> Nils Nieuwejaar wrote On 08/08/06 21:44,:
> > Look, you are _never_ going to get complete acceptance.
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 07:23 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> I'm not sure we'll ever get "complete acceptance" as well, and I'm not
> sure that's realistic. But I understand Alan's point
I don't
> On Monday 07 August 2006 02:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > The CDDL can stand on its merits and there has been
> no substantiated
> > criticism; clearly Apple is fine with including
> CDDL'ed code.
>
> If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make
> sure that it does stand on
> it'
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>
>"Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
>
>This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has
> some complex restrictio
ns that make it inc
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 01:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They use pretty much the same jabs for the Apache 2 license.
Understood, as they do MPL, and others.
My concern is not so much the way that the FSF looks at the license even, my
concern is that pockets of the open source community
>My concern is not so much the way that the FSF looks at the license even, my
>concern is that pockets of the open source community are not accepting our
>license. Maybe my concerns are invalid, but if any licensees of CDDL are
>facing any type of problem, it can't be good.
I don't see that a
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 02:07 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't see that as an issue at all; and making a mountain out of a
> molehill is wrong.
A mountain out of a molehill? I don't think so.
When I approach an IHV/OEM vendor, and advocate they use a specific license, I
feel obligated
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 August 2006 01:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > They use pretty much the same jabs for the Apache 2 license.
>
> Understood, as they do MPL, and others.
But the MPL is unacceptable by private persons as it request a vevue in Santa
Clara
>Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 09 August 2006 01:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > They use pretty much the same jabs for the Apache 2 license.
>>
>> Understood, as they do MPL, and others.
>
>But the MPL is unacceptable by private persons as it request a vevue in San
Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FSF already states that the CDDL is a "free software license," but they
> of course can't resist making a few "jabs" at it:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>
> "
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Understood, as they do MPL, and others.
> >
> >But the MPL is unacceptable by private persons as it request a vevue in
> >Santa
> >Clara CA.
>
> I'm assuming here that you mean "unacceptable for private persons acting as
> licensor"?
correct.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand
> >on
> >it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do
> >accept it as an open source free license.
>
> Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL one of 9
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> >If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand
>> >on
>> >it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do
>> >accept it as an open source free license.
>>
>> Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL
Alan,
Do we create our own apt? As a community, do we design and write our own
transport to handle our own base for all OpenSolaris distribution to use?
Maybe wrapping pkgadd to use http is the answer? So far Nexenta is the only
one to solve install and packaging.
For questions such as the
Teresa Giacomini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cool Joerg. I'm still collecting names. Is there something specific
> you would be interested in speaking on?
Just some notes, Frank Hofmann is in Prague today and talking with
the guys in Prague about a possible motto for the Tech Days.
He promise
Thanks to Stephen Potter, Juergen Keil and Peter Tribble for these fixes
and to Steve Lau, Minskey Guo and Cindy Eastham for sponsoring the work
through to putback. 118 fixes have been integrated, 46 have sponsors
and 4 are awaiting sponsors:
http://opensolaris.org/os/bug_reports/request_sponsor/
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 03:47 pm, Christof Pintaske wrote:
> > CDDL is an OSI approved open source license
> > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php). What other criteria are
> > there to make an open source license a good open source license ?
>
>
1 ) Lots of error messages when booting a sf15k domain with SAN (EMC) storage
and solaris 10 06/06.
:root [/var/tmp] uname -a
SunOS domain 5.10 Generic_118833-17 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-15000
:root [/var/tmp] more /etc/release
Solaris 10 6/06 s10s_u2wos_09a SPARC
> Count me among the folks who don't agree.
>
> The fact that "dev=1,0,0" seems to mean the same
> thing as
> /dev/dsk/c1t0d0p0 is perhaps intuitive if you
> understand the inner
> structure, but why should I have to? Why shouldn't
> "dev=c1t0d0p0"
> just work as expected?
You have to understand
Some issues/work are still unresolved and are being investigated/discussed,
including (but not limited to) manpage changes, putting ksh93 on /sbin,
and 64-bit ksh93. Hopefully these can be finished/resolved by the
end of the week. I know people are anxious to get ksh93 integrated,
but doing it ri
Please do NOT reply to this address. If you have any problems,
feel free to send email to the alias "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
Thunderbird 2.0a1 contributed builds on Solaris10, Solaris 8/9
is now available on mozilla.org
Download Page and Location
==
http://www.mozilla.com/thu
> Really I should just be
> able to sit back 20 feet
> and then say, as in speak, at my computer and say
> "make me an ISO9660 image
> of the files in /export/zfs/foo and make sure that
> Windows users can use it
> also. Then burn it for me and let me know when your
> done."
>
> That is my idea o
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 11:17 pm, Hugh McIntyre wrote:
> > Overall I have to agree that cdrw wins on ease of use with "cdrw -i
> > file".
>
> Kind of surprising that it doesn't even require cdctl or cdadm to make it
> work. (pulling tongue out of cheek;-)
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just like software that works. Free is really cool too.
> The license is just a document written by lawyers, not developers.
Is some camps spread FUD on the CDDL, you may encounter the problems
we curently see. As you see with the success for Linux,
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Derek :
What does it take to get the page at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/power_pc/
to also be at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/power_pc/
Just a symlink ? I can not think of a reason to duplicate info. It would
be best to just have one page that lives
Stephen Harpster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Might want to check this out:
> http://blogs.sfbay.sun.com/roller/page/OpenSourceNews/20060808#CDDL_recommended_by_OSI
It would be needed to make this readable from outside Sun.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
http://corenode.com/~ormandj/images/screenshots/picture3ap0.png (taken from
aeroxp)
Picture speaks for itself. ;) Some GUI stuff like this sure would help ease
new-users into using the advanced functionality of OSOL. A really slick ZFS
management tool, really slick Dtrace tool (for app devs and
Hans,
you aren't running OpenSolaris, you are running Solaris. Some comments which
may help you.
1. Contact Sun via your service agreement. In the U.S., call 1-800-USA4SUN.
2. Don't worry about the USB errors. AFAIK, F15K's don't have USB ports.
3. The storage seems to be working. I'm not sur
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, David J. Orman wrote:
Picture speaks for itself. ;) Some GUI stuff like this sure would help ease
new-users into using the advanced functionality of OSOL. A really slick ZFS
management tool, really slick Dtrace tool (for app devs and whathave), etc.. it
could make a big di
I'm trying to find out the semantics of umem_cache_alloc/umem_cache_free. In
general I expect that buffers allocated from a umem_cache and then returned to
the cache with umem_cache_free *remain* in the cache and will possibly be
returned from subsequent calls to umem_cache_alloc; but under what
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Back when _I_ was a Sun employee (circa 1998 - 2003) it was implicitly
understood that comments was _only_ to be used when data that could not
be exposed out side Sun.
Unfortunately, that is not uniform, and some groups misinterpreted
"be careful not to put confidential
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Yes, that would be great. Unfortunately the b.o.o description just says
"see comments", which is rather unhelpful for those of us outside of Sun.
It is bad enough that much important information cannot be exposed
outside of Sun, it is a real shame that many engineers
Brian Utterback wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, that would be great. Unfortunately the b.o.o description just says
>> "see comments", which is rather unhelpful for those of us outside of
>> Sun.
>>
>
> It is bad enough that much important information cannot be exposed
> outside of Sun
>[Some explanation: for use in a lock-free queue implementation I need a object
>'pool' where freed
objects remain available in the pool (as they may still be accessed by other
threads after one thre
ad has freed them) and I was hoping to build this facility using a
umem_cache...]
You don't g
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:31:24PM -0700, Matt Stupple wrote:
> I'm trying to find out the semantics of
> umem_cache_alloc/umem_cache_free. In general I expect that buffers
> allocated from a umem_cache and then returned to the cache with
> umem_cache_free *remain* in the cache and will possibly be
Garrett> ... the b.o.o description just says "see comments", which is rather
Garrett> unhelpful for those of us outside of Sun.
Brian> It is bad enough that much important information cannot be exposed
Brian> outside of Sun, it is a real shame that many engineers who should
Brian> know better stil
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 01:47 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > Nils Nieuwejaar wrote On 08/08/06 21:44,:
> > > Look, you are _never_ going to get complete acceptance.
>
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 07:23 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> > I'm not sure we'll ever get "complete acceptance" as well, and I'm not
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CDDL vs. GPL issue is no longer a concern for Nexenta project. The main
> licensing conflict has been resolved during the first GPLv3 draft
> discussion. Both sides SUN and FSF agreed that the way Nexenta and
> Solaris(!) links GPL software with CDDL is to
I have a likewise problem with our DL585 - it's not hanging on boot but
after some time, the last four times it stopped it was almost every time
after about 3 hours of runtime.
I'm doing stresstests on the machines (zones with SAP and Oracle/MaxDB) but
even at night, if there's no load at all, the
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 02:59 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
> CDDL vs. GPL issue is no longer a concern for Nexenta project.
I have only one question. Is CDDL licensed code going into non-free?
So far my understanding is that it is possibly.
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86 Engineer
Eric Boutilier wrote:
Hmm, nice synthesis. So is the following a logical conclusion?
With a fairly painless change to the /usr/gnu ARC
proposal[1], we can achieve a compatibility alignment in this
regard between Nexenta, Solaris Express (Nevada), and any
other distros that also align...
[1]http
Eric Enright wrote:
On 8/8/06, Hugh McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PS: on my system at least, cdrecord seems to win in the always-important
"not burning coaster DVDs" stakes though, unlike cdrw, which dies at the
start for some reason. So I'm grateful for this, but it would certainly
be ni
David J. Orman wrote:
http://corenode.com/~ormandj/images/screenshots/picture3ap0.png (taken from
aeroxp)
Picture speaks for itself. ;) Some GUI stuff like this sure would help ease
new-users into using the advanced functionality of OSOL. A really slick ZFS
management tool, really slick Dtrac
Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
Wasn't there an effort between the Nexenta and Belenix teams to start a
centralized, "cross-distro" project? My take was that they wanted to try
and share (centralize?) certain source-level tasks/outputs, such a
I'm going to try to attend some of these Asian dates. Checking on travel
issues now, so I'll get back to you.
Jim
Teresa Giacomini wrote On 08/05/06 03:22,:
Tech Days schedule is published at http://developers.sun.com/techdays
1. USA Seattle Sept 6-7, 2006
2. China
The OpenSolaris Day will definitely be free and open for all. So, any
chance of you speaking at the event? Coordinating a user group meeting
to happen close to that date?
i just mailed the contact from the solaris opensolaris user group from
argentina asking whether anyone is planning to go; t
Brett Albertson wrote:
Hans,
you aren't running OpenSolaris, you are running Solaris. Some comments which
may help you.
1. Contact Sun via your service agreement. In the U.S., call 1-800-USA4SUN.
2. Don't worry about the USB errors. AFAIK, F15K's don't have USB ports.
3. The storage seems to
I know every one is interested in getting their 3D graphics working.
Intel just released open source drivers for their 965 chipset.
http://intellinuxgraphics.org/
http://intellinuxgraphics.org/download.html
Here's a Blog
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=742
Any chance of it being ported
* Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-09 17:29]:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
> >Hmm, nice synthesis. So is the following a logical conclusion?
> >With a fairly painless change to the /usr/gnu ARC
> >proposal[1], we can achieve a compatibility alignment in this
> >regard between Nexenta, Sol
48 matches
Mail list logo
