Hello all,
I want to start discussion about one important thing. I want to say that
Solaris must be as NetBSD and must be available for all platforms. This is idea
which come to my mind some time ago and now I want to ask all Solaris funs to
start discuss about this.
If Sun Microsystems will
Glynn Foster wrote:
Hey,
Here's the project proposal that should have been
out a long while
back (apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on
this one). Before
anyone gets too caught up in how little the
proposal actually
covers, I intend to follow up with my thoughts if
I think, this is _not_ good idea. Solaris = Sparc = Best power,
nothing else. AMD and Intel are exceptions. :))
For me is _now_ Solaris the best operating system.
best regards
On 5/31/07, Girts Zeltins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
I want to start discussion about one important thing.
Girts Zeltins wrote:
I want to say that Solaris must be as NetBSD and must be available for all
platforms.
I don't think you will find too many who would disagree with you.
I would note, however, that it took several painful years to evolve
a multi-platform NetBSD from BSD's initial Net/2
On 31/05/07, Girts Zeltins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Sun Microsystems will go this road then Solaris can become leader operating
systems.
Windows does ok. How many does it run on?
PPC would be good, but a lot of NetBSDs platforms are relatively
unused. I don't see the
benefit of porting
Hi,
On 5/31/07, Girts Zeltins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Yes, this is bad thing and one of biggest Sun Microsystems mistakes. I already
talk about lot of mistakes in Solaris recently and I want to say:
Sun Microsystems will lose lots of Solaris users if they will use Java in
Girts Zeltins wrote:
Hello,
Yes, this is bad thing and one of biggest Sun Microsystems mistakes. I
already talk about lot of mistakes in Solaris recently and I want to say:
Sun Microsystems will lose lots of Solaris users if they will use Java in
installation system and in graphical
Here are links to the batch of overview reports that were
just posted.
You can also receive them by subscribing to the RSS feed:
http://del.icio.us/rss/bootblog/oss:rollups
Or bookmarking the URL:
http://del.icio.us/bootblog/oss:rollups
clearview-discuss 04/16 - 04/30
On 31/05/07, Girts Zeltins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If Sun Microsystems will go this road then Solaris
can become leader operating systems.
Windows does ok. How many does it run on?
Didn't it used to run on the Alpha for awhile?
Maybe even the egos at MS at least once understood that
a
UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then try to use rxvt.
What is(are) the advantage(s) of rxvt over xterm?
It maps the backspace key to delte at X level for the
application rxvt only. Other programs are not affected.
The same applied to the GNOME Terminal but this is slow and big.
Jörg
Didn't it used to run on the Alpha for awhile?
MIPS also (never commercial?) and SPARC (32 bit SuperSPARC port with
a special little endian mode; Intergraph did that work but also never
became a product.
Back around early Solaris 9 when Sun was talking about dropping
support for x86, I know I
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
Speaking as a longtime NetBSD developer..
Targeting a large number of platforms certainly has its good side. It
forces (kernel) code to become more portable and clean. It took me some
6 weeks to port NetBSD to amd64, because the portion of
machine-dependent code was small, and the rest just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From a cynical point of view, it gives people who don't contribute
technically (but want to be involved) something to do. Kind of like
how Government beaurocracy keeps people employed.
;-)
The level of beaurocracy in OpenSolaris exceeds what I've seen
in any other
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 01:12 -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Back around early Solaris 9 when Sun was talking about dropping
support for x86, I know I said more than once (and can't have been
the only one!) that a port is an insurance policy, particularly when
running on a minority CPU
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 12:33 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
I sure hope Caiman won't use Java.
It won't, but AIUI it was a perfectly feasible option and the choice was
fairly arbitrary in the end (the engineers assigned to it being
primarily C/GNOME rather than Java/Swing programmers, amongst other
On 5/30/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francois Saint-Jacques wrote:
1. 6 month is WAY too short in my opinion. There is nothing more painfull
than upgrading Fedora core 1 to 6 or Ubuntu abc to xyz while dist-upgrading
3-4
releases. Update process *should not* take more than 3
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
Or they could just ignore it entirely and put their projects on
SourceForge...
They could do that with endorsed projects, too. Hosting services are
artifacts, not the main reason to seek endorsement. In fact, although
7.10 requires that certain archived mailing
Didn't it used to run on the Alpha for awhile?
MIPS also (never commercial?)
It definitely was a commercial product.
From WinNT 3.1 till 4.0 .
I have the original WinNT 4.0 and 3.50 (as well as the 3.51 DDK) cd's with
support for the following ISA's on it:
Mips, PPC, Alpha, i386.
Either
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
distribution that advertises itself as having that status, some type
of community-wide approval will be required. It seems likely that the
OGB is the appropriate body to consider such a proposal.
On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The level of beaurocracy in OpenSolaris exceeds what I've seen
in any other open source group by an order of magnitude and
is a facet of life at Sun that we seem to have carried over from
Solaris to OpenSolaris, for better or worse.
I agree
On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The level of beaurocracy in OpenSolaris exceeds what I've seen
in any other open source group by an order of magnitude and
is a facet of life at Sun that we seem to have carried over from
Solaris to OpenSolaris, for better or worse.
I
On 5/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At some point in time, it would be good if people inside Sun
would come to the opensolaris community with half baked
ideas for projects, rather than fully fledged ideas, so that
the community could participate in the discussion about
what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that seems to be to cumbersome; I would prefer OGB not to be
involved in project creations as long as projects are started under
the wings of a community and the community is not disfunctional
In that case (if my reading of the OGB minutes is correct) Roland's
Same picture as for SXCE 62 (64 bit)
Could you please let me know what binary I have to run instead of clicking the
icon ?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that seems to be to cumbersome; I would prefer OGB not to be
involved in project creations as long as projects are started under
the wings of a community and the community is not disfunctional
In that case (if my reading of the OGB minutes is correct) Roland's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The level of beaurocracy in OpenSolaris exceeds what I've seen
in any other open source group by an order of magnitude and
is a facet of life at Sun that we seem to have carried over from
Solaris to OpenSolaris,
How exactly is that any better? Just because the executable bit is set on
a file, it doesn't mean that executing it is actually going to work, and now
the fallback to /sbin/sh is broken too.
First, whoever implements the [ -x /bin/tcsh ] *knows*, in advance, that that
is where the shell
First, whoever implements the [ -x /bin/tcsh ] *knows*, in advance,
that that is where the shell is, and that it is executable. -x is just
a sanity test, in order to be able to adapt to circumstances as much
as possible.
In those cases that the dynamic linker failed (corrupted or no libraries)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that seems to be to cumbersome; I would prefer OGB not to be
involved in project creations as long as projects are started under
the wings of a community and the community is not disfunctional
In that case (if my reading of the OGB minutes is correct) Roland's ksh
Agreed, but OGB/2007/001 quite clearly states that a project can only
exist if it is sponsored by a Community, and that any projects which
lose the sponsorship of a Community must cease to exist.
Right; I think the implications there are for currently sponsored projects
which lose sponsorship
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ghee Teo wrote:
[ ... ]
Processes can be defined for a good intent, but it should be refined as
things developes, otherwise, we ends up putting unnecessary blocks along
the way, ...
Given the benefit of doubt (and not attributing things to malice which can
be explained
First, whoever implements the [ -x /bin/tcsh ] *knows*, in advance, that
that is where the shell is, and that it is executable. -x is just a
sanity test, in order to be able to adapt to circumstances as much as
possible. In those cases that the dynamic linker failed (corrupted or no
OGB/2007/001
(http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-May/000437.html)
seeks to control the manner in which OpenSolaris-sponsored projects are
created and terminated. As such, it clearly has community-wide scope.
The OpenSolaris constitution
Windows does ok. How many does it run on?
Didn't it used to run on the Alpha for awhile?
It ran on the Alpha hardware because the Windows NT kernel engineers came over
directly from DEC corporation.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed, but OGB/2007/001 quite clearly states that a project can only
exist if it is sponsored by a Community, and that any projects which
lose the sponsorship of a Community must cease to exist.
Right; I think the implications there are for currently sponsored
So badly written Java apps are obviously the fault of
Java, just like
drink-drivers are obviously all Ford's fault. How
stupid of me.
Sorry, but isn't the whole idea of Java to provide a language implementation
that CAN NOT be made hardware specific, by means of the inherent language
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 12:33 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
I sure hope Caiman won't use Java.
It won't, but AIUI it was a perfectly feasible option
and the choice was
fairly arbitrary in the end (the engineers assigned
to it being
primarily C/GNOME rather than Java/Swing programmers,
Keith M Wesolowski writes:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:30:08PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
Looks like I've missed a set of meeting minutes - I'll try and write up
based on
the recording as soon as possible.
No. You published a fine set of minutes for this meeting. They're at
UNIX admin wrote:
So badly written Java apps are obviously the fault of
Java, just like
drink-drivers are obviously all Ford's fault. How
stupid of me.
Sorry, but isn't the whole idea of Java to provide a language implementation
that CAN NOT be made hardware specific, by means of the
I've got it. Everything already works fine.
View:-
http://blogs.sun.com/moinakg/entry/compiz_3d_desktop_package_for
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Windows does ok. How many does it run on?
Didn't it used to run on the Alpha for awhile?
It ran on the Alpha hardware because the Windows NT
kernel engineers
came over directly from DEC corporation.
Yes, MS Windows was targeted to other platfoms as well
since it was seen as a
John Plocher writes:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
distribution that advertises itself as having that status,
Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other
James Carlson wrote:
Alan Burlison writes:
OGB/2007/001 requires that you get the approval of both a community
group (2.7) *and* the OGB (2.2) which seems like overkill.
That would be overkill, if that's what it said.
Instead, it says that the community groups provide the OGB with the
Alan Burlison writes:
Read more like a credit agreement than a community-friendly document.
Agreed. Perhaps we also need an unofficial how this works document.
I do see a need for unambiguous language that sets out exactly how
these things are supposed to work. Otherwise, if we used only
Glynn Foster writes:
Including a list of leaders is easily doable, though I was worried that it
might
alienate the people who are keen to be involved - or those within other
projects
that are doing a lot of the work building the technology. If it's a necessity
for an approval add Ian
On May 31, 2007, at 13:47, James Carlson wrote:
I do see a need for unambiguous language that sets out exactly how
these things are supposed to work. Otherwise, if we used only
community-friendly text, we'd forever get involved in pointless
squabbles about who has the authority to do what, or
This is a case (as I believe many real world cases will be) where it
isn't clear that the proposed project fits entirely within an existing
community. How do we prevent bugs in governance, bugs in the community
organization, and misunderstanding by outsiders (and insiders) from
preventing
Simon Phipps wrote:
I do see a need for unambiguous language that sets out exactly how
these things are supposed to work. Otherwise, if we used only
community-friendly text, we'd forever get involved in pointless
squabbles about who has the authority to do what, or what things are
required.
Brian Nitz wrote:
For example, think of an outsider trying to create and integrate a set
of educational software into an educational OpenSource distribution.
Is there an educational opensource community? No.
How do I create an educational opensource community? (I'd guess you
have to be a
On May 31, 2007, at 13:36, James Carlson wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying that you can't create a distribution
yourself without bothering with any project, community, or governing
board. You can. Knock yourself out.
But that's not what's happening. If a Sun-sponsored team went off
Before we go too far down the track of creating a so called reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is
quite a
Simon Phipps writes:
On May 31, 2007, at 13:36, James Carlson wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying that you can't create a distribution
yourself without bothering with any project, community, or governing
board. You can. Knock yourself out.
But that's not what's happening. If a
Hello,
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:38:03PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
I somewhat disagree, and I think the frustration you have is partly due to the
technical limitations of the upgrade process that you've experienced. While I
respect your opinion for wanting a slower moving release, others
a b wrote:
In those cases that the dynamic linker failed (corrupted or no
libraries)
on Solaris 9, the profile entry would possibly cause a successful exec
but tcsh would then immediately die. Root would then be kicked out
again.
You can use something like:
if [ -x /bin/tcsh ]
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
for sponsorship
I was in the process of writing my own proposal for a reference build
(I got sidetracked because of all the distracting Indiana discussion),
I am including my incomplete draft proposal for consideration and
comment:
Proposal OpenSolaris Reference Distribution v0.1
1. Introduction and
+1. I'm 100% in the camp with those who hold the views
expressed in this message (and, of course, those expressed in
James' message subsequent to this one).
Eric
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
John Plocher writes:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
If you want to create an OpenSolaris
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Bonnie Corwin wrote:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:28:53PM +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:
Well, I didn't write it, but I do disagree with it ;-)
Since there was a period of several weeks during which public comment
was accepted (and incorporated!), I'm curious why you did not raise
your concerns then. There were also
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:17:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't agree with the requirement of a Sun Employee to have
final sayso on decisions, I would like to voice my support for this
project.
No such requirement imposed by the Constitution or OGB/2007/001. Are
you
Girts Zeltins wrote:
Hello,
Yes, this is bad thing and one of biggest Sun Microsystems mistakes. I already
talk about lot of mistakes in Solaris recently and I want to say:
Sun Microsystems will lose lots of Solaris users if they will use Java in
installation system and in graphical desktop.
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Simon Phipps wrote:
On May 31, 2007, at 15:24, Brian Gupta wrote:
One other comment. Generally, a project proposal, would be posted to
the interested communities for comment, before being submitted fait
acompli to the OGB. (I have cc'ed in those communities that I think,
Alan Burlison wrote:
And I also dispute that the OGB actually has a mandate to impose such a
community-wide processes without the approval of entire community, i.e.
without a community-wide vote.
I would think that's the entire point of an OGB. There's no way to
cripple OpenSolaris as fast
Keith M Wesolowski writes:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:17:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't agree with the requirement of a Sun Employee to have
final sayso on decisions, I would like to voice my support for this
project.
No such requirement imposed by the
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
Well, I didn't write it, but I do disagree with it ;-)
Since there was a period of several weeks during which public comment
was accepted (and incorporated!), I'm curious why you did not raise
your concerns then. There were also two public, open meetings at
which
Bonnie Corwin wrote:
I'm sorry, but this doesn't work.
You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB
meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made
that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris.
We have an -announce alias. We have process
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:50:07AM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
Twice this month, for the creation of new projects, I posted
the following:
Also copying OGB... FYI, we're moving ahead with with the setup of this
project under the old
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Alan Burlison wrote:
And I also dispute that the OGB actually has a mandate to impose such
a community-wide processes without the approval of entire community,
i.e. without a community-wide vote.
I would think that's the entire point of an OGB. There's no way to
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Girts Zeltins wrote:
I want to start discussion about one important thing. I want to say
that Solaris must be as NetBSD and must be available for all platforms.
This is idea which come to my mind some time ago and now I want to ask
all Solaris funs to start discuss about
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a so called reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
For something to be *the*
Hi Guys,
I have installed solaris express build 59 on my dell d820 and everything is
working sweet. I connect to the compay wifi and get an address, subnetmask,
default gateway, dns, evething is working. I can ping and connect to everbody
on the network. My problem is internet browsing. As
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a so called reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
snip
Two reasons in my
For background on what this is, see:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=24416#24416
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=25200#25200
=
opensolaris-discuss 05/01 - 05/15
=
Size of all threads
Alan Burlison wrote:
OGB/2007/001
(http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-May/000437.html)
seeks to control the manner in which OpenSolaris-sponsored projects are
created and terminated. As such, it clearly has community-wide scope.
The OpenSolaris constitution
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a so called reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to
solve.
For
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
The slower moving release will be called Solaris. :-)
As long as it isn't called Slowaris! :-)
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
On Thu, 31 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that seems to be to cumbersome; I would prefer OGB not to be
involved in project creations as long as projects are started under
the wings of a community and the community is not disfunctional
+1
I think we (the OGB) should bemore concerned
James Carlson wrote:
There's certainly a lack of clarity for outsiders here. At a minimum,
this page:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/
should have some link somewhere to our documents (just what is
OGB/2007/001 and who or what is actually managing this number
space?) and
From: Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've
spent the better part of the last 5
I have started compiling a list of goals as a starting point for
discussion. I am mainting this list on the following wiki page, but
have included the current list to kickstart the conversation:
http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Reference_Build#Goals
Goals
* Support
There's not much I can add here, except to say that repeating the
mistakes of your competitor is most likely a Bad Idea. You have an
opportunity here to provide another compelling reason for all Linux
users to switch - don't blow it!
-John Mark
http://www.hyperic.com/
Rich Friedeman wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
not just PlocherX but OpenSolaris Reference Release -- then that's
logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the
John Plocher wrote:
Within Sun, for the last 17+ years, anyone could initiate a project
at any time by simply sending a proposal email to a single internal
alias. It required absolutely no prior approvals, no sponsorship,
and no endorsement. (Though, while it is /always/ a good idea to
have
Darren J Moffat wrote:
For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is
quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ?
Because many people have asked for something like it and some other
group has decided to go scratch that itch. Do you really need
James Carlson wrote:
The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
case.
I don't think I was asserting anything like that. It was 3am,
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:58:21PM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't have to meet any requirements at all
to be a project except those
John Plocher writes:
James Carlson wrote:
What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
not just PlocherX but OpenSolaris Reference Release -- then that's
logically something that ought to be a
What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one
of the existing distros ?
1) The existing distros are pretty much Solaris 11 prototypes, and Solaris 11
is wholly a Sun product. Even though the first captain of the ship Project
Indiana will be a Sun employee, the
John Plocher writes:
James Carlson wrote:
The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
case.
I don't think I was asserting
Within Sun, for the last 17+ years, anyone could initiate a project
at any time by simply sending a proposal email to a single internal
alias. It required absolutely no prior approvals, no sponsorship,
and no endorsement. (Though, while it is /always/ a good idea to
have your manager be aware
Ian Murdock wrote:
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've
spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to
I know that Ian, in his capacity as LSB leader, has many opinions here,
but I'd like to chime in with my own.
Darren J Moffat wrote:
But what is the purpose of such a reference ? To tell other people
they are doing it wrong ? To be the supported platform people point
to when an ISV starts
John Plocher wrote:
What special status should a reference distribution actually have ?
What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently
to other distros ?
None and None.
The it isn't a reference distribution but just another distro.
The word I have issue with is
So what problem are you trying to solve here ? I just don't get it.
Try it this way: There is no community OpenSolaris distro that does what Sun
management wants. Sun wants many more kids and university students using some
form of Solaris. That is the problem Ian was hired to solve.
It is
John Mark Walker writes:
I'm not trying to be flip here, but the problem and solution seems
rather simple to me. I see a lot of good that can come from having a
reference distro, and a lot of bad that can come from not having one.
I'm curious - what about a reference distribution do you not
MC writes:
So what problem are you trying to solve here ? I just don't get it.
Try it this way: There is no community OpenSolaris distro that does what Sun
management wants. Sun wants many more kids and university students using
some form of Solaris. That is the problem Ian was hired
Hi,
James Carlson wrote:
This discussion is obviously not getting anywhere, so if project leads
aren't available and the project somehow still wants to go forward,
then let's open the whole topic of the project creation process back
up again at the next OGB meeting. Please do try to
Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following
is my best attempt at an answer:
James Carlson wrote:
It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions
that focus on different needs and different areas.
This is where we fundamentally disagree.
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
