On 08/13/10 11:40 AM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
We will have a Solaris 11 binary distribution, called Solaris 11
Express, that will have a free developer RTU license, and an optional
support plan. Solaris 11 Express will debut by the end of this
calendar year, and we will issue updates to it, leadi
Hi
Friday 13th August 2010 is really a sad day for Open Source community... :(
Xavier
Le 13 août 2010 à 17:40, Alasdair Lumsden a écrit :
> Hi All,
>
> This memo was circulated internally within Oracle (and subsequently
> leaked). Basically, the open source development model has now been
> axed
Presuming this is authentic, and not a hoax...hmm.
* Arrogance level: high
* Business justification: yes, if one neglects the negative response
* Practical impact: unclear
Most new projects already got pretty far along behind the firewall
before the rest of us could see them. This sounds as if i
> Presuming this is authentic, and not a hoax...hmm.
It's not a hoax. Not even given the date and the other news of the day.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
So, OpenSolaris is officially dead... They're no longer providing even
read-only access to the "live" source code (only rare dumps of release
products), no longer have any interest in community contribution and
also reserve the right to maintain complete radio silence, as it were,
on any new featur
Well considering prior statements from Oracle, the company has now lied to
developers, customers, shareholders, & the general public. Word != Bond.
This material fact extends to statements & agreements prior to the sale of Sun
to Oracle, as well as to statements made post-purchase.
Not exactly
Nexenta Systems initiated, Illumos Project continues its effort...
http://www.illumos.org
"""A community maintained derivative of the OpenSolaris ON source,
including open source replacements for closed bits, and additional
changes."""
All companies who were working with OpenSolaris/Solaris
>>I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source, this
>>proves that.
As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole OpenSolaris
drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the above excerpt. Oracle works
heavily with Linux. In fact they are sponsorin
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:10PM -0700, Petros Koutoupis wrote:
> >>I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source,
> >>this proves that.
>
> As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole
> OpenSolaris drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the
On 08/13/10 03:45 PM, Petros Koutoupis wrote:
I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source, this
proves that.
As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole OpenSolaris
drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the above excerpt. Oracle w
On 08/14/10 08:45 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
On 08/13/10 03:45 PM, Petros Koutoupis wrote:
As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole OpenSolaris
drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the above excerpt. Oracle works
heavily with Linux. In fact they are sponsoring Chris
On 8/13/2010 12:50 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:10PM -0700, Petros Koutoupis wrote:
I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source, this
proves that.
As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole
OpenSolaris drama, I still ca
On 08/13/10 05:08 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 08/14/10 08:45 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
On 08/13/10 03:45 PM, Petros Koutoupis wrote:
As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole
OpenSolaris drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the
above excerpt. Oracle works heavily with
Erik, looks like you've already said everything I was thinking of posting and
said it better.
Oracle is being a blinkered dinosaur, trying to hark back to the good old days
when the Unix mainframe was king. It's actually a risky business model, trying
to focus entirely on rich investment banks a
On 08/14/10 09:25 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
Frankly, at this point, I'd be all for Oracle spinning out the Solaris
group as a fully-owned subsidiary, responsible for paying its own way.
You'd see Solaris make lots of interesting product/marketing decisions
and far more cash than I think Oracle
Erik, may I please publish your post in full on my public blog (not that it's
private here to begin with)?
Cheers,
Dave
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Alasdair Lumsden
>
> This memo was circulated internally within Oracle (and subsequently
> leaked).
Leaked where?
Googling around, the only links say "Leaked to the opensolar
On 08/14/10 02:19 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Alasdair Lumsden
This memo was circulated internally within Oracle (and subsequently
leaked).
Leaked where?
http://past
Am 13.08.2010 23:25, schrieb Erik Trimble:
I think someone really, really, really needs to explain to upper
management these things:
(1) Having an open source base / development process is pretty much a
no-lose situation, with only an up side. The likelihood that other OSes
will be able to take
> I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be
> about open source, this proves that. There is no good
> will in this plan to say the very least about it. In
> fact this seems to facilitate a culture of predation
> that Oracle is fairly infamous for.
Oh, they are about open source. About e
I agreed with a lot of what Erik said. I also think that I was hasty in my
comment about open source & Oracle. They have done it, they just haven't bitten
off something quite as large as Sun. That alone makes it different. There's no
way to create easy comparisons because of that too.
There was
Hey it's not like they announced they are getting rid of Sparc & x86 support
for an 'Itanium centric" CPU strategy along with renaming it "TruSol64" for
"exclusive use" inside their upcoming line of NEBS-only hardware...
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kölle
>
> If that is true, Illumos will be ahead of the pack in no time. Bright
> future I'd say.
This mostly depends on what Sol11Express will look like. If they make
fu
Maybe on another planet it will be suitably licensed and featured.
Also, doesn't look like the Illumos project lead agrees with your asessment:
http://gdamore.blogspot.com/2010/08/hand-may-be-forced.html
"So, by their actions here, Oracle may be forcing Illumos to "fork", which was
always a pr
Give it up Ned!!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11 Express
have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch up and
synchronize. As FreeBSD.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
op
I don't think anyone will like me for saying this, but for those handful of us
"outside of Sun" who have been following OpenSolaris since day one, do we
really expect a different outcome?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-disc
On 08/14/2010 05:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kölle
If that is true, Illumos will be ahead of the pack in no time. Bright
future I'd say.
This mostly depends on what S
> I don't think anyone will like me for saying this,
> but for those handful of us "outside of Sun" who have
> been following OpenSolaris since day one, do we
> really expect a different outcome?
Not really. Solaris Next was to come from the OpenSolaris code base. I like
the reply where the who
On 14 Aug 2010, at 20:30, Erast wrote:
>
> There are at least 2 companies that I know who are committed to contribute
> money and equipment on periodic basis. Stay tuned.. much more is coming to
> Illumos.
Indeed, Illumos has a bright future ahead of it.
To quote Garrett's blog post:
"Illumo
Case in point:
At my previous company, I recommended that we purchase Sun-related products and
services. I am now looking at how to replace a number of OpenSolaris boxes
with something else. So far Oracle's actions do not inspire trust in me; I see
only risk in continuing to associate with
>I am now looking at how to replace a number of OpenSolaris boxes with
>something else
well...I wanted to continue using opensolaris kernel for my units. i decided
nexenta Core would be my best choice, becuase they are sponsering illumos and a
number of Solaris kenel devs have joined them. t
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Alasdair Lumsden
>
> There are at least 2 companies that I know who are committed to
> contribute money and equipment on periodic basis. Stay tuned.. much
> more is coming to Il
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of me
>
> Give it up Ned!!
Give what up?
A one-line messsage without any context ... in a high volume mailing
list... I don't know what you're talking about...
_
erik wrote:
> The unfortunate thing here is that most of the value in an Operating
> System is attributable to ADOPTION RATES. That is, the wider the OS is
> used, the more revenue potential there is. Now, the per-instance
> revenue potential tends to drop off, but the overall revenue ramps up
> ve
On 08/14/10 08:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kölle
If that is true, Illumos will be ahead of the pack in no time. Bright
future I'd say.
This mostly depends on what
> ostrich play with x86. The other thing is that the
> memo is focused inward, and it doesn't really offer
> complete information looking outward at customers.
> Just because they are changing what they're doing
> with releases doesn't mean that it will work out
> worse.
I'd really like to be an o
"Edward Ned Harvey" wrote:
> > There are at least 2 companies that I know who are committed to
> > contribute money and equipment on periodic basis. Stay tuned.. much
> > more is coming to Illumos.
>
> So these companies are going to fork & develop ZFS separately from the main
> ZFS thread that O
> One could also ask the other way round: Does Oracle
> still have enough good
> programmers to continue ZFS development the way they
> did before?
apparently not, since they're still supposedly hiring more. Maybe they're
thinking: "gosh, it's hard to find programmers on the market with previous
> Nexenta Systems initiated, Illumos Project continues
> its effort...
>
> http://www.illumos.org
>
> """A community maintained derivative of the
> OpenSolaris ON source,
> including open source replacements for closed bits,
> and additional
> changes."""
>
> All companies who were working wit
On Aug 16, 2010, at 00:13, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
>> All companies who were working with
>> OpenSolaris/Solaris are invited to
>> join this movement and liberate OpenSolaris.
>
> but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL?
> that still seems like it could be a bit of a problem
> if the
On 8/15/2010 4:13 PM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
Nexenta Systems initiated, Illumos Project continues
its effort...
http://www.illumos.org
"""A community maintained derivative of the
OpenSolaris ON source,
including open source replacements for closed bits,
and additional
changes."""
All companie
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Oh, and a side remark - I think it would make a bit more of a pronounceable
> name if we used "IlluminOS" (note the extra "in"). Also, the word is cool
> and appropriate.
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=illuminos
>
Maybe
On 08/15/2010 07:13 PM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL?
Why would you need to? The kernel can remain CDDL. Anything that can
be replaced with sources from *BSD or Linux directly, can be, if needed,
but why would a non-Oracle distribution of a fork of Op
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Ray Arachelian wrote:
> On 08/15/2010 07:13 PM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
>> but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL?
>
> Why would you need to? The kernel can remain CDDL. Anything that can
> be replaced with sources from *BSD or Linux directly, can be, if
...so it seems this site won't be my reference support point anymore?...how
long will we be writing here?...it's a very sad moment...
And even in case I decide to AGAIN (another 3-4 months?!?!?!) wait for Oracle's
S11 Express, they did not mention "where" I can install it.
AFAIK, Solaris 11 will
On 08/14/10 03:41 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11 Express
have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch up and
synchronize. As FreeBSD.
I would like it to be that way, but..
..they clearly indicate that code release
This makes me think where are you going to get people who really know this
stuff and can take it forward without massive training? Ex Sun people seem to
be jumping ship. Also outside Oracle/Sun who are the people who have even seen
and played with zfs and dtrace? Could it be people using OpenSol
On 08/15/2010 09:23 PM, Jason wrote:
>
> My understanding is anything released under the CDDL by someone that
> isn't Oracle (and not contributed under any SCA), would mean Oracle
> would have to release any changes to those files as well. They only
> get the right to withhold stuff they own the c
Why should one consider that source trustable?
What if another FUDding writer had fun putting this online?
Again, nothing have been said directly by Oracle.
And, afterall, we're all still posting at opensolaris.org
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
On 16 Aug 2010, at 12:54, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> Why should one consider that source trustable?
> What if another FUDding writer had fun putting this online?
> Again, nothing have been said directly by Oracle.
> And, afterall, we're all still posting at opensolaris.org
1. The source it was obt
> On 16 Aug 2010, at 12:54, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> 4. Not a single Oracle staff member has denied the
> memo, quite the contrary:
>
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-disc
> uss/2010-August/059316.html
Well, I've been 'former' staff for about two weeks now though just too lazy
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL?
Did you ever read that the Linux folks plan to liberate their sources from the
restrictive GPL?
If you compare OSS licenses, you will find that the Apache-2.0 license is the
best choice for an academic license and tha
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Arachelian
>
> > My understanding is anything released under the CDDL by someone that
> > isn't Oracle (and not contributed under any SCA), would mean Oracle
> > would have
Erik Trimble wrote:
> mandated). Oracle can't "yank back" or relicense the existing code. Of
> course, like the vanilla GPL, should you make code available under CDDL
> version X, then it can also be distributed under CDDL version X+N.
This is true in case that the licensor did add an explici
Ray Arachelian wrote:
> Exactly why I suggested that any new bits added to IllumOS should be
> GPL'ed. This could probably be done as kernel modules in some cases,
> so they'd be self contained. This also has the benefit of possibly
> allowing them to be back ported to Solaris 11 proper, which
Today, I remembered about the 2008 1st April Fool Mr. Schwartz posted on his
blog...I remember my smile when reading it...
It's still there, but 2 years later, the same words sound so different:
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/a_new_strategy
also read the comments...
I start to feel betraye
On 08/16/10 03:36 AM, Nikola M. wrote:
On 08/14/10 03:41 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11
Express have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch
up and synchronize. As FreeBSD.
I would like it to be that way, but..
..they
On 08/16/10 07:54 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
Why should one consider that source trustable?
What if another FUDding writer had fun putting this online?
Again, nothing have been said directly by Oracle.
And, afterall, we're all still posting at opensolaris.org
I haven't seen Oracle do anythi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/16/2010 10:34 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
> On 08/16/10 03:36 AM, Nikola M. wrote:
>> On 08/14/10 03:41 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
>>> All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11
>>> Express have been released. Then Illumos will h
On 08/16/10 09:55 AM, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/16/2010 10:34 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
On 08/16/10 03:36 AM, Nikola M. wrote:
On 08/14/10 03:41 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
All source code will be available after binary update
Ray Arachelian wrote:
> then perhaps a derivative of
> CDDL could be hammered out that gives the rights back to IllumOS in the
> same way that CDDL does for Oracle? Perhaps this could be called the
> IllumOS CDDL vs the Oracle CDDL?
You seem to be confusing CDDL with the SCA - it's the SCA that g
On Aug 16, 2010, at 15:00, Paul Gress wrote:
> On 08/16/10 09:55 AM, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 8/16/2010 10:34 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/16/10 03:36 AM, Nikola M. wrote:
>>>
I would like it to be that w
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
>
> >> they own the code, they are not bound by CDDL
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Not unless they fork the code and change the license. They are bound
> by CDDL until th
On 08/16/10 10:39 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
You're wrong. Oracle owns all the copyright and they do not have to comply with
the terms of the CDDL.
S.
I thought a written document had to be complied with until they change
the terms. In other words, their bound by their own rules until
which fits pretty good into the "exploiting FOSS"-image oracle is
going for: they can incorporate fixes from illumos while 'giving away'
their improvements _after_ the release of the money-making product.
regards, Florian
2010/8/14, Orvar Korvar :
> All source code will be available after binary u
Jörg the Börg wrote:
>
> The GPL is a anti-collaboration license.
>
> The CDDL is a _license_ (text/name) owned by Oracle.
not so sure that i agree on the GPL FUD being anti-collaboration (particularly
if you follow the amount of collaboration happening on a daily basis LKML)
as for the CDDL
On 08/16/10 11:32, Paul Gress wrote:
On 08/16/10 10:39 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
You're wrong. Oracle owns all the copyright and they do not have to comply with
the terms of the CDDL.
S.
I thought a written document had to be complied with until they change
the terms. In other words, thei
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> Jörg the Börg wrote:
>
> >
> > The GPL is a anti-collaboration license.
> >
> > The CDDL is a _license_ (text/name) owned by Oracle.
>
> not so sure that i agree on the GPL FUD being anti-collaboration
> (particularly if you follow the amount of collaboration happeni
On 08/16/10 02:56 PM, Brian Utterback wrote:
On 08/16/10 11:32, Paul Gress wrote:
On 08/16/10 10:39 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
You're wrong. Oracle owns all the copyright and they do not have to
comply with the terms of the CDDL.
S.
I thought a written document had to be complied with un
On 08/16/2010 08:50 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> Exactly why I suggested that any new bits added to IllumOS should be
>> GPL'ed.
>>
> #1 You're in the wrong place to promote GPL. GPL is an extremist
> anti-corporate free software license, which is not as permissive as CDDL.
> This is t
> From: Ray Arachelian [mailto:r...@arachelian.com]
>
> The point was that
> _additions_ to IllumOS should not necessarily be licensed under a
> license that allows them to be improved and then closed by third
> parties. So that, IF they make their way into Solaris proper, Oracle
> (or hell, Micr
On 8/16/2010 3:20 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Ray Arachelian [mailto:r...@arachelian.com]
The point was that
_additions_ to IllumOS should not necessarily be licensed under a
license that allows them to be improved and then closed by third
parties. So that, IF they make their way into S
...Apple should pickup OpenSolaris and make it the new base system for OSX.
I would switch immediatly.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 8/17/2010 3:49 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
...Apple should pickup OpenSolaris and make it the new base system for OSX.
I would switch immediatly.
That's a stunning suggestion.
In other news today, Toyota announced a deal with the US Army to use the
M1 Abrams tank chassis as the new
On 17 Aug 2010, at 11:49, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> ...Apple should pickup OpenSolaris and make it the new base system for OSX.
> I would switch immediatly.
If Apple had wanted to do that, they'd probably have been better just buying
Sun before Oracle stepped in. Can't really see what great ben
ARC approvals and the underlying transparency of the whole thing were, to me at
least, one of the very best part of the process. Of course, I never had to go
through this myself but the whole point of the architectural review committee
was to make sure that a project and all its ramifications we
> If anything I'd strongly suggest that whatever new features are to
> be added, as long as they can be, should be outside of the CDDL, and
> rather under GPL licenses than BSD or other licenses. This would
> prevent Oracle from taking back source code, tweaking it and closing
> it.
Please don't!
We should not forget that Larry & Steve are said to be old time friends.
Apple showed great interest on ZFS (as any other OS vendor, be it interest or
envy). Who knows what caused the decision to drop it? Maybe Steve was aware of
next Solaris happenings?
I see no other reason why any OS vendor w
Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> We should not forget that Larry & Steve are said to be old time friends.
> Apple showed great interest on ZFS (as any other OS vendor, be it interest or
> envy). Who knows what caused the decision to drop it? Maybe Steve was aware
> of next Solaris happenings?
>
> I see
What is the difference between single-context kernel and multi-context?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
That's classic!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
"Where is there anything more authoritative than just the rumors spread on
this mailing list?"
I would say that you need to give up your disbelief that OpenSolaris is no
more, gone, caput, aidios, ciao, goodbye, bye bye, dead, and has been for some
time.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.
> We should not forget that Larry & Steve are said to
> be old time friends.
> Apple showed great interest on ZFS (as any other OS
> vendor, be it interest or envy). Who knows what
> caused the decision to drop it? Maybe Steve was aware
> of next Solaris happenings?
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pip
2010/8/18 Richard L. Hamilton :
> Even for file service to Macs, I think I'd rather
> run recent netatalk on a zfs-based NAS (Nexenta or FreeBSD, maybe).
> (I'd like it even better if netatalk knew how to stick extra metadata
> and resource forks into named attributes (where available), rather than
Well, yes...I understand, but...
...what Apple did with OSX is something nobody ever did on any unix: bring an
amazing and totally usable desktop to a unix system!
Also, switching from OS9 to OSX was a total change, both of the underlying
system AND of the underlying hardware & processor. Still,
Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
Well, yes...I understand, but...
...what Apple did with OSX is something nobody ever did on any unix: bring an
amazing and totally usable desktop to a unix system!
Also, switching from OS9 to OSX was a total change, both of the underlying system
AND of the underlying hard
On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:43 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
>
>> We should not forget that Larry & Steve are said to be old time friends.
>> Apple showed great interest on ZFS (as any other OS vendor, be it interest
>> or envy). Who knows what caused the decision to drop it? M
Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU
cores.
Hope that it will be free (at least for non-commercial use) for unlimited
period of time. Hope it will be sufficient to
On 08/18/10 03:47 PM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:
Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU
cores.
Hope that it will be free (at least for non-commercial use) for unlimi
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Paul Gress wrote:
> On 08/18/10 03:47 PM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:
>
> Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
>
> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU
> cores.
>
> Ho
On 08/18/10 11:51 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
* even BSD drivers are different from Solaris drivers, although probably
closer than anything else. But Mac OS X, although borrowing a lot from
BSD, has a driver interface like nothing else: IOkit, an object oriented
device driver environment, all
On 08/19/10 07:47 AM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:
Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU
cores.
Unlikely; too much effort would be required to maintain two stream
On 08/18/10 04:00 PM, Hernan Saltiel wrote:
I actually think it will be just like Opensolaris Express (SXCE), but
with fewer updates with binaries, and Source at an unspecific time,
meaning the leaked memo stated major milestones, I hope it means after
every Express release.
This is not what
>
>
> On 08/18/10 03:47 PM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:
> cite="mid:344232755.361282160879701.JavaMail.Twebapp@
> f-app1"
> type="cite">
> Let me guess what the Solaris 11
> Express will be:
> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and
> l
My guess is that if announcement is going to be made, it'll be made at
their big conference that's happening soon (Oracleworld? something
like that)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Ivan Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/18/10 03:47 PM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:
>> > cite="mid:344232755.3612821608797
> Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
>
> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and
> limited number of CPU cores.
I've never heard of any version of Solaris, commercial or otherwise,
that was purposely crippled to use only li
>Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
>
>The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
>Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU
>cores.
Name one downloadable Oracle product which is limited in some way.
(Other than the license)
Casper
_
>> Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
>>
>> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
>> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and
>> limited number of CPU cores.
>
>I've never heard of any version of Solaris, commercial or otherwise,
>that was purposely crippled to us
Actually, Oracle is opening up Solaris 11. Solaris 10 was closed source. This
is important and no one complained on S10 being closed?
When/if Oracle incorporates fixes from Illumos, those fixes will be available
later, when Oracle releases the binary distro and the source code.
This does not d
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
