Re: [osol-discuss] [zones-discuss] Nero Linux in zones
Thanks for your message. I tried to download and install this, but there kept appearing more packages that I didn't have, had to download, and install. Eventually it was one i couldn't find (gdk-pixbuf-config). I think in the bigger picture this is one of the things holding back broader adoption. As much as I love OpenSolaris and ZFS, there's maybe not enough resources to make this a bit easier to use. Everything has to be a bit of a chore. For doing stuff like setting up proper ZFS filesystems, it's fair to expect the user to need to invest some time learning. "zpool" is such a powerful tool, allowing so many new things, that it requires some education. But, c'mon: CD burning? This problem was solved a decade ago. I like Nero, because I can aggregate various directories, click twice, and my DVD comes out verified five minutes later. The idea that i have to track down packages, or deal with Brasero (which I'm sure can be configured; I just don't want to spend the time for something that I already know how to do otherwise), just raises the barrier unnecessarily for people who want to try out OpenSolaris, get it working, and then explore its compelling new features. People are rightfully worried about the future of OpenSolaris, but by having some basic things be so difficult and time-consuming, just to get the basics of usability running, only exacerbate the problem by limiting adoption. So I reiterate my question: has anyone gotten Nero Linux to run in a Zone, and if so, what's the best way to set it up? Thanks! -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Slooooowwwww ISCSI copy speeds.
On 04/10/10 08:55 PM, Ron Mexico wrote: He means, if you test transfer speeds on the server where the disks are actually located instead of over the network via ISCSI, what sort of transfer speeds do you see? What are the speeds if you try from where the disk physically are instead of remotely? Ah. OK. I set up a test and copied a 100GB file from one zpool to another. Speed was 82MB/s, which is just over 20% of the advertised bandwidth of the Dell SAS-5e controller [375MB/s]. Grrr. And what sort of transfer speeds do you see over the network from those disks when *not* using iSCSI? For example, if you do an rsync from that system to the system where you were measuring iSCSI performance from one of those disks, what sort of speed do you see then? -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] iscsitgt hanging
I somehow ran into a hanging iscsitgt. Is there any way to kill/restart it without rebooting the machine? svcadm restart or disable does not work, kill -9 iscsitgt does not work, svcs -a shows iscsitgt as online*, so it's stuck. There must be a way to kill it without rebooting, right? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Slooooowwwww ISCSI copy speeds.
> He means, if you test transfer speeds on the server where the disks are > actually located instead of over the network via ISCSI, what sort of transfer > speeds do you see? What are the speeds if you try from where the disk > physically are instead of remotely? Ah. OK. I set up a test and copied a 100GB file from one zpool to another. Speed was 82MB/s, which is just over 20% of the advertised bandwidth of the Dell SAS-5e controller [375MB/s]. Grrr. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] newbie need HELP just an update for all
choochoo wrote: > I am being critical here but I'm not angry. Just not > really impressed. > several years ago Sun was kind of promoting Open > Solaris as being a viable alternative to MS Windows. > But they didn't really inform people that it really > was not user friendly, plug and play and for the > common person. Least ways that was my observation. As others have said, welcome aboard. You are absolutely correct in your statement above: OpenSolaris, or any Unix for that matter, is NOT user friendly and probably never will be. The original Unix ethos is, as Evi Nemeth so well stated, "It's a great place to live, but I wouldn't want to visit there." Put another way, working with any system will be in two main phases: 1. Learning the system 2. Using the system When faced with a choice between making something easier to learn or to use, most of Unix, especially vi and C, lean toward making things harder to learn and easier to use. I suspect the rationale is that you will learn once and use for years, so make the use part easy even if makes the learn part very, very hard. You will see this same theme over and over in all Unix systems. > I think in today's age all necessary drivers should > be included in the install. What I mean is for common > everyday off the shelf brand name computers, that you > plan to convert over. Or the drivers should be > downloadable and put on the live cd, while creating > the live CD, at the Sun website with Open Solaris. Others have or will discuss this in great detail, but this has legal ramifications for most things. For what it's worth, try to install generic Windows on any recent machine. A few weeks ago I installed Windows 7 on an 18 month old HP laptop and had driver issues similar to that with an Ubuntu or OSol install. I guess I am saying this isn't just an OSol thing. > At the partition screen I did NOT see a description > of how big the HD was (160gig). > I saw I think 4 partition options. one was set as > unknown 12g, I presumed that was the windows > partition, but I think I was wrong as after install > no more windows. > I set one partition to 20.1 g for solaris for further > expansion of programs and data. But I think it may be > using the entire hard drive anyway. Yeah, about partitions. I have performed in various Solaris SA capacities since back in the 2.2 days (early 1990s) and maybe some insight will make the frustration a little less painful. Up through recent versions of Solaris (not sure about the 10 stuff today), Sun was religious about ensuring full backward compatibility. When I left one company in 2005 they were running a 1993 build of the Oracle DB against the latest Solaris on the latest 64-bit hardware. You'll find that most technologies are in various states, from being experimental new and cool, to stable and widely deployed, to being legacy and no longer used for new stuff. At any moment in time, there are several technologies that are in transition from the old to the new. The problem is that all of the old "cruft" that was once cool is still around, no matter how lame it looks today. Back to partitions. Back in the 1990s, Solaris had it's own partitioning strategy which allocated 8 "slices" (aka partitions) on each disk and it was perfectly ok for them to overlap. Historically slice 0 was the root partition, 2 was the whole disk (used for backup) and so on. Along comes the DOS/Windows with its own partitioning strategy which has up to four primary partitions with the fourth partition able to be an "extended" partition containing four partitions of its own. DOS partition tables and Solaris partition tables were completely incompatible. At some point, Solaris caved in and started putting its 8, later upgraded to 10, "slices" inside a single DOS partition. To make things even more strange, there has been a push to move to EFI partitions which have many advantages, but not every BIOS can boot from those. Almost all non-boot disks in OSol are EFI and the boot disk is a DOS partition of type "Solaris2" which contains several slices. This same transition weirdness can be found all over the place. For example, a shell is like command.com, but in Unix there are several to choose from and originally most systems used the Bourne shell as an upgrade from the Thompson shell. Since then, BSD brought us the incompatible c shell, an extension arrived called the tc shell (which still exists for legacy stuff), David Korn grossly enhanced the Bourne shell and introduced some incompatibilities, calling it the Korn shell, David made an upgrade (introducing more incompatibilities) and gave us ksh93. The Linux crowd enhanced the Bourne shell and gave us bash: Bourne Again SHell. A lot of system scripts were written against the Bourne shell, so most systems include that shell and run system scripts against them, however antiquated that shell may seem today. Want more? Solaris traditionally han
Re: [osol-discuss] Gosling resigns from Oracle
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Michael Lee wrote: > Gosling resigns from Oracle. http://www.taranfx.com/father-of-java-resigns. > > I would have thought that Oracle would have tried to keep him on board the > "good yacht" Oracle. That's not surprising. Gosling was for research and fair access, Oracle wants monetize its investment in JAVA and Gosling only as marketing figurehead. That conflict was brewing since a month and Gosling... lost. Rumor is that Gosling was escorted out of his office and set into a cab to leave the campus immediately and not come back ever again. TheRegister may post the photos next Monday. Let's hope that the same won't happen for Opensolaris, although the chances are slim that this does not happen to lots of our lead developers. Chris -- ^---^ (@)v(@) Chris Pickett |/ IT consultant ===m==m=== pkch...@users.sourceforge.net ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
On 04/11/10 09:53 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Graham McArdle wrote: It's kind of ironic timing that a newcomer to OpenSolaris& Solaris would discover and be surprised that Solaris 10 is free, when we've just had a long thread discussing how annoying it is that Solaris 10 is no longer free! Solaris 10 was never free. Free as in beer, not free as in open. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] newbie need HELP just an update for all
> I am being critical here but I'm not angry. Just not > really impressed. > several years ago Sun was kind of promoting Open > Solaris as being a viable alternative to MS Windows. > But they didn't really inform people that it really > was not user friendly, plug and play and for the > common person. Least ways that was my observation. Hi Jay, welcome to the world of UNIX operating systems! I don't recall Sun making such a bold claim but I suppose it's the kind of thing Jonathan Schwartz might have said (but whether it's really viable for you or not depends on what you were using Windows for). However, if I was trying to convince people to try my new operating system I don't think I would say anything bad or off-putting about it but just recommend they try it and see if they like it. I think you are an unusual newbie if I may say so because most people here would already have tried Linux, so a lot of the work on OpenSolaris, rightly or wrongly, is to make it more 'Linux friendly' than Solaris was. I suppose this is a reason, if not an excuse, for the lack of guidance for a 'convert' from Windows to Unix. For what it's worth, I was able to install OpenSolaris on a Dell laptop where it recognised and preserved the Windows partition and the boot menu offers Windows as an option. I get the impression from some other posts in this thread that maybe things started badly with either a corrupted download or the wrong CD image. Regarding the drivers, one thing you should realise about any non Microsoft OS is that they have a much harder time getting good driver support. The vast majority of hardware out there is running Windows, and manufacturers always work closely with Microsoft to provide well-tested and qualified Windows drivers for their hardware. The next popular platform is Mac, but since Apple control the hardware and won't allow Mac OS on 3rd party platforms the device driver support is a moot point. Then we get to the 'open source' OSes like Linux and OpenSolaris. Linux is by far more popular, so some manufacturers begrudgingly throw together a basic Linux driver or give out enough register information to allow a driver to be written for their hardware, but in general they don't like the fact that the open source license might 'give away' some trade secret about some special differentiating feature of their product. Even the OpenSolaris binary distribution currently includes closed-source device drivers which would have to be rewritten if Oracle decided to pull the license for them. The level of device support is improving with each release as you are seeing, but thanks to a tremendous effort from a much smaller community than Linux. > I am the only > user and am the administrator, I should not see the > message "you need administrator privileges" to do > whatever. There are just too many things I have to > change to make it quicker and easier and more open. This concept of requiring elevated privileges for security-related tasks is actually considered good practice, and OpenSolaris has a sophisticated (and rather confusing) implementation of this called RBAC (look it up). The 'administrator' account in Unix is called root, but in OpenSolaris it isn't actually available as a normal user account but rather a 'role'. This forces you to login as a non-privileged user for most everyday tasks, and you have to assume the role of root or use 'other means' to obtain the necessary permissions to modify the system configuration in some way. This limits the damage that can be done both by malware and by fumbling fingers. This is one of the advances of OpenSolaris over Linux (which uses SELinux, something I understand even less). The other main advances are ZFS, Dtrace, SMF, Crossbow and COMSTAR. Maybe when you look these up you'll be interested in staying with OpenSolaris, or maybe I've already put you off and you'll be downloading Ubuntu! Whatever you do, good luck on your non-Micro$oft adventure. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] automake problem...
> On 04/10/10 01:21 PM, Chris Syntichakis wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to compile this (under svn_134) >> http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Dfu-util#Source_Code >> >> The autogen.sh says >> >> Can't exec "aclocal": No such file or directory at >> /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 326. >> autoreconf: failed to run aclocal: No such file or directory >> >> How can I find the 'aclocal' ? (what is the package name..) > > OpenSolaris purposefully doesn't deliver a /usr/bin/aclocal binary, > instead aclocal binaries are delivered with their version-specific name. > > So you're looking for /usr/bin/aclocal-1.10 or /usr/bin/aclocal-1.9 > > You can find those binaries in these packages for b134: > > pkg:/developer/build/automake-110 > pkg:/developer/build/automake-19 > > You could have found them using: > > pkg search '/usr/bin/aclocal*' > Or, in a pinch, you can snag automake-1.10.3 for Solaris at http://blastwave.network.com/csw/unstable/sparc/5.10/automake-1.10.3,REV=2009.12.09-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz I think it has everything in it you would need. You would need to stick /opt/csw/bin in your PATH somewhere after /usr/sbin:/usr/bin etc. Really, stuffing piles of Linux-world open source tools ( like coreutils ls ) into /usr was a mistake in my opinion anyways. -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
Graham McArdle wrote: > It's kind of ironic timing that a newcomer to OpenSolaris & Solaris would > discover and be surprised that Solaris 10 is free, when we've just had a long > thread discussing how annoying it is that Solaris 10 is no longer free! Solaris 10 was never free. It is a commercial distribution from the time before OpenSolaris. 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] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
> I was under the impression Open Solaris was the free > version of Solaris. The one where the community helps > develop future releases of Solaris, and Solaris was > the commercial product that cost money to obtain. > Just went to the website and it says I can have > Solaris 10 free? It's kind of ironic timing that a newcomer to OpenSolaris & Solaris would discover and be surprised that Solaris 10 is free, when we've just had a long thread discussing how annoying it is that Solaris 10 is no longer free! It's still free to download, but Oracle are more profit-motivated than Sun ever was, so I'd advise you to stay with OpenSolaris unless you have deep pockets. Solaris 10 is also lagging behind in driver support. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Gosling resigns from Oracle
Gosling resigns from Oracle. http://www.taranfx.com/father-of-java-resigns. I would have thought that Oracle would have tried to keep him on board the "good yacht" Oracle. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Adobe Flash Player version 10.0.45.2 seen working ?
This is what I get: > ~$ /usr/bin/audiotest > Sound subsystem and version: SunOS Audio 4.0 (0x00040003) > Platform: SunOS 5.11 snv_134 i86pc > > *** Scanning sound adapter #1 *** > /dev/sound/usb_ac:0dsp (audio engine 0): usb_ac#0 > - Performing audio playback test... > OK > ...OK > ..OK > > > *** Scanning sound adapter #2 *** > /dev/sound/audio810:0dsp (audio engine 1): audio810#0 > - Performing audio playback test... > OK > ...OK > ..OK > > > *** All tests completed OK *** > w00l...@opensolaris:~$ Though both say OK - audio810 produced no sound from my speakers. > w00l...@opensolaris:~$ /usr/bin/audioctl show-device -v > Device: /dev/sound/audio810:0mixer > Name= audio810#0 > Config = Intel AC'97 (ICH4) > HW Info = AC'97 codec: Analog Devices AD1981 What next ? Thanks -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] automake problem...
thanx! Chris -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] automake problem...
On 04/10/10 01:21 PM, Chris Syntichakis wrote: Hi, I am trying to compile this (under svn_134) http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Dfu-util#Source_Code The autogen.sh says Can't exec "aclocal": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 326. autoreconf: failed to run aclocal: No such file or directory How can I find the 'aclocal' ? (what is the package name..) OpenSolaris purposefully doesn't deliver a /usr/bin/aclocal binary, instead aclocal binaries are delivered with their version-specific name. So you're looking for /usr/bin/aclocal-1.10 or /usr/bin/aclocal-1.9 You can find those binaries in these packages for b134: pkg:/developer/build/automake-110 pkg:/developer/build/automake-19 You could have found them using: pkg search '/usr/bin/aclocal*' Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] automake problem...
Hi, I am trying to compile this (under svn_134) http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Dfu-util#Source_Code The autogen.sh says Can't exec "aclocal": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 326. autoreconf: failed to run aclocal: No such file or directory How can I find the 'aclocal' ? (what is the package name..) thx Chris -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
So if I'm not a developer or programmer and don't want to be, Maybe I and others like me should get Solaris 10 a finished product.behind the completed?? True Solaris pre-installed inside one of their production machines might be a better way to go. You could still try it in another machine just to see what you will be in for. Should you want to try some of your own maintenance ?? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
You (Edward Ned Harvey) wrote: > > And you're talking about the OpenSolaris.COM binary distribution > > identifing > > itself as SunOS 5.11... Don't know, if that applies to Nexenta, > > Schillix, > > Belenix et.al... > > I dont know about Nexenta etc, either. But the emphasis on "COM" isn't > right. I got opensolaris 2009.06 from opensolaris.org, and fully updated to > developer build, and it's still identified as SunOS 5.11. Yes, it is the binary distribution from Sun, that's also available as download from OpenSolaris.ORG. Still, as I mentioned, it's important to understand the DIFFERENCES in the three things: Solaris 10 OpenSolaris (the open source community development) OpenSolaris (the binary distribution based on the above open source platform) I know, the official names for the things are different! Matthias -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | The SUN was in fact Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | "designed" to be a virus D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | vector. Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | Unix Haters Handbook ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
> From: Matthias Pfützner [mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de] > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:59 AM > > Some small corrections, if I'm not mistaken: > > It's not 30, but 90 days... I think you're right. My mistake. > And you're talking about the OpenSolaris.COM binary distribution > identifing > itself as SunOS 5.11... Don't know, if that applies to Nexenta, > Schillix, > Belenix et.al... I dont know about Nexenta etc, either. But the emphasis on "COM" isn't right. I got opensolaris 2009.06 from opensolaris.org, and fully updated to developer build, and it's still identified as SunOS 5.11. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Mounted nfs share - client root cannot write to it.
You (Harry Putnam) wrote: > Matthias Pfützner > writes: > > > That's normal! > > > > You need to set the "root=" option... > > > > Like in: > > > > zfs set sharenfs=ro...@192.168.2 pfuetz/smb-share > > > > See "man share_nfs"... > > Thanks, it appears I need to add: > root_mapping=uid > as well > > The man page indicates it would be added like: > > zfs set sharenfs=ro...@192.168.0.0/24,root_mapping=reader z3/projects > > And by cracky, it worked just fine. > > Thanks. Yes, if you want the "remote root" to not be a "local root" also, you can map that to a different userid... Glad, it works now! Matthias -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Der Schlaflose ist zu faul Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | zum Träumen. D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | Günter Eichberger ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Mounted nfs share - client root cannot write to it.
Matthias Pfützner writes: > That's normal! > > You need to set the "root=" option... > > Like in: > > zfs set sharenfs=ro...@192.168.2 pfuetz/smb-share > > See "man share_nfs"... Thanks, it appears I need to add: root_mapping=uid as well The man page indicates it would be added like: zfs set sharenfs=ro...@192.168.0.0/24,root_mapping=reader z3/projects And by cracky, it worked just fine. Thanks. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
You (Edward Ned Harvey) wrote: > > From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris- > > discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of jay krik > > > > I was under the impression Open Solaris was the free version of > > Solaris. The one where the community helps develop future releases of > > Solaris, and Solaris was the commercial product that cost money to > > obtain. > > Long story short, stuff has changed many times. The present state of > affairs: Solaris 10 is only free for 30 days evaluation. This is a very > recent change (what, 2 weeks ago?) so you may still find documentation > saying it's free. But just go try to download it, and read what's put in > front of your face. You should easily see it's for 30 day eval. You should > also discover some obstacle to purchasing it, even if you want to. Because > they want you to buy it on Sun hardware, or from a huge name reseller, such > as Dell or HP or IBM. Solaris 10 is also known as SunOS 5.10. Opensolaris > is free. It is also known as SunOS 5.11. Some day, we don't know when, > opensolaris should become Solaris 11. > > Opensolaris is far advanced beyond solaris 10. There are many feature > additions and bug fixes in opensolaris which are lagging significantly in > solaris. Even if you go to the latest developer build of opensolaris, there > are many feature additions and bugfixes which are not available in the > latest opensolaris release 2009.06 (which is considered old now.) > > My personal advice is to go with the latest developer build of opensolaris, > from http://genunix.org . You will not find that it's unstable or buggy, as > people often expect when they hear the word "latest." Some small corrections, if I'm not mistaken: It's not 30, but 90 days... And you're talking about the OpenSolaris.COM binary distribution identifing itself as SunOS 5.11... Don't know, if that applies to Nexenta, Schillix, Belenix et.al... And: NO, OpenSolaris.COM will NOT become Solaris 11. The next Version of Solaris will be BASED upon the source code on OpenSolaris.ORG, but, again, as you can NOT build the binary distribution, currently known as OpenSolaris.COM directly from the sources (as some pieces are missing, like the nVIDIA display driver, etc.!), so will it be for the next version of Solaris. And, yes, I agree: grab the latest from http://genuinx.org, it's the best, you can get currently! Matthias -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | I report bugs to Sun and Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | when I'm not ignored, I'm D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | told that that's the way Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | it's supposed to work. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris- > discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of jay krik > > I was under the impression Open Solaris was the free version of > Solaris. The one where the community helps develop future releases of > Solaris, and Solaris was the commercial product that cost money to > obtain. Long story short, stuff has changed many times. The present state of affairs: Solaris 10 is only free for 30 days evaluation. This is a very recent change (what, 2 weeks ago?) so you may still find documentation saying it's free. But just go try to download it, and read what's put in front of your face. You should easily see it's for 30 day eval. You should also discover some obstacle to purchasing it, even if you want to. Because they want you to buy it on Sun hardware, or from a huge name reseller, such as Dell or HP or IBM. Solaris 10 is also known as SunOS 5.10. Opensolaris is free. It is also known as SunOS 5.11. Some day, we don't know when, opensolaris should become Solaris 11. Opensolaris is far advanced beyond solaris 10. There are many feature additions and bug fixes in opensolaris which are lagging significantly in solaris. Even if you go to the latest developer build of opensolaris, there are many feature additions and bugfixes which are not available in the latest opensolaris release 2009.06 (which is considered old now.) My personal advice is to go with the latest developer build of opensolaris, from http://genunix.org . You will not find that it's unstable or buggy, as people often expect when they hear the word "latest." ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
You (jay krik) wrote: > I was under the impression Open Solaris was the free version of Solaris. The > one where the community helps develop future releases of Solaris, and Solaris > was the commercial product that cost money to obtain. > Just went to the website and it says I can have Solaris 10 free? > So if I'm not a developer or programmer and don't want to be, Maybe I and > others like me should get Solaris 10 a finished product.behind the completed?? > Official release of Open Solaris is at version 2009.06 with 2010.03 on > doorstep. > So why is the open version > But will it have native support for all the drivers needed for the majority > of factory built laptops? > Guess we will find out! I am going to download it and install it today. That's a common misunderstanding... ;-) Once there was Solaris. Then, at some time ~5 years ago Sun decided to Open Source it for a couple of reasons (I will not go into details here!). So there was a "fork" in the actual source tree of that time, which was modified in order to achieve Open Source Status (all copyrighted and can-not-be-made-open-source removed or replaced by an open source alternative). That's what you can find on http://OpenSolaris.ORG That then was USED to create a BINARY DISTRIBUTION, called OpenSolaris 20??.??(see: http://OpenSolaris.COM) (we've had a couple of those already!). There are other Distributions also derived from the Open Source Project, like Nexenta, Belenix, Schillix, etc... You can find those on http://opensolaris.org or http://genunix.org These BINARY DISTRIBUTIONS do contain ADDITIONAL things, that might NOT be available in the source on opensolaris.org. Still, at Sun/Oracle, the source is in one place, so all actual developments take place on opensolaris.org. In order to add those new features into the current commercial offering (still called Solaris 10), there then needs to be a BACK-PORT into the source-tree version used to build Solaris 10. That's also the reason, why SOME of the things currently available in OpenSoalris.COM or OpenSolaris.ORG are never going to be backported into Solaris 10! Still, they might show up in a future Version of Solaris. As OpenSolaris.ORG "only" holds the source code to the main stuff, there is NO COMMERCIAL offering DIRECTLY off of this code. So, from there, there then are commercial offerings for the diverse BINARY DITRIBUTIONS and the organizations offering these distributions. So far, you can at least to some degree compare it with "Red Hat" <-> "Fedora"... So, also at some time ago, Sun decided to allow a FREE (no money!) usage of Solaris 10. That's what you can see currently. Still, you need to obtain a LICENSE (you get it, when downloading it, because you AGREE to some-such license). No difference with the OpenSolaris.COM offering, there you also agree to a license. Same with the SourceCode on opensolaris.org, there also is a license... So, yes, you can use Solaris 10 also WITHOUT PAYING, but it's not free. It's free as in "free beer", meaning: No need to PAY FOR the license... Still, check the license... As there is one... And it's different with the diverse binary distributions... Hope, this clarifies a bit... Matthias -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Wer heute geboren wird, Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | hat quantitativ weniger D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | Zukunft als wir. Edgar Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | Reitz, Die Zeit 12/97 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Mounted nfs share - client root cannot write to it.
That's normal! You need to set the "root=" option... Like in: zfs set sharenfs=ro...@192.168.2 pfuetz/smb-share See "man share_nfs"... Matthias You (Harry Putnam) wrote: > I'm pretty green with both zfs and nfs. Only started using nfs since > I got involved with opensolaris (linux background before that) > > I'm finding that when I have a zfs filesystem exported from zfs server > as NFS 3, and mounted on a linux client that my user can read/write > freely on it, but the linux ROOT user cannot. > > I wondered if that is normal. > > My export is done only through `zfs set sharenfs=on' mechanism with no > other options set. > > The export is also set to UID:GID of a user on both machines by root > on the server. > > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Wer heute geboren wird, Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | hat quantitativ weniger D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | Zukunft als wir. Edgar Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | Reitz, Die Zeit 12/97 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] ok I'm really confused; Solaris 10 vs Open Solaris
I was under the impression Open Solaris was the free version of Solaris. The one where the community helps develop future releases of Solaris, and Solaris was the commercial product that cost money to obtain. Just went to the website and it says I can have Solaris 10 free? So if I'm not a developer or programmer and don't want to be, Maybe I and others like me should get Solaris 10 a finished product.behind the completed?? Official release of Open Solaris is at version 2009.06 with 2010.03 on doorstep. So why is the open version But will it have native support for all the drivers needed for the majority of factory built laptops? Guess we will find out! I am going to download it and install it today. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Help - Cannot run LiveCD nor Install.
I'm a newbie to Open Solaris also. I can not help you. But you might want to update this with a full description of your system . Brand model, factory built or any self added cards, and the brand and model of your card. wish you luck. I haven't had to manually enter commands since DOS and windows 3/95/98 so I have basically forgot most of what I learned. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] newbie need HELP newest short update
Ok, The Acer I bought specifically to experiment with Open Solaris (OS) with, has some rather new devices, that OS 2009.06 does not natively support. There are so many pages here at O.S. that I got lost and couldn't find my way back to some drivers that were posted. I'm not a programmer or developer, but it would be nice if O.S. home page had a index page, to go to so you can scroll and find what you're looking for. Just an idea. but it's up to you. Again maybe I missed it. Anyway. Couldn't find the drivers I wanted or needed. Played with this all day.Got frustrated. Downloaded the 2010 developers edition. Little smoother install with more options, but have no idea what those other menu items are, what they do, or should I go back and click on them. But it recognized my ethernet right off. I use link sys and a wireless internet ISP. It saw my neighbors wireless also, he's a 100yards away. But I don't think it saw the internet itself. I tried to google search and it kept shutting down firefox. It does have more menu items. will try more later today. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Mounted nfs share - client root cannot write to it.
I'm pretty green with both zfs and nfs. Only started using nfs since I got involved with opensolaris (linux background before that) I'm finding that when I have a zfs filesystem exported from zfs server as NFS 3, and mounted on a linux client that my user can read/write freely on it, but the linux ROOT user cannot. I wondered if that is normal. My export is done only through `zfs set sharenfs=on' mechanism with no other options set. The export is also set to UID:GID of a user on both machines by root on the server. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
