I am not getting it?are you suggesting the recreation of opensolaris
and IP repository separate from Oracle? This would only make sense if there was
a planned strategy,leadership,and sponsor.Clearly Oracle has been wrestling
with how to make money with opensource with inexperienced manag
Peter Jones wrote:
> I am not getting it?are you suggesting the recreation of opensolaris
> and IP repository separate from Oracle? This would only make sense if there
> was a planned strategy,leadership,and sponsor.Clearly Oracle has been
> wrestling with how to make money with openso
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> I am not getting it?are you suggesting the recreation of opensolaris
> and
> IP repository separate from Oracle?
>From my perspective, no.
What I am suggesting is that we should finish the work started in the
emancipation community,
> What I am suggesting is that we should finish the work started in the
> emancipation community, pull in the groundbreaking build and boot
> efforts from the various other distros (starting with Schillix,
> Belinix and the IBM/z port simply because Joerg, Moinak and Neale are
> involved) and produ
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:30 PM, John Plocher wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>> I am not getting it?are you suggesting the recreation of opensolaris
>> and
>> IP repository separate from Oracle?
>
> From my perspective, no.
>
> What I am suggesting is that w
Alan DuBoff wrote:
What I am suggesting is that we should finish the work started in the
emancipation community, pull in the groundbreaking build and boot
efforts from the various other distros (starting with Schillix,
Belinix and the IBM/z port simply because Joerg, Moinak and Neale are
involved
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
Be *very* careful what you wish for. One of the problems with
OpenSolaris (from a PR standpoint) has been the lack of real
emphasis on the GOAL for OpenSolaris. Is it a
general-purpose, use-it-for-anything OS? Is it for embeded
systems? Backoffice
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
>
>> Be *very* careful what you wish for. One of the problems with OpenSolaris
>> (from a PR standpoint) has been the lack of real emphasis on the GOAL for
>> OpenSolaris. Is it a general-purpose, use-
> The comment about GNU is IMO unjustified. The ksh93-integration and
> AT&T team have done a much better technical job than GNU in the last
> four years. We got ksh93, a lot of modernized tools, even more in the
> work, with GNU *and* BSD extensions, stick to POSIX and a stable API
> and they are
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>> The comment about GNU is IMO unjustified. The ksh93-integration and
>> AT&T team have done a much better technical job than GNU in the last
>> four years. We got ksh93, a lot of modernized tools, even more in the
>> work, with GNU *and* BSD ex
> You picked a bad example. GNU tar has its own share
> of problems. By
> default no other achiever than GNU tar can unpack
> long path names in
> archives created by GNU tar.
Maybe I just got lucky...
[al...@eagle Documents]$ gtar zcvf ./test.tgz tmp
tmp/
tmp/split log cut.jpg
tmp/Trailer Photo
[...]
> You picked a bad example. GNU tar has its own share
> of problems. By
> default no other achiever than GNU tar can unpack
> long path names in
> archives created by GNU tar. That's a big problem. It
> becomes worse
> because tar archives with long path names created
> with GNU tar from
> 20
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > You picked a bad example. GNU tar has its own share
> > of problems. By
> > default no other achiever than GNU tar can unpack
> > long path names in
> > archives created by GNU tar.
>
> Maybe I just got lucky...
>
> [al...@eagle Documents]$ gtar zcvf ./test.tgz tmp
> tmp/
>
> A test with _short_ path names does not prove
> anything - sorry.
Jörg,
WTF do I need to do then? I was told that you couldn't unarchive any long
filenames with another tar, that it wouldn't work.
Do I need to rub my tummy, while hopping around on one leg in a full moon?
Or do I need to do s
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > A test with _short_ path names does not prove
> > anything - sorry.
>
> Jörg,
>
> WTF do I need to do then? I was told that you couldn't unarchive any long
> filenames with another tar, that it wouldn't work.
You did run a test with less than 100 chars (which is supportd
Josh
WTF, we can't even use the (Open)Solaris name.
Why don't we rename the organisation then? OGB should hold a contest
and community vote and then move all servers to the new name.
Well my vote is for (O pen S olars 1 edition) or OS1 for short.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
IPS repositories are simply death because of speed and crazy lack of
applications because of stupid IP and patent issues which doesn't help
anything. They just cause slow or no development at all. And Oracle/Sun must be
in line with them.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
> IPS repositories are simply death because of speed
> and crazy lack of applications because of stupid IP
> and patent issues which doesn't help anything. They
> just cause slow or no development at all. And
> Oracle/Sun must be in line with them.
If you want Ubuntu with a Solaris kernel, use Nex
No thanks. I'm working with Linux and it's more then enough for me. Ubuntu is
at maximum fine for desktop, but still I prefer and use OpenBSD for desktop.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discu
On 5/23/2010 6:39 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
IPS repositories are simply death because of speed
and crazy lack of applications because of stupid IP
and patent issues which doesn't help anything. They
just cause slow or no development at all. And
Oracle/Sun must be in line with them.
If
> Not to be elitist here, but I'd have to second this.
> What I'm looking or in OpenSolaris is not the same things I'm looking
> for in Linux. I've already got Linux, and it does those things just fine
> (or, well, good enough, for the most part).
+1
--
This message posted from opensolaris.or
> You did run a test with less than 100 chars (which is
> supportd by tar since 1979).
I didn't know the syntax was from 1979, not that it even matters...it is
supported syntax today is it not?
I don't type pathnames longer than 100 characters, which is 20 characters wider
than a normal page.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > You did run a test with less than 100 chars (which is
> > supportd by tar since 1979).
>
> I didn't know the syntax was from 1979, not that it even matters...it is
> supported syntax today is it not?
tar is from 1979
star is from 1982
PD-tar or SUG-tar (Sun User Group Tar
> I don't type pathnames longer than 100 characters,
> which is 20 characters wider than a normal page.
>
> > Try again with a path name > 100 chars and check what
> > happens. I did verify a failure with Indiana build 134
>
> But I don't use that on my system anyway...:-/
My opensolaris b134 sy
On 05/24/10 11:50, Jürgen Keil wrote:
I don't type pathnames longer than 100 characters,
which is 20 characters wider than a normal page.
Try again with a path name> 100 chars and check what
happens. I did verify a failure with Indiana build 134
But I don't use that on my syste
OpenSolaris has the opportunity to be *the* datacenter OS - free, open,
innovative, and (yes) profitable. We just have to all push in the same
direction for awhile...
--
Erik Trimble
Who is the competition for this datacenter market?.oracle may see Solaris
11 fitting in heremaybe the be
Rich Burridge wrote:
> > Try to create a gnutar archive from that directory
> > and unpack it with solaris tar, and check if all
> > files are copied ok:
> >
> >(cd / ; /usr/gnu/bin/tar cf - usr/share/doc/libsigc++-2.0 ) | (cd /tmp ;
> > /bin/tar xf - )
> >
>
> If you mean the:
>
> tar:
On 05/24/10 14:34, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Rich Burridge wrote:
Try to create a gnutar archive from that directory
and unpack it with solaris tar, and check if all
files are copied ok:
(cd / ; /usr/gnu/bin/tar cf - usr/share/doc/libsigc++-2.0 ) | (cd /tmp ;
/bin/ta
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> Rich Burridge wrote:
>
>>> Try to create a gnutar archive from that directory
>>> and unpack it with solaris tar, and check if all
>>> files are copied ok:
>>>
>>>(cd / ; /usr/gnu/bin/tar cf - usr/share/doc/libsigc++-2.0 ) | (cd /tmp ;
>>> /bin/ta
Rich Burridge wrote:
> On 05/24/10 14:34, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> > Rich Burridge wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Try to create a gnutar archive from that directory
> >>> and unpack it with solaris tar, and check if all
> >>> files are copied ok:
> >>>
> >>> (cd / ; /usr/gnu/bi
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> A quick check of the source would tell you the change was much smaller
> than that:
> http://hg.genunix.org/onnv-gate.hg/rev/caff1bd711f5
Looks a bit hacky...
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.t
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> I did noe see any request for review of the changed code. Are there no longer
> code reviews?
Nothing has changed in regards to code review policy - there has never
been a requirement in ON or most other consolidations [1] to expose reviews
to anyone bu
Quoting Alan DuBoff :
[cut]
duplicated efforts between (Open)Solaris, and Linux. In that
regard, Nexenta got it right in having GNU as the base, those
efforts are not duplicated, and continue to evolve with the rest of
the open source world.
[cut]
Yeah, riiight. Have you recently worke
> Hmm. Some GNU tools don't stink. So far, I find
> gawk to be generally
> superior to the real thing.
The one time that I benchmarked /usr/xpg4/bin/awk against /opt/sfw/bin/gawk,
awk was significantly faster.
A+
Paul
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
>> Hmm. Some GNU tools don't stink. So far, I find
>> gawk to be generally
>> superior to the real thing.
>
> The one time that I benchmarked /usr/xpg4/bin/awk against
> /opt/sfw/bin/gawk, awk was significantly faster.
I don't care about speed. I want stability and perfect reliability in the
in
> >> Hmm. Some GNU tools don't stink. So far, I find
> >> gawk to be generally
> >> superior to the real thing.
> >
> > The one time that I benchmarked /usr/xpg4/bin/awk
> against
> > /opt/sfw/bin/gawk, awk was significantly faster.
>
> I don't care about speed.
I've got better things to do in
>> >> Hmm. Some GNU tools don't stink. So far, I find
>> >> gawk to be generally
>> >> superior to the real thing.
>> >
>> > The one time that I benchmarked /usr/xpg4/bin/awk
>> against
>> > /opt/sfw/bin/gawk, awk was significantly faster.
>>
>> I don't care about speed.
>
> I've got better thin
On 6/10/2010 1:52 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
I want stability and
perfect reliability in the
interface. It must do what it did yesterday and
tomorrow when dealing with
scripts and function calls for code written in 1993
if needed.
That's fine, to a point. I'm all for getting the interface
38 matches
Mail list logo
