A great deal of efforts on S/T Chinese fonts have been done on the Linux front,
particularly by a person in Taiwan who is best known as "Firefly":
http://firefly.idv.tw/test/Forum.php?Board=1
He is currently involved in a project sponsored by the Taiwan government to
consolidate Chinese fonts
Hello Mara,
Thursday, July 28, 2005, 11:25:22 PM, you wrote:
MR> short survey
MR> Does your site deploy Solaris x86 or x64? (yes/no)
yes
MR> If so, is it deployed in production? (yes/no)
yes
MR> Number of systems deployed in production?
MR> Have you found or do you a
Hello Radu,
Thursday, July 28, 2005, 10:11:17 AM, you wrote:
RP> Hi!
RP> Sorry to ask are you a maintainer or a user expressing
RP> own opinion?
Just my opinion.
--
Best regards,
Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
open
See whether the following tip works for you:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/kupfer?entry=driver_aliases_magic
cheers.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
John:
I hope that:
One of those core values will be "backwards compatibility is a
constraint,
not a goal". This implies that it is seen as a feature (and not a bug)
that there is no Major version development branch following the
current production branch.
I very much agree
On Jul 28, 2005, at 7:30 PM, John Plocher wrote:
[stop, stop, you are bringing out the verbose monster in me!]
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION!
I don't operate under Solaris constraints.
OpenSolaris is NOT under the same constraints as Solaris
because .
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Tao Chen wrote:
> I am not familiar with the Wi-Fi issue.
> How is it handled by Redhat/SuSe/Debian right now, assuming it's not part of
> the Linux kernel?
Several of the drivers are part of the Linux kernel. Drivers for wi-fi for
Linux fall into about 4 categories:
1. o
On Jul 25, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:48:52AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Why does it have to be 100% compatible? That is a serious question.
What breaks so bad that not having access to the source is considered
a viable solution?
100% compatibil
John Plocher wrote:
... it is not my place (nor Sun's, given the terms of the CDDL) to
dictate what you or they can or can not do with those forks.
Hmm, this obviously shouldn't be taken as a legal position on the
the terms of the CDDL, which does, in fact, have something to say
about what you
On 7/28/05, John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [stop, stop, you are bringing out the verbose monster in me!]
> You are advocating starting off the OpenSolaris community on a track that
> immediately abandons this core value. I disagree (obviously), and instead
> advocate keeping the core v
[stop, stop, you are bringing out the verbose monster in me!]
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION!
I don't operate under Solaris constraints.
OpenSolaris is NOT under the same constraints as Solaris
because ... thus have no influence over Jörg's desire to p
On Jul 28, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
However, I do expect drivers that are open except for one component or
set of components needed to initialize the hardware or otherwise
provide legally restricted functionality to be given the option of
being included. Wi-Fi drivers are one
On Jul 28, 2005, at 5:13 PM, John Beck wrote:
Roy> ... a lot of the posts I have seen are emphasizing the business
Roy> decisions made by an ARC rather than the technical review.
Bryan> For an operating system, the constraints of existing interfaces
Bryan> are a _technical_ problem, _not_ just
On Thursday 28 July 2005 13:24, Virginia Wray wrote:
> And I still have that same little cantankerous system that you helped me
> install
Sun needs to get you a new laptop!
> but more importantly, we're up on the Open Solaris community page!
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 06:12:55PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> The point is if a driver exists that can be integrated, but has a
> required binary only component due to legal or other restrictions and
> that is the only way that hardware will work, then to me and many
> others it is perfectly acc
Takaaki Higuchi wrote:
Hi,
This was already discussed at [EMAIL PROTECTED] And
decided to have both. But there seem some troubles on Chinese
languages as described the URL below.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=1206&tstart=0
Sorry for the delay in following up on this. I
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:08:12PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The latter constraint of "requiring a commit be complete" is
> just as true for collaborative open source projects as it is for
> Solaris. Most open source projects are distributed on several
> orders of magnitude more platforms t
> "Roy" == Roy T Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roy> On Jul 28, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>> For an operating system, the constraints of existing interfaces are a
>> _technical_ problem, _not_ just a business problem.
Roy> A technical problem is something for which a tech
Roy> ... a lot of the posts I have seen are emphasizing the business
Roy> decisions made by an ARC rather than the technical review.
Bryan> For an operating system, the constraints of existing interfaces
Bryan> are a _technical_ problem, _not_ just a business problem.
Roy> That is absolute rubbis
Tao Chen wrote:
...
I am not familiar with the Wi-Fi issue.
How is it handled by Redhat/SuSe/Debian right now, assuming it's not
part of the Linux kernel?
ipw2200.sourceforge.net et al have what some people refer to as a HAL
(hardware abstraction layer) for the FCC-mandated non-changeable stuf
On 7/28/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, I do expect drivers that are open except for one component orset of components needed to initialize the hardware or otherwiseprovide legally restricted functionality to be given the option ofbeing included. Wi-Fi drivers are one of many v
On 7/28/05, Tao Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think that's a very practical view. There is a *lot* of
> > hardware out there that cannot be used without some binary component.
> > Not just wifi, but many others. Quite
On 7/28/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think that's a very practical view. There is a *lot* ofhardware out there that cannot be used without some binary component.Not just wifi, but many others. Quite frankly, it should be more about
the user and less about ivory tower academic
On Jul 28, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
For an operating system, the constraints of existing interfaces are a
_technical_ problem, _not_ just a business problem.
That is absolute rubbish. A technical problem is something for which
a technical solution can be created to resolve the
[caution, long reply ahead, no major disagreements, just some minor
misunderstandings and _a_lot_ of examples, explanation and rationale.]
Roy,
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to this discussion. I hope
that together we all can build a shared value system that will be the
basis for cre
On 7/28/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Mike Kupfer wrote:
>
> > What about things like wifi drivers? I'm not an expert in the area,
> > but
> > I'm told that these drivers often contain a binary-only component (even
> > in Linux). It's apparently t
On 7/28/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> POSIX documentations (man pages) are written in a way that allows you
> to implement all features of the program from only reading the apropriate
> man page.
I'm not certain how that point is relevant. All we know in this case
is that ksh88
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 14:38, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> That's what I thought originally, but a lot of the posts I have seen
> are emphasizing the business decisions made by an ARC rather than
> the technical review.
ARC is all about the technical architecture and almost always doesn't
get involved
> >Which is exactly how things had been working in practise inside Sun.
>
> That's what I thought originally, but a lot of the posts I have seen
> are emphasizing the business decisions made by an ARC rather than
> the technical review.
>
> The only real difference with OpenSolaris ARCs should b
On Jul 28, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 18:08, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Alternatively, OpenSolaris could give development autonomy to the
communities, wherein technical development, discussion of
alternatives,
getting it to work, and testing can all take place i
If you have booted Open Solaris x86/x64 or Solaris Express x86/x64,
you may have noticed we now have a New Boot architecture.
We're interested in what you think of the new architecture,
particularly compared to your previous boot experience with Solaris.
We're hoping that you have a moment to fill
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 18:08, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Alternatively, OpenSolaris could give development autonomy to the
> communities, wherein technical development, discussion of alternatives,
> getting it to work, and testing can all take place independent of
> any ARC review. ARC review isn't n
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Thursday 28 July 2005 09:37 am, Lisa Week wrote:
Thanks for the update and yes it is possible for us to join.
As you may have already seen from her email, Ginnie Wray
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is going to be setting this up for the
(Colorado) Front Range OpenSolaris User Group.
Hi!
Sorry to ask are you a maintainer or a user expressing
own opinion?
TY
Radu
--- Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Radu,
>
> Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 1:28:08 PM, you wrote:
>
> RP> Hi!
>
> RP> I think a community that would cover the
> database installation, configurat
>1. Sound: on a notebook I don't really care anyway; but it didn't work on my
>Fedora Core 4, eithe
r;
What type of sound? Tried oss?
>2. Scroll bar on the touch pad: this is very important in web/file browsing;
>it works with FC4;
WHat type? If Synaptics, it'll soon work.
>3. Wi-Fi: ne
On Thursday 28 July 2005 09:37 am, Lisa Week wrote:
> Thanks for the update and yes it is possible for us to join.
>
> As you may have already seen from her email, Ginnie Wray
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is going to be setting this up for the
> (Colorado) Front Range OpenSolaris User Group.
Yes, I saw.
Ooh Shoot. Just installed Solaris 10 on my new HP ze2000 notebook (late) last
nite. Looks like I'll have to re-do it with SE 07/05 :-(
Solaris 10 was installed on the HP ze2000 (a very inexpensive Turion64 machine)
in a quad-boot configuration. Everything seems to be working fine except:
"W" == W Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
W> Is Solaris 10 considered "Solaris Nevada (11) build 14 and later" ? Thanx
No, Solaris 10 is several months older than Solaris Nevada (11) build
14.
--
Dave Marquardt
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Austin, TX
+1 512 401-1077
___
>Is Solaris 10 considered "Solaris Nevada (11) build 14 and later" ? Thanx
No. Only current Solaris Express is.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Jul 28, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Mike Kupfer wrote:
What about things like wifi drivers? I'm not an expert in the area,
but
I'm told that these drivers often contain a binary-only component (even
in Linux). It's apparently the result of US (FCC) regulatory
requirements on the wifi hardware.
Th
Joerg> I did hear from Dworking and Frank that the idea that started 2.5
Joerg> years ago has been ap[proved in spring.
Joerg> I don't know what to do now
I'm working to figure out who can act as a sponsor. Dworkin was a
natural fit, but alas, he is leaving Sun soon.
Once we've found a spo
> "Roy" == Roy T Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roy> Any code that is not open source is dead code that needs to be
Roy> replaced, and the way to do that is by creating communities with
Roy> live code that can be worked on in public. The only code in
Roy> OpenSolaris is open source code
Is Solaris 10 considered "Solaris Nevada (11) build 14 and later" ? Thanx
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 04:49 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Hello ... we formed a user group community here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_groups/
This is excellent.
A group is forming in Broomfield and setup a spot on google groups. Let's get
them o
Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only possible solutions are:
> > a) have original source code
> > b) have the people that coded the original.
> >
> > My personal opinion is that a) is the safer way.
>
> "a)" may be the safer way but is not always necessary. Your example of
> Posts
Mike Kupfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg> But currently, I don't believe that community driven integration
> Joerg> is possible soon as there already is an aproval for star
> Joerg> integration but asking about a realization did not end up in a
> Joerg> useful discussion.
>
> Yes, and I apol
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 09:34, Markus Moeller wrote:
> If I use
>
> cc -I/usr/share/src/uts/common -D_KERNEL I find all included header files.
> What is the difference/issue if I use -D_KERNEL ?
The header file you found is really only for the kernel-space gssapi
code. it's not likely to be usef
> Tian Siyuan wrote:
> > The original poster is back.
> >
> > My idea is to have a place for Chinese users,
> mainly for education (and then marketing).
> >
> > If we other communities are better suitable for
> specific topics posted to this one, we can redirect
> them.
> >
> > What's the next s
If I use
cc -I/usr/share/src/uts/common -D_KERNEL I find all included header files. What
is the difference/issue if I use -D_KERNEL ?
Thanks
Markus
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opens
> Why? That's not that important. You can not know now
> what other distros will be good for. It could be that
> there is a distro you can put in your coffee-cup and
> that coffee-cup communicates with the computer you
> are in front of - so probably there is not enough
> space for ksh in such a di
Hello Radu,
Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 1:28:08 PM, you wrote:
RP> Hi!
RP> I think a community that would cover the database installation,
configuration and performance tuning on Solaris would be necessary.
-1
I don't think it's needed - and performance issues could be discussed
on general or p
51 matches
Mail list logo
