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: [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: [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
"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
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
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
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
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
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: [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: [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: 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: [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: 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
> 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: [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: [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: 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: [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
> 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: 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: [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: 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: [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
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: >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
(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, 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
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
[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
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
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
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 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, [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
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, 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: [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
>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, 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
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
> > [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
>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
> 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 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
> >>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
>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
