Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
Tim Scanlon wrote: I don't think evaporating non-contract security patch releases is especially best practice. Note I'm only making reference to security patches. Other types of patches are really a completely separate issue than this in some respects. IMHO the problem is that Sun never really succeeded in supplying only security patches -- instead these always ended up including enough recommended patches (KJP, libc, etc.) so that too many casual users didn't end up paying anything. It's one thing when Windows or MacOS does this based on charging a few hundred dollars up front, and back in the early days of Solaris x86, Sun also charged up front. But no upfront cost and no support revenue does not make for a good business. And it's probably not easy to separate out only security patches, because there's one main S10 patch gate. Personally, I would be happy(ish) paying $100-200 and then having security patches for the life of the OS (always buy rather than rent). But there is probably not enough revenue for Oracle for this compared to getting commercial users to sign up for full support contracts (and compared to the larger Windows/Mac install count). It's a fairly simple argument to make that this is a vendor responsibility issue, rather than one of user rights. Oracle's statement seems to be in that case, don't use Solaris 10 after 90 days because you won't have security patches (or a license). They probably want casual users to use OpenSolaris instead. As such, and considering the mailing list this thread is on, it would maybe be better to concentrate on how to secure OpenSolaris (without upgrading to every biweekly build) or contact your Oracle rep to request a low-cost-but-not-free patch option for non-commercial users. Hugh. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
Matthias Pfützner matth...@pfuetzner.de wrote: None of Sun's or Oracle's actual products has real license keys build into the software. So, it will not stop nor be feature-reduced! You only will no longer be allowed to used it. When or if-at-all Oracle might think about sueing you, is totally unclear... They are entiteld to do so, but Oracle would need a real business case to really try to fine you... My guess... And here we are in a funny state.. Neither US Copyright nor European Copyright forbid you (as a user) to use a piece of software unless you did previously copy it in a non-legal way. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
You (Joerg Schilling) wrote: Matthias Pfützner matth...@pfuetzner.de wrote: None of Sun's or Oracle's actual products has real license keys build into the software. So, it will not stop nor be feature-reduced! You only will no longer be allowed to used it. When or if-at-all Oracle might think about sueing you, is totally unclear... They are entiteld to do so, but Oracle would need a real business case to really try to fine you... My guess... And here we are in a funny state.. Neither US Copyright nor European Copyright forbid you (as a user) to use a piece of software unless you did previously copy it in a non-legal way. Jörg And, that's why, AFAIK, Oracle has NEVER tried to sue anybody for using its software for more than 90 days. The 90 day limit is with Oracle for years now, that's their practice, so, why complain? Just check, what Oracle had been doing with their free-software and their licneses. You'll see, it's not much difference to what Sun's been doing... (The ToDo part, not the legalize docs part)... Oracle might only take a more conservative approach (you know, it's the country of don't put your cat into the microwave oven or Objects in mirror might be closer than they appear) and get itself out of any possible legal dispute AFTER 90 days of usage... Matthias -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Die Strafen dienen zur Ab- Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | schreckung derer, die D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | keine Sünde begehen Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | wollen. Karl Kraus ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
And, that's why, AFAIK, Oracle has NEVER tried to sue anybody for using its software for more than 90 days. The 90 day limit is with Oracle for years now, that's their practice, so, why complain? Just check, what Oracle had been doing with their free-software and their licneses. yeah, Oracle is being nice here, they are giving 90 days, Red Hat only gives 30 days so, I should go over to fedora forums and complain about redhat not being free with their 30 day limit. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
hugh wrote: But no upfront cost and no support revenue does not make for a good business. I've no argument with that, or with what you've said about `casual users' etc. In fact I'm avoiding speculation on the impact of these changes on audited environments scads of other things that could be considered to go with this. I'm certain there are a lot of people out there considering those types of issues. I don't know a thing about Oracle's Linux security support model, or it's application product security support to make any informed comparisons to what they do there either in any way that reflects PL strategies either. On a technical level though, 90 days to a 0 day seems to be paving a road with hideous risks. I generally pay for support where I need it, and I've been happy to buy more software from Sun than I have from Microsoft in the past. I'll probably end up happy to do so in the future for all that matter, as well as buying support when I buy things. I don't mean for any sort of 'business' purpose either, but purely for personal use. I've got a pile of Sun hardware at home, more media kits than I have hardware. I don't turn on the sparc boxes very much though, but when I do I need them. Usually in the same way that I need parts that I keep in a collection that I end up using as a box of nails. This goes with a media collection that dates to 2.5.1. I keep that sort of stuff because I end up needing it, not because I particularly want it. I don't want to sound like a jerk but a 90 days to 0 day policy will do nothing but create financial opportunity for myself. It's not one that I'd chose if I could though. Tim -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
On 03/31/10 14:05, Karel Gardas wrote: ZFS data corruption test by researchers: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/wind/Publications/zfs-corruptio n-fast10.pdf Interesting paper. The only problem with it is that ZFS is filesystem and not memory-protection vehicle. If you need memory protection use ECC or more advanced ECC. Karel I find their implicit assumption that filesystem code should expect memory to be flaky to be quite dubious. I am tempted to point out that ZFS doesn't also protect against CPU induced errors or coding errors on the part of the application developer. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance bart.smaald...@oracle.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Codeina popup
Whenever I log in, I get a message that there are Codeina updates available for the free mp3 decoder. So I installed the upgrade, but it still still happens every time I log in. If I tell it to install again, it tells me that it's already installed. Anyone know what the process is to find out whether it's really upgraded, or if this is a bogus popup? Then, if it is the latter, how do I convince the upgrade process that it's got the upgrade? Thanks, Gary -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Codeina popup
Il 01/04/10 14:53, Gary Gendel ha scritto: Whenever I log in, I get a message that there are Codeina updates available for the free mp3 decoder. So I installed the upgrade, but it still still happens every time I log in. If I tell it to install again, it tells me that it's already installed. Anyone know what the process is to find out whether it's really upgraded, or if this is a bogus popup? Then, if it is the latter, how do I convince the upgrade process that it's got the upgrade? Thanks, Gary for me too. It's really annoying. Thanks for having raised this issue to attention. Thanks to whom can post a solution. Regards Alex ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Codeina popup
On 04/ 1/10 08:53 AM, Gary Gendel wrote: Whenever I log in, I get a message that there are Codeina updates available for the free mp3 decoder. So I installed the upgrade, but it still still happens every time I log in. If I tell it to install again, it tells me that it's already installed. Anyone know what the process is to find out whether it's really upgraded, or if this is a bogus popup? Then, if it is the latter, how do I convince the upgrade process that it's got the upgrade? System - Preferences - Startup Applications Uncheck Codeina update notifier ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Codeina popup
Hi, Gary Gendel píše v čt 01. 04. 2010 v 05:53 -0700: Whenever I log in, I get a message that there are Codeina updates available for the free mp3 decoder. So I installed the upgrade, but it still still happens every time I log in. If I tell it to install again, it tells me that it's already installed. Anyone know what the process is to find out whether it's really upgraded, or if this is a bogus popup? Then, if it is the latter, how do I convince the upgrade process that it's got the upgrade? I would guess it is bug in Codeina, Fluendo shop or, maybe, you have one more copy of that codec stored on the system somewhere else? Check content of ~/.gstreamer-0.10/plugins/ and /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.10/ and log the bug to defect.opensolaris.org, if you cannot find any reason. Best regards, Milan ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Codeina popup
More information. I'm using the dev repository 134. I ran codeina directly and have some interesting results: g...@phoenix:~/.gstreamer-0.10/plugins/i386-sunos$ ls -l total 121 -rw-r--r-- 1 gary staff 193916 2009-11-10 08:26 libgstflump3dec.so So, the codec is not being updated. I didn't find this codec in /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.10/ g...@phoenix:~$ codeina /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/twisted/internet/_sslverify.py:5: DeprecationWarning: the md5 module is deprecated; use hashlib instead import itertools, md5 /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/codeina/httpdownload.py:14: DeprecationWarning: the sha module is deprecated; use the hashlib module instead import sha /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/codeina/fxml.py:29: DeprecationWarning: the sets module is deprecated import sets (codeina.bin:4902): GStreamer-WARNING **: Failed to load plugin '/export/home/gary/.gstreamer-0.10/fluendo-mp3-11.solaris-intel.dir.LivWG2/codecs/libgstflump3dec.so': ld.so.1: isapython2.6: fatal: libgcc_s.so.1: open failed: No such file or directory So it looks like the update is failing. I tried renaming the .gstreamer-0.10 directory and trying to install it from scratch with the same result. I did notice that there is a SUNWcodeina package that is not installed, but it wants me to do that in a new BE. Do I need this? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
I can understand that OpenSolaris got delayed, but they could at least give us a little heads up why and for how long. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Codeina popup
When you get this straightened out, also note that the update was apparently compiled incorrectly, so you have to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to /usr/sfw/lib; see http://forums.opensolaris.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4673#4673 On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Gary Gendel g...@genashor.com wrote: More information. I'm using the dev repository 134. I ran codeina directly and have some interesting results: g...@phoenix:~/.gstreamer-0.10/plugins/i386-sunos$ ls -l total 121 -rw-r--r-- 1 gary staff 193916 2009-11-10 08:26 libgstflump3dec.so So, the codec is not being updated. I didn't find this codec in /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.10/ g...@phoenix:~$ codeina /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/twisted/internet/_sslverify.py:5: DeprecationWarning: the md5 module is deprecated; use hashlib instead import itertools, md5 /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/codeina/httpdownload.py:14: DeprecationWarning: the sha module is deprecated; use the hashlib module instead import sha /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/codeina/fxml.py:29: DeprecationWarning: the sets module is deprecated import sets (codeina.bin:4902): GStreamer-WARNING **: Failed to load plugin '/export/home/gary/.gstreamer-0.10/fluendo-mp3-11.solaris-intel.dir.LivWG2/codecs/libgstflump3dec.so': ld.so.1: isapython2.6: fatal: libgcc_s.so.1: open failed: No such file or directory So it looks like the update is failing. I tried renaming the .gstreamer-0.10 directory and trying to install it from scratch with the same result. I did notice that there is a SUNWcodeina package that is not installed, but it wants me to do that in a new BE. Do I need this? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
I may have asked this question here before, but I'm finding no evidence of it. If I wanted to find as much info as I can about a machines hardware what commands would I use? Things like hdd and there specs. Video card, sound etc etc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
On 04/ 1/10 04:38 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: I may have asked this question here before, but I'm finding no evidence of it. If I wanted to find as much info as I can about a machines hardware what commands would I use? Have you tried the command, ddu? -Ghee Things like hdd and there specs. Video card, sound etc etc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] syslog-ng?
It would be nice if something was done about the current syslog. The last time I used it for centralized logging, things didn't quite turn out like I hoped. Solaris' syslog is limited, delicate, and only supports UDP. Also, I found a bug where the workaround was in an email from 1994 or 1996. Oi. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
Ghee Teo ghee@sun.com writes: On 04/ 1/10 04:38 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: I may have asked this question here before, but I'm finding no evidence of it. If I wanted to find as much info as I can about a machines hardware what commands would I use? Have you tried the command, ddu? No, thanks... I didn't now about that. /usr/ddu/bin/i386/all_devices Shows quite a bit of info but still can't determine the motherboard. Not sure what else to try with it, there is apparently no man page for ddu. I noticed too that it might be listing the wrong sata adapter. I can't really tell if this line is referring to a pci adapter or the one built into the mobo. It does make reference to pci so I'm assuming this is the pci adapter I added. If so then the report has it wrong, because what I installed is an adaptec 1205a. Can you tell by looking if this might refer to a sata controller built into mobo (wrapped for mail): (Controller)Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 3112 [SATALink/SATARaid] \ Serial ATA Controller:DEVID=0x3112:CLASS=00018085:[0,8,0]:\ pci-ide:1:Attached:VENDOR=0x1095 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
On 04/ 1/10 05:39 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: Ghee Teoghee@sun.com writes: On 04/ 1/10 04:38 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: I may have asked this question here before, but I'm finding no evidence of it. If I wanted to find as much info as I can about a machines hardware what commands would I use? Have you tried the command, ddu? No, thanks... I didn't now about that. /usr/ddu/bin/i386/all_devices Shows quite a bit of info but still can't determine the motherboard. Have you checked the output of prtdiag and prtconf -v ? -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
shawn.wal...@oracle.com said: Have you checked the output of prtdiag and prtconf -v ? Also smbios, and scanpci (in /usr/bin/X11/ on Solaris-10). Marion ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform 3.0 Beta2 Released
Fee Structure - Starting with this release of NCP3, there will be a small charge for all users of NCP. This is required for security upgrades, and usage of apt-clone functionality. Cool. It seems that FreeBSD is going to be the only free and secure OS for ZFS-based storage ;) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform 3.0 Beta2 Released
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Alexander a...@rsu.ru wrote: Fee Structure - Starting with this release of NCP3, there will be a small charge for all users of NCP. This is required for security upgrades, and usage of apt-clone functionality. Cool. It seems that FreeBSD is going to be the only free and secure OS for ZFS-based storage ;) The fee structure isn't that bad you know.. http://www.nexenta.org/projects/site/wiki/Pricing ~Anil ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
http://www.katonda.com/blog/944/call-to-save-opensolaris-fork-it What do you think? Is this a good idea? Matt -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] kernel panic on build 130?
So I'm booting SXCE (yes I know but for now I'm stuck) sNVb130 on a machine that has worked fine with Nevada for a long time, and I'm getting this panic: SunOS Release 5.11 Version snv_130 64-bit Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. Use is subject to license terms. panic[cpu0]/thread=fbc2e3a0: mutex_enter: bad mutex, lp=c0 owner=f000cc73f000cc70 thread=fbc2e3a0 fbc4f9a0 unix:mutex_panic+73 () fbc4fa00 unix:mutex_vector_enter+446 () fbc4fa90 genunix:timeout_generic+83 () fbc4fac0 genunix:timeout_default+5b () fbc4fb00 genunix:delay_common+9d () fbc4fb40 genunix:delay+c4 () fbc4fb80 unix:page_resv+79 () fbc4fc10 unix:segkmem_xalloc+a7 () fbc4fc70 unix:segkmem_alloc_vn+cd () fbc4fca0 unix:segkmem_alloc+24 () fbc4fde0 genunix:vmem_xalloc+546 () fbc4fe40 genunix:vmem_alloc+161 () fbc4fe80 genunix:kmem_alloc+64 () fbc4fec0 genunix:kmem_zalloc+3b () fbc4fee0 acpica:AcpiOsAllocate+1c () fbc4ff30 acpica:AcpiUtAllocate+6e () fbc4ff80 acpica:AcpiUtAllocateZeroed+3f () fbc4ffe0 acpica:AcpiDsBuildInternalBufferObj+cc () fbc50040 acpica:AcpiDsEvalDataObjectOperands+dd () fbc50080 acpica:AcpiDsExecEndOp+3c5 () fbc500d0 acpica:AcpiPsParseLoop+353 () fbc50120 acpica:AcpiPsParseAml+163 () fbc50160 acpica:AcpiPsExecuteMethod+180 () fbc501a0 acpica:AcpiNsEvaluate+3c0 () fbc50210 acpica:AcpiUtEvaluateObject+86 () fbc50260 acpica:AcpiRsGetCrsMethodData+54 () fbc502b0 acpica:AcpiGetCurrentResources+5d () fbc50310 acpica fbc50160 acpica:AcpiPsExecuteMethod+180 () fbc501a0 acpica:AcpiNsEvaluate+3c0 () fbc50210 acpica:AcpiUtEvaluateObject+86 () fbc50260 acpica:AcpiRsGetCrsMethodData+54 () fbc502b0 acpica:AcpiGetCurrentResources+5d () fbc50310 acpica:parse_resources+3b () fbc503b0 acpica:isa_acpi_callback+2ca () fbc50430 acpica:AcpiNsGetDeviceCallback+15f () fbc504d0 acpica:AcpiNsWalkNamespace+14e () fbc50560 acpica:AcpiGetDevices+a0 () fbc50590 acpica:acpi_isa_device_enum+11c () fbc50630 isa:isa_enumerate+107 () fbc50650 unix:impl_bus_initialprobe+60 () fbc50680 unix:impl_setup_ddi+130 () fbc50690 genunix:create_devinfo_tree+b7 () fbc506a0 genunix:setup_ddi+13 () fbc506d0 unix:startup_modules+297 () fbc506e0 unix:startup+50 () fbc50710 genunix:main+2c () fbc50720 unix:_locore_start+92 () I get the same thing with b129 also, but I just booted b127 this morning and it works fine. Is this a known issue, or should I file a bug? -Kyle ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
Matthew: http://www.katonda.com/blog/944/call-to-save-opensolaris-fork-it The gentleman who created the content referenced at this URL starts out by saying that OpenSolaris [...] has seemingly been sentenced to death by its patron Sun Microsystems, after being taken over by Oracle. Two paragraphs down, he states that Oracle has more or less closed down OpenSolaris development. As we all know, from false assumptions, every statement can be proven or disproven. Hence, it is unneccessary to deal with the conclusions the author draws from his false claims. What do you think? Is this a good idea? No. Regards -- VOlker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: v...@bb-c.de Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
try smbios alan -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
Once again, the FUD machine caused someone to become crippled. Well these kinds of fellas are a dime a dozen anymore. Matt -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] kernel panic on build 130?
On 04/ 1/10 01:24 PM, Kyle McDonald wrote: So I'm booting SXCE (yes I know but for now I'm stuck) sNVb130 on a machine that has worked fine with Nevada for a long time, and I'm getting this panic: SunOS Release 5.11 Version snv_130 64-bit Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. Use is subject to license terms. panic[cpu0]/thread=fbc2e3a0: mutex_enter: bad mutex, lp=c0 owner=f000cc73f000cc70 thread=fbc2e3a0 fbc4f9a0 unix:mutex_panic+73 () fbc4fa00 unix:mutex_vector_enter+446 () fbc4fa90 genunix:timeout_generic+83 () fbc4fac0 genunix:timeout_default+5b () fbc4fb00 genunix:delay_common+9d () fbc4fb40 genunix:delay+c4 () fbc4fb80 unix:page_resv+79 () fbc4fc10 unix:segkmem_xalloc+a7 () fbc4fc70 unix:segkmem_alloc_vn+cd () fbc4fca0 unix:segkmem_alloc+24 () fbc4fde0 genunix:vmem_xalloc+546 () fbc4fe40 genunix:vmem_alloc+161 () fbc4fe80 genunix:kmem_alloc+64 () fbc4fec0 genunix:kmem_zalloc+3b () fbc4fee0 acpica:AcpiOsAllocate+1c () fbc4ff30 acpica:AcpiUtAllocate+6e () fbc4ff80 acpica:AcpiUtAllocateZeroed+3f () fbc4ffe0 acpica:AcpiDsBuildInternalBufferObj+cc () fbc50040 acpica:AcpiDsEvalDataObjectOperands+dd () fbc50080 acpica:AcpiDsExecEndOp+3c5 () fbc500d0 acpica:AcpiPsParseLoop+353 () fbc50120 acpica:AcpiPsParseAml+163 () fbc50160 acpica:AcpiPsExecuteMethod+180 () fbc501a0 acpica:AcpiNsEvaluate+3c0 () fbc50210 acpica:AcpiUtEvaluateObject+86 () fbc50260 acpica:AcpiRsGetCrsMethodData+54 () fbc502b0 acpica:AcpiGetCurrentResources+5d () fbc50310 acpica fbc50160 acpica:AcpiPsExecuteMethod+180 () fbc501a0 acpica:AcpiNsEvaluate+3c0 () fbc50210 acpica:AcpiUtEvaluateObject+86 () fbc50260 acpica:AcpiRsGetCrsMethodData+54 () fbc502b0 acpica:AcpiGetCurrentResources+5d () fbc50310 acpica:parse_resources+3b () fbc503b0 acpica:isa_acpi_callback+2ca () fbc50430 acpica:AcpiNsGetDeviceCallback+15f () fbc504d0 acpica:AcpiNsWalkNamespace+14e () fbc50560 acpica:AcpiGetDevices+a0 () fbc50590 acpica:acpi_isa_device_enum+11c () fbc50630 isa:isa_enumerate+107 () fbc50650 unix:impl_bus_initialprobe+60 () fbc50680 unix:impl_setup_ddi+130 () fbc50690 genunix:create_devinfo_tree+b7 () fbc506a0 genunix:setup_ddi+13 () fbc506d0 unix:startup_modules+297 () fbc506e0 unix:startup+50 () fbc50710 genunix:main+2c () fbc50720 unix:_locore_start+92 () I get the same thing with b129 also, but I just booted b127 this morning and it works fine. Is this a known issue, or should I file a bug? Do these look familiar or seem to apply? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6916573 http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6907022 They apply starting with 129 I think, and weren't fixed until 131. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Volker A. Brandt v...@bb-c.de wrote: Matthew: http://www.katonda.com/blog/944/call-to-save-opensolaris-fork-it The gentleman who created the content referenced at this URL starts out by saying that OpenSolaris [...] has seemingly been sentenced to death by its patron Sun Microsystems, after being taken over by Oracle. Two paragraphs down, he states that Oracle has more or less closed down OpenSolaris development. As we all know, from false assumptions, every statement can be proven or disproven. Hence, it is unneccessary to deal with the conclusions the author draws from his false claims. What do you think? Is this a good idea? No. Regards -- VOlker Hi Volker, total +1. Development has closed??? What??? That´s complete nonsense. Maybe the person should subscribe to a more non-fud oriented list (Suggestion: a technical list). On pkg, caiman, osol-code, xwin, zfs, you name it - everywhere the is work being continued. To substantial parts still in THE OPEN. If he branches off, then the branch might be ^free from Oracle^ and rotten. As long as Oracle doesn´t threated us to re-license OS/Net to a closed license, it is exactly as free like that WITHOUT A polemic branch-off ^actionism^ . Because until now the biggest sponsor and contributor of all times has been Sun. How do them intend to write as much code, as Sun/Oracle did and still does? There were a few glitches, agreed. But otherwise it is like it is. %martin bochnig MartUX Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Matthew Nawrocki matthew.nawro...@gmail.com wrote: Once again, the FUD machine caused someone to become crippled. Well these kinds of fellas are a dime a dozen anymore. Matt ??? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
2010/4/1 Matthew Nawrocki matthew.nawro...@gmail.com: What I mean't by this statement is that person can't see the forest through the trees and is blinded by the FUD. Make sense? Matt Ok, now _yes_ . %martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
Forgive me all my spelling errors. Message written from Laptop. Need a break ... %mab ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
On 04/ 2/10 07:23 AM, Matthew Nawrocki wrote: http://www.katonda.com/blog/944/call-to-save-opensolaris-fork-it What do you think? Is this a good idea? I think it was posted a day early. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] kernel panic on build 130?
On 4/1/2010 2:49 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 04/ 1/10 01:24 PM, Kyle McDonald wrote: So I'm booting SXCE (yes I know but for now I'm stuck) sNVb130 on a machine that has worked fine with Nevada for a long time, and I'm getting this panic: SunOS Release 5.11 Version snv_130 64-bit Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. Use is subject to license terms. panic[cpu0]/thread=fbc2e3a0: mutex_enter: bad mutex, lp=c0 owner=f000cc73f000cc70 thread=fbc2e3a0 fbc4f9a0 unix:mutex_panic+73 () fbc4fa00 unix:mutex_vector_enter+446 () fbc4fa90 genunix:timeout_generic+83 () fbc4fac0 genunix:timeout_default+5b () fbc4fb00 genunix:delay_common+9d () fbc4fb40 genunix:delay+c4 () fbc4fb80 unix:page_resv+79 () fbc4fc10 unix:segkmem_xalloc+a7 () fbc4fc70 unix:segkmem_alloc_vn+cd () fbc4fca0 unix:segkmem_alloc+24 () fbc4fde0 genunix:vmem_xalloc+546 () fbc4fe40 genunix:vmem_alloc+161 () fbc4fe80 genunix:kmem_alloc+64 () fbc4fec0 genunix:kmem_zalloc+3b () fbc4fee0 acpica:AcpiOsAllocate+1c () fbc4ff30 acpica:AcpiUtAllocate+6e () fbc4ff80 acpica:AcpiUtAllocateZeroed+3f () fbc4ffe0 acpica:AcpiDsBuildInternalBufferObj+cc () fbc50040 acpica:AcpiDsEvalDataObjectOperands+dd () fbc50080 acpica:AcpiDsExecEndOp+3c5 () fbc500d0 acpica:AcpiPsParseLoop+353 () fbc50120 acpica:AcpiPsParseAml+163 () fbc50160 acpica:AcpiPsExecuteMethod+180 () fbc501a0 acpica:AcpiNsEvaluate+3c0 () fbc50210 acpica:AcpiUtEvaluateObject+86 () fbc50260 acpica:AcpiRsGetCrsMethodData+54 () fbc502b0 acpica:AcpiGetCurrentResources+5d () fbc50310 acpica fbc50160 acpica:AcpiPsExecuteMethod+180 () fbc501a0 acpica:AcpiNsEvaluate+3c0 () fbc50210 acpica:AcpiUtEvaluateObject+86 () fbc50260 acpica:AcpiRsGetCrsMethodData+54 () fbc502b0 acpica:AcpiGetCurrentResources+5d () fbc50310 acpica:parse_resources+3b () fbc503b0 acpica:isa_acpi_callback+2ca () fbc50430 acpica:AcpiNsGetDeviceCallback+15f () fbc504d0 acpica:AcpiNsWalkNamespace+14e () fbc50560 acpica:AcpiGetDevices+a0 () fbc50590 acpica:acpi_isa_device_enum+11c () fbc50630 isa:isa_enumerate+107 () fbc50650 unix:impl_bus_initialprobe+60 () fbc50680 unix:impl_setup_ddi+130 () fbc50690 genunix:create_devinfo_tree+b7 () fbc506a0 genunix:setup_ddi+13 () fbc506d0 unix:startup_modules+297 () fbc506e0 unix:startup+50 () fbc50710 genunix:main+2c () fbc50720 unix:_locore_start+92 () I get the same thing with b129 also, but I just booted b127 this morning and it works fine. Is this a known issue, or should I file a bug? Do these look familiar or seem to apply? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6916573 Well, the stack dump is longer than the one in the bug above, and my system doesn't hang, it mentions there being no dump device (I'm network booting for a Jumpstart Install) and it reboots the machine so I'm not sure, BUT, it did start with b129, AND my hardware is also a IBM x346 Servers Model 8840 but mine is 2x 2.8Ghz with 4GB memory. So http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6907022 I don't see a stack trace in this one, and it also hangs which mine doesn't so I don't know. I'll have to try to boot OS 131 or newer and see if it disappears. Not that it will help me out though. -Kyle They apply starting with 129 I think, and weren't fixed until 131. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] kernel panic on build 130?
Reading more, it looks like it might be: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6905550 Which both of those bugs seem to relate to. -Kyle On 4/1/2010 2:49 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 04/ 1/10 01:24 PM, Kyle McDonald wrote: So I'm booting SXCE (yes I know but for now I'm stuck) sNVb130 on a machine that has worked fine with Nevada for a long time, and I'm getting this panic: SunOS Release 5.11 Version snv_130 64-bit Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. Use is subject to license terms. panic[cpu0]/thread=fbc2e3a0: mutex_enter: bad mutex, lp=c0 owner=f000cc73f000cc70 thread=fbc2e3a0 fbc4f9a0 unix:mutex_panic+73 () fbc4fa00 unix:mutex_vector_enter+446 () fbc4fa90 genunix:timeout_generic+83 () fbc4fac0 genunix:timeout_default+5b () fbc4fb00 genunix:delay_common+9d () fbc4fb40 genunix:delay+c4 () fbc4fb80 unix:page_resv+79 () fbc4fc10 unix:segkmem_xalloc+a7 () fbc4fc70 unix:segkmem_alloc_vn+cd () fbc4fca0 unix:segkmem_alloc+24 () fbc4fde0 genunix:vmem_xalloc+546 () fbc4fe40 genunix:vmem_alloc+161 () fbc4fe80 genunix:kmem_alloc+64 () fbc4fec0 genunix:kmem_zalloc+3b () fbc4fee0 acpica:AcpiOsAllocate+1c () fbc4ff30 acpica:AcpiUtAllocate+6e () fbc4ff80 acpica:AcpiUtAllocateZeroed+3f () fbc4ffe0 acpica:AcpiDsBuildInternalBufferObj+cc () fbc50040 acpica:AcpiDsEvalDataObjectOperands+dd () fbc50080 acpica:AcpiDsExecEndOp+3c5 () fbc500d0 acpica:AcpiPsParseLoop+353 () fbc50120 acpica:AcpiPsParseAml+163 () fbc50160 acpica:AcpiPsExecuteMethod+180 () fbc501a0 acpica:AcpiNsEvaluate+3c0 () fbc50210 acpica:AcpiUtEvaluateObject+86 () fbc50260 acpica:AcpiRsGetCrsMethodData+54 () fbc502b0 acpica:AcpiGetCurrentResources+5d () fbc50310 acpica fbc50160 acpica:AcpiPsExecuteMethod+180 () fbc501a0 acpica:AcpiNsEvaluate+3c0 () fbc50210 acpica:AcpiUtEvaluateObject+86 () fbc50260 acpica:AcpiRsGetCrsMethodData+54 () fbc502b0 acpica:AcpiGetCurrentResources+5d () fbc50310 acpica:parse_resources+3b () fbc503b0 acpica:isa_acpi_callback+2ca () fbc50430 acpica:AcpiNsGetDeviceCallback+15f () fbc504d0 acpica:AcpiNsWalkNamespace+14e () fbc50560 acpica:AcpiGetDevices+a0 () fbc50590 acpica:acpi_isa_device_enum+11c () fbc50630 isa:isa_enumerate+107 () fbc50650 unix:impl_bus_initialprobe+60 () fbc50680 unix:impl_setup_ddi+130 () fbc50690 genunix:create_devinfo_tree+b7 () fbc506a0 genunix:setup_ddi+13 () fbc506d0 unix:startup_modules+297 () fbc506e0 unix:startup+50 () fbc50710 genunix:main+2c () fbc50720 unix:_locore_start+92 () I get the same thing with b129 also, but I just booted b127 this morning and it works fine. Is this a known issue, or should I file a bug? Do these look familiar or seem to apply? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6916573 http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6907022 They apply starting with 129 I think, and weren't fixed until 131. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
Exactly Martin... I don't get it with people. Matt 2010/4/1 Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) mar...@martux.org On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Volker A. Brandt v...@bb-c.de wrote: Matthew: http://www.katonda.com/blog/944/call-to-save-opensolaris-fork-it The gentleman who created the content referenced at this URL starts out by saying that OpenSolaris [...] has seemingly been sentenced to death by its patron Sun Microsystems, after being taken over by Oracle. Two paragraphs down, he states that Oracle has more or less closed down OpenSolaris development. As we all know, from false assumptions, every statement can be proven or disproven. Hence, it is unneccessary to deal with the conclusions the author draws from his false claims. What do you think? Is this a good idea? No. Regards -- VOlker Hi Volker, total +1. Development has closed??? What??? That´s complete nonsense. Maybe the person should subscribe to a more non-fud oriented list (Suggestion: a technical list). On pkg, caiman, osol-code, xwin, zfs, you name it - everywhere the is work being continued. To substantial parts still in THE OPEN. If he branches off, then the branch might be ^free from Oracle^ and rotten. As long as Oracle doesn´t threated us to re-license OS/Net to a closed license, it is exactly as free like that WITHOUT A polemic branch-off ^actionism^ . Because until now the biggest sponsor and contributor of all times has been Sun. How do them intend to write as much code, as Sun/Oracle did and still does? There were a few glitches, agreed. But otherwise it is like it is. %martin bochnig MartUX Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
What I mean't by this statement is that person can't see the forest through the trees and is blinded by the FUD. Make sense? Matt 2010/4/1 Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) mar...@martux.org On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Matthew Nawrocki matthew.nawro...@gmail.com wrote: Once again, the FUD machine caused someone to become crippled. Well these kinds of fellas are a dime a dozen anymore. Matt ??? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
Hmmm. Is this character calling Larry's public statements a lie? Just more FUD stupidity if you ask me. http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3867771/OpenSolaris-Alive-and-Well-at-Oracle.htm -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Codeina popup
Gary: Whenever I log in, I get a message that there are Codeina updates available for the free mp3 decoder. So I installed the upgrade, but it still still happens every time I log in. If I tell it to install again, it tells me that it's already installed. Anyone know what the process is to find out whether it's really upgraded, or if this is a bogus popup? Then, if it is the latter, how do I convince the upgrade process that it's got the upgrade? I reported this problem, and the problem about /usr/sfw/lib not being in the plugin RPATH to Fluendo: https://core.fluendo.com/gstreamer/trac/ticket/242 https://core.fluendo.com/gstreamer/trac/ticket/243 In the past, Fluendo has been pretty quick about addressing such problems once they are reported, so hopefully this will be fixed soon. When they provide new plugins to fix the RPATH issue, you'll likely get a popup telling you to update the plugins again to get ones that fix this issue. Brian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
Marion Hakanson hakan...@ohsu.edu writes: shawn.wal...@oracle.com said: Have you checked the output of prtdiag and prtconf -v ? Also smbios, and scanpci (in /usr/bin/X11/ on Solaris-10). smbios has gobs of satanic looking output but apparently still doesn't know which mobo is installed. (scanpci) That shows the same adapter: pci bus 0x cardnum 0x08 function 0x00: vendor 0x1095 device 0x3112 Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 3112 [SATALink/SATARaid] Serial ATA Controller All good info posters I'm liking the tools mentioned sofar. I'm also wondering now if I've gotten things scrambled in my feeble memory. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
Shawn Walker shawn.wal...@oracle.com writes: On 04/ 1/10 05:39 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: Ghee Teoghee@sun.com writes: On 04/ 1/10 04:38 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: I may have asked this question here before, but I'm finding no evidence of it. If I wanted to find as much info as I can about a machines hardware what commands would I use? Have you tried the command, ddu? No, thanks... I didn't now about that. /usr/ddu/bin/i386/all_devices Shows quite a bit of info but still can't determine the motherboard. Have you checked the output of prtdiag and prtconf -v ? No I hadn't. Wasn't even aware of the tools. Nice concise output except hard to make head or tails of `prtconf' output. [...] pci1106,3104, instance #0 isa, instance #1 motherboard (driver not attached) fdc, instance #1 fd, instance #1 [...] Good info and tools... thanks. (prtconf) Still doesn't appear to know which motherboard is installed. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
Marion Hakanson hakan...@ohsu.edu writes: shawn.wal...@oracle.com said: Have you checked the output of prtdiag and prtconf -v ? Also smbios, and scanpci (in /usr/bin/X11/ on Solaris-10). Nice... I think most or maybe all that same info is available buy running the program `Device Driver Utility'. However see below for what happens here. Does anyone know the keyboard command to run the: Device Driver Utility Either in the Application/System menu or in some install media there is an icon left for `Device Driver Utility' left on the desktop. When I try to run it from Applications/System menu I get an icon in the taskbar saying `Device Driver Utility' is starting, but then it never appears, and after 30 seconds or so the icon in taskbar disappears but still never see the interface. So how can I start it from the cmdline? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: Marion Hakanson hakan...@ohsu.edu writes: Also smbios, and scanpci (in /usr/bin/X11/ on Solaris-10). smbios has gobs of satanic looking output but apparently still doesn't know which mobo is installed. Interesting. On one of my random boxes running 2009.06, smbios says: IDSIZE TYPE 2 57 SMB_TYPE_BASEBOARD (base board) Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Product: 8I865GVMK Version: x.x Serial Number: Chassis: 0 Flags: 0x0 Board Type: 0x0 Of course, these utilities are reliant on the hardware and bios actually reporting data back, which is somewhat variable in both quantity and quality. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
On 04/ 1/10 04:26 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Harry Putnamrea...@newsguy.com wrote: Marion Hakansonhakan...@ohsu.edu writes: Also smbios, and scanpci (in /usr/bin/X11/ on Solaris-10). smbios has gobs of satanic looking output but apparently still doesn't know which mobo is installed. Interesting. On one of my random boxes running 2009.06, smbios says: IDSIZE TYPE 2 57 SMB_TYPE_BASEBOARD (base board) Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Product: 8I865GVMK Version: x.x Serial Number: Chassis: 0 Flags: 0x0 Board Type: 0x0 Of course, these utilities are reliant on the hardware and bios actually reporting data back, which is somewhat variable in both quantity and quality. Likewise, mine supplies the motherboard model and name, but it's also a Gigabyte one, and I suspect these tools are BIOS-dependent for getting this information. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?
Before anyone says that the place to discuss this is the Oracle forums, with some difficulty, I found [url=http://forums.sun.com/forum.jspa?forumID=844start=0]the appropriate forum[/url]. But it seems to be much less active than the OpenSolaris forums. There is [url=http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5434104]a new thread[/url] there on this subject, with one reply that just asks another question. Here is the first post from that thread: Solaris subscriptions Mar 31, 2010 9:02 AM Does anyone know what the latest cost for a Solaris 10 subscription is? Oracle no longer has the prices on the web, or at least it is completely impossible to find. They want to force people to call them and I don't care to waste any more time looking nor answering a hundred questions and navigating fifty phone menus in order to speak with someone to ask a basic question. If this is Oracle's new answer to customer support, it is sorely lacking. The official Web page [url=http://www.oracle.com/us/support/systems/operating-systems/index.html]Oracle Premier Support for Operating Systems[/url] clearly states that paid support of Solaris 10 is available that is not tied to hardware. However, as the post above notes, Oracle no longer has the prices on the web. Why is that? To see if I could find them, I went to the Oracle online store. I was able to find this page there: [url=https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/f?p=ostore:2:0::NO:RP,2:PROD_HIER_ID:4510271054261805728467]Product Category - Infrastructure[/url]. This has five different levels of Linux support listed, along with the corresponding prices: Enterprise Linux Basic Limited Support, Enterprise Linux Basic Support, Enterprise Linux Network Support, Enterprise Linux Premier Limited Support, Enterprise Linux Premier Support. Judging by their names, the last two are the Linux equivalents of the support that Oracle claims it provides for Solaris 10. If Oracle can list the prices for its Linux support there, why can't it list the prices for its Solaris 10 support? I initially believed what others have said that the lack of precise information from Oracle about support for Solaris 10 is due to the chaos of corporate reorganization. But this has now dragged on long enough for things to definitely look fishy. The thread [url=http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=126336tstart=0]Solaris 10 - no longer free[/url] from this forum was started on March 12. Incredibly, tomorrow that will be three weeks ago. No official information about Solaris 10 support has come out of Oracle since then. One explanation for this state of affairs is incompetence. But Oracle is a highly successful corporation, with sales of $6.2 billion in 2004, the market share leader in its main market, relational databases. Therefore, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that something more sinister than mere incompetence lies at the bottom of this silence. There is an official Sun Wiki called [url=http://wikis.sun.com/display/SunSolve/How+Entitlement+Works?focusedCommentId=199106721#comment-199106721]How Entitlement Works[/url]. Here is part of the last post there, dated March 23: I can't seem to purchase a support contract. The only page that even lists the ability to purchase it is broken (see dpfloyd's comment), and I have not receved a call back from Oracle/Sun sales in nearly a week (and that was after getting bounced through 6 different people to a support person who at least knew to forward my info to a Sun-related salesperson, or so they said). Additionally, if you click the How to Purchase a Contract it provides no actual info on how to do that The post above is not in fact the last post that was made on that Wiki. There was a reply to that post by a Sun employee, dated the same day: Miriam_at_Sun says: Hello, I am investigating this and will update my reply when I have the answer. Miriam Why, after more than a week, has this Sun employee not been able to obtain the answer? And, perhaps more to the point, why was her reply deleted? Why is Oracle vandalizing its own Web sites to prevent people from having accurate knowledge of public communications made between Oracle employees and its customers? Again, lest it be objected that discussion of Solaris 10 does not belong here: In recent development releases of OpenSolaris, it is possible to run Solaris 10 in an OpenSolaris branded zone. Therefore, the BrandZ technology makes Solaris 10 licensing issues of potential interest to all OpenSolaris users. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] about snapshot schedule
I'm seeing something in the */.zfs/snapshot directories I hadn't noticed before. For example in /.zfs/snapshot There are only files with names like: zfs-auto-snap:frequent[...] zfs-auto-snap:weekly[...] zfs-auto-snap:monthly[...] No hourly or daily snapshots In fact this seems to be true in all the zfs file systems under rpool. Far as I know my auto snapshot settings are what ever is the default. But in the 2 other zpools I have; I see hourly and daily snapshots. Am I just belatedly noticing what is the normal default or does this indicate some kind of problem with snapshot settings on rpool? Seems like you would want hourly and daily snapshots on rpool for sure. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [basic] cmds to discover/report hardware
Shawn Walker shawn.wal...@oracle.com writes: On 04/ 1/10 04:26 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Harry Putnamrea...@newsguy.com wrote: Marion Hakansonhakan...@ohsu.edu writes: Also smbios, and scanpci (in /usr/bin/X11/ on Solaris-10). smbios has gobs of satanic looking output but apparently still doesn't know which mobo is installed. Interesting. On one of my random boxes running 2009.06, smbios says: IDSIZE TYPE 2 57 SMB_TYPE_BASEBOARD (base board) Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Product: 8I865GVMK Version: x.x Serial Number: Chassis: 0 Flags: 0x0 Board Type: 0x0 Of course, these utilities are reliant on the hardware and bios actually reporting data back, which is somewhat variable in both quantity and quality. Likewise, mine supplies the motherboard model and name, but it's also a Gigabyte one, and I suspect these tools are BIOS-dependent for getting this information. I notice they call it a `base board' not mother board so I grepped for that: smbios |grep 'base board' nothing smbios |grep Manufacturer Manufacturer: Manufacturer: Manufacturer: AMD Manufacturer: None Manufacturer: None Manufacturer: None Must be secretive hardware eh? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages? (Quit asking these questions here)
Look, this is a TECHNICAL list. We (those of us still working at Oracle) can't answer these questions. Literally. By that I mean we're technical folks, either directly involved in coding, or advanced users. And that applies to a large number of non-Oracle folks on this list, too. You want Sales, Marketing, and PR answers. We can't give them to you. Not won't give, CAN'T GIVE. We don't know. And even if we did, we would be out of place to speak about them, since none of us are authorized to speak as official spokesmen. Please, for the umteenth time now, ask a Sales Rep. That's right - call them up, and ask them what the story is. They can tell you. We can't. -Erik Alex Viskovatoff wrote: Before anyone says that the place to discuss this is the Oracle forums, with some difficulty, I found [url=http://forums.sun.com/forum.jspa?forumID=844start=0]the appropriate forum[/url]. But it seems to be much less active than the OpenSolaris forums. There is [url=http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5434104]a new thread[/url] there on this subject, with one reply that just asks another question. Here is the first post from that thread: Solaris subscriptions Mar 31, 2010 9:02 AM Does anyone know what the latest cost for a Solaris 10 subscription is? Oracle no longer has the prices on the web, or at least it is completely impossible to find. They want to force people to call them and I don't care to waste any more time looking nor answering a hundred questions and navigating fifty phone menus in order to speak with someone to ask a basic question. If this is Oracle's new answer to customer support, it is sorely lacking. The official Web page [url=http://www.oracle.com/us/support/systems/operating-systems/index.html]Oracle Premier Support for Operating Systems[/url] clearly states that paid support of Solaris 10 is available that is not tied to hardware. However, as the post above notes, Oracle no longer has the prices on the web. Why is that? To see if I could find them, I went to the Oracle online store. I was able to find this page there: [url=https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/f?p=ostore:2:0::NO:RP,2:PROD_HIER_ID:4510271054261805728467]Product Category - Infrastructure[/url]. This has five different levels of Linux support listed, along with the corresponding prices: Enterprise Linux Basic Limited Support, Enterprise Linux Basic Support, Enterprise Linux Network Support, Enterprise Linux Premier Limited Support, Enterprise Linux Premier Support. Judging by their names, the last two are the Linux equivalents of the support that Oracle claims it provides for Solaris 10. If Oracle can list the prices for its Linux support there, why can't it list the prices for its Solaris 10 support? I initially believed what others have said that the lack of precise information from Oracle about support for Solaris 10 is due to the chaos of corporate reorganization. But this has now dragged on long enough for things to definitely look fishy. The thread [url=http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=126336tstart=0]Solaris 10 - no longer free[/url] from this forum was started on March 12. Incredibly, tomorrow that will be three weeks ago. No official information about Solaris 10 support has come out of Oracle since then. One explanation for this state of affairs is incompetence. But Oracle is a highly successful corporation, with sales of $6.2 billion in 2004, the market share leader in its main market, relational databases. Therefore, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that something more sinister than mere incompetence lies at the bottom of this silence. There is an official Sun Wiki called [url=http://wikis.sun.com/display/SunSolve/How+Entitlement+Works?focusedCommentId=199106721#comment-199106721]How Entitlement Works[/url]. Here is part of the last post there, dated March 23: I can't seem to purchase a support contract. The only page that even lists the ability to purchase it is broken (see dpfloyd's comment), and I have not receved a call back from Oracle/Sun sales in nearly a week (and that was after getting bounced through 6 different people to a support person who at least knew to forward my info to a Sun-related salesperson, or so they said). Additionally, if you click the How to Purchase a Contract it provides no actual info on how to do that The post above is not in fact the last post that was made on that Wiki. There was a reply to that post by a Sun employee, dated the same day: Miriam_at_Sun says: Hello, I am investigating this and will update my reply when I have the answer. Miriam Why, after more than a week, has this Sun employee not been able to obtain the answer? And, perhaps more to the point, why was her reply deleted? Why is Oracle vandalizing its own Web sites to prevent people from having accurate knowledge of public communications made between Oracle employees and its customers?
Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages? (Quit asking these questions here)
I'm very sorry, I intended but forgot to apologize in advance to technical employees of Sun/Oracle. This post is certainly not directed to you. But, to be fair, this is not a technical list. Compilers, for example, is a technical list. This, in contrast, is OpenSolaris General Discussion. All topics involving OpenSolaris are open for discussion. So, to more precisely direct my questions to the intended audience: Can any user of Solaris 10 and/or OpenSolaris who has contacted an Oracle sales rep answer any of the questions in my original post? Please, anyone who has been able to obtain a price for Solaris 10 OS support from an Oracle sales rep, can you post a reply saying what the price was? This is a matter of general interest. Once again, I offer my sincerest apologies to Sun engineers. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages? (Quit asking these questions here)
On Apr 1, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Alex Viskovatoff wrote: I'm very sorry, I intended but forgot to apologize in advance to technical employees of Sun/Oracle. This post is certainly not directed to you. But, to be fair, this is not a technical list. Compilers, for example, is a technical list. This, in contrast, is OpenSolaris General Discussion. All topics involving OpenSolaris are open for discussion. So, to more precisely direct my questions to the intended audience: Can any user of Solaris 10 and/or OpenSolaris who has contacted an Oracle sales rep answer any of the questions in my original post? Please, anyone who has been able to obtain a price for Solaris 10 OS support from an Oracle sales rep, can you post a reply saying what the price was? This is a matter of general interest. Once again, I offer my sincerest apologies to Sun engineers. Hi Alex, I've been trying to get answers to some similar or same questions from Oracle. The latest thing I got from Oracle was to contact Dell about OEM support (we're looking at running Solaris 10 on VMware on Dell). The Dell rep was happy enough to hear from me incidentally. I think speaking to the technical community through message boards and email lists has done as much good as it's going to. Oracle's only going to listen to feedback coming back through their Sales Reps at this point. An idea I recently heard that makes sense to me, is for anyone who's willing to spend money for Solaris 10 (even if it's not a lot of money), and who has the patience to call a Sales person, and the patience to respond back to their calls (at least for a while) to start calling, and asking questions about options for what's lacking (In my case, Solaris 10 on non-Sun hardware). Possibly after enough of that, Sales will feed something back to management about missed opportunities, then maybe management might change something, that might make something available out there that seems remotely sane to the technical community's reality. Yeah, a lot of what ifs, and mights in there, I know, but I'm pretty sure the Oracle Sales people don't frequent these mailing lists or message boards. Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but what the heck, what's the worst thing that could happen from Oracle Sales getting a bunch of calls from people who want Solaris? Just my two cents there and a copycat idea though. YMMV. cheers, Brian --- Brian Wilson, Sun SE, UW-Madison DoIT Room 3114 CSS 608-263-8047 bfwilson(a)doit.wisc.edu 'I try to save a life a day. Usually it's my own.' - John Crichton --- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?
On 04/ 2/10 10:31 AM, Alex Viskovatoff wrote: Before anyone says that the place to discuss this is the Oracle forums, with some difficulty, I found [url=http://forums.sun.com/forum.jspa?forumID=844start=0]the appropriate forum[/url]. But it seems to be much less active than the OpenSolaris forums. There is [url=http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5434104]a new thread[/url] there on this subject, with one reply that just asks another question. Here is the first post from that thread: I'm sure there a plenty of quiet forums, but that doesn't make this list the place to discuss their topics. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] about snapshot schedule
On 4/1/2010 5:35 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: I'm seeing something in the */.zfs/snapshot directories I hadn't noticed before. For example in /.zfs/snapshot There are only files with names like: zfs-auto-snap:frequent[...] zfs-auto-snap:weekly[...] zfs-auto-snap:monthly[...] No hourly or daily snapshots check svcs -a | grep snap to see if any of the snapshot services has failed and is in maintenance mode. Sometimes a simple svcadm clear service-name brings them back online. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
It surrounded all over the world and confused many of Solaris/OpenSolaris guys. However, I wonder how many guys checked Software License Agreement of Solaris OS which considered more legal. http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/licensing/sla.xml Now, still I can read this document and find about use of Solaris OS on section 3. When I tried to download Solaris10 DVD image yesterday, SLA was displayed. 3. Permitted Use. As selected in your Entitlement, one or more of the following Permitted Uses will apply to your use of Software. Unless you have an Entitlement that expressly permits it, you may not use Software for any of the other Permitted Uses. If you don't have an Entitlement, or if your Entitlement doesn't cover additional software delivered to you, then such software is for your Evaluation Use. (a) Evaluation Use. You may evaluate Software internally for a period of 90 days from your first use. (b) Research and Instructional Use. You may use Software internally to design, develop and test, and also to provide instruction on such uses. (c) Individual Use. You may use Software internally for personal, individual use. (d) Commercial Use. You may use Software internally for your own commercial purposes. (e) Service Provider Use. You may make Software functionality accessible (but not by providing Software itself or through outsourcing services) to your end users in an extranet deployment, but not to your affiliated companies or to government agencies. According to Ben Rockwood's blog, change some sentence was reported. http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1120 Please remember, your right to use Solaris acquired as a download is limited to a trial of 90 days, unless you acquire a service contract for the downloaded Software. It is obscure what 'service contract' means in this context. That might be considered some contract such as 'Solaris Subscription' or other premium subscription programs, however with SLA, also might be considered 'getting Entitlement'. 3. Permitted Use. ... If you don't have an Entitlement, or if your Entitlement doesn't cover additional software delivered to you, then such software is for your Evaluation Use. I think this change show nothing clearly, we must just follow SLA of Solaris OS. Also I think It is not clever dancing with non-official information or some rumors. In addition, Oracle appended post script to SLA. Oracle is reviewing the Sun product roadmap and will provide guidance to customers in accordance with Oracle's standard product communication policies. I am looking forward Oracle to make enough guidance. Lack of information bring confusion and unneeded rumors. Hiroshi Chonan -- Hiroshi Chonan cho...@pid0.org Tokyo OpenSolaris User Group co-Leader SCA # OS0255 2010/3/22 Aidan Lawn aidanl...@gmail.com: I just found this out, I don't know if it was announced or not but its news to me. The official license can be read here: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/popup.jsp?info=17 The key bit is: Please remember, your right to use Solaris acquired as a download is limited to a trial of 90 days, unless you acquire a service contract for the downloaded Software. Does anyone know when this changed? I just deployed two Solaris 10 servers with the plan of only applying the free patches. I'm now planning to rebuild when opensolaris 2010.03 is released as this project was scoped with no license costs. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Save OpenSolaris (according to Katonda)
Is this an April fools joke? Alexander Eremin got me pretty good last year with the Opensolaris successfully booting up on an iphone port. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
Maybe this one is Oracle playing an April Fools joke on us as well? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform 3.0 Beta2 Released
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Alexander The fee structure isn't that bad you know.. http://www.nexenta.org/projects/site/wiki/Pricing Cruel joke. :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
