Roger Bisson wrote:
James,
All OS platforms benefit from the network effects of wide usage.
I agree, but 'free as in beer' helps here more than 'free as in source'.
To the average developer, Solaris (which, in a closed model, you would have to
pay for)
I think you are confusing 'free sour
Roger Bisson wrote:
Personally, I am of the view that Sun's original decision to release Solaris in
the form of OpenSolaris was absolutely the right decision to ensure Solaris'
maintenance and growth as a platform by making it available to developers and
technicians (thereby encouraging its ap
Simon Phipps wrote:
Exactly right. As it turned out it was also comfortably profitable. Sun's
terminal problems lay elsewhere.
Which bit of the last financial statement shows evidence of this - that
the profits came from open sourcing, not merely from software that was
open source before S
Matthias Pfützner wrote:
You (James Mansion) wrote:
if you look at Sun's annual earnings documents, you might notice, that most of
Sun's revenue and especially margin was generated by big iron hardware.
Indeed I had.
And the money coming in from software was mostly licebns
Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) wrote:
No, you are missing the point.
The idea was to provide a free and open AllInOne A to Z software
platform stack, that would be able to compete with LinUX and to win
the OS battle.
Then that was a mind-numbingly stupid strategy - because:
a) it would take s
Мартин Бохниг (Martin Bochnig) wrote:
Solaris code for marketing purposes, rather than creating an
independent, community-led, open source project with the ability to
make real decisions.
I think you're missing the point. What is the benefit to Sun
shareholders to have Solaris so open, reall
Joerg Schilling wrote:
You are correct: without OpenSourcing Solaris, Sun would have been in trouble
earlier.
What evidence do you have for this? I know there have been externally
sourced code contributions, but how much of it needed source rather than
the stable ABIs, and how material is it r
Simon Phipps wrote:
Ths thing I find interesting in the article, and indeed in many of your statements, is that you show absolutely no sign of self-doubt about whether open sourcing everything you could actually destroyed shareholder value and drove Sun down the toilet.
That's because it
Simon Phipps wrote:
It's been an interesting "does he take sugar" experience watching the conversation about me; I thought I'd interject with a link to a story that has correct information:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/former-sun-open-source-officer-joins-osi-board-109
Ths thi
Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
Personally I'm an open source advocate so any software business model
that is closed will have to try hard to convince me that it's better
than all the community can provide in testing, bug reporting, free
marketing, free support, etc.
You might be an advocate, but have
Bruno Damour wrote:
The surprising fact is that the performance is still slightly better
on my laptop than on the server. This has been true with postgresql
8.3 and now with postgresql 8.4 as well.
...
Is there any explanation you would think of ?
If you examine the disk in device manager on X
Rekha wrote:
fatal: relocation error: file server: symbol __0dLACE_WStringEnpos: referenced
symbol not found
Killed
can some one please help. not able to solve this error..
Guess: find the ACE library you are using, and make sure that you have also
recompiled it on the new system, with the
I saw a PDF with some 'what's new' info in it last week, and one
headline was 'iSCSI Boot for x86' (or x64 I guess).
But I can't find that PDF in the new web site now that 0906 is out - and
there is no mention of iSCSI boot anywhere.
Does anyone know anything about this?
James
_
Shawn Walker wrote:
There are a set of rules about what characters are allowed in the
name. Spaces are one of the characters that are not allowed.
I seem to remember being bitten by that too, albeit briefly. I seem to
remember cursing the lack of clarity of diagnostic.
And to be honest, if
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> location. Just a suggestion. That conversation will be on website-discuss.
>
I can see how it comes to be there, and at least it is *somewhere*, but
it seems wrong
to me. Maintenance of a coherent roadmap should be a function of project
leadership
(and from my point of v
Tim Scanlon wrote:
> The GPL is crap, I hope to god it doesn't get used. Corporations violate it
> all the time, developers don't bother to read it, and it's an awful license
> to use if you want to feed yourself with your efforts.
>
The thing I find mot odd about GPL is that if you work in a
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> Whichever disk is the 'master' disk. By that I mean, whatever disk is
> listed to boot first in the bios (which is where all the other
> bootloaders installed to).
>
Fine - so disable the other drives and install onto a dedicated drive,
and then re-enable the others.
Ja
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> The OpenSolaris installation will overwrite your existing Grub in the
> MBR.
>
Yes - but on which disk?
If there are three hard drives and each has just one OS, surely you just
go into the BIOS and
disable the drives except the target one, then do an install 'as if' the
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> As soon as ATI releases an open source driver, or enough information
> to the open source developers so they can make a driver, we'll have
> Solaris support.I have no idea if or when either of those are
> likely to happen though
It continues to amaze and confound me th
Mike DeMarco wrote:
> I believe that Windoz has a problem dealing with more than 4 CPUs
> and the hyper-bus architecture for AMD processors extends to 4 slots.
> So I do not believe there is a driving need at this time for such a beast.
>
>
What on earth gave you that idea?
Its not hard to find
Calum Benson wrote:
> GNOME's user-admin preferences window, IMHO. I suspect a sizable
> number of users would have insufficient knowledge to make an informed
> choice, or just no preference at all, when confronted with such a
> choice during installation (I count myself among them!). And t
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> itself thrives. We started this project four years ago to build a
> developer community. That was the primary goal from which multiple
> objectives would grow. In fact, the notion of building a developer
> community was part of virtually every meeting I attended even a yea
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
And this isn't because Unix viruses/worms are impossible or anything.
It's only been a few months since the telnetd worm struck Solaris
machines - however, unlike Windows, all known worms for Unix exploit
obvious bugs in Unix, so the response from Unix vendors is to fix th
I just added a second disk to my development workstation, which has
Vista all over a SATA disk.
I've added a 750gig SATA drive and would like to multi-boot Open Solaris
and Linux - and ideally FreeBSD.
Is there an order I need to do things in?
I have the OpenSolaris 'Starter Kit' and also th
But I'd like to ask: *why* do you - all - maintain different distributions?
It is obvious why I created a distribution:
It was done in order to create a distribution as none did exist before.
Why did other people create _different_ distributions?
Jörg
Well, you answered a questio
??? How is that different from chosing (say) Red Hat over Ubuntu, or at an
even more macroscopic level, UNIX over Windoze
Its not different - except that those examples all have a lot more
traction than OpenSolaris.
It seems to me that the current state of OpenSolaris is such that it has
en
Guys,
It really pains me to see the sort of finger pointing going on here
about the various existing distributions and 'Indiana', and in
particular I'm concerned at the prospect of alienation between Joerg and
'the rest' because - as an outsider - I do perceive that he did a lot,
when Open So
(Apologies for the delay.)
>If the amateur masses with a small number of ineffecitvely
>managed full time engineers can produce a product that
>has been able to threaten a well engineered product such
>as Solaris, how would you propose responding to that?
Hmm - what innovation? Actually deliverin
>And they start to find it hard to make time to spend time on
>anything that isn't work - ie open source projects. I've seen
That *was* my point.
>this happen on a number of occasions. And contrary to what
>you're suggesting, they don't turn up an opensolaris, sometime
>later (or at least none
>complete with some suggestions for the future and what I think
>it will take for it to really succeed - mostly time.
Darren,
You suggest that it is a 'problem' that contributing to Open Solaris is
a contribution to Sun. As a user, that is precisely one of Open
Solaris' strengths. And if that m
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> There are a lot of GPL bigots out there.
And you *want* to appeal to them?
Seriously - why?
Are these bigots running datacentres? Are they running startups that
have a hope in hell of actually making money - as opposed to generating
PR and then just chewing their VC f
>I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking
>ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it
>mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a
>possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception"
>to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code.
>This could open u
> I am wondering what value the CDDL has anymore.
Why? Why should anyone care whether CDDL code is compatible with GPL, if there
is enough CDDL code to stand on its own?
What I think is unfortunate is:
> module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be
> linked toge
I don't think closed forks are necessarily something to lose too much sleep
over. Most code that's written is never used outside of the organisation its
written in and GPL doesn't enforce it - contribution of changes back is a
self-interest thing that's motivated by laziness with respect to mai
I'm excited by ZFS software raid, particularly with the dual parity facility.
Now, I use Solaris 8 during my day job (I'm a developer), and I have a TwinHead
SParc5 clone in the cupboard, and I routinely install Linux (and sometimes
*BSD), but I'm by no means a Solaris admin.
So some questions:
35 matches
Mail list logo
