Dr. Robert Pasken wrote:
> And Indiana is pushing me away from Solaris. If I wanted the poorly thought
> out and unstable crap that comes the linux mindset I would just go with
> linux. I am looking for something that is well thought out and stable
>
Simple enough, ignore Indiana. Use Solaris 1
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Dr. Robert Pasken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And Indiana is pushing me away from Solaris. If I wanted the poorly thought
> out and unstable crap that comes the linux mindset I would just go with
> linux. I am looking for something that is well thought out and st
And Indiana is pushing me away from Solaris. If I wanted the poorly thought out
and unstable crap that comes the linux mindset I would just go with linux. I am
looking for something that is well thought out and stable
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
[i]Maybe because it costs Sun too much money to maintain multiple release
preview trains?[/i]
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Probably.
Still, as member of a target audience (so I understand), to me the money seems
- another time - not wisely spent.
Having been on Linux since early RedHat, later on Debian,
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:26:15AM -0500, Dave Miner wrote:
> > > Andrew Watkins wrote:
> > > >> The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an
> > > >> experi
"Peter Tribble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I love the experimentation. Heaven only knows we need it. My
> concern here is that Indiana is trying to be (or is seen to be, or
> is being marketed as) several different things at once and, apart
> from the confusion that results, it could end up in a
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:26:15AM -0500, Dave Miner wrote:
> > Andrew Watkins wrote:
> > >> The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an
> > >> experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:26:15AM -0500, Dave Miner wrote:
> Andrew Watkins wrote:
> >> The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an
> >> experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call it ;-)
> >
> > I see Indiana is an experiment well I think it is more than that!
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an
> experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call it ;-)
I realize from that answer that my question was ill-formed. It's clear
that there is some
Andrew Watkins wrote:
>> The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an
>> experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call it ;-)
>
> I see Indiana is an experiment well I think it is more than that!
>
Eventually, we expect it will be more, that's what Larry is saying
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Andrew Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an
> > experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call it ;-)
>
> I see Indiana is an experiment well I think it is more than that!
Marketing a
> The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an
> experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call it ;-)
I see Indiana is an experiment well I think it is more than that!
From: Net Talks Webcast Details: "Sorting Out Solaris Releases"
http://nettalk.sun.com/bhive/t/
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
The old shell is now:
/usr/has/bin/sh
>>> Well, then Sun seems to start an incompatible fork from OpenSolaris.
>>>
>> Sigh. We have made no statements about compatibility with anything,
>> either past or future, in the pr
So what are you basically saying is that: Solaris should keep /bin/sh for as
long as it stands even if a more stable/more flexible/better designed/ exists
just because there may be old customers without renewed support (I'm sure
customers with support would have their scripts fixed in no time) w
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> The old shell is now:
> > >> /usr/has/bin/sh
> > >
> > > Well, then Sun seems to start an incompatible fork from OpenSolaris.
>
> > >
> >
> > Sigh. We have made no sta
Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The old shell is now:
> >> /usr/has/bin/sh
> >
> > Well, then Sun seems to start an incompatible fork from OpenSolaris.
> >
>
> Sigh. We have made no statements about compatibility with anything,
> either past or future, in the preview releases. It's
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Shawn Walker wrote:
> /usr/has/bin/sh
>
> ...since it is a "hasbin" :)
Groan!
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer
http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.
Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2008 8:44 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sigh. We have made no statements about compatibility with anything,
>> either past or future, in the preview releases. It's an experiment.
>> The negativity some of you have towards experiments just amazes me
On Feb 13, 2008 8:44 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sigh. We have made no statements about compatibility with anything,
> either past or future, in the preview releases. It's an experiment.
> The negativity some of you have towards experiments just amazes me
> sometimes.
But what'
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 2008 11:10 AM, Joerg Schilling
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
o ksh93 is the default *system* shell (bash remains the default
user shell)
>>> What do
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2008 11:10 AM, Joerg Schilling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >o ksh93 is the default *system* shell (bash remains the default
> > > user shell)
> >
> > What do you understand by "*sys
On Feb 13, 2008 11:10 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >o ksh93 is the default *system* shell (bash remains the default
> > user shell)
>
> What do you understand by "*system* shell"?
/sbin/sh, /usr/bin/sh are now really ksh93.
Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>o ksh93 is the default *system* shell (bash remains the default
> user shell)
What do you understand by "*system* shell"?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)
23 matches
Mail list logo
