On Sun, 12 May 2013, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
We're going to have to support a 32-bit userland for some time to
come, unfortunately, but we should no longer make that the default,
and we should deliver all of our system utilities in 64-bit only
form, IMO; and we could entirely kill off the
On 12/05/2013 00:17, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
But nobody else has built a compelling Linux or Unix desktop with a reason to exist
besides being free.
And there is no commercial value in just being free ...
But there are other values than commercial values; i.e.,
being free OI is not a
garrett.dam...@dey-sys.com said:
So, out of curiosity -- *who* is actively running illumos on 32-bit kit
today? I'm not interested in hypothetical uses or kit that is sitting around
in your garage waiting for you to do something with it
. I'm interested in
people who would be immediately
I actually get a permissions error.
$ sudo pkg set-publisher -O http://pkg.openindiana.org/hipster/ openindiana.org
pkg set-publisher: Could not refresh the catalog for openindiana.org
http protocol error: code: 403 reason: Forbidden
URL:
pkg.depotd is misbehaving when you publish packages directly to it. I am
looking at it now.
Andrzej
On 12 May 2013 14:19, David Höppner 0xf...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually get a permissions error.
$ sudo pkg set-publisher -O http://pkg.openindiana.org/hipster/
openindiana.org
pkg
Stack improvement patches (enrico)
Hope that helped,
Ken Mays
From: Andrzej Szeszo asze...@gmail.com
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Hi Piotr
On 05/12/13 05:19 AM, David Höppner wrote:
I noticed Oracle upstream moves aggressively to amd64 only;
installing amd64 just in bin not in bin/$(MACH64).
It has been a few years since Oracle upstream dropped 32-bit i386 support,
so that's just one of the decisions OI has to make - track
On 2013-05-12 16:54, ken mays wrote:
Hello,
Just so we can tack up a goal for the visionaries who like roadmaps and
such...
Proposed list of 'core' updates for oi_151a(8-9):
* Bump illumos to 19e11862653b
Implement accept4()
stack overflow due to zfs lz4 compression
On 2013-05-12 17:51, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 05/12/13 05:19 AM, David Höppner wrote:
I noticed Oracle upstream moves aggressively to amd64 only;
installing amd64 just in bin not in bin/$(MACH64).
It has been a few years since Oracle upstream dropped 32-bit i386 support,
so that's just one
On May 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
I believe, 32-bit should be retained. While it is of little utility
for ZFS and other huge-RAM jobs, it may be required for some netbooks,
older hardware repurposed for tests and SOHO servers, as well as for
resource-constrained testing VMs.
On May 12, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Magnus mag...@yonderway.com wrote:
On May 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
I believe, 32-bit should be retained. While it is of little utility
for ZFS and other huge-RAM jobs, it may be required for some netbooks,
older hardware repurposed for tests
On 2013-05-12 19:06, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
So, out of curiosity -- *who* is actively running illumos on 32-bit kit today?
I'm not interested in hypothetical uses or kit that is sitting around in your
garage waiting for you to do something with it…. I'm interested in people who
would be
On May 12, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
On 2013-05-12 19:06, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
So, out of curiosity -- *who* is actively running illumos on 32-bit kit
today? I'm not interested in hypothetical uses or kit that is sitting
around in your garage waiting for you
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Garrett D'Amore garrett.dam...@dey-sys.com
wrote:
On May 12, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
wrote:
It has been a few years since Oracle upstream dropped 32-bit i386
support,
so that's just one of the decisions OI has to
I am running a small web and ftp server at university on a 32-bit AMD
Athlon. So I would be affected.
However I cannot argue for retaining 32-bit support in OI, because any
baggage certainly should be dropped in order for OI project to proceed.
I can upgrade the hardware (unlikely);
I can
On 05/12/13 07:10 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On May 12, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
I believe, 32-bit should be retained. While it is of little utility
for ZFS and other huge-RAM jobs, it may be required for some netbooks,
older hardware repurposed for tests and SOHO
On 05/12/13 07:06 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
We're going to have to support a 32-bit userland for some time to come,
unfortunately, but we should no longer make that the default, and we should
deliver all of our system utilities in 64-bit only form, IMO; and we could
entirely kill off the
I have a hard time believing you would choose to switch to Linux instead of
taking the time to upgrade the hardware. A two or three year or even five year
old system will probably be a big upgrade and cost less than the labor to
switch to Linux.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2013, at 12:13
Don't misunderstand me. I want to eliminate 32 bit kernels and delivery of
certain 32 bit versions of system utilities. This should in no way affect any
3rd party apps. We need to keep the 32 bit app runtime for the foreseeable
future.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2013, at 12:51 PM,
D'Amore garrett.dam...@dey-sys.com
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org
Cc: oi-dev@openindiana.org oi-dev@openindiana.org
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Don't misunderstand me. I want to eliminate 32 bit kernels
D'Amore garrett.dam...@dey-sys.com
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org
Cc: oi-dev@openindiana.org oi-dev@openindiana.org
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Don't misunderstand me. I want to eliminate 32 bit kernels
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 06:17 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
The exception here is the Chromebook experience and OLPC…. they were able to do something cool and
make a compelling argument. But nobody else has built a compelling Linux or Unix desktop with a
reason to exist besides being free. And
Hi Alasdair
I would like to try setting up a repo on github, give trusted people direct
access and support pull requests from independent developers. And then have
jenkins publish packages incrementally to publicly accessible repository.
In theory, it should only take few minutes from a push to a
On 05/10/13 02:19 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
more constructive than whinging about it will be to find ways to either a)
make a commercially viable case for it so people can get paid to work on it,
or b) lead a volunteer effort to make this work.
I think that without Desktop that is running on
On May 11, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Nikola M. minik...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/10/13 02:19 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
more constructive than whinging about it will be to find ways to either a)
make a commercially viable case for it so people can get paid to work on it,
or b) lead a volunteer
I agree with what Peter and Garrett wrote earlier. OI is lacking a clear
vision. It should be different than other illumos distros' as well to avoid
duplicating work unnecessarily.
I think, OI could be illumos hacker distro, and:
- carry on providing GUI support, good enough for illumos hackers
On 2013-05-10 02:19, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
There is little commercial future in the desktop for Linux distributions as
well yet almost all of them have a graphical desktop.
I would be entirely *unsurprised* if distro vendors like RedHat and Oracle
simply *ditched* their desktop support at
Andrzej,
Your vision is pretty much the same one I had. The challenge is this:
Existing releng process and contribution process prevent anything from
happening though. I would like to help to change that.
How?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
On
On 10 May 2013 12:54, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Well, Oracle does provide and promote SunRays ...
Actually, if you check the SunRay forums people are getting the impression
that Oracle does _not_ promote SunRays, and some of their sales guys are
actively trying to dissuade people from
On 2013-05-10 14:11, Jonathan Adams wrote:
On 10 May 2013 12:54, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru
mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Well, Oracle does provide and promote SunRays ...
Actually, if you check the SunRay forums people are getting the
impression that Oracle does _not_ promote
On 2013-05-10 13:43, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
I agree with what Peter and Garrett wrote earlier. OI is lacking a clear
vision. It should be different than other illumos distros' as well to
avoid duplicating work unnecessarily.
I think, OI could be illumos hacker distro, and:
- carry on providing
On 10 May 2013 14:13, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Are there many (any?) OI-private deviations from illumos-gate?
I thought it was built with the vanilla kernel already.
I don't believe that KVM is in the default Illumos kernel, but is in OI.
I don't know whether the planned new
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its current
form. There is simply too many packages and too much baggage for a handful
of people to look after.
I think the
On 05/09/2013 10:01 AM, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its current
form. There is simply too many packages and too much baggage
On 2013-05-09 10:01, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads
I thought I will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its
current form. There is simply too many packages and too much baggage for
a
Hi Sašo
Thanks for your support!
Andrzej
On 9 May 2013 10:36, Sašo Kiselkov skiselkov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/2013 10:01 AM, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that
On 2013-05-09 13:06, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
The process you have described sounds a lot like OI's original plan. It
didn't work out. There was too much baggage. No one was willing to spend
time learning it. It was just too ... ugly.
It's possible to try it differently this time :)
One way or
Hi David
Igor is doing great job with his CIBS stuff. Certainly worth consideration
for a project reboot.
I agree on the contribution front. I had similar experience with Vagrant.
It took probably less than 1h for my change to end up in the official repo.
Andrzej
On 9 May 2013 11:08, David
Hi,
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its
current form. There is simply too many packages and too much baggage for a
handful of people to look after.
I think you
by 1-2 people.
Hope that helped,
Ken Mays
From: Andrzej Szeszo asze...@gmail.com
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 4:01 AM
Subject: [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Hi All
(Instead
9, 2013 4:01 AM
*Subject:* [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its
current form. There is simply too many packages and too
On 05/09/2013 03:29 PM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
It certainly had plenty of users.
Still has. What needs to be done is stop bickering about stuff on the
mailing list and starting pushing out releases. By that I don't mean
that you or anybody else in the community is doing something bad - you
did
On 05/09/2013 03:55 PM, mag...@yonderway.com wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2013 15:39:39 +0200, Sašo Kiselkov skiselkov...@gmail.com
wrote:
The finer details of release engineering and project architecture is of
course something to be debated, but probably not on a public forum.
Why not?
On Thu, 9 May 2013, Peter Tribble wrote:
And also what differentiates you from other offerings. Specifically,
thinking about other similar projects, what would OI offer that you
wouldn't get from OmniOS (which I regard as the closest distro)?
The main differentiators appear to be the ability
On 2013-05-09 16:02, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The Tribblix approach is likely a good one. Start off with a good
smaller core and then add more sophisticated features via packages.
This requires a new distribution though.
Two words: backwards compatibility ;)
Reinventing the wheel from scratch
Fundamentally, the question you all should be asking is, what is the purpose of
the project?
The problem with OI has always been lack of a clear vision. The original
purpose, to be a free community-run clone of Solaris 11, had no future. It was
doomed to fail because it was an attempt to
Privet !
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
On 2013-05-09 13:06, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
The process you have described sounds a lot like OI's original plan. It
didn't work out. There was too much baggage. No one was willing to spend
time learning it. It was
Having the server is key to the linux / unix world. Portability is the
newer direction that several distros are moving toward so a
multi-platform architecture is key. Would we be able to include a few
compilers (C / C++ etc. ) stock for when the driver is not available
after initial install?
On May 9, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Milan Jurik milan.ju...@xylab.cz wrote:
Hi,
OK, so start yet another distro :-)
OI needs one thing it does not have - release engineering team. Jon is
too busy and I cannot do that. I am happy to work on some things from
time to time for fun but my job is
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Milan Jurik milan.ju...@xylab.cz wrote:
enjoy it (and my private life also). And to be fair, with total lost of
interest in desktop systems in Illumos by core team, I have less and
less motivation to work on it.
Hi Milan,
good observation.
Sadly I must
On Thu, 9 May 2013, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Upshot, *today* anyone who thinks there is a commercial future in
illumos on the desktop is probably smoking something. There are a
few people who would be willing to pay for it, but it needs more
than a few dozen people willing to pay a couple
Precisely.
Cheers
Dave
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
Availability of a graphical desktop is seen as a requirement for
common acceptance. Much/most of the graphical desktop development
taking place for Linux does not seem to be done by the companies which
popularly
On 2013/05/09, at 17:09, Martin Bochnig mar...@martux.org wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Milan Jurik milan.ju...@xylab.cz wrote:
enjoy it (and my private life also). And to be fair, with total lost of
interest in desktop systems in Illumos by core team, I have less and
less
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Ian Johnson ian...@yahoo.co.jp wrote:
snip
Oracle seems to be taking good enough care of the Solaris desktop on its
end. I'm sure it's a peripheral part of their overall effort, but somebody
at Oracle is keeping hardware support up to par and fixing desktop
On May 9, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2013, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Upshot, *today* anyone who thinks there is a commercial future in illumos on
the desktop is probably smoking something. There are a few people who would
be willing
For what it's worth, I only need Xorg, xpdf and xterm to take care of my
graphics needs. Everything that doesn't involve coding happens on linux,
mac and winxp.
As long as a distro can support Xorg, it is viable for me. So whatever you
guys do, please don't remove the basic graphics capability!
56 matches
Mail list logo
