Cyril Plisko wrote:
Any ideas why there is no source drop for b32 and no ISOs for b31/b32 ?
Cyril
Partly my fault... I've been working remotely the past couple of weeks,
mostly on trying to automate the build fully after the b31 split-tree
work. The irony is that in trying to make future
In metastat comand out I have output below. What can
I do ? The advice of command says that I have to
invoke metasync d10, etc.brIs need umount the disk
before to invoke metasynk
metareplace -e d10 d11
metareplace -e d20 d21
metareplace -e d30 d31
lockfs -fa
reboot
In the future, you could
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 23:32 -0800, UNIX admin wrote:
That's such a pity. Sure, one should look for new ways to bring the
word out. But going to extremes just to get attention? What about
collateral and long term damage that GPL could cause to Sun?
Well, I guess if Scott felt that Jonathan's
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, UNIX admin wrote:
This is what I am referring to, among other things:
7. License Compatibility.
When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your
own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give,
appropriate copyright permission, as long
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why is CDDL suddenly no good any more? Why?
Who says it is not? JS's blog talked of the possibility of *additional*
/dual-licencing/ under the GPLv3.
I really fail to see any advantage, if my interpretation of the GPLv3
draft is correct, than
Well, I guess if Scott felt that Jonathan's blogs
were doing more harm
than good, he'd probably find a polite way to let him
know, which may or
may not involve his hockey stick :)
Ha ha ha! Good ol' Scott, bless him!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Sean Sprague wrote:
Hey Jim,
Just a very small point wrt:
Naming Services Community
* Proposed 1/20/06 by Anup Sekhar
* Community consensus: yes
* CAB vote: no +/- vote yet
* Opening date: not currently scheduled
On 1/20, John Beck suggested that this should in fact be named (sic)
Name
On Jan 31, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, UNIX admin wrote:
This is what I am referring to, among other things:
7. License Compatibility.
When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your
own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can
I agree with others in the thread that we should take Jonathan's comments with
a grain of salt.
GPLv3 is not yet finalized. As such, no one knows what it will or will not
allow, whether or not Solars/OpenSolaris could be dual licensed with it, or
whether or not Linux is going to switch to it.
UNIX admin wrote:
I always take what Jonathan writes about with a pinch of salt. To be sure, the
man's got some great ideas and he's got some vision. But unfortunately, he's
becoming more of a marketeer then he ever was before, in the most negative
sense.
That's such a pity. Sure, one
Sean Sprague wrote on 01/30/06 23:16:
Hey Jim,
Just a very small point wrt:
Naming Services Community
* Proposed 1/20/06 by Anup Sekhar
* Community consensus: yes
* CAB vote: no +/- vote yet
* Opening date: not currently scheduled
On 1/20, John Beck suggested that this should in fact be
Ben Rockwood wrote:
...
Jonathan is a smart guy, and even though Scott seems to have all the
visability theses days lets not doubt Jonathan's wisdom untill we have a
reason to question him. Frankly, I'm standing behind Jonathan and won't
bother sweating the small stuff.
And in the
Context: Multi-Homing
Can anyone let me know whether there is any limitaion on the number of Logical
Units/Ip address that can be association with a single network physical
interface.
Please reply
Thanks in Advance,
Vijay.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
[b]Packaging, Patching, and Distribution Mgmt Community Forum Proposal[/b]
Creation and management of an OpenSolaris community forum focused on the what,
how, and why of Solaris component software packaging, updating (patching), and
product distribution initially providing the Sun-specified
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 14:38 -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 14:08 -0800, peter murray wrote:
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/31/google_goes_desktop_linux/
Would it not be cool if we could get google to use OpenSolaris instead of
linux.
Now, think about NexentaOS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Glynn Foster wrote:
Out of curiousity, anyone keeping track of what Ubuntu have done to
become the Linux distribution of choice? From every conversation I've
I think ubuntu took the idea or low entry barrier to the limit, they are
actually
Dennis == Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dennis So then .. it looks like the old way of pkgrm packages is going
Dennis away and a new prodreg uninstall process is here now?
The last I heard, Solaris packages (pkgadd, etc.) are in no danger of
going away.
I don't know why a new prodreg
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 12:22 +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
Out of curiousity, anyone keeping track of what Ubuntu have done to
become the Linux distribution of choice? From every conversation I've
had with Jeff, he indicates they're not a development team [1] and
they've only been doing some smart
On 1/31/06, Mike Kupfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis == Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dennis So then .. it looks like the old way of pkgrm packages is going
Dennis away and a new prodreg uninstall process is here now?
The last I heard, Solaris packages (pkgadd, etc.) are in no
I don't want to start a debate about security, but it comes at a price for any
OS. Linux, Solaris, and the BSDs should all be secure enough for desktop use
with nothing listening by default.
Looking Glass looks neat, but I wonder if it would be usable without 3D
acceleration. Nvidia provides
Glynn Foster wrote:
Out of curiousity, anyone keeping track of what Ubuntu have done to
become the Linux distribution of choice? ...
Money? Mark Shuttleworth's that is.
(Sound's cynical, but big-time funding gives any project a huge advantage.)
Eric
Yes it would be but Ubuntu is a much better choice because of the following:
1. far more drivers, e.g.: native driver from ATI
2. single set of tools, you don't get different versions of ls, m4, awk--it's
all gnu--and an extensive pkg-get software base; far better than blastwave.org
3. better
I agree with 1 and 3, but not really with 2 and 4.
Solaris has different versions of tools to maintain backwards compatibility
(particularly with BSD-based SunOS) and comply with various standards. Linux
distributions care very little about backwards compatibility and try to support
POSIX to
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-solarism=113877382526587w=2
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
I personally blogged about it over the weekend. And I do feel if Sun
goes the route of GPL 3 they will be inhibiting the platform a great deal.
http://rjdohnert.blogspot.com/2006/01/opensolaris-released-under-gpl3.html
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
Glynn Foster wrote:
Out of curiousity, anyone keeping track of what Ubuntu have done to
become the Linux distribution of choice? ...
Money? Mark Shuttleworth's that is
Couldn't resist replying. Mark Shuttleworth was recently in Bangalore
and I
attended his talk at
26 matches
Mail list logo
