On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Dave Miner wrote:
> Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Dave Miner
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sean Liu wrote:
Hi there,
Since my SATA controller is not supported by OpenSolaris, I downloaded
the usb image from genunix and copie
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> The Indiana team evidently want GNU utils be preferred, and evidently
>> would like to see the compatibility issues with Solaris utils fixed.
>>
>> I see no problem with that, provided those issues are addressed, and
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 05:26:47PM -0800, david.co...@sun.com wrote:
> >Not quite -- there are conflicts between the commands themselves. For
> >example, GNU and Solaris ls(1) have one option conflict: -v.
> >
> >So a /usr/gnu/bin will be needed, even if the number of such conflicts
> >is very low
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:42:00 -0500 (EST) Dennis Clarke
>> wrote:
>>> If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
>>> position becomes a fait accompli.
>>
>> Thus avoiding the entire question of whether or not that's the best -
>> or even a desirable
> Thanks.
>
> It's running now.
>
> Gilles.
>
How did you get ekiga (gnome-meeting) to work? Where can I find info? Thanks.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.ope
Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:42:00 -0500 (EST) Dennis Clarke
> wrote:
>> If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
>> position becomes a fait accompli.
>
> Thus avoiding the entire question of whether or not that's the best -
> or even a desirable - goal.
>> > If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
>> > position becomes a fait accompli.
>>
>> Thus avoiding the entire question of whether or not that's the best -
>> or even a desirable - goal.
>
> Not quite -- there are conflicts between the commands themselves. For
> e
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:44:05AM +0100, casper@sun.com wrote:
>
> >
> > RBAC related:
> > Since I'm using the /usr/xpg4/bin path as the primary one, I was
> > little bit confused, that, event thought I have the "Object
> > Access Management" profile applied on my account, I'm
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:42:00 -0500 (EST) Dennis Clarke
wrote:
> If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
> position becomes a fait accompli.
Thus avoiding the entire question of whether or not that's the best -
or even a desirable - goal.
http://www.m
> Not quite -- there are conflicts between the commands themselves. For
> example, GNU and Solaris ls(1) have one option conflict: -v.
>
> So a /usr/gnu/bin will be needed, even if the number of such conflicts
> is very low.
Perhaps - or something like this might be an incompatibility going
forwa
> > If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
> > position becomes a fait accompli.
>
> Thus avoiding the entire question of whether or not that's the best -
> or even a desirable - goal.
Not quite -- there are conflicts between the commands themselves. For
example, GN
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>
>> If the upstream community won't take patches to make ls(1) and chmod(1)
>> support ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs then we can always:
>>
>> - re-implement GNU options into /bin/ls and /bin/chmod
>> - for chmod this is probably easy since the options that GNU chmod
>> has
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:21:17PM -0800, Brock Pytlik wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >Can't it be in entire?
> >
> It is in entire, but that doesn't mean it's part of the default
> installation. I believe it was removed from the default install because
> of space issues on the CD for 2008.
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 14:16 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
> >> tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
> >> Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> If the upstream community won't take patches to make ls(1) and chmod(1)
> support ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs then we can always:
>
> - re-implement GNU options into /bin/ls and /bin/chmod
> - for chmod this is probably easy since the options that GNU chmod
> has that Sola
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:16:45PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
> >> tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
> >> Software has to be selected to fit on the core media ba
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
>> tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
>> Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
>> goals. Everyone has their own favourite software that
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
>> tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
>> Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
>> goals. Everyone has their own favourite software
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
>> tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
>> Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
>> goals. Everyone has their own favourite software that
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
> tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
> Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
> goals. Everyone has their own favourite software that probably isn't
> installed b
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 04:14:01PM -0500, Dave Miner wrote:
> >> My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with
> >> modifications fed back upstream ...
> >
> > Sometimes that doesn't work. GRUB is a good example.
> >
>
> I don't know whether GRUB is a good example, as I'm not up
Fredrich Maney wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Mark R. Bowyer wrote:
>> casper@sun.com wrote:
The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
is a rather good way to do that in
Fredrich Maney wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Brian Utterback
> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is
>> too difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work,
>> deciding that what the proper path order is and then modifying eit
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Brian Utterback
wrote:
> Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is
> too difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work,
> deciding that what the proper path order is and then modifying either
> /etc/profile or $HOME/.profi
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
> Michael Schuster wrote:
>>
>> it's the people who aren't in these communities that we want to convince,
>> and - or so I understand - giving them something (a lot of) them are
>> familiar with (even if it's "inferiour" to what many of "us" know)
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Mark R. Bowyer wrote:
> casper@sun.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
>>> you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
>>> is a rather good way to do that in my view.
>>>
>>
>> I co
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Brian Smith wrote:
>>> Dave Miner wrote:
We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
chosen
> What is the strategy to "fix the utilities"? Will the GNU utilities be
> modified to be supersets of their Solaris counterparts? What is the strategy
> for the cases where the default behavior is different between the Solaris
> version and the GNU version (and/or when the GNU version is non-POSIX
> Brian Smith wrote:
>> Dave Miner wrote:
>>> We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
>>> subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
>>> necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
>>> chosen the default which makes t
Brian Smith wrote:
> Dave Miner wrote:
>> We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
>> subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
>> necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
>> chosen the default which makes the most
Dave Miner wrote:
> We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
> subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
> necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
> chosen the default which makes the most sense for the most users,
Joerg Schilling wrote:
...
> I would prefer if the user account installation could ask during OS install
> whether the user like to have a UNIX or a Linux profile and inform people that
> the GNU profile (as known fro Linux) could not support all features of the
> UNIX programs. Note that Solaris
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:52:33PM -0600, Brian Smith wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > The Indiana team evidently want GNU utils be preferred, and evidently
> > would like to see the compatibility issues with Solaris utils fixed.
> >
> > I see no problem with that, provided those issues are ad
Hi,
Glenn Lagasse píše v pá 16. 01. 2009 v 09:11 -0800:
> * Paul Gress (pgr...@optonline.net) wrote:
> > Michael Schuster wrote:
> > > Fredrich Maney wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> I want Sun and the Solaris and OpenSolaris communities to realize that
> > >> they have, bar none, the best OS on the p
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Sebastien Roy wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:28 -0800, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> > * Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
> > > It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one or a
> > > GNU one? If you want both, you have
* Sebastien Roy (sebastien@sun.com) wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:28 -0800, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> > * Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
> > > It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one or a
> > > GNU one? If you want both, you have to provide a kn
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:28 -0800, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> * Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
> > It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one or a
> > GNU one? If you want both, you have to provide a knob to switch them back
> > and forth.
>
> And at some
On 16 Jan 2009, at 18:15, Brian Cameron wrote:
>
> Chris:
>
> Elisa has been integrated into Nevada build 107. It wouldn't be
> too hard to build it via spec-files on an older version of
> OpenSolaris.
> Refer to spec-files-extra.
That's great news and I can certainly wait until build 107 :-)
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> The Indiana team evidently want GNU utils be preferred, and evidently
> would like to see the compatibility issues with Solaris utils fixed.
>
> I see no problem with that, provided those issues are addressed, and
> I'm sure they will be.
If so, the "native Solaris" vers
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
>
> Brian Smith wrote:
> > If a GNU utility is a proper superset of the Solaris version, would patches
> > to replace the Solaris version with the GNU version be accepted?
>
> I would think so, but it would depend on specific cases.
>
> > Or
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:37:09AM +0100, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> This thread seems to have become unproductive.. Can one of the /leaders/
> (if there are any around) please bring this back on track, move this in
> private or end it.
I agree. A religious war about GNU vs. Solaris isn't going to
* Stephen Hahn [2009-01-16 19:05]:
> As has been mentioned before, release/ will only see updates to core
> OS packages in exceptional cases. It is possible that some of the
> other products in release/--OpenOffice, NetBeans, and others--will see
> updates prior to the 2009.next release.
Brian Smith wrote:
> If a GNU utility is a proper superset of the Solaris version, would patches
> to replace the Solaris version with the GNU version be accepted?
I would think so, but it would depend on specific cases.
> Or, is
> there some kind of rule that says that all Solaris functionality
* Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
> Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is too
> difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work, deciding
> that what the proper path order is and then modifying either /etc/profile
> or $HOME/.profile
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:05:42PM -0500, Brian Utterback wrote:
> It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one
> or a GNU one? If you want both, you have to provide a knob to switch
> them back and forth.
I agree, but that knob should be made to work via shell startup s
>Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is
>too difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work,
>deciding that what the proper path order is and then modifying either
>/etc/profile or $HOME/.profile is acceptable?
>
>I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
+1.
Cas
>If a GNU utility is a proper superset of the Solaris version, would patches
>to replace the Solaris version with the GNU version be accepted? Or, is
>there some kind of rule that says that all Solaris functionality must be
>present without depending on any GNU-licensed software?
But that's an hy
Chris:
Elisa has been integrated into Nevada build 107. It wouldn't be
too hard to build it via spec-files on an older version of OpenSolaris.
Refer to spec-files-extra.
Brian
> In a bid to distract folks from the "gnu chmod" thread... does anyone
> know whether any open source "media center
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> Jason King wrote:
>> As I think has been mentioned before, I seriously doubt if you talk to
>> most any UNIX user they are one bit about GNU grep vs Solaris grep vs
>> BSD grep (or gnu tar vs solaris tar vs bsd tar vs star). What they
>> care
Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is
too difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work,
deciding that what the proper path order is and then modifying either
/etc/profile or $HOME/.profile is acceptable?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
It is simple. D
* Tom Georgoulias [2009-01-16 17:58]:
> Sebastien Roy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 17:38 +0100, Gilles Gravier wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> So... no fun... pkg image-update says nothing to update. Are we really
> >> still at b101 with OpenSolaris? Solaris Express Community is at build
> >> 105 fr
Jason King wrote:
> As I think has been mentioned before, I seriously doubt if you talk to
> most any UNIX user they are one bit about GNU grep vs Solaris grep vs
> BSD grep (or gnu tar vs solaris tar vs bsd tar vs star). What they
> care about is 'grep -r works' 'tar -xvzf works' etc.
Exactly. T
Sebastien Roy wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 17:38 +0100, Gilles Gravier wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> So... no fun... pkg image-update says nothing to update. Are we really
>> still at b101 with OpenSolaris? Solaris Express Community is at build
>> 105 from opensolaris.org downloads...
>
> Are you pointing
Title: E-mail Signature Sun 2006
So thanks to all who responded (Dave, Glenn, Chris and Sebastien).
My new promise for 2009 : read the manuals and documentation. :)
My Tecra M2 is now image-updating... hopefully it will work fine. 37MB
left to download!
Cheers,
Gilles.
Sebastien Roy wrote:
* Joseph Kotran [2009-01-16 03:34]:
> Dear OpenSolaris Community,
>
> I need your help. I am unable to search IPS repositories via `pkg
> search -r vino` when my IP is statically assigned. When I run this command
> it returns:
>
> [r...@prime ~]% pkg search -r vino
> Some servers failed
* Paul Gress (pgr...@optonline.net) wrote:
> Michael Schuster wrote:
> > Fredrich Maney wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I want Sun and the Solaris and OpenSolaris communities to realize that
> >> they have, bar none, the best OS on the planet
> >>
> >
> > You're preaching to the choir :-)
> >
> > it's
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>
> You probably need to modify the hosts entry in /etc/nsswitch.conf.
>
> It should look like:
>
> hosts: files dns mdns
>
> After you make that change, you may or may not need to refresh the
> name-service-cache service.
>
> pfexec svcadm restart name-s
* Joseph Kotran (jkot...@atl.lmco.com) wrote:
> Dear OpenSolaris Community,
>
> I need your help. I am unable to search IPS repositories via `pkg
> search -r vino` when my IP is statically assigned. When I run this command
> it returns:
>
> [r...@prime ~]% pkg search -r vino
> Some server
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 17:38 +0100, Gilles Gravier wrote:
> Hi!
>
> So... no fun... pkg image-update says nothing to update. Are we really
> still at b101 with OpenSolaris? Solaris Express Community is at build
> 105 from opensolaris.org downloads...
Are you pointing at the dev repository? It's
Hi,
In a bid to distract folks from the "gnu chmod" thread... does anyone
know whether any open source "media center" type projects work on
OpenSolaris with ZFS?
I found a few hints that some folks were hacking away individually on
getting Myth TV working, but no details. There are some oth
Gilles Gravier wrote:
> Hi!
>
> So... no fun... pkg image-update says nothing to update. Are we really
> still at b101 with OpenSolaris? Solaris Express Community is at build
> 105 from opensolaris.org downloads...
>
If you are using the release repository, it is. You must use the
pkg.openso
Use the dev pkg authority to get to 105:
opensolaris$ pkg authority
AUTHORITY URL
opensolaris.org http://pkg.opensolaris.org:80/
opensolaris-dev (preferred) http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/
extra https://pkg.sun.co
Title: E-mail Signature Sun 2006
Hi!
So... no fun... pkg image-update says nothing to update. Are we really
still at b101 with OpenSolaris? Solaris Express Community is at build
105 from opensolaris.org downloads...
Gilles.
--
Brian Utterback wrote:
> We had this discussion last week. The problem is in section 3 of the
> SCA, regarding the granting of patent rights. The structure and layout
> of the sentence leads to two possible interpretations, one granting
> rights to patents included in the contribution, but the
We had this discussion last week. The problem is in section 3 of the
SCA, regarding the granting of patent rights. The structure and layout
of the sentence leads to two possible interpretations, one granting
rights to patents included in the contribution, but the other
interpretation is that it
>There is nothing like "The Fraunhofer Institute" and our institute has no
>lawyer. I am however doing enough contract and law related stuff to know that
>a contract that was written in an ambiguous way has a high probability to
>become
>missinterpreted later.
I still suggest that you ask a la
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> All I ask Sun is to remove the ambiguous parts.
>
>
Could you please let me know what you think is ambiguous?
Cheers,
Trond
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mail
casper@sun.com wrote:
> >I did personally read the agreement and I found two time bombs that I like
> >to be
> >fixed before I am going to sign it because I have a more wide spread
> >>commitment
> >with my contributions than the majority of the involved people. Because of my
> >more wide sp
>I did personally read the agreement and I found two time bombs that I like to
>be
>fixed before I am going to sign it because I have a more wide spread
>>commitment
>with my contributions than the majority of the involved people. Because of my
>more wide spread commitment, I am affected by the
Scott Rotondo wrote:
> > basics:) It's happening in other areas, such as Xorg.. minus the fact
> > that MacOSX has a better GUI and doesn't need X11.
>
> Hear, hear. We need to offer much more than just parity with Linux.
>
> If the GNU utilities are as unstable (from an interface perspective) as
I think the easiest way to setup a static IP is to edit /etc/nwam/llp as
described in the nwamd(1M) manpage.
$ man nwamd
Also checkout this blog entry.
http://blogs.sun.com/observatory/entry/beyond_dhcp_with_dns_and
By default, OpenSolaris 2008.11 uses the nwam (network auto-magic) daemon
This thread seems to have become unproductive.. Can one of the /leaders/
(if there are any around) please bring this back on track, move this in
private or end it.
Thanks
./C
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mai
Hi,
casper@sun.com wrote:
>> casper@sun.com wrote:
>>
The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
is a rather good way to do that in my view.
>>> I c
Brian Utterback wrote:
> I did the google and I remain unenlightened. In fact, I would say it
> is quite understandable that someone from fraunhofer would be
> concerned, although I am not sure how much of Joerg attitude has to do
> with having a fraunhofer account.
Thank you for chiming in.
>casper@sun.com wrote:
>>> The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
>>> you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
>>> is a rather good way to do that in my view.
>>>
>>
>> I completely agree. And it's important that your vote coun
casper@sun.com wrote:
>> The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
>> you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
>> is a rather good way to do that in my view.
>>
>
> I completely agree. And it's important that your vote counts.
>
>
>The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
>you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
>is a rather good way to do that in my view.
I completely agree. And it's important that your vote counts.
For me it is very difficult to use Indiana (
77 matches
Mail list logo
