Re: [osol-discuss] Any reason to keep my Ultra 10?
> So you your university was paying a 100% premium for > hardware. I bought two full tricked out U10 directly > from the Sun website when they first came out for > less than that <> Good to know that Sun treats everyone fairly and equally, isn't it? <> This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Changelog SXCE?
> - I still see a great good in a > changelog. As of now, a new nv_xy is just a black box > of unknown content. The downloader outside has no > clue what she gets, not at all. It's hardly a black-box as you'll see following the links below. > Even the insiders might be helped; I can't imagine > that the bi-weekly releases are published without > documented changelog, objective, deadlines, > intentions; just blindly gobbled together? See, so > why not adding a summary to the release > announcement? 1. http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/all/ 2. http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads/current/on-changelog-20080219.sparse.txt (latest on nightly) 3. http://opensolaris.org/os/community/x_win/changelogs/ 4. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/desktop-discuss/2008-February/012593.html If you feel like doing/publishing a unified changelog with useful notes from bugs.opensolaris.org, then why not be the proud 2% and do it yourself ? This way you'd help other newcomers as well. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
Uwe Dippel wrote: > [i]I believe the installer only assumes one Solaris2 fdisk partition[/i] > [snip] > I did try this before, and it worked pretty well, except that it required a > very hackish way at boot: > Partition Status Type Start End Length % > = == = === == === > 1 Linux native 0 36 37 0 > 2 Solaris2 37 9763 9727 32 > 3 Solaris2 9764 12196 2433 8 > > Booting to partition 2 with grub worked straightforward, whatever the type of > partition 3 would be. When booting partition 3, I had to go to Linux in > between, fdisk another partition type for partition 2. I guess, in order for > the slice handler to *not* access the same slice number in that 'earlier' > partition 2. > I thought I read somewhere that the fdisk spec says that there can only be one fdisk partition of a particular type, thus your experiment in creating two Solaris2 fdisk partitions is invalid and that is perhaps why Solaris does not behave correctly. -joe ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] (no subject)
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Status update: OGB Nominees 2008 Elections.
Glynn Foster wrote: > > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Brandorr wrote: >>> For those that aren't following Bugzilla, in order to become a >>> candidate for the OGB, a person needs a nomination from a core >>> contributor, *TWO* +1s from core contributors, and then needs to >>> accept the nomination. >> >> From where do you get the requirement for two +1's? All I see >> in the constitution (section 6.3) is that they must be nominated >> by one current Member (aka Core Contributor) - no seconds or additional >> support is listed as required. > > Huh, I guess I must have made that up. I'll close out some of the people > who have achieved and accepted this. I remember requiring nominations be seconded last year, but don't know why the previous OGB choose to deviate from the draft Constitution there. Requiring 3 people (nominator plus two +1's) sounds like naming a new Core Contributor. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any reason to keep my Ultra 10?
So you your university was paying a 100% premium for hardware. I bought two full tricked out U10 directly from the Sun website when they first came out for less than that This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any reason to keep my Ultra 10?
Integer performance is the only place where the opteron is better. In this case I mean compiles. Floating point performance on a dual 1ghz U3 is better than the 2.2ghz dual opteron. In this case MM5 run times are comparable (within 10 seconds for a 72 hour run time) WRF run times were actually faster on the U3 rather than nearly equal. Yes I know the SPEC CPU says the opteron does much better than the U3, but that is only for the synthetic dataset used as installation verification This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Status update: OGB Nominees 2008 Elections.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > Brandorr wrote: > >> For those that aren't following Bugzilla, in order to become a > >> candidate for the OGB, a person needs a nomination from a core > >> contributor, *TWO* +1s from core contributors, and then needs to > >> accept the nomination. > > > > From where do you get the requirement for two +1's? All I see > > in the constitution (section 6.3) is that they must be nominated > > by one current Member (aka Core Contributor) - no seconds or additional > > support is listed as required. > > Huh, I guess I must have made that up. I'll close out some of the people who > have achieved and accepted this. No worries Glynn, I have updated the wiki with the new status. I added Stephen Lau, as it looks like he has been nominated and accepted his nomination. (I also realized we missed Michal Bielicki, his name has been added to the list of those who have accepted the nomination.) Glynn, please verify that we have the same info.. http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/2008_OGB_Election_candidates So far the following folks have the requisite +1 and have accepted their nominations: * Michał Bielicki * Glynn Foster * Brian Gupta * Stephen Lau * Michelle Olsen * Simon Phipps * Joerg Schilling * John Sonnenschein And the following folks have the requisite +1, but need to accept their nomination: * John Beck * Bryan Cantrill * Alan Coopersmith * Justin Erenkrantz * Moinak Ghosh * Jim Grizanzio * Richard Hamilton * Roland Mainz * John Plocher * Ben Rockwood * Guy Shaw * Rich Teer * Peter Tribble * Shawn Walker Declined nomination: * Martin Bochnig * James Carlson * Roy T. Fielding * Keith Wesolowski > > > Glynn > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_New_User_FAQ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
[i]I believe the installer only assumes one Solaris2 fdisk partition[/i] If it was like this, the matter might be more difficult. But it isn't. fdisk another bf to your drive, and the new installer is absolutely happy at installing in there. At reboot, grub is absolutely happy at loading the kernel in there. Only then the misery starts, at one moment that I can't tell, (I guess) when it addresses your c1t1d0s0 (e.g., 's0'), it will access the 'earlier' partition and crash/reboot. What I suggest is only (I don't say 'simply'), that once you access a partition at boot (e.g. through grub), this partition will be the one to be used, the slices as addressed will be the slices in this partition. I did try this before, and it worked pretty well, except that it required a very hackish way at boot: Partition Status Type Start End Length % = == = === == === 1 Linux native 0 36 37 0 2 Solaris2 37 9763 9727 32 3 Solaris2 9764 12196 2433 8 Booting to partition 2 with grub worked straightforward, whatever the type of partition 3 would be. When booting partition 3, I had to go to Linux in between, fdisk another partition type for partition 2. I guess, in order for the slice handler to *not* access the same slice number in that 'earlier' partition 2. Uwe P.S.: I did submit an RFE This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Status update: OGB Nominees 2008 Elections.
Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Brandorr wrote: >> For those that aren't following Bugzilla, in order to become a >> candidate for the OGB, a person needs a nomination from a core >> contributor, *TWO* +1s from core contributors, and then needs to >> accept the nomination. > > From where do you get the requirement for two +1's? All I see > in the constitution (section 6.3) is that they must be nominated > by one current Member (aka Core Contributor) - no seconds or additional > support is listed as required. Huh, I guess I must have made that up. I'll close out some of the people who have achieved and accepted this. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Status update: OGB Nominees 2008 Elections.
Brandorr wrote: > For those that aren't following Bugzilla, in order to become a > candidate for the OGB, a person needs a nomination from a core > contributor, *TWO* +1s from core contributors, and then needs to > accept the nomination. From where do you get the requirement for two +1's? All I see in the constitution (section 6.3) is that they must be nominated by one current Member (aka Core Contributor) - no seconds or additional support is listed as required. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Status update: OGB Nominees 2008 Elections.
For those that aren't following Bugzilla, in order to become a candidate for the OGB, a person needs a nomination from a core contributor, *TWO* +1s from core contributors, and then needs to accept the nomination. (You do not have to be a core contributor to be nominated.) (http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&classification=Community&product=ogb&component=nominations&target_milestone=2008&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&deadlinefrom=&deadlineto=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=INCOMPLETE&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=CAUSEKNOWN&bug_status=FIXUNDERSTOOD&bug_status=FIXINPROGRESS&bug_status=FIXINSOURCE&bug_status=FIXINBUILD&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=) (Feel free to respond to this email to either accept your nomination, or give folks +1s) So far the following folks have the requisite +1s and have accepted their nominations: - Glynn Foster - Michelle Olsen - Simon Phipps - Joerg Schilling - John Sonnenschein - Shawn Walker The following folks need additional +1s from OpenSolaris.org core contributers: - Justin Erenkrantz (needs 1 additional) - Moinak Ghosh (needs 1 additional) - Brian Gupta (needs 1 additional) - Richard Hamilton (Needs 2 additional) - John Plocher (needs 1 additional) - Guy Shaw (needs 1 additional) Need to accept nomination: - - John Beck - Bryan Cantrill - Alan Coopersmith - Jim Grizanzio - Roland Mainz - Ben Rockwood - Rich Teer - Peter Tribble Declined nomination: - - Martin Bochnig - James Carlson - Roy T. Fielding - Keith Wesolowski Cheers, Brian P.S. - I went ahead and made a wiki page, to make it easier to check the status. http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/2008_OGB_Election_candidates (I don't know, something about listing people as defects, just seems wrong.) -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_New_User_FAQ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Uwe Dippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jabrewer, thanks. > In my original post I talked about installing another Solaris, not an > upgrade. Like Indiana, Sol10, you name it. > A current default layout offers one free slice, second_root. That might not > be enough for all. > I might not want to share /export/home. > > One could say: Back to the original question 'Multiboot ...?' If you actually read about LiveUpgrade, you would see that it was designed to support multiple instances of Solaris. It isn't just for upgrading, it's just that is the primary use. While I don't believe you can currently multiboot Indiana with it, you could, for example, boot: * Solaris 10 * Solaris Express Developer Edition (01/08 and prior) * Solaris Express Community Edition ...etc. LiveUpgrade has tools that allow you to switch between alternate boot environments. As for the type of multiboot support you might be used to, that is being worked on, but it is not a priority at this stage from what I've read. It will eventually be done though. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any reason to keep my Ultra 10?
KG> KG> I don't own any Sun hardware, but recently did a bit of KG> shopping and noticed this as well. Looks like they're trying to KG> "emulate" Dell, a company which I loathe... I also recently went through this. I wanted to purchase Sun hardware for a client of mine but in the end I couldn't justify it after configuring it the way I wanted. I refused to buy Dell for no other reason than bad customer experience a friend had recently. I found Silicon Mechanics and couldn't be happier! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
jabrewer, thanks. In my original post I talked about installing another Solaris, not an upgrade. Like Indiana, Sol10, you name it. A current default layout offers one free slice, second_root. That might not be enough for all. I might not want to share /export/home. One could say: Back to the original question 'Multiboot ...?' Uwe This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Uwe Dippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After my positive (overwhelming) experience with SXDE 09/07 I tried Indiana > Preview 1. > Since it was not useable, I filed the bugs I found and wiped it. Now I > receive detail requests about those bugs, months later. > In a nutshell: with the current size of hard drives, why is Solaris still > not multiboot-compliant? Any second install will have to be on another drive, > or you fiddle with (v)fstab. > What I mean: grub supports multiboot, and one can easily point into another > partition with it, and get the (other) version of *Solaris started. But then, > sooner or later, it will crash due to another version on the same cxdytz, > that it confounds. > Just curiosity: is it really not possible to write a backward-compatible > slice handler that remains within the defines into which one has catapulted > it at boot? > > Partition StatusType Start End Length% > = == = === == === > 1 Linux native 036 37 0 > 2 Solaris2 37 97639727 32 > 3 Solaris2 9764 121962433 8 > 4 Solaris2 12197 3040018204 60 > > As one can find out and as mentioned, grub is fine with this, and will boot > off properly. Before it crashes, at least when I boot that Solaris on > partition 3 and higher. > > In 2008, with a lot of OSs around, including plenty based on the > Solaris-slice-concept, it would only be helpful if we could store multiple on > the same drive. > It consumes much too much electricity to have 3, 4 drives in a casing just > because Solaris doesn't support multiboot. > Also, the acceptance could improve considerably, if a(ny) large enough > partition could simply become 'home' for an install. > I do understand, that seeing a slice on another partition on the same drive > is difficult, because Solaris is not partition-aware, only drive aware. > Therefore my question is only on some means to confine an install within the > partition into which it is 'dropped' at boot time; something that - since it > is not aware of partitions - could in principle be achieved transparently. > With the correct setup, you can actually boot multiple instances of Solaris. See LiveUpgrade for details. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any reason to keep my Ultra 10?
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:08:19 PST UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I got the > > gist of what you said: SPARC is overpriced for what > > it does. x86 is the saner option. What is > > your opinion on Sun's x86 offerings ( esp the Sun > > Ultra 20M2 ) ? > > Sun is currently playing this gimmick where the base price is really good, > but that same base configuration is useless, and Sun knows it. Then, as soon > as one starts getting the second disk drive ($360 per 500GB drive? You've GOT > to be kidding me!) or more memory ($360, what are those RAM chips made of, > Titanium?) the price goes through the roof. > > Would you want to do business with a company playing these kinds of games? > > As far as Ultra20 M2 is concerned, it's a desktop PC. And you already know > what I think about desktops. > I don't own any Sun hardware, but recently did a bit of shopping and noticed this as well. Looks like they're trying to "emulate" Dell, a company which I loathe, and needless to say, I decided to pass on the Sun hardware. Don't recall such games being played last time I looked a year or two ago. Base systems were priced attractively and surprisingly well fleshed out - for base systems. It was also surprising to learn that even if I purchase new Sun hardware with Solaris 10, I still must pay for support subscription on top of that to get patch updates. wtf are these marketing people thinking? Are customers really this desperate to use Solaris? I know I'm not. -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any reason to keep my Ultra 10?
> I got the > gist of what you said: SPARC is overpriced for what > it does. x86 is the saner option. What is > your opinion on Sun's x86 offerings ( esp the Sun > Ultra 20M2 ) ? Sun is currently playing this gimmick where the base price is really good, but that same base configuration is useless, and Sun knows it. Then, as soon as one starts getting the second disk drive ($360 per 500GB drive? You've GOT to be kidding me!) or more memory ($360, what are those RAM chips made of, Titanium?) the price goes through the roof. Would you want to do business with a company playing these kinds of games? As far as Ultra20 M2 is concerned, it's a desktop PC. And you already know what I think about desktops. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
You should submit a RFE, I believe the installer only assumes one Solaris2 fdisk partition Other wise use lucreate/luupgrade to manage the slices first bootup disk Slice 0 is root BE, Slice 1 is defined as swap (default install uses s1 as swap) Slice 3 can be your second ABE, or your second disk, note the you have seven slices and you can share the swap to save space. + lucreate -c 10u4 -m /:c3d0s3:ufs -n snv_b82_sata3slice3 + luupgrade -u -n snv_b82_sata3slice3 -s /export/install/dvd Then use bootadm set-menu default=8 bash-3.2# bootadm list-menu This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
"Ignacio Marambio Catán" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > After my positive (overwhelming) experience with SXDE 09/07 I tried > > Indiana Preview 1. > > > Since it was not useable, I filed the bugs I found and wiped it. Now I > > receive detail requests about those bugs, months later. > > > In a nutshell: with the current size of hard drives, why is Solaris > > still not multiboot-compliant? Any second install will have to be on > > another drive, or you fiddle with (v)fstab. > > > What I mean: grub supports multiboot, and one can easily point into > > another partition with it, and get the (other) version of *Solaris started. > > But then, sooner or later, it will crash due to another version on the same > > cxdytz, that it confounds. > > > Just curiosity: is it really not possible to write a backward-compatible > > slice handler that remains within the defines into which one has catapulted > > it at boot? > > > > Solaris supports multiboot, Linux does not. What is your problem? > > > > Are you confusing the meaning of this name? > > > > Jörg > > > > -- > he wants to have several solaris instalations in the same harddrive, > and he thinks he needs many solaris2 type partitions to do so He may have up to 16 slices in a solaris partition. Only 2 slices have predefined meaning There is a lot of room. 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] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
I think you understand very well what I meant. My mistake was the "why is Solaris still not multiboot-compliant?" Though it might be, along to the lines of the standard, it can't live with another partition containing another Solaris on the same drive. If I am wrong, correct me, please. I tried that 2-systems-in-a-single-partition (live-upgrade) once, and - despite of all my efforts and my requests in here - it remained completely hosed, requiring an fdisk. As long as that stuff is unreliable, and not supported out of the box - no installer has ever offered me "I see that you have a Solaris partition with a free slice (sn) into which I could install this system, without touching the existing one, promised" - selecting another partition as target at least leaves the first install working. I also understand that the slices can't be resized, meaning that I can't add a third one, a /third_root. Or maybe the partition isn't large enough for 3 versions? If one wants adoption, maybe one has to make life easier! Uwe This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uwe Dippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > After my positive (overwhelming) experience with SXDE 09/07 I tried > Indiana Preview 1. > > Since it was not useable, I filed the bugs I found and wiped it. Now I > receive detail requests about those bugs, months later. > > In a nutshell: with the current size of hard drives, why is Solaris still > not multiboot-compliant? Any second install will have to be on another drive, > or you fiddle with (v)fstab. > > What I mean: grub supports multiboot, and one can easily point into > another partition with it, and get the (other) version of *Solaris started. > But then, sooner or later, it will crash due to another version on the same > cxdytz, that it confounds. > > Just curiosity: is it really not possible to write a backward-compatible > slice handler that remains within the defines into which one has catapulted > it at boot? > > Solaris supports multiboot, Linux does not. What is your problem? > > Are you confusing the meaning of this name? > > Jörg > > -- he wants to have several solaris instalations in the same harddrive, and he thinks he needs many solaris2 type partitions to do so nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
Uwe Dippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After my positive (overwhelming) experience with SXDE 09/07 I tried Indiana > Preview 1. > Since it was not useable, I filed the bugs I found and wiped it. Now I > receive detail requests about those bugs, months later. > In a nutshell: with the current size of hard drives, why is Solaris still not > multiboot-compliant? Any second install will have to be on another drive, or > you fiddle with (v)fstab. > What I mean: grub supports multiboot, and one can easily point into another > partition with it, and get the (other) version of *Solaris started. But then, > sooner or later, it will crash due to another version on the same cxdytz, > that it confounds. > Just curiosity: is it really not possible to write a backward-compatible > slice handler that remains within the defines into which one has catapulted > it at boot? Solaris supports multiboot, Linux does not. What is your problem? Are you confusing the meaning of this 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] Changelog SXCE?
Uwe Dippel wrote: > While I can understand that SXCE is a community edition - recently a helpful > chap wrote to me in private mail "98% of the developers are SUN-employees" - > I still see a great good in a changelog. As of now, a new nv_xy is just a > black box of unknown content. The downloader outside has no clue what she > gets, not at all. No, I would not want the gory details, but major updates of > software as well as a summary of relevant patches of bugs would help all > sides, including the developers. Knowing that said version nv_xy finally > allows to use Rhythmbox or has a completely new printer-configuration-applet > or patched the integration of apache, respectively added driver for RTL0987 > and support for WPA2 would increase the efficiency very much: all the rest of > us (2%?) out there, 'community', would know what to look for, and maybe even > test those. > Even the insiders might be helped; I can't imagine that the bi-weekly > releases are published without documented changelog, objective, deadlines, > intentions; just blindly gobbled together? See, so why not adding a summary > to the release announcement? It would be great to do, but I don't know who would do that - the website team maybe? For now, while there's no unified ChangeLog, several of the consolidations publish their changelogs: ON (aka OS/Net - the kernel, drivers, and core utilities): http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads/b83/on-changelog-b83.html [have to change the build numbers in the URL for each build] X Window System: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/x_win/changelogs/ JDS Desktop (GNOME/Firefox/etc.): Mailed to desktop-discuss - don't see an easy way to find other than searching their archives, and I only see them for the vermillion branch, not the nevada one delivered into SXCE. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Changelog SXCE?
While I can understand that SXCE is a community edition - recently a helpful chap wrote to me in private mail "98% of the developers are SUN-employees" - I still see a great good in a changelog. As of now, a new nv_xy is just a black box of unknown content. The downloader outside has no clue what she gets, not at all. No, I would not want the gory details, but major updates of software as well as a summary of relevant patches of bugs would help all sides, including the developers. Knowing that said version nv_xy finally allows to use Rhythmbox or has a completely new printer-configuration-applet or patched the integration of apache, respectively added driver for RTL0987 and support for WPA2 would increase the efficiency very much: all the rest of us (2%?) out there, 'community', would know what to look for, and maybe even test those. Even the insiders might be helped; I can't imagine that the bi-weekly releases are published without documented changelog, objective, deadlines, intentions; just blindly gobbled together? See, so why not adding a summary to the release announcement? Uwe This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
After my positive (overwhelming) experience with SXDE 09/07 I tried Indiana Preview 1. Since it was not useable, I filed the bugs I found and wiped it. Now I receive detail requests about those bugs, months later. In a nutshell: with the current size of hard drives, why is Solaris still not multiboot-compliant? Any second install will have to be on another drive, or you fiddle with (v)fstab. What I mean: grub supports multiboot, and one can easily point into another partition with it, and get the (other) version of *Solaris started. But then, sooner or later, it will crash due to another version on the same cxdytz, that it confounds. Just curiosity: is it really not possible to write a backward-compatible slice handler that remains within the defines into which one has catapulted it at boot? Partition StatusType Start End Length% = == = === == === 1 Linux native 036 37 0 2 Solaris2 37 97639727 32 3 Solaris2 9764 121962433 8 4 Solaris2 12197 3040018204 60 As one can find out and as mentioned, grub is fine with this, and will boot off properly. Before it crashes, at least when I boot that Solaris on partition 3 and higher. In 2008, with a lot of OSs around, including plenty based on the Solaris-slice-concept, it would only be helpful if we could store multiple on the same drive. It consumes much too much electricity to have 3, 4 drives in a casing just because Solaris doesn't support multiboot. Also, the acceptance could improve considerably, if a(ny) large enough partition could simply become 'home' for an install. I do understand, that seeing a slice on another partition on the same drive is difficult, because Solaris is not partition-aware, only drive aware. Therefore my question is only on some means to confine an install within the partition into which it is 'dropped' at boot time; something that - since it is not aware of partitions - could in principle be achieved transparently. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
