Re: [osol-discuss] Illumos loosing the SystemV heritage, fork (was: Re: Is anyone planning an alternative to Illumos or a fork?)
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:57 +0200, Knut Reinert wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 3:50 PM, David Blake davidblakeaus...@googlemail.com wrote: Hello, is anyone planning an alternative to Illumos or a fork? Given the ongoing BSD'tification of Illumos userland utilities I'd say it may be time to fork. Solaris and it's descendants should stay with it's SystemV heritage and POSIX. but I see Illumos is slipping. I am at least badly fed up with it and may people in the German community, save Joerg, share this opinion. Knut What BSD'ification are you referring to? We have imported some BSD utilities to close feature gaps, where we don't have an open source equivalent. POSIX compliance is important. If you think we're abandoning SYSV in favor of BSD then I think you're mistaken, and I would like to understand why specifically you believe this to be the case. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Illumos loosing the SystemV heritage, fork (was: Re: Is anyone planning an alternative to Illumos or a fork?)
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:20 +0200, Cedric Blancher wrote: On 22 September 2010 12:06, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote: On 09/22/10 07:57 PM, Knut Reinert wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 3:50 PM, David Blake davidblakeaus...@googlemail.com wrote: Hello, is anyone planning an alternative to Illumos or a fork? Given the ongoing BSD'tification of Illumos userland utilities I'd say it may be time to fork. So what to you propose as an alternative to the closed source bits of OpenSolaris? Well, I see what's already there: Some of the closed utils are already there but not enabled in the ON tree: sed and tail were done primarily, as I understand it, because of problems with the ksh93 versions. Nobody has driven forward with the ksh93 work. There are *easy* things that could be done, like /usr/bin/printf, with ksh93, but still no integration. I did tr because I urgently needed a tr fix, and the ksh93 version was reported to me as being inadequate. Note that ksh93 is not necessarily any more POSIX or SYSV compliant for these utilities than say FreeBSD. - Garrett /usr/bin/printf: http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2008/094/20080208_roland.mainz /usr/bin/sed, /usr/xpg4/bin/sed: http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2010/086/20100310_olga.kryzhanovska /usr/bin/tail, /usr/xpg4/bin/tail: http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2009/249/20090420_roland.mainz.2 /usr/bin/od, /usr/xpg4/bin/od, /usr/bin/tr, /usr/xpg4/bin/tr, /usr/xpg6/bin/tr: svn://svn.genunix.org/on/branches/ksh93/gisburn/prototype040/usr/src/lib/libcmd/common/ has versions of them, although tr has ben said as need work for POSIX.2008 but good enough to compile ON. What I never understood is that Illumos choose to ignore this and did all the effort of porting the FreeBSD code to the Illumos gate. Either way one side wasted lots of time. Ced ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Illumos loosing the SystemV heritage, fork (was: Re: Is anyone planning an alternative to Illumos or a fork?)
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:30 +0200, Cedric Blancher wrote: On 22 September 2010 14:25, Garrett D'Amore garr...@damore.org wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:20 +0200, Cedric Blancher wrote: On 22 September 2010 12:06, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote: On 09/22/10 07:57 PM, Knut Reinert wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 3:50 PM, David Blake davidblakeaus...@googlemail.com wrote: Hello, is anyone planning an alternative to Illumos or a fork? Given the ongoing BSD'tification of Illumos userland utilities I'd say it may be time to fork. So what to you propose as an alternative to the closed source bits of OpenSolaris? Well, I see what's already there: Some of the closed utils are already there but not enabled in the ON tree: sed and tail were done primarily, as I understand it, because of problems with the ksh93 versions. Nobody has driven forward with the ksh93 work. There are *easy* things that could be done, like /usr/bin/printf, with ksh93, but still no integration. I did tr because I urgently needed a tr fix, and the ksh93 version was reported to me as being inadequate. Note that ksh93 is not necessarily any more POSIX or SYSV compliant for these utilities than say FreeBSD. Have you tried to contact Roland Mainz, Olga Cantspellhername or Glenn Fowler about this? Roland and Olga seem to have stopped responding to all e-mails. I have not reached out to Glenn. (I think Roland and Olga were having some personal difficulties -- I have been hoping they would show up again, but I've not heard from them in over a month.) - Garrett Ced ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [illumos-Developer] SchilliX-0.7.1 based on b147+ available
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 19:20 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote: joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Gabriele Bulfon gbul...@sonicle.com wrote: That's great ;) andwhat are the missing features compared to latest OpenSolaris dev? (if any...) If you like to compare SchilliX with OpenSolaris, nothing is missing. If you compare SchilliX to Indiana, things look different. From the discussion of Licenses, it seems that Indiana is not made of redistributable code only. The distro named OpenSolaris, originally created by the Indiana project, contains only redistributable code in the install media main IPS repositories, though some of that is closed source binaries released under licenses like the OSBL. Does this mean, I could bundle the data from /usr/lib/locale/* with SchilliX? Probably with the closed libc that you have as part of your 147 build. However, these bits would *not* work with illumos. All packages containing code which is not redistributable are isolated to the /extra repository. Given the fact that pkg search cc does not show any /extra in the output, does this mean I could bundle the studio compiler with SchilliX? No. pkg doesn't consider licensing considerations. You need to form your own analysis by reading the licenses of the software you have downloaded. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] The Illumos Project
A number of the community leaders from the OpenSolaris community have been working quietly together on a new effort called Illumos, and we're just about ready to fully disclose our work to, and invite the general participation of, the general public. We believe that everyone who is interested in OpenSolaris should be interested in what we have to say, and so we invite the entire OpenSolaris community to join us for a presentation on at 1PM EDT on August 3, 2010. You can find out the full details of how to listen in to our conference, or attend in person (we will be announcing from New York City) by visiting http://www.illumos.org/announce (The final details shall be posted there not later than 1PM EDT Aug 1, 2010.) We look forward to seeing you there! - Garrett D'Amore the rest of the Illumos Cast -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Unacceptable language
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 18:16 +0100, Alan Burlison wrote: On 12/07/2010 18:09, Matthew Nawrocki wrote: Hey, on the bright side, you are doing your job. I wouldn't get too shook up about it. Thanks for the thought, it's appreciated :-) I'm not in the least perturbed about having to take this action but I wanted to make it clear that the aim is not to apply censorship, it is merely to ensure civility. I agree with the measures taken. Especially when one individual has repeatedly acted in such a manner. (The particular individual in question is Jennifer Pioch I believe.) However, there should be a process by which the individual should be able to restore his/her membership -- perhaps by signing a reaffirmation of tolerated behavior on these lists, along with some kind of 3-strikes rule or somesuch. Just something for the OGB and/or Oracle leadership (not sure who decides on mailing list and forum rules anymore) to consider. Btw, I'm not sure, do we actually have a written policy forbidding profanity? On the one hand, it seems clear that the message in question that started this activity was both unduly hostile and unduly vulgar, it would be good to have a clear rule whether any profanity at all is forbidden, just for consistency. (I think I've seen other profanity used in less hostile and vulgar contexts, that didn't trigger such a response though I've not gone back and checked for specific cases. While I'm not particularly sensitive, I think having consistent rules here would be good.) - Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] do you use ncrs?
I'm looking at merging/replacing ncrs with glm. However, there are some devices that ncrs supports that glm doesn't. I'm hypothesizing that such devices are so old that its likely that nobody has them. If you use ncrs, I'd like to see: prtconf -vp | grep pci1000 Also, are you willing to help test a newer glm replacement? (Its going to be hard to qualify all the parts that ncrs supports if I can't get access to the parts.) Please e-mail this information directly to me. If I fail to hear back from anyone with certain older revs of parts, I might conclude that its safe to just drop support for them. (I'm thinking of original 53c810 (not A variant), 53c825, 53c820, and 53c860 devices specifically.) The benefit to such a merge would be a single driver (smaller code base), using a common and more currently supported code base (including for example support for 64-bit mode kernels.) If I could find people who could test it for me, I'd even be willing to add fast reboot support for the glm driver. - Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] General THANKLESS- and RESPECTLESSness towards Joerg Schilling (and others, which I leave out of this msg.) __/__ Was: Emergency project to rescue Opensolaris from IBM
I don't know who Jennifer is, but I think everyone who's had more than passing experience with either Solaris or OpenSolaris knows that Joerg has made some real contributions. While Jennifer's comments are unfortunate, I don't think they are representative of any community, and I think all the parties concerned (excepting perhaps Jennifer herself) already know that. Its not worth getting too upset over, I think. -- Garrett Martin Bochnig wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Josh Hurst joshhu...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/25/09, Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote: On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote: This isnt very constructive either, it is also not true, Noises deleted If Jörg continues this path I'd propose to throw Mr. Jörg out of opensolaris. I agree that *someone* should be banned out of the OpenSolaris community mail lists. *someone* Jörg Josh http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2009-March/045713.html Jennifer Pioch wrote: Jörg is only interested in trolling and vaporware announcements. He's never contributed code to opensolaris and I don't expect that he will ever contribute more than his FUD emails. Jenny ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Townhall meeting
Shawn Walker wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: The orignal intent, the message and the soul of OpenSolaris way back in the days of the pilot group and even before, was to have a community which operates and feels like an open source group. With input and valuable contributions being *possible* from a world of people. With ease. A lot of people outside of the OpenSolaris operation feel we have missed the target. Projects/communities like docs, sfw, sfe, pkg and others are very easy to contribute to and have a very low barrier to entry. Last year, I found the pkg project, and I can tell you right now that it felt like and still feels very much like an open source project. Patches go to the mailing list, discussions happen there, and all the bug tracking is done on defect.opensolaris.org. There are many great community groups and projects to contribute to with relative ease for those that are truly interested... As far as I'm aware, the only project that is onerous to contribute to is ON. As you might have noticed, ON finally transitioned to Mercurial, and direct, external commits are coming soon (if not already here for a limited number of individuals?). Sure, there's still quite a few things that need to happen, but I'd say we're on the road to victory. ON commits are still, AFAICT, internal only. This is because the repository still lives inside the SWAN firewall, so you need to have internal access to Sun's network. (The RTI tools involved are also still Sun-internal only.) That said, its fairly easy for someone internal to take a changeset from an external contributor and integrate it. The onerous parts of the process for integration (test, SCA/CDDL verification, ARC approval if appropriate) still apply, and I don't see *those* portions of the problem going away anytime soon. (I don't think anyone seriously wants them to -- the various sanity checks play an important role in assuring the quality of the Solaris product is not compromised.) -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [driver-discuss] Project Proposal: starfish
Ada wrote: Garrett D'Amore wrote: This has the necessary +1's from the device driver community. Project setup, will you please set up the starfish project with the device driver community as sponsoring CG? I'm not entirely sure who the project lead will be, but try Ada Feng if she has an OpenSolaris login. (Ada, can you confirm this, and supply the name(s) of any other project leaders.) - Garrett yes, I want to set up the starfish project with the device driver community as sponsoring CG. and hopefully, I(ada_feng) can be the leader of this project. And I have already prepared a project page and the binaries, could I updated it for the hidden project, and upload my binaries? Probably. You should try to follow the wiki style that is already there -- it has its own markup, but you could convert your content to the OpenSolaris wiki. (I'd prefer to avoid wildly diverging styles for different projects.) But technically its your project, so you can do whatever you want with it. -- Garrett Thanks, Ada ___ driver-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [driver-discuss] Project Proposal: starfish
This has the necessary +1's from the device driver community. Project setup, will you please set up the starfish project with the device driver community as sponsoring CG? I'm not entirely sure who the project lead will be, but try Ada Feng if she has an OpenSolaris login. (Ada, can you confirm this, and supply the name(s) of any other project leaders.) - Garrett Masa Murayama wrote: +1 this is what I wish. -masa - Original Message - Project Proposal:starfish The Starfish project's primary goal is to create synergy between OpenSolaris and NetBeans / Sun Studio, by leveraging the NetBeans / Sun Studio IDE to assist with OpenSolaris driver and kernel development. The sponsoring community group would be the Device Drivers group. About starfish: Starfish is an add-in module for NetBeans / SunStudio which currently features * scsi hba, nic and raid hba device driver generation from wizard * device driver package and ITU image generation * GUI environment for remote machine kernel level debugging * OpenSolaris source code download and update * OpenSolaris manpage searching * nightly build configuration and invocation * installation DVD creation with new / updated drivers For the next prototype we expect to add * source code cross reference search * sata hba driver engine * many more sample drivers * enhanced integration with debugging tools * driver source code checking Could I create a new project page on Device Driver Community? Thanks, Ada ___ driver-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss ___ driver-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] STAR integration
Brian Utterback wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: The wish resulted in PSARC 2004/480 and I cannot understand why something that has been decided to be needed now has no people to work on. It seems that there is a problem in the way Sun is organized if this can happen. An approved PSARC case has nothing to do with funding/staffing. There are loads of abandoned approved PSARC cases in the database. Priorities changes, decisions get made, resources are reallocated. We encourage projects to file the PSARC case early in the development process at a time when it is most likely that a project might be abandoned. I expect that with OpenSolaris this will become even more common since the project work will be entirely at the whim of unpaid volunteers. In other words, Joerg: You need to file a request-sponsor case if you want STAR integrated. Until you have done that (and nobody here cares about what transpired before OpenSolaris take your beef with non-open-Solaris up with someone else who cares), please stop complaining about it here. To put it very simply, you are beginning to sound like a broken record. As I said earlier: show your commitment by deeds not words. The next time I hear you complain about how you can't integrate star because Sun is against you and no one will do the work, I'm going to add a filter so I never see mail from you again, and you'll thereby lose any chance whatsoever of getting any help from me in the future. I would be shocked if others haven't already taken such action your incessant complaining is driving folks away from what you claim to want most --- helping you integrate your software. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nameclash on svn_77 because Sun is ignoring PSARC discussions
Joerg Schilling wrote: Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever) name is a conflict with another existing one. I recommend that Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making such a proposal specific to his troubles with star, compare, etc... I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris, OpenSolaris cannot evolve. You have to verify that the way it is currently handled actually works. My impression is that it is either impossible to integrate stuff at all or that some people inside Sun boycott the integration of star. If you would ask me now, I could only say it does not work. Think about how to find a way to change this Jorg, you are in SWAN now. You can put together a workspace, integrate star into it, send out the code reviews and ultimately submit the RTI. Until you have an RTI that is refused, or an ARC case that is rejected, I don't think it is fair to assume *anyone* is rejecting anything if you've done. But its also not fair to expect them to do this work for you. If someone else at Sun wants star badly then *they* could do the work. So, if your ARC cases have been approved, put together a workspace, and send out code reviews as the first step. Its really not that hard. I'd offer to help you with it myself, except I know nothing about the SFW consolidation, and have little interest learning it just to help you out. If however you want to integrate into ON, I can offer you some basic suggestions... but I'm still not going to do the work for you myself! I don't think anyone else will, either. As my dad always said, Actions speak louder than words. Demonstrate your commitment to getting star integrated by your deed rather than your e-mails. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Very simply Ian, I think a lot of people agree that the *end* result (a binary downloadable called OpenSolaris) is probably a good thing. What the community is objecting to is *how* we got there. Sun (or your team) unilaterally decided to apply the brand, without really consulting the community. A lot of people are feeling disenfranchised as a result. -- Garrett Ian Murdock wrote: All right. I don't even know where to begin. Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called OpenSolaris has almost universally been: Duh. What took so long? Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING? Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP, to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing? Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible, to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded for being willing to take this step--or is this just another case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else? And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions? Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely abdicate to be community? Isn't that taxation without representation? Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything, so therefore we've given nothing? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit. -ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Sara Dornsife wrote: Bill, It's all about the name. Back away from OpenSolaris Developer Preview and this nightmare will end. And then what? I hope that doesn't sound facetious, I'm really asking what you see as next steps. Ask for community buy-in on the name usage. The problem again isn't the end result (although I'm sure there are folks who disagree with that), but the fact that community involvement was elided in selecting this name, usurping the front opensolaris.org web page, etc. Right now, it feels like Project Indiana has completely usurped the OpenSolaris brand without any consultation from the community. The community was founded as a *community*, not a benevolent dictatorship. Once you come to grips with that (and this is different for Ian, at Debian he could pretty much do whatever he wanted, IIUC), then I think the rest will start to make sense. -- Garrett Sara - Bill ___ indiana-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss ___ ogb-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Shawn Walker wrote: On 02/11/2007, Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The community may (or may not) choose to *GIVE* the name to the project to use. The community hasn't been given the right to give the name to anybody, or for that matter, take it from anybody. The community explicitly has no rights over the name whatsoever. You can't enforce policy that doesn't exist. A policy surrounding the trademark should have been defined at the inception of the community. And it is *precisely* because of *that* problem that I proposed that in the long run, we should consider one of two courses of action: 1) get Sun to give up the rights to the mark or 2) create our own mark, and change our identity (sort of what all the Xen-derived distros had to do). Yes, it sucks that we're at this impasse, but unless Sun is willing to do number 1 now, I don't see a way forward other than 2, that doesn't leave us with the possibility (or likelihood) of being back in the same boat in a year or three. (A *possible* way would be for Sun to yield control by some kind of contractual commitment, while it retains *ownership*. But I think that is no likelier than #1 in the first place.) At the end of the day/month/year/decade, I think its most likely we're going to have to set up the non-profit, and settle on number 2. (The non-profit to manage the mark is required in either case.) Yeah, it sucks, and pulls energy that is might have been fruitfully spent elsewhere. But I don't think it would be wise to be too cavalier about something as fundamental as our core identity. Now, on another point, I *do* believe Indiana probably should evolve into The OpenSolaris distribution (or whatever reference name we are able to choose), because, even though it is mostly staffed by Sun, its truly open, and (branding aside) really does hold true (or at least more so than some other alternatives) to the core values embodied in the historical Solaris code base. But, Sara and Ian, please give the community the credit and opportunity to come to that conclusion on our own, rather than having it forced down our throats. -- Garrett PS: For the Indiana folks, they need to really *understand* what they are trying to sell with a brand. If OpenSolaris' brand identity is a vibrant open community, then the biggest players need to participate accordingly. If its just another way for Sun to push out beta bits, and get developer mindshare for the Sun distribution known as Solaris, then the whole rest of the OGB, the Constitution, etc, is all just a sham and we should collectively dissolve ourselves. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 15:57 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: The community hasn't been given the right to give the name to anybody, or for that matter, take it from anybody. The community explicitly has no rights over the name whatsoever. so, either one of two things has happened: 1) the project is a subsidiary part of the community; if the community doesn't have the authority to use the name, neither does the project. 2) the project is not a subsidiary part of the community and has no authority to say its output is the work of the community as a whole. You can't enforce policy that doesn't exist. A policy surrounding the trademark should have been defined at the inception of the community. until the policy exists, the project can't possibly have authority to use the trademark. Of course it can. It gets the authority directly from the mark's owner (Sun.) The fact that it disenfranchises the entire rest of the community not to be able to use or control its own name, is entirely beside the point. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] This is not a Solaris helpdesk
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 19:31 +0100, Alan Burlison wrote: Artem Kachitchkine wrote: I think it's a bit too late, just go with the flow and leave -discuss alone. Lobbies are always crowded and noisy, and those arriving in Hotel Solaris need to feel welcome in order to want to say. Who cares what version of Solaris they happened to try first, give them a chance to figure stuff out. Gently directing questions to -help or another more appropriate list should be preferred, but if someone decides to answer a questions here and now, I don't see why not. I disagree, I suspect many people have unsubscribed because of the unacceptable S/N ratio, and as a result we no longer have any good way to reach those people. Off-topic posts on *any* mailing list aren't a good idea, and just because we haven't been good housekeepers in the past it doesn't follow that we should continue. I for one will certainly departing shortly if the situation doesn't improve - the amount of time it takes me to wee out stuff that I care about from people's installation issues just can't be justified. Departing opensolaris-discuss might not be such a bad idea. :-) I'm not on it now, and never have been. Somehow I am still able to participate, and don't feel like I've missed any really important info. (But then again, most of the important posts are cross-posted to lists I *am* on, such as ogb-discuss or -code.) -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [desktop-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Java tools for JDS, candidates discussion
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [Once again cc'ing desktop-discuss, since having these conversations on opensolaris-discuss is talking behind their backs and not going to have any results at all.] Ché Kristo wrote: I agree with loomy. We should not just push Java for the sake of Java. I haven't used Jpedal but does does it offer any functional benefit over Evince? Does ThinkFree have all the functionality of OpenOffice (Last time I used it it did not)? Personally I think putting JDS under the Java umbrella is damaging to the Java Brand as it does not really fit neatly...I know there are arguments for it but on the whole I see it causing more confusion than clarity. The latest word from marketing is that the JDS name is being de-emphasized and we should just call it GNOME again (though GNOME with Firefox, Thunderbird, StarOffice, and various other bits added to the community GNOME). It was damaging to the desktop environment as well. :-) Calling GNOME by its name (GNOME) makes us seem friendlier/more in line, with Linux distros. We're no longer trying to differentiate ourselves from Linux, rather we're trying to convince everyone we're just like Linux, only better. I'd say that represents a significant market coup for Linux. - Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:22:20PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote: So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision: 1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun and others use that source base to build (potentially incompatible) operating systems based on the OpenSolaris code base. 2. OpenSolaris should be an operating system in its own right. Multiple implementations (distros) can still exist, but they must remain compatible with each other to use the name OpenSolaris. I'm not a member of the OGB, but I play one on TV :-) Well, not really, but I did *run* for OGB... so I'm going to voice my thoughts anyway. It appears to me that item #2 can be broken down further. The idea of having a reference distribution is totally different from the requirement to be compatible. There is some benefit from compatibility guarantees, as the binary compatibility guarantee in *Solaris* (not the Open one) has shown. There may also be some benefit from having a reference distribution. (Right now SXCE serves in that capacity.) But those two things, are, I think orthogonal. I'd love to have a compatibility guarantee done enforced by some kind of test/conformance suite. Conceivably it might even be possible for an OS with an entirely different kernel to earn the right to be branded, if it could pass the conformance tests. (Ala the UNIX/POSIX conformance tests.) Of course, I don't think that anyone here has the resources to burn on creating, agreeing upon, and testing for conformance. I think having a reference distribution is also useful. But, as others have pointed out, start by developing the distribution, and then get consensus that it should be called the reference distribution. But start from a working base (which might openly be developed with that end-goal), before seeking some kind of blessing for the brand. At least that is, I think, a better approach. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Artem Kachitchkine wrote: I am royally confused and not sure if seconds matter anymore, but here's one just in case: +1 There are people willing to invest their time/resources on an OpenSolaris project. Please do and thank you. We desperately need to improve on the walker-to-talkers ratio. (Wouldn't that be great if everyone was allowed just 61 lines to write about a project, but each line over that allowance would have to be repayed with a line of code contributed to that project). Hmm... what about _negative_ lines of code? Several of my improvements of late (e.g. the GLDv3 device driver conversions, removal of in.tnamed, etc.) have resulted in a net reduction of lines of code in the project. Do these lines get reduced from your hypothetical count of 61? In that case it may be a while before I can propose a project I think I owe a couple thousand lines of code... - Garrett -Artem. ___ ogb-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Re: defunct communities
Alan Coopersmith wrote: Alan DuBoff wrote: I found it very odd and have said so repeatedly before. This was brought up when the previous OGB had to step in and name Garrett D'Amore, Masayuki Murayama, and Juergen Keil as core contributors because the Device Drivers community had failed to do so: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=103808 I find it odd also. In fact, I think it shows a reluctance to work with the community at large, in the way it was handled. If you ever wonder why folks don't feel comfortable, this type of situation doesn't give most the warm fuzzies. So why is the Device Drivers community reluctant to work with the community at large? I have a theory. That theory is that most of the people who are the leadership of the Device Drivers Community are Sun employees in Beijing, who do not actively participate in Open Solaris (apart from as part of Sun), and may have little or no awareness of the freeware device drivers that have been developed outside of Sun. Of course, Device Drivers seems like a valid community, so the OGB is more likely to agree to a proposal to establish a valid set of Contributors to run it than to shut it down - but for now, there is no one who can claim to speak for the Device Drivers community or vote to take action on it's behalf. I would do it without asking anyone in the community also, that's the way to do it...yeah, that's the way... You certainly have the option to make such a proposal to the OGB without involving the rest of the community, but we'd be more likely to accept one that came from a group of people that appeared to represent the community, not just you. If the Device Drivers community is seriously dysfunctional, I'd recommend (request!) that the OGB seek remediation. My suggestion is likely to be: a) get an explanation from the community leadership as to what is happening, and a promise of effort to do better (along with appointing a point of contact to the board... the constitution has such a position in it, but I forgot the exact terminology. Perhaps recommend the current leadership voluntarily supplement its ranks with other more active participants in the community? b) in the event that no satisfactory response to to a is forthcoming, disband the current leadership, and elect new leadership. I'm fairly confident that you'd probably find willing leadership candidates in at least a few external candidates... including myself. (Oh, wait, I'm not sure if I'm external or not now. But I probably qualify in any case.) I consider option b an option of last resort, rather than first resort. Best to try a first, I think. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [osol-code] How to initiate a distro ?
Eko Budhi Suprasetiawan wrote: Hello all, i am new to Open Solaris, but have a demand to have my own OpenSolaris installer, which basically a simple design like this : Add a software (e.g Moodle learning management software) as pre-installed so that, if i distribute my distro, then somebody will have installed OpenSolaris plus that software Is there arcticle to do so ? My background for such initiative is using Knoppix. Is there a such simple ways with OpenSolaris already ? Best regards, If all you are doing is adding software _in addition_ to what OpenSolaris already delivers, then you might want to look at webstart. The installer asks a question about whether you have any additional media to install, and this is where webstart comes in ... it can provide a nice GUI around the underlying pkgadd scripts, and integrate with the installer. -- Garrett ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [cab-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Last Day for Nominations
I also think this is a good sign that the relationship between Communities and Projects is not well understood by all participants. There are times it hasn't been at all clear to me, at least. Perhaps getting an endorsing community needs to be a prerequisite to setting up a project? -- Garrett Alan Coopersmith wrote: Keith M Wesolowski wrote: reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't included.) Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the OGB and not with the process itself. If the Community leaders are unresponsive or don't appear to have any sound rationale for denying endorsement, escalation to the OGB may be appropriate. The OGB should never force a Community to endorse a Project; presumably the Communities are the repository of technical knowledge and leadership and are expected to make value judgments about the viability and desirability of ongoing work. But denying endorsement by failing to maintain awareness of relevant projects, because of personality conflicts, or for other reasons not related to a project's technical merit is a problem well within the OGB's mandate to address. Suffice it to say that dealing with Community failure is one of the deeper challenges facing the new OGB. Community leaders are advised to put their houses in order sooner rather than later, and to seek dissolution if adequate leadership cannot be found or a sensible definition of scope cannot be agreed upon. In this case, I think it's still a follow-on of the poor initial setup of Communities - instead of a Xen community, we should have a Virtualization community with Xen qemu projects. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [driver-discuss] Project Proposal: SATA AHCI HBA driver enhancement
+1 Furthermore, I have the Via AHCI controler, and I would be willing to test certain features. I'd really, really like to see some of this backported to S10, as I'm running S10 on such a box in production right now. (I'm using the controllers in IDE compatibility mode.) -- Garrett Yunsong (Roamer) Lu wrote: Second! Dachuan Fir Qin wrote: *Project Proposal: SATA AHCI HBA driver enhancement* This project is aiming at supporting more ahci-compliant chipsets and adding more features to ahci driver. The webpage of AHCI project for opensolaris is at: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/device_drivers/projects/AHCI/ *A Short Description --- *AHCI specification is defined by INTEL and describes the register-level interface implementation for a Host Controller to conform to Serial ATA 1.0 and Serial ATA II. The specification includes a description of the hardware/software interface between system software and the host controller hardware. At the moment, the first phase of ahci driver has been putback into nevada build 56, and it supports INTEL ICH6 and VIA VT8251 controller. Currently, Solaris ahci driver conforms to AHCI 1.0 specification and supports PIO and DMA protocols, Hot Plug, cfgadm, 64-bit addressing, Intel ICH6 and VIA vt8251 chipsets. *Goal *The project is planning to support the following features in the future. * Supporting more AHCI compatible chipsets * ATAPI * Port Multiplier * MSI Interrupt * Power Management * NCQ Welcome to join the project, and welcome all kinds of comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance... Regards Fir Qin ___ driver-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss ___ driver-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss -- Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division, General Dynamics C4 Systems http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/ Phone: 951 325-2134 Fax: 951 325-2191 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [driver-discuss] Project Open: Bluetooth Stack Drivers
Darren J Moffat wrote: Alan DuBoff wrote: On Wednesday 29 November 2006 08:25 am, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Darren, please have a look at NetBSD's bluetooth stack, which was written by Iain Hibbert. This stack is provided under a friendly BSD license, and was funded by Tadpole. We may be able to offer some help in this area, as well. That would be nice if we could get that ported to OpenSolaris. Is there something specific in the NetBSD stack you want Alan or do you want a Bluetooth stack ? A 1:1 port isn't going to be possible, but what we might be able to do is leverage core parts of some other open source bluetooth stack. There will be some critical differences in how it integrates into OpenSolaris though because of things like devfsadm etc. Actually, the core protocol bits could at _minimum_ serve as a reference, and you can wholesale lift certain routines as you find them useful. I think _no_ free BT stack is going to be trivial to port to Solaris, largely because Solaris has STREAMs and everything else uses some other method. But being able to pick up various routines via cut-paste may make implementation go faster, and not having to worry about GPL issues makes NetBSD more attractive, I think. The NetBSD stack supports HID, audio, comms, networking (PPP over your 3G phone :-), and hands free profiles. The devfsadm and configuration parts of BT are one area that I consider a weakness in the NetBSD arena, but I think we (Solaris) can do a lot better. (NetBSD itself more or less lacks good support for dynamic configuration, whereas Solaris has had it from the get-go.) I'd be interested in working on this project, but I think I don't have the time at the moment. That could change in little while though. -- Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division, General Dynamics C4 Systems http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/ Phone: 951 325-2134 Fax: 951 325-2191 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [laptop-discuss] Re: [osol-code] vote for 6363369
Brian Utterback wrote: Garrett D'Amore wrote: Yes, that would be great. Unfortunately the b.o.o description just says see comments, which is rather unhelpful for those of us outside of Sun. It is bad enough that much important information cannot be exposed outside of Sun, it is a real shame that many engineers who should know better still put see comments in the description field. What can we do about this? Is there some alias or something we should send a reminder to? The last time I brought this up, I was told that there had been an email that said this, but nobody seems to have a copy. Unless we get an official policy written down somewhere to point at, I would hate to dress down engineers more senior that myself. Back when _I_ was a Sun employee (circa 1998 - 2003) it was implicitly understood that comments was _only_ to be used when data that could not be exposed out side Sun. (Even then, Sun customers could see public bug reports.) Back then it was normal to leave the comments field blank unless some confidential data needed to be recorded. I can't believe that engineers are doing this unless the bug report is essentially confidential data. Of course, I don't have access to the detail in this bug report. It probably wouldn't be hard to change the bug submission tools (is Sun still using Bugtraq+) to throw a confirmation dialog explaining correct usage if the description is too short or the description is shorter than the comments field. In the meantime, you could probably _ask_ the submitter why he chose to use the comments rather than the description field, and note that it prevents opensolaris members from being able to participate effectively. I think even very senior engineers could understand this. -- Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division, General Dynamics C4 Systems http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/ Phone: 951 325-2134 Fax: 951 325-2191 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
