Hello,
I want to inform that there is no supported yet Intel 82562EZ Network
Controller in Solaris.
This controller is on Intel D915PBL motherboard.
There is need to support it as soon as possible.
Regards,
Girts
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:31, James Carlson wrote:
GPLv3 doesn't exist, and therefore doesn't matter. There's no way to
compare it with anything. (Well, except for the set of other
non-existent things, to which it's equal. ;-})
The drafts are public and clear. See http://gplv3.fsf.org (note:
On Thursday 08 February 2007 00:01, Paul Maher wrote:
> I'm a newbie. We have several sun systems we purchased our sun
> reseller, MCA http://www.mcac.com. We are now migrating some of
> our applications on to HP servers. Would they support solaris 10?
http://www.hp.com/wwsolutions/solaris/inde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On 02/07/07 23:41,:
I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/06/1448200.shtml
Interesting thread. Seems we are slowly making progress. Bubbling up in
other conversations is really an excellent sign. Thank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On 02/08/07 00:24,:
I think your PR bacjkround has made you used to slightly more polite
discourse :-)
Actually, my specialty in Sun PR before OpenSolaris was rapid response
and competitive attack ... not very polite at all. :)
Jim
> > The testing process is also difficult at best at
> the
> > moment since you need to test for x86 and SPARC,
> and
> > let's face it, most folks have an x86 box, not a
> > SPARC box.
>
> Used SPARC hardware is dirt cheap nowdays. I just got
> me 2 x SunFire V100 for $200 USD apiece, and they're
Thank you *so much* for putting this statement forth. Our community needed
clarity and closure.
"+1e6 at least" to echo someone else's comment.
-Shawn
Contributor # OS0004
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing li
I posted some scripts for doing the fdisk, format, etc. here:
http://blogs.sun.com/ford/entry/world_s_smallest_bootable_solaris
-=] Ford [=-
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Paul Maher wrote:
I'm a newbie. We have several sun systems we purchased our sun reseller,
MCA http://www.mcac.com. We are now migrating some of our applications
on to HP servers. Would they support solaris 10?
Good question. Care to give details on the boxes you're
migrating to and from?
I'm a newbie. We have several sun systems we purchased our sun reseller, MCA
http://www.mcac.com. We are now migrating some of our applications on to HP
servers. Would they support solaris 10?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensola
Al Hopper wrote:
Agreed. I followed that discussion, downloaded the SCMs and was a
proponent of git to begin with. But git failed miserably in testing.
Personally I had hoped for git to succeed - but it failed on its own
demerits in fair and open testing against the competition.
git certainly
John Brewer wrote:
I was able to partition a UDB SD memory card, But when I run a format I get no
disk found?
i.e:
# fdisk /dev/rdsk/c2t0d0p0
Total disk size is 59 cylinders
Cylinder size is 2048 (512 byte) blocks
Cylinde
I was able to partition a UDB SD memory card, But when I run a format I get no
disk found?
i.e:
# fdisk /dev/rdsk/c2t0d0p0
Total disk size is 59 cylinders
Cylinder size is 2048 (512 byte) blocks
Cylinders
Partition
Hi Robert,
Robert Milkowski wrote:
PB> Honeycomb is an archival storage appliance based on Solaris and Java. We
PB> essentially have a clustered environment (8/16 nodes) and a mechanism to
PB> store and retrieve data (SDK/API). The data on the system is protected
PB> through self-healing (kind o
Hello Peter,
Wednesday, February 7, 2007, 6:23:43 PM, you wrote:
PB> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Peter Buckingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> For Honeycomb we use ramdisk images that we load from disk. The images
>>> are ~700MB, but it is possible to make usable Solaris images < 400 MB.
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So yeah, this is cool to see, and quite a nice touch.
>>
>> However, it's interesting in some other ways. I note this is 'version 0.6' -
>> which suggest that you're collaborating in forums outside
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the genunix wiki, and obviously the conference
>So yeah, this is cool to see, and quite a nice touch.
>
>However, it's interesting in some other ways. I note this is 'version 0.6' -
>which suggest that you're collaborating in forums outside
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] or the genunix wiki, and obviously the conference calls.
When the CAB was establishe
Take QT technology,sum Java language and realize Jambi! :-)
This is the link:
http://www.trolltech.com/developer/downloads/qt/qtjambi-beta
Giacomo
__
OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Hi,
I have just installed Solaris 10 on my laptop, but I cannot find any utility
for configuring the intel wireless adaptor, in choosing which network to access.
Can anyone help me please?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-di
Hey,
James C. McPherson wrote:
> Al Hopper wrote:
>> CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
>>
>> Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
>>
>> Published by: OpenSolaris CAB/OGB current members:
>> Casper Dik, Al Hopper
Been meaning to do this for some time, finally broke down and started a blog.
The first entry is dedicated to creating small footprint RAM resident Solaris
configs.
Check out http://blogs.sun.com/jtc/
Regards,
-- Jim C
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Al Hopper wrote:
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
Published by: OpenSolaris CAB/OGB current members:
Casper Dik, Al Hopper, Roy Fielding, Simon Phipps, Rich Teer
...
+1e6 at least.
Thankyou.
James C. McPherson
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
Published by: OpenSolaris CAB/OGB current members:
Casper Dik, Al Hopper, Roy Fielding, Simon Phipps, Rich Teer
Background: Over the past week or so a heated and passionate debate
has
> Hello,
>
> recently I had discussion with our DBA about Oracle
> DISM in zones. I had
> remembered that it wasn't possible to use it inside
> local zone
> and started looking for docs which can be read by the
> DBA.
> While looking for it I encountered (again because I
> had read it before)
> zo
When the community controls this, it will be the
community volunteers
who will carry more of the burden; what we're doing is
quite unique:
continue to develop an OS while opening up the
development process
and the source code management system. I'm not sure
how we could
approach this much differe
> I don't mean to spoil the party, certainly
> OpenSolaris has improved immensely, but my laptop
> HP/Compaq NC6220 with Broadcom wireless, iwi, used to
> work with earlier builds B52 I think. With B54,
> B55, B56, wireless disappears. scanpci sees the
> hardware, pc8086,4220, but I can't get w
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> There are a lot of GPL bigots out there.
And you *want* to appeal to them?
Seriously - why?
Are these bigots running datacentres? Are they running startups that
have a hope in hell of actually making money - as opposed to generating
PR and then just chewing their VC f
Darren J Moffat wrote:
We don't need a project for that that can be covered by the existing
crypto project if this is just about using them as crypto framework
plugins. That is already in scope for the crypto project that
already exists on opensolaris.org.
If what you really want is a pr
Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
I would like to propose a new project for OpenSolaris.org.
The project will be called "Solaris TPM Drivers".
The goal is to create TPM (Trusted Platform Module)
kernel drivers and cryptographic framework plugins
for OpenSolaris to facilitate future secure computing
work.
I would like to propose a new project for OpenSolaris.org.
The project will be called "Solaris TPM Drivers".
The goal is to create TPM (Trusted Platform Module)
kernel drivers and cryptographic framework plugins
for OpenSolaris to facilitate future secure computing
work. Having properly plumbed
Alan Burlison wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Well, there was a statement (from I believe it was Keith) that Sun was
going to work OSSing Teamware in 2005. I was waiting for the results
on this.
So were we all...
If you read the links I posted, you'll see that this was in fact the
case, bu
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 09:04]:
> When the community controls this, it will be the community volunteers
> who will carry more of the burden; what we're doing is quite unique:
> continue to develop an OS while opening up the development process
> and the source code manag
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Stephen Lau wrote:
What I also dislike is, for lack of a better phrase, "random ass +1"
being contributed by people who clearly have a vested interest (read:
they are in, or part of the direct management chain) of the project
group.
If an engineer's manager or director
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In earnest, I think that flamefest is really overstating what is
happening here.
If this is a flamefest, I can show the people who call it that *real*
flamefests and then some :-) Seriously, this isn't bad at all for a
community of opinionated geeks.. Maybe I'm jaded
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Peter Buckingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For Honeycomb we use ramdisk images that we load from disk. The images
are ~700MB, but it is possible to make usable Solaris images < 400 MB.
I am sorry, it seems that I did miss what "Honeycomb" is, yould you
please tell agai
UNIX admin wrote:
Wasn't it possible to do it in a cleaner way, i.e. start from
SUNWCrnet and use pkgrm, so that the system integrity remains
consistent? I have to try that exercise one of these days...
Yep, I actually remove some packages too. But to get to ~64MB I think
you will need to be a
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Frank Van Der Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It was an open process.
>
> I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
> to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
> before the discussion started and this is why I did not
Darren J Moffat writes:
> I think a "+1 I wish to contribute actively to this project" (by code,
> design, documentation, discussion whatever it maybe code is certainly
> not the only way) is worth a million times more than a "me too". At
I take those "me toos" to mean "I'll use this feature
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 12:04, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> what it if it a non code project ? Not all projects should be
> required to be code based.
Granted, but i'm assuming that 6 months from inception, a project
should show some signs of activity of some sort. :-)
--Stefan
--
Stefan Te
Darren J Moffat writes:
> I would be happy with either of these cases:
>
> 1) A simple sum of the +1 and -1 replies regardless of who they came from.
>
> 2) Abandon any voting requirement at all and make the whole thing automatic.
I'm not happy with either.
(1) assumes into existence some sort
>So.. you're saying we should completely give up on the desktop and
>attracting developers? The article you reference talks about a server
>focus.
No, giving up the desktop is giving up on everything.
Sun's executives made that mistake once before.
How did Sun get to the datacenter?
>Oh boy. Now you've done it!
>
>Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
>Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
>other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
>list, you've pretty much just started another flamefest!
Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 15:58, James Carlson wrote:
At least at this point, I'd be disinclined to reject a project
unless it either looks like the output from /dev/urandom or like
this:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-quant-ternar
y-logic-of-b
Stephen Lau wrote:
What I also dislike is, for lack of a better phrase, "random ass +1"
being contributed by people who clearly have a vested interest (read:
they are in, or part of the direct management chain) of the project group.
If an engineer's manager or director is pressuring the engine
Stephen Harpster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh boy. Now you've done it!
>
> Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
> Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
> other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
> list, yo
So.. you're saying we should completely give up on the desktop and
attracting developers? The article you reference talks about a server
focus.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/06/1448200.
Stephen Lau wrote:
So here's a suggestion for a revised project proposal policy that Ben
and I hashed out over email. Ben, please correct me if I miss anything...
Projects need to be affiliated with, or get the sponsorship of an
already existing community
and what if there is not appropriat
Oh boy. Now you've done it!
Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
list, you've pretty much just started another flamefest!
Jo
Ghee Teo wrote:
It saddened me to see a dedicated honorable OpenSolaris community
member such as
yourself drew such conclusion (or having such perception) about Sun,
I feel like I
am wasting all my time reading all the discussion here :-(
If we can build up trust among us day in da
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Well, there was a statement (from I believe it was Keith) that Sun was
going to work OSSing Teamware in 2005. I was waiting for the results on this.
If you read the links I posted, you'll see that this was in fact the
case, but that it never came to fruition.
From my
This is not much work but it does not make sense to discuss _before_
SCCS is opensourced. The fact that the SCM discussion started before
OSSing SCCS makes it obvious to me that there was a Sun internal vote
against SCCS before the "discussion" went public.
It saddened me to see a dedicate
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> >I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
> >>> >it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
> >>> >has not been made available fast enough to allow peopl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The tools-discuss group discussed this issue at length, including
> the criteria for selection and how the other candidates fell by the
> way side.
>
> Was it really necessary to wait until SCCS or teamware were opensourced?
Of course it was.
> Teamware was pretty much
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >The fact is that Teamware had been EOL'd by Sun before OpenSolaris
> >started - see http://docs.sun.com/source/816-7532/relnote40.html,
> >"Removal of Features", and it was well recognised within the Sun Solaris
> >community that we needed to move to something else
>To me, this is /the/ issue in our discourse as a community. I'm happy we
>got many substantive issues out on the table that were articulated
>absolutely professionally (and those posts were obvious), but we also
>attacked far too many people -- and entire groups and communities,
>actually -- in t
>The fact is that Teamware had been EOL'd by Sun before OpenSolaris
>started - see http://docs.sun.com/source/816-7532/relnote40.html,
>"Removal of Features", and it was well recognised within the Sun Solaris
>community that we needed to move to something else, and OpenSolaris
>moved the switc
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
>>> >it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
>>> >has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
>>> >possible solutions.
>>>
>>> "Sun" did not
I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/06/1448200.shtml
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> >I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
>> >it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
>> >has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
>> >possible solutions.
>>
>> "Sun" did not decide to
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
On the basis of what evidence?
Based on my impression.
That's
>If the discussion were about discarding the current license and
>adopting a different one, that'd be different. I don't see the same
>risk of long-term community damage from that, though there are almost
>certainly other issues.
There's still a potential fork issue: the current code can continu
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
I can assure you that everyone approached it with an open mind.
Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
> > to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
> > before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this
> > discussion.
>
> On
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
On the basis of what evidence?
I can assure you it wasn't fixed
Frank Van Der Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "Sun" did not decide to move to Hg; it was pretty much an open process
> >> which led to the selection of Hg.
> >>
> >
> > I am not aware of a real discussion on that.
> >
> Read the tools-discuss archives. The whole selection process wa
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 18:17 -0800, Matty wrote:
> I haven't heard back from anyone, and was curious if the folks at Sun could
> comment (or forward the original message to someone who could) on the bugs
> listed in the original message?
>
You might find this interesting:
http://blogs.sun.com/j
>I believe that there is little, if any, benefit to dual-licensing
>OpenSolaris with CDDL and the yet to be approved/upcoming GPLv3 license -
>aside from possible good press for the project. In addition, I believe
>that there are significant downsides to dual licensing, including, but not
>limite
Stefan Teleman writes:
> Maybe we could enforce some kind of automatic self-destruct timer from
> the date of project inception. For example, if a project doesn't
> check in any code within 6 months of inception, it self-destructs.
I don't think that really addresses the problem either, as some
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
lots of wise words elided .
>
> Otherwise, stick with the CDDL. GPLv3 cannot be evaluated seriously
> until it is actually approved by the FSF and published in final form.
> Even then, dual-licensing wouldn't make any sense, but at least we'd
>
> "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Roy, I would like to meet you in Berlin at OSDEVCON
> for a more
> in depth talk on the CAB and license stuff...
>
> > The first day that the CAB met, almost two years
> ago, we talked about
> > all of the things that OpenSolaris needed to do to
Joerg Schilling wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
possible solutions.
"Sun" did not d
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>I'm more interested in paring things down to a
> minimal kernel that can
> >>be loaded from FLASH. 64-128MB would be my target.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >My minimized install miniroot is a 64MB; so it
> should be possible to make
> >that work (it's a full kernel runnin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
> >it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
> >has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
> >possible solutions.
>
> "Sun" did not decide to move to H
>I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
>it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
>has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
>possible solutions.
"Sun" did not decide to move to Hg; it was pretty much an open process
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roy, I would like to meet you in Berlin at OSDEVCON for a more
in depth talk on the CAB and license stuff...
> The first day that the CAB met, almost two years ago, we talked about
> all of the things that OpenSolaris needed to do to become successful
Peter Buckingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For Honeycomb we use ramdisk images that we load from disk. The images
> are ~700MB, but it is possible to make usable Solaris images < 400 MB.
I am sorry, it seems that I did miss what "Honeycomb" is, yould you
please tell again?
Jörg
--
EMail:[
> > That may well be possible with some more extreme
> > measures. What I started
> > with is the reduced network core install which is
> > ~200MB. This doesn't
> > include ssh, but does include a bunch of things
> that
> > may not be of interest.
> >
> > You may find you will have to use rm judic
> The testing process is also difficult at best at the
> moment since you need to test for x86 and SPARC, and
> let's face it, most folks have an x86 box, not a
> SPARC box.
Used SPARC hardware is dirt cheap nowdays. I just got me 2 x SunFire V100 for
$200 USD apiece, and they're both practically
hi
as i know before searching anything it must be indexed for indexing which
the source Directory...tell me the paths of src and index directorys
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@o
> IBM is also embracing it on their blade centers, and
> are a reseller of
> Solaris.
Maybe so -- I can't comment on that, but I can say that IBM is badmouthing
Solaris every chance they get. They even have a magazine that features IBM
solutions on Linux, and lots of articles are specifically f
>
> On 31-Jan-07, at 9:37 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>
> >
> > Some have been considering a "bug bounty" program,
> so yes, I think
> > we ought to consider specific programs to engage
> more people in
> > more ways and then call attention to their
> contributions.
>
> Fantastic!
> :) I honest
> That may well be possible with some more extreme
> measures. What I started
> with is the reduced network core install which is
> ~200MB. This doesn't
> include ssh, but does include a bunch of things that
> may not be of interest.
>
> You may find you will have to use rm judiciously.
> Also if
> For Honeycomb we use ramdisk images that we load from
> disk. The images
> are ~700MB, but it is possible to make usable Solaris
> images < 400 MB.
True. I have a 348MB (if I recall correctly) Flash(TM) image of Solaris 10 6/06
that supports IPFilter, NFS, NIS, DNS, SSH, all the drivers + vari
Glynn Foster wrote On 02/07/07 15:16,:
Hey,
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
I think the lists on opensolaris.org (177 of them currently) represent
pretty well the community in the U.S. That's where the vast majority of
traffic and posts come from and it's not even close. However, there are
many people
Hello,
recently I had discussion with our DBA about Oracle DISM in zones. I had
remembered that it wasn't possible to use it inside local zone
and started looking for docs which can be read by the DBA.
While looking for it I encountered (again because I had read it before)
zones FAQ at http://www.
85 matches
Mail list logo
