[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Yeah. But I am NOT alone with the feeling that something is going
wrong. Why does this project need more than half a year to get some
sources moved into the Solaris tree? This is a task which should be
finished within weeks and NOT years.
It's much more
Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My answer is: It depends on the requirements on the user side. Both
sides of the spectrum have valid arguments. However the backwards
compatibility of ksh93 is very good as outlined by Roland Mainz. I
think we should switch NOW or allow the users to switch
Martin Schaffstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+1
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
Do you like to make Solaris PPC incompatible to Solaris
On 7/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schaffstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+1
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
Do
On 7/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schaffstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+1
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
Do
But why is SUNW so uninterested???
Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in One Solaris^^ now?
There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change.
I'm sure they don't want to ship on Xorg on SPARC which only supports
older framebuffers poorly so a lot more work is involved.
Are
Original-Message
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:45:31 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
But why is SUNW so uninterested???
Where is your
(ks93 discuss removed)
But why is SUNW so uninterested???
Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in One Solaris^^ now?
There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change.
Migrating from Xsun to Xorg did work on x86.
What lot of history do you mean exactly?
(okay, /dev/fb is
Martin Bochnig writes:
Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly
eol'ed) gfx drivers?
If by afraid you mean know that we'll be doing something illegal,
then perhaps that's a partly reasonable interpretation.
I think you're at least underestimating the amount
It's not just blind fear, though, nor is it malice. Looking at the
staggering amount of code we've been able to release so far, I'm a bit
baffled how anyone could even begin to think that we're holding back
out of spite.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Bochnig writes:
I would just love being explicitly allowed to integrate and
redistribute a few closed things
Since you have a fairly specific hit-list of items you need, how about
filing bugs against each requesting an open version?
That might be a more productive approach than
Original-Message
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:54:17 -0700
From: Jan Setje-Eilers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2
Since you have a fairly specific hit-list of items you need, how about
filing bugs against each requesting an open version?
That might be a more productive approach than complaining here.
--
James Carlson
Strange, but okay.
Be sure that I will do that asap (not now).
--
Martin
Except NICs you mean?
Including NICs.
Doesn't Grub (at least Grub1) use the etherboot/rom-o-matic NIC drivers?
Not for Solaris as Sun ships it.
The grub that comes with Solaris is loaded in memory using PXE (over the
wire) and then the Grub PXE driver continues to use PXE to bootstrap the
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Martin Bochnig wrote:
Is it also a matter of resources that you don't allow (even
non-commercial) distributors to redistribute a closed binary for
/dev/fb for the older framebuffers developed by SUNW themselves
(probably no 3rd party NDA's affected)?
And what is with the
Dunno about the frame buffers, but perhaps libC contains 3rd party IP,
and Sun's license to use it prohibits redistribution by other parties?
I believe that's one of the reasons why you and I are not allowed to
redistribute the Solaris ISOs we can download for free from Sun's web
site: Sun
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Martin Bochnig wrote:
okay.
If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing,
I _would_ understand it.
Would a statement by a Sun employee (provided, of course, thet such
a license doesn't prohibit Sun from doing so) clarifying the situation
help?
What I
cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal
: Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
I don't want to get involved in political arguments so I will
state my view one once.
It looks as if Casper Dik and Martin Schaffstall
Would a statement by a Sun employee (provided, of course, thet such
a license doesn't prohibit Sun from doing so) clarifying the situation
help?
Yes.
What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK
(on which SUNW has made so much noise about, back in May'06) has
@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal
Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal
Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
I
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.
(+1 for PowerPC)
Casper
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.
I think there is a PowerPC discuss
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be
great!
On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of
the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed, the
PowerPC team
may not have a choice but to install ksh93 as /bin/ksh
bingo [1]
--
Dennis Clarke
On 7/27/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that
The issue of backwards compatibility is already addressed very well in
ksh93 itself. Most of the opensolaris distributions - excluding
Solaris itself - are shipping ksh93 as /bin/ksh or are going to ship
it. The ksh integration tree contains a master built switch
specifically for that purpose:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed
You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do you?
--
// Martin Schaffstall
//
On 7/27/06, Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
great!
Lets hope we won't see an open sourced version of the old /bin/ksh
--
// Martin Schaffstall
//EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(
No, that's not true at all. I
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(
No, that's not true at all.
Martin Schaffstall writes:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(
On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schaffstall writes:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open
Martin Schaffstall wrote On 07/27/06 06:48,:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed
You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open
Martin Schaffstall wrote:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed
You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do
you?
It's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.
What other
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 15:55 +0200, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schaffstall writes:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in
(Apologies, please ignore disregard the blank email I just sent
Evolution threw a bit of a wobbler!)
--
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group
http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771
Any
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a
manner consistent with solid engineering principles. The issue of
backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in
my less than humble opinion, critical to the
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-)
Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote! :-)
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-)
Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote! :-)
:-P
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Original-Message
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:13:15 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Korn Shell 93 integration/migration project discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly
eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but
there isn't as much work going on in SPARC
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your
(mostly eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but
there isn't as much work going on in SPARC
p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from
USB mass storage then.
The idea that GRUB or GRUB2 has anything to do with what devices a
system can or can not boot from is mostly a miss-conception.
A number of amd64/legacy-x86 systems have BIOSs that can talk to and
47 matches
Mail list logo
