I was not sure whether this (pci1317,0985) was the
right (vendor, product) ID b/c the number 1317 was
assigned to ADMtek. But after a q d search, I
found out that ADMtek makes NIC chipsets for Linksys.
So this seems should be OK.
The correct id would be pci1317,985 (without the
leading
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Mike Pleasance wrote:
I'm currently stumped with the problem of mounting a fixed disk with a single
FAT32 partition (created by vxWorks) using Solaris 8 for Sparc.
We have been in contact with Sun and were simply told that, Creating
and mounting a pcfs on a sparc-based
Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is fairly damning I think :
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Clearly it dictates :
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
James McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What annoys me most about the whole GPL versus the world licensing
bunfight is that nobody bothers to try to separate the ideology of the
FSF (which *I* summarise as owning stuff is bad) from the good work
(and works) which the GPLv2 has enabled over
Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A similar comment is made about the apache licence in that same web
page and apache is still the most widely deployed web server in linux,
and about the MPL; this is getting really boring. Can we quit bitching
about licences for a while? i'm
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[ ... ]
Is there validity to these statements being printed by the FSF or is this
all simply more FUD that no one responds to ?
If I remember correctly, this licenses compared webpage has been up at
the FSF for at least a year if not longer. Someone
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[ ... ]
Is there validity to these statements being printed by the FSF or is this
all simply more FUD that no one responds to ?
If I remember correctly, this licenses compared webpage has been up at
the FSF for at least a year if not longer. Someone
I am wondering what value the CDDL has anymore.
Why? Why should anyone care whether CDDL code is compatible with GPL, if there
is enough CDDL code to stand on its own?
What I think is unfortunate is:
module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be
linked
James Mansion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am wondering what value the CDDL has anymore.
Why? Why should anyone care whether CDDL code is compatible with GPL, if
there is enough CDDL code to stand on its own?
Because it tries to use a statement that is true in its negation but not the
way
On 27/09/2006, at 6:57 PM, Dick Davies wrote:
On 27/09/06, Boyd Adamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/09/2006, at 4:49 AM, Ryan Ross wrote:
The one problem I have come across is the the UFS system partition.
This is not backed up, therefore if the harddrive it is on fails, I
have no way
On 27/09/2006, at 10:09 PM, Boyd Adamson wrote:
On 27/09/2006, at 6:57 PM, Dick Davies wrote:
On 27/09/06, Boyd Adamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/09/2006, at 4:49 AM, Ryan Ross wrote:
The one problem I have come across is the the UFS system
partition.
This is not backed up,
On 27/09/06, Boyd Adamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/09/2006, at 6:57 PM, Dick Davies wrote:
On 27/09/06, Boyd Adamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/09/2006, at 4:49 AM, Ryan Ross wrote:
The one problem I have come across is the the UFS system partition.
This is not backed up,
Hi, is there a forum or a mailing list where it is appropriate to ask questions
in regard to software development on Solaris, i.e. Solaris systems programming,
code optimisations for multithreaded programs and UMA/NUMA hardware
architectures, etc.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Hi,
As I known,I havn't create any shell script or setup any middle boxes to
do this,and I have several solaris 9 OS within same subnet,but no such
issue.
Thanks.
Rgds,
Simon
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Raymond wrote:
Hi, is there a forum or a mailing list where it is appropriate to ask
questions in regard to software development on Solaris, i.e. Solaris
systems programming, code optimisations for multithreaded programs and
UMA/NUMA hardware architectures, etc.
Start with
NB: It's hopefully obvious that I do *NOT* speak for my employer :)
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Is there validity to these statements being printed by the FSF or is this
all simply more FUD that no one responds to ?
Well, is it FUD?
Let's look at the facts:
a) RMS has stated
On Tue 09/26/06 at 22:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is fairly damning I think :
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Clearly it dictates :
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
This is a free software license which is not a
Given how much time and effort the FSF spends bitching about other licenses
being incompatible with GPL, isn't it obvious that the GPL is buggy?
Instead of modifying all the other Open Source licenses to work around the
GPL's bugs, clearly the onus should be on the FSF to fix their broken
Dear all,
I have problems connecting an open solaris 10 box to a novell linux ldap
server (or better say: I am a newbie on this stuff and am confused about
the right configuration).
First I made a normal installation as a standalone box. I installed
openssh and openldap via csw.
Now I want to
I have problems connecting an open solaris 10 box to a novell linux
ldap
server (or better say: I am a newbie on this stuff and am confused
about
the right configuration).
Hi
I've written a blog entry for Solaris 10 and Novell NDS. Maybe it helps
you...
On Wed 09/27/06 at 15:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given how much time and effort the FSF spends bitching about other licenses
being incompatible with GPL, isn't it obvious that the GPL is buggy?
Instead of modifying all the other Open Source licenses to work around the
GPL's bugs,
There has been a lot of negative reaction to the news that Google is
evaluating/test driving OpenSolaris. So I think this news has much to
do with that and the fact that the FSF is scared they might loose
Google. This isnt the first time they have used scary terms to
intimidate people.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given how much time and effort the FSF spends bitching about other licenses
being incompatible with GPL, isn't it obvious that the GPL is buggy?
Instead of modifying all the other Open Source licenses to work around the
GPL's bugs, clearly the
Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 09/27/06 at 15:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given how much time and effort the FSF spends bitching about other licenses
being incompatible with GPL, isn't it obvious that the GPL is buggy?
Instead of modifying all the other Open Source
Ulrich Hiller wrote:
Dear all,
I have problems connecting an open solaris 10 box to a novell linux ldap
server (or better say: I am a newbie on this stuff and am confused about
the right configuration).
First I made a normal installation as a standalone box. I installed
openssh and openldap via
ifconfig -a will only show devices that are already plumbed. To quote man
ifconfig:
Before an interface has been plumbed, the interface will
not show up in the output of the ifconfig -a command.
Furthermore, you can only plumb a device that has a driver. For the broadcom
card I put in my
Paul Jakma wrote:
c) The FSF /always/ recommends that the GPL be used over other free
software licences. I'm not sure what else you'd expect, it's their
default position. Hardly FUD.
They even do this against their own LGPL - it's simply their philosophy
of opening as much software as
On Wed 09/27/06 at 16:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 09/27/06 at 15:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given how much time and effort the FSF spends bitching about other
licenses
being incompatible with GPL, isn't it obvious that the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 09/27/06 at 15:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given how much time and effort the FSF spends bitching about other licenses
being incompatible with GPL, isn't it obvious that the GPL is buggy?
Instead of modifying all the
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
So why do we keep having these endless CDDL/GPL discussions here?
Because people would expect a public reaction from Sun that does not seem
to happen.
I don't think that Sun necessarily has to respond. Take a look at the
page in question:
Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A similar comment is made about the apache licence in that same web
page and apache is still the most widely deployed web server in linux,
and about the MPL; this is getting really boring. Can we quit bitching
about licences for a while? i'm
There has been a lot of negative reaction to the news that Google is
evaluating/test driving OpenSolaris. So I think this news has much to
do with that and the fact that the FSF is scared they might loose
Google. This isnt the first time they have used scary terms to
intimidate people.
Problem: Perception is Reality
RB
On Sep 27, 2006, at 11:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My concern is that the facts mean nothing. Opinion and
presentation is
all that matters and things like :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris
are really just ugly.
People ignore the facts
Problem: Perception is Reality
exactly my point
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Problem: Perception is Reality
exactly my point
So update the Wikipedia entry and make sure that you don't make it
biased te other way.
Then if this causes a conflict, try and settle this. But this does
require the entry not to be biased in anyway.
But people who trust Wikipedia, are,
Hi Raymond,
In addition to the OpenSolaris community email lists, there are Sun
Developer Network (SDN) forums:
1. Solaris OS
http://forum.sun.com/jive/index.jspa?tab=solaris
2. Sun Studio (compilers and tools)
http://forum.sun.com/jive/index.jspa?tab=devtools
You'll also find tabs
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Raymond wrote:
Hi, is there a forum or a mailing list where it is appropriate to ask
questions in regard to software development on Solaris, i.e. Solaris
systems programming, code optimisations for multithreaded programs and
Solaris Systems Programming. Hmm, sounds like
On Wed 09/27/06 at 16:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 09/27/06 at 15:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given how much time and effort the FSF spends bitching about other
licenses
being incompatible with GPL, isn't it obvious that the
sounds like a cool project-- my new vaio laptop came with a cingular sim card
that plugs in behind the battery-- i'd love to be able to use it under solaris.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
You are a man that can see the forest through the trees. Thanks.
RB
On Sep 27, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On Wed 09/27/06 at 16:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 09/27/06 at 15:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given how much
I am working with some guys who are porting zaptel to Solaris. They have the
basic stuff working, but we are wondering about best practices for
something...
IN LINUX: after compiling the kernel modules to match your kernel, it installs
an init script, config files and /etc/sysconfig/zaptel.
I am working with some guys who are porting zaptel to Solaris. They have the
basic stuff working,
but we are wondering about best practices for something...
IN LINUX: after compiling the kernel modules to match your kernel, it installs
an init script, con
fig files and /etc/sysconfig/zaptel.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris
are really just ugly.
People ignore the facts and listen to opinion and right there in a prominent
place ( wikipedia ) is a page that was clearly edited by some FSF follower.
Nothing prevents you from editing this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Problem: Perception is Reality
exactly my point
So update the Wikipedia entry and make sure that you don't make it
biased te other way.
There are too many people on Wikipedia that don't like even unbiased
information.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tommy McNeely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am working with some guys who are porting zaptel to Solaris. They have the
basic stuff working, but we are wondering about best practices for
something...
IN LINUX: after compiling the kernel modules to match your kernel, it
installs an init
I'm new to Solaris but I was able to setup Trusted Extensions on a test
machine. The problem I'm seeing is when I login to the system as any account
other than root I cannot open any applications or even a terminal. I get the
message Action failed. Reconnect to Solaris Zone?. Does anyone
The question is: What can SUN do to put things straight? Because it desperately
needs to get things straight. In terms of OSS not SUN is the authority, butr
the FSF is. If that authority advises you not to use the CDDL, you simply won't
touch it. Therefore it's necessary that SUN talks to the
amazingly enough i'm going to have some more free time on my hands in the next
couple of weeks so i'd like to try and dive into getting some of the devices on
my vaio sz laptop working under solaris like they do under fedora 5.
i've configured tons of linux kernels by downloading the source and
Hi,
Have you set up labeled zones? Which labels did you use? What are labels /
clearances did you set for your user?
Security forum (and its documents) will probably be more helpful for your TX
questions.
Good luck,
/David
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Patrick writes:
amazingly enough i'm going to have some more free time on my hands in the
next couple of weeks so i'd like to try and dive into getting some of the
devices on my vaio sz laptop working under solaris like they do under fedora
5.
i've configured tons of linux kernels by
The panic only happens in 64-bit mode; that's interesting.
This isn't a known problem. What happens if you boot
with acpi-user-options=0x4 ?
Dana
Robert Dickel wrote:
Dual core T7400 Merom 64 bit cpu; w/ solaris 10 update 2 + patches (118855-19)
64 bit boot: only works with
amazingly enough i'm going to have some more free
time on my hands in the next couple of weeks so i'd
like to try and dive into getting some of the devices
on my vaio sz laptop working under solaris like they
do under fedora 5.
i've configured tons of linux kernels by downloading
the
thanks haik! i'll check it out-- plus i've ordered a copy of the 2nd edition
of solaris internals, so maybe i'll be able to get up to speed on solaris
quickly. (crosses fingers)
i've run the nightly script (following the blastwave how-to build opensolaris
guide) before, but haven't poked
hi tommy,
i have been asking similar questions because i'm trying to port some drivers
from linux to solaris as well- as far as the first question- where to put the
kernel modules, i was told /kernel/drv.
btw, i'm just down the road from you (i'm in boulder) ;)
good luck!
This message
I used the default labels and yes I set up all the zones (ex. public,
needtoknow, etc.) . I was able to login to each zone via root and was able to
able to make user accounts that access various roles. The problem is that when
I log into as a user with CNF: Needtoknow I can see the label on
Erik Visnyak wrote:
Do you have a link for the Security Forum?
That would be the Security Community [0] with its mailinglist. :-)
Greetings,
Patrick
---
[0] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/security/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Willi,
I posted the Seattle presentations here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/events/techdays/seattle/
However, there is one presentation missing at this point, but I will
post as soon as I can. Take a peek and let me know if you have any
problems accessing them.
-Linda
On 9/28/06, Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks haik! i'll check it out-- plus i've ordered a copy of the 2nd edition
of solaris internals, so maybe i'll be able to get up to speed on solaris
quickly. (crosses fingers)
i've run the nightly script (following the blastwave how-to build
On Sep 27, 2006, at 16:04, Dennis Clarke wrote:
My concern is that the facts mean nothing. Opinion and
presentation is
all that matters and things like :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris
are really just ugly.
People ignore the facts and listen to opinion and right there in a
Y'know, I am beginning to get irritated here. When CDDL was written,
a pretty good FAQ was written. It's at http://opensolaris.org/os/
about/faq/licensing_faq and was the result of a great deal of work by
a bunch of good people. It answered all the questions people had when
CDDL was written
Actually, I did, personally, and they modified the entry slightly,
but what's there is as far as I could push them. You will notice that
the page says similar things about all licenses apart from the GPL or
tear-off licenses that can be replaced with the GPL without fuss.
S.
On Sep 27,
Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep hearing calls for Sun to intervene in a dispute over on
Debian. I see people demanding Sun assert a legal opinion on
difficult and divisive issues that don't directly involve Sun. And I
hear people I usually respect belittling me and people
On Sep 27, 2006, at 14:20, Paul Jakma wrote:
NB: It's hopefully obvious that I do *NOT* speak for my employer :)
I do speak for my employer in this instance I agree with all this.
S.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Is there validity to these statements being printed by the
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:47:28AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep hearing calls for Sun to intervene in a dispute over on
Debian. I see people demanding Sun assert a legal opinion on
difficult and divisive issues that don't directly involve
64 matches
Mail list logo
