[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> Certainly we could list enough objectives that we > could look at this as a > failure, but as I've pointed out, Sun has made huge > strides to open the > sources up and there has been participation from > folks that have the > knowledge and skills to do it. Juergen Keil a case in > point. Even

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> I think that is a negative way of looking at things. > It is all about improvements - so if there are less > Solaris kernel developers the idea should be to > create more of them and not be complacent about it. Developers at any cost will not help OpenSolaris. Software development is NOT like m

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But more importantly this was never about accepting any and all changes > > - it was about making it better for people to propose changes and people > > to review it and then accept the quality ones. > > > The review/integration process on Linux can be

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> Sun and may even explain the degradation of quality > once Sun tries to > ship it (re: JDS versus normal Gnome) but this is > hardly appropriate > for an Open Source project. I fail to understand why OpenSolaris would have to behave as some other open source projects. Why must we mimic the Linu

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> No sir. They do not accept Solaris because firstly > they believe freedom is priceless and that a > for-profit company in drivers seat driving things the > deem fit, there cannot be freedom and no one likes to > work for free for somebody else's cause. Secondly > most use x86 and Solaris won't wo

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, S Destika wrote: Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other changes are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets merged in mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux development works at all. "eventually all acceptable

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

"Josh Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/5/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Josh Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hmmm, how did JDS/gnome come up here??? Since it has, I assume > > > > you don't like the look & feel of JDS, and would prefer Gnome. This > > > >

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On 2/5/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Josh Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmmm, how did JDS/gnome come up here??? Since it has, I assume > > you don't like the look & feel of JDS, and would prefer Gnome. This > > is a subjective view rather than a "degradation of quality"

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

"Josh Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmmm, how did JDS/gnome come up here??? Since it has, I assume > > you don't like the look & feel of JDS, and would prefer Gnome. This > > is a subjective view rather than a "degradation of quality" or inappropriate > > for a Open Source project. > > Few

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On 2/5/07, Doug Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >And how far have the star or ksh projects > progressed? The last one > > >appears to be in serious trouble now because Sun > has to complain about > > >every little detail and the

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >And how far have the star or ksh projects > progressed? The last one > > >appears to be in serious trouble now because Sun > has to complain about > > >every little detail and the star project makes > either zero progress or > > >

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[...] pax ??? pax is an archiver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaX http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/pax.html based on the tar format with cpio legacy support. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

I've seen more domineering, tyrannical behavior in "voluntary" neighborhood improvement associations than in for-profit businesses. And I'm quite sure I could find in writing times that one of the Linux bigwigs has in effect said "not only no, but _HELL_ no!" to something. The good thing about mak

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

"Ignacio Marambio Catán" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/3/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other > > changes are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets > > merged in mainline. I don't think yo

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> Because as I have said hundred times or so - the > process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and dictated by > Sun based on their interests instead of community > inspired - not something I can work with. Also it is > too slow and additionally suffers from unfair > prioritization according to Sun's i

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On 2/3/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other changes are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets merged in mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux development works at all. ohh, i think i

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On Feb 4, 2007, at 00:26, S Destika wrote: Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an already existing bug ID and request a sponsor? Because as I have said hundred times or so - the process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and dictated by Sun based on their interests instead of community

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an > already existing bug ID and request a sponsor? Because as I have said hundred times or so - the process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and dictated by Sun based on their interests instead of community inspired - not something I can work with.

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On Feb 3, 2007, at 19:26, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: In any case, evangelizm can solve the issue, CDDL is free by any standard, even the FSF thinks so, their only problem with it is that it is just not GPL compatible. That might change with GPLv3, there is some focus in license compatibilit

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> But more importantly this was never about accepting > any and all changes - it was about making it better > for people to propose changes and people to review it > and then accept the quality ones. That's exactly how the process works now. Why don't you simply open up an RFE or pick an already

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other changes are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets merged in mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux development works at all. But more importantly this was never about accepting any and all c

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Somebody should just freaking replace Linux with latest Solaris version for > sites like Wikipedia, kernel.org (running at 400+ load as of today) and see > how it stands up - I doubt they'll even get past the hardware incompatibility > issues. If the Engi

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

I think that maybe x86 *is* the main area where we need help from device driver writers who have done the compatibility heavy lifting for Linux already. Is there a licensing problem in getting their work onto Open Solaris for x64/x86? Would the GPLv3 even solve the problem? Outside of this camp

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

No sir. They do not accept Solaris because firstly they believe freedom is priceless and that a for-profit company in drivers seat driving things the deem fit, there cannot be freedom and no one likes to work for free for somebody else's cause. marketing, just marketing, changing the license

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika wrote: Secondly most use x86 and Solaris won't work there I'll admit there are some areas that need improvement, but Solaris certainly works on x86, and more Solaris users are now on x86 than SPARC, so it's getting a lot of attention to fix the deficiencies. -- -Alan Coopersm

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> > Those guys aren't going to accept Solaris. They're > fundamentalists who don't use something based on > technical merit, but based on ideological merit. And > to me, that's the wrong reason to use an OS. > > The only way those people might ever be *compelled* > to accept Solaris is if Solar

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> What I am about to say is fairly brutal, so if you're > already upset, > don't read further. I'm certainly not upset; this is a disucssion, and I appreciate contrarian views so long as they're stated in a non-ad hominem manner. > I am an admin on wikipedia, was very active before my > son was

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> According to Alexa, > http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&u > rl=http://www.wikipedia.org > The agglomerated wikipedia sites are generating 4 > billion page views > per day and are ranked 12th in the world for all > traffic. > > Now, PHP is admittedly one of the most insecure, >

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

"Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So unless you can point out _specific_ needs, wants, etc. that can't be > met either now or with actions already underway, I just don't see what > your point is. No particular license is IMO going to make that much of > a difference in a positive

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> You know, there are people over there who say the > same thing about > us. I don't agree with them either. I'd say you're right, there probably are; but, people like me care as much for them as they do for me. No problem there. The thing is this: they said Sun is closed and proprietary --

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think his point was that, even if there were 1000 non-Sun developers > contributing to OpenSolaris, the number of application developers, > students and users "participating" in the OpenSolaris community > would still dwarf them. > > As I said earlier, t

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> > If Sun would just get out of the way as you > suggest, > > and let the external > > folks do what they wanted, OpenSolaris would be a > > real mess. > Wow - that is so wrong. You would not want to apply > the same analogy in say a child's case, forget adults > for a moment. Cause then it will

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[...] > > If Sun would just get out of the way as you > suggest, > > and let the external > > folks do what they wanted, OpenSolaris would be a > > real mess. > Wow - that is so wrong. You would not want to apply > the same analogy in say a child's case, forget adults > for a moment. Cause then i

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[...] > Again some of those folks are complaining about much > of the same things that I did. > (see elsewhere on the forum). I think there wasn't a > need for the source to be made open if the idea was > just people developing apps and creating distros on > top of what Sun provides. That you belie

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> >The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the > community > >cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I > include > >both bugs *and* RFEs in "issues". > > That is your view, sir. You completely, totally > disregard the "community" here. You are not the > community. Community is a dist

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika wrote: >>Do you have a specific device that is really >>preventing you from using >>Solaris/OpenSolaris? >> >> > >About 8 different x86/64 boxes - and I am not alone by any means. Only place >where it works reasonably is VMware. Has Sun any interest in fixing x86 >hardware support

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> > Yes, because Sun employees are the majority of > engineers that understand and > can work with the code. A good majority of the > folks > outside of Sun have not > even pulled or looked at the sources. You don't > expect the engineers who have > been working on this code for man year

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> NOTE: send an email to Derek Cicero to have your > email changed. > Stevel agreed to help me with that - he has my new email and I am waiting on him to update it. > No, if you understood the process better, Sun made > some huge progress. > Not having SCM, not having a proper commit/review proc

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika wrote: I will never expect a huge number of people developing OpenSolaris itself. I would consider that as a wasted opportunity and potential. I think his point was that, even if there were 1000 non-Sun developers contributing to OpenSolaris, the number of application developers, s

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> If you are defining "participation" as "putting back > code", yes, you are > correct. But really, how many kernel developers are > out there in the > world? I'm not expecting a huge number here. I think that is a negative way of looking at things. It is all about improvements - so if there

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

> disregard my previous post - I didn't realise that > you were having > issues changing it. email me your new email address > and i'll update > your account. sdest at startvclub dot com - Please update (People will now have to find new reasons to flame me - kidding :). But I would have been h

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

Stephen Lau wrote: .. and the first step in creating a conducive atmosphere for the community is having an email address that freaking works. Why even have the much-hated Jive forums if you're going to disown people who use them instead of the mailing lists? -- -Alan Coopersmith-

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation

> > > Peter Tribble wrote On 02/02/07 05:23,: > > On 2/1/07, *Ben Rockwood* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > While that would be handy, we already have a > good program in place, > > its just buried. I refer to "Bite Sized Bugs". > > > > ... > > > >

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

>>The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the community >>cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I include >>both bugs *and* RFEs in "issues". > >That is your view, sir. You completely, totally disregard the "community" >here. You are not the co mmunity. Community is a distinct, ind

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

.. and the first step in creating a conducive atmosphere for the community is having an email address that freaking works. snarkily yours, steve On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 06:45:57PM -0800, S Destika wrote: > >The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the community > >cannot provide quality code

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika wrote: >>The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the community >>cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I include >>both bugs *and* RFEs in "issues". >> >> > >That is your view, sir. You completely, totally disregard the "community" >here. You are not the community. Co

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

>The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the community >cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I include >both bugs *and* RFEs in "issues". That is your view, sir. You completely, totally disregard the "community" here. You are not the community. Community is a distinct, independent

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation

> > > >>Ask in opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org for > details. The answer is > >>yes > >>except some closed binary parts which still await > approval from the > >>stupid lawyers. I'd expect Open Solaris being built > entirely from > >>source in a year > > > Actually, the lawyers are really quit

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation

> Shawn Walker wrote: > > I think the barriers to contribution are currently > the biggest discouragement. Integration of even the > smallest changes can take a very long time. > > > and how is this any different to getting fixes into > "the one true" Linux > kernel tar ball ? > ow many people

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation

> Hello Shawn, > > Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 4:01:33 AM, you wrote: > > SW> I think the barriers to contribution are > currently the biggest > SW> discouragement. Integration of even the smallest > changes can take a very long time. > > Not that you get code integration in Linux world > insta

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation

> All of those things are being worked on now. > > > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > I think the barriers to contribution are currently > the biggest discouragement. Integration of even the > smallest changes can take a very long time. > > > > Oh, and before I forget, the bug reporting system > being