Re: [osol-discuss] [osol-code] [driver-discuss] CPU temperature and fan
On Dec 15, 2007 1:56 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> Is there any existing tools or interface on the solaris can monitor= > > CPU > >> temperature and control fan status? > > > >I'm using the following dtrace script to monitor cpu temperatures on = > >a > >Tecra S1 centrino laptop (monitors some dtrace probes in the=20 > >tzmon kernel module). Unfortunatelly it's not very useful on ASUS > >mainboards with the Q-Fan feature enabled: ASUS BIOS controlls the= > >=20 > >cpu fan speed, and ASUS' ACPI code always reports a cpu temperature o= > >f > >40.0=B0C: > > The "acpidrv" code also contains temperature ACPI calls. > > "batstat -t" prints them. > Thanks for the info. # batstat -t Thermal zone: \_TZ_.TZ00, temperature = 50C, critical = 127C Thermal zone: \_TZ_.TZ01, temperature = 54C, critical = 100C Active Cooling: 71 55 So this is just temperature report, any tools can control the CPU fan? Or is it already automatically controlled? Thanks, -Aubrey ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Disconnecting an external USB drive (with ZFS filesystem)
I'm working with external USB drives for backup. I want to NOT keep them connected full time, for the usual reasons that backups shouldn't be mounted all the time; so I have to figure out how to disconnect them, and reconnect them. The external disk c4t0d0 (ap_id usb1/9) has a zfs pool named "wrack" on it. After doing zpool export wrack (which succeeds), cfgadm still shows the device as connected and configured. If I issue "cfgadm -c disconnect usb1/9", I get: bash-3.2$ sudo cfgadm -c disconnect usb1/9 Disconnect the device: /devices/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci10de,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1:9 This operation will suspend activity on the USB device Continue (yes/no)? yes cfgadm: Hardware specific failure: Cannot issue devctl to ap_id: /devices/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci10de,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1:9 and usb1/9 still shows as connected and configured in cfgadm. (And I get the same results if I try "unconfigure" instead.) Furthermore, just trying to do this and having it fail logs the following: Dec 14 22:21:45 fsfs usba: [ID 691482 kern.warning] WARNING: /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci10de,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (scsa2usb0): Disconnected device was busy, please reconnect. When I go ahead and pull the USB cable out, syslog shows a "device gone" and an "offline" message for the device; and also "Dec 14 22:29:15 fsfs SYNCHRONIZE CACHE command failed (5)" which is a little more worrying. When I plug it back in after a few minutes, I find an "online" message for the device in syslog, with nothing else looking like trouble. And "zpool import wrack" works fine. So everything is probably okay, I guess? I don't really like getting things like the "device was busy" and "synchronize cache command failed" messages in the log in normal operations! They make me worry. Are there other things I could/should do to make the device more idle before removing it? (It's fun naming pairs or small collections of things; these two backup drives, and the pools on them, are named "wrack" and "ruin"; seems appropriate for backup drives somehow.) -- David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Jobs/Recruiters List
Dennis Clarke wrote: >> Just a reminder. We have a list (that we haven't used yet) for companies >> and recruiters to post jobs and communicate with OpenSolaris developers: >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-jobs. I got >> several requests recently and other list admins did as well this >> morning. Just send them to the jobs list, so it's all in one place. >> > > Jim I tried to send the Google recruiter message to that list but I was > flatly rejected even though my membership is confirmed. I'll ask the Google > person to go fill in the web based form but .. that may not work either. > > Has that list ever been tested ? > > The list is moderated so all posting have to be approved, but I can't get into the admin pages at the moment. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Jobs/Recruiters List
> Just a reminder. We have a list (that we haven't used yet) for companies > and recruiters to post jobs and communicate with OpenSolaris developers: > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-jobs. I got > several requests recently and other list admins did as well this > morning. Just send them to the jobs list, so it's all in one place. Jim I tried to send the Google recruiter message to that list but I was flatly rejected even though my membership is confirmed. I'll ask the Google person to go fill in the web based form but .. that may not work either. Has that list ever been tested ? Dennis -- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:43:56 -0800 From: "Kerry Xin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Dear Administrator - From Google Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Lines: 17 Dear Administrator, I am a recruiter from Google and we are currently working on an array of projects that would require the help of some very talented coders. With your permission, I would like to send an inquiry to the mailing list to scout out people who might be interested in working with us. Thank you very much! Kerry -- Kerry Xin Google.com Engineering/SRE Staffing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 214-5217 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever) name is a conflict with another existing one. I recommend that Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making such a proposal specific to his troubles with star, compare, etc... I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, OpenSolaris cannot evolve. You have to verify that the way it is currently handled actually works. My impression is that it is either impossible to integrate stuff at all or that some people inside Sun boycott the integration of star. If you would ask me now, I could only say "it does not work". Think about how to find a way to change this Jorg, you are in SWAN now. You can put together a workspace, integrate star into it, send out the code reviews and ultimately submit the RTI. Until you have an RTI that is refused, or an ARC case that is rejected, I don't think it is fair to assume *anyone* is rejecting anything if you've done. But its also not fair to expect them to do this work for you. If someone else at Sun wants star badly then *they* could do the work. So, if your ARC cases have been approved, put together a workspace, and send out code reviews as the first step. Its really not that hard. I'd offer to help you with it myself, except I know nothing about the SFW consolidation, and have little interest learning it just to help you out. If however you want to integrate into ON, I can offer you some basic suggestions... but I'm still not going to do the work for you myself! I don't think anyone else will, either. As my dad always said, "Actions speak louder than words." Demonstrate your commitment to getting star integrated by your deed rather than your e-mails. +1 Garrett's Dad is obviously a very smart man. And Garrett seems to have learned from his Dad very well. He (Garrett) is a very successful contributor to ON and a (successful) role model that we would do well to emulate. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ Graduate from "sugar-coating school"? Sorry - I never attended! :)___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Jobs/Recruiters List
Just a reminder. We have a list (that we haven't used yet) for companies and recruiters to post jobs and communicate with OpenSolaris developers: http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-jobs. I got several requests recently and other list admins did as well this morning. Just send them to the jobs list, so it's all in one place. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I was unaware of the existence of your compare until today. Just to be different, I'll admit that *I* knew about the problem quite a while ago. I knew about the problem only because these two programs once duked it out over the right to be '/opt/csw/bin/compare' if you make the mistake of installing "schilyutils" and "imagemagick" -- and not because I ever used or had a reason to use schilyutils. Apparently, someone changed the ImageMagick one in blastwave to be "compare2" ... which is an extremely annoying result if you prefer to use the usual image manipulation tools and end up getting surprised by a binary comparison tool that isn't needed and doesn't do what was wanted. In any event, none of that is OpenSolaris, nor does it establish any precedent here, and the prior inclusion of ImageMagick in /usr/sfw *does* establish precedent, so I think LSARC made an entirely proper decision on this apparent conflict, preferring the popular and expected usage rather than the obscure and unexpected. (What's next? Replacing /usr/bin/dd with VM/CMS 'dd' because the latter is "older?") > You claim that the only choice compatible with ALL ImageMagick > installations is the "worst choice" is beyond me. > > IMHO, it's the best choice that a distro can make. Indeed. I completely agree. -- 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > You forget the most important result from the ARC discussion: > > If there is a name collision the cannot be resolved, the name cannot be used > in /usr/bin. > > Current Solaris express is in conflict with ARC decisions. > > Jörg > Seriously: Could you cite the precedent for this assertion? Aside: I'm more than amused that historically the use of fully qualified paths and lengthy PATH settings was the norm for Unix and Solaris. Then came Linux, which seems to want to place everything into a single directory, because they liked it. It seems that many people prefer this in the interest if EOU. The cost of better EOU is often less available choices. Solaris has been slowly evolving to this model. Tell me again how the OSS world is the poster boy for resolving conflicts... LOL, - jek3 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ipfilter and tcp timeouts - painful
Umm, if you want to do it for "all" connections without support from the respective applications, it'd be messy. A couple of lateral approaches - 1 (a). Hack libsocket, on all socket() calls unconditionally add SO_KEEPALIVE (?) using setsockopt, recompile. Statically linked programs (Oracle?) will not pick it up. 1 (b). Code another shared lib, in the socket() call, add another call to setsockopt to add the keep alive flag. then LD_PRELOAD it globally for all applications. 2. Write a custom program which monitors all active connections, and periodically masquerades/spoofs a "keep alive" packet on those active connections using raw sockets. 3. DTrace ? Using dtrace instrument all socket() calls, and possibly do something to add the SO_KEEPALIVE option to the socket. For the applications which make at least one call to setsockopt, it will be trivial (modify the argument flags and add the keep alive flag). Not sure about how to do it if there is no such call. Would be fun :D This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:04:28PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Everything is ready for a long time and waiting for integration. > The SFW makefile system is undocumented and idiosyncratic > and it does not seem to support all I need. > > If the makefilesystem is usable, somebody just kows how just > needs to write the wrapper Makefile. Right. As the implementer, this is your responsibility. You can get help with that system from sfwnv-discuss; I'm sure Mike Sullivan knows what you need, and there are others there with experience using the makefiles (which aren't really very complex). Now can we please end this thread? -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > As my dad always said, "Actions speak louder than words." Demonstrate > > your commitment to getting star integrated by your deed rather than your > > e-mails. > > +1 for your Dad's community project! I am sorry that even you missunderstand things. Everything is ready for a long time and waiting for integration. The SFW makefile system is undocumented and idiosyncratic and it does not seem to support all I need. If the makefilesystem is usable, somebody just kows how just needs to write the wrapper Makefile. Time cannot be a problem as long as people spend a lot of time to explain that they are not responsible for the problem. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > As my dad always said, "Actions speak louder than words." Demonstrate > your commitment to getting star integrated by your deed rather than your > e-mails. +1 for your Dad's community project! -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever) name is a conflict with another existing one. I recommend that Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making such a proposal specific to his troubles with star, compare, etc... I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, OpenSolaris cannot evolve. Even a casual observer of the on-going technical behavior on opensolaris.org can clearly see the ARC decision making and implementation are alive and healthy. You have to verify that the way it is currently handled actually works. Go ahead and download Nevada Build 77 and I think you'll agree that it works! Thats all the 'verification' you need! My impression is that it is either impossible to integrate stuff at all or that some people inside Sun boycott the integration of star. If you Joerg - you're full of krap. The integration of ksh93 *proves* that integration is not only possible, but is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent. Look at the internal (within Sun) bickering that kept ksh93 from being integrated for years. And look at how much *disruption* the integration of ksh93 caused - because it touches on so many kernel related features/facilities and yet *it* *was* *successfully* *integrated* by Roland Mainz - an OpenSolaris contributor and non-Sun employee. Thus - your arguments are without merit. would ask me now, I could only say "it does not work". On the contrary - ksh93 proves that it *does* *work*. Think about how to find a way to change this Why change anything? Download build 77 and type: exec ksh93 -o vi at the command line. It works. "If it ain't broke - don't fix it!" Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ Graduate from "sugar-coating school"? Sorry - I never attended! :)___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>My experience has been that ARC is very agreeable to work with people to >figure out new ways of doing things when needed. It took us several >failed attempts, but working together we found a way to document >interface change in the GNOME desktop that is suitable to ARC and >which also isn't so burdensome to the resources of the JDS team. Thanks Brian for this perspective on the ARCs. I think that anyone who brings a project to the ARCs for the first time is taken aback by the volume of comments and what appears to be resistance. Each engineer's first major ARC experience, however, is a great learning experience. The first time you think it's a hurdle or unnecessary red-tape; but in the end you know better. You then start to realize that as an engineer you develop blinders early on in your design cycle; you then dig yourself into various holes. Then you get to the ARC with what you think is a complete project and people start asking question which appear hostile at first. But in the end you realize that there is no hostility, just business and genuine interest in keeping the product as good, reliable and maintainable as it is. They help you realize the holes you've dug and the mistakes you've made; or they make you rethink the things you didn't feel comfortable about either. And that is goodness. I think ksh93, for all the fireworks its ARC case seemed to bring, is a prime example of how this works; but it's like sausages. The end result can be very appealing but the process of making them is not for the fainthearted. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, >> OpenSolaris cannot evolve. > > ARC does not "decide" as much as approves, approves w/ TCRs or denies. > > But projects approved by the ARC are often implemented so to claim > that that is impossible is ludicrous. > > But they are implemented by their stakeholders. And sometimes stakeholders > leave and projects wither away. > >> You have to verify that the way it is currently handled actually works. >> My impression is that it is either impossible to integrate stuff at all >> or that some people inside Sun boycott the integration of star. If you >> would ask me now, I could only say "it does not work". > > > We have not seen a "request-sponsor" request from you for the > integration of star nor have we seen any other attempt to do so. > > YOU will have to do the work to integrate star. > > *ALL* the work; you will need to get to a point that you can > type "putback" or whatever the equivalent is for the consolidation > you want to put it in then solicit input for code reviews etc. > > Possibly revisit the ARC case and see whether it needs updating > (this is likely a minor matter, but when ARC cases are so old, they > likely need a few touchups). > > Since I have seen none of those things coming from you, I'd say that > the star integration ball is firmly in your court and you need to pick > it up and run with it. > > You have mentioned star integration many times and we tell you the exact > same thing every time. So let me ask you a question: What is it that you > expect Sun to do first? Followup: Question for Joerg: If I (personally) come up with a nice command line utility the others find useful and decide to have it integrated into OpenSolaris as "star" and go through the integration/ARC process, just as Roland Mainz did for ksh93 - is there anything to stop me from having *my* code placed in /usr/bin/star? I don't think so. If you want to get your "star" integrated into /usr/bin/star before me (or anyone else) you best get your ask in gear. The time you're spending on this useless thread could be better spent in getting your "star" integrated into OpenSolaris IMHO. Joerg: Start your "star" integration effort today - lest someone else integrates another program called 'star' into /usr/bin before you. And then we'll all have to suffer another Joerg S thread complaining about how you had "star" years before that other person subsumed "your" program name. Joerg - I've tried to make this email as blunt as possible. Stop trying to swim upstream. If you want "star" integrated - (per Nike) "Do It Now". Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ Graduate from "sugar-coating school"? Sorry - I never attended! :) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:35:33PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, > OpenSolaris cannot evolve. You've jumped the shark. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:10:25PM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than > >> they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever) > >> name is a conflict with another existing one. > >> > >> I recommend that Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making > >> such a proposal specific to his troubles with star, compare, etc... > >> > >> I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow > >> OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with > >> > > > > As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, > > OpenSolaris cannot evolve. > > > > You have to verify that the way it is currently handled actually works. > > My impression is that it is either impossible to integrate stuff at all > > or that some people inside Sun boycott the integration of star. If you > > would ask me now, I could only say "it does not work". > > > > Think about how to find a way to change this > > > > Jorg, you are in SWAN now. You can put together a workspace, integrate > star into it, send out the code reviews and ultimately submit the RTI. > Until you have an RTI that is refused, or an ARC case that is rejected, > I don't think it is fair to assume *anyone* is rejecting anything if > you've done. > > But its also not fair to expect them to do this work for you. If > someone else at Sun wants star badly then *they* could do the work. > > So, if your ARC cases have been approved, put together a workspace, and > send out code reviews as the first step. Its really not that hard. > > I'd offer to help you with it myself, except I know nothing about the > SFW consolidation, and have little interest learning it just to help you > out. If however you want to integrate into ON, I can offer you some > basic suggestions... but I'm still not going to do the work for you > myself! I don't think anyone else will, either. > it depends, would the integration of star mark an end this ground-hog-day[1] like conversation? ed 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than >> they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever) >> name is a conflict with another existing one. >> >> I recommend that Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making >> such a proposal specific to his troubles with star, compare, etc... >> >> I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow >> OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with >> > > As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, > OpenSolaris cannot evolve. > > You have to verify that the way it is currently handled actually works. > My impression is that it is either impossible to integrate stuff at all > or that some people inside Sun boycott the integration of star. If you > would ask me now, I could only say "it does not work". > > Think about how to find a way to change this > Jorg, you are in SWAN now. You can put together a workspace, integrate star into it, send out the code reviews and ultimately submit the RTI. Until you have an RTI that is refused, or an ARC case that is rejected, I don't think it is fair to assume *anyone* is rejecting anything if you've done. But its also not fair to expect them to do this work for you. If someone else at Sun wants star badly then *they* could do the work. So, if your ARC cases have been approved, put together a workspace, and send out code reviews as the first step. Its really not that hard. I'd offer to help you with it myself, except I know nothing about the SFW consolidation, and have little interest learning it just to help you out. If however you want to integrate into ON, I can offer you some basic suggestions... but I'm still not going to do the work for you myself! I don't think anyone else will, either. As my dad always said, "Actions speak louder than words." Demonstrate your commitment to getting star integrated by your deed rather than your e-mails. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg: >> You've been told how to prevent new conflicts with your tools arising: >> run one or more ARC cases for integrating your tools into OpenSolaris, > > As long as it has not been verified that arc cases help, I will definitely not > do this! > > You are responsible to allow approved arc cases to be integrated before > arc cases can be taken for serious. As for today arc cases are a big tool > to spend time on but they do not result in facts. An interesting bit of history. For a long time the Sun JDS GNOME project team felt similar to you, that ARC is a waste of time, doesn't produce results, etc. A part of this bad attitude stemmed from the reasonable fact that the GNOME stack is huge with many complicated interfaces, making it painful to document as ARC requires. However, the JDS GNOME team bit the bullet, and I think the GNOME ARC cases are a nice example of how a free software project and ARC were able to work together. In these reviews, numerous issues were identified and resolved that otherwise would have been overlooked. I can honestly say that having an experienced group of architects look over our proposals greatly improved the quality of the GNOME desktop (both in general and how it is shipped on Solaris/OpenSolaris). My experience has been that ARC is very agreeable to work with people to figure out new ways of doing things when needed. It took us several failed attempts, but working together we found a way to document interface change in the GNOME desktop that is suitable to ARC and which also isn't so burdensome to the resources of the JDS team. I understand that figuring out how to make ARC work with external projects is a new thing, and will likely be a bit complicated at first. Since I was involved with the pain of ARC'ing GNOME, I can sympathize with anyone's tendency to try and avoid such pain. However, it shouldn't be a mystery to anyone that ARC is the review body that determines which interfaces are considered blessed. If you haven't even bothered to propose your interfaces to ARC (or process changes if you think the ARC process needs improvement), then you can't really claim to have tried very hard to work with the process. Brian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >Stop replying unless you are willing to have a discussion instead of > >proclaiming things. > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > You are the one proclaiming and accusing. I think I am being > reasonable. > > I've tried to ask the question more politely several times, but I have You have been impolite from the beginning of this discussion because you ignored the problem and because your replies read between the lines that you are not willing to change things. I started by describing the problem. If you like a serious discussion, you would need to reply in a way that does not try to prevent a discussion. I did warn that there will be a problem early enough. The problem has been discussed and at some time there was something that looked like people did understand the problem. You cannot behave as if I did notice the problem lately. We now have a problem because early discussion results have been ignored. A solution thus needs to start discussing the action that caused the problem. You did never even try to talk about this problem. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, > OpenSolaris cannot evolve. It is clearly possible to implement ARC decisions in OpenSolaris - there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this happening already. There are difficulties in external-to-Sun contributors getting their changes in - the huge backlog in request-sponsor for instance, the lack of an external gate that external contributors can commit to - but those do not make it impossible, as has been proven by contributors like Roland Mainz, Shawn Walker, Juergen Keil, Rich Lowe, and a whole lot more whose names I haven't memorized. However, there is no request from you in the request-sponsor list at: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/bug_reports/request_sponsor/ so I can't see why you're complaining, since you obviously aren't even trying to get changes integrated. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, >OpenSolaris cannot evolve. ARC does not "decide" as much as approves, approves w/ TCRs or denies. But projects approved by the ARC are often implemented so to claim that that is impossible is ludicrous. But they are implemented by their stakeholders. And sometimes stakeholders leave and projects wither away. >You have to verify that the way it is currently handled actually works. >My impression is that it is either impossible to integrate stuff at all >or that some people inside Sun boycott the integration of star. If you >would ask me now, I could only say "it does not work". We have not seen a "request-sponsor" request from you for the integration of star nor have we seen any other attempt to do so. YOU will have to do the work to integrate star. *ALL* the work; you will need to get to a point that you can type "putback" or whatever the equivalent is for the consolidation you want to put it in then solicit input for code reviews etc. Possibly revisit the ARC case and see whether it needs updating (this is likely a minor matter, but when ARC cases are so old, they likely need a few touchups). Since I have seen none of those things coming from you, I'd say that the star integration ball is firmly in your court and you need to pick it up and run with it. You have mentioned star integration many times and we tell you the exact same thing every time. So let me ask you a question: What is it that you expect Sun to do first? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>Stop replying unless you are willing to have a discussion instead of >proclaiming things. Pot. Kettle. Black. You are the one proclaiming and accusing. I think I am being reasonable. I've tried to ask the question more politely several times, but I have yet to see an answer, so I'll be a little bit more direct: Why do you believe that your command "compare" which is used by perhaps O(nobody) people, has more rights to be installed in /usr/bin/ then ImageMagick's compare command which is installed in that location on 100,000s and likely millions of systems?[1] Casper [1] Irrespective of the fact that proper ARC procedure was followed and that the outcome of that procedure would not have been different except if your compare was shipping in /usr/bin. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Why should I rename that exists in the public for a long time just > because > some uncooperative people reused the name? It's really irritating that ImageMagick grabbed command-line namespace this way. It's worse than you think, Jörg: "convert" and "identify" are also ImageMagick commands. The trouble is that they seem to have got away with it; for example, my blog-publishing system uses "convert" to wrangle pictures around, and it runs successfully on a huge number of different systems. There are a huge number of ImageMagick users; of the three command-line image wranglers (there are also gd, and the pbm family) it produces by far the best-quality graphics. So, it's reasonable to be irritated about this land-grab, but I'm afraid they have you outnumbered. -Tim ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than > they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever) > name is a conflict with another existing one. > > I recommend that Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making > such a proposal specific to his troubles with star, compare, etc... > > I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow > OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, OpenSolaris cannot evolve. You have to verify that the way it is currently handled actually works. My impression is that it is either impossible to integrate stuff at all or that some people inside Sun boycott the integration of star. If you would ask me now, I could only say "it does not work". Think about how to find a way to change this 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] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> > >> >For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be= > > renamed > >> >or it needs to be put into a different directory. > >> > >> > >> Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare = > >command; > >> why don't you rename yours? > > > >Looks like you are unwilling to cooperate! > > > >Why should I rename that exists in the public for a long time just be= > >cause some uncooperative people reused the name? > > > Stop trying to be the center of the universe, Joerg. You're accusing Stop replying unless you are willing to have a discussion instead of proclaiming things. If you like to have a discussion, you need to make a proposal that _may_ be acceptable. If your "proposal" was intended to be more than depreciating, try to e.g. convince the "gimp" team to use a new name. If you believe this is ridiculous, you know what you tried to do with me. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> When it comes to generic names (which unfortunately ImageMagick is full > >> of) I personally would prefer that it wasn't allowed unless they were > >> really generic. However UNIX is full of stuff like this already > >> cancel,accept etc. It is very important for adoption of OpenSolaris > >> distributions that in some cases when OpenSolaris imports external > >> technology that we do so in the most appropriate way, in the ImageMagick > >> case that means not changing the default program names. > > > > So how did these names make it into /usr/bin/? > > The third sentence in that quoted paragraph is the reason. Note that I > said "I personally" not "The ARC requires". > > > It usually helps to avoid problems if things are planned instead of just > > let them pile up. > > I personally don't see an problem with this particular instance. I also I currently only see your unwillingness. Your problem is not that you did not know the problem before I mentioned it, your problem is that you ignore input from other people. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > Norm Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Your argument there is with the open source community. It's the >> ImageMagick open source project that chose the name "compare" for their >> program. Yes, we did choose to place it in /usr/bin along with the rest >> of the ImageMagick commands, but there was a reasonable expectation that >> we would do so when we integrated it into Solaris. Remarkably, this is >> how it's been done on other open source operating system distributions. >> The fact that /usr/bin/compare on other open source operating system >> distributions comes from ImageMagick must be lost on you. You may not >> like it, I may or may not like it, but that's simply how it is. >> > > Are you working on preventing OpenSolaris from being a working alternative? > Just the opposite. In this case, by providing most users what they expect to find, we are making Open Solaris a more viable alternative for them. > Why do you care whether others make it wrong too? > In this case, "wrong" is a subjective term. What you believe to be wrong, other (not just Sun) have decided is right. -Norm ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When it comes to generic names (which unfortunately ImageMagick is full > of) I personally would prefer that it wasn't allowed unless they were > really generic. However UNIX is full of stuff like this already > cancel,accept etc. It is very important for adoption of OpenSolaris > distributions that in some cases when OpenSolaris imports external > technology that we do so in the most appropriate way, in the ImageMagick > case that means not changing the default program names. So how did these names make it into /usr/bin/? It usually helps to avoid problems if things are planned instead of just let them pile up. BTW: I am still waiting for a reply that signalls the will for cooperation. Replies like: "we made it, you lost" do not help. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Dec 14, 2007 7:44 PM, Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow > OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with > Linux distros (and *BSDs) that are also growing and evolving at > different rates. But it may be worthwhile to try. What are you all discussing anyway? /usr/bin/compare is in use, big ffing deal. Call it scompare (s from shilling obviously) like we see with star and what not. Get over yourselfs, really. I am sure you all have more important things to do. Sorry for my bluntness but this is both silly and frustrating looking at the work that still has/should be done. Patrick ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever) name is a conflict with another existing one. I recommend that Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making such a proposal specific to his troubles with star, compare, etc... I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with Linux distros (and *BSDs) that are also growing and evolving at different rates. But it may be worthwhile to try. Nico -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Actually, we have a cooperative process for dealing with this kind of thing. It's call ARCing. Joerg Schilling wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>> For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be renamed >>> or it needs to be put into a different directory. >>> >> Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare command; >> why don't you rename yours? >> > > Looks like you are unwilling to cooperate! > > Why should I rename that exists in the public for a long time just because > some uncooperative people reused the name? > Your argument there is with the open source community. It's the ImageMagick open source project that chose the name "compare" for their program. Yes, we did choose to place it in /usr/bin along with the rest of the ImageMagick commands, but there was a reasonable expectation that we would do so when we integrated it into Solaris. Remarkably, this is how it's been done on other open source operating system distributions. The fact that /usr/bin/compare on other open source operating system distributions comes from ImageMagick must be lost on you. You may not like it, I may or may not like it, but that's simply how it is. -Norm ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> When it comes to generic names (which unfortunately ImageMagick is full >> of) I personally would prefer that it wasn't allowed unless they were >> really generic. However UNIX is full of stuff like this already >> cancel,accept etc. It is very important for adoption of OpenSolaris >> distributions that in some cases when OpenSolaris imports external >> technology that we do so in the most appropriate way, in the ImageMagick >> case that means not changing the default program names. > > So how did these names make it into /usr/bin/? The third sentence in that quoted paragraph is the reason. Note that I said "I personally" not "The ARC requires". > It usually helps to avoid problems if things are planned instead of just > let them pile up. I personally don't see an problem with this particular instance. I also see no generic issue here just your personal crusade, against any program name you happen to have picked. In this particular instance your choice of a generic english word for a specific comparison technology is just as much at "fault" as ImageMagick. That fact that you believe yours predates theirs really doesn't matter. What does mater for OpenSolaris is that the ImageMagick case followed the appropriate process and has integrated. > BTW: I am still waiting for a reply that signalls the will for cooperation. Cooperation would mean that both upstream projects yours and ImageMagick agreed to a change. OpenSolaris is just the messenger here. If you want cooperation you need to be willing to compromise otherwise there is no cooperation only Joerg dictate. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Norm Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your argument there is with the open source community. It's the > ImageMagick open source project that chose the name "compare" for their > program. Yes, we did choose to place it in /usr/bin along with the rest > of the ImageMagick commands, but there was a reasonable expectation that > we would do so when we integrated it into Solaris. Remarkably, this is > how it's been done on other open source operating system distributions. > The fact that /usr/bin/compare on other open source operating system > distributions comes from ImageMagick must be lost on you. You may not > like it, I may or may not like it, but that's simply how it is. Are you working on preventing OpenSolaris from being a working alternative? Why do you care whether others make it wrong too? 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] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> >For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be= > renamed >> >or it needs to be put into a different directory. >> >> >> Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare = >command; >> why don't you rename yours? > >Looks like you are unwilling to cooperate! > >Why should I rename that exists in the public for a long time just be= >cause some uncooperative people reused the name? Stop trying to be the center of the universe, Joerg. You're accusing people left and right without any basis in fact. Many people just have no clue what programs you have written nor do they care. When they pick a name for a new program, they'll perhaps try and find one on their own systems and perhaps a few more, And googling for "compare" does not easily find your program (until I add your name, that is) I'm sure that the ImageMagick folks did not /reuse/ the name; they picked the name "compare" because it was identical to the compare() function in their library and they were likely completely unaware of the existence of a "compare" program written by you. Why you claim malice or non-coorperation is beyond me. I was unaware of the existence of your compare until today. You claim that the only choice compatible with ALL ImageMagick installations is the "worst choice" is beyond me. IMHO, it's the best choice that a distro can make. I venture a guess that even if there was a /opt/schilly/bin/compare and we were moving ImageMagick, we would still have preferred its compare because it is in much wider use. And please stop accusing us of of "not wanting to cooperate" etc. We just don't agree with you. In freshmeat "ImageMagick" ranks 75th, your compare ranks 18000th. So who has more rights to install at the #1 location in the PATH? Getting there first is just completely meaningless. Casper Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be renamed >>> or it needs to be put into a different directory. >> >> Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare command; >> why don't you rename yours? > > Looks like you are unwilling to cooperate! > > Why should I rename that exists in the public for a long time just because > some uncooperative people reused the name? In order to compromise and to move forward. Otherwise you just look demanding, unwilling to make any change and difficult to work with so people will eventually just start ignoring you. If that is the stance you want to take that is your choice but don't expect others to change if you aren't willing to. Oldest provable use isn't what matters, sometimes "most popular elsewhere" is what is most important and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is just first past the post is what wins and in this case ImageMagick one. When it comes to generic names (which unfortunately ImageMagick is full of) I personally would prefer that it wasn't allowed unless they were really generic. However UNIX is full of stuff like this already cancel,accept etc. It is very important for adoption of OpenSolaris distributions that in some cases when OpenSolaris imports external technology that we do so in the most appropriate way, in the ImageMagick case that means not changing the default program names. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd set Reply-To so your replies, if any, would go to opensolaris-discuss, > not psarc-ext. One more try. Again, don't reply to me directly please. > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why are we still arguing about this stuff? > > > > > > You've been told how to prevent new conflicts with your tools arising: > > > run one or more ARC cases for integrating your tools into OpenSolaris, > > > > As long as it has not been verified that arc cases help, I will definitely > > not > > do this! > > ARC cases help, but are not sufficient. You *must* integrate in order > to turn an ARC case into reality. A project that never integrates can > have its approved ARC cases withdrawn, ignored, ... I would like to integrate but it seems to be impossible. As long as this does not work, the OpenSolaris ecosystem does not yet exist. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
I'd set Reply-To so your replies, if any, would go to opensolaris-discuss, not psarc-ext. One more try. Again, don't reply to me directly please. On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why are we still arguing about this stuff? > > > > You've been told how to prevent new conflicts with your tools arising: > > run one or more ARC cases for integrating your tools into OpenSolaris, > > As long as it has not been verified that arc cases help, I will definitely not > do this! ARC cases help, but are not sufficient. You *must* integrate in order to turn an ARC case into reality. A project that never integrates can have its approved ARC cases withdrawn, ignored, ... The ARC is not the enforcer: the c-team is. And executable name conflicts are *very* obvious to the c-team (both, from putback notifications and from the nightlies run by the gatekeepers), whereas not so obvious to the ARC. > You are responsible to allow approved arc cases to be integrated before > arc cases can be taken for serious. As for today arc cases are a big tool > to spend time on but they do not result in facts. Approved ARC cases are not an obligation to expend resources to get the given projects integrated. In your case *you* could do the work, but you seem to expect Sun to pay others to do it. Evidently noone at Sun is interested in doing what you ought to do yourself. Nico -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [osol-code] [driver-discuss] CPU temperature and fan
> >> Is there any existing tools or interface on the solaris can monitor= > CPU >> temperature and control fan status? > >I'm using the following dtrace script to monitor cpu temperatures on = >a >Tecra S1 centrino laptop (monitors some dtrace probes in the=20 >tzmon kernel module). Unfortunatelly it's not very useful on ASUS >mainboards with the Q-Fan feature enabled: ASUS BIOS controlls the= >=20 >cpu fan speed, and ASUS' ACPI code always reports a cpu temperature o= >f >40.0=B0C: The "acpidrv" code also contains temperature ACPI calls. "batstat -t" prints them. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be renamed > >or it needs to be put into a different directory. > > > Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare command; > why don't you rename yours? Looks like you are unwilling to cooperate! Why should I rename that exists in the public for a long time just because some uncooperative people reused the name? 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:55:52PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Joep Vesseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name > > > > appeared > > > > in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris > > > > Express. > > > > > > I completely fail to see how your side comment on a PSARC case discussing > > > netcat (PSARC 2007/389) could have possibly given you the idea that > > > "compare" > > > would be a name reserved for your program. > > > > The fact that you found this text verifies that you got the message... > > Obscurity doesn't help your argument. I'm sure many of us had no clue > what you were referring to (I didn't). > > > Not people only need to behave the same way. > > Why are we still arguing about this stuff? > > You've been told how to prevent new conflicts with your tools arising: > run one or more ARC cases for integrating your tools into OpenSolaris, As long as it has not been verified that arc cases help, I will definitely not do this! You are responsible to allow approved arc cases to be integrated before arc cases can be taken for serious. As for today arc cases are a big tool to spend time on but they do not result in facts. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be renamed >or it needs to be put into a different directory. Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare command; why don't you rename yours? Since there is already a plain file compare program "cmp" which is getopt compliant, why don't you add the additional features there? Your distribution is free to choose a different naming for the commands; but Solaris has picked a different track because from Solaris' point of view THERE IS NO CONFLICT BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER "compare" PROGRAM. 'nuf said. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:55:52PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Joep Vesseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name > > > appeared > > > in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express. > > > > I completely fail to see how your side comment on a PSARC case discussing > > netcat (PSARC 2007/389) could have possibly given you the idea that > > "compare" > > would be a name reserved for your program. > > The fact that you found this text verifies that you got the message... Obscurity doesn't help your argument. I'm sure many of us had no clue what you were referring to (I didn't). > Not people only need to behave the same way. Why are we still arguing about this stuff? You've been told how to prevent new conflicts with your tools arising: run one or more ARC cases for integrating your tools into OpenSolaris, get them approved, implement any TCRs, consider implementing TCAs, and *integrate* into the proper consolidation. Yes, there are conflicts. Yes, in order to integrate star and other utilities you'll have to make compromises that you may dislike. C'est la vie. Complaining ad naseum about how we don't do what you want us to do (which you could be doing instead) won't produce the results that you want. It hasn't yet, that's certain. Please respect the reply-to header, and please don't respond to me directly. Thanks, Nico -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >Collaboration happens in the community. > > > >If you are a member of the OpenSolaris community, you should try > >to collaborate. > > > >This is a case to see whether there is collaboration or domination! > > > No. You seem to operate under the misapprehension that collaboration > implies that you get your way. You operate under the missconception that OSS is a world of domination. I know friendly and cooperative OSS and people who check the current namespace when introducing new program names. > Clearly there is a (perceived) conflict between "your" compare command > and ImageMagick's compare command. > > There are several ways to resolve this conflict: > > rename or remove IM' compare > breaks full compatibility with IM > move IM someplace else > this makes it more difficult to discover and use (and therefor > makes Solaris more difficult to use) and this may still break > compatility if your compare is installed > > keep IM compare with IM in /usr/bin > > Of these three alternatives, I would say that the 3rd one is the best > for the majority of OpenSolaris/Solaris users as I have seen not even > a shred of evidence to the contrary. The last choice is the worst. It ignores the fact that a polluted /usr/bin/ cannot be "early" in PATH, that "compare" from Imagemagick does no generic comparison that would justfy the name "compare" and that my compare is 20 years older. Remember the problem with Fdisk IS 0x82. This has the same background. Sun no longer uses this ID because the Linux people did make the ID 0x82 known in the public before Sun did. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joep Vesseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name > > appeared > > in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express. > > I completely fail to see how your side comment on a PSARC case discussing > netcat (PSARC 2007/389) could have possibly given you the idea that "compare" > would be a name reserved for your program. The fact that you found this text verifies that you got the message... Not people only need to behave the same way. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Ghee Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Collaboration also needs to happen in reasonable context. >It seems your argument is that your compare exist before hand, > therefore it > can not be used. This is more like a trademark game. The OpenSolaris > community can not afford to search every single binary existed out > there before > it is decided what it is called. It is simply too costly for ARC and > engineers. For this reason, I did warn in time _before_ the clash happened. If people ignore me, it is not my fault. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Do you like to ignore that my compare is genric and thus correctly using > > the name and that it is 20 years older than imagemagick? > > "compare" as a word dates back to probably 1000BC when the latin language > developed. Its use in english is post-norman, though, being imported from > french, but even that makes the english word almost thousand years old. This does not apply to our computer enviromnent. > What, except a) that I was tortured with Latin in school, and b) that I > can sound quite patronizing if I chose to, does that prove ? > > Generic words can't be trademarked. That's why everyone can call their > stuff "Windows", Microsoft lost a corresponding lawsuit a few years ago. > You chose a simple english word, you can't claim exclusive rights to it. This is not a trademark problem but a name clash problem. We did have a long discussion in the arc mailing list and agreed not to put names into /usr/bin that would cause name clashes. For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be renamed or it needs to be put into a different directory. 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 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] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > Now it seems that my warning has been ignored and "/usr/bin/compare" on svn_77 > appears to be a program from ImageMagick that illegally uses the name > "compare". What law, rule or policy does this violate? ImageMagick was ARC approved, no other program named "compare" has been, so I see no conflict. Neither the OGB nor the ARC can be expected to regulate the namespace of every program someone has written in the world, only those that have asked to be part of OpenSolaris. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] svc:/network/samba vs. svc:/network/smb/server
Mark wrote: > Can someone explain the difference between these two? Yes. network/samba is the userland Samba server. network/smb/server is the OpenSolaris specific in kernel CIFS server, more info on which can be found at http://opensolaris.org/os/project/cifs-server/ -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] svc:/network/samba vs. svc:/network/smb/server
>Can someone explain the difference between these two? samba == samba smb/server == in-kernel CIFS server. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] svc:/network/samba vs. svc:/network/smb/server
Can someone explain the difference between these two? Thanks, Mark This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] CPU temperature and fan
Hi, Is there any existing tools or interface on the solaris can monitor CPU temperature and control fan status? Thanks, -Aubrey ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote: > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name appeared > in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express. I completely fail to see how your side comment on a PSARC case discussing netcat (PSARC 2007/389) could have possibly given you the idea that "compare" would be a name reserved for your program. Joep ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> PSARC discussions happen ONLY in the context of the product/release under >> for which the product is "ARC'ed". >> >> Your "compare" is NOT part of that product; nor is there even an ARC >> case proposing it. >> >> Your "compare" does not exist in the context of the product "Solaris". >> >> It is therefor *completely* irrelevant to a PSARC discussion. >> > > Collaboration happens in the community. > Collaboration also needs to happen in reasonable context. It seems your argument is that your compare exist before hand, therefore it can not be used. This is more like a trademark game. The OpenSolaris community can not afford to search every single binary existed out there before it is decided what it is called. It is simply too costly for ARC and engineers. > If you are a member of the OpenSolaris community, you should try > to collaborate. > > This is a case to see whether there is collaboration or domination! > This is NOT a case of collaboration or domination. Imagemagik was not developed within Sun, it is from the Imagamagik community, you can blame the Imagemagik community being dominant. You can only blame Sun's engineers being dominant when you submit your ARC case for your product into OpenSolaris integration and negotiate with to the module owner of imagemagik to move its installed location when he refuses to consider your plea. Until such thing happens, you are trying to be dominant. -Ghee ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>Collaboration happens in the community. > >If you are a member of the OpenSolaris community, you should try >to collaborate. > >This is a case to see whether there is collaboration or domination! No. You seem to operate under the misapprehension that collaboration implies that you get your way. Clearly there is a (perceived) conflict between "your" compare command and ImageMagick's compare command. There are several ways to resolve this conflict: rename or remove IM' compare breaks full compatibility with IM move IM someplace else this makes it more difficult to discover and use (and therefor makes Solaris more difficult to use) and this may still break compatility if your compare is installed keep IM compare with IM in /usr/bin Of these three alternatives, I would say that the 3rd one is the best for the majority of OpenSolaris/Solaris users as I have seen not even a shred of evidence to the contrary. And as I said, in the context of Solaris/OpenSolaris no such thing as "the other compare" exists so the whole point is moot anyway. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> PSARC discussions happen ONLY in the context of the product/release under >> for which the product is "ARC'ed". >> >> Your "compare" is NOT part of that product; nor is there even an ARC >> case proposing it. >> >> Your "compare" does not exist in the context of the product "Solaris". >> >> It is therefor *completely* irrelevant to a PSARC discussion. >> > > Collaboration happens in the community. > > If you are a member of the OpenSolaris community, you should try > to collaborate. > > This is a case to see whether there is collaboration or domination! > > But Solaris != OpenSolaris. Right? Or am I missing something. Just because something is one way in Solaris doesn't mean it has to be that way in (any particular distribution of) OpenSolaris. Solaris is one distribution. It's Sun's Distribution. I don't think it's correct to call them applying their rules (rules which it sounds like have been used since Solaris was started) to how they manage it. The community will have it's say in the other distributions that are created from OpenSolaris. If one or more of those distributions wants to do what you're suggesting, then it can. And (while I haven't read the gonverning documents, I'm pretty sure) Sun can't do anything to stop that. I'm not surprised there are disagreements like this appearing in this community. It has to be expected that this many people are not going to agree on everything. I think that's why it was smart to plan for multiple distributions. It leaves rooms for groups of like minded people to do things differently. I think we have to expect more things like this in the future. And if Sun does what it thinks needs to be done in Solaris, I don't see it as being heavy handed.They're just one sub-community (with their own way of working out these disagreements internally to their group) within the larger community. -Kyle -Kyle > Jörg > > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > PSARC discussions happen ONLY in the context of the product/release under > for which the product is "ARC'ed". > > Your "compare" is NOT part of that product; nor is there even an ARC > case proposing it. > > Your "compare" does not exist in the context of the product "Solaris". > > It is therefor *completely* irrelevant to a PSARC discussion. Collaboration happens in the community. If you are a member of the OpenSolaris community, you should try to collaborate. This is a case to see whether there is collaboration or domination! 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>You forget the most important result from the ARC discussion: > >If there is a name collision the cannot be resolved, the name cannot be used >in /usr/bin. > >Current Solaris express is in conflict with ARC decisions. PSARC discussions happen ONLY in the context of the product/release under for which the product is "ARC'ed". Your "compare" is NOT part of that product; nor is there even an ARC case proposing it. Your "compare" does not exist in the context of the product "Solaris". It is therefor *completely* irrelevant to a PSARC discussion. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Ghee Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is just another chance to verify that there is collaboration on > > OpenSolaris > > and not just ignorant domination from Sun. > > > Let not argue your case by calling us ignorant! The point is > imagemagik is integrated. > It is not against any ARC rule in name space assignment. If indeed you > have submitted an ARC > earlier with the intention to integrate, ARC will definitely advise > against the imagemagik case > to rename or some sort. > > Do we have an OpenSolaris community or is this just a fake? > > > What response might you get if you make the same proposal to other > Linux community > like ubuntu or fedora? Suggesting to them I have this 20 years old > binary, however, it does > not run in your distro, but I like to reserve the name. Do you think > this is reasonable? You forget the most important result from the ARC discussion: If there is a name collision the cannot be resolved, the name cannot be used in /usr/bin. Current Solaris express is in conflict with ARC decisions. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins. WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick name is thus illegal. Says who? And who keeps the record or registry? Do you like to ignore that my compare is genric and thus correctly using the name and that it is 20 years older than imagemagick? "compare" as a word dates back to probably 1000BC when the latin language developed. Its use in english is post-norman, though, being imported from french, but even that makes the english word almost thousand years old. What, except a) that I was tortured with Latin in school, and b) that I can sound quite patronizing if I chose to, does that prove ? Generic words can't be trademarked. That's why everyone can call their stuff "Windows", Microsoft lost a corresponding lawsuit a few years ago. You chose a simple english word, you can't claim exclusive rights to it. A prefix/suffix, "schily_compare", or at least as you do it with the other utilities that you wrote, "scompare", would come closer to trademark-able terms, as Apple/Intel are demonstrating with the "iStuff". For name collisions, there's always PATH to sort out your preference. /usr/bin vs. /usr/ucb vs. /usr/xpg4/bin vs. /usr/xpg6/bin comes to mind. The world isn't out there to get you. Really. Btw, PSARC knows something like a "minority vote". You can leave a record there saying you disagree with something, and state the reasons. Which is even possible if you're not a voting member. It goes on record and allows you righteousness later, "you should've listened see what happened". Whether that's a useful thing to do is another question, but it's really going too far now ... FrankH. Because if Sun does not rename the image magick program Sun verifies that PSARC discussions are just to fool people but do not have useful resaults. Remember Joerg, being listened to is NOT the same as getting your way. It is just another chance to verify that there is collaboration on OpenSolaris and not just ignorant domination from Sun. Do we have an OpenSolaris community or is this just a fake? The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name appeared in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express. 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 -- No good can come from selling your freedom, not for all the gold in the world, for the value of this heavenly gift far exceeds that of any fortune on earth. -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins. >>> WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick >>> name >>> is thus illegal. >>> >> Says who? And who keeps the record or registry? >> > > > Do you like to ignore that my compare is genric and thus correctly using > the name and that it is 20 years older than imagemagick? > This is really beside the point within the context of a distro. How does other Linux distro handle this? > > >>> Because if Sun does not rename the image magick program Sun verifies that >>> PSARC discussions are just to fool people but do not have useful resaults. >>> >> Remember Joerg, being listened to is NOT the same as getting your way. >> > > It is just another chance to verify that there is collaboration on OpenSolaris > and not just ignorant domination from Sun. > Let not argue your case by calling us ignorant! The point is imagemagik is integrated. It is not against any ARC rule in name space assignment. If indeed you have submitted an ARC earlier with the intention to integrate, ARC will definitely advise against the imagemagik case to rename or some sort. > Do we have an OpenSolaris community or is this just a fake? > What response might you get if you make the same proposal to other Linux community like ubuntu or fedora? Suggesting to them I have this 20 years old binary, however, it does not run in your distro, but I like to reserve the name. Do you think this is reasonable? -Ghee > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name appeared > in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express. > > Jörg > > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>Do you like to ignore that my compare is genric and thus correctly using >the name and that it is 20 years older than imagemagick? I think it is hardly relevant. I do not remember hearing of it before and without any evidence of more than marginal usage (say part of one or more mainstream distributions of, say, Linux) I would think that its existant is hardly relevant. >It is just another chance to verify that there is collaboration on OpenSolaris >and not just ignorant domination from Sun. No, it's not. You cannot conclude anything about other people not agreeing with you. >Do we have an OpenSolaris community or is this just a fake? > >The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name appeared >in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express. PSARC has probably noted your objection at decided that it was irrelevant. That would have been my decision also. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins. > > > >WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick > >name > >is thus illegal. > > Says who? And who keeps the record or registry? Do you like to ignore that my compare is genric and thus correctly using the name and that it is 20 years older than imagemagick? > >Because if Sun does not rename the image magick program Sun verifies that > >PSARC discussions are just to fool people but do not have useful resaults. > > Remember Joerg, being listened to is NOT the same as getting your way. It is just another chance to verify that there is collaboration on OpenSolaris and not just ignorant domination from Sun. Do we have an OpenSolaris community or is this just a fake? The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name appeared in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express. 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] Software technical event @ Sun' s Grenoble Engineering Center, France
FYI If you're around the French/Italian/Swiss Alps around Jan 15-18 you might be interested. http://fr.sun.com/sunnews/events/2007/nov/grenoble/ The two last days are open to everyone. registration is free. Erwann -- Erwann Chénedé, Desktop Group, Sun Microsystems, Grenoble [ I speak for myself, not for my employer ] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXDE 9/07 install "fails immediately"
On 12 Dec 2007, at 18:47, Mark Drummond wrote: > I am trying to install SXDE 9/07 in a vmware 6.x vm. After stepping > through the installation GUI, when I click the last button to begin > the install, the GUI comes back immediately with an "installation > failed" error message, *but* the installer is actually still > running in teh background. My disk and the dvd drive are still > spinning and you can see installf in the ps output. > > Anyone else seeing this? I've seen a similar result when my root partition wasn't big enough to support the upgrade I was attempting, but I don't recall if the installer was actually still running in that case. Only way I found out the real cause of the error in my case was to run the old installer instead, so you might try that. 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] wanted: way to "sync" from openboot without crash dump
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: >> >>> Sometimes a large system, despite precautions (or >> in the absence of them), >>> runs out of resources (VM, mainly) to the degree >> that no useful progress >>> is being made: that is, one can't even log in and >> kill the hogging processes. >>> >>> (At least on SPARC) the usual workaround would be >> to break to the boot PROM >>> and sync; however, this invariably causes a crash >> dump to be taken. In the >> >> Workaround: >> >> If you have "obpdebug" defined, you can do: >> >> dumpvp 0 x!; sync >> at the ok prompt to force skipping the dump. > > Thanks - _that's_ the sort of thing I was looking for; although it > presupposes that obpdebug > support is loaded, which I suppose it usually isn't by default. If you know the address of the 'dumpvp' (or 'dumphdr') global, then you can just do " 0 x!". Have used this technique in the past, equipped with a directory containing a set of kernel patches to look them up. Cumbersome, though. It's possible to code an "OBP add-on" like the 'sync' command. Search the source for "add_vx_handler()", it's technically simple. A point can be made for/against a sparc-only/-specific or generic - via dumpadm - method. But that discussion would be something for ARC-level. [ ... ] > Because I'd really rather the buffers got flushed, to minimize data loss? > Great if everything > was on zfs (and great to ignore SPARC-specific features if you live your life > only on x86, I guess). Well, minimize. Thing is, without a recovery/rollback/checkpointing mechanism, you can't really know whether you've lost something, and/or if you've lost something critical. It's like returning from holiday and finding your front door broken. You look inside and nothing _seems_ amiss. But then, do you remember where Granny left her money jar ? I'd think saying "rely on sync" is the wrong word. It's more like uttering a prayer - calms the soul, and won't do no harm, and there are believers who will strongly claim it did them good. You don't really _know_, though. But there's nothing wrong with a good belief, mind you :) My experience there is rather that if the 'syncing filesystems ...' part works, then the dump will not hang either. They tend to go through the same I/O drivers/devices. In fact, the 'syncing ...' part accesses more I/O devs than the 'dumping ...' part does (the former goes for everything unflushed, while the latter only attempts to get at the dump device). We do have some service documents explaining how to get a dump if the box hangs during 'syncing filesystems ...' - but none to my knowledge that do the opposite. The time the dump takes, though, is known to be "high". FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> >It seems that PSARC discussions are not taken for serious >> >> Why would you conclude that? >> >> It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins. > >WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick name >is thus illegal. Says who? And who keeps the record or registry? Things not in Solaris, BTW, are generally irrelevant to PSARC discussions. >> If you want to rename compare you will need to take this up with >> the ImageMagick folks. > >They ignore mail. This is not fair! Life is not fair, get over it. >Because if Sun does not rename the image magick program Sun verifies that >PSARC discussions are just to fool people but do not have useful resaults. Remember Joerg, being listened to is NOT the same as getting your way. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >It seems that PSARC discussions are not taken for serious > > Why would you conclude that? > > It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins. WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick name is thus illegal. > If you want to rename compare you will need to take this up with > the ImageMagick folks. They ignore mail. This is not fair! > I thinkt hat integrating open source projects "as is" is vastly more > important than using names which could be used for other programs. > > As there I expect that the use of ImageMgick is quite a bit more > widespread than your compare program, I don't see this as a serious > issue. > > I don't see why we should rename something because of a conflict with > something we do not ship. Because if Sun does not rename the image magick program Sun verifies that PSARC discussions are just to fool people but do not have useful resaults. Sun has the chance to verify that Sun for OpenSolaris is listening to it's community. 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] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
>It seems that PSARC discussions are not taken for serious Why would you conclude that? It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins. If you want to rename compare you will need to take this up with the ImageMagick folks. I thinkt hat integrating open source projects "as is" is vastly more important than using names which could be used for other programs. As there I expect that the use of ImageMgick is quite a bit more widespread than your compare program, I don't see this as a serious issue. I don't see why we should rename something because of a conflict with something we do not ship. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
It seems that PSARC discussions are not taken for serious Let me quote something I did write Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:30:43: > Well, even in the OSS world besides OpenSolaris there is a lot of thigs that could be done better ;-) Unfortunately, there are OSS authors that do not care about what already exists when they make a decision. This even applies to longer named commands. As an example, you might check for "compare". This is a program I maintain since 1984 that is similar to "cmp(1)". Around 2004, the people from ImageMagick decided to write a non-generic image compare program and gave them the name "compare". < Now it seems that my warning has been ignored and "/usr/bin/compare" on svn_77 appears to be a program from ImageMagick that illegally uses the name "compare". Please rename the non-generic compare from ImageMagick to "icompare" or something similar. BTW: I just filed a bug and I am crossposting this to ogb-discuss as this is a rule violation that needs to be known in public. 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] PHP with Apache in build 77
> Here's the output of ldd > /usr/apache/libexec/libphp5.so: > > libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 > libexpat.so.0 => /usr/lib/libexpat.so.0 > librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 > libresolv.so.2 => /lib/libresolv.so.2 > libm.so.2 => /lib/libm.so.2 > libnsl.so.1 => /lib/libnsl.so.1 > libsocket.so.1 => /lib/libsocket.so.1 > libxml2.so.2 => /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2 > libssl.so.0.9.8 => > /usr/sfw/lib/libssl.so.0.9.8 > ibcrypto.so.0.9.8 => > /usr/sfw/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 > libdl.so.1 => /lib/libdl.so.1 > libc.so.1 => /lib/libc.so.1 > libmp.so.2 => /lib/libmp.so.2 > libmd.so.1 => /lib/libmd.so.1 > libscf.so.1 => /lib/libscf.so.1 > libpthread.so.1 => /lib/libpthread.so.1 > libuutil.so.1 => /lib/libuutil.so.1 > libgen.so.1 => /lib/libgen.so.1 > libssl_extra.so.0.9.8 => > /usr/sfw/lib/libssl_extra.so.0.9.8 > libcrypto_extra.so.0.9.8 => > /usr/sfw/lib/libcrypto_extra.so.0.9.8 > nks for your help. OK, that output shows that all the runtime dependencies are found, which leads me to believe libphp5.so has been linked against one or more versions of some other libraries which are newer than what is supported on your system. This is what an "unresolved symbol usually" means. If possible, I suggest that you upgrade the operating system and see if you get the same error. There seems to be shared object library or libraries which are being pulled in and don't have the necessary object(s) in them. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
