[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
Can anyone please tell me what the main improvements are for the upcoming OpenSolaris 2010.03, I don't just mean actual features but also updated programs. For example, what version of Firefox/Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org and VLC will be included? I know I can download developer snapshots but I'd rather wait for the GA release since it's scheduled for the 26th of this month. Thanks on advance :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
Other question I'll leave to others, but certainly on b134 I see Firefix 3.5.8 and Thunderbird 3.0.x. Karel -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
I think that I read somewhere that Firefox 3.6 will be included in a branch after 2010.03 is released but not before, because I think that 3.6.2 is about to be released. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
Okay thanks, any news on a 64bit version for x86? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
> Okay thanks, any news on a 64bit version for x86? Assuming you mean Firefox, remember that (Open)Solaris x86 runs on both 32-bit and 64-bit with a single binary distro (unlike Linux, where AFAIK a 64-bit kernel normally runs only 64-bit binaries, so 32-bit and 64-bit are separate binary distros*). So to have 64-bit Firefox and still be able to run Firefox on 32-bit, there would need to be two copies of everything: Firefox, bundled plugins, etc. Not to mention every single one of the many shared libraries that it depends on. Yes, on x86, a 64-bit binary is usually a little faster (not to mention being able to address _much_ more memory). But is it enough faster to be worth having two copies of something as big a browser? Or do you have so much RAM on your box that having the browser grow past 2GB address space is no big deal? And might there not be other things you want more (given limited resources) than for people to spend the time getting Firefox and everything it depends on to build (and work properly) _twice_? *And also unlike Mac OS X, where a 32-bit kernel can run 64-bit applications, provided the CPU is 64-bit capable. On Solaris, a 64-bit kernel is required to run 64-bit applications, but can still run 32-bit applications. Additionally, Solaris does not have "fat" binaries (a single binary file that combines binaries compiled for two or more architectures), so it ends up having totally separate copies, with a way (typically isaexec) to have a single program decide which to actually execute. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
>Assuming you mean Firefox, remember that (Open)Solaris x86 runs on >both 32-bit and 64-bit with a single binary distro (unlike Linux, where AFAIK >a 64-bit kernel normally runs only 64-bit binaries, so 32-bit and 64-bit are >separate binary distros*). So to have 64-bit Firefox and still be able to run >Firefox on 32-bit, there would need to be two copies of everything: Firefox, >bundled plugins, etc. Not to mention every single one of the many shared >libraries that it depends on. Many of the plugins are not available and, e.g., only an alpha version of 64 bit flashplayer is available for Linux. >Yes, on x86, a 64-bit binary is usually a little faster (not to mention being >able to address _much_ more memory). But is it enough faster to be worth >having two copies of something as big a browser? Or do you have so much >RAM on your box that having the browser grow past 2GB address space is >no big deal? I'd prefer to my firefox to die before it has leaked 4GB :-) So why do you really want a 64 bit firefox binary? "Mine goes to 11". Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
On 03/15/10 06:50 AM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: ... *And also unlike Mac OS X, where a 32-bit kernel can run 64-bit applications, provided the CPU is 64-bit capable. On Solaris, a 64-bit kernel is required to run 64-bit applications, but can still run 32-bit applications. Additionally, Solaris does not have "fat" binaries (a single binary file that combines binaries compiled for two or more architectures), so it ends up having totally separate copies, with a way (typically isaexec) to have a single program decide which to actually execute. However, OpenSolaris does have "fat" (multi-variant) packages ;) However, those are not used for 32-bit vs. 64-bit, but for SPARC vs. i386. -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
No I meant a 64bit version of OpenSolaris. Right now it's only available in 64bit for SPARC if I'm not mistaken. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
+-- | On 2010-03-15 12:43:05, Don Quichotte wrote: | | No I meant a 64bit version of OpenSolaris. Right now it's only available in 64bit for SPARC if I'm not mistaken. Solaris has been a mixed 32/64bit install for many years. The installer runs 32bit. The OS will load 64bit if the hardware supports it. $ uname -a SunOS soda 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc $ isainfo -v 64-bit amd64 applications sse4.1 ssse3 cx16 mon sse3 sse2 sse fxsr mmx cmov amd_sysc cx8 tsc fpu 32-bit i386 applications sse4.1 ssse3 ahf cx16 mon sse3 sse2 sse fxsr mmx cmov sep cx8 tsc fpu -- bda cyberpunk is dead. long live cyberpunk. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
On 03/15/10 02:43 PM, Don Quichotte wrote: No I meant a 64bit version of OpenSolaris. Right now it's only available in 64bit for SPARC if I'm not mistaken. A 64-bit kernel will be loaded when you boot OpenSolaris on x86 systems if your system supports it. Although, not all applications are 64-bit, and this is intentional. My understanding is that this is either for compatibility reasons or because the 64-bit version would provide no benefit (just use more memory, etc.). Almost all libraries are available in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
> | No I meant a 64bit version of OpenSolaris. Right > now it's only available in 64bit for SPARC if I'm not > mistaken. > > Solaris has been a mixed 32/64bit install for many years. > > The installer runs 32bit. This has changed in OpenSolaris. The OpenSolaris x86 installer / livecd runs the 64-bit kernel on 64 bit capable hardware, unless your system has less then 1 GB of physical memory. (Running the 64-bit kernel is important to install to disks > 1TB) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
Okay thanks :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
