On 11/6/07, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
apply.
Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
of potential Solaris users to be confused and
Joerg Schilling wrote:
John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not
simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either.
An dialog box somewhere in the 'advanced' install path I think, is.
I would prefer
John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of
$PATH in the indiana preview ;)
Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to apply.
For this reason, it should be an act of own will to do it but not
John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not
simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either.
An dialog box somewhere in the 'advanced' install path I think, is.
I would prefer to see an automated MANPATH.
This is already being discussed[1] in opensolaris-code with a similar
proposal. However note that it isn't just stuff in $PATH that has
interesting man pages, config files libraries etc need to be found too
so a purely based on $PATH use of $MANPATH may not be sufficient.
Still, libraries
The fact that GNU tools extensively document non-POSIX options, pople=
tend to write non-portable scripts as a result.
Yep, I tried to configure a recent mplayer its configure has now
deteriorated to requiring GNU grep (grep -q, what does that mean?) and
it complaints about ! command not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that GNU tools extensively document non-POSIX options, pople=
tend to write non-portable scripts as a result.
Yep, I tried to configure a recent mplayer its configure has now
deteriorated to requiring GNU grep (grep -q, what does that mean?)
grep -q is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is already being discussed[1] in opensolaris-code with a similar
proposal. However note that it isn't just stuff in $PATH that has
interesting man pages, config files libraries etc need to be found too
so a purely based on $PATH use of $MANPATH may not be
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
apply.
Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
of potential
On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
apply.
Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
of potential Solaris users to be confused and irritated and many of
them will walk away.
The
On 6-Nov-07, at 1:10 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
apply.
Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
of potential Solaris users to be confused and
On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
apply.
Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
of potential Solaris users to be confused and irritated and many of
them will walk away.
The
On 4-Nov-07, at 7:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
Mario Goebbels wrote:
Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
de-jure UNIX
or hawever you want to characterise it).
I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the
easiest way to defuse that userland
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and
this
is
purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more*
users than
you'll make happy.
This sounds like a solution looking
On 5 Nov 2007, at 15:15, Steven Stallion wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of
the new
installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a
runtime in
the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU
runtime for
*every* user
On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and
this
is
purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more*
users than
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and
this
is
purely an uninformed
On 5-Nov-07, at 10:41 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I
John Sonnenschein writes:
Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of
$PATH in the indiana preview ;)
As has been repeatedly pointed out:
- Indiana hasn't had any ARC review.
- projects are on their own to determine when to submit for reviews
--
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5-Nov-07, at 10:41 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Jim,
How about organic growth? Why must we go out and grab developers from
other communities. Early on we never discussed grabbing developers from
other communities. Virtually all of our planning discussions were
focused on organic growth and the business of opening our own stuff.
I
On 05/11/2007, Steven Stallion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The argument that modifying the PATH is too difficult for the average user
is nonsense. Any user who knows enough to know what runtime they prefer,
know precisely how to change their PATH to reflect that.
Hear, hear. Throwing this in
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
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 year
On 4-Nov-07, at 2:08 AM, James Mansion wrote:
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
Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
de-jure UNIX
or hawever you want to characterise it).
I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the
easiest way to defuse that userland situation.
After all, it was said from the beginning, that Indiana
James Mansion wrote:
Surely, having a kernel developer community is the least of Sun's
actual problems.
Sun has developers and having most development done in the context of
a funded and
managed environment is very valuable. What is needed most of all is a
*user* community
that
Mario Goebbels wrote:
Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
de-jure UNIX
or hawever you want to characterise it).
I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the
easiest way to defuse that userland situation.
After all, it was said from
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hey Guys,
As someone who's come to OpenSolaris from outside the community, I
think the decision is right on. And Ian's comment that he doesn't get
it. It seems to me that community is important, but OpenSolaris has a
larger identity issue vis-a-vis the
No, to all of those things. None of our objections are with any of your
points; in fact all your points are valid and true - and all the
engineering, and marketing teams involved in Indiana should be applauded
for their efforts.
Our *only* point of contention is that your announcement of
+1 This says it all for me. I'm also getting pretty sick of the rather
negative atmosphere around the mailing lists at the moment.
We just shipped a major milestone, and people are doing nothing but
bitching about it. I'm glad the responsible project team are a pretty
thick skinned bunch,
Thank you both for your comments.
Specifically for the eyes and ears of all of the folks on the
OpenSolaris software team, I can't thank you enough for the outstanding
work you've done to date on this program. The creativity, speed and
focus you've all demonstrated is visible to all - and is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually
many people in this community that do believe there should be one
*reference* distribution called OpenSolaris.
That is not the argument, and you know it. The argument is that no single
project is
On 02/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you shouldn't say you speak with one voice because that implies
unanimity which is not the case here. You should say the majority of
the OGB feels X way.
That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
Well, sorry,
On 11/2/2007 3:12 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
If the goal of the distro is draw folks like my company into the fold,
there has to be distro unequivocally associated with the OpenSolaris
name. Because frankly, if you're trying to grab folks from another OS
you've got
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
If the goal of the distro is draw folks like my company into the fold,
there has to be distro unequivocally associated with the OpenSolaris
name. Because frankly, if you're trying to grab folks from another OS
you've got a short window of opportunity to get them to
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:48:42PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn, abstain only has one meaning. It's perfectly consistent and in
layman's terms as it stands.
Abstain has only
Then you shouldn't say you speak with one voice because that implies
unanimity which is not the case here. You should say the majority of
the OGB feels X way.
That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
Well, sorry, but for those not used the extreme level of bureaucracy
(which
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you shouldn't say you speak with one voice because that implies
unanimity which is not the case here. You should say the majority of
the OGB feels X way.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:48:42PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn, abstain only has one meaning. It's perfectly consistent and in
layman's terms as it stands.
Abstain has only one meaning but was not used in the context given.
The
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you shouldn't say you speak with one voice because that implies
unanimity which is not the case here.
41 matches
Mail list logo
