"Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:14:14PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > The problem is that the creators of the Linux distributions
> > keep their users uninformed.
> >
> > They don't know that the command line features they see are features
> > from ba
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:14:14PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The problem is that the creators of the Linux distributions
> keep their users uninformed.
>
> They don't know that the command line features they see are features
> from bash.
>
> ... and they don't know that Linux does not come
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Solaris was designed to meet specific goals and needs, just because it
> doesn't meet someone else's specific goals or needs does not mean it
> is faulty :)
Solaris does have dofferent defaults than Linux. It is not a fault from
Solaris if Linux users
"Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:14:14PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > The problem is that the creators of the Linux distributions
> > keep their users uninformed.
> >
> > They don't know that the command line features they see are features
> > from ba
On 06/04/07, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > isn't true at all, but many potential users will
> never get past
> > "When I hit backspace, I get ^H--Linux hasn't done
> that since 1995!"
>
> This kind of nonsense was what I did see after I did
> publi
MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > isn't true at all, but many potential users will
> > never get past
> > > "When I hit backspace, I get ^H--Linux hasn't done
> > that since 1995!"
> >
> > This kind of nonsense was what I did see after I did
> >
MC wrote:
"Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
isn't true at all, but many potential users will
never get past
"When I hit backspace, I get ^H--Linux hasn't done
that since 1995!"
This kind of nonsense was what I did see after I did
publish Schillix,
the first Op
> "Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > isn't true at all, but many potential users will
> never get past
> > "When I hit backspace, I get ^H--Linux hasn't done
> that since 1995!"
>
> This kind of nonsense was what I did see after I did
> publish Schillix,
> the first OpenSolaris based
> > Out of curiousity, what gives you the feeling of
> assurance knowing that Ian is
> > at Sun, that you didn't have before you knew he
> was here?
>
> It gives the guys here hope that Solaris will move
> faster to adopt
> things like /usr/gnu, and generally adopt the
> usability improvements
>
Hi Alan,
> its very nice, to see u here, I am also new to solaris, now I am assured to
> get a stable version of solaris, under your supervision.
This has not been our experience with Solaris. And we run Gentoo and
OpenSolaris side-by-side to run our service.
Out of curiousity, what gives y
> "fat unstable GNOME" -- you realise that Sun chose
> GNOME as the
> desktop a long time ago for Solaris? I also think
> that your
> description of GNOME is rather unfair, and rather
> inaccurate.
Please tell that to those who have problems with
software using gtk libraries among which is memory
> > Please, no entrenched GNOME or gcc.
>
> What does that mean?
It means please do not take it down the Nexenta road
of using gcc built packages and fat unstable GNOME. It
is a real pity that firefox and thunderbird use gtk. I
am not saying everything gnome is bad but the
underlying gtk stuff i
Nicolas Linkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's really good news.
>
> The next big bang may be: Jörg Schilling is joining Debian.
> Everything seems possible ;)
The idea behind Debian was good and still is good.
The problem with Debian today is that too many people inside
do no longer follo
On Tuesday 27 March 2007 04:49 am, Shawn Walker wrote:
> "fat unstable GNOME" -- you realise that Sun chose GNOME as the
> desktop a long time ago for Solaris? I also think that your
> description of GNOME is rather unfair, and rather inaccurate.
It might be innacurate, but this has long been the
old look, is it something that can't be
cured with a snazzy theme?
- original message -
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: joining Sun
From: Thomas De Schampheleire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27/03/2007 5:59 pm
What I, with the few but existing experiences I've h
What I, with the few but existing experiences I've had with it,
disfavor in GNOME is the fact that it does not look and feel good. It
looks old, gray and basic, and does not work intuitively. KDE has a
much fresher look, and has in my opinion a more intuitive interface.
For example, I never reall
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 26/03/07, Chung Hang Christopher Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please, no entrenched GNOME or gcc.
>
> What does that mean?
It means please do not take it down the Nexenta road
of using gcc built packages and fat unstable GNOME. It
"fat unstable GNOME" -- you rea
On 26/03/07, Chung Hang Christopher Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please, no entrenched GNOME or gcc.
>
> What does that mean?
It means please do not take it down the Nexenta road
of using gcc built packages and fat unstable GNOME. It
"fat unstable GNOME" -- you realise that Sun chose G
> As a Linux user who has recently started working with
> the OpenSolaris
> kernel for a project, I have been thinking about this
> as well.
>
> What I personally find important in Linux is:
> - the user experience, mostly embodied by the KDE
> desktop environment.
> I don't like Gnome, so I don't
On 26/03/07, Christopher Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[i]There are some interesting connections to Linux here as well. If you
think about it, what do people want when they say they want "Linux"?
The Linux kernel? Or the Linux distribution (i.e., GNU)? Could Solaris
become a "better Linux than
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, UNIX admin wrote:
> Add me to that list.
>
> "--switch" is not the UNIX(R) way. It's inconsistent with the
> "-[a-zA-Z]" phylosophy, and consistency is one of the most important
> benefits and perks UNIX has to offer.
Another thing that I find almost annoying is the use of "
> I will admit GNU/Linux systems get you used to typing "cmd --help"
> instead of "man
> cmd" which I think is a bad habit. I think most
> people got used to
> doing this since documentation is something that was
> usually
> completely overlooked on most GNU/Linux
> distributions...
...Or in plain
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> > That is a matter of preference. I always hated the
> -- options GNU
> > utilities use since they were so much more to type.
> I will admit
>
> You and me both!
Add me to that list.
"--switch" is not the UNIX(R) way. It's inconsistent with the "-[
[i]There are some interesting connections to Linux here as well. If you
think about it, what do people want when they say they want "Linux"?
The Linux kernel? Or the Linux distribution (i.e., GNU)? Could Solaris
become a "better Linux than Linux" by following that line of thinking?
And if you follo
>
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 04:46, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
>
>> Alan DuBoff wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 20 March 2007 02:59 pm, Nicolas Linkert wrote:
That's really good news.
The next big bang may be: Jörg Schilling is joining Debian.
Everything seems possible ;)
>>> Ah, now it's all
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 05:59 am, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > Now, y'all boys realize what this leads to. Simon joining MSFT.
> > Don't make me say it! Wait, I just said it... Owh.
>
> They stopped calling a year or so ago...
That does give you some credence, they stopped calling me close to 20 yea
James Carlson wrote:
Martin Bochnig writes:
Everyone who thinks he can improve something should go ahead and JOIN
BLASTWAVE.
Or build up his own stack.
Rather than complaining on public lists.
If we can't even discuss the issues on a public list, how exactly do
you propose that we en
Dennis Clarke writes:
> The other issue that arises here is that a patch has a dependency tree also.
> If I have a package that requires only a few small changes then a patch
> makes sense. If I then make another release with a few more changes then we
> have yet another patch. However these patche
Martin Bochnig writes:
> Everyone who thinks he can improve something should go ahead and JOIN
> BLASTWAVE.
> Or build up his own stack.
> Rather than complaining on public lists.
If we can't even discuss the issues on a public list, how exactly do
you propose that we end up working together on a
Dennis Clarke writes:
> So now we have some new binaries, some data files that have not changed,
> some binaries that are the same again.
>
> Patch or Package ?
It can be either.
> The current method we employ is to remove the whole collection and use the
> standards compliant SVR4 tools to achi
>
> Yes; that's what the 'package history' mechanism is about in Solaris
> upgrades.
>
> It is more complicated than I suggested, and I think there's likely an
> RFE or two buried in here.
>
> In any event, it's not really why we use patches. Patches represent
> an atomic change to objects in mul
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Jason Ozolins writes:
Blastwave package upgrade == package remove followed by package install.
Not like, say, RPM's handing of upgrades at all. The service stops while
the upgrade happens. Not to mention, some of our config files got creamed
(this is really the packa
> Jason Ozolins writes:
>> Blastwave package upgrade == package remove followed by package install.
>> Not like, say, RPM's handing of upgrades at all. The service stops while
>> the upgrade happens. Not to mention, some of our config files got creamed
>> (this is really the packager's problem r
Moinak Ghosh writes:
> > A Solaris upgrade (as opposed to patches) uses packages. The
> > difference is that the upgrade process uses SVr4 'admin' files when
> > necessary. Blastwave could do this with "instance=overwrite," and
> > probably should, but it doesn't.
> >
>
>But overwriting w
James Carlson wrote:
Jason Ozolins writes:
Blastwave package upgrade == package remove followed by package install. Not
like, say, RPM's handing of upgrades at all. The service stops while the
upgrade happens. Not to mention, some of our config files got creamed (this is
really the pack
On Mar 21, 2007, at 04:46, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 02:59 pm, Nicolas Linkert wrote:
That's really good news.
The next big bang may be: Jörg Schilling is joining Debian.
Everything seems possible ;)
Ah, now it's all making sense...I did note he ha
Jason Ozolins writes:
> Blastwave package upgrade == package remove followed by package install. Not
> like, say, RPM's handing of upgrades at all. The service stops while the
> upgrade happens. Not to mention, some of our config files got creamed (this
> is really the packager's problem rath
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, UNIX admin wrote:
The next big bang may be: Jörg Schilling is joining
Debian.
Everything seems possible ;)
Somehow I seriously doubt that. Jörg showed Debian on number of occassions how
crappy the Linux code was, especially the SCSI implementation, delivered
patches... i
> The next big bang may be: Jörg Schilling is joining
> Debian.
> Everything seems possible ;)
Somehow I seriously doubt that. Jörg showed Debian on number of occassions how
crappy the Linux code was, especially the SCSI implementation, delivered
patches... instead of embracing him with open arm
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 08:17 pm, P SRINIVASA RAO wrote:
> its very nice, to see u here, I am also new to solaris, now I am assured to
> get a stable version of solaris, under your supervision.
Ouch, many of my colleagues will most likely be hurt by that comment.
Considering that Solaris is prob
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 02:59 pm, Nicolas Linkert wrote:
That's really good news.
The next big bang may be: Jörg Schilling is joining Debian.
Everything seems possible ;)
Ah, now it's all making sense...I did note he had some good things to say
about Debian in his OGB pod
> hello Ian
>
>
> its very nice, to see u here, I am also new to
> solaris, now I am assured to get a stable version of
> solaris, under your supervision.
The arrival of a respected figure is one thing, but I think that (allowing
for the odd glitch nothing so complicated is ever totally free of)
hello Ian
its very nice, to see u here, I am also new to solaris, now I am assured to get
a stable version of solaris, under your supervision.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensol
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, David Lloyd wrote:
>
> > Indeed, apt-get for Solaris would be quite useful
> :P
>
> Blastwave.org is thataway ->
Sad to say, but upgrading services (ldap, web, etc) running from Blastwave
packages caused us a bunch of grief. We went back to building our own.
Doing a
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 02:59 pm, Nicolas Linkert wrote:
> That's really good news.
>
> The next big bang may be: Jörg Schilling is joining Debian.
> Everything seems possible ;)
Ah, now it's all making sense...I did note he had some good things to say
about Debian in his OGB podcast, maybe Joer
That's really good news.
The next big bang may be: Jörg Schilling is joining Debian.
Everything seems possible ;)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi Ian,
It is great that Sun could make you part of the team, you have a wealth of
experience and credibility within the open source community that can do nothing
but benefit not only Sun but the OpenSolaris Community as well.
I look forward to reading your thoughts and opinions within these fo
On Monday 19 March 2007 01:37 pm, James Carlson wrote:
> george r smith writes:
> > I am more concerned about regular solaris - will it suffer because of an
> > emphasis on linux/open-solaris
>
> I don't think the divide between regular Solaris and OpenSolaris that
> you're suggesting in fact exist
Oh boy, we are in for some fun times. This Ian guy is uniquely on the ball from
what I just read on his blog. I think he could either do great things with
Solaris, or try to do great things and be kicked off the boat :)
And now for some one-way discussion and/or hazing.
"Solaris is great techn
One of our (OpenSolaris /and/ Sun) big problems is getting a handle on
how these two worlds can/should/must evolve and interoperate with each
other. Having Ian on board with his strong Linux background can't help
but bring much needed clarity and focus to this chaotic area. I'm certain
that ther
george r smith writes:
> I am more concerned about regular solaris - will it suffer because of an
> emphasis on linux/open-solaris
I don't think the divide between regular Solaris and OpenSolaris that
you're suggesting in fact exists.
As far as regular Solaris is concerned, the OpenSolaris source
I am more concerned about regular solaris - will it suffer because of an
emphasis on linux/open-solaris
george r smith
> Congratulations.
> So, let me be very direct (as always): what do you have in mind for
> (Open)Solaris?
___
opensolaris-discuss mail
> First things first: I'm a long time Linux user,
> developer, and advocate.
> I founded Debian in 1993, co-founded a Linux
> distribution company called
> Progeny in 1999, and most recently served as CTO of
> the new Linux
> Foundation, where I was (and still am) chair of the
> LSB, the Linux
> pl
I just wanted
> to say hello, and to make sure you heard the news
> directly from me.
>
> Later,
>
> -ian
> --
> Ian Murdock
> http://ianmurdock.com/
Wow, I remember you. You were debIAN when Debian was cool. Mahalo.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
54 matches
Mail list logo
