Re: [osol-discuss] [networking-discuss] Megacli, NetCat, and Virt-Install Test Suites Released
Jim Walker wrote: .. Vladimir Kotal from the Solaris RPE Security group, has released the NetCat test suite. More information on the NetCat test suite can be found at: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/networking/tests/nc/ http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/test/ontest-stc2/src/suites/net/nc/README http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/test/ontest-stc2/src/suites/net/nc/ Thanks for the news Jim, I've updated the table of OpenSolaris Networking Test Suites to include a reference to this. The table can be found at: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/networking/tests/ Cheers, Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [arc-discuss] Project planning and ARC/no-ARC integration (was was Alpine, now Exim...)
Mark Martin wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:21 PM, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Martin writes: ... It's never as simple as just doing ./configure and make. If it were, then there'd really be no point in having a repository at all, as *anybody* can do that. Sometimes it is that simple, and probably more oft not. I disagree, though, that even if package-get = ./configure make make install that *anybody* can do that. Honestly, even that bar is very high for some users. One of the first hurdle is ./configure --? (--prefix=/usr/local | /opt | /usr/sfw | ?). Linux converts might make it, but even Portage and Ports wrap a lot of that away and we don't have either. Honestly, though, it often *was* that simple for me and for my uses, and before I knew about SFE and the like, I built at least a dozen things with minimal effort and stuck them on boxes throughout my LAN (and I did this because either they were either nascent or non-existent on Blastwave). I never bothered to package anything though. FWIW, I agree with the above - often # ./configure make make install is all I need to do. What I find annoying is when you use some package system (blastwave, pkgsrc, etc) to build a package as they often insist that all of the dependencies must be present rather than some - which defeats the purpose of having ./configure. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Reflections from the GSoC Mentor's summit
On Saturday, I walked over to the googleplex to attend the Google Summer of Code mentor summit. This is for all of the mentors from GSoC projects to get together and reflect on what worked, what didn't work, etc. Most of the sessions were people talking about what they worked on (which wasn't that interesting) but the standout was the security software session, led by the author of nmap. Some of the highlights in hearing about how other projects got involved with students: - GSoC led to the students becoming more involed with the projects by doing support (bug fixing, answering questions) after their GSoC project was completed and integrated; - some students have come back in successive years, building familiarity with the project, code, and becoming more of a regular contributor; - effort is required to weed out bad submitters but even when you think you've done this successfully, things can still turn out bad; - students will put participation in GSoC (for good or bad) on their resume. While I'm not sure what will be happening next year, it is likely to run again. This year I believe there were 6 to 8 submissions for GSoC projects on OpenSolaris, of which 4 were accepted. Next year we, opensolaris, should be thinking about how we can drive greater interest through GSoC, get more submissions and hopefully increase the number of acceptances to 6-8. Cheers, Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What about SIGs for OpenSolaris?
Brandorr wrote: On 8/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a SIG? Special Interest Group. Why should we consider SIGs for OpenSolaris? At present the only level of abstraction that we have in the OpenSolaris community is that of communities. We have communities for high level concepts (networking) and for very specific products (zfs) as well as groups of people (sysadmin). ... What I would like for people to consider is to allow the idea of SIGs to form within communities. Why should a SIG form within a community rather than be a community in its own right? Size. I see SIGs as being composed of a smaller subset of people. For example, an approriate SIG in networking might be ipfilter (;-) or email or routing. Does IP filter go in Networking or Security? Is the glass half empty or half full? It has a leg in each group :-( ... Why isn't there a developer community, that can be broken down into kernel development, library development, tools, build environment, etc, as SIGs? How about a user community as well? Users? Who are they? O:-) Don't they just make life difficult for us developers ? ;) Yesquite obviously they have been forgotten about :( The makeup of OpenSolaris into communities and the evolution beyond just communities is something I'd like to invite people to come and discuss at the OpenSolaris developer summit. Cheers, Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] What about SIGs for OpenSolaris?
What is a SIG? Special Interest Group. Why should we consider SIGs for OpenSolaris? At present the only level of abstraction that we have in the OpenSolaris community is that of communities. We have communities for high level concepts (networking) and for very specific products (zfs) as well as groups of people (sysadmin). What I would like for people to consider is to allow the idea of SIGs to form within communities. Why should a SIG form within a community rather than be a community in its own right? Size. I see SIGs as being composed of a smaller subset of people. For example, an approriate SIG in networking might be ipfilter (;-) or email or routing. And in formalising the role of SIGs in OpenSolaris, I'd like to suggest that people take pause to consider the current structure of OpenSolaris into the various communities and ask themselves if it is correct or is it just the only way to map OpenSolaris into our existing structure? In short, the current formation of OpenSolaris has largely been to fit various projects inside Sun and not to model groups of interested people. For example, why shouldn't SMF be a SIG inside the sysadmin community, as afterall, SMF is well and truely in the province of system administration. Or where would someone go that wanted to work on VFS and/or the interfaces that support filesystems in OpenSolaris? Shouldn't there be a filesystem community that brings together ZFS, UFS, CIFS, and many of the other filesystems as SIGs inside it? Why isn't there a developer community, that can be broken down into kernel development, library development, tools, build environment, etc, as SIGs? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Proposal for a new community...
I'd like to see a new community added to the opensolaris that supports developers of software that runs on top of opensolaris. Why do we need that? Because not every application that a developer wants to build will fit into one of our buckets. We need a catch-all that can be a home to people who build specialised applications that do not fit into any existing category. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris PAC?
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Inside Sun, there is a committee known as the Product Approval Committee that has oversight of what goes into Solaris. As this also impacts what is putback into nevada, it has oversight of OpenSolaris too, at present. Is there any thought that the same will (or will not :) be needed for OpenSolaris? We've discussed this a few months ago, but since you're apparently just coming to the table now with all these questions... I'm not sure we need a PAC per se - it's about product definition and requirements (though perhaps Indiana will have a PAC-like body for it). I think you're right about this. The individual communities should be doing the approval part of PAC when it comes to determining what goes back and what does not. There will need to be some sort of release engineering team that decides no new projects unless authorised until the next release is out and so forth but that's a W-Team job. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] The OpenSolaris Numbers Game (Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris)
Brian Gupta wrote: I don't know that there are as many open source artists, do you? Have you been to Creative Commons lately? Wikipedia? Flickr? I don't write code, but I write words in blogs and presentations and I take thousands of photos and I give all of it away under the CC license. And the last I checked, I'm not the only one. Well? Was someone paid to design the Linux Penguin logos? (No) I think that with a community of approximately 60,000 people, you would be able to find at least one artist. (Possibly 100s) The 60,000 number has been artificially inflated and as an indication of what it really means, at a recent meeting inside Sun, we were encouraged to sign up pets, family members (mothers, fathers, grandparents, etc) to increase the numbers so that we actually reached that milestone. Sounds to me like someone's bonus is dependent on that number being reached. Signing people up like that doesn't create community members who are productive and interactive, it just creates a higher number for the purpose of statistical counting. I'm tempted to make some overgeneralisation about America and how quantity is seen by many to be more important than quality and all the evils that go with that. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris PAC?
Inside Sun, there is a committee known as the Product Approval Committee that has oversight of what goes into Solaris. As this also impacts what is putback into nevada, it has oversight of OpenSolaris too, at present. Is there any thought that the same will (or will not :) be needed for OpenSolaris? And/or what should OpenSolaris be doing to work with the Solaris PAC? Do we wait for Sun to come out and say hello? What should OpenSolaris do if the Solaris PAC says no to something we want in OpenSolaris (given that going into nevada is the only way to get there at present)? Or vice versa, if the Solaris PAC said yes to something that OpenSolaris doesn't want? Should we have a [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris PAC?
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Inside Sun, there is a committee known as the Product Approval Committee that has oversight of what goes into Solaris. As this also impacts what is putback into nevada, it has oversight of OpenSolaris too, at present. Is there any thought that the same will (or will not :) be needed for OpenSolaris? We've discussed this a few months ago, but since you're apparently just coming to the table now with all these questions... I suspected as much, but searching for PAC is not an especially productive thing to do. ... I'd like to do even a better job here than the Solaris P-Team has, where things like SMF conversion are still hit and miss as to which C-Teams have done it yet, and some consolidations build with no-exec stacks and others don't. This is good. Thanks. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris
Eric Boutilier wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Lau wrote: I still maintain that identity and 'creating a mark' are not issues that should involve the OGB. The OGB should be about governance, not a generic leadership board. These sorts of things are best left to people who are either interested or best-equipped to drive it: and in our community, that is the Advocacy Community. If people still maintain that it should be an OGB decision, then as an OGB member, I move that we delegate this to the Advocacy Community. I'm no expert at figuring out what the best way is to form logos/marks, how long it takes to do them, create them, or select them. The model that I envisage of how it should work is: - ogb asks advocacy to go and do this - advocacy goes and does it, comes back with a result - ogb says thank you and gives it a stamp of approval. In other words, the advocacy group does all of the hard work but it should still need to be ratified by the OGB. I'm in the other camp. That is, the camp that feels it's best if Community Group decisions -- even major ones -- do not, by default, call for OGB ratification. I like, for example, the Project Insantiation spec which says that although Community Groups must notify the OGB when they (the CG) has approved a new project, getting OGB blessing is not required. Admittely, a prerequisite of this philosophy is healthy, active, aware, and engaged Community Groups. In this case, fortunately, that's clearly not an issue. Does a community group have the power to decide that a monetary prize is awarded to whoever comes up with the winner? And further to that, does the community group have the power to award that kind of prize in OpenSolaris's name? Or to put it differently, if such a decision was made by the community and activity understaken that this would happen, who would sign the cheque for the prize winner on behalf of OpenSolaris? Someone from the OGB or someone else? From the very start of this, my position has been that getting this to properly motivate people requires a competition with a prize at the end and that for this reason it requires more thought than the community just doing it. And yes, I feel that some kind of prize or reward is essential, otherwise we don't stand a very good chance of getting the right result unless we fluke it and someone already is or someone knows someone who'll do it for free. It in this case being a professionally designed logo or cartoon'd mascot. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris
Stephen Lau wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... From the very start of this, my position has been that getting this to properly motivate people requires a competition with a prize at the end and that for this reason it requires more thought than the community just doing it. The only prizes to be offered would have to be offered through Sun or some other person or entity (not necessarily a company) who puts up a prize. Oh dear. The situation is far graver than I thought in that there are more fundamental problems that still need to be solved. Is making OpenSolaris a non profit organisation on the agenda of the OGB? Or do I need to create some other community to do that? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris
Simon Phipps wrote: I would like to suggest follow-up is directed solely to advocacy- discuss (I have set reply-to). On Jun 26, 2007, at 01:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And yes, I feel that some kind of prize or reward is essential, otherwise we don't stand a very good chance of getting the right result unless we fluke it and someone already is or someone knows someone who'll do it for free. It in this case being a professionally designed logo or cartoon'd mascot. Does the same apply to the rest of the creative work of the OpenSolaris community? Had we better start getting a prize fund together in order to motivate people to work on ZFS, or SMF, or DTrace? I think you're asking the wrong questions. Perhaps a better question to ask is if the ZFS/SMF/DTrace team were rif'd or otherwise started working at another company doing whatever (perhaps even working for a competitor), would they still be active contributors to OpenSolaris? Or to put it differently, to what extent is the contributor base of OpenSolaris built upon people who have joined it and contribute to it for enjoyment vs they're paid to (in one way or another)? Would offering bounties for doing various things for OpenSolaris in areas such as ZFS/SMF/DTrace increase the participation in those areas by developers outside of Sun? Or do you just think we've all been so impossibly rude and patronising to marketing professionals that there is no chance they would ever participate in our community, even if some company who was paying the salaries of many of the people in the community already were willing to also pay them while they participated? That would be upto Sun. I don't know if Sun hires those people directly or contracts it out. I just highly doubt that we would find people so inclined amongst our current community, primarily because there are very few so inclined people amongst other open source communities when measured against those that contribute with code. Or can you point us at an open source equivalent of marketting professionals? The goal is to increase the chance we'll attract someone who'll come up with a good solution by expanding the appeal of the work to a larger group. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Making OpenSolaris 501(c)(3) (Was Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris)
Keith M Wesolowski wrote: ... If you feel strongly about that strategy in general, perhaps you'd like to go do the legwork and find out what's required to set up an independent 501(c)(3) or similar foundation (or a non-US equivalent if that would be advantageous). Without something like that, there's no way to coordinate funding for this sort of thing. ... I would be very much in favour of seeing OpenSolaris become a 501(c)(3) entity. In fact, I think it is essential that OpenSoalris does so, otherwise OpenSolaris is not exactly attractive for people/companies to donate anything towards in the USA. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
OpenSolaris as a seperate entity to Sun (Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris)
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is making OpenSolaris a non profit organisation on the agenda of the OGB? No - what would the benefit of that be? To make it an attractive destination for other companies, besides Sun, to donate cash/hardware. Or is making OpenSolaris attractive for other companies to back not a goal of OpenSolaris? Isn't anyone in the least bit interested seeing OpenSolaris actually be able to employ people or pay for things itself rather than depend on the good will of Sun to do it all? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: OpenSolaris as a seperate entity to Sun (Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris)
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To make it an attractive destination for other companies, besides Sun, to donate cash/hardware. And what would we do with that? (Really - I'm coming from a background of the X.Org Foundation, which is having a hard time finding ways to spend it's cash - it's not enough to hire a stable of full-time developers, so has avoided paying for projects so it doesn't fall into the same hole as Debian and other projects who paid people but by doing so, had volunteers decide they didn't want to work on it without pay, for a net loss of people working on the project. Obviously Sun is already paying many OpenSolaris developers, so the dynamics here would be different.) An idea copied from elsewhere: Book out a hotel in San Diego during January or February for a week or two and pay for all the developers to go there for an opensolaris conference, write/design code, drink beer and eat pizza. ... Isn't anyone in the least bit interested seeing OpenSolaris actually be able to employ people or pay for things itself rather than depend on the good will of Sun to do it all? You really see enough people or companies donating the sum required to hire anyone? I can't see $100,000+ falling into our lap anytime soon. No, but it would be nice if www.opensolaris.org and the servers that support it and its source code were not at Sun but in some data center. Sun going bust shouldn't disrupt OpenSolaris. Whether or not that will ever happen, who knows, but the two shouldn't be joined at the hip. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: OpenSolaris as a seperate entity to Sun (Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris)
Simon Phipps wrote: On Jun 26, 2007, at 02:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't anyone in the least bit interested seeing OpenSolaris actually be able to employ people or pay for things itself rather than depend on the good will of Sun to do it all? OK, I'm confused. Earlier you asserted that open source was all about people volunteering for free. Now you want to raise funds and hire programmers? You're taking that a leap too far. Employ people doesn't necessarily mean hire programmers. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Nevada and sparcv8
Steven Stallion wrote: All, I'm curious if there are any other community members out there who would be interested in taking up the proverbial torch and work on sparc v8 ON port. I think it would be tough to find a sparcv8 system that would be capable of supporting enough RAM for nevada. Maybe a SPARC20 (sun4m) system? Or a SS1000/SS2000 (sun4d) system? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris
In addition to coming up with a catch phrase or a very short definition about what OpenSolaris is about, we also need a mascot/logo - the current splattering of source code with the open(2) is cute from a geek perspective but it is hardly the kind of thing you could expect people to carry on boxes or cds as a way of saying we're OpenSolaris. It looks like this has been discussed in the past but nothing has gone anywhere. What I'd like to see the OGB consider doing is: - decide if we'll have a mascot or logo (or both) - come up with a prize (monetary or otherwise) - decide on some dates for when to run the competition - announce opening of a competition - collect submissions and have a vote to decide the best - require winner to hand over copyright to OpenSolaris - undertake the above with a clear understanding that it is possible that no entries may win Lastly, I don't think that this course of action should be in any way dependent on any other activity. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [networking-discuss] Project now open: RBridges (IETF TRILL) on Solaris
I should have asked what the intention of the rbridges-dev list was before jumping to too many conclusions... James Carlson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If closed membership lists are to be the way of the future then I have a couple of requests: * please do *NOT* cc open membership lists when sending email to them - we get bounces about cannot send email ... I agree that bouncing problems are annoying, and a bit of a defect. Because of that, I've initially the list up so that held postings don't generate a bounce message. Thanks. * think twice about whether or not your project is actually part of _OPEN_Solaris by doing this. It looks more like First of all, the archives are open. Anyone can read them. And anyone can file a subscription request to be added to the list, and as long as the request is reasonable (and not [EMAIL PROTECTED]), I'll approve it. The list itself isn't hidden. The -dev mailing list is the project team itself. Ok. Personally, I found the name misleading. Then again, the whole -discuss thing seems to me to be an extra level of verbosity that's not really required. I also don't see why you can't have rbridges-iteam as the opensolaris list name - that's much more self explanatory if you've got some history of working at Sun - and leaves open using -dev for a level between -iteam and -discuss, if that's so desired. ... I've created this list instead of having the usual @sun-com i-team mailing list. There won't be any Sun-internal list for this project -- at all. In fact, in doing that, I'm placing this project more in the open than just about any project in OpenSolaris. Nothing is being done in secret here. The meetings (when we have them) will have published open dial-in numbers, the only project gates will be on opensolaris.org, and I plan to do our project problem tracking via some open system -- not bugster. What would have been nice would an email explaining how the project is going to be run so that we all knew what was going on - or perhaps I should have just asked rather than jumped to conclusions. If you haven't blogged about this then I'm sure there is a chance for a blog entry along the lines of First OpenSolaris project at Sun in the Open or similar. Otherwise, discussion about the project properly belongs on networking-discuss, as I said in the original message. If the traffic related to the project directed there becomes burdensome, I'll ask to have an open rbridges-discuss mailing list as well. ... In any event, I think your complaint is misguided. Accepted. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] new to solaris10
Hi Kimberley, If you've got questions relating to Solaris 10 then there are other forums you should check on first with your questions. Those here are related to OpenSolaris. Places you might try are: http://forum.java.sun.com/index.jspa?tab=solaris http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/discussions/ http://www.sunmanagers.org/ Meanwhile, try: man -M /usr/man useradd man -M /usr/share/man useradd ..the -M /directory shouldn't be required but solving that is a bigger problem than I'm willing to go into here. Happy hunting. Cheers, Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Nevada and sparcv8
Steven Stallion wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:29:41 -0700, Hugh McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess the OP's goal is to run this on the Infrant ReadyNAS box, not an old Sun box. See www.infrant.com. This appears to come with 256MB of memory (not enough for install, but maybe doable later). However the 64MB for the embedded flash memory is likely to be a much bigger problem for an embedded copy of Solaris. Actually, the onboard flash is an internally mounted USB stick, so it would be trivial to add a larger one if it is needed. Also, the RAM is upgradeable to 1G (the rackmount version comes with 512). A shame really, since ZFS on such a box would be nice. It would indeed. :) Actually, no. ZFS works best with 64bit CPUs (and I can testify to that with issues I've had on i386 PCs), so getting it to run on SPARCv8 systems is goint to mean a compromise in performance for ZFS vs what you'll see with UltraSPARC and amd64. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] new to solaris10
Dennis Clarke wrote: ... The following packages are available: 1 BRCMbnx Broadcom NetXtreme II Gigabit Ethernet Adapter Driver (i386) 11.11,REV=2007.06.01.10.25 2 CADP160 Adaptec Ultra160 SCSI Host Adapter Driver (i386) 1.21,REV=2007.05.31.23.50 3 HPFC Agilent Fibre Channel HBA Driver (i386) 1.1.0,REV=2007.05.29.23.08 4 IPLTadconAdministration Server Console (i386) 5.1,REV=2002.03.01.12.28 5 IPLTadmanAdministration Server Documentation (i386) 5.1,REV=2002.03.01.12.28 6 IPLTadminAdministration Server (i386) 5.1,REV=2002.03.01.12.29 7 IPLTcadcon Administration Server Console Simplified Chinese Localization (i386) 9.0,REV=2002.03.14.13.49 8 IPLTcadman Administration Server Documentation Simplified Chinese Localization (i386) 9.0,REV=2002.03.21.16.48 9 IPLTcadmin Administration Server Simplified Chinese Localization (i386) 9.0,REV=2002.03.14.13.49 10 IPLTcconsConsole Client Base Simplified Chinese Localization (i386) 9.0,REV=2002.03.14.13.49 ... 1809 more menu choices to follow; RETURN for more choices, CTRL-D to stop display. That makes 1,819 reasons why we need a new method for package installation for [Open]Solaris. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] What *is* OpenSolaris about?
Before I get to the question in the subject, let me spell out the background for it: Linux - *the* open source operating system/kernel FreeBSD - promotes itself as being the BSD to use for desktop/server NetBSD - promotes itself as being easy port OpenBSD - promotes itself as being the most secure unix FreeBSD - the power to serve NetBSD is a free, secure, and highly portable Unix-like Open Source operating system available for many platforms, from large-scale server systems to powerful desktop systems to handheld and embedded devices. The OpenBSD project produces a *FREE*, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based UNIX-like operating system. Our efforts emphasize portability, standardization, correctness, proactive security and integrated cryptography. And when we get to OpenSolaris: The OpenSolaris project is an open source community and a place for collaboration and conversation around OpenSolaris technology. The problem here is that the first two sentences on www.opensolaris.org do not tell me why I would want to either use or be a part of the opensolaris community. If the goal of OpenSolaris is just to be, well, open, isn't that a bit boring? While it might be exciting for lots of executive types at Sun, for those who are in the open source community, it's incredibly ho hum. What OpenSolaris needs is something like this: OpenSolaris: the premier open source server platform or... The OpenSolaris project is the only SVR4 based open source platform that scales evenly from 1 CPU to 128 CPUs. OpenSolaris: the open source platform that scales with your hardware ... That www.opensolaris.org hosts a number of things besides the nevada source code, I'm well aware of, *but* if we just refer to a large glob of things, then, well, it is hard to be as exciting as through dedicated focus on a particular aspect and attract attention. Afterall, we are all a part of many different communities, the question is why and how do we attract someone *to* opensolaris. Just saying we're open (and a community) does not cut it. We need a differentiator. Thoughts? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [networking-discuss] Project now open: RBridges (IETF TRILL) on Solaris
James Carlson wrote: The RBridges project is now open: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/rbridges/ This project, based on research by Radia Perlman, will deliver a new bridging mechanism into OpenSolaris. This will implement the protocols now under development in the IETF's TRILL working group. We're at the very beginning of the effort -- just now scoping out what work we'll do, and how we'll do it -- but it's obvious that there's a lot of work to be done here. If you're interested in participating, now is the time to start reading the (lengthy) background information and thinking about what parts interest you. General discussion about RBridges and TRILL on Solaris should, for now, go to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. The development team will meet on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list (open archives, but closed membership). If closed membership lists are to be the way of the future then I have a couple of requests: * please do *NOT* cc open membership lists when sending email to them - we get bounces about cannot send email blah blah blah - a problem that is outside of _our_ control since we can't subscribe to make it go away. The other fix is to stop cc'ing the closed list, resulting in part or all of the thread no longer going to the closed list. * think twice about whether or not your project is actually part of _OPEN_Solaris by doing this. It looks more like a demonstration rather than something that invites participation - and participation is what we're looking for here, isn't it? * if these kind of lists become any more prevalent, it'll be time to beat up opensolaris-discuss about it. This *isn't* how open source works, even if it is how things happen inside of Sun. Most open source projects, and especially the very active ones, run wth open developer lists as well as open discussion lists. And most importantly, something else to bear in mind... * if someone reads something on a closed membership list and wants to discuss it, they're forced to bring it to an open list, irrespective of the detail related to the discsussion, kind of diluting the purpose of the closed list. ...or in other words, there are lots of downsides to using closed membership lists in terms of opensolaris, with few benefits except for the team itself, so please think twice before using them on opensolaris.org. Darren (already removed rbridges-dev from cc list) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What *is* OpenSolaris about?
Stephen Hahn wrote: ... I think these are all good points, and think your proposed slogans are pretty good candidates, too. I believe I've seen similar ideas in both the Advocacy group and the Indiana project, too--I also remember that Dennis has pushed out some possibilities in the past as well. Probably worth a thread on need new slogan or somesuch in one of those two places. This isn't about advocacy or Indiana. This is more than just a slogan. This is about OpenSolaris itself. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Fingerprint Authentication
MC wrote: ... You can't dictionary brute force a fingerprint remotely, and you can't forget your finger :) Good fingerprint authentication is better than passwords in dare I say every way, EXCEPT for when you are a high profile target who might be stalked for finger access. The hordes of people out there using simple passwords like password would be better protected with any biometric. I disagree. Depending on the strength of the fingerprint device, the quality of the fingerprint scan may be quite low. In some cases, there have been fingerprint authentication devices for PCs that have been fooled by very simple methods of copying the fingerprint. The fingerprint alone should never be enough to log you in, despite what they show on movies. The same is true for tokens that require PINs rather than just the device themselves. Ideally fingerprint'ing should only stand in place of entering in your username - ie identifying you - and still require a password. This falls in line with its use by law enforcement agencies: to help them identify people who were possibly present. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:09:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... If I want to build just a specific kernel module, I cd to usr/src/uts/intel/ip (for example, to build just ip) and type make all in that directory. Similarly I can do a make in various other directories for libraries, binaries, etc. However it isn't safe to build just in one place until after you've done a complete build as there may be dependencies, etc. At least one short cut required if you wan to try building just a small part is to do a make install_h in usr/src. Being able to do make in usr/src and have that invoke nightly or whatever would be nice. My point is: neither OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD provides a decent way to upgrade the core system AND packages at the same time. I love *BSD, but I'm not running it on production server simply because you can't upgrade it quickly. On the other site, if the packaging system is also aware of the base system and packages. That's all I request :) The point is you're not meant to upgrade both at the same time. And I thought that was the flexibility being sought :) Through various compatibility options, you are meant to be able to upgrade the kernel and base OS independant of the packages/ports. For ports/packages, updating the relevant tree is required, along with a make deinstall; make install, to do an upgrade. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Joerg Schilling wrote: Francois Saint-Jacques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. This is the wrong way to go. ON is not even complete. Why do you believe are flagdays needed? This is a result of inconsistences in ON because it is incomplete, you need a build machine that is very similar to the just crerated ON release. This is not Linux but UNIX and if you like to compare, look at *BSD. *BSD have flag days for similar reasons to Solaris - when you change (for example) the major number of libc, chances are things will care about this. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:35:33AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking that the best option would be to include templates in the installation procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. What do you guys thing? -Brian On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. As monolithic as it may be, when you're building an entire platform, something of that nature is required to deliver it all. While it may be an unfamiliar task to Linux folks, it isn't to those from the BSD world. Similar commands exist for FreeBSD - make buildworld - and NetBSD make build - that build the entire operating system, kernel, commands, man pages, etc. However unlike Solaris, on both of those BSD platforms there is no extra special bits required. If I want to build just a specific kernel module, I cd to usr/src/uts/intel/ip (for example, to build just ip) and type make all in that directory. Similarly I can do a make in various other directories for libraries, binaries, etc. However it isn't safe to build just in one place until after you've done a complete build as there may be dependencies, etc. At least one short cut required if you wan to try building just a small part is to do a make install_h in usr/src. Being able to do make in usr/src and have that invoke nightly or whatever would be nice. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Changes to Contributor status
Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary designations we give to people - contributor and community leader are amongst these. I'd like to propose that how contributor status is designated such that it is granted to anyone and everyone that is in a position to do a putback or commit to the OpenSolaris code base. Right now, this would mean that all of those inside Sun who work on Solaris would immediately be given Contributor status. The benefit here is that there are some things that only contributors appear to be able to do and what they can't do only serves as a barrier for them to properly engage in various OpenSolaris communities. Therefore what I envision being the result of changing who is (or isn't) a contributor being is making it easier for everyone to participate in building OpenSolaris. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Changes to Contributor status
Joerg Schilling wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary designations we give to people - contributor and community leader are amongst these. I'd like to propose that how contributor status is designated such that it is granted to anyone and everyone that is in a position to do a putback or commit to the OpenSolaris code base. It seems to be important that the right people get permissions for putbacks, please show us your ideas on how you would like to see the rules in future. Perhaps being able to do a putback should require a further level of agreement than just being a community member and something that doesn't require you to read countless pages of legal mumbo jumbo and then click here to submit. The NetBSD Foundation (owner of NetBSD source code) requires that all developers sign a relatively short agreement. This page is then sent in *hardcopy* to TNF officers who then give you access. For full details, see: http://www.netbsd.org/Foundation/policies/application-procedure.html This seems like a good model to start from. Whether it needs to be applied to both internal and external to Sun... Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Changes to Contributor status
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ultimately, I'd like to see it removed. *Everyone* should be a contributor or able to be one. Then you're basically redefining it to be the same as Participant, which is anyone who filled out the registration form on opensolaris.org, including those who did so just to get the free media kit with no plans to ever participate, but met the Sun marketing goal of increasing the number of people they could claim were Participants in the OpenSolaris community. That is a problem for the OGB to take up with Sun - i.e does OpenSolaris let itself be used by Sun like that in future? Ideally those people could be deleted as participants and Sun spanked. About the best I could come up with would be to do a dump of people in the software part of the organisation that have the relevant employee level (I think Z*?) to indicate they're an engineer and not a mangler. That would require spending time talking to lawyers to make sure it didn't violate the privacy laws in any of the countries Sun does business in, and would grant far too many people access that have nothing to do with OpenSolaris. I'm sure that query could be further refined to just fetch out those who are in the Solaris part of the org... Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Changes to Contributor status
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [Added ogb-discuss, since that's where any real change has to happen - opensolaris-discuss will get you nothing useful.] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary designations we give to people - contributor and community leader are amongst these. Contributor is defined by the OpenSolaris constitution. Leader is an artifact of the website tools, and really means Person who can edit website - that's the only extra permissions, powers, or duties that they get. I'd like to propose that how contributor status is designated such that it is granted to anyone and everyone that is in a position to do a putback or commit to the OpenSolaris code base. Then you need to propose an amendment to the OpenSolaris constitution we all just ratified. It currently states: Contributor. A participant who has been acknowledged by one or more Community Groups as having substantively contributed toward accomplishing the tasks of that Community Group, or by the OGB for at-large contributions, shall be termed an OpenSolaris Contributor. Such designation is permanent and persists regardless of the person's current level of activity or status within the Community. A Contributor may request that their status not be published or published only in the form of a pseudonym that is unique within the Community. What would you like to change it to? And why would that be better than just asking the various Communities such as ON, Desktop, Storage, etc. to name the appropriate people as Contributors? Ultimately, I'd like to see it removed. *Everyone* should be a contributor or able to be one. I don't think we need (or should need) arbitrary badges to stick on people that are otherwise meaningless. Or at least that is the model I think we should be aspiring to. Right now, this would mean that all of those inside Sun who work on Solaris would immediately be given Contributor status. Could you even come up with a complete list of those people, short of just giving us a data dump of the entire Sun employee database? I surely couldn't, even if I thought this was a good idea. About the best I could come up with would be to do a dump of people in the software part of the organisation that have the relevant employee level (I think Z*?) to indicate they're an engineer and not a mangler. The benefit here is that there are some things that only contributors appear to be able to do and what they can't do only serves as a barrier for them to properly engage in various OpenSolaris communities. As far as I know there is nothing we've intentionally set up that only Contributors can do. I know the person setting up the Code Review site chose to make it Contributor only - as far as I know, he decided to do that on his own, without consulting the OGB. And this is the basis of my comment. I wasn't aware that the cr.opensolaris.org wasn't actually part of the OGB direction. I'd encourage the OGB to consider taking action to make the code review site, cr.opensolaris.org, more easily available to a greater number of community members. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Changes to Contributor status
Jim Walker wrote: Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary designations we give to people - contributor and community leader are amongst these. I'd like to propose that how contributor status is designated such that it is granted to anyone and everyone that is in a position to do a putback or commit to the OpenSolaris code base. This would mean anyone who has signed the Sun Contributor Agreement or is an employee of a company that has (ie. Sun). I'm glad you brought this up. I'm working on establishing test resources on opensolaris.org (ie. self-service testing and test farm), and need a way to limit who gets access, since I won't be able to support everyone with an OpenSolaris user name. I'm targeting non-Sun code contributors (ie. OpenSolaris users that can putback to the OpenSolaris code base and don't work for Sun). Your redefinition points things in the right direction for this. Alternatively, since Contributor is already defined. How about Code Contributor? No. This just adds to confusion - Are you a contributor? No, I'm a code contributor. Oh. I don't see what the problem is is making everyone who is party to the Contributor Agreement a contributor and giving them access. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Darren J Moffat wrote: Ian Murdock wrote: 2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess, with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure. But what is the purpose of such a reference ? To tell other people they are doing it wrong ? To be the supported platform people point to when an ISV starts porting their application ? I don't think saying Linux is in a mess because it doesn't have one is fair here. OpenSolaris is very different it has Solaris as a legacy, and it conforms to standards that many Linux distros don't. So what problem are you trying to solve here ? I just don't get it. I would see a reference distribution responsible for defining things like: - CLI for essential utilities - minimum set of features/bugs in borne shell - starting and stopping services - package maintainance - and so on...maybe even just establishing ON as the reference To pick a trivial example of where Lin*x fails, the command line for enabling a service for run levels 3/4/5 is different on RedHat and SuSe. Thus it is impossible to ship a single rc script that works for both. If someone were to take OpenSolaris today and build a distribution that shipped with a wildly different package or SMF front end, what value does that add vs the cost to 3rd parties to deal with ? A reference needs to be established so that 3rd parties and systems folks have a common core set of interfaces that they can expect to interact with for basic system tasks. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Ian Murdock wrote: On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The level of beaurocracy in OpenSolaris exceeds what I've seen in any other open source group by an order of magnitude and is a facet of life at Sun that we seem to have carried over from Solaris to OpenSolaris, for better or worse. I agree entirely, that mirrors my thoughts too. Holy crap yes. There's one further thought to add to this and that is for someone who wants to do something fun with their spare time, dealing with all of this is very unattractive. Imagine if some high-school/university computer geek were to come along and look in on opensolaris-discuss, does anyone here actually think that they would be attracted to the project? Maybe OpenSolaris is trying *too hard* to be the perfect open source community. More source code and less comments/opinions! Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Ian Murdock wrote: So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision: 1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun and others use that source base to build (potentially incompatible) operating systems based on the OpenSolaris code base. 2. OpenSolaris should be an operating system in its own right. Multiple implementations (distros) can still exist, but they must remain compatible with each other to use the name OpenSolaris. Some people here think #1. Other people here think #2. So, it appears we're at a decision point. How exactly does the community decide? Just wondering, because that isn't entirely clear to me. And if there's no clear answer to that, then something's very wrong, because in the absence of clear decision making processes, we're just going to argue endlessly. If you want more details on why this thread worries me, see http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/murdockint.html). P.S. - The decision really isn't as stark as that just yet. All we're asking for is a project where we can *explore* #2.. I think our problem here is the word OpenSolaris and that some people have particular ideas about what it should be. Is it a community? Is it source code? Is it binaries? What is it? (These are rhetorical questions, if you want to answer this then please blog about it in depth.) Perhaps what this community needs to do is have a distribution that includes OpenSolaris, be built/designed/refined by the OpenSolaris community, but that goes by another name (since it appears that it is names that are of concern.) This lets us say that OpenSolaris is a source code thing only but at the same time say X is the reference distribution of OpenSolaris by the OpenSolaris community. (I'm hoping this lets us get away from arguing about what OpenSolaris *is* or *isn't*.) If we are to say that Project Indiana is the reference distribution of OpenSolaris then that solves the naming problem - well of the project, at least :) But I don't know if that usurps the intent of what you're intending with Indiana or not. If it does then we need to start a new project. Either way, we should probably have a vote (at some later point in time, if this strategy has merit) on a collection of suggestions for what the final reference thing is called. I think taking that approach lets people be happy that OpenSolaris is just source code but at the same time it provides the community with the means to define what the base components of a distribution of OpenSolaris are to be. Afterall, a name is just a name, and if Linux can be bundled under Fedora, SuSE, Ubuntu, etc, and still shine on, why should this community feel like it needs to use OpenSolaris for everything? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Where is the OpenSolaris distro of OpenSolaris?
Glynn Foster wrote: Hi, Eric Boutilier wrote: I can't see how it makes sense for the reference distro of a community project to be a Sun internal project. Who said anything about a Sun internal project? I too am under the impression that the design and blessing of an OpenSolaris reference distro is not inteneded to be a Sun-owned project. It's certainly not planned to be a Sun internal project. I'm in the final stages of writing a project proposal draft that I hope to send at some stage today. The timing of the press article didn't give the team the opportunity to get some of our ducks in line, and I think we probably owe it to ourselves to get some of that done. Well if it isn't meant to be a Sun internal project then all of the sound bites I've heard/read so far give a very poor impression of what it's about. And at the same time, that's _also_ been my impression. Alan's mail gives a pretty good summary of what was discussed during the user group meeting last week - http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-May/030299.html We'll have more stuff out soon for discussion - just need to get over the initial hurdle of a proposal and list creation. At some point in time, it would be good if people inside Sun would come to the opensolaris community with half baked ideas for projects, rather than fully fledged ideas, so that the community could participate in the discussion about what the project should be about rather than being used as a tickbox. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Alan Burlison wrote: Bonnie Corwin wrote: I take it that means either I missed something (if so, help please) or the OGB is behind on publishing meeting minutes... I think this is about more than meeting minutes. If there is a new policy, it seems there should be email to at least the -announce alias and new text provided for the Projects page so that everyone will know how to follow the new policy. Or they could just ignore it entirely and put their projects on SourceForge... Personally I don't understand why setting up a new project has to involve so much BSDM. Sure we don't want people hosting their pr0n or MP3 collections on OSO, but why all the hoopla? Don't we want to encourage projects rather than discourage them? From a cynical point of view, it gives people who don't contribute technically (but want to be involved) something to do. Kind of like how Government beaurocracy keeps people employed. The level of beaurocracy in OpenSolaris exceeds what I've seen in any other open source group by an order of magnitude and is a facet of life at Sun that we seem to have carried over from Solaris to OpenSolaris, for better or worse. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Where is the OpenSolaris distro of OpenSolaris?
At present, we have: Schillix - Joerg Schilling Belenix - Nexenta - marTux - Solaris Express - Sun ??? - OpenSolaris * Does the OGB have any plans for when the first release of OpenSolaris from the OpenSolaris community will be made? Or will the OpenSolaris project concentrate on just the technology only and leave the distribution and also packaging to others? *Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Where is the OpenSolaris distro of OpenSolaris?
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the OGB have any plans for when the first release of OpenSolaris from the OpenSolaris community will be made? No, but the opensolaris-marketing community has recently suggested a reference distro, and Project Indiana proposes exactly that. The OGB is unlikely to drive this directly, as it's not really what we're about. I can't see how it makes sense for the reference distro of a community project to be a Sun internal project. I would not say that there is a reference Linux distro and yet it survives.. Or will the OpenSolaris project concentrate on just the technology only and leave the distribution and also packaging to others? That's what we've been doing - whether it stays that way or not is under active discussion. Ah thanks. I've been putting off subscribing... Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Where is the OpenSolaris distro of OpenSolaris?
Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan Coopersmith wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the OGB have any plans for when the first release of OpenSolaris from the OpenSolaris community will be made? No, but the opensolaris-marketing community has recently suggested a reference distro, and Project Indiana proposes exactly that. The OGB is unlikely to drive this directly, as it's not really what we're about. I can't see how it makes sense for the reference distro of a community project to be a Sun internal project. Who said anything about a Sun internal project? Well if it isn't meant to be a Sun internal project then all of the sound bites I've heard/read so far give a very poor impression of what it's about. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Removed file history not available on opensolaris.org
Danek Duvall wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 01:04:26PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Browsing through the online CVS archive at http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/ I noticed that there are no Attic directories. Thus files which we delete from opensolaris are no longer available. What about http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/deleted_files/usr/src/uts/ That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks! It just isn't where I expected it to be :) Cheers, Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Removed file history not available on opensolaris.org
Browsing through the online CVS archive at http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/ I noticed that there are no Attic directories. Thus files which we delete from opensolaris are no longer available. I'd like to request that the presentation of CVS via the web site be upgraded to include the Attic so we can look at files that have been removed. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [networking-discuss] Project Proposal: Virtual Network Machines
Nicolas Droux wrote: On behalf of the Networking Community I'd like to propose the creation of a new OpenSolaris project: Virtual Network Machines. The project will exploit OpenSolaris technologies provided by Crossbow, Zones, Quagga, IP Filter, and other projects to build Virtual Network Machines. The combination of features such as network virtualization, bandwidth control, routing, scalability, and filtering capabilities will be combined in new ways to enable the virtualization and consolidation of network devices such as routers, firewalls, load balancers, etc. The project also seeks to encourage collaborative work around technologies (management, network protocols, distribution, etc) which can take advantage of, or contribute to the project. It is our hope that in the mid- to long-term, these collaborations will evolve this project into a vibrant OpenSolaris community. The initial project team will consist of Nicolas Droux (preferred point of contact), Erik Nordmark, Sunay Tripathi, Miriam Kadansky, Kevin Fox, and Garrett D'Amore. +1 Darren Reed ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Solaris 10 Update 3 - Installing inside VMWare
[from install-discuss] Recently I tried to install S10U3 inside vmware on a 500GB disk but ran into a small problem: the disk partitioning using by Solaris (fdisk) does not seem able to deal with large disks as presented by VMWare. To test whether or not it was a vmware vs solaris bug, I tried FreeBSD - it recognised the disk and its MBR table correctly. Is this a known bug? Or an issue for some other forum/group? Is OpenSolaris any better in this regard? Solaris fdisk reports (500GB disk): Partition Status Type Start End Length % = == = === == === 1 Ext Win95 0 4176 4177 25 2 Ext Win95 4177 8353 4177 25 3 EXT LBA 8354 54426 46073 100 FreeBSD: Offset Size(ST) End Name PType Desc Subtype Flags 0 63 62 - 12 unused 0 63 67103505 67103504 ad0s1 7 fat 12 67103505 67103505 134207009 ad0s2 7 fat 12 134207010 740162745 874369754 ad0s3 4 extended DOS, LBA 15 874369755 102398310 976768064 - 12 unused 0 Actual: Physical: 60801,255,63 Partition 1: 0,1,1 - 4176,254,63 Partition 2: 4177,0,1 - 8353,254,63 Partition 3: 8354,0,1 - 54426,63 (extended) Partition 3a: 8354,1,1 - 12612,254,63 (logical) Partition 3b: 12613,1,1 - 15926,254,63 (logical) Partition 3c: 15927,1,1 - 54426,254,63 (logical) Unallocated: 54427,0,1 - 60800,254,63 Addendum: Given that FreeBSD now has ZFS, I think I've found my solution - use FreeBSD instead as I'm not sure I have the time to spend fiddling with opensolaris to find out what exactly is wrong :-( This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] RFC: new community/discussion group - hardware
I'd like to propose that either a new discussion forum or a new community and discussion forum be created for talk about Solaris on various platforms. I'm not sure if there should be a seperate one for sparc and x86. Maybe it becomes hardware:sparc and hardware:x86, I don't know. The goal is to provide a forum where people can share experiences in getting [Open]Solaris to work on various pieces of hardware, in addition to discussing what people did (or didn't do) to get it to work. This has the potential to intersect with a lot of other areas, device-driver, networking, etc, but each one of these is centered on a particular aspect of [Open]Solaris and how it works (or doesn't work.) For example, if I bought a bunch of hardware pieces from Frys or Circuit City or some yum-cha shop and got it up and running with [Open]Solaris by sacrificing 3 virgins whilst doing a tribal dance, I don't see this as being of relevance to device-driver or other forums but at the same time, potentially valuable to other [Open]Solaris users (so they know they need to find 3 virgins, if nothing else!) Thoughts? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What is OpenSolaris success?
Hi Jim, Jim Grisanzio wrote: .. I read this exchange (which I heavily snipped) on universities and asked some people who are doing the OpenSolaris university work. I blogged it: http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/opensolaris_at_school We are making some nice progress at universities, especially in China. I hadn't realized that in just a year and a half or so we now have a presence in over 80 universities. 80 universities in a year and a half? Wow, that's tremendous progress. I hope we can emulate that kind of success that has been seen in China elsewhere around the globe too! Cheers, Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What is OpenSolaris success?
Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 21:25 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: I would like to see OpenSolaris buildable on OpenSolaris. This needs that some more pieces of code need to be at least redistributable. +1 +1 Yes, OpenSolaris needs to become self hosting. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What is OpenSolaris success?
Stephen Lau wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 21:25 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: I would like to see OpenSolaris buildable on OpenSolaris. This needs that some more pieces of code need to be at least redistributable. +1 BTW: I did send the list of files to Sun in late 2005. Jörg Right, determining what's needed isn't the hard part. Getting all the legal rights to redistribute that stuff is what's hard. Or we just replace what we can't redistribute with bits that we can, for OpenSolaris - see Alan's post about the Emancipation project. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What is OpenSolaris success?
James Mansion wrote: And they start to find it hard to make time to spend time on anything that isn't work - ie open source projects. I've seen That *was* my point. this happen on a number of occasions. And contrary to what you're suggesting, they don't turn up an opensolaris, sometime later (or at least none have, yet.) I think you misunderstood. I didn't think I was that unclear! *I* think the Linux 'model' is flawed. Take away the amateurs, and you have a small number of full time engineers, who are in Linux' case diluted by ineffective management and lack of shared purpose. Sun is in a *good* position. Why pander to the amateur masses? They won't make Solaris better through code contribution. If the amateur masses with a small number of ineffecitvely managed full time engineers can produce a product that has been able to threaten a well engineered product such as Solaris, how would you propose responding to that? Especially if a large portion of the market (ie the level req'd to support bringing Solaris to you) decides that near enough is good enough? If the amateur masses can drive innovation and pursue bringing more features to OpenSolaris, isn't that something to be pursued and capitalised on, especially if it acts as a gap filler? have some sense of community? (Chances are they never stopped reading the email, etc, they just stopped being really active.) So? Unless they manage a datacentre or otherwise buy or specify, they're just Joe Public. Do you really *need* the ones who have that responsibility and flunk it to choose based on years-ago amateur hacking relationships? Wow. You do realise that this is an incredibly over generalised statement and that it insults a lot of people you've likely never met, never mind understood what they've done or do? I don't know any open source developers who would consider the needs of users as being unimportant. The point of my comment (which you seen to have missed) isn't that developers are more important than users but that open source projects dont need managers, directors, VPs, etc, to drive them and I disagree. Someone needs to tell the 'freedom' zealots that users generally want 'Just Works' and don't care if the code was compiled by nVidia and shipped as a blob. I don't know any 'freedom' zealots inside Sun but I'm sure they're out there somewhere. The point of that is to say that just because someone is an open source developer doesn't mean they are a 'freedom' zealot. A lot of people I know would be quite happy with binary blobs, so long as they could be used on their platform of choice. developers than its users, you'd be in for a rough ride. Really? I've been asked to find the bug and send a patch rather than been given any constructive help many times. The point is made as 'we are all volunteers'. I can't speak for these other people but I will say that it is always appreciated when someone who knows anything about programming is able to do something towards helping resolve a bug besides just report it. Well, I just don't care - if you are part of the 'we make the OS' crowd then saying that to the 'we use the OS' crowd doesn't cut it. The compensation arrangements inside the 'we make the OS' crowd is really not my business, and I don't see why my expectation of an OS product should be clouded by it. It sounds like your expectations of what an open source product should be and what they actually are aren't in 100% alignment. Rather than say one or the other is at fault, I would recommend that you continue using Solaris or other products that meet your needs. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What is OpenSolaris success?
James Mansion wrote: complete with some suggestions for the future and what I think it will take for it to really succeed - mostly time. Darren, You suggest that it is a 'problem' that contributing to Open Solaris is a contribution to Sun. As a user, that is precisely one of Open Solaris' strengths. And if that means that the sort of person who has a problem with that doesn't contribute, then I'm personally overjoyed. Good riddance. Let them work in their communes. When they grow up and get lives (and significant others, and kids, and all those things that make adults' time precious) and careers that depend on technology they'll start to understand. And they start to find it hard to make time to spend time on anything that isn't work - ie open source projects. I've seen this happen on a number of occasions. And contrary to what you're suggesting, they don't turn up an opensolaris, sometime later (or at least none have, yet.) Its not as if the stuff is hoarded by Sun. Its not as if Red Hat don't benefit from contributions to Linux. Indeed and the same could be said for IBM and others. But with OpenSolaris the connection is much more obvious. If I contribute to some random package that Red Hat ships, sure, I am in part contributing to Red Hat's offering, but I am also contributing to that project by itself and to every other person that uses it. But most of all, I am first and foremost contributing to that standalone project. You seem keen on students. I doubt anything I wrote as a student or newbie grad would survive any sort of review I'd make now, though. You're missing the point of the importance of students and what happens in the open source world. I suppose the closest I can come up with as a model is how people pick and choose their political tendencies and once chosen, they almost never change. If the community is going to grow then we need to grow it from the roots by planting seeds in the right places where they will grow. Or ... lets see, if someone gets deep into a community, working on some open source project, makes lots of friends, etc, then spends some years doing the family thing, where do you really think they'll go when they have free time again? To some new group or back where they'd made friends, etc, and already have some sense of community? (Chances are they never stopped reading the email, etc, they just stopped being really active.) Open source communities are more than just people making code changes, it's a group of people who have similar ideals, not just about what form the code should take, but over intellectual rights, and other things. I suppose one might say that changing OpenSolaris to GPLvX might make it appeal to more Linux-like people but I can't see that happening. Linux's appeal is more than just the GPL and failing to understand that will lead to failed attempts to copy it. management at Sun needs to step back, to the point where managers, directors, VPs, etc, should have no involvment with the project as an employee or agent of Sun If you really want Open Solaris to be 'just another' open source OS, then fine - but what you're saying is that developers matter most, and that sucks. Users should matter most, and developers (particularly on open source projects) are notoriously bad at putting 'mere' users needs first. Management MUST give strong guidence to make sure that Open Solaris remains close to 'Sun Solaris' and that 'Sun Solaris' aligns with users' needs, whether or not that alignment means doing uncool and boring things. Which it will. I don't know any open source developers who would consider the needs of users as being unimportant. The point of my comment (which you seen to have missed) isn't that developers are more important than users but that open source projects dont need managers, directors, VPs, etc, to drive them and that their inclusion in opensolaris makes it difficult to argue that OpenSolaris is being directed by the community at large and not by Sun. I think if you went to any reputable open source project and asserted that it cared more about its developers than its users, you'd be in for a rough ride. What you're confusing here is what OpenSolaris is with what Solaris is. There is no reason that Sun can't continue to build a product called Solaris that is a distribution of the open source product known as OpenSolaris. Just as Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not the same as Linux, so to I expect that over time, Solaris will become different to OpenSolaris. Just how different they become and over what time frame, I cannot say. If Sun loses focus and cannot ratin (and to some extent regain) traction in the datacentre then its lost. Its much more important that it succeed at that than that Open Solaris is a 'successful open source project' - who gives a toss about that? I'm sure someone does otherwise the topic/thread would never have been broached on this list. The questions you've got
[osol-discuss] What is OpenSolaris success?
If I can steal the spotlight for a second, I'd like to point people at a blog entry I've put up that discusses my take on what is success in terms of OpenSolaris, complete with some suggestions for the future and what I think it will take for it to really succeed - mostly time. http://blogs.sun.com/avalon/entry/what_is_opensolaris_success Darren This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] When OpenSolaris is successfull...
...it won't need Sun to exist. Or so long as OpenSolaris needs Sun in order to move forward, OpenSolaris cannot be a success. The success of an open source operating system has got nothing to do with the licence it has but whether it can sustain itself as a volunteer effort alone. The biggest challenge that OpenSolaris faces is rather than a community building up to support the creation of an operating system, it is an operating system trying to gather around it a community to support it. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Security-discuss] Re: [networking-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal for new OpenSolaris project: modernise syslogd
Nicolas Williams wrote: On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: Oh! Well then... But those deal in structured data also... It's a bit different in that you have to specify enterpriseId in order to get to a parsed message content, as opposed to just meta information. The rest seems (at least to me) to be just syslog in slightly newer clothes. If someone actually _does_ define a structure using enterpriseId on Solaris, then I have the same objections. Doesn't stop others on other platforms from pursuing that rabbit, though. I'm afraid we do need a secure transport/relay for structured, optionally signed data. And a queryiable DB store would be nice too. Perhaps we'll end up with multiple protocols. That may be the answer. But a single protocol is likely to be seen as better by integrators, etc... Less stuff to analyze, plug-in with, etc... I would prefer a single protocol. The first new protocol the syslog WG came up with is in RFC3195, I believe and uses BEEP. This provided reliability, etc. It's a very complicated protocol that hasn't found a lot of traction. The group is now looking at defining other, simpler, protocols to provide reliable/secure transport and also ones that use structured data. So yes, we will end up with multiple syslog protocols. It is important to note that the protocol definitions are now being developed independently from how they are transported. But it is importrant to realise that the work so far has been around the syslog protocol(s), *not* what gets stored in the log files by syslogd. syslogd is free to ignore structured data or to interprit it in some way and create unstructured log file entries. In the past syslog has just dumped an almost raw version of the message received into its log file. This project does not propose to change this behaviour. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Security-discuss] Re: [networking-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal for new OpenSolaris project: modernise syslogd
Nicolas Williams wrote: On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:58:27PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: It depends on whether there is in fact a solid problem out there that this solves. I'm unconvinced on that. Giving message integrity to syslog seems a bit wobbly to me, but I guess I can see why someone might want that. Providing structure, though, just makes no sense. Given the effort required to make usable MIBs, I expect that the effort required to produce usable (i.e., programmatic and stable) log extensions to duplicate that level of effort. Failing to produce those sorts of schema leaves you with just a handful of code numbers plus free-form text wrapped prettily in XML. Each message could reference the schema/dtd that it conforms to... And existing MIBs could be re-used, perhaps. For the record, I've not read these I-Ds... Worth a read. They're not all that long, if you can wade through XML and BEEP. Ew, BEEP. Only RFC3195 (Reliable Delivery for syslog) mentions XML or BEEP. The SYSLOG WG I-Ds make no mention of XML, much less BEEP. I should add that this project is not proposing to add either RFC3195 support or the other work in progress on reliable transport for syslog, only the TLS/TCP mapping. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Proposal for new OpenSolaris project: modernise syslogd
To bring the syslogd shipped with Solaris up to a level that is more in line with what is found in other systems today, I'd like to propose a project to upgrade it. Tasks currently scoped out for this project include: - introduce some of the more modern aspects of syslog.conf such as the use of '*' and '!' - filling out the list of facilities defined where there is common usage of undefined ones in the opensource community - implement the IETF TLS transport mapping for syslog - supporting explicit IPv6 destinations - adding support for specifying extra log devices Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal for new OpenSolaris project: modernise syslogd
Gavin Maltby wrote: On 06/09/06 11:31, Darren Reed wrote: To bring the syslogd shipped with Solaris up to a level that is more in line with what is found in other systems today, I'd like to propose a project to upgrade it. Tasks currently scoped out for this project include: - introduce some of the more modern aspects of syslog.conf such as the use of '*' and '!' - filling out the list of facilities defined where there is common usage of undefined ones in the opensource community - implement the IETF TLS transport mapping for syslog - supporting explicit IPv6 destinations - adding support for specifying extra log devices I'd like to see the syslog files be structured (binary) files. If there is any evolution of the log file format, it will be to use XML. XML and structured data have featured heavily in discussions about advancing syslog and the benefits are clear: data gets typed. If the protocol data is formatted this way then there is little sense in writing it out in a binary format. If/when that happens it may then be appropriate to look at the syslog(3) interface to see if changes could be made there to make it easier to get data into syslog and out as XML. Moinak Ghosh wrote: Darren Reed wrote: To bring the syslogd shipped with Solaris up to a level that is more in line with what is found in other systems today, I'd like to propose a project to upgrade it. Tasks currently scoped out for this project include: - introduce some of the more modern aspects of syslog.conf such as the use of '*' and '!' - filling out the list of facilities defined where there is common usage of undefined ones in the opensource community - implement the IETF TLS transport mapping for syslog - supporting explicit IPv6 destinations - adding support for specifying extra log devices +1 Also I'd like suggest augmenting the API with an improved variant of openlog() (openlog_r() ?) that fixes current issues relating to thread safety and dlopen risks. I'll add making the syslog libc API thread-safe as this is a no brainer for Solaris. I haven't looked into this problem in any depth so I can't comment (and don't want to commit to anything) in detail about what is or isn't required. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Security-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal for new OpenSolaris project: modernise syslogd (aside)
Henry B. Hotz wrote: On Jun 9, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Darren Reed wrote: If there is any evolution of the log file format, it will be to use XML. XML and structured data have featured heavily in discussions about advancing syslog and the benefits are clear: data gets typed. If the protocol data is formatted this way then there is little sense in writing it out in a binary format. I'm sure you're correct, but curmudgeon Changing to an ASCII format that requires you to include the name of each data field *twice* *in* *ASCII* around every single data item does not seem like an advance in technology to me. /curmudgeon You can also do reply test=it is not always necessary to have everything twice in XML/ It depends on the schema. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal for new OpenSolaris project: modernise syslogd
Torrey McMahon wrote: Darren Reed wrote: To bring the syslogd shipped with Solaris up to a level that is more in line with what is found in other systems today, I'd like to propose a project to upgrade it. Tasks currently scoped out for this project include: - introduce some of the more modern aspects of syslog.conf such as the use of '*' and '!' - filling out the list of facilities defined where there is common usage of undefined ones in the opensource community - implement the IETF TLS transport mapping for syslog - supporting explicit IPv6 destinations - adding support for specifying extra log devices I'll ask this for the unquestioning masses: How does this project compare with something like syslog-ng? Or taking syslog-ng and adding support for the above? I am are not attempting to replace the syslog.conf file with another new format (while retaining the old for backward compatibility), rather to enhance what we have to bring it up to speed with what is found elsewhere. The owner of syslog-ng is actively involved in the syslog IETF WG, so I can see no reason why we would want to do the above. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Making project bits available through OpenSolaris
Yup, thanks, the pointer to posting binaries/source is what I was looking for. This item should appear in places other than just the single line on the top page - like on the page for project leaders: http://opensolaris.org/os/communities/lead_reference/ To my way of thinking, it belongs there more than where it currently is as uploading binaries/source is a function for project leaders (and in truth, I clicked over there first, because it caught my eye as being immediately relevant, before reading down the main page.) Darren Bonnie Corwin wrote: Start with the instructions on the projects page. There is information there about proposing a new project (which would presumably be needed) and a pointer to information about what and how to post binaries and/or source. http://opensolaris.org/os/projects Thanks. Bonnie Darren Reed wrote On 05/23/06 22:42,: Do we have a recipe for what a project should do if we would like to make either or both source code and binary bits available through OpenSolaris for people to try out? Should we build special patches/packages or just upload .tar files and say here you go, use at your own risk ? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Making project bits available through OpenSolaris
Do we have a recipe for what a project should do if we would like to make either or both source code and binary bits available through OpenSolaris for people to try out? Should we build special patches/packages or just upload .tar files and say here you go, use at your own risk ? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [smf-discuss] Project proposal: Enhanced SMF Profiles
David Bustos wrote: I propose a project to enhance SMF profiles. The goals are to allow profiles to specify arbitrary service properties (today's profiles may only specify whether services should be enabled), to allow administrators to specify a customization profile during JumpStart, and to provide a generic profile-based configuration structure sutiable for projects like NWAM ( http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nwam ) and Duckwater ( http://opensolaris.org/os/project/duckwater ). I seek endorsement from the SMF community. Yes, please! Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Request for new forum: embedded-discuss
Joerg Schilling wrote: Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It occurred to me today that there is overlap but it isn't perhaps a complete overlap as one might tend to believe. The embedded community isn't just appliances. It is also many other things - for examples, cars. Wouldn't it be cool if the OS behind your car's electronics was Solaris rather than some Microsoft product? As a case in point, I believe that some Mercedes Benz cars have Microsoft Windows based systems in them, for better or worse. If you believe that this would help Sun, why then is Sun unresponsive regarding project proposals we (at Fokus) did make to Sun some time ago? We have the connections to Mercedes and they even like a Solaris based project. Unfortunately, Sun does not seem to be interested anymore since we did talk with a related person at CeBIT. First, not everyone in Sun reads this list or appliances. Second, given that Sun is a big company, chances are there is someone interested in this, you just have to find them if you haven't already. Third, even if there are others interested, they may have other priorities, etc. In short, don't be too quick to complete your judgement of Sun on this issue because it hasn't responded in the fashion you'd have liked it to. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [Fwd: OpenSolaris attacked by Novell]
Chris Ricker wrote: On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: I belive this comment is about the following As an example, when Red Hat released the sources to their Enterprise Server, but didn't provide any of the Makefiles or configure scripts to create them. Of course there is nothing in the GPL to keep folks from holding back the Makefiles and configure scripts to create them. That was something that was not true to the spirit. Of course, that statement is just wrong See, for example, ftp.redhat.com:/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os/i386/SRPMS I don't know what they do today, but in the past I've had one hell of a time trying to build a Linux kernel using rpm's provided by RedHat. They provided the source, along with patches, but what was provided was definately not meant to make your life easy in trying to build a kernel+modules that were identical to those provided in binary form. This wasn't even for the Enterprise Server, this was just RH 9.0 or something basic like that, so I could well believe they do it with others. And as Marambio said, whilst they released the source + patches, what they did definately wasn't in the spirit of open source. Let me know when you've downloaded a Linux distro, like SuSE or RH and managed to compile an identical kernel to the binary images they provide. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Main OS/Net repository - based on Subversion or Mercurial ? / was: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [tools-discuss] Distributed source codemanagement selection, draft
Holger Berger wrote: On 5/2/06, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... For example Teamware needs ws(1) and wx(1) utility software to be useful for ON development on a large scale but you can cope without them. Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty darn large other open source project also moving to Mercurial, can't remember which one. FreeBSD was evaluating Mercurial, but the last comments from LinuxTag 2005 indicate that they are stepping back from that idea. FWIW, both FreeBSD and NetBSD currently use CVS for their projects and while there are known issues with CVS, so far evaluations of other tools (ie. SVN) have failed to produce compelling reasons to switch. But the organisation of and the manner in which developers function is vastly different to those for Solaris inside of Sun, which is to say while Mercurial may work for Sun inside, it doesn't necessarily mean it would work for other projects (like FreeBSD) and vice versa with CVS. Each project should measure its needs against what code management software provides and evaluate them accordingly. There's no golden rule to say that X is the best software management tool to use in all situations. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [website-discuss] Re: Propose removing [] prefixes in Subject
John Plocher wrote: It sounds like there have been several strong -1's voiced about this proposal, which should (according to the proposed governance rules) derail this change. If there still is a strong desire for such behavior, then I propose extending the per-user mailman preferences to include a tag the [list name] in the subject line: Yes/No item, and leave it to the individual to choose the behavior that they want. This discussion makes it clear that there is no good one size fits all here. Let's not force one. As one of those who dissented from the change, I think it's a great idea to offer the subscribing user choice here. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Request for new forum: embedded-discuss
Joerg Schilling wrote: Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (General discussions of cross-compilation is suitable for either of opensolaris-code or tools-discuss; potential platforms probably should start talking here; there are communities and projects associated with installation and packaging already.) Ah, appliance is getting closer to what would be relevant here. It might be easier to expand the goals of the appliance community rather than create an entirely new one. The only problem I would have with it is that it looks more like a DIY forum rather than one you would use if you're working at company XYZ and want to build an embedded product using (Open)Solaris. I am not sure wht you like to achieve here... I'm trying to advocate expanding the meaning of appliances, with respect to OpenSolaris, so that as a community or forum it has a better chance of matching up with more projects. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Propose removing [] prefixes in Subject
Stephen Hahn wrote: Over in website-discuss, we've reached consensus that, for the site lists as a whole, the various [foo-discuss] tags should not be prepended to subject lines by default. You're kidding, right? This has really helped me, at least, deal with all of the opensolaris email. Since opensolaris-discuss is the highest traffic alias on opensolaris.org, I think it is reasonable to make one exception if those mailx(1) users out there feel strongly enough. If no one cares, then we'll switch them all over the course of tomorrow afternoon. Oh, of course. One standard for us and one for everyone else. Some of the other forums, namely zfs-discuss and networking-discuss, can generate quite high levels of email traffic within a short period of time. If/when it becomes trivial to subscribe a different alias to each forum (to aid IMAP mailbox delivery) in opensolaris.org, this would be fine. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [website-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Propose removing [] prefixes in Subject
Stephen Hahn wrote: * Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-01 16:15]: Stephen Hahn wrote: Over in website-discuss, we've reached consensus that, for the site lists as a whole, the various [foo-discuss] tags should not be prepended to subject lines by default. You're kidding, right? This has really helped me, at least, deal with all of the opensolaris email. I wasn't kidding. Since opensolaris-discuss is the highest traffic alias on opensolaris.org, I think it is reasonable to make one exception if those mailx(1) users out there feel strongly enough. If no one cares, then we'll switch them all over the course of tomorrow afternoon. Oh, of course. One standard for us and one for everyone else. (There are plenty of other limited MUAs out there; sorry to single yours out.) That wasn't how I meant it. There should be one rule for all lists - no exceptions. If it is good enough for others then it is good enough for here. If it isn't good enough for here then it isn't good enough for others. i.e No double standards. Some of the other forums, namely zfs-discuss and networking-discuss, can generate quite high levels of email traffic within a short period of time. If/when it becomes trivial to subscribe a different alias to each forum (to aid IMAP mailbox delivery) in opensolaris.org, this would be fine. It's standard Mailman--can you not do that today? I think you missed the word trivial or your idea of trivial is a lot more complex than what mine is. By trivial I mean the website lets me enter in X+opensolaris-discuss as the email address to subscribe to the list and in X's IMAP view, a new folder opensolaris-discuss gets created/populated with email for it. That's the level of difficulting I'm looking for here. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Propose removing [] prefixes in Subject
Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 20:39, Roland Mainz wrote: The tagging is enabled by default in the mailman configuation intentionally. Think about it: If it is so bad - why did the mailman people turn it on by default then ? if it's so good, why do many lists I'm subscribed to run without subject line tags? If there was some way to reliably strip subject-line list tags from cross-posted traffic I'd suggest making it a per-recipient option. There are good arguments for it and good ones against it. The best thing a list can do is to stick with whatever choice it makes when it is first created, for better or worse. The worst you can do is to decide to change the behaviour at some point in the future. For me, it makes it obvious what is and isn't opensolaris email. As for why I dont implement filters - I use more than one mail reader with my sun.com email and filter/sort email by hand. I'm not aware of any mail products that can read my mind and correctly decidewhich box email is to go in 100% of the time. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: SX Releases - Visibility
Eric Boutilier wrote: Bill Rushmore wrote: On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Darren Reed wrote: What about organising an article or story on slashdot.org for every SX release or two or three? Are you volunteering Darren? :-) But seriously I wouldn't mind helping out on this. I do think this is a great idea... Me too, definitely count me in. As much as I think this is a good idea and all, I'm not sure I'm the right person to do it. There are others (like Linda Bernal) who seem to be doing a good job of posting out newsletter updates with feature summaries, etc. Drafting up a story for /. or Cnet or similar would seem to fit more with those duties? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Request for new forum: embedded-discuss
Artem Kachitchkine wrote: Wouldn't it be cool if the OS behind your car's electronics was Solaris That would be terrible. I'd rather prefer that the software in my car was simple enough for its correctness to be formally provable. As well as testable with 100% coverage through a procedure based on something simple such as a finite state machine. I believe that some Mercedes Benz cars have Microsoft Windows based systems in them, for better or worse. I suppose they have several computers in the car, and a general-purpose OS is only in the least critical of them - like an iPod controller :) Right. Some cars can have as many as 5 or more seperate computers. Using a general purpose OS to drive things like the display you use for GPS based navigation or entertainment makes good sense. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Request for new forum: embedded-discuss
Artem Kachitchkine wrote: Using a general purpose OS to drive things like the display you use for GPS based navigation or entertainment makes good sense. So what advantage does Solaris offer then? Does it have good multimedia capabilities? Does it reduce costs and time to market for GPS software vendors, who've been down the Pocket PC road for quite some time? I mentioned use in cars as an example of an embedded system with a non-trivial operating system. I don't think we're at the point (yet) where we can start to address the (dis)advantages of using Solaris there at a technical level. Trying to woo existing vendors away from whatever they're currently using is probably not a good use of time/energy/effort, compared with targetting those entering that space. But there is an advantage, for commercial vendors, that Solaris does have over Linux: the license. Maybe Microsoft/QNX/BSD is better again in that regard, I don't know. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SX Releases - Visibility
What about organising an article or story on slashdot.org for every SX release or two or three? Moazam Raja wrote: Here are some more Solaris/OpenSolaris blogs, http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/blog/index.php http://richteer.blogspot.com/ -Moazam On Apr 28, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Moazam Raja wrote: Slowly but surely, it is happening. What exactly would you like to see about each of the SX releases? A 'What's new' update? Let everyone know.. Cuddletech (www.cuddletech.com/blog) is one of the most updated weblogs (outside of Sun) about OpenSolaris. Another is Unix Admin Corner (http://uadmin.blogspot.com/). Here are some more from Grisanzios page, http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ http://mountall.blogspot.com/ http://schily.blogspot.com/ and http://nfsworld.blogspot.com/ (while not exactly about Solaris, Eisler mentions it quite a bit) shameless self-promotion Also, my own site, http://www.unixville.com/ . Hopefully when my tryout T2000 arrives, I'll be updating the site with some Solaris +ZFS+Sun Studio+Glassfish information. /shameless self-promotion Other than that, head over to something like blogspot.com and just start your own weblog. Updating information once or twice a week doesn't take too much time. -Moazam On Apr 28, 2006, at 4:43 PM, David J. Orman wrote: I've been attempting to keep up with the SX releases on OSNews since I visit the site every few days or so, but I thought it might be wise to point out to people that it's probably a good idea to start attempting to make OSOL/Solaris more visible around the net. Especially with all the nifty stuff going on, and the rapid pace of improvement, it would really impress a lot of people. In fact, for the majority of people who would be trying out Solaris for the first time, I can't think of a better release than SX. It's generally quite stable, and in fact tends to work better than Sol10 for desktop users (newer bits, more support, etc). It also gives people a chance to see all the wonderful features going into the next Solaris version. We've got to keep plugging away and getting Solaris/OSOL visibility for it to succeed. It can't just be @sun.com guys/gals posting in blogs, it needs to be in public places via community members. Otherwise it'll be viewed as self-promotion and largely ignored. When community members are evangalizing OSOL/Solaris though, it has a lot more meaning to a lot more people, and it might get people interested who normally wouldn't. I only have limited time in the day, and I certainly don't visit all the news/OS related sites on the net, so I'd like to hope other people could hop on this bandwagon and help out. More community members would be a very good thing! I'll attempt to stay on top of OSNews as much as possible as well. It'd be a lot more helpful if SX releases had news posted in -discuss (or whatever appropriate forum) instead of just mentions in passing, also. It's hard to track releases of Sun software short of people mentioning it or checking download pages every day. :) Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Request for new forum: embedded-discuss
Stephen Hahn wrote: * Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-28 16:03]: Hi, To bring together the various groups of people who are interested in talking about Solaris for embedded use, I'd like to propose creating a new discussion forum, embedded-discuss. The purpose of this forum would be to discuss issues related to creating an embedded system using Solaris (or OpenSolaris), including driving new direction/projects to do work in making this space more attractive. Topics I can think of now to be included: - licensing - [cross] building - target platforms - installation - packaging - driver support I'm willing to volunteer to be one of the community leaders in this forum to get it up and running but obviously some others put their hands up too. Comments? Criticisms? Is this the right path to start down to request a new forum/community? Sort of. If you want a project, then this is fine. If you want a community, then I would suggest talking with the Appliance community, since they appear to overlap. It occurred to me today that there is overlap but it isn't perhaps a complete overlap as one might tend to believe. The embedded community isn't just appliances. It is also many other things - for examples, cars. Wouldn't it be cool if the OS behind your car's electronics was Solaris rather than some Microsoft product? As a case in point, I believe that some Mercedes Benz cars have Microsoft Windows based systems in them, for better or worse. That said, I believe that many of the problems that a developer faces for an appliance are the same or very similar to those faced by someone in the embedded systems market. Rather than create a new community and forum, I'd prefer to see the appliances one grow to be appliances AND embedded systems. If this was the original intention of the appliances community, then perhaps some words spelling this out more clearly would be beneficial. If there is one significant difference between appliance and embedded it is that the embedded market is an area where there is less likely to be activity from random people doing things in their spare time. What are your thoughts on this? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Request for new forum: embedded-discuss
Hi, To bring together the various groups of people who are interested in talking about Solaris for embedded use, I'd like to propose creating a new discussion forum, embedded-discuss. The purpose of this forum would be to discuss issues related to creating an embedded system using Solaris (or OpenSolaris), including driving new direction/projects to do work in making this space more attractive. Topics I can think of now to be included: - licensing - [cross] building - target platforms - installation - packaging - driver support I'm willing to volunteer to be one of the community leaders in this forum to get it up and running but obviously some others put their hands up too. Comments? Criticisms? Is this the right path to start down to request a new forum/community? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Request for new forum: embedded-discuss
Stephen Hahn wrote: * Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-28 16:03]: Hi, To bring together the various groups of people who are interested in talking about Solaris for embedded use, I'd like to propose creating a new discussion forum, embedded-discuss. The purpose of this forum would be to discuss issues related to creating an embedded system using Solaris (or OpenSolaris), including driving new direction/projects to do work in making this space more attractive. Topics I can think of now to be included: - licensing - [cross] building - target platforms - installation - packaging - driver support I'm willing to volunteer to be one of the community leaders in this forum to get it up and running but obviously some others put their hands up too. Comments? Criticisms? Is this the right path to start down to request a new forum/community? Sort of. If you want a project, then this is fine. If you want a community, then I would suggest talking with the Appliance community, since they appear to overlap. (General discussions of cross-compilation is suitable for either of opensolaris-code or tools-discuss; potential platforms probably should start talking here; there are communities and projects associated with installation and packaging already.) Ah, appliance is getting closer to what would be relevant here. It might be easier to expand the goals of the appliance community rather than create an entirely new one. The only problem I would have with it is that it looks more like a DIY forum rather than one you would use if you're working at company XYZ and want to build an embedded product using (Open)Solaris. Adding a few extra key words onto the web pages for appliance would help people searching for information about Solaris for use in embedded systems, too. My experience and interactions with people doing embedded work is that their problems and approach to problems such as installation/packaging are quite different to those normally found with installation of an operating system. Maybe it is time to bootstrap a project or two in the appliance community to generate some more interest and activity there? Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Controlling uname -r output to mask version value
Nilotpal Bhattacharyya wrote: How do i mask uname -r value for some third party software install which checks for Solaris OS version and fails to install. Write a small .c file that intercepts uname(2) calls and replaces the release field with 5.10 and use LD_PRELOAD to cause it to be invoked. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] suggestion for new project - new digital clock for gtk (gxclocks)
Calum Benson wrote: On 23 Feb 2006, at 21:24, Darren Reed wrote: Chandan B.N. wrote: On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 17:51 -0800, Darren Reed wrote: The ultimate goal of this would be to draw half a dozen clocks in a row with city titles above them, like you see on many walls today JDS clock applet already does this, in the preferences you can select multiple timzones. What I don't like about the JDS clock: 1) this doesn't let me input a date and time for 5pm Burlington on the 23rd of February and know what date and time it is in all of the other parts of the world I'm interested in. That's what http://timeanddate.com is for... you could even look at the URLs produced by http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html and customise the JDS web search applet to plug in the appropriate values :) Seriously though, it's a good feature request. Needing to open up a web browser to do this is overkill, not to mention that using this as a solution ties me to needing connectivity to the Internet and that web site being up. [...other clock deleted...] Yes, there are other clock things around, some I knew about, some I didn't...and none of them seem to do everything that I'd like to see done. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] suggestion for new project - new digital clock for gtk (gxclocks)
Chandan B.N. wrote: On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 17:51 -0800, Darren Reed wrote: The ultimate goal of this would be to draw half a dozen clocks in a row with city titles above them, like you see on many walls today JDS clock applet already does this, in the preferences you can select multiple timzones. What I don't like about the JDS clock: 1) this doesn't let me input a date and time for 5pm Burlington on the 23rd of February and know what date and time it is in all of the other parts of the world I'm interested in. 2) it doesn't appear to be geared towards achieving the wall clock with hands look. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] uggestion for new project - new digital clock for gtk (gxclocks)
Last year, being located in Beijing, I found it important to be aware of what the time was not just locally but in almost half a dozen different time zones as the people I was dealing during the week with were quite well spread out. This problem resulted in me hacking together a small digital clock program at Sun that I'd like to share with others and allow people to improve on (I can think of any number of nice things it could also do, if time were there.) At present I've no ambitions for including it in Solaris and as such is being suggested as an independant project. My hope is that others who often find themselves time-zone challenged will find it useful. The ultimate goal of this would be to draw half a dozen clocks in a row with city titles above them, like you see on many walls today Darren This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
