On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
Or, as I said before, let us set a news server for opensolaris.org groups.
What are the objections to gmane?
Gmane is fine, but I think it is set as R/O i.e. you can't post throu
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
> >Anyway, as I mentioned to you in a separate email, the way this forum is
> >set up really does not speak well for whatever community it intends to
> >represent.
>
> Agreed. Derek and the rest of the group, can we scrap the for
>People who use a Browser to write mail need to set up the editing window
>to be wide enough (e.g. 130 chars) and then manually insert line breacks.
>Jörg
The problem with manually inserting line breaks is that, after you go back to
edit your message,
the entire paragraph will usually get totall
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Anyway, as I mentioned to you in a separate email, the way this forum is
set up really does not speak well for whatever community it intends to
represent.
Agreed. Derek and the rest of the group, can we scrap the forums (or maybe
make them R/O) and f
>People who use a Browser to write mail need to set up the editing window
>to be wide enough (e.g. 130 chars) and then manually insert line breacks.
Now I know what the problem is. Whoever designed the forum did not set up the
editing window properly. (This is the only place that I saw this kin
>most other people use a email client that breaks lines automaticly making the
>best use of a gui >interface.
I "think" I have subscribed to the email list, but instead of getting the
posted messages, I have been receiving a bunch of emails that read like this:
---
You are watching the foru
>Openoffice.org already provides a pretty decent (and current) port.
>Why reinvent the wheel?
Almost all the Linux distros have their own OOo packages. But, wait. How many
Linux distros are there competiting against each other?
Perhaps this is one of the biggest differences between Solaris and
> Better yet, give people (all inclusive, including
> newbies to Solaris who couldn't care less about
> backward compatibility) options when they install and
> try the OS out for a spin. Options within Solaris,
> or
> options within options. I think that's what
> OpenSolaris is all about to begin
> I hope you don't do it by putting something like:
>
> exec ksh
>
> into .profile like many people do. This would make
> your system
> unusable in single user mode when /usr has not yet
> been mounted
See my post above.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
> > exec /bin/ksh -o vi
>
> As we alrerady have discussed before, this is a
> really bad idea
> as it may make a system unusable if /usr could not be
> mounted.
Technically speaking: yes, agreed.
However, nowdays there is no need to carve up the disk into separate
FileSystems; it's not an effic
Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/14/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The main features of GNU tar is compliance problems.
> > I recommend to avoid GNU tar whereever possible.
> >
> > You cannot replace /usr/bin/tar with a program that does not implement
> > the fea
Well, if /usr is unmountable you will have more serious problems than ksh. You
could always use /bin/sh as default shell and edit /.profile to load ksh and
modify /$HOME/.kshrc according to your needs. Then you have a safe fallback if
usr is unavailable.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 7/14/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/14/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The main features of GNU tar is compliance problems.
> > I recommend to avoid GNU tar whereever possible.
> >
> > You cannot replace /usr/bin/tar with a program that does not implement
>
On 7/14/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main features of GNU tar is compliance problems.
> I recommend to avoid GNU tar whereever possible.
>
> You cannot replace /usr/bin/tar with a program that does not implement
> the features os /usr/bin/tar without creating hard to track
Jake Hamby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another symlink that we might discuss changing is /usr/bin/tar to point to
> /usr/sfw/bin/gtar instead of /usr/sbin/tar. The main feature of GNU tar not
> present in Solaris tar is built-in support for .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 archives
> using the -z and -j
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
> are enabled). While you may argue that Linux developers are at
> fault for using bash-specific features in their scripts, it's like
I wouldn't argue it, because it's a fact. It's fine for Linux to
assume GNU features in /bin/sh. It'
Danek Duvall wrote:
> > I vote for changing the default shell to a better
> one.
>
> Ah, but then the question is, which one. You might
> choose ksh over bash
> for various reasons, others might prefer tcsh, and
> some of us know that zsh
> is the One True Shell. If nothing else, the bourne
> s
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> ...
> Although I must say, when it comes to the development of _Sun_ Solaris,
> characterizing the process that way ("NO, NOT THERE!!") actually isn't
> all that far from reality...
I guess I should also add (in case it's not obvious)...
I of course th
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, George Jereza wrote:
> How to measure openness? What about like "look, but
> no touch! Or if you must touch, go ahead ... NO, NOT
> THERE!! :-)
:-)
Although I must say, when it comes to the development of _Sun_ Solaris,
characterizing the process that way ("NO, NOT THERE!!"
On 7/12/05, Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 20:49, George Jereza wrote:
> > How to measure openness? What about like "look, but
> > no touch! Or if you must touch, go ahead ... NO, NOT
> > THERE!! :-)
>
> we've been there:
>
> 5088704 kmdb should tell dtrace t
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 20:49, George Jereza wrote:
> How to measure openness? What about like "look, but
> no touch! Or if you must touch, go ahead ... NO, NOT
> THERE!! :-)
we've been there:
5088704 kmdb should tell dtrace that it doesn't like to be touched that
way
(fixed in build 67 of sola
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:15:52PM -0700, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> We're all individuals.
I'm not.
Danek
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
How to measure openness? What about like "look, but
no touch! Or if you must touch, go ahead ... NO, NOT
THERE!! :-)
> > > guess is probably not, given that I think we are
> > > talking about OpenSolaris and not Solaris.
> Kinda
> > begs
> > > an important question: how open is OpenSolaris?
>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:58:37PM -0700, George Jereza wrote:
> I'm wondering if this a statement of one individual or
We're all individuals. Corporate entities don't have fingers or vocal
cords because they're not alive.
> talking about OpenSolaris and not Solaris. Kinda begs
> an important
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 15:58, George Jereza wrote:
> Kinda begs an important question: how open is OpenSolaris?
OpenSolaris is just as open as Linux, Apache, Mozilla, *BSD...
In all of those projects anyone requesting a change has to
be able to justify the risks involved in the change to the
other
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, George Jereza wrote:
> I'm wondering if this a statement of one individual or
> if it represents a group eg. CAB, Sun, or whoever. My
I represent me only; not the CAB (unless a postiing specifcially
states that I *AM* representing the CAB), and defiantely not Sun.
It would b
I'm wondering if this a statement of one individual or
if it represents a group eg. CAB, Sun, or whoever. My
guess is probably not, given that I think we are
talking about OpenSolaris and not Solaris. Kinda begs
an important question: how open is OpenSolaris?
Thanks.
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Sun
On 7/12/05, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Tao Chen wrote:> ...> So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if it is not Linux? ...Tao,In my opinion readers of this statement will unfortunately interpret
it in a *wide* variety of ways. So correct me if I'm wron
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Tao Chen wrote:
> This is ridiculous!
> So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if it is not Linux?
Huh? The availability of GNOME/JDS on an OS doesn't make that OS
Linux all of a sudden!
> I don't know if it is to much to ask you, an "OpenSolaris CAB member", to
>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Tao Chen wrote:
> ...
> So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if it is not Linux? ...
Tao,
In my opinion readers of this statement will unfortunately interpret
it in a *wide* variety of ways. So correct me if I'm wrong, but is this
another way of saying it?
The
Stefan Teleman wrote:
On 7/12/05, Tao Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is ridiculous!
So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if it is not Linux?
i don't know why, after reading this sentence, i suddenly get the urge
to reasess a few things in life.
Like reconfiguring life's "
On 7/12/05, Tao Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is ridiculous!
> So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if it is not Linux?
i don't know why, after reading this sentence, i suddenly get the urge
to reasess a few things in life.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
On 7/11/05, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:> that's what I end up doing...although its beyond me why safe mode doesn't have bash.Repeat after me: Solaris is not Linux...
This is ridiculous!
So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if it is not Linux?
I
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:
> that's what I end up doing...although its beyond me why safe mode doesn't
> have bash.
Repeat after me: Solaris is not Linux...
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group
that's what I end up doing...although its beyond me why safe mode doesn't have
bash.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Guy Gascoigne-Piggford wrote:
What's worse is that we'd been explicitly doing an 'exec /bin/sh' to avoid
these sorts of problems. If I run /bin/sh I want to run /bin/sh not something
else with different behaviour.
Exactly! The Linux clean slate approach is great if you are new, but a
pa
OK, here's one.
We have a product that among other things performs expect like functionality by
scripting telnet or ssh sessions into remote machines.
When various Linux distributions stopped shipping /bin/ash as a link to /bin/sh
and replaced it with /bin/bash we suddenly started getting all s
Sunil wrote:
The operating system on your thousands of Linux boxes have never
had to worry about satisfying the needs of millions of customers
while retaining backwards compatibility. It is a certainty that if
SUN decided to change the default shell that at least some of their
customers (if not
> I remember there was a "library dependency"
> argument against changing the default shell for
> root.
/bin/bash and /bin/sh depend on exact same # libraries on solaris 10. And
/bin/sh is a link to /sbin/sh. root's (static before 10) shell and normal
bourne shell are no longer different. so root
On 7/7/05, Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can you please list one such incompatibility?
Shell wise? Not specifically. But I can list a few of *many* issues
that I've had over the years when upgrading to newer Linux
distributions:
* glibc ABI changes breaking my binaries (I won't even talk abo
> The operating system on your thousands of Linux boxes
> have never had
> to worry about satisfying the needs of millions of
> customers while
> retaining backwards compatibility. It is a certainty
> that if SUN
> decided to change the default shell that at least
> some of their
> customers (if no
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Gerhard S. wrote:
> > POSIX compliance is a key feature of Solaris, I
> > wouldn't expect SUN to
> > change this.
>
> Can you please quote the part of POSIX that
> forbids having working cursor keys in a shell?
> Hint: You won't find it. There isn't any.
Is there a section tha
On 7/7/05, Gerhard S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you please quote the part of POSIX that
> forbids having working cursor keys in a shell?
> Hint: You won't find it. There isn't any.
I never said that it did. But, it does require certain actions all the
way down to how the cursor behaves when
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilitie
> s/sh.html
this doc says 'set -o vi' should set vi command line editing mode. As far as I
remember, 'set -o vi' only works in ksh. So, how is /bin/sh compiliant to this
standard?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
> On 7/7/05, Gerhard S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But shouldn't be needed. In Linux it works all out
> of
> > the box without adding magic commands.
>
> POSIX compliance is a key feature of Solaris, I
> wouldn't expect SUN to
> change this.
Can you please quote the part of POSIX that
forbi
45 matches
Mail list logo
