Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 08:32 pm, Glynn Foster wrote: It's really about resources issues. The desktop team within Sun is already swamped enough without having to look and fix issues with KDE as well. But yeah, I completely agree with you - having the ability for customers to install KDE off the companion CD or off some online package repository would be *ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC*. They just have to be made aware that there is no official Sun support of those components, but can be assured that the community will help as much as possible with any problems they might encounter. For someone like me that's actually fine. I've been running KDE as my desktop for the past 7 or 8 years, so I'd get the same support I would get in the future as I've been getting. It works for me. I'd still like to see one set of common libs for all applications to use. Maybe this is too far fetched... -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 08:37 pm, Glynn Foster wrote: Interesting. So you're going to swap your user base over to the KDE desktop? Or are you going to try and retro fit both into Nexenta? Won't that be a bit hard for a single CD? :/ Can't the bulk of packages be installed over the net? That's what I've always liked about Debian, install the smallest amount of needed code and then apt-get the rest that you need. It just works. I have said for years that if you had the Solaris kernel with gnu tools, we'd have the best of a couple worlds. While it could be argued that gnu tools are inadequate, I find them to be what the open source community is working on and where most improvements are happening (i.e., several distros use them, linux, *bsd, osx, et al). -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On 12/20/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having BOTH means giving users (actual and potential) a choice. It's really about resources issues. The desktop team within Sun is already swamped enough without having to look and fix issues with KDE as well. But yeah, I completely agree with you - having the ability for customers to install KDE off the companion CD or off some online package repository would be *ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC*. is Sun willing to at least give access to a SVN repository so the KDE Solaris port source code and the associated required libraries source code (which, by the way, are three times the size of what used to be the Companion CD) have a material presence at OpenSolaris, where people can actually collaborate and do work ? if that is not possible, then the current situation will not change, and will not improve. KDE can be downloaded right now off the 'Net, in its various shapes, forms and incarnations. having a real, collaborative engineering effort at OpenSolaris does not formally imply product support from Sun. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Sun Contributor Agreement questions
I'm considering contributing code to opensolaris, but I have some questions about the SCA. 1. sun_contributor_agreement.pdf contains the following seven fields for contact information: Full Name E-mail Username(s) Mailing Address Country Telephone Fax Which of these fields are mandatory, and which are not? 2. Section 1 of the SCA reads: “Contribution” means any object code, source code, specification, documentation, e-mail, sample, tutorial, posting, or any other related materials submitted by You to a Project, excluding any submissions that You clearly designate as Not a Contribution. Would it be acceptable to replace that with the following before I sign the agreement: “Contribution” means any object code, source code, specification, documentation, e-mail, sample, tutorial, posting, or any other related materials submitted by You to a Project, that You clearly designate as A Contribution under the terms of the Sun Contributor Agreement. The reason for this is obvious. 3. I've seen various commentaries about Sun's requirement of joint copyright ownership for opensolaris contributions, including the precedence of other open source projects, claims of practical necessity of joint ownership when bringing infringement suits, charges that Sun's goal is to reserve the ability to avoid releasing its future versions of Solaris under the CDDL, and claims that the CDDL, despite its extensive vetting by Sun's own lawyers, might contain mistakes which Sun would need to correct in the future. However, I've been unable to find any official explanation from Sun itself of the particular reasons why it would not be sufficient if contributors retained sole copyright ownership and simply licensed their contributions under the CDDL. Has Sun provided any such explanation? 4. Related to the previous item, http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/ says If I contribute code to the OpenSolaris source base, what will I be asked to do as far as licensing is concerned? Code contributed to the OpenSolaris source base must be made available under the CDDL (or another open source license if based on another open source project with a different license), and you must have submitted a contributor agreement. Since sections 2 and 5 of the SCA effectively require that a contributor own the copyright to his contribution (since otherwise, he wouldn't have the right to assign joint ownership to Sun), and the SCA grants Sun joint ownership, including the right to license the contribution as it sees fit, isn't the requirement Code contributed to the OpenSolaris source base must be made available under the CDDL (or another open source license if based on another open source project with a different license) superfluous? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] New to Solaris (admin side) so some questions.
Hi, I have used Solaris in the office for many years but I now have an old Ultra 5 which I am running Solaris 10 on. I got the install from a Sun stand at a company internal event back in July. I installed it on the Ultra 5 a couple of weeks ago and managed to get everything seemingly working, I did a basic install with dhcp working directly on the machine. Yesterday I managed to correctly configure the dhcp client to have the correct host information and update the DNS server for the network (DHCP and DNS server are running on Linux). I also managed to correctly configure the DNS server to allow nslookups from anywhere on the local network so reverse DNS is now working correctly. My problem is that the network connections to the Ultra 5 are very slow. A telnet session (using Putty on Windows) works fine for a few minutes and then pauses for several seconds and then works fine again. I have tried using Cygwin/X to start a Gnome session and that partially starts but I never get a login prompt, just an hour glass (sun variety) and a black screen. I also switched the X session to try and start an X application with the display set to the Window machine running Cygwin/X and it just seems to hang with nothing appearing on the windows machine. I am looking for pointers to documentation that will help me diagnose any issues and also any tools that can give me an idea of what is going on. I have limited Linux admin knowledge, I tend to fumble my way through HOWTOs and FAQs to get things working. Thanks Simon This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Hi, On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 08:26 -0500, Stefan Teleman wrote: is Sun willing to at least give access to a SVN repository so the KDE Solaris port source code and the associated required libraries source code (which, by the way, are three times the size of what used to be the Companion CD) have a material presence at OpenSolaris, where people can actually collaborate and do work ? if that is not possible, then the current situation will not change, and will not improve. KDE can be downloaded right now off the 'Net, in its various shapes, forms and incarnations. having a real, collaborative engineering effort at OpenSolaris does not formally imply product support from Sun. Sure, why not...it's a community project afterall, and if there's value of storing build infrastructure, patches or otherwise on opensolaris.org, I'll make every effort to help make that development as open as humanly possible and I know others will too. Ideally you should be working with the upstream community as much as possible, but I'm sure you're aware of that for your own sakes. But you're the guys with the KDE experience - it's your ship, you need to steer it. It's not 'us' against 'you' [1] - we're all in this together, and once the infrastructure is online, community momentum is very much reliant on people picking up tasks and running with them. We're just at the unfortunate point in time where the infrastructure isn't where we'd like it to be - everyone is counting on it, and I'm sure it'll gradually get there. Glynn [1] If it feels like that, there's something that we're all doing wrong, and you should *totally* speak up with issues or suggestions of what we need to be doing ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Solaris 10 1/06 Which Solaris Express Version
I see that Solaris 10 1/06 has just been released and looking at the documnetation it looks like it is based on Solaris Express 11/05 (no ZFS). Is this correct, or is it based in an early version. I guess the question is when do Sun take the Express Version and turn it into a full Solaris version, since I find it hard to beleive that they only take 1 month to do there final testing? Just a general question. Thanks Andrew This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 1/06 Which Solaris Express Version
I see that Solaris 10 1/06 has just been released and looking at the documnetation it looks like i t is based on Solaris Express 11/05 (no ZFS). Is this correct, or is it based in an early version. Incorrect; Solaris 10 1/06 is based on Solaris 10 and has no direct relationship with any of the Solaris Express releases. Solaris Express is the road to the next Solaris release. The Solaris 10 updates are roll-up releases containing patches and new features which have often first been released in Solaris Express. The features which show up in S10 updates are /backports/ of the features as found in SX I guess the question is when do Sun take the Express Version and turn it into a full Solaris versi on, since I find it hard to beleive that they only take 1 month to do there final testing? They don't except once every 2-3 years. Except that we don't even then (there is no Solaris Express release which precisely matches a Solaris release) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] New to Solaris (admin side) so some questions.
Simon Wiehe writes: My problem is that the network connections to the Ultra 5 are very slow. A telnet session (using Putty on Windows) works fine for a few minutes and then pauses for several seconds and then works fine again. I have tried using Cygwin/X to start a Gnome session and that partially starts but I never get a login prompt, just an hour glass (sun variety) and a black screen. I also switched the X session to try and start an X application with the display set to the Window machine running Cygwin/X and it just seems to hang with nothing appearing on the windows machine. A good place to start would be to examine the packets on the network to see if there are any clues about what's going wrong. You can do this with snoop (which comes with Solaris) or ethereal (available from multiple places, including blastwave). Ethereal's easier. Based on the symptoms, likely causes include: - Large numbers of packet drops on the path to that host - Path MTU problems - Some sort of packet storm on your local network (can sometimes result from misconfigured interfaces; check the subnet masks) - ARP or routing conflict or misconfiguration - Hardware trouble, such as using ndd to force the local Ethernet link duplex to full and causing the switch to fall back to half duplex Are there particular packets that preceded or follow the outage? If you ping the failing host, does it respond? Are there many drops? Try pinging with different packet sizes (including sizes around 1472). If large packets have trouble, then it's likely an MTU problem. Are there any messages in /var/adm/messages? You can bump up the detail level using /etc/syslog.conf (and then pkill -HUP syslogd). What does netstat -ni say? What do the kstats for the Ethernet interface say? Are there errors? What does your local bridge / switch / router say about the interface? I am looking for pointers to documentation that will help me diagnose any issues and also any tools that can give me an idea of what is going on. I have limited Linux admin knowledge, I tend to fumble my way through HOWTOs and FAQs to get things working. There are a fair number of FAQs on the web that address these sorts of issues on Solaris as well. Google is one way to find them. -- James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 00:47 +1100, Glynn Foster wrote: Hey, On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 02:30 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Tuesday 20 December 2005 08:37 pm, Glynn Foster wrote: Interesting. So you're going to swap your user base over to the KDE desktop? Or are you going to try and retro fit both into Nexenta? Won't that be a bit hard for a single CD? :/ Can't the bulk of packages be installed over the net? That's what I've always liked about Debian, install the smallest amount of needed code and then apt-get the rest that you need. It just works. Yeah, it just wasn't obvious from the comments in the email, that I thought it would be good to clarify. For the purposes of a Live CD though, you have to be careful about what default set of packages you make available to entice people to play around with and install afterwards - certainly not an easy task my any means. Oh, no. Nexenta LiveCD is not going to change. I was talking about InstallCD which has 350MB free space, so it should fit KDE as well. The rest will be downloadable through the APT repository. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Information about today's mail outage
As everyone probably realized, the mail server did not come back online properly at 5:30 PM yesterday, as indicated in this email. Apparently there were a number of additional problems that lead to machine receiving mail but failing to send it back out last night. I apologize for the poor planning and execution that lead to this lengthy outage. Derek Derek Cicero wrote: All, I apologize for the inconvenience caused by today's mail outage. I had no idea that the server was going to be down today and actually found when I tried to access the machine this morning. So what happened? We were moving to new hosting facility over the weekended and the plan was to move spare boxes to the new facility, get the applications up and running and then do a seamless switchover on Saturday evening. While the the majority of machines switched over without problems, the mail server was not switched over properly, resulting in the outage today. This was a one time move, so this particular problem should not arise again, but I have made it very clear to the folks in charge of the boxes that the lack of prior communication on this outage was simply unacceptable. Again, I apologize for the trouble. Derek -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Stefan Teleman wrote: On 12/20/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having BOTH means giving users (actual and potential) a choice. It's really about resources issues. The desktop team within Sun is already swamped enough without having to look and fix issues with KDE as well. But yeah, I completely agree with you - having the ability for customers to install KDE off the companion CD or off some online package repository would be *ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC*. is Sun willing to at least give access to a SVN repository so the KDE Solaris port source code and the associated required libraries source code (which, by the way, are three times the size of what used to be the Companion CD) have a material presence at OpenSolaris, where people can actually collaborate and do work ? Would it be possible to base your KDE build on Blastwave libraries? As the most actively maintained set for Solaris, I can see them moving towards becoming de facto standards. If this were to happen, I think you KDE would become more popular. Glynn, could the same be done with JDS? Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: New to Solaris (admin side) so some questions.
There are lots of dropped packets (36% on a ping) and 'netstat -ni' gives the following Name Mtu Net/Dest AddressIpkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Collis Queue lo0 8232 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 2540 2540 0 0 qfe0 1500 172.16.45.0 172.16.45.10 519124 5740 0 0 There is nothing in the logs, in fact syslog is empty and nothing else has been written to for a long time. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: New to Solaris (admin side) so some questions.
Simon Wiehe's email at 12/21/2005 3:41 PM, said: There are lots of dropped packets (36% on a ping) and 'netstat -ni' gives the following Name Mtu Net/Dest AddressIpkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Collis Queue lo0 8232 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 2540 2540 0 0 qfe0 1500 172.16.45.0 172.16.45.10 519124 5740 0 0 There is nothing in the logs, in fact syslog is empty and nothing else has been written to for a long time. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Try 'kstat qfe:0'. From that, you should see the origin of the errors (framing, CRC, etc.). Thanks, Jarod ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: KDE, GNOME, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/20/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having BOTH means giving users (actual and potential) a choice. It's really about resources issues. The desktop team within Sun is already swamped enough without having to look and fix issues with KDE as well. But yeah, I completely agree with you - having the ability for customers to install KDE off the companion CD or off some online package repository would be *ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC*. is Sun willing to at least give access to a SVN repository so the KDE Solaris port source code and the associated required libraries source code (which, by the way, are three times the size of what used to be the Companion CD) have a material presence at OpenSolaris, where people can actually collaborate and do work ? if that is not possible, then the current situation will not change, and will not improve. KDE can be downloaded right now off the 'Net, in its various shapes, forms and incarnations. having a real, collaborative engineering effort at OpenSolaris does not formally imply product support from Sun. --Stefan Hi Stefan, First, congratulations on the KDE 3.4.3 release! To go along with Glynn's reply, here's a good analogy I think. Suppose we were talking about Python and you were a Python porting Solaris expert instead of a KDE one. By virtue of being part of JDS now, the port source code for Sun's Python is open and accessible on opensolaris.org. As a result, it is now possible for non-Sun Solaris developers like you to help co-development Python for Nevada (aka Solaris next) -- and even Solaris 10 via an update release if deemed necessary. Back to KDE. Per the OpenSolaris roadmap[1], the same thing will eventually happen with KDE via the Companion CD. Which is to say, Sun's port source code and development environment for the Nevada KDE packages will be launched on opensolaris.org sometime in Q1 '06. Of course it'll be harder than Python because KDE/QT is a _whole lot_ more complex. The good news is it'll be easier in a big way too: Developers of Companion CD packages have _far_ fewer constraints than developers of real Nevada packages (like Python) since CCD packages are unsupported and live in /opt. Eric [1]: http://opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: New to Solaris (admin side) so some questions.
Simon Wiehe writes: Name Mtu Net/Dest AddressIpkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Collis Queue lo0 8232 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 2540 2540 0 0 qfe0 1500 172.16.45.0 172.16.45.10 519124 5740 0 0 Ah ha! That narrows it down quite a bit. As another poster said, check kstats. In particular, it's likely that you've got a duplex mismatch. You're not attempting to force either speed or duplex by overriding Ethernet autonegotiation, are you? Unnecessary tuning is a frequent cause of trouble ... -- James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 05:47 am, Glynn Foster wrote: Hey, On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 02:30 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Tuesday 20 December 2005 08:37 pm, Glynn Foster wrote: Interesting. So you're going to swap your user base over to the KDE desktop? Or are you going to try and retro fit both into Nexenta? Won't that be a bit hard for a single CD? :/ Can't the bulk of packages be installed over the net? That's what I've always liked about Debian, install the smallest amount of needed code and then apt-get the rest that you need. It just works. Yeah, it just wasn't obvious from the comments in the email, that I thought it would be good to clarify. For the purposes of a Live CD though, you have to be careful about what default set of packages you make available to entice people to play around with and install afterwards - certainly not an easy task my any means. While I currently only have one Linux system at home, it's being phased out into a gaming machine for my sun...maybe by this weekend...;-) I have used Linux and Embedded Linux quite a bit in the past, and some cases the client would dictate which platform you used. I would always use Debian as my personal Linux, and as such presented problems installing certain packages in regard to that. It doesn't take that long to get a good chunk of what you need with a few commands, and to update and dist-upgrade would take you current at any point. If you're missing something, an apt-get grabs it with the dependancies. This system works very well. The problem with Nexentra is that many of the standard packages of Debian are not ported at this time. They seem to have taken quite a leap, and are well on their way. I think Shillix is interesting if for nothing else than Joerg Schilling is working on it. It is missing (but gathering) needed pieces for a complete system as well. Same with Belenix. All of these system are getting better though, this is good. -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
RE: [osol-discuss] Re: New to Solaris (admin side) so some questi ons.
netstat -ni only gives you one reading. IIUC this is every error since the beginning (of time??). Shouldn't we be looking at something like netstat -ni 10 to see if there's ongoing issues? In any case, it means Simon has busted hardware somewhere - a bad cable, switch, router, nic etc. This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and or privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] X11R7
a href=http://slashdot.org/articles/05/12/21/2227213.shtml?tid=162tid=104;X11R7 (yes, the first major release in just over a decade)/a has just been released. Any info on when it will be integrated into OpenSolaris (R7's modular; R6.9 has the same functionality but is more traditional, apparently, with source code structure)? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to base your KDE build on Blastwave libraries? No. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to base your KDE build on Blastwave libraries? As the most actively maintained set for Solaris, I can see them moving towards becoming de facto standards. Blastave is *not* the de fact standard for anything on Solaris. At least not insofar as solaris.kde.org is concerned. There is currently no de facto, or de jure, standard for open source packages on Solaris. There are *several* distributions of GNU/OpenSource packages for Solaris, each one of them with their advangages and their disadvantages. To ascertain a priori on this forum that somehow Blastwave is a primus inter pares amongst GNU/OpenSource Solaris distributions is a matter of personal opinion, and not everyone is required, or expected to share it. I do not share in this opinion, and i have objective reasons for not sharing this opinion. I can explain these reasons upon request. If this were to happen, I think you KDE would become more popular. KDE is doing quite well on its own merits, with, or without Blastwave. Stefan Teleman -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Stefan Teleman wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to base your KDE build on Blastwave libraries? As the most actively maintained set for Solaris, I can see them moving towards becoming de facto standards. Blastave is *not* the de fact standard for anything on Solaris. At least not insofar as solaris.kde.org is concerned. I didn't say it was, but I'd wager it's the most widely deployed. There is currently no de facto, or de jure, standard for open source packages on Solaris. There are *several* distributions of GNU/OpenSource packages for Solaris, each one of them with their advangages and their disadvantages. I didn't say there were. To ascertain a priori on this forum that somehow Blastwave is a primus inter pares amongst GNU/OpenSource Solaris distributions is a matter of personal opinion, and not everyone is required, or expected to share it. I do not share in this opinion, and i have objective reasons for not sharing this opinion. I can explain these reasons upon request. I didn't say anything other than it was my opinion. Why the hostility, when I only asked a polite question? Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why the hostility, when I only asked a polite question? I find this incessant Blastwave promotion patently unfair. How come none of the Blastwave promoters ever mentions the work done by Steve Christensen with Sunfreeware, or the work done by The Written Word ? And i am quite certain they are others i forget right now. There was a time, not so long ago, when Sunfreeware was the *only* where GNU/OpenSource software for Solaris was available for download. Sunfreeware *still* maintains and publishes packages for Solaris, on both X86 and SPARC. So does The Written Word. The reason i am involved with KDE and OpenSolaris is because i believe that individuals are entitled to certain freedom rights insofar as software is concerned, and because i believe that freedom, openness, honesty and fair play foster creativity and innovation. Openness, honesty and fair play carry a responsibility on the part of those involved in free software: one must be willing to take a back seat in this show, because the show is not about particular distributions, or individuals, but about freedom, innovation and creativity. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Stefan Teleman wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why the hostility, when I only asked a polite question? I find this incessant Blastwave promotion patently unfair. How come none of the Blastwave promoters ever mentions the work done by Steve Christensen with Sunfreeware, or the work done by The Written Word ? And i am quite certain they are others i forget right now. While I have never used The Written Word, I have used and promoted Sunfreeware over the years. I just use what's best for me, which at the moment requires some form of automatic update. There was a time, not so long ago, when Sunfreeware was the *only* where GNU/OpenSource software for Solaris was available for download. Sunfreeware *still* maintains and publishes packages for Solaris, on both X86 and SPARC. So does The Written Word. I have no problem with that. If the shoe fits, use it. The reason i am involved with KDE and OpenSolaris is because i believe that individuals are entitled to certain freedom rights insofar as software is concerned, and because i believe that freedom, openness, honesty and fair play foster creativity and innovation. Openness, honesty and fair play carry a responsibility on the part of those involved in free software: one must be willing to take a back seat in this show, because the show is not about particular distributions, or individuals, but about freedom, innovation and creativity. Don't forget how Blastwave started, it grew as a community effort and it still is. One look at the list of maintainers shows this. Maybe what we require from all the distributions is a common means of identifying versions, so a package installer can search for package Xversion Y on the system, regardless of its origin. This would be a start in cleaning what appears to an outsider to be the messy situation of conflicting version of the same application. Then you wouldn't have to spend your time keeping the KDE dependencies up to date. Freedom can also be freedom for the drudgery of maintaining thins you require, rather than those you want to build and grow. I know, I've been there. I'd love to use your version of KDE, you do a superb job with KDE on Solaris. But as I have to pay for bandwidth, I don't want yet another set of packages to administer on my system. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: My PhD Research with the OpenSolaris Community (or I'm not disappeared)
Your field of study looks very interesting, I look forward to seeing the results! This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 20:25, Ian Collins wrote: Stefan Teleman wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why the hostility, when I only asked a polite question? I find this incessant Blastwave promotion patently unfair. How come none of the Blastwave promoters ever mentions the work done by Steve Christensen with Sunfreeware, or the work done by The Written Word ? And i am quite certain they are others i forget right now. While I have never used The Written Word, I have used and promoted Sunfreeware over the years. I just use what's best for me, which at the moment requires some form of automatic update. There was a time, not so long ago, when Sunfreeware was the *only* where GNU/OpenSource software for Solaris was available for download. Sunfreeware *still* maintains and publishes packages for Solaris, on both X86 and SPARC. So does The Written Word. I have no problem with that. If the shoe fits, use it. The reason i am involved with KDE and OpenSolaris is because i believe that individuals are entitled to certain freedom rights insofar as software is concerned, and because i believe that freedom, openness, honesty and fair play foster creativity and innovation. Openness, honesty and fair play carry a responsibility on the part of those involved in free software: one must be willing to take a back seat in this show, because the show is not about particular distributions, or individuals, but about freedom, innovation and creativity. Don't forget how Blastwave started, it grew as a community effort and it still is. One look at the list of maintainers shows this. Maybe what we require from all the distributions is a common means of identifying versions, so a package installer can search for package Xversion Y on the system, regardless of its origin. This would be a start in cleaning what appears to an outsider to be the messy situation of conflicting version of the same application. Not just an outider Ian. It is a mess. One of the biggest problems I have with blastwave is that if, for example, I want to install blastwave's openldap package, I'm forced to install the unixodbc package as well and their version of OpenSSL. Why? I don't need unixodbc for an LDAP server and Sun provides an OpenSSL version as part of the OS, but the Openldap package as provided by Blastwave requires unixodbc and their version of OpenSSL. And why is freetype required? Does it offer something extra? Why does an LDAP server require a font engine? Bloat, it's a problem that blastwave appears to encourage or at least tolerate. Disk space may be cheap, but the time that's required to juggle all this isn't. John Then you wouldn't have to spend your time keeping the KDE dependencies up to date. Freedom can also be freedom for the drudgery of maintaining thins you require, rather than those you want to build and grow. I know, I've been there. I'd love to use your version of KDE, you do a superb job with KDE on Solaris. But as I have to pay for bandwidth, I don't want yet another set of packages to administer on my system. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be a start in cleaning what appears to an outsider to be the messy situation of conflicting version of the same application. Then you wouldn't have to spend your time keeping the KDE dependencies up to date. Freedom can also be freedom for the drudgery of maintaining thins you require, rather than those you want to build and grow. I know, I've been there. There is nothing i would like more than for all of us involved in this to finally agree on a set of standards, and follow them. That means *all* of us. I have asked this very exact question 6 months ago, on this forum. What was the response ? Does anyone remember ? If my recollections are correct, of all the parties of whom the question was asked, only two answered. one of them was OpenSolaris (a.k.a. Glen), the other one was solaris.kde.org. (a.k.a. yours truly). Blastwave chose to stay silent. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Stefan Teleman wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be a start in cleaning what appears to an outsider to be the messy situation of conflicting version of the same application. Then you wouldn't have to spend your time keeping the KDE dependencies up to date. Freedom can also be freedom for the drudgery of maintaining thins you require, rather than those you want to build and grow. I know, I've been there. There is nothing i would like more than for all of us involved in this to finally agree on a set of standards, and follow them. That means *all* of us. I have asked this very exact question 6 months ago, on this forum. What was the response ? Does anyone remember ? If my recollections are correct, of all the parties of whom the question was asked, only two answered. one of them was OpenSolaris (a.k.a. Glen), the other one was solaris.kde.org. (a.k.a. yours truly). Blastwave chose to stay silent. --Stefan To me, the most important bits are these: 1) compiled for the OS build I want to run on to avoid duplicate libs. 2) compiled with modern CPU support (eg SSE2, SSE3, etc). 3) compiled with all X extensions that OS revs supports 4) Source packages (as compiled) and build infrastructure available so that binary bits can be replicated. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Stefan Teleman wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be a start in cleaning what appears to an outsider to be the messy situation of conflicting version of the same application. Then you wouldn't have to spend your time keeping the KDE dependencies up to date. Freedom can also be freedom for the drudgery of maintaining thins you require, rather than those you want to build and grow. I know, I've been there. There is nothing i would like more than for all of us involved in this to finally agree on a set of standards, and follow them. That means *all* of us. I have asked this very exact question 6 months ago, on this forum. Yes I remember that well and as you say, nothing has happened in the interim. So, how can we move forward? Any common system must include Sun Solaris packages as well, to avoid the silly situation John raised. Defining a means of identifying packages isn't hard, an agreed file format and location should be all that is required. This can be a simple text or XML file with the name, version and location of each package. It could be appended to by a package post-install script and scanned by a pre-install script to check the system for required dependencies. Have I over simplified the problem and solution? If not, let's take this forward. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Ian Collins wrote: Stefan Teleman wrote: [...] involved in free software: one must be willing to take a back seat in this show, because the show is not about particular distributions, or individuals, but about freedom, innovation and creativity. Don't forget how Blastwave started, it grew as a community effort and it still is. One look at the list of maintainers shows this. Maybe what we require from all the distributions is a common means of identifying versions, so a package installer can search for package Xversion Y on the system, regardless of its origin. I have been pointing this out for a while. Right now all the dependencies are based on package names which fosters duplication. Instead we need to have dependencies based on standard exported (by some means) module names. This is what is done by the Provides and Requires clauses in RPM. So in my SuSE installation for example it does not matter where I got an RPM package from. It can still be used by another RPM package from another source. Another wild idea it to use something like a stripped down configure script to check for dependencies. This will not require standard module naming. Regards, Moinak. This would be a start in cleaning what appears to an outsider to be the messy situation of conflicting version of the same application. Then you wouldn't have to spend your time keeping the KDE dependencies up to date. Freedom can also be freedom for the drudgery of maintaining thins you require, rather than those you want to build and grow. I know, I've been there. I'd love to use your version of KDE, you do a superb job with KDE on Solaris. But as I have to pay for bandwidth, I don't want yet another set of packages to administer on my system. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Stefan Teleman wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be a start in cleaning what appears to an outsider to be the messy situation of conflicting version of the same application. Then you wouldn't have to spend your time keeping the KDE dependencies up to date. Freedom can also be freedom for the drudgery of maintaining thins you require, rather than those you want to build and grow. I know, I've been there. There is nothing i would like more than for all of us involved in this to finally agree on a set of standards, and follow them. That means *all* of us. I have asked this very exact question 6 months ago, on this forum. Looks like this got lost: Yes I remember that well and as you say, nothing has happened in the interim. So, how can we move forward? Any common system must include Sun Solaris packages as well, to avoid the silly situation John raised. Defining a means of identifying packages isn't hard, an agreed file format and location should be all that is required. This can be a simple text or XML file with the name, version and location of each package. It could be appended to by a package post-install script and scanned by a pre-install script to check the system for required dependencies. Have I over simplified the problem and solution? If not, let's take this forward. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefan Teleman wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes I remember that well and as you say, nothing has happened in the interim. So, how can we move forward? Any common system must include Sun Solaris packages as well, to avoid the silly situation John raised. Defining a means of identifying packages isn't hard, an agreed file format and location should be all that is required. This can be a simple text or XML file with the name, version and location of each package. It could be appended to by a package post-install script and scanned by a pre-install script to check the system for required dependencies. Have I over simplified the problem and solution? If not, let's take this forward. a bit, i think. i think GNU/OpenSource packages fall into three broad top-level categories: 0. software which never updates (example: gettextlib, which is considered done) 1. software for which updates are possible, but do not occur often (example: gdbm) 2. software which updates frequently (example: gstreamer) these three categories can each be further divided into three: 10. core (example: GNU fileutils) 11. application-specific dependency (example ffmpeg, which by itself is not very useful, but is required by Xine and many others) 12. toplevel application, which depends on 10 and 11 (example: Xine) and then there is the broad category of large-scale distributions, like GNOME and KDE, which have dependencies on all the types of software mentioned above, but which are also self-contained frameworks, with their own set of internal dependencies. i actually gave this some thought over the past few months. here's what i came up with, and this is just a suggestion. if it were up to me, i would build a relational database which describes: 0. each individual package, which has foreign key relationships to all the categories it belongs to 1. relationships between packages listed in 0, expressed as lookup tables based on unique numeric id's the advantages of doing this are: - managed inventory - well defined package categories - well defined package dependencies - a large scale package download (for example GNOME) becomes a join, and can be expressed as a checkbox on a GUI installer. figuring out what packages to install happens automagically behind the scenes, with the join, the user only clicks on Install GNOME. - RPATH (which is an expression of dependencies) is also a join - no unnecessary downloads (they won't be part of the join) in terms of the actuall installation tool, i personally like very much Sun's WebStart install, which is used by the Companion CD. it's written in Java, it's GUI driven, therefore it's easy to use for installs, and it's also easy for uninstalls. if i were to implement this, i would do it in PostgreSQL on the backend and WebStart as the frontend. the user will only have to download a small Java application which is the installer driver, and presents them with a list of package choices. users can choose to only install a small package (for example gdbm) with one click, or they can choose to install the entire KDE with one click, or only install the fundamental modules of KDE plus just two additional modules with one click for the KDE foundation modules and two for each of the additionals. of course, the Java installer should also support command-line installs as well (for example: java-installer --nogui --list-packages followed by java-installer --nogui --install JDS --version 3.2.2). this also has the advantage of providing GPL compliance out of the box. the user can click a radio button labeled install source for anything they choose to install (for the GUI), and for the command line it's just an additional option: --install-source just my 0.02. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Hey, On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 09:10 +1300, Ian Collins wrote: Would it be possible to base your KDE build on Blastwave libraries? As the most actively maintained set for Solaris, I can see them moving towards becoming de facto standards. If this were to happen, I think you KDE would become more popular. Glynn, could the same be done with JDS? Effectively we all are basing our builds on other stuff - the upstream community eg. GNOME, Mozilla, KDE, ... I'd love to see us unifying the stack, it makes a huge amount of sense from a development point of view. However, it's not so easy - there's package names to think about for a start. A lot of the ARC commitments we've made previously may conflict with basing things off Blastwave. We also need to think about unifying the build systems, the dependency chain, and coming up with some sort of package management story. All relatively hard problems in themselves let alone trying to tackle them all at once. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Hey, On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 20:57 -0600, John Weekley wrote: Not just an outider Ian. It is a mess. One of the biggest problems I have with blastwave is that if, for example, I want to install blastwave's openldap package, I'm forced to install the unixodbc package as well and their version of OpenSSL. Why? I don't need unixodbc for an LDAP server and Sun provides an OpenSSL version as part of the OS, but the Openldap package as provided by Blastwave requires unixodbc and their version of OpenSSL. And why is freetype required? Does it offer something extra? Why does an LDAP server require a font engine? Bloat, it's a problem that blastwave appears to encourage or at least tolerate. Disk space may be cheap, but the time that's required to juggle all this isn't. That's one of the issues I have with Blastwave, through no fault of their own really. They had a dependency on a given component that may already be in Solaris but is either the wrong version, or contains incompatible API - rather than fixing it at the source [1], they provided their own package. Going forward, we need to change this - everyone needs to have a conscience of not taking the easy way out. We need to work as a team, as a community and prove it to ourselves that we can get out of this mess. I'm keen - anyone else? :) Glynn [1] Which is actually understandable given the huge amount of effort to do this in terms of time, ARC, and access to the Solaris source code ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Moinak Ghosh wrote: Ian Collins wrote: Stefan Teleman wrote: [...] involved in free software: one must be willing to take a back seat in this show, because the show is not about particular distributions, or individuals, but about freedom, innovation and creativity. Don't forget how Blastwave started, it grew as a community effort and it still is. One look at the list of maintainers shows this. Maybe what we require from all the distributions is a common means of identifying versions, so a package installer can search for package Xversion Y on the system, regardless of its origin. I have been pointing this out for a while. Right now all the dependencies are based on package names which fosters duplication. Instead we need to have dependencies based on standard exported (by some means) module names. OK, maybe a starting point would be to agree on a package naming convention. I know this won't be easy, if you look back though the archives of the SolarisX86 Yahoo list, you will see how much wrangling went on before the CSW name was agreed for Blastwave packages. Mind you, much of that related to the directory name. Any suggestions an how an agreement could be reached? Could it work with just the package name being common and still having SFW, CSW, SUNW etc. packages? I don't see why not. Another wild idea it to use something like a stripped down configure script to check for dependencies. This will not require standard module naming. Wouldn't that require consistent library names and version numbering? Or maybe something like what(1) could be used (is there an equivalent for CVS files?)? Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 15:05 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote: If you're missing something, an apt-get grabs it with the dependancies. This system works very well. The problem with Nexentra is that many of the standard packages of Debian are not ported at this time. They seem to have taken quite a leap, and are well on their way. true. but we are getting there. Nexenta Alpha 2 will likely have 3500+ packages available for immediate download. Meanwhile, one could search package sources at http://packages.ubuntu.com download *.tar.gz and *.diff.gz extract it, and do dpkg-buildpackage. Example with mplayer: $ wget -c http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/m/mplayer/mplayer_1.0-pre7cvs20050716.orig.tar.gz $ wget -c http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/m/mplayer/mplayer_1.0-pre7cvs20050716-0.1ubuntu9.diff.gz $ tar xzvf mplayer*.tar.gz $ cd mplayer-1.0-pre7 $ gzcat ../mplayer*.diff.gz | patch -p0 $ dpkg-buildpackage (coffe time) $ cd .. $ dpkg -i *.deb Note: all steps above assuming that you have working build environment and compiled and installed all mplayer requirements (see mplayer*/debian/control meta). i.e. pretty much any package from 18000+ packages of Ubuntu/Breezy will work *as is* or with minimal changes. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] KDE, GNOME, etc.
Glynn Foster wrote: Hey, On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 10:47 -0800, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: It's never correct to choose tools and then try to fit a process to them. Ignoring the fundamental problems with that approach, the immediate practical question is If I'm not choosing tools to support a process, on what criteria will I base that selection? In practice the answers tend to fall into two categories: inertia and fad worship. We're explicitly not allowing inertia to drive the choice: TeamWare in its current form fails to meet the essential requirements; it's clear that these were not written with the advance intent to select TeamWare. Fad worship is at best shortsighted and intellectually lazy, entirely inappropriate for a project team desirous of long-term success. You're absolutely right. You can't choose the tools without a process, but neither can you choose a process without the tools. Maybe I'm taking an overly simplistic view of how to approach this, but there's been very little discussion on how the *process* is actually supposed to work. Is there _A_ process? Or does each consolidation follow its own? Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
