Re: [osol-discuss] Strange new software package id numbers ?
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 23:56, Mike Kupfer wrote: Dennis == Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dennis So then .. it looks like the old way of pkgrm packages is going Dennis away and a new prodreg uninstall process is here now? The last I heard, Solaris packages (pkgadd, etc.) are in no danger of going away. I don't know why a new prodreg mechanism was introduced. I don't believe it's universally used within Sun. prodreg is a layer above packages. Quite often a Product, say a compiler suite or an application server suite, is a collection of packages. The data installed by prodreg is kind of like a meta package set. prodreg has been around for a while, its use is not mandatory. The idea is to give the administrator a higher level or abstraction than raw packages. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Google OS should be OpenSolaris
Hey, On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 21:43 -0600, Eric Boutilier wrote: Out of curiousity, anyone keeping track of what Ubuntu have done to become the Linux distribution of choice? ... Money? Mark Shuttleworth's that is. (Sound's cynical, but big-time funding gives any project a huge advantage.) I'm not sure sure it's just money. If it was just money then perhaps he should have bought Red Hat? Obviously there's a bit of shrewd investment going on, but I'm pretty sure there's a tight budget behind it all, and any money that does go into it isn't being wasted. I think nacho's more on the money with his low barrier to entry - something that we should take a good example from. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community/Project Update: 1/30/06
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Anup Sekhar wrote: Sean Sprague wrote on 01/30/06 23:16: Hey Jim, Just a very small point wrt: Naming Services Community * Proposed 1/20/06 by Anup Sekhar * Community consensus: yes * CAB vote: no +/- vote yet * Opening date: not currently scheduled On 1/20, John Beck suggested that this should in fact be named (sic) Name Services Community, and Anup had no problem with this. What do the CAB members think of this proposal? Is it possible to get approval for this community? There has been some positive feedback regarding this proposal. Perhaps Name Services could exist as a project, rather than as a community. My concern, at this time, is the proliferation of OpenSolaris Communities, and this is why I'm reluctant to form one more. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Multi-Homing...Is there any limitation on the number of Logical Units
vijayanand writes: Can anyone let me know whether there is any limitaion on the number of Logical Units/Ip address that can be association with a single network physical interface. Yes. The limit is set by the ip_addrs_per_if ndd variable. The default limit is 256, but can be increased to 8192: ndd -set /dev/ip ip_addrs_per_if 8192 This variable has a bit of an odd history. The kernel uses AVL trees for interfaces, and so should scale fairly nicely with huge numbers of interfaces. I believe the limit is there mostly to protect _application_ programs, many[1] of which will perform atrociously or just fall over dead with an excessive number of interfaces. [1] No list here ... you know who you are. ;-} -- 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] Community/Project Update: 1/30/06
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 12:40, Al Hopper wrote: Perhaps Name Services could exist as a project, rather than as a community. My concern, at this time, is the proliferation of OpenSolaris Communities, and this is why I'm reluctant to form one more. I disagree on this one. There are man projects within the umbrella of Naming Services, for example: NIS, NIS+, LDAP were are created as projects when they were built at Sun. There are currently at least 3 distinct projects running at the moment that will fit into a Naming Services community (I'll let Anup name them since I'll probably get it wrong being an interested outsider rather than a team member). The project teams are different in each case but have member overlaps. IMO Naming Services is the very definition of community, where as when we discussed CIFS I would say that CIFS is a project withing a File System Community as would ZFS be as well. Lets not rehash that discussion though. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Strange new software package id numbers ?
On 2/1/06, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 23:56, Mike Kupfer wrote: Dennis == Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dennis So then .. it looks like the old way of pkgrm packages is going Dennis away and a new prodreg uninstall process is here now? The last I heard, Solaris packages (pkgadd, etc.) are in no danger of going away. I don't know why a new prodreg mechanism was introduced. I don't believe it's universally used within Sun. prodreg is a layer above packages. Quite often a Product, say a compiler suite or an application server suite, is a collection of packages. The data installed by prodreg is kind of like a meta package set. prodreg has been around for a while, its use is not mandatory. The idea is to give the administrator a higher level or abstraction than raw packages. If I can issue one command to remove Sun ONE Studio 10 as opposed to 30 then its a good thing. I'll simply read the man page. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] REMINDER OpenSolaris Expert Exchange]
Just a reminder that the Expert Exchange is happening this morning. Sara __ You can hear Jim Grisanzio, Rich Teer, Al Hopper, Dan Price, Liane Praza, and Sun legal representative Cliff Allen in an Expert Exchange (read: Live QA) on Wednesday, February 1, from 10-11:00 AM Pacific. Go to: www.sun.com/expertexchange to sign up. __ snip from invitation email Have questions about OpenSolaris project participation, and licensing, and how you can contribute to and change code? Here's your chance to get them answered! Join this Sun Expert Exchange for a live QA chat on the fast-growing OpenSolaris community and ask your own questions on the OpenSolaris Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), membership, and more: * OpenSolaris participation and contribution * Code sections covered under CDDL * Code modification, redistribution, and commercial use As a special incentive, we're giving away FREE T-shirts to all attendees! Don't miss this chance for an OpenSolaris "Love at First Boot" shirt. ___ opensolaris-mktg mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Strange new software package id numbers ?
Dennis Clarke wrote: If I can issue one command to remove Sun ONE Studio 10 as opposed to 30 then its a good thing. I'll simply read the man page. Or look at http://docs.sun.com/source/819-0485/remove.html :) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Google OS should be OpenSolaris
Jake Maciejewski wrote: Nvidia provides Solaris drivers (do you still have to hack the PCI ID?) Not in the current release version (unless you buy a video card newer than the driver). but unless I'm missing something, ATI barely supports Linux much less Solaris (would open source drivers work? XiG?) That's just the tip of the iceberg for driver support. Desktop users tend to have old, cheap, and obscure hardware. Of course if Google wanted to bundle the OS and hardware like Apple does, it wouldn't be an issue. Solaris includes the open source 2D drivers for ATI and a port of the DRI/DRM support for accelerated open source 3D drivers for ATI is in progress. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Google OS should be OpenSolaris
Eric Boutilier wrote Glynn Foster wrote: Out of curiousity, anyone keeping track of what Ubuntu have done to become the Linux distribution of choice? ... Money? Mark Shuttleworth's that is. (Sound's cynical, but big-time funding gives any project a huge advantage.) Sorry. I should have elaborated more. Originally Glynn wrote: ... what Ubuntu have done to become the Linux distribution of choice? I assumed he meant the Linux distro of choice among Linux _desktop-targeted_ distros... Which is to say, Ubuntu vs. e.g. Mandriva or Mepis. So I'm just speculating that if Mark Shuttleworth (and therefore, I think, Canonical Ltd.) had chosen either of those other two, they'd be leading Ubuntu right now. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] REMINDER OpenSolaris Expert Exchange]
Sara Dornsife wrote: Just a reminder that the Expert Exchange is happening this morning. Sara __ You can hear Jim Grisanzio, Rich Teer, Al Hopper, Dan Price, Liane Praza, and Sun legal representative Cliff Allen in an Expert Exchange (read: Live QA) on Wednesday, February 1, from 10-11:00 AM Pacific. Go to: www.sun.com/expertexchange http://www.sun.com/expertexchange to sign up. Also, Bonnie Corwin and Steve Lau have been added to the program. Jim ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Google OS should be OpenSolaris
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 20:49 -0300, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: The last part of the puzzle are little projects like roseta, they make those users without programming skills feel like they are usefull to the community while saving the tedious work of for example translating to a new language some of the system components. I think this last part is the key, they make their users feel usefull and it's also the main reason I think the Article project is important too It is very could be the key. Let me share page of our new HackZone member: http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/EdwardCho He did contribution via integrated Launchpad translations (i.e. you left click on GNOME panel or go to Help - Translate via Launchpad). Also he is interested in NexentaOS mostly because of DTrace and just out of curiosity... -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Solaris and OpenSolaris within VMware
Just ot of interest - can you tell me which version of Linux you are running VMWare on, and how you set it up? I use VMWare for testing Solaris and prototyping new servers and it would be nice to not host them on Windoze. When I've tried to install on Linux in the past I've always got stuck at the bit where it asks for kernel drivers or some such. Thanks Andrew. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Strange new software package id numbers ?
You should be using the Sun Studio uninstaller, which uses the /var/sadm/install/productregistry file. http://docs.sun.com/source/819-0487/remove.html /kso Dennis Clarke wrote: I was in the process of removing Sun ONE Studio 10 and I saw this : The following package is currently installed: SPROcc Sun Studio 10 C Compiler (sparc) 10.0,REV=2005.01.07 Do you want to remove this package? [y,n,?,q] y ## Removing installed package instance SPROcc ## Verifying package SPROcc dependencies in global zone Product Registry dependency checking failed. This package is assumed to be installed by the following products. If the package is removewill be 'damaged' - that is, lacking essential software that the product requires to function. The recommended way to uninstall products is to use the prodreg(1m) uninstall command. The following products depend on the package: IDName -- ebe4fd00-0c7d-10dd-c1de-0800209b793b C Compiler C Sun Studio 10 Compilers C d317d5c0-0c7a-10dd-c1de-0800209b793b Sun Studio 10 IDE for Solaris wile software id numbers there .. looks like the things I see hanging about in /tmp from time to time. So then .. it looks like the old way of pkgrm packages is going away and a new prodreg uninstall process is here now? OKay .. cool and totally intellignt and it also relies on the /var/sadm/install/contents database or is there duplication/obfuscation ? Anyone know ? Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community/Project Update: 1/30/06
Darren J Moffat wrote on 02/01/06 05:05: On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 12:40, Al Hopper wrote: Perhaps Name Services could exist as a project, rather than as a community. My concern, at this time, is the proliferation of OpenSolaris Communities, and this is why I'm reluctant to form one more. I disagree on this one. There are man projects within the umbrella of Naming Services, for example: NIS, NIS+, LDAP were are created as projects when they were built at Sun. There are currently at least 3 distinct projects running at the moment that will fit into a Naming Services community (I'll let Anup name them since I'll probably get it wrong being an interested outsider rather than a team member). The project teams are different in each case but have member overlaps. Yes, as Darren points out, we have multiple projects (Sparks, Reno, Winchester, etc.) which fit under the Name Services umbrella. A community would be useful to discuss all things related to Naming. Once we have a community setup, we can provide more information on the current projects under Naming. Anup ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community Forum Proposal: Packaging, Patching, and Distribution Mgmt
I imagine it's implicit in my being listed as a community lead ;-), but I do give this a +1. Just to elaborate a little on the proposal, this community would be the home for the SVR4 packaging tools code when it's released in the near future, as well as other packaging and installation projects. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Jasse Jansson wrote: When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your own ^^^ ^^^ terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give, appropriate ^ copyright permission, as long as those terms clearly permit all the ^^ activities that this License permits, or permit usage or relicensing under this License. Your terms may be written separately or may be this License plus additional written permission. [B]If you so license your own added parts, those parts may be used separately under your terms, but the entire work remains under this License[/B]. It says that it's ok to include stuff that uses another license, but the end result is that everything is magically transformed to GPL stuff. This conclusion of yours seems to be without merit. Licence transformation can occur without the copyright holders consent. It's still the same one way street. All it says is that the *copyright holder* may grant further permissions *within* the context of the GPL, on those parts they have rights to. With the GPLv2 the copyright holder would have had to dual-licence under two seperate licences. It's simply there to give more choice to copyright holders without resulting in compatibility problems or dual-licencing. Further, 3rd parties have the discretion to 'discard' those additional permissions (but not the limited set of additional requirements the GPLv3 also allows a copyright holder to add). No copyright holder is ever forced to license under the GPL. If a copyright holder decides the GPL (v2, 3, whatever) is right for them and is happy with the above, that's their choice. The copyright holder has other options: other licences to choose from or the choice to simply not licence the code *at all*. Whether or not the GPLv3 is suitable for Sun, who knows, most of us (me included ;) ), will just have to wait and see. However v3 (draft) does seem to have learnt from the CDDL (at least, it seems to have moved significantly towards compatibility). Yepp, you sure have your GPL googles on, it's pretty obvious. Funny, I've gotten the reverse accusation a few times in the past when I've tried to explain the standpoint of the CDDL to the GPL-begoggled. regards, -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Project proposal: (/usr/)sfw Nevada
The SFW consolidation delivers a variety of third-party open source software to Solaris, such as the Apache HTTP server, Samba, and libusb. This consolidation delivers its content into /usr/sfw as an integral part of the Solaris OS, and should not be confused with the Freeware Companion CD/DVD. The latter is an unbundled offering included with Solaris media kits and available via the web at [0]. This proposal specifies the creation of a project, SFW Nevada, under which the current release of this consolidation will be managed. The project is to facilitate coordination among the SFW Nevada C-Team, project teams targeting this release, and consumers of the technology it provides. Information to be disseminated from this project's site will include the consolidation's source, build and other documentation, C-Team project review materials, meeting minutes, and other process artifacts, and consolidation- and release-specific instructions for prospective contributors. The release of source for this consolidation and acceptance of external contributions will take place following the allocation of infrastructure to this project, on a schedule specified in the program road map[1]. This project seeks representation by and the endorsement of a broader community, the creation of which will be proposed in a separate post. [0] http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/freeware/download.xml [1] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Distributions and package managment forum request
+1 on reply counter. tj yang This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: (/usr/)sfw Nevada
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Keith M. Wesolowski wrote: This proposal specifies the creation of a project, SFW Nevada, under which Great idea, but looking ahead, is not SFW Nevada a limiting title? Unless Solaris 12's development is also gonna be called Nevada, perhaps the Nevada bit should be dropped? -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Paul Jakma wrote: Sigh, important typing mistake: This conclusion of yours seems to be without merit. Licence transformation can occur without the copyright holders consent. ^ not regards, -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: Life's too short to argue, I'm ALWAYS right! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Google OS should be OpenSolaris
Ubuntu seems to be a cleaned up version of Debian. As pointed out by Erast, NexentaOS might be an easy port for Google. Users and Google should not care about the underlying OS, but only about the interface. Peter On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 12:22 +1300, Glynn Foster wrote: On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 14:38 -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 14:08 -0800, peter murray wrote: http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/31/google_goes_desktop_linux/ Would it not be cool if we could get google to use OpenSolaris instead of linux. Now, think about NexentaOS for the moment... This is exactly what they come up with, i.e. Ubuntu based GNU/Linux. It shouldn't take much for Google to adjust their plans and adopt NexentaOS. Except Google has a strong Linux based internally - and it seems like most of the people who may be part of the desktop team [Trow, Chris, ...] have been running and advocating Linux for years ;) A tough sell, though perhaps not impossible...Interestingly, around the time of the Google bounties, we [the GNOME project] were trying to think of new ways that we could incorporate Google technology into the desktop in the hopes that they may well want to adopt it in the future - it would be nice to see them adopt GNOME as a desktop from a personal point of view. Out of curiousity, anyone keeping track of what Ubuntu have done to become the Linux distribution of choice? From every conversation I've had with Jeff, he indicates they're not a development team [1] and they've only been doing some smart integration. An interesting marketing study at the very least. We have almost all the technology in Solaris too, we probably just need to do a better job at a) integrating it b) making it look good c) talking about it. Glynn [1] Outside of some of the things like Launchpad, Malone, Rosetta, ... -- Sun Retail Grid Sr.Java Architect Main : 001 212-558-9038 PAGER : AIM: retepmurray ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: (/usr/)sfw Nevada
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:48:12PM -0800, Rich Teer wrote: Great idea, but looking ahead, is not SFW Nevada a limiting title? Yes, it is, by design. A new project will be created for each subsequent release. Note that each release is managed by a different team and may have different goals and integration criteria. Thus they are effectively discrete projects. The SFW/CCD community (proposal to follow) will encompass the ongoing large-scale effort around integration of third-party open source software into Solaris via SFW. It will also serve to influence the opening of the Companion DVD to external contributions and its eventual migration to a single generalised distribution mechanism for contributed software that is not a part of the Solaris distribution proper. Each of these efforts is a separable part of a comprehensive whole, which fits them well into the project/community model. -- Keith M Wesolowski Sir, we're surrounded! Solaris Kernel Team Excellent; we can attack in any direction! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3
... as long as those terms clearly permit all the activities that this License permits I am (thankfully) not a lawyer. I don't speak for Sun. YMMV... Assume I have a software program that consists of some parts that are mine and other parts that are yours. Furthermore, assume that you have only given me the right to redistribute your stuff in binary form. Under these terms, I can not license the resulting program under the GPL because I am unable to grant the GPL-allowed permissions for your parts of the program. It also follows that nobody else (other than you) can do so either. The implication of this is that, without your permission, *nobody* can combine our program with GPL'd stuff to make a derivative work, because the result would be required to be licensed under the GPL, and your parts of the program *can't* be. RMS's very public position is that he wants to use the desirable GPL'd stuff as a lever to force all the you's in the world to license their code under the GPL. He sees it as a feature that people in my situation are precluded from benefiting from other GPL'd code: If I want it bad enough, then I'll find a way to force you to license your stuff under the GPL, or I will reimplement it myself or I will find a way to do without it. Until then, I am not welcome in RMS's sandbox. It is this all or nothing requirement that makes it difficult for complex IP systems like Solaris to go GNU, and why there is so much hope about GPLv3... No copyright holder is ever forced to license under the GPL. I'd rephrase this assertion as: No copyright holder is ever explicitly forced to license under the GPL, though the intent of the GPL is to apply market pressure to convince all such software hoarders to do so over time. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: (/usr/)sfw Nevada
Rich Teer wrote: Great idea, but looking ahead, is not SFW Nevada a limiting title? Unless Solaris 12's development is also gonna be called Nevada, perhaps the Nevada bit should be dropped? Projects exist until they are incorporated into a community, right? In other words, the Project is to prototype and explore SFW for Nevada, then to do the ARC stuff to get it into ON, then for it to go away because its work is complete. I certainly could see another project called SFW for Solaris12 when the time comes, though I hope that other software distribution mechanisms will be in place before then ( i.e., blastwave, sunfreeware, debian, etc...) -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community Forum Proposal: Packaging, Patching, and Distribution Mgmt
* Dave Miner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-01 13:15]: I imagine it's implicit in my being listed as a community lead ;-), but I do give this a +1. Just to elaborate a little on the proposal, this community would be the home for the SVR4 packaging tools code when it's released in the near future, as well as other packaging and installation projects. Is this then the packaging and installation community? (The currently proposed name is pretty specific...) - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, John Plocher wrote: I am (thankfully) not a lawyer. I don't speak for Sun. YMMV... Ditto, and ditto. It also follows that nobody else (other than you) can do so either. That depends on whether I got you to grant me reciprocal rights to your work when I granted you rights to my work. The implication of this is that, without your permission, *nobody* can combine our program with GPL'd stuff to make a derivative work, because the result would be required to be licensed under the GPL, and your parts of the program *can't* be. Right. Note that that has nothing to do with your or I (other than that we chose to distribute only binaries, ie non-Free software). It has everything to do with *other* authors having chosen that their code not be used in this manner. As is their right, as it was for us to licence our code as we wished. GPL'd code: If I want it bad enough, then I'll find a way to force you to license your stuff under the GPL, or I will reimplement it myself or I will find a way to do without it. Until then, I am not welcome in RMS's sandbox. Sure but you don't *have to* play in the sandbox. You choose to. This isn't some reprehensible act of blackmail. ;) It's authors choosing to do what they want with their *own* code, in their own self interest. That their self-interest is not fully co-incident with our self-interests is not surprising. Indeed, come to that, your interests likely are not completely co-incident with mine either[1]. It is this all or nothing requirement that makes it difficult for complex IP systems like Solaris to go GNU, and why there is so much hope about GPLv3... Well, Solaris already went Free Software last year I thought. ;) regards, --paulj 1. I predict we'll have a huge falling out in a few years time over exactly what the licence terms were for our code. ;) You will swear blind that I never stipulated that you would owe me per-unit royalties! :) And I'll refuse to give you your llama back (You said he was a gift, not a loan!). regards, -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3
John Plocher wrote: ... as long as those terms clearly permit all the activities that this License permits I am (thankfully) not a lawyer. I don't speak for Sun. YMMV... err... what's wrong with being a lawyer? ;) imho this thread is now a little off topic nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Solaris and OpenSolaris within VMware
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 16:59, Dennis Clarke wrote: On 2/1/06, Andrew Pattison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just ot of interest - can you tell me which version of Linux you are running VMWare on, and how you set it up? I use VMWare for testing Solaris and prototyping new servers and it would be nice to not host them on Windoze. When I've tried to install on Linux in the past I've always got stuck at the bit where it asks for kernel drivers or some such. I WAS using RH9 until today. Now I hate Red Hat 9. I need to move to a better more modern rev. So check in with me tomorrow by which time I will be on Ubunto or RHEL4. Apologies to all, I couldn't resist. The worst strain was on Unix's mind. Unable to assimilate all the conflicting patchworks of features it had ingested, its personality began to fragment into millions of distinct, incompatible operating systems. People would cautiously say good morning Unix. And who are we today? and it would reply Beastie (BSD), or Domain, or I'm System III, but I'll be System V tomorrow. Psychiatrists labored for years to weld together the two major poles of Unix's personality, Beasty Boy, an inner-city youth from Berkeley, and Belle, a southern transvestite who wanted to be a woman. With each attempt, the two poles would mutate, like psychotic retroviruses, leaving their union a worthless blob of protoplasm requiring constant life support to remain compatible with its parent personalities. Finally, unbalanced by its own cancerous growth, Unix fell into a vat of toxic radioactive wombat urine, from which it emerged, skin white and hair green. It smelled like somebody's dead grandmother. With a horrible grin on its face, it set out to conquer the world. The History of UNIX. http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~omri/Humor/UnixHistory.html Dennis __ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Community proposal: Packaged Software
This proposed community would provide long-term guidance to teams managing releases of the SFW consolidation and projects derived from them, and to project teams working to release and improve the Companion DVD and similar distributions of third-party open source software for OpenSolaris-based systems. Alternate names for this community and comments are welcome. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: (/usr/)sfw Nevada
The SFW consolidation delivers a variety of third-party open source software to Solaris, +1, this needs to be available through OpenSolaris. liane This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
