On 11/6/07, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
> > apply.
>
> Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
> of potential Solaris users to be confused
Hi Simon,
V st, 07. 11. 2007 v 00:16, Simon Phipps píše:
> [trimmed lists to Indiana only since this is only about Indiana]
>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 21:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >> On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>
> >>> Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes
On 06/11/2007, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [trimmed lists to Indiana only since this is only about Indiana]
>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 21:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >> On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>
> >>> Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incom
> So who is more likely to go in and manually adjust the environment?
> The existing customers, or the new users giving it its one and only try?
Took the words right out of my mouth, Simon :)
Bob
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@ope
[trimmed lists to Indiana only since this is only about Indiana]
On Nov 6, 2007, at 21:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
>>> apply.
>>
>> Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head
On 6-Nov-07, at 1:10 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
>> apply.
>
> Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
> of potential Solaris users to be confused and
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 06/11/2007, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
>>> apply.
>>>
>> Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge
>On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
>> apply.
>
>Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
>of potential Solaris users to be confused and irritated and many of
>them will walk away
On 06/11/2007, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
> > apply.
>
> Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
> of potential Solaris users to be confus
On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
> apply.
Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
of potential Solaris users to be confused and irritated and many of
them will walk away.
The ch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >This is already being discussed[1] in opensolaris-code with a similar
> >proposal. However note that it isn't just stuff in $PATH that has
> >interesting man pages, config files libraries etc need to be found too
> >so a purely based on $PATH use of $MANPATH may
>This is already being discussed[1] in opensolaris-code with a similar
>proposal. However note that it isn't just stuff in $PATH that has
>interesting man pages, config files libraries etc need to be found too
>so a purely based on $PATH use of $MANPATH may not be sufficient.
Still, librari
>The fact that GNU tools extensively document non-POSIX options, pople=
> tend to write non-portable scripts as a result.
Yep, I tried to configure a recent mplayer its configure has now
deteriorated to requiring GNU grep (grep -q, what does that mean?) and
it complaints about "!" command not
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not
> > simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either.
>
> No, actually. I'd rather not have the GNU tools at the front of the path.
I do not like to have /usr/gnu in
John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of
> $PATH in the indiana preview ;)
Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to apply.
For this reason, it should be an act of own will to do it but not autom
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not
>> simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either.
>>
>> An dialog box somewhere in the 'advanced' install path I think, is.
>
> I w
John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not
> simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either.
>
> An dialog box somewhere in the 'advanced' install path I think, is.
I would prefer to see an automated MAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The fact that GNU tools extensively document non-POSIX options, pople=
>> tend to write non-portable scripts as a result.
>
> Yep, I tried to configure a recent mplayer its configure has now
> deteriorated to requiring GNU grep (grep -q, what does that mean?)
grep -q
Simon Phipps wrote:
> I think that might work, if it was hidden down some path followed only
> by expert users. It would utterly befuddle most people I know otherwise.
I agree - it fails the 'Mum/Granny/Dog' test.
I'm certainly far from being a usability expert, but my concern with any
enhancem
Calum Benson wrote:
> GNOME's user-admin preferences window, IMHO. I suspect a sizable
> number of users would have insufficient knowledge to make an informed
> choice, or just no preference at all, when confronted with such a
> choice during installation (I count myself among them!). And t
On 05/11/2007, Steven Stallion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The argument that modifying the PATH is too difficult for the average user
> is nonsense. Any user who knows enough to know what runtime they prefer,
> know precisely how to change their PATH to reflect that.
Hear, hear. Throwing this i
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:51:10 -0800, John Sonnenschein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> not really my point here...
>
> you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not
> simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either.
>
> An dialog box somewhere in the 'advanc
John Sonnenschein writes:
> Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of
> $PATH in the indiana preview ;)
As has been repeatedly pointed out:
- Indiana hasn't had any ARC review.
- projects are on their own to determine when to submit for reviews
-- architectur
On 5-Nov-07, at 10:41 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
Do you want to do a mock-up of what tha
On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and
> this
>> is
>> purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more*
>> use
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and
this
> is
> purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more*
> users than
> you'll make happy.
>
This sounds like a solution loo
On 4-Nov-07, at 7:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
Mario Goebbels wrote:
Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
de-jure UNIX
or hawever you want to characterise it).
I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the
easiest way to defuse that userland
Hi Jim,
> How about organic growth? Why must we go out and grab developers from
> other communities. Early on we never discussed grabbing developers from
> other communities. Virtually all of our planning discussions were
> focused on organic growth and the business of opening our own stuff.
I r
>Well, the small problem with this is, that you can't expect
>any standard path. So your scripts has to start with loading
>environment which was used by creator of script.
>
>Cause there are lot's of tiny changes ...
>
>I suggest some standard environment start-up:
>At the beginning of shell scrip
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5-Nov-07, at 10:41 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> > On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
> >>>
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and
> > this
> >> is
> >>
On 5 Nov 2007, at 15:15, Steven Stallion wrote:
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of
> the new
> installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a
> runtime in
> the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU
> runtime for
> *every*
On Nov 5, 2007, at 13:07, Petr Sobotka wrote:
Well, the small problem with this is, that you can't expect
any standard path. So your scripts has to start with loading
environment which was used by creator of script.
As I say, it needs to be in a place only expert users would find it,
along
Well, the small problem with this is, that you can't expect
any standard path. So your scripts has to start with loading
environment which was used by creator of script.
Cause there are lot's of tiny changes ...
I suggest some standard environment start-up:
At the beginning of shell script:
#!/us
[reduced scope to indiana-discuss]
On Nov 5, 2007, at 08:46, John Sonnenschein wrote:
In beautiful ASCIIvision
__
| _ o X |
|-|
|
Mario Goebbels wrote:
>> Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
>> de-jure UNIX
>> or hawever you want to characterise it).
>
> I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the
> easiest way to defuse that userland situation.
>
> After all, it was s
> Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
> de-jure UNIX
> or hawever you want to characterise it).
I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the
easiest way to defuse that userland situation.
After all, it was said from the beginning, that Indiana
On 4-Nov-07, at 2:08 AM, James Mansion wrote:
> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>> itself thrives. We started this project four years ago to build a
>> developer community. That was the primary goal from which multiple
>> objectives would grow. In fact, the notion of building a developer
>> community was pa
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> itself thrives. We started this project four years ago to build a
> developer community. That was the primary goal from which multiple
> objectives would grow. In fact, the notion of building a developer
> community was part of virtually every meeting I attended even a yea
James Mansion wrote:
> Surely, having a kernel developer community is the least of Sun's
> actual problems.
> Sun has developers and having most development done in the context of
> a funded and
> managed environment is very valuable. What is needed most of all is a
> *user* community
> that
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> As someone who's come to OpenSolaris from outside the community, I
> think the decision is right on. And Ian's comment that he doesn't get
> it. It seems to me that community is important, but OpenSolaris has a
> larger identity issue vis-a-vis the non-c
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:48:42PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Shawn, "abstain" only has one meaning. It's perfectly consistent and in
> > layman's terms as it stands.
>
> Abstain has only one meaning but was not used in the context giv
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On 02/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
> > > >>> unanimity whic
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 02/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>> Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
> > >>> unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
> > >>> th
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:48:42PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Shawn, "abstain" only has one meaning. It's perfectly consistent and in
> > > layman's terms as it stands.
> >
>
On 11/2/2007 3:12 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
>
>>If the goal of the distro is draw folks like my company into the fold,
>>there has to be distro unequivocally associated with the OpenSolaris
>>name. Because frankly, if you're trying to grab folks from another OS
>>y
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> If the goal of the distro is draw folks like my company into the fold,
> there has to be distro unequivocally associated with the OpenSolaris
> name. Because frankly, if you're trying to grab folks from another OS
> you've got a short window of opportunity to get them
Hey Guys,
As someone who's come to OpenSolaris from outside the community, I
think the decision is right on. And Ian's comment that he doesn't get
it. It seems to me that community is important, but OpenSolaris has a
larger identity issue vis-a-vis the non-community.
If the goal of the distro is
On 02/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >>> Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
> >>> unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
> >>> the OGB feels X way."
> >>
> >> That is not how abstentions are generally co
>>> Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
>>> unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
>>> the OGB feels X way."
>>
>> That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
>
> Well, sorry, but for those not used the extreme level of bu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually
many people in this community that do believe there should be one
*reference* distribution called OpenSolaris.
That is not the argument, and you know it. The argument is that no single
project is
On 02/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
> >unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
> >the OGB feels X way."
>
> That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
Well, s
>Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
>unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
>the OGB feels X way."
That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
Casper
___
indiana-discuss maili
On 02/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually
> >many people in this community that do believe there should be one
> >*reference* distribution called OpenSolaris.
>
> That is not the argument, and you know it. T
>Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually
>many people in this community that do believe there should be one
>*reference* distribution called OpenSolaris.
That is not the argument, and you know it. The argument is that no single
project is allowed to take the OpenSolar
Ian Murdock wrote:
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>
> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> has been
Ian,
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>
> Does it matter that the initial fe
Ian,
To those people in the 'OpenSolaris Community' that do
know a thing or two - we get it. Yet, in all societies
you know that there is debate over past issues that
need to be addressed whether negative or positive in
impact.
So I'd just say, let those that have an issue or
complaint be heard a
On 2-Nov-07, at 10:16 AM, Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
The issue at hand is mainly that there was a discussion initiated,
including the trademark-dev list, just to have you jump into it and
simply decide out of the blue that it's "OpenSolaris" and basta (well,
"you" because you're the frontma
On 02/11/2007, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> > All right.
> >
> > I don't even know where to begin.
> >
> > Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> > the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> > OpenSolaris has almost universall
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
Welcome to the OpenSolaris Community where you can do great work, endless
hours year after year and get endless heartache for it.
Ian, to be frank, you're new here. This sort of thing has gone on for
years and while this community is intensely
62 matches
Mail list logo
