to explain why the current governance structure is > insufficient for the success and growth of the community, by comparing > and contrasting our existing governance model with that of other > organisations at a high level. It also suggests how our governance > structure might be changed to address those deficiencies. > > It is the author's hope that all recipients of this proposal will take > the time to reflect on and carefully consider the points made here > before responding. This proposal is primarily directed at the OGB, as > representatives of our current governing structure. However, all > recipients are encouraged to respond. The inspiration for this > proposal is a direct result of recent events which revealed that > governance of the community is at the heart of issues facing the > community today. > > The OpenSolaris community has existed as a self-governing entity since > Friday February 10th, 2006 [1]. Since that time, individual parts of > the community (and thus, the community as a whole) are continuing to > make progress in many areas, including: technical, communication, and > growth [2]. The community has grown slowly, but surely, into something > that we can continue to be proud of. The Advocacy (User Group), > Desktop, DTrace, and ZFS community groups are just a few examples of > that growth and progress. > > However, the majority of this progress is a result of Sun's indirect > leadership [3], involvement, and the contributions of many individuals > within the community. Many of those individuals are paid by Sun to > work on Solaris, OpenSolaris, and related community projects. It is > important to note the distinction of "paid by"; as many individuals > are not employees of Sun (contractors) or were not employed by Sun at > the beginning but currently are. By observation, it is apparent that > none of this progress would have been possible without Sun's > initiative to provide the source code that served as the nucleus > around which the OpenSolaris project formed, and without their > ongoing, significant financial support (which the author estimates to > be in the range of millions of dollars). > > Clearly, governance is one of the most important aspects of the > community. However, governance alone is not sufficient to achieve > sustained growth and success in a completely self-governing body, such > as the one we currently have. The leadership hierarchy must be clear, > and seen as inspirational [4], creative, shrewd, and fair. > > Upon reflection, it should become apparent that leadership and > guidance is a necessary part of governance. To help us better > understand our current governance model, it is helpful to compare and > contrast our own governance model with that of others. Narrowing our > focus, from the many governance models widely known, results in > several which we will briefly examine. Commercially related projects > include: Mac OS X [5], PostgreSQL [6], MySQL [7], and Ubuntu [8] > (created and supported by Canonical [9]). Other projects are those > such as Fedora [10], which are essentially alpha or beta > representations of commercial products [11]. Finally, we have Apache > [12] and OpenBSD [13]; which are organised around completely open > source [14] products. > > All these projects or products share several common characteristics. > However, some characteristics are common and clearly visible: > sustained growth and success. Each project or product has a parent > entity that continues to build a community providing sustained growth > and success, whether they are primarily proprietary in nature [5], > have taken a hybrid approach between open source and proprietary > add-ons [7], or have the primary focus of the project completely as > open source [6, 8, 10, 12, 13]. They may also be experimenting with > pay-for-contribution models. > > In each case, clear leadership within well-defined areas of expertise > is evident. There is a direct correlation between the quality of the > leadership and the sustained growth and success of each project or > product. The results are evident in a successfully delivered and > widely-adopted end-product within their respective target markets. > > For a moment
[osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
This proposal is intended to provoke productive discussion, surrounding our current governance structure, by highlighting some of the deficiencies that currently exist. While not exhaustive, it attempts to explain why the current governance structure is insufficient for the success and growth of the community, by comparing and contrasting our existing governance model with that of other organisations at a high level. It also suggests how our governance structure might be changed to address those deficiencies. It is the author's hope that all recipients of this proposal will take the time to reflect on and carefully consider the points made here before responding. This proposal is primarily directed at the OGB, as representatives of our current governing structure. However, all recipients are encouraged to respond. The inspiration for this proposal is a direct result of recent events which revealed that governance of the community is at the heart of issues facing the community today. The OpenSolaris community has existed as a self-governing entity since Friday February 10th, 2006 [1]. Since that time, individual parts of the community (and thus, the community as a whole) are continuing to make progress in many areas, including: technical, communication, and growth [2]. The community has grown slowly, but surely, into something that we can continue to be proud of. The Advocacy (User Group), Desktop, DTrace, and ZFS community groups are just a few examples of that growth and progress. However, the majority of this progress is a result of Sun's indirect leadership [3], involvement, and the contributions of many individuals within the community. Many of those individuals are paid by Sun to work on Solaris, OpenSolaris, and related community projects. It is important to note the distinction of "paid by"; as many individuals are not employees of Sun (contractors) or were not employed by Sun at the beginning but currently are. By observation, it is apparent that none of this progress would have been possible without Sun's initiative to provide the source code that served as the nucleus around which the OpenSolaris project formed, and without their ongoing, significant financial support (which the author estimates to be in the range of millions of dollars). Clearly, governance is one of the most important aspects of the community. However, governance alone is not sufficient to achieve sustained growth and success in a completely self-governing body, such as the one we currently have. The leadership hierarchy must be clear, and seen as inspirational [4], creative, shrewd, and fair. Upon reflection, it should become apparent that leadership and guidance is a necessary part of governance. To help us better understand our current governance model, it is helpful to compare and contrast our own governance model with that of others. Narrowing our focus, from the many governance models widely known, results in several which we will briefly examine. Commercially related projects include: Mac OS X [5], PostgreSQL [6], MySQL [7], and Ubuntu [8] (created and supported by Canonical [9]). Other projects are those such as Fedora [10], which are essentially alpha or beta representations of commercial products [11]. Finally, we have Apache [12] and OpenBSD [13]; which are organised around completely open source [14] products. All these projects or products share several common characteristics. However, some characteristics are common and clearly visible: sustained growth and success. Each project or product has a parent entity that continues to build a community providing sustained growth and success, whether they are primarily proprietary in nature [5], have taken a hybrid approach between open source and proprietary add-ons [7], or have the primary focus of the project completely as open source [6, 8, 10, 12, 13]. They may also be experimenting with pay-for-contribution models. In each case, clear leadership within well-defined areas of expertise is evident. There is a direct correlation between the quality of the leadership and the sustained growth and success of each project or product. The results are evident in a successfully delivered and widely-adopted end-product within their respective target markets. For a moment then, let us consider the leadership that is integral to these projects and products. In Apple's [15] case, few would dispute that Steve Jobs is clearly the primary source of leadership, and has been directly responsible for their current success [16]. Likewise, the OpenBSD project is well known for its leader, Theo De Raadt, who, while sometimes outspoken [17], has relentlessly driven the project towards an admirable level of fervour and success [18] as defined by its stated goals [19]. Investigating further, we see that each one of these projects has structured its leadership or governance differently. The Fedora project chose a mix of appointed and elected members with RedHat given final veto power
Re: [osol-discuss] Let's focus. (2nd Draft)
> There's been a steady trickle of posts from people
> like yourself who
> call themselves 'outsiders', and with all due
> respect, every one of them
> has missed the point entirely.
>
> --
> Alan Burlison
> --
> ___
My perception is that some "old" guards ("old," in terms of Solaris experience,
not necessarily old age) took this opportunity and ganged together to try to
stage a coup against the "new management". So far, this "new
management"--whatever that means--seems to be doing everything right (e.g.,
insisting on using the /usr/bin/bash as the default shell, bringing out an
"OpenSolaris" LiveCD on time, etc., etc.)
I am sorry that my bird sized brain only allows me to see things black and
white, or good guys versus bad. This undoubtedly caused me to fail to see
things that are "so easy to understand" (my would-be but won't-be-bothered
response to a separate post), and thus miss "the point" entirely. Someone from
the OGB can call me stupid (as someone did in a separate post), but,
unfortunately, he (there is no she in the OGB) cannot stop me from doing the
"perceiving". Actually I can see your point, but just don't agree with the way
it was expressed (by others).
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Laptop testing OpenSolaris (Indiana) on ODM laptops
< Hi, < Just the ECS 15.4 inch, it does not require any extra drivers like the ASUS. < The ECS laptop should come in at less than $1000. < I just put compiz 6.2 on the both of them and it works fine. < Dave Clack Since both the ECS and ASUS laptops are equipped with Intel's Core 2 duo chip, would you mind trying xVM on at least the ECS machine, which sounds more interesting? Again, if you can use an extra hand, please by all means let me know. I have some contacts at both ECS and ASUS. Thanks. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Laptop testing OpenSolaris (Indiana) on ODM laptops
Hi, Just the ECS 15.4 inch, it does not require any extra drivers like the ASUS. The ECS laptop should come in at less than $1000. I just put compiz 6.2 on the both of them and it works fine. Dave On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 16:17 -0500, Dave Miner wrote: > David Clack wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > As I mentioned at the OpenSolaris Developer conference, I've been > > working with a couple of laptop ODMs to try and find a laptop for > > OpenSolaris vs the other way round. Trying to get Solaris installed with > > drivers missing. > > > > Both ECS and ASUS have supplied me with laptops that have an Nvidia GPU > > and Intel chipset. > > > > Both laptop are clocking 7000 FPS on the glxgears benchmark. > > > > Attached is my testing spreadsheet for each machine, they are both > > running B75a. > > > > On the ECS 15.4 (this is not on the market yet) all the components > > including the webcam work, I'm just working on keyboard mapping and > > e-sata, even the hdmi works. > > > > All hardware for this laptop is supported of the DVD. > > > > On the ASUS C90S I do have to add a couple of drivers for the ethernet > > and atheros pci-e mini card. > > > > I'm working on the webcam and card reader. > > > > As it has a desktop CPU on board currently a Intel Dual Core 2.44Ghz the > > performance is stunning. > > > > I'll update you on the e-sata and keyboard Fn-Function key issues as I > > proceed. > > > > Thanks > > Dave > > > > > > Thanks for the update, Dave. Have you had a chance to try them with the > live CD yet? It would be good to know whether there are specific driver > issues there that are different from Nevada. > > Dave David Clack Solaris X86 Evangelist Senior Systems Engineer OEM Software Sales Sun Microsystems 642, Chinook Ave SE, Ocean Shores, WA, USA, 98569 Phone +1-360-289-2158 Fax +1-360-289-2091 Mobile +1-206-265-1904 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] My wishes for Solaris in future
Girts Zeltins wrote: > As we know Indiana is future of Solaris, but there is lots of things about > which must continue discussions. > > 1. There is need to provide Solaris installation without graphical desktop. > The graphical desktops (KDE, XFce, GNOME, Window Maker, IceWM, FVWM, ...) must > be on additional place allowing to choose which to install. Now Indiana > provide > GNOME integrated. The GNOME must be not integrated!!! > All desktops which are listed in: (www.xwinman.org) website must be supported > for Solaris. The first thing you can do to help is to make sure those choices properly build on Solaris. It's clear that GNOME already has (by being included in the developer preview), but also KDE http://solaris.kde.org/ and XFCE http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/xfce/ and WindowMaker http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/companion/contributors/content/ and FVWM http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/companion/contributors/content/ and ICEWM http://www.blastwave.org/packages.php When the time comes to be able to provide packages to http://pkg.opensolaris.org, it will happen given there's already knowledge of how to do this, so that in the future you'll be able to download many of these desktop environments and try them out. As always though, it needs real people to take the initiative and make it happen. Looking forward to your participation on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] PATH setup and environment compatibility was Re: I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 11/5/07, Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 10:24 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > > Admittedly, I am somewhat fuzzy on what software is supposed to do if > > it needs a specific version of a utility. > > It should set PATH to reflect the environment it expects. > > For example, if a configure script decides that it wants to and needs > > to use only gnu versions of utilities on an "OpenSolaris" environment; > > should it assume that it should explicitly reference all utilities via > > the /usr/gnu/ path? > > No. It should set PATH to reflect the environment it expects. However, if the configure script is intended to run across Solaris 8, HP-UX 9, RHEL 4, and OpenSolaris, and some other platform that does not yet exist, it should check for the features it needs in each of the same named commands in $PATH and/or well-known locations. Once it finds a suitable version, it should use the full path to the command. This is the same approach that is used for headers, and libraries. For example, a software product written two years that only knows how to install with GNU install would not know to look in /usr/gnu and if Solaris was an afterthought (or not considered) /usr/sfw and /opt/sfw would not be in the PATH set in the script. If you have a script that is supposed to run on a small number of well-defined platforms (and configurations thereof) and it will be not see "production runs" on any other platform prior to testing, setting $PATH is sufficient (and arguably desirable for readability). In other words, configure scripts are a special type of script with a special purpose. When written properly, they are a lot better than the schemes that preceded autoconf. Treating every script like a configure script would be an ugly mess. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] DST changed clock twice
Thanks Casper: Both the Desktop and the Laptop are dual booting and now what you say makes sense. But now that I am back on the desktop the clock is reading 8:14 am when it is 6:14 pm EST. Don't know how that happened? > > >Mike DeMarco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I have a laptop and a desktop both running Build > 75. Both have chan= > >ged the time twice so that both systems Fell back by > a total of two h= > >ours. > >> > >> Anyone else see this? > > > >Me too, although this happened a week ago. > > > Are these dual boot laptops? If so then that is > expected. > > The system clock runs in local time and both Solaris > and any other OS > will fix the clock and adjust localtime by one hour. > > Casper > > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Calum Benson wrote: > GNOME's user-admin preferences window, IMHO. I suspect a sizable > number of users would have insufficient knowledge to make an informed > choice, or just no preference at all, when confronted with such a > choice during installation (I count myself among them!). And that's > usually a sign that it's better just to pick a sensible default, but > allow it to be over-ridden later. > > Indeed - but in that case you have to decide what will 'just work' for most people, most of the time. If 'most' of the development for more-or-less-posix-like systems is being done for Linux, then that makes the default decision quit easy: make it so that the simple configure && make && sudo make install works. And that needs a GNU userland. Sadly. I guess you might get away with root being POSIX if sudo remains in GNU land, but I can't help feeling that's a level of complication that has little upside and a big downside. Surely the answer is that, yes, the default is GNU. And right at the start of the install you can answer one question that will enable such questions to those that are able to understand them. All of the people making a fuss (well, apart from those throwing toys because they want a bigger say in the process) know how to answer that question, and what they want. But they probably didn't need dwaf-caiman anyway, did they? I do believe that having the user admin GUI wizard enable simple switching is also valuable - but the default it will use needs to be chosen somewhere too. James ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 05/11/2007, Steven Stallion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The argument that modifying the PATH is too difficult for the average user > is nonsense. Any user who knows enough to know what runtime they prefer, > know precisely how to change their PATH to reflect that. Hear, hear. Throwing this in front of a new user (rather than something like a disk layout customizer) seems like the answer to a question no-one asked. -- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] PATH setup and environment compatibility was Re: [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 10:24 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > Admittedly, I am somewhat fuzzy on what software is supposed to do if > it needs a specific version of a utility. It should set PATH to reflect the environment it expects. > For example, if a configure script decides that it wants to and needs > to use only gnu versions of utilities on an "OpenSolaris" environment; > should it assume that it should explicitly reference all utilities via > the /usr/gnu/ path? No. It should set PATH to reflect the environment it expects. > Likewise, if something needs a xpg4 compliant environment, should it > assume all relevant utilities live under /usr/xpg4/? No. It should set PATH to reflect the environment it expects. This is why we need to do the work necessary to figure out how to make the GNU variant environment a first-class environment on solaris. - Bill ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Hi Jim, > How about organic growth? Why must we go out and grab developers from > other communities. Early on we never discussed grabbing developers from > other communities. Virtually all of our planning discussions were > focused on organic growth and the business of opening our own stuff. I really was not referring to developers being brought in, but users. Particularly, folks interested for the first time in moving their servers off Linux onto Solaris. > > How has the community not gotten "out of its own way" on this? > The general bickering over the naming issue. -J ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] DST changed clock twice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > Mike DeMarco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have a laptop and a desktop both running Build 75. Both have changed the > > time twice so that both systems Fell back by a total of two hours. > > > > Anyone else see this? > > Me too, although this happened a week ago. Sorry, I forgot to mention an important fact: the problem was seen only after a reboot, so the problem was in the battery clock only. No OS other than Solaris was booted. 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
Re: [osol-discuss] Laptop testing OpenSolaris (Indiana) on ODM laptops
David Clack wrote: > Hi All, > > As I mentioned at the OpenSolaris Developer conference, I've been > working with a couple of laptop ODMs to try and find a laptop for > OpenSolaris vs the other way round. Trying to get Solaris installed with > drivers missing. > > Both ECS and ASUS have supplied me with laptops that have an Nvidia GPU > and Intel chipset. > > Both laptop are clocking 7000 FPS on the glxgears benchmark. > > Attached is my testing spreadsheet for each machine, they are both > running B75a. > > On the ECS 15.4 (this is not on the market yet) all the components > including the webcam work, I'm just working on keyboard mapping and > e-sata, even the hdmi works. > > All hardware for this laptop is supported of the DVD. > > On the ASUS C90S I do have to add a couple of drivers for the ethernet > and atheros pci-e mini card. > > I'm working on the webcam and card reader. > > As it has a desktop CPU on board currently a Intel Dual Core 2.44Ghz the > performance is stunning. > > I'll update you on the e-sata and keyboard Fn-Function key issues as I > proceed. > > Thanks > Dave > > Thanks for the update, Dave. Have you had a chance to try them with the live CD yet? It would be good to know whether there are specific driver issues there that are different from Nevada. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] DST changed clock twice
"Mike" == Mike DeMarco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mike> I have a laptop and a desktop both running Build 75. Both have Mike> changed the time twice so that both systems Fell back by a total Mike> of two hours. Anyone else see this? The Solaris kernel does all its timekeeping in UTC or GMT, so the time doesn't actually change at all. Are you running in a virtual machine that might have changed the time also? -- 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] DST changed clock twice
>Mike DeMarco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have a laptop and a desktop both running Build 75. Both have chan= >ged the time twice so that both systems Fell back by a total of two h= >ours. >> >> Anyone else see this? > >Me too, although this happened a week ago. Are these dual boot laptops? If so then that is expected. The system clock runs in local time and both Solaris and any other OS will fix the clock and adjust localtime by one hour. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] DST changed clock twice
Mike DeMarco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a laptop and a desktop both running Build 75. Both have changed the > time twice so that both systems Fell back by a total of two hours. > > Anyone else see this? Me too, although this happened a week ago. 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
Re: [osol-discuss] Let's focus. (2nd Draft)
Anthony Juckel wrote: > In all sincerity though, can we please try to redirect all this stop energy regarding the naming choice that Sun made, and direct it in a more positive direction? Just as OpenSolaris is not just OpenSolaris the Developer Preview, it is also not just OpenSolaris the Community. OpenSolaris is many things. I personally feel that the Community or OGB trying to demanding that Sun not call the results of Project Indiana OpenSolaris Developer Preview offers no tangible benefit to users of OpenSolaris the Code, nor Participators in the Community. There's been a steady trickle of posts from people like yourself who call themselves 'outsiders', and with all due respect, every one of them has missed the point entirely. The issue is about establishing an agreed policy for naming *all* distributions, both present and future, in regard to their use of the OpenSolaris 'brand' - irrespective of *who* authors them. It is also about the annexation of the name of the OpenSolaris community by a subgroup of the community, without the agreement of the rest of the community. These are important issues of governance that matter deeply to the core members of the OpenSolaris community. I know from the outside it must be perplexing to see all this heat about what seems to be a simple naming issue, but that is *not* the core issue, it is just the visible manifestation of what is a much deeper concern. We are trying to form a long-lived, stable and well-governed community that can regulate and manage its own affairs and treat *all* of its constituents in an equitable fashion. If the community appears to be open to manipulation, from whatever source, it is in danger. We must address this issue, we have no choice if the community is to survive. As for your oft-repeated statement about 'stop energy', there's a very simple way of redirecting all the energy, and that's to hold votes on the issues. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] DST changed clock twice
I have a laptop and a desktop both running Build 75. Both have changed the time twice so that both systems Fell back by a total of two hours. Anyone else see this? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:51:10 -0800, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > not really my point here... > > you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not > simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either. > > An dialog box somewhere in the 'advanced' install path I think, is. That is exactly the problem - installation is a global process. Any changes made at this step would have to affect every user of a system unless you want to rely on the usual post-installation cruft (FWIW, I detest the fact that the new installer requests a new username/password). This gets especially interesting if your users are backed by NIS/NIS+/LDAP/etc. The argument that modifying the PATH is too difficult for the average user is nonsense. Any user who knows enough to know what runtime they prefer, know precisely how to change their PATH to reflect that. This is one of the greatest unspoken features of Solaris - a mutable runtime. Essentially, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. It would be wiser to clean up the /usr hierarchy and perhaps provide a post-install gui utility to modify a given user's environment. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
>> hasn't been completed, but that they many of them haven't even been started! >> >> >> > There simply wasn't time. And, since this is a prototype we felt that > the way we did this was ok. In actuality though, some of Indiana has > been ARC'd. The installer pieces were ARC'd as part of Dwarf Caiman(SXDE). > Oh, a couple of other things went through review as well... lofi compression and hsfs performance changes. sarah > Please don't invite trouble by assuming we won't do the right thing. > There is a great group of engineers working on this project and we all > believe in the benefits of review. > > Regards, > sarah > >>-John >> >> >> ___ >> opensolaris-discuss mailing list >> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org >> >> >> > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
John Plocher wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > >>> Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of >>> $PATH in the indiana preview ;) >>> >> No violation of ARC occurred. ARC is not a required process until >> consolidations are integrated, etc. >> > > On the other extreme, it would be extremely stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H ineffective > to bundle up all the changes made to Indiana and produce them at the end > of February in one un-reviewablely large "we're done, here is everything > we did" ARC case > > There seems to be a bunch of stuff that got started, is being prototyped > and played with, has gotten integrated into a gate somewhere and was > shipped as part of a developer prototype release that still isn't on the > ARC radar. > I am not sure what you are referring to. We have not integrated anything in to any gate at this point in time, other than the various project gates which you see on opensolaris. And, one internal slim installer gate that will be open shortly(waiting on final legal I think). None of these are official gates, just prototype gates. This is simply a prototype, nothing integrated anywhere that requires ARC or PAC approval. We know what needs to be done process wise and certainly will follow all appropriate process along the way. Nothing in Feb is gonna be bundled up and put forth as a huge ARC case. > That's the point that has a bunch of us concerned - not that the review > hasn't been completed, but that they many of them haven't even been started! > > There simply wasn't time. And, since this is a prototype we felt that the way we did this was ok. In actuality though, some of Indiana has been ARC'd. The installer pieces were ARC'd as part of Dwarf Caiman(SXDE). Please don't invite trouble by assuming we won't do the right thing. There is a great group of engineers working on this project and we all believe in the benefits of review. Regards, sarah >-John > > > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 05/11/2007, John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > >> Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of > >> $PATH in the indiana preview ;) > > > > No violation of ARC occurred. ARC is not a required process until > > consolidations are integrated, etc. > > On the other extreme, it would be extremely stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H ineffective > to bundle up all the changes made to Indiana and produce them at the end > of February in one un-reviewablely large "we're done, here is everything > we did" ARC case > > There seems to be a bunch of stuff that got started, is being prototyped > and played with, has gotten integrated into a gate somewhere and was > shipped as part of a developer prototype release that still isn't on the > ARC radar. > > That's the point that has a bunch of us concerned - not that the review > hasn't been completed, but that they many of them haven't even been started! Yes, but I think we all trust them as a group of peers to do the right thing. I have complete faith that the strong engineering and robust review that has always been the mark of Solaris will happen here as well. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Shawn Walker wrote: >> Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of >> $PATH in the indiana preview ;) > > No violation of ARC occurred. ARC is not a required process until > consolidations are integrated, etc. On the other extreme, it would be extremely stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H ineffective to bundle up all the changes made to Indiana and produce them at the end of February in one un-reviewablely large "we're done, here is everything we did" ARC case There seems to be a bunch of stuff that got started, is being prototyped and played with, has gotten integrated into a gate somewhere and was shipped as part of a developer prototype release that still isn't on the ARC radar. That's the point that has a bunch of us concerned - not that the review hasn't been completed, but that they many of them haven't even been started! -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5-Nov-07, at 10:41 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear > (and > >>> this > is > purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate > *more* > users than > you'll make happy. > > >>> > >>> This sounds like a solution looking for a problem :) > >>> > >>> Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of the > >>> new > >>> installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a > >>> runtime in > >>> the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU > >>> runtime for > >>> *every* user on the system. > >>> > >>> Simply put, why not have the option of selecting a runtime post- > >>> install by > >>> modifying your PATH (this is precisely what we do today)? If you > >>> want a GNU > >>> runtime, simply place /usr/gnu/bin at the head of your PATH. Still > >>> want > >>> xpg6? How about a BSD runtime? This is functionality we already have > >>> today, > >>> why not keep it around in Indiana? > >>> > >>> If you want to change the default PATH (in effect setting the > >>> runtime for > >>> each user), you have the option of changing /etc/profile etc. > >> > >> > >> Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of > >> $PATH in the indiana preview ;) > > > > No violation of ARC occurred. ARC is not a required process until > > consolidations are integrated, etc. You will see that the Sun > > engineers making those changes made it clear that any changes made > > would go through ARC once they were ready. > > not really my point here... > > you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not > simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either. No, actually. I'd rather not have the GNU tools at the front of the path. I'm just pointing out that no "ARC" was violated. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
John Sonnenschein writes: > Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of > $PATH in the indiana preview ;) As has been repeatedly pointed out: - Indiana hasn't had any ARC review. - projects are on their own to determine when to submit for reviews -- architectural and otherwise. What this means is that there's no such "violation" here. We're not at the point where anyone's commit privileges get revoked or any other such nonsense. Of course, I'd encourage all projects to get early reviews. The earlier, the better. That doesn't always happen, and project teams delay those reviews at their own peril. In this particular case, and as best I can tell, the bits offered by Indiana are not any sort of "release." They're an alpha test -- a "preview" -- of the same sort already offered by many existing projects on their own web sites. The confusion that I see here is over the naming and the prominent links provided to the project web pages, and not over the violation of any review rules. The project hasn't delivered any changes anywhere. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W 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] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 5-Nov-07, at 10:41 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and >>> this is purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more* users than you'll make happy. >>> >>> This sounds like a solution looking for a problem :) >>> >>> Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of the >>> new >>> installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a >>> runtime in >>> the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU >>> runtime for >>> *every* user on the system. >>> >>> Simply put, why not have the option of selecting a runtime post- >>> install by >>> modifying your PATH (this is precisely what we do today)? If you >>> want a GNU >>> runtime, simply place /usr/gnu/bin at the head of your PATH. Still >>> want >>> xpg6? How about a BSD runtime? This is functionality we already have >>> today, >>> why not keep it around in Indiana? >>> >>> If you want to change the default PATH (in effect setting the >>> runtime for >>> each user), you have the option of changing /etc/profile etc. >> >> >> Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of >> $PATH in the indiana preview ;) > > No violation of ARC occurred. ARC is not a required process until > consolidations are integrated, etc. You will see that the Sun > engineers making those changes made it clear that any changes made > would go through ARC once they were ready. not really my point here... you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either. An dialog box somewhere in the 'advanced' install path I think, is. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Let's focus. (2nd Draft)
I'd like to add my perspective to this issue, as a relative outsider to the development of OpenSolaris, but a person very interested in the success of OpenSolaris as a whole, and a person who's closely followed many other open source development communities. The first thing I'd like to point out is that I feel that the front page is very clear that OpenSolaris means many different things, and that the OpenSolaris Developer Preview is just ONE of those things. I don't at all get the impression that the OpenSolaris Developer Preview IS OpenSolaris, nor that it is claiming to be officially endorsed by OpenSolaris the Community, nor that it is attempting to undermine the efforts of other OpenSolaris distros. I get the clear perspective that Project Indiana is heavy backing by Sun, that Sun is investing a lot of resources into it's development, while still holding that development in the open, and encouraging outside participation, and that Sun has decided to brand Indiana in it's current state as OpenSolaris Developer Preview. As a relative outsider, I was not at all surprised to see Sun brand Indiana as OpenSolaris Developer Preview, as that's what I've understood Indiana to be all along. I honestly don't understand what has changed between calling it Project Indiana, and calling it OpenSolaris Developer Preview. Furthermore, I don't see anything in the charter that says the OGB or OpenSolaris the Community need to be consulted in how OpenSolaris the brand is applied by Sun. From my perspective, it is clear that OpenSolaris the Developer Preview is not equivalent to OpenSolaris the Community, and it is equally clear that OpenSolaris the brand belongs to Sun. I'm not trying to say that those that are upset have no right to feel upset. There is much Sun could have done to have the Community more involved in this, and I think there are valuable discussions that could be had regarding how to handle situations like this in the future to avoid these negative feelings in the Community. I do think it is extremely valuable to ensure that the Community as a whole is comfortable with Sun's stewardship (or abdication thereof) of OpenSolaris the brand, and this issue makes clear that there is much improvement that could be made in that area. In all sincerity though, can we please try to redirect all this stop energy regarding the naming choice that Sun made, and direct it in a more positive direction? Just as OpenSolaris is not just OpenSolaris the Developer Preview, it is also not just OpenSolaris the Community. OpenSolaris is many things. I personally feel that the Community or OGB trying to demanding that Sun not call the results of Project Indiana OpenSolaris Developer Preview offers no tangible benefit to users of OpenSolaris the Code, nor Participators in the Community. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote: > > > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and > > this > >> is > >> purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more* > >> users than > >> you'll make happy. > >> > > > > This sounds like a solution looking for a problem :) > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of the > > new > > installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a > > runtime in > > the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU > > runtime for > > *every* user on the system. > > > > Simply put, why not have the option of selecting a runtime post- > > install by > > modifying your PATH (this is precisely what we do today)? If you > > want a GNU > > runtime, simply place /usr/gnu/bin at the head of your PATH. Still > > want > > xpg6? How about a BSD runtime? This is functionality we already have > > today, > > why not keep it around in Indiana? > > > > If you want to change the default PATH (in effect setting the > > runtime for > > each user), you have the option of changing /etc/profile etc. > > > Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of > $PATH in the indiana preview ;) No violation of ARC occurred. ARC is not a required process until consolidations are integrated, etc. You will see that the Sun engineers making those changes made it clear that any changes made would go through ARC once they were ready. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote: > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and > this >> is >> purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more* >> users than >> you'll make happy. >> > > This sounds like a solution looking for a problem :) > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of the > new > installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a > runtime in > the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU > runtime for > *every* user on the system. > > Simply put, why not have the option of selecting a runtime post- > install by > modifying your PATH (this is precisely what we do today)? If you > want a GNU > runtime, simply place /usr/gnu/bin at the head of your PATH. Still > want > xpg6? How about a BSD runtime? This is functionality we already have > today, > why not keep it around in Indiana? > > If you want to change the default PATH (in effect setting the > runtime for > each user), you have the option of changing /etc/profile etc. Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of $PATH in the indiana preview ;) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 5 Nov 2007, at 15:15, Steven Stallion wrote: > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of > the new > installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a > runtime in > the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU > runtime for > *every* user on the system. Indeed, these sort of options sound better suited to somewhere like GNOME's user-admin preferences window, IMHO. I suspect a sizable number of users would have insufficient knowledge to make an informed choice, or just no preference at all, when confronted with such a choice during installation (I count myself among them!). And that's usually a sign that it's better just to pick a sensible default, but allow it to be over-ridden later. Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]GNOME Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Indiana / SXCE / Sun Solaris 10 / Nevada - Gawd I'm CONFUSED
Shawn Walker wrote: > On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:56:14PM -0700, Ch?? Kristo wrote: >> SXCE (and SXDE) are going to be Sun Solaris 11 eventually, or at least their aim is to provide an unstable testing bed for Solaris 11 Note: The C stands for "Community". >>> I think that this has changed now...SXCE and SXDE will be discontinued from >>> what I understand. >>> >> Where did you read that? >> > > It was discussed at the Developer's Summit as a possibility in the > near future (i.e. early next year). > > That was the consensus that was reached as far as I understand ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Let's focus. (2nd Draft)
W. Wayne Liauh wrote: > You people are accusing "Whoever those person or persons may be" of being a > dictator, but you don't have any problem being one when "you" are on the > driver's seat. > Who is you? If you're talking to James - then well... um.. yeah. He is an OGB member. > Have you ever consulted (or even thought about) the opinions of little people > like me and a bunch of others in a like situation who continue to be ignored, > mis-represented, and, worse, abused? > Yeah - we do routinely talk to people. And being "ignored, mis-represented, and worse, abused" goes both ways. > I am very confident that the Solaris rejuvenation movement is much bigger > than a bunch of Solaris old farts who thought they represent the > "Community"--whatever that means. > The OpenSolaris Community elected us. So yeah, I do kind of think we represent the community. > >From the very first day the news about Indiana came about, I always imagined > >that it would become a de jure OpenSolaris distro. In fact, if you have > >ever been in a position to try to pitch Solaris to businesses and government > >entities, you will probably come to the same conclusion. You can express > >your opinion, but you have to make it damn clear that it is your own > >opinion, plus perhaps a handful (five fingers) of others. It does not, at > >the very least, speak that of mine. > Go look at the avalanche of replies in the thread. Count up the number of dissenting opinions. If you've concluded that it's a handful of people, then I'd like to see a photo of your hand and how many fingers you have on it. > I want to echo Mr. Murdock's sentiment: I really can't understand why the big > fuss is about. Linus writes no more than 5% of the Linux kernel, but, like > it or not, he has (at least used to have) absolute control over the release > of and everything there is to do with Linux. Don't like his decision, there > was Alan Cox (now Andrew Morton) who always provides follow-up kernel patches. > I'll put at simply as I can. The name, and the announcement implies it has the backing and blessing of the OpenSolaris Community. No such backing or blessing has been given. Is that so hard to understand? > I officially joined the OpenSolaris.org almost two and half years ago. I > would very much like to consider myself a member of the "community". But I > can't, because I really don't know what the "community" is. I am sure the > so-called "community" would be more credible if some of the Solaris gurus who > have often shown a propensity to control or at least affect the direction of > OpenSolaris could first try to make a concerted effort to help those > struggling/frustrating newcomers like myself. That way, you/they will have a > better chance to win our respect and thus support when there is a conflict > with Sun's management. > And Indiana is a perfectly good way to solve this. We're not disputing Indiana's existence. Just the fact that it is co-opting the name. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Running firefox in Xvnc session causes Xvnc memory leak
Thank you Alan, that was helpful. Until the sysadmins make the fixed version of Firefox available, is there any manual step one could take to reduce the ridiculously large Xvnc memory footprint (other than the obvious heavy-handed approach of killing the vncserver job and restarting it) ? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Let's focus. (2nd Draft)
W. Wayne Liauh writes: > You people are accusing "Whoever those person or persons may be" of being a > dictator, but you don't have any problem being one when "you" are on the > driver's seat. "You people?" At a guess, that's a reference to the OGB members. Or perhaps the people opposed to exclusive use of the "OpenSolaris" term without community endorsement. Or perhaps to me in particular, as it seems that you were following up my message. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. However, I don't see the dictatorial behavior you're referring to. Since I'm clearly ignorant here, could you perhaps clue me in? > Have you ever consulted (or even thought about) the opinions of little people > like me and a bunch of others in a like situation who continue to be ignored, > mis-represented, and, worse, abused? If you approach the OGB with your specific concerns, I'm sure they can be discussed. I don't know what those concerns are, so it's a bit hard to answer your question. > I am very confident that the Solaris rejuvenation movement is much bigger > than a bunch of Solaris old farts who thought they represent the > "Community"--whatever that means. "Community" is defined in the constitution. I'm not sure what the rest of that statement actually means. I don't know if I'm old enough to qualify in your sweeping generalization, but if so, I can certainly say that I don't think I personally represent the community. That'd be rather presumptuous. > >From the very first day the news about Indiana came about, I always imagined > >that it would become a de jure OpenSolaris distro. In fact, if you have > >ever been in a position to try to pitch Solaris to businesses and government > >entities, you will probably come to the same conclusion. You can express > >your opinion, but you have to make it damn clear that it is your own > >opinion, plus perhaps a handful (five fingers) of others. It does not, at > >the very least, speak that of mine. Yes, I think such a reference distribution be a great thing to have. The dispute has *NEVER* been about having such a distribution. Nor have I seen anyone claim to be speaking on your behalf. I don't make such claims. Instead, the dispute is about the _unknown_ wider community's interest in the exclusive use of the name "OpenSolaris" for a distribution, the lack of any community endorsement of such a usage, and the subsequent complaints brought to the OGB. Many people have expressed a desire to see this usage be subject to a community-wide decision -- a vote -- rather than just appearing as a fait accompli on the web site. I happen to agree with those people. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to an OpenSolaris distribution. It doesn't mean I fail to see the good that Indiana is doing. It certainly doesn't mean that I'm attempting to speak on your behalf. That the proponents of the OpenSolaris reference distribution keep harping on something that has not actually been in dispute is one of the real disappointments in this case. (The other, of course, being that avoiding this whole mess would have been _trivially_ easy, and yet the unnamed decision makers chose the path of greatest resistance by avoiding a community-wide vote.) > I officially joined the OpenSolaris.org almost two and half years ago. I > would very much like to consider myself a member of the "community". But I > can't, because I really don't know what the "community" is. I am sure the > so-called "community" would be more credible if some of the Solaris gurus who > have often shown a propensity to control or at least affect the direction of > OpenSolaris could first try to make a concerted effort to help those > struggling/frustrating newcomers like myself. That way, you/they will have a > better chance to win our respect and thus support when there is a conflict > with Sun's management. I didn't know that answering your (or anyone's) technical questions was a condition for a term in governance. That comes as news to me. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W 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] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and this > is > purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more* > users than > you'll make happy. > This sounds like a solution looking for a problem :) Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of the new installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a runtime in the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU runtime for *every* user on the system. Simply put, why not have the option of selecting a runtime post-install by modifying your PATH (this is precisely what we do today)? If you want a GNU runtime, simply place /usr/gnu/bin at the head of your PATH. Still want xpg6? How about a BSD runtime? This is functionality we already have today, why not keep it around in Indiana? If you want to change the default PATH (in effect setting the runtime for each user), you have the option of changing /etc/profile etc. Steve > > Glynn > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] current build on front page
Is there any way that the current Build version number can be posted somewhere on the main OpenSolaris page. Would be nice to not have to go through two logins to see which build is most current. Thanks mike This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] My wishes for Solaris in future
Orvar Korvar writes: > "2. There must be in future fully Gentoo installation philosophy allowing to > compile kernel sources and adjust it for computer on which you are doing > install." > > With the Solaris kernel you can configure it a lot without recompiling. For > instance, you can choose between different schedulers during runtime. The > solaris kernel behaves well without having to recompile, which is a must with > (inferior) Linux. A big -1 from me as well on that wish-list entry. Any "adjustment" that requires a kernel recompile is just a bug, and should be fixed. That might have been an acceptable answer 25 years ago, but it's not now, and if any part of OpenSolaris really needs the "-funroll-loops" sort of manual hackery, then we're in deep trouble. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W 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] Name Change?
> By the way (and not directed just at you), speaking of "Sun" as a > decision-maker is unhelpful in my view. "Sun" is a legal fiction[1] > and plenty of people with divergent opinions in this community work > speak on its behalf. It is far better to name names when a decision > is concerned - they have all been taken by a living person somewhere > since legal fictions are unable to do so. Re: Blaming Sun Microsystems for everything :) I appreciate that you don't want to be stereotyped. But you can see why it is hard for the public to understand who is responsible for what, and why they take the easy way out and blame the company you work for. One person would blame Glynn because he did the release announcement. I might blame Ian because he is getting blame from some others. But we could be totally wrong. What if someone else in the company is telling Glynn or Ian what to do?! I really don't know :( Just to have a clue about what individual to blame, I have to try to understand the corporate structure because that structure determines who has the responsibility for what. But nobody wants to try to figure all that out, and they shouldn't have to either. So we blame Sun Microsystems. I'll try to identify individuals right now though. I'm GUESSING Ian is one unknown VP away from Jonathan Schwartz. And of course Schwartz is the captain of the ship. Who decides what, I don't know though. I'll assume whole responsibility is found between the two of them. So in the case of this naming debacle, even if I identify the right individuals, there is small chain of responsibility that ends in Jonathan Schwartz doing what he thinks will make the company money. To me this puts the blame right back on "Sun Microsystems". Casting such a wide international net is correct but inaccurate. I know that while I've found the responsible party somewhere in my generalization, I've also caught you and thousands of others in my net. ..Sorry about that :) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] My wishes for Solaris in future
"2. There must be in future fully Gentoo installation philosophy allowing to compile kernel sources and adjust it for computer on which you are doing install." With the Solaris kernel you can configure it a lot without recompiling. For instance, you can choose between different schedulers during runtime. The solaris kernel behaves well without having to recompile, which is a must with (inferior) Linux. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
On 4-Nov-07, at 7:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote: Mario Goebbels wrote: Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or de-jure UNIX or hawever you want to characterise it). I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the easiest way to defuse that userland situation. After all, it was said from the beginning, that Indiana was meant to lure some of the Linux users. So I won't mind GNU being the default, AS LONG there's a comfortable way to avoid this, being a radio button list in the installer. Ideally, the radio options come with descriptive text, explaining to the user what they're about to select. Also, add POSIX as option. Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and this is purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more* users than you'll make happy. In beautiful ASCIIvision __ | _ o X | |-| | | | Choose a command-line environment | |style| | | | 0 Traditional Solaris ? | | O GNU ? | | O BSD ? | | O POSIX/UNIX03 Standards Compliant ? | | | | _ | | |Next ->| | | - | --- *shrug* the question marks pops up something to the effect of Traditional Solaris: shell: /usr/bin/ksh93 PATH: /usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin:/usr/ccs/bin GNU: shell: /bin/bash PATH: /usr/gnu/bin:/usr/sfw/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin BSD shell: tcsh PATH: /usr/ucb/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin POSIX shell: /bin/sh PATH: /usr/xpg4/bin:/usr/xpg6/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
