Re: [osol-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] Building aria2 from source
Jason,
Using GCC
On oi_151a7:
$ autoconf --version
autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.63
$ gettext --version
gettext (GNU gettext-runtime) 0.16.1
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.6.2
$ cd aria2-1.15.2
$ ./configure --enable-static=no --with-gnutls --enable-bittorrent
--enable-metalink --enable-threads=posix --enable-epoll
configure: summary of build options:
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Host: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Install prefix: /usr
CXXFLAGS: -g -O2
CFLAGS: -g -O2
CPPFLAGS: -I$(top_builddir)/deps/wslay/lib/includes
-I$(top_srcdir)/deps/wslay/lib/includes -I/usr/include/libxml2
-D_REENTRANT
LDFLAGS:
LIBS: $(top_builddir)/deps/wslay/lib/libwslay.la -lgcrypt -lgpg-error
-lgnutls -lsqlite3 -L/usr/lib -R/usr/lib -lxml2 -lz -lpthread -lm -lsocket -
lnsl
DEFS: -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
SQLite3: yes
GnuTLS: yes
OpenSSL:
CA Bundle:
LibXML2: yes
LibExpat:
LibCares: no
Zlib: no
Epoll:
Bittorrent: yes
Metalink: yes
XML-RPC: yes
Message Digest: yes
WebSocket: yes
bash_completion dir: ${datarootdir}/doc/${PACKAGE_TARNAME}/bash_completion
Static build:
$ ls -al /usr/bin/aria2c
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3595412 Nov 20 22:07 /usr/bin/aria2c
$ ldd /usr/bin/aria2c
libgcrypt.so.11 = /usr/lib/libgcrypt.so.11
libgpg-error.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgpg-error.so.0
libgnutls.so.26 = /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.26
libsqlite3.so.0 = /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0
libxml2.so.2 = /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2
libz.so.1 = /usr/lib/libz.so.1
libpthread.so.1 = /usr/lib/libpthread.so.1
libsocket.so.1 = /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1
libnsl.so.1 = /usr/lib/libnsl.so.1
libstdc++.so.6 = /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
libm.so.2 = /usr/lib/libm.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1 = /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
libc.so.1 = /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libtasn1.so.3 = /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3
libmp.so.2 = /lib/libmp.so.2
libmd.so.1 = /lib/libmd.so.1
$ uname -a
SunOS pi 5.11 oi_151a7 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
$ file /usr/bin/aria2c
ELF 32-bit LSB executable 80386 Version 1 [FPU], dynamically linked, stripped
$ /usr/bin/aria2c --version
aria2 version 1.15.2
Copyright (C) 2006, 2012 Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
** Configuration **
Enabled Features: BitTorrent, Firefox3 Cookie, HTTPS, Message Digest, Metalink,
XML-RPC
Hash Algorithms: sha-1, sha-224, sha-256, sha-384, sha-512, md5
Report bugs to t-tujik...@users.sourceforge.net
Visit http://aria2.sourceforge.net/
Hope that helps you,
Ken Mays
From: Jason Lawrence jjlaw...@gmail.com
To: openindiana-disc...@openindiana.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:57 PM
Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Building aria2 from source
I'm having trouble setting up a reasonable build environment on oi_151a7. Using
aria2 as an example package [https://github.com/tatsuhiro-t/aria2], the
(initial) limitation seems to be outdated versions of autoconf and gettext as I
can't find a clean way to configure the package. Any suggestions on where to
start looking?
(Sorry if this was a repost. My first message was held/rejected as I was not a
member yet.)
--jason
___
OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
openindiana-disc...@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] Building aria2 from source
Jason,
Means you must roll your newer builds of autoconf and gettext and point your
configure options to that.
You can deinstall the old builds for easier detection in some cases.
~ Ken Mays
From: Jason Lawrence jjlaw...@gmail.com
To: ken mays maybird1...@yahoo.com
Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Building aria2 from source
Sorry, I should have specified this is when building from the master branch
after checking out the git repo. I can't even get to the point of being able to
generate a configure script correctly:
$ ~/src $ git clone git://github.com/tatsuhiro-t/aria2.git
Cloning into aria2...
remote: Counting objects: 43660, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (5124/5124), done.
remote: Total 43660 (delta 38635), reused 43527 (delta 38502)
Receiving objects: 100% (43660/43660), 15.49 MiB | 162 KiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (38635/38635), done.
$ ~/src $ cd aria2
$ ~/src/aria2 $ autoreconf -i
autopoint: *** The AM_GNU_GETTEXT_VERSION declaration in your configure.ac
file requires the infrastructure from gettext-0.18 but this version
is older. Please upgrade to gettext-0.18 or newer.
autopoint: *** Stop.
autoreconf: autopoint failed with exit status: 1
$ ~/src/aria2 $ autoconf
configure.ac:4: error: Autoconf version 2.67 or higher is required
configure.ac:4: the top level
autom4te: /usr/sfw/bin/gm4 failed with exit status: 63
--jason
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 4:35 PM, ken mays wrote:
Jason,
Using GCC
On oi_151a7:
$ autoconf --version
autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.63
$ gettext --version
gettext (GNU gettext-runtime) 0.16.1
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.6.2
$ cd aria2-1.15.2
$ ./configure --enable-static=no --with-gnutls --enable-bittorrent
--enable-metalink --enable-threads=posix --enable-epoll
configure: summary of build options:
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Host: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Install prefix: /usr
CXXFLAGS: -g -O2
CFLAGS: -g -O2
CPPFLAGS: -I$(top_builddir)/deps/wslay/lib/includes
-I$(top_srcdir)/deps/wslay/lib/includes -I/usr/include/libxml2
-D_REENTRANT
LDFLAGS:
LIBS: $(top_builddir)/deps/wslay/lib/libwslay.la -lgcrypt
-lgpg-error -lgnutls -lsqlite3 -L/usr/lib -R/usr/lib -lxml2 -lz -lpthread
-lm -lsocket -
lnsl
DEFS: -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
SQLite3: yes
GnuTLS: yes
OpenSSL:
CA Bundle:
LibXML2: yes
LibExpat:
LibCares: no
Zlib: no
Epoll:
Bittorrent: yes
Metalink: yes
XML-RPC: yes
Message Digest: yes
WebSocket: yes
bash_completion dir:
${datarootdir}/doc/${PACKAGE_TARNAME}/bash_completion
Static build:
$ ls -al /usr/bin/aria2c
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3595412 Nov 20 22:07 /usr/bin/aria2c
$ ldd /usr/bin/aria2c
libgcrypt.so.11 = /usr/lib/libgcrypt.so.11
libgpg-error.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgpg-error.so.0
libgnutls.so.26 = /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.26
libsqlite3.so.0 = /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0
libxml2.so.2 = /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2
libz.so.1 = /usr/lib/libz.so.1
libpthread.so.1 =
/usr/lib/libpthread.so.1
libsocket.so.1 = /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1
libnsl.so.1 = /usr/lib/libnsl.so.1
libstdc++.so.6 = /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
libm.so.2 = /usr/lib/libm.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1 = /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
libc.so.1 = /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libtasn1.so.3 = /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3
libmp.so.2 =
/lib/libmp.so.2
libmd.so.1 = /lib/libmd.so.1
$ uname -a
SunOS pi 5.11 oi_151a7 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
$ file /usr/bin/aria2c
ELF 32-bit LSB executable 80386 Version 1 [FPU], dynamically linked, stripped
$ /usr/bin/aria2c --version
aria2 version
1.15.2
Copyright (C) 2006, 2012 Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
** Configuration **
Enabled Features: BitTorrent, Firefox3 Cookie, HTTPS, Message Digest, Metalink,
XML-RPC
Hash Algorithms: sha-1, sha-224, sha-256, sha-384, sha-512, md5
Report bugs to t-tujik...@users.sourceforge.net
Visit http://aria2.sourceforge.net/
Hope that helps you,
Ken Mays
From: Jason Lawrence jjlaw...@gmail.com
To: openindiana-disc...@openindiana.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:57 PM
Subject
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris Online Forum Event :: April 14th at 9am PT
Dave, Actually, the Adobe flash player plugin is at v10.2.153.1 and you need to pull it from here for Solaris/OpenSolaris SPARC/x86 platforms with Firefox 3.6.x: http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/otherversions/ Also, read the information for proper setup: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.6.16/contrib/solaris_pkgadd/README.txt Grab firefox 3.6.16 browser packages from here (pkgadd here, SPARC/x86): ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.6.16/contrib/solaris_pkgadd/firefox-3.6.16.en-US.solaris-10-fcs-i386-pkg.bz2 ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.6.16/contrib/solaris_pkgadd/firefox-3.6.16.en-US.solaris-10-fcs-sparc-pkg.bz2 Others firefox package variants: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.6.16/contrib/ RealPlayer 11 packages (optional): http://www.real.com/realplayer/download This will get you up and running for the forum event presentation. ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 3/24/11, david bone bone_da...@mac.com wrote: From: david bone bone_da...@mac.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris Online Forum Event :: April 14th at 9am PT To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 8:56 AM My email to Glynn yesterday regarding my Sun Solaris work station. so far no reply. please see attachment for details. Unfortunately it looks very restricted as to who can view this event. Not sure if this is an oversight or not. But it sure feels amateurish. Dave Glynn, I'm sorry to bother u but I could not see who to contact regarding this registration problem. Maybe u can direct me to allow my work station to participate.. The ``test out link'' gave 2 problems. The attached screen dump details them. I am running on an amd sun solaris 10 work station with mozilla/firefox. 1) The ``test link'' does not recognize my Oracle Solaris 10 operating system cdbone root 09:36 501 $: uname -ainprs SunOS cdbone 5.10 Generic_118855-14 i86pc i386 i86pc 2) the shockwave flash plugin needs 9.0.115+. The Solaris plugin from Adobe is only 9.0.47r. How do i go about upgrading my workstation to participate in the event? Dave On Mar 23, 2011, at 03:59 PM, Gary gdri...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Ian Collins wrote: So Solaris with Firefox 3.x probably will work, but it would be nice to have it explicitly listed. Running Solaris 11 Express with Firefox [Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.2.10) Gecko/20101021 Firefox/3.6.10] Media Player Failed In order to provide an optimal experience listening to and/or viewing webcasts, we recommend the following media player plug-ins: # Windows Media Player 10 or higher supported by your operating system # RealPlayer 10 or higher supported by your operating system http://event.on24.com/view/help/ehelp.html (click on 'test your system') I don't have it installed but there is a real player for both Sparc and x86... -Gary ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris Online Forum Event :: April 14th at 9am PT
Hi Dave, Make a symbolic link between firefox/depend/lib and firefox/libssl3.so. It'll grab the lib dependencies of libssl3.so as well. ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 3/24/11, david bone bone_da...@mac.com wrote: From: david bone bone_da...@mac.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris Online Forum Event :: April 14th at 9am PT To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 11:36 AM Jörg, thk u for your response. Unfortunately the issue is with the plugin that can't find the ``libssl3.so'' at firefox start up. As an experiment, i moved the /firefox/libssl3.so into /firefox/plugins account and restarted firefox. firefox quickly complained and stopped running. Dave On Mar 24, 2011, at 08:19 AM, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhoferde (Joerg Schilling) wrote: david bone bone_da...@mac.com wrote: ??? Ken, Unfortunately the plugin does not work. firefox error at start up is: LoadPlugin: failed to initialize shared library /firefox/plugins/libflashplayer.so [ld.so.1: firefox-bin: fatal: libssl3.so: open failed: No such file or directory] The libssl3.so is present within the /firefox account as it is needed by firefox itself. I lodged a problem/question with firefox regards to this plugin. I'll keep the community informed. Dave Libssl3 is also available in /usr/lib/mps/ on Solaris 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 -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] eSATA works fine?
Orvar, As mentioned, there is the physical hardware 'interfacing' component and then software component (protocol handler). There IS a software driver for USB 3.0, but currently not 'officially' implemented within the Solaris/OpenSolaris core environment by default yet. This will support xHCI and 5 Gb/s transfers. You can buy USB 3.0 hardware today though which will default to USB 1.0/2.0 transfer speeds (approx. 480 Mb/s) by design under the Solaris/OpenSolaris OS by default. The SIIG DP SuperSpeed USB 2-Port PCIe (JU-P20412-S2) PCIe card works well as an example. ~ Ken Mays --- On Sun, 3/6/11, Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] eSATA works fine? To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011, 4:47 PM eSATA is a physical connector and electrical standard for SATA. So you are implying that eSATA does not need any drivers? It is like an ordinary SATA controller, those dont need drivers either? So what is the difference between eSATA and USB3.0? Why does USB3 need a driver, isnt it a physical connector as well? Is there a simple rule of thumb to tell which connections need a driver, and which dont need a driver? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post
Date: Friday, February 25, 2011, 8:04 AM On 02/25/11 04:23 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote: I dont have a cluster or specialized hardware at home, to do heavy calculations. I can buy Nvidia card to do calculations, but Solaris does not support OpenCL nor CUDA nor anything similar - as far as I know. To use graphic cards to do heavy calculation I need to switch OS to Linux with OpenCL, which is not an option. A question: If I buy Nvidia graphic card, and install Windows in VirtualBox together with 3D support - could I use OpenCL / CUDA / whatever in the Windows VM? Ok, we may have gotten off track a bit. CUDA (and the like) are nice for heavy lifting to GPUs. You can do this at home at a decent cost (much lower than I did several years ago). The unofficial CUDA for Solaris port was done 3-4 years ago by John Martin (Oracle). He deserves that credit. No public release on record. Now comparing the 3.4Ghz Sandy Bridge Core i7-2x00K versus a Nvidia GT 430 computability is kinda like getting into driving cars. Different strokes for different folks. Back to your question, as said the Sandy Bridge graphics support is forthcoming but depends on other features/updates to drivers and the libraries. But for basic computability, you can run with a Sandy Bridge motherboard today with OI_148a/Sol-11x and super compute till your heart's content today! NO updates required. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post
Orvar, You can actually do this today using the previous Intel integrated GPUs. The Intel GMA HD (i.e. Intel Clarkdale/Arrandale-based) series works well enough for basic 3D work with the current drivers available under OI_148a and Solaris 11 Express. As for 1080p 2D playback, Compiz, Wine 1.3.14/VirtualBox, there are limiting performance factors based on current DMA and driver updates. The Intel GMA HD GPUs work fine otherwise with 1080p video playback and Compiz. Note: I originally tested OpenIndiana_147 on a Intel Brookdale (i.e. i845G) GPU and using Compiz 0.8.4 and DVD video playback. Worked pretty well within the chip's limitations and I tested on a 1280x1024 display monitor. Most Compiz/3D features worked. As for official SandyBridge GPU driver support, best use a Nvidia GPU card as a workaround. Hope that helped a bit, Ken Mays --- On Wed, 2/23/11, Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 3:20 PM I just want an integrated 3D in a cpu that can give me 1080p, Compiz, simple games in Wine/VirtualBox, etc. It is not really important to me if I get updates to a 3D driver, as long as it gives me the above. I hope Sandybridge would give me this? What do you think, should the Solarsi 3D driver for Sandybridge be able to give me all this? Never mind frequent updates... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post
Actually, take note that heavy calculations are offloaded to GPUs or specialized hardware nowadays. Many ways to skin something ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 2/24/11, Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, February 24, 2011, 3:14 PM Thanks for the tips, but I also need to do heavy development and run heavy calculations. So I need a beefy CPU above all. But I prefer if it has low power requirements. That is the reason Sandybridge is what I prefer. I have to wait and see how the 3D graphics driver turns out -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post
Hi Harry, 1. Use only a 64-bit processor for your ZFS unit. 2. ECC RAM requires a compatible motherboard/chipset/processor. It is not a 'simple' investment...its a serious one in considered your overall hardware components. It is not a critical must-have-it concern for home use (IMHO), but if you get it then best make sure your hardware is using it properly and supports it if this is your more serious work/SOHO NAS unit. Good luck! ~ Ken Mays --- On Wed, 2/23/11, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: From: Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 12:54 AM Gary gdri...@gmail.com writes: Harry Putnam wrote: You can spend less with a dedicated predesigned commercial unit... Can you name a few? I didn't catch how many drives you said you needed. And was it this thread that I already responded to -- I'll use 8 drives if I want to use what I already have on a dysfunctional zfs server 2@500 (ide [pata] 2@500sataII 2@750sata) I expected to buy a pair of 1TB drives. I've been running in a mirrored setup so need 2X whatever drives I use. I could buy bigger disks but of course, that would mean letting 6drives I already have just set around. If I bought 4 2tb drives I'd have about the same capacity but it would cost around $400 (or is it cheaper for 4 2tb drivs?) One tempting thing about the Proliant Microserver N36L, It can be gotten damned cheap if this is the one you mean: http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=2190307#TS ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post
Haryy, ECC RAM is a 'nice to have' if this is a PRO server - but not critical for home use/SOHO use. The main thing to consider is you can build a very good dedicated NAS server for around $800 USD that can provide you with up to 8TB-12TB w/2TB drives). If you have a good computer builder, they can design you something very nice within a decent price range scalable up to 8TB-12TB (most designs) and small enough in a mini-tower. You should not have to spend over $1000 for a good design with high-quality customized parts for just a ZFS NAS server in today's market. You can spend less with a dedicated predesigned commercial unit... ~ Ken Mays --- On Mon, 2/21/11, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: From: Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Another [OT] Hardware Post To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 3:29 PM Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com writes: Unless Ian C. is right about ECC, then this board has the same notation as the other one: All I said was if they don't say ECC is supported, it isn't! In this case, they do. Ian, I'm the source of the problem on this. Your earlier comment was made about a board that says the exact same thing as the board referred to in my para above. So I thought you were saying that even though there is some comment about ECC, doesn't mean they actually support it. But the rub comes in that on that earlier message you were responding to the first time, I put the WRONG URL for that board, so if you looked at that URL thinking it was the board I meant... then on that board there is no mention of ECC , | From previous post: | Message-ID: 87k4gus568@newsguy.com | | That helped find something on the build list: | | ASUS M4A88TD-M /USB3,AMD 880G, Onboard Video | | http://magicmicro.com/debay.asp?iid=3674 | | But it still specifies unbuffered. Does that matter so much. ` I cited an Asus board but the URL below it is an MSI board. Sorry to confuse things. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SandyBridge support
Mesa 7.10 Release Notes / January 7, 2011 Mesa 7.10 is a new development release supporting the Intel Sandy Bridge IGPs. People who are concerned with stability and reliability should wait for Mesa 7.10.1. New features * GL_ARB_explicit_attrib_location extension (Intel and software drivers). * GL_ARB_texture_rg (Intel, software drivers, gallium drivers). * GL_EXT_separate_shader_objects extension (Intel and software drivers). * GL_NV_primitive_restart extension (Gallium softpipe, llvmpipe). * New fragment shader back-end for i965-class hardware. * Support for Sandybridge chipset in i965 DRI driver. Src: ftp://freedesktop.org/pub/mesa/7.10/MesaLib-7.10.tar.bz2 ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SandyBridge support
Chris, Yes, the Xserver 1.9.2 package implementation is part of the basic requirements as well as Mesa 7.10 and the updated Xorg Intel 2.14.x driver. You'll need a package set as I proposed for IPS updates: xf86-video-intel 2.14.0 Mesa 7.10 libdrm-2.4.23 cairo-1.10.2 libva-1.0.7 xserver-1.9.3 Note: ON (snv) kernel patches needed for kernel-side Intel DRI/DRM support for the Intel GMA HD 2000/3000 IGPs. Otherwise, you'll continue to have have 2D/3D performance regressions and other oddities. You can get Alan's Xserver 1.9.2 build for testing at: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/x/downloads/Xorg-1.9/build-2010-11-18/Xorg-1.9.2-20101118-i386.tar.bz2 I'm reviewing the intel 2.13.903/2.14.x 2D driver/Xserver 1.9.2 package integration for testing. Mesa 7.10 is proposed for release tomorrow. Tests ran on: Intel HD Graphics (Arrandale Clarkdale) IGPs. ~ Ken Mays P.S. When it rans, it pours. --- On Wed, 1/5/11, Chris Ridd chrisr...@mac.com wrote: From: Chris Ridd chrisr...@mac.com Subject: [osol-discuss] SandyBridge support To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 4:17 PM Does Solaris have any enhancements (in public commits?) to support the new Intel SandyBridge chips? AIUI some X support for SandyBridge was due in Solaris later this year (2010), so possibly is in S11 Express. But what about support for other SandyBridge features? (UEFI, vector processing extensions?) Cheers, Chris ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SandyBridge support
Guido Alan, I hope that once a fully compliant Xorg 7.6 XNV implementation is in place with the additional kernel-side DRM/KMS updates from the Intel/Oracle team(s), we can test it and work towards a fully supported Intel 2.14.0 driver as well as the Mesa 7.10.x Intel DRI driver updates. Thanks Alan for your work and support as well, ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 1/6/11, Guido Berhoerster guido+opensolaris@berhoerster.name wrote: From: Guido Berhoerster guido+opensolaris@berhoerster.name Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] SandyBridge support To: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Cc: ken mays maybird1...@yahoo.com, opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, January 6, 2011, 11:19 AM * Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com [2011-01-06 16:49]: This is also why we're still on Xorg 1.7.7, since the older intel drivers that still work on non-KMS kernels don't support Xorg 1.8 later, and while we could port it, we've been focusing our effort on getting the combined Xorg 1.9 + KMS solution working well instead with the newer drivers. FYI, https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=xf86-video-intel-2.9.1-xorg-server-1.7.3-fixes.patchpackage=xorg-x11-driver-video-intel-legacyproject=openSUSE%3A11.3srcmd5=9d240defdeccb1320edcf92bc02ccf08 is all I had to modify in order to get the 2.9.1 Intel driver (the last version supporting UMS) to build with the 1.8.0 Xorg server. It works just fine. -- Guido Berhoerster ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OT: Which is the best option: Nexentstor or Solaris 11 Express
You can use either one for home use. NexentaStor Community Edition 3.0.4 works fine for that purpose and will give you 'decent' performance and stability for your personal and home storage uses. There is a lot of features in the Nexenta Enterprise Edition 3.0.4, but this might be out of scope for you? As for free support and licensing, use the IRC channel 'nexentastor' and see: http://www.nexenta.com/corp/nexentastor-overview/nexentastor-versions As for Solaris 11 Express, you get a more updated kernel userland environment with the latest ZFS enhancements. Since you want a ZFS solution on my home server to share vols/directories using iSCSI and/or NFS services between two ESXi hosts, both products will meet your needs with NexentaStor being more specialized in storage solutions for you. For home/personal use, I'd choose NexentaStor Community Edition 3.0.4. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris-based distributions as on Nov 2010
OpenSolaris-based distributions based on older releases of the OpenSolaris kernel. Distros: belenix eon jeos korona martux milax nexenta openindiana schillix stormos Note: Solaris 11 Express (b151a) has the latest kernel build based on OpenSolaris consolidations. All great distros serving various desktop, embedded, and server needs. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] How to get Solaris 11 GPL/LGPL Source Code from Oracle
-- Written Offer for Source Code - For binaries that you receive from Oracle as part of Oracle Solaris 11 Express 2010.11 that are licensed under any version of the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the GNU LGPL, you can receive a complete machine-readable copy of the source code by visiting http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris11/downloads/gplsourceforsolaris-184717.html or by sending a written request to: Oracle America, Inc. Attn: Associate General Counsel, Development and Engineering Legal 500 Oracle Parkway, 10th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 If you send a written request it should include (i) the name of the covered binary, (ii) the name and version number of the Oracle product containing the covered binary, (iii) your name, (iv) your company name (if applicable), and (v) your return mailing and email address (if available). We may charge you a nominal fee to cover the cost of the media and distribution. Your request must be sent within three (3) years of the date you received Oracle Solaris 11 Express 2010.11. - Election of Licenses - Oracle elects to use only the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 (LGPL)/GNU General Public License version 2 (GPL) for any software where a choice of LGPL/GPL license versions are made available with the language indicating that LGPLv2.1/GPLv2 or any later version may be used, or where a choice of which version of the LGPL/GPL is applied is unspecified. Unless specifically stated otherwise, where a choice exists between another license and either the GPL or the LGPL, Oracle chooses the other license. This is from the Solaris 11 Express distribution. Explain GPL/LGPL licensing dealing with source code availability for included FOSS-related binaries. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Map snv_ versions into release versions
--- On Mon, 11/15/10, Albert Lee tr...@opensolaris.org wrote: From: Albert Lee tr...@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Map snv_ versions into release versions To: Miguel Garcia mhenriq...@lasige.di.fc.ul.pt Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Monday, November 15, 2010, 11:23 AM On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Miguel Garcia mhenriq...@lasige.di.fc.ul.pt wrote: I'm working with NVD (national vulnerability database) when they refer a OpenSolaris version they use snv_XX but I need to match this snv_ to a real version (donwloadable) These are the build numbers of OpenSolaris and upcoming Solaris 11 Express (as well as older Solaris Express) releases, which follow the build number of the core OS/Net component; snv is the Solaris Nevada codename for ON development. The latest released build from Oracle is 134 as OpenSolaris development build 134, while ON source is available up to 147 and other distributions are based on the newer source. -Albert Solaris 11 (SNV_151) is the new official public release with its updated IPS repo images. The 153 consolidations are also available. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] : - (
This is just my opinion, Sun could have survived under different circumstances, but you have very large billion dollar companies to compete. The little guy can only afford to make so many mistakes. Oracle, no matter the negativity, has the resources and clients to sustain a few big blows. A company worth $135 billion dollars is what Sun needed to back its financial resources which were down to $2 billion dollars. Yes, there was some shakeout from the big tree but sometimes it is for the betterment for the people leaving and the smaller businesses gaining new talent and great experience. That can help create new billion dollar corporate PARTNERS to help Oracle/Sun stay alive and radiant in the business world. Hey, everything could be bought up by oil companies! As for StarOffice 8/9, many legacy Solaris and OpenSolaris users have it and OpenOffice 3.2.1/Oracle Officie is great update in its own right. Oracle is doing the 'value add' Offcie extensions so you can always get the legacy StarOffice quality... See: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/open-office/043539.html http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/open-office/oracle-odf-plugin-ds-155370.pdf ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 9/30/10, Octave Orgeron unixcons...@yahoo.com wrote: Contrary to popular believe there are still some major differences between OpenOffice and the StarOffice code base. StarOffice has closed source bits around MS Office translation and printer support that are absent in OpenOffice. As for Oracle, they still have a lot to learn from Sun and the open source community. Sun was great at developing technology and open sourcing it for everyone to re-use. But at the same time, Sun has a lot to learn from Oracle about how to turn a profit from all its IP. If Sun had a better business model around its software, it would still be around. I think the open source community has to keep pushing Oracle in the right direction, but not act so sophomoric about it. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Octave J. Orgeron Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.2 is out and makes OpenSolaris self hosting
Recently patched versions of Sun Studio 12.1.x (Fall 2010) won't compile ON_147 and higher?!? Nor Sun Studio 12.2? Guess updating those docs would help... ~ Ken M. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.2 is out and makes OpenSolaris self hosting
--- On Mon, 9/27/10, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Recently patched versions of Sun Studio 12.1.x (Fall 2010) won't compile ON_147 and higher?!? Nor Sun Studio 12.2? Do yu have a pointer? Yesterday, I was not able to find something newer than sunstudio12u1-patched-ii-2010Feb-sol-x86.tar.gz and this release will result in a disfunctional hsfs. Guess updating those docs would help... I did not try 12.2 as a compile cycle for me currently takes 14 hours (on SchilliX-0.7.2 in VB). 1. The Feb 2010 patched version of Sun Studio 12u1 worked for building most of the other OSOL consolidations. There is another 'patched' version called Sun Studio 12.1.1 in the IPS_134 repo. See: http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/info/0/developer%2Fsunstudio12u1%4012.1.1%2C5.11-0.111%3A20100306T002245Z Name: developer/sunstudio12u1 Summary: Sun Studio - C, C++, Fortran compilers and Tools Publisher: opensolaris.org Version: 12.1.1 Build Release: 5.11 Branch: 0.111 Packaging Date: March 6, 2010 12:22:45 AM Size: 2.04 GB FMRI: pkg:/developer/sunstudio1...@12.1.1,5.11-0.111:20100306T002245Z So, the idea is to get official wording from Oracle that they have tested building a recent 64-bit binary build of ON_147-150 with Sun Studio 12.1.x/12.2 without the need for the older Sun Studio 12. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Merge other distros to OpenIndiana?
HI Ashih, Good suggestion and that is already underway in the OpenIndiana project for 'all' compatible distros. SFW_147 is already incorporated in the OI IPS repo. SPEC-FILES-EXTRA packaging from the pkgbuild project is already in the works as well. ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 9/16/10, Ashish Nabira nab...@sun.com wrote: From: Ashish Nabira nab...@sun.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Merge other distros to OpenIndiana? To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010, 4:18 AM I just have a small suggestion. Whatever distribution we make, please make available packages like FreeBSD ports or Debian. That's the only way we can make it more popular with Admins and new users. Ashish Nabira Enterprise IT Architect Email ashish.nab...@sun.com On 16-Sep-10, at 1:28 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: Ok, I understand your point. And it is cool with you being first with several things. I am only asking if all distros cooperated on one single distro, would it not be better if there was only one official community distro. It does not matter to people if it is Schillix or OpenIndiana, as long as the distro attracts many core developers and it gets momentum. But some people would prefer a pure OpenSolaris distro, and not an entirely new animal. I understand there are lots of efforts invested in each distro and lot of politics too. I am just worried about fragmentation. Just like Unix: there are Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, SCO, Xenix, etc. And they could not be merged, Unix continued to be fragmented. And then suddenly Linux came and everyone joined it. I am worried it will be the same with OpenSolaris: lots of different distros and no one catch momentum. But with a sader end: there is no single OpenSolaris distro to emerge, but all these distros die instead. I think OpenSolaris community is not really interested in umpteen different distros, as Linux has. Only one distro is acceptable to most people. I believe. But of course, people are free to disagree. :o) Well...there are probably people that prefer for example * traditional Solaris command set default vs GNU command set default * GNOME vs KDE (I'd still go with CDE, but it's not going forward and non-redistributable) * SVR4 packages vs IPS vs whatever packaging scheme Nexenta uses (there too there's a problem, inasmuch as other tools like beadm and zonecfg are also involved, although I gather it ought to be possible to come up with different versions of them for each packaging scheme that some distro or another uses) If one wants to keep maximum compatibility with OpenSolaris/Solaris 11 (Express), then I suppose one had better grit one's teeth and accept IPS. But the rest might well be handled mostly with additional packages for alternative command set(s) or GUIs. But don't forget that the most commercial (i.e. developers that do it as their day job) distro outside of Oracle is probably Nexenta, and they do Debian-based packaging and command set. So while one might be able to have one distro that tries to be the open successor to OpenSolaris (allowing most of the added value effort to be directed to additional packages rather than distro building), collaboration should exist at the level of the common source elements (i.e. Illumos, as an openly maintained ON consolidation) as well as at the distro maintenance level. That way, when Oracle eventually releases some commercial product and subsequently dumps a bunch of code updates over the wall, everyone can work together to merge the code updates. Failing to collaborate there would be one of the places where there would otherwise be a huge duplication of effort. But the result probably would have to be incorporated into a distro to be tested, and I can't see there being less than two basic distros: OpenIndiana (or something like it, as the open successor to the OpenSolaris distro) and NexentaCore; since both of those variants have a base of people using it not just for a home NAS or something, but for serious purposes (i.e. something that would lose money if it didn't work). --This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenIndiana - a new OpenSolaris Distribution!
ON_147 is good enough for the initial Tuesday release of the OpenIndiana distro. The Illumos patch updates to ON_147 is planned for the following OpenIndiana distro release in Oct 2010. If you want to use the Illumos patched ON-147+ kernel release, you can give the Schillix 0.7.1i server distro a try. Both distros are very reliable for enterprise server usage within data centers and for daily desktop usage (moreso OpenIndiana for desktops/workstations/laptops). Handle as you would with an BETA OS distro in the data center (or home use). So far, the OpenIndiana distro is a 'rock solid' solution and a great evolution from the Opensolaris project. ~ Ken Mays --- On Sat, 9/11/10, Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] OpenIndiana - a new OpenSolaris Distribution! To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Saturday, September 11, 2010, 6:58 PM This is interesting. b147 you say? Cool! It is not based on illumos. When will it be based on illumos? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenIndiana - a new OpenSolaris Distribution!
--- On Fri, 9/10/10, Nikola M minik...@gmail.com wrote: From: Nikola M minik...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] OpenIndiana - a new OpenSolaris Distribution! To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 1:21 AM Alasdair Lumsden wrote: On Tuesday 14th September, we will be unveiling OpenIndiana – an exciting new distribution of OpenSolaris! Great! Hope more people will join in to make it happen. I suppose there will be some kind of webcast? Few cameras to record event and also public access and participation, on IRC channel or direct. And available audio/video recording of an event (or some other ways beside IRC to participate in event over Internet, during it is on). One question: Couldn't Indiana as part of name, be claimed by Oracle, since that was internal project name for Project Indiana with a goal of making binary OpenSolaris distribution we used untill now? No. Also, there is indiana-discuss mailing list that might be considered for revival and maintenance, (http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss) now that OpenIndiana is here, seems logical to revive Indiana list itself that was closed by former maintainer weeks ago. No consideration there. The purpose of 'Project Indiana' was finished a few years ago and the discussion forum just lingered on afterwards. Much of the discussion there really is best suited for other forums. Archival was better suited for the old indiana-discuss forum. OpenIndiana is another project with its own discussion forums. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express
Orvar (kebabber) said: IBM has publicly said that they are phasing out AIX in favour of Linux. Yes, some analysts made statements like this but it never was officially put in stone. Most of the time, people speculate on such greener grass until reality hits them. Linux is not at the level of AIX. You may think AIX does not have a bright future - but wasn't that also said about Linux in the data center?!? Is not a diamond just a shiny crystal rock??? ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Indiana - what comes closest to it?
The various developers are pushing ON_147+ testing, which is the last ON release tagged. You either will find these public releases: 1. ON_147 2. ON_147+ (current (about 12 putbacks from ON_148)) 3. ON_147+ (current, with Illumos patching). Schillix 0.7.1 is the only public OpenSolaris server-based distro providing numbers 2 and 3 at this moment. You can use and install the Oracle Solaris Studio Express 6/10 Software or pkg install sunstudio12u1 if you have IPS capability (or do it manually). ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.1 based on b147+ available
--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: From: Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de Subject: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.1 based on b147+ available To: develo...@lists.illumos.org, opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 7:10 AM SchilliX-0.7.1 is based on the latest ONNV source published by Oracle. This is build 146 with 16 additional putbacks. Hello, RFE: My last pull of ON_current had about 10 putbacks from the ON_148 open gate on top of the ON_147 tagged release as of Aug 24, 2010. Note: SFW_147 brings in Samba 3.5.4. Xnv_147+ bring in Freetype 2.4.2. Congrats on the PUBLIC release of Shillix 0.7.1!!! ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Indiana - what comes closest to it?
1. Some source consolidations are still being updated. 2. Much of ON_147/148 is in the open. Oracle mentioned they are providing a supported Solaris Express in place of the OSOL binaries of the past. The kernel sources are very recent to gain a 'like Solaris 11' experience today. ~ Ken --- On Mon, 8/30/10, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: From: Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Indiana - what comes closest to it? To: stefan.mueller-wil...@acando.de, opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org, constantin.gonza...@oracle.com Date: Monday, August 30, 2010, 2:52 PM Constantin Gonzalez constantin.gonza...@oracle.com wrote: Nobody from Oracle said Solaris 11 won't be open source, so that should satisfy all of your requirements above. What I definitely do not want is the Solaris kernel under the hood of a Linux distribution. *yuck* No need for that. Just give Oracle some more time to explain themselves. The OGB did give Oracle nearly 5 months to explain themselves, nothing happened. Since August 18th, there are no source updates anymore. Oracle would need to make a big change to meet your hope. Jörg ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phenom II X6 1090T, AMD 890FX / SB850, Any Driver Development Efforts?
Hi Dusan, The answer is yes - it'll work. A few of our developers (and myself) run AMD/ATI hardware (i.e. state-of-the-art and legacy) in which the AMD motherboard-based chipsets are compatible. Even at the graphics level, I've gotten the ATI Radeon HD 4870/4890 and 5970 graphics cards to work. I suggest the Nvidia GPU-based graphic cards since the commercial video driver is maintained by Oracle/Nvidia. Much of this info I've posted in the HCL and validated with Sun (Oracle). ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 8/26/10, Dusan Kysel dusan.ky...@gmail.com wrote: From: Dusan Kysel dusan.ky...@gmail.com Subject: [osol-discuss] Phenom II X6 1090T, AMD 890FX / SB850, Any Driver Development Efforts? To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 9:12 PM I was a very satisfied OpenSolaris/ZFS padawan until the Shadows of the Dark Empire covered our Sun in march. During these dark times the continuous disturbances in the Source without doubt caused my very Source-sensitive motherboard to completely give up its hope and spirit. To support the struggle against expanding Source imperialism I first and foremost have to get back hold of my ZFS data which are tied to the latest zpool and zfs version supported in the final development release 134 (i.e. zpool version 22 and zfs version 4). I would like to employ the newest AMD chipset and CPU, i.e.: Phenom II X6 1090T AMD 890FX / SB850 on the currently only board I know of with ECC memory support Asus Crosshair IV Formula At the end of april, Joe Kotran already queried these forums about OpenSolaris compatibility but no answer has been given yet and neither the HCL provides any usable information: https://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=477897 I strongly believe the first symptom of OS death is lacking support for even essential new hardware like CPU/chipsets from the main vendors. And although I really fell in love with Solaris and would prefer it anytime over Linux or any other Operating System I can not afford being forced into running on old hardware due to lack of any information whether compatibility with recent hardware exists or is at least being worked on. Can therefore someone please enlighten me whether the aforementioned CPU, chipset and other mobo hardware are supported by 134 or any available version of OpenSolaris or OpenSolaris based distribution and whether any other distribution than OpenSolaris itself provides support for zpool version 22 and zfs version 4 and a migration path from OpenSolaris? It's pretty hard to believe that nobody in the last 4 months since their launch was able to at least try to boot 134 or some newer builds on AMDs newest CPU and chipset to see whether there are some issues or total lack of compatibility. If compatibility is still missing, is anyone at all working on adding it and can they provide some ETA? Are any Illumos, Nexenta, Shillix or Belenix project participants involved in developing hardware support, serious testing and updating of the HCL for common hardware at least or are we all still dependent on the whims of Oracle? =Dusan -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] @Oracle employees: OpenSolaris updates up to Solaris 11
Ref: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/migration_program.jsp 1. Solaris 10 - Solaris 11 (Express) 2. Migrating to Solaris 10/11 from other operating systems 3. OTN portal (when all else fails, seek out the Oracle Technology Network. Migrating from Solaris 10 to Solaris 11 can be done in some very basic steps. This is only based on my migrations from Solaris Legacy OSes to OpenSolaris-based OS installs. Protect and backup important data at all costs! ~ Ken Mays --- On Wed, 8/18/10, Stephan Ferraro step...@ferraro.net wrote: From: Stephan Ferraro step...@ferraro.net Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] @Oracle employees: OpenSolaris updates up to Solaris 11 To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2010, 10:59 AM I'm curious to know how the migration from OpenSolaris snv_134 to Solaris 11 Express will happen. The simplest solution would be to run simply pkg image-update on global and local zones. I hope it would not be required to have two separate physical servers to do the migration (it would explode the costs at hosting services). I hope too that the kernel will be still open source in Solaris 11. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] upcoming web event:strategy for Oracle's Sun Servers, Storage and solaris
--- On Tue, 8/10/10, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote: #2 Oracle sells servers, not laptops. They'll include a GUI, but it has always been, and will continue to be, a pretty basic gnome. Nothing flashy like aero or compiz or aqua. They are designing it to be servers. If you want a flashy laptop, use OSX, Windows, or Ubuntu. Ed, True, Oracle does sell servers moreso than having a major laptop/desktop hardware selling business model or strategy. Well in Oracle being a technology and Database-oriented company, I don't think selling extensive laptops/desktops hardware is a major concern from a 'user' perspective. Oracle sells Sun's legacy desktop clients and peripherals. You are mistaken about Compiz as it was integrated a few years ago and most of use keep it under review along with Compiz Fusion (Beryl/Compiz hybrid). Nvidia OpenGL 4.1 drivers are now available so OpenGL 3D graphics are very up-to-date as well on Solaris/OpenSolaris. As for a desktop market, companies like Dell and Lenovo conduct their own research and surveys on this subject. There IS a market for Unix-based desktops in academia and government. This is usually to cut back on spending money on costly GUI licenses. Also, since Mac OS X is a Unix-based OS then the term 'UNIX desktop market is dead' is kind of a misnomer. Is it not? Just because laptops/desktops come pre-installed with the proprietary 'big name' commercial OSes (boosting sales and usage numbers) does not mean the Unix-based desktop market has gone the way of the dinosaurs... ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] upcoming web event:strategy for Oracle's Sun Servers, Storage and solaris
--- On Wed, 8/11/10, Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote: Edward Ned Harvey wrote: #3 It does not make sense to discontinue development of opensolaris. Some day they'll have to make a solaris 12, you know. But they're diverting development away from opensolaris right now, to make *damn* sure they release solaris 11 this year. My calender still says 2010, not 2011, or did you miss that part of the webcast? Not sure what you're talking about. I never suggested solaris 11 would be delayed into 2011. John Fowler clearly stated during the webcast that Solaris 11 was scheduled to ship in 2011. This was repeated in all the articles I've seen, including some you mentioned in your other posts. You are the only one imagining a 2010 ship date for it. Even the 140 character summary from Oracle marketing was clear about that: http://twitter.com/Oracle/status/20806524667 -- -Alan Coopersmith- Major chalkboard points noted: 1. Dropping AMD servers for Intel-based servers. 2. Upscaling SPARC server roadmap to 128 cores and 64TB of memory by Y2015. 3. Solaris 11 will ship next year - Y2011. 4. Merge of Sun's Ops Center system management software and Oracle's Enterprise Manager software into a single product by Y2012. 5. Ultrasparc T3 processor To be the #1 enterprise OS in Y2011, you'll release something superior than what already exists in Y2010... ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] The Illumos Project
I was making a bunch of source tarballs to archive the latest Oracle Xorg and ON snv_146 based sources. We found out that snv_145 built successfully with the merges from IllumOS gate from another developer and today I was working on reviewing the snv_146 build which was respun yesterday. Based on the demo presentation, there is hope of a successful public core binary with the recent ON and Xorg updates. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Trouble formating usb external hard drive.
--- On Tue, 8/3/10, Mike DeMarco mikej...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mike DeMarco mikej...@yahoo.com Subject: [osol-discuss] Trouble formating usb external hard drive. To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 8:55 AM I have a 1Tbyte usb external HD that I want to be able to read with windows and b134. I have tried all of the below but am unable to get solaris to read and write to it. 1. 32-bit Solaris/OpenSolaris kernel + userland is NOT fully compatible nor compliant to = one terabyte data and storage management - especially with USB storage, SSD, and hard drive storage devices. You can get things working somewhat... but you are better off utilizing the Solaris/OpenSolaris 64-bit kernel + userland in the long run. Better safe than sorry! ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] The Illumos Project
--- On Mon, 8/2/10, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: I think that is something very much deep inside the community - the love for secrecy. Every project starts in the secret. If you like to come up with something that looks seriously and that is working, you need to prepare it. Even SchilliX was not done within 3 days between June 14th and June 17th 2005 but in the six months before and few people did know about this. Eric Raymond said: Release early and release often. He did not say release immediately. Remember Secret Six - many years ago when Sun stopped Solaris x86. Then OpenSolaris Pilot, then many OpenSolaris projects, that were done secretly. Jörg Some group name like the 'Deep Six' or 'Illuminus' (i.e. 'Illuminati')? Ref: http://www.illumos.org/projects/site/wiki/Announcement The Illumos website looks grand and it seems a well-spirited direction to foster community development and focus for an OpenSolaris-based distro. Not the 'one-person' show of many community distros where resources and funding are always constrained. The Illumos founders are a very capable group. I imagine visionary leaders like Mark Shuttleworth or Garrett D' Amore leading the pack. As they say in the movies, godspeed ~ Ken Mays P.S. Possible Illumos trailer? http://www.nick.com/videos/clip/NTV_clone_wars_trailer.html ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dell and HP to Certify and Resell all Three Oracle Operating Systems on their x86 Server Computers
--- On Fri, 7/30/10, Matthias Pfützner matth...@pfuetzner.de wrote: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/solaris/non-sun-x86-081976.html there is a very clear hint: BENEFITS * World-class Oracle Solaris support on any certified x86 system on the Solaris Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) So, that announcement, although it did focus on DELL and HP also includes all OTHER vendors, as long, as the real certification process has been applied. That's currently for approx. ~500 systems... Enjoy! Matthias HP/Compaq and Dell are attending the Oracle OpenWorld conference. IBM System x and BladeCenter server products are being certified on Solaris 10 as well. Ref: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/x/os/solaris/ Today, IT managers have the ability to choose from a wider range of servers and operating systems. If you are interested in deploying a Solaris-based solution, IBM offers select IBM System x® and BladeCenter® x86 servers1 certified for the Solaris 10 operating system. These IBM x86 servers are designed to address the needs of your business now – and into the future so you can get the most value and the highest quality from your IT while still increasing performance and reducing complexity in your data center. I'd think the major server vendors are backing Oracle as it was menioned long ago that Oracle was going to have their major product lines all run on the Solaris 10 OS... ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle shuts down open source test servers
--- On Fri, 7/30/10, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote: From: Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle shuts down open source test servers To: 'Fabio Kaminski' fabiokamin...@gmail.com, Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Friday, July 30, 2010, 11:09 AM From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris- discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Fabio Kaminski and support community distros like nexenta, belenix or schillix... if none of these open source projects could launch and getting more visibility, the developer community will continue to disperse.. and the users with it.. The only trouble is - The bulk of sol/osol kernel and ZFS etc development work is done by oracle paid employees. If you jump ship to a community OS, aren't you leaving behind all the contributions that are made by the paid employees? It depends on whether you want control over the source code, to write and release your own developments because you don't like the developments they're making. But given they are corporate sponsored with a team of employees ... you're not going to be able to develop an alternative branch faster than they develop the mainstream ZFS etc, and you'll be left in the dust. If you can assemble a volunteer effort, which pulls sources and stuff from ZFS etc open source repositories, sufficient to build the volunteer community OS just based on open source packages, I say great. Awesome. Do it. It'll absolutely satisfy a demand for free users who don't want to feel kept in the blind by the corporation. But you're still dependent on the development efforts that are taking place in all those open source packages, corporate sponsored and tight-lipped. Of course, the paying customers will want the official product that's distributed and supported by the people who wrote it. Very few people are going to pay for Centos because if they're going to pay anything at all, they would pay for RHEL. The whole point of Centos is to be a free alternative of RHEL, that's pretty much just like RHEL. Build the Centos of solaris/opensolaris. Pull all the sources from oracle and the Internet, and build them, and distribute a fully-open OS. I say, great. Quick response to this but distros like Schillix and Korona are pretty much branches from the ON sources and packages. Korona provides a nice desktop distribution as well as Belenix (although a bit older in some regards). You can pull IPS, Caiman, the ON kernel, and other projects together through Mercurial. Here is my test target I was putting together for benchmarking: OS: Oracle Solaris Next Development snv_145 X86, Kernel: 5.11 (i686), Desktop: KDE 4.4.5, Display Server: X.Org Server 1.7.4, OpenGL: 4.0.0 NVIDIA 256.44, Compiler: GCC 4.4.4, File-System: zfs, Screen Resolution: 1920x1080 This is from the ON snv_145 sources available to the public and KDE4Solaris packages. There are many Oracle 'paid' employees that help update the core Solaris sources and many 'advocaters' that build FOSS packages for Solaris. So, as for PostgreSQL and other developers needing test servers and places to develop their code - many user groups and engineers can assist in those regards. Best to support the people building and supporting 'OpenSolaris-based distros' over in distribution-discuss and/or wait for Solaris 10u9. If Oracle does provide another OpenSolaris distro update later this year then it will be better 'to wait for the cake to rise' than opening the oven door to early. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
To: Hernán Saltiel Community User Groups The community needs resources to maintain the components updated by the various teams. For the upcoming Hackathon and user meetings, users interested in building a 'community distro' or providing support for it should know where to look for help. The offloads can be through the current major distro providers: SchilliX, Belenix, Nexenta, Milax, EON, Korona, and Jaris. Users can use those distros to provide current solutions or provide feedback/bug reporting on what they would like to see improved. Also, users can work with those distros in doing the work. IPS repositories are needed in geographic locations to support their local user groups. The /dev repository has about 1730 packages that can be compressed to a DVDs for global distribution or can use the older OSOL 2009.06 distro for initial setup. The goal here is to support the pkg(5) team in using IPS as a package management solution and provided 'basic' docs on how to use it and keep it updated. I'll mention Package Factory and SourceJuicer. These were concepts to provide users with a way to have packages compiled through an automated build engine (SJ) through a front-end web interface (PF/SJ). You could provide an URL to your FOSS packages with some basic package definition and purpose through Package Factory, then Package Factory would send this information off to automate a build. The community could pick up on this concept to provide a system of this nature. Users can ensure the Wikipedia info located here is accurate and up-to-date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris The 'community' people that could be contacted for expertise in OpenSolaris distro creation and repository support: Ref: https://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=122454tstart=0 Getting ON sources through web access (Genunix/Mercurial)? see Cyril Plisko Jaris, led by Kotaro-san, a Japanese-centric desktop distro. SchilliX, led by Joerg Shilling, a server-centric development distro. Belenix, led by Moinak Ghosh, a general-purpose desktop and graphics distro. Jeos, led by Rudolf Kutina, on VM builds LiveUSB creation, led by Hiroshi Chonan, on LiveUSB builds Korona, led by Pavel Heimlich, a KDE-centric distro. EON, led by Andre Lue, NAS/ZFS storage solution marTux, led by Martin Bochnig, first community distribution for SPARC workstations MilaX, led by Alexander Eremin, mini recovery CD/USB distro Nexenta/NexentaStor, led by Anil Gulecha and Garrett d' Amore, on OpenSolaris/Ubuntu-based (Debian) community distro and advanced storage solutions. StormOS, led by Andrew Stormont, a lightweight desktop OS based on Nexenta and Xfce. OSUNIX project, led by C. Bergstrom (codestr0m) and Max Bruning, distro and expertise in the best of OpenSolaris technologies Device drivers, led by people like Jürgen Keil and Masayuki Murayama, on their expertise on various device drivers. Blastwave/OpenCSW for advanced Solaris-based package management and FOSS porting support. So you have a lot of community people that can help as well as many user groups. ~ Ken Mays Atlanta, Georgia (USA) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Hi Alan, I'm taking a stab at this but I heard Joerg mentioned an issue with moving beyond ON snv_130. Then, you brought up some things about not being able to build ON 135+, X b143+, GNOME/JDS, and a few things without IPS being a part of the distro. So, IPS is definitely on the menu. Can Oracle Engineering provide someone like Joerg what he needs to update his external SchilliX distro to implement ON snv_145/IPS 134? ~ Ken Mays P.S. 'To infinity and beyond...' - Toy Story -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
Ian asked: The kernel distribution for Blastwave maybe? That would depend on people like Dennis Clarke. But I did have a little fun in a conceptual build. I'll see if Blastwave (BW) or Genunix will let me post the ON binaries there. Src: -rw-r--r-- 1 kmays csw 83309980 Jul 24 15:33 on-src_b145.tar.bz2 $ uname -a SunOS aerof22 5.11 snv_145 i86pc i386 i86pc $ cat /etc/release SchilliX Community Enterprise Server snv_145 X86 Copyright 2010 Oracle Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 24 July 2010 Pre-tested: X.Org X Server 1.7.3 for integration and Nvidia 256.35. Review: Pre-tested: X.Org X Server 1.8.2 for integration and Nvidia 256.35. Main C/C++ compilers to use: Sun Studio 12.1/GCC 4.3.4 (BW) ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
--- On Sat, 7/24/10, Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote: Ken Mays wrote: Hi Alan, I'm taking a stab at this but I heard Joerg mentioned an issue with moving beyond ON snv_130. Then, you brought up some things about not being able to build ON 135+, X b143+, GNOME/JDS, and a few things without IPS being a part of the distro. So, IPS is definitely on the menu. Can Oracle Engineering provide someone like Joerg what he needs to update his external SchilliX distro to implement ON snv_145/IPS 134? I'm guessing you're talking to me? I have no idea what Joerg needs, but we've already provided the community with everything they need to build current ON IPS bits, as evidenced by multiple external community members doing so. You do need a recent build of IPS to build ON builds 136 later, and X builds 144 later, but that's fully available from the pkg-gate sources on the opensolaris hg repos. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System Well, I agree. Someone can still obtain the latest ON source and work with Sun Studio 12.1 to build it. Mostly have to go through the motions and burn a few candles. ~ Ken ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Hi Peter, GNU/kFreeBSD relates moreso to the Nexenta community (OpenSolaris kernel/Ubuntu (Debian) userland) - which also is known as GNU/Solaris. To help create the next community distro, I'd talk to Nexenta. Take a look at Nexenta Core Platform 3.0 RC2 and see what can be improved from it. The Belenix project is another group that can be of assistance. Lots of experience and software engineering skillsets there on building and designing distros. The other projects like Milax and EON can also give some guidance. There is also the upcoming Oracle OpenWorld and some Hackathons going on. Even if people are 'non-developers/programmers', feedback and encouragement is better than 'sitting on the benches and whining'. If people really want to help, just make a list of what you want to see if 'the community' did create a 'version' of OpenSolaris 2010.X. Start asking distro communities what they need help on an if they want to build an updated distro. As for OpenSolaris 2010.03, read up on these docs: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+indiana/Renamed+Packages+in+Build+133. http://wikis.sun.com/download/attachments/78086473/OSOLRELNOTES.pdf?version=1modificationDate=1268857930181 ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] VLC building help
Hello, VLC packaging is handled over in desktop-discuss. For DVD playback, we use VLC and Mplayer (people like a few choices). VLC 0.8.6/1.1.1 and Mplayer 1.0.0 were ported for Solaris 10 and OSOL 2009.06. Check the VLC spec-file for recent updates to v1.1.1. Some changes may take advantage of the newer Boomer audio backend in OSOL Dev snv_134. Most of us have tested the packages with 1080p streams and the Nvidia 256.35 driver. Some old links: http://wyang0.blogspot.com/2009/08/vlc-on-solaris-10.html ~ Ken Mays P.S. Blu-Ray players are going for about $50-$75 USD now... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
--- On Fri, 7/23/10, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: From: Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de Subject: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org, distribution-disc...@opensolaris.org Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 3:52 PM Hi, today, I put SchilliX-0.7.0 out. ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schillix/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schillix/SchilliX-0.7.0.iso.bz2 ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schillix/README.install Changes since SchilliX-0.6.7: - Updated to use OpenSolaris Nevada Build 130 - Updated to use new Schily tools (e.g. cdrtools-3.00) - The history editor in the Bourne shell now supports multi byte character locales. - root now has the initial passwd root - schillix now has the initial passwd schillix Please test an report problems as I am going to use SchilliX-0.7.0 as a base for working on a 100% free and open source based distribution that is able to compile it's own sourcecode. This is usually called self hosting. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin �...@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 Congratulations, Joerg!!! I almost thought you did a snv_145 refresh but this is amazing as well. You're back on the map. Good job, ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
This is an idea, but SchilliX (or a fork of it) could remain a pure server-oriented core distro (without X or desktop cruft). The desktop stuff could come by way of IPS integration and/or CSW/SFW/other packages... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
--- On Wed, 7/21/10, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: - There is no Xorg package from Blastwave, is there such a beast from other sources besides Indiana? Hmm, that is incorrect. BW had successful Xorg packaging since Xorg 6.4 (I thank Sun's X team for helping me with that). Another BW engineer (i.e. J.B.) recently was working on packaging Xorg 7.5 for BW. I dropped Xorg 7.2 packaging at BW when Solaris 10 adopted it (somewhat). - There is no set of GNOME packages from Blastwave that include gdm and correctly support internationalization. Does this exist from other sources besides Indiana? This is incorrect. I worked outside of Sun on GNOME to replace CDE - and used GDM. As for G18n/i18n, I also tried to spearhead this with Sun on the Unicode 4.x frontier. You are not the only scientist in town. (smile) Like it or not but SVr4 is a dead-end now. Instead of trying to get it fixed you would much better server the community by helping IPS guys. Unless proven, I would asume that IPS is dead too. Is there a single active distro that uses IPS? There are however thousands of packages from many sources in SVr4 package format. BTW: this is definitely the wrong time to discuss packaging. Creating a community distro first that can live without Closed Source seems to be much more important. Jörg Okay... let me start with a few things but I won't get deep into it. I can agree about both IPS and SVR4 packaging. Most Solaris ISVs are still using SVR4. IPS was a 'quick fix' to help resolve Sun's internal package management issues and provide a network repository. Early community adoption never took off with IPS (i.e. it was too soon and riddled with issues). But, some developer-types implemented IPS solutions and it did work once the code improved and the search interfaces to pkg*** network repositories improved as well. IPS is just an option for ISVs and distro providers to use and if distro providers don't want to use it - then they don't have to use it. As mentioned, IPS was the conceptual start of the idealogy of what was needed to fix problems mentioned beforehand (aka Sun's build systems, legacy Live upgrades, package pro, scripting capabilities, and Sun's Web packaging interface). Someone at Sun trying to hit the moon with a baseball bat... SVR4 packaging alone was not the only problem and was just a PART of the larger problem - not the end all be all of the larger issues at hand. Talking about SVR4 packaging versus IPS is like talking about the atom of a molecule versus the molecule itself. Shamefully, SVR4 packaging just got tossed in the pile with the rest of the 'items'. It would be UNWISE for a OpenSolaris distro provider not to support IPS as an option if it is officially adopted by Oracle for Solaris Next. Also, a few other Solaris contributers are starting to use it. Larger ISV adoption of IPS will tell the tale for us. By the way, a few of us looked at Conary as well as many other solutions. Well, what programming language is Conary written in?!? And we all thought Pluto was just a lil' old planet ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] mplayer + VDPAU + opensolaris = ?
Aleksey asked: I'm trying to setup mplayer with VDPAU on OpenSolaris v_134 on Atom/ION-based Acer Aspire Revo 3600. -- Hello, You can make a few improvements for 1080i/p video. You'll need to use HW-acc for audio through something like Boomer. Depending if you're libs/codecs are using MMX/SSE/SSE2 features - you can use and tweak the 'skipframe' feature to help you out. Mplayer takes a bit of fine-tuning, but will playback 1080(i/p) just fine on most Atom processors using Opensolaris. You'll want your audio offloaded so ensure you review your audio backend hw-acc capabilities as well (i.e. the ol' sunaudio won't do you justice). ;o0 ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote: From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale To: dcla...@blastwave.org Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 11:17 AM Dennis Clarke wrote: Getting to b144 may be a challenge as I do not know what patch levels are required or even what compiler to use. As always, it's documented on http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/downloads/on I will try with Sun Studio 12.1 with all latest patches. I have no idea why people use 12.1 when that compiler is unable to build simple things like GNU make or libgcrypt without blowing up on its own intermediate assembly[1] output but it seems able to build ON. My disdain for Studio 12.1 not withstanding it does seem to be the compiler to use. Not yet for building the OS. Studio 12 is still required - we're testing a new patchset of Studio 12.1 now for building the OS and hope to be able to switch to it soon, but until then, the official build environment is still Studio 12 (except that ON uses lint, and only lint, from 12u1). http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/sun_studio_12_tools has the set to use for now. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System Hi Alan, Please correct me. See for ref: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/build_instr We were using GCC 3.x to compile ON snv_144 and the X consolidation. Still considered a the preferred method for the community members? Also, I did remember a note about using GCC 4.x to build ON and the X consolidation as well in the future. Is this tested by anyone at Oracle Engineering? ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: Getting to b144 may be a challenge as I do not know what patch levels are required or even what compiler to use. Dennis Based on past info using SS 12/GCC: 1. Xorg 7.5: PASS 2. Binutils 2.20.1/GCC 4.5.0: PASS 3. ON snv_144 from ON_142: PASS 4. Coreutils 8.5: PASS 5. BASH 4.1.7: PASS Now that I reconfirmed the use of Sun Studio 12 for the process. Sun Studio 12.1 was not certified for current ON (i.e. snv_144) builds when I checked this awhile ago. I think this is very possible within a 72-hour period based on building the FOSS packages separately beforehand with GCC 4.x. Will try to post some screenshots this weekend (depends!). ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Build 134
--- On Sun, 7/18/10, Mike DeMarco mikej...@yahoo.com wrote: Attempting to install b134 on system with 6 sata drives. Live CD boots just fine but when I go to install it stops at searching for disks and the panics. PS. What is the root password for the live CD? May require some research on the hardware setup and motherboard. Ask in the storage-discuss group as they can research this for you. Default root password is usually 'opensolaris'. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [distribution-discuss] Community distro
Wayne said: Now that you mentioned this great idea of putting together a minimalist distro, has anyone ever thought about Milax? I have only taken a short cut and tried to install it in VirtualBox, but have not succeeded. Has anyone successfully installed and run Firefox 3.6.6 and OpenOffice.org 3.2 in Milax? The website seems to indicate that we can run SVR4 and IPS packages in Milax? --- Milax and EON are minimalist (aka 'mini-me' distros) or appliance-based distros. You also have server-type distros like Schillix which against are minimalists (i.e. usually don't come with the higher-level packages to support general desktop graphics/applications - or a condensed set of packages for specifc purposes. Belenix, StormOS, Korona, and Jaris are a general-purpose desktop-oriented Live CD/DVD distributions. I didn't say they have everything you'll need, but good starting points if you want a desktop-oriented distribution. This gets into graphics, CAD/CAM, Music/audio apps, etc. Think Mac OS X. Otherwise, you'll want a server-oriented distribution that just has what you need to run most of the popular server-based applications. Otherwise, Oracle is providing us with the kernel and core environment updates and we still have OSOL 2009.06, OSOL 2010.03-b134, and Sol10u8 available. Whether you have VMWare, Xen, Virtuozzo/vzServer,VBox or something else it just boils down to having the right tool for the job. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Paul, Both Nexenta and Belenix are good starting points with the technical resources to provide you with these services. Legacy desktop products were StormOS, Belenix, and Korona (Team KDE4Solaris). Korona is a KDE install over the OSOL-b134 distro. So, it is the closest 'clone' distro to OSOL 2010.03-b134 at this time. You can get a copy of it at Genunix.org to review. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Rob asked: Where do we get started to form a Community Distro, based on the latest sources including IPS. Not a cut down version, or replacing the userland (no offence there, that's good work too), just a take on Solaris Next based on the latest available bits. You already have 'community distros' and forums like Nexenta, Korona (KDE4Solaris), and Belenix as the OpenSolaris-based communities currently providing recent updates to either the desktop environment or backporting kernel patches. Understand that the OpenSolaris project was always a part of the bigger picture in creating the next Solaris OS major update. Sun provided source code and kickstarted the OpenSolaris project forum. The 'Indiana distro' was just a channel to provide binaries of various project consolidation work (i.e. JDS, X, g18N/i18n, Docs, Caiman, GRUB, etc) in a bootable CD format. Project Indiana was the start - but not the end. The intent was to have this core distro kickstart and assist other developers to create distros of their own. At all times, some other group, like Belenix, could launch and spearhead their own distro. The intent was not to keep providing a full core distro forever - it was moreso to get developers into creating their own distros using the OpenSolaris kernel and core environment. See: http://www.genunix.org/distributions/ and http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads/b144 . Example: In two options: I can provide you with apples or teach you to raise an apple tree to provide yourself with apples. Most people will chose the former option and blame someone if the apples are not fresh or came in a plastic bag versus a wood basket. Oracle actually took the source IP it bought and is continuing to work on the updates to 'Solaris' (i.e. Solaris 10u9/11) and maintain the tested release of OSOL 2009.06 (SRU10+). Eventually, those tracks will consolidate to the next new major release of the commercial Solaris product for 'production/data center' use and major OS migrations - superceding all previous legacy incarnations of Solaris OS, OpenSolaris 2009.06, and the proposed OpenSolaris 2010.03. Hence, the fork is inevitable by prior design. Look at Milax, Nexenta, or Belenix. They have their own community forums and distributions based on the Opensolaris sources. So start by helping the existing distro providers that can provide OpenSoalris-based consolidations on physical media. Many of them have what people need or can help make it happen or conduct talks of a unified 'community distro' supported by the former OpenSolaris-based distributors. But as in any science project, its good to have people 'do their own thing' while 'also' working in a collaborative fashion to provide a community distro and forums in a unified effort. Start with existing distros in just updating them with the newer kernel(s) - don't try to update a bunch of consolidations and packages just yet. Sometimes, just getting a chance to stand on home plate to swing a baseball bat and striking out is better than just sitting only on the benches... ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [opensolaris-discuss] Were to from here?
--- On Tue, 7/13/10, Rob McMahon rob.mcma...@warwick.ac.uk wrote: From: Rob McMahon rob.mcma...@warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] [opensolaris-discuss] Were to from here? To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 6:16 AM On 13/07/2010 03:38, John Plocher wrote: On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote: Sorry for sounding so pessimist, it feels terrible to see the OpenSolaris project going through all of this. It feels worse to be on the OGB and still being able to do so little about the problem. Even the obvious alternative (go do a fork...) is a practical impossibility for the OGB - even though two members are distro-creators in their own right, the OGB as the *OpenSolaris Community Governing Board* doesn't have the resources, time or (IMHO) moral right to hijack the community that Sun/Oracle chartered and start up what would effectively be an organization that would compete with Sun/Oracle in developing a Solaris derivitive... (Which is not to say that someone else couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't...) Does it really need to be a complete fork ? Can we not get an IPS repository set up, akin to dev, where we could follow where the OpenSolaris / Solaris Next development is going. After all, the source is still there, and being updated. Bug reports are still being actioned as far as I know. There are several distros out there, but most of them seem to be aimed at different takes with the OpenSolaris kernel at the heart (different userland, different packaging, different purposing (LiveCDs, etc)). Rich Lowe produced the on-nightly-142.i386.tar.bz2, with instructions, and that was really welcome, though it didn't play nicely for me with NWAM and I managed to break my install. Can we not collectively continue this sort of work, add the missing bits, and set up an IPS repository. I'd be willing to spend some of my spare time helping out where I can. Rob -- E-Mail: rob.mcma...@warwick.ac.uk PHONE: +44 24 7652 3037 Rob McMahon, IT Services, Warwick University, Coventry, CV4 7AL, England - HI Rob, The IPS repo can be cloned and/or updated - that is its design from the start. Nothing stops an independent service provider from providing updated packages. There is also alternate OpenSolaris packaging repositories to address this issue. Rich Lowe proved that a kernel update can be done to b142 and higher. Some people are running snv_138-144 kernels. Mileages may vary. As for NWAN, there are some notes on the NWAN GUI install and other update info. You can also contact the nwan-dev team for more info. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OGB Threatens to Shoot Itself In The Head
--- On Tue, 7/13/10, Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com wrote: From: Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com quote: The OGB is keen to promote the uptake and open development of OpenSolaris and to work on behalf of the community with Oracle, as such the OGB needs Oracle to appoint a liaison by August 16, 2010, who has the the authority to talk about the future of OpenSolaris and its interaction with the OpenSolaris community otherwise the OGB will take action at the August 23 meeting to trigger the clause in the OGB charter that will return control of the community to Oracle. That is to say, start talking to us or we'll just shot ourselves in the head. http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1134 This is a very interesting read as Ben shakes a finger moreso at the OGB's comments and direction on the issue(s) at hand. - Ben Rockwood writes: Frankly, imho, this is just the OGB throwing its hands in the air. The body (edit: OGB) has been useless for a long time, but only because it has chosen to be. The majority of the OGB's life its wasted by trying to restrict its own authority by endlessly debating and re-writting the constitution. Its never lead anything, and it isn't now. But the fact that its a wet rag doesn't mean we should simply throw in the towel. A weak seat of power is better than no seat at the table. -- The OGB has obtained contacts within Oracle (see: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2010-July/007931.html) and has to maintain the general rules of governance stated here in the OGB portal: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+ogb/governance. The current people on the OGB are Solaris/OpenSolaris-related service providers and OpenSolaris-based distro creators. They have a vested interest and certain investments in the success of Solaris/OpenSolaris. Beating them on the head with liquorice sticks will only create a sticky situation for them. We call it 'a state of delirium'. I'll also point out that Oracle OpenWorld is Sept 19-23 and there is a 'Oracle Solaris 10 and Beyond: Lead Engineers Panel (S317641)' meeting on Sept 23 10:30 AM PST. This is a month after the OGB 'mutiny' date of Aug 23rd mentioned in Ben Rockwood's blog. The meeting states: This session, hosted by the head of Oracle Solaris development and featuring a panel of core engineers responsible for a wide range of key Oracle Solaris technologies, covers the current state of the Oracle Solaris 10 and gives insights into the future direction of Oracle Solaris technologies and products. Also, there is another meeting 'Optimizing Your Datacenter Deployments with the Oracle Solaris Operating System (S317603)' in which Scott Dickson, Dan Roberts, and Chris Boyle will be there (i.e. major league players). This is another KEY meeting to attend. The meeting states: ...The session also addresses the future direction of Oracle Solaris and how users can access new Oracle Solaris technology and gives you insights from the experts into using some of the cutting-edge features to optimize your datacenter... If I was a betting man...I'd think someone from the OGB staff attending these two meetings would be very helpful to the OGB and to those attending The asylum is now open... ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OGB Threatens to Shoot Itself In The Head
---Ken Mays wrote: If I was a betting man...I'd think someone from the OGB staff attending these two meetings would be very helpful to the OGB and to those attending --- On Tue, 7/13/10, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: If Oracle is willing to arrange the flight and trip, I am sure that we will get at least 4 OGB members to this panel. Oracle would however need to contact the OGB before August 16th anyway. 1) They claim to have a plan, so they could share it with the OGB. 2) We would need to arrange the travel Jörg Ok, I'll reference the OGB's last meeting: http://wiki.genunix.org:8080/wiki/index.php/2010_07_12_OGB_Agenda Motion by Neale Ferguson: The OGB is keen to promote the uptake and open development of OpenSolaris and to work on behalf of the community with Oracle, as such the OGB needs Oracle to appoint a liaison by August 16, 2010, who has the authority to talk about the future of OpenSolaris and its interaction with the OpenSolaris community. Otherwise the OGB will take action at the August 23 meeting to trigger the clause in the OGB charter that will return control of the community to Oracle. ... John will communicate this to the community and to Jeb (edit: Sr. VP) at Oracle. Simon will pass on information to his contacts. Well, the Oracle OpenWorld conference meetings seem to provide the panel to create the liasons and get the information from the key high-level players about 'the future' in a 'face-to-face' format. I'd jest the OGB can not wait another 30 days from the proposed date of mutiny?!? That is a poke, not a jab. ;o) The OGB states: ...that we the OGB collectively resign our OGB status no later than the 31st of July 2010 Meetings will be suspended until August 16, unless conversations occur between OGB and Oracle that enables a meeting. Well, I can understand the OGB's frustration and delirium. Many previous distributions and open source projects have faced similar issues like this one - with or without corporate sponsorship or funding. I could offer a proposal, but let me know if its 'High Noon at the OGB Corral' or if this is still a discussable issue for resolution. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Benchmarking OpenSolaris and Solaris 10?
--- On Sat, 7/10/10, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote: From: Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Benchmarking OpenSolaris and Solaris 10? To: Ken Mays maybird1...@yahoo.com Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Saturday, July 10, 2010, 8:17 PM On 07/11/10 12:06 PM, Ken Mays wrote: This is what we started putting together to check with Phoronix: Lenovo ThinkPad T61 notebook with an Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 Penryn dual-core processor clocked at 2.50GHz, 4GB of system memory, a 100GB Hitachi HTS72201 SATA HDD, and NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M graphics. PHP5 v5.3.2 used. Solaris 10u8 with the 5.10 kernel, GNOME 2.6.2, X Server 1.7.2, GCC 4.4.4, and a ZFS file-system. Don't Sun/Oracle get snotty over publishing unofficial Solaris benchmarks? See: 'AMD Shanghai Opteron: Linux vs. OpenSolaris Benchmarks' http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15321 and 'Fedora, Debian, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris Benchmarks' http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=linux_bsd_opensolarisnum=1 Those articles are the core point of the thread. The Phoronix benchmarking tool is publically available for Oracle's use and debate. Benchmarking results are already posted on Phoronix's website for both FreeBSD 8.1-RC2 and OSOL 2009.06. Another article was posted using the defualts of OpenSolaris 2009.06 mentioned here for performance testing on Netbooks: OpenSolaris 2009.06, which was released in June, was based upon Solaris Nevada Build 111b. The packages included X Server 1.5.3, Mesa 7.2, GCC 4.3.2, xf86-video-intel 2.4, and the ZFS file-system. On the OpenSolaris side it had Java SE 1.6.0_13-b03 as its default OS Java environment and with Ubuntu there was OpenJDK IcedTea6 1.4.1 ... Using the Phoronix Test Suite on both Linux and OpenSolaris we ran a number of different tests. These tests included Sun's Java 2D Microbenchmark, LAME MP3 encoding, Ogg encoding, LZMA compression, GnuPG, dcraw, Threaded I/O Tester, GraphicsMagick, BYTE Unix Benchmark, Sudokut, Sunflow Rendering System, and Java SciMark. During testing both operating systems were left at their defaults as our intentions are to provide an out of the box comparison of both Ubuntu 9.04 and OpenSolaris 2009.06. Well, benchmarks are always a subject of debate when done by third parties and not the originating manufacturers. Any mud-slinging is the normal by-product of such test reports. Phoronix Tests: snip A few tests need implementing. ZFS works for now (awaiting official word). What do you mean by ZFS works for now? -- Ian. ZFS works for now for the simple purposes of these benchmarking tests. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Benchmarking OpenSolaris and Solaris 10?
-RC2 553949.00 - Ubuntu 10.10 BYTE UNIX Benchmark v3.6: Floating Point Arithmetic (LPS) 933096.50 - OSOL 2009.06 1271991.70 - FBSD 8.1-RC2 1284795.00 - Ubuntu 10.10 (*) Java SciMark v2.0 (FFT) 480.93 - OSOL 2009.06 (*) 447.24 - FBSD 8.1-RC2 455.53 - Ubuntu 10.10 Java SciMark v2.0 (Monte Carlo) 167.89 - OSOL 2009.06 (*) 160.53 - FBSD 8.1-RC2 162.11 - Ubuntu 10.10 Java SciMark v2.0 (Sparse MAtrix Multiply) (Mflops/s) 438.25 - OSOL 2009.06 543.02 - FBSD 8.1-RC2 549.16 - Ubuntu 10.10 (*) OpenSSL 0.9.8.i (signs per sec) 342.12 - OSOL 2009.06 81.45 - FBSD 8.1-RC2 343.12 - Ubuntu 10.10 (*) SunFlow Rendering System v0.07.2 6.57 - OSOL 2009.06 5.62 - FBSD 8.1-RC2 (*) 6.24 - Ubuntu 10.10 Tandem XML v1.0 (sec) 54.52 - OSOL 2009.06 29.01 - FBSD 8.1-RC2 (*) 30.89 - Ubuntu 10.10 Use for pure entertainment value only! ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Benchmarking OpenSolaris and Solaris 10?
Here is a 'official' post on Phoronix to review based on benchmarks done on the OSOL snv_131 on a Lenovo Thinkpad T61 laptop. Phoronix Tests used: Running apache, battery-power-usage, blogbench, bork, build-apache, build-mysql, build-php, bullet, byte, c-ray, cachebench, compilebench, compress-7zip, compress-gzip, compress-lzma, compress-pbzip2, crafty, dcraw, encode-ape, encode-flac, encode-mp3, encode-ogg, encode-wavpack, ffmpeg, gcrypt, gnupg, graphics-magick, himeno, hmmer, idle-power-usage, j2dbench, java-scimark2, john-the-ripper, md-gromacs, mencoder, minion, n-queens, npb, openssl, pgbench, postmark, povray, pybench, sample-program, scimark2, sqlite, stream, sudokut, sunflow, tiobench, tscp, unpack-linux, video-cpu-usage, and x264. Hardware: Lenovo ThinkPad T61 - Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz (Total Cores: 2), Motherboard: LENOVO 6459CTO, Chipset: Intel, System Memory: 2 x 2048M DDR2-667MHz, Disk: 86GB, Graphics: Quadro NVS 140M 512MB (400/600MHz), Monitor: IBM OS: OpenSolaris Development snv_131 X86 Kernel: 5.11 (i686) Desktop: GNOME 2.28.2 Display Server: X.Org Server 1.7.3 Display Driver: nvidia 190.42 OpenGL: 3.2.0 Compiler: GCC 4.3.2 File-System: zfs Screen Resolution: 1680x1050 Test Administrator: phoronix Test Date/Time: January 26, 2010 04:55 PM Phoronix Test Suite: v2.4.0b3 Test Notes: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_17-b04). Python 2.6.4 http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=profileu=phoronix-32169-12593-24902 More info than what I posted, but something to compare with FreeBSD 9.0-current and FreeBSD 8.1-RC2. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Benchmarking OpenSolaris and Solaris 10?
This is what we started putting together to check with Phoronix: Lenovo ThinkPad T61 notebook with an Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 Penryn dual-core processor clocked at 2.50GHz, 4GB of system memory, a 100GB Hitachi HTS72201 SATA HDD, and NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M graphics. PHP5 v5.3.2 used. Solaris 10u8 with the 5.10 kernel, GNOME 2.6.2, X Server 1.7.2, GCC 4.4.4, and a ZFS file-system. OpenSolaris 2009.06 is based upon Solaris Nevada 111b with the 5.11 kernel, GNOME 2.24.2, X Server 1.5.3, GCC 4.4.4, and a ZFS file-system. OpenSolaris 2010.DEV is based upon Solaris Nevada 134 with the 5.11 kernel, GNOME 2.28.2, X Server 1.7.7, GCC 4.4.4, and a ZFS file-system. OpenSolaris 2010.DEV is based upon Solaris Nevada 144 with the 5.11 kernel, GNOME 2.28.2, X Server 1.7.7, GCC 4.4.4, and a ZFS file-system. Phoronix Tests: 7-Zip compression Bullet Physics Engine C-Ray dcraw Gcrypt GnuPG GraphicsMagick Gzip compression Himeno John The Ripper LAME MP3 encoding LZMA compression MAFFT PostMark POV-Ray Sudokut Threaded I/O Tester A few tests need implementing. ZFS works for now (awaiting official word). ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris/Opensolaris, for a Server, or Desktop?
Ed said: I continually say that solaris opensolaris are designed to be servers, not desktops. I'd like to go into the reasons why, and see what other opinions people have about this. --- Well, the basicness of what you said is true -as 'Solaris' primarily is a server-oriented product from a marketing emphasis standpoint. But Solaris is one of the best Unix-based OS for desktops/workstations on the market - overshadowed mainly by Mac OS X. It does not have all the whiz-bangery and ported FOSS applications of most Linux/BSD desktop distros or Mac OS X, but it provide solid reliability and scalability. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris/Opensolaris, for a Server, or Desktop?
Hi Ed, The desktop environments used on OpenSolaris-based distros are only a few points behind the best commercial Linux/BSD desktop products (i.e. mainly due to number of device drivers supported and ported apps). Otherwise, someone pointed out a particular not that server roles usually are defined by servicing =2 users per OS instance. The core kernel is the same - just adjusted to meet a higher workload or response rate - if needed. All of the major tools you mentioned ARE available on Solaris (or ported shortly). The work falls mainly under the desktop-discuss group for desktop applications and environments. Compiz, Transmission (BitTorrent), and all the things you said are missing have been ported and implemented for years (or by other individuals - in progress). This may fall into the FUD/troll camp as most users know that the OpenSolaris project has some of the best implemented modern FOSS UNIX desktop environments and many of us maintain porting the FreeDesktop.org products. Also supports WiFi, OpenSSL/SSH, Kerberos V, and firewall management. as for calendars, we use SunBird with Thunderbird/Firefox. You can use MS Office and OutLook with Wine. No big deal there. Somebody did Mulberry and Ical awhile ago. Hardware compatibility for audio/video is a problem for sol/osol. Not very good at 3D. Not compatible with lots of webcams and microphone devices and cameras etc. And printers. Nvidia has one of the best 3D OpenGL implementations and their latest device drivers are available on Solaris 10/Opensolaris. All of the other things you mentioned are not true if you know much about Mac OS X and BSD/Linux in general. Theer are some good books and websites on that comment so I won't dig deep into it here. Just update the required libs and your problems will start to go away. By the way, one of Sun's engineers (i.e. Darren Kenny ) advocated this topic about 4-5 years ago in this wiki: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+jds/desktop_gaps A lot of things were resolved since then but some things may be still valid. I'll let you speculate and read up on that note!! (smile) ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down?
on Solaris 10u9 (a bigger concern in the 'real' production world) as well as Solaris Next Dev in parallel. Also, the OTN portal. Once Solaris 10u9 is officially released (this is just my analytical coin toss - not Oracle's), then start pounding on doors - but not beforehand. Please, save your strength till then or see my earlier ALPHA/BETA OS resolution... ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down?
On Jul 1, 2010 5:56 PM - David Brodbeck wrote: Are you going to be importing any existing ZFS pools? I'm particularly curious if there are any pitfalls there. I'm also wondering what the current state of NFSv4 is on FreeBSD; last time I looked it wasn't production-ready yet, but that was over a year ago, now. Just a note from my end of the spectrum, I use FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT (x86-64/ amd64, and sparc64) and just installed FreeBSD 8.2-RC2 yesterday for review. I'm only providing this information here for fair comparison purposes and academia: FreeBSD 9.0 (amd64, 06/07/2010 DVD) can be obtained at: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/201006/FreeBSD-9.0-CURRENT-201006-amd64-dvd1.iso Nvidia driver (x86_64 driver for FreeBSD 9.0): ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/FreeBSD-x86_64/195.36.24/NVIDIA-FreeBSD-x86_64-195.36.24.tar.gz ZFS v14 is used for FreeBSD 9.0. Much like OSOL 2009.06 in that regard. You can compare NFSv4 and ZFS from that point with OSOL 2009.06 and OSOL-DEV-134. ZFS v24+ is not in widespread use publically or in major production so any newer implementations of ZFS pools beyond what is on OSOL-DEV-134 should get a cautionary sticker. If you use FreeBSD 9.0 amd64/ZFS with the Nvidia driver, you'll get a much different performance especially if you use the right FreeBSD 'tweaks' as Phoronix testing is usually done 'out-of-the-box' for automation reasons. I think we are getting away from this thread topic... :o) ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down?
Based on what Paul said I don't think 'us' as the community that use Solaris or OpenSolaris-based distros should feel shafted if Oracle is focused on releasing Solaris 11. I'd hope we'd want this as the end goal as most of the OpenSolaris-based core snapshots were not considered 'production-ready' or well tested. Many people used the snapshots but nothing was officially supported. What we have available is mainly OSOL 2009.06 as the tested release as well as the IPS snapshot based around it. We also have the DEV release based on snv_b134. From some tests reports provided by third party analysts, OSOL 2009.06 and OSOL-DEV performed as well or better than FreeBSD and Fedora (Linux). The main points brought out by competitors is in value-adds included with their distro. Also, how much software runs on their current distro. Kinda like when you buy a car. Either you look at something that gets you from point-to-point, reliability, and has good gas mileage or you look at the creature comforts and exterior/interior styling. I'll speculate to answer these questions: 1. Should we jump ship and propose mutiny? No, if you know the value of OpenSolaris kernel and core environment. 2. Should we just fork it and just roll-our-own distro? The OpenSolaris project model was designed with 'forking' in mind by third-party developers. A core distro that is expanded upon. Meaning, you can take the kernel, core packages, and toolsets provided and create your own OS distro (if more software developer inclined). Not as easy as it sounds but is possible if well funded. Otherwise, wait for the production-grade major update of Solaris 11 (if you want a commercial product versus an open source solution). 3. Wait for 2010.H2? I'll speculate and say wait till the end of 2010.Q3 at least. If you are truely a die-hard Solaris user/advocate then waiting is not a big deal. Anyone with production-grade Solaris-based server setups are not thinking too hard about updating their OS environment to Solaris 11. They are either using an OpenSolaris-based solution, keeping what they got intact, or using some other FOSS/commercial solution wrapped around some support agreement or partially-skilled sys admin ninjas. 4. Move on? NO. Only move on if what you pick resolves your problem or is much better than what you are using today (without any doubts or regrets). This is the 'grass is greener' fail safe we all fall back on - but is a two-edged sword. Do you buy another car once your old car's brakes start to squeal or the engine seal leaks?!? Depends on the price to fix the issue versus investing in something new. 5. Fork the community? Well, the community-at-large considers themselves somewhat forked at the moment. Oracle is providing OTN with BigAdmin and forums. Oracle also has support agreements and account management to provide assistance. Again, we have to understand the Solaris community versus the OpenSolaris community. Linux and FreeBSD have communities that are forked from the main forums. This is not a big deal and fosters independent innovation. Some will leave and some will stay. That's life on the bus. We can be wise souls and be supporters of the forked communities versus the unforked. In the end, if it resolves our issues and helps us sleep at night - then I won't tell if you don't. Seriously, Oracle is making several announcements which some people may have ignored. Three things deal with new certifications, updated x64 hardware, and the OTN portal with Solaris/OpenSolaris and BigAdmin support articles. This is the infrastructure to support 'things to come' dealing with Solaris. I think some people want the 'cart-before-the horse' when the focus is on producing 'and' supporting the OpenSolaris-based version of Solaris - as well as migrating the Sun IP web infrastructure(s) within Oracle's umbrella(s). So the only true let down would be if the shoe dropped and the releases of Solaris 10u9 and Solaris 11 don't happen this year. As for OSOL 2010.X, just wait till after Solaris 10u9 is released and the OTN/BigAdmin portal is fully operational. My crystal ball is currently on lock-down via iPhone 4. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down?
Ken Gunderson wrote: 'Could we please have links to these third party tests?' Phoronix has a test report to debate between OSOL-DEV-b127 and FreeBSD 8.0: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=freebsd8_benchmarksnum=10 The newer article was January 25, 2010 based on FreeBSD 8.0 and OSOL 2009.06: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=linux_bsd_opensolarisnum=1 -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down?
Hello, This was also asked a few months ago, in which 'a person' from Oracle stated around Sept 2010 - near the timeframe of the Solaris 10u9 release. Other rumors speculate Nov 2010. This was really what was known as Oracle Solaris 11 - moreso than just the release of OSOL 2010.X. What many people know, but maybe not common knowledge, is that Oracle provides the kernel releases - but the larger scale wrk of providing the distros is up to the community. This is actually the way it was for Sun in providing the core distro (aka Indiana). Sun provided a 'basic' packagemanagement framework to get the ball rolling - but the community-at-large was to take the ball and make the final score. Nexenta has done this somewhat. They conduct kernel updates from the ON community and their own patches, a repository, package builder, and some distros based on OpenSolaris technologies. Linux has existed this way for over 10 years. The Linux staff provide a kernel release in which major distributors modify and build a distro from the kernel release. This happened somewhat at Commodore-Amiga (moreso, closed source) and other places under developer NDAs. Developers had code to modify and contrib at the hardware level and software level. That was over 15-20 years ago and people are still supporting Amiga hardware and software as of today - far after the Commodore sponsor went out of business. Hard core hobbyists, I tell ya. The letdown will be if Oracle does not release the next major Solaris release - as they said they would. People can always migrate to other OS solutions or stick with maintenance updates on Solaris 10. People who really need Solaris support probably have it and know when the other shoe will drop. Those that don't know are moreso hobbyists that are not willing to be a bit proactive and contact an Oracle account manager. ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com wrote: From: Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down? To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, July 1, 2010, 9:38 AM I've stopped holding my breath. The question of when the next major release of OpenSolaris would come out was asked at an Sun-Oracle Briefing in Adelaide today. The answer from Angus MacDonald, Chief Technology Officer, ANZ Systems was Quarter 4. However he didn't say which year :-) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down?
IPS decommissioning? No. You should read Dave Miner's blog on how to 'roll-your-own' OpenSolaris distro: http://blogs.sun.com/dminer/entry/constructing_an_opensolaris_distro You also have the legacy distros to review and learn from: http://www.genunix.org/dist/ So, its like wanting good applesauce but not willing to peel any apples. We have the kernel as well as many of the packages available to us. We also have many toolsets and Live CDs from several distribution providers. We can wait for Solaris 11, work with other providers, or use what we got. Make take peeling a few apples - but at least you'll get some applesauce in the end rather than an empty bowl and dust mites. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down?
People want a binary release of OpenSolaris which would be tatamount to FreeBSD and OpenBSD, not Linux where you get a kernel only and told to build your own. There are many advantages to having a complete operating system rather than a roll-your-own distro. True, as most users will want something like an distributed OS image already built and somewhat tested by a trusted source. I don't expect a user to 'roll their own' distro. This is an option for those people that want to utilize that option. Otherwise, users have to wait awhile for the next major release or use what is available today. Kinda like saying, you can either build your own current game machine or wait till the next upcoming gaming consoles'. You either patiently wait or start working on your solutions with what you got (or can get). My point is that for most of today's solutions most users need 'probably' can be done, for production use, on Solaris 10. Those users wanting the latest 'stuff' can use OSOL-DEV-134 or a recently updated distro from a third-party supplier. Then, you have the tested releases of OSOL 2009.06 and previous SXCE/SXDE snapshots (if you were lucky enough to grab those). So, other than running *BSD/Linux/Other you do have some options unless people just want the latest and greatest OpenSolaris distro release based on the current public kernel release (i.e. snv_b143 at the moment). But then users will want a bunch of the packages in IPS updated which starts a cycle of unpaid/paid work allotment. Well, sadly we have to think about whose gonna foot the bill for that if 'certain people' don't want to 'roll-their-own' packages nor pay for the 'package rolling' work being done? That's for another thread at another time... Oracle is working on the next production release of 'Solaris'. Either we wait for it, use what we got, or look for other options - especially for those people not willing to pay for it or the work involved there or elsewhere. Exempt yourself if you do. Not trying to sound mean...;o) ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] So who is ready to be let down?
--- On Thu, 7/1/10, betchou betchou betchoubetc...@gmail.com wrote: I really don't care about delay. It has still existed, will exist... To say : There will be a release every 6 month. is not that much precise. I don't really care if we have one two or three month to wait. But I really care about letting people without any news. Just to say a tiny : Due to the quality of the product we want to provide there is a delay but don't worry about that. would be wonderful. I agree with Alan - nothing is what it seems. Let Oracle give the official press release. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Milax 0.5 boot fails : login services can not start
I tested Milak 0.5 many months ago on a x86 system with 256 MB and it worked fine. The old SPARC Milax 0.3.2 worked fine as well with 256 MB memory. I think the chokepoints were when I did 64 MB-128 MB RAM testing which is what Solaris 8 tended to run on. Using ON snv_142/143 overhead is under 256 MB. Still enough for today's embedded Y2K purposes. I think the engineering quote was 384 MB RAM minimum (512MB roughly). ~ Ken Mays --- On Fri, 6/25/10, Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote: From: Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Milax 0.5 boot fails : login services can not start To: Chavdar Ivanov ci4...@gmail.com Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 5:16 PM snip This thread has only academic interest nowadays. Hardware is cheap you time is not. Well experimentation for the sake of testing small embedded solutions is hardly a waste of my time. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Studio Express 6/10?
Hi Tim, Sun Studio Express 6/10 is not officially supported on OpenSolaris distros = ON snv_b138 due to the installer and few library updates needed. You can use the 'tarball' to do the basic installation. The other thing is installing NetBeans 6.9 properly - it comes with NetBeans 6.8 support. Ken Mays Blastwave.org --- On Mon, 6/21/10, Tim Scanlon t...@uprising.net wrote: From: Tim Scanlon t...@uprising.net Subject: [osol-discuss] Studio Express 6/10? To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Monday, June 21, 2010, 7:09 AM Oracle Solaris Studio Express 6/10 is supported on Solaris 10 (SPARC, x86), OEL 5 (x86), RHEL 5 (x86), SuSE 11 (x86) today and will be made available for OpenSolaris in the near future. Yea ok when is that near future going to be? Anyone? Or is this more of the usual marketing BS I'm growing oh-so-used-to from Oracle? Tim -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SNV_142 Test DVD Blastwave's AMP stack
You'll have the integrated NWAN solution, ZFS bug fixes, and improvements in
802.11n support.
You can also:
1. Update the NWAN GUI and Java JDK.
2. Update grub.conf as needed.
3. Test installation of NetBeans 6.9 and Glassfish 3.0.1.
You don't need snv_b134 anymore and you can update other areas as you see fit.
~ Ken Mays
--- On Mon, 6/21/10, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote:
From: Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] SNV_142 Test DVD Blastwave's AMP stack
To: Hernan Saltiel hsalt...@gmail.com
Cc: Ken Mays maybird1...@yahoo.com, opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Date: Monday, June 21, 2010, 2:55 AM
Hi Hernan,
Thanks for the tip!
P.S Any noticeable changes in snv_142 ?
On 21-6-2010 8:44, Hernan Saltiel wrote:
Hi, Bruno!
Yes, I booted again into snv_134, and then back into onnv_142.
Take special care to the instructions about image-update!!!
If you want to see this command list in Spanish, go to AOSUG web site - HowTos
section: http://www.aosug.com.ar/?q=node/40 .
Thanks to all!!!
Best regards,
HeCSa.
#yiv1449133664 #avg_ls_inline_popup {padding:0px
0px;margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;width:240px;overflow:hidden;word-wrap:break-word;color:black;font-size:10px;text-align:left;line-height:13px;}
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to all that made this really nice howto.
BTW, after this procedure is it still possible to boot into snv_134
environment, i.e will the grub.conf be updated to have have snv_134 and snv_142
boot entries?
Thanks,
Bruno
On 21-6-2010 8:15, Hernan Saltiel wrote:
Thanks to Rich Lowe, I know what I did in the wrong way.
Here is what needs to be done in order to have a working onnv_142 OpenSolaris:
a) Install OpenSolaris snv_134 (this is my case only).
b) Create a directory where to put the untar'ed, unbzip2'ed binaries:
1) mkdir -p /export/repo
c) Untar and unbzip2 the binaries:
1) cd /export/repo
2) tar jxvf /path/to/file/on-nightly-142.i386.tar.bz2
d) Start the local repository in one terminal window (it cannot be closed):
1) /usr/lib/pkg.depotd -d /export/repo/on-nightly-142.i386 -p 13000
e) Execute onu.sh, downloaded from
http://www.opensolaris.org/sc/src/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/tools/scripts/onu.sh
1) cd /opt (where I want onu.sh downloaded)
2) wget
http://www.opensolaris.org/sc/src/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/tools/scripts/onu.sh
3) chmod +x onu.sh
4) ./onu.sh -Ot on-nightly-142.i386 -u http://localhost:13000
f) After the upgrade, poweroff the machine.
1) poweroff
g) Boot again, and be happy! I have, now, an onnv_142 OpenSolaris!!!
Thanks again for the help, and best regards,
HeCSa.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Hernan Saltiel hsalt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Ken!
I didn't BFU'ed since first OpenSolaris 2008.05 appeared.
Taking a look to the README you posted, it seems that if I want to upgrade from
snv_134 to 142 I need to:
a) Create a new Boot Environment and boot into it:
1) beadm create new134
2) beadm activate new134
3) poweroff and boot again.
b) Create a local repository:
1) zfs create rpool/export/repo
2) zfs set mountpoint=/export/repo rpool/export/repo
3) pkgsend -s file:///export/repo create-repository --set-property
publisher.prefix=hecsa.servehttp.com (this is the URL I have from no-ip.org)
4) svccfg -s application/pkg/server setprop pkg/port=13000
5) svccfg -s application/pkg/server setprop pkg/inst_root=/export/repo
6) svcadm refresh application/pkg/server
7) svcadm restart application/pkg/server
c) Download onu.sh from
http://www.opensolaris.org/sc/src/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/tools/scripts/onu.sh
(I did this into /opt).
d) Execute:
1) ./onu.sh -Ot on-nightly-142.i386 -u http://localhost:13000
...but after executing this last command, I only have this output:
r...@snv134:/opt# ./onu.sh -Ot on-nightly-142.i38 -u http://localhost:13000
PHASE ACTIONS
Removal Phase 54/54
No updates available for this image.
There is something I'm doing wrong, but don't know what...any help?
Thanks a lot, and best regards,
HeCSa.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Ken Mays maybird1...@yahoo.com wrote:
Basically, you can recreate the test DVD based on OSOL-DEV-134 and initial work
based on enhancements from:
1. Nexenta Core v3.0rc1 CD (initial work on that platform):
http://www.nexenta.org/projects/site/wiki/DownloadUnstable
http://www.genunix.org/dist/nexenta/nexenta-core-platform_3.0-b134-rc1_x86.iso.zip
2. Richard Lowe's contributed ON 142 work (inc. Caiman/Pkg):
http://www.genunix.org/dist/richlowe/README.txt
http://www.genunix.org/dist/richlowe/on-nightly-142.i386.tar.bz2
Optional packaging:
3. Blastwave's 64-bit optimized AMP Web Stack (based on work from InitWorks
and Falconpl.org):
http://www.blastwave.org
4. KDE4Solaris KDE 4.4.4 project:
http
Re: [osol-discuss] SNV_142 Test DVD Blastwave's AMP stack
Basically, you can recreate the test DVD based on OSOL-DEV-134 and initial work based on enhancements from: 1. Nexenta Core v3.0rc1 CD (initial work on that platform): http://www.nexenta.org/projects/site/wiki/DownloadUnstable http://www.genunix.org/dist/nexenta/nexenta-core-platform_3.0-b134-rc1_x86.iso.zip 2. Richard Lowe's contributed ON 142 work (inc. Caiman/Pkg): http://www.genunix.org/dist/richlowe/README.txt http://www.genunix.org/dist/richlowe/on-nightly-142.i386.tar.bz2 Optional packaging: 3. Blastwave's 64-bit optimized AMP Web Stack (based on work from InitWorks and Falconpl.org): http://www.blastwave.org 4. KDE4Solaris KDE 4.4.4 project: http://solaris.bionicmutton.org/index.html http://solaris.bionicmutton.org/SRC/ 5. Oracle Open Office 3.2.1: http://www.genunix.org/dist/openoffice/ 6. Package repository based on IPS b134: http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev 7. GRUB2 (v1.98) migration I did this so more resources could easily jump in and continue to remain compatible with previous OSOL-DEV release(s) for now. There are some 'gotchas' I'm dealing with - so packages are being provided through Blastwave and other resources but hope to make everything available soon. Ken Mays Blastwave.org -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] SNV_142 Test DVD Blastwave's AMP stack
Hello, I've been working on an updated core test DVD release of an ' ON SNV_142 consolidation' based on the work of Blastwave.org Inc and a few partners. Changes for BETA1 include: * Currently based on ON b142+. * IPS 134 support Summary of New Features --- * Full support of current OpenSolaris technologies (Crossbow/Xen/etc). * Latest ZFS pool supported. * Extended Linux 2.6.35 library support * GRUB2 (1.98) boot capability. * Coreutils 8.5 update * GCC 4.5.0 * GNOME 2.30.1 core platform * Samba 3.4.8 * Qt 4.6.3 * KDE 4.4.4 supported (through KDE4Solaris project) Blastwave's SAMP (Blastwave's highly-optimized 64-bit Solaris AMP stack project) is provided through the Blastwave.org Inc. (http://www.blastwave.org) mirror project: Apache 2.2.15 MySQL 5.1.47 PHP 5.3.2 Ruby 1.8.7-p249 Squid 2.7.Stable9 Many of the test packages mentioned are already available through the Blastwave.org repository mirrors to support other OSOL distro providers for both SPARC and x86/x64 platforms. Special thanks to Initworks BV and some work by Richard Lowe. Thanks Ken Mays Blastwave.org -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SNV_142 Test DVD Blastwave's AMP stack
Working on packages for compatible OSOL 2010.DEV-based distros. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Where is OpenSolaris 2010 release?
Tim said: That said, outside of those people's efforts, Oracle is failing with Sun. It is failing obviously badly to those of us who look to real world results that can be plugged into the wall, turned on in our hands in a somewhat mobile machine, or run on a computer at all. - Well, Oracle is worth about $114 billion while IBM is at $165 billion. There are some 'real world' results that can turn Kool-Aid into wine. You have a point, but also know that many large corporations have decisions to make as well - and some of those same large corporations are still running Sun-based solutions. Some of those corporations and universities are still running Solaris 8/9/10 servers today. Oracle didn't kill off Solaris 10 - nor the OpenSolaris kernel. So on that note, you can create something and call it something. Also, if you read some other forums, OpenSolaris 2010.X is still forthcoming. I haven't heard of the project cancellation. There are some technologies that have lived long after their sponsors or creators. You have the right to pull the plug and walk away. But also know that no matter what solution you come up with, the same fate may reoccur sooner or later. Time to invest in those migration experts. But since this is a 'discussion' - the Emperor made a choice to continue the masquerade of being clothed when he was not (although made fully aware he was unclothed). No one forced the Emperor to make that choice. Some celebrities, magazines, and models make millions off of a very similar concept. Members of Club Bourgeoisie have those types of privileges to make a product like Solaris 11 (or aka Solaris 'X') come out of the work of millions of engineers and schools of academia - and not even worry about what clothes they have on for a given day (i.e. Why? They can pay other people for that). Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer... but I never said let the sharks swim in your bathtub. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun Software Product Map- opensolaris not included
Hi Giovanni, Well, like whom? Also, what do 'we' want the roadmap to propose to us? We already have the new features web pages from OpenSoalris 2009.06 to 2010.06, updates from the Oracle Xorg team, Sun Studio compiler team notes, and ON flag days info. If you spin up the other projects and communities - much of the 'OpenSolaris roadmap' is already on the whiteboard. Many of the Oracle Sun engineers have commented on both the status of OpenSolaris (see OpenSolaris IRC and past emails) and Oracle's corporate position on future outlook. Oracle has a support roadmap for OpenSolaris last I checked as well as for the legacy Sun products. The old OpenSolaris 2009.06 main support was ending somewhere around Y2012 and finally ending in Y2014. Oracle has mentioned that OpenSolaris project is the building block to Oracle Solaris 11 (which was just an unspecific arrangement of raindrops at the moment). Many features added and few features dropped - but nothing set in stone or really defined yet to the public. All you see is the proposed notes from the What's New for OpenSolaris 2010.06 web pages and updates from the new Sun Studio Compiler Express. A few other other notes sprinkled elsewhere may give clues and certain OpenSolaris projects being maintained or updated. The OpenSolaris project will exist for now - at least until the next Oracle Solaris 11 product becomes a reality. One point I like to make is that the real OpenSolaris community concern should exist around the availability and valid compiling of the core OpenSolaris kernel environment. Can you get a working compiled kernel snapshot as of today based on snv_142 using GCC/Sun Studio - which in turn work on a larger distro like Milak or EON? As long as Oracle is providing the OpenSolaris kernel and the updates to it, the road only needs to direct us to Oracle Solaris 11 from that point. The OpenSolaris distro is just a collection of compilable raindrops - of projects and proposed features. Sidenote: Even in small corporations, you can't maintain a staff of engineers and technicians with just pizza and soda (hey, those were the days). They have to at least be able to afford Internet connectivity and overhead expenses like bus/train fare. So best way to get help is either talk to the available Oracle engineers willing to chat and help - or grab yourself an Oracle Account Manager with an Etch-A-Sketch. Shake often, ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 6/10/10, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote: From: Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Sun Software Product Map- opensolaris not included To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 7:33 AM My Oracle Support lists OpenSolaris and Solaris products. My Oracle Support Community only lists Solaris under Oracle Sun Technologies. They are probably not making a distinction between Solaris (product) and the OpenSolaris binary distribution (product). As far as OpenSolaris.org (the open source project) is concerned, nothing of this matters. Oracle still needs to dedicate some time to communicate properly. -- Giovanni -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Where is OpenSolaris 2010 release?
Well, you have to also consider: 1. Oracle is still making patch updates to OpenSolaris 2009.06. See support contract. 2. OSOL DEV 134 is available, otherwise OSOL 2009.06. 3. Some engineers have updated to the ON snv_142 kernel release. 4. ZFS a little buggy (data loss =b134 possible under certain conditions, but very usable). Reported by Nexenta engineering. 5. There is no defined osol snv_142 consolidation defined outside of Oracle. The point is you could build an updated 'something' and call it something. ~K -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Where is OpenSolaris 2010 release?
Peter, The viability of the situation is if Oracle can create Oracle Solaris 11 from what they have today. That is more answerable by the people managing the Solaris product integration. The other question is if independent ISVs/distro providers can continue to create a reliable OpenSolaris-based distro from the recent kernel snapshots? Even at the core level? Some people have BFU'd to snv_138 and others mentioned using b141-b142. So, there is some hope! Right now, a few critical ZFS bugs are being tested and reviewed (aka showstoppers) that may cause data loss. One on hand, I heard a lot of the ZFS issues were fixed now. One another hand, I heard that there are a few bugs left with ZFS (ZFS pool 24-25) and other packages to make a reliable release possible. My angle on this is that products like NexentaStor 3.0.2 and Nexenta Core Platform 3.x may provide better manageable solutions - as the OpenSolaris core distro release is just a common starting point. We also have OpenSolaris distros that use XFCE, Enlightenment, KDE, or some other product as the alternative desktop environment for OpenSolaris. Great contributors are not only those that can fix bugs - but those that can find bugs and willing to report those bugs to others. ~ Ken Mays --- On Mon, 6/7/10, Peter Jones bloosk...@netscape.net wrote: From: Peter Jones bloosk...@netscape.net Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Where is OpenSolaris 2010 release? To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 5:34 AM Personally I don't think its worth to invest energy starting yet another community release. IMMV - Your energy could be more appreciated by already existing communities around Nexenta Core, StormOS, MilaX or BeleniX... From what I know Nexenta already backported lots of fixes from up to snv_138 sources to their 134a-based distro (i think uname -a tells now 134e). So just a temp name change to say OSE would not be enough for an interim release..would it be possible to produce an interim realease based on nexenta,branded or unbranded? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris roadmap
Steve, Oracle's account managers handle this sort of thing. The other solution is talk to someone like Nexenta. Now ensure you understand is that somone like Oracle may look at 'best tool for the job' so what is 'under the hood' may or may not be what you expect. ~ Ken Mays --- On Thu, 6/3/10, Steve spc1...@rit.edu wrote: From: Steve spc1...@rit.edu Subject: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris roadmap To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 11:25 PM Greetings, I've been reading a lot of the threads on here about the future of opensolaris, and it seems that there *might* be a future, depending on whose post you read. While I truly hope for that, I would like a definitive answer, or at least one I could work off of in the future. Right now, my organization would like to implement a long-term data storage solution (particularly with the advantages of ZFS (dedup, snapshotting, ease of management, etc). Given the current circumstances with Oracle, and the lack of mostly 'official' information, we've begun to reach the point where we might decide to implement this service as a linux based solution, and leverage a linux filesystem, especially since the hardware is coming very soon, and we need to get working on it. Now, the idea right now might be to leverage a linux solution in the short term until everything is 'worked out' with opensolaris/solaris, with the possibility of moving to a better platform long-term. So here's my question: What should be expected out of opensolaris (or even solaris) in the future? I realize the possibility of forking the project has been discussed, but also there has been information that internal builds are being worked on, etc. Would it be advantageous to *wait* for an official answer from Oracle, as well as watch to see what happens with opensolaris? The issue is enterprise backing, because if we're going to spend money on hardware, we'd like to have enterprise support/etc. Given that ZFS dedup and other performance (and bug) fixes won't be out until Solaris 11/Next/whateverthehellORaclewantstocallit, would it be a smart bet to stick around and wait? PS: sorry about starting another thread about this, but some of the threads with similar questions have turned into semantics, flame wars, FUD, etc, and all I'd like to see is a least the opinion of a few individuals with some actual insight on the matter... Thanks, I appreciate it; stay thristy... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Solaris on DELL PowerEdge Servers
These Dell PowerEdge Servers are SOLARIS CERTIFIED as reported in the HCL by Oracle for Dell as of April 2010. The Dell website is a bit outdated on the Dell PowerEdge certification status with Oracle Solaris 10u8. Ref: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/search.jsp http://advisors.dell.com/advisorweb/iDriveMatrixView.aspx?redirect=1 Dell Supported: Dell Engineering has successfully tested and validated only the current operating system (OS) version on Dell PowerEdge Servers. Dell adheres to all published partner test plans to ensure OS compatibility and provides full technical support for the Dell hardware components running on the OS. Dell Supported systems do not have OpenManage support. Dell certified and supported servers with Solaris 10u8: Dell M605,M610,M710,M805,M905,M910 Dell R210,R300,R310,R410,R510,R610,R710,R805,R810,R900,R905,R910 Dell T110, T310, T410,T610,T710 Note: I've reviewed and tested Oracle OpenSolaris 2009.06 on Dell PowerEdge T110, T310, T410,T610, T710 and R900 servers with Oracle HCTS 5.0. No major problems reported yet outside of the provided HCL info. Any HCTS 5.x certifications on OpenSolaris binary release distributions (i.e. OpenSolaris 2010.05) will probably come in the near future from Dell. I'll let Oracle or Dell correct me otherwise. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 8/9 zones on OpenSolaris x64?
--- On Thu, 5/20/10, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote: From: Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com Subject: [osol-discuss] Solaris 8/9 zones on OpenSolaris x64? To: OpenSolaris opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 3:48 AM Naturally, with all the re-alignment of the various virtualization technologies available for Solaris, I'm left with an old question that I can't seem to find out if there's a new answer. I'm looking to run a Solaris 8 zone/container on an OpenSolaris x64 host, not a SPARC host. Yes, I know I could do this via VirtualBox, but there are good reasons I would rather run in a zone. We used to support S8 containers in S10 on SPARC, but I can't sift through all the blizzard of product literature to see if we now support S8 zones on S10/OpenSolaris x64. I now see that we do S10 zones on OpenSolaris x64, and naturally, BrandZ (linux) zones run on S10 OpenSolaris x64. So, I'm a bit hopeful... -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Erik, This was researched over at Blastwave a long time ago. The Solaris 8/9 x86/x64 Containers add-on packages on Solaris 10 x86/x64 platforms never made it to the general public (AFAIK). The resources and customer demand for Solaris 8/9 x86 container development and support was not there (i.e. pre-Y2010 era) and most serious Solaris-related ISV investments are focused on Oracle Solaris 10 x86/x64 and higher. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] b134b / 2010.05
--- On Wed, 5/19/10, Ashish Nabira nab...@sun.com wrote: There is download link for 2010.05, but it is pointing to 2009.06. When new opensolaris will be ready to download ? Ashish Nabira Enterprise IT Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc. You'll see the announcement in opensolaris-announce for the OpenSolaris 2010.05 release and the update on the Genunix.org website. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Someone please tell me I'm wrong
--- On Sun, 5/9/10, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote: From: Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Someone please tell me I'm wrong To: Cc: os-discuss Discuss opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 9:26 AM Calum Benson wrote: On 8 May 2010, at 13:35, Tomas Bodzar wrote: Oracle is just big company where every decision takes years and yes, they don't care so much about fans. Actually, if there's one thing I've noticed since I became an Oracle employee, it's that they generally make decisions quicker than Sun did. Cheeri, Calum. We, let's not guzzle the Kool Aid quite so much, there, Calum. Of course, I think we're comparing a Glacier with a Lava flow, and not just in speed, either. That said, there's about as much chance of Oracle nixing Solaris as they would Java - fundamentally, it's what they bought the company for. Frankly, I would see Oracle Mgmt off the entire rest of the Sun long before I see them killing off either Java or Solaris. There's simply too much money (to be made) in both to kill such golden geese. Of course, I expect that the path both Solaris and Java take will look different than what Sun had mapped out. Exactly how different - and in what ways - is of course what all this hub-bub is about. And one last thing: anyone outside of Oracle Sr. Management (or anyone Sr. Management has authorized to speak officially on it's behalf, e.g. Oracle Sales) that says /ANYTHING/ about the actual direction of Solaris, is either lying to you, pulling it out of their ass, engaging in wishful thinking, or has another agenda. The only people who Truly Know (tm) have said what they've said, and we're stuck waiting for them to clarify it and fill in the blanks for us. And, that last section applies to me, too. I'm not Oracle Sr. Management, and I'm certainly not authorized to speak on their behalf. So, I must be a liar, a cheat, or a dreamer, right? wink -- Erik Trimble Well... Oracle did say what they intended to do with Solaris, Sun legacy products, support plans, and other tales - but that is subject to change like anything else in the world. Where is this documented? Ok, there was a bunch of stuff posted on the Oracle website on presentations Oracle was providing at city tours a few months ago. Oracle talked about Sun's hardware, new products lines, open source review (like Glassfish, DS, etc). Not everyone was up to speed on many things - but hey, Oracle has a lot of knobs to grab around Sun's legacy technologies - give them a break! All this 'crap' really is misleading on corporate secrecy because that level of FUD would undermine many government/VAR/ISP/OEM types that have large deployments of Solaris hardware/software. There are times in discussions (i.e. IRC/forums/etc) where an engineer or someone might pass on what they heard (I've done it myself) based on break/fix analysis or hearsay - but the official word comes from some Oracle manager or Oracle gate-keeper, not a third-party. Plain and simple. Call an Oracle Sales Rep otherwise - if just to get that 'warm and fuzzy' answer. As for what is in Oracle Solaris 11, that is just a whiteboard to the outside world. For a few of us, Glynn Foster scribbled out these notes a few months ago for OpenSolaris 2010.03: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gman/opensolaris-whats-new-2010-03/ But that does not mean these features will end up in Oracle Solaris 11 or will end up in some enhanced 'value-add' form. The OpenSolaris project is just a wunderfunk of ideas and subprojects. There are closed source binaries and applications that can find their way into the distribution of Oracle Solaris. Today, we have Oracle Solaris 10, the larger SXCE (now defunct), or OSOL-DEV_b134. I'd think for many people that is good enough for many projects. As for speculating on Oracle Solaris 11, a few things can be put on Oracle Solaris 10 until that big release day happens. Just wait and be patient. Maybe we'll be on GNOME 3.0 for the next release by then...who knows? Just enjoy the ride and stop kicking the tires ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opera drops browser support for Solaris
--- On Thu, 4/29/10, Anon Y Mous music_anal...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Anon Y Mous music_anal...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Opera drops browser support for Solaris To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 3:56 PM We need to protest this loudly as a community because Opera is the only web browser that makes it easy to browse the web from inside a Solaris zone (for more secure web browsing). If you don't believe me just create a zone, download the Opera SVR4 package, pkgadd -d it inside the zone, then ssh -X into the zone and check what IP address you are browsing from. I would imagine that any exploits run against the Opera browser would run in the zone's chrooted environment. I don't think this is really a problem. As long as sources and portability is maintained for FreeBSD/Linux, then a port to Oracle Solaris is not that hard for other people to do. The memo seems more like we will not provide primary support or compiled binaries of future Opera browser releases for Solaris/OpenSolaris. This no different than the Blender community which may support binary releases for only a certain platform and version of Oracle Solaris (i.e. Solaris 10 SPARC). This is where the community and Oracle's support for the smaller ISVs and organizations that port **ANY** software to Oracle Solaris/OpenSolaris become important to help sustain and grow the community. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opera drops browser support for Solaris
--- On Thu, 4/29/10, Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote: From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Opera drops browser support for Solaris To: ken mays maybird1...@yahoo.com Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org, Anon Y Mous music_anal...@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 6:25 PM ken mays wrote: I don't think this is really a problem. As long as sources and portability is maintained for FreeBSD/Linux, then a port to Oracle Solaris is not that hard for other people to do. Since when does anyone else have access to the closed source code for Opera's browser? -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Alan, Didn't say if the source is publically available, I mentioned if the source is maintained for portability (i.e. non-Windows only in this case). Whatever the working relationship is between the Opera team and the other parties is another subject. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris on HP x86 servers
Blanket statement: See Oracle Sun Service Sales Representative. The writing is the same across the walls. Oracle provides 'blanket support' for any Solaris OS installations across the board. The hardware vendors maintain support MAINLY for their hardware and possibly for the OS preinstallation (if they do it) on their CERTIFIED configurations. Third-party hardware vendor(s) may or may not continuing certifying their new hardware (or current hardware inventory) with Oracle Solaris 10 or higher. The inconsistency would mainly deal with the provided 'value-add' coming from the hardware vendors from this point of support for BOTH hardware and Solaris OS install. That Solaris OS support may either be contracted through the hardware vendor channel's help desk or pointed directly to Oracle help desk but contained in a blanket coverage contract from that hardware vendor. So the 'blanket coverage' provided by Oracle was to protect your Solaris OS installation investment and is spelled out on the OS primary support website. They wanted to save and help customers wanting to stay with their invested Solaris OS installs. My point is that it doesn't matter what hardware vendor you have or chose in this particular subject. The goal is that the Solaris OS has some level of professional maintenance and support warranty for consumers - **mainly** provided by Oracle (i.e. if all else fails). ~ Ken Mays --- On Tue, 4/27/10, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote: From: Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris on HP x86 servers To: matth...@pfuetzner.de Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org, Charles Hedrick hedr...@rutgers.edu Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 7:23 AM People have been reporting their experiences both talking to Oracle, HP, Dell, etc regarding Solaris support and how there are conflicting views out there. You seem to be shooting the messengers. I'll report my experience here (please don't shoot me): our Dell sales rep has stated that they will offer support for Solaris on Dell servers. When asked who'd be providing that support (Oracle or Dell), they said their own engineers would for as long as the warranty period lasted. I've placed the same question to our HP sales rep and I'm waiting for their answer just to see if it matches other peoples' experience. Personally, I find the conflicting views just a result of slow channel negotiations and slow moving corporations. Those of us requiring consistent facts should probably wait a few months until agreements get reviewed and word goes all the way down to the sales rep in each organization. If they are selling support right now when they shouldn't, it's not our problem: they will have to honour their contracts. I wonder if you're regarded as a hero against the masses of ignorant zombies outside your walled garden. 2010/4/27 Matthias Pfützner matth...@pfuetzner.de Again, as stated, can you please provide a PUBLIC REFERENCABLE site, that explicitly states that? Preferable (no: Exclusively!) with an URL, that starts wirh hp.com? Thanks! Sadly, as I'm a Sun/Oracle Employee, I have NO INSIGHT into HP's actions, NOR into Oracle Management decisions. Those, that need to know inside Sun/Oracle have NOT updated or changed the Solaris FAQ, it still states, that HP OEM deals are available. And it's last been updated on April 23rd! And it still refers to the following HP web-site: http://h20219.www2.hp.com/services/us/en/consolidated/os-sun-solaris.html?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN That website STILL exists! Matthias You (Charles Hedrick) wrote: This is getting absurd. Our local HP people checked back and still agree with the statement that wrigtim got about Oracle cancelling the HP contract. It's pretty clear that there are two different stories out there, both among people who should know. Any of you who are Oracle employees: your employer needs to get their communications strategy together. -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Wenn wirklich mal ein Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | Gefühl aufkommen sollte, D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | dann weinen die Eiswürfel. Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | Dieter Hildebrandt ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Giovanni -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris build 134a has closed
HI Edward, Not official, but most likely you'll see snv_138 for the Live CD as well b134(x) for OSOL 2010.03 FINAL on GENUNIX. Some of us are running OSOL 2010.03 snv_137 now. Also, the Nexenta Core Edition v3.0b3 (snv_b134c) CD is available. ~ Ken Mays --- On Mon, 4/26/10, Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com wrote: From: Edward Martinez mindbende...@live.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris build 134a has closed To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 3:55 AM Those of us feeling left in the dark might be pleased to know that build 134a, the first candidate for the next stable release of OpenSolaris, has been tagged in Oracle's release branch (in project jargon: snv_134a, the first respin of 134, closed earlier this week). A packaged build should be available for internal QA soon, but even if it passes, it will be while some time before the release can be published to the external repo. -Albert ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Will the builds 135 to 138 also be available to the public later on at genuix or IPS http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+x_win/changelogs-nv_130 -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris build 134a has closed
--- On Mon, 4/26/10, Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote: From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com ken mays wrote: Some of us are running OSOL 2010.03 snv_137 now. That's impossible if you're outside of Oracle. You may be running snv_134 with individual consolidations updated to later builds, but most consolidations don't post binaries, and I know few people who build all the different consolidations from source (for those which have posted source - which fortunately is most of them). Actually, saying OSOL 2010.03 snv_137 is not accurate as pointed out by Alan - since the official OSOL 2010.DEV snv_137 (or official OSOL 2010.03-FINAL) reference environment and CDs do not exist yet (to the general public at least). So, I'll rephrase that to say we are running binaries based on a compiled OpenSolaris snv_137 kernel derived from publically available OpenSolaris ON snv_137 sources and binaries for various OpenSolaris project consolidations from src.opensolaris.org and other resources. ON SNV_137 OSOL 2010.03 NOR OSOL 2010.03 SNV_137 DISTRO Gladly, I was corrected. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MythTV
Bill, There is a product called iMedia Slimserver to reference: http://www.imedialinux.com/imedia_mythtv The cards we used for testing were from Hauppauge (several) and pcHDTV HD-3000 HDTV series. A company came out about 3-4 years ago which pulled MythTV capabilities into a set top box. Hauppauge also came out with the HD PVR which did what I wanted back then. You can have OpenSolaris as the backend server using ZFS. I'd use a OpenSolaris/Linux emulated MythTV front end just for device driver support. This way you can get the device driver support and benefits from Linux and still run OpenSolaris at the same time. Someof the other tools are Xine and MPlayer. Any 250GB HD drive will do for HDTV - save the fancy setups for your audio/video editing workstations/laptops. For fancy recording, you may want a front-end to back-end setup strong enough to handle two HDTV stream recording. I had a wireless setup which worked well but many of the wireless HDTV hardware was just coming down in price. You should be able to get it very cheap today. You can reference MythDora and Mythbuntu for some proof of concepts. Most of the codecs are ported to OpenSolaris. ~ Ken Mays --- On Fri, 4/23/10, Bill Werner wer...@cubbyhole.com wrote: From: Bill Werner wer...@cubbyhole.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] MythTV To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 3:59 PM Yes, I would love to have MythTV for Solaris. It's one of 2 critical, IMHO, missing apps. The other being NoMachine (but at least SGD is a somewhat workable replacement for that). I would even be happy with just the back end and HDHR ethernet based tuner support. Another media app I'd like to see working is SlimServer. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris Distributions
Some of the distribution creators tend to specialize in certain areas very similar to the variants of Ubuntu like Edubuntu, Kubuntu, and even Mythbuntu. For OpenSolaris, Korona is very similar to Kubuntu. I worked on MythTV porting to OpenSolaris but now you have MythDora (Fedora/MythTV-based) and Mythbuntu. For NAS projects, you have EON and PulsarOS (PulsarOS is now Linux-based which either focused on FreeNAS/OpenMediaVault or CIFS/Samba solutions. For advanced storage and storage management, you have Nexenta. Now don't confuse the Pulsar project with PulsarOS. Project Pulsar was OpenSolaris porting to the PowerPC platform. PulsarOS is based on OpenFiler/FreeNAS/SAN-type solutions. Various OpenSolaris distributions explored various filesystems like BTRFS/GFS and package management solutions like Conary, apt-get, Pacman, Source Juicer/Package Factory/IPS, pkg-get/pkgutil, and many other concepts. You also have variant packaging tools using p7zip, tar/gzip/bzip2, and dpkg/RPM. Why a developer, like Thomas Brandstetter over at PulsarOS, found it hard to support OpenSolaris in certain cases: Ref: http://www.digitalplayground.at/index.php?option=com_simplestforumview=postlistforumId=1 1.) Opensolaris is a dependency hell. You can't create a proper core system, without getting into serious trouble. 2.) Opensolaris isn't full open source. (There are still some binaries, drivers and libraries that are closed source) 3.) Lack of many device drivers. 4.) No power management features for embedded boards (like VIA). So at the deepest level, understand that the OpenSolaris kernel is just an engine that can be placed in various 'black box' solutions and distributions. It may not fit every solution or business case. Yet, it can do many things better than some of the existing 'free' kernels out there providing a well funded and high-end engineering pool of resources to support it. Making a great OpenSolaris distribution really is in the hands of the creators - as the OpenSolaris kernel is only a small piece of the larger solutions at hand. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris Distributions
Gilles asked: Shouldn't the platform ports be called just projects since they could be integrated in the ON ? Or do they offer different packaging options as well ? If these distributions are patching the ON (eg. kernel improvements not making it back to onnv-gate), should they be considered forks? Other distros as well: 1. 'Korona' showcased the latest KDE on OpenSolaris. The latest release was based on snv_133/KDE 4.3.98, and the latest KDE 4.4.2 port is also available (see kde-discuss). 2. JeOS, pronounced juice, is the abbreviation for the concept of Just Enough Operating System as it applies to a software appliance. JeOS is not a generic, one-size-fits-all operating system. Rather, it refers to a customized operating system that precisely fits the needs of a particular application. Technically, the 'emerging platforms' discussion group handles these 'forks' or 'special projects' dealing with other platforms and CPU architectures that are not the SPARC/x64-based platforms (i.e. ARM, MIPS, PowerPC, etc). All of the project distributions are 'forks' as they are based on the ON kernel and core environment at some engineering snapshot level. Some projects are based on entirely different default package management systems and repositories. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Business use of OpenSolaris: enough to support commercial software?
Mike, For business, commercial, and 'some' government projects - the answer is YES. Originally, I was working with someone to review Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 5.0 and CATIA on OpenSolaris. We starting porting over CAD/CAM/CAE and game development/rendering tools to OpenSolaris due to the Nvidia driver support and migrating from older platforms. For daily production usage, those workstations and servers are the most reliable systems to date - all using a officially tested binary release of OpenSolaris. I've used OpenSolaris for various open source and commercial software projects migrated and deploying from Solaris 2.5.1-8/9/10 as well as migrating software from CDE to GNOME/KDE/XFCE/Enlightenment. I can admit that those systems are still considered 'rock solid' and stable for what they were designed for and I can say that knowing that those solutions have 'OpenSolaris inside' to borrow that terminology. As for IHVs/ISVs supporting andusing OpenSolaris for software development projects, it gets down to a HCL/HCTS (http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/index.jsp) certification type program in which you have a 'somewhat' stable or tested OS release on various hardware/software test results. So, the 'officially tested binary releases' of OpenSolaris would be the first start - currently meaning OpenSolaris 2009.06 (snv_111b). From there, you'd test your software products in this somewhat tested environment and go from there for your own certification testing. Talk to Oracle about partner programs for ISVs. There is also this website: http://www.oracleisv.com Hope that helps, Ken Mays - Atlanta, GA -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris Distributions
OpenSolaris-based CD/DVD Distributions as of April 19, 2010: 1. OpenSolaris 2009.06 core reference 'tested' distro (snv_b111b kernel) 2. BeleniX (0.8 Beta 1, b114) 3. Nexenta Core Platform 3.0 (Beta 2, b134) 4. MilaX (b128a) 5. EON NAS appliance (b130) Somewhat defunct: a. OpenSolaris for System z (release 20081023) b. OpenSolaris for ARM11 MPcore processors (ARM11) project c. OpenSolaris for MIPS processors project d. Martux Natamar e. Schillix f. Pulsar (PowerPC-based) g. Jaris (Japanese distro) h. StormOS (Nexenta-based) i. AuroraUX (now Linux-based, no longer OSOL-based) j. OSUNIX (progress slowed?) Note: I consider and OSOL distro 'somewhat defunct' based on personal observation of forums/blogs/distro website or third-party distribution does not meet the Opensolaris 2009.06 reference distribution core requirements (based on snv_111b kernel or higher). Very possible that distribution teams are in limbo status due to delays in the OpenSolaris 2010.03 binary release. Oracle's production (Enterprise-ready) distributions: 1. Oracle Solaris 10 10/09 (aka Solaris 10u8) Hope that helps, Ken Mays - Atlanta, GA -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] b137 based on tonic or otherwise
Hello,
Something is brewing:
http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads/b138/
~ Ken
--- On Fri, 4/16/10, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote:
From: Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] b137 based on tonic or otherwise
To: Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org
Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Date: Friday, April 16, 2010, 4:16 PM
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote:
As some Oracle employees have already pointed out, that distribution is *their*
product. If that's the true spirit of things, it would make sense why commits
are not public and they probably see integrating the b134{a,b,c} code into the
public repository as a contribution to the OpenSolaris project.
Sorry for answering myself here.
I don't know why but I expected that the release build to be available in the
Mercurial repository after it gets released.
$ hg clone -r b111b ssh://a...@hg.opensolaris.org/hg/onnv/onnv-gate
abort: unknown revision 'b111b'!
So
no, you cannot build previous releases of the OpenSolaris
distribution making it a closed product. How can one expect it to be a
reference binary distribution ? I expected reference to mean something you
can build on.
IMHO, a complete fork might
not be the best option due to all the engineering effort required but
contributing to a distribution that's not the official OpenSolaris
binary distribution from Oracle/Sun is well within the resources of the
community.
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong about the source code availability of
build 111b. I'm probably missing something.
As I've often stated, it's all a matter of figuring where one wants to be and
adjusting expectations. It's just hard to figure it out sometimes so there are
a lot of missed expectations.
--
Giovanni
-Inline Attachment Follows-
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Firefox 3.5.5 with SXCE can't load page
Hello, Most of the official Firefox on Solaris update ports are done over at the Mozilla FTP site by the Beijing team. You'll see Firefox 3.6.3 there as well as the new dev release. I used Seamonkey 2.0.4, Firefox 3.5.8, and Firefox 3.6.3 on the namecheap website and it instantly loaded. Firefox 2.0.0.x had some script problems on a few other sites like Gmail (unless you got into plain html mode). You can use either SXCE snv_129 (tested) or snv_130. These are phased out and not supported officially - as you know. Most users are told to know focus on OSOL 2010.03-dev (=b134) if possible. We mostly discuss this over at desktop-discuss... ~ Ken Mays --- On Wed, 4/14/10, bsd mascotgr...@yahoo.com wrote: From: bsd mascotgr...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Firefox 3.5.5 with SXCE can't load page To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010, 4:34 AM I'm not sure where the problem lies, but: I am able to load www.namecheap.com with OpenSolaris 2009.06/b134, FreeBSD 7.2/8.0, OpenBSD 4.5/4.6/-current. I am unable to load the page using OpenSolaris b129 or SXCE b130. Downloaded Firefox 3.6 from sunfreeware.com/mozilla.html and installed it on SXCE b130 but it still cannot load the page. Increasing timeout did not resolve the problem. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any news about 2010.3?
Hi Sarah, Due to some security concerns and other issues, I'd flipped a coin and await the forthcoming snv_b138 kernel release. As for any independent distro releases between now and before snv_b138, my opinion is to wait on doing any major system upgrades, 'production' related migrations, or journalistic reviews until snv_138 is officially released. This is for mainly commented for current users using OpenSolaris for 'very' high-end production-grade audio/video workstations or high-availability servers with several TBs of in-flux data. If you are having ANY major issues with a prior OpenSolaris release, just give OSOL 2010.03 until April 16th or await the snv_138 kernel release. You'll be 'very' glad you did. ~ Ken Mays -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
I'll just reply here for clarity purposes. So after day 90, does Oracle Solaris 10 stop working or hit some limited-feature usage activation?!? Is Oracle saying to stop using Solaris 10 after 90 days or else we get fined?!? The two tracks, OpenSolaris and Solaris 10, are not affected the same way. OpenSolaris is an open source community-involved project. Solaris 10 is a closed source production 'competitively enterprise-marketed' commercial product. Not everything in the realms of OpenSolaris-based projects will make their way into the final Oracle Solaris product. Some parts of Solaris 10 were dropped from the official binary OpenSoalris-based distros. How they are looked at and supported are a bit different as well as licenses. I'd expect bigger corporations with large server deployments to pay for 24x7 or even 12x5 Solaris 10 technical web/phone support - as doing it for free does not make good business sense. The license evolves somewhat around that subject matter. Now, I'd ring a very large bell if Oracle Solaris 10 downloads were stopped and you had to pay for the downloads. I'd ring it louder if Oracle support forums and such became a paid service. But the community has a WEALTH of professional service consultants, Oracle partners, engineers, developers, analysts, and business people to resolve the majority of issues dealing with Solaris 10 - either for free or for a small fee. As long as you can download and access your copy of Solaris 10 - why rock the boat harder due to the current 90-day license?!? Maybe what Oracle should have said is, don't call us if you are using Oracle Solaris 10 in a commercial environment and don't want to pay us for major break/fix technical support after your initial 90-day usage of it. The main issue was dealing with civil discussion and Solaris 10 licensing. The non-civil discussion spawned a larger forked debate. As for the licensing, I'll try to point out that Oracle's statement means moreso that after 90-days you'll pay for Oracle's support - mainly if you are using Solaris 10 for commercial use and expect Oracle to 'officially' help you. Other like-minded corporations usually give you 30-90 days of free technical support and usage, then tell you that continued usage requires PAID technical break/fix and phone support. Some companies give you a year of a free support subscription if you got the product through an OEM or VAR. But, if you call them with some MAJOR break/fix issue and tie up their help desk personnel, then they ask for you to pay for that support. So again, download your copy of Solaris 10 10/09 ASAP if you don't already have it and pay for whatever =90 day warranty or technical support you need. Otherwise, you have other options to utilize for your work or hobbist environment. May our cups run over, Ken Mays --- On Tue, 3/30/10, Mike DeMarco mikej...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mike DeMarco mikej...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 9:47 AM Most of us that run OpenSolaris rely on Solaris 10 also. We live our day to day on Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. As far as I am concerned they go hand in hand and a major event affecting one of them has ramifications on both. The discussions that go on on this list are not 100% OpenSolaris but are a collection of like topics that draw like interests. If you do not like a topic you can skip over it. I do not understand people that have to get on a thread and trash it for being in the wrong place, Why do you not just skip reading this thread if you do not agree with it being here. Why can you not just leave the thread alone. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 - no longer free
As for this whole thread of discussion, the point of Oracle Solaris 10 being non-free seems like a trolling event. Oracle Solaris 10 10/09 (u8) is currently FREE to download. From a business point of view, if Oracle really pulled the plug on the downloads - what does that matter to us?!? I'd hope home users would download or obtain a copy of Solaris 10 before this happen. Whether you go to *BSD or back to Linux is just another story. It is nice to have choices. But, this conversation is really not appropriate in consideration of the OpenSolaris project. Oracle Solaris 10/Next is intended as a 'profitable' and 'marketable' enterprise OS solution - just like Windows desktop/server is intended to make a profit for Microsoft. We should not let personal interests cloud corporate business reality. Oracle's Solaris 10 is not an open source operating system or product. Solaris 10 does not have many of the features of the OpenSolaris binary release(s). You can download Solaris 10 10/09 RIGHT NOW. The 90-day license limitation does NOT apply right now. Meaning, you don't have to pay to download Solaris 10 10/09 today. We are crying over spilled milk - yet to be spilled!!! As popular as Solaris 8 was back in 2000-2009, it is now an unsupported OS product and no longer marketed. The same fate came to Solaris 9. For those of us who need Solaris 10, we have it. So what you were given was a major wake up call to get Solaris 10 if you need it and if you REALLY need it then take care of your support issues before things change. Really now, it is THAT simple to deal with for many of us. The forum is about OpenSolaris and many of us use it for production purposes where it fits. Linux and *BSD are just other OS solutions as is Windows Server editions. If the shoe doesn't fit in your home or corporate datacenter environment, go buy another shoe that fits. I think it is that easy for many of us. I've mentioned elsewhere that Oracle PUBLICALLY has stated that OpenSolaris is not something they will kill off - and will support the community efforts already underway where it benefits them. They have already launched many support roadmaps for legacy products. I don't think Oracle would put a banner like Solaris - the #1 Enterprise OS and not put in the smarts to back it up. On the flip side, the COMMUNITY of engineers, consultants, and developers are what make OpenSolaris really work outside of the brick walls of Oracle. You can't FULLY compare an OpenSolaris release in BETA versus *BSD/Linux as many things are in transition with OpenSolaris. You are not dealing with a 'finished' enterprise OS product to compare to a boxed set of RHES, Windows 7, or *BSD. You can't buy a set of OpenSolaris DVDs at your computer store or from a reseller with all the 5000+ software packages that would come with a Debian boxed set of DVDs. So, we have apples and oranges in that conversation. You are dealing with engineering snapshots and BETA releases of 'something to come'. Treat it as such - and you'll be much happier in the end. As for Oracle Solaris 10, it is as free as it was yesterday. Kindly get off this cruise ship if you can't handle the motion in the ocean... All in good fun, ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] 2010.03 OSOL improvements regarding 3G USB HSDPA modems? Android+OSOL?
Hi Jussi, The 3G modems are 'supported' but you may have to configure them and modify the drivers (IDs) to your modem. A few walkthroughs are available. Ask for detailed help at wwan-discuss and give them the output from mdb -k ::prtusb -i e -v ~ Ken Mays --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Jussi Nieminen jussiniemin...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jussi Nieminen jussiniemin...@gmail.com Subject: [osol-discuss] 2010.03 OSOL improvements regarding 3G USB HSDPA modems? Android+OSOL? To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 9:25 AM Hi, I'm eagerly waiting for the soon-to-be-released 2010.03 release of OpenSolaris. Do anybody know if it will include improvements regarding 3G HSDPA USB modems? I tried very hard (read many, many threads regarding 3G USB HSDPA modems on OSOL and tried different configuration combinations) to get my 3G USB modem to work with 2009.06 release, but unfortunately couldn't and there is a hope that maybe this new soon to be released version would have some improvements in that area. I can't live without internet connection and 3G USB modem is my only way to use the internet at home. Can't wait to be able to set up a killer Java development environment on OSOL. I'm also planning to start developing mobile Android applications on OSOL - hopefully Android devs at Google will show some love towards OSOL users who are using OSOL to develop Android apps and will release Android dev tools to OSOL as well. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
