Re: [osol-discuss] community driven distro...
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Alan DuBoff al...@softorchestra.com wrote: The comment about GNU is IMO unjustified. The ksh93-integration and ATT team have done a much better technical job than GNU in the last four years. We got ksh93, a lot of modernized tools, even more in the work, with GNU *and* BSD extensions, stick to POSIX and a stable API and they are evolving with the rest of the open source world. That all sounds good, but I have long used GNU extensions on Solaris, gtar as a case in point so that I could get compression support with tar. You picked a bad example. GNU tar has its own share of problems. By default no other achiever than GNU tar can unpack long path names in archives created by GNU tar. That's a big problem. It becomes worse because tar archives with long path names created with GNU tar from 2002 can't be read back by GNU tar from 2010. That's a huge problem. Of course it can be solved by using the old GNU tar, star from schilly or ATT AST pax. But it shows how little the GNU community invests in stable interfaces and interoperability. I have more examples, at least one for each GNU tool I know. gupdatedb/glocate are another example. There are many Sun/Solaris folks that will be quick to tell you how crappy the GNU extensions are, but there are more than a few like me that would just like to have some of the features they offer. The bigger problem is in having both code bases. In Nexenta's case they don't maintain much of that, they use the GNU base and Debian folks maintain that for them. Maintain may be the wrong word. The quality is substandard (at best). Look at the source code, but only if you have a healthy heart. Look at the package configurations, either compile without optimizer or use -O5000 to ensure gcc bugs really break the application. Look at the discussions where the maintainers spend more time discussing licenses than fixing bugs. Look at their obsession with x86, many of the SPARC packages are in a state of disrepair. Look at GNU tools on SPARC - many of them work poorly - even the latest coreutils package gives you SIGBUS because the basic SPARC rule of natural data type alignment is ignored. These things have been improved in the last years with the rise of tools like valgrind and new major platforms like ARM. But it's still a long way to go. However, not to digress, my point was more in relation to leveraging open source to solve the same problems they were designed for. To be able to work with the other open source communities so that all can grow as a whole. +1 But Oracle (includes ex-Sun) still has to learn to cooperate and interact with the/a community. Unfortunately I really have doubt if they are willing do to just that because they are not able to maintain a stable and equal partnership, even with established communities and even after FOUR years. http://www.mail-archive.com/ksh93-integration-disc...@opensolaris.org/msg00208.html is the hallmark of this behavior - Oracle just picks the parts which fits into their view of the world and the community is locked out if they do not agree. Of course the community followed ALL of Oracle's rules like filing PSARC cases and code review. Not enough for Oracle. IMO an equal and trustworthy partnership looks different. A lot different. This is the Not Invented Here syndrome. Right. It's known as Not Invented At Sun syndrome. I remember the heated PSARC discussions when ksh93 was added and all the bricks Sun put in the way of the team. It's incredibly now much bullshit the team had to endure just because Sun really wanted to show off all their fancy cool rules at once. I think this drove off many people interested in contributing. I used Nexenta as an example only because they were able to put together a distribution that did leverage the GNU base. But they not only had a distribution together but had ZFS included on the root file system long before (Open)Solaris. More so I believe that John Plocher's point was spot on, because I was always 100% supportive of the fact that the cough (Open)Solaris community should be built out of 100% open code, so the community doesn't have to rely on Oracle, and more importantly so that they CAN build it. Without the closed bins I don't think the kernel will build anymore. There is a LOT of code in closed, and all the HBA controllers have support by means of closed bins as I recall... Why aren't be going to put money together and HIRE someone. 100 people pay $100 each month to hire 2-3 people to eradicate the closed sources in libc. A company could pay $1000 a month and only 90 people have to pay to $100. Two companies could pay $2000 and only 80 people have to pay the $100 WTF, we can't even use the cough (Open)Solaris name. Why don't we rename the organisation then? OGB should hold a contest and community vote and then move all servers to the new name. This should be easy. Oracle of course will not be happy but
Re: [osol-discuss] community driven distro...
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Alan DuBoff al...@softorchestra.com wrote: On Thu, 20 May 2010, Erik Trimble wrote: Be *very* careful what you wish for. One of the problems with OpenSolaris (from a PR standpoint) has been the lack of real emphasis on the GOAL for OpenSolaris. Is it a general-purpose, use-it-for-anything OS? Is it for embeded systems? Backoffice server-room use only? Desktops? Laptops? Micro-computing (e.g. cellphones)? What targets are we aiming for? I think it's gotten a lot better as a desktop, and I use it at home as my desktop (SXCE, and not even the latest...one is on build 117 and another on the last SXCE release). I use it mostly for web/mail/blog/appserver/etc...but it functions as my desktop at home. Most of the codecs I have are from the LWS which was closed down in Japan, I just untar them when I update, but haven't updated in a while. Most all of the above is added on, for mail I use exim, I compile my own tomcat, and run jroller and subsonic, and the mp3 codec is finally in Solaris as I recall, but that was recent. One problem has always been that Sun has always been willing to take on the entire spectrum, one piece at a time, so there is some duplicated efforts between cough (Open)Solaris, and Linux. In that regard, Nexenta got it right in having GNU as the base, those efforts are not duplicated, and continue to evolve with the rest of the open source world. The comment about GNU is IMO unjustified. The ksh93-integration and ATT team have done a much better technical job than GNU in the last four years. We got ksh93, a lot of modernized tools, even more in the work, with GNU *and* BSD extensions, stick to POSIX and a stable API and they are evolving with the rest of the open source world. They cooperate with the Opensolaris community, too. They don't call Opensolaris a bunch of traitors because it don't use the GPL as license like the coreutils team did and reject ZFS with the claim that any ZFS feature in their tools will infect them with Sun's evil patents. Just looking at Debian, Ubuntu and Linux only doesn't make Opensolaris better, it gives only a shadow or at best a petty clone but not a top grade enterprise system. Opensolaris needs to find it's own way, picking only the *best* features from other operating systems along the way but also invent and evolve it's own solutions, together with the community. The biggest problem however is Sun and now Oracle itself, they are holding up progress, block necessary evolution, lock out the community and in the end burn down their own house and even let the customers *watch* it. JohnB, I hope you know what I try to say. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [osol-help] Support options for Opensolaris?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Nicholas George nicholas.george.homeoff...@googlemail.com wrote: Hello list, we wish to have the bug below handled ASAP and are looking for at least a year of full support for our existing Sun hardware running Opensolaris. Which support options does Oracle provide for Opensolaris? How can we get forward? How can we archive a quick solution for our existing problem? This would a jolly good way to waste your company funds if you just want to obtain support for that bug or ksh93 in Opensolaris. Oracle has not shown any interest in that project and even imposed a blockade on the project's changes. Your won't receive help via Oracle support. Better you post the problem to http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ksh93-integration-discuss/, the project leads there usually offer their help there quickly and without bureaucracy. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Support options for Opensolaris?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote: You'll have to talk to a Oracle Sales Rep directly to get information about Support options for OpenSolaris. This has been changing over the past month(s), so please talk to the SaleReps - the various @opensolaris.org lists can't give you specific information about support contracts from Oracle. Once you purchase an Oracle support contract for your system(s), you can file a bug and escalation for your problem with Oracle, and it will be addressed as any normal Solaris 10 issue. Since when does Solaris 10 have an usable ksh93 shell provided by Oracle? Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ksh93-integration-discuss] [on-discuss] pkghistory vs. moving { comm, logname, mkfifo, paste, uniq }from SUNWesu to SUNWcsu ... / was: Re:[osol-code]Requestingpreliminarycodere
On 7/7/09, Henk Langeveld h...@hlangeveld.nl wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: [1]=Actually... what is the current stock ticker symbol of ATT right now ? That'd be a bit confusing. Even though ATT was acquired some years back, it was a kind of reverse takeover. Anyhow, ATT's stock ticker is still the same: T (They've been around for some time). And I still appreciate what you've accomplished so far, Roland. Me, too. 50 more brilliant people at Sun like him and Sun would swallow Oracle, not Oracle swallowing Sun. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ksh93-integration-discuss] [on-discuss] Emergency project to rescue Opensolaris from IBM (was: Re: Possible IBM aquisition of Sun)
On 3/25/09, Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote: On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote: This isnt very constructive either, it is also not true, Noises deleted If Jörg continues this path I'd propose to throw Mr. Jörg out of opensolaris. I agree that *someone* should be banned out of the OpenSolaris community mail lists. *someone* Jörg Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ksh93-integration-discuss] [on-discuss] Emergency project to rescue Opensolaris from IBM (was: Re: Possible IBM aquisition of Sun)
On 3/25/09, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Jennifer Pioch piochjenni...@googlemail.com wrote: On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote: And what happened after the review was aprobed exactly? were test packages provided? someone at sun checked them for compliance and code review? why? why not? Jörg is only interested in trolling and vaporware announcements. He's never contributed code to opensolaris and I don't expect that he will ever contribute more than his FUD emails. Could you please troll elsewhere? No, Jörg. YOU are the troll here. I bet if someone files a petition to get Jörg Schilling banned from Opensolaris.org we get more positive votes than for the new constitution itself. FYI joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de has been banned from the kernel.org and Freebsd lists, maybe Opensolaris should do the same. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing with multiple systems 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do. FYI Ubuntu uses dash as /bin/sh and Suse will use dash in the future. ksh93 has been discussed but it needs to be licensed as LGPL or GPL before Suse can use ksh93 as /bin/sh. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 12:30 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with when they login as, or su to root, and the other group seems to care more about scripts that use #!/bin/sh running correctly, then maybe, just maybe (dare I say it?) the solution is to just make the default passwd entry for root specify /bin/ksh (or ksh93 if they aren't the same?) That seems to cover most if not all of the concerns I've heard voiced, unless I missed something. Personally, when I work as 'root' I automatically get the shell from my own account, not root's so this change doesn't affect me much. The issue doesn't have to do with which default shell the user has; It has to do with what shell is used when a script is executed that has #!/bin/sh at the top. For system administrators that have to maintain software for a non-heterogeneous environment, it is one more thing they have to deal with. I think you mean 'non-homogeneous'. ;) Otherwise you'd have no problems because you'd have no different platforms. Yeah, sorry. If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems, since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have feature, and behaviour differences to work around. Many Linux distributions are starting to shift towards making /bin/sh a POSIX one; Debian I believe was mentioned in passing about this particular topic. Ubuntu uses dash and Suse will use dash in the future Maintaining something broken in the name of continuing broken-ness doesn't seem like a good idea to me :) +1 Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, Bruno Jargot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ultimately, /sbin/sh is an unacceptable shell in a modern environment for a variety of reasons. It isn't even POSIX compliant, and the base system shell should be. POSIX does not deal with path names and thus does not require that /bin/sh is POSIX compliant. What do path names have to do with the shell command language? Please try to understand how POSIX works POSIX requires a POSIX compliant shell to be available if ou type sh after you typed: PATH=`getconf PATH` POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about /bin/sh. I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell. I don't. All I care about is that the default shell used by root, etc. is: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant 2) Buggy 3) Provides a poor user experience 4) Lacks proper internationalization support 5) Reflects poorly on Solaris 6) Hasn't been actively maintained 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing with multiple systems ...I could think of others, but the point is that there are better options available. +1 I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell +1 Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: Fingerprint Authentication
On 6/14/07, Gaopeng Chen - Sun China [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fingerprint Authentication == Project Overview: - The biometrics technology grows fast. Fingerprint authentication is widely used in many situations. It's a valuable feature to support fingerprint in Solaris. This project is going to provide a complete and extendible solution to support fingerprint in Solaris. Why do you want fingerprint authentication? You can fool these sensors easily with a piece of wax or latex. You'd better write the root password on the backside of the keyboard - that's more secure than fingerprint authentication Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] About CDE bugs, errors
On 2/16/07, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Girts Zeltins wrote: Sorry, but I am talking again about CDE. I want to know if founded CDE errors will be reported to bug database, will they be fixed? Is there any chance to see them fixed? If they are serious bugs, then they may be fixed. Low priority (P4 P5) bugs aren't being worked on much, and work is beginning on determining which parts of CDE will be removed as part of the ongoing EOF process, so things being removed (mostly the applications) aren't likely to be fixed unless escalated by a customer with a support contract for Solaris 8, 9, or 10. Public libraries, dtksh, and similar interfaces that other applications may depend on are planned to stick around. WIll Sun FIX dtksh? Both experts in this field - David Korn and Roland Mainz have complained about dtksh being utterly broken because Sun used an unofficial alpha code as ksh basis. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] About CDE bugs, errors
On 2/23/07, Ghee Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Hurst wrote: On 2/16/07, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Girts Zeltins wrote: Sorry, but I am talking again about CDE. I want to know if founded CDE errors will be reported to bug database, will they be fixed? Is there any chance to see them fixed? If they are serious bugs, then they may be fixed. Low priority (P4 P5) bugs aren't being worked on much, and work is beginning on determining which parts of CDE will be removed as part of the ongoing EOF process, so things being removed (mostly the applications) aren't likely to be fixed unless escalated by a customer with a support contract for Solaris 8, 9, or 10. Public libraries, dtksh, and similar interfaces that other applications may depend on are planned to stick around. WIll Sun FIX dtksh? Both experts in this field - David Korn and Roland Mainz have complained about dtksh being utterly broken because Sun used an unofficial alpha code as ksh basis. Was it a Sun decision or the consortium decision? I guess it has to be latter. HPUX uses ksh93n for their dtksh. Maybe the consortium did an update which Sun did not integrate? Wouldn't be a surprise for me since Sun didn't update for CDE2 either Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/5/07, James C. McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Hurst wrote: On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And how far have the star or ksh projects progressed? The last one appears to be in serious trouble now because Sun has to complain about every little detail and the star project makes either zero progress or no progress announcements. The only problem in the ksh93 project is people who are not part of the project team and who are not participating in the review and who understand bugger all of the processes we created for OpenSolaris and which have worked reasonably well for Sun internally, butting in with inflamatory remarks when there's even the slightest hint of constructive criticism in messages from Sun employees. The major problem with the ksh93 project is Sun Microsystems who is adding more and more mindless rules. Once one task has been finished Sun always comes up with two more items. Which kind of cooperation is this? I really think there are too many rules. They may work within Sun and may even explain the degradation of quality once Sun tries to ship it (re: JDS versus normal Gnome) but this is hardly appropriate for an Open Source project. Ok Josh, how about you provide detail on which of those rules Sun is suddenly pushing forward, and why they are mindless. If they truly are mindless then it would be really good for other people to find out why. Few examples: Why is it required to remove .so and lint libraries? You don't do that for X11 even when the API is not public. Why is is necessary to demand the removal of diff files from the source tree even after the project team has begged Sun to leave them in? Why are 3 Arc cases required for one shell? Why does it take that long to get a simple shell added to Solaris? Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/5/07, Doug Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And how far have the star or ksh projects progressed? The last one appears to be in serious trouble now because Sun has to complain about every little detail and the star project makes either zero progress or no progress announcements. The only problem in the ksh93 project is people who are not part of the project team and who are not participating in the review and who understand bugger all of the processes we created for OpenSolaris and which have worked reasonably well for Sun internally, butting in with inflamatory remarks when there's even the slightest hint of constructive criticism in messages from Sun employees. The major problem with the ksh93 project is Sun Microsystems who is adding more and more mindless rules. Once one task has been finished Sun always comes up with two more items. Which kind of cooperation is this? I really think there are too many rules. They may work within Sun and may even explain the degradation of quality once Sun tries to ship it (re: JDS versus normal Gnome) but this is hardly appropriate for an Open Source project. Hmmm, how did JDS/gnome come up here??? Since it has, I assume you don't like the look feel of JDS, and would prefer Gnome. This is a subjective view rather than a degradation of quality or inappropriate for a Open Source project. Few examples: Linux+Gnome is much faster than Solaris+JDS on the same AMD hardware. JDS+Solaris needs more memory than Linux+Gnome (same hardware). 512MB are enough for Linux, Solaris starts swapping after a few hours of usage and doesn't stop until swap is full. JDS doesn't grok Gnome session files from Linux. Sure, this is s subjective. Let's ignore these problems and add more colorful branding to JDS. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/5/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, how did JDS/gnome come up here??? Since it has, I assume you don't like the look feel of JDS, and would prefer Gnome. This is a subjective view rather than a degradation of quality or inappropriate for a Open Source project. Few examples: Linux+Gnome is much faster than Solaris+JDS on the same AMD hardware. JDS+Solaris needs more memory than Linux+Gnome (same hardware). 512MB are enough for Linux, Solaris starts swapping after a few hours of usage and doesn't stop until swap is full. JDS doesn't grok Gnome session files from Linux. So you are missinterpreting things The different behavoir is caused by Netscape and your Netscape usage The browser choice does not explain the problems with session files, memory usage and other desktop performance problems. And I'm using FireFox and not Netscape. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And how far have the star or ksh projects progressed? The last one appears to be in serious trouble now because Sun has to complain about every little detail and the star project makes either zero progress or no progress announcements. The only problem in the ksh93 project is people who are not part of the project team and who are not participating in the review and who understand bugger all of the processes we created for OpenSolaris and which have worked reasonably well for Sun internally, butting in with inflamatory remarks when there's even the slightest hint of constructive criticism in messages from Sun employees. The major problem with the ksh93 project is Sun Microsystems who is adding more and more mindless rules. Once one task has been finished Sun always comes up with two more items. Which kind of cooperation is this? I really think there are too many rules. They may work within Sun and may even explain the degradation of quality once Sun tries to ship it (re: JDS versus normal Gnome) but this is hardly appropriate for an Open Source project. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
On 2/2/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/2/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want it to go faster, then participate. Many of us are waiting that the first community project integrates. We'd like to see that Opensolaris.org is really an Open organisation where community projects can succeed. So far you lack a positive proof for that. These community projecst may be ksh and star. And how far have the star or ksh projects progressed? The last one appears to be in serious trouble now because Sun has to complain about every little detail and the star project makes either zero progress or no progress announcements. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
On 1/31/07, S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with some of your post, but the rest is simply untrue. There are plenty of design and implementation discussions. There have been plenty of good and bad words exchanged as well about particular features, etc. There have been discussions about code that sucks and code that does not. You can see a lot of this when it comes to ZFS and the ksh93 integration as examples. I did not see ksh93 discussion went anywhere. Or did it? Your looking at the wrong list. The ksh93 community has their own list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org is not the only list - opensolaris.org runs a hundred lists. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
On 1/31/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm the first to agree that the transition to Mercurial, getting the source outside Sun's firewall, is going slower than I want. How do you want to stimulate the growth of the Opensolaris community? That may be more important right now. Opensolaris.org remains a small fraction, if not the smallest, out of the Open Unix cake composed from NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFly, OpenBSD, Darwin, Linux and Opensolaris and I don't see it GROWING. Just the same people all the time. The request sponsor list doesn't grow much either in terms of new contributors (just the part with the unsponsored items grows). Just the same people all the time. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] [EMAIL PROTECTED], Martin Schafstall-like fake?
Just got this email... -- Forwarded message -- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jan 31, 2007 8:01 PM Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical details of permanent failure: PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 9): 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table - Original message - Received: by 10.66.221.6 with SMTP id t6mr1425644ugg.1170270097449; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:01:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.16.16 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:01:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:37 +0100 From: Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 1/31/07, S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with some of your post, but the rest is simply untrue. There are plenty of design and implementation discussions. There have been plenty of good and bad words exchanged as well about particular features, etc. There have been discussions about code that sucks and code that does not. You can see a lot of this when it comes to ZFS and the ksh93 integration as examples. - Message truncated - Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
On 1/31/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Josh Hurst wrote: On 1/31/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm the first to agree that the transition to Mercurial, getting the source outside Sun's firewall, is going slower than I want. How do you want to stimulate the growth of the Opensolaris community? That may be more important right now. Opensolaris.org remains a small fraction, if not the smallest, out of the Open Unix cake composed from NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFly, OpenBSD, Darwin, Linux and Opensolaris and I don't see it GROWING. Just the same people all the time. The request sponsor list doesn't grow much either in terms of new contributors (just the part with the unsponsored items grows). Just the same people all the time. Give us a break, OpenSolaris is only barely out the door - there's still a *huge* amount of work to do before things can head in the right direction. It takes an infinitely large time and work to bootstrap a community - for most cases it's not an overnight thing. Fortunately OpenSolaris has some fantastic technology, and best of all some amazingly talented people to tempt many a developer and general contributor towards the project. There may never be a community phenomenon quite like Linux in terms of numbers and the creation of a grass roots environment. You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would allow people to participate without waiting months to see the submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a very dumb bug is queued and no one cares. It sucks when projects like the ksh93 integration need a year, which is 12 months, 367 days or just a painful long time to integrate. Do you really think this encourages contributors? Come and wait a year to see your code rejected is the current official slogan of Opensolaris.org Which kind of contributor treatment is that? Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Shipping lsof with Solaris ? / was: Re: [osol-discuss] problem with /tmp FS still up
On 1/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Tribble wrote: On 1/1/07, wb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a /tmp FS for swap, and a really big file crout* inside. The /tmp was 95% up. I decided to remove the crout file. The problem, is the /tmp is not decreasing, but still growing. How could I make it decrease? Find and kill the process that's writing to that file. Somehow I am wondering why Solaris doesn't ship lsof in /usr/sbin/ ... is this just noone had time yet or something else ? No; it's something that we won't ship, ever because of the nature how lsof trawls for its events. You could send patches to fix lsfo if you do not like it's implementation :) Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Shipping lsof with Solaris ? / was: Re: [osol-discuss] problem with /tmp FS still up
On 1/5/07, Frank Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Martin Bochnig wrote: I think Sun has to overcome both not invented here and the instinctive reject via not perfect, therefore not 'good enough' no matter what the users say, before lsof goes into mainstream Solaris. If Opensolaris rejects software which is not prefect or troublesome it may be time to kill the /bin/sh-rubbish with a less crappy version (hey, ksh93 would be a cool candidate) Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Booting Solaris into trusted mode?
On 12/30/06, Boyd Adamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30/12/2006, at 5:08 AM, Josh Hurst wrote: How can I boot (Open)Solaris into the Trusted Solaris mode? Josh It's not as simple as booting into Trusted Solaris mode. You need to install and configure the Trusted Extensions. There is ample documentation here: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/ 175.9 Why are the Trusted Extension packages not installed by default? I selected 'Full Install' during installation and the installer did not install these packages Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Shipping lsof with Solaris ? / was: Re: [osol-discuss] problem with /tmp FS still up
On 1/5/07, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Note that lsof doesn't have to do kmem craling. For example on Linux it only uses proper procfs interfaces. As such proper interfaces seem to exist on Solaris as well for use with pfiles it shouldn't be a problem for people knowledgeable in this area to adjust lsof to do the right thin on Solaris aswell. Have we invited Vic Abel Vic's name is spelled 'Abell', two e- (lsof's author) to join the OpenSolaris community? With the right support framework in place, he'd probably be the best person to make the required changes (in lsof anyway). Better: Sun could hire him! Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Shipping lsof with Solaris ? / was: Re: [osol-discuss] problem with /tmp FS still up
On 1/5/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just because /bin/sh isn't your shell of choice doesn't make it crappy. Really? Take 1: /bin/sh /dev/urandom Illegal Instruction (core dumped) Take 2-29: cat /var/adm/messages* | grep -F core.sh | sort Dec 10 11:09:41 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[17713] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.17713 Dec 10 11:11:14 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[17730] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.17730 Dec 11 11:19:16 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[19118] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.19118 Dec 11 11:30:47 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[10798] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.10798 Dec 11 13:11:06 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[13615] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.13615 Dec 11 13:13:31 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[15465] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.15465 Dec 11 16:10:41 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[819] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.819 Dec 11 16:47:18 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[1181] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.1181 Dec 11 16:48:16 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[3961] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.3961 Dec 11 17:11:13 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[15754] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.15754 Dec 11 17:13:09 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[17434] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.17434 Dec 13 01:10:19 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[17595] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.17595 Dec 13 01:11:04 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[19439] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.19439 Dec 13 08:10:31 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[14917] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.14917 Dec 17 04:44:47 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[19766] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.19766 Dec 17 06:44:04 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[51] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.51 Dec 17 11:17:44 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[10611] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.10611 Dec 17 11:17:49 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[10637] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.10637 Dec 17 11:18:14 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[10639] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.10639 Dec 17 11:18:16 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[10641] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.10641 Dec 19 06:44:30 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[116] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.116 Dec 19 06:48:04 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[14186] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.14186 Dec 19 06:49:53 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[16316] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.16316 Dec 19 10:07:07 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[19503] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.19503 Dec 19 10:08:08 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[1131] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.1131 Dec 19 10:18:09 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[11835] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.11835 Dec 19 10:18:09 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[11836] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.11836 Dec 19 10:18:47 fido genunix: [ID 603404 kern.notice] NOTICE: core_log: sh[11841] core dumped: /var/coredumps/core.sh.11841 Popular root of the problem: Memory corruption, memory misalignment, buffer corruption This is Solaris 10 Update 2. Nice production quality, eh? /bin/sh in Solaris 11 is no better Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] zfs-discuss is being spammed
On 12/29/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do we have for SPAM filters ? Just curious. The whole list system appears to be damaged. The whole ksh93 list archive is gone. Maybe a hack? Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Booting Solaris into trusted mode?
How can I boot (Open)Solaris into the Trusted Solaris mode? Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Planet OpenSolaris is now live!
On 11/28/06, Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Planet OpenSolaris is now an official part of the OpenSolaris family, and can now be found in its new home at: http://planet.opensolaris.org Roland, could you add Planet OpenSolaris to your rss reader? Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
On 11/8/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Josh Hurst wrote: Why have all lists at opensolaris.org a -discuss ending? Its confusing. They're not, hence opensolaris-code et al. The -discuss lists are intended for general discussion about the bit before the -, so zfs-discuss is for general discussions about ZFS, and so on. opensolaris-discuss is a catch-all for topics that don't fit into a more specific list, or for discussions about OpenSolaris in general. Could the mail receiver changed to do a weak matching of names, e.g. a mail send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there is only one match? BTW, please use a more useful Subject heading next time. Forwading an error message will likely get you few readers. OK -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Why have all lists at opensolaris.org a -discuss ending? Its confusing. -- Forwarded message -- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Nov 8, 2006 6:58 PM Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical details of permanent failure: PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 9): 550 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table - Original message - Received: by 10.35.129.1 with SMTP id g1mr6053080pyn.1163008714367; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.45.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:58:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:58:34 +0100 From: Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: David Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: [ast-users] ksh93 shell script localisation Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 11/7/06, David Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: [ast-users] ksh93 shell script localisation How can I tell ksh93 to use these strings for this script when I have the translated messages? You need to create message dictionaries as described on the - Message truncated - -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?
On 10/17/06, maoyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to post my 4over6 code.How? 4over6 is a project that makes ipv4 packets go through ipv6 network. I suggest that you wait until the ksh93 integration project is done with it's work. The project suffers from excessive bureaucracy overhead and in my opinion a discussion should be started to streamline the project integration process. The current process has become unbearable and this needs to be corrected before new projects are launched -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
On 10/18/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Hurst writes: On 10/17/06, maoyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to post my 4over6 code.How? 4over6 is a project that makes ipv4 packets go through ipv6 network. I suggest that you wait until the ksh93 integration project is done with it's work. The project suffers from excessive bureaucracy overhead and in my opinion a discussion should be started to streamline the project integration process. The current process has become unbearable and this needs to be corrected before new projects are launched Your fear-mongering is completely misplaced just plain unacceptable. Please understand that I am trying to start a generalised discussion whether all this bureaucracy is REQUIRED. No other Open Source project requires this kind of excessive bureaucracy overhead. I do not feel very well that I have to kickstart this discussion but I think the excessive delays in the ksh93 integration project are no longer bearable and require at least a look at the general process. I'd like to start a constructive discussion about the problems because a reform is overdue Please take it elsewhere. Fine. Which list would you suggest? CAB? -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
On 10/18/06, Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/18/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Hurst writes: On 10/17/06, maoyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to post my 4over6 code.How? 4over6 is a project that makes ipv4 packets go through ipv6 network. I suggest that you wait until the ksh93 integration project is done with it's work. The project suffers from excessive bureaucracy overhead and in my opinion a discussion should be started to streamline the project integration process. The current process has become unbearable and this needs to be corrected before new projects are launched Your fear-mongering is completely misplaced just plain unacceptable. Please understand that I am trying to start a generalised discussion whether all this bureaucracy is REQUIRED. No other Open Source project requires this kind of excessive bureaucracy overhead. I do not feel very well that I have to kickstart this discussion but I think the excessive delays in the ksh93 integration project are no longer bearable and require at least a look at the general process. I'd like to start a constructive discussion about the problems because a reform is overdue I've added the CAB discussion list to the CC: for comments. IMO the problem should be discussed before any new projects are started. We need a new, streamlined process which makes sure that projects are no longer trashed with excessive bureaucracy -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
On 10/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/18/06, Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/18/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Hurst writes: On 10/17/06, maoyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to post my 4over6 code.How? 4over6 is a project that makes ipv4 packets go through ipv6 network. I suggest that you wait until the ksh93 integration project is done with it's work. The project suffers from excessive bureaucracy overhead and in my opinion a discussion should be started to streamline the project integration process. The current process has become unbearable and this needs to be corrected before new projects are launched Your fear-mongering is completely misplaced just plain unacceptable. Please understand that I am trying to start a generalised discussion whether all this bureaucracy is REQUIRED. No other Open Source project requires this kind of excessive bureaucracy overhead. I do not feel very well that I have to kickstart this discussion but I think the excessive delays in the ksh93 integration project are no longer bearable and require at least a look at the general process. I'd like to start a constructive discussion about the problems because a reform is overdue I've added the CAB discussion list to the CC: for comments. IMO the problem should be discussed before any new projects are started. We need a new, streamlined process which makes sure that projects are no longer trashed with excessive bureaucracy This is assuming that there is a problem; three CAB members did take part in the development process discussions (Al, Rich and me) and I don't think we so fault in it. Of course, we're all Solaris/Sun fanboys and believe that the way in which we architect and develop is The One True Way(TM). Is there any other Open Source project which has similar bureaucracy requirements? The integration of ksh93 is an item which the average Linux distribution does in days or weeks while OpenSolaris.org needs 8 months to present another list of bureaucracy items which still need to be finished. I think it is excessive to the point of mental injury that such a simple project gets delayed by a factor of 40. Applying the same bureaucracy to other projects will lead to the destruction of OpenSolaris.org. I predict that either the number of contributors will cease or a full fork of OpenSolaris.org (the whole organisation, not the Solaris kernel) may appear, drawing all attention and contributors to the new project -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] some questions about ksh93 integration
On 8/30/06, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Hurst wrote: I agree with you that the discussion should end here and how, however only if Sun (including Dan Price) is willing to honor what I call the original deal which includes the integration into ON and not SFW. It is not a sign of trustworthiness when one side decides to change the business contract - even one conduced by spoken words only - in an unilateral manner at the end of the project. There is no contract or deal here. Roland asked for the opportunity to start a project to integrate ksh93 into OpenSolaris, and he has been granted that request by the OpenSolaris community (*NOT* Sun). No one ever promised that the end result would be taken into ON, SFW, or any other code base, just that we'd provide Roland the opportunity to work on this. Why should anyone start new projects If there is no guarantee that projects are actually considered for inclusion? Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Is CDDL illegal? (Fwd: Remove cdrtools)
Just a notification: Debian and Ubuntu are going to removal **ALL** CDDL licensed materials from their distribution, stating that the license is non-free and illegal (not GPL compatible). -- Forwarded message -- From: Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Aug 11, 2006 10:51 PM Subject: Remove cdrtools To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-devel@lists.debian.org reassign 377109 ftp.debian.org retitle 377109 RM: cdrtools -- RoM: non-free, license problems thanks Hi guys, ok well, as JS stays with an interpretation of CDDL and GPL that the whole world does not follow (all wrong, of course :) ), lets go and fix this. The sane way is to remove cdrtools from Debian main (unstable) and add a free replacement, most possible a fork from the last free version (which had only the CDDL licensed build scripts, which can easily be replaced by some automake thing). If you want to join that effort - contact me. For Debian etch I dont think its a big problem right now, dependencies will stop it from getting removed before we release. -- bye Joerg Some NM: 3. How do you manage new upstream releases? yes i manage them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Schaffstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC +1 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later Do you like to make Solaris PPC incompatible to Solaris Sparc or x86? Jörg: Do you want to restart the flame war again? If you want someone to beat I suggest to do that with Sun - THEY put us in this desperate situation. We would not be here if Sun had updated their Korn Shell in 1994 or 1996. My answer is: It depends on the requirements on the user side. Both sides of the spectrum have valid arguments. However the backwards compatibility of ksh93 is very good as outlined by Roland Mainz. I think we should switch NOW or allow the users to switch the shells via a switch script which allows users to toggle /bin/ksh between both versions. -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Schaffstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC +1 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later Do you like to make Solaris PPC incompatible to Solaris Sparc or x86? Jörg: Do you want to restart the flame war again? If you want someone to beat I suggest to do that with Sun - THEY put us in this desperate situation. We would not be here if Sun had updated their Korn Shell in 1994 or 1996. My answer is: It depends on the requirements on the user side. Both sides of the spectrum have valid arguments. However the backwards compatibility of ksh93 is very good as outlined by Roland Mainz. I think we should switch NOW or allow the users to switch the shells via a switch script which allows users to toggle /bin/ksh between both versions. -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
