Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris 2010.03 improvements?
Okay thanks :) -- 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
[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?
Where can I find the build LiveCD's for download? Is there a SPARC version yet? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris 2010.03?
Dan Pitic wrote: Where can I find the build LiveCD's for download? LiveCD's of development builds are available via http from genunix.org and via bittorrent from the URL's listed in the release notes for each build that are posted to opensolaris-announce. Is there a SPARC version yet? There's no LiveCD for SPARC - for SPARC systems, there's only the Automated Installer and the prototype text installer images. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris 2010.03?
I have a question for the OpenSolaris developers and the people responsible for deciding when a particular build becomes an official release. First some background. A few months ago I took a leap of faith and changed one of my OpenSolaris systems over to the dev builds. To my surprise, despite some problems which I expected, the system is very stable and I am enjoying the later version software and libraries (my other OpenSolaris system is still on the release build, waiting for the next official release, so I can compare the two). My question is, what extra testing is done on the official release builds to make them more stable and enterprise ready? If the next official release will be build 134, in the next fortnight or so, that doesn't give it any more testing time than the normal fortnightly dev builds. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris 2010.03?
Dan Pitic wrote: My question is, what extra testing is done on the official release builds to make them more stable and enterprise ready? If the next official release will be build 134, in the next fortnight or so, that doesn't give it any more testing time than the normal fortnightly dev builds. The next official release will not be exactly build 134. Build 134 will undergo extra testing, and will be respun with fixes for just selected issues found - the official release will likely be build 134a or 134b to pull in those extra changes, but not the new development that's underway for 135. Also in the lead up to this, builds 131 through 134 were increasingly restricted in the sorts of change allowed, with each build moving higher along the risk vs. reward scale for the threshold a change needed to cross to be allowed in, so 134 was already a reduced set of fixes with higher reward and lower risk than normal builds. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris 2010.03?
Ok, thanks, that clarifies things. So then, what is the general time frame from when the dev b134 is released to when the official release is available? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris 2010.03?
Hi, W. Wayne Liauh píše v út 23. 02. 2010 v 17:10 -0800: But b133 (LiveCD) still failed to boot from two of our three test machines (both are with multi-core, at least 4 GB DDR2, one with ATI HD graphics the other with Intel chip). On the one machine that it successfully boots (HP dv3, 4GB, ATI HD 4200), it keeps asking for password to a wifi network that does not require authentication. Could you send the CR numbers, please? Easily you can see from their status if they went to build 134 or not. Best regards, Milan ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Opensolaris 2010.03?
Is the next formal release still planned for 2010.03 and based on build 134? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris 2010.03?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Chuck Schwab schwab...@yahoo.com wrote: Is the next formal release still planned for 2010.03 and based on build 134? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org According to the Solaris Nevada ON Consolidation Gate Schedule, it is. http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+on/schedule ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris 2010.03?
Is the next formal release still planned for 2010.03 and based on build 134? After very disappointing failures from previous builds, my hope was very high on b133, especially since it is so close to the os2010.03 official release. But b133 (LiveCD) still failed to boot from two of our three test machines (both are with multi-core, at least 4 GB DDR2, one with ATI HD graphics the other with Intel chip). On the one machine that it successfully boots (HP dv3, 4GB, ATI HD 4200), it keeps asking for password to a wifi network that does not require authentication. I don't think it will make much difference even if OS2010.03 is changed to OS2010.06. What we really need is a bunch of shrink-wrapped excuses which emphasize that OpenSolaris is really not meant to be a desktop OS. Otherwise, it is not going to be fair to Oracle. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
