Joerg Schilling wrote:
Roland Mainz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong... the 3K manual page archive for developers
has nothing todo with Solaris install... right ?
(And bzip2 on SPARC could be tweaked to run a little bit faster anyway).
I vote to use bzip2 to compress all
Hi All,
I opened a device ( in raw mode) and I filled the entire space (from 1
block to last block) with some random data. While writing data, I am
seeing the following warning messages in dmesg buffer.
Jan 30 08:32:36 masthan scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING:
/scsi_vhci/[EMAIL
Peter Buckingham wrote:
Let me give some more details about Honeycomb. It is a Solaris
appliance. We have modified solaris to run as a ramdisk image, we have
our own clustering enviroment running on our hardware (typically a 16
way cluster), we have a self-healing software stack running on
Masthan, Dudekula (STSD) wrote:
Hi All,
I opened a device ( in raw mode) and I filled the entire space (from 1
block to last block) with some random data. While writing data, I am
seeing the following warning messages in dmesg buffer.
Jan 30 08:32:36 masthan scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning]
Dennis Clarke wrote:
ken mays wrote:
[snip]
5. Support for PowerPC G4 to G5 (PPC750GX)
Will Apple G3 machines still be supported ?
probably not for a lng time
Why (I still have the chance to get an older Apple
G3-based IMac...
question is whether it makes sense to buy it...) ?
stephen lau wrote:
Why do you need to wait for agreement on the SDK before you
open source parts of Honeycomb? Are there legal issues? If there
aren't legal encumberances, then just publish the code. If there are,
then sort them out - and then come back and propose the project. I just
Hi all,
I have a quite disturbing problem with the cursor under Gnome.
When I use applications under Gnome like Evolution, Firefox, etc.,
the cursor is somehow not moved correctly to the next position,
a copy remains and makes the text quite unreadable.
The problem does not show up in, e.g.,
Martin Bochnig wrote:
What an OpenSolaris-list, where only a smal number of hardcore SPARC
enthusiasts seems to be left.
word up!
You know what, I was wondering what's with us, SPARCs hardcore admins
who still runs and maintains a bunch of boxes out there..
Still no big news about supporting new
Hi Alan (and Steve)
Alan Burlison wrote:
I agree with Steve about this - unless you are going to release some
code as open source, the project doesn't belong on opensolaris.org. A
SDK and API isn't sufficient. Hell, we have released the Solaris APIs
for as long as Solaris has existed, in
Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds _very_ interesting.
But I have to admit, that I'm not totally sure, if I'm already qualified
enough.
Lack of time would be the next problem.
What an OpenSolaris-list, where only a smal number of hardcore SPARC
enthusiasts seems to be
Peter Buckingham wrote:
Finally, I'm not trying to pressure anyone into giving a +1. We have a
complicated system in Honeycomb, we believe that we have useful things
to offer the OpenSolaris community in the way we have embedded Solaris
into a distributed storage cluster.
This proposal
I run SX:CR on my Sun Blade 2000, compaq laptop, and a vmware instance for my
work laptop. I do agree that there needs to be parity between the platforms. A
good example is how CD audio works fine on x86 with build 54, but not on my
SB2k. It's little things like that which should not be
Hi John,
you seem to have summed up the situation reasonably well. I have a few
comments in-line below.
John Plocher wrote:
You seem to be lacking a few important things, though:
A vision/roadmap for an open community that is more than
a Sun Honeycomb Product Enthusiast Group, and
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Octave Orgeron wrote:
Ideally, I'd like to see something like this:
T1 (4 core)
8GB RAM (max)
2 x SAS drives
1 x DVD-RW
3D Nvidia Card (Dual DVI)
2 x USB for keyboard/mouse
4 x USB 2.0 for devices
2 x Firewire
2 x 10/100/1000 Ethernet ports
1 x Wireless card
2
* Peter Buckingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 10:28]:
I guess the decision the Open Solaris community needs to make is if it
is about building developer communities for Solaris-based appliances, or
if there is a more appropriate place to do this...
I don't have an opinion on the
Hi,
1. I'm not sure that desktop use is a good match for the T1, at least not yet.
Yeah, the T2 would probably be a better processor. The US3i's I don't think
would be a good match other. Having multi-core I think is important though.
2. Please, no external PSUs! I HATE those wall-wart
Michelle Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Joerg,
Actually, all the pages you were looking for (except sccs.1 and sccs-admin.1)
were delivered in this drop. Prepend 'sccs-' to find them, sccs-cdc.1,
sccs-comb.1, etc. As for sccs.1 we need to do some investigation, for
sccs-admin.1 we
2. Please, no external PSUs! I HATE those wall-wart things!
The only reason an external PS might be required is the space issue.
But then again, I agree that it's a pain and should be avoided if
possible. Perhaps Andy B. can fix that?
I've never understood why people would *want* external
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Please, no external PSUs! I HATE those wall-wart things!
The only reason an external PS might be required is the space issue.
But then again, I agree that it's a pain and should be avoided if
possible. Perhaps Andy B. can fix that?
I've never understood why people
What about ionic fans (no blades) and heat pipes to draw the heat away from the
cpu and asics? Could probably do the same for the PSU and keep it integrated.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Hi Peter,
It seems like a lot of what you want to accomplish could be done within
the realms of the 'Appliances'[1] community. If the discussion leads to
a point where you have code to release, or a more committed open
development model - then it would be easy to then open a Honeycomb
Octave Orgeron wrote:
Hi,
purple/blue led's, lit sun logo, etc. It should be extremely quiet and
The lit Sun logo is one of the coolest things I like about the SB1000. :-)
It's the feature I love the most about my SB2k:)
That would be the glogo.
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders
Javier O. Augusto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Bochnig wrote:
What an OpenSolaris-list, where only a smal number of hardcore SPARC
enthusiasts seems to be left.
word up!
You know what, I was wondering what's with us, SPARCs hardcore admins
who still runs and maintains a bunch of boxes
Martin Bochnig wrote:
What an OpenSolaris-list, where only a smal number of hardcore SPARC
enthusiasts seems to be left.
There's probably a lot more SPARC users/fans/enthusiasts here than people
who want to get involved in SPARC hardware design - I'd expect OpenSPARC
to attract more of those
poster above said ~2weeks?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
repost due to wrong Cc: list in your mail
Octave Orgeron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run SX:CR on my Sun Blade 2000, compaq laptop, and a vmware instance for my
work laptop. I do agree that there needs to be parity between the platforms. A
good example is how CD audio works fine on x86
Ben Rockwood wrote:
Is there an ETA for SX:CR B56? I've got a lot of things on hold for this
release. I know the B55 respin threw a wrench in the works, but any updates or
best guesses as to when we'll see 56 would be appreciated.
benr.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Bochnig wrote:
What an OpenSolaris-list, where only a smal number of hardcore SPARC
enthusiasts seems to be left.
There's probably a lot more SPARC users/fans/enthusiasts here than people
who want to get involved in SPARC hardware design -
Hello Opensolaris-discuss,
http://www.kroah.com/log/2007/01/29/#free_drivers
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://milek.blogspot.com
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing
Please find the links to SXCR Build 56 at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/.
- Derek
--
Derek Cicero
Program Manager
Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Please find the links to SXCR Build 56 at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/.
Issues Resolved:
BUG/RFE:6497646prtdiag output formats are different on ontario and erie
Files Changed:
update:usr/src/lib/libprtdiag_psr/sparc/ontario/common/erie.c
w00t!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
p
In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect
of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under
a href=http://gplv3.fsf.org/;GPLv3/a. In November
a href=http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/index.jsp;
Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it/a, and
Derek Cicero wrote:
Please find the links to SXCR Build 56 at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/.
I'm getting
500 Error - Web Site is Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to
maintenance downtime or capacity problems.
Please try again
*sigh*
here we go with this again...
*Dons asbestos suit in preparation for the ensuing flamewar*
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the
prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under
a href=http://gplv3.fsf.org/;GPLv3/a. In November
a href=http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/index.jsp;
Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it/a, and
Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one Sorry.
In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November
Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 19:44, Stephen Harpster wrote:
I think that we (we being all of you) should be asking ourselves
what we think about GPLv3. What would it mean to the community if
we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an
assembly exception to the GPLv3 which
Dennis Clarke wrote:
In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the
prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under
a href=http://gplv3.fsf.org/;GPLv3/a. In November
a href=http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/index.jsp;
Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look
Stephen Lau wrote:
You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As
the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license
switch - but this is not a unilateral executive decision.
Does that
Ian Collins wrote:
Stephen Lau wrote:
You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As
the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license
switch - but this is not a unilateral executive
Stephen Lau wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Stephen Lau wrote:
You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As
the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license
switch - but this is not a
Stephen.
I think that we (we being all of you) should be asking ourselves what
we think about GPLv3. What would it
mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that
we could attach an assembly exception
to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could
On 1/30/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one Sorry.
In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect
of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November
Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into
+1 from here as well with one caveat.
GIVE US libc_i18n.a...
if Sun cares about open-source at all, they'll hire a guy to reimpliment the
*one* piece of code preventing us from making a distro that doesn't explicitly
depend on Sun's engineers.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 16:44 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote:
I think that we (we being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we
think about GPLv3. What would it
mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we
could attach an assembly exception
to the GPLv3
I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not
particularly interested.
I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities
to succeed at the expense of ours.
The problem I see with dual licensing is a situation where we end up with
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:54 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
(1) The only Rich that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
Actually, Rich Green
I think that we (we being all of you) should be asking ourselves what
we think about GPLv3. What would it
mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we
could attach an assembly exception
to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open
up a
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:54 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
(1) The only Rich that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
Actually, Rich
Why don't you format your page so that it does not run out of the screen
view
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Two things come to mind right away :
(1) The only Rich that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
If you follow the
Yeah, it's confusing because v3 isn't final and decided yet. We kinda
know where it's going though. We were expecting a final version by now,
but one hasn't popped out yet. I think it's worth having this
discussion now though rather than waiting some indeterminate time.
I'm not asking how
For me the issue is to try to clarify what is the OpenSolaris community. If
this community is simply a project free of Sun then I think that the addition
of the GPLv3 can represent a good strategy of marketing towards the free world.
But if the community is instead, an independent entity I
Shawn Walker wrote:
I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not
particularly interested.
I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities
to succeed at the expense of ours.
The problem I see with dual licensing is a situation
On 1/30/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not
particularly interested.
I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities
to succeed at the expense of ours.
Dennis's post on the GPLv3 thread:
Let's fast forward two more years and if we have another mad rush of
people NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we
rename this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun
Community Source License ( SCSL ) license added and on
Hey,
Stephen Harpster wrote:
I'm also not asking to replace CDDL. I'm asking if people think it
would be a good idea to dual-license OpenSolaris CDDL code with GPLv3.
Of course that depends on what the final outcome of GPLv3 is, but
assuming it looks close to what it is today, would you
Hey,
Stephen Harpster wrote:
I'm also not asking to replace CDDL. I'm asking if
people think it
would be a good idea to dual-license OpenSolaris
CDDL code with GPLv3.
Of course that depends on what the final outcome of
GPLv3 is, but
assuming it looks close to what it is today,
I think the barriers to contribution are currently the biggest discouragement.
Integration of even the smallest changes can take a very long time.
Oh, and before I forget, the bug reporting system being out of sync with actual
progress does not help at all.
-Shawn
Message was edited by:
Shawn Walker wrote:
I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final
license. At this point, I'm not particularly
interested.
I see little benefit to our community and the
potential for other communities to succeed at the
expense of ours.
The problem I see with dual licensing is a
On 1/30/07, Stephen Harpster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final
license. At this point, I'm not particularly
interested.
I see little benefit to our community and the
potential for other communities to succeed at the
Stephen:
In my opinion, one concern is how well GPLv3 will be accepted by the
FreeSoftware community. In my discussions with maintainers of various
FreeSoftware projects (currently under GPLv2), they seem unsure about
whether they will want to move to GPLv3 or not. GPLv3 will only be a
good
[b]Do not reply to me, I read the forums - my email address is invalid and I do
feel bad I did nothing to fix it. [/b]
It was as easy to predict more than a year ago as it is today. In one of my
posts I expressed the below (Oct 11, 2005) for which I got flamed more than
once -
Quote
Let Sun
It was as easy to predict more than a year ago as it
is today. In one of my posts I expressed the below
(Oct 11, 2005) for which I got flamed more than once
-
Quote
Let Sun create a workable, scalable development model
around (Open)Solaris first. I pity the words
request sponsor ask
On 1/30/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but
if you can make most people happy...
And you likely couldn't make everyone happy with two.
I for one am happy with the CDDL, and to date have read nothing which
S Destika wrote:
As a result, people don't feel like caring for OpenSolaris, if they do, Sun
makes sure they go away by doing so much red taping, and the closed
development model (no design/implementation discussions, no crisp, flaming hot
discussions about how some part of code sucks and how
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Well its slow. Real real slow. So many things can be done but I
personally feel that this project is falling into corporate hands more and
more. It feels like a marketing project gone wrong.
Hi, Dennis
There are many people at Sun who are involved with
On 1/30/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but
if you can make most people happy...
And you likely couldn't make everyone happy with two.
I for one am happy with the CDDL, and to date have read nothing which
I agree with some of your post, but the rest is
simply untrue. There are plenty of design and
implementation discussions. There have been plenty of
good and bad words exchanged as well about particular
features, etc. There have been discussions about code
that sucks and code that does not.
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:18 +0800, Brian Cameron wrote:
Stephen:
In my opinion, one concern is how well GPLv3 will be accepted by the
FreeSoftware community. In my discussions with maintainers of various
FreeSoftware projects (currently under GPLv2), they seem unsure about
whether they
On 1/30/07, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/30/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but
if you can make most people happy...
And you likely couldn't make everyone happy with two.
I for one am happy
I did not see ksh93 discussion went anywhere. Or did
it? Also I did not think that ZFS was designed in the
open. So yeah, there are some pockets where there is
some activity but as I said it is nowhere near where
it should be if you are expecting concrete, free
flowing contributions from
Glynn Foster wrote:
Hey,
Stephen Harpster wrote:
I'm also not asking to replace CDDL. I'm asking if people think it
would be a good idea to dual-license OpenSolaris CDDL code with GPLv3.
Of course that depends on what the final outcome of GPLv3 is, but
assuming it looks close to what it
Dennis Clarke wrote:
So I have been watching this for a while and I think that I have an opinon
with at least some value. In my opinion this feels like a marketing idea
from the hallways of the same people that put Java in front of everything.
Its the latest fad to sell the proect to the
On 30-Jan-07, at 8:23 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
So I have been watching this for a while and I think that I have
an opinon
with at least some value. In my opinion this feels like a
marketing idea
from the hallways of the same people that put Java in front of
I got one silly hypothesis, though its validity is greatly offset by my
employment and, very likely, my upbringing. One of the most strike
contrasts when moving from Russia to a capitalist society was the notion
of private property. Skipping the long thought process, it seems to me
that
I parsed dennis' gripes as being more an expression
that instead of
fixing the *real* problems in opensolaris, Sun's just
license
jumping... it's less work to relicense the code
hope Stallman et.
al endorse us than it is to fix the code contribution
method, or
rewrite (or
On 30-Jan-07, at 8:23 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
So I have been watching this for a while and I think that I have
an opinon
with at least some value. In my opinion this feels like a
marketing idea
from the hallways of the same people that put Java in front of
I got one silly hypothesis, though its validity is greatly offset by my
employment and, very likely, my upbringing. One of the most strike
contrasts when moving from Russia to a capitalist society was the notion
of private property. Skipping the long thought process, it seems to me
that
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:38:30PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As the
copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license switch - but
this is not a
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:38:30PM -0500, Dennis
Clarke wrote:
You seem to have misread the email. Stephen
(Harpster)'s email is
explicitly asking the community to get involved in
the discussion. As the
copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the
actual license switch - but
this
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:57:18PM -0800, S Destika wrote:
I agree with some of your post, but the rest is
simply untrue. There are plenty of design and
implementation discussions. There have been plenty of
good and bad words exchanged as well about particular
features, etc. There
Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you
just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people
say, positive or negative?
I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal
Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you
just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people
say, positive or negative?
I think it's difficult to evaluate such a
Shawn Walker wrote:
I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great people to work with. The
whole closed bins issue though is a real dog.
Yes, it's a PITA. However, anyone wishing to code replacements
for such bins is _welcome_ to start a project to do this. This
would be a great
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:07 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
trying to solve with such a licensing change?
its obvious... world domination. :-) and license shouldn't be a stopping
factor. And that is why Mozilla dual-licensed
S Destika wrote:
[b]Do not reply to me, I read the forums - my email address is invalid and I do
feel bad I did nothing to fix it. [/b]
It was as easy to predict more than a year ago as it is today. In one of my
posts I expressed the below (Oct 11, 2005) for which I got flamed more than
Shawn Walker wrote:
I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great people to work with. The
whole closed bins issue though is a real dog.
Yes, it's a PITA. However, anyone wishing to code replacements
for such bins is _welcome_ to start a project to do this. This
would be a great
Ian Collins wrote:
Dennis's post on the GPLv3 thread:
Let's fast forward two more years and if we have another mad rush of
people NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we
rename this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun
Community Source License ( SCSL )
Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
I got one silly hypothesis, though its validity is greatly offset by
my employment and, very likely, my upbringing. One of the most strike
contrasts when moving from Russia to a capitalist society was the
notion of private property. Skipping the long thought
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Dennis's post on the GPLv3 thread:
Let's fast forward two more years and if we have another mad rush of
people NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we
rename this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun
Hi Erast,
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:07 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
trying to solve with such a licensing change?
its obvious... world domination. :-) and license shouldn't be a stopping
factor. And that is why Mozilla
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Bochnig wrote:
What an OpenSolaris-list, where only a smal number of hardcore SPARC
enthusiasts seems to be left.
There's probably a lot more SPARC users/fans/enthusiasts here than people
who want to get
Would it be possible to develop some kind of scoring of outside contributors
(LOC broken down by kernel/driver/libs/apps and new vs bugfixes, say)?
That might generate some friendly competition. Further, if that were done
in the right way, it could be joined (perhaps by some non-Sun site and with
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 06:44 pm, Ian Collins wrote:
Like Dennis, I've been here since the pilot, but unlike Dennis, my
contribution has been negligible.
I would argue that you've been around and a part of the Solaris x86 community
for quite some time. It's really not about anyone doing
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 08:37 pm, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
Do the community contributors feel at home here?
I don't think so. I see Sun's process as being very intimidating. While many
of the other open source communities are bold, they're somehow more
welcoming. I see OpenSolaris as being
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Unlike OpenSolaris, the Linux world has a many corporations paying for
work on the kernel, drivers and applications.
But Sun has a tremendous amount of engineers working on Solaris, more than any
other single company, IMO.
I don't dispute that, the fact the Solaris
I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could
work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed
just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily
find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a
mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position to solve it too
since developers contributing code have to sign an agreement. I still
think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real benefit.
It only works when people actually give back code; if someone decides to
fork to a GPLv3/OpenSolaris
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
