[osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org -- Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had been written or posted to OpenSolaris.org. It seems reasonable at this time to make the proposal. I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single CPU implementation. Members of the Solaris community have already formed together in order to achieve this and we have selected the Genesi ODW Workstation as the hardware platform for a number of reasons. Much discussion was held and the decision stands within the community. Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux. More information about Genesi may be seen at : http://www.genesippc.com/ The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at : https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port. Please see more info at : http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at : http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at : http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at : http://polaris.blastwave.org/ The community has accepted the name "Polaris" as the distro name. The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris to the PowerPC architecture. Dennis Clarke Director Blastwave.org -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote: > I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC > and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained > to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single > CPU implementation. Members of the Solaris community have already formed > together in order to achieve this and we have selected the Genesi ODW > Workstation as the hardware platform for a number of reasons. Much > discussion was held and the decision stands within the community. +1, although note that there is already a PowerPC community. I think it would be best to rename the latter to "Ports" or somthing similar, and then have this proposed project housed within it. (One of the things we're going to try to do once the governace doc is out of the way is rationalise the number of communities. We have too many communities at the moment, and some would be better off being recast as projects.) -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org -- Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had been written or posted to OpenSolaris.org. It seems reasonable at this time to make the proposal. I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single CPU implementation. Members of the Solaris community have already formed together in order to achieve this and we have selected the Genesi ODW Workstation as the hardware platform for a number of reasons. Much discussion was held and the decision stands within the community. Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux. More information about Genesi may be seen at : http://www.genesippc.com/ The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at : https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port. Please see more info at : http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at : http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at : http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at : http://polaris.blastwave.org/ The community has accepted the name "Polaris" as the distro name. The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris to the PowerPC architecture. Dennis Clarke Director Blastwave.org +1 :) -- Regards, Cyril ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+1 On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org -- Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had been written or posted to OpenSolaris.org. It seems reasonable at this time to make the proposal. I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single CPU implementation. Members of the Solaris community have already formed together in order to achieve this and we have selected the Genesi ODW Workstation as the hardware platform for a number of reasons. Much discussion was held and the decision stands within the community. Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux. More information about Genesi may be seen at : http://www.genesippc.com/ The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at : https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port. Please see more info at : http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at : http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at : http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at : http://polaris.blastwave.org/ The community has accepted the name "Polaris" as the distro name. The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris to the PowerPC architecture. Dennis Clarke Director Blastwave.org -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+1.0 Original-Message Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:19:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org Subject: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > >From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC >Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 > To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org > > -- > > >Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > > This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had > been written or posted to OpenSolaris.org. It seems reasonable at this > time to make the proposal. > > I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC > and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained > to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single > CPU implementation. Members of the Solaris community have already formed > together in order to achieve this and we have selected the Genesi ODW > Workstation as the hardware platform for a number of reasons. Much > discussion was held and the decision stands within the community. > > Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi > staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux. > > More information about Genesi may be seen at : > > http://www.genesippc.com/ > > The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at : > > https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware > > Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom > Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port. > Please see more info at : > > http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html > > The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand > alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at : > > http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html > > The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at : > > http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html > > The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at : > > http://polaris.blastwave.org/ > > The community has accepted the name "Polaris" as the distro name. > > The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris > to the PowerPC architecture. > > Dennis Clarke > Director Blastwave.org > > -- > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site? Thanks, Karyn Dennis Clarke wrote: From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org -- Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had been written or posted to OpenSolaris.org. It seems reasonable at this time to make the proposal. I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single CPU implementation. Members of the Solaris community have already formed together in order to achieve this and we have selected the Genesi ODW Workstation as the hardware platform for a number of reasons. Much discussion was held and the decision stands within the community. Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux. More information about Genesi may be seen at : http://www.genesippc.com/ The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at : https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port. Please see more info at : http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at : http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at : http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at : http://polaris.blastwave.org/ The community has accepted the name "Polaris" as the distro name. The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris to the PowerPC architecture. Dennis Clarke Director Blastwave.org -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote: > >> I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC >> and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained >> to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single >> CPU implementation. Members of the Solaris community have already formed >> together in order to achieve this and we have selected the Genesi ODW >> Workstation as the hardware platform for a number of reasons. Much >> discussion was held and the decision stands within the community. > > +1, although note that there is already a PowerPC community. I think it > would be best to rename the latter to "Ports" or somthing similar, and then > have this proposed project housed within it. (One of the things we're going > to try to do once the governace doc is out of the way is rationalise the > number of communities. We have too many communities at the moment, and some > would be better off being recast as projects.) > At this point I do not see a need to do anything at all other than focus on the real work in the code. Whatever is on the OpenSolaris.org site is really just a placeholder or an information page. It may be reasonable for admin purposes ( or just common sense ) to create a "ports" section on the OpenSolaris site but at the moment there are no other ports. Unless we see a port to either x86 or Sparc as a "port" when they already exist in both the "Solaris" commercial distribution. Are Belenix, SchilliX, MarTux et al seen as ports? I don't really know. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to > opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site? The discussion list already exists at the opensolaris.org site. It was moved from the blastwave list server quite some time ago. I can't recall why. The subversion server is at polaris.blastwave.org as well as the task track application. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to > opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site? Here is the task map : http://polaris.blastwave.org/wiki/PolarisTaskMap Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote: > >From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC >Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 > To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org > > -- > > >Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC ... .snip +1 Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
So development would continue to happen on Blastwave? If so, what (if anything) will be in the project on opensolaris.org? Thanks, Karyn Dennis Clarke wrote: So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site? Here is the task map : http://polaris.blastwave.org/wiki/PolarisTaskMap Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Karyn Ritter wrote: > So development would continue to happen on Blastwave? Sure. Why not? > If so, what (if anything) will be in the project on opensolaris.org? Primarily a "pointer" to where the work is being done. And a single focal point for anyone to go to who is looking to find out about, and, hopefully, contribute to, any/all OpenSolaris related projects or activities. > Thanks, > > Karyn > > Dennis Clarke wrote: > >>So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to > >>opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site? > > > > > > Here is the task map : > > > > http://polaris.blastwave.org/wiki/PolarisTaskMap > > > > Dennis > > Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> So development would continue to happen on Blastwave? Yes. There is a project well in place and already happening. Also, Genesi has stepped up to the plate and provided _everything_ that the community would ever need to ensure that we have good success. In that regard it makes total sense to work with our Genesi sponsor and partner as well as the great guys at Sun Labs. We have all been working together and in communication for nearly a year now. Its a pretty cool team really. > If so, what (if anything) will be in the project on opensolaris.org? From a procedural standpoint we do have some level of hierarchy within the community and the formal proposal was a formality that needed to be done. It was long overdue. Nothing needs to change at OpenSolaris.org and work will continue as usual. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
* Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-26 11:19]: > The community has accepted the name "Polaris" as the distro name. Cool. But I need to ask a question: is someone likely to need or want to trademark this use of Polaris? (If so, it's not useful as a project name for opensolaris.org; although admittedly much blander, I suggest "ppc-dev".) - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> * Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-26 11:19]: >> The community has accepted the name "Polaris" as the distro name. > > Cool. But I need to ask a question: is someone likely to need or > want to trademark this use of Polaris? (If so, it's not useful as a > project name for opensolaris.org; although admittedly much blander, I > suggest "ppc-dev".) A minor concern at this point. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org -- Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC +1 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC >>Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 >> To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org >> >> -- >> >> >>Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > +1 > > I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later You are so right ! Let's post this to the powerpc-discuss list. Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote: > I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want, of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes "just because" sounds like the sort of thing our penguin loving friends over at kernel.org would go for. Having the PPC port being unnecessarily different to SPARC and x86 will lead to more fragmentation than we want, I would think. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote: > I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want, of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes "just because" sounds like the sort of thing our penguin loving friends over at kernel.org would go for. Having the PPC port being unnecessarily different to SPARC and x86 will lead to more fragmentation than we want, I would think. How is "gratuitous incompatibility" defined in this particular case ? The possibility that someone who will try the PowerPC Solaris port in the future might be unhappy because this future port will default to ksh93 instead of /bin/ksh, creating the possibility that Korn Shell scripts written in 1990 might break in 2008 ? Solaris 10 SPARC is currently incompatible with Solaris x86/x64: Xsun on SPARC vs. Xorg on x86/x64. I haven't heard of too many complaints because of this compatibility breakage (source code written, compiled and linked on Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64 will not compile and link on Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC because Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC is a very different beast than Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64). I haven't heard of too many people willingly running Xsun on x86/x64 for compatibility's sake either -- compatibility in this particular case means running glxgears at 42 FPS. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Stefan Teleman wrote: > How is "gratuitous incompatibility" defined in this particular case ? > > The possibility that someone who will try the PowerPC Solaris port in > the future might be unhappy because this future port will default to > ksh93 instead of /bin/ksh, creating the possibility that Korn Shell > scripts written in 1990 might break in 2008 ? Mmmm. Perhaps I was overly assertive, although I stick to the principle. 'Course, the ensuing discussion about ksh88 not being able to be open sourced doesn't help the debate. Having someone in SunLabs provide PPC binaries for ksh88 sounds like a non-optimal situation to me. In the long run, migrating /bin/ksh to ksh93 seems to be the ideal, but it must be done carefully, with the proper notices appearing the right places. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>Solaris 10 SPARC is currently incompatible with Solaris x86/x64: Xsun >on SPARC vs. Xorg on x86/x64. I haven't heard of too many complaints >because of this compatibility breakage (source code written, compiled >and linked on Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64 will not compile and link on >Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC because Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC is a very >different beast than Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64). I haven't heard of too >many people willingly running Xsun on x86/x64 for compatibility's sake >either -- compatibility in this particular case means running glxgears >at 42 FPS. I'm not sure what you mean with "source code written, compiled and linked ... Xorg"). The X client runtime is exactly the same on both; the server is different but by and large implements the same feature set (with the exception of DPS on SPARC and XDAMAGE on x86) Or perhaps you are thinking about OpenGL which is still a bit problematic? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not sure what you mean with "source code written, compiled and linked ... Xorg"). The X client runtime is exactly the same on both; the server is different but by and large implements the same feature set (with the exception of DPS on SPARC and XDAMAGE on x86) Or perhaps you are thinking about OpenGL which is still a bit problematic? i am specifically referring to: Xrender XVideo XvMC XRandR Xcomposite none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on Xsun SPARC, because the header files are missing. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Stefan Teleman writes: > i am specifically referring to: > > Xrender > XVideo > XvMC > XRandR > Xcomposite > > none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code > which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and > runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on Xsun > SPARC, because the header files are missing. That doesn't actually matter for compatibility, because we're marching in the other direction: it's Xorg that needs to support all that Xsun once did (and perhaps more), not the opposite. We're in the midst of an Xsun->Xorg transition. We support running old applications on new systems, not the reverse. -- James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote: > I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want, of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes "just because" sounds like the sort of thing our penguin loving friends over at kernel.org would go for. Having the PPC port being unnecessarily different to SPARC and x86 will lead to more fragmentation than we want, I would think. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member -- True. You'd want to at least stick close to the source trees and diff anything needed to port the source to PowerPC/POWER architectures. I'd thought of the concept in which the Power/PowerPC port was very identical to the SXCR distribution - just focused on POWER/PowerPC based hardware. Genesi has servers and workstation hardware which allowed us this possibility. I'd like to propose the PowerPC/POWER SXCR distro based on the work from Sun Labs. I have a KMDB PowerPC debugger I'd like to propose for further development as well. Ken Mays EarthLink, Inc. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Stefan Teleman wrote: i am specifically referring to: Xrender XVideo XvMC XRandR Xcomposite none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on Xsun SPARC, because the header files are missing. We deliever the exact same set of headers and libraries on SPARC & x86 for X (except for OpenGL). You can build and link programs that use any of the above (except Composite) on both SPARC & x86 - we don't deliver the composite header or library on either one. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>i am specifically referring to: > >Xrender >XVideo >XvMC >XRandR >Xcomposite Certainly the compilation environment should support all; Xrandr seems to be present on SPARC (certainly the library and client are). All of them should compile and run (against Xorg servers) on SPARC. >none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code >which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and >runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on Xsun >SPARC, because the header files are missing. Yep. Note that these are not "gratuitous" incompatibilities but rather a historical bagage which we will want to get rid of over time: - No Xorg drivers for SPARC hardware - fbconfig before Xrandr existed - No interest on the SPARC side to support the latest Xorg extensions This is yet another example of why "branch, close source and modify" is such a bad development model. You (and your customers) pay through the nose later. It will take Solaris quite some time to recover from the closed source mistakes of the past; sendmail took a long time and Xsun will take even longer. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All of them should compile and run (against Xorg servers) on SPARC. There is nothing i would love more than to be able to run Xorg with all these extensions working on SPARC and my XVR-1000 card, so i can watch DVD's at more than 1280x1024 fullscreen and use the Xv/XvMC drivers instead of the CPU pig also known as Xshm on Xsun SPARC. Can i do this on Solaris 10 U2 06/06 SPARC ? ;-) Yep. Note that these are not "gratuitous" incompatibilities but rather a historical bagage which we will want to get rid of over time: - No Xorg drivers for SPARC hardware - fbconfig before Xrandr existed - No interest on the SPARC side to support the latest Xorg extensions This is yet another example of why "branch, close source and modify" is such a bad development model. You (and your customers) pay through the nose later. exaclty. so then back to my original question: why start off the Power PC Solaris port with an already obsolete (and not open source) Korn Shell ? i have no personal emotional attachment to the Korn Shell, i use the T-Shell. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
[ offlist ] On 7/27/06, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mmmm. Perhaps I was overly assertive, although I stick to the principle. 'Course, the ensuing discussion about ksh88 not being able to be open sourced doesn't help the debate. you weren't being "overly assertive". this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than practical considerations notwithstanding). today's cuckoo is not backwards compatible with the t-rex. the t-rex tried to remain backwards compatible with itself. it did not work out quite as the t-rex might have intended. the backwards incompatibility of the cuckoo did not make it "better". it only succeeded at making the t-rex "worse". --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no >longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility >for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about >this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than >practical considerations notwithstanding). I'm not sure it's the right time to say that "Linux has determined that backward compatibility is not important". The market has not had time to feel the full force of the impact of no backward compatibility; but from what I've heard, it is starting to hurt and it will only start to hurt more. We cannot tell what will break with ksh93; it may be nothing, it may be soething. But shell issues are generally easy to overcome by just editing the script and running it with a different version. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Stefan Teleman writes: > this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no > longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility > for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about > this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than > practical considerations notwithstanding). The good news, I think, is that Linux is still readily available for those who aren't so interested in compatibility. Nobody else really needs to ape that model. -- James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The good news, I think, is that Linux is still readily available for those who aren't so interested in compatibility. Nobody else really needs to ape that model. and Linux is also being readily deployed. 12,000+ workstations at ODF Niedersachsen (until very recently running Solaris x86, now running SuSE) will attest to that. so will those 5000+ boxes at EuroNext/LIFFE. i'm not sure whom they are "ape"-ing. one would presume that such decisions are primarily based on market economics and rational choice, and only secondarily on the collective set of irrational instincts we might be sharing with our primate acestors. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
* Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-26 21:16]: > > > * Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-26 11:19]: > >> The community has accepted the name "Polaris" as the distro name. > > > > Cool. But I need to ask a question: is someone likely to need or > > want to trademark this use of Polaris? (If so, it's not useful as a > > project name for opensolaris.org; although admittedly much blander, I > > suggest "ppc-dev".) > > A minor concern at this point. I apologize, but for my job, it's not. If a project wants to use opensolaris.org resources it needs to not have a known current or pending trademark conflict. (In fact, I would encourage any folks looking at building a commercial distribution to select a name and begin their trademark work...) More generally, if the plan isn't to use this site's facilities, then project proposals boil down to agreeing to be bound by the OpenSolaris Governing Board resolutions, its approved development processes, and its arbitration of disputes, both technical and social. That may or may not suit every potential effort build on OpenSolaris technology. An alternative would be to propose text for the distribution, which can be added to the Distributions page: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/distributions/ I don't really see any problem with adding a distribution there, even in its earliest and most experimental phases. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+-- Stefan Teleman wrote: this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no longer a selling point. Agreed, but I don't think that this case is really that simplistic. One currently expects that the scripts one writes today will run unchanged between OpenSolaris/SPARC and OpenSolaris/x86. Hopefully, this expectation will extend to the OpenSolaris/PPC port as well. That implies that the PPC port does what the other ports have done, independent of any efforts to improve the baseline shared by all. Those improvement efforts (whether focused on "ksh88->ksh93 as a default for ksh" or elsewhere) need to focus on meeting expectations; specifically, the expectation that we (the developers) will think through and understand the risks and impact of our changes before we make them, so the consumers of OpenSolaris (any port) won't be the ones on the bleeding edge of integration or interoperability failures. To the extent that we don't understand the differences or the impact on our consumers, we increase the risk to those consumers when they (try to) deploy the results. In as much as it is unexpected and unquantifiable, it results in upset customers/users/whatever, and should be avoided. This implies that we need to proactively work to understand the differences between the two ksh versions, quantify the actual script impact and disruption, devise transition plans and evaluate all of the above as to levels of acceptable risk. If that risk turns out to be acceptable, we should update all three ports together; if not, we should consider alternatives. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Martin Bochnig wrote: It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb driver for those older chipsets. Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough. I asked the SPARC team to allow binary redistribution of their drivers a year ago, and last I heard they still hadn't gotten around to deciding on it. I've tried to explain that they're just continuing to push all OpenSolaris distros/users away from SPARC, but they just don't seem to care. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Jan, thanks for your detailed answer! I should have (finally) read all the ieee1275 datasheets before starting to publically talk about that, and unintentionally spreading untruths. Thanks for the correction, overview and outlook. I should have known it better a bit: I once experimented with different CMD/Sil0649 uata controllers. Including flavours, who identify themselves as 'raid', rather than 'ide' (and have no jp0 jumper to externally set their pci id's). It was still possible to work around that using nvedit and a script, so that the Ultra5-OBP's builtin 'ide' drivers would detect, initiate and boot off it (up to the point where '/' should be initially mounted). USB needs to be supported (have a Forth OF-driver) inside 'ok /packages/SUNWbuilt-drivers'. Are parts of OBP open source? Maybe even for a specific box. Or are there plans? -martin > > p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from > > USB mass storage then. [...] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 22:11 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no > >longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility > >for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about > >this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than > >practical considerations notwithstanding). > > I'm not sure it's the right time to say that "Linux has determined > that backward compatibility is not important". > > The market has not had time to feel the full force of the > impact of no backward compatibility; but from what I've heard, it > is starting to hurt and it will only start to hurt more. Yes, we are feeling it. That's why my company has yet to find a group internally to support their linux servers. Backwards compatibility looms large in the minds of those who actually have to administer the boxes. Our linux boxes fall further and further into disrepair due to the fact that the linux development model doesn't even pay lip service to the concept of backwards compatibility. > > We cannot tell what will break with ksh93; it may be nothing, it > may be soething. But shell issues are generally easy to overcome > by just editing the script and running it with a different > version. Easy to fix until your entire operation is out of commission due what was once an easy edit of a script. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Martin Bochnig wrote: Having a redistributable DLJ-"distros-jdk" available, which necessarily depends on (apparently) non-redistributable SUNWspro-shared C++ libs, is another such problem. It's really annoying that I have to force LiveDVD-users to download them on the fly first (automatically/script-driven), before they are able to run anything from the distros-jdk (or anything else, that had been built with SUNW's cc). Is a non-commercial distributor (like myself) allowed to ship them, or rather not? I really do not want to violate any license. I might initiate a new thread for that topic, depending on the replies here. I had been asking many people (and even two CAB members, one other distributor), but never got a concrete answer. The SUNWspro license seems to prohibit this, in full contradiction to the DLJ's paragraph of "being required to stay compatible [...] with it ..." I also sent a message to the java-distro team a month ago (no response so far). Does anybody know this for sure? Am I allowed to redistribute those /usr/libC* libs YES [ ] NO [ ]? The Belenix creators published their view: http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/ Martin, As of right now - you are not allowed to redistribute those libC* libs. We're working on getting permission to allow for redistribution though - so please know that *it is being worked on*. It's not always trivial/easy to work through these licensing issues; but we do realise that this is a problem, and we are trying to fix it. cheers, steve -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>okay. >If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing, I _would_ >understand it. > >What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK (on >which SUNW has made so m uch noise about, back in May'06) has not been built with the open gcc. >A gcc-built JDK would not depend on those closed libs. Most compiler libraries can be redistributed, but strangely enough not libC (because of bundling in the OS?) If that small bit was rectified, we could easily fix it.. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Dennis Clarke wrote: > >From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC >Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 > To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org > > -- > >Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had > been written or posted to OpenSolaris.org. It seems reasonable at this > time to make the proposal. [snip] +1 ... :-) BTW: What minimum hardware requirements will the first PowerPC version of OpenSolaris have ? Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 8/6/06, Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: > >From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC >Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 > To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org > > -- > >Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had > been written or posted to OpenSolaris.org. It seems reasonable at this > time to make the proposal. [snip] +1 ... :-) BTW: What minimum hardware requirements will the first PowerPC version of OpenSolaris have ? Current porting work is done on Genesi ODW, so I guess it is the ODW that is the minimum HW requirement :) -- Regards, Cyril ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> Martin Bochnig wrote: > > It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb > driver for those older chipsets. > > Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough. > > I asked the SPARC team to allow binary redistribution of their > drivers a year ago, and last I heard they still hadn't gotten > around to deciding on it. I've tried to explain that they're just > continuing to push all OpenSolaris distros/users away from SPARC, > but they just don't seem to care. > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering Good! I finally realize now, that we both are fighting for the same open vision: Open__Solaris. ### Having a redistributable DLJ-"distros-jdk" available, which necessarily depends on (apparently) non-redistributable SUNWspro-shared C++ libs, is another such problem. It's really annoying that I have to force LiveDVD-users to download them on the fly first (automatically/script-driven), before they are able to run anything from the distros-jdk (or anything else, that had been built with SUNW's cc). Is a non-commercial distributor (like myself) allowed to ship them, or rather not? I really do not want to violate any license. I might initiate a new thread for that topic, depending on the replies here. I had been asking many people (and even two CAB members, one other distributor), but never got a concrete answer. The SUNWspro license seems to prohibit this, in full contradiction to the DLJ's paragraph of "being required to stay compatible [...] with it ..." I also sent a message to the java-distro team a month ago (no response so far). Does anybody know this for sure? Am I allowed to redistribute those /usr/libC* libs YES [ ] NO [ ]? The Belenix creators published their view: http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/ "As above JDK 1.5 has been included in the CD. However due to a licensing issue with a required SUN Studio C++ runtime library it is currently an installable bundle and does not execute off the LiveCD. This is expected to be resolved soon. The JDK bundle gets installed once BeleniX gets installed to harddisk. The required LibC patch is also downloaded and installed automatically if you have a network conection." Thanks, Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> Martin Bochnig wrote: > > Having a redistributable DLJ-"distros-jdk" available, which necessarily > depends on (apparently) non-redistributable SUNWspro-shared C++ libs, is > another such problem. > > It's really annoying that I have to force LiveDVD-users to download them > on the fly first (automatically/script-driven), before they are able to > run anything from the distros-jdk (or anything else, that had been built with > SUNW's cc). > > > > Is a non-commercial distributor (like myself) allowed to ship them, or > rather not? > > I really do not want to violate any license. > > I might initiate a new thread for that topic, depending on the replies > here. > > I had been asking many people (and even two CAB members, one other > distributor), but never got a concrete answer. > > The SUNWspro license seems to prohibit this, in full contradiction to > the DLJ's paragraph of "being required to stay compatible [...] with it ..." > > I also sent a message to the java-distro team a month ago (no response > so far). > > > > Does anybody know this for sure? > > Am I allowed to redistribute those /usr/libC* libs > > YES [ ] > > NO [ ]? > > > > The Belenix creators published their view: > > > > http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/ > > > Martin, > As of right now - you are not allowed to redistribute those libC* libs. > We're working on getting permission to allow for redistribution though > - so please know that *it is being worked on*. It's not always > trivial/easy to work through these licensing issues; but we do realise > that this is a problem, and we are trying to fix it. > > cheers, > steve > > -- > stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net > opensolaris // solaris kernel development Steve, first of all thanks for that precise top2bottom answer. The first concrete fact I ever got back on this topic. In a long while. I might have tried to contact Jonathan Schwartz next. I also assume, that _you_(and your team) are not responsible for that [ABCDEFGH] {*1} But what do you believe, will a thinking human being (including myself, hopefully) make of that "policy"??? Wow, SUNW does offer a Distros-JDK now. The "slightly" restrictive DLJ license requires distributors to only ship it with "compatible" kernel distributions. (Well, yet another License needed to be invented for the lovely JDK.) But you - SUNW - yourself hinder distributors from shipping the damn two or so libs it is dynamically linked against?! Libs that anyone can download and extract from certain patches, widespread worldwide on many ftp servers for free? This actually makes your DLJ thing void, because no single OpenSolaris distributor can actually fulfill DLJ's terms. Are your lawyers mad? Is it the heat? Why didn't the JDK folks use gcc then (which does NOT depend on those files)? Sorry, but this sounds like a really poor April 1st fool. Believe me the following two statements: #0.) I will never again (recommend the) use any of your "free" Studio compilers anymore. Even if I was a commercial licensee (Blastwave for example is), you would hinder me from shipping the runtime with Open- Solaris? How ridiculous! #1.) If things like that (there are more, this is only the most obvious one) fail to be fixed in the near future, this will not be my problem any longer, because I might discard my projects in such a nasty case. Footnotes: {*1} == [Page 1484 of License Agreement %3452, paragraph %$#899 line 67a, except in cases, where ^755 is equal to 733664 paragraph one, argument s.] And finally take into account the following aspect please: Your dear share holders may have invested more or less $$$ into SUNW. _But_ your (rather small) true core community has invested complete human life into it. See guys like Dennis Clarke, Joerg Schilling, Cyril Plisko, Phil Brown, the Belenix-creators and a few more of that sort. This needed to be said. And I will shut my mouth now. I do not believe all that! Friendly, Martin Bochnig ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re[2]: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Hello Stefan, Thursday, July 27, 2006, 9:42:45 PM, you wrote: ST> [ offlist ] ST> On 7/27/06, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Mmmm. Perhaps I was overly assertive, although I stick to the principle. >> 'Course, the ensuing discussion about ksh88 not being able to be open >> sourced doesn't help the debate. ST> you weren't being "overly assertive". ST> this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no ST> longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility ST> for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about ST> this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than ST> practical considerations notwithstanding). We do lot of app development on Linux and Solaris. And due to lack of backward compatibility in case of Linux it takes us much more time to upgrade Linux distros and get our applications running while on Solaris upgrading or running every possible nevada with the same binaries just work. With Solaris generally we produce only one binary package for a given application and then use with older Solaris releases. With Linux we have to provide different binary package for every distro release version we use. And it takes more and more time spent on upgrading Linux distros. In that area Solaris saves a lot of time comparing to Linux. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re[2]: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote: > In that area Solaris saves a lot of time comparing to Linux. And therefore, presumably, saves money too. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Grub on sparc _/_ Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> >Ah, that is what I asked you a few lines above. > >Yeah. > >Or loaded via Grub1 floppy, where no PXE is present. > >And then interfacing with the NIC directly. > >Damn, I had been hoping from outside (never worked through the grub > sources) this would be handled > similarily with a certain set of USB controllers. > >Not so:-( > > Well, loading grub from floppy and then using USB boot could be possible. > > > Casper Maybe one doesn't believe me that late: I always had a picture of a Floppy-/CD-/DVD-/HDD- booted Grub1 (2?) in mind, and __then__ booting from USB (or maybe even ieee1394a) - whether it is on top of the firmware, or implemented nativiely into Grub itself. (I also mean the plain Grub command line, with no cosmetic menu set up at all.) Remember, that I didn't have a PC until recently (and the U20 is hardly powered on). My memories go back to May2005, when I netbooted the first newboot based Solaris10-Express via a self build Grub 0.95 on SunPCi_2_pro (with no PXE activated[completely cut down, no way]). I also have a Genesi ppc ODW (and Grub2), put didn't come to it very much, recently. I did - however - never assume, I could load Grub itself via USB. Would be kind of chicken and egg problem, that's clear. Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't >have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. (+1 for PowerPC) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> >>I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't >>have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later > > If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, > then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. > > I think there is a PowerPC discuss list somewhere. We should use it. Then I can follow up with the following bold idea : Anything that runs on Solaris x86 or Solaris Sparc must be able to run in the PowerPC port in the same manner. So that implies a great deal of discussion. But there will also be a pile of software in the /opt area that provides the GNU stack as well as software from the Blastwave software stack. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't >have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent delays :( -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't >> >have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later >> >> If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, >> then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. > > Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh > > PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the > project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is > based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent > delays :( whoa whoa whoa ... relax there guy I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a manner consistent with solid engineering principles. The issue of backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in my less than humble opinion, critical to the success of any port. While I am certainly not _fully_ aware of all the issues I can say with some degree of certainty that wide sweeping slurs will get you personally no where. Trust me, I ought to know! Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't >> >have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later >> >> If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, >> then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. > >Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh Because it's stupid to have random differences between "Solaris PPC", "Solaris x86" and "Solaris SPARC".[1] We strongly believe in "One Solaris"; making the build tree distinguish between the different flavours and install a different application as /bin/ksh. (And, of course, the operative word is "mostly") "This ksh script works on PPC but not on x86/SPARC, how come" >PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the >project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is >based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent >delays :( No, that's not true at all. I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris for a long time, provided it is done properly. The argument is about "properly"; you should not read anything more into it than that. Casper [1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed, the PowerPC team may not have a choice but to install ksh93 as /bin/ksh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> > [1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the > Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed, the PowerPC team > may not have a choice but to install ksh93 as /bin/ksh bingo [1] -- Dennis Clarke [1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
great! On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: [1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed, the PowerPC team may not have a choice but to install ksh93 as /bin/ksh bingo [1] -- Dennis Clarke [1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't >> >have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later >> >> If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, >> then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. > > Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh > > PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the > project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is > based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent > delays :( whoa whoa whoa ... relax there guy Why? I just saying what many people already think. I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a manner consistent with solid engineering principles. The issue of backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in my less than humble opinion, critical to the success of any port. The issue of backwards compatibility is already addressed very well in ksh93 itself. Most of the opensolaris distributions - excluding Solaris itself - are shipping ksh93 as /bin/ksh or are going to ship it. The ksh integration tree contains a master built switch specifically for that purpose: http://polaris.blastwave.org/browser/on/branches/ksh93/gisburn/prototype002/m1_ast_ast_imported/usr/src/cmd/ksh/Makefile.ksh93switch?rev=277 While I am certainly not _fully_ aware of all the issues I can say with some degree of certainty that wide sweeping slurs will get you personally no where. Trust me, I ought to know! Yeah. But I am NOT alone with the feeling that something is going wrong. Why does this project need more than half a year to get some sources moved into the Solaris tree? This is a task which should be finished within weeks and NOT years. -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>The issue of backwards compatibility is already addressed very well in >ksh93 itself. Most of the opensolaris distributions - excluding >Solaris itself - are shipping ksh93 as /bin/ksh or are going to ship >it. The ksh integration tree contains a master built switch >specifically for that purpose: >http://polaris.blastwave.org/browser/on/branches/ksh93/gisburn/prototype002/m1_ast_ast_imported/usr/src/cmd/ksh/Makefile.ksh93switch?rev=277 The issue of backwards compatibility is not "addressed very well"; the number of incompatibilities between ksh88 and ksh93 is large and there is no way to make many of them disappear. The question is more how much this will hurt. >>While I am certainly not _fully_ aware of all the issues I can say >> with some degree of certainty that wide sweeping slurs will get you >> personally no where. Trust me, I ought to know! > >Yeah. But I am NOT alone with the feeling that something is going >wrong. Why does this project need more than half a year to get some >sources moved into the Solaris tree? This is a task which should be >finished within weeks and NOT years. It's much more difficult than that because of AST integration and other stuff changed in /lib (such as usurping libcmd) as well as some continuous fine tuning of ksh93 itself. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do you? -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: great! Lets hope we won't see an open sourced version of the old /bin/ksh -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the >project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is >based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent >delays :( No, that's not true at all. I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris for a long time, provided it is done properly. Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate "Casper Disk" with the term "ksh93 hater" because each time we have this topic Casper Disk sends another hate mail -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the >> >project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is >> >based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent >> >delays :( >> >> No, that's not true at all. I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris >> for a long time, provided it is done properly. > >Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate "Casper >Disk" with the term "ksh93 hater" because each time we have this topic >Casper Disk sends another hate mail Hate mail? Moi? And if you want to sling mud, please spell my name correctly. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Martin Schaffstall writes: > On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the > > >project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is > > >based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent > > >delays :( > > > > No, that's not true at all. I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris > > for a long time, provided it is done properly. > > Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate "Casper > Disk" with the term "ksh93 hater" because each time we have this topic > Casper Disk sends another hate mail Sorry, I don't see it. Where's the "hate?" I think this is getting personal, and I don't think that's at all necessary. The _only_ issues I've seen relate to technical matters, and not at all to "hatred." Many of us use ksh93 on Solaris and would very much like to see it integrated. We just don't want to see a huge flood of bugs and broken applications as the result -- because we value compatibility. Call it a fetish if you like, but it's not hatred. -- James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin Schaffstall writes: > On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the > > >project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is > > >based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent > > >delays :( > > > > No, that's not true at all. I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris > > for a long time, provided it is done properly. > > Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate "Casper > Disk" with the term "ksh93 hater" because each time we have this topic > Casper Disk sends another hate mail Sorry, I don't see it. Where's the "hate?" Casper is always there when he can beat onto ksh93. I think this is getting personal, and I don't think that's at all necessary. The _only_ issues I've seen relate to technical matters, and not at all to "hatred." This is not personal. It is just an observation Many of us use ksh93 on Solaris and would very much like to see it integrated. We just don't want to see a huge flood of bugs and broken applications as the result -- because we value compatibility. Call it a fetish if you like, but it's not hatred. Sometimes Sun values the holy backwards compatibility over usability. The PAIN for users and developers caused by this policy far outweighs the benefits. The majority of people who suffer from /bin/ksh in Solaris thinks like that. If you don't believe me read http://anotherhangover.blogspot.com/2006/06/solaris-can-fck-off-kinda.html http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15007&limit=no&threshold=-1 or just search in Google for 'solaris ksh sucks': 15,100 hits -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Martin Schaffstall wrote On 07/27/06 06:48,: > On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the >>Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed > > > You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do you? Filing a bug won't change what Casper has observed. /bin/ksh is in usr/closed for a reason, and that reason isn't going to change (and no, we can't discuss details). It's not a great situation, but it has nothing to do with Sun not wanting to open source something. Bonnie ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Martin Schaffstall wrote: On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do you? It's not our decision to make. -steve -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. What other choice is there when the current ksh is a closed binary? Will Sun be building the closed binaries for PPC? -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. What other choice is there when the current ksh is a closed binary? Will Sun be building the closed binaries for PPC? Could someone involved from SunLabs could port it and build it? -steve -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 15:55 +0200, Martin Schaffstall wrote: > On 7/27/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Martin Schaffstall writes: > > > On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the > > > > >project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is > > > > >based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent > > > > >delays :( > > > > > > > > No, that's not true at all. I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris > > > > for a long time, provided it is done properly. > > > > > > Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate "Casper > > > Disk" with the term "ksh93 hater" because each time we have this topic > > > Casper Disk sends another hate mail > > > > Sorry, I don't see it. Where's the "hate?" > > Casper is always there when he can beat onto ksh93. > > > I think this is getting personal, and I don't think that's at all > > necessary. The _only_ issues I've seen relate to technical matters, > > and not at all to "hatred." > > This is not personal. It is just an observation > > > Many of us use ksh93 on Solaris and would very much like to see it > > integrated. We just don't want to see a huge flood of bugs and broken > > applications as the result -- because we value compatibility. Call it > > a fetish if you like, but it's not hatred. > > Sometimes Sun values the holy backwards compatibility over usability. > The PAIN for users and developers caused by this policy far outweighs > the benefits. The majority of people who suffer from /bin/ksh in > Solaris thinks like that. If you don't believe me read > http://anotherhangover.blogspot.com/2006/06/solaris-can-fck-off-kinda.html > http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15007&limit=no&threshold=-1 > or just search in Google for 'solaris ksh sucks': 15,100 hits -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems Made in Scotland, from girders. Haud ma coat-- it's laldy time! "Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- A. de St.Exupery "La perfection est atteinte non quand il ne reste rien à ajouter, mais quand il ne reste rien à enlever." -- A. de St.Exupery "I just wouldn't know a single word to say, if I flattened all my vowels and I threw the R away." - The Proclaimers "Soft eject : a wee touch of sanity in a mad world" - Rab C. Nesbitt ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
(Apologies, please ignore disregard the blank email I just sent Evolution threw a bit of a wobbler!) -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote: >I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a > manner consistent with solid engineering principles. The issue of > backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in > my less than humble opinion, critical to the success of any port. Dennis, as usual, hits the nail on the head. I think we (the OpenSOlaris community) should adopt a new moto: "Think twice, integrate once". ;-) -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote: > [1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-) Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote! :-) -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote: > >> [1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-) > > Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote! :-) :-P ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Martin Bochnig wrote: Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly eol'ed) gfx drivers? Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore. Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but there isn't as much work going on in SPARC graphics/workstations any more. The few people left in SPARC graphics sadly simply don't have the time to deal with Xorg, OpenSolaris, or releasing specs to the open source community. (For those boards we'd even be allowed to - anything PCI-based is a OEM'ed board covered by NDA's with the vendors we buy them from - only the older Sbus & UPA boards were Sun creations.) In the X group, we'd love to see Xorg on all SPARC graphics boards so we could start phasing out Xsun on SPARC too, but it's out of our hands. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from > USB mass storage then. The idea that GRUB or GRUB2 has anything to do with what devices a system can or can not boot from is mostly a miss-conception. A number of amd64/legacy-x86 systems have BIOSs that can talk to and boot from USB devices. On such systems GRUB as well as a number of other boot loaders can be loaded from a USB device by the BIOS and then using the BIOS's support talk to and continue booting from this USB device. GRUB2 on sparc sits on top of OBP (ieee1275) and uses it to talk to IO devices. The current Sun OBPs do not have support for USB devices. As such GRUB doesn't change the picture. WRT getting OBP support for USB: At least one other vendor, who seems to be abandoning their OBP strategy, did have USB support in their OBPs, so perhaps someone could ask nicely and talk then into freeing/opening their code for this. Now I used the term mostly. One could implement native support for USB in GRUB (or any other boot-strap) and then as long as this USB enabled boot-strap is loaded from something other than USB that OBP (or whatever firmware) _can_ talk to, then the OS load could be completed (but not initiated) from a USB device. The native NIC drivers work that way in that they are loaded by the generic PXE code and then interface with the NIC directly. So, GRUB2 does _not_ get us any closer to booting our sparc systems from USB devices. Now to put the soap box aside and answer you question: We are continuing to look at GRUB2 as a way to get a cross-platform consistent menuing interface that may be useful for managing multiple boot-environments. This is particularly interesting as the possibility of zfs snapshots of (coming soon) zfs root filesystems will increase the number of boot-environments on a typical system. -jan ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>But why is SUNW so uninterested??? >Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in "One Solaris"^^ now? There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change. I'm sure they don't want to ship on Xorg on SPARC which only supports older framebuffers poorly so a lot more work is involved. >Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly >eol'ed) gfx drivers? >Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore. >I will better stop here. >I wished, you truly meant it 100.00% serious with above vision. >_No_ exceptions: Just as you said it(!). We're serious but it's a matter of resources. It's also not possible to opensource everything (OpenSourcing costs time and effort and sometimes you spend those resources only to find out that you cannot open source the drivers. > >Martin Bochnig >marTux > >p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from USB >mass storage then. We're working on something akin newboot for SPARC; how would grub2 on SPARC allow for booting from USB? Grub2 would need to be loaded from somewhere else first. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
(ks93 discuss removed) >> >But why is SUNW so uninterested??? >> >Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in "One Solaris"^^ now? >> >> There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change. > > >Migrating from Xsun to Xorg did work on x86. >What "lot of history" do you mean exactly? >(okay, /dev/fb is different on x86, and vga text mode etc.) The "lot of history" is in a large part the organizational split between SPARC desktop doing Xsun for SPARC and the X group doing the rest. The move from Xsun to Xorg on x86 was easy because there was nothing in the way of device support Xorg didn't do better and the choice was often between "crippled Xsun" or Xorg so the move was easy. The SPARC device support is a completely different picture. >What are you referring to? Mostly the optimized 3D and OpenGL support for SPARC framebuffers. >Is it also a "matter of resources" that you don't allow (even non-commercial) >distributors to redistribute a closed binary for /dev/fb for the older >framebuffers developed by SUNW themselves (probably no 3rd party NDA's >affected)? >And what is with the shared Studio C++ runtime required by almost everything : > > >bash-3.1$ ls -al /usr/lib/libC* >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 100764 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.3 >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 401144 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.5 >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin63820 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libCrun.so.1 >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 1907540 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libCstd.so.1 > >A matter of resources ? >What will the press think, when they see Belenix marTux OpenSolaris require >users to download those libs after each LiveDVD boot (they already see it) ... > >Why can nobody give me a concrete answer on that issue. >I don't understand it. because we are a large organization and nobody has all the answer I cannot help you with these questions other than to give you the global indication that in many cases it *is* a resource issue or a contractual issue. OpenSolaris is a high priority item for some managers and less so for others; without higher ups pushing this message all the way done to all corners of Sun, this will change but slowly. People don't seem to appreciate how difficult it is to open source software which has been developed in closed form for decades. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
>Except NICs you mean? Including NICs. >Doesn't Grub (at least Grub1) use the etherboot/rom-o-matic NIC drivers? Not for Solaris as Sun ships it. The grub that comes with Solaris is loaded in memory using PXE (over the wire) and then the Grub PXE driver continues to use PXE to bootstrap the kernel. (So you can even download a Solaris kernel over the net without there being Solaris support for your network driver). The rom-o-matic drivers can be used too but they require grub to be booted from other media (floppy, USB, CD, DVD, harddisk) first. I use a special grub version to netboot an old laptop without PXE support. I boot grub from the harddisk and then select "network boot/install" from the grub menu The picture Jan drew is accurate: a system can only boot from devices the firmware supports. BIOS or Openboot makes no difference. Of course, the OS you then load may be more limited and not allow booting from the device you've just downloaded the bootloader from. (E.g., old Solaris boot was more limited than some BIOSes). The best you can hope for is a boot loader loaded from any of the supported devices (on SPARC, that would be net, disk, CD/DVD) and then boot a bootloader which understands the device you actually want to boot from (USB, firewire?) >As I said, I wasn't aware, that the ongoing Grub2 sparc port just sits on top >of OBP. >I thought it includes native code to talk to USB. That is possible but it will need to be loaded in memory first; and it can't be loaded from USB because the OBP won't let it. >Ah, that is what I asked you a few lines above. >Yeah. >Or loaded via Grub1 floppy, where no PXE is present. >And then interfacing with the NIC directly. >Damn, I had been hoping from outside (never worked through the grub sources) >this would be handled similarily with a certain set of USB controllers. >Not so:-( Well, loading grub from floppy and then using USB boot could be possible. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
"Martin Schaffstall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > +1 > > I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later Do you like to make Solaris PPC incompatible to Solaris Sparc or x86? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/31/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Martin Schaffstall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > +1 > > I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later Do you like to make Solaris PPC incompatible to Solaris Sparc or x86? Jörg: Do you want to restart the flame war again? If you want someone to beat I suggest to do that with Sun - THEY put us in this desperate situation. We would not be here if Sun had updated their Korn Shell in 1994 or 1996. My answer is: It depends on the requirements on the user side. Both sides of the spectrum have valid arguments. However the backwards compatibility of ksh93 is very good as outlined by Roland Mainz. I think we should switch NOW or allow the users to switch the shells via a switch script which allows users to toggle /bin/ksh between both versions. -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/31/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Martin Schaffstall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > +1 > > I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later Do you like to make Solaris PPC incompatible to Solaris Sparc or x86? Jörg: Do you want to restart the flame war again? If you want someone to beat I suggest to do that with Sun - THEY put us in this desperate situation. We would not be here if Sun had updated their Korn Shell in 1994 or 1996. My answer is: It depends on the requirements on the user side. Both sides of the spectrum have valid arguments. However the backwards compatibility of ksh93 is very good as outlined by Roland Mainz. I think we should switch NOW or allow the users to switch the shells via a switch script which allows users to toggle /bin/ksh between both versions. -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
"Josh Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My answer is: It depends on the requirements on the user side. Both > sides of the spectrum have valid arguments. However the backwards > compatibility of ksh93 is very good as outlined by Roland Mainz. I > think we should switch NOW or allow the users to switch the shells via > a switch script which allows users to toggle /bin/ksh between both > versions. If Roland is correct and no Sun supplied shell sript would have problems with ksh93 and if we do not find other scripts with problems andif we have a solution for wordexp(), this may be done. For now, it does not work because of wordexp() in libc. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Original-Message Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:13:15 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Korn Shell 93 integration/migration project discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > >On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> >I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > >> >have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later > >> > >> If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, > >> then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. > > > >Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh > > Because it's stupid to have random differences between "Solaris PPC", > "Solaris x86" and "Solaris SPARC".[1] > > We strongly believe in "One Solaris" [...] Wow! Sounds really really nice, but is it true - I mean in all (key) areas? Really? Only take Xorg vs. Xsun for example. I have been posting about my {and other's} progress {with XFree86 and now} Xorg @ SunOS5.1[0|1]_sparc since April 11. Again and again. Publically (several ML's), semi-publically and privately. But posting about that topic has mostly been like directly throwing it all to /dev/null. Worse: Like actually going or being sent to /dev/null in a certain case (where I admittedly did make a mistake, but nobody here minded to help me). I got Xorg working on sparc, on more and more "frame buffers" (or rather Graphics cards): PGX, PGX24, PGX32 PGX64, XVR-100, Elite3D (no accell.), Creator3D (no accell.), maybe also ffb1. We also do have the old (opensource) version of Xsun (included in the Xorg tree). This adds support to all the really vintage chipsets/boards like the GX, ZX(leo) and other really obsolete cards. I don't have a XVR-500 right now, but it might potentially also work (Permedia3 chip). Maybe not out of the box, but with little if no hard work. Note: All the chips/boards except the afb*/ffb* (Elite*/Creator*) do not even necessarily depend on the closed /dev/fb driver anymore! So is that nothing? That the Xorg "friends" are uninterested in [EMAIL PROTECTED] might be their little problem. But why is SUNW so uninterested??? Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in "One Solaris"^^ now? Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly eol'ed) gfx drivers? Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore. I will better stop here. I wished, you truly meant it 100.00% serious with above vision. _No_ exceptions: Just as you said it(!). Martin Bochnig marTux p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from USB mass storage then. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> Martin Bochnig wrote: > > Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your > (mostly eol'ed) gfx drivers? > > Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore. > > Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but > there isn't as much work going on in SPARC graphics/workstations any more. > The few people left in SPARC graphics sadly simply don't have the time to > deal with Xorg, OpenSolaris, or releasing specs to the open source > community. I understand that, but it is a pity. > (For those boards we'd even be allowed to - anything PCI-based is a OEM'ed > board > covered by NDA's with the vendors we buy them from Okay. But this is not too hard because Xorg already supports a few of those chipsets (Permedia_1/2/3[glint], Ati_*). Only the XVR-600, 1000 and 1200 might be problematic. Don't have any of them and don't know, what the latter are based on. I will have to look into that later on. > - only the older Sbus > & UPA > boards were Sun creations.) It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb driver for those older chipsets. Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough. The rest (XFree86 and Xorg) will work with no further things required of being opened up. How are the chances? > > In the X group, we'd love to see Xorg on all SPARC graphics boards so we > could > start phasing out Xsun on SPARC too, but it's out of our hands. Aha. Okay. Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Original-Message Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:45:31 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Bochnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > >But why is SUNW so uninterested??? > >Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in "One Solaris"^^ now? > > There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change. Migrating from Xsun to Xorg did work on x86. What "lot of history" do you mean exactly? (okay, /dev/fb is different on x86, and vga text mode etc.) > I'm sure they don't want to ship on Xorg on SPARC which only supports > older framebuffers poorly so a lot more work is involved. What are you referring to? You hopefully do not mean the old unsupported opensourced Xsun shipping together with Xorg. That one truly only supports "older framebuffers". Very old ones. However, I'm talking about Xorg here, not Xorg's co-shipping Xsun. Do you consider Elite3D, Creator3D, PGX, PGX24, PGX32, PGX64, XVR-100, (maybe also XVR-500 / not yet here to test that again) "older frame buffers" ?? They all work quite well with Xorg on sparc (only afb and ffb perform "poorly" as you say, because accelleration does not yet work). Well I know, most of them are EOL now (except the XVR-100). But - on the other hand - certainly 90% (my personal guess) of the existing sparc user base does have one of them. Didn't you see my various Xorg announcements? > We're serious but it's a matter of resources. > > It's also not possible to opensource everything (OpenSourcing costs time > and effort and sometimes you spend those resources only to find out that > you cannot open source the drivers. Is it also a "matter of resources" that you don't allow (even non-commercial) distributors to redistribute a closed binary for /dev/fb for the older framebuffers developed by SUNW themselves (probably no 3rd party NDA's affected)? And what is with the shared Studio C++ runtime required by almost everything : bash-3.1$ ls -al /usr/lib/libC* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 100764 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.3 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 401144 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.5 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin63820 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libCrun.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 1907540 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libCstd.so.1 A matter of resources ? What will the press think, when they see Belenix marTux OpenSolaris require users to download those libs after each LiveDVD boot (they already see it) ... Why can nobody give me a concrete answer on that issue. I don't understand it. > >p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from > USB mass storage then. > > We're working on something akin newboot for SPARC; how would grub2 on > SPARC > allow for booting from USB? Grub2 would need to be loaded from somewhere > else first. I was quite wrong on that. I already admitted it. Thanks again to Jan Setje-Eilers for having corrected me in good detail. Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Martin Bochnig writes: > Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly > eol'ed) gfx drivers? If by "afraid" you mean "know that we'll be doing something illegal," then perhaps that's a partly reasonable interpretation. I think you're at least underestimating the amount of effort required to scour our ~20 year history to get the legal pedigree right. In order to release things as open source, we cannot just slap a sticker on the front and say "good to go." That's why there's a roadmap: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ and that's also why some things (regrettably) will just never be open source. In general, it's because the actual owner of those things prohibits that sort of release (and in some cases also prevents us from even talking about it). In other cases, it's just time and effort. Again, a large amount of work has to go into that legal drudgery. It's not just blind fear, though, nor is it malice. Looking at the staggering amount of code we've been able to release so far, I'm a bit baffled how anyone could even begin to think that we're holding back out of spite. -- James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Original-Message Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:54:17 -0700 From: Jan Setje-Eilers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Martin Bochnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > > p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from > > USB mass storage then. > > The idea that GRUB or GRUB2 has anything to do with what devices a > system can or can not boot from is mostly a miss-conception. Except NICs you mean? Doesn't Grub (at least Grub1) use the etherboot/rom-o-matic NIC drivers? Okay - that was x86 only and therefore bios based systems. But the principle of scanning the pci bus for a known NIC chipset would probably the same on ieee1275 systems. With the exception, that Grub1 was x86 only. I don't know, if the multi-ISA Grub2 still implements the etherboot NIC drivers, or not. I really need to carefully go through the grub1 and grub2 sources first. Plus through the ieee1275 datasheets. Before I can really talk about that. But _when_ > A number of amd64/legacy-x86 systems have BIOSs that can talk to and > boot from USB devices. On such systems GRUB as well as a number of > other boot loaders can be loaded from a USB device by the BIOS and > then using the BIOS's support talk to and continue booting from this > USB device. > > GRUB2 on sparc sits on top of OBP (ieee1275) and uses it to talk to > IO devices. The current Sun OBPs do not have support for USB > devices. As such GRUB doesn't change the picture. As I said, I wasn't aware, that the ongoing Grub2 sparc port just sits on top of OBP. I thought it includes native code to talk to USB. > WRT getting OBP support for USB: At least one other vendor, who seems > to be abandoning their OBP strategy, Apple?! Don't know how they would respond. We could try it. But SUNW might have better chances, than if I asked them something. > did have USB support in their > OBPs, so perhaps someone could ask nicely and talk then into > freeing/opening their code for this. > > Now I used the term mostly. One could implement native support for > USB in GRUB (or any other boot-strap) and then as long as this USB > enabled boot-strap is loaded from something other than USB that OBP > (or whatever firmware) _can_ talk to, then the OS load could be > completed (but not initiated) from a USB device. That is, what I initially thought all the time. > The native NIC > drivers work that way in that they are loaded by the generic PXE code > and then interface with the NIC directly. Ah, that is what I asked you a few lines above. Yeah. Or loaded via Grub1 floppy, where no PXE is present. And then interfacing with the NIC directly. Damn, I had been hoping from outside (never worked through the grub sources) this would be handled similarily with a certain set of USB controllers. Not so:-( > > So, GRUB2 does _not_ get us any closer to booting our sparc systems > >from USB devices. How much working hours (and therefore money) would it cost SUNW to integrate that into current box's OBP (ok /packes/SUNW,builtin-drivers) ? I mean, aren't the U45, U25 and all the servers including T1/2000 worth it? > Now to put the soap box aside and answer you question: We are > continuing to look at GRUB2 as a way to get a cross-platform > consistent menuing interface that may be useful for managing multiple > boot-environments. This is particularly interesting as the possibility > of zfs snapshots of (coming soon) zfs root filesystems will increase > the number of boot-environments on a typical system. > > -jan I'm looking forward to see zfs root fs's and Boot-menues on SPARC. Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Martin Bochnig wrote: > Is it also a "matter of resources" that you don't allow (even > non-commercial) distributors to redistribute a closed binary for > /dev/fb for the older framebuffers developed by SUNW themselves > (probably no 3rd party NDA's affected)? > And what is with the shared Studio C++ runtime required by almost everything > : Dunno about the frame buffers, but perhaps libC contains 3rd party IP, and Sun's license to use it prohibits redistribution by other parties? I believe that's one of the reasons why you and I are not allowed to redistribute the Solaris ISOs we can download for free from Sun's web site: Sun is allowed to distribute it, but others are not. Sensible? NOt really, but as Casper (and others) has said, that's one of the prices paid for developing stuff as closed source. I'm sure Sun is doing their best to open up libC (or at least allow redistribution), but if the owner of the IP won't play ball, it's out of Sun's hands (apart from Sun re-writing the bits that are closed)... -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC I don't want to get involved in political arguments so I will state my view one once. It looks as if Casper Dik and Martin Schaffstall have views that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Neither is right and neither is wrong. There are tradeoffs in either view which I will outline below and present the pros and cons of each. Casper's view: Avoid making changes that could be incompatible and effect customers. Add ksh but putting it under a new name. Install ksh93 as /bin/ksh. Here are the pros: 1. Sun provides continuity for customers. 2. Easier to get approved. 3. Each version can be modified independently. 4. Can be implemented quickly. 5. It is simpler in the short term. Here are the cons: 1. Complexity grows over time. 2. Multiple versions need to be supported. 3. Versions might diverge making future merges more difficult. 4. Features that users want might be partially in one version and not in the other. 5. More closed source code. 6. Less compatbility with Linux systems. 7. Gets worse as time goes on. Martins view: Select the best shell and make that the standard. Install ksh93 as /bin/sh. Here are the pros: 1. Once adopted, improves productivity for users. 2. Reduces code and the need to support closed version. 3. Improves Solaris performance. Here are the cons: 1. Sun would have to make sure that all their scripts run which is likely to require some changes. 2. It might break some existing user scripts. 3. When installed as /bin/sh, it must be able to handle all calls to system(). 4. This would take longer to implement. 5. Harder to get approved. An alternative would be to do things in three phases. Phase 1. 1. Move the current ksh to /bin/ksh88 2. Install the new ksh as /bin/ksh 3. Fix any Solaris scripts that currently use ksh so that they run with ksh93. 4. Inform user to either change the #! in their scripts to use /bin/ksh88 or fix the script if it doesn't run under the new /bin/ksh. 5. Mark /bin/ksh88 as obsolete and stop any maintenence. Phase 2. 1. Make sure all Solaris scripts run with /bin/sh as ksh93. 2. Let /bin/sh be a symlink that can be set to /bin/ksh or to the old /bin/sh. 3. Mark /bin/osh as obsolete and stop any maintenence. Phase 3. 1. Make /bin/sh and /bin/ksh links. David Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> It's not just blind fear, though, nor is it malice. Looking at the > staggering amount of code we've been able to release so far, I'm a bit > baffled how anyone could even begin to think that we're holding back > out of spite. > > -- > James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 > MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 Please don't understand me wrong: OpenSolaris is imho the best and GREATest project on earth:) (That is exactly the reason, why I myself invest so much effort and time.) I also do understand, that opensourcing huge masses of complex code - with a 20++year history - may be very time-, labour- and cost-intensive. And of course, that certain pieces cannot be open-sourced at all. And I am well aware of OpenSolaris's roadmap, too. I am very happy, that you did - and continue to - open Solaris up. I would just love being explicitly allowed to integrate and redistribute a few closed things { *** two of the closed /dev/fb drivers: bash-3.1$ find /platform|grep afb /platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/sparcv9/afb /platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/afb /platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/afb.conf bash-3.1$ find /platform|grep ffb /platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/sparcv9/ffb *** the Studio C++ runtime library: bash-3.1$ ls -al /usr/lib/libC* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 100764 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.3 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 401144 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.5 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin63820 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libCrun.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 1907540 Jan 23 2005 /usr/lib/libCstd.so.1 And may be one or two more driver modules. Plus the FC-AL drivers for QLogic, but that seems already to be under way }. Everyone in the word - including the worst countries - can download SXCR w/o an (btw unverifiable) registration. What is so hard in allowing a few well-known distributors to redistribute those files in binary form (for community / non-profit purposes) ? Okay, it may not be bad intention. I see this now. Maybe just a vacuum of responsibility in a few separate niche areas, in a complex global enterprise organisation otherwise working very well. I will temprarily continue to work around those things, by letting users download the missing pieces on the fly. Okay. Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Martin Bochnig writes: > I would just love being explicitly allowed to integrate and > redistribute a few closed things Since you have a fairly specific hit-list of items you need, how about filing bugs against each requesting an open version? That might be a more productive approach than complaining here. -- James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> Dunno about the frame buffers, but perhaps libC contains 3rd party IP, > and Sun's license to use it prohibits redistribution by other parties? > I believe that's one of the reasons why you and I are not allowed to > redistribute the Solaris ISOs we can download for free from Sun's web > site: Sun is allowed to distribute it, but others are not. > > Sensible? NOt really, but as Casper (and others) has said, that's one > of the prices paid for developing stuff as closed source. I'm sure Sun > is doing their best to open up libC (or at least allow redistribution), > but if the owner of the IP won't play ball, it's out of Sun's hands > (apart from Sun re-writing the bits that are closed)... > > -- > Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member > > President, > Rite Online Inc. Hi Rich, okay. If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing, I _would_ understand it. What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK (on which SUNW has made so much noise about, back in May'06) has not been built with the open gcc. A gcc-built JDK would not depend on those closed libs. Martin (leaving office now) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Martin Bochnig wrote: > okay. > If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing, > I _would_ understand it. Would a statement by a Sun employee (provided, of course, thet such a license doesn't prohibit Sun from doing so) clarifying the situation help? > What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK > (on which SUNW has made so much noise about, back in May'06) has not > been built with the open gcc. Perhaps they did it for performance reasons? I know *I* avoid building anything with gcc unless I absolutely have to. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Frustration... / was: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] > >Yeah. But I am NOT alone with the feeling that something is going > >wrong. Why does this project need more than half a year to get some > >sources moved into the Solaris tree? This is a task which should be > >finished within weeks and NOT years. > > It's much more difficult than that because of AST integration and > other stuff changed in /lib (such as usurping libcmd) as well as > some continuous fine tuning of ksh93 itself. Yeah, but actually I am ready for the FIRST putback (one of many being planned; note that the first putback is designed to introduce only /usr/bin/ksh93 and the required libraries - and won't affect other things) since the beginning of June... since then the whole process aims at abolute perfection which is impossible to archive in this case as it is work in progress. We already operate on an alpha version of ksh93r+ which will not change as the ksh93r+_final depends on feedback generated from the integration into OS/Net so the current attempts to make it "perfect" just stretches the process even further, over and over again. I've read over the whole flamewar tonight and now understand the frustration in the community - and feel myself more and more weary and tired... ;-( Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> Since you have a fairly specific hit-list of items you need, how about > filing bugs against each requesting an open version? > > That might be a more productive approach than complaining here. > > -- > James Carlson Strange, but okay. Be sure that I will do that asap (not now). -- Martin Bochnig ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
> Would a statement by a Sun employee (provided, of course, thet such > a license doesn't prohibit Sun from doing so) clarifying the situation > help? Yes. > > What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK > > (on which SUNW has made so much noise about, back in May'06) has not > > been built with the open gcc. > > Perhaps they did it for performance reasons? I know *I* avoid building > anything with gcc unless I absolutely have to. > > -- > Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member > > President, > Rite Online Inc. Aehmm, what kind of performance is better in practical use? [ ] gcc: It may run only at 60% of the speed it could, when built with SUNWspro. (depending on what and how etc.) [ ] SUNWspro: it does not run at all, because it is linked against missing and unredistributable libs -- Martin Bochnig SCSA, SCNA, SCSecA, TOEFL, Student of Maths. at TU-Berlin, marTux ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Really ksh88 vs. ksh93 _/_ Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Hello David Korn, I'm Martin Bochnig, not the other Martin S. However, your suggestions below get a strong +1 from me. Martin Bochnig Original-Message Datum: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:15:40 -0400 (EDT) From: David Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal > Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC > > > I don't want to get involved in political arguments so I will > state my view one once. > > It looks as if Casper Dik and Martin Schaffstall have views that are at > opposite ends of the spectrum. Neither is right and neither is wrong. > There are tradeoffs in either view which I will outline below > and present the pros and cons of each. > > Casper's view: > > Avoid making changes that could be incompatible and effect customers. > Add ksh but putting it under a new name. Install ksh93 as /bin/ksh. > > Here are the pros: > 1. Sun provides continuity for customers. > 2. Easier to get approved. > 3. Each version can be modified independently. > 4. Can be implemented quickly. > 5. It is simpler in the short term. > Here are the cons: > 1. Complexity grows over time. > 2. Multiple versions need to be supported. > 3. Versions might diverge making future merges more difficult. > 4. Features that users want might be partially in one > version and not in the other. > 5. More closed source code. > 6. Less compatbility with Linux systems. > 7. Gets worse as time goes on. > > > Martins view: > > Select the best shell and make that the standard. Install ksh93 as > /bin/sh. > > Here are the pros: > 1. Once adopted, improves productivity for users. > 2. Reduces code and the need to support closed version. > 3. Improves Solaris performance. > Here are the cons: > 1. Sun would have to make sure that all their scripts > run which is likely to require some changes. > 2. It might break some existing user scripts. > 3. When installed as /bin/sh, it must be able to handle > all calls to system(). > 4. This would take longer to implement. > 5. Harder to get approved. > > > An alternative would be to do things in three phases. > > Phase 1. > 1. Move the current ksh to /bin/ksh88 > 2. Install the new ksh as /bin/ksh > 3. Fix any Solaris scripts that currently use ksh so > that they run with ksh93. > 4. Inform user to either change the #! in their scripts > to use /bin/ksh88 or fix the script if it doesn't > run under the new /bin/ksh. > 5. Mark /bin/ksh88 as obsolete and stop any maintenence. > > Phase 2. > 1. Make sure all Solaris scripts run with /bin/sh as ksh93. > 2. Let /bin/sh be a symlink that can be set to /bin/ksh > or to the old /bin/sh. > 3. Mark /bin/osh as obsolete and stop any maintenence. > > Phase 3. > 1. Make /bin/sh and /bin/ksh links. > > David Korn > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org