Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
two follow-up posts:
First:
Yes, this is from my blog. Thanks for reading :).
And yes, we can run Windows HVM on Solaris dom0 now.
BTW, I did a little bit correction on the translation below...
In our next step, we'll support nic/disk PV drivers for Windows HVM. At
that time, the performance should be very satisfactory.
Thanks,
Max
Second:
Hi Wayne,
I'm running Windows XP Home on Xen/Nevada. The CPU is Core2Duo 1.8GHz,
performance is ok. Attached is the config file.
Rgds,
Andre W.
#
# Python configuration setup for 'xm create'.
# This script sets the parameters used when a domain is created using 'xm
create'.
# You use a separate script for each domain you want to create, or
# you can set the parameters for the domain on the xm command line.
#
import os, re
arch = os.uname()[4]
if re.search('64', arch):
arch_libdir = 'lib64'
else:
arch_libdir = 'lib'
#
# Kernel image file.
kernel = /usr/lib/xen/boot/hvmloader
# The domain build function. HVM domain uses 'hvm'.
builder='hvm'
# Initial memory allocation (in megabytes) for the new domain.
#
# WARNING: Creating a domain with insufficient memory may cause out of
# memory errors. The domain needs enough memory to boot kernel
# and modules. Allocating less than 32MBs is not recommended.
memory = 512
# Shadow pagetable memory for the domain, in MB.
# Should be at least 2KB per MB of domain memory, plus a few MB per vcpu.
shadow_memory = 8
# A name for your domain. All domains must have different names.
name = Windows-on-Solaris
# 128-bit UUID for the domain. The default behavior is to generate a new UUID
# on each call to 'xm create'.
#uuid = 06ed00fe-1162-4fc4-b5d8-11993ee4a8b9
#-
# the number of cpus guest platform has, default=1
vcpus=1
# enable/disable HVM guest PAE, default=0 (disabled)
#pae=0
# enable/disable HVM guest ACPI, default=0 (disabled)
acpi=1
# enable/disable HVM guest APIC, default=0 (disabled)
apic=1
# List of which CPUS this domain is allowed to use, default Xen picks
#cpus = # leave to Xen to pick
#cpus = 0# all vcpus run on CPU0
#cpus = 0-3,5,^1 # run on cpus 0,2,3,5
# Optionally define mac and/or bridge for the network interfaces.
# Random MACs are assigned if not given.
#vif = [ 'type=ioemu' ]
#
# Define the disk devices you want the domain to have access to, and
# what you want them accessible as.
# Each disk entry is of the form phy:UNAME,DEV,MODE
# where UNAME is the device, DEV is the device name the domain will see,
# and MODE is r for read-only, w for read-write.
#disk = [ 'file:/export/home/mydisk.raw,hdc,w',
'file:/export/home/install.iso,hda:cdrom,r' ]
#disk = [ 'phy:/dev/dsk/c1d0p0,hdc,w',
'file:/export/home/install.iso,hda:cdrom,r' ]
#disk = [ 'phy:/dev/zvol/dsk/mypool/mydisk,hdc,w',
'file:/export/home/install.iso,hda:cdrom,r' ]
disk = [ 'file:/linuxpool/isos/winxp.iso,hdc:cdrom,r',
'phy:/dev/zvol/dsk/linuxpool/winxp,hda,w' ]
#
# Configure the behaviour when a domain exits. There are three 'reasons'
# for a domain to stop: poweroff, reboot, and crash. For each of these you
# may specify:
#
# destroy,meaning that the domain is cleaned up as normal;
# restart,meaning that a new domain is started in place of the old
# one;
# preserve, meaning that no clean-up is done until the domain is
# manually destroyed (using xm destroy, for example); or
# rename-restart, meaning that the old domain is not cleaned up, but is
# renamed and a new domain started in its place.
#
# The default is
#
# on_poweroff = 'destroy'
# on_reboot = 'restart'
# on_crash= 'restart'
#
# For backwards compatibility we also support the deprecated option restart
#
# restart = 'onreboot' means on_poweroff = 'destroy'
#on_reboot = 'restart'
#on_crash= 'destroy'
#
# restart = 'always' means on_poweroff = 'restart'
#on_reboot = 'restart'
#on_crash= 'restart'
#
# restart = 'never'means on_poweroff = 'destroy'
#on_reboot = 'destroy'
#on_crash= 'destroy'
on_poweroff = 'destroy'
on_reboot = 'restart'
on_crash= 'preserve'
#
# New stuff
device_model = '/usr/' + arch_libdir + '/xen/bin/qemu-dm'
#-
#
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Did someone use Xen and is it possible to run MS-WIN on case that the host platform supports Pacifica or Vanderbilt? Jörg I found one of Sun's blogs (from Sun's Beijing team) that talked about running Windows in Solaris under zen: # 支持了HVM：如果你的机器上有合适的CPU（支持AMD-V 或VT-x），那么就可以在Solaris的dom0上boot一个Windows的虚拟机了。运行的速度总体来说还是可以接受的。我们下一步会把Windows上运行的PV的网络和磁盘驱动加上。到了那个时候，运行的速度应该会十分令人满意了:)。 http://blogs.sun.com/maxzhen/entry/solaris_on_xen%E7%9A%84%E4%BB%A3%E7%A0%81%E5%9C%A8opensolaris%E4%B8%8A%E5%8F%88%E6%9B%B4%E6%96%B0%E4%BA%86 English Translation: It now supports HVM: If your machine has the appropriate CPU (i.e., it supports AMD-V or VT-x), then you can boot a Windows virtual machine on dom0 in Solaris. In general, the processing speeds are acceptable. In our next step, we will add Windows' PV networking and disc drive. At that time, the processing speed should be very satisfactory. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
I found one of Sun's blogs (from Sun's Beijing team) that talked about running Windows in Solaris under xen: The following is a Solaris Xen update quote in that article: http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/solaris_xen_update HVM support If you have the right CPU, you can now run fully-virtualized domains such as Windows using a Solaris dom0! Whilst more work is needed here, this does seem to work pretty well already. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way. We haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the majority of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. We are also investigating VMWare ESX running Solaris in a big way. (I wonder if there is room for a vmware community group on opensolaris.org) It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as the guest OS. we can. Works fine ( thus far for me ) and is actually supported. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as the guest OS. You mean with Solaris as a host OS? Does anyone have any experience on xen? thanks. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/20/07, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way. We haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the majority of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. We are also investigating VMWare ESX running Solaris in a big way. (I wonder if there is room for a vmware community group on opensolaris.org) It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as the guest OS. we can. Works fine ( thus far for me ) and is actually supported. Yes, it works already. Choose Solaris 10 as the guest OS while configuring it. But you may go ahead with SXDE, it works. -Shiv ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/20/07, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way. We haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the majority of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. We are also investigating VMWare ESX running Solaris in a big way. (I wonder if there is room for a vmware community group on opensolaris.org) It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as the guest OS. we can. Works fine ( thus far for me ) and is actually supported. Yes, it works already. Choose Solaris 10 as the guest OS while configuring it. But you may go ahead with SXDE, it works. I'm running VMware Workstation 6.0.0 build 45731 here and it shows me that Solaris 10 is supported as a guess OS. I'll have SXDE in there asap also just to do some testing. For the most part I run pure Solaris 10 99.995% of the time and when I do boot Windows XP it may be so long between boots that the battery on the motherboard dies and I lose the BIOS config. That may change if I *have* to work with Vista and CATIA V5 and thus VMWare will become reasonable for me. That is a long and verbose way for me to explain that VMware 6.0.0 ( on Vista ) looks like a safe leap for me to make now that Solaris 10 is considered supported. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way. We haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the majority of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. I find it funny that you use T2000 and commodity hardware in the same sentence. T2000 is anything but commodity hardware, and a T2000 is certainly overpriced and not cheap - at $9,995.00 USD [store.sun.com] starting price and exotic CPU and hardware, it's anything but cheap or commodity. I've spent considerable time porting a C/C++ product and trying to tune it to the UltraSPARC T1 processor, and that thing is so exotic in comparison to the CPUs out there (more will follow, but just not yet), that one is mostly at a loss. That thing is anything but commodity hardware, in every way imaginable. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as the guest OS. You mean with Solaris as a host OS? For me, only Solaris as host OS would be of interest Does anyone have any experience on xen? thanks. Did someone use Xen and is it possible to run MS-WIN on case that the host platform supports Pacifica or Vanderbilt? 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Joerg Schilling wrote: W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as the guest OS. You mean with Solaris as a host OS? For me, only Solaris as host OS would be of interest Does anyone have any experience on xen? thanks. Did someone use Xen and is it possible to run MS-WIN on case that the host platform supports Pacifica or Vanderbilt? Technically yes it is possible and I've seen it done. However there are licensing issues (that are not appropriate for *any* @opensolaris.org alias) depending on which version/edition of a windows operating system you have. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me, only Solaris as host OS would be of interest Does anyone have any experience on xen? thanks. Did someone use Xen and is it possible to run MS-WIN on case that the host platform supports Pacifica or Vanderbilt? Technically yes it is possible and I've seen it done. However there are licensing issues (that are not appropriate for *any* @opensolaris.org alias) depending on which version/edition of a windows operating system you have. Fraunhofer Employees may install as many MS-WIN instances as possible, so this does not seem to be a problem for me. Do you know of a pointer to install instructions? 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way. We haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the majority of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. We are also investigating VMWare ESX running Solaris in a big way. (I wonder if there is room for a vmware community group on opensolaris.org) It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as the guest OS. begin:vcard fn:Manish Chakravarty n:Chakravarty;Manish org:SpikeSource Inc;Solution Engineering adr:;;;Bangalore;Karnataka;56008;India email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Associate Software Developer tel;work:+91-8041810800 tel;fax:+91-8041810800 tel;pager:+91-9901030104 tel;home:+91-9901030104 tel;cell:+91-9901030104 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://manish-chaks.livejournal.com version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please do! Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem. Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has happened with the legal team. There is no reason compelling enough for a second opinion :-) As long as he does not quote content of this discussion, it does not help us at all. I know of no public statement from a lawyer that claims there is a problem. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem pretty confident in your interpetation of the law, and maybe you are spot on, I don't know. My interaction with the legal department has to do with CDDL/GPL/BSD interaction. I had several courses payed by my employer because I need to do some legal stuff in my job... I try to understand how lawyers think. This is needed in order to estimate whether there is a need for a legal case and whether such a case might be won. In my private life, I did also try to sue two companies for GPL violatoions long before Harald Welte did similar things. I had many discussions with my lawyer at this time trying to find out what is possible and what should/could be done. It turned out that it is usually not possible (note that Harald Welte's cases are hand picked from the general pool of GPL violatoions while I did try to defend cdrtools) to win a GPL related case. There have been sereval discussions in public mailing lists related to my cases and after some time, Eben Moglen did chime in. He claimed that it is possible to defend the GPL. So I did send him a private mail with the arguments of my lawyer. After reding these arguments, Moglen admitted that I was right but he needs to repeat in the public what's theoretically possible. Be careful when reading Moglens public statements as he has an own opinion but usually publishes the opinion of Richard Stallman which may be completely different. With these background experiences, I learned to verify claims from other people by comparing them to the official law or license text. It is obvious that even a lawyer cannot tell you anything final on a legal problem before it has been tried for. But it is possible to judge on the credibility of a claim by comparing it with the original license text. You do not need to be a lawyer in case you just take all public proven claims and compare them with the license text. Trow way all unproven claims before and then compare the remaining proven claims with their credibility. From this perspective, it turns out that there is no problem to include CDDLd code in a GPLd project as long as the CDDLd code does not become a derived work from the act of combining. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 12:59 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: I am not sure about copyright laws in less free countries, but in Germany/Europe, there is something called Recht auf das wissenschaftliche Kleinzitat. You may quote other people's work _without_ ever asking them for permission in case this is needed for your work and as long as your work has enough own creation level to make it a separate work. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that US copyright law is essentially similar. Those who disagree may want to read: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/20041026_Ruling.pdf (particularly the discussion of copyright as applied to functional elements of computer programs on pages 5 through 8 of the decision), which cites a large number of prior cases which establish that copyright protection does not prevent the copying of purely functional elements necessary to build interoperable software and hardware. - Bill ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please do! Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem. Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has happened with the legal team. There is no reason compelling enough for a second opinion :-) Sorry, he did not. Please carefully read hs mail, it does not include any quote fom a lawyer. I hope he is going to correct his statement. Note that Eben Moglen (being a law professor) on the other side explains that this kind of code combination is OK. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: and any lawyer worth the air he or she breathes to sufficiently dispute this in court, I think. On 8/10/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: they have a specific side they err on, and this is one of those issues that seems to be accepted by them. Unless the putting the code into gpl tree is something we *badly want*, if there is ambiguity and scope for legal battle, err on the side that avoids litigation. No point in getting into litigations that distracts frustrates everyone. While contributing CDDL code to GPL code might not be a problem, that part of the contributed CDDL code would need to be re-licensed or dual-licensed under GPL compatible code. ZFS is a separate work, you do not need to relicense it under the GPL and you cannot. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, S h i v wrote: On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please do! Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem. Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has happened with the legal team. There is no reason compelling enough for a second opinion :-) Shiv, Let me just add a couple comments here. No matter what I or anyone else believes, at the end of the day everything needs to go through legal, we just do not have a choice as Sun requires that to protect themself. I have put my neck on the line to go up against legal for some issues that I didn't feel were correct, and in the end it cause a lot of frustration for everyone, the legal team, my manager, and myself. It did help me understand more just why legal is so complicated in itself. It's not a choice, we need to use them for anything that anyone from Sun does, they are the folks that look after us. They are also the ones that have the most knowledge about open source software at Sun and/or how it applies to our sources. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote: S h i v wrote: *I* cannot, because I am not the owner of the copyright. Point was about mixing CDDL GPL and why it *is a problem* Sane thing is to follow legal advice by the qualified. It seems to have its good share of problems and need not be done. There is no compelling need either. Extract of an email from Linus on 3 Dec 2003 to linux-kernel Darren, No matter what anyone says, Linus included, at the end of the day we need to let our legal team guide us and use them for advice. I will say that we certainly have some sharp folks at Sun on the legal team, and it is often quite complicated to decide on some of these issues. It is really to our advantage, they really do know best if we need to take something to court, and rightfully so, that is their job. There's a lot of lawyers on the internet, but these folks do it for a living, as their job, with credentials to back them up. My $0.02. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has happened with the legal team. There is no reason compelling enough for a second opinion :-) Sorry, he did not. Please carefully read hs mail, it does not include any quote fom a lawyer. I hope he is going to correct his statement. Note that Eben Moglen (being a law professor) on the other side explains that this kind of code combination is OK. What Eben Moglen often states is not what the community acts upon, and we have to deal with the Linux community in regards to Linux, not Eben. It could very well be that it is ok, but from our perspective we need to have Sun legal go over everything we do, as Sun employees, it is not a choice. There's a chance that legal will say, ah, it's fine to port ZFS to Linux, but I doubt that as the Linux community hasn't done it, so they obviously feel there is contention there between the licenses. You seem pretty confident in your interpetation of the law, and maybe you are spot on, I don't know. My interaction with the legal department has to do with CDDL/GPL/BSD interaction. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless the putting the code into gpl tree is something we *badly want*, if there is ambiguity and scope for legal battle, err on the side that avoids litigation. No point in getting into litigations that distracts frustrates everyone. While contributing CDDL code to GPL code might not be a problem, that part of the contributed CDDL code would need to be re-licensed or dual-licensed under GPL compatible code. ZFS is a separate work, you do not need to relicense it under the GPL and you cannot. *I* cannot, because I am not the owner of the copyright. Point was about mixing CDDL GPL and why it *is a problem* Sane thing is to follow legal advice by the qualified. It seems to have its good share of problems and need not be done. There is no compelling need either. regards Shiv ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless the putting the code into gpl tree is something we *badly want*, if there is ambiguity and scope for legal battle, err on the side that avoids litigation. No point in getting into litigations that distracts frustrates everyone. While contributing CDDL code to GPL code might not be a problem, that part of the contributed CDDL code would need to be re-licensed or dual-licensed under GPL compatible code. ZFS is a separate work, you do not need to relicense it under the GPL and you cannot. *I* cannot, because I am not the owner of the copyright. Point was about mixing CDDL GPL and why it *is a problem* Sane thing is to follow legal advice by the qualified. It seems to Please do! Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
S h i v wrote: *I* cannot, because I am not the owner of the copyright. Point was about mixing CDDL GPL and why it *is a problem* Sane thing is to follow legal advice by the qualified. It seems to have its good share of problems and need not be done. There is no compelling need either. Extract of an email from Linus on 3 Dec 2003 to linux-kernel L Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem L module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the L first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just L because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface L to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that L judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray L area. L Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to L tell the AFS guys so. OpenAFS runs on Linux and it is NOT GPL it is covered under the IBM Public License. OpenAFS isn't part of the Linux kernel source it just hooks into the VFS layer. I personally believe that a ZFS port could very likley be done under the same terms, but thats my interpretation of what Linus has said. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please do! Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem. Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has happened with the legal team. There is no reason compelling enough for a second opinion :-) regards Shiv ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote: S h i v wrote: *I* cannot, because I am not the owner of the copyright. Point was about mixing CDDL GPL and why it *is a problem* Sane thing is to follow legal advice by the qualified. It seems to have its good share of problems and need not be done. There is no compelling need either. Extract of an email from Linus on 3 Dec 2003 to linux-kernel Darren, No matter what anyone says, Linus included, at the end of the day we need to let our legal team guide us and use them for advice. Please do not let us continue a discussion like: I've heard of people that heard there is a lawyer that claims that there are problems. If you cannot give qualified quotes, the only known expression of a lawyer is the expression from Eben Moglen. He believes that there are no problems. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Frank Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: [ ... ] You may quote other people's work _without_ ever asking them for permission in case this is needed for your work and as long as your work has enough own creation level to make it a separate work. That might or might not be correct given the gritty details where the legislation in different countries is different. Though in the end, it doesn't matter. You may be allowed to do that, fully within your rights. But that's not the point. It doesn't actually help either of: - integrate a Linux ZFS with 'Linux mainstream'. - maintain a Linux ZFS when Linux changes ... yet again. - find co-workers who will help with coding/maintenance. It doesn't encourage cooperation. And even if there were a e.g. a WTO decision that the so-called 'linking clause' of the GPL is null and void, and several high court rulings worldwide confirming so, it wouldn't stop people who _like_ to think it's valid from adopting a stance that no matter what, they'll use all means they can to obstruct those who do not agree with them. Several Linux kernel developers have openly stated so. Or, on a different end, the Debian Free Software Guidelines are way more restrictive than the GPL. This is what I try to explain since a while ,-) It could be done if there was a will. The problem is that some people from the Linux camp claim that there is a legal problem just to hide their real intention. Personally, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, definitely long-term. But then, this talk about how to get code from OpenSolaris into The problem is that you cannot tell us how log we need to wait to see the blood coming off Linux feet ;-) This is not a legal problem but some people play politic games. If we respond to these games, we loose. If we continue the way we currently have and verify that OpenSolaris is viable and constantly creates new ideas and new code, this kind of games will die out some time. Let us wait until they shoot themselves in the foot and then give them feet back. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: [ ... ] You may quote other people's work _without_ ever asking them for permission in case this is needed for your work and as long as your work has enough own creation level to make it a separate work. That might or might not be correct given the gritty details where the legislation in different countries is different. Though in the end, it doesn't matter. You may be allowed to do that, fully within your rights. But that's not the point. It doesn't actually help either of: - integrate a Linux ZFS with 'Linux mainstream'. - maintain a Linux ZFS when Linux changes ... yet again. - find co-workers who will help with coding/maintenance. It doesn't encourage cooperation. And even if there were a e.g. a WTO decision that the so-called 'linking clause' of the GPL is null and void, and several high court rulings worldwide confirming so, it wouldn't stop people who _like_ to think it's valid from adopting a stance that no matter what, they'll use all means they can to obstruct those who do not agree with them. Several Linux kernel developers have openly stated so. Or, on a different end, the Debian Free Software Guidelines are way more restrictive than the GPL. It's a political agenda, not a question of what's legally/technically possible. Linux developers don't _want_ non-GPL code in the kernel, and unless you have a significant tendency towards masochism (or are well-paid to do it) and are willing to update your port chain whenever compatibility with your module is deliberately broken next (greetings to Ati/Nvidia), you'd better not try or else you'll regret the continuous waste of effort. Personally, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, definitely long-term. But then, this talk about how to get code from OpenSolaris into Linux is somewhat off-topic; back in usenet days, I'd have pointed you towards comp.unix.advocacy :) FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Its just annoying - the low end graphics cards are nothing more than rebadged ATI stuff which has opensource drivers already - it would be a matter of rejigging the code to work on sparc. That's what Martin Bochnig did for Martux and we're looking at using his work for Indiana (right now, it's an option we're exploring, not a decision we've made). -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:38 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Just a follow up question; when will acpi appear in OpenSolaris by default? ACPI already is[1] it appeared as part of newboot on x86 and is regularly updated to the latest Intel reference code. However I suspect you don't really mean ACPI but some bit of functionality that you believe uses ACPI. So what do you really mean here. Often when people say that (I was confused initially as well) they mean one or more of the following: battery info[2], suspend/resume to ram/disk, lid events, [1]http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/intel/io/acpica/ [2] http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/i86pc/io/battery/ Power Management, when I go prtconf, acpi (driver not attached) along with: cpus, instance #0 cpu (driver not attached) cpu (driver not attached) My laptop has power management which Linux and Windows supports, but B70 complains about the lack of _PSS. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:33 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: True - I'm had a look at the page, it would be cool if there was more documentation about future developments. The way the page is put there as if nwam is complete and no more development is going to occur. Huh ? This is probably one of the most active and open development projects going on via opensolaris.org. If you look at the page you will see that is is a multiple phase delivery project, there are design and ui documents for phase 1 there now (phase 0 having integrated), the discussion list is full of requests and feedback for design and codereview. There are even prototype binaries for the UI for phase 1 available. If you can't find this out then PLEASE don't complain here in this thread but instead tell the project team about it and help them change their project web pages so that it is clearer. I stand corrected - and Darren, calm down, your reaction is as though I had just punched your mother. Mathew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:38 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Just a follow up question; when will acpi appear in OpenSolaris by default? ACPI already is[1] it appeared as part of newboot on x86 and is regularly updated to the latest Intel reference code. However I suspect you don't really mean ACPI but some bit of functionality that you believe uses ACPI. So what do you really mean here. Often when people say that (I was confused initially as well) they mean one or more of the following: battery info[2], suspend/resume to ram/disk, lid events, Power Management, when I go prtconf, and what you do mean by power management it is a very broad and vauge term. Do you mean varying the CPU speed/power or something else ? acpi (driver not attached) along with: cpus, instance #0 cpu (driver not attached) cpu (driver not attached) My laptop has power management which Linux and Windows supports, but B70 complains about the lack of _PSS. without knowing exactly what the specs and make/model of your laptop are I can't say if that is expected or not. This is probably best moved to laptop-discuss where there are likely more focused people who can help you. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
The only thing I would have done different given the limited resources in engineering, would have been to license under the BSD 3 clause so that anyone, any system, could have taken the code to incorporate into their system, even Linux. It seems that will happen if Sun does GPL2 and/or GPL3 the OpenSolaris sources, and I don't know if they will do that, just that they have mentioned that in the press. I don't think that going GPL is the right thing to do right now. The OpenSolaris project should first gather some momentum before reconsidering to release the bits to the lion and then just go under. See my other thread (Okay guys, let's take our balls, give up and go home!) for why. -mg signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would understand that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece of code licensed under the CDDL. No, that is not clear, and IANAL and neither are you it seems. While this aspect of the GPL has not been taken to court, AFAIK, most legal folks go under the assumption that the licenses are incompatible. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be possible, given the majority of people that work with GPL'd license code seem to be set upon making the imagined 'linking clause' reality when, in fact, the text of the GPL contains no instances of the word 'link'. I agree with you, in principal, but in reality the legal weanies are siding with them also, and those are the folks that are most intimately familiar with law, IMO. From my research, a ZFS or DTrace Linux port would only require the sources be distributed separately. Binaries could still be shipped with a Linux distribution, as the GPL is strictly a source-level license if one assumes the imaginary 'linking clause' is, in fact, imaginary. Maybe so, but your research is not under a legal perspective, is it? IOW, if you are a lawyer, you would be in that position. With this said, I fail to see how adopting a license that contains such ambiguities could be beneficial towards OpenSolaris. Considering that the majority of open source software development is being done under this license, it's not something that can be ignored. In the best world all of our sources would be licensed under the BSD 3 clause, my favorite license of any to date. Only use it if you want your sources to truely be free and open, for everyone. My $0.02. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: The fact that some people without legal knowledge claim a general unspecific incompatibility should not be taken for serious. What I know is that I must defer all the legal aspects to Sun's legal team, and have discussed several of these issues with them. While they agree that some things are not cast in stone (i.e., have not been taken to a court of law), they have a specific side they err on, and this is one of those issues that seems to be accepted by them. I do not get a choice in the matter, where you as an outsider of Sun can view it differently. I've personally never liked the fiasco that was created with the Linux 2.4.13 kernel, where the GPL exportt is required and if not used your code is considered to be tainting the kernel. I just do not feel the whole kernel linking has much value when placed in open source software, either it's free or it's not. I 'spose this is my problem with the GPL, in that I do feel it places restrictions on the code, and in various ways places restrictions on it's very freedom. With that said, I don't have a choice with OpenSolaris, it's the Sun lawyers that will ultimately decide, and defend what they have created. With the same way of thinking, a lock and a key may be called incompatible because you cannot put the lock _into_ the key. The same key could be put into the same lock.without a poroblem. I don't see it as being so simple, I see a key that will fit but will break off in the lock, or a key that will break the lock after it is in the lock. It's not that the lock and key are incompatible, it's that they do not work together due to licensing and/or interpetation. I'm certainly in envy of you non-lawyers that understand this better than lawyers, but I can't and will not claim to be in that group. Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems because you cannot put the lock into the key.understand that the GPL is a heavily assymetric license. What do you suggest when I need to deal with Sun legal? Sounds like you're saying I should not listen to them. That doesn't seem like a very good option for me since I need to work with them. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/9/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would understand that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece of code licensed under the CDDL. No, that is not clear, and IANAL and neither are you it seems. While this aspect of the GPL has not been taken to court, AFAIK, most legal folks go under the assumption that the licenses are incompatible. The fact that some people without legal knowledge claim a general unspecific incompatibility should not be taken for serious. With the same way of thinking, a lock and a key may be called incompatible because you cannot put the lock _into_ the key. The same key could be put into the same lock.without a poroblem. Lawyers carefully look at the licenses and tell you different things. Eben Moglen (at the press conference for a early GPLv3 draft) did explain why there is no need for the OS exception in the GPL and that GPLd code may use non-GPLd code. The GPL only prevents you from using GPLd code in a non-GPL project (called work in compliance with the copyright law). The GPL does not prevent you from using non-GPLd code from a GPLd project. The latter is allowed because this way, no non-GPLd code becomes a derived work of the GPLd code. Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems because you cannot put the lock into the key.understand that the GPL is a heavily assymetric license. If I understand what you are saying, I'd have to say I interpret it differently. In order to compile a Linux ZFS kernel module, you need access to the kernel source code at compile time. Thus the resulting binary is a derivative of both the GPLed Linux kernel and the CDDLed ZFS code. The GPL expressly forbids this, so this child can not legally exist. (Both licenses must allow it) Brian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote: and any lawyer worth the air he or she breathes to sufficiently dispute this in court, I think. On 8/10/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: they have a specific side they err on, and this is one of those issues that seems to be accepted by them. Unless the putting the code into gpl tree is something we *badly want*, if there is ambiguity and scope for legal battle, err on the side that avoids litigation. No point in getting into litigations that distracts frustrates everyone. While contributing CDDL code to GPL code might not be a problem, that part of the contributed CDDL code would need to be re-licensed or dual-licensed under GPL compatible code. On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems because you cannot put the lock into the key.understand that the GPL is a heavily assymetric license. If Eben Moglen has clarified *this specific issue*, it should be ok. But lock and key analogy to drive home this point is incorrect. There is a codebase X(ZFS) under CDDL and codebase Y(linux kernel), under GPL. * A 3rd party takes ZFS Linux-kernel and creates a combined product, now do you call it ZFS incorporating Linux-kernel or the other way. * The codebase of linux-kernel is huge compared to ZFS is incidental, if ZFS code were to be 200k instead of the 80k would you still use the container analogy. What if it were 1000k instead of 80k = See, it is subject to interpretation and litigations in such situations lawyers are the only ones who stand to gain. ~Shiv ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Nico Sabbi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can I suggest considering the following items? 1) a current, working and maintained port of eclipse 2) kde (much more powerful, lightweight and usable than gnome, IMO) 3) the Reply-to header in its lists :-) those are all topics that some kind third party soul sometimes provides, thus they shouldn't really require a lot of effort to merge in Opensolaris (especially item n. 3) This is opensolaris. If you like it, do it! 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Nico Sabbi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is opensolaris. If you like it, do it! Jörg you explained yourself that doing it is one thing, integrating it in Opensolaris is a totally different thing that only the members of some board can decide. Since the ports of eclipse and kde exist already now, it's up to the board to decide what to do with them If the sources together with binaries are loadable in a useful way, people would appreciate it. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nico Sabbi wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Nico Sabbi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ... ] This is opensolaris. If you like it, do it! Jörg you explained yourself that doing it is one thing, integrating it in Opensolaris is a totally different thing that only the members of some board can decide. Since the ports of eclipse and kde exist already now, it's up to the board to decide what to do with them Not quite. For one thing, what you're asking for is integration of KDE and Eclipse into a specific distribution, probably Solaris Express. That's different from integrating into OpenSolaris. Are KDE and Eclipse part of the Linux kernel ? Are they part of the GNU compiler collection ? Are they integrated with GNU libc ? Ah, and yes, it'd really be a great idea to actually integrate them both into GNOME ... You're asking for co-packaging, what in terms of OpenSolaris is called a WAD - the term would roughly describe what's commonly referred to as distribution. That's a collection of various so-called, again in terms of OpenSolaris, consolidations, which are e.g. X11, ON, install, Java - which are not fully self-contained, but also not tightly coupled. There's no need to create a new build of the X server each time a new build of the ON kernel components go out. Same would be true for e.g. Eclipse and KDE. The mythical entity you refer to as The board will not object to a specific consolidation's idea of what code/feature/subsystem should go in or out as long as there are no side effects beyond that consolidation. Adding new software packages therefore needs talking to the specific people who work on the umbrella thing - and that's the consolidation, the community that'd embrace your project(s). Trying to integrate a new manual page, would you talk to a kernel engineer or a documentations maintainer ? I guess you get the idea now. Assuming you have a piece of code, a specific item of software you want to have distributed as part of some OpenSolaris distribution, you would, in order: - ask the maintainer(s) of that distribution how that'd work - ask people from a related community what'd be needed and only _then_ start worrying about what strange questions they might come up with. What Joerg was talking about was code integration into the ON consolidation (kernel/libraries/UN*X utils), that currently uses what's called a sponsorship model where you dump your code onto some Sun person for them to turn the internal wheels and get stuff in. If you search the archives for e.g. ksh93 you'll see that such integration discussions can take a very long time. But that's far from what you want. You're not developing a kernel driver, a UN*X utility of a fix/enhancement to libc. You're simply requesting (some) (Open)Solaris distributions to include additional software. Which might have its own pitfalls, ok. Have you tried talking to talk to any distribution maintainer ? FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 12:57 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: Yes, it has changed - but I'm just frustrated at the lack of progress outside of the 'basics'. The next meeting of SVOSUG will feature a presentation by the Xorg group, notably Alan Coopersmith, showing the latest Xorg changes and/or what is in store, but to also show Compiz. Your comments got me to thinking, and I have really come to the conclusion that Solaris has made some incredible improvements on the desktop, IMO. 1) The new-boot architecture brought us into the modern age of booting. 2) Xorg replaced Xsun as the X server, and we have more support for video than we ever had. 3) RealPlayer - This was a long and hard battle, and finally we have a RealPlayer that is included in Solaris and/or can be added to OpenSolaris. 4) Flash...another long and hard battle which I was involved in before I joined Sun. We have had some problems with the current Flash 9 being delivered, but it is out now and we're in ok shape on this, IMO. 5) NWAM - this will change the way folks use their laptops, the way they connect, and will elliminate much of the confusion in system configuration that prevents new folks from being able to use their systems more easily. 6) JDS - while not my favorite desktop, it has moved Solaris away from the old CDE, and this is good for many of the new adopters of Solaris/OpenSolaris. There have been quite a few developments in JDS and quite a bit has changed. 7) Additional desktop software such as GIMP, gphoto, evince, etc...this has made it easier for the bulk of folks to use their Solaris/OpenSolaris systems to interact with web work, image editing, and incorporating their digital pics. 8) StarOffice - was not even being built for Solaris on x86 when I joined Sun more than 4 years ago. It has been packaged and on the system for the past 2 years at least. This is a huge improvement and we have an office suite that allows us to function in the real world. 9) Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird - also not being built for Solaris/OpenSolaris when I came to Sun. I pounded on the folks responsible for it and made them change their ways by starting to build the packages and distributing them on my own. We have current versions in new builds now, and it's setup with flash to work. This is a HUGE improvement over what we had 2 years ago. 10) wifi - people laughed when you mentioned wifi on Solaris a couple years ago. Now we have several decent drivers that allow us to connect over wireless networks, and using WEP as well. I can probably think of more, given time, but this list above I believe represents an incredible leap for Solaris, and certainly on x86. Sun has shown that they are in the x86 space for the long haul, even the execs speak it on stage when they give presentations these days. Do you really think that this is all a part of the basics? These, IMO, are huge improvements to bring out system/desktop to the masses, and Solaris/OpenSolaris continues to move forward. Unfortunately however, there are a sizable number who have romantic notions about where Solaris has come - thats easy, anyone can look with sheepish eyes over the past. The difficult thing is acknowledging the issues that plague Solaris *today* and doing something about it. Simply sitting back and patting each other on the back for 'past glories and achievements' does not get things fixed which today requires. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 14:08 +0200, Mark Phalan wrote: On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 23:02 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: ... 2) kde (much more powerful, lightweight and usable than gnome, IMO) Someone has built 3.5.7 but unfortunately they seem to live under a giant size bolder - ignoring that x86 is now a viable target. You're probably referring to this.. ftp://ls12-ftp.cs.uni-dortmund.de/outgoing/KDE/3.5.7/README.SRC Looks to me like it wouldn't be too hard to get that going on x86. Have you tried those instructions? Does the source file include all the sources required to build - all the dependencies etc. etc? From what I've heard people are working on KDE for Solaris/SunStudio, particularily Sefan Teleman, but they are focusing on KDE 4. Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] its a better place for KDE questions. I've tried to build KDE - it breaks every time; they need to do something about that. I should be able to grab a source, grab gcc, and voila, it compiles. Me thinks that that is one of the goals of project Indiana - we're not there yet but thats where we're headed. Hopefully - that is the one thing holding it back. When there is all the necessary GNU stuff there to allow compilation out of the, life will be alot easier. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/8/07, Frank Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But that's far from what you want. You're not developing a kernel driver, a UN*X utility of a fix/enhancement to libc. You're simply requesting (some) (Open)Solaris distributions to include additional software. Which might have its own pitfalls, ok. Have you tried talking to talk to any distribution maintainer ? To address the issue of the software stack, I believe based on the discussions happening on the Indiana mailing list, it will have a network based installation (similar to ubuntu's synaptic manager) that is better integrated and *just works*. If the software a person likes is not there, Indiana hopefully provides a mechanism for people to contribute. Sigh, Indiana, *the silver bullet* for every issue that is raised !!! ~Shiv ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 18:03 +0530, S h i v wrote: On 8/8/07, Frank Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But that's far from what you want. You're not developing a kernel driver, a UN*X utility of a fix/enhancement to libc. You're simply requesting (some) (Open)Solaris distributions to include additional software. Which might have its own pitfalls, ok. Have you tried talking to talk to any distribution maintainer ? To address the issue of the software stack, I believe based on the discussions happening on the Indiana mailing list, it will have a network based installation (similar to ubuntu's synaptic manager) that is better integrated and *just works*. If the software a person likes is not there, Indiana hopefully provides a mechanism for people to contribute. Sigh, Indiana, *the silver bullet* for every issue that is raised !!! Thats probably because Indiana is the umbrella for a lot of new technologies/projects being worked on. (I'm confused by the Sigh). -Mark ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 00:34 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: ... The way I read it, I would still need to travel to hell and back with the laundry list of GNU stuff I would need to install along with heaps I don't think thats really the case. Yes, there is some GNU stuff missing but most of it is here (build 69). The only obvious GNU stuff missing from a build point of view that I can see is the lack of auto* - but in general these are only needed if you are building from a source checkout and need to generate the configure script. of dependencies with broken Solaris build settings (Qt hard coded to use sun's CC instead of respecting environment variables). Yes, thats one thing I've noticed. If Solaris is supported it assumes Sun Studio and/or sparc. It can be frustrating - best thing to do is to nag the upstream sources. ... In general things aren't as bad as you are making out. In my experience most things actually *do* compile out of the box on the latest builds of Nevada with a little PATH magic. Probably the better thing is less path magic more correction of the defaults. Indeed. Indiana :) -Mark ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/8/07, Mark Phalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh, Indiana, *the silver bullet* for every issue that is raised !!! Thats probably because Indiana is the umbrella for a lot of new technologies/projects being worked on. (I'm confused by the Sigh). Sigh = want to take a break (from the long opensolaris.org threads that repeat the usability discussions) and wait for the *silver bullet* to appear. A distro (unlike SXDE), that does not have the compulsion to support 8years of legacy compatibility opens up some really nice possibilities on the user segments not explored enough earlier. Am excited about Indiana...(SXDE itself has just works for me for my requirements of *desktop* ) ~Shiv ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:45 +0100, Calum Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 04:19 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote: I do wonder why we need to have a different GNOME desktop? Well, I know why we do it (i.e., JDS), but I'm not sure why we should. It only diverges us from the mainstream, and makes things different. Seems better to leverage the mainstream GNOME project to me, and be the same, the Ubuntu uses a stock GNOME desktop, AFAICT. It doesn't really, Ubuntu have a whole ream of local patches just like we do, and other distros like SuSE have a lot more. They arguably do a better job of getting theirs upstream, but they also have the advantage of being Just Another Linux. It often takes longer to get the GNOME community to buy into Solaris patches, particuarly if they also happen to change the way things work on Linux. Or some of the time the patches made are for components that are going to be completely re-written :) It confuses me that zfs has been out for about a year and a half and we don't see our desktop folks doing that type of simple integration. Being able to take snapshots, list information on zfs filesystems, or getting the status of a zpool, those are all things that should be available for the user. I agree, and we have had people working on ZFS desktop integration prototypes on and off over the past couple of years. But as always it's a question of resources and priorities, and as yet it just hasn't been made a high enough one for us to drive to completion. (There's nothing that says Sun has to do the work, of course.) Hmm, thats assuming one doesn't want to actually make Solaris a success either on the desktop or for the Sun Ray. Imagine, end user in 'very big corporation of america' deletes file, then is able to roll back with a click of a mouse - no interaction with the system admin needed. There are a heap of scenarios I could possibly rectum pluck where the benefits to Sun for 'customer selling points' would be alot higher than a sole individual. Mathew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 12:11 -0700, Edward McAuley wrote: Uh, let's see. Beautiful interface (as attractive as the Mac or Vista), intuitively laid out, ease of use, UNIX (like), open source...it's already here. You can download it or buy it. Suse 10.2 Please look at this latest version, it is stunning. The beautifully designed and intuitive layout of its desktop is very difficult to communicate until you spin it up and use it for a while. Everything they have is or will be available to us in Solaris GNOME soon enough. SuSE just tend to annoy people by developing it all themselves before turning it over to the open source community at large, so we always have to play catch-up with anything they do. (Personally I dislike some of it and find it a step backwards in usability terms-- especially the new control centre and the brick of a main menu-- and Apple have already been down the same path and realised they had to scale back most of the glitz because most people just turned it off after a while anyway. Hopefully the GNOME community will have learned from that experience...) Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]GNOME Desktop 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: 1) The new-boot architecture brought us into the modern age of booting. Which was great - but need I be negative, but what took so long? it took *that* long for Sun to realise their x86 booting royally sucked? This was one of the quicker project in Sun, I think it only was in development for about 6 months. It's not that it took them that long to realize the boot on x86 sucked, but it's been the first chance that it could be changed, given the state of some of the other Solaris integration. I tip my hat to the new boot team, this REALLY makes a difference on modern hardware. 2) Xorg replaced Xsun as the X server, and we have more support for video than we ever had. But the hickory Xsun still remains - pkgconfig not located in once place which causes all manner of problems when compiling applications which use pkgconfig for dependency checking. It needs to be moved completely to Xorg and the SPARC driver writers to be given a shock with a cattle prod. I can't speak for the sparc driver theropy you mention, but it sounds like a decent plan.;-) I'm not gonna comment on some of your stuff like RealPlayer, because complaining our player is not the same as windows is irrealevant, IMO, at least we have a player...for a long time we had to use a glue wrapper and run the SCO binary on Solaris. 5) NWAM - this will change the way folks use their laptops, the way they connect, and will elliminate much of the confusion in system configuration that prevents new folks from being able to use their systems more easily. There is nwam but doesn't even have the ability to come back and request the user when the password is wrong; in my case I changed my password on my router and ended up screwed because there was no way to flush the existing setting from nwam to force redetection and requesting for the password again. Again, first version, it's under development. The project was a fairly short one also, so the first cut is what it is. Give the developers some consideration, it's a tough problem to solve for the masses and keep all happy. I like JDS, but the bugs *need* to be fixed; take 2.18.x, it was shipped knowing full well the albumart plugin for rhythmbox crashed the application - for instance. No argument. One asks, if there is a relationship with Intel, why isn't there a 4965 driver yet for Solaris I'm not familiar with the 4965, but the 3945 wifi is under development with specs provided as is some of the Intel video (945/955/965). Intel is being a genuine partner, AFAIK, I see no reason to wonder about that relationship, they have already come through and have provided specs. which is no better than the 'screw you' relationship that AMD has with Sun and their refusal to play ball when it comes to working on ATI drivers. I don't have enough info to comment on that, but suffice to say that Sun is working to get the ATI specs for the video cards, and I believe they might have received some of the specs to date, but not certain. The executives can speak - but I want them to go out, purchase a laptop, without any help, and install Solaris without an assistance. Thats the benchmark that needs to be used. People can talk - heck, i can get up in front of customers and lie through my teeth, its not difficult. This has happened in Solaris engineering for a while, and it forced some of them to not just understand, but seek out help to get it installed and/or configured. I think they understand what needs to be done, and know the state things are in, but Rome wasn't built in a day. To that point, I do believe this things listed over the past couple years are significant improvements. The question is, do management *really* know how much resources *need* to be invested in Solaris - besides what the bean counters and a few x86 hating bigots scream from the cheap seats? I think they know better than someone like you does. They have been managing and running the Solaris development for quite some time, and while every Tom, Dick, and Harry always feels they can run Sun better than Sun, managing a company of 35,000 employees is not that easy. OpenSound for example - when is it being merged? Being worked as we type...Management has put resources into getting it putback. It will take more than a couple days to get it in though, and I think that's a good thing. We don't want to make it too easy for folks to put something back, otherwise we'll have every little un-needed piece of open source available. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Calum Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 04:19 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote: I do wonder why we need to have a different GNOME desktop? Well, I know why we do it (i.e., JDS), but I'm not sure why we should. It only diverges us from the mainstream, and makes things different. Seems better to leverage the mainstream GNOME project to me, and be the same, the Ubuntu uses a stock GNOME desktop, AFAICT. It doesn't really, Ubuntu have a whole ream of local patches just like we do, and other distros like SuSE have a lot more. They arguably do a better job of getting theirs upstream, but they also have the advantage of being Just Another Linux. It often takes longer to get the GNOME community to buy into Solaris patches, particuarly if they also happen to change the way things work on Linux. Actually this is one of our advantages, IMO, that we're not just another Linux distribution. We're a Solaris/OpenSolaris distribution and that in itself needs to carry it's own clout. It confuses me that zfs has been out for about a year and a half and we don't see our desktop folks doing that type of simple integration. Being able to take snapshots, list information on zfs filesystems, or getting the status of a zpool, those are all things that should be available for the user. I agree, and we have had people working on ZFS desktop integration prototypes on and off over the past couple of years. But as always it's a question of resources and priorities, and as yet it just hasn't been made a high enough one for us to drive to completion. (There's nothing that says Sun has to do the work, of course.) Well, to give them credit, the zfs filesystem is not your average problem to solve, Jeff Bonwick went out on a limb and tried to design and build the worlds best filesystem. It will mature over time, but there's a lot of interest, and I consider this to be the best thing that has gone back to Solaris/OpenSolaris since S10. Remeber that zfs went into S10u2. The only thing I would have done different given the limited resources in engineering, would have been to license under the BSD 3 clause so that anyone, any system, could have taken the code to incorporate into their system, even Linux. It seems that will happen if Sun does GPL2 and/or GPL3 the OpenSolaris sources, and I don't know if they will do that, just that they have mentioned that in the press. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: Yes, it has changed - but I'm just frustrated at the lack of progress outside of the 'basics'. The next meeting of SVOSUG will feature a presentation by the Xorg group, notably Alan Coopersmith, showing the latest Xorg changes and/or what is in store, but to also show Compiz. Your comments got me to thinking, and I have really come to the conclusion that Solaris has made some incredible improvements on the desktop, IMO. 1) The new-boot architecture brought us into the modern age of booting. 2) Xorg replaced Xsun as the X server, and we have more support for video than we ever had. 3) RealPlayer - This was a long and hard battle, and finally we have a RealPlayer that is included in Solaris and/or can be added to OpenSolaris. 4) Flash...another long and hard battle which I was involved in before I joined Sun. We have had some problems with the current Flash 9 being delivered, but it is out now and we're in ok shape on this, IMO. 5) NWAM - this will change the way folks use their laptops, the way they connect, and will elliminate much of the confusion in system configuration that prevents new folks from being able to use their systems more easily. 6) JDS - while not my favorite desktop, it has moved Solaris away from the old CDE, and this is good for many of the new adopters of Solaris/OpenSolaris. There have been quite a few developments in JDS and quite a bit has changed. 7) Additional desktop software such as GIMP, gphoto, evince, etc...this has made it easier for the bulk of folks to use their Solaris/OpenSolaris systems to interact with web work, image editing, and incorporating their digital pics. 8) StarOffice - was not even being built for Solaris on x86 when I joined Sun more than 4 years ago. It has been packaged and on the system for the past 2 years at least. This is a huge improvement and we have an office suite that allows us to function in the real world. 9) Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird - also not being built for Solaris/OpenSolaris when I came to Sun. I pounded on the folks responsible for it and made them change their ways by starting to build the packages and distributing them on my own. We have current versions in new builds now, and it's setup with flash to work. This is a HUGE improvement over what we had 2 years ago. 10) wifi - people laughed when you mentioned wifi on Solaris a couple years ago. Now we have several decent drivers that allow us to connect over wireless networks, and using WEP as well. I can probably think of more, given time, but this list above I believe represents an incredible leap for Solaris, and certainly on x86. Sun has shown that they are in the x86 space for the long haul, even the execs speak it on stage when they give presentations these days. Do you really think that this is all a part of the basics? These, IMO, are huge improvements to bring out system/desktop to the masses, and Solaris/OpenSolaris continues to move forward. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Alan DuBoff wrote: The next meeting of SVOSUG will feature a presentation by the Xorg group, notably Alan Coopersmith, showing the latest Xorg changes and/or what is in store, but to also show Compiz. Your comments got me to thinking, and I have really come to the conclusion that Solaris has made some incredible improvements on the desktop, IMO. 1) The new-boot architecture brought us into the modern age of booting. 2) Xorg replaced Xsun as the X server, and we have more support for video than we ever had. 3) RealPlayer - This was a long and hard battle, and finally we have a RealPlayer that is included in Solaris and/or can be added to OpenSolaris. 4) Flash...another long and hard battle which I was involved in before I joined Sun. We have had some problems with the current Flash 9 being delivered, but it is out now and we're in ok shape on this, IMO. 5) NWAM - this will change the way folks use their laptops, the way they connect, and will elliminate much of the confusion in system configuration that prevents new folks from being able to use their systems more easily. 6) JDS - while not my favorite desktop, it has moved Solaris away from the old CDE, and this is good for many of the new adopters of Solaris/OpenSolaris. There have been quite a few developments in JDS and quite a bit has changed. 7) Additional desktop software such as GIMP, gphoto, evince, etc...this has made it easier for the bulk of folks to use their Solaris/OpenSolaris systems to interact with web work, image editing, and incorporating their digital pics. 8) StarOffice - was not even being built for Solaris on x86 when I joined Sun more than 4 years ago. It has been packaged and on the system for the past 2 years at least. This is a huge improvement and we have an office suite that allows us to function in the real world. 9) Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird - also not being built for Solaris/OpenSolaris when I came to Sun. I pounded on the folks responsible for it and made them change their ways by starting to build the packages and distributing them on my own. We have current versions in new builds now, and it's setup with flash to work. This is a HUGE improvement over what we had 2 years ago. 10) wifi - people laughed when you mentioned wifi on Solaris a couple years ago. Now we have several decent drivers that allow us to connect over wireless networks, and using WEP as well. I can probably think of more, given time, but this list above I believe represents an incredible leap for Solaris, and certainly on x86. Sun has shown that they are in the x86 space for the long haul, even the execs speak it on stage when they give presentations these days. Do you really think that this is all a part of the basics? These, IMO, are huge improvements to bring out system/desktop to the masses, and Solaris/OpenSolaris continues to move forward. -- can I suggest considering the following items? 1) a current, working and maintained port of eclipse 2) kde (much more powerful, lightweight and usable than gnome, IMO) 3) the Reply-to header in its lists :-) those are all topics that some kind third party soul sometimes provides, thus they shouldn't really require a lot of effort to merge in Opensolaris (especially item n. 3) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have. All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in *nix. -mg Flash was supplied via an agreement with Macromedia - Adobe merely held up the original agreement. I doubt very much that Adobe would have created a Flashplayer for Solaris given Adobes refusal to provide Acrobat for Solaris - even after Sun offered to pay for the porting of it to Solaris x86. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have. All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in *nix. Unless you don't count Mac OS X as Unix. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 07:32 -0700, Mario Goebbels wrote: Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have. All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in *nix. True - it would be great to see Adobe contribute to Evince since they're not willing to maintain an uptodate version of adobe acrobate for *NIX. matthew -mg Flash was supplied via an agreement with Macromedia - Adobe merely held up the original agreement. I doubt very much that Adobe would have created a Flashplayer for Solaris given Adobes refusal to provide Acrobat for Solaris - even after Sun offered to pay for the porting of it to Solaris x86. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:36 -0400, Brandorr wrote: On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have. All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in *nix. Unless you don't count Mac OS X as Unix. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Unfortunately it is for ever wedded to Apple hardware, thus makes it a non-viable alternative to Windows. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have. All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in *nix. Unless you don't count Mac OS X as Unix. Before continuing this discussion, I would be really interested to know how Apple did pass the POSIX compliance tests on Mac OS X. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/6/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have. All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in *nix. Unless you don't count Mac OS X as Unix. Before continuing this discussion, I would be really interested to know how Apple did pass the POSIX compliance tests on Mac OS X. http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/08/01/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification This isn't the current release. It is for the upcoming release, Leopard, that happens to also include ZFS. (Also it's only the x86 build.) I guess the question is, why wouldn't they pass the certification? -Brian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 17:23 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have. All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in *nix. Unless you don't count Mac OS X as Unix. Before continuing this discussion, I would be really interested to know how Apple did pass the POSIX compliance tests on Mac OS X. Jörg They must have done some major changes in Leopard given it is UNIX 2003 compliant. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Adobe alternatives: http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/contentcreation/0,101068,39286832,00.htm Homesite: http://www.osalt.com/nvu MYOB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCASH Quicken: http://www.linux.com/articles/49400 See, I'm a recent Windows convert. I wasn't a fan of it, until I found an alternative few months ago that pleased me. That being Solaris. Now to the quote, no offense, did you actually use the actual applications and compared them to the alternatives you presented? Functionally and usability-wise, the open source equivalents are jokes. Just last night I was about to get a s%# fit about GIMP, because while trying to be a Photoshop clone, it's being completely obnoxious about it and introduces me to semantics that make absolutely no sense in a editing and designing context. While I can easily cope with issues like that and grudgingly adapt (after all, my computer skills come from trial and erroring since I was 7 years old), someone else may just be annoyed and go back to good old Windows and the actual professional applications. Part of the gaining users is also having the big apps available. Something that isn't the case today, not even with Linux. I suppose, e.g. the Adobe applications can be very easily ported, considering MacOSX is BSD and as such probably able to compile on Solaris/Linux without much troubles, and that the Creative Suite uses a custom windowing kit ported to both Windows and MacOSX, that could aswell be ported to X11. Maybe this is a venue for Sun to try pushing some big apps onto their platform. Personally, I'm going as far as running Windows in QEMU, and some RDP hacks when I feel like I need the apps on the desktop, to use various kindof-lightweight applications, like the Microsoft Office suite. -mg This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 04:52 -0700, Mario Goebbels wrote: Adobe alternatives: http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/contentcreation/0,101068,39286832,00.htm Homesite: http://www.osalt.com/nvu MYOB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCASH Quicken: http://www.linux.com/articles/49400 See, I'm a recent Windows convert. I wasn't a fan of it, until I found an alternative few months ago that pleased me. That being Solaris. Now to the quote, no offense, did you actually use the actual applications and compared them to the alternatives you presented? Functionally and usability-wise, the open source equivalents are jokes. Just last night I was about to get a s%# fit about GIMP, because while trying to be a Photoshop clone, it's being completely obnoxious about it and introduces me to semantics that make absolutely no sense in a editing and designing context. While I can easily cope with issues like that and grudgingly adapt (after all, my computer skills come from trial and erroring since I was 7 years old), someone else may just be annoyed and go back to good old Windows and the actual professional applications. Part of the gaining users is also having the big apps available. Something that isn't the case today, not even with Linux. I suppose, e.g. the Adobe applications can be very easily ported, considering MacOSX is BSD and as such probably able to compile on Solaris/Linux without much troubles, and that the Creative Suite uses a custom windowing kit ported to both Windows and MacOSX, that could aswell be ported to X11. Maybe this is a venue for Sun to try pushing some big apps onto their platform. Personally, I'm going as far as running Windows in QEMU, and some RDP hacks when I feel like I need the apps on the desktop, to use various kindof-lightweight applications, like the Microsoft Office suite. Regarding GIMP, 2.4 will apparently take more of a Photoshop look - but ultimately the only real possibility is for Sun to work with wine and improve Windows compatibility - Adobe has flat out refused to support Sun and Solaris. There is very little Sun can do when Adobe is unwilling to play ball. It would be interesting to know whether Corel is willing to create a partnership in regards to Sun paying Corel in conjunction with mainsoft, to getting their applications running on Solaris. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
My impression is that a current Nevada build with Gnome desktop will not work decently if it has less than 2 GB of RAM. This is really bad. Firefox + Xserver will soon consume 1.3 GB together and a 1 GB system will start excessive paging. Is this really needed? My system runs since yesterday noon without a reboot. My Firefox session is about 4 hours old. All together, it eats 320 megabytes currently. Yesterday evening I was also running Thunderbird for hours, as well running Compiz Fusion 0.5.1, watching a video with mplayer and using GIMP the same time, flipping across workspaces using the Expo plugin. Pagefile usage was 0% (Yes, I sometimes I paranoidly watch that indicator, because of the ZFS ARC and its default minimum memory claim, which is considerably). The only time I get it to trash to the swapfile is when running SecondLife. Just giving an example. If Xorg and Firefox make your system trash, then I suppose there's a huge problem somewhere else. (Using snv_65 here.) -mg This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
More on the OS and why Solaris has the technology to beat Windows as a game and other application development platform: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story 14918 On a related note, what I'd like to see is all various operating systems agreeing on a standard core API, on which such sandboxes, like mentioned in the article, could sit on and just run flawlessly (more or less). But that'll continue to be a dream. -mg This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Regarding GIMP, 2.4 will apparently take more of a Photoshop look - but ultimately the only real possibility is for Sun to work with wine and improve Windows compatibility - Adobe has flat out refused to support Sun and Solaris. There is very little Sun can do when Adobe is unwilling to play ball. Is this a There's no business case refusal or a Duh, you SUCK! refusal? Just wondering, because software politics become pretty stupid at times. After all, we finally got Flash 9. -mg This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Ok To start off. I have read this entire thread. I want to simply say, there is alot of closed minds in this , as well some brilliant thoughts. If you really wanted to take OpenSolaris to the wide vast market. 1. Make a developer version and a end user version (ease of use)) 2. Set up support for those end users and charge a small fee for that support (will help give donations to here or whatever you want to do with it) 3. Start off with user friendly videos that show the user the basics of getting started. As well make things easy for the users that migrate from windows to OpenSolaris. (Migrating subject videos). I do agree though that OpenSolrais is more for those that have already worked their way into Linux ( so a advanced video selection/ and or level 2 support (paid of course). This way it gives two ladders of migration. Once people become attached and hooked on the power and stability along with lighting fast reaction compared to windows/ as well no virus that eats at windows core and spyware/adware that takes the fun out of any OS. they will be more apt to learn more advanced methods of using OpenSolaris. This is my 2 cents and 1 dollar for the typing service:) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/5/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regarding GIMP, 2.4 will apparently take more of a Photoshop look - but ultimately the only real possibility is for Sun to work with wine and improve Windows compatibility - Adobe has flat out refused to support Sun and Solaris. There is very little Sun can do when Adobe is unwilling to play ball. Is this a There's no business case refusal or a Duh, you SUCK! refusal? Just wondering, because software politics become pretty stupid at times. After all, we finally got Flash 9. I thought it was an: Adobe, if you promise not to support other *nixes, we'll kick out Quark, and make you the new star DTP application suite. (Just kidding..) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 11:41 -0700, Mario Goebbels wrote: Regarding GIMP, 2.4 will apparently take more of a Photoshop look - but ultimately the only real possibility is for Sun to work with wine and improve Windows compatibility - Adobe has flat out refused to support Sun and Solaris. There is very little Sun can do when Adobe is unwilling to play ball. Is this a There's no business case refusal or a Duh, you SUCK! refusal? Just wondering, because software politics become pretty stupid at times. After all, we finally got Flash 9. Flash was supplied via an agreement with Macromedia - Adobe merely held up the original agreement. I doubt very much that Adobe would have created a Flashplayer for Solaris given Adobes refusal to provide Acrobat for Solaris - even after Sun offered to pay for the porting of it to Solaris x86. If Sun really wanted to 'punish' Adobe for their arrogance, create a great tool to create JavaFX content that allow creative types (aka non-programmers) to create easier and quicker than they could have with Adobe Flash. If Sun can really harm Adobes web side of the business then it'll put them on the back foot - for me, I have no love for Adobe, they're in the same boat of 'scum sucking roaches' as Microsoft. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: Yes, it has changed - but I'm just frustrated at the lack of progress outside of the 'basics'. If you could be more considerate to folks that subscribe to this list, more of the engineers will offer more support and think better of you. I mean this in the sense of the amount of mail that is sent. We understand your frustration, been there done that... Filling the list with what Sun should do with any resources they have, is quite honestly unjust. You are really complaining to the opensolaris community, this is not a community that is even owned or dictated by Sun, other than a lot of folks on this list do work there. But don't feel bad, some of the folks at Sun don't even realize they don't own the community either.;-) -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On games, I'm not sure everyone knows this, so I'll point it out. Games are a killer app for PCs, and they have been for years. (They make people buy computers.) This is true, at least in my case: I built my first PC *ever* (which I still use today) seven years ago - just to play games. This is why I still have Windows(R) around, although I don't really play any more... Actually, I even got a few games working and packaged for Solaris - the Ur-Quan masters runs nice. The package is 130MB though. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/3/07, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Gardiner wrote: x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the user experience in either hardware support or software availability. You think nvidia video drivers, wifi drivers, Macromedia Flash, and all the other drivers software appeared on their own for x86 with no effort by Sun? If so, you're very mistaken. I have used S10 as well as SXDE the there is huge difference in user experience. That is a point aside. This list is just not the right place to tell sun what should and shouldn't be doing with their product strategy. To start with, people working on the usability/device-driver support, etc need to use the 80-20 principle = work on the 20% of parts that give 80% of the benefits instead of trying to satisfy 100% of the users and exhausting all resources. regards Shiv ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
So you're saying you may know what Indiana actually is? It seems to be a moving target, changing from day to day. How could that mean anything to anyone at this point I wonder? I'm writing that it means something to a certain profile / group of people. As is evident from the ensuing discussions on the topic, everyone has their own idea of what Indiana should entail. Personally, I believe it's nothing more than a marketing stunt and vaporware. Some of the already existing projects / products that have been in development for years will get bundled together and named Indiana, but this will be just pure coincidence. I predict that many will be sorely disappointed by the first release of Indiana, because I've observed that expectations and hopes are very high, but people seem to neglect the fact that Ubuntu, and Linux in general, have had been in development for years before they became as polished as they are now. Considering how much work on Solaris is ahead of us, and the ratio of end-users to developers, we've got a looong way to go, and it will take far longer than expected. That is, unless we either get an injection of developers or our end-users realize that the best way to scratch their own itch is to roll up their sleeves and help out with the code / gfx / audio... after all that's what happened to Linux and everybody accepts it, I don't see why that's unacceptable for Solaris. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Matthew Gardiner wrote: When am I going to see support for my USB webcam? infact, a large number of products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more than happy to provide specifications to those who want them? When you stop trolling, and start coding? -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On 8/3/07, Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Gardiner wrote: When am I going to see support for my USB webcam? infact, a large number of products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more than happy to provide specifications to those who want them? When you stop trolling, and start coding? The distinction between talk and action ... http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-May/000683.html Jim One comment I have on this, is that if you are going to offer criticism, please make sure you are armed with all the facts. Try to make it constructive, and most of all provide multiple actionable solution plans. (If not a solution yourself.) I know this is difficult. But it is a good habit to develop. (I myself came into this community armed with many opinions, and a dearth of facts. (But much enthusiasm.) I really would like to emphasize that the community leaders have been very patient, and have warmly welcomed new community members, such as myself. It has been a wonderful learning experience, and I am proud to be a member of this community. One thing I would definitely suggest is subscribing to all the discussions groups for a month or so. Once you have a feeling for what is going on it will provide you with enough information to understand what issues people are working, and how much work is actually being done. (Learn a lesson from me. Don't try to answer ever thread.) ;) Thanks, -Brian P.S. - My background is as an Enterprise Solaris customer, and not a developer. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 23:05 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: Yes, it has changed - but I'm just frustrated at the lack of progress outside of the 'basics'. If you could be more considerate to folks that subscribe to this list, more of the engineers will offer more support and think better of you. I mean this in the sense of the amount of mail that is sent. We understand your frustration, been there done that... Filling the list with what Sun should do with any resources they have, is quite honestly unjust. You are really complaining to the opensolaris community, this is not a community that is even owned or dictated by Sun, other than a lot of folks on this list do work there. But don't feel bad, some of the folks at Sun don't even realize they don't own the community either.;-) True - I've put myself in the time out corner - so I've calmed down :-) Hopefully when I get through these books about C I'll port the driver :-) Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 07:56 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Matthew Gardiner wrote: - Original Message - From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. Matthew Gardiner wrote: x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the user experience in either hardware support or software availability. You think nvidia video drivers, wifi drivers, Macromedia Flash, and all the other drivers software appeared on their own for x86 with no effort by Sun? If so, you're very mistaken. When am I going to see support for my USB webcam? infact, a large number of products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more than happy to provide specifications to those who want them? Or will it be the typical defence of Solaris engineers - its designed for servers, who needs webcams blah blah blah blah? I haven't heard anyone say it's only for servers in a very long time. I'm sorry you have devices not yet supported, but just because we haven't hit every possible device in the world doesn't mean Sun has done nothing at all - it's just prioritized along different priorities than yours. But the whole point of OpenSolaris is to allow anyone to set their own priorities for developing code and not be stuck waiting for Sun to do things in the order set by Sun's priorities. Sorry :-( Like I said, I get crabby and impatient. A little time in the 'time out corner' made me think about what I said. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Matthew Gardiner wrote: - Original Message - From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. Matthew Gardiner wrote: x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the user experience in either hardware support or software availability. You think nvidia video drivers, wifi drivers, Macromedia Flash, and all the other drivers software appeared on their own for x86 with no effort by Sun? If so, you're very mistaken. When am I going to see support for my USB webcam? infact, a large number of products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more than happy to provide specifications to those who want them? Or will it be the typical defence of Solaris engineers - its designed for servers, who needs webcams blah blah blah blah? I haven't heard anyone say it's only for servers in a very long time. I'm sorry you have devices not yet supported, but just because we haven't hit every possible device in the world doesn't mean Sun has done nothing at all - it's just prioritized along different priorities than yours. But the whole point of OpenSolaris is to allow anyone to set their own priorities for developing code and not be stuck waiting for Sun to do things in the order set by Sun's priorities. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Matthew Gardiner wrote: When am I going to see support for my USB webcam? infact, a large number of products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more than happy to provide specifications to those who want them? When you stop trolling, and start coding? The distinction between talk and action ... http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-May/000683.html Jim -- Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
OpenSolaris will have to get it's users from the Windows world, and not the Linux world? But the Linux users come from the Windows world. And the Linux users have a mentality closer to Solaris, than any Windows user. Imagine there was only Windows and Solaris. For a winuser to switch to Solaris, it would be a too large step. When you want people to change their opionions and habits, you always start with something small. Make them try this little thing out. And step by step, you change them. Making people taking a large step at once, doesnt work. Linux lets people to try out something other than Windows. And when they are used to Linux, the step is not far away to FreeBSD or Solaris. Small steps. It's like if I say that cereals and sugar is not good for you, but fat is. How many would believe me? Not many. But if I talk about low GI food and then it is easier to convince you to try that. And after a year, I can talk about my most radical thoughts: fat is good for you. Mix fat with cereals, and you are dead soon enough. I claim that cereals are posinous and lethal. Avoid cereals at all costs. Now, that was too radical for you, right? Same with Windows and Solaris. I think that Solaris will gets its users from the newly switchers, those that havent found home yet. When they have precisely left the Windows world, and hesitate, and stand on trembling legs in this new brave world, Solaris will be there to greet them. I think if Solaris is at least as friendly as Linux (but rather friendly as Mac OS X) and if Solaris is technically better than Linux, Solaris will find it's user. And the users will find Solaris. We will get our users from those that recently left the Windows world. They will try out several different OS, give it a chance, and if Solaris is not friendly enough they will leave. I am legend. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Gerald Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ubuntu, and more importantly Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) are NOT American. They are based in Europe, which means so far they can get away with doing things that an American based company cannot. Red Hat has had their lawyers look into this issue with regards to the Fedora Project and it is quite clear that not only can Red Hat and/or Fedora not include this questionable software in their distributions but even linking to it could cause legal problems in the US. This would also apply to Sun given that they are also an American company. This is why it is important to be able to have net-install and packet mirrors for Solaris in Europe provided buy people other that Sun. 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: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Hi, True, but at the same time, until there it is 100% opensource, its going to be difficult for a distribution to be independent of Sun's input in some form or another. Matthew - Original Message - From: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. Gerald Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ubuntu, and more importantly Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) are NOT American. They are based in Europe, which means so far they can get away with doing things that an American based company cannot. Red Hat has had their lawyers look into this issue with regards to the Fedora Project and it is quite clear that not only can Red Hat and/or Fedora not include this questionable software in their distributions but even linking to it could cause legal problems in the US. This would also apply to Sun given that they are also an American company. This is why it is important to be able to have net-install and packet mirrors for Solaris in Europe provided buy people other that Sun. Jörg Unfortunately until ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
- Original Message - From: John Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:21 AM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 13:34 -0700, John Martinez wrote: I thought I read somewhere (can't find the source) that the market for PC games is shrinking and the market for console games is growing (Wii/PS3/Xbox 360). The only exception being MMORPGs like WoW. The state of gaming is sad on the second largest desktop, Mac OS X, so I would suspect that Linux and Solaris would fall way down the list. But I do agree with you, games would definitely attract a different crowd than Solaris is used to, in a positive way. Apart from a few noisy, cpu over clocking, gpu tweaking, windows registry hacking, caffeine addicted gamers - most people don't actually care about games. One of the guys that invented UNIX did. Ever hear of Space Travel? I can assure most people here, when it comes to migration, the questions I get asked from people have to do with whether they can get their favourite applications on the new operating system - not whether they can 'get their game on' (what ever the hell that means). It's called entertainment. And quite a lot of people care about whether they can play games, play movies, play their CDs (or MP3s), etc. on their computers. iTunes Music Store and Blizzard both are doing quite well, as examples. The history between gaming and UNIX is real. http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/pdp7.html Something that *NIX, let alot Solaris isn't doing very well - lack of will of companies concerned one could say. Kinda like the defeatest attitude to Microsoft dominance on the desktop. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 13:34 -0700, John Martinez wrote: I thought I read somewhere (can't find the source) that the market for PC games is shrinking and the market for console games is growing (Wii/PS3/Xbox 360). The only exception being MMORPGs like WoW. The state of gaming is sad on the second largest desktop, Mac OS X, so I would suspect that Linux and Solaris would fall way down the list. But I do agree with you, games would definitely attract a different crowd than Solaris is used to, in a positive way. Apart from a few noisy, cpu over clocking, gpu tweaking, windows registry hacking, caffeine addicted gamers - most people don't actually care about games. One of the guys that invented UNIX did. Ever hear of Space Travel? I can assure most people here, when it comes to migration, the questions I get asked from people have to do with whether they can get their favourite applications on the new operating system - not whether they can 'get their game on' (what ever the hell that means). It's called entertainment. And quite a lot of people care about whether they can play games, play movies, play their CDs (or MP3s), etc. on their computers. iTunes Music Store and Blizzard both are doing quite well, as examples. The history between gaming and UNIX is real. http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/pdp7.html -john ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Which desktop are you running? KDE (as a user) and Gnome (a rare root session, occasionally as a user) and xterm (skills playground) with no problems so far. It works for you but when it comes to stability I've found it lacking. That's fine. It's very likely explained by the difference in our focus of use, which effectively defines the differences in our resulting experiences. :-) I'm a management kinda guy - I outsource all that kinda stuff ;-) hahahahanice touch. As for your Solaris experience - if you'er running a desktop, grab a copy of SXDE or SXCE - latest features, no more bug ridden than Fedora and pretty damn reliable. Basing a review on Solaris 11/06 is pretty premature given the *cough* mature nature of Solaris 10. Well, I tried this whole Solaris on my notebook thing on a lark anyway, because of my affection for Solaris; regardless of her age, she's still a beauty to me. Anyone looking for depth and quality is going to find it in abundance in Solaris. I also want to be clear -because it is important to note in this forum- that it was my ignorance of the available code bases which led to a poor choice, not any flaws in Solaris itself...I just went with what I know. And, though I knew OpenSolaris was here, I had not looked at it closely, until now. Clearly, there are offerings that are going to work just fine, and I am looking forward to installing them. Therefore, by any measure of reason and integrity, I am compelled to concede your point that that my evaluation is premature, that it was directed at the wrong product, and therefore lacks value in this forum -other than to serve as a warning of the problems that may arise as a result of exercising a little knowledge. I'll give SXDE or SXCE a shot on one of my test boxes. I have a lot of hardware, which I use for different platform integration configurations. Sometimes, pieces of it sit here for a week or so, which presents an occasional opportunity to play in the sandbox. FYI: I dl'ed several of the OpenSolaris bases yesterday, with the intent of installing one on this notebook; I'll let you know how it goes. I will give Solaris Express a shot at the HD and the beleniX live DVD version an occasional spin to watch it grow. ejm This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: Something that *NIX, let alot Solaris isn't doing very well - lack of will of companies concerned one could say. Kinda like the defeatest attitude to Microsoft dominance on the desktop. How would you gauge that yourself? Do those companies contact you when they are concerned? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, MC wrote: It comes with their PCs because it is technically the best desktop OS. Dell doesn't sell Windows PCs instead of OS/2 Warp PCs because of a coin flip. Windows is simply the best. (Better than all the rest!) Being ignorant or dismissive of the market leaders is a great way to fail in the market. Living in your own world feels great until the real world comes crashing through. 5 billion flies eating $#!T doesn't mean it taste good! Window is not simply the best, it's just best shoved down people's throat when they buy a PC. Sure, you can say it has more software and is easier to use, nowdays...that's after the damage is done. They got where they are by using anti-trust tactics to force load their system on suspecting users as yourself, and you're one of those 5 billion flies, and saying how great it taste. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, UNIX admin wrote: Those that Indiana means something to are computer enthusiasts in one form or another. So you're saying you may know what Indiana actually is? It seems to be a moving target, changing from day to day. How could that mean anything to anyone at this point I wonder? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: What can the opensolaris community do? nothing, it has no money. What can Sun do? it has $4billion, you can do alot with $4billion. I would think a sharp guy like you could reverse engineer most of those protocols. That doesn't require money. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Alan DuBoff wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: What can the opensolaris community do? nothing, it has no money. What can Sun do? it has $4billion, you can do alot with $4billion. I would think a sharp guy like you could reverse engineer most of those protocols. That doesn't require money. Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you still need a license to ship it. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you still need a license to ship it. Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those mentioned protocols for a Linux distribution snatching off a server in another country. Why should Solaris be the same? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the user experience in either hardware support or software availability. First of all, Solaris on x86 has been around for about 15 years, so I'm not sure of the 2 years you mention, it's almost 3 years since S10 has shipped. Second, while it might not seem like a lot, the desktop has been getting some enhancements, and more and more support for the hardware continue to go back. Things like basic power management, wifi drivers, and JDS itself is the first real change from CDE as the desktop. This is really user experience oriented. I don't know what you mean by no movement, but from my view Solaris on x86 has not only improved, it's leading in some areas (DTrace, Zones, SMF, ZFS, etc...). -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
- Original Message - From: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, MC wrote: It comes with their PCs because it is technically the best desktop OS. Dell doesn't sell Windows PCs instead of OS/2 Warp PCs because of a coin flip. Windows is simply the best. (Better than all the rest!) Being ignorant or dismissive of the market leaders is a great way to fail in the market. Living in your own world feels great until the real world comes crashing through. 5 billion flies eating $#!T doesn't mean it taste good! Window is not simply the best, it's just best shoved down people's throat when they buy a PC. Sure, you can say it has more software and is easier to use, nowdays...that's after the damage is done. They got where they are by using anti-trust tactics to force load their system on suspecting users as yourself, and you're one of those 5 billion flies, and saying how great it taste. When Solaris has the same level of hardware support both out of the box and official, and software availability in the form of off the shelf boxed products from big name vendors, then Sun and its minions can be judgemental over Windows. Until then, anything said against Microsoft and Windows by those minions make the discussion little more than blind hatred of something for no reason other than jealousy. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
- Original Message - From: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: John Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 6:38 AM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: Something that *NIX, let alot Solaris isn't doing very well - lack of will of companies concerned one could say. Kinda like the defeatest attitude to Microsoft dominance on the desktop. How would you gauge that yourself? Do those companies contact you when they are concerned? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the user experience in either hardware support or software availability. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan DuBoff wrote: Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those mentioned protocols for a Linux distribution snatching off a server in another country. Why should Solaris be the same? *shouldn't* is what I meant. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: When Solaris has the same level of hardware support both out of the box and official, and software availability in the form of off the shelf boxed products from big name vendors, then Sun and its minions can be judgemental over Windows. Until then, anything said against Microsoft and Windows by those minions make the discussion little more than blind hatred of something for no reason other than jealousy. With all your comments about how poor the support on Solaris is, I have to wonder, wasn't it you who mentioned you installed this for your parents? If Solaris truely lacks the type of software that they would want, and Sun hasn't made any progress with Solaris over the past couple years, why is it that you installed it for them in the first place? Are your parents developers? I don't get it. Solaris must have something going for it if you did in fact install it for your parents, or how could they use it? Aside from the diatribe that has been mentioned here, I will say this. Solaris has been difficult for most to install, and it has been difficult at best for most of them to configure, but there are people that can do that. What is most amazing to me is that I know for certain that if Solaris is properly setup with a minimal amount of software, the average person can take it and use it. I have seen non-technical people do this first hand, and they've ran builds of S10 and older on their laptops for more than a year at a time. You suggest Sun should spend a chunk of their savings to enhance the desktop. Well, I have to believe that someone knows what they're doing to keep a company with 35,000 people working for it going. I don't think it's by pure luck that they showed earnings of $0.09/share in the last quarter. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Matthew Gardiner wrote: x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the user experience in either hardware support or software availability. You think nvidia video drivers, wifi drivers, Macromedia Flash, and all the other drivers software appeared on their own for x86 with no effort by Sun? If so, you're very mistaken. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you still need a license to ship it. Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those mentioned protocols for a Linux distribution snatching off a server in another country. Why should Solaris be the same? No reason, provided you find someone in those countries that's willing to do it and unlike Sun, doesn't have a US presence to sue. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you still need a license to ship it. Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those mentioned protocols for a Linux distribution snatching off a server in another country. Why should Solaris be the same? No reason, provided you find someone in those countries that's willing to do it and unlike Sun, doesn't have a US presence to sue. Agreed, but I think it's something we need to figure out for the community eventually anyway, right? There's a lot of stuff that gets lumped into that category, and yes, we need some individuals that don't have a U.S. presense to sue...a university would be good. Does anyone know what countries can be used for that, or if it just needs to be a country outside the U.S.? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
- Original Message - From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. Matthew Gardiner wrote: x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the user experience in either hardware support or software availability. You think nvidia video drivers, wifi drivers, Macromedia Flash, and all the other drivers software appeared on their own for x86 with no effort by Sun? If so, you're very mistaken. When am I going to see support for my USB webcam? infact, a large number of products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more than happy to provide specifications to those who want them? Or will it be the typical defence of Solaris engineers - its designed for servers, who needs webcams blah blah blah blah? Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Original Message - From: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: When Solaris has the same level of hardware support both out of the box and official, and software availability in the form of off the shelf boxed products from big name vendors, then Sun and its minions can be judgemental over Windows. Until then, anything said against Microsoft and Windows by those minions make the discussion little more than blind hatred of something for no reason other than jealousy. With all your comments about how poor the support on Solaris is, I have to wonder, wasn't it you who mentioned you installed this for your parents? If Solaris truely lacks the type of software that they would want, and Sun hasn't made any progress with Solaris over the past couple years, why is it that you installed it for them in the first place? Because they have very basic computer requirements and that their hardware is so old, it would be a joke if it wasn't supported out of the box. Are your parents developers? I don't get it. Solaris must have something going for it if you did in fact install it for your parents, or how could they use it? I installed it myself for them. They're happy - but the issue isn't them but me and my experience. Aside from the diatribe that has been mentioned here, I will say this. Solaris has been difficult for most to install, and it has been difficult at best for most of them to configure, but there are people that can do that. What is most amazing to me is that I know for certain that if Solaris is properly setup with a minimal amount of software, the average person can take it and use it. I have seen non-technical people do this first hand, and they've ran builds of S10 and older on their laptops for more than a year at a time. You suggest Sun should spend a chunk of their savings to enhance the desktop. Well, I have to believe that someone knows what they're doing to keep a company with 35,000 people working for it going. I don't think it's by pure luck that they showed earnings of $0.09/share in the last quarter. When you main source of income is the US, its deficit based economic grow (look at federal budget deficit) plus a weak dollar, they all work in favour of a US based company - there are issues outside so-called 'excellent management'. Running on laptops is not the same as supporting laptops; there is more to a computer than just a processor, hard disk, graphics card, memory. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
- Original Message - From: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote: x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the user experience in either hardware support or software availability. First of all, Solaris on x86 has been around for about 15 years, so I'm not sure of the 2 years you mention, it's almost 3 years since S10 has shipped. I'm talking about 'official support' for Solaris on x86 - and if you read it (which I'm not sure you did), you would have noticed over two years - so that might actually mean two, three, four, five or even ten years! Second, while it might not seem like a lot, the desktop has been getting some enhancements, and more and more support for the hardware continue to go back. Which is simply based off grabbing opensource code and porting it - if that is all Solaris going to be, a leeching agent for opensource code, it has no benefits over Linux or FreeBSD. When am I going to see official support for devices like minidisc players, ipod with iTunes from Apple? Things like basic power management, wifi drivers, and JDS itself is the first real change from CDE as the desktop. This is really user experience oriented. 'basic power management' is being nice given my experience so far, battery life dropping to 1/2 within a space of 30minutes. I don't know what you mean by no movement, but from my view Solaris on x86 has not only improved, it's leading in some areas (DTrace, Zones, SMF, ZFS, etc...). Which are all server orientated. Is Sun *truely* interested in the desktop - because all signals say they're not. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
- Original Message - From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community. Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you still need a license to ship it. Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those mentioned protocols for a Linux distribution snatching off a server in another country. Why should Solaris be the same? No reason, provided you find someone in those countries that's willing to do it and unlike Sun, doesn't have a US presence to sue. Or easy still, approach the company and pay for the rights to the protocol. Matthew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
