Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Now, is the infrastructure and process move behind where we'd like it to
be? Sure. But if the implication here is that nothing is happening or
that the OpenSolaris Engineering team hasn't thought of some of this,
that's wrong.
I certainly didn't mean to imply any such thi
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/15/07, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Inside Sun, for Solaris, the product management/roadmap definition role
is played by a committee called the "Solaris PAC" (Product Approval
Committee I think, previously it was the Solaris Operating Environment
Steering
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/21/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
People are changing, and newcomers are more willing to use
opensolaris/sx/nevada as it is, but this doesn't say anything
for the large institutions, corporate 500s, and/or government
affiliates that use S
On 5/21/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
People are changing, and newcomers are more willing to use
opensolaris/sx/nevada as it is, but this doesn't say anything
for the large institutions, corporate 500s, and/or government
affiliates that use Solaris as it's been known.
These are the c
> When Sun states that Solaris is enterprise ready,
> it's been put through
> it's paces, up, down, and sideways. Still chances
> that a bug could crop
> up, engineers are only human afterall, but I have a
> hard time beleiving
> that RH puts RHES through it's paces like Solaris.
> Solaris/Open
On 21/05/07, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You will note that the "monopoly market power", intel, that you
mentioned, tried to drive a stake through the heart of x86 at least
twice:
Nevertheless, I cannot attribute its success to popularity. I suspect
cost, familiarity, Microsoft, etc
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/17/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Sure, Fedora is a great QA vehicle for Red Hat, but what about the hordes
> of people who are putting Fedora into production (and, yes, there are a
> lot of them-
> > I've never liked popularity contests since long term popularity fades.
>
> Shawn, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Anyone remember that
> old old instruction set that the Intel 8086 popularized? See what
> happens to popular technology? It fades from use, especially if it is
> underpow
On 5/19/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Project Description
>
> Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris
> distribution with a regular release schedule.
>
> Project Team:
>
> Needed...
I am sorr
On 21/05/07, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never liked popularity contests since long term popularity fades.
Shawn, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Anyone remember that
old old instruction set that the Intel 8086 popularized? See what
happens to popular technology? It fa
On 5/21/07, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think one distro can be all things to all
people.
Agreed. That's why there's still plenty of room for other distros,
regardless of what Sun does.
Ian, you aren't gonna win this one by trying to convince everyone here
that the Linux wa
--- Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so maybe they should have deployed RHEL at the outset, but the
> developers know Ubuntu, not RHEL, and every minute that's not spent
> on the
> application is spent on something their users will never, ever see.
>
> What a wonderful opportunity f
I've never liked popularity contests since long term popularity fades.
Shawn, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Anyone remember that
old old instruction set that the Intel 8086 popularized? See what
happens to popular technology? It fades from use, especially if it is
underpowered and the
On 21/05/07, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let the number of downloads of this new distro speak for themselves.
(One way or another).
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is "of good quality"
or "high standards." See the movies in theatres for case in point :)
I've never
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
Yes, I'm no doubt oversimplifying, but this doesn't seem like an
intractable problem. The only incremental burden is testing the
interactive environments, i.e., the additional burden scales linearly,
no exponential complexity blowup. And by definition, t
Actually, I see them as two very different groups. The difference is
primarily the entry point.
Agreed. (Don't ignore the fact that goals and workloads are currently
very different.)
The current market for Solaris 10 (and the market RHEL etc. also target)
is the traditional enterprise, i.e., t
On 5/17/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> How do they avoid the Friendster problem--death by success?
Could you elaborate on this more, I don't think I understand what you're
describing.
A small group of developers has an idea for a web applic
On 5/17/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Sure, Fedora is a great QA vehicle for Red Hat, but what about the hordes
> of people who are putting Fedora into production (and, yes, there are a
> lot of them--this is a different group of people than
> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> Creating Signed Packages:
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-0406/6mg76stf9?q=sign&a=view
>
Thanks for that... I hadn't managed to track it down.
> > - meta-packages: There are a number of ways to provide, f
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Project Description
>
> Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris
> distribution with a regular release schedule.
>
> Project Team:
>
> Needed...
I am sorry, but the more I read about Indiana, the more I am uncom
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Murdock wrote:
> >> > And that would break... what, exactly?
>
> We don't know.
>
> We know it has the potential of breaking scripts that,
> for better or worse, parse the output of "/bin/df".
>
> It can (and has been) argued that those scripts are
> a
Brian Gupta wrote:
So, I'd expect to see some documents from you that describe this
product. Have you a 1-pager that describes the basics?
Ok, I think I see where the vision is going to hit a wall. There is
definitely a process disconnect between agile development and Solaris
development.
Ian Murdock wrote:
> And that would break... what, exactly?
We don't know.
We know it has the potential of breaking scripts that,
for better or worse, parse the output of "/bin/df".
It can (and has been) argued that those scripts are
already not portable to Linux, since the output is
differen
On Fri, 18 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but the problem with that is that the majority of the community and
OGB is Sun employees. Sun can use their power to pay people to work on
OpenSolaris, which is good, but it can also swing the scales in their
favor.
Why is this a problem?
--- Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's there, doesn't look too busy yet, but as you may have seen
> there's a
> guy doing some work for the google summer of code, or whatever it's
> called.
I followed the links given earlier. I'll be following up.
>
> > (I almost called it the Bob
James Carlson wrote:
Hugh McIntyre writes:
To some extent there are two environments right now, because people with
/usr/ucb first in the path see different versions of commands. Some
things occasionally break, and bugs get filed [*]. The /usr/gnu project
will cause the same type of issue.
Frank Hofmann writes:
> > Any new LINUX_LIKE_ENVIRONMENT=1 variable or zone or other
> > non-standard method to change behavior would _not_ be something that
> > script writers would know about, nor would it be something that's
> > necessarily reasonable for them to accomodate. It wouldn't be a "b
On Fri, 18 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Hugh McIntyre writes:
James Carlson wrote:
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
likely, nobo
Hugh McIntyre writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
> >
> > If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
> > Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
> > likely, nobody will care because supp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but the problem with that is that the majority of the community and
OGB is Sun employees. Sun can use their power to pay people to work on
OpenSolaris, which is good, but it can also swing the scales in their
favor.
Why is this a problem? I see this as a natura
>Sure, but the problem with that is that the majority of the community and
>OGB is Sun employees. Sun can use their power to pay people to work on
>OpenSolaris, which is good, but it can also swing the scales in their
>favor.
Why is this a problem? I see this as a natural initial state of the
> Take the other side of Sun Marketing, there was an
> ad with a single V880
> in a lab. What is that about?:-/ With Apple ads you
> know what it's about
> somehow, there is no secrets.
Yeah I have heard comments about that ad of a trailer
in the middle of nowhere...
Send instant messages to y
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Alan DuBoff wrote:
OpenSolaris should belong to the community, the community should decide
it's destiny, the community should be the sum of the entire community. Yes,
Sun is a part of that, but it is only a part. It's not up to Sun to
determine the d
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Shawn Walker wrote:
Sun tried that, and failed in my opinion.
Sure, and my opinion is that they didn't do it right. The ironic thing is
that the folks that couldn't market Solaris very well, now want to get
their hands in OpenSolaris. Scarey thought...:-/
Until they b
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Speaking of that, how is the Emancipation Project doing these days?
It's there, doesn't look too busy yet, but as you may have seen there's a
guy doing some work for the google summer of code, or whatever it's
called.
(I almost called it the B
James Carlson wrote:
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
likely, nobody will care because supporting both is not one of the
requirements
Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote:
By the way,
earlier today we crossed 50,000 people registered on
the site. We are
diversifying indeed.
That is wonderful. I hope that figure also translates
to users. I wonder which distro draws new blood...
The vast majority of the recent numbers are comi
> By the way,
> earlier today we crossed 50,000 people registered on
> the site. We are
> diversifying indeed.
That is wonderful. I hope that figure also translates
to users. I wonder which distro draws new blood...
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
___
Alan DuBoff wrote:
OpenSolaris should belong to the community, the community should decide
it's destiny, the community should be the sum of the entire community.
Yes, Sun is a part of that, but it is only a part. It's not up to Sun to
determine the destiny, IMO, and once revenue streams are at
On 17/05/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ultimately, I'd like to see Sun start charging for Solaris use, in the
same way Red Hat charges for RHES use. Solaris belongs to Sun.
Sun tried that, and failed in my opinion. Until they build their
market share back up, the fact that you can
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Speaking of that, how is the Emancipation Project doing these days?
You can see updates of the progress of the Google Summer of Code sponsored
work on either:
http://i18n-freedom.blogspot.com/
or: http://planet.opensolaris.org/soc2007/
--
-Alan Coop
--- Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > Another problem is closed binaries. Only Sun has source code for
> it..
> > How do you think "any other vendor" can offer support
> independently from
> > Sun?
>
> Exactly why our community needs to repl
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
No, I'm simply pointing out that, like most things, there's
a spectrum here, where "we can't change anything" is on one end and
"we can change everything" is on the other end.
Solaris is closer to the former, and Linux is closer to the latter.
While I do
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
I see Fedora as a missed opportunity (for RH). They had the volume market
(with Red Hat Linux), and they abandoned it. They created Fedora to fill
the void, largely because they didn't want Debian coming in and nibbling
away at them from below, but that cl
On 5/16/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The opposite could be said about Solaris. A) Solaris has an
> illustrious history of adopting useless standards,
That part is pretty well true. Anyone remember XFN?
I do. I even used it.
In fairness, I think the people who worked on t
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:06:50 -0400, you wrote:
>On 5/17/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ian Murdock writes:
>> > (And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
>> > with a "Solaris classic" environment.)
>>
>> Do we force future project teams to test in both en
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On 5/17/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ian Murdock writes:
> > > (And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
> > > with a "Solaris classic" environment.)
> >
> > Do we force future project teams to test in both en
Ian Murdock writes:
> On 5/17/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ian Murdock writes:
> > > (And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
> > > with a "Solaris classic" environment.)
> >
> > Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
>
> I don
On 5/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
>Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
>likely, nobody will care because supporting both is not one of the
>requirements.
Worse, probably, som
On 5/17/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Murdock writes:
> (And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
> with a "Solaris classic" environment.)
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
I don't see why. If both environments are prese
>If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
>Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
>likely, nobody will care because supporting both is not one of the
>requirements.
Worse, probably, some new features will work only in "classic"
and others will
Ian Murdock writes:
> (And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
> with a "Solaris classic" environment.)
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one o
On 5/17/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about making -h the
> > > > > > default? I doubt that would be standards compliant..
> > > > >
> > > > > As I'll say till I'm blue in the
On 5/16/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fundamentally, Sun seems to look at OpenSolaris as a product, and I think
there's fault in that vision. In your example, I would site that Fedora
and Ubuntu are different to me. Why? Because Fedora is supposed to be the
open and free version of R
"Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about making -h the
> > > > > > default? I doubt that would be standards compliant..
> > > > >
> > > > > As I'll say till I'm blue in the face, I'm as obsessed with
> > > > > compatibility as an
Brian Gupta wrote:
> Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris
distribution with a
> regular release schedule.
>
>
So, I'd expect to see some documents from you that describe this
product. Have you a 1-pager that describes the basics?
Project Description
Risks and Assumptions
B
Patrick Finch wrote:
> I'd say the only marketing voice that counts for OpenSolaris is that
> of the
> Marketing Community here on OpenSolaris.org (of which Sun's marketing
> is
> but a member).
The OpenSolaris marketing community has never done anything on the lines
of product manageme
Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Peter C. Norton wrote:
Have you found a way to print the complete argv (or something like a
stackable "w" flag as in linux's procps) so that you can actually see
the entire java command line for the process that's chewing it's way
through VM (seprately f
Patrick Finch wrote:
> I checked http://docs.opensolaris.org/ and
> http://www.opensolaris.org/docs but there wasn't anything there. I
> think we really need a newbie portal. (and link to it from everywhere)
I totally agree: this is no criticism of what OpenSolaris.org has
become, but it re
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Peter C. Norton wrote:
Have you found a way to print the complete argv (or something like a
stackable "w" flag as in linux's procps) so that you can actually see
the entire java command line for the process that's chewing it's way
through VM (seprately from the other 20 java
> To a head start, I propose that we take Nexenta and
> make it the
> standard base for the Indiana/Linuxy Solaris.
> (OpenSolaris Community
> Edition)
Please, Sun Studio and sun linker. I have dpkg partly
compiled (dselect is waiting for gnu gettext, dpkg has
been done and runs) under Sun Studio
Peter C. Norton wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:40:40PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
first were a real pain "different ps command", in the end I got use to
the differences. All applications/scripts etc we needed to change came
This is the only real problem for now and it could be
On 5/15/07, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Inside Sun, for Solaris, the product management/roadmap definition role
is played by a committee called the "Solaris PAC" (Product Approval
Committee I think, previously it was the Solaris Operating Environment
Steering Committee or SOESC).
On 5/15/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/07, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:05:38AM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > > On 5/10/07, Frank Van Der Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Peter C
On May 16, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
I'm absolutely rooting [1] for John Sonnenschein and his work in
the Google
Summer of Code - http://planet.opensolaris.org/soc2007/
I think it's a great start, and I'm hoping many other things will
be solved
before the summer is out.
Speak
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:33 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Ian Collins wrote:
> >>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/emancipation/
> >> Dale,
> >>
> >> Thanks for that link, I didn't even know the community existed.
> >>
> > It exists, but it hasn't gone very far, at least with the i18
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Ian Murdock wrote:
> As I'll say till I'm blue in the face, I'm as obsessed with
> compatibility as anyone here. But I have to ask: What exactly
> would break if -h *were* the default behavior?
All of the (admittedly limited) ve
Hey,
Ian Collins wrote:
>>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/emancipation/
>> Dale,
>>
>> Thanks for that link, I didn't even know the community existed.
>>
> It exists, but it hasn't gone very far, at least with the i18n work.
I'm absolutely rooting [1] for John Sonnenschein and his work in
Brian Gupta wrote:
>> > In agile development, you begin with a list of simple requirements
>> > without a detailed description of how you are going to get there. You
>> > then rush straight to implementation. After implementation, you pass
>> > back to customer for feedback at the soonest possible
Hi John,
Thanks, I've added a page on genunix for Indiana,
http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Distributions
With a link to your 1-pager first draft:
http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Indiana_1-pager
-Michelle
John Plocher wrote:
Brian Gupta wrote:
So, I'd expect to see some documents
> In agile development, you begin with a list of simple requirements
> without a detailed description of how you are going to get there. You
> then rush straight to implementation. After implementation, you pass
> back to customer for feedback at the soonest possible instance. You
> then rush agai
Erast Benson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:37 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>>> One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their minds around
>>> products, they start to associate revenue streams with them. OpenSolaris
>>> should not be thought of in that regard, and more to the point, S
Brian Gupta wrote:
>> > Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris
>> distribution with a
>> > regular release schedule.
>> >
>> >
>> So, I'd expect to see some documents from you that describe this
>> product. Have you a 1-pager that describes the basics?
>>
>> Project Description
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Dale Ghent wrote:
>
>> On May 16, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
>>>
Another problem is closed binaries. Only Sun has source code for it..
How do you think "any other vendor" can offer support
> Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris distribution with a
> regular release schedule.
>
>
So, I'd expect to see some documents from you that describe this
product. Have you a 1-pager that describes the basics?
Project Description
Risks and Assumptions
Business Summary
P
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Dale Ghent wrote:
On May 16, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
Another problem is closed binaries. Only Sun has source code for it..
How do you think "any other vendor" can offer support independently from
Sun?
Exactly why ou
On May 16, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
Another problem is closed binaries. Only Sun has source code for it..
How do you think "any other vendor" can offer support
independently from
Sun?
Exactly why our community needs to replace any close
Glynn Foster wrote:
Hey,
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Fundamentally, Sun seems to look at OpenSolaris as a product, and I
think there's fault in that vision.
Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris distribution with a
regular release schedule.
So, I'd expect to see some
No matter, I think that Ian makes a good point. I use -h most of the time
when I use many of the utilities, df most certainly.
whenever i use df i use df -h, i just solved it with an alias, why
cant we just set some beautifier alias for login shells and leave
non-login shells alone? even if df -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >For me it took a few hours to port my apps that I use for everyday
> >work, my shell, my editor, The early access Solaris 2 Packages
> >did come with SunStudio so compiling was no problem.
>
> The biggest headaches I found were things like signal() and fixing
> o
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
Another problem is closed binaries. Only Sun has source code for it..
How do you think "any other vendor" can offer support independently from
Sun?
Exactly why our community needs to replace any closed binaries with open
and free solutions. This should
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Glynn Foster wrote:
Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris distribution
with a regular release schedule.
Yes, and what I'm saying is that Indiana should be the product that is
marketed, not OpenSolaris. I'm fine with Sun getting behind whatever
produc
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Ian Murdock wrote:
> As I'll say till I'm blue in the face, I'm as obsessed with
> compatibility as anyone here. But I have to ask: What exactly
> would break if -h *were* the default behavior?
All of the (admittedly limited) versions of Linux I've
Chris Ricker writes:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
>
> > Joerg Schilling writes:
> > > Do it like SGI and let "ps -efc" behave like a SVr4 ps and "ps aux"
> > > like a BSD ps. You only need to look for the '-' in the args.
> >
> > Not just SGI, but AIX as well. That solution works
On Wed, 16 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
> Joerg Schilling writes:
> > Do it like SGI and let "ps -efc" behave like a SVr4 ps and "ps aux"
> > like a BSD ps. You only need to look for the '-' in the args.
>
> Not just SGI, but AIX as well. That solution works fine, is pretty
> well known, and s
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:40:40PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > first were a real pain "different ps command", in the end I got use to
> > the differences. All applications/scripts etc we needed to change came
>
> This is the only real problem for now and it could be prevented easily:
>
>
Joerg Schilling writes:
> Do it like SGI and let "ps -efc" behave like a SVr4 ps and "ps aux"
> like a BSD ps. You only need to look for the '-' in the args.
Not just SGI, but AIX as well. That solution works fine, is pretty
well known, and since /usr/bin/ps without '-' just gives an error
messag
>For me it took a few hours to port my apps that I use for everyday
>work, my shell, my editor, The early access Solaris 2 Packages
>did come with SunStudio so compiling was no problem.
The biggest headaches I found were things like signal() and fixing
off-by-one malloc errors the Solaris 2
Doug Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am all for compatibility, but we now have to work out what is todays
> standard, and how far we go preserving compatibility with older
> standards. I have been through the change-over from SunOS 4.1.x to
> Solaris 2.X (an extremely large change). While
Joerg Schilling writes:
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Our official "binary compatibility guarantee" agreement doesn't cover
> > scripts, mostly because there's no tool that could plausibly check
> > them for conformance to documented interfaces.
>
> Do you mean checking the script
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:32 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 16/05/07, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:37 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > > > One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their minds around
> > > > products, they start to associate revenue st
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Scott writes:
> > James Carlson wrote:
> > > My point was that _assuming_ that command line interfaces are somehow
> > > "less" of an interface than C libraries, and just changing the
> > > defaults without due consideration is a serious mistake. Fo
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:53:16PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:50:34PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > On 5/12/07, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:05:38AM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > > > On 5/10/07, Frank Van Der Linden <[EMAIL PR
Doug Scott writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Yes, but that misses the point. We don't just write stability notices
> > into our man pages for our health. They actually do mean something
> > about what we're promising to deliver
> Luckily df(1M) is lacking such a "stability notice". Is this a bug
On 16/05/07, Doug Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
> Moinak Ghosh writes:
>
>>IMHO many of the little tidbits can be sorted out without breaking
>> compatibility.
>>
>
> Indeed, many can. Aliases might be part of the answer, as might be
> better GUIs so that most people
>As far a I know, Sun's binary compatibility does not actually cover
>scripts. My reading
>of the terms and conditions, it seems that only C and C++ applications
>are covered. Though
>customers should be informed well in advance in any changes that could
>affect their scripts.
Binary compatibi
On 16/05/07, Doug Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
> Doug Scott writes:
>
>> Steve Stallion wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
>>> hard time moving over to Solaris.
>>>
>> So you prefer that Solaris always will have a much sma
James Carlson wrote:
Yes, but that misses the point. We don't just write stability notices
into our man pages for our health. They actually do mean something
about what we're promising to deliver
Luckily df(1M) is lacking such a "stability notice". Is this a bug :)
I am all for compatibility,
On 16/05/07, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:37 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their minds around
> > products, they start to associate revenue streams with them. OpenSolaris
> > should not be thought of in that r
On 16/05/07, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
> hard time moving over to Solaris. I find the goal to be laughable and
> I would far more upset if my OS of choice was diluted to support a
> marketing initiative.
How ex
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
