> >The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the
> community
> >cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I
> include
> >both bugs *and* RFEs in "issues".
>
> That is your view, sir. You completely, totally
> disregard the "community" here. You are not the
> community. Community is a dist
[...]
> Again some of those folks are complaining about much
> of the same things that I did.
> (see elsewhere on the forum). I think there wasn't a
> need for the source to be made open if the idea was
> just people developing apps and creating distros on
> top of what Sun provides. That you belie
[...]
> > If Sun would just get out of the way as you
> suggest,
> > and let the external
> > folks do what they wanted, OpenSolaris would be a
> > real mess.
> Wow - that is so wrong. You would not want to apply
> the same analogy in say a child's case, forget adults
> for a moment. Cause then i
> Bob Palowoda wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>x86 hardware support has been steadily improving
> over
> >>the last couple of
> >>years and the rate of improvement has accelerated
> in
> >>the past year. I
> >>have only failed to install on one x64 system (and
> I
> >>have done a lot of
> >>instal
> this is, unfortunately, x64, not sparc.
For some reason they where talking about Sparc Solaris 10 on the first line.
---Bob
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> > this is, unfortunately, x64, not sparc.
>
> For some reason they where talking about Sparc
> Solaris 10 on the first line.
>
> ---Bob
Sorry I could have toke your comment about the patch not being sparc or your
trying to be politically correct and indicate you haven't purchased an x64 fr
>Is there seriously no ident for solaris anymore??? This is going to be a BIG
>issue for me if ther
e is not. Help? Someone?
A server you mean? I have one for Solaris Nevada upto build 57; but
not for b57 and later as IP instances have considerably muddied the
waters.
Unfortunately, I'm ra
Simon Phipps wrote:
1. There are ~800 people registered on this list. There are ~15
people in these threads making most of the comments. I conclude that
there are others to hear from. I do not conclude that your view is
either representative or unrepresentative, just that it is your view.
> Well duh..! As a community project one of the
> measures of success is definitely community
> participation and how big it is.
Not exactly. Success of a platform is measured by the availability of software
for that platform. Even the most advanced platform in the world is useless if
there is
> 1) Community participation has remained very low. To
> date greater than 90% (very unscientific and
> conservative estimate) of OpenSolaris changes are
> driven by Sun's business interests and they come from
> Sun employees. (Look at commits, look at general
> development direction - nothing ther
> > If Sun would just get out of the way as you
> suggest,
> > and let the external
> > folks do what they wanted, OpenSolaris would be a
> > real mess.
> Wow - that is so wrong. You would not want to apply
> the same analogy in say a child's case, forget adults
> for a moment. Cause then it will
Stephen Harpster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I cannot see this.Linux stays with GPLv2 and the main problem is not
> > Linux but the fact that people working on Linux do not like to use sources
> > from OpenSolaris. I see no reason why Linux could not take ZFS and use
> > it directly inside
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adding a new license to the code allows them to ditch CDDL by choosing
> to adopt GPL alone. If it doesn't allow them to get rid of CDDL, and
> we're actually planning to stop people from doing that (via the lack
> of patent grants?), then it opens us up
[i]In closing, if we want to attract programming talent and expertise, we
should more closely work with, and even help the BSD community, even if we have
to put on hold what we're doing on Solaris. Eventually the two communities
might "jump in" for each other, and both communities would benefit.
UNIX admin wrote:
We do need more people, but not the Linux hacker kind. All those would want to
do is muck with Solaris so that it looks, works and behaves like Linux.
Unfortunately, Linux suffers from serious lack of engineering and quality
control because everything is implemented ad-hoc b
That is the spirit! It may not be practical. Such tough questions.
Good thinking Giacomo!
Are we missionaries or mercenaries? Do we want everyone to think and
do alike? Artem Kachitchkin's post ought to have us thinking. So
too the post over in the neighboring community of Linux (poste
On Feb 3, 2007, at 07:49, Ben Rockwood wrote:
This is neither the first nor the last time this discussion will
occur and frankly I don't see it as productive.
You would rather Sun had not asked? Has there previously been a
conclusive discussion about GPLv3 (I am aware of the discussions
a
On Feb 3, 2007, at 11:11, Frank Van Der Linden wrote:
From your emails, I got the impression that you favoured dual-
licensing. My apologies for misreading your comments.
Thanks, appreciated.
This discussion was about talking to "the community", and I guess
the problem is: how do you do
On Feb 3, 2007, at 11:29, UNIX admin wrote:
We do need more people, but not the Linux hacker kind.
You know, there are people over there who say the same thing about
us. I don't agree with them either.
S.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
o
Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Plenty of people have asked what a GPLv3 dual license would bring to
> the OpenSolaris project. It would bring a mix of positives and
> negatives, just as OpenSolaris now is a mix of positives and
> negatives. The challenge for us as a community is t
On Feb 3, 2007, at 13:41, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I still do not see that possible benefits from dual licensing
OpenSolaris
would outweight the problems.
You may well be right. I'm not convinced we've had the positive and
inclusive discussion needed to reach a conclusion yet.
S.
___
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think his point was that, even if there were 1000 non-Sun developers
> contributing to OpenSolaris, the number of application developers,
> students and users "participating" in the OpenSolaris community
> would still dwarf them.
>
> As I said earlier, t
> You know, there are people over there who say the
> same thing about
> us. I don't agree with them either.
I'd say you're right, there probably are; but, people like me care as much for
them as they do for me. No problem there.
The thing is this:
they said Sun is closed and proprietary --
>
> >What can be or is being done to remove timezone
> updates, to not require a libc
> >upgrade, and not force a reboot?
> >
> >With every timezone and political boundry out there,
> jumping on the bandwagon,
> >this is a real PITA for the current production
> versions of Solaris!
>
>
> Fix the
--- Ben Rockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the
> comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance.
And why is that? Think about it... The governance people are not
giving direction. They want to be leadership,
On 2/3/07, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the
> comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance.
What proposal would you make for getting people here to take their
governance responsibilities seriously?
"Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So unless you can point out _specific_ needs, wants, etc. that can't be
> met either now or with actions already underway, I just don't see what
> your point is. No particular license is IMO going to make that much of
> a difference in a positive
On Feb 3, 2007, at 14:46, Peter Tribble wrote:
On 2/3/07, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the
> comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance.
What proposal would you make for getting people here to
>This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code,
>not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size
>of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance.
Right; so I don't think the non-involvement in governance is anything
to go by; "those wh
On Feb 3, 2007, at 15:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code,
not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size
of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance.
Right; so I don't think the non-involveme
>No concern that unexpected behavior might result from processes picking up
>dynamic changes to timezone rules? If not, how about caching the last time_t
>passed to
>localtime() and only checking if it had changed (or changed by some amount)?
>(although that could get ugly for localtime_r(), whi
Frank Van Der Linden wrote:
Simon Phipps wrote:
1. There are ~800 people registered on this list. There are ~15
people in these threads making most of the comments. I conclude that
there are others to hear from. I do not conclude that your view is
either representative or unrepresentative
>
>On Feb 3, 2007, at 15:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code,
>>> not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size
>>> of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance.
>>
>> Right; so I don't think
What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're already upset,
don't read further.
--- UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please understand that one of the reasons Solaris is superior to
> just about any other operating system out there is because Sun
> engineering has implement
I installed OpenSolaris11 on an old HP but am begining to feel like I should
have installed on my IBM Netvista just so I could get started faster with
downloading...I'm a newbie to opensolaris and configuring my ethernet card
hasn't been done yet. This Kingston ethernet card doesn't appear on th
I think this all comes down to three key questions and 2 of which center
around the kernel because, if its userland we don't need to dual license
anything. This statement asks a few questions for us (opensolairs
developers and mostly kernel developers to answer, and if you aren't a
kernel develo
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Stephen Harpster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Complexity *is* the issue. With 15 million lines of very complex
code,
I would argue it would take a long time for the non-Sun kernel
developers to outnumber the Sun kernel developers. Actually, given
t
Christopher Mahan wrote:
What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're already upset,
don't read further.
You make some dramatic statements. However, I think some of them are off
somewhat. I wholeheartedly agree that open source needs to be embraced,
and quickly and aggressively. I a
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:21:30AM +, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >It seems to me (as others have said) they they will gain far more
> >from Solaris going GPLv3 than we will, so it's hardly surprising
> >they are in favour, and by-and-large we aren't.
>
> While that's true of the ~15 people who
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Ben Rockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And may I point out, that while ~15 people are making most of the
comments on this thread, less than that are involved in governance.
And why is that? Think about it... The governance people are not
giving direction. The
> According to Alexa,
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&u
> rl=http://www.wikipedia.org
> The agglomerated wikipedia sites are generating 4
> billion page views
> per day and are ranked 12th in the world for all
> traffic.
>
> Now, PHP is admittedly one of the most insecure,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a key difficulty. Almost all people are here for the code,
not for the governance. But when any community grows beyond the size
of a circle of friends, there's a responsibility for governance.
Right; so I don't think the non-involvement in governance is any
UNIX admin wrote:
Well, I think Harpster is being clear that one
possible advantage of a
dual approach would be to engage more developers.
That's a valid
viewpoint. Other views have been expressed as well.
The OpenSolaris
community is having a conversation about licensing.
How is that marke
To be fair, since the community version of Solaris is moving so fast--at least
as far as I am concerned (seems like Sun's engineers have found a sweet spot),
the term "Solaris" can indeed be very ambiguous w/o qualifying it with a Build
number.
OTOH, it is also quite obvious that Solaris could
I broke this out of the GPLv3 discussion line ... lest it be lost in
poor signal to noise level.
- Original Message -
Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3
ravings)
From:"Bob Palowoda" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Added bonus:
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/010807/PLEX_7264.pdf
via /. (http://slashdot.org/articles/07/02/03/1524250.shtml)
read the last line.
--- Christopher Mahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're already
> upset,
> don't read further.
>
> What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're
> already upset,
> don't read further.
I'm certainly not upset; this is a disucssion, and I appreciate contrarian
views so long as they're stated in a non-ad hominem manner.
> I am an admin on wikipedia, was very active before my
> son was
>
> Those guys aren't going to accept Solaris. They're
> fundamentalists who don't use something based on
> technical merit, but based on ideological merit. And
> to me, that's the wrong reason to use an OS.
>
> The only way those people might ever be *compelled*
> to accept Solaris is if Solar
S Destika wrote:
Secondly most use x86 and Solaris won't work there
I'll admit there are some areas that need improvement, but
Solaris certainly works on x86, and more Solaris users are
now on x86 than SPARC, so it's getting a lot of attention
to fix the deficiencies.
--
-Alan Coopersm
On 2/3/07, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I broke this out of the GPLv3 discussion line ... lest it be lost in
poor signal to noise level.
- Original Message
-
Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was
> If you'd like to do driver development for Solaris,
> what's stopping you from going to docs.sun.com and
> looking up the driver development guide?
>
I am frustrated to say that people repeatedly miss the point. To remind -
Those drivers were written long back ago (before OpenSolaris) by singl
No sir. They do not accept Solaris because firstly they believe freedom is
priceless and that a for-profit company in drivers seat driving things the deem
fit, there cannot be freedom and no one likes to work for free for somebody
else's cause.
marketing, just marketing, changing the license
I think that maybe x86 *is* the main area where we need help
from device driver writers who have done the compatibility
heavy lifting for Linux already.
Is there a licensing problem in getting their work onto Open
Solaris for x64/x86?
Would the GPLv3 even solve the problem?
Outside of this camp
"James Dickens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> don't want anything that is in Solaris. A number of core
> Linux developers have said we can't use ZFS because of the way its
> implemented. Even more Linux developers have decided that they are doing a
This is true. The problem is that Linux does not
S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Somebody should just freaking replace Linux with latest Solaris version for
> sites like Wikipedia, kernel.org (running at 400+ load as of today) and see
> how it stands up - I doubt they'll even get past the hardware incompatibility
> issues. If the Engi
On 2/3/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"James Dickens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> don't want anything that is in Solaris. A number of core
> Linux developers have said we can't use ZFS because of the way its
> implemented. Even more Linux developers have decided that they are
As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any
place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I
analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it
would help me posting here. Same goes with bug reports.)
This messa
On 2/3/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any
place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I
analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it
would help me posting
S Destika wrote:
>As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any
>place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I
>analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it
>would help me posting here. Same goes with bug re
I you could link me/send me a copy of the one you had working up to b57 that
would be fantastic. I'm running b56. Even if it doesn't work by default, it
would give me a starting point.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discu
I just need to know how to unsubscribe from a discussion forum. I can't seem to
find anything on this web site that describes how to do this. Thank's to anyone
that can help.
-Chris
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss m
"James Dickens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > don't want anything that is in Solaris. A number of core
> > > Linux developers have said we can't use ZFS because of the way its
> > > implemented. Even more Linux developers have decided that they are doing
> > a
> >
> > This is true. The problem
> I am frustrated to say that people repeatedly miss
> the point. To remind - Those drivers were written
> long back ago (before OpenSolaris) by single person
> for his own cause and he was kind enough to make them
> available.
Incorrect. Those drivers (by Murayama-san) are still in development,
Chris Parman wrote:
>I just need to know how to unsubscribe from a discussion forum. I can't seem
>to find anything on this web site that describes how to do this. Thank's to
>anyone that can help.
>
>
>
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/discussions/
Click the unsubscribe link for the relevant li
> That's what has
> happened with Linux - it is good enough and does what
> people want it to do and it is free. Why do I need to
> wait for years just to make it run on my hardware
> when Linux runs on it today and if it doesn't run the
> way I like it - I can just fix it up and propagate
> those
> Also, Linux fails miserably in large enterprise
> deployments, because the thing is simply not designed
> for server farms with thousands of systems on them.
> That's why your local ATM, or your bank or even your
> insurance will never be powered by Linux and why they
> will always either be run
On 2/3/07, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am frustrated to say that people repeatedly miss
> the point. To remind - Those drivers were written
> long back ago (before OpenSolaris) by single person
> for his own cause and he was kind enough to make them
> available.
Incorrect. Those d
Yeah I can do that if I feel like doing it but that is not the point. Point is
to make OpenSolaris a place where people can easily contribute their changes.
Why would I need to discuss that sort of thing (making and propagating my own
changes) on this list?
What happens when number of contribut
Hello All,
I don't know if this is the right forum for this. But I hope someone here can
answer this.
I have a Solaris 10 (not OpenSolaris) system, which is successfully
authenticating against a OpenLDAP 2.3 server running on SuSE Linux (Thanks go
to Gary for his excellent documentation on thi
On 2/3/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah I can do that if I feel like doing it but that is not the point. Point is
to make OpenSolaris a place where people can easily contribute their changes.
Why would I need to discuss that sort of thing (making and propagating my own
changes) on
Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other changes
are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets merged in
mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux development works at all.
But more importantly this was never about accepting any and all c
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>I hope you hear a lot of frustration here. I was expecting some sort of
>holy virtualization angel to swoop down and whisper the solution in my
>ear but what really happened was another little demon that showed up asking
>for more money than you can imagine. The very idea o
> Wow thats a bunch of crazy statements right there -
> you have insurmountable amount of ignorance here. ATM
> machines run Linux
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banrisul - they
> replaced MS-DOS here so your statement couldn't be
> more funnier!) . Plenty of banks running Linux
> successfully -
> But more importantly this was never about accepting
> any and all changes - it was about making it better
> for people to propose changes and people to review it
> and then accept the quality ones.
That's exactly how the process works now.
Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an already
On Feb 3, 2007, at 19:26, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
In any case,
evangelizm can solve the issue, CDDL is free by any standard, even the
FSF thinks so, their only problem with it is that it is just not GPL
compatible. That might change with GPLv3, there is some focus in
license compatibilit
IANAL, but afaik, you'd be relatively safe reverse-engineering it from
outside. If you get help from @sun.com folks, you'll need to make sure
they haven't seen the libc_i18n sources before-hand. I don't know this
guarantee is made...
Bonnie?
cheers,
steve
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 10:17:56PM -08
> Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an
> already existing bug ID and request a sponsor?
Because as I have said hundred times or so - the process is unnecessarily
bureaucratic and dictated by Sun based on their interests instead of community
inspired - not something I can work with.
On Feb 4, 2007, at 00:26, S Destika wrote:
Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an
already existing bug ID and request a sponsor?
Because as I have said hundred times or so - the process is
unnecessarily bureaucratic and dictated by Sun based on their
interests instead of community
Do we have a test suite for what we have in libc_i18n.a? If so, we
should make that available or at leat have someone who can run it
against anything the project produces.
+1
alan.
Stephen Lau wrote:
+1
here's my vote for a project name:
Project Emancipation
cheers,
steve
On Thu, Feb 01
John Sonnenschein wrote:
>Currently, there is no possible way to build an opensolaris distribution
>without including the closed-source libc_i18n.a. What this means is that a
>traditional distribution is entirely out of the question. This is entirely
>unacceptable for a project which wishes to
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Feb 3, 2007, at 07:49, Ben Rockwood wrote:
This is neither the first nor the last time this discussion will
occur and frankly I don't see it as productive.
You would rather Sun had not asked? Has there previously been a
conclusive discussion about GPLv3 (I am aware of
John Sonnenschein wrote:
I think I like the "Project Emancipation" title
However, as for starting with all of closed bins, as I mentioned in the initial proposal, libc_i18n.a comes first. That bit *MUST* be reimplemented & shoved in to ON as fast as possible. The rest is not as important in as f
On Feb 4, 2007, at 01:29, Ben Rockwood wrote:
As for whether or not governance discussions are productive or
not... they are so long as they lead to completion of governance.
Once governance is complete and a new OGB is in place we begin work
on things that are more interesting, namely re
Members may be interested in the long piece posted by analyst Stephen
O'Grady on the OpenSolaris/GPLv3 subject - see:
http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/02/03/solaris_gplv3/
S.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Alan Hargreaves wrote:
> Do we have a test suite for what we have in libc_i18n.a? If so, we
> should make that available or at leat have someone who can run it
> against anything the project produces.
>
As the missing functions don't appear to be documented (correct me if
I'm wrong) someone who ha
> I'd be pleased to hear your process suggestions, but
> I'm afraid a
> process of some sort is inevitable. All non-trivial
> FOSS communities
> have a process that ensures commits are only made by
> people the
> community trusts.
>
That's right. No one (that includes me) here is saying allo
> project. This assumes, of course, that
> Sun/OpenSolaris.org/et al are
> contributing in good faith and adding real value to
> the project.
So far, everything has indicated that they are. SUN did not have to do what
they did, and it has a very costly and time-conuming process.
> When people
> However, as for starting with all of closed bins, as
> I mentioned in the initial proposal, libc_i18n.a
> comes first.
Actually,if you want this to be about community, then let people scratch their
own itch. Some may want to work on libc_i18n.a first, someone else may want to
work on some othe
> They speak of
> the "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached
> by many, many
> FSF members and supporters around the world who would
> welcome the
> chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS,
> licensed in a way
> they felt ethically able to use, so that they could
> cut t
For x86/x64 users you might want to check out the flag days entry for direct
boot
coming up in build 57. It's a good heads up.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/2007011901/
---Bob
This message posted from opensolaris.org
> Apple's XCode
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a
> kick-ass front-end
> for their version of DTrace. I don't see them
> contributing that back to
> OpenSolaris.
That's not shipping yet, so let's be fair and wait first before saying that
please.
> Stephen Harpster
>
> If you want a project that has as it's goal to be
> able to build the
> opensolaris sources without encumbered binaries, AND
> you want this to be
> able to be done on both SPARC and x86, then both of
> these need to be
> addressed.
Completely agreed!
> I knwo that SPARC is not generally po
From: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/discussions/
How do I subscribe?
To subscribe to a list, you can:
1. Send an empty email to listname dash subscribe at opensolaris dot org.
Replacing listname with the actual name of the list that you want to subscribe
to.
2. You can also use the mailt
On Feb 4, 2007, at 05:49, Shawn Walker wrote:
They speak of the "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached
by many, many FSF members and supporters around the world who would
welcome the chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS,
licensed in a way they felt ethically able to use,
On 2/3/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other changes
are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets merged in
mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux development works at all.
ohh, i think i
95 matches
Mail list logo
