Ian Collins wrote:
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Here's how I interpret all of this: I think they're shifting some
percentage of developers from opensolaris to solaris. Instead of
letting
opensolaris lead the way, and "trickle down" with open source
contributions
to solaris ... Solaris will lea
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Here's how I interpret all of this: I think they're shifting some
percentage of developers from opensolaris to solaris. Instead of letting
opensolaris lead the way, and "trickle down" with open source contributions
to solaris ... Solaris will lead the way, and contribu
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-
> news/article.php/3867776/Oracle+Says+OpenSolaris+Will+Stay+Open+Source.
> htm
The above link references the "real" article, which is:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3867771/OpenSolaris-Alive-
and-Well-at-Oracle.htm
I think people are listeni
On 03/ 1/10 07:19 PM, Scott Rotondo wrote:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
[...]
Except that pkg uses elfcmp/wsdiff type mechanisms to
not rev ELF binaries
that don't differ in the important bits, but only
differ in the timestamps
or other metadata.
[...]
Are there standal
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
[...]
Except that pkg uses elfcmp/wsdiff type mechanisms to
not rev ELF binaries
that don't differ in the important bits, but only
differ in the timestamps
or other metadata.
[...]
Are there standalone tools like that, able to ignore trivial
Thanks for the quick reply. As I said, I still recommend the program---because
it works and its capabilities are otherwise unavailable. As for the install, I
did have to change tar to gtar on my standard OpenSolaris installation, for
reasons I don't know.
Also, do you have a script to do a com
This is indeed great news!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 03/ 1/10 03:20 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
...
For example, on my system, when I did an image-update from build 110 to
build 111, with all of the data to be installed downloaded already, it
only took about five minutes to upgrade 666 packages and move around 480
megabytes worth of data. T
This makes me very happy.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Roger Savard wrote:
> Voila!
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/386776/Oracle+Says+OpenSolaris+Will+Stay+Open+Source.htm
Extended version here:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3867771/OpenSolaris-Alive-and-Well-at-Oracle.htm
IRC
Plus: There will even be support, so, all those nitty-gritty pessimists: What
did I say? Wait, drink a cup of tea, and relax!
It's spring-time, things start to blossom!
:-)
Matthias
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Roger Savard
Gesendet: 1.3.'10, 20:33
Voila!
http://www.internetnews
Voila!
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3867776/Oracle+Says+OpenSolaris+Will+Stay+Open+Source.htm
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
If you ordered yesterday then you should have 2.0.2 was the file 95.9MB in
size? if not, just log into your account and go to your downloads and then
download the new 2.0.2 release.
The file name stays the same, the size changes. :)
Cheers,
Tom
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
On 03/ 1/10 03:22 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
...
It only *looks* like it downloads everything again -- this is purely a
misleading display issue that we're hoping to improve at a future point.
It did take a reasonable amount of time. Not less than downloading the
first time, but I can't be
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> I put an order in for Bordeaux yesterday.Will I receive the new update
> 2.0.2 ?
>
I've seen messages about Bordeaux on several OpenSolaris mailing lists but I
have still to understand the relevance of them and why ordering details
should be d
I put an order in for Bordeaux yesterday.Will I receive the new update 2.0.2 ?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> [...]
>> Except that pkg uses elfcmp/wsdiff type mechanisms to
>> not rev ELF binaries
>> that don't differ in the important bits, but only
>> differ in the timestamps
>> or other metadata.
> [...]
>
> Are there standalone tools like that, able to ignore trivial differ
Uros Nedic wrote:
>
> Next release of GNOME is scheduled on
>
> Mar 31 GNOME 2.30.0 newstable release
>
> I was wondering if it is possible that next
> release of OpenSolaris could be delayed for
> the beginning of April since we could enjoy in
> new GNOME release. One or two weeks of reschedul
We run a virtual Solaris 10 on Sun VirtualBox. The OS that we run Solaris 10 on
is Windows Vista. The hardware is an 64-bit AMD CPU with 4 GB RAM, a laptop.
First I want to say that I forgot to add an ethernet interface and IP to
solaris. Will try this of course, had forgot to do it.
Which exact
Greetings
Been using solaris in home and work over 10 years.
Been installing SXCE and OS to testing system ...
Now really have to say please focus realibility and stability over
functionality.
If release slips to summer with better quality , please do so.
Thanks
--
This message posted from open
Hello,
ive been unable to find any information about the compatibility with
OpenSolaris on the to chipsets:
Intel H55 express
Intel H57 express
Is it important who implements the chipset in order to be compatible ? Or can i
just rely on the fact that if the chipset is compatible, then any bra
Gregory:
How do I completely disable /usr/bin/xscreensaver,
aside from rm'ing the executable?
Information about how to configure xscreensaver is here:
http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/faq.html
Also, you can run the "xscreensaver-demo" program and you can disable
the screensaver by changing
Hi,
is there a package for a mailing list manager (majordomo, mailman) for
OpenSolaris?
Günther
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
2010/3/1 Uros Nedic mailto:ur...@live.com>>
Next release of GNOME is scheduled on
Mar 31
GNOME 2.30.0 newstable release
I was wondering if it is possible that next
release of OpenSolaris could be delayed for
the beginning of April since we could enjoy in
2010/3/1 Uros Nedic
>
> Next release of GNOME is scheduled on
>
> Mar 31
>
> GNOME 2.30.0 newstable release
> I was wondering if it is possible that next
> release of OpenSolaris could be delayed for
> the beginning of April since we could enjoy in
> new GNOME release. One or two weeks of resched
Hello Everyone,
I made another update to the unsupported apps with Bordeaux. This time I added
Windows Media Player 9, QuickTime Player 7.1.6, eMule 0.49c and FireFox 3.5.5
for Windows. B.T.W the flash 10 plugin works really good in FireFox. :) And yes
im aware if you register OS you can downlo
valrhona :
The installer works perfect here, and ive posted to the "Issue Tracker" and
answered all the "Contact Us" emails.
Sorry if your report wasn't answered. But we are trying to do better. :)
The file is updated, if you go to your downloads you will notice the download
file is now .3MB l
Hello Everyone,
I made another update to the unsupported apps with Bordeaux. This time I added
Windows Media Player 9, QuickTime Player 7.1.6, eMule 0.49c and FireFox 3.5.5
for Windows. B.T.W the flash 10 plugin works really good in FireFox. :) And yes
im aware if you register OS you can downlo
[...]
> Except that pkg uses elfcmp/wsdiff type mechanisms to
> not rev ELF binaries
> that don't differ in the important bits, but only
> differ in the timestamps
> or other metadata.
[...]
Are there standalone tools like that, able to ignore trivial differences
when comparing ELF binaries? The
Next release of GNOME is scheduled on Mar 31GNOME 2.30.0 newstable releaseI was
wondering if it is possible that nextrelease of OpenSolaris could be delayed
forthe beginning of April since we could enjoy innew GNOME release. One or two
weeks of rescheduling,I believe it is worth integration of
>It only *looks* like it downloads everything again -- this is purely a
>misleading display issue that we're hoping to improve at a future point.
It did take a reasonable amount of time. Not less than downloading the
first time, but I can't be sure. The ips server is local, though.
>What ha
>
>
>>For example, on my system, when I did an image-update from build 110 to
>>build 111, with all of the data to be installed downloaded already, it
>>only took about five minutes to upgrade 666 packages and move around 480
>>megabytes worth of data. That's not too shabby if you ask me.
>
>Co
On 03/ 1/10 01:51 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
...
I think you're confused about what I've said here. And no, the data is
intentionally stored by digest and not by its original name. It would
neither be practical, nor efficient to store the files in the repository
by their delivered name. The
33 matches
Mail list logo
