Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Tue, 23 May 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Within Sun's software developement, we use something called "binding" determined by our architectural review committees to help determine the appropriate releases such a change can target. Nevada (OpenSolaris/S11) is micro binding right now - so bigger changes can go in there that cannot go into an update (which are "patch" binding, since the updates are essentially made up of patches). It's all based on interface changes & ability to backout or not use a feature. I thought Nevada was back to minor already (that's why we switched from 5.10.1 to 5.11 at some point) You're right - that's what I meant, but not what I typed. Thanks for catching it. :) But, as pointed out later by Jonathan - being 5.11 means nothing for what the final name might be when marketing decides to release this :) Valerie -- Sponsor me in the Breathe Easy 2 Rock Ride - 65 miles! Money raised goes to the American Lung Association: http://www.mrsnv.com/evt/e01/part.jsp?id=805&acct=0273018478&rid=0 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 12:38:05PM +1200, Matthew Gardiner wrote: > On Tuesday 23 May 2006 18:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Within Sun's software developement, we use something called "binding" > > >determined by our architectural review committees to help determine > > >the appropriate releases such a change can target. Nevada > > > (OpenSolaris/S11) is micro binding right now - so bigger changes can go > > > in there that cannot go into an update (which are "patch" binding, since > > > the updates are essentially made up of patches). It's all based on > > > interface changes & ability to backout or not use a feature. > > > > I thought Nevada was back to minor already (that's why we switched from > > 5.10.1 to 5.11 at some point) > > Hmm, my understanding was that Nevada would be the basis on which Solaris 11 > would be based upon; and by the time Solaris 11 shipped, all the components > (barring some drivers) will be completely opensource; xorg for the xserver, > opensolaris for the core and JDS for the default desktop. Which would imply a "Minor" release; 5.10 is Solaris 10, and 5.11 will (presumably; marketing has futzed with this before) be Solaris 11. Cheers, - jonathan -- Jonathan Adams, Solaris Kernel Development ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 18:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Within Sun's software developement, we use something called "binding" > >determined by our architectural review committees to help determine > >the appropriate releases such a change can target. Nevada > > (OpenSolaris/S11) is micro binding right now - so bigger changes can go > > in there that cannot go into an update (which are "patch" binding, since > > the updates are essentially made up of patches). It's all based on > > interface changes & ability to backout or not use a feature. > > I thought Nevada was back to minor already (that's why we switched from > 5.10.1 to 5.11 at some point) Hmm, my understanding was that Nevada would be the basis on which Solaris 11 would be based upon; and by the time Solaris 11 shipped, all the components (barring some drivers) will be completely opensource; xorg for the xserver, opensolaris for the core and JDS for the default desktop. Matty ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
>Within Sun's software developement, we use something called "binding" >determined by our architectural review committees to help determine >the appropriate releases such a change can target. Nevada (OpenSolaris/S11) >is micro binding right now - so bigger changes can go in there that >cannot go into an update (which are "patch" binding, since the updates >are essentially made up of patches). It's all based on interface >changes & ability to backout or not use a feature. I thought Nevada was back to minor already (that's why we switched from 5.10.1 to 5.11 at some point) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 09:36, Ian Collins wrote: > Nils Nieuwejaar wrote: > >On Mon 05/22/06 at 12:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>It does rather beg the question of what expectations we're building from > >>a customer point of view with the update releases - clearly they're not > >>just bug fixes anymore. And with the possibility, as Glenn mentioned, of > >>Solaris 11 not being available until 2008/2010 are we going to expect > >>more things [like an updated GNOME, BrandZ, ...] be pushed back into an > >>Update release? > > > >BrandZ was always intended to be an S10 feature, so it will be in an > >update. > > That's a good point, if you look back at all the pre-release marketing > hype, we're still waiting for Solaris 10 :) Which isn't very good, as people may expect those features to be in the release. No use screaming, "Solaris 10 with heaps of features!" then putting in small print, "except foo, bah, and blah" Matty ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So in otherwords, Solaris 10 will be stuck with a majorly out of date= desktop=20 until 2010 - spended, I'm sure the ISV's are just have multiple orgas= ms=20 knowing they're relying on out of date infrastructure. And you draw this conclusion because? Which law of nature prohibits updating the desktop in an update release? To be fair there was something of a mess in Solaris 9 after two incompatible versions of GNOME shipped. Recommended patch clusters became difficult or impossible from GNOME (which version to patch?) and there were copies of Mozilla and friends which might or might not install and run depending on which of the two GNOME packages you had. So while feature upgrades are good, it makes it more important that packages are upwardly compatible. Which has not always been the case for things like GNOME. Or that there's some other mitigation scheme to deal with this. Hugh. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Mon, 22 May 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So in otherwords, Solaris 10 will be stuck with a majorly out of date= desktop=20 until 2010 - spended, I'm sure the ISV's are just have multiple orgas= ms=20 knowing they're relying on out of date infrastructure. And you draw this conclusion because? Which law of nature prohibits updating the desktop in an update release? When the desktop relies on other components that rely on other components that rely on new kernel bits that can't for some reason be backported. Even if they could, by this stage you've almost got a traditionally non-update release? Technically possible, may even socially acceptable, but requires a hell of a lot of coordination ;) Yes, it does ;-) As Casper pointed out, we are doing this right now to get Trusted Extensions out, and there have been other projects in the past that had "cross-consolidation" dependancies. We do, as a matter of course, have to limit which features can come into an update release. We normally start with a list of features that will be ready in the correct time frame that are interested in backporting, then we get marketing to do a first pass to determine which features would actually be desired or used by S10 Customers. Obviously, some things, like ZFS, were originally marketed as an S10 feature, but did not quite make the release. Those things are utmoust priority to get out in an update. Within Sun's software developement, we use something called "binding" determined by our architectural review committees to help determine the appropriate releases such a change can target. Nevada (OpenSolaris/S11) is micro binding right now - so bigger changes can go in there that cannot go into an update (which are "patch" binding, since the updates are essentially made up of patches). It's all based on interface changes & ability to backout or not use a feature. Valerie -- Sponsor me in the Breathe Easy 2 Rock Ride - 65 miles! Money raised goes to the American Lung Association: http://www.mrsnv.com/evt/e01/part.jsp?id=805&acct=0273018478&rid=0 I'll take care of the Sun matching gift for you! Easy! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Nils Nieuwejaar wrote: >On Mon 05/22/06 at 12:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>It does rather beg the question of what expectations we're building from >>a customer point of view with the update releases - clearly they're not >>just bug fixes anymore. And with the possibility, as Glenn mentioned, of >>Solaris 11 not being available until 2008/2010 are we going to expect >>more things [like an updated GNOME, BrandZ, ...] be pushed back into an >>Update release? >> >> > >BrandZ was always intended to be an S10 feature, so it will be in an >update. > > > That's a good point, if you look back at all the pre-release marketing hype, we're still waiting for Solaris 10 :) Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Glynn Foster wrote: It does rather beg the question of what expectations we're building from a customer point of view with the update releases - clearly they're not just bug fixes anymore. Update Releases were never just bug fixes. They were explicitly introduced as a way to deliver new features between the full releases. (I joined Sun as the Desktop group was working on the X11R6.0->X11R6.4 upgrade and various new CDE features for the Solaris 7 11/99 update release.) You can see the way we've been setting this customer expectation for years: "Several times a year, Sun offers updates to the Solaris operating system. The updates are designed to provide new functionality in a controlled, compatible fashion." - http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/features/articles/solarisVersions.html (written for Solaris 8 releases) -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Mon 05/22/06 at 12:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It does rather beg the question of what expectations we're building from > a customer point of view with the update releases - clearly they're not > just bug fixes anymore. And with the possibility, as Glenn mentioned, of > Solaris 11 not being available until 2008/2010 are we going to expect > more things [like an updated GNOME, BrandZ, ...] be pushed back into an > Update release? BrandZ was always intended to be an S10 feature, so it will be in an update. Nils ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Update releases haven't been "just patches" for many years; many >> new features were introduced that way. > >So a thought just dawned on me - how does this really preserve >customer's confidence in a stable release if it's not just patches >anymore? While I'm sure we can guarantee stability etc. is the fact that >we're putting so much stuff into the updates discouraging large ISVs >upgrading? > >Mostly just curious and trying to understand the types of decisions >being made. Well, it's all marketing and little substance. The customer believes that the releases carrying a fixed name the longest is the most stable. We think that all releases are about as stable, and FCS is pretty close to being well-intergrated, well, tested and very compatible. We do allow for slightly more incompatibilities between S10 and S11; but those are few and far between. The stablest release is always the one the customer runs without trouble; and upgrade will cause some issues. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Update releases haven't been "just patches" for many years; many new features were introduced that way. So a thought just dawned on me - how does this really preserve customer's confidence in a stable release if it's not just patches anymore? While I'm sure we can guarantee stability etc. is the fact that we're putting so much stuff into the updates discouraging large ISVs upgrading? Mostly just curious and trying to understand the types of decisions being made. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > does this mean that you vote for deferring the Solaris 11 release date from > > October 2007 to 2008? > So in otherwords, Solaris 10 will be stuck with a majorly out of date desktop > until 2010 - spended, I'm sure the ISV's are just have multiple orgasms > knowing they're relying on out of date infrastructure. I am not sure if you did missinterpret things. Many features are backported immediatly (in fact most stuff that does not break 100% binary compatibility). Check e.g. cdrecord, it will be part of the S 10 U2 release. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
>When the desktop relies on other components that rely on other >components that rely on new kernel bits that can't for some reason be >backported. Even if they could, by this stage you've almost got a >traditionally non-update release? Technically possible, may even >socially acceptable, but requires a hell of a lot of coordination ;) Trusted Extenstions will be available on S10; that seems to be wide ranging (from kernel to X server) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So in otherwords, Solaris 10 will be stuck with a majorly out of date= desktop=20 until 2010 - spended, I'm sure the ISV's are just have multiple orgas= ms=20 knowing they're relying on out of date infrastructure. And you draw this conclusion because? Which law of nature prohibits updating the desktop in an update release? When the desktop relies on other components that rely on other components that rely on new kernel bits that can't for some reason be backported. Even if they could, by this stage you've almost got a traditionally non-update release? Technically possible, may even socially acceptable, but requires a hell of a lot of coordination ;) Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
>So in otherwords, Solaris 10 will be stuck with a majorly out of date= > desktop=20 >until 2010 - spended, I'm sure the ISV's are just have multiple orgas= >ms=20 >knowing they're relying on out of date infrastructure. And you draw this conclusion because? Which law of nature prohibits updating the desktop in an update release? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
>>> I guess the obvious question with all the good bits form OpenSolaris >>> trickling into Solaris 10 updates, will there ever be another release? >> >> The changes into S10 updates are generally relatively small, except >> for newboot (as it's an in-your-face change). >> >> ZFS is not a big change in the sense it is avoidable. > >It does rather beg the question of what expectations we're building from >a customer point of view with the update releases - clearly they're not >just bug fixes anymore. And with the possibility, as Glenn mentioned, of >Solaris 11 not being available until 2008/2010 are we going to expect >more things [like an updated GNOME, BrandZ, ...] be pushed back into an >Update release? Update releases haven't been "just patches" for many years; many new features were introduced that way. However, it will be increasingly hard to backport as the release progresses and diverges more from S10. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
> The last thing our ISVs want is a new interface to write to while > they're still qualifying the current one. > > Ditto for our big corporate customers. > > Remember, this is commercial Solaris we're talking about - not > OpenSolaris. That means two things: > > 1) We can and will innovate in OpenSolaris > 2) If you're right that the demand for a new interface is out there, > anyone can create a new distro based on OpenSolaris and > provide it to anyone who wants it. > > In addition, I'm sure our innovative community will come up with ways to > layer a new desktop on top of Solaris 10 for those who are interested. > Over at Blastwave I just spent two weeks testing the new Xfce 4.2.3 : http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/xfce_4.2.3_netbeans_5.0_installer.png http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/xfce_4.2.3.png http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/netbeans_5.0_SeaMonkey_2.png I threw everything from soup to nuts at it and it runs real nice on top of Solaris. Of course people can have full blown KDE or GNOME or we have a new build of fluxbox just released also and thats a hot looking desktop. Or gee, there is JDS and even .. yes ,, you guessed it .. CDE ! -- Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
The last thing our ISVs want is a new interface to write to while they're still qualifying the current one. Ditto for our big corporate customers. Remember, this is commercial Solaris we're talking about - not OpenSolaris. That means two things: 1) We can and will innovate in OpenSolaris 2) If you're right that the demand for a new interface is out there, anyone can create a new distro based on OpenSolaris and provide it to anyone who wants it. In addition, I'm sure our innovative community will come up with ways to layer a new desktop on top of Solaris 10 for those who are interested. Regards, Glenn Matthew Gardiner wrote: On Sunday 21 May 2006 21:41, Joerg Schilling wrote: Glenn Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Our big customers are just starting to deploy Solaris 10. We are still on the ISV growth path. 2007 is far too early to introduce a new release. I have been telling customers the next release, whatever it's called, will happen some time between 2008 and 2010. Hi Glenn, does this mean that you vote for deferring the Solaris 11 release date from October 2007 to 2008? Jörg So in otherwords, Solaris 10 will be stuck with a majorly out of date desktop until 2010 - spended, I'm sure the ISV's are just have multiple orgasms knowing they're relying on out of date infrastructure. Matt ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org begin:vcard fn:Glenn Weinberg n:Weinberg;Glenn org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Operating Platforms Group adr:;;17 Network Circle;Menlo Park;CA;94025;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Vice President tel;work:+1 650 786-6207 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.sun.com/blogs/gaw version:2.1 end:vcard ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Sunday 21 May 2006 21:41, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Glenn Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Our big customers are just starting to deploy Solaris 10. We are > > still on the ISV growth path. 2007 is far too early to introduce a > > new release. > > > > I have been telling customers the next release, whatever it's called, > > will happen some time between 2008 and 2010. > > Hi Glenn, > > does this mean that you vote for deferring the Solaris 11 release date from > October 2007 to 2008? > > Jörg So in otherwords, Solaris 10 will be stuck with a majorly out of date desktop until 2010 - spended, I'm sure the ISV's are just have multiple orgasms knowing they're relying on out of date infrastructure. Matt ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess the obvious question with all the good bits form OpenSolaris trickling into Solaris 10 updates, will there ever be another release? The changes into S10 updates are generally relatively small, except for newboot (as it's an in-your-face change). ZFS is not a big change in the sense it is avoidable. It does rather beg the question of what expectations we're building from a customer point of view with the update releases - clearly they're not just bug fixes anymore. And with the possibility, as Glenn mentioned, of Solaris 11 not being available until 2008/2010 are we going to expect more things [like an updated GNOME, BrandZ, ...] be pushed back into an Update release? Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
>I guess the obvious question with all the good bits form OpenSolaris >trickling into Solaris 10 updates, will there ever be another release? The changes into S10 updates are generally relatively small, except for newboot (as it's an in-your-face change). ZFS is not a big change in the sense it is avoidable. >Look at the difference between 10 FCS and the forthcoming Update2, >almost as big a change as between previous major releases. In Sun-speak, there have been no major releases since Solaris 2.0. Solaris 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are all *minor* releases (minor meaning: full backward compatibility for applications with the exception of end-of-features) And while changes in S10 updates are big, they are still dwarfed by the amount of change between S9 and S10. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Joerg Schilling wrote: >Glenn Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Our big customers are just starting to deploy Solaris 10. We are >>still on the ISV growth path. 2007 is far too early to introduce a >>new release. >> >>I have been telling customers the next release, whatever it's called, >>will happen some time between 2008 and 2010. >> >> > >Hi Glenn, > >does this mean that you vote for deferring the Solaris 11 release date from >October 2007 to 2008? > > > I guess the obvious question with all the good bits form OpenSolaris trickling into Solaris 10 updates, will there ever be another release? Look at the difference between 10 FCS and the forthcoming Update2, almost as big a change as between previous major releases. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Glenn Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our big customers are just starting to deploy Solaris 10. We are > still on the ISV growth path. 2007 is far too early to introduce a > new release. > > I have been telling customers the next release, whatever it's called, > will happen some time between 2008 and 2010. Hi Glenn, does this mean that you vote for deferring the Solaris 11 release date from October 2007 to 2008? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Our big customers are just starting to deploy Solaris 10. We are still on the ISV growth path. 2007 is far too early to introduce a new release. I have been telling customers the next release, whatever it's called, will happen some time between 2008 and 2010. Regards, Glenn John Martinez wrote: On May 19, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Ian Collins wrote: Matthew Gardiner wrote: Just as a side issue, seems rather late in the product cycle to be including ZFS given that once 01/07 is released, its only a matter of a year that Solaris 11 is released. It's never too late to introduce something customers want! Ian. I concur. Root ZFS is going to be immensely useful, especially in instances where software mirroring of boot drives is done today by means of SVM or VxVM. -john ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org begin:vcard fn:Glenn Weinberg n:Weinberg;Glenn org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Operating Platforms Group adr:;;17 Network Circle;Menlo Park;CA;94025;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Vice President tel;work:+1 650 786-6207 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.sun.com/blogs/gaw version:2.1 end:vcard ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Saturday 20 May 2006 15:37, you wrote: > On May 19, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > > Matthew Gardiner wrote: > >> Just as a side issue, seems rather late in the product cycle to be > >> including > >> ZFS given that once 01/07 is released, its only a matter of a year > >> that > >> Solaris 11 is released. > > > > It's never too late to introduce something customers want! > > > > Ian. > > I concur. Root ZFS is going to be immensely useful, especially in > instances where software mirroring of boot drives is done today by > means of SVM or VxVM. > > -john The question is, will GNOME integrate itself into ZFS, will we see some *QUALITY* gui based administration tools for ZFS vs. the crap that is called SMC (who ever designed that little piece of buggery deserves a public flogging, then drowning in vinegar). Matty ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On May 19, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Ian Collins wrote: Matthew Gardiner wrote: Just as a side issue, seems rather late in the product cycle to be including ZFS given that once 01/07 is released, its only a matter of a year that Solaris 11 is released. It's never too late to introduce something customers want! Ian. I concur. Root ZFS is going to be immensely useful, especially in instances where software mirroring of boot drives is done today by means of SVM or VxVM. -john ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
Matthew Gardiner wrote: > >Just as a side issue, seems rather late in the product cycle to be including >ZFS given that once 01/07 is released, its only a matter of a year that >Solaris 11 is released. > > > It's never too late to introduce something customers want! Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Friday 19 May 2006 20:59, UNIX admin wrote: > > - nexentas got a package repo out of the box - SE > > has none or? > > Try not to think of Solaris software in terms of "repos", because it works > slightly differently than on Linux. > > Be that as it may, download `pkg-get` from Blastwave and you will have > `apt-get` like functionality on Solaris Express and Solaris in general. > > > - licence not for production or im wrong? > > Solaris is free-as-in-beer. > > > I dont need things like a gui because im only > > interested into using opensolaris as server os > > (fileserver, appserver, mails., webs., and so on). > > Then wait another month until Solaris 10 6/06 (update 2, or u2) is out. > Solaris 10 is rock solid and more than 'production ready'. 6/06 should > contain ZFS, and Solaris 10 1/06 already has zones. One must remember, however, that Solaris 10 06/06 won't have root ZFS support - IIRC, SUN is aiming for the 12/06 - 01/07 release of Solaris 10 for root ZFS. Just as a side issue, seems rather late in the product cycle to be including ZFS given that once 01/07 is released, its only a matter of a year that Solaris 11 is released. Matty ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: where to start?
On Thu, 18 May 2006, Bernhard Neuhauser wrote: - licence not for production or im wrong? Would this already prohibit a company to use SE for internal file server for example? Solaris Express you can think of as a "Beta Version" of Solaris. Someone will correct me if I am wrong but you can use Solaris or Solaris Express in production with the current license. Sun wants to sell support, not licenses. But you probablt wouldn't want to use Solaris Express in real "production" environment, just because it is still in devleopment. Bill rushmores.net ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
