Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [SVOSUG] Tonight, Project Indiana,
--- MC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +10 thanks for the summary :) +10 too. Been waiting :) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: [osol-announce] China OpenSolaris Portal Opens]
-snip- Just barely managed to read that simplified chinese sentence (the translation helped...:D) As of SXCE 63, I don't seem to be able to find signs of inclusion of any Cantanese-PinYin input method. I did not know that a Cantonese pinyin input method exists. Most people here use input methods based on strokes or radicals (or whatever the base stuff are called). Let me see if I can fake chinese reading ability...a cantonese pinyin input method will sure make for some hilarious 'sentences' by me... One of the main weaknesses of OpenSolaris, I think, is that Sun's developers are exclusively focusing on the IIIMF input method, which is all but six feet under as far as I know but for Sun's support. The encouraging news is, Yong Sun of Sun's Beijing team is actively porting SCIM and UIM into OpenSolaris which appears to have great success: That is wonderful. http://blogs.sun.com/yongsun/entry/build_scim_1_4_61 I am in the process of getting ready to go through the steps Yong instructed. Great. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: [osol-announce] China OpenSolaris Portal Opens]
--- W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cannot read Chinese so I do not muck about with chinese stuff...but can you get use localized character sets (eg: Hong Kong character set) in OpenSolaris? Yes, you can log into the Traditional Chinese (Hong Kong) locale as if you are running a Hong Kong localized Windows. Because there is an exact correspondence in tool bars, desktop icons, etc., between the English version and the Hong Kong version, you can do your work and make believe as a native Cantonese speaker without actually knowing a single localized character. Wai wai. ngau see goh boon heung kong yan boon wah kweu. I just cannot read chinese characters (and the ability to read has nothing to do with speaking ability anyway) and some folk would rather have an english menu interface anyway (one of my excuses not to memorize thousands of chinese characters) on Windows. So the HKSCS is included? http://www.info.gov.hk/digital21/eng/hkscs/download.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: BASH as root shell
--- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed. But won't you have a VT100 terminal lying around in the lab ... Sure, but I said remotely. It's hard to put a DVD in the drive if the server is on another continent, being accessed via an RSC or serial console server. Build a rescue image that supports serial console. This has been available on linux for quite a while. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: BASH as root shell
Because those guys *expect* /usr/bin/sh to be a bash. ??? This whole thing about shells in /usr/bin is weird. Who are 'those guys'? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: BASH as root shell
Works great on a desktop; not so good on a server whose console is being accessed remotely (unless a suitable CD/DVD remains in the drive at all times). Actually, with planning ahead (how often does _that_ actually happen?), I'd want _4_ bootable copies of the root filesystem: 2 active mirrors, 1 spare for recovery not normally mounted, and 1 for Live Upgrade. If they were also split across two controllers, that, plus the remote hard reset possible on many of the servers, should allow most situations to be recoverable without physical access. grub has pxe support. It should be possible to create rescue images that are loaded off the network no? At least under Linux that is how i had arranged things since grub, linux and the rescue image all support serial console. In fact, install using vnc under linux is possible...i trust remote access should also be possible with the rescue image. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: BASH as root shell
(And that has been possible since Solaris supports PXE boot which must be around 7 odd years now) So what is all the noise about using CDs/DVDs in remote servers all about? If you can perform rescue via pxe...why the noise about having to put in a CD/DVD? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: BASH as root shell
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (And that has been possible since Solaris supports PXE boot which must be around 7 odd years now) So what is all the noise about using CDs/DVDs in remote servers all about? If you can perform rescue via pxe...why the noise about having to put in a CD/DVD? It does require the server to be in an environment were there are PXE servers available; that is not a given for colocated equipment. haha. well, that is not an excuse for crying about a CD/DVD rescue. ( people who encounter resistance to setting up pxe support and necessary infrastructure exempted but i do not think such folks will complain anyway ) (Of course, with the ILOM in newer Sun systems you can remotely provide a DVD image to the system with needed a DVD present) Nice stuff that. Saves having to issue commands via email to some data centre dude or resorting to calling in some local guy. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: BASH as root shell
Build a rescue image that supports serial console. This has been available on linux for quite a while. This works just fine on Solaris also, as long as you are able to remotely reboot the system (and/or power cycle it) What about when the system does not come up after POSTing? In a linux environment, we can use pxe to get pxegrub with serial console support and we manually tell it to load a linux kernel image and a rescue image or it could be preset to load a linux kernel image and a rescue image with serial console support. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
Legal issues appear to favor GNU/Linux drivers: The average user probably doesn't care why device X works on GNU/Linux but not on OpenSolaris, but when I find that DVD players and the built-in SD-Card reader on my laptop work on Linux but not Solaris and then I learn that IP and Legal issues make it impossible for fully legal open source implementations of SD MMC stacks (http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT6640645071.html) and DVD(MPEG2+CSS) to exist, I wonder how this works. I can't believe Sun is the only Open Source vender which tries to play by the rules. Is not Sun in the US, the land of the trigger^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyer-happy? Maybe it will be possible for an OpenSolaris distribution. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
It's generally also a case of does the person to be sued have enough $$ in the bank; true for Sun, not true for Joe Blow's disstro. You can easily tell I have never lived in the US :P. But I can play DVDs on Solaris just fine :-) :) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: BASH as root shell
You mean like the Solaris failsafe entry on the GRUB menu (either locally or the one gathered using PXE) of Solaris Express installs and the similar entries on Nextena and Belenix ? So that is what that is? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: BASH as root shell
--- Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does require the server to be in an environment were there are PXE servers available; that is not a given for colocated equipment. haha. well, that is not an excuse for crying about a CD/DVD rescue. ( people who encounter resistance to setting up pxe support and necessary infrastructure exempted but i do not think such folks will complain anyway ) I doubt such a tone is appropriate. Btw, nobody made noise or cried for a boot cd before you arrived. And I doubt it will attract potential newcomers, who may have signed up just today. if you cannot get yourself a network solution to booting problems for your servers that are located remotely, then you cannot complain about having to boot a CD/DVD to do rescue now can you? (i am, of course, not saying that this is the solution to the '/usr/bin/shell' problem they were discussing) Allow me a question: Did you ever sit in a plane/car/garden in front of your mobile workstation? Or rather in front of your x86 laptop? Where is your Grub/pxe, or selfcompiledGrub/NIC-specific, or (on sparc) dhcp, bootp, rarp, where is your boot server access then ? Haha. ? Your mobile workstation/x86 laptop is your server? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: What is failsafe boot (Was Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: BASH as root shell)
--- Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote: You mean like the Solaris failsafe entry on the GRUB menu (either locally or the one gathered using PXE) of Solaris Express installs and the similar entries on Nextena and Belenix ? So that is what that is? Why not try it and see :-) Love to. It is a small (less than 60Mb) RAM disk image that contains the kernel an a smallish root filesystem with a lot of the common utils. When it boots it looks for all the Solaris installs it can find on that machine and also out of sync boot archives and offers to fix them and/or mount up the root filesystems. Its a rescue image basically. :D. There's my answer. I guess going through a local archive of docs.sun.com will be able to give me the details of the boot process with respect to Solaris on x86? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: [osol-announce] China OpenSolaris Portal Opens]
During my recent trip to China and Taiwan, I sensed a definitive increase in willingness in governmental officials to move away from Windows. Most of them seem to have only Linux in mind, but the timing of the recent drive to make Solaris more Linux-like, the opening of the China OpenSolairs Portal, couldn't have come at a better time. Fingers crossed. I cannot read Chinese so I do not muck about with chinese stuff...but can you get use localized character sets (eg: Hong Kong character set) in OpenSolaris? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris or CentOs Sever?
--- linuxPA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm thinking about getting a home server. I'm not sure what distro I should get. Should I go with Solaris or CentOs? Whats the advantage of Solaris? More fun? What do you want to do on your home server? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Dualboot Solaris and slackware using grub
--- Boris Derzhavets [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When want any linux distro to dualboot with Solaris: install linux grub onto linux /boot or /root partitions. Copy /boot/grub/grub.conf to usb key under linux reboot into Solaris and cat and paste corresponding entry from linux's grub.conf into /boot/grub/menu.lst on Solaris system ending with line:- chainloader +1 (if needed) solaris grub don't understand ext2 or something? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] BASH as root shell
--- Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can I make BASH the root's default shell? you are new to unix are you? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Dualboot Solaris and slackware using grub
All of my linux partitions are reiserfs... Would that matter? yes, grub will need to be able to read the filesystem used. not sure if the grub that comes with solaris has reiserfs support. btw, you have to make sure that your /boot or whatever reiserfs filesystem you keep your linux kernel on has the notails option. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Dualboot Solaris and slackware using grub
--- Frank Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 23 May 2007, Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote: --- Boris Derzhavets [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When want any linux distro to dualboot with Solaris: install linux grub onto linux /boot or /root partitions. Copy /boot/grub/grub.conf to usb key under linux reboot into Solaris and cat and paste corresponding entry from linux's grub.conf into /boot/grub/menu.lst on Solaris system ending with line:- chainloader +1 (if needed) solaris grub don't understand ext2 or something? Solaris grub understands the linux fs'es perfectly. If you append the lines from Linux' menu.lst to the one on Solaris, they'll do fine. gah, saw the chainloader +1 and install linux grub to whereever and immediately concluded: need linux grub to continue. Just not the reverse. Linux grub cannot boot Solaris. Go figure. haha. Are your changes to grub pushed upstream? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Dualboot Solaris and slackware using grub
yes, grub will need to be able to read the filesystem used. not sure if the grub that comes with solaris has reiserfs support. It does. Check out the /boot/grub directory on SX. So you can directly add your Linux distro boot entries in Solaris Grub menu.lst. Chainloading is not required. Okay, so grub that comes with solaris distros = normal grub + solaris ufs support (any zfs support? what will happens in a root on zfs scenario)? are the changes also in upstream? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
Let me tell you a true story: Replace Solaris guy with debian guy in a Redhat shop. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Dualboot Solaris and slackware using grub
Okay, so grub that comes with solaris distros = normal grub + solaris ufs support (any zfs support? what will happens in a root on zfs scenario)? are the changes also in upstream? Booting from ZFS Root is supported from build 62 onwards. I do not know what is the plan for an upstream merge. thanks. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: BASH as root shell
Nice. All this for a guy who apparently does not even know how to admin a unix system (developer?). I can see application developers flying over in droves. --- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can I make BASH the root's default shell? you are new to unix are you? Actually, as of Solaris 10 or later, it should be harmless, if in excruciatingly bad taste, not to mention dumb (shouldn't be spending enough time as root for preferences to matter, but if there's more than one admin, root's shell should probably be the least common denominator). The out-of-the-box default shell is /sbin/sh. Prior to Solaris 10, it was statically linked. As of Solaris 10, it's dynamically linked, but only to files in /lib. So is bash, but it's in /usr/bin. If /usr is a separate filesystem, one would have to put a copy under / (probably as /sbin/bash). Then one could either edit /etc/passwd (if applicable) or use passwd -e (and answer the prompts) to change root's shell to the new one. Possible, and probably not actually dangerous. But like I said, at least dumb if there's more than one person that might be administering the system. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Chung Hang Christopher Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me tell you a true story: Replace Solaris guy with debian guy in a Redhat shop. I meant there is a another true story like this only with a debian guy in a redhat shop. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: BASH as root shell
Yup, new to Unix.. I started with linux, that's why I'm soo used to BASH.. Im getting used to the bourne shell too... :D Thought so. usermod is a common command on Linux and Solaris and coupled with the fact that you have problems getting your linux to boot shows that you have not had much experience with linux administration. I have not used slackware so I do not know what its packaging system is like...you might also want to compare things with debian or ubuntu. I would add nexenta but right now they are kind of shorthanded and things are a bit different from a pure solaris environment. enjoy. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Managing Packages on Solaris
--- Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello guys, Im trying to figure out how to manage packages on my Solaris Express.. Something like pkgadd, or pkgtool in linux... So how do i do that? pkgadd, pkg* on solaris...i don't know about slackware but there is not any repository for solaris unless you hit blastwave for another toolchain and that only manages the thirdparty software since that is all that is in that repository. what do you mean by 'manage packages' too? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Managing Packages on Solaris
man pkgadd. It will also give you a list of other related commands: eg: pkginfo(1), pkgmk(1), pkgparam(1), pkgproto(1), pkgtrans(1), installf(1M), pkgadm(1M), pkgask(1M), pkgchk(1M), pkgrm(1M) --- Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, what I meant was how to add, remove, view, install packages for Solaris.. Is there a command for that? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: RE: Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For system performance and sometimes stability in certain scenarios due to bug fixes. We do not care too much about API/ABI stability. Much of what we need either comes with the distribution or needs to have a internal package made. Such things are so strange to read about if you come from a Solaris environment... those things are foreign to me. Of course they are foreign. You do not have the means for the kind of environment I was in. Not every production system that exists out there runs legacy binaries. Yeah, well, what do you do if you have about 2,500 applications already running? The cost of adaptation would be trumendous, not to mention how many hundreds or thousands of man days it would take to get the job done. Yawn. When we are the system engineering department and we need to make these boxes perform with more efficient code/features. Regular engineering release cycles? RIGHT...for a modified sendmail that does not change at all save for security exploits...hmm...you really have a closed mind. The only 'engineering' needed here would be how to quickly replace the OS with a more efficient one and making sure that the OS gets its security holes plugged quickly without breaking anything. You work in a different environment with different needs. I don't believe so. Why? Because the methodics we use would be a cure for ad-hoc environments. Those methodics are so exclusive to Solaris. I had perfectly fine stuff running on FreeBSD that won't crash. The problem was, it was really slow in performance and in the end, I had them all ripped out and replaced with Linux to get twice the deliveries and get more smtp transactions handled. We obviously do not care about 'stability'. What about time to market? Service response? Rapid deployment? Huh? What is going to beat automatic updates? I'm able to provide a fully running and configured server or servers, hundreds of them, within a few minutes. Exactly the thing an ad-hoc environments strive for, but never manage to meet. That's my point. yeah, nothing like flar exists outside of solaris. Which planet do you live on? You would never imagine images + automatic updates because you cannot do that in Solaris. All you can do is maintain staging box and flar out when you are happy with staging box. Very nice. Not impressed however. We had one or two linux boxes like that. They have been running for over two years without a reboot and we were worried that they would fail to boot if they did crash or suffered a power loss especially since they were the boxes that only ran an old copy of forum software. Automated clustering solution? Those boxes were not mine...in fact they were nobody's...I remember now...one of them ran that old forum software while the other ran some anti-virus scanner for the webmail system...is that what happens to Solaris boxes that have been running for years on end without anybody patching them? The current way software on Solaris is managed, oh yes it will need plenty of babysitting in our environment. For example, sendmail was patched to add mysql table support. sendmail, being the security exploit prone piece of software that it is, gets frequent updates that fix security holes and some of them are root exploits. You can bet that any sendmail 'patch' for Solaris 10 will break our system. Would we dare automate security fixes? The current software management via patches is not transparent and a pain to keep an eye on because you have to look to find out what comes in the patch. We dare not automate any updating for security holes because who knows what it will clobber? su - Password: svcadm disable svc:/network/smtp:sendmail pkrgm -n SUNWsndmr SUNWsndmu pkgadd -a /var/opt/abcd/sadm/install/admin/admin /net/software-repo-server/spool/pkg/ ABCDpostfixuser ABCDpostfixlanconfig ABCDpostfix svcs -xv svc:/network/smtp:abcd_postfix online May_16 svc:/network/smtp:abcd_postfix And that's just an *interactive* example; note that no configuration has been performed, just the software installed, and it's running and serving already (preconfigured via ABCDpostfixlanconfig package). I like the installation process already doing the right thing. Or do I have to fling 'service sendmail stop; rpm -i postfix.rpm; rpm -i postfix-configs.rpm; service postfix start; chkconfig --level 2345 postfix on' too? In reality, those packages would have been removed, and Postfix packages would have been added by a central software deployment server, with two or three clicks in a web browser. Right. This from the CLI guy? Click Click Click? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
What, Slowlaris still exists? Well, I sure was blown away by the incredible difference between Solaris 8 find and gnu find. Some of those guys will only come around if their sitting penguin OS is beat to a pulp by Solaris. Like when somebody needs a good whack to come around to their senses. Others are just a lost cause, and we are actually doing the OpenSolaris community a disservice by trying to go after them, which is what seems to be the trend. Same goes for certain Solaris guys who cannot seem to see much beyond their own ingrained lines of thinking. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Unix wizard pissing contest...
gtar xvfz filename.tar.bz2 gtar jxfz ;) which will not even work (GNU, implementing tools inside of other tools, stifling flexibility) or gtar xvfz filename.tar.gz which is directly dependent on the GNU toolchain (aka a perfect example of your if all I have is a hammer... statement). And that was just a *trivial* example. I love it when Linux users bash Solaris about having to pipe and Solaris users bash gtar as non-portable. You can get BOTH. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- Bryan Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 22, 2007, at 1:44 AM, Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote: How do apt and yum know not to overwrite your sendmail? My package version trumps distro provided package. How does that work? distro sendmail 8.13.x, own modified package sendmail make it version 8.14.x or whatever works for that particular piece of software. I guess that's one way to be using Perl 6 already. It keeps the distro provider from breaking our own 'replacement'. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: And that would break... what, exactly?
Rolling out updates can be a lot easier (in my experience) on Linux systems -- it may be that it got that way because they needed more updating, but it doesn't change that it's better. I guess that would depend on one's idea of productivity. To me, it's a waste of my time and resources to go and update system-by-system piecemeal. I'd much rather produce a next Solaris Flash(TM) build or run an upgrade and bring hundreds or even thousands of systems to exactly the same system state all at the same time. I would think that even you couldn't argue with the shere, brute force speed of that. That is fine for installation of new OS. I do not see how that would beat thousands of systems grabbing the latest package, updating and then continue to run as normal whereas flar would require those systems to reboot for a mere update. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Unix wizard pissing contest...
Besides, gtar was in /usr/sfw/bin since at least Solaris 10; with the /usr/gnu thing, I suppose it would end up in there as tar (vomit) with a link in /usr/bin as gtar. So you can have your perversion, as long as you don't expect anyone else to use it. now if i can just get my apt/dpkg perversion... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
My doubt is to what degree mere numbers of those whose experience or knowledge is limited to Linux are worth attracting. In the long run, maybe numbers are needed for mind-share. But in the short run, unless Solaris meets their expectations out-of-the-box by default (a disgusting concept IMO, although perhaps different packaging and defaults are a good excuse for another distro, although I'll always think both personalities ought to be trivially available regardless, with the means of packaging, distribution, and the default behavior the main differences), they're going to be disappointed anyway. You see, I think many (not all, of course) have limited themselves into thinking Linux is a superset of Unix (or indeed simply the only thing that matters), which it isn't by a long shot. So I wonder whether merely giving them a few (or even a lot of) familiar command and keystroke convieniences will encourage them to start writing application code portable enough that it goes from Linux to Solaris anywhere near as easily as much code typically goes in the opposite direction. And _no_way_ do I want to see a bunch of Linux APIs adopted wholesale, although some of them may well represent useful ideas (or at least harmless ones perhaps worthwhile to ease porting), esp. in the areas of audio, networking, and maybe tape I/O. Well with Sun Studio becoming freely available there is hope that perhaps they can be wrenched away from gcc... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly?
--- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is fine for installation of new OS. I do not see how that would beat thousands of systems grabbing the latest package, updating and then continue to run as normal whereas flar would require those systems to reboot for a mere update. While I think a lot of current Solaris patch READMEs simply call for a reboot rather than bothering to explain under what conditions it might be necessary, I also suspect that anyone who believes that almost arbitrary updates can be done without any need for a reboot is sadly misguided. Even if a reboot wouldn't be needed to prevent a crash, I think certain updates are best done in something like single-user mode, so that it's assured that an application is using either entirely the pre-update environment, or the post-update environment, but not some possibly unstable mix of the two. Yes, I know that in most isolated cases of a lib or something being in use, it's not a problem as long as files being updated are not overwritten, but are replaced atomically (load new version under derived name, and then rename it into place). But AFAIK, there's no way to simultaneously replace multiple files atomically, which means there's no way to have a totally clean cutover in case for example libs have private interfaces between one another, or a lib has a set of run-time-loaded plugins, or the like). And that's just a simple example. I imagine we have a very different view of 'updates' due to the differences in tools, the contents of those updates and the way they are done. On the Linux side of things, no reboots are needed at all save for new kernel installations and only if you want to run that spanking new updated kernel (probably likely if it has security fixes or a bugfix you want). Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
--- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What, Slowlaris still exists? Well, I sure was blown away by the incredible difference between Solaris 8 find and gnu find. This would be the gnu find that needs one to use a nonstandard option -noleaf to tell it _not_ to optimize out one stat() per directory? That could've been done automatically by testing the assumption on each filesystem, and altering its behavior adaptively, but no, they had to add an extra flag to ensure it behaves correctly on AFS and ISO filesystems. No idea. Maybe you can tell me what it was. A qmail queue on a UFS filesystem with somewhere around 500k mails in the queue. A script that checks the queue size basically runs something like this: 'find queue/mess/* -print | wc -w' Solaris find took over 24 hours and still I got no result and was waiting. After I asked my manager why does it take so long, he told me to give gnu find a shot. In seconds I got the answer. This gave me two impressions. 1) The solaris kernel had great I/O. Using just seconds to report about 500 thousand files is something I do not remember with 2.4 linux distros even when there is no i/o contention. 2) Solaris find sucked. maybe you can tell me what is what? Performance gained at the expense of incorrect behavior that requires special usage to avoid strikes me as highly suspect. Please explain. (OTOH, for all I know it has other features and optimizations that are perfectly reasonable; and as long as they aren't incompatible, I wouldn't have a problem with them being adopted.) ... so do you know the differences or not? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
--- Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chung Hang Christopher Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What, Slowlaris still exists? Well, I sure was blown away by the incredible difference between Solaris 8 find and gnu find. Well, GNU find does not work correctly. This is why it seems to be fast. 'find queue/mess/* -print | wc -w' What does solaris 8 find and gnu find do differently? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Unix wizard pissing contest...
--- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gtar xvfz filename.tar.bz2 gtar jxfz ;) Did you miss my point? (;-) The other side of things is: Windows users like Windows because they are used to the thing. I do not really care for the Unix world vs Gnu world. I have really only asked for one thing: debian package management tools or similar. No Solaris patch system thank you. A transparent repository and its tools. You can argue all you like about GNU this vs Solaris that be it the shell, tar and what not, I really do not care. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
The (perhaps) interesting question is why. Different environment. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Packaging and package format modernization goals. (Top Priority)
--- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Convert to apt and dpkg :P Use a non-native software management subsystem? An unsupported subsystem? those packages probably don't register in any existing system anyway and you can always populate the dpkg section with information from the existing system. You're yanking my chain, aren't you? at this moment, yes. I really hope that there will exist such a system in the future of course. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RIGHT...for a modified sendmail that does not change at all save for security exploits...hmm...you really have a closed mind. The only 'engineering' needed here would be how to quickly replace the OS with a more efficient one and making sure that the OS gets its security holes plugged quickly without breaking anything. Quickly replace? You mean, walk around with a CD or DVD, log onto the console, run install? ROTFL. No. But that is what I would have to do with OpenSolaris at the moment. Where is this flar? Now it's my turn to write yawn... And what would you do if your environment grew? Would you still be running around, installing systems? And if you had your customers requiring all kinds of different things from you, all at the same time? I had kickstart, pxe, tftp, a repository hosted on ftp and dhcp for this at that time with plans to move to images. If I were to get twenty new boxes, I just needed to add twenty new entries for dhcp and kickstart. All twenty would have been done in 30 mins and ready to run. Too bad I never got the chance to get an image system in place. What you describe is easy with one person, if you have up to 10 systems, 20 tops. Honestly, it's really not fun to go around and install systems manually, let alone configure them. Yeah, especially when the data centre is in San Jose, California and I am in Hong Kong. I would really have to be Flash to get that done. Boring. Those methodics are so exclusive to Solaris. Incorrect. You can do the same thing with HP-UX and IRIX. Actually, it would work for FreeBSD and Linux, too, up to a point. Some things could not be carried over simply because Linux lacks engineering and architecture to make them feasible. Sure. Prove that you cannot use an image system with Linux. Huh? What is going to beat automatic updates? A flash of the system that lasts about all of 45 seconds. Meanwhile, the other half of the cluster is still serving, without interruption to the service. It is possible to do; I've demoed it recently. What makes you think that with an apt/dpkg or yum/rpm system will result in any interruption of the service when the systems in the cluster do their updates? I have never suffered interruption of service due to systems being updated. And BTW the cluster is also configured automatically, no manual configuration is needed or involved. Ooh, wow, that is so out of this world. yeah, nothing like flar exists outside of solaris. Which planet do you live on? You would never imagine images + automatic updates because you cannot do that in Solaris. All you can do is maintain staging box and flar out when you are happy with staging box. Ignite-UX? Roboinst? Come on, cut me some slack. I've been in your shoes, doing Linux boxes. Right...what are HP Unix and Irix tools doing here? And I don't see why I couldn't do automatic updates on Solaris. A cleverly written Makefile will take care of that in a jiffy. One doesn't even need a fancy tool like yum or apt-get. Actually, I've got an even better idea: just flash the system with an incremental flar. Much faster. You'd most likely argue this would cause a disruption of service. But when you update running services on a system, you have to restart them anyway. So I don't see the difference. Of course, the disruption of service is a moot point if I have a cluster. NO. I do not have to restart any service for my mail boxes after a system update. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
What, Slowlaris still exists? Well, I sure was blown away by the incredible difference between Solaris 8 find and gnu find. Well, GNU find does not work correctly. This is why it seems to be fast. 'find queue/mess/* -print | wc -w' What does solaris 8 find and gnu find do differently? Solaris find calls stat(2) on all files to determine whether they are directories; this requires *all* inodes to be brought into memory. GNU find does not call stat on any of the leaf files because it believes that when a directory has only 2 hard links to it, no entries in the directory other than . or .. will be directories so requiring stat is not necessary to find more sub directories. Right, so this is the supposed bloat I was told about in solaris libraries?! Unfortunately, GNU find's optimization is incorrect for a number of filesystems and GNU find therefor may give an incorrect answer but will give it more quickly. Solaris will give the correct answer in all cases, but not as fast as GNU find. over 24 hours with no result versus seconds? That command that was used will actually not run into any directories. queue/mess/* represents all the directories find has to go look in. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Unix wizard pissing contest...
Did you forget the old do one thing and do it well mantra? truly spoken. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GNU find does not call stat on any of the leaf files because it believes that when a directory has only 2 hard links to it, no entries in the directory other than . or .. will be directories so requiring stat is not necessary to find more sub directories. Right, so this is the supposed bloat I was told about in solaris libraries?! No, it's an optimization in GNU find which works most of the time but not always. :) over 24 hours with no result versus seconds? That command that was used will actually not run into any directories. queue/mess/* represents all the directories find has to go look in. Yes, that can very well happen; reading directories is fairly quick. But without knowing the exact number of files I can't really make an estimate. Well, from your description of the differences, there being no subdirectories under queue/mess/*/, around 500k is the total number of files under queue/mess/*/ Several orders of magnitude is what my guess would be and what you got. Yes, quite. Things have changed now in Solaris 10 for find? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
Solaris find calls stat(2) on all files to determine whether they are directories; this requires *all* inodes to be brought into memory. GNU find does not call stat on any of the leaf files because it believes that when a directory has only 2 hard links to it, no entries in the directory other than . or .. will be directories so requiring stat is not necessary to find more sub directories. Right, so this is the supposed bloat I was told about in solaris libraries?! I am not sure what you understan by this Try to use GNU find on a mounted CD and see that it does not find anything that is not in the root directory. I was quite surprised about what was called 'bloat' in 'Slowlaris 8'. Unfortunately, GNU find's optimization is incorrect for a number of filesystems and GNU find therefor may give an incorrect answer but will give it more quickly. Solaris will give the correct answer in all cases, but not as fast as GNU find. over 24 hours with no result versus seconds? That command that was used will actually not run into any directories. queue/mess/* represents all the directories find has to go look in. It gives typically a speedup of 5x I assure you that I feel far more differently about this. This is not a mere 5x speedup. 24 hours versus say one minute is already way beyond 5x. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal for Community - Port OpenSolaris to System z
--- Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep an eye on these: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/21/ibm_power6_p570/ Wow, wouldn't it be great if Sparc/Opteron had access to IBM silicon processeses. (4.7 GHz) AMD has access to IBM silicon tech does it not? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, from your description of the differences, there being no subdirectories under queue/mess/*/, around 500k is the total number of files under queue/mess/*/ Try ls next time or just echo :-) So you ran: find queue/mess/* and not find queue/mess The former would cause the shell to sort the 500K entries first also. hmm, I don't know about solaris but on linux echo would bomb at times. We have tried changing the queue size checking to that. ls did not cut it. 500K files causes around 500K random I/O ops with Sun find and about a number of sequential I/Os so with GNU find (sufficient to read the directory) Disks are not that fast in random I/Os. Yes I know. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
--- Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O I assure you that I feel far more differently about this. This is not a mere 5x speedup. 24 hours versus say one minute is already way beyond 5x. yawn, this is getting really boring, have you ever considered that you might have just hit a bug in sun's find? did you try to debug it and see where it hanged? have you at least reported the problem to anyone at sun? yawn. no, i just wanted to get the real details of why my manager labeled Solaris 8 as having bloated libraries and why there was such an incredible difference. nice to know there was no substance to the 'bloated' part. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
I assure you that I feel far more differently about this. This is not a mere 5x speedup. 24 hours versus say one minute is already way beyond 5x. It depends on the balance between the number of directories and the number of files in them. 24 hours sounds unreasonable. What kind of FS is this? UFS. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
How do apt and yum know not to overwrite your sendmail? My package version trumps distro provided package. How does that work? distro sendmail 8.13.x, own modified package sendmail make it version 8.14.x or whatever works for that particular piece of software. Hacky, and obviously it'll break when 8.14 comes out, but if it works for you and your customers ... inhouse, inhouse. Otherwise, that mysql patch would be out there already. Besides, if 8.14 did come out, the distro rarely puts it in until the next release. Is there no way to express in the mysql-sendmail package that that the sendmail package is incompatible with it? I thought rpms could do that. SysV packages have something like that, but I don't think I've ever seen it used, and I've no idea what Solaris Upgrade would do with it. I did not try sorting it out. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
RE: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make So
--- a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ROTFL. No. But that is what I would have to do with OpenSolaris at the moment. Where is this flar? Who's your information supplier? You can get Solaris Express, community edition. It's a ready to install distro based on OpenSolaris. Since you seem to prefer running development distros in production, you might even be able to run some services on it. ah, nexenta don't have it then... The flars I'm making the public can't have, because they contain pah-lenty of proprietary stuff. But you can always run the following: flar create -n FlarName -c -a freetown -e 'My super duper Flash(TM) image' /var/tmp/freetown.flar Come on, join in the fun... you know you want to (;-) Sure. Why beat my head trying to create the tools for a linux image system when solaris comes with the tools ready eh? Sure. Prove that you cannot use an image system with Linux. Sure you can. There's more to a run time platform than just images. Like consistency, compatibility, architecture, QA, processes, provisioning, manageability. And no, `apt-get blabla` doesn't even cut it close to manageability. Heh, ain't it nice when that lot is divided between two departments? Allow me to refer you to the following, it might give you a better idea of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model Now with Linux being a mess that it is, it would be unnecessarily difficult to use it as a solid foundation. Better use Solaris or HP-UX and save myself boatloads of time, money and nerves in the process. What makes you think that with an apt/dpkg or yum/rpm system will result in any interruption of the service when the systems in the cluster do their updates? I have never suffered interruption of service due to systems being updated. Let's say you update a subsystem like Sendmail. For the new binary to load and run, you will have to stop running Sendmail. yes, in this case I would have to restart the service. Ooh, wow, that is so out of this world. Did you do it? Right...what are HP Unix and Irix tools doing here? Illustrating a point: I know of other tools. JumpStart is not be-all, end-all. NO. I do not have to restart any service for my mail boxes after a system update. Is that right? Are you sure you understand how all that stuff works? Maybe my environment has coloured things. I don't remember a library being used by sendmail being updated... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'd fire any of my sysadmins if i ever catch them using fedora in any production server. you dont use unsupported software there. do not ever underestimate the value of blaming someone else when things break. And people have used solaris for many years without the sources. My feelings exactly, add me to the list! No worries. I am sure open positions in your respective companies are few. What the heck, why would anyone explicitly go to the trouble of using Fedora in production, unless they were some sort of a hacker? Why not? RHEL3 did not use 2.6. RHEL4 is stuck with 2.6.9 + certain backports. If you need some of the latest features, you use Fedora. Given that a release comes with at least one year of updates, I do not see a problem especially if you have a system that automatically builds the staging box(es) and tests for problems, changes in expected behaviour and breakages. What reason could one possibly have to NOT use Solaris, since the playing ground is now level or even in Solaris's favor (gratis, opensource, System V, forward-compatible, ...)? yawn. too much work to keep updated. With Fedora, beyond the initial staging of a new release, testing and deploying updates are trivial. Goes back to someone writing in another post that Linux is the best choice. How can it be the best choice when Solaris has and can everything Linux can, and then some, and the price is the same (gratis), and commercial support for Solaris is cheaper? Solaris != OpenSolaris. Solaris 10 is not there yet. Nor does they exist a commercially supported OpenSolaris distribution with some of the things some would like to see irrespective of people in banks think. It's irrational to insist on using Linux, especially Fedora in production environments. I wonder what Linux distribution certain banks in Hong Kong use. Debian!? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
I've worked in places where system administrators hacked source code which was available (BSD Unix, source licenses). Invariably, it is a *bad* idea; but that point is never driven home until one of the administrators does leave or is hit by a truck. Well, there must be a reason why we are to produce diffs of the changes we make and to produce packages that use those diffs in the creation process. I have left and they do not have problems with the patched software they use in production. Maybe with the system I put in place to semi-automate server management which never took off with the rest of the gang (so maybe they are well into the 'Solaris way' spitting hole now). Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
RE: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No worries. I am sure open positions in your respective companies are few. Not sure what you meant by that. There are tons of open positions in my company, worldwide to boot. I meant Solaris positions. Why not? RHEL3 did not use 2.6. RHEL4 is stuck with 2.6.9 + certain backports. If you need some of the latest features, you use Fedora. Given that a release comes with at least one year of updates, I do not see a problem especially if you have a system that automatically builds the staging box(es) and tests for problems, changes in expected behaviour and breakages. This must be a Linux-specific thing. On Solaris we don't worry about which kernel rev. we're running; with a few exceptions over the years, they've all been stable. Solaris API and ABI are so stable that it's never an issue for an average sysadmin. For system performance and sometimes stability in certain scenarios due to bug fixes. We do not care too much about API/ABI stability. Much of what we need either comes with the distribution or needs to have a internal package made. Not every production system that exists out there runs legacy binaries. I never did get the look-ma-I'm-runnning-the-latest-and-greatest-2.6.x-kernel thing. I mean, unless you're kernel hacker, what's it to you which kernel revision you're running? So long as the system is doing his designated function, i.e. providing a stable service, and so long there aren't any security fixes to apply, why do you even care? It's the job of system engineering dept. to worry about such things... When we are the system engineering department and we need to make these boxes perform with more efficient code/features. To me as a long time Solaris/IRIX/HP-UX guy, the whole thing with the kernel rev. is just bizzarre. You work in a different environment with different needs. yawn. too much work to keep updated. With Fedora, beyond the initial staging of a new release, testing and deploying updates are trivial. Did you ever read any of Dennis Clarke's posts and blogs about putting some Solaris server in EONS ago somwehere, and people just forgetting that it's even there, because it just keeps on serving and serving and serving? If you didn't, perhaps you should. He has some fascinating stories. I had perfectly fine stuff running on FreeBSD that won't crash. The problem was, it was really slow in performance and in the end, I had them all ripped out and replaced with Linux to get twice the deliveries and get more smtp transactions handled. We obviously do not care about 'stability'. And Dennis is not alone in this experience. This is something we take for granted in a Solaris environment. Very nice. Not impressed however. We had one or two linux boxes like that. They have been running for over two years without a reboot and we were worried that they would fail to boot if they did crash or suffered a power loss especially since they were the boxes that only ran an old copy of forum software. Like I wrote before, the whole lots of noise about updating and patching is simply bizzarre to me to read about and watch as a Solaris consumer. I guess people just assume Solaris is going to need the same kind of babysitting as Linux. What else am I supposed to conclude from reading what Linux people complain about? The current way software on Solaris is managed, oh yes it will need plenty of babysitting in our environment. For example, sendmail was patched to add mysql table support. sendmail, being the security exploit prone piece of software that it is, gets frequent updates that fix security holes and some of them are root exploits. You can bet that any sendmail 'patch' for Solaris 10 will break our system. Would we dare automate security fixes? The current software management via patches is not transparent and a pain to keep an eye on because you have to look to find out what comes in the patch. We dare not automate any updating for security holes because who knows what it will clobber? Whereas with apt/dpkg or yum/rpm, we are not worried at all and we can enable updates for the system without fear of having our modified sendmail clobbered by the sendmail from the distribution provider while we prepare our own modified package of the updated sendmail. No, Solaris 10 would need more babysitting in our environment than apt/dpkg or yum/rpm managed Linux. In fact, I do not see why the apt/dpkg or yum/rpm way of things would make Solaris 10 any less manageable but since it will not be accepted for Solaris 10, I hope for one of them in the Sun OpenSolaris distribution. Solaris != OpenSolaris. Solaris 10 is not there yet. What do you mean by not there yet? Solaris 10 is THE choice for deployment in mission critical and production environments. You are taking this out of context. This part of the thread was about Solaris 10 have its source available too which is not the case at
Re: [osol-discuss] RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
For users who come from a Linux background for whatever reason, system maintenance has a pretty steep learning curve on Solaris. This has absolutely nothing to do with the substantial advantages that Solaris offers over Linux. Patches/packages, for example, are a huge PITA compared to .debs. There isn't a good reason for this, as there's little functionality provided by those differences and a lot of functionality NOT provided in the patch/package system. Same for the installer, etc. It may not be a huge list, but it's enough to put people off. Especially if we have to depend on the system NOT to break things when we need the convenience turned on. So feel free to condemn those environments and users as some kind of hackers. There are a lot of them out there using Linux that might be better off on Solaris. My question, though, is that if Solaris continues to work for your 'real' sysadmins, what's wrong with it being accessible and usable by the 'hackers' too? Thank you. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
Why not? RHEL3 did not use 2.6. RHEL4 is stuck with 2.6.9 + certain backports. If you need some of the latest features, you use Fedora. Given that a release comes with at least one year of updates, I do not see a problem especially if you have a system that automatically builds the staging box(es) and tests for problems, changes in expected behaviour and breakages. sorry but no, that only happens when you have a hacked environment instead of an engineered one. You start with a requirement, then you ask yourself what app will solve that requirement, the next question is what os will run that application better and if it is already in your environment and finally what hardware will run it better. That means you will not need that feature because you would have discarded the os in a previous step BZZZT! app + hardware already set. What else is there to change? Yes sir! The OS. 2.4 has some simple 'disk elevator' for some limited i/o tuning. 2.6 comes with io-schedulers and a better vm. Bye Redhat Linux 7.x, Redhat 9, Fedora Core 1. Come here Fedora Core 2. What reason could one possibly have to NOT use Solaris, since the playing ground is now level or even in Solaris's favor (gratis, opensource, System V, forward-compatible, ...)? yawn. too much work to keep updated. With Fedora, beyond the initial staging of a new release, testing and deploying updates are trivial. what's not trivial is the testing and the QA, 1 year support is too little, and what will you do if it breaks? go running to the trusty guys at your regular irc channel? ROTFL. Sure, the irc guys will have plenty to ask about our mysql enabled sendmail (I can see the drool on their faces!). Give me a break. You do not seem to get that the OS is pretty expendable. Even you have a system in place to automatically deploy a new OS, we really do not care what it is so long as it performs without trouble and security holes are fixed in good time and are easy and quick to deploy. The app is the thing that needs QA and testing in which case is our modifed sendmail. On what it runs has no bearing on whether it will break save for the OS provider having tools that clobber our modified sendmail. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- Danek Duvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 08:27:50AM +0800, Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote: The current way software on Solaris is managed, oh yes it will need plenty of babysitting in our environment. For example, sendmail was patched to add mysql table support. sendmail, being the security exploit prone piece of software that it is, gets frequent updates that fix security holes and some of them are root exploits. You can bet that any sendmail 'patch' for Solaris 10 will break our system. Why do you think that? If you put your new sendmail bits on top of Solaris' sendmail bits, then yes, a patch will happily destroy your system. But (says the doctor), you shouldn't be doing that -- you'd put your version of sendmail somewhere else on the system. Alternately, you could remove the sendmail packages first, but I don't know if a patch that has accumulated fixes to those packages would do the right thing when applied (I think so, but I'll let someone else confirm it). Why look after two queues and two binaries when one will handle everything? How do apt and yum know not to overwrite your sendmail? My package version trumps distro provided package. Alternatively, I can flag the sendmail package as 'not to be included' in automatic updates. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: RE: And that would break... what, exactly?
--- Andre van Eyssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 21 May 2007, Patrick Finch wrote: If I understand correctly, you are saying that a Solaris user can become a Linux user with ease, but not vice versa. Do you consider this to be a strength or a weakness of Linux? Neither. It's a strength of Solaris, in that Solaris breeds a mindset that is portable to HPUX, *BSD, Linux and many other platforms. You learn to work with a set of tools that are present on everything, as opposed to being dependant on particular features of a particular toolchain. A new Linux user would probably learn to use the more modern ip tool to manage interfaces, whereas as a Solaris admin would use ifconfig which will work on all of the above. HA! No new Linux user is going to touch the iproute2 ip command. They will use ifconfig and when they come to Solaris they will first mutter about the incompatible flags and either hit some user group (LPI guys) or hit the man page. The ip command is for advanced linux networking and no new linux user is going to use it until they have a really good handle on why they want to create multiple routing tables and what they want to do with those routing tables. New linux user using ip. ROTFL. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- Danek Duvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:44:52AM +0800, Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote: Why look after two queues and two binaries when one will handle everything? Right. Just use yours and disable or remove the system one, and never think about it again. What about all the rest of the system processes that use the system mta? With some of the latest Linux distributions, I could mess around with /etc/alternatives to get this done but that is another matter. How do apt and yum know not to overwrite your sendmail? My package version trumps distro provided package. How does that work? distro sendmail 8.13.x, own modified package sendmail make it version 8.14.x or whatever works for that particular piece of software. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe not the kernel sources if we are not developers. I would say the chances of interest in other packages that come along with the distribution are much higher than 0.1%. i really really doubt that, the sources are quite useless actually, what you really use are the derived binaries, check firefox for example, do you think even the 0,1% of it's users care about the code?. but, you wouldnt buy a house if you are not given the blueprints along with it, why should software be any different I love the desktop analogies. People use Fedora in server farms. I have used Fedora in server farms. We are most definitely interested in the source code. How else are we suppose to integrate previously half/non-integrated pieces of software together? OH BTW, before you get side-tracked, Casper made a comment about source code in general and not just Sun code. Linux users very well would be interested in the source code and compilation methods of binary packages included in the distribution. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love the desktop analogies. People use Fedora in server farms. I have used Fedora in server farms. We are most definitely interested in the source code. How else are we suppose to integrate previously half/non-integrated pieces of software together? i'd fire any of my sysadmins if i ever catch them using fedora in any production server. you dont use unsupported software there. do not ever underestimate the value of blaming someone else when things break. And people have used solaris for many years without the sources. Please go live in a bank vault and take your bank only mentality with you. OH BTW, before you get side-tracked, Casper made a comment about source code in general and not just Sun code. Linux users very well would be interested in the source code and compilation methods of binary packages included in the distribution. you cant support source only packages and let your users compile them anyway they want, there are simply too many variables to consider. I think you actually void the support from redhat if you dont use one of the provided kernels. Muhahahaha. What support from Redhat? There is a reason why Fedora or Centos was chosen. Although Redhat has programmers and engineers involved in various parts that make up their Linux distribution, they are not the upstream and any serious bugs/problems that are found can be taken to their appropriate list besides other software that they just package with maybe a patch or a score applied. imho, source code availability is a plus but to your regular sysadmin is just one tiebreaker Yeah, just limit Solaris to either carrier grade level or dumb MSCE level of which the later is pretty much impossible at the moment. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
Compared to other marketing activities from Sun, this would be cheap and the current idea of project Indiana looks to me like a Sun OpenSolaris distribution that (if done the way it currently seems) will most likely embrace and crush the sensitive plants that are the real free grown distributions. I do not see why a Sun OpenSolaris distribution will kill off your 'real free' distribution or any of the other 'real free' distributions. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal: OpenSolaris Programming
--- Chao-Feng Guo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just think it in another way: actually most habitants in Hong Kong can listen to and understand the Chinese Mandarin. But in reverse it doesn't work. ROTFL. You do not know Hong Kong at all. The newer generation may be (with the present critically poor Chinese reading/writing skills...I really really doubt spoken Mandarin skills are any much better given that formal written Chinese is basically written Mandarin) able in future but I some how really doubt it will ever get there given the system in place. We are more than happy to welcome the university students from Hong Kong to register this contest, as well as Macow and Taiwan. I am sure they will survive without the video if there are any interested ones at all. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal: OpenSolaris Programming
--- Ghee Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chao-Feng Guo wrote: Just think it in another way: actually most habitants in Hong Kong can listen to and understand the Chinese Mandarin. But in reverse it doesn't work. Is this assumption true though when comes to technical terms and topics? (I meant are Hong Kong students their Mandarin level is good enough to take in the technical terms). Also as an overseas Chinese, I think the choice of accent can be significant for the people from the region. Hence the choice of lecturer or translator is important. Let me say that university students barely pass language tests/exams (whether the tests/exams or the students are at fault is not a mystery...lecturers here complain of the poor competency levels in language) and so I really doubt that their mandarin is any good at all. Maybe those who are near the forties and above. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: And that would break... what, exactly? (Re: Sun to make Solaris more
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've probably a bad idea,but for me to make Solaris more linux like is to have an opensolaris distro with all sources (sources for every package) and a desktop like Ubuntu or RH.Is this an open community? Is this open source? I find that a strange way to look at more Linux like. I would be surprised if more than 0.1% of the Linux users was actually interested in looking at or using actual source code. Maybe not the kernel sources if we are not developers. I would say the chances of interest in other packages that come along with the distribution are much higher than 0.1%. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chung Hang Christopher Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to other marketing activities from Sun, this would be cheap and the current idea of project Indiana looks to me like a Sun OpenSolaris distribution that (if done the way it currently seems) will most likely embrace and crush the sensitive plants that are the real free grown distributions. I do not see why a Sun OpenSolaris distribution will kill off your 'real free' distribution or any of the other 'real free' distributions. I don't see that it would help to have a second Sun Solaris distribution. If Sun likes to put money into OpenSolaris, this should be done in a way that enables collaboration and in a way that allows to contribute code by non-Sun people. What makes you think that will not happen? I see a Sun distribution that is different from Solaris 10 as useful in getting current Linux users to switch as opposed to waiting for a new generation of Solaris users from universities. Especially since they will first need to get a job that involves using Solaris whereas current Linux users can switch their systems over if the OpenSolaris distribution does not present too much of a fear of the unknown. Sun has the best OSS concept compared to other companies (e.g. Apple) but a concept is not sufficient, it needs tp be turned into reality. Agreed. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
Take the other side of Sun Marketing, there was an ad with a single V880 in a lab. What is that about?:-/ With Apple ads you know what it's about somehow, there is no secrets. Yeah I have heard comments about that ad of a trailer in the middle of nowhere... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote: And I don't see th package tools determining distribution models. Blastwave have a different distribution model from Sun and they use standard Solaris packages just fine. Can you store dependency data in Solaris packages? Yes, you have been able to store dependency data in Solaris packages since before rpm even existed. Okay, so extracting dependencies from solaris packages should not be a problem. Interesting. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about that mess...here's another try. The initial area of confusion hits with the distinction between packages and patches -- I know there's a difference between releasing functionality and fixing something that's broken. That's not a distinction, by and large, that is not made in the Linux world. If I'm running foo-1.1.1 and I need to update something, I find foo-1.1.2 or greater. There's no question that there's some downside with this approach, as new functionality can risk breakage, but that's what release notes are for. Similarly, package naming and dependency resolution go hand in hand. Why can't the package for foo-1.1.2 be named that instead of 118974-37, and why can't my attempt to add foo-1.1.2 at least notify me of the other packages I need to add to handle the dependencies and offer to get them for me. Last night I was applying several security patches to Solaris 10 11/06. Of the 8, 6 failed to install with no information or explanation other than a failed notice which scrolled away from me fairly quickly. I don't know if it was a dependency, a configuration, user error. Had I not been watching it, I wouldn't have known it failed at all. I think some of this starts out with the development model. New work all takes place on the next release after the production release (and I suspect a tiny bit happens for the one after that even). Bug fixes get backported if they're likely to be a significant problem, or based on customer demand. Other bug fixes probably come about when a bug is found or reported in a supported release that's not apparent in the release under development. Bug fixes probably involve for the most part the smallest set of changes possible (simplifying testing, perhaps), although the scope of a patch grows in later revisions as fixes for additional bugs in the same and closely related files get added. Very rarely does a patch add a new package, it just makes minor updates to an existing one. I think another factor might be the historical distribution model, mostly via CDs or DVDs. The whole development model is because there is no other way to do it since the packaging tools will not allow anything else. There is no choice but to create the patch system. Likewise the distribution model. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
And the patches give you one thing by default that wholesale package replacement does not: the option to back them out. You can also roll back on a package system. A lot of this isn't unique to Solaris; I think a number of other (mostly non-Linux) commercially distributed OSs distinguish between a package and a patch in some sense or another. Example please. I know of none. patches are not released. Updated packages are. And mapping patches to a whole package update approach is also tricky. Let's say that you have two patches that update a package, independent of another. You now have four possible versions of the package: original, patch A applied, patch B applied, or both. Having a repository have all those is unreasonable. Having it only have the most up to date for the release may sometimes not satisfy all possible dependency situations. It could be done, but it couldn't be done anything like automatically, IMO. I feel really reassured about a patch A + patch B updated package may not satisfy all possible dependency situations so I will accept both patches via the patch system. There are however cases where new packages get introduced for updates within a release. And there is an update mechanism for that, although it's IMO slow, ugly, hard to test, and often not as clean as a fresh install might be. The Live Upgrade approach (more or less: automatically building a replacement root/usr/var/whatever on an otherwise unused filesystem that becomes the new boot filesystem once it succeeds, and migrating config files as appropriate) is at least a lot safer (can always fall back) and can run with nothing but a performance impact while the system is in production. But there are times when it turns out to be perfectly ok to (starting with release X mm/yy) take packages from the next update, along with any new or updated dependencies, and add/update them manually onto the existing update. There are probably more such cases than are commonly recognized. Heck, I can think of more than one case where patch README files said to get a package from at least such and such an update and add it; and I _know_ there are more cases that sort of thing is never explicitly mentioned, but works out just fine. So I think that for any given release, it might perhaps not be impossible to have a repository based approach, but it would have to be supplemented by additional information _outside_of_ individual packages that caused packages to be aggregated as needed, additional scripts to be associated with those aggregations as needed, the process of applying a set of updates to (if applied to a running system rather than to an alternate boot environment as Live Upgrade does) be capable of being paused at various points, continued after some point in it that requires a reboot, restarted automatically in event of certain failures, etc. That is really inconvenient, having to keep your eye on two different software management systems. In effect, a repository based approach would have to provide all the benefits that the present version[/update] plus patches approach provides, be every bit as reliable, and a lot easier and more transparent. I certainly believe it does. Your example of a patch A + patch B versus updated package leads me to wonder how the solaris tools maintain dependencies... To merely do as some Linux distro does in terms of update management may well be far short of sufficient; the expectations of the established installation base are vastly different (stability and reliability; nice if it were easier, but it's always sucked anyway, so at least that's job security (back in SunOS 4.x (BSD based), patch installation was 100% manual, and sometimes even mildly technical (knowing C helped get a kernel patch installation right). So however bad the patch mechanism is now, what was before it was much worse, in fact nothing at all - not that that's an excuse!)). If you are referring to the srv4 package tools, then yes. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
And I don't see th package tools determining distribution models. Blastwave have a different distribution model from Sun and they use standard Solaris packages just fine. Can you store dependency data in Solaris packages? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO, the Open Solaris community needs more than just programmers. Sure, but if someone that does documentation or marketing can code at least to the extent of the bite-size stuff, can in the former case read code without the need of constant consultation with the programmers, and in the latter case can comprehend documentation at least, then you don't have a bunch of disconnected functions all separately doing their things. They'd be capable of speaking about something to one another in common terms, even if when talking to consumers, they might use different language. That's fine. That still does not contradict what I said about the Open Solaris community needing more than just programmers. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The correct way to fix this whole situation is for Linux developers to migrate to Solaris, and forget about Linux. That would fix all these compilation issues. OOh, I like this one. Forget gcc compatibility. Kill Sun Studio gcc extension support now! Just make that hoard of gcc extension using developers port their code to Solaris for their users. Sorry? No users using Solaris? No demand? You get treated like dirt? Actually, you both have a point. First, I don't know that he was specifically referring to gcc extensions. There is not much else preventing success compilations. But it's IMO not wrong to complain about them; it's not quite as if gcc and Studio are the only compilers in the universe, they're just the main ones on Solaris (and of course gcc does have the point in its favor that it's just about everywhere else, too). In other words, porting to Solaris may not be the only place where unencapsulated dependence on gcc-isms causes problems. (encapsulated use where needed, so long as alternatives are generally available, isn't such a big deal, as it can be much less of an obstacle to porting) You won't find this problem on the BSDs or even Mac OS X. At least now that Sun Studio is available for free (I tried to keep an eye out for this but I still did not find out until recently) it should be possible to nudge developers to try it out. icc has been around for quite a while already and it still does not compile everything...most probably because it was not free enough. I hope Sun Studio changes all this. OTOH, it's a fact that there's a lot of that sort of code out there, and I certainly don't have a problem with Studio picking up compatibility features, as long as it retains a more strict mode of operation compatible with existing Studio makefiles and existing Studio-compiled C++ object files; the latter also because it's necessary to remain aware of when one is using extensions, so that one can avoid them when appropriate. Failing the realism of an extension-free environment (since there are some cases where extensions are needed, although less than where they are used), having two different sets of extensions at least allows one to remain aware of such problem areas. I would not worry about make files. Using gmake, nmake, whatvermake is rather common. That the g++ ABI is different from Sun's has been brought out already in a previous thread. That highlights one of the problems that I have with some of what I perceive happening with some open-source developers: they either aren't aware when they're doing platform or compiler specific things, or they just don't care, because they're more concerned with getting something running on _their_ platform using _their_ first choice of tools than with taking the time to familiarize themselves with portability issues enough that the ability to port their work won't be just an afterthought. Indeed, I suspect some of them would just as soon not have their work run on anything but their preferred platform, which strikes me as more or less contrary to the notion of open source, and going past open source pragmatism, past even license ideology, and off into platform religion. That is rather unfair given that access to Sun Studio was previously restricted to those who could and would pay. There is a reason for gcc becoming popular on Solaris. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Stable interfaces (was: About Project Indiana)
qt-*, gtk-* and xorg-* are not interfaces. They are libraries. Adding this lot adds system libraries to the possible 'release breakages/differentiations'. They will not make a 3.x Solaris. They cannot be compared to the Redhat Linux 7.x - Redhat Linux 8.0 - Redhat Linux 9 ABI breakages. libraries provide interfaces, and yes they are comparable from a certain level. Agreed after seeing what STABLE Interfaces in Solaris means. What I really want to say is that the current CD release model of Solaris Express is retarded. There That is one opinion. I must certainly do not see why Indiana should use that kind of model. Its target market is simply different from what Solaris 10 targets. are few if any breakage between 'releases'. These should really be just updates and I hope the new Open Solaris distribution will allow updating via the network. If you realised the actual amount of development going on, you would know there have been more than just a few small changes, and in some cases, a simple update would not work. I suspect you may be right. nexenta goes the dist-upgrade route which picks up maybe a dozen packages and all this argument about the shell implies there is more to ON than just the kernel. Really wierd considering that the Linux kernel is a different beast between minor releases so much so that they needed to add another level of versioning and yet you do not need a dist-upgrade when you upgrade the kernel even if you have to upgrade some tool chains. You also need to be specific by what you mean by updating via the network, notably that you mean (I'm guessing) online update mechanism similar to Ubuntu. Well yes but I really want to see whether the 'dist-upgrade' is really necessary. Because if I take your words at face value, I could argue that flashinstall archives are updating via the network :) That actually would be a supplementary method if I could first of all have a working repository mechanism and not have to rebuild a staging box in an ad-hoc manner. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
By the way, earlier today we crossed 50,000 people registered on the site. We are diversifying indeed. That is wonderful. I hope that figure also translates to users. I wonder which distro draws new blood... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: OpenSolaris Programming Contest in China Academic D
We will also take video for the course, whereas it will be helpful only if you have a good hearing comprehension of Chinese. Is that mandarin or cantonese? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Packaging and package format modernization goals. (Top Priority)
--- Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/05/07, Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to do that we need a set of common goals, defining what we expect out of our modern packaging standard. I have started with a list below. Let's work from there and see if we can't all agree on what is ideal. The funny thing is, the current packaging tools support most of what you list here... You, very conveniently, left out repositories. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Forward
--- Christopher Mahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm going to throw this out there to see what sticks: 1) Create a Foundation to take over OpenSolaris. Obviously has to be done by the Board with Sun Microsystem's blessing. 2) Collect monies from donations, for stuff (promotional, more Starter Kits, domain names, servers, etc). 3) Encourage the creation of a non-Sun marketing team. All the above can be done with Sun Microsystem's blessing. Look at nexenta. You just don't get to name it Open Solaris. Besides, as Project Indiana shows, Sun has more or less set Open Solaris free and is participating as a member to create a distro for its own benefit. Is there a problem with Sun using Open Solaris for its own purpose? Must they also hand over the OpenSolaris trademark? 4) Really help/encourage/buy (beer|groceries) for the Emancipation Project/Google Summer of code folks. 5) Build a non-Sun distro. Requires 4 to be completed. 6) Set up a few demo servers with ssh root account in Zones to allow people to play with the latest OpenSolaris community distro without actually installing it. (requires 5) Define 'non-Sun' distro. 7) Make the source code, the daily build process, the bug tracker, and the wiki available to the public. 8) Allow unrestricted code commit by community members. Nightly builds should check for broken stuff. Have nn-sun code check-in facilitators. 9) Allow people to self-select their roles. Some will code, some will find/report/follow up on bugs, some will write documentation in the wiki, etc. Don't assign. Accept all comers. The high-school student who pushes OpenSolaris on his MySpace page (however garish) may just be the next kernel uber hacker. 10) Don't fret over details. Welcome ideas from far flung places to be put in the nightly builds for people to try (yes there will be massive breakage, but that's what a nightly build is for) nexenta could fill this... 11) Support Ian Murdock's proposals: He's been hired by Sun Executive management for a reason. I don't think it's to enforce the status quo. Yes. I am waiting to see what kind of distro Project Indiana will produce. 12) Really really get the package management thing worked out to work as good as or better than apt. You're smart, figure it out. Might as well say 'WE WANT DPKG AND APT!' 13) there is no 13 Thoughts? BYOD! I also use windows servers (and complain about that every chance I get). I am doing my best to get them thrown out of the office :D. I wouldn't mind at all if the battle of the 2010s (it's only 2.5 years away) is OpenSolaris vs Debian. If OpenSolaris plays its cards right, I easily see it a strong contender for most deployed OS in 2013. Why Debian only? Be of good cheer. I saw the formative pains of gnupedia-wikipedia in 2001. It wasn't pretty then. Fast forward 6 years and everybody uses it. I can definitely see that happening with OpenSolaris, and I really think that's what Sun management hired Ian to get going. Because, then, dang, SUNW might pull a AAPL and close at 109.44 (today) from Apple's 6.90/share on Jan 24 2003, with all the hardware they'll be able to sell to run Solaris. I have a bet going about what Solaris and Sun's relevancy will be in two years. :D Pardon me if I'm all fuzzy. Reading 900 posts on opensolaris-discuss in 2 days can do that to a brain. ROTFL. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: OpenSolaris Programming Contest in China Academic D
--- joey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is that mandarin or cantonese? Mandarin. Ah well, Hong Kong is probably not worth it anyway. The universities here have all been bought by Microsoft besides the problem of the crap educational system currently in place. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] About Project Indiana
I think we need to colour this properly. If we could make things somewhat like the Mac OS X environment with stable libraries (kernel-wise i believe Open Solaris should not have a problem...) then there Solaris offers stable interfaces back to a time when Mac OS X did not exist. Great. That was then. This is now. Now you have a whole bunch of moving targets like qt-*, gtk-*, xorg-* (hmm are they all desktop related?) and other cruft. Please note that I am not at all including the Solaris kernel since there is no problem there at all except for drivers making use of new features like the SATA framework which may not be available for older releases but even then this is not an issue here. The Mac OS X environment provides more or less fixed system libraries and coupled with their 'file is a directory' filesystem feature, it allows you to make a package that you just download to whatever location you fancy and the act of downloading has achieved installation. Having stable system libraries makes this possible. Say a distribution goes with qt-3.x as a system library. A newer release would not be necessary unless they want to use qt-4. Even then, it is possible to provide backward compatibility. So the six months till the next release sounds kind of arbitary. It is better imho to put out a new release if it uses new system libraries and their calling applications or uses other stuff that break previously expected behaviour by default (like people here would allow that...). Of course, one could try to cover every possible library and tell developers not to worry about which release will support their stuff... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: About Project Indiana
Perhaps I'm reading too much into your comments here, but why are you drawing a distinction between the OpenSolaris community (creating a reference distro) and Solaris engineering (aligning product releases)? I think it is more like a distro that will go beyond the current Solaris market space and another that will solely cater to those who expect the current Solaris 10 environment which will require Solaris engineering to maintain. From a development perspective, Solaris engineering /is/ the OpenSolaris community -- plus the new people who are getting involved since June 14, 2005. So, aren't we really talking about largely the same people here? For two years, we've been opening the Solaris code, infrastructure, and engineering organization and in the process mixing with developers from outside the company with the intention of growing one engineering community with one governance model and one development process. We're certainly not there yet, but isn't that the goal? That, imho, may or may not perpetuate Solaris. Solaris is increasingly becoming a niche OS for 'specialized' environments with Linux slowly heading in the same direction. Current Solaris old hands are adamant that nothing change but unfortunately, the current Solaris environment does not appeal beyond the current Solaris market space. It is time that Solaris take on GNU/Linux by draining their mindshare and then giving others a reason to move to Solaris when it is no longer seen as irrelevant and niche. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Stable interfaces (was: About Project Indiana)
--- Rainer J. H. Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chung Hang Christopher Chan writes: Solaris offers stable interfaces back to a time when Mac OS X did not exist. Great. That was then. This is now. Now you have a No, that is now. _Today_ you can use those stable interfaces. _Today_ your ancient Solaris binaries will keep on running. It's a major plus for OpenSolaris as compared to most other OSes. I don't see those going away. We are not talking about changing ABI's now are we? whole bunch of moving targets like qt-*, gtk-*, xorg-* (hmm are they all desktop related?) and other cruft. Right, and after recompiling 30+ libraries in an attempt to build inkscape (which will fail anyway...), it becomes obvious what stable interfaces are worth. qt-*, gtk-* and xorg-* are not interfaces. They are libraries. Adding this lot adds system libraries to the possible 'release breakages/differentiations'. They will not make a 3.x Solaris. They cannot be compared to the Redhat Linux 7.x - Redhat Linux 8.0 - Redhat Linux 9 ABI breakages. What I really want to say is that the current CD release model of Solaris Express is retarded. There are few if any breakage between 'releases'. These should really be just updates and I hope the new Open Solaris distribution will allow updating via the network. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
To a head start, I propose that we take Nexenta and make it the standard base for the Indiana/Linuxy Solaris. (OpenSolaris Community Edition) Please, Sun Studio and sun linker. I have dpkg partly compiled (dselect is waiting for gnu gettext, dpkg has been done and runs) under Sun Studio. I don't know about the other gazillion packages but I believe it is only a matter of packaging after apt and dpkg work under Solaris. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: About Project Indiana
the installer has ZFS boot/root support, etc. Huzzah! Now, I wonder if a Solaris built on built on Sun Studio (such as SXCE) would live nicely in a distro built on GCC... *That* would be interesting. ROTFL. Well running Sun Studio did not seem to be a problem (except for missing sun linker...) so may sun studio compiled stuff will be okay since i believe sun studio is sun studio compiled ;). Can't wait for root on zfs install eh? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia drivers in a GNU/Linux LiveDVD without violating the GPL ? Heh. Who is going to sue? Linus? Who will he sue? Linus put a stop to those zealots who wanted to make sure you would not be able to use a binary driver...I don't see him going after guys who start distributing closed drivers from a third party. Will Nvidia sue? Now this one is hard to say... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
FSF or maybe http://www.gpl-violations.org/. Just as the Kororaa LiveCD was forced to stop distributing the Nvidia/ATI drivers. It was one of the first GNU/Linux LiveCDs to bundle Compiz. It is redistribution in installed form along with a GPL kernel. Ah well. The solution? Solaris drivers :D The incident you are referring to was a draconian attempt to totally prevent loading of binary drivers into the Linux kernel. Linus protected the user's freedom by stopping that. I am glad such a thing won't happen here. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] About Project Indiana
--- Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc Hamilton wrote: You don't see too many ISVs saying they support Fedora (in comparison to RHEL). You don't see to many ISV's saying they support any OS with a 6-month release cycle and 1-2 year lifetime when they can choose a variant of that OS with a 2-3 year release cycle and 5-6 year lifetime instead. I think we need to colour this properly. If we could make things somewhat like the Mac OS X environment with stable libraries (kernel-wise i believe Open Solaris should not have a problem...) then there should not be a need to make an absolute differentiation of releases. Major releases in the Linux world are due to ABI breakage or GNOME breakage...things like these. I do not see why the kernel getting a new release that does not affect drivers or libraries and their apps should warrant an entire new release. The debian cycle looks rather good actually (their slowness is something else) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh come off it. You want to tell me that all Linux systems are thus administered? I do happen to write from *experience* of what I witnessed in me years as a consultant for various firms both big and small. Heh. Thank you LPI. No wonder you ran into these. And that you don't have such examples too in the Solaris side of things? Ooohhh yes you do. Sometimes it's even worse, which adds insult to injury, because Solaris really is designed from the ground up to be able to *avoid* exactly that. Mostly what you have in the latter scenario are Windows/UNIX well rounded system administrators which have never seen a 50-pin narrow SCSI cable before. I'm not kidding, that's a true story also. Now, the link between the 50-pin narrow SCSI cable and Solaris might not be readily apparent... /me shrugs. I have not touched a Solaris box with SCSI. But Open Solaris + SATA Framework + SATA sure put the old way of doing hotswap SCSI on Linux to shame. Now if I can give Centos 5 + SATA a go too and compare... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
It may not be clean for a number of systems or server farms, but it seems to me the intention of making OpenSolaris more friendly to the other side is to get more development and following for OpenSolaris. As the training ground, we'd all hope that they come around to more structured methodologies, when it comes to packaging open source software. However, do you really think that a place with a large number of systems and server farms are going to allow folks to do a make install (unless it actually makes the package) on a set of systems like that. What's 'large'? I had about two score of systems that were maintained that way for a while...FreeBSD boxes though. Then I got them converted to Linux because it was too painful just to maintain the stupid software stack on them. It took a while after that to get things moved over to packages because I had too much fire-fighting to do and then I had to fight to get some infrastructure put in place to allow those systems to be semi-automatically maintained with the goal of full hands off. Oh, this is just my mail server boxes where I just had to take this off my back. The other systems were all ad-hoc even after I got the infrastructure in place. That was in my previous job. Does it answer your question? :( But this whole thing about packages on Open Solaris is moot since there is no repository support. blastwave is okay to certain extent but it does not cut it if you compare to what is available in Linux space. No, we're talking about folks who are used to rpm, apt and what have you, and Sun is catering to bringing them over to Open Solaris. :) Please grab your favorite non-solaris person and give them a solaris box and ask them to use a system tool to find a file they don't know about. ROTFL. find? :D What would Solaris old-hands do? This topic is specifically about Sun catering to the *nix masses out there not currently using/developing on Solaris/OpenSolaris. The ARC spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make Solaris appear more friendly to *nix users whose current systems have a definitely tinted GNU feel. Wellrpm, yum, apt and deb are not quite GNU :D I'm all for foks doing things the Solaris/OpenSolaris way, but the fact is that it doesn't happen overnight, so attitudes like yours are likely to scare off the folks that Sun is trying to attract. It is not just him. :( I wasn't talking about HP-UX or IRIX. It has no relevance here other than giving you another avenue to slam the folks Sun is trying to recruit. These guys do not know that Solaris needs new blood. hmmm. way to insult the new incoming user base. I'm sure they feel real good about themselves after reading your post, and will comment that there's a bunch of arrogant, condescending, you're not good enough for *MY* Operating System folks over on the Open Solaris list, and go back to *nix. Regular fare here. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chung Hang Christopher Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: package management. tools are not open, they have issues and they are not transparent. What are you talking about? Are you talking about this: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/install/downloads/current/ All previous responses on this point have been use Sun this or Sun that to manage updates or what not. Two different tools, one (Sun Connection) mentioned by Shawn and the tool (or the system itself) for the other system, patches, both have users (I am not a user of these) pointing out issues and given that they are paid Sun tools (is the patch manager a paid service?) I doubt you can tell me they are open and transparent. Like me give you my perspective, I think I must be miscommunicating: In Linux space you have apt or yum + deb/rpm for package management. deb or rpm alone does do some 'package management' which is basically find out what is installed, install this package, remove that package, check package...but this is not quite what I had in mind. You cannot query for available packages, you cannot use deb or rpm on their own to manage the packages on a server farm. apt or yum provide repositories and the ability to query for packages available for install and their dependent packages if any. apt and yum can both be used to handle updated packages which are just put in a separate repository marked for updates. This also adds the ability to override packages from the base distro with your own packages in your own repository. Except for nexenta, no other Open Solaris distro comes with this sort of thing. In the meantime, I will go take a look at what that wbint package contains. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Michael Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, what you say is all true: we can take it up with vendors for driver support or purchase NVidia graphics cards. But the far more realistic alternative is just switch to Linux and not deal with it. From the point of view of a desktop, it's the best of all possible worlds: it's like Unix and one enjoys tons of software, open source or otherwise, your hardware will generally work, and there's a huge user base. It's called the network effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect. Linux is not without issues on the driver front. I am sure that if the specs were being made available, there won't be a problem getting drivers on both Linux and Solaris. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: About Project Indiana
Furthermore, expect an A7 release this week of Nexenta on B61. As noted from the slides, it will quickly approach a 1.0 as all the latest Ubuntu (Feisty Fawn) packages are integrated, the installer has ZFS boot/root support, etc. yah! let the packaging begin! i'll live with gcc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good. He sounded like some ksh zealot. Oh, I am. The _creators_ of all other shells are heretics that should have been burned at the stake (metaphorically speaking). But the poor misguided fools who prefer other shells...if it doesn't get in my way any to have them on the system, under names that are clear as to what they are, while I'd prefer to see them converted to the One True Way, I wouldn't use coercion on them if they didn't use it on me. ? [...] So why should Solaris be any different? If it's going to have headaches, it ought to be its own, thought out to satisfy the needs of its user base, and not simply someone else's adopted wholesale. I am not asking Solaris to go backwards now am I? Break anything for any existing Solaris user = worse than backwards. What have I asked that implies that is what I want? Introduce new stuff in such a way that existing users that don't want it can simply ignore it = ok, whatever, disks are cheap, and if not, I'll pkgrm that stuff. nexenta put in some limited backward compatibility for stuff that expect pkg-*. I do not see why completely switching the packaging system is impossible. nexenta has done it to the minimum required with their limited resources. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
familiarity. And familiarity for people coming from Linux is so important because there are so many of them. It is ultimately our target market for Solaris. We need those college kids who are coming out of university today who reach for Linux when they start companies or go to work in Fortune 500 companies because that's what they know to reach for Solaris. A whole lot of interesting things stem from that. Yes! New blood! Solaris will be dead if people who can support, admin, engineer it cease to exist. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
I hear you loud and clear there and am adjusting the way I'm speaking about this accordingly.. The point I was trying to make was: Large parts of the market want Linux. HOWEVER, when they say they want Linux, they don't actually mean they want Linux THE KERNEL, they want Linux the distro and the business model the distros have built around that larger thing. Why can't Solaris give these users what they want plus a whole lot more? There's a fine line between driving this point home and looking like we're just copying Linux, so I'm being far more careful about what I say till we figure out how to get the message just right. Go to it Ian! I am not a debian guy but nexenta was really nice. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] About Project Indiana
Linux has a more usable desktop, it install easier, it updates easier (and does it over the net), and has a much broader selection of software. Given the choice, I'd rather be looking at the simple solutions than the difficult ones, because some of those won't be easy to tackle. Easier to install? I do not see much difference in the difficulty of installing a Linux distribution versus Open Solaris/Solaris. I still have to get a shell to get what I want during installation on Linux. As for updates, you missed one thing. Linux distributions give you more control over your software while Open Solaris distributions have nothing (nexenta excepted) in this regard. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Michael Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's painfully obvious that OpenSolaris and Solaris on x86 platforms lack drivers of all sorts. It also lacks an easy way to install software reliably. If making OpenSolaris/Solaris more like Linux can resolve both these problems then I'm all for it. If the Linux-like statement is just a marketing ploy, then it's just a waste of time and it'll signal the death knell of Solaris. The latter is just Sun jumping the shark with Solaris. As quite a few here have pointed out: Take it up with your hardware vendor. Open Solaris/Solaris does not necessarily need open source drivers (having it of course is an advantage, nic drivers especially) when binary drivers will work across all Open Solaris/Solaris releases (save drivers using newer stuff like the SATA framework). I've switched over to Ubuntu and everything just works. I have sound and native OpenGL (Radeon X800). The latter just required aptitude install fglrx. In the end, I'd rather be coding/playing with things that interest me. The OS to me is an means to end, e.g., writing code and playing with OpenGL say, than managing all the packages that I need to achieve that end. Next time, get a Nvidia card. Nvidia has Solaris drivers. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
That said, I think the good news for the old guard is that the largest faults in Solaris can be fixed by supplementation rather than change. I'm referring to the GUI. Because whether the old guard knows it or not, what ls does today won't matter in the future because the new guard won't even be using it. (the crowd is shocked, but the world is not :)) package management. tools are not open, they have issues and they are not transparent. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
--- Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote: --- Gueven Bay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example a better package manager: Okay. But build it on top of the pkg_* commands which are in Solaris today AND explain, show and teach the users the Solaris way. Why? Please give a technical argument in favour of this and not just some stupid emotional attachment to the Solaris way. So that it continues to work with the tens of thousands of already released Solaris packages? I do not see why changing the packaging system will necessarily mean Solaris packages no longer work. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
