[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 6/1/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/1/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I feel that you will never ever get what Ian is > going to do from the > > > OpenSolaris community. Not from Solaris users.

[osol-discuss] Hi

Hi Everyone I am totally new to Unix. So that means I am new to Solaris. I have chosen Solaris as my unix OS and that explains why I am in this forum. I am unsure what is appropriate to post on this forum. I am using Solaris 10 from Sun instead of Open Solaris. Would it be appropriate for m

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

Brian Gupta wrote: This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which combines the current work done in Blastwav

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

Brian Gupta wrote: This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which combines the current work done in Blastwav

[osol-discuss] Re: [sfwnv-discuss] Why we should have an OpenSolaris Hosted binary set. [OSH-thread]

Brian Gupta wrote: The first reason listed is a big one. In my mind, it is 99.44% of any reason for doing this. In all honesty, it may be a big enough reason by itself. If this is reason enough, why does it need to be limited to this? It was in what you elided from the repl

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which combines the current work done in Blastwave and the build scripts/patches SFE and

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

Paul Gress wrote: It would be great to get Blastwave as an OpenSolaris Project so all the dependencies would be consolidated. This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does not have. What is ne

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

Alan Burlison wrote: Steve Lau has explained this very clearly, perhaps there should be a link to his diagram on the download page... http://whacked.net/2007/02/13/opensolarissolaris-relationships/ The way I see it, is all the distributions have their own theme. SXCE -> SXDE -> S11 is Sun

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It appears to me that item #2 can be broken down further. The idea of having a reference distribution is totally different from the requirement to be compatible. Right; AFAIK distributions like "Nexenta" would not fall under the "compatible" defin

[osol-discuss] Re: [sfwnv-discuss] Why we should have an OpenSolaris Hosted binary set. [OSH-thread]

On 6/2/07, Joseph Kowalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I cut the distribution down, but probably not enough. Others please feel free to cut even more. Perhaps the first mail should have gone to "announce" and follow-ups to "approach". I can't tell Brian's intent. Brian sent me private mail as

[osol-discuss] Re: [sfwnv-discuss] Why we should have an OpenSolaris Hosted binary set. [OSH-thread]

I cut the distribution down, but probably not enough. Others please feel free to cut even more. Perhaps the first mail should have gone to "announce" and follow-ups to "approach". I can't tell Brian's intent. Brian sent me private mail asking why I was against this. If he's unclear, I thi

Re: Credits to Joerg Schilling __/__ Re: [osol-discuss] Genunix.org download stats

> > > Want to know how popular the BeleniX 0.6 distribution is? Then take a > > > look at the download stats just published for 2007. There's a link on > > > the main page at www.genunix.org. > > > > > > Again - many congratulations to Moinak Ghosh and his team. > > > > In a similar statement

[osol-discuss] Re: Will opensolaris run on NForce 5?

One of our machines has nForce 570 (ASUS M2N SLI); we are dual-booting Solaris Express 55b and (56->62) on it. Don't remember having any problem. No sound prior to 55b. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list

[osol-discuss] New IRC from Mexico

Hi from Mexico I want to know how can register de new irc #opensolaris-mx in the opensolaris site Thanks This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Will opensolaris run on NForce 5?

search here : http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/ This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: [sfwnv-discuss] Why we should have an OpenSolaris Hosted binary set. [OSH-thread]

Brian Gupta wrote: Various drivers behind an effort to produce OSH. 1) There is a desire for a minimal/core OpenSolaris distro, that other distro packagers can leverage to create their own distros. Building a distro from this core *may*, in the future, allow other distros to also be hosted at O

[osol-discuss] Re: [approach-discuss] Re: [sfwnv-discuss] Like minded individuals let's start working on an "OpenSolaris.org" distro right now.

Joseph Kowalski wrote: However, if the purpose of this discussion is to detail the costs, while the benefits are being pursued in some other discussion, then I'm all for it. Thats why I'm here at least... -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing li

[osol-discuss] Re: [sfwnv-discuss] Like minded individuals let's start working on an "OpenSolaris.org" distro right now.

Brian Gupta wrote: I also propose referring to this project as OSH (Just so we have a non-controversial name to call it). Naming is something that should be addressed later. Please, let's not belabor this point. OSH = "Orchid Supply Hardware", a hardware chain much like ACE, but without John Mad

[osol-discuss] Will opensolaris run on NForce 5?

Howdy there. I've got an Asus M2N-E motherboard with an NForce-5 chipset. Should I even attempt to install opensolaris on this? Thanks! This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

John Mark Walker wrote: Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release is unsupported. D

Re: Credits to Joerg Schilling __/__ Re: [osol-discuss] Genunix.org download stats

> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/xwin-discuss/2007-April/001147.html > > WOW! > As many as 4 (four!) individuals have downloaded > http://www.martux.org/xorg/Xorg7.2.0_opensol_sparc_snv60_binary_pkgs.tar.gz > over the last 40 hours, > according to "grep -n binary_pkgs.tar access_log|wc -

Credits to Joerg Schilling __/__ Re: [osol-discuss] Genunix.org download stats

> > Want to know how popular the BeleniX 0.6 distribution is? Then take a > > look at the download stats just published for 2007. There's a link on > > the main page at www.genunix.org. > > > > Again - many congratulations to Moinak Ghosh and his team. > > In a similar statement of value, Blas

Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE Build 65 available

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0700, Derek Cicero wrote: > Please find the links to SXCE Build 65 at > . Is there any 'changelog'? -- Francois Saint-Jacques http://www.networkdump.com ___ opensolaris-d

Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE Build 65 available

ken mays wrote: I think it is time to celebrate! One note of warning - the nvidia drivers bundled in nv_65 are noticably slower on some systems with AGP cards - this is being fixed in build 66: 6562225 NVIDIA performance on AGP systems can be terrible on b65 (Since the nvidia drivers are clos

Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE Build 65 available

I think it is time to celebrate! -Ken Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

[osol-discuss] SXCE Build 65 available

Please find the links to SXCE Build 65 at . - Derek -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Like minded individuals let's start working on an "OpenSolaris.org" distro right now.

2007/6/1, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: This thread is for those that *ARE* interested in seeing an OpenSolaris hosted distribution come to fruition. I'm interested, and I'm willing to help, however, for me it's really hard to get a picture of what's needed and what tasks should be done i

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Eric Boutilier wrote: Me too. In fact for me it's the CRUX of the whole problem. (Assuming this project still wants to be Sun-derived.) It's THE single show-stopper. In other words, without it, then I'd be happy to see the project go forward as-is. Clarification: I was ref

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote: Glynn Foster writes: ... The only other sticking point is the name, and I agree with your concerns - though arguably that's the most exciting part of the project proposal. I'm not trying alienate all the other current or future distributions in any of th

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

2007/6/1, John Mark Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Alan Burlison wrote: > > -- > Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for > OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the > latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been > publ

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

Alan Burlison wrote: > > -- > Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for > OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the > latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been > published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Just incase people aren't paying attention.. Please read follow these threads. Like minded individuals let's start working on an "OpenSolaris.org" distro right now: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=31958&tstart=0 Thread to discuss goals for OpenSolaris reference build. (India

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/31/sun_project_indiana/comments/#c_17095 > > -ian +1, exactly why OpenSolaris is not running on any of my machine. -- Francois Saint-Jacques http://www.networkdump.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensol

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Ian Murdock wrote: On 5/31/07, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote: > Roy T. Fielding writes: >> As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun >> marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut gallery, >> but that

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

John Sonnenschein wrote: Okay, after thinking a bit harder about it, I withdraw my -1. This isn't to say I support the project, I still fail to see a purpose beyond what we already have and I think indiana's a waste of time, but I'm not actively hostile towards it. I do think that if it goes

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 6/1/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I feel that you will never ever get what Ian is going to do from the OpenSolaris community. Not from Solaris users. Period. This doesn't strike you as a bad thing? That's a sign of a lack of transparency, and without transparency what you're

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 6/1/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do think that if it goes ahead, calling the reference distribution by the name OpenSolaris is dangerous ( does that mean that Belenix /isn't/ opensolaris? ). Even if it is called by another name, if it is prominently featured on opensolaris

[osol-discuss] Why we should have an OpenSolaris Hosted binary set. [OSH-thread]

The purpose of this thread is threefold. First, I would like to start a focused discussion, as to why people would want an OSH (OpenSolaris Hosted) binary set, so that we can accommodate the widest set of needs with our efforts. (OSH as a hopefully non controversial working name). Second, this t

[osol-discuss] Re: [csw-users] Like minded individuals let's start working on an "OpenSolaris.org" distro right now.

Hello Brian, Am 1.6.2007 7:31 Uhr, Brian Gupta schrieb: > This thread is for those that *ARE* interested in seeing an > OpenSolaris hosted distribution come to fruition. > > I am starting this in the approach-discuss community, because it is as > good a CG (Community Group) as any. I have cross

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

On 5/31/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the > > Blastwave software > > bolted in because ALL of that happened with community > > people. Just my > > thoughts. > > I concur. N

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 5/31/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I threw in my -1 for a very specific reason, and that's that I don't > think that this project benefits us ( where "us" is the opensolaris > community ), and is at best a distraction & a

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

I threw in my -1 for a very specific reason, and that's that I don't think that this project benefits us ( where "us" is the opensolaris community ), and is at best a distraction & a sink for developer talent that could be better used towards creating an open process. On 5/31/07, Giles Turner <[E

[osol-discuss] Re: [approach-discuss] Like minded individuals let's start working on an "OpenSolaris.org" distro right now.

I also propose that if you are in favor of this distro coming to be, that you respond to this thread. Please do this even if you can not contribute. It will give other like minded individuals moral support. ;) aye. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list

Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Artem Kachitchkine wrote: I am royally confused and not sure if seconds matter anymore, but here's one just in case: +1 There are people willing to invest their time/resources on an OpenSolaris project. Please do and thank you. We desperately need to improve on the walker-to-talkers ratio.

[osol-discuss] Like minded individuals let's start working on an "OpenSolaris.org" distro right now.

This thread is for those that *ARE* interested in seeing an OpenSolaris hosted distribution come to fruition. I am starting this in the approach-discuss community, because it is as good a CG (Community Group) as any. I have cross posted to many other communities that *I* felt might want to be a p

[osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:22:20PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote: So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision: 1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun and others use that source base to build (potentially incompatible) operating systems based on the OpenSolaris co

Re: [osol-discuss] Genunix.org download stats

> > Want to know how popular the BeleniX 0.6 distribution is? Then take a > look at the download stats just published for 2007. There's a link on > the main page at www.genunix.org. > > Again - many congratulations to Moinak Ghosh and his team. In a similar statement of value, Blastwave.org d

[osol-discuss] Genunix.org download stats

Want to know how popular the BeleniX 0.6 distribution is? Then take a look at the download stats just published for 2007. There's a link on the main page at www.genunix.org. Again - many congratulations to Moinak Ghosh and his team. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [E

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Stephen Lau wrote: Dave Miner wrote: 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

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Paul Jakma wrote: FWIW, I don't think we can stop incompatibility. Indeed, it's not desirable - it would might things like an OpenSolaris Gack: s/might/preclude/ distro targetted at small-footprint devices, or Nexenta. regards, -- Paul Jakma, Solaris Networking

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Dave Miner wrote: 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 mo

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:34:07PM -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote: > That means that it was voted on at a meeting but must be off in a faq or > minutes somewhere that each community member needs to track down. A draft of the policy plus a few changes was approved at the 25 April meeting, and the minut

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Foolishly I started reading this thread just before going to bed. Subsequently my wife has (at 2am) kicked me from the bedroom as I keep tossing and turning going over the various issues at play here. Please put up with my additions to the discussion so I can unload and go and get some sleep!/

Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 08:28:19AM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote: > How does this distribution relate to the other distributions that exist? > > How does it differ from the Solaris Express releases? In time, how will > it differ from upcoming Solaris releases? > > What characteristics differentiate

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris

On 01/06/07, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm interested in doing what needs to be done to move > forwards and without > losing those users that run Solaris 8 and 9 and 10. > That is a bit of a > challenge to say the least. If Project Indiana had no Solaris 8-10 users and 5% of Linux users,

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 01/06/07, De Togni Giacomo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2) This choice requires to add GPL(v3?) license to opensolaris system and offer it as (better) alternative than linux kernel. I fail to see how #2 would require a license change; such a suggestion seems dishonest at best. -- "Less is o

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Hi Darren,hi community IMHO the role of Opensolaris in opensource communities is not clear.It seems to be something like a different mode for Sun to promote Solaris and not an independent community. Which is exactly the goal of this Commuity? An entire CDDL opensource system like freebsd (1) or

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

Alberto Ruiz wrote: I think that the idea is clear, fixing the usability problems of OpenSolaris by creating a new binary distro within the opensolaris.org community, as a community effort. No it *isn't* clear - what do you mean by "usability problems"? That's a phrase which is so general a

[osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary

Even though the scope of Project Indiana is somehow clearer than it was a few weeks ago, could somebody (preferrable Ian) explain and give a big picture about how the Indiana distro differentiates from current Sun owned distros like Solaris Express? other than ownership of course. And other tha

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: BASH as root shell

> Aargh. Just what's so hard about typing `exec tcsh', > or even just > tcsh' if you can't be arsed with all that extra > typing, at the # prompt > if you need it ? Oh look: There's nothing "hard" in it, but if I have a computer, then I want that computer to do as much work as possible, whil

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote: Given how negative this community is on Linux and how positive it is on compatibility, I'm floored this is even an issue. This is not the feature of Linux you want to be emulating! FWIW, I don't think we can stop incompatibility. Indeed, it's not desira

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/1/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel that you will never ever get what Ian is going to do from the > OpenSolaris community. Not from Solaris users. Period. > This doesn't strike you as a bad thing? That's a sign of a

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

2007/6/1, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Ian Murdock wrote: > People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note that > that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything, it > has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros *can* > c

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

Ian Murdock wrote: People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note that that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything, it has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros *can* continue to exist even with OpenSolaris expanding to in

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On Thu, 31 May 2007, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2007, Eric Boutilier wrote: As far as I'm concerned, the OGB _has_ put the new process in force. Correction Alan. That was not me, it was Keith saying that. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailin

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

On 5/31/07, John Mark Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The other OpenSolaris-based distros are already using different toolkits from SE. Can you say "incompatibility"? If not now, then certainly in the future. This is not a path you want to go down. *Amen*. Given how negative this community is

[osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

>It appears to me that item #2 can be broken down further. The idea of >having a reference distribution is totally different from the >requirement to be compatible. Right; AFAIK distributions like "Nexenta" would not fall under the "compatible" definition and that would be a shame. What I w

Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note that that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything, it has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros *can* continue to exist even with OpenSolaris expanding to incorporate a distro, a

[osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 5/31/07, Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:22:20PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote: > So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision: > > 1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun > and others use that source base to build (potentially

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

My initial hostility towards ian's distro is that it reeks of something just given to us by on high by "The Great Managers at SUNW" (cathedral model) rather than any sort of community effort (bazaar model) and I fear that'll translate in to the product being just some advertising campaign for Sun,

[osol-discuss] Re: [approach-discuss] Like minded individuals let's

Aside from being a touchy-feely community easy-name-recognition sort of thing, what problems exactly will one more distro solve that aren't already solved by one or more of {SXCE, SXDE, SchilliX, Belenix, Nexenta, marTux, eventually Polaris, ...} ? I'm against anything that doesn't have very clea

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris

> > I'm interested in doing what needs to be done to > move > > forwards and without > > losing those users that run Solaris 8 and 9 and > 10. > > That is a bit of a > > challenge to say the least. > > If Project Indiana had no Solaris 8-10 users and 5% > of Linux users, it would still be a succe

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

I do think that if it goes ahead, calling the reference distribution by the name OpenSolaris is dangerous ( does that mean that Belenix /isn't/ opensolaris? ). Even if it is called by another name, if it is prominently featured on opensolaris.org without others being represented... I also h

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Okay, after thinking a bit harder about it, I withdraw my -1. This isn't to say I support the project, I still fail to see a purpose beyond what we already have and I think indiana's a waste of time, but I'm not actively hostile towards it. I do think that if it goes ahead, calling the refere

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 5/30/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1.2 Description This project proposes to create an OpenSolaris binary distribution with a long term goal of increasing the userbase and growing mindshare in the volume market by providing easy access to the technology created wi

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris

> I'm interested in doing what needs to be done to move > forwards and without > losing those users that run Solaris 8 and 9 and 10. > That is a bit of a > challenge to say the least. If Project Indiana had no Solaris 8-10 users and 5% of Linux users, it would still be a success. Meanwhile Sola

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary

On 6/1/07, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the > Blastwave software > bolted in because ALL of that happened with community > people. That would be great. And if that isn't what Ian's crew is looking for, both could happen. Nothing stopping gro

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/31/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the > > > Blastwave software > > > bolted in because ALL of that happened wi

[osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary

> Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the > Blastwave software > bolted in because ALL of that happened with community > people. That would be great. And if that isn't what Ian's crew is looking for, both could happen. Nothing stopping group x from doing that and group y from doi

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

I'm interested in doing what needs to be done to move forwards and without losing those users that run Solaris 8 and 9 and 10. That is a bit of a challenge to say the least. Which may or may not be possible since Solaris 8/9/10 are under a different mandate than OpenSolaris. ___