[osol-discuss] How to switch off hardware sound volume control ?
I have a problem with hardware sound volume control on my notebook. It don't work properly with all OS. When I touch sound control wheel noname notified panel with speaker icon and sound value bar appears. After that: - system don't responds on keyboard, - windows switching by mouse click is possible, - applications starts by double clicking on desktop icons, - top bar menu items highlights by mouse click but pop-up not appears. Booting Ubuntu + Gnome I had same effects. How to switch off hardware sound volume control ? Thanks. P.S. Notebook Toshiba Satellite U300-111, Intel Corel2 Duo, 2Gb. OpenSolaris 2010.03 build 134 -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Simon Phipps wrote: Ths thing I find interesting in the article, and indeed in many of your statements, is that you show absolutely no sign of self-doubt about whether open sourcing everything you could actually destroyed shareholder value and drove Sun down the toilet. That's because it did not. See the penultimate paragraph of http://webmink.com/2010/03/08/sundown/ I don't understand. I'm looking at 'we've achieved some amazing things ... despite the success of Sun's open source business, it still wasn't enough to rescue Sun'. That looks self-congratulatory to me, not doubting. I'm not sure how the open sourcing was successful for Sun shareholders. Definitely successful for Red Hat shareholders though. Where's the bit that says 'maybe embracing open source was a huge mistake and we screwed up'? Its one thing to embrace open source by consuming it, but embracing it by taking a huge IP investment and chucking over the wall? (Well, mostly ...) The whole strategy seems to have been predicated on 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', presumably based on a massive chip-on-shoulder brought about by NT eating your market in CAD and financial workstations. Hopefully Larry's management team will see that there IS some market for a not-Windows alternative for PC-clone workstations and that the consistency, stability of interfaces and compatibility that defined Solaris are a differentiator that can make it more attractive to OEMs than Linux variants. But I'm not hopeful. James ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
James Mansion ja...@mansionfamily.plus.com wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: Ths thing I find interesting in the article, and indeed in many of your statements, is that you show absolutely no sign of self-doubt about whether open sourcing everything you could actually destroyed shareholder value and drove Sun down the toilet. That's because it did not. See the penultimate paragraph of http://webmink.com/2010/03/08/sundown/ I don't understand. I'm looking at 'we've achieved some amazing things ... despite the success of Sun's open source business, it still wasn't enough to rescue Sun'. That looks self-congratulatory to me, not doubting. I'm not sure how the open sourcing was successful for Sun shareholders. Definitely You mentioned above that OpenSourcing Solaris was not enough to rescue Sun. You are correct: without OpenSourcing Solaris, Sun would have been in trouble earlier. So you can answer your question I'm not sure how the open sourcing was successful for Sun shareholders. with a _yes_, as it helped to raise the Sun stock price. I further believe that a closer collaboration with the cummunity (as intended by Sun in September 2004) would have given the additional momentum for Sun to push it into the win zone for a longer time. This is however a lost chance and we cannot roll back time... 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] Any news about 2010.3?
James: For 3 pretty ROI-worthless aquisitions alone (Cobalt, STK and MySQL) Sun's top-management spent 10 Billion USD (ten thousand millions!!!). Every time the behaved like kids: At hopelessly overheated markets - instead of selling something - they bought! Obviously the paid way overpriced amounts for much too little counter-valueadd. If you closely watched the NYSE charts over the years you should know, that these 10 Billions are more $$$, than Sun ever managed to generate as a profit in all these years summed up. To me that appears to be more related to Sun's liquidity problems. And those were indeed severe management faults at the HIGHEST levels. Other errors certainly include a pricing policy, where 5 years old processors still stood on the price list at their launch prices (such as something like 7995 USD for a 600MHz UltraSPARC III non-Cu module for the Blade 2000). And were the option price for a simple stupid generic IDE-DVD-ROM drive for the Blade 150 was 295 EUR on sun.de (at least from 2003 till 2006). You are blaming the wrong man! I made this mistake myself for far too long. I agree with Joerg's statements below: Sun was not open enough. For this reason substantial parts of real community-support were sent to dust. While those parts of the community lost their trust ... (2007 ...Ian-Diana ... etc.) You forgot the trouble? Reminder: http://www.michaeldolan.com/1102 Thursday, February 14th, 2008 “I told you so” in order? Roy Fielding resigns from OpenSolaris Some choice quotes: Sun didn’t just make vague statements to me about OpenSolaris; they made promises about it being an open development project. That’s the only way they could get someone like me to provide free labor for their benefit. Given Sun’s recent track record on breaking promises, another one doesn’t surprise me at all. THAT was lost share holder value. %martin On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM, James Mansion ja...@mansionfamily.plus.com wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: Ths thing I find interesting in the article, and indeed in many of your statements, is that you show absolutely no sign of self-doubt about whether open sourcing everything you could actually destroyed shareholder value and drove Sun down the toilet. That's because it did not. See the penultimate paragraph of http://webmink.com/2010/03/08/sundown/ I don't understand. I'm looking at 'we've achieved some amazing things ... despite the success of Sun's open source business, it still wasn't enough to rescue Sun'. That looks self-congratulatory to me, not doubting. I'm not sure how the open sourcing was successful for Sun shareholders. Definitely successful for Red Hat shareholders though. Where's the bit that says 'maybe embracing open source was a huge mistake and we screwed up'? Its one thing to embrace open source by consuming it, but embracing it by taking a huge IP investment and chucking over the wall? (Well, mostly ...) The whole strategy seems to have been predicated on 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', presumably based on a massive chip-on-shoulder brought about by NT eating your market in CAD and financial workstations. Hopefully Larry's management team will see that there IS some market for a not-Windows alternative for PC-clone workstations and that the consistency, stability of interfaces and compatibility that defined Solaris are a differentiator that can make it more attractive to OEMs than Linux variants. But I'm not hopeful. James ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
I agree with that summary of real events and facts. Hence I decided to post everything inline: http://www.michaeldolan.com/1102 Thursday, February 14th, 2008 “I told you so” in order? Roy Fielding resigns from OpenSolaris http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2008-February/004488.html In my opinion, Roy came up short in fully describing the issue, but he did a great job focusing on the thread at hand regarding OpenSolaris and trademark. The fact is, Sun is not an open source community or development player. Sun wants all the benefits of saying it’s all about open and freedom, yet, Sun does something completely different. Nearly 3 years into OpenSolaris, the development is still behind the firewall inside Sun. Nearly 3 years into OpenSolaris, open source community developers would have to get Sun engineers to agree to accept code. Nearly 3 years into OpenSolaris, developers have to contribute copyright co-ownership to the corporation, Sun, in order to contribute to OpenSolaris. Nearly 3 years into OpenSolaris, there are still essential parts of the Solaris OS that are still not opened under a free license (they call it the OpenSolaris Binary License… aka proprietary). I could go on and on… but let me refer to Roy’s view below. Will Ian be next to resign? I can’t believe he really believes this is the right execution of what sounded like an “open” strategy 2 years ago… I knew better, but many fell for the bedtime story that sounded sweet. Some will still argue that Sun’s great, open, etc., but they’re brainwashed; anyone who really knows what’s going on should not be fooled at this point in the game. “Open”Solaris is an OS that is created by 1 company, with no outside input or control and has a code repo on opensolaris.org… besides that, what has it done to contribute or help any community of users? Some choice quotes: Sun didn’t just make vague statements to me about OpenSolaris; they made promises about it being an open development project. That’s the only way they could get someone like me to provide free labor for their benefit. Given Sun’s recent track record on breaking promises, another one doesn’t surprise me at all. … Most of the stuff in that letter about Sun’s responsibilities in regard to “International Trademark Law” is nothing more than snow being tossed in the eyes of technical folks who don’t have access to their own lawyers. … In fact, if it weren’t for the extremely pig-headed way in which Indiana was thrust on the community as Ian’s private domain, it could have easily been a unifying path for all of the distros. It could have given them a gate within OpenSolaris in which to collaborate, instead of doing all of their work in separate communities outside OpenSolaris. Indiana is just another private marketing team within Sun that is making private decisions about “OpenSolaris” that aren’t even in line with the internal processes of Solaris Engineering, let alone the published governance model of the OGB. … Sun agreed that “OpenSolaris” would be governed by the community and yet has refused, in every step along the way, to cede any real control over the software produced or the way it is produced, and continues to make private decisions every day that are later promoted as decisions for this thing we call OpenSolaris. Rather than be honest about it and restructure the community to correspond to this MySolaris style of over-the-wall development, Sun prefers to lie to the external community members while ignoring their input. … This well is poisoned; the company has consumed its own future and any pretense that the projects will ever govern themselves (as opposed to being governed by whatever pointy-haired boss is hiding behind the scenes) is now a joke. … There’s nothing particularly wrong with that choice — it is a perfectly valid open source model for corporations that don’t need active community participation. IMO, the resulting code tends to suck a lot more than community-driven projects, but it is still open source. In any case, I am done with it. I hereby resign my status as a Member of the OpenSolaris Community, effective immediately. 2010/4/5 Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) mar...@martux.org: James: For 3 pretty ROI-worthless aquisitions alone (Cobalt, STK and MySQL) Sun's top-management spent 10 Billion USD (ten thousand millions!!!). Every time the behaved like kids: At hopelessly overheated markets - instead of selling something - they bought! Obviously the paid way overpriced amounts for much too little counter-valueadd. If you closely watched the NYSE charts over the years you should know, that these 10 Billions are more $$$, than Sun ever managed to generate as a profit in all these years summed up. To me that appears to be more related to Sun's liquidity problems. And those were indeed severe management faults at the HIGHEST levels. Other errors certainly include a pricing
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
James, here you see that the opposite of your claims appears to be more true : http://www.ratliff.net/blog/2008/02/14/not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper/ Roy Fielding[1] finally quit the OpenSolaris community today, see his resignation letter[2]. The kettle finally boiled over and the realization come to many (but not all) that Sun is publishing their Solaris code for marketing purposes, rather than creating an independent, community-led, open source project with the ability to make real decisions. It seemed so promising at first: “[T]hey made promises about it being an open development project. … Sun gave up its right to make arbitrary decisions regarding the phrase ‘OpenSolaris’ as part of its public agreement with the community in the form of the Charter. That was a self-imposed restriction in exchange for the benefits of community-driven development, freely made, and cannot be changed except in accordance with the charter itself (for example, by amending or dissolving the charter).” (excerpt from Roy Fielding’s resignation letter) But it was a sham: “The charter has therefore been violated. … Sun agreed that ‘OpenSolaris’ would be governed by the community and yet has refused, in every step along the way, to cede any real control over the software produced or the way it is produced, and continues to make private decisions every day that are later promoted as decisions for this thing we call OpenSolaris.” (excerpt from Roy Fielding’s resignation letter 2010/4/5 Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) mar...@martux.org: I agree with that summary of real events and facts. Hence I decided to post everything inline: http://www.michaeldolan.com/1102 Thursday, February 14th, 2008 “I told you so” in order? Roy Fielding resigns from OpenSolaris http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2008-February/004488.html In my opinion, Roy came up short in fully describing the issue, but he did a great job focusing on the thread at hand regarding OpenSolaris and trademark. The fact is, Sun is not an open source community or development player. Sun wants all the benefits of saying it’s all about open and freedom, yet, Sun does something completely different. Nearly 3 years into OpenSolaris, the development is still behind the firewall inside Sun. Nearly 3 years into OpenSolaris, open source community developers would have to get Sun engineers to agree to accept code. Nearly 3 years into OpenSolaris, developers have to contribute copyright co-ownership to the corporation, Sun, in order to contribute to OpenSolaris. Nearly 3 years into OpenSolaris, there are still essential parts of the Solaris OS that are still not opened under a free license (they call it the OpenSolaris Binary License… aka proprietary). I could go on and on… but let me refer to Roy’s view below. Will Ian be next to resign? I can’t believe he really believes this is the right execution of what sounded like an “open” strategy 2 years ago… I knew better, but many fell for the bedtime story that sounded sweet. Some will still argue that Sun’s great, open, etc., but they’re brainwashed; anyone who really knows what’s going on should not be fooled at this point in the game. “Open”Solaris is an OS that is created by 1 company, with no outside input or control and has a code repo on opensolaris.org… besides that, what has it done to contribute or help any community of users? Some choice quotes: Sun didn’t just make vague statements to me about OpenSolaris; they made promises about it being an open development project. That’s the only way they could get someone like me to provide free labor for their benefit. Given Sun’s recent track record on breaking promises, another one doesn’t surprise me at all. … Most of the stuff in that letter about Sun’s responsibilities in regard to “International Trademark Law” is nothing more than snow being tossed in the eyes of technical folks who don’t have access to their own lawyers. … In fact, if it weren’t for the extremely pig-headed way in which Indiana was thrust on the community as Ian’s private domain, it could have easily been a unifying path for all of the distros. It could have given them a gate within OpenSolaris in which to collaborate, instead of doing all of their work in separate communities outside OpenSolaris. Indiana is just another private marketing team within Sun that is making private decisions about “OpenSolaris” that aren’t even in line with the internal processes of Solaris Engineering, let alone the published governance model of the OGB. … Sun agreed that “OpenSolaris” would be governed by the community and yet has refused, in every step along the way, to cede any real control over the software produced or the way it is produced, and continues to make private decisions every day that are later promoted as decisions for this thing we call OpenSolaris. Rather than be honest about it and restructure
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Joerg Schilling wrote: You are correct: without OpenSourcing Solaris, Sun would have been in trouble earlier. What evidence do you have for this? I know there have been externally sourced code contributions, but how much of it needed source rather than the stable ABIs, and how material is it really? More to the point - what revenue did it generate? So you can answer your question I'm not sure how the open sourcing was successful for Sun shareholders. with a _yes_, as it helped to raise the Sun stock price. Very briefly, yes, but since then I think it hasn't materially helped shift anything that generated revenue for Sun, and Sun's stock hardly trended up on its recent improving quality. I further believe that a closer collaboration with the cummunity (as intended by Sun in September 2004) would have given the additional momentum for Sun to push it into the win zone for a longer time. Well you can believe that, but belief in that is behind a lot of the open source hype, and one thing that's hard to find is concrete evidence of how it translated into a sound business plan and revenue. This is however a lost chance and we cannot roll back time... Indeed, but we can try to learn from it, and I think questioning how and when open source is helpful to a technology creator is worthwhile. Sun's position was fundamentally different to Red Hat and post-NetWare SUSE, since they owned the things they were giving away, and had done most of the development (or had paid for it). I think its worth considering what they could have done differently and why. I can't help thinking that they would have had a better chance by going in completely the other direction and using their grip on Java and Open Office (and mysql, eventually) to try to cut off Linux's air supply and stunt its datacentre growth until Solaris on X64 could get a decent foothold, but its all conjecture, and it would have accepted handing a potential short-term gain to Microsoft. James ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) wrote: Solaris code for marketing purposes, rather than creating an independent, community-led, open source project with the ability to make real decisions. I think you're missing the point. What is the benefit to Sun shareholders to have Solaris so open, really? Simple question - where does the money come from? And yes - they could have engaged and formed more of a community. Quite true. But I don't accept that its necessarily relevant, unless you really think that Sun would fire 90% of its engineers and expect most of the development to come from the community and run lean and mean as a distro creator like Red Hat, with a few high profile engineers to show they have commitment and at least some core skills. Whether or not OpenSolaris has a community or not is all but irrelevant so far as I can see because either way its not a revenue generator, and what Sun needed was revenue. James ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
2010/4/5 Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) mar...@martux.org: James: For 3 pretty ROI-worthless aquisitions alone (Cobalt, STK and MySQL) Sun's top-management spent 10 Billion USD (ten thousand millions!!!). Every time the behaved like kids: At hopelessly overheated markets - instead of selling something - they bought! Obviously the paid way overpriced amounts for much too little counter-valueadd. If you closely watched the NYSE charts over the years you should know, that these 10 Billions are more $$$, than Sun ever managed to generate as a profit in all these years summed up. To me that appears to be more related to Sun's liquidity problems. And those were indeed severe management faults at the HIGHEST levels. During a recession, a company should cheaply acquire what it can get. During overheated times, one should sell a few sub-enterprises for lots of cash. Sun did the exact opposite: In both overheated times (2000 and 2005till2007) and in both recessions (after 911 and now). Effectively they spent their gold reserves for worthless ROI. Which brought them into a shortage of cash which could no longer simply be compensated through mass-layoffs. At the end they were forced to give themselves away for a few pennies! p.s. Another aspect of their strategic mistakes was, that they focused too much on a single market, while neglecting the rest. When that single market suddenly collapsed (US market, and there only the TOP 500 enterprises and banks), they had a problem. Also, they produced wonderful Ad´s but did not distribute them sufficiently. And they didnt use enough distribution channels for their hardware. When I wanted to spen unbelievable EUR 1900,- for a pretty minimalistic Sun Blade 150 with 128MB memory (!) in 2003, it took them 2 or 3 weeks until I had it. And I could only order it via FAX. Compare this to how Dell does it! %mab ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
2010/4/5 James Mansion ja...@mansionfamily.plus.com: Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) wrote: Solaris code for marketing purposes, rather than creating an independent, community-led, open source project with the ability to make real decisions. I think you're missing the point. What is the benefit to Sun shareholders to have Solaris so open, really? Simple question - where does the money come from? No, you are missing the point. The idea was to provide a free and open AllInOne A to Z software platform stack, that would be able to compete with LinUX and to win the OS battle. This would have increased hardware sales and sales of service/maintenance/support contracts. There the cash would have come from. See, how IBM makes a living? %martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Proposal: OGB and Oracle communications for communities
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:38 PM, HeCSa hsalt...@gmail.com wrote: We need something clear and direct appearing in the opensolaris.org homepage pointing to the official information about the future of OpenSolaris, Oracle and the communities, etc. To date, with the possible exception of Dan's comments on IRC during the election [below], there has been absolutely NO official information from Oracle about the future of OpenSolaris, Oracle and the communities, etc. So, to be pedantically correct, the current home page *does* show exactly everything that has been said officially by Oracle: Nothing. Many of us wish there was a more verbose statement. -John [IRC log from http://www.spcoast.com/irclogs/opensolaris-meeting/index.php?date=2010-02-26 edited here by plocher to remove join/quit noise from the transcript] +[12:06] * DanR (~chatzi...@nat/sun/x-tbazbldvpztcwjjh) has joined #opensolaris-meeting +[12:06] ptribble DanR: welcome +[12:07] DanR ptribble: Thanks +[12:07] bubbva hi DanR ! any word on any official communications? I know you were hoping soon :) +[12:07] DanR So we do know a few things now, as I discussed on the OGB call a couple days ago... +[12:07] ptribble (How's about that for putting Dan on the spot?) +[12:08] DanR Yeah, thanks... :) +[12:08] DanR So, here's what we can say: +[12:09] * bubbva listens intently :) +[12:09] DanR Oracle will continue to make OpenSolaris available as open source, and Oracle will continue to actively support and participate in the community +[12:09] DanR Oracle is investing more in Solaris than Sun did prior to the acquisition, and will continue to contribute technologies to OpenSolaris, as Oracle already does for many other open source projects +[12:11] DanR Oracle is committed to supporting our customers +[12:12] bda DanR: Does that include x86, or will the heavy focus on SPARC override further x86 development/support? +[12:13] DanR And Oracle will ensure customers running OpenSolaris have an option for support on Oracle Sun Systems where it's required, though given the very little sales here this will not be something we expect many customers to deploy going forward. Solaris is our focus, on both SPARC and x86. +[12:13] bda DanR: The recent patch policy changes to Solaris were a major concern; given all the SPARC talk, we were worried x86 would suffer. +[12:14] bda Given the lack of communication there, it is driving platform change considerations for a lot of shops. +[12:14] DanR Oracle will also continue to deliver OpenSolaris releases, including the upcoming OpenSolaris 2010.03 release. +[12:14] reflect sun.com used to be a.. quite good looking page.. for the past ten years. it had information for both managers and techs.. however, it now seems to be very tough to find tech information for any of the old Sun hardware.. will this be fixed? +[12:14] bda So OpenSolaris really is becoming Fedora? ;-) +[12:15] reflect it used to be very easy to navigate, now.. not so much +[12:16] DanR The patch decision is aligned with how Oracle does business in other areas as well, patches are delivered for customers but not for free. So it's consistent, that doesn't define a platform future at all. x86 is the core of our Storage appliances for example, we're not going away from it at all. Though clearly we make more money on SPARC so there is more of an emphasis given the customer base. +[12:17] bda DanR: Completely understandable. My company (and I imagine most others) value consistancy heavily. :) +[12:17] DanR For the web transition, we're working hard to simply things and the same leader for example that ran BigAdmin previously now is in charge of creating the community inside of OTN which will now include a place for admins, developers and architects for Solaris and Systems +[12:17] bda The lack of communication beforehand means we couldn't buy support contracts before the patches were pulled, however. Hopefully that was just an oversight. +[12:18] tsoome well, closing up security pathes can be considered ill behaviour from vendor. +[12:18] bda tsoome: Agreed. But it's done. Perhaps OpenSolaris security/support policy will change as money is less of a driver there? +[12:19] ptribble DanR: what about open development in the future? +[12:19] tsoome and it will cut off people from even considering *solaris, meaning no money for oracle anyhow. +[12:20] reflect tsoome: what will cut it off? +[12:20] bda reflect: The lack of free security updates. +[12:21] reflect hm +[12:22] DanR ptribble: Oracle will continue to develop technologies in the open, as we do today. There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, similar to how MySQL manages certain value add at the top of the stack. It's important to understand the plan now is to deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time measuring that with continuing to deliver... +[12:22] tsoome well you can argue its open source and fix yourself or buy support, but not many people are
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
2010/4/5 Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) mar...@martux.org: 2010/4/5 Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) mar...@martux.org: James: For 3 pretty ROI-worthless aquisitions alone (Cobalt, STK and MySQL) Sun's top-management spent 10 Billion USD (ten thousand millions!!!). Every time the behaved like kids: At hopelessly overheated markets - instead of selling something - they bought! Obviously the paid way overpriced amounts for much too little counter-valueadd. If you closely watched the NYSE charts over the years you should know, that these 10 Billions are more $$$, than Sun ever managed to generate as a profit in all these years summed up. To me that appears to be more related to Sun's liquidity problems. And those were indeed severe management faults at the HIGHEST levels. During a recession, a company should cheaply acquire what it can get. During overheated times, one should sell a few sub-enterprises for lots of cash. Sun did the exact opposite: In both overheated times (2000 and 2005till2007) and in both recessions (after 911 and now). Effectively they spent their gold reserves for worthless ROI. Which brought them into a shortage of cash which could no longer simply be compensated through mass-layoffs. At the end they were forced to give themselves away for a few pennies! p.s. Another aspect of their strategic mistakes was, that they focused too much on a single market, while neglecting the rest. When that single market suddenly collapsed (US market, and there only the TOP 500 enterprises and banks), they had a problem. Also, they produced wonderful Ad´s but did not distribute them sufficiently. And they didnt use enough distribution channels for their hardware. When I wanted to spent unbelievable EUR 1900,- for a pretty minimalistic Sun Blade 150 with 128MB memory (!) in 2003, it took them 2 or 3 weeks until I had it. And I could only order it via FAX. Compare this to how Dell does it! Now I recall the rest. This price was pre-VAT!!! Like all the prices on their site until circa 2007 or 2008! Therefore add 16 % German VAT to these EUR 1900 for a humble Blade 150! (Besides: Meanwhile German VAT is at 19%). %mab ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Mapping physmem in a kernel module
On 04/ 4/10 10:37 PM, Maule Mark wrote: Hi all: Sorry for the newbie question. I’m working on a kernel module which is meant to manage a chunk of physical memory. My intent is to boot the kernel with ‘physmem=somevalue’ to limit the physical memory available to the OS, and then use this kernel module to manage the rest of physical memory to support some code that we are porting from another OS. This approach assumes physical memory is contiguous and any space above physmem is reserved for your driver's exclusive use. I believe you will have issues implementing this approach. Does the physical memory get accessed by a hardware device? One of the things the module needs to do is map this reserved physical memory into the kernel virtual address space so that we can write data management structs etc. into it. The module will then service ioctl's from user space, as well as calls from other kernel modules to manipulate the memory. The DMA allocation routines return a KVA. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
On Apr 5, 2010, at 14:19, Matthias Pfützner wrote: Therefore the idea to opensource the software has never been intended to create additional revenue from it, but to generate mind-share with the developer community, so that in FUTURE more ISVs, or big software-companies or even smaller mid-market software companies would again prefer Solaris as the basis for their apps. And, yes, that worked! Not in the way many hoped it would, but yes, it generated more mind-share, and with that additional HW-sales. Exactly right. As it turned out it was also comfortably profitable. Sun's terminal problems lay elsewhere. S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Volker A. Brandt wrote: Hmmm... I have seen a number of OGB members post in the various lists. What do you want them to do? Post yes, there will be 2010.03 every day? None of the new OGB members are involved with the 2010.03 release. People need to remember the OGB manages the community, not the distro. The distro comes out of Project Indiana and various internal teams. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) wrote: No, you are missing the point. The idea was to provide a free and open AllInOne A to Z software platform stack, that would be able to compete with LinUX and to win the OS battle. Then that was a mind-numbingly stupid strategy - because: a) it would take so long that Sun would be out of business first (oh, look ...) b) I'm not sure that's what customers really want c) having the best free stack is pointless without revenue This would have increased hardware sales and sales of service/maintenance/support contracts. So - we've given up trying to be like Microsoft, let's try and be like Red Hat? The difference, however, is massive: look at how much IP Sun created, and how much Red Hat create. Red Hat are canny in employing high profile (and high influence) Linux hackers, but how much do they actually fix or write? They look good on stats next to other Linux collaborators, but next to Sun's Solaris investment? If you want Solaris to be Linux then say so. To me, a good differentiator was that Sun had leadership, authority, and resources. And you need those things to avoid tinkering on the periphery, and to enable doing hard or just nasty stuff. Unfortunately, two of those things seem to have caused what some people think is an epic fail in community engagement. Trouble is, I'd rather Sun had those things and could drive Solaris than that they became great community members and mere peers. To you, maybe Open Solaris is an opportunity to play at being an OS provider. But to an OS user like me it was a way to observe the process and see what's coming - and get an affordable and reasonably current release based on the observation rather than marketing getting feature complete for an 'industrial' release. Whether or not source code was available to anyone outside Sun is largely irrelevant to me *providing* the binary bits are available in a way that would enable repackaging in a way like Belinix or Nexenta, which do provide refreshing alternatives of approach. I do think there's plenty of value to be had from openness that doesn't cede control or even necessarily expose sources - its just a shame that there has been some severe issues with expectation management and/or execution in the case of Open Solaris. There the cash would have come from. See, how IBM makes a living? I don't see DB2 or AIX or the OS/400 or mainframe stuff being free. Sure, IBM sell services too, but they don't give away their IP. Looks like they're happy to milk Sun's tho. I'm not saying you can't make a moderate open source business selling services on Other People's Stuff. I'm concerned about what happens when you're the main author, and carry all the RD costs, and all the pre-market investment risk. Bear in mind that the time delay between the engineering investment and the development technology risk both conspire to mean that you have to get a big return to pay for that RD - and if the stuff is free then the other guys you've let into the playing field as peers don't have those costs or risks to recoup. Or you can embrace the emperor's new clothes and develop in the open, and lose control and any USP. Maybe Sun could have gone all out for community and given up control - and fired 90% of their engineers to reduce costs in line with a new business model where they're packagers and Innovation Happens Elsewhere? Is that really what you wanted? Could that build ZFS? Java? Its usually bad enough having bike shed discussions internally. Sometimes authoritative leadership with resources is necessary - compare and contrast the Debian ecosystem before and after Mr Shuttleworth's intervention. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Matthias Pfützner wrote: You (James Mansion) wrote: if you look at Sun's annual earnings documents, you might notice, that most of Sun's revenue and especially margin was generated by big iron hardware. Indeed I had. And the money coming in from software was mostly licebnses to OEMs (think Java), as far as those numbers have ever been published. So, I'm a bit interpreting stuff here. I agree. And I think that revenue did not improve materially from open sourcing that IP - while the move to open source surely gives up a degree of control. apps. And, yes, that worked! Not in the way many hoped it would, but yes, it generated more mind-share, and with that additional HW-sales. Microsoft have never had a problem with ISV mindshare because they made things cheap and accessible. Free is just one form of cheap from that perspective. I absolutely believe that Microsoft's success is not nearly so much related to monopolistic practices as to their early ability to court ISVs and their ability to use ABIs (like VBXs and OLE controls) to create a marketplace for small ISVs. Microsoft took their eye off that ball a few years back but they seem to have recovered. Maybe I'm just an old fart but I recall my dismay at the Byte headlines that OO had failed and components had won. I was an early C++ adopter and it was galling - because it was true. How many businesses ever got anywhere with aftermarket controls on any of the X toolkits? Maybe Qt will create an ecosystem - I don't know. But I think the lesson was that open standards don't create that sort of ISV-friendly environment on their own and the existence of such a market does wonders. Look at the iPhone app shop. Same thing again. So, Oracle now is the second biggest SW-company of the world, they KNOW how to monetize SW, and I hope and am sure, we will see some big monetizations coming out of the assest that Oracle got with the acquisition of Sun. And that in turn will again allow to let OpenSolaris live as well as Java. Larry stated it cleary: It's not needed to produce margin or revenue directly, as long as it helps generate revenue and margin over-all! Well, I hope so. I really want Solaris and Java to survive and thrive - hopefully in a form that I can afford. I don't want or need the source code for that to happen and I don't believe anyone outside of Oracle really needs it either - I think 'free as in beer' is enough, though as I've said to Martin its advantageous if the delivery is in a form that allows custom distributions to be created. Time was we all linked our kernels from objects, what was wrong with that? Modularity is the key - not an ability to run cc. And personally I'm entirely happy to pay (a modest amount) for security fixes and upgrades. I'm not questioning whether its worthwhile courting a hobbyist or SME market or even universities. I *am* questioning whether the full monty open source is necessary - or particularly helpful for long term viability, given what the release costs you. James ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Simon Phipps wrote: Exactly right. As it turned out it was also comfortably profitable. Sun's terminal problems lay elsewhere. Which bit of the last financial statement shows evidence of this - that the profits came from open sourcing, not merely from software that was open source before Sun bought it or that was already being licensed before it was open source? (Hmm - and in mysql's case, we could also ask 'how much more profitable than spending the billion on gov't bonds'?) James ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] EON ZFS Storage 0.60.0 based on snv 130, Sun-set release!
Embedded Operating system/Networking (EON), RAM based live ZFS NAS appliance is released on Genunix! This release marks the end of SXCE releases and Sun Microsystems as we know it! It is dubbed the Sun-set release! Many thanks to Al at Genunix.org for download hosting and serving the Opensolaris community. EON Deduplication ZFS storage is available in 32 and 64-bit, CIFS and Samba versions: EON 64-bit x86 CIFS ISO image version 0.60.0 based on snv_130 * eon-0.600-130-64-cifs.iso * MD5: 55c5837985f282f9272f5275163f7d7b * Size: ~93Mb * Released: Monday 05-April-2010 EON 64-bit x86 Samba ISO image version 0.60.0 based on snv_130 * eon-0.600-130-64-smb.iso * MD5: bf095f2187c29fb543285b72266c0295 * Size: ~106Mb * Released: Monday 05-April-2010 EON 32-bit x86 CIFS ISO image version 0.60.0 based on snv_130 * eon-0.600-130-32-cifs.iso * MD5: e2b312feefbfb14792c0d190e7ff69cf * Size: ~59Mb * Released: Monday 05-April-2010 EON 32-bit x86 Samba ISO image version 0.60.0 based on snv_130 * eon-0.600-130-32-smb.iso * MD5: bcf6dc76bc9a22cff1431da20a5c56e2 * Size: ~73Mb * Released: Monday 05-April-2010 EON 64-bit x86 CIFS ISO image version 0.60.0 based on snv_130 (NO HTTPD) * eon-0.600-130-64-cifs-min.iso * MD5: 78b0bb116c0e32a48c473ce1b94e604f * Size: ~87Mb * Released: Monday 05-April-2010 EON 64-bit x86 Samba ISO image version 0.60.0 based on snv_130 (NO HTTPD) * eon-0.600-130-64-smb-min.iso * MD5: e74732c41e4b3a9a06f52779bc9f8352 * Size: ~101Mb * Released: Monday 05-April-2010 New/Changes/Fixes: - Active Directory integration problem resolved - Hotplug errors at boot are being worked on and are safe to ignore. - Updated /mnt/eon0/.exec with new service configuration additions (light, nginx, afpd, and more ...). - Updated ZFS, NFS v3 performance tuning in /etc/system - Added megasys driver. - EON rebooting at grub(since snv_122) in ESXi, Fusion and various versions of VMware workstation. This is related to bug 6820576. Workaround, at grub press e and add on the end of the kernel line -B disable-pcieb=true http://eonstorage.blogspot.com/ http://sites.google.com/site/eonstorage/ -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Mapping physmem in a kernel module
Pedro Gomez Systems Sales Consultant Oracle On Apr 5, 2010, at 8:42 AM, John Martin john.m.mar...@oracle.com wrote: On 04/ 4/10 10:37 PM, Maule Mark wrote: Hi all: Sorry for the newbie question. I’m working on a kernel module whic h is meant to manage a chunk of physical memory. My intent is to boot the kernel with ‘physmem=somevalue’ to limit the physical memory available to the OS, and then use this kernel module to manage the rest of physical memory to support some code that we are porting from another OS. This approach assumes physical memory is contiguous and any space above physmem is reserved for your driver's exclusive use. I believe you will have issues implementing this approach. Does the physical memory get accessed by a hardware device? One of the things the module needs to do is map this reserved physical memory into the kernel virtual address space so that we can write data management structs etc. into it. The module will then service ioctl's from user space, as well as calls from other kernel modules to manipulate the memory. The DMA allocation routines return a KVA. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Matthias Pfützner matth...@pfuetzner.de writes: more ISVs, ISV ? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
If it's the definition you're looking for, it is independent software vendor. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
On 04/ 5/10 09:43 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: Matthias Pfütznermatth...@pfuetzner.de writes: more ISVs, ISV ? Independent Software Vendor ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
