two follow-up posts:
First:
Yes, this is from my blog. Thanks for reading :).
And yes, we can run Windows HVM on Solaris dom0 now.
BTW, I did a little bit correction on the translation below...
In our next step, we'll support nic/disk PV drivers for Windows HVM. At
that time, the performance
Did someone use Xen and is it possible to run MS-WIN
on case that
the host platform supports Pacifica or Vanderbilt?
Jörg
I found one of Sun's blogs (from Sun's Beijing team) that talked about running
Windows in Solaris under zen:
#
支持了HVM：如果你的机器上有合适的CPU（支持AMD-V
I found one of Sun's blogs (from Sun's Beijing team)
that talked about running Windows in Solaris under
xen:
The following is a Solaris Xen update quote in that article:
http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/solaris_xen_update
HVM support
If you have the right CPU, you can now run
I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way. We
haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the majority
of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. We are also
investigating VMWare ESX running Solaris in a big way. (I wonder if there
It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as
the guest OS.
You mean with Solaris as a host OS?
Does anyone have any experience on xen? thanks.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
On 8/20/07, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way. We
haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the majority
of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. We are also
investigating
On 8/20/07, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way.
We
haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the
majority
of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. We are also
investigating
I beg to differ, as a Sun
customer we are going commodity all the way. We
haven't bought an Enterprise system since the
3800. Currently the majority of the Machines we are
deploying are x4200s and T2000s.
I find it funny that you use T2000 and commodity hardware in the same sentence.
T2000
W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as
the guest OS.
You mean with Solaris as a host OS?
For me, only Solaris as host OS would be of interest
Does anyone have any experience on xen? thanks.
Did someone use Xen and is it possible
Joerg Schilling wrote:
W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It'd be great if we could run VMWare with Solaris as
the guest OS.
You mean with Solaris as a host OS?
For me, only Solaris as host OS would be of interest
Does anyone have any experience on xen? thanks.
Did someone use
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, only Solaris as host OS would be of interest
Does anyone have any experience on xen? thanks.
Did someone use Xen and is it possible to run MS-WIN on case that
the host platform supports Pacifica or Vanderbilt?
Technically yes it is
I beg to differ, as a Sun customer we are going commodity all the way. We
haven't bought an Enterprise system since the 3800. Currently the majority
of the Machines we are deploying are x4200s and T2000s. We are also
investigating VMWare ESX running Solaris in a big way. (I wonder if there is
S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please do!
Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem.
Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has
happened with the legal team. There is no reason
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem pretty confident in your interpetation of the law, and maybe you
are spot on, I don't know. My interaction with the legal department has to
do with CDDL/GPL/BSD interaction.
I had several courses payed by my employer because I need to do some
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 12:59 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I am not sure about copyright laws in less free countries, but in
Germany/Europe,
there is something called Recht auf das wissenschaftliche Kleinzitat.
You may quote other people's work _without_ ever asking them for permission
in
S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please do!
Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem.
Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has
happened with the legal team. There is no reason
S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
and any lawyer worth the air he or she breathes to sufficiently
dispute this in court, I think.
On 8/10/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
they have a specific side they err on, and this is one of
those
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, S h i v wrote:
On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please do!
Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem.
Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has
happened with the legal team. There is no reason
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote:
S h i v wrote:
*I* cannot, because I am not the owner of the copyright. Point was
about mixing CDDL GPL and why it *is a problem*
Sane thing is to follow legal advice by the qualified. It seems to
have its good share of problems and need not be
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has
happened with the legal team. There is no reason compelling enough for
a second opinion :-)
Sorry, he did not. Please carefully read hs mail, it does not include
any quote fom a
On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless the putting the code into gpl tree is something we *badly want*,
if there is ambiguity and scope for legal battle, err on the side that
avoids litigation. No point in getting into litigations that distracts
frustrates everyone.
S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless the putting the code into gpl tree is something we *badly want*,
if there is ambiguity and scope for legal battle, err on the side that
avoids litigation. No point in getting into litigations
S h i v wrote:
*I* cannot, because I am not the owner of the copyright. Point was
about mixing CDDL GPL and why it *is a problem*
Sane thing is to follow legal advice by the qualified. It seems to
have its good share of problems and need not be done. There is no
compelling need either.
On 8/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please do!
Until now, no lawyer did tell us that there may be a problem.
Alan has already made references to the repeated discussion that has
happened with the legal team. There is no reason compelling enough for
a second opinion :-)
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote:
S h i v wrote:
*I* cannot, because I am not the owner of the copyright. Point was
about mixing CDDL GPL and why it *is a problem*
Sane thing is to follow legal advice by the qualified. It seems to
have
Frank Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
[ ... ]
You may quote other people's work _without_ ever asking them for permission
in case
this is needed for your work and as long as your work has enough own
creation level
to make it a separate
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
[ ... ]
You may quote other people's work _without_ ever asking them for permission
in case
this is needed for your work and as long as your work has enough own
creation level
to make it a separate work.
That might or might not be correct given
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Its just annoying - the low end graphics cards are nothing more than
rebadged ATI stuff which has opensource drivers already - it would be a
matter of rejigging the code to work on sparc.
That's what Martin Bochnig did for Martux and we're looking at using his
work for
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:38 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Just a follow up question; when will acpi appear in OpenSolaris by
default?
ACPI already is[1] it appeared as part of newboot on x86 and is
regularly updated to the latest Intel reference code. However I
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:33 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
True - I'm had a look at the page, it would be cool if there was more
documentation about future developments. The way the page is put there
as if nwam is complete and no more development is going to occur.
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 11:38 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Just a follow up question; when will acpi appear in OpenSolaris by
default?
ACPI already is[1] it appeared as part of newboot on x86 and is
regularly updated to the latest Intel reference
The only thing I would have done different given the limited resources in
engineering, would have been to license under the BSD 3 clause so that
anyone, any system, could have taken the code to incorporate into their
system, even Linux. It seems that will happen if Sun does GPL2 and/or GPL3
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would understand
that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece of code
licensed under the CDDL.
No, that is not clear, and IANAL and neither are you it seems.
While
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The fact that some people without legal knowledge claim a general unspecific
incompatibility should not be taken for serious.
What I know is that I must defer all the legal aspects to Sun's legal
team, and have discussed several of these issues with
On 8/9/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would
understand
that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece
of code
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
and any lawyer worth the air he or she breathes to sufficiently
dispute this in court, I think.
On 8/10/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
they have a specific side they err on, and this is one of
those issues that seems to be accepted by them.
Nico Sabbi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can I suggest considering the following items?
1) a current, working and maintained port of eclipse
2) kde (much more powerful, lightweight and usable than gnome, IMO)
3) the Reply-to header in its lists :-)
those are all topics that some kind third party
Nico Sabbi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is opensolaris. If you like it, do it!
Jörg
you explained yourself that doing it is one thing, integrating
it in Opensolaris is a totally different thing that only the members
of some board can decide. Since the ports of eclipse and kde
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nico Sabbi wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nico Sabbi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
This is opensolaris. If you like it, do it!
Jörg
you explained yourself that doing it is one thing, integrating
it in Opensolaris is a totally different thing that only the
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 12:57 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
Yes, it has changed - but I'm just frustrated at the lack of progress
outside of the 'basics'.
The next meeting of SVOSUG will feature a presentation by the Xorg group,
notably Alan
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 14:08 +0200, Mark Phalan wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 23:02 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
...
2) kde (much more powerful, lightweight and usable than gnome,
IMO)
Someone has built 3.5.7 but unfortunately they seem to live under a
giant size bolder - ignoring
On 8/8/07, Frank Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that's far from what you want. You're not developing a kernel driver,
a UN*X utility of a fix/enhancement to libc. You're simply requesting
(some) (Open)Solaris distributions to include additional software.
Which might have its own
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 18:03 +0530, S h i v wrote:
On 8/8/07, Frank Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that's far from what you want. You're not developing a kernel driver,
a UN*X utility of a fix/enhancement to libc. You're simply requesting
(some) (Open)Solaris distributions to include
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 00:34 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
...
The way I read it, I would still need to travel to hell and back with
the laundry list of GNU stuff I would need to install along with heaps
I don't think thats really the case. Yes, there is some GNU stuff
missing but most of it
On 8/8/07, Mark Phalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh, Indiana, *the silver bullet* for every issue that is raised !!!
Thats probably because Indiana is the umbrella for a lot of new
technologies/projects being worked on.
(I'm confused by the Sigh).
Sigh = want to take a break (from the
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:45 +0100, Calum Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 04:19 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
I do wonder why we need to have a different GNOME desktop? Well, I
know
why we do it (i.e., JDS), but I'm not sure why we should. It only
diverges
us from the mainstream, and
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 12:11 -0700, Edward McAuley wrote:
Uh, let's see. Beautiful interface (as attractive as the Mac or Vista),
intuitively laid out, ease of use, UNIX (like), open source...it's already
here. You can download it or buy it.
Suse 10.2
Please look at this latest
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
1) The new-boot architecture brought us into the modern age of booting.
Which was great - but need I be negative, but what took so long? it took
*that* long for Sun to realise their x86 booting royally sucked?
This was one of the quicker project in
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Calum Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 04:19 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
I do wonder why we need to have a different GNOME desktop? Well, I know
why we do it (i.e., JDS), but I'm not sure why we should. It only diverges
us from the mainstream, and makes things different.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
Yes, it has changed - but I'm just frustrated at the lack of progress
outside of the 'basics'.
The next meeting of SVOSUG will feature a presentation by the Xorg group,
notably Alan Coopersmith, showing the latest Xorg changes and/or what is
in
Alan DuBoff wrote:
The next meeting of SVOSUG will feature a presentation by the Xorg group,
notably Alan Coopersmith, showing the latest Xorg changes and/or what is
in store, but to also show Compiz.
Your comments got me to thinking, and I have really come to the conclusion
that Solaris has
Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty much
stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have. All are
stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in *nix.
-mg
Flash was supplied via an agreement with Macromedia -
Adobe
On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty
much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have.
All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just doesn't believe in
*nix.
Unless you
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 07:32 -0700, Mario Goebbels wrote:
Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has
pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX
builds have. All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just
doesn't believe in *nix.
True -
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:36 -0400, Brandorr wrote:
On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader
has pretty much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX
and HP-UX builds have. All are stuck at
Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty
much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds have.
All are stuck at 7.0.9, so I suppose Adobe simply just
On 8/6/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has
pretty
much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 17:23 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/6/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I've taken a look and the development of a Linux reader has pretty
much stagnated the same time the Solaris SPARC, AIX and HP-UX builds
Adobe alternatives:
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/contentcreation/0,101068,39286832,00.htm
Homesite: http://www.osalt.com/nvu
MYOB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCASH
Quicken: http://www.linux.com/articles/49400
See, I'm a recent Windows convert. I wasn't a fan of it, until I
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 04:52 -0700, Mario Goebbels wrote:
Adobe alternatives:
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/contentcreation/0,101068,39286832,00.htm
Homesite: http://www.osalt.com/nvu
MYOB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCASH
Quicken: http://www.linux.com/articles/49400
My impression is that a current Nevada build with
Gnome desktop
will not work decently if it has less than 2 GB of
RAM.
This is really bad. Firefox + Xserver will soon
consume 1.3 GB together
and a 1 GB system will start excessive paging. Is
this really needed?
My system runs since
More on the OS and why Solaris has the technology to
beat Windows as a game and other application
development platform:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story
14918
On a related note, what I'd like to see is all various operating systems
agreeing on a standard core API, on
Regarding GIMP, 2.4 will apparently take more of a
Photoshop look -
but ultimately the only real possibility is for Sun
to work with wine
and improve Windows compatibility - Adobe has flat
out refused to
support Sun and Solaris. There is very little Sun can
do when Adobe is
unwilling to
Ok
To start off.
I have read this entire thread.
I want to simply say, there is alot of closed minds in this , as well some
brilliant thoughts.
If you really wanted to take OpenSolaris to the wide vast market.
1. Make a developer version and a end user version (ease of use))
2. Set up support
On 8/5/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding GIMP, 2.4 will apparently take more of a
Photoshop look -
but ultimately the only real possibility is for Sun
to work with wine
and improve Windows compatibility - Adobe has flat
out refused to
support Sun and Solaris.
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 11:41 -0700, Mario Goebbels wrote:
Regarding GIMP, 2.4 will apparently take more of a
Photoshop look -
but ultimately the only real possibility is for Sun
to work with wine
and improve Windows compatibility - Adobe has flat
out refused to
support Sun and
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
Yes, it has changed - but I'm just frustrated at the lack of progress
outside of the 'basics'.
If you could be more considerate to folks that subscribe to this list,
more of the engineers will offer more support and think better of you. I
mean
On games, I'm not sure everyone knows this, so I'll
point it out. Games are a killer app for PCs, and
they have been for years. (They make people buy
computers.)
This is true, at least in my case: I built my first PC *ever* (which I still
use today) seven years ago - just to play games.
On 8/3/07, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve
the user experience in either hardware support or software availability.
You think nvidia video drivers, wifi drivers, Macromedia Flash, and
So you're saying you may know what Indiana actually
is? It seems to be a
moving target, changing from day to day. How could
that mean anything to
anyone at this point I wonder?
I'm writing that it means something to a certain profile / group of people. As
is evident from the ensuing
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
When am I going to see support for my USB webcam? infact, a large number of
products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more than happy to provide
specifications to those who want them?
When you stop trolling, and start coding?
--
Alan Burlison
--
On 8/3/07, Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
When am I going to see support for my USB webcam?
infact, a large number of
products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more
than happy to provide
specifications to those who want them?
When you stop
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 23:05 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
Yes, it has changed - but I'm just frustrated at the lack of progress
outside of the 'basics'.
If you could be more considerate to folks that subscribe to this list,
more of the engineers
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to
improve the user experience in either hardware support or software
availability
-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to
improve the user experience in either hardware support or software
availability.
You think nvidia video drivers, wifi drivers, Macromedia Flash, and all
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
When am I going to see support for my USB webcam?
infact, a large number of
products in my laptop made by Ricoh, who are more
than happy to provide
specifications to those who want them?
When you stop trolling, and start coding?
The distinction between talk
OpenSolaris will have to get it's users from the Windows world, and not the
Linux world? But the Linux users come from the Windows world. And the Linux
users have a mentality closer to Solaris, than any Windows user.
Imagine there was only Windows and Solaris. For a winuser to switch to
Gerald Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ubuntu, and more importantly Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) are
NOT American. They are based in Europe, which means so far they can
get away with doing things that an American based company cannot.
Red Hat has had their lawyers look into this
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Gerald Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ubuntu, and more importantly Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) are
NOT American. They are based in Europe, which means so far
- Original Message -
From: John Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Aug 1, 2007
On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 13:34 -0700, John Martinez wrote:
I thought I read somewhere (can't find the source) that the market
for PC games is shrinking and the market for console games is
growing
(Wii/PS3/Xbox 360). The only exception being
Which desktop are you running?
KDE (as a user) and Gnome (a rare root session, occasionally as a user) and
xterm (skills playground) with no problems so far.
It works for you but when it comes to stability I've
found it lacking.
That's fine. It's very likely explained by the difference in
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
Something that *NIX, let alot Solaris isn't doing very well - lack of will
of companies concerned one could say. Kinda like the defeatest attitude to
Microsoft dominance on the desktop.
How would you gauge that yourself? Do those companies contact
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, MC wrote:
It comes with their PCs because it is technically the best desktop OS.
Dell doesn't sell Windows PCs instead of OS/2 Warp PCs because of a coin
flip. Windows is simply the best. (Better than all the rest!)
Being ignorant or dismissive of the market leaders
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, UNIX admin wrote:
Those that Indiana means something to are computer enthusiasts in one
form or another.
So you're saying you may know what Indiana actually is? It seems to be a
moving target, changing from day to day. How could that mean anything to
anyone at this
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
What can the opensolaris community do? nothing, it has no money. What
can Sun do? it has $4billion, you can do alot with $4billion.
I would think a sharp guy like you could reverse engineer most of those
protocols. That doesn't require money.
--
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
What can the opensolaris community do? nothing, it has no money. What
can Sun do? it has $4billion, you can do alot with $4billion.
I would think a sharp guy like you could reverse engineer most of those
protocols. That
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you still
need a license to ship it.
Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those
mentioned protocols for a Linux distribution snatching off a server in
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve the
user experience in either hardware support or software availability.
First of all, Solaris on x86 has been around for about 15 years, so I'm
not sure of the 2 years you
- Original Message -
From: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, MC wrote:
It comes with their PCs
- Original Message -
From: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED];
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan DuBoff wrote:
Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those
mentioned protocols for a Linux distribution snatching off a server in
another country. Why should Solaris be the same?
*shouldn't* is what I meant.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
When Solaris has the same level of hardware support both out of the box and
official, and software availability in the form of off the shelf boxed
products from big name vendors, then Sun and its minions can be judgemental
over Windows. Until
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve
the user experience in either hardware support or software availability.
You think nvidia video drivers, wifi drivers, Macromedia Flash, and all
the other drivers software appeared on their own
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you
still
need a license to ship it.
Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those
mentioned protocols for a Linux distribution
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you still
need a license to ship it.
Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get many of those
- Original Message -
From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED];
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter
Original Message -
From: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MC [EMAIL PROTECTED];
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris
] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
x86 being around for over 2 years and still no movement by Sun to improve
the user experience in either hardware support or software availability.
First of all, Solaris on x86 has been around for about 15
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] An Open Letter to the Solaris Community.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Doesn't matter how much you reverse engineer - if it's patented, you
still
need a license to ship it.
Depends on which protocol and the license, IMO. I can get
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
