> > The installation takes no more than a couple of
> minutes. The boot time I measured was about 25
> seconds, as opposed to the 14 seconds advertised by
> Alex ( :-) ).
> This is VBox time, usually on SSD drive it's 14-16
> seconds..
>
> > Again, I am sure everyone is aware that this is
> on
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 17:36 -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> > > >Wayne said:
> > > >Now that you mentioned this great idea of putting
> > > together a minimalist >distro, has anyone ever
> > > thought about Milax? I have only taken a short cut
> > > and >tried to install it in VirtualBox, but have
>
> >Wayne said:
> >Now that you mentioned this great idea of putting
> together a minimalist >distro, has anyone ever
> thought about Milax? I have only taken a short cut
> and >tried to install it in VirtualBox, but have not
> succeeded. Has anyone >successfully installed and run
> Firefox 3.6.6 an
>Wayne said:
>Now that you mentioned this great idea of putting together a minimalist
>>distro, has anyone ever thought about Milax? I have only taken a short cut
>and >tried to install it in VirtualBox, but have not succeeded. Has anyone
>>successfully installed and run Firefox 3.6.6 and OpenOf
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Paul Gress
> The best of all worlds, IMHO, would be for us (the community) to
> build and maintain a website of our own that hosted a minimalist
> distro of our own, with IPS repos of our own, using only the master
> mercurial (and/or whatever) source repos mirror
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> > The best of all worlds, IMHO, would be for us (the
> > community) to build
> > and maintain a website of our own that hosted a
> > minimalist distro of
> > our own, with IPS repos of our own, using only the
> > master mercurial
> > (and/o
On 07/16/10 01:26 PM, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
...
I like the idea of a minimalist distro, backed by a robust IPS. This is
something which probably should have been started in the first place (instead
of the current IMHO impossible mess).
Now that you mentioned this great idea of putting togethe
> The best of all worlds, IMHO, would be for us (the
> community) to build
> and maintain a website of our own that hosted a
> minimalist distro of
> our own, with IPS repos of our own, using only the
> master mercurial
> (and/or whatever) source repos mirrored from within
> Oracle.
> Explicitly NO
Hi, Peter!
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Mark Martin
> wrote:
> >
> > I submit to you that just as important, if not MORE important, is to
> > wean the "community" off of Oracle's infrastructure and process.
>
> Not just that, but weanin
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Joerg Schilling <
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
> > joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> > > The problem is that Sun/Oracle did already fork and changed things
> without
> > > asking the comunity whether this to b
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Peter Tribble dot tribble at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Mark Martin
> wrote:
> >> Create a website and forums to allow the community
> to reorganize
> >> itself without the shadow of a hollow and
> unsupported charter.
> >
> > So
Rather than all the negativity that's been going around, let's focus
on the positive things:
1. We still have the code, including code that's MUCH more recent than
the last public binary build.
2. There are companies like Nexenta that might be able to help
maintain OpenSolaris, even if Oracle deci
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Mark Martin
> wrote:
>> Create a website and forums to allow the community to reorganize
>> itself without the shadow of a hollow and unsupported charter.
>
> So the OGB would have to violate its own rules a
And I think this is the *biggest* problem people are currently
complaining: new version of current OSOL distro, new packages etc.
And this clearly supports my ideas:
- OSOL as a *distribution* will never work. Even under Sun nor Oracle.
I said that when Indiana was formed. OpenSolaris was me
One of the biggest problems I just noticed is the stall in
promoting packages from pending to contrib.
Contrib: http://pkg.opensolaris.org/contrib/en/index.shtml
packages: 351, last updated December 15, 2009
Promoted to contrib: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/statistics/promoted_packages
packages: 1
+1
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> would also keep the kernel stable. I know I
> could volunteer for some
> type of non-coding task (I'm a Electro/Mechanical
> Eng, not a
> programmer). Maybe marketing, or technical
> documents when needed.
Same here - there have got to be lots of other highly enthusiastic end users
and admins
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM, John Plocher wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Paul Gress wrote:
>>> Great idea. Not what the current OGB, as the OGB, is chartered to do.
>>> The OGB would really have to quit the current system and reform in
>>> some other guise, or a new body would have
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Paul Gress wrote:
>> Great idea. Not what the current OGB, as the OGB, is chartered to do.
>> The OGB would really have to quit the current system and reform in
>> some other guise, or a new body would have to take this on.
>
> Maybe this is whats planned if "they
On 07/14/10 06:12 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
Not just that, but weaning the community off its dependency on
the distribution that happens to confusingly share the community's
name but is really a closed venture over which we have no influence.
In the past when Sun was distributing Opensola
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Mark Martin wrote:
>> Create a website and forums to allow the community to reorganize
>> itself without the shadow of a hollow and unsupported charter.
>
> So the OGB would have to violate its own rules and
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Mark Martin wrote:
>
> I submit to you that just as important, if not MORE important, is to
> wean the "community" off of Oracle's infrastructure and process.
Not just that, but weaning the community off its dependency on
the distribution that happens to confusing
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Rob McMahon
> wrote:
>> So, let's get positive here. Where do we get started to form a Community
>> Distro, based on the latest sources including IPS. Not a cut down version,
>> or replacing the userland (
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
This simply isn't that sort of open source project - it's not Debian or Apache.
Historically it's been more like Linux, Mozilla, MySQL, or Ubuntu, where the
founder/sponsor has the final say in all decisions.
Actually, I think Mozilla is an example of a project where the
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Is that a horrible thing? Only if you expect and wait for it to be
>> something
>> it's not. Accept it for what it is and figure out how to work with it.
>> You
>> can always be in control of your fork/distro, just don
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> The ARC case was unfortunately closed to the public, but there was one.
>
> make it public or it does not exist
That's not up to me or you. You can pretend it doesn't exist all you want,
but it's far from the first clos
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> The ARC case was unfortunately closed to the public, but there was one.
make it public or it does not exist
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)
joerg.schill...
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> This simply isn't that sort of open source project - it's not Debian or
> Apache.
> Historically it's been more like Linux, Mozilla, MySQL, or Ubuntu, where the
> founder/sponsor has the final say in all decisions.
One of the intentions was not to have similar problems
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
>
>> Why should sun have consulted the community about their business
>> decisions?. Opensolaris was their distro, their product, the code is
>> in their repository.
>
> You should rather ask, why this change was done wit
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
>>> The problem is that Sun/Oracle did already fork and changed things without
>>> asking the comunity whether this to be accepted by the community.
>> That's not forking, that's
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
> Why should sun have consulted the community about their business
> decisions?. Opensolaris was their distro, their product, the code is
> in their repository.
You should rather ask, why this change was done without asking users and
without even having an ARC case
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> > The problem is that Sun/Oracle did already fork and changed things without
> > asking the comunity whether this to be accepted by the community.
>
> That's not forking, that's just Sun controlling the project as they alway
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Rob McMahon wrote:
> So, let's get positive here. Where do we get started to form a Community
> Distro, based on the latest sources including IPS. Not a cut down version,
> or replacing the userland (no offence there, that's good work too), just a
> take on Sola
Why should sun have consulted the community about their business
decisions?. Opensolaris was their distro, their product, the code is
in their repository.
The most we could have done is clone the opensolaris respository
outside sun's firewalls and prevent the relevant changes to avoid
deleting the
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> The problem is that Sun/Oracle did already fork and changed things without
> asking the comunity whether this to be accepted by the community.
That's not forking, that's just Sun controlling the project as they always
did - there's still just one sour
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > I still use SVR4 packages that get released from Blastwave and those work
> > for the most part. To hell with that issue at the moment.
>
> Then your distro will be forked from the Oracle released sources and you'll
> have created an extra hurdle for yourself to jump i
36 matches
Mail list logo
