subject:"Re\: \[osol\-discuss\] Formal Proposal \: Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC"


But why is SUNW so uninterested???
Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in One Solaris^^ now?

There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change.
I'm sure they don't want to ship on Xorg on SPARC which only supports
older framebuffers poorly so a lot more work is involved.


Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly 
eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
I will better stop here.
I wished, you truly meant it 100.00% serious with above vision.
_No_ exceptions: Just as you said it(!).


We're serious but it's a matter of resources.

It's also not possible to opensource everything (OpenSourcing costs time 
and effort and sometimes you spend those resources only to find out that 
you cannot open source the drivers.


Martin Bochnig
marTux

p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from USB 
mass storage then.

We're working on something akin newboot for SPARC; how would grub2 on SPARC
allow for booting from USB?  Grub2 would need to be loaded from somewhere 
else first.

Casper

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

 Original-Message 
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:45:31 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : 
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC 

 But why is SUNW so uninterested???
 Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in One Solaris^^ now?

 There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change.

Migrating from Xsun to Xorg did work on x86.
What lot of history do you mean exactly?
(okay, /dev/fb is different on x86, and vga text mode etc.)

 I'm sure they don't want to ship on Xorg on SPARC which only supports
 older framebuffers poorly so a lot more work is involved.

What are you referring to?
You hopefully do not mean the old unsupported opensourced Xsun shipping 
together with Xorg. That one truly only supports older framebuffers. Very old 
ones.
However, I'm talking about Xorg here, not Xorg's co-shipping Xsun.
Do you consider Elite3D, Creator3D, PGX, PGX24, PGX32, PGX64, XVR-100, (maybe 
also XVR-500 / not yet here to test that again) older frame buffers ?? They 
all work quite well with Xorg on sparc (only afb and ffb perform poorly as 
you say, because accelleration does not yet work).
Well I know, most of them are EOL now (except the XVR-100).
But - on the other hand - certainly 90% (my personal guess) of the existing 
sparc user base does have one of them.
Didn't you see my various Xorg announcements?

 We're serious but it's a matter of resources.

 It's also not possible to opensource everything (OpenSourcing costs time 
 and effort and sometimes you spend those resources only to find out that 
 you cannot open source the drivers.

Is it also a matter of resources that you don't allow (even non-commercial) 
distributors to redistribute a closed binary for /dev/fb for the older 
framebuffers developed by SUNW themselves (probably no 3rd party NDA's 
affected)?
And what is with the shared Studio C++ runtime required by almost everything :  

bash-3.1$ ls -al /usr/lib/libC*
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin   100764 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.3
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin   401144 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.5
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin63820 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libCrun.so.1
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin  1907540 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libCstd.so.1

A matter of resources ?
What will the press think, when they see Belenix marTux OpenSolaris require 
users to download those libs after each LiveDVD boot (they already see it) ...

Why can nobody give me a concrete answer on that issue.
I don't understand it.

 p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from
 USB mass storage then.

 We're working on something akin newboot for SPARC; how would grub2 on
 SPARC
 allow for booting from USB?  Grub2 would need to be loaded from somewhere 
 else first.

I was quite wrong on that.
I already admitted it.
Thanks again to Jan Setje-Eilers for having corrected me in good detail.

Martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


(ks93 discuss removed)

 But why is SUNW so uninterested???
 Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in One Solaris^^ now?
 
 There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change.


Migrating from Xsun to Xorg did work on x86.
What lot of history do you mean exactly?
(okay, /dev/fb is different on x86, and vga text mode etc.)


The lot of history is in a large part the organizational split between
SPARC desktop doing Xsun for SPARC and the X group doing the rest.

The move from Xsun to Xorg on x86 was easy because there was nothing in the
way of device support Xorg didn't do better and the choice was often
between crippled Xsun or Xorg so the move was easy.

The SPARC device support is a completely different picture.


What are you referring to?

Mostly the optimized 3D and OpenGL support for SPARC framebuffers.


Is it also a matter of resources that you don't allow (even non-commercial) 
distributors to redistribute a closed binary for /dev/fb for the older 
framebuffers developed by SUNW themselves (probably no 3rd party NDA's 
affected)?
And what is with the shared Studio C++ runtime required by almost everything : 
  

bash-3.1$ ls -al /usr/lib/libC*
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin   100764 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.3
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin   401144 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.5
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin63820 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libCrun.so.1
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin  1907540 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libCstd.so.1

A matter of resources ?
What will the press think, when they see Belenix marTux OpenSolaris require 
users to download those libs after each LiveDVD boot (they already see it) ...

Why can nobody give me a concrete answer on that issue.
I don't understand it.

because we are a large organization and nobody has all the answer I cannot
help you with these questions other than to give you the global indication
that in many cases it *is* a resource issue or a contractual issue.

OpenSolaris is a high priority item for some managers and less so for 
others; without higher ups pushing this message all the way done to all
corners of Sun, this will change but slowly.

People don't seem to appreciate how difficult it is to open source software
which has been developed in closed form for decades.


Casper

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-28 Thread James Carlson

Martin Bochnig writes:
 Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly 
 eol'ed) gfx drivers?

If by afraid you mean know that we'll be doing something illegal,
then perhaps that's a partly reasonable interpretation.

I think you're at least underestimating the amount of effort required
to scour our ~20 year history to get the legal pedigree right.  In
order to release things as open source, we cannot just slap a sticker
on the front and say good to go.

That's why there's a roadmap:

  http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/

and that's also why some things (regrettably) will just never be open
source.  In general, it's because the actual owner of those things
prohibits that sort of release (and in some cases also prevents us
from even talking about it).

In other cases, it's just time and effort.  Again, a large amount of
work has to go into that legal drudgery.

It's not just blind fear, though, nor is it malice.  Looking at the
staggering amount of code we've been able to release so far, I'm a bit
baffled how anyone could even begin to think that we're holding back
out of spite.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

 It's not just blind fear, though, nor is it malice.  Looking at the
 staggering amount of code we've been able to release so far, I'm a bit
 baffled how anyone could even begin to think that we're holding back
 out of spite.
 
 -- 
 James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677


Please don't understand me wrong: OpenSolaris is imho the best and GREATest 
project on earth:)

(That is exactly the reason, why I myself invest so much effort and time.)

I also do understand, that opensourcing huge masses of complex code - with a 
20++year history - may be very time-, labour- and cost-intensive.
And of course, that certain pieces cannot be open-sourced at all.
And I am well aware of OpenSolaris's roadmap, too.
I am very happy, that you did - and continue to - open Solaris up.

I would just love being explicitly allowed to integrate and redistribute a few 
closed things 
{
*** 
two of the closed /dev/fb drivers:
bash-3.1$ find /platform|grep afb
/platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/sparcv9/afb
/platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/afb
/platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/afb.conf
bash-3.1$ find /platform|grep ffb
/platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/sparcv9/ffb

***
the Studio C++ runtime library:
bash-3.1$ ls -al /usr/lib/libC*
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin   100764 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.3
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin   401144 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libC.so.5
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin63820 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libCrun.so.1
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root bin  1907540 Jan 23  2005 /usr/lib/libCstd.so.1

And may be one or two more driver modules.
Plus the FC-AL drivers for QLogic, but that seems already to be under way
}.

Everyone in the word - including the worst countries - can download SXCR w/o an 
(btw unverifiable) registration. What is so hard in allowing a few well-known 
distributors to redistribute those files in binary form (for community / 
non-profit purposes) ?

Okay, it may not be bad intention.
I see this now.
Maybe just a vacuum of responsibility in a few separate niche areas, in a 
complex global enterprise organisation otherwise working very well.
I will temprarily continue to work around those things, by letting users 
download the missing pieces on the fly.
Okay.

Martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-28 Thread James Carlson

Martin Bochnig writes:
 I would just love being explicitly allowed to integrate and
 redistribute a few closed things 

Since you have a fairly specific hit-list of items you need, how about
filing bugs against each requesting an open version?

That might be a more productive approach than complaining here.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

 Original-Message 
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:54:17 -0700
From: Jan Setje-Eilers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : 
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC 

  p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from
  USB mass storage then.

  The idea that GRUB or GRUB2 has anything to do with what devices a
 system can or can not boot from is mostly a miss-conception.

Except NICs you mean?
Doesn't Grub (at least Grub1) use the etherboot/rom-o-matic NIC drivers?
Okay - that was x86 only and therefore bios based systems.
But the principle of scanning the pci bus for a known NIC chipset would 
probably the same on ieee1275 systems.
With the exception, that Grub1 was x86 only. I don't know, if the multi-ISA 
Grub2 still implements the etherboot NIC drivers, or not.
I really need to carefully go through the grub1 and grub2 sources first.
Plus through the ieee1275 datasheets.
Before I can really talk about that.
But _when_ 

  A number of amd64/legacy-x86 systems have BIOSs that can talk to and
 boot from USB devices. On such systems GRUB as well as a number of
 other boot loaders can be loaded from a USB device by the BIOS and
 then using the BIOS's support talk to and continue booting from this
 USB device.

  GRUB2 on sparc sits on top of OBP (ieee1275) and uses it to talk to
 IO devices. The current Sun OBPs do not have support for USB
 devices. As such GRUB doesn't change the picture.

As I said, I wasn't aware, that the ongoing Grub2 sparc port just sits on top 
of OBP.
I thought it includes native code to talk to USB.

  WRT getting OBP support for USB: At least one other vendor, who seems
 to be abandoning their OBP strategy,

Apple?!
Don't know how they would respond.
We could try it.
But SUNW might have better chances, than if I asked them something.

 did have USB support in their
 OBPs, so perhaps someone could ask nicely and talk then into
 freeing/opening their code for this.

  Now I used the term mostly. One could implement native support for
 USB in GRUB (or any other boot-strap) and then as long as this USB
 enabled boot-strap is loaded from something other than USB that OBP
 (or whatever firmware) _can_ talk to, then the OS load could be
 completed (but not initiated) from a USB device. 

That is, what I initially thought all the time.

 The native NIC
 drivers work that way in that they are loaded by the generic PXE code
 and then interface with the NIC directly.

Ah, that is what I asked you a few lines above.
Yeah.
Or loaded via Grub1 floppy, where no PXE is present.
And then interfacing with the NIC directly.
Damn, I had been hoping from outside (never worked through the grub sources) 
this would be handled similarily with a certain set of USB controllers.
Not so:-(

  So, GRUB2 does _not_ get us any closer to booting our sparc systems
 from USB devices.

How much working hours (and therefore money) would it cost SUNW to integrate 
that into current box's OBP  (ok /packes/SUNW,builtin-drivers) ?
I mean, aren't the U45, U25 and all the servers including T1/2000 worth it?

  Now to put the soap box aside and answer you question: We are
 continuing to look at GRUB2 as a way to get a cross-platform
 consistent menuing interface that may be useful for managing multiple
 boot-environments. This is particularly interesting as the possibility
 of zfs snapshots of (coming soon) zfs root filesystems will increase
 the number of boot-environments on a typical system.

 -jan

I'm looking forward to see zfs root fs's and Boot-menues on SPARC.

Martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 Since you have a fairly specific hit-list of items you need, how about
 filing bugs against each requesting an open version?
 
 That might be a more productive approach than complaining here.
 
 -- 
 James Carlson


Strange, but okay.
Be sure that I will do that asap (not now).


--
Martin Bochnig
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


Except NICs you mean?

Including NICs.

Doesn't Grub (at least Grub1) use the etherboot/rom-o-matic NIC drivers?

Not for Solaris as Sun ships it.

The grub that comes with Solaris is loaded in memory using PXE (over the
wire) and then the Grub PXE driver continues to use PXE to bootstrap the
kernel.

(So you can even download a Solaris kernel over the net without there being
Solaris support for your network driver).

The rom-o-matic drivers can be used too but they require grub to be booted
from other media (floppy, USB, CD, DVD, harddisk) first.

I use a special grub version to netboot an old laptop without PXE support.
I boot grub from the harddisk and then select network boot/install from
the grub menu


The picture Jan drew is accurate: a system can only boot from devices
the firmware supports.  BIOS or Openboot makes no difference.

Of course, the OS you then load may be more limited and not allow booting
from the device you've just downloaded the bootloader from.  (E.g., old
Solaris boot was more limited than some BIOSes).

The best you can hope for is a boot loader loaded from any of the supported
devices (on SPARC, that would be net, disk, CD/DVD) and then boot a 
bootloader which understands the device you actually want to boot from
(USB, firewire?)


As I said, I wasn't aware, that the ongoing Grub2 sparc port just sits on top 
of OBP.
I thought it includes native code to talk to USB.


That is possible but it will need to be loaded in memory first; and it 
can't be loaded from USB because the OBP won't let it.


Ah, that is what I asked you a few lines above.
Yeah.
Or loaded via Grub1 floppy, where no PXE is present.
And then interfacing with the NIC directly.
Damn, I had been hoping from outside (never worked through the grub sources) 
this would be handled
 similarily with a certain set of USB controllers.
Not so:-(

Well, loading grub from floppy and then using USB boot could be possible.


Casper

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Grub on sparc _/_ Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 Ah, that is what I asked you a few lines above.
 Yeah.
 Or loaded via Grub1 floppy, where no PXE is present.
 And then interfacing with the NIC directly.
 Damn, I had been hoping from outside (never worked through the grub
 sources) this would be handled
  similarily with a certain set of USB controllers.
 Not so:-(
 
 Well, loading grub from floppy and then using USB boot could be possible.
 
 
 Casper


Maybe one doesn't believe me that late: I always had a picture of a 
Floppy-/CD-/DVD-/HDD- booted Grub1 (2?) in mind, and __then__ booting from USB 
(or maybe even ieee1394a) - whether it is on top of the firmware, or 
implemented nativiely into Grub itself.
(I also mean the plain Grub command line, with no cosmetic menu set up at all.)

Remember, that I didn't have a PC until recently (and the U20 is hardly powered 
on).
My memories go back to May2005, when I netbooted the first newboot based 
Solaris10-Express via a self build Grub 0.95 on SunPCi_2_pro (with no PXE 
activated[completely cut down, no way]).
I also have a Genesi ppc ODW  (and Grub2), put didn't come to it very much, 
recently.

I did - however - never assume, I could load Grub itself via USB.
Would be kind of chicken and egg problem, that's clear.


Martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-28 Thread Stephen Lau


Martin Bochnig wrote:

Having a redistributable DLJ-distros-jdk available, which necessarily depends 
on (apparently) non-redistributable SUNWspro-shared C++ libs, is another such problem.
It's really annoying that I have to force LiveDVD-users to download them on the 
fly first (automatically/script-driven), before they are able to run anything 
from the distros-jdk (or anything else, that had been built with SUNW's cc).

Is a non-commercial distributor (like myself) allowed to ship them, or rather 
not?
I really do not want to violate any license.
I might initiate a new thread for that topic, depending on the replies here.
I had been asking many people (and even two CAB members, one other 
distributor), but never got a concrete answer.
The SUNWspro license seems to prohibit this, in full contradiction to the DLJ's paragraph 
of being required to stay compatible [...] with it ...
I also sent a message to the java-distro team a month ago (no response so far).

Does anybody know this for sure?
Am I allowed to redistribute those /usr/libC* libs
YES [ ]
NO  [ ]?

The Belenix creators published their view:

http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/



Martin,
	As of right now - you are not allowed to redistribute those libC* libs. 
 We're working on getting permission to allow for redistribution though 
- so please know that *it is being worked on*.  It's not always 
trivial/easy to work through these licensing issues; but we do realise 
that this is a problem, and we are trying to fix it.


cheers,
steve

--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-28 Thread Rich Teer

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Martin Bochnig wrote:

 Is it also a matter of resources that you don't allow (even
 non-commercial) distributors to redistribute a closed binary for
 /dev/fb for the older framebuffers developed by SUNW themselves
 (probably no 3rd party NDA's affected)?
 And what is with the shared Studio C++ runtime required by almost everything 
 :   

Dunno about the frame buffers, but perhaps libC contains 3rd party IP,
and Sun's license to use it prohibits redistribution by other parties?
I believe that's one of the reasons why you and I are not allowed to
redistribute the Solaris ISOs we can download for free from Sun's web
site: Sun is allowed to distribute it, but others are not.

Sensible?  NOt really, but as Casper (and others) has said, that's one
of the prices paid for developing stuff as closed source.  I'm sure Sun
is doing their best to open up libC (or at least allow redistribution),
but if the owner of the IP won't play ball, it's out of Sun's hands
(apart from Sun re-writing the bits that are closed)...

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 Martin Bochnig wrote:
  Having a redistributable DLJ-distros-jdk available, which necessarily
 depends on (apparently) non-redistributable SUNWspro-shared C++ libs, is
 another such problem.
  It's really annoying that I have to force LiveDVD-users to download them
 on the fly first (automatically/script-driven), before they are able to
 run anything from the distros-jdk (or anything else, that had been built with
 SUNW's cc).
  
  Is a non-commercial distributor (like myself) allowed to ship them, or
 rather not?
  I really do not want to violate any license.
  I might initiate a new thread for that topic, depending on the replies
 here.
  I had been asking many people (and even two CAB members, one other
 distributor), but never got a concrete answer.
  The SUNWspro license seems to prohibit this, in full contradiction to
 the DLJ's paragraph of being required to stay compatible [...] with it ...
  I also sent a message to the java-distro team a month ago (no response
 so far).
  
  Does anybody know this for sure?
  Am I allowed to redistribute those /usr/libC* libs
  YES [ ]
  NO  [ ]?
  
  The Belenix creators published their view:
  
  http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/
 
 
 Martin,
   As of right now - you are not allowed to redistribute those libC* libs. 
   We're working on getting permission to allow for redistribution though 
 - so please know that *it is being worked on*.  It's not always 
 trivial/easy to work through these licensing issues; but we do realise 
 that this is a problem, and we are trying to fix it.
 
 cheers,
 steve
 
 -- 
 stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
 opensolaris // solaris kernel development



Steve,

first of  all thanks for that precise top2bottom answer.
The first concrete fact I ever got back on this topic.
In a long while.
I might have tried to contact Jonathan Schwartz next.


I also assume, that _you_(and your team) are not responsible for that 
[ABCDEFGH] {*1}
But what do you believe, will a thinking human being (including myself, 
hopefully) make of that policy???

Wow, SUNW does offer a Distros-JDK now. The slightly restrictive DLJ license 
requires distributors to only ship it with compatible kernel distributions. 
(Well, yet another License needed to be invented for the lovely JDK.)  But you 
- SUNW - yourself hinder distributors from shipping the damn two or so libs it 
is dynamically linked against?! Libs that anyone can download and extract from 
certain patches, widespread worldwide on many ftp servers for free?
This actually makes your DLJ thing void, because no single OpenSolaris 
distributor can actually fulfill DLJ's terms.
Are your lawyers mad? Is it the heat?
Why didn't the JDK folks use gcc then (which does NOT depend on those files)?

Sorry, but this sounds like a really poor April 1st fool.

Believe me the following two statements:

#0.) I will never again (recommend the) use any of your free Studio compilers 
anymore.
Even if I  was a commercial licensee (Blastwave for example is), you would 
hinder me from shipping the runtime with 

Open-   Solaris?

How ridiculous!
#1.) If things like that (there are more, this is only the most obvious one) 
fail to be fixed in the near future, this will not be my problem any longer, 
because I might discard my projects in such a nasty case.


Footnotes:  {*1} == [Page 1484 of License Agreement %3452, paragraph %$#899 
line 67a, except in cases, where  ^755 is equal to 733664 paragraph one, 
argument s.]

And finally take into account the following aspect please: Your dear share 
holders may have invested more or less $$$ into SUNW. 
_But_  your (rather small) true core community has invested complete human life 
into it. See guys like Dennis Clarke, Joerg Schilling, Cyril Plisko, Phil 
Brown, the Belenix-creators and a few more of that sort.


This needed to be said.
And I will shut my mouth now.

I do not believe all that!


Friendly,
Martin Bochnig
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 Dunno about the frame buffers, but perhaps libC contains 3rd party IP,
 and Sun's license to use it prohibits redistribution by other parties?
 I believe that's one of the reasons why you and I are not allowed to
 redistribute the Solaris ISOs we can download for free from Sun's web
 site: Sun is allowed to distribute it, but others are not.
 
 Sensible?  NOt really, but as Casper (and others) has said, that's one
 of the prices paid for developing stuff as closed source.  I'm sure Sun
 is doing their best to open up libC (or at least allow redistribution),
 but if the owner of the IP won't play ball, it's out of Sun's hands
 (apart from Sun re-writing the bits that are closed)...
 
 -- 
 Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
 
 President,
 Rite Online Inc.


Hi Rich,

okay.
If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing, I _would_ 
understand it.

What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK (on which 
SUNW has made so much noise about, back in May'06) has not been built with the 
open gcc.
A gcc-built JDK would not depend on those closed libs.


Martin
(leaving office now)
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-28 Thread Rich Teer

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Martin Bochnig wrote:

 okay.
 If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing,
 I _would_ understand it.

Would a statement by a Sun employee (provided, of course, thet such
a license doesn't prohibit Sun from doing so) clarifying the situation
help?

 What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK
 (on which SUNW has made so much noise about, back in May'06) has not
 been built with the open gcc.

Perhaps they did it for performance reasons?  I know *I* avoid building
anything with gcc unless I absolutely have to.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-28 Thread David Korn

cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal 
:  Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


I don't want to get involved in political arguments so I will
state my view one once.

It looks as if Casper Dik and Martin Schaffstall have views that are at
opposite ends of the spectrum.  Neither is right and neither is wrong.
There are tradeoffs in either view which I will outline below
and present the pros and cons of each.

Casper's view:

Avoid making changes that could be incompatible and effect customers.
Add ksh but putting it under a new name.  Install ksh93 as /bin/ksh.

Here are the pros:
1.  Sun provides continuity for customers.
2.  Easier to get approved.
3.  Each version can be modified independently.
4.  Can be implemented quickly.
5.  It is simpler in the short term.
Here are the cons:
1.  Complexity grows over time.
2.  Multiple versions need to be supported.
3.  Versions might diverge making future merges more difficult.
4.  Features that users want might be partially in one
version and not in the other.
5.  More closed source code.
6.  Less compatbility with Linux systems.
7.  Gets worse as time goes on.


Martins view:

Select the best shell and make that the standard.  Install ksh93 as
/bin/sh.

Here are the pros:
1.  Once adopted, improves productivity for users.
2.  Reduces code and the need to support closed version.
3.  Improves Solaris performance.
Here are the cons:
1.  Sun would have to make sure that all their scripts
run which is likely to require some changes.
2.  It might break some existing user scripts.
3.  When installed as /bin/sh, it must be able to handle
all calls to system().
4.  This would take longer to implement.
5.  Harder to get approved.


An alternative would be to do things in three phases.

Phase 1.
1.  Move the current ksh to /bin/ksh88
2.  Install the new ksh as /bin/ksh
3.  Fix any Solaris scripts that currently use ksh so
that they run with ksh93.
4.  Inform user to either change the #! in their scripts
to use /bin/ksh88 or fix the script if it doesn't
run under the new /bin/ksh.
5.  Mark /bin/ksh88 as obsolete and stop any maintenence.

Phase 2.
1.  Make sure all Solaris scripts run with /bin/sh as ksh93.
2.  Let /bin/sh be a symlink that can be set to /bin/ksh
or to the old /bin/sh.
3.  Mark /bin/osh as obsolete and stop any maintenence.

Phase 3.
1.  Make /bin/sh and /bin/ksh links.

David Korn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 Would a statement by a Sun employee (provided, of course, thet such
 a license doesn't prohibit Sun from doing so) clarifying the situation
 help?


Yes.
 

  What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK
  (on which SUNW has made so much noise about, back in May'06) has not
  been built with the open gcc.
 
 Perhaps they did it for performance reasons?  I know *I* avoid building
 anything with gcc unless I absolutely have to.
 
 -- 
 Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
 
 President,
 Rite Online Inc.


Aehmm, what kind of performance is better in practical use?

[ ] gcc: It may run only at 60% of the speed it could, 
 when built with SUNWspro. (depending on what and how etc.)

[ ] SUNWspro: it does not run at all, because it is linked against 
 missing and unredistributable libs


--
Martin Bochnig

SCSA, SCNA, SCSecA, TOEFL, 
Student of Maths. at TU-Berlin, marTux
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


okay.
If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing, I _would_ 
understand it.

What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK (on 
which SUNW has made so m
uch noise about, back in May'06) has not been built with the open gcc.
A gcc-built JDK would not depend on those closed libs.


Most compiler libraries can be redistributed, but strangely enough
not libC (because of bundling in the OS?)

If that small bit was rectified, we could easily fix it..

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Really ksh88 vs. ksh93 _/_ Re: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

Hello David Korn,

I'm Martin Bochnig, not the other Martin S.
However, your suggestions below get a strong +1 from me.


Martin Bochnig


 Original-Message 
Datum: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:15:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal  
Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

 cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
 Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal
 Proposal :  Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
 
 
 I don't want to get involved in political arguments so I will
 state my view one once.
 
 It looks as if Casper Dik and Martin Schaffstall have views that are at
 opposite ends of the spectrum.  Neither is right and neither is wrong.
 There are tradeoffs in either view which I will outline below
 and present the pros and cons of each.
 
 Casper's view:
 
 Avoid making changes that could be incompatible and effect customers.
 Add ksh but putting it under a new name.  Install ksh93 as /bin/ksh.
 
 Here are the pros:
   1.  Sun provides continuity for customers.
   2.  Easier to get approved.
   3.  Each version can be modified independently.
   4.  Can be implemented quickly.
   5.  It is simpler in the short term.
 Here are the cons:
   1.  Complexity grows over time.
   2.  Multiple versions need to be supported.
   3.  Versions might diverge making future merges more difficult.
   4.  Features that users want might be partially in one
   version and not in the other.
   5.  More closed source code.
   6.  Less compatbility with Linux systems.
   7.  Gets worse as time goes on.
 
 
 Martins view:
 
 Select the best shell and make that the standard.  Install ksh93 as
 /bin/sh.
 
 Here are the pros:
   1.  Once adopted, improves productivity for users.
   2.  Reduces code and the need to support closed version.
   3.  Improves Solaris performance.
 Here are the cons:
   1.  Sun would have to make sure that all their scripts
   run which is likely to require some changes.
   2.  It might break some existing user scripts.
   3.  When installed as /bin/sh, it must be able to handle
   all calls to system().
   4.  This would take longer to implement.
   5.  Harder to get approved.
 
 
 An alternative would be to do things in three phases.
 
 Phase 1.
   1.  Move the current ksh to /bin/ksh88
   2.  Install the new ksh as /bin/ksh
   3.  Fix any Solaris scripts that currently use ksh so
   that they run with ksh93.
   4.  Inform user to either change the #! in their scripts
   to use /bin/ksh88 or fix the script if it doesn't
   run under the new /bin/ksh.
   5.  Mark /bin/ksh88 as obsolete and stop any maintenence.
 
 Phase 2.
   1.  Make sure all Solaris scripts run with /bin/sh as ksh93.
   2.  Let /bin/sh be a symlink that can be set to /bin/ksh
   or to the old /bin/sh.
   3.  Mark /bin/osh as obsolete and stop any maintenence.
 
 Phase 3.
   1.  Make /bin/sh and /bin/ksh links.
 
 David Korn
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


   From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
   Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org

--


   Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


+1

I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
--
//   Martin Schaffstall
   //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.


(+1 for PowerPC)

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
  To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org

 --


Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

 +1

 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
 have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later


   You are so right !

   Let's post this to the powerpc-discuss list.


Dennis Clarke

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC



I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

 If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
 then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.



I think there is a PowerPC discuss list somewhere.  We should use it.

 Then I can follow up with the following bold idea :

   Anything that runs on Solaris x86 or Solaris Sparc must be able to
   run in the PowerPC port in the same manner.

 So that implies a great deal of discussion.



But there will also be a pile of software in the /opt area that provides the
GNU stack as well as software from the Blastwave software stack.

Dennis
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.


Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh

PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(
--
//   Martin Schaffstall
   //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
 have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

 If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
 then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.

 Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh

 PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
 project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
 based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
 delays :(

   whoa whoa whoa ...

   relax there guy

   I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a
manner consistent with solid engineering principles.  The issue of
backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in
my less than humble opinion, critical to the success of any port.

   While I am certainly not _fully_ aware of all the issues I can say
with some degree of certainty that wide sweeping slurs will get you
personally no where.  Trust me, I ought to know!

Dennis Clarke

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
 have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

 If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
 then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.

Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh

Because it's stupid to have random differences between Solaris PPC,
Solaris x86 and Solaris SPARC.[1]

We strongly believe in One Solaris; making the build tree distinguish
between the different flavours and install a different application
as /bin/ksh.  (And, of course, the operative word is mostly)

This ksh script works on PPC but not on x86/SPARC, how come

PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(

No, that's not true at all.  I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris
for a long time, provided it is done properly.

The argument is about properly; you should not read anything more into
it than that.

Casper

[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed, the PowerPC team
may not have a choice but to install ksh93 as /bin/ksh
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck


great!
On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:





[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of  
the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed, the  
PowerPC team

may not have a choice but to install ksh93 as /bin/ksh


  bingo [1]

--
Dennis Clarke


[1] I'm working on my verbosity.  How am I doing?  :-)
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

On 7/27/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.

Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh

PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(

whoa whoa whoa ...

relax there guy

Why? I just saying what many people already think.

I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a
manner consistent with solid engineering principles. The issue of
backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in
my less than humble opinion, critical to the success of any port.

The issue of backwards compatibility is already addressed very well in
ksh93 itself. Most of the opensolaris distributions - excluding
Solaris itself - are shipping ksh93 as /bin/ksh or are going to ship
it. The ksh integration tree contains a master built switch
specifically for that purpose:
http://polaris.blastwave.org/browser/on/branches/ksh93/gisburn/prototype002/m1_ast_ast_imported/usr/src/cmd/ksh/Makefile.ksh93switch?rev=277

While I am certainly not _fully_ aware of all the issues I can say
with some degree of certainty that wide sweeping slurs will get you
personally no where. Trust me, I ought to know!

Yeah. But I am NOT alone with the feeling that something is going
wrong. Why does this project need more than half a year to get some
sources moved into the Solaris tree? This is a task which should be
finished within weeks and NOT years.
--
// Martin Schaffstall
//EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


The issue of backwards compatibility is already addressed very well in
ksh93 itself. Most of the opensolaris distributions - excluding
Solaris itself - are shipping ksh93 as /bin/ksh or are going to ship
it. The ksh integration tree contains a master built switch
specifically for that purpose:
http://polaris.blastwave.org/browser/on/branches/ksh93/gisburn/prototype002/m1_ast_ast_imported/usr/src/cmd/ksh/Makefile.ksh93switch?rev=277

The issue of backwards compatibility is not addressed very well;
the number of incompatibilities between ksh88 and ksh93 is large
and there is no way to make many of them disappear.

The question is more how much this will hurt.

While I am certainly not _fully_ aware of all the issues I can say
 with some degree of certainty that wide sweeping slurs will get you
 personally no where.  Trust me, I ought to know!

Yeah. But I am NOT alone with the feeling that something is going
wrong. Why does this project  need more than half a year to get some
sources moved into the Solaris tree? This is a task which should be
finished within weeks and NOT years.

It's much more difficult than that because of AST integration and
other stuff changed in /lib (such as usurping libcmd) as well as
some continuous fine tuning of ksh93 itself.

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed


You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do you?
--
//   Martin Schaffstall
   //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

great!


Lets hope we won't see an open sourced version of the old /bin/ksh
--
//   Martin Schaffstall
   //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(

No, that's not true at all.  I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris
for a long time, provided it is done properly.


Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate Casper
Disk with the term ksh93 hater because each time we have this topic
Casper Disk sends another hate mail
--
//   Martin Schaffstall
   //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
 project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
 based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
 delays :(

 No, that's not true at all.  I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris
 for a long time, provided it is done properly.

Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate Casper
Disk with the term ksh93 hater because each time we have this topic
Casper Disk sends another hate mail

Hate mail?  Moi?

And if you want to sling mud, please spell my name correctly.

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread James Carlson

Martin Schaffstall writes:
 On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
  project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
  based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
  delays :(
 
  No, that's not true at all.  I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris
  for a long time, provided it is done properly.
 
 Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate Casper
 Disk with the term ksh93 hater because each time we have this topic
 Casper Disk sends another hate mail

Sorry, I don't see it.  Where's the hate?

I think this is getting personal, and I don't think that's at all
necessary.  The _only_ issues I've seen relate to technical matters,
and not at all to hatred.

Many of us use ksh93 on Solaris and would very much like to see it
integrated.  We just don't want to see a huge flood of bugs and broken
applications as the result -- because we value compatibility.  Call it
a fetish if you like, but it's not hatred.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Martin Schaffstall writes:
 On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
  project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
  based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
  delays :(
 
  No, that's not true at all.  I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris
  for a long time, provided it is done properly.

 Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate Casper
 Disk with the term ksh93 hater because each time we have this topic
 Casper Disk sends another hate mail

Sorry, I don't see it.  Where's the hate?


Casper is always there when he can beat onto ksh93.


I think this is getting personal, and I don't think that's at all
necessary.  The _only_ issues I've seen relate to technical matters,
and not at all to hatred.


This is not personal. It is just an observation


Many of us use ksh93 on Solaris and would very much like to see it
integrated.  We just don't want to see a huge flood of bugs and broken
applications as the result -- because we value compatibility.  Call it
a fetish if you like, but it's not hatred.


Sometimes Sun values the holy backwards compatibility over usability.
The PAIN for users and developers caused by this policy far outweighs
the benefits. The majority of people who suffer from /bin/ksh in
Solaris thinks like that. If you don't believe me read
http://anotherhangover.blogspot.com/2006/06/solaris-can-fck-off-kinda.html
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15007limit=nothreshold=-1
or just search in Google for 'solaris ksh sucks': 15,100 hits
--
//   Martin Schaffstall
   //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread Bonnie Corwin

Martin Schaffstall wrote On 07/27/06 06:48,:
 On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed
 
 
 You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do you?

Filing a bug won't change what Casper has observed.  /bin/ksh is in
usr/closed for a reason, and that reason isn't going to change (and no,
we can't discuss details).

It's not a great situation, but it has nothing to do with Sun not
wanting to open source something.

Bonnie


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread Stephen Lau


Martin Schaffstall wrote:

On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed


You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do 
you?


It's not our decision to make.

-steve

--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later


If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.


What other choice is there when the current ksh is a closed binary?
Will Sun be building the closed binaries for PPC?

--
-Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread Stephen Lau


Alan Coopersmith wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later


If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.


What other choice is there when the current ksh is a closed binary?
Will Sun be building the closed binaries for PPC?



Could someone involved from SunLabs could port it and build it?

-steve

--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread Calum Benson

On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 15:55 +0200, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
 On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Martin Schaffstall writes:
   On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(
   
No, that's not true at all.  I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris
for a long time, provided it is done properly.
  
   Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate Casper
   Disk with the term ksh93 hater because each time we have this topic
   Casper Disk sends another hate mail
 
  Sorry, I don't see it.  Where's the hate?
 
 Casper is always there when he can beat onto ksh93.
 
  I think this is getting personal, and I don't think that's at all
  necessary.  The _only_ issues I've seen relate to technical matters,
  and not at all to hatred.
 
 This is not personal. It is just an observation
 
  Many of us use ksh93 on Solaris and would very much like to see it
  integrated.  We just don't want to see a huge flood of bugs and broken
  applications as the result -- because we value compatibility.  Call it
  a fetish if you like, but it's not hatred.
 
 Sometimes Sun values the holy backwards compatibility over usability.
 The PAIN for users and developers caused by this policy far outweighs
 the benefits. The majority of people who suffer from /bin/ksh in
 Solaris thinks like that. If you don't believe me read
 http://anotherhangover.blogspot.com/2006/06/solaris-can-fck-off-kinda.html
 http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15007limit=nothreshold=-1
 or just search in Google for 'solaris ksh sucks': 15,100 hits

-- 
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer   Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group
http://ie.sun.com  +353 1 819 9771

Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems
Made in Scotland, from girders.
Haud ma coat-- it's laldy time!
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
 but when there is nothing left to take away. -- A. de St.Exupery
La perfection est atteinte non quand il ne reste rien Ã  ajouter, mais 
 quand il ne reste rien Ã  enlever. -- A. de St.Exupery
I just wouldn't know a single word to say, if I
 flattened all my vowels and I threw the R away. - The Proclaimers
Soft eject : a wee touch of sanity in a mad world - Rab C. Nesbitt

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread Calum Benson

(Apologies, please ignore disregard the blank email I just sent
Evolution threw a bit of a wobbler!)

-- 
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer   Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group
http://ie.sun.com  +353 1 819 9771

Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:

 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
 have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want,
of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes just because
sounds like the sort of thing our penguin loving friends over at
kernel.org would go for.  Having the PPC port being unnecessarily
different to SPARC and x86 will lead to more fragmentation than we
want, I would think.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:

I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a
 manner consistent with solid engineering principles.  The issue of
 backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in
 my less than humble opinion, critical to the success of any port.

Dennis, as usual, hits the nail on the head.

I think we (the OpenSOlaris community) should adopt a new moto: Think
twice, integrate once.  ;-)

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:

 [1] I'm working on my verbosity.  How am I doing?  :-)

Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote!  :-)

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:

 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
 have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want,
of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes just because
sounds like the sort of thing our penguin loving friends over at
kernel.org would go for.  Having the PPC port being unnecessarily
different to SPARC and x86 will lead to more fragmentation than we
want, I would think.


How is gratuitous incompatibility defined in this particular case ?

The possibility that someone who will try the PowerPC Solaris port in
the future might be unhappy because this future port will default to
ksh93 instead of /bin/ksh, creating the possibility that Korn Shell
scripts written in 1990 might break in 2008 ?

Solaris 10 SPARC is currently incompatible with Solaris x86/x64: Xsun
on SPARC vs. Xorg on x86/x64. I haven't heard of too many complaints
because of this compatibility breakage (source code written, compiled
and linked on Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64 will not compile and link on
Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC because Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC is a very
different beast than Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64). I haven't heard of too
many people willingly running Xsun on x86/x64 for compatibility's sake
either -- compatibility in this particular case means running glxgears
at 42 FPS.

--Stefan

--
Stefan Teleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:

 [1] I'm working on my verbosity.  How am I doing?  :-)

 Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote!  :-)


  :-P
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Stefan Teleman wrote:

 How is gratuitous incompatibility defined in this particular case ?
 
 The possibility that someone who will try the PowerPC Solaris port in
 the future might be unhappy because this future port will default to
 ksh93 instead of /bin/ksh, creating the possibility that Korn Shell
 scripts written in 1990 might break in 2008 ?

Mmmm.  Perhaps I was overly assertive, although I stick to the principle.
'Course, the ensuing discussion about ksh88 not being able to be open
sourced doesn't help the debate.

Having someone in SunLabs provide PPC binaries for ksh88 sounds like
a non-optimal situation to me.  In the long run, migrating /bin/ksh
to ksh93 seems to be the ideal, but it must be done carefully, with
the proper notices appearing the right places.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


Solaris 10 SPARC is currently incompatible with Solaris x86/x64: Xsun
on SPARC vs. Xorg on x86/x64. I haven't heard of too many complaints
because of this compatibility breakage (source code written, compiled
and linked on Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64 will not compile and link on
Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC because Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC is a very
different beast than Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64). I haven't heard of too
many people willingly running Xsun on x86/x64 for compatibility's sake
either -- compatibility in this particular case means running glxgears
at 42 FPS.


I'm not sure what you mean with source code written, compiled and
linked ... Xorg).

The X client runtime is exactly the same on both; the server is
different but by and large implements the same feature set

(with the exception of DPS on SPARC and XDAMAGE on x86)

Or perhaps you are thinking about OpenGL which is still a bit
problematic?

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean with source code written, compiled and
linked ... Xorg).

The X client runtime is exactly the same on both; the server is
different but by and large implements the same feature set

(with the exception of DPS on SPARC and XDAMAGE on x86)

Or perhaps you are thinking about OpenGL which is still a bit
problematic?


i am specifically referring to:

Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite

none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code
which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and
runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on Xsun
SPARC, because the header files are missing.

--Stefan

--
Stefan Teleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread James Carlson

Stefan Teleman writes:
 i am specifically referring to:
 
 Xrender
 XVideo
 XvMC
 XRandR
 Xcomposite
 
 none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code
 which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and
 runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on Xsun
 SPARC, because the header files are missing.

That doesn't actually matter for compatibility, because we're marching
in the other direction: it's Xorg that needs to support all that Xsun
once did (and perhaps more), not the opposite.  We're in the midst of
an Xsun-Xorg transition.

We support running old applications on new systems, not the reverse.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread ken mays

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:

 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning
that you don't
 have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz
later

I advocate against that; individual distros are free
to do what want,
of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes
just because
sounds like the sort of thing our penguin loving
friends over at
kernel.org would go for.  Having the PPC port being
unnecessarily
different to SPARC and x86 will lead to more
fragmentation than we
want, I would think.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

--

True. You'd want to at least stick close to the source
trees and diff anything needed to port the source to
PowerPC/POWER architectures. 

I'd thought of the concept in which the Power/PowerPC
port was very identical to the SXCR distribution -
just focused on POWER/PowerPC based hardware. Genesi
has servers and workstation hardware which allowed us
this possibility. 

I'd like to propose the PowerPC/POWER SXCR distro
based on the work from Sun Labs. I have a KMDB PowerPC
debugger I'd like to propose for further development
as well.

Ken Mays
EarthLink, Inc.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


Stefan Teleman wrote:

i am specifically referring to:

Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite

none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code
which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and
runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on Xsun
SPARC, because the header files are missing.


We deliever the exact same set of headers and libraries on SPARC  x86 for
X (except for OpenGL).   You can build and link programs that use any of
the above (except Composite) on both SPARC  x86 - we don't deliver the
composite header or library on either one.


--
-Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


i am specifically referring to:

Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite

Certainly the compilation environment should support all; Xrandr
seems to be present on SPARC (certainly the library and client
are).

All of them should compile and run (against Xorg servers) on SPARC.

none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code
which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and
runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on Xsun
SPARC, because the header files are missing.


Yep.  Note that these are not gratuitous incompatibilities but rather
a historical bagage which we will want to get rid of over time:

- No Xorg drivers for SPARC hardware
- fbconfig before Xrandr existed
- No interest on the SPARC side to support the latest Xorg
  extensions


This is yet another example of why branch, close source and modify
is such a bad development model.  You (and your customers) pay through
the nose later.

It will take Solaris quite some time to recover from the closed source
mistakes of the past; sendmail took a long time and Xsun will take
even longer.

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


All of them should compile and run (against Xorg servers) on SPARC.


There is nothing i would love more than to be able to run Xorg with
all these extensions working on SPARC and my XVR-1000 card, so i can
watch DVD's at more than 1280x1024 fullscreen and use the Xv/XvMC
drivers instead of the CPU pig also known as Xshm on Xsun SPARC.

Can i do this on Solaris 10 U2 06/06 SPARC ? ;-)


Yep.  Note that these are not gratuitous incompatibilities but rather
a historical bagage which we will want to get rid of over time:

- No Xorg drivers for SPARC hardware
- fbconfig before Xrandr existed
- No interest on the SPARC side to support the latest Xorg
  extensions


This is yet another example of why branch, close source and modify
is such a bad development model.  You (and your customers) pay through
the nose later.


exaclty. so then back to my original question: why start off the Power
PC Solaris port with an already obsolete (and not open source) Korn
Shell  ?

i have no personal emotional attachment to the Korn Shell, i use the T-Shell.

--Stefan

--
Stefan Teleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


[ offlist ]

On 7/27/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Mmmm.  Perhaps I was overly assertive, although I stick to the principle.
'Course, the ensuing discussion about ksh88 not being able to be open
sourced doesn't help the debate.


you weren't being overly assertive.

this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than
practical considerations notwithstanding).

today's cuckoo is not backwards compatible with the t-rex. the t-rex
tried to remain backwards compatible with itself. it did not work out
quite as the t-rex might have intended. the backwards incompatibility
of the cuckoo did not make it better. it only succeeded at making
the t-rex worse.

--Stefan

--
Stefan Teleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than
practical considerations notwithstanding).

I'm not sure it's the right time to say that Linux has determined
that backward compatibility is not important.

The market has not had time to feel the full force of the
impact of no backward compatibility; but from what I've heard, it
is starting to hurt and it will only start to hurt more.

We cannot tell what will break with ksh93; it may be nothing, it
may be soething.  But shell issues are generally easy to overcome
by just editing the script and running it with a different
version.

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread James Carlson

Stefan Teleman writes:
 this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
 longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
 for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
 this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than
 practical considerations notwithstanding).

The good news, I think, is that Linux is still readily available for
those who aren't so interested in compatibility.  Nobody else really
needs to ape that model.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The good news, I think, is that Linux is still readily available for
those who aren't so interested in compatibility.  Nobody else really
needs to ape that model.


and Linux is also being readily deployed. 12,000+ workstations at ODF
Niedersachsen (until very recently running Solaris x86, now running
SuSE) will attest to that. so will those 5000+ boxes at
EuroNext/LIFFE.

i'm not sure whom they are ape-ing. one would presume that such
decisions are primarily based on market economics and rational choice,
and only secondarily on the collective set of irrational instincts we
might be sharing with our primate acestors.

--Stefan

--
Stefan Teleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread Stephen Hahn

* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 21:16]:
 
  * Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 11:19]:
  The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.
 
Cool.  But I need to ask a question:  is someone likely to need or
want to trademark this use of Polaris?  (If so, it's not useful as a
project name for opensolaris.org; although admittedly much blander, I
suggest ppc-dev.)
 
 A minor concern at this point.

  I apologize, but for my job, it's not.  If a project wants to use
  opensolaris.org resources it needs to not have a known current or
  pending trademark conflict.

  (In fact, I would encourage any folks looking at building a commercial
  distribution to select a name and begin their trademark work...)

  More generally, if the plan isn't to use this site's facilities, then
  project proposals boil down to agreeing to be bound by the OpenSolaris
  Governing Board resolutions, its approved development processes, and
  its arbitration of disputes, both technical and social.  That may or
  may not suit every potential effort build on OpenSolaris technology.
  An alternative would be to propose text for the distribution, which
  can be added to the Distributions page:

  http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/distributions/

  I don't really see any problem with adding a distribution there, even
  in its earliest and most experimental phases.

  - Stephen

-- 
Stephen Hahn, PhD  Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread John Plocher


+-- Stefan Teleman wrote:

this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point.


Agreed, but I don't think that this case is really that simplistic.

One currently expects that the scripts one writes today will run unchanged
between OpenSolaris/SPARC and OpenSolaris/x86.  Hopefully, this expectation
will extend to the OpenSolaris/PPC port as well.

That implies that the PPC port does what the other ports have done,
independent of any efforts to improve the baseline shared by all.

Those improvement efforts (whether focused on ksh88-ksh93 as a
default for ksh or elsewhere) need to focus on meeting expectations;
specifically, the expectation that we (the developers) will think
through and understand the risks and impact of our changes before
we make them, so the consumers of OpenSolaris (any port) won't be
the ones on the bleeding edge of integration or interoperability
failures.

To the extent that we don't understand the differences or the impact
on our consumers, we increase the risk to those consumers when they
(try to) deploy the results.  In as much as it is unexpected and
unquantifiable, it results in upset customers/users/whatever, and
should be avoided.

This implies that we need to proactively work to understand the
differences between the two ksh versions, quantify the actual
script impact and disruption, devise transition plans and evaluate
all of the above as to levels of acceptable risk.  If that risk
turns out to be acceptable, we should update all three ports
together; if not, we should consider alternatives.

  -John

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

 Original-Message 
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:13:15 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Korn Shell 93 integration/migration project discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :   
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC 

 On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
  have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later

  If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
  then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.

 Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh

 Because it's stupid to have random differences between Solaris PPC,
 Solaris x86 and Solaris SPARC.[1]

 We strongly believe in One Solaris
[...]

Wow!
Sounds really really nice, but is it true - I mean in all (key) areas?

Really?

Only take Xorg vs. Xsun for example.
I have been posting about my {and other's} progress {with XFree86 and now} Xorg 
@ SunOS5.1[0|1]_sparc since April 11.
Again and again.
Publically (several ML's), semi-publically and privately.
But posting about that topic has mostly been like directly throwing it all to 
/dev/null.
Worse: Like actually going or being sent to /dev/null in a certain case (where 
I admittedly did make a mistake, but nobody here minded to help me).

I got Xorg working on sparc, on more and more frame buffers (or rather 
Graphics cards):

PGX, PGX24, PGX32 PGX64, XVR-100, Elite3D (no accell.), Creator3D (no accell.), 
maybe also ffb1. We also do have the old (opensource) version of Xsun (included 
in the Xorg tree). This adds support to all the really vintage chipsets/boards 
like the GX, ZX(leo) and other really obsolete cards.
I don't have a XVR-500 right now, but it might potentially also work (Permedia3 
chip). Maybe not out of the box, but with little if no hard work.
Note: All the chips/boards except the afb*/ffb* (Elite*/Creator*) do not even 
necessarily depend on the closed /dev/fb driver anymore!

So is that nothing?

That the Xorg friends are uninterested in [EMAIL PROTECTED] might be their 
little problem.

But why is SUNW so uninterested???
Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in One Solaris^^ now?

Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly 
eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
I will better stop here.
I wished, you truly meant it 100.00% serious with above vision.
_No_ exceptions: Just as you said it(!).

Martin Bochnig
marTux

p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from USB mass 
storage then.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


Martin Bochnig wrote:

Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly 
eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.


Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but
there isn't as much work going on in SPARC graphics/workstations any more.
The few people left in SPARC graphics sadly simply don't have the time to
deal with Xorg, OpenSolaris, or releasing specs to the open source community.
(For those boards we'd even be allowed to - anything PCI-based is a OEM'ed board
 covered by NDA's with the vendors we buy them from - only the older Sbus  UPA
 boards were Sun creations.)

In the X group, we'd love to see Xorg on all SPARC graphics boards so we could
start phasing out Xsun on SPARC too, but it's out of our hands.

--
-Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 Martin Bochnig wrote:
  Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your
 (mostly eol'ed) gfx drivers?
  Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
 
 Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but
 there isn't as much work going on in SPARC graphics/workstations any more.
 The few people left in SPARC graphics sadly simply don't have the time to
 deal with Xorg, OpenSolaris, or releasing specs to the open source
 community.

I understand that, but it is a pity.

 (For those boards we'd even be allowed to - anything PCI-based is a OEM'ed
 board
   covered by NDA's with the vendors we buy them from 

Okay.
But this is not too hard because Xorg already supports a few of those chipsets 
(Permedia_1/2/3[glint], Ati_*).
Only the XVR-600, 1000 and 1200 might be problematic.
Don't have any of them and don't know, what the latter are based on. I will 
have to look into that later on.

 - only the older Sbus
  UPA
   boards were Sun creations.)

It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb driver for 
those older chipsets. 
Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough.
The rest (XFree86 and Xorg) will work with no further things required of being 
opened up.
How are the chances?

 
 In the X group, we'd love to see Xorg on all SPARC graphics boards so we
 could
 start phasing out Xsun on SPARC too, but it's out of our hands.

Aha.
Okay.


Martin

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


Martin Bochnig wrote:
It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb driver for those older chipsets. 
Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough.


I asked the SPARC team to allow binary redistribution of their
drivers a year ago, and last I heard they still hadn't gotten
around to deciding on it.   I've tried to explain that they're just
continuing to push all OpenSolaris distros/users away from SPARC,
but they just don't seem to care.

--
-Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

 Martin Bochnig wrote:
  It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb
 driver for those older chipsets. 
  Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough.
 
 I asked the SPARC team to allow binary redistribution of their
 drivers a year ago, and last I heard they still hadn't gotten
 around to deciding on it.   I've tried to explain that they're just
 continuing to push all OpenSolaris distros/users away from SPARC,
 but they just don't seem to care.
 
 -- 
   -Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering


Good!
I finally realize now, that we both are fighting for the same open vision:
Open__Solaris.


###


Having a redistributable DLJ-distros-jdk available, which necessarily depends 
on (apparently) non-redistributable SUNWspro-shared C++ libs, is another such 
problem.
It's really annoying that I have to force LiveDVD-users to download them on the 
fly first (automatically/script-driven), before they are able to run anything 
from the distros-jdk (or anything else, that had been built with SUNW's cc).

Is a non-commercial distributor (like myself) allowed to ship them, or rather 
not?
I really do not want to violate any license.
I might initiate a new thread for that topic, depending on the replies here.
I had been asking many people (and even two CAB members, one other 
distributor), but never got a concrete answer.
The SUNWspro license seems to prohibit this, in full contradiction to the DLJ's 
paragraph of being required to stay compatible [...] with it ...
I also sent a message to the java-distro team a month ago (no response so far).

Does anybody know this for sure?
Am I allowed to redistribute those /usr/libC* libs
YES [ ]
NO  [ ]?

The Belenix creators published their view:

http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/

As above JDK 1.5 has been included in the CD. However due to a licensing issue 
with a required SUN Studio C++ runtime library it is currently an installable 
bundle and does not execute off the LiveCD. This is expected to be resolved 
soon. The JDK bundle gets installed once BeleniX gets installed to harddisk. 
The required LibC patch is also downloaded and installed automatically if you 
have a network conection.


Thanks,
Martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread Jan Setje-Eilers


 p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from
 USB mass storage then.

 The idea that GRUB or GRUB2 has anything to do with what devices a
system can or can not boot from is mostly a miss-conception.

 A number of amd64/legacy-x86 systems have BIOSs that can talk to and
boot from USB devices. On such systems GRUB as well as a number of
other boot loaders can be loaded from a USB device by the BIOS and
then using the BIOS's support talk to and continue booting from this
USB device.

 GRUB2 on sparc sits on top of OBP (ieee1275) and uses it to talk to
IO devices. The current Sun OBPs do not have support for USB
devices. As such GRUB doesn't change the picture.

 WRT getting OBP support for USB: At least one other vendor, who seems
to be abandoning their OBP strategy, did have USB support in their
OBPs, so perhaps someone could ask nicely and talk then into
freeing/opening their code for this.

 Now I used the term mostly. One could implement native support for
USB in GRUB (or any other boot-strap) and then as long as this USB
enabled boot-strap is loaded from something other than USB that OBP
(or whatever firmware) _can_ talk to, then the OS load could be
completed (but not initiated) from a USB device. The native NIC
drivers work that way in that they are loaded by the generic PXE code
and then interface with the NIC directly.

 So, GRUB2 does _not_ get us any closer to booting our sparc systems
from USB devices.

 Now to put the soap box aside and answer you question: We are
continuing to look at GRUB2 as a way to get a cross-platform
consistent menuing interface that may be useful for managing multiple
boot-environments. This is particularly interesting as the possibility
of zfs snapshots of (coming soon) zfs root filesystems will increase
the number of boot-environments on a typical system.

-jan
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

Jan,

thanks for your detailed answer!
I should have (finally) read all the ieee1275 datasheets before starting to 
publically talk about that, and unintentionally spreading untruths.

Thanks for the correction, overview and outlook.
I should have known it better a bit: I once experimented with different 
CMD/Sil0649 uata controllers. Including flavours, who identify themselves as 
'raid', rather than 'ide' (and have no jp0 jumper to externally set their pci 
id's). It was still possible to work around that using nvedit and a script, so 
that the Ultra5-OBP's builtin 'ide' drivers would detect, initiate and boot off 
it (up to the point where '/' should be initially mounted).
USB needs to be supported (have a Forth OF-driver) inside 
'ok /packages/SUNWbuilt-drivers'.

Are parts of OBP open source?
Maybe even for a specific box.
Or are there plans?


-martin

  p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from
  USB mass storage then.
[...]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-27 Thread John Weekley

On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 22:11 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
 longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
 for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
 this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than
 practical considerations notwithstanding).
 
 I'm not sure it's the right time to say that Linux has determined
 that backward compatibility is not important.
 
 The market has not had time to feel the full force of the
 impact of no backward compatibility; but from what I've heard, it
 is starting to hurt and it will only start to hurt more.

Yes, we are feeling it.  That's why my company has yet to find a group
internally to support their linux servers.  Backwards compatibility
looms large in the minds of those who actually have to administer the
boxes.  Our linux boxes fall further and further into disrepair due to
the fact that the linux development model doesn't even pay lip service
to the concept of backwards compatibility.

 
 We cannot tell what will break with ksh93; it may be nothing, it
 may be soething.  But shell issues are generally easy to overcome
 by just editing the script and running it with a different
 version.

Easy to fix until your entire operation is out of commission due what
was once an easy edit of a script.


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Rich Teer

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:

 I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC
 and POWER Architecture.  The initial  port should  be tightly constrained
 to a specific  hardware reference  platform and  based on a 32-bit single
 CPU implementation.  Members of the Solaris community have already formed
 together in order  to achieve  this and  we have  selected the Genesi ODW
 Workstation as  the  hardware platform  for a number of  reasons.  Much
 discussion was  held and  the decision stands  within the community.

+1, although note that there is already a PowerPC community.  I think it
would be best to rename the latter to Ports or somthing similar, and then
have this proposed project housed within it.  (One of the things we're going
to try to do once the governace doc is out of the way is rationalise the
number of communities.  We have too many communities at the moment, and some
would be better off being recast as projects.)

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Cyril Plisko

On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
   Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org

--

   Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had
been  written or posted  to OpenSolaris.org.  It seems reasonable at this
time to make the proposal.

I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC
and POWER Architecture.  The initial  port should  be tightly constrained
to a specific  hardware reference  platform and  based on a 32-bit single
CPU implementation.  Members of the Solaris community have already formed
together in order  to achieve  this and  we have  selected the Genesi ODW
Workstation as  the  hardware platform  for a number of  reasons.  Much
discussion was  held and  the decision stands  within the community.

Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi
staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux.

More information about Genesi may be seen at :

  http://www.genesippc.com/

The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at :

  https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware

Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom
Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port.
Please see more info at :

  http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html

The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand
alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at :

  http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html

The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at :

  http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html

The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at :

  http://polaris.blastwave.org/

The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.

The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris
to the PowerPC architecture.

Dennis Clarke
Director Blastwave.org

+1  :)

--
Regards,
   Cyril
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Noah yan

+1

On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
   Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org

--

   Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had
been  written or posted  to OpenSolaris.org.  It seems reasonable at this
time to make the proposal.

I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC
and POWER Architecture.  The initial  port should  be tightly constrained
to a specific  hardware reference  platform and  based on a 32-bit single
CPU implementation.  Members of the Solaris community have already formed
together in order  to achieve  this and  we have  selected the Genesi ODW
Workstation as  the  hardware platform  for a number of  reasons.  Much
discussion was  held and  the decision stands  within the community.

Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi
staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux.

More information about Genesi may be seen at :

  http://www.genesippc.com/

The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at :

  https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware

Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom
Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port.
Please see more info at :

  http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html

The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand
alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at :

  http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html

The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at :

  http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html

The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at :

  http://polaris.blastwave.org/

The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.

The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris
to the PowerPC architecture.

Dennis Clarke
Director Blastwave.org

--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Martin Bochnig

+1.0

 Original-Message 
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
Subject: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
  To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org

 --

Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

 This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had
 been  written or posted  to OpenSolaris.org.  It seems reasonable at this
 time to make the proposal.

 I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC
 and POWER Architecture.  The initial  port should  be tightly constrained
 to a specific  hardware reference  platform and  based on a 32-bit single
 CPU implementation.  Members of the Solaris community have already formed
 together in order  to achieve  this and  we have  selected the Genesi ODW
 Workstation as  the  hardware platform  for a number of  reasons.  Much
 discussion was  held and  the decision stands  within the community.

 Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi
 staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux.

 More information about Genesi may be seen at :

   http://www.genesippc.com/

 The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at :

   https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware

 Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom
 Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port.
 Please see more info at :

   http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html

 The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand
 alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at :

   http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html

 The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at :

   http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html

 The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at :

   http://polaris.blastwave.org/

 The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.

 The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris
 to the PowerPC architecture.

 Dennis Clarke
 Director Blastwave.org

 --
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Karyn Ritter

So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to 
opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?


Thanks,

Karyn

Dennis Clarke wrote:

   From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
   Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org

--


   Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


This is a project that is already underway but no formal proposal had
been  written or posted  to OpenSolaris.org.  It seems reasonable at this
time to make the proposal.

I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC
and POWER Architecture.  The initial  port should  be tightly constrained
to a specific  hardware reference  platform and  based on a 32-bit single
CPU implementation.  Members of the Solaris community have already formed
together in order  to achieve  this and  we have  selected the Genesi ODW
Workstation as  the  hardware platform  for a number of  reasons.  Much
discussion was  held and  the decision stands  within the community.

Genesi has provided numerous units to facilitate the port work and Genesi
staff work closely with the community in both the Solaris world and Linux.

More information about Genesi may be seen at :

  http://www.genesippc.com/

The initial PowerPC hardware platform may be seen at :

  https://www.pegasosppc.com/special_odw.php?partner=blastware

Code for the port was initially from the OpenSolaris project but Tom
Riddle at Sun Labs has managed to gain access to the Solaris 2.5.1 port.
Please see more info at :

  http://research.sun.com/spotlight/2006/2006-06-14-SolarisPPC.html

The result of many weeks of work at Sun Labs is the initial stand
alone PowerPC binary that may be seen booting on the Genesi ODW at :

  http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0055/index.html

The initial GRUB2 bootloader may be found at :

  http://www.blastware.org/grub2/index.html

The code ( pending ) and tasks may be found at :

  http://polaris.blastwave.org/

The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.

The last piece missing is this formal proposal for the port of OpenSolaris
to the PowerPC architecture.

Dennis Clarke
Director Blastwave.org

--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:

 I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC
 and POWER Architecture.  The initial  port should  be tightly constrained
 to a specific  hardware reference  platform and  based on a 32-bit single
 CPU implementation.  Members of the Solaris community have already formed
 together in order  to achieve  this and  we have  selected the Genesi ODW
 Workstation as  the  hardware platform  for a number of  reasons.  Much
 discussion was  held and  the decision stands  within the community.

 +1, although note that there is already a PowerPC community.  I think it
 would be best to rename the latter to Ports or somthing similar, and then
 have this proposed project housed within it.  (One of the things we're going
 to try to do once the governace doc is out of the way is rationalise the
 number of communities.  We have too many communities at the moment, and some
 would be better off being recast as projects.)


  At this point I do not see a need to do anything at all other than focus
on the real work in the code.  Whatever is on the OpenSolaris.org site is
really just a placeholder or an information page.  It may be reasonable for
admin purposes ( or just common sense ) to create a ports section on the
OpenSolaris site but at the moment there are no other ports.  Unless we see
a port to either x86 or Sparc as a port when they already exist in both
the Solaris commercial distribution. Are Belenix, SchilliX, MarTux et al
seen as ports?   I don't really know.

Dennis

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to
 opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?

The discussion list already exists at the opensolaris.org site.  It was
moved from the blastwave list server quite some time ago.  I can't recall
why.

The subversion server is at polaris.blastwave.org as well as the task track
application.

Dennis

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to
 opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?

Here is the task map :

http://polaris.blastwave.org/wiki/PolarisTaskMap

Dennis

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Al Hopper

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:

From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
  To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org

 --

Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
... .snip 

+1

Al Hopper  Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134  Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Karyn Ritter


So development would continue to happen on Blastwave?

If so, what (if anything) will be in the project on opensolaris.org?

Thanks,

Karyn

Dennis Clarke wrote:

So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to
opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?



Here is the task map :

http://polaris.blastwave.org/wiki/PolarisTaskMap

Dennis



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Al Hopper

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Karyn Ritter wrote:

 So development would continue to happen on Blastwave?

Sure.  Why not?

 If so, what (if anything) will be in the project on opensolaris.org?

Primarily a pointer to where the work is being done.  And a single focal
point for anyone to go to who is looking to find out about, and,
hopefully, contribute to, any/all OpenSolaris related projects or
activities.

 Thanks,

 Karyn

 Dennis Clarke wrote:
 So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to
 opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?
 
 
  Here is the task map :
 
  http://polaris.blastwave.org/wiki/PolarisTaskMap
 
  Dennis
 

Regards,

Al Hopper  Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134  Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC


 So development would continue to happen on Blastwave?

   Yes.  There is a project well in place and already happening.

   Also, Genesi has stepped up to the plate and provided _everything_ that
the community would ever need to ensure that we have good success.  In that
regard it makes total sense to work with our Genesi sponsor and partner as
well as the great guys at Sun Labs.  We have all been working together and
in communication for nearly a year now.  Its a pretty cool team really.

 If so, what (if anything) will be in the project on opensolaris.org?

   From a procedural standpoint we do have some level of hierarchy within
the community and the formal proposal was a formality that needed to be
done.  It was long overdue.  Nothing needs to change at OpenSolaris.org
and work will continue as usual.

Dennis
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC

2006-07-26 Thread Stephen Hahn

* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 11:19]:
 The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.

  Cool.  But I need to ask a question:  is someone likely to need or
  want to trademark this use of Polaris?  (If so, it's not useful as a
  project name for opensolaris.org; although admittedly much blander, I
  suggest ppc-dev.)

  - Stephen

-- 
Stephen Hahn, PhD  Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC