> >
> x86 hardware support has been steadily improving over
> the last couple of
> years and the rate of improvement has accelerated in
> the past year. I
> have only failed to install on one x64 system (and I
> have done a lot of
> installs) and that was an HP DL380.
>
> So the answer is x86 har
> 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 x8
As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any
place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I
analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it
would help me posting here. Same goes with bug reports.)
This messa
> I'd be pleased to hear your process suggestions, but
> I'm afraid a
> process of some sort is inevitable. All non-trivial
> FOSS communities
> have a process that ensures commits are only made by
> people the
> community trusts.
>
That's right. No one (that includes me) here is saying allo
> Job #2 - Have the foundation create infrastructure,
> processes and other things for setting up a platform
> for people to collaborate. (Mailing lists, SCM,
> Commit process, patch management, reviews, etc.)
But that's exactly what's being worked on. What do you think the whole SCM
switch from
> > >
> > x86 hardware support has been steadily improving
> over
> > the last couple of
> > years and the rate of improvement has accelerated
> in
> > the past year. I
> > have only failed to install on one x64 system (and
> I
> > have done a lot of
> > installs) and that was an HP DL380.
> >
>
> Here is what I think should be done for the project
> as a whole to succeed as a open source project
> thriving on its own agendas, passion, direction and
> innovation.
>
> Job #1 - Get rid of the conflict of interest
> Sun wants to make certain changes by following
> certain processes and commu
If you continue to repeatedly miss the point it becomes frustrating for me to
repeat it over and over. OSS people value it to no ends that for-profit
organization should not be in sole control and dictatorship of any OSS project
for simple reasons. That simply cannot be a good thing - there is s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest - Read on it please. I keep
re-iterating the sole aim is to get rid of that and let the community act in
their own interests. BTW community people are grown up adults and can decide
what is best for them.
This message posted from opensolaris
Yes, I miss the point. I trust greed modified by even the least
bit of long-term view (like not getting into legal trouble) in most
cases far more than either idealism or community as a predictable
motivator, because idealism has excused more harm than greed,
and neighborhood busybodies have hurt
> If you continue to repeatedly miss the point it
> becomes frustrating for me to repeat it over and
> over. OSS people value it to no ends that for-profit
> organization should not be in sole control and
> dictatorship of any OSS project for simple reasons.
> That simply cannot be a good thing - t
[i]Firstly, your point about full control. The CAB is made up of 5 people. 2
from
Sun, 2 from the pilot project, and 1 from the OSS community at large. That
to me does not equate to full control or a dictatorship. I assume they aren't
paying Rich :)
[/i]
For me,the problems of the control is not
> Few examples:
> Linux+Gnome is much faster than Solaris+JDS on the
> same AMD hardware.
> JDS+Solaris needs more memory than Linux+Gnome (same
> hardware). 512MB
> are enough for Linux, Solaris starts swapping after a
> few hours of
> usage and doesn't stop until swap is full. JDS
> doesn't grok
> Few examples:
> Linux+Gnome is much faster than Solaris+JDS on the
> same AMD hardware.
> JDS+Solaris needs more memory than Linux+Gnome (same
> hardware). 512MB
> are enough for Linux, Solaris starts swapping after a
> few hours of
> usage and doesn't stop until swap is full. JDS
> doesn't grok
Quite right; I've watched firefox shoot up past 300MB VM usage
when it really wasn't doing that much. And I've also seen both
mozilla and firefox generate silly amounts of disk I/O simply
because of animated GIFs being on a page.
Doesn't matter who compiled it, or even whose libs (Sun's vs blastw
> 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?
The most bizzarre part is the fact that Linu
> Few examples:
> Linux+Gnome is much faster than Solaris+JDS on the
> same AMD hardware.
> JDS+Solaris needs more memory than Linux+Gnome (same
> hardware). 512MB
> are enough for Linux, Solaris starts swapping after a
> few hours of
> usage and doesn't stop until swap is full. JDS
> doesn't grok
Bob Palowoda wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>x86 hardware support has been steadily improving over
>>the last couple of
>>years and the rate of improvement has accelerated in
>>the past year. I
>>have only failed to install on one x64 system (and I
>>have done a lot of
>>installs) and that was an HP DL380
> Bob Palowoda wrote:
>
>>>x86 hardware support has been steadily improving over
>>>the last couple of
>>>years and the rate of improvement has accelerated in
>>>the past year. I
>>>have only failed to install on one x64 system (and I
>>>have done a lot of
>>>installs) and that was an H
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>The client was consolidating all their old windows boxes on a couple of
>>8 core Opteron boxes with VMWare ESX, so we just built a Solaris virtual
>>machine and ran with that. Cop out, but pragmatic!
>>
>>
>
>How did you get past the insane costs ?
>
>
>
They're a win
On 2/3/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any
place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I
analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it
would help me posting
S Destika wrote:
>As I said I tried on 8 different boxes without luck. I don't even have any
>place to (except paid Sun support which I cannot afford) ask for help. (I
>analyzed where the issues posted on these forums go and didn't feel like it
>would help me posting here. Same goes with bug re
UNIX admin wrote:
Job #2 - Have the foundation create infrastructure,
processes and other things for setting up a platform
for people to collaborate. (Mailing lists, SCM,
Commit process, patch management, reviews, etc.)
But that's exactly what's being worked on. What do you think the whole SCM
On 2/4/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is what I think should be done for the project as a whole to succeed as a
open source project thriving on its own agendas, passion, direction and
innovation.
Job #1 - Get rid of the conflict of interest
Sun wants to make certain changes by f
On 2/4/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest - Read on it please. I keep
re-iterating the sole aim is to get rid of that and let the community act in
their own interests. BTW community people are grown up adults and can decide
what is best
S Destika wrote:
OSS people value it to no ends that for-profit organization should not be in sole control and dictatorship of any OSS project for simple reasons.
And yet MySQL, Ubuntu, Fedora, and other high-profile OSS projects
thrive in such environments, so it can't be universally true.
-
Doug Scott wrote:
Xorg, keeps on going and going. You exit firefox, and Xorg does not return
the memory.
Xorg uses standard UNIX malloc, so memory won't be returned to the OS upon
free, just to the free space list in the Xorg heap, unless it was a shared
memory pixmap that was attached to and
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Scott wrote:
> > Xorg, keeps on going and going. You exit firefox, and Xorg does not return
> > the memory.
>
> Xorg uses standard UNIX malloc, so memory won't be returned to the OS upon
> free, just to the free space list in the Xorg heap, unles
On 2/5/07, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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/
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Quite right; I've watched firefox shoot up past 300MB VM usage
when it really wasn't doing that much. And I've also seen both
mozilla and firefox generate silly amounts of disk I/O simply
because of animated GIFs being on a page.
Personally, this mostly seems to depe
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Doug Scott wrote:
Xorg, keeps on going and going. You exit firefox, and Xorg does not
return
the memory.
Xorg uses standard UNIX malloc, so memory won't be returned to the OS
upon
free, just to the free space list in the Xorg heap, unless it was a
shared
memory pixm
Doug Scott wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. This explains what is happening to
firefox. Is Xorg
looking into the problem, as it can be a real pain having to restart X
every so often.
I don't know of anyone at X.Org looking into the problem since it's pretty
universally believed to be a Fi
On 2/6/07, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry - I've never used Opera and don't know what it does.
One thing it *doesn't* do is to bloat Xorg to 684MB in 24 hours.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris
I think we can close this thread off with the following
carton - seen today at http://xkcd.com/c225.html
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/open_source.png";>
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer
Sun Microsystems
___
opensolaris-discuss ma
34 matches
Mail list logo
