On 31-Oct-07, at 11:48 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Since Murdock and the rest of Sun's marketing department decided to
>>> stab the community in the back by defining by executive fiat what
>>> exactly "OpenSolaris" meant, perhaps it's
>P.S. - As far as the existing distros being harmed. I would judge
>whether or not they are being harmed by talking to the developers
>responsible for the various distros. We have already had the chief
>developer behind MartUX express outrage, and announce his intention to
>leave the community ov
>If the project team were content to be known as Indiana or some other
>name that does not imply the community's exclusive endorsement without
>our consent, the entire controversy would evaporate very quickly.
+1
And while rapid iteration and prototyping is fine for an "Indiana"
distribution, i
cool.
cong.
Glynn Foster wrote:
> I'm very pleased to announce that the first milestone of Project Indiana is
> now
> available - called OpenSolaris Developer Preview.
>
> It's available for download at
>
> http://dlc.sun.com/osol/indiana/downloads/current/in-preview.iso
>
> This is an x86-base
> What we (and I assume, other 'commercial' developers) care about is
> the binary compatibility, stability of the kernel API, userland
> interface - libc, basic commands (shell, cp/rm/etc), and of course
> the packaging mechanism, to name a few. Kernel/Userland
> compatibility within
>Sorry, but that would not be true. Indiana is the result of work from
>more than just Sun folks. It includes ksh93 for example, and it
>includes efforts by other non-Sun affiliated folks as well. Calling it
>Sun OpenSolaris would be inaccurate.
What bits does Indiana include which are not Sun
On 11/1/07, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well golly gee .. that was fast.
>
> I am still playing and I just wanted to get this out there so the world can
> see it. I get about 44K unique users looking at Blastwave and so I wanted to
> stick this on the homepage :
>
> http://www.
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> > distro OpenSolaris.
>
> I don't know who would have made that agreement, but like all
> software projects, nothing is ever permanently decided, and
Doug Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So far Indiana is the only (in progress) distribution which has been
> proposed as a project on opensolaris.org. To me this is the core factor.
> All the other distributions are not under the mandate of the
> opensolaris.org and their future can not be
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause
> >> harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions.
>
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exa
On Nov 1, 2007 12:13 PM, Anil Gulecha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/1/07, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well golly gee .. that was fast.
> >
> > I am still playing and I just wanted to get this out there so the world can
> > see it. I get about 44K unique users looking at Bl
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about trying to prove that there is no such harm?
>
> That's my point. If you want to be able to prove *why* we shouldn't
> have a distribution called OpenSolaris you must demonstrate the harm
> it would cause as the benefit has already been demons
Jim Grisanzio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called:
> > "Sun OpenSolaris "
>
> Why would "Sun OpenSolaris" make sense? Actually, that expression has
> been used (incorrectly) in the media, and it's only adde
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Sun OpenSolaris" and "Nexenta OpenSolaris" do make sense to me, at
> > least in that light. They're shorthand expressions for "Sun's Solaris
> > distribution based on OpenSolaris" and "the Nexenta distribution based
> > on OpenSolaris."
>
> Except Su
On Nov 1, 2007, at 02:01, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> So why not just create something that runs and call it OpenSolaris
>> and then
> we are done with the confusion. There are bigger battles to fight
> than word
> games.
I could not agree more with you there, Dennis. We are where we are.
And
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ubuntu thrived despite Debian's long years of existence.
>
> Slackware continues despite RedHat's rise.
>
> SUSE continues despite RedHat.
>
> Mandraiva continues despite ... etc.
Does Suse claim to publish "Linux"?
Does Ubuntu claim to publish "Linux"?
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro "OpenSolaris", many people
> > > > believe
> > > > that this is the one and only.
> > >
> > > I
Sara Dornsife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As other distros cannot use the brand name, it would be bad if Sun used it.
> >
>
> We have been discussing TM guidelines and usage scenarios for the past
> two weeks. We are working to create NEW guidelines. Yes, the current
> (past) guidelines ha
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As other distros cannot use the brand name, it would be bad if Sun used it.
>
> That is incorrect; the proposed guidelines would allow them to use the
> name with the single restriction that they could not call themselves
> "OpenSolaris."
As I already
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause
harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions.
>>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>> I have ye
Jon Trulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro "OpenSolaris", many people believe
> > that this is the one and only.
> >
>
>FWIW, as a third party that develops software on Solaris, I would
>welcome an 'OpenSolaris Reference' distribution.
This would c
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Anyway, it's only just a concern at this point (re: "their acid
> test"). I personally think things are still fine because, as I
> mentioned in my first post, the large majority of membership (my
> and some others' desires notwithstanding) has tacitly expressed
> a desire t
Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * The first community project with the chance to do so is producing
> an alpha-level preview.
So you like to call SchilliX OpenSolaris?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED](un
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:
[ ... ]
> Personally I don't know what the opinion of the community is on this
> issue, mainly because the vast majority of the voting members choose to
> keep quiet. All I see is a small number of voluble individuals stating
> and restating their opinions
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, but that would not be true. Indiana is the result of work from
> more than just Sun folks. It includes ksh93 for example, and it
> includes efforts by other non-Sun affiliated folks as well. Calling it
> Sun OpenSolaris would be inaccurate.
A rea
Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Jim Grisanzio writes:
> >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called:
> >>> "Sun OpenSolaris "
> >> Why would "Sun OpenSolaris" make sense? Actually, that expression has
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > James Carlson wrote:
> >> Jim Grisanzio writes:
> >>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>>
> I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called:
> "Sun OpenSolaris "
> >>> Why would "Sun OpenSolaris" make sense? Actually, that ex
On 01/11/2007, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> o ZFS as the default filesystem
Is that as in 'ZFS root'?
--
Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris
On 11/1/07, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/11/2007, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > o ZFS as the default filesystem
>
> Is that as in 'ZFS root'?
Yup.
~Anil
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensola
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Bochnig wrote:
> >>> Renaming "Indiana" to "OpenSolaris": Wouldn't that be like renaming the
> >>> brand "Crysler" to "Automibile"?
> >>> IMO a "Crysler" is not equal to "Automobile". It would be a subclass of
> >>> it (with more nested subclasses a
Alan Burlison wrote:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>> Anyway, it's only just a concern at this point (re: "their acid
>> test"). I personally think things are still fine because, as I
>> mentioned in my first post, the large majority of membership (my
>> and some others' desires notwithstanding) has t
Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the real world, we know, intuitively, that there is no such thing
> as a universal screw-driver. We know that every toolbox contains many
> screwdrivers and we give them different broad-based names to corral
> them into general categories... like "phil
Martin Bochnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sara Dornsife wrote:
> > Gotta love a good car analogy!
>
>
> :-)
Car analogies are always wrong...
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (w
>> Solaris is a UNIX(tm) system.
>>
>> Solaris is Solaris which is UNIX(tm).
>>
>> If you want UNIX then you can go looking for AIX or HPUX or SCO(?) or
>> Solaris. I was always under the impression that OpenSolaris was the
>> community project that worked with and dealt with the source code to
>>
EricB wrote:
> I should have also mentioned that the other reason I say things are
> still fine is I now believe (see earlier in this thread) that the name
> announcement is a tentative decision pending the outcome of the "Plocher
> trademark policy initiative".
'Tentative?' hardly so, as the
> o Image packaging system, with capabilities to pull packages from
> network repositories
What's the status of that system? Is it up and running?
Also, where lies the practical difference between the 660megs of this
release and the 3gig of the SXCE release? Mostly, the question's just,
can
I guess the point I was trying to make but forgot to add is that
OpenSolaris as baseline compatibility tag is now wasted, unless the
naming decision is reverted.
-mg
> One way or another, should OpenSolaris take off as Sun hopes, and have
> entities of various sizes jump on the bandwagon and crea
[Follow-up to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Nov 1, 2007, at 12:54, Alan Burlison wrote:
> If someone has something concrete, can we please have a page set up
> and
> the link widely disseminated? Ta.
http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?
title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline
S.
We rej
On 01/11/2007, Mario Goebbels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the point I was trying to make but forgot to add is that
> OpenSolaris as baseline compatibility tag is now wasted, unless the
> naming decision is reverted.
How so? A name can have multiple meanings as we have already discussed
so
On 01/11/2007, bvk chaitanya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though, i am nobody here, i agree with you Martin and Joerg. I joined
> into OpenSolaris groups with lots of enthusiasm (before Indiana of
> course.) and now i feel more like, whole OpenSolaris is a political
> play-ground for Sun and its m
On 11/1/07, EricB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should have also mentioned that the other reason I say things are
> still fine is I now believe (see earlier in this thread) that the name
> announcement is a tentative decision pending the outcome of the "Plocher
> trademark policy initiative".
Ple
>> I guess the point I was trying to make but forgot to add is that
>> OpenSolaris as baseline compatibility tag is now wasted, unless the
>> naming decision is reverted.
>
> How so? A name can have multiple meanings as we have already discussed
> so many times before these past weeks.
It's just
> [Follow-up to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Nov 1, 2007, at 12:54, Alan Burlison wrote:
>
>> If someone has something concrete, can we please have a page set up
>> and
>> the link widely disseminated? Ta.
>
> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?
> title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline
I
Simon Phipps wrote:
> We reject: kings, presidents and voting...
Re voting: I believe that we here believe in voting (community-wide)
when a widely and deeply debated issue calls for it. (Which is to say,
maybe a couple times every few years at most.)
Eric
> We believe in: rough c
Jim Grisanzio writes:
> consensus. They are simply individual voices among everyone else. This
> also seems true of the OGB. When we hear from the OGB, many times the
> comments are qualified with "speaking for myself, not the OGB" and that
> also reduces the impact of the statement. If people a
Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2007, at 02:01, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> >> So why not just create something that runs and call it OpenSolaris
> >> and then
> > we are done with the confusion. There are bigger battles to fight
> > than word
> > games.
>
> I could not agree
Simon Phipps wrote:
>> If someone has something concrete, can we please have a page set up and
>> the link widely disseminated? Ta.
>
> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline
>
That's what I suspected was being referred to, but I wasn't sure.
>
John Plocher writes:
> Martin Bochnig wrote:
> > If you want to be FullyOpen, then you may have to accept this.
>
> Being a FullyOpen community member, I accept that others in the
> FullyOpen community may do things to which I disagree. FullyOpen
> does not mean "everyone has a veto". It also doe
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:32:34PM +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
> I'm very pleased to announce that the first milestone of Project Indiana is
> now
> available - called OpenSolaris Developer Preview.
>
> It's available for download at
>
> http://dlc.sun.com/osol/indiana/downloads/current/in-pre
Mario Goebbels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I guess the point I was trying to make but forgot to add is that
> >> OpenSolaris as baseline compatibility tag is now wasted, unless the
> >> naming decision is reverted.
> >
> > How so? A name can have multiple meanings as we have already discussed
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>> I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> >>> distro OpenSolaris.
> >> I don't know who would have made that
On Nov 1, 2007, at 13:35, James Carlson wrote:
> For instance, one direct effect is that prior to Indiana, a project
> was "in OpenSolaris" if it went through the established community
> endorsement process, and no other change was needed. Now that
> "OpenSolaris" is a distribution, the Indiana
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but that would not be true. Indiana is the result of work from
>> more than just Sun folks. It includes ksh93 for example, and it
>> includes efforts by other non-Sun affiliated folks as well. Calling it
>> Sun OpenSola
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, but that would not be true. Indiana is the result of work from
> >> more than just Sun folks. It includes ksh93 for example, and it
> >> includes efforts by other non
>Could you explain this?
>
>Your claim does not look to be correct.
So: who is doing the work on star? Where is the project page?
Is there an OpenSolaris ready tarbal people can test?
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@
The good:
First, congrats on releasing another option with the solaris kernel.
I like the speed, for a live cd. Booting from CD on a 1.6GHz centrino laptop
took 2 minutes flat to get the desktop (hit enter at language selection, it
will auto login too).
IPS. Usually, the first thing I do after
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >Could you explain this?
> >
> >Your claim does not look to be correct.
>
>
> So: who is doing the work on star? Where is the project page?
> Is there an OpenSolaris ready tarbal people can test?
This seem to be strange questions!
Did you ever fetch star and compi
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
>>> distro OpenSolaris.
>> I don't know who would have made that agreement, but like all
>> software projects, nothing is e
John Sonnenschein wrote:
> Since Murdock and the rest of Sun's marketing department decided to
> stab the community in the back by defining by executive fiat what
> exactly "OpenSolaris" meant, perhaps it's time to rename what the old
> bits used to be.
>
> Anyone on OGB or other committees,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >Could you explain this?
>> >
>> >Your claim does not look to be correct.
>>
>>
>> So: who is doing the work on star? Where is the project page?
>> Is there an OpenSolaris ready tarbal people can test?
>
>This seem to be strange questions!
>
>Did you ever fetc
Simon Phipps writes:
> On Nov 1, 2007, at 13:35, James Carlson wrote:
>
> > For instance, one direct effect is that prior to Indiana, a project
> > was "in OpenSolaris" if it went through the established community
> > endorsement process, and no other change was needed. Now that
> > "OpenSolaris"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >This seem to be strange questions!
> >
> >Did you ever fetch star and compile it?
> >Did you ever test star?
>
> Where is the version of star which is:
>
> fully integrated in OpenSolaris (e.g., on the SFW or ON tree)
> fully compatible with tar?
>
> Long be
Anil,
It runs (kinda) under qemu (under Solaris SXDE3). I do have the same problem
with Belenix and Indiana though, I cant get to the graphical desktop under
qemu. I can get to a text login if I dont use kqemu, but with kqemu it'll go in
maintenance mode. I havent tried SXDE3 itself or SXCE 75
>I think you're missing the point I'm making. The Indiana project
>functions as a WOS -- as a distributor. As such, it can make
>inclusion decisions about other projects that others cannot make (or
>even challenge), and its decisions affect what is included as the
>"reference" for OpenSolaris.
On Nov 1, 2007, at 14:18, James Carlson wrote:
> That's a significant community-wide power. It's a big change, without
> regard to the trademark legal issues.
Only if we sit around and leave it as-is. You're speaking as if all
decisions are made and final. That's not so. There's a stake in th
Simon Phipps writes:
>
> On Nov 1, 2007, at 14:18, James Carlson wrote:
>
> > That's a significant community-wide power. It's a big change, without
> > regard to the trademark legal issues.
>
> Only if we sit around and leave it as-is. You're speaking as if all
> decisions are made and final.
On Nov 1, 2007, at 14:38, James Carlson wrote:
> Simon Phipps writes:
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2007, at 14:18, James Carlson wrote:
>>
>>> That's a significant community-wide power. It's a big change,
>>> without
>>> regard to the trademark legal issues.
>>
>> Only if we sit around and leave it as-is.
Simon Phipps wrote:
>> That's a significant community-wide power. It's a big change, without
>> regard to the trademark legal issues.
>
> Only if we sit around and leave it as-is. You're speaking as if all
> decisions are made and final. That's not so. There's a stake in the
> ground, for su
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> distro OpenSolaris.
I don't kn
On 11/1/07, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
> > Since Murdock and the rest of Sun's marketing department decided to
> > stab the community in the back by defining by executive fiat what
> > exactly "OpenSolaris" meant, perhaps it's time to rename what the old
[Dropping [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
[EMAIL PROTECTED] since this is getting way off topic.]
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> star is still not in simply because no one wants it badly enough to do
>> the work, while ksh93 is in because Roland wanted it enough to do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> we don't seem to be doing enough to facilitate the other distro's
> existence at opensolaris.org.
+1 !
Its not the decision that matters, it is *how* the decision was made.
-John
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing lis
On Nov 1, 2007, at 14:54, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>> That's a significant community-wide power. It's a big change,
>>> without
>>> regard to the trademark legal issues.
>>
>> Only if we sit around and leave it as-is. You're speaking as if all
>> decisions are made and fin
I have just installed build 75 on a Sager 5791 laptop with Nvidia 8700
graphics.
I am experiencing very sluggish graphics response compared to another laptop
with a 7600 in it.
Has anyone else seen performance problems with the Nvidia driver on 8700
series cards?
Thanks
mike
This message
Simon Phipps wrote:
> While developing a proposal now is a positive thing to do, I suggest
> waiting until closer to when we actually need a decision (which would
> be the middle of next year) before we try to crystalise a veto like
> that. We may find our attitudes have changed. If they have
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> You make an important mistake here: Indiana is not a community initated
> distro but a _Sun_ initiated one.
You keep asserting this, as if anything done with or by people working
for Sun has no validity.
Bullshit.
If 95% of the people working on opensolaris things are S
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> So you like to call SchilliX OpenSolaris?
Absolutely yes - one of my objectives in this branding effort is to
find a way to allow this (or something similar).
-John
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@op
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
> I can't bring myself to utter "+1" -- only beause I find it to be a lazy
> way of expression -- but I strongly agree with this proposal. The only
> thing I would add is that if the OGB decides not to put it to a formal
> community-wide vote that the proposal be ratified or
On 01/11/2007, Mike DeMarco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have just installed build 75 on a Sager 5791 laptop with Nvidia 8700
> graphics.
> I am experiencing very sluggish graphics response compared to another laptop
> with a 7600 in it.
>
> Has anyone else seen performance problems with the Nv
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 15:13 +, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > That's a clear, concrete proposal for how we can move forward.
>
> Sounds a device calculated to lead to an early "no" vote to me -
In the absence of a policy, it's premature for sun to continue
distributing something calling itself the
On 11/1/2007 9:25 AM, John Plocher wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>>So you like to call SchilliX OpenSolaris?
>
>
>
> Absolutely yes - one of my objectives in this branding effort is to
> find a way to allow this (or something similar).
>
>-John
Once (and if), of course, SchilliX is de
When the OpenSolaris project started a few years ago Sun, while the
legal owner of the OpenSolaris trademark, was trusted to be a good
steward to that intellectual property, and was trusted not to do
things with it without consultation.
Recently, as we all know, Ian Murdock et. al. betrayed that t
On Nov 1, 2007, at 15:25, John Plocher wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> So you like to call SchilliX OpenSolaris?
>
>
> Absolutely yes - one of my objectives in this branding effort is to
> find a way to allow this (or something similar).
+1. We just have to make sure our proposal is one fidu
Simon Phipps wrote:
> Sounds a device calculated to lead to an early "no" vote to me - reminds
> me of an earlier controversy.
And this sounds like exactly the same argument that you tried to use in
that case to avoid bringing the issue to some sort of resolution, and as
a result it rumbled on
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 10:21:15AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >If the project team were content to be known as Indiana or some other
> >name that does not imply the community's exclusive endorsement without
> >our consent, the entire controversy would evaporate very quickly.
>
>
> +1
>
First, congratulations to Indiana team. Thanks to Ian and Simon. You
people did a wonderful job in brining Indiana to life.
Though, i am nobody here, i agree with you Martin and Joerg. I joined
into OpenSolaris groups with lots of enthusiasm (before Indiana of
course.) and now i feel more
> >> That's a significant community-wide power. It's a big change, without
> >> regard to the trademark legal issues.
> >
> > Only if we sit around and leave it as-is. You're speaking as if all
> > decisions are made and final. That's not so. There's a stake in the
> > ground, for sure, but
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> I agree two weeks seems arbitrarily short, but given the timelines,
> think that December/January-ish is about as late as we can push it
> unless Indiana agrees to choose another name for it's March release.
My post was a proposal, a stake in the ground - no more no less
>No. We need a decision before then. 2 weeks may be too short, 6 months
>is way too long.
Since "a distro named OpenSolaris" is out now, I'd +1 sooner rather than
later.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >No. We need a decision before then. 2 weeks may be too short, 6 months
> >is way too long.
>
>
> Since "a distro named OpenSolaris" is out now, I'd +1 sooner rather than
> later.
i'd say it is already late
nacho
Alan Burlison wrote:
> I'd therefore suggest that a deadline is set of 2 weeks for preparing a
> proposal and associated plan to be put to the OpenSolaris community at
> large. The Advocacy Community and the Trademark and Branding Project
> are to be responsible for producing the proposal, and
On Nov 1, 2007, at 15:32, Marty Duey wrote:
> On 11/1/2007 9:25 AM, John Plocher wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> So you like to call SchilliX OpenSolaris?
>>
>>
>>
>> Absolutely yes - one of my objectives in this branding effort is to
>> find a way to allow this (or something similar).
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> This seem to be strange questions!
>>>
>>> Did you ever fetch star and compile it?
>>> Did you ever test star?
>> Where is the version of star which is:
>>
>> fully integrated in OpenSolaris (e.g., on the SFW or ON tree)
>> fully co
On Thu 11/01/07 at 15:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> While developing a proposal now is a positive thing to do, I suggest
> waiting until closer to when we actually need a decision (which would
> be the middle of next year) before we try to crystalise a veto like
> that. We may find our
see bottom of : http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0061/index.html
-
Dennis Clarke
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 09:37 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> > distro OpenSolaris.
>
> I don't know who would have made that agreement, but like all
> software projects, nothing is ever permanent
> On 01/11/2007, Mike DeMarco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I have just installed build 75 on a Sager 5791
> laptop with Nvidia 8700 graphics.
> > I am experiencing very sluggish graphics response
> compared to another laptop with a 7600 in it.
> >
> > Has anyone else seen performance problems w
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well I remember we had this discussion in late 2004.
>
> Good. Then you realize it's now 3 years later and many things have
> changed, as have many of the people involved, so the decisions will
> be different.
I don't see that the constraints did c
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Dropping [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] since this is getting way off topic.]
>
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> star is still not in simply because no one wants it badly enough to do
> >> the wor
> Will not complete boot in qemu with kqemu and only gets to console login
> without kqemu.
Kernel-kqemu will put SMF into a restart loop for some reason. Regular
kqemu works fine. Be sure to define -std-vga as parameter to QEMU. It
seems that Xorg doesn't work with the emulated Cirrus device.
-
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
