[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
"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
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
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
"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 So
ris-discuss@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 Op
> 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
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 Schaff
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
> 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: S
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 wi
>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
ke
> 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
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
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 compla
> 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 PRO
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 amo
(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?
>(
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
>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.
>A
> 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
> 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
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 graphi
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 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
opensolaris-discuss@openso
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: http://www.rite-group.co
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
(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 opi
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
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 sug
[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 ch
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
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
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
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
>
>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
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.
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 li
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
/
>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, 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 S
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
>
> [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
[1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-)
__
>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 scrip
> 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 scri
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 compati
>
>>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
>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
_
48 matches
Mail list logo