On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 13:39 +0100, Calum Benson wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 01:31 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
>
> > e) Ubuntu kept trying to do DHCP, no matter what, in the most
> > braindead way possible
> >
> > f) the GUI to configure networking did not work under Ubuntu - quite
> > simply, the
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 01:31 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> e) Ubuntu kept trying to do DHCP, no matter what, in the most
> braindead way possible
>
> f) the GUI to configure networking did not work under Ubuntu - quite
> simply, there was no effect!
These are down to NetworkManager, which is now in
> No, I think it is wrong to make such an observation.
> Sun has open sourced solaris, but it assumes a broad
> responsibility over open solaris, it does everything
> it can to further the cause of open solaris, Why
> would it host open solaris as an integral part of Sun
> Tech Days or Java One ? I
I think the problem is solvable, but it'd require lateral thinking.
1. I do not think that OpenSolaris team can solve that in first place. Not
because they aren't smart, but because they shouldn't be the guys handling
end-user usability issues. Kernel developers are not the guys to hire for that
Kaiwai Gardiner writes:
> According to:
>
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6586592
>
> It apparently has been defered.
It looks like it was deferred because it's not necessarily a video
class compliant device (meaning "nonstandard") and thus will probably
take a fair bit of work
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:21 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Kaiwai Gardiner writes:
> > According to:
> >
> > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6586592
> >
> > It apparently has been defered.
>
> It looks like it was deferred because it's not necessarily a video
> class compliant devi
Kaiwai Gardiner writes:
> On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:27 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying that when you bring in money,
> > opensolaris.org is not the appropriate venue.
>
> But ultimately what is developed in OpenSolaris will end up in a payable
> product.
> > Users might help Open Solaris by giving a feed
> back,
> > by telling them what they want. That would be
> great
> > help, and beyond that, if you want users to roll
> up
> > their sleeves and help out, no, that is not going
> to
> > happen. That can never happen. Yes, the user wants
> it
> > a
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:46 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >If Sun supported my webcam (bug reported), along with my wireless out of
> >the box on the current release of Solaris - I would purchase it straight
> >away. The webcam is uvc compliant but needs a firmware uploaded (the
> >whole inf
>If Sun supported my webcam (bug reported), along with my wireless out of
>the box on the current release of Solaris - I would purchase it straight
>away. The webcam is uvc compliant but needs a firmware uploaded (the
>whole information is linked on bugster) and my wireless is supported in
>SXCE
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:27 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Excuse me, you're making the assumption that loud-mouths like me aren't
> >willing to pay for Solaris - I am willing to pay for Solaris, but I'm
> >not willing to pay for a Solaris whose hardware support is subpar. The
> >day when So
>Excuse me, you're making the assumption that loud-mouths like me aren't
>willing to pay for Solaris - I am willing to pay for Solaris, but I'm
>not willing to pay for a Solaris whose hardware support is subpar. The
>day when Solaris gets up to the bar set my me will be the day I'll
>purchase Sol
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 14:52 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Sometimes I wonder if any of them have ever worked in the service
> >industry before becoming a programmer - some of the need to realise that
> >'the customer pays your wage' - because they for some reason can't see
> >the connection
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 06:17 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > Users might help Open Solaris by giving a feed back,
> > by telling them what they want. That would be great
> > help, and beyond that, if you want users to roll up
> > their sleeves and help out, no, that is not going to
> > happen. That can
> The problem is that this particular topic has been chewed over and
> over, and it basically comes down to users or would-be users of
> OpenSolaris *demanding* OpenSolaris deliver this, that or the other.
>
> And there also seems to be a tendency that those who are the most
> vocal in this partic
> Why would you give up? In this task of defining what
> needs to be done, it is contrary views that are
> important, it is differences that are important...
We could be discussing this 'till we're all blue in the face, but that won't
get us anywhere.
Code talks.
Graphics talk.
Audio talks.
Docu
> Users might help Open Solaris by giving a feed back,
> by telling them what they want. That would be great
> help, and beyond that, if you want users to roll up
> their sleeves and help out, no, that is not going to
> happen. That can never happen. Yes, the user wants it
> all delivered on a sliv
>Sometimes I wonder if any of them have ever worked in the service
>industry before becoming a programmer - some of the need to realise that
>'the customer pays your wage' - because they for some reason can't see
>the connection between the customer and how they get paid.
But that is *completel
>On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 01:58 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
>> > Open Solaris developers have to do a lot of complex
>> > work in order to give the user a compuer that is
>> > plain, easy and utterly simple.
>>
>> And what about users rolling up their sleeves and helping out?
>> Or is everything just t
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 04:43 -0700, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> > > Open Solaris developers have to do a lot of
> > complex
> > > work in order to give the user a compuer that is
> > > plain, easy and utterly simple.
> >
> > And what about users rolling up their sleeves and
> > helping out?
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 01:58 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > Open Solaris developers have to do a lot of complex
> > work in order to give the user a compuer that is
> > plain, easy and utterly simple.
>
> And what about users rolling up their sleeves and helping out?
> Or is everything just to be del
> > Open Solaris developers have to do a lot of
> complex
> > work in order to give the user a compuer that is
> > plain, easy and utterly simple.
>
> And what about users rolling up their sleeves and
> helping out?
> Or is everything just to be delivered on a silver
> platter?
Users might help O
> > I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to have the option to use Solaris
> > without having to learn the details.
>
> By the way, I agree with you. Where we (perhaps) disagree is the means to get
> to the point of using
> Solaris without having to learn the details.
>
> And on further thought,
> I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to have the
> option to use Solaris
> without having to learn the details.
By the way, I agree with you. Where we (perhaps) disagree is the means to get
to the point of using Solaris without having to learn the details.
And on further thought, I think I'll
> Open Solaris developers have to do a lot of complex
> work in order to give the user a compuer that is
> plain, easy and utterly simple.
And what about users rolling up their sleeves and helping out?
Or is everything just to be delivered on a silver platter?
This message posted from opensola
> Agree wholeheartedly. Why should an user have to
> learn Unix in order to
> use a Word Processor. Maybe that person is writing
> a novel and wants to
> concentrate on the characters, plot, storyline
> rather than fumbling
> ith ls
>flags.
That's already available in OpenSolaris today, so
> Amazingly so, yes. The user had an application that
> was itself
> completely valid -- treating the operating system as
> a mere appliance
> in service of some larger job.
What amazes me is that a such a simple, honest question can be so offensive. It
certainly had no such motive. But whatever
> James Carlson wrote:
> > UNIX admin writes:
> >
> Do you even care to understand?
>
> >>> I don't think it's helpful at all to chase away
> >>> people who want to use
> >>> an OpenSolaris-based distribution in an
> unexpected or
> >>> novel way. We
> >>> actually do _want_
Dear Ian Collins,
> This isn't the place to discuss the shortcomings of Solaris 10, many of
> these have been addressed in Solaris Express and other OpenSolaris based
> distributions. Let the past rest and look to the future.
I have seen looked at developer editions, some of the most recent
vers
James Carlson wrote:
> UNIX admin writes:
>
Do you even care to understand?
>>> I don't think it's helpful at all to chase away
>>> people who want to use
>>> an OpenSolaris-based distribution in an unexpected or
>>> novel way. We
>>> actually do _want_ new users.
>>>
UNIX admin writes:
> > > Do you even care to understand?
> >
> > I don't think it's helpful at all to chase away
> > people who want to use
> > an OpenSolaris-based distribution in an unexpected or
> > novel way. We
> > actually do _want_ new users.
>
> Did you find that question offensive?
Ama
> These were the difficulties that limited sale of
> computers to less than a hundred thousand units when
> the world's population was 4 billion. What is the
> statistics today ? GUI made it possible to get the
> computer across to a quarter of the population of the
> world. Improve the GUI, my ma
> Why so much negativity?
Because I work with Solaris "professionals" day in and day out and am forced to
witness, by the nature of my job, the horrible hacking and perversion that is
done to Solaris, especially to packaging. The company where I work went so far
to "invent" their own "enhanceme
> Far from it, but I do get fed up with whingers and
> people who spread
> FUD. Bashing a piece of software based on how it
> used to be is totally
> inappropriate for this list.
I have downloaded but not dissected the latest "oss" package. When I do an
analysis then I'll post more. The package
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 17:31 -0400, Brandorr wrote:
> On 8/5/07, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> > What nonsense, if you are going to criticise something,
> check out the current version first.
> >
> >
> >> I
UNIX admin wrote:
>> Have tried OpenSound?
>
> Yes, I have, and I have an extremely negative opinion of it.
>
> First, sound via OpenSound was a hit'n'miss - after some fiddling, the sound
> *might* start working. This made it unreliable and frustrating to use.
>
> Second, the software as deli
Brandorr wrote:
>
> Let's face it, Ian. Solaris/OpenSolaris does not have the best track
> record for usability. It is a preconception we are going to have to
> counter, person by person.
>
I guess usability is in the eye of the beholder. From my perspective as
a developer, windows usability drive
On 8/5/07, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> > What nonsense, if you are going to criticise something, check out the
> current version first.
> >
> >
> >> Ian
> >>
> >
> > Ian, you sound so easily irritated.
> Far from it, but I do get fed up with whinger
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> What nonsense, if you are going to criticise something, check out the current
> version first.
>
>
>> Ian
>>
>
> Ian, you sound so easily irritated.
Far from it, but I do get fed up with whingers and people who spread
FUD. Bashing a piece of software ba
Gangadhar Mylapuram (Home) writes:
> > I don't think it's helpful at all to chase away people who want to use
> > an OpenSolaris-based distribution in an unexpected or novel way. We
> > actually do _want_ new users.
> >
> >
>
> I agree with you James, but who will solve Shiv's problems with So
> > > My hope is that Indiana will make quick work of
> catching up with Linux distributions like Ubuntu
>
> Is that what Indiana would aspire for ? Catch up with
> Ubuntu Pathetic.
That certainly seems like a proper goal for the time being, to simplify the
process of installation (albeit m
> What if, for instance, you've installed OpenSolaris
> on a machine that had a network card OpenSolaris
> wasn't able to detect ? Network hasn't been
> configured, you naturally continue with the
> installation hoping to make it work after it boots
> (by looking up a driver, etc..). It's still not
I have used Windows before, and I have configured network there, suffice to say
in most cases the Networking tool in OpenSolaris works just fine and is just as
easy to use as its windows counterpart.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
open
What nonsense, if you are going to criticise something, check out the current
version first.
> Ian
Ian, you sound so easily irritated. And to tend to defend Sun, Solaris and Open
Solaris. You could be so defensive in a Press Meet, not in a develper forum,
you might want to hear more and more a
> The networking tool in OpenSolaris is okay
No, it is not OKAY. Try configuring Internet in Windows XP, look at the kind of
easy questions asked. Look at the help file menu that pops up in the unlikely
even that the internet fails to configure If the task is desktop, you need
to begin by
> > My hope is that Indiana will make quick work of catching up with Linux
> > distributions like Ubuntu
Is that what Indiana would aspire for ? Catch up with Ubuntu Pathetic.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mai
> The desktop for a common user vs a corporate revolves
> around plug and play,
Yes, it must be plug and play. Some technical executives I have talked to tend
to believe that Solaris is already plug and play, it is not. Ian, the DVDs
that I tried in one of the most recent releases of Nevada di
> Gary Gendel wrote:
> > For example: why install Sendmail if the user only uses Thunderbird as a
> > mail client? .
It is these types of details that keep the system complexity up plus confound
and confuse the home user
>
> the bulk of UNIX users ... relied upon Sendmail ... Sendmail has a
Dear Ggendel,
> My hope is that Indiana will make quick work of
> catching up with Linux distributions like Ubuntu and
> can then set it's sights on a real desktop solution.
Indiana shoots up my expectations. I wouldn't just hope that Indiana will
'catch up" with Linux, I would rather "instiga
> I don't even know there are any GUI tools on Solaris
> for networking? What would I use them for, I can
> configure networking on Solaris within 15 seconds
> with my eyes blindfolded and hands tied behind my
> back, it's that easy.
What if, for instance, you've installed OpenSolaris on a machine
> Well, OSS worked on an failed to bugger up everything I've tried it on
> over the past 10 years or so. This being OpenSolaris, I'm sure you
> can
> chip in and help.
Hmm, OSS in the past, I had experience problems with - since 4.0 was
released, it worked beautifully.
About the only gripe I hav
UNIX admin wrote:
>>> For instance, the drivers are started by an
>>>
>> /etc/init.d/ script (!?!?!), back then when I tried
>> the software, no package had been delivered, the
>> binaries were written into /usr, and so on. Extremely
>> unprofessional, inspite of the firm's claim that
>> the
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 03:31 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > One could say the same thing about the Network tool
> > in Solaris right
> > now; activate/deactive don't work, for instance.
>
> "activate/deactivate"? What is that???
Excuse me? you claim you run Solaris and yet ignore the elephant in the
> > For instance, the drivers are started by an
> /etc/init.d/ script (!?!?!), back then when I tried
> the software, no package had been delivered, the
> binaries were written into /usr, and so on. Extremely
> unprofessional, inspite of the firm's claim that
> they've "done UNIX for a very long ti
> One could say the same thing about the Network tool
> in Solaris right
> now; activate/deactive don't work, for instance.
"activate/deactivate"? What is that???
I ended up starting a GNOME terminal in Ubuntu and doing `ifconfig` the good
ol' fashioned old-skool way. Eventually I got the interf
UNIX admin wrote:
>
> Second, the software as delivered is a very, very nasty hack that violates
> just about every known System V standard and spec in existence.
>
> For instance, the drivers are started by an /etc/init.d/ script (!?!?!), back
> then when I tried the software, no package had bee
> Have tried OpenSound?
Yes, I have, and I have an extremely negative opinion of it.
First, sound via OpenSound was a hit'n'miss - after some fiddling, the sound
*might* start working. This made it unreliable and frustrating to use.
Second, the software as delivered is a very, very nasty hack t
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 01:31 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > My hope is that Indiana will make quick work of
> > catching up with Linux distributions like Ubuntu and
> > can then set it's sights on a real desktop solution.
> > I think Mac OS/X is the only existing real
> > replacement for Windows for u
> My hope is that Indiana will make quick work of
> catching up with Linux distributions like Ubuntu and
> can then set it's sights on a real desktop solution.
> I think Mac OS/X is the only existing real
> replacement for Windows for use by the general
> public.
I just came back from an excursion
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 13:10 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > PS : Mac OSX, now offcially a Unix, has shown that
> > one can be adapted
> > for the avg Joe User.
>
> Actually sgi was the very first company to prove that a full-blooded,
> high-performance, enterprise grade System V UNIX can be made into
The desktop for a common user vs a corporate revolves around plug and play,
drop in a DVD play a home/corporate for training or a home made movie or even a
store bought one DVD movie, let alone a dvx DVD/CD is also expected wo now work
along with plug in your USB printer and it should prompt you
Gary Gendel wrote:
> For example: why install Sendmail if the user only uses Thunderbird as a mail
> client? The only reason I can think of is to support things like cron when it
> needs to tell something that something is amiss. To me cron shouldn't require
> a main server running on the curren
isolated,
Super job of getting some attention to a thorny problem. It certainly captured
mine. Linux had lots of pains in this area and there were a few attempts over
the years at making a window manager that looked and behaved exactly like
Windows. There are a few attempts at a next-gen window
> PS : Mac OSX, now offcially a Unix, has shown that
> one can be adapted
> for the avg Joe User.
Actually sgi was the very first company to prove that a full-blooded,
high-performance, enterprise grade System V UNIX can be made into a multimedia,
user-friendly 3D desktop.
Just look up IRIX 6.5
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>> We never compared Solaris with MacOS
>>
>
> Why not?!
>
> One and half years ago, when everything in Solaris/Solaris Express
> (desktop-wise) was either broken, unavailable, or seemed to be broken (even
> the video didn't work at one time), Solaris developers were qu
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 10:22 -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> > We never compared Solaris with MacOS
>
> Why not?!
>
> One and half years ago, when everything in Solaris/Solaris Express
> (desktop-wise) was either broken, unavailable, or seemed to be broken
> (even the video didn't work at one time)
> We never compared Solaris with MacOS
Why not?!
One and half years ago, when everything in Solaris/Solaris Express
(desktop-wise) was either broken, unavailable, or seemed to be broken (even the
video didn't work at one time), Solaris developers were quite defensive re
criticisms. Now, with
Dear Mathew,
> >
> > No, I have not decided on Solaris 10 11/16. I have
> also been exposed
> > to the most recent developer editions. Indiana
> sounds promising.
>
> Agreed. But if you want to help Indiana - its
> probably best that you
> help out, it is a community project after all.
I have
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 17:43 +0200, William Pursell wrote:
> On 8/4/07, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sun wouldn't use Gnome if you would try to position Solaris as desktop OS.
> > >
> > > William
> >
> > Dear William,
> >
> >
> > If Sun wouldn't use a GNOME, what would
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 17:41 +0200, William Pursell wrote:
> On 8/4/07, Kaiwai Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 11:22 +0200, William Pursell wrote:
> > > On 8/4/07, Gangadhar Mylapuram (Home) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Do you even care to und
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 07:29 -0700, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> > To the powers that be,
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > I assume it is the lack of resources, but then isnt this market
> worth the investment?
> >
> > Anil
> >
> > PS : Mac OSX, now offcially a Unix, has shown that one can be
> ad
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 07:08 -0700, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Dear Ian Collins,
>
> > This isn't the place to discuss the shortcomings of Solaris 10, many of
> > these have been addressed in Solaris Express and other OpenSolaris based
> > distributions. Let the past rest and look to the f
> > Why would you be even selling a desktop aimed at a user with Solaris 10
> > 11/06? why don't you want till Indiana, which is actually geared to that
> > market along with support infrastructure by way of telephone and
> > software updates.
>
> No, I have not decided on Solaris 10 11/16. I have
On 8/4/07, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sun wouldn't use Gnome if you would try to position Solaris as desktop OS.
> >
> > William
>
> Dear William,
>
>
> If Sun wouldn't use a GNOME, what would it use in Solaris if positioned as a
> Desktop O?S ?
Obviously KDE is fast
On 8/4/07, Kaiwai Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 11:22 +0200, William Pursell wrote:
> > On 8/4/07, Gangadhar Mylapuram (Home) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> Do you even care to understand?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it's helpful at all to
> To the powers that be,
>
> Why not?
>
> I assume it is the lack of resources, but then isnt this market worth the
> investment?
>
> Anil
>
> PS : Mac OSX, now offcially a Unix, has shown that one can be adapted for the
> avg Joe User.
I don't think it is the lack of resources, it is just t
> Sun wouldn't use Gnome if you would try to position Solaris as desktop OS.
>
> William
Dear William,
If Sun wouldn't use a GNOME, what would it use in Solaris if positioned as a
Desktop O?S ?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensol
Dear Carlsonj,
Thanks for your positive comments. On remarks such as "Do you even care to
understand" I am not deterred. This probably had to do with my manner of
expression, which was that of an irrational user. It is just a posture that I
adopted to emphasize greater targets for ease of use
Dear Gagadhar,
Thanks for your comments.
I was writing it as a user, was writing to reflect the attitudes of a
user. I don't like this attitude either, but this happens to be the
attitude of the common man.
The user will learn as he uses the operating system, learning would be
inevitable, it wil
Dear Ian Collins,
> This isn't the place to discuss the shortcomings of Solaris 10, many of
> these have been addressed in Solaris Express and other OpenSolaris based
> distributions. Let the past rest and look to the future.
I have seen looked at developer editions, some of the most recent
vers
> > Ian, I am more talking about Solaris 10, Version 11/06, but I have
> > also been exposed to more advanced developer versions. The shut down
> > feature is not the only difficulty that I am talking about. I am
> > talking about identifying such "irritants" for the common man, who is
> > the Mast
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 11:22 +0200, William Pursell wrote:
> On 8/4/07, Gangadhar Mylapuram (Home) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> Do you even care to understand?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't think it's helpful at all to chase away people who want to use
> > > an OpenSolaris-based distribu
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 12:49 +0530, Gangadhar Mylapuram (Home) wrote:
> >
> > And to Open Solaris: Complexity is your business, none of my business. I,
> > as a user, don't care. I don't want to read. Now, give me a solaris
> > computer, easy.
> >
>
> Any operating system user needs a reading
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 23:08 -0700, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> My post was in a certain manner of expression. On rapid reading,
> ux-admin and other readers thought that i did not understand the
> basics of how elaborate the O/S is or that I did not understand the
> purpose for built in meas
> > Do you even care to understand?
>
> I don't think it's helpful at all to chase away
> people who want to use
> an OpenSolaris-based distribution in an unexpected or
> novel way. We
> actually do _want_ new users.
Did you find that question offensive?
This message posted from opensolaris.
> They don't
> really care what
> their PC runs, they just want something reliable and
> safe to read their
> mail, pay their bills and write the occasional
> letter.
I concur, for this has been my experience also.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> Ian, I am more talking about Solaris 10, Version 11/06, but I have also been
> exposed to more advanced developer versions. The shut down feature is not the
> only difficulty that I am talking about. I am talking about identifying such
> "irritants" for the c
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> Ian, I am more talking about Solaris 10, Version 11/06, but I have also been
> exposed to more advanced developer versions. The shut down feature is not the
> only difficulty that I am talking about. I am talking about identifying such
> "irritants" for the c
> We never compared Solaris with MacOS/ Windows from the desktop user
> point of view,
To the powers that be,
Why not?
I assume it is the lack of resources, but then isnt this market worth
the investment?
Anil
PS : Mac OSX, now offcially a Unix, has shown that one can be adapted
for the avg Jo
On 8/4/07, Gangadhar Mylapuram (Home) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Do you even care to understand?
> >>
> >
> > I don't think it's helpful at all to chase away people who want to use
> > an OpenSolaris-based distribution in an unexpected or novel way. We
> > actually do _want_ new users.
> > If you wish to use Solaris effectively, you will
> have to do some reading.
>
> No, the user that I have in mind doesn't care to
> read.
>
> >Do you even care to understand?
>
> No, the user doesn't care to understand. He wants it
> to be easy, he wants it to work. He is that
> uncooperativ
>
>> Do you even care to understand?
>>
>
> I don't think it's helpful at all to chase away people who want to use
> an OpenSolaris-based distribution in an unexpected or novel way. We
> actually do _want_ new users.
>
>
I agree with you James, but who will solve Shiv's problems with
>
> And to Open Solaris: Complexity is your business, none of my business. I, as
> a user, don't care. I don't want to read. Now, give me a solaris computer,
> easy.
>
Any operating system user needs a reading unless he has a habit of
exploring the system on his own.
Most commonly I see peo
My post was in a certain manner of expression. On rapid reading, ux-admin and
other readers thought that i did not understand the basics of how elaborate the
O/S is or that I did not understand the purpose for built in measures such as
the time taken to shut down the system.
The post was on the
I think you should look at whether your 'admin' is competent, you say you are
using Solaris as a desktop and that you have to call support to log in as root
and have them shut it down...why don't you ask them to assign the permission to
do so to your user?
This message posted from opensolari
> If you wish to use Solaris effectively, you will have
> to do some
> reading. For a thing so powerful, complexity is
> inherent; and while
> some things can be simplified, some level of
> understanding will
> be required.
>
Agreed. It is IMNSHO truly amazing that something (Solaris) so powerfu
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Why does Solaris wait for the root user to log in to shut down my computer ?
> I can log out as Shiva, but I don't see the controls to shut down.
>
>
Which distribution have you installed? Recent Solaris Express
distributions offer shutdown as an option for
UNIX admin writes:
> UNIX is not a single user system like Windows. The computing model
> is different. That is what it was designed for.
As MacOS has shown, it's entirely possible to make a fundamentally
multi-user system behave quite reasonably as a single-user desktop.
I think the request to m
> It is ok for me if it allows
> another person called "root" who I figure out is a
> someone who is knowledgeable enough to get down to
> the root of the computer, it is not going to be me,
It has to be you.
You are the system administrator of your own system now,
whether you wish it or not, whet
By "standalone" I mean a computer that is not part of a LAN, not even on a
peer-peer connection, but one that gets on to the Internet.
I have a desktop with Sun Solaris and I have this problem. Solaris thinks that
my standalone desktop is a huge network with a thousand users or more. I need
to
100 matches
Mail list logo
