Edward Ned Harvey said:
I don't think most people (oracle especially) are interested in
solaris/opensolaris replacing the home user/end user operating system.
Corporate user says/thinks But if this one doesn't run on my laptop, why
should I expect it to run on my servers?? This other one I know
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Windows as an apache server
You may have been using that as a quasi-made-up example, but the truth is I've
make a lot of nickels doing exactly that. I don't care what people want to run
anymore. If it's the most awful choice on the earth, I'll take it as a fun
Choochoo does have a point about usability and the home user. I started working
with Sun equipment in 1986, when Microsoft was just MSDOS and the early release
of Windows used to compete with GEM desktop. No in the PC reseller at the time
thought Windows would replace MSDOS it was too unstable.
The relative strengths/weaknesses of the operating
systems design make
windows/ubuntu/osx generally better suited for
primary end-user desktop
interaction, while
solaris/opensolaris/RHEL/debian/freebsd are generally
better suited to power your servers behind the
scenes.
Yes, indeed, for
On 6/13/2010 12:41 AM, russell wrote:
Choochoo does have a point about usability and the home user. I started working
with Sun equipment in 1986, when Microsoft was just MSDOS and the early release
of Windows used to compete with GEM desktop. No in the PC reseller at the time
thought Windows
Having spent many years in a variety of companies small, medium and a
multinational. Having worked for a software developer company for over ten
years, the platforms supported when I joined was DEC OSF/1, IRIX, Linux, AIX,
HP-UX, Solaris and Windows workstations. As time passed DEC OSF/1, IRIX,
From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Martinez
Solaris Near Term Roadmap
• Solaris 10
– Next update CY2010 (“Update 9”)
– Update focus:
• New platform support
• Oracle
On Jun 13, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
For Enterprise mindshare and training, the critical point is Universities.
Not Home Users.
Take a look at the *BSDs - University is where they get the vast majority of
their mindshare from, and newbie's cut their teeth under the tutelage
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
I just found out today by accident after copying a large backup file. I was
able to reproduce the bug on Solaris 10 and snv133, on UFS and ZFS.
Is pax in the
For companies selling software on a variety of platforms volume reduces
development costs, a limited number of high value sales is not
sufficient. The eco system needs to be of a size, where sales exceed
costs. Some institutions have found to their cost that Windows is not
reliable enough for
Daniel Rock writes:
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
shelob:/tmp/test,8483 uname -a
SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000
shelob:/tmp/test,8484 ./paxtest.pl
Am 13.06.10 15:08, schrieb Volker A. Brandt:
Daniel Rock writes:
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
shelob:/tmp/test,8483 uname -a
SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
shelob:/tmp/test,8483 uname -a
SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000
shelob:/tmp/test,8484 ./paxtest.pl
shelob:/tmp/test,8496 foreach f ( 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 )
Forgot to say that I aborted the 4096 run since it took too long.
--
Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris
Brandt Brandt
Am 13.06.2010 16:25, schrieb Volker A. Brandt:
shelob:/tmp/test,8496 foreach f ( 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 )
Do you test on tmpfs? Could you please re-run the tests on UFS or ZFS? I
will revive my old SPARC machine and rerun the tests myself on SPARC. But I
first have to patch it (first
Daniel Rock sola...@ddcd.de wrote:
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
I just found out today by accident after copying a large backup file. I was
able to reproduce the bug on Solaris 10 and
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
I recommend
star -copy -sparse -C from todir
Typo correction:
star -copy -sparse -C fromdir file todir
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de
shelob:/tmp/test,8496 foreach f ( 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 )
Do you test on tmpfs? Could you please re-run the tests on UFS or ZFS? I
will revive my old SPARC machine and rerun the tests myself on SPARC. But I
first have to patch it (first time I switched the machine on since October
Daniel Rock sola...@ddcd.de wrote:
Am 13.06.2010 16:25, schrieb Volker A. Brandt:
shelob:/tmp/test,8496 foreach f ( 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 )
Do you test on tmpfs? Could you please re-run the tests on UFS or ZFS? I
will revive my old SPARC machine and rerun the tests myself on SPARC.
Am 13.06.2010 15:08, schrieb Volker A. Brandt:
Daniel Rock writes:
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
shelob:/tmp/test,8483 uname -a
SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc
As indicated, this has been published before.
Myself, I will keep checking for the new release IF it happens and give it a
try. Otherwise, I've moved on.
I can only think those who keep waiting and waiting for the next release are
those who were put on hold by customer service 90 days ago.
shelob:/tmp/test,8483 uname -a
SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000
It seems you don't have patch 138623-02 installed.
Correct, I don't have any revision of patch 138623 installed.
I reactivated my SPARC
machine, updated the kernel patch up to 137137-09
Hi,
I am not sure whether the people that take care of
https://pkg.sun.com/opensolaris/extra/
are hanging on that list, but Id better try.
The VirtualBox that extra serves is 3.1.8, while the version available
from virtualbox.org is 3.2.4
Are there any plans to update extra repo, or it falls
As indicated, this has been published before.
Myself, I will keep checking for the new release IF
it happens and give it a try. Otherwise, I've moved
on.
I can only think those who keep waiting and waiting
for the next release are those who were put on hold
by customer service 90 days
This was asked on the virtualbox list a week ago or so, right after
3.2.2 came out.
The answer was: YES, it will be updated, though not immediately.
The update delay was being driven by factors other than the impending
OpenSolaris release.
(frankly, I suspect that they don't want to push a
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
The update delay was being driven by factors other than the impending
OpenSolaris release.
(frankly, I suspect that they don't want to push a new sub-version each
week, which is the current rate of bugfix releases
Hi,
I am not sure whether the people that take care of
https://pkg.sun.com/opensolaris/extra/
are hanging on that list, but Id better try.
Is OpenOffice still at 3.1 or whatever it was?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
alan pae wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure whether the people that take care of
https://pkg.sun.com/opensolaris/extra/
are hanging on that list, but Id better try.
Is OpenOffice still at 3.1 or whatever it was?
You'd get a faster answer by asking pkg.opensolaris.org than asking the list:
Edward Martinez wrote:
there are some some good news. Oracle released an
Updated opensolaris roadmap.
Looks pretty much exactly like what Oracle has been
telling people for months,
and many people here have just previously ignored.
If repeating it one more
me is good news, then I'm
On 6/14/2010 2:09 AM, bsd wrote:
I can only think those who keep waiting and waiting for the next release are
those who were put on hold by customer service 90 days ago. They are still on
hold waiting for someone on customer service to return and pick up.
As someone who takes enormous
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached
test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes
in it.
I just found out today by accident after copying a
large backup file. I was
able to reproduce the bug on Solaris 10 and snv133,
on UFS and ZFS.
pfexec format
Searching for disks...done
AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS:
0. c4t0d0 ATA-ST31000528AS-CC38-931.51GB
/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@9/pci15d9,5...@0/s...@0,0
1. c4t1d0 ATA-ST31000528AS-CC38-931.51GB
/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@9/pci15d9,5...@0/s...@1,0
2. c4t2d0 ATA-ST31000528AS-CC38-931.51GB
32 matches
Mail list logo
