[osol-discuss] Out of curiosity, what is the latest thought on package management?
After going through the first 20 or so pages of the discuss list, I haven't seen anything on package management. I didn't see any pkg/package lists, so I'm using the general discussion list. My apologies if I missed one. What is the current status of package management in the upcoming OSOL releases/Solaris releases? Have we decided on a format/particular type yet? I've been lately toying with PC-BSD on some machines just for giggles, and I've been pretty impressed with PBIs. Same goes for my plethora of OSX machines, with self-contained applications. I remember a lot of the arguments for dynamically linking programs/shared libraries/etc, but a lot of the reasoning (disk space being one I can name offhand) is no longer valid as it really isn't an issue anymore. I was also thinking, seeing as OSOL/Solaris are aiming for stability, it might make more sense for application providers (or Sun, or whomever) to build their applications/etc using certain library versions that are *known* to work/work well. Then leave it up to the application providers to keep the libraries current when security issues arise/etc. This might see it as passing responsibility, but at least from how I see things - we should. The OSOL community/Sun should be concerned with stability/security of the OS itself, application providers should be concerned with security/stability of their applications. It also removes a lot of the mess that can arise when installing things, such as dependancy issues. It's no fun to try and sort those out. Uninstalling can be scary, etc. This type of solution would sort that. We could do a hybrid of sorts, combine the flexibility of ports (FreeBSD ports for instance), but the singular all-inclusive packaging of PBIs or OSX applications. Here's how I'd envision this working: #1 - Application provider provides a source package of sorts, which includes ALL libs/headers/whatever needed to compile application, plus source to application. There is a configuration script in this package that allows you to select which/what options you'd like to have the application built with. Finally, there would be some kind of automated build tool (or just simple makefiles/whatever) that would allow a very simple build of a binary package. The logic behind this is making it easy to build php with support for X Y Z module that you need, but nothing else. Or, easily change this later, without worrying that the libraries/etc have changed and you'll have incompatibility issues. #2 - A (new) OSOL/Solaris package management tool; since the applications would not be linked against anything on the system itself, only against libraries contained within the package, removal is easy as well. For an automated update tool, it'd be nice to have some kind of central registry of installed packages, thus the install package and deinstall package options/tools - but since they are self contained, a simple cp or rm should suffice if people feel the need. I think this kind of solution would allow application providers to focus on their application, having control over a lot of variables they normally do not have. It would also allow system administrators to deploy applications built as required quite easily, completely avoiding the HEADACHES I've had to go through to get some software compiled/installed/etc on OSOL/Solaris. If the source packages are created in the way I mentioned, it'd be rather trivial to write a build tool/script/whatever that would autobuild with the selected configuration and generate a binary package file that could be installed or deinstalled in one simple step. This would also allow the OSOL community/Sun to focus on the OS, and let the application developers focus on their applications, as it should be. I know I'm putting myself in the line of fire with this post/mail, but I wanted to throw it out. I'm sure other people have suggested things like this before, but I didn't see the conversations and I didn't notice them when I went back around 20 or so pages. My apologies in advance if I have duplicated another posting. Cheers, David PS - Any new news on an estimated/guesstimated Solaris 11 officially suported date? I gotta get something more modern on my desktop for development! I've got Solaris Express for my let's see this new cool feature type usage, but I'd like something super stable to slap on workstations. ;) Sorry for the unrelated question. :p This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Out of curiosity, what is the latest thought on package management?
Try install-discuss, that's where packaging tends to be discussed. Ian Thanks, made a new thread for discussion there. :) David This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
I know; but *who* is she? It is interesting how people quote the FSF on the CDDL; they invariablyneglect to mention that the FSF says the *exact* same things about the Apache 2.0 license yet Apache 2.0 is still part of Debian. Casper This is her: http://www.perl.com/supersnail/os2002/images/small/os6_d5_f0688_sm.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danese_Cooper It seems she is really good at burning her past employeers, talk about a way to say screw-you to 6 years worth of work on her resume. Reading her blog, I am not very impressed, she seems to be very talkative but not many potatoes are involved, just lots of gravy. I am very surprised about her comments re: cddl. Then again, most people go wherever the wind blows them, and it sounds like she has picked a stance that is not exactly kind to Sun/CDDL. The problem with this being, I believe she was one of the big people at Sun behind the CDDL, and it looks pretty bad. Unfortunately I am not a Sun employee nor was I present during all of the decision making process behind CDDL, but if she didn't seem to be so good at ranting, I'd almost be tempted to believe her (that and the logic behind picking a license that doesn't allow the virulent GPL to take over your code seems sound to me...). Take it as you will. That being said, I also really wouldn't care if the CDDL was choosen simply to disallow GPL infection - I don't like the GPL. I think we've got a pretty big PR disaster brewing though, too many people are being really confrontational (or have in the past) and people are getting *personally* offended it seems, and getting *revenge* for that. This is never a good way to handle things, and this whole mess probably could have been avoided with more diplomatic handling (and no, I don't like politics, but they are a part of life no matter where you live..) I think a very clear written one to two page rebuttle with absolute proof or very clear logic behind the choice of CDDL released without much fanfare would be the best approach to extinguishing this current fire, anything more and you're just going to be pouring petrol. Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
It would be nice if such a thing would be possible; I think we certainlyshould expound the CDDL FAQ some, specifically those points which are seen controversial. I was meaning something to specifically address the issues that are being put forth right now. Not a general CDDL defense paper. That would, of course, take much more than a page or two. It probably WOULD be a wise thing to work on, as well. None of the controversy seems to be backed with legal opinions; the majority of the argument seems to be I can read, therefor I can read law. When you are dealing with the equivilant of modern day hippies, this should be the expected mode of operation. There really isn't much argument at all, except for the people who are riding these waves as surfers, throwing punches and kicking for the heck of it. Basically, a VERY vocal minority and a very non-caring majority. This is why a simple, blunt, and non-offensive/non-antagonistic rebuttle to her *specific* claims that is absolutely based on and representative of fact - released in a quiet fashion, would be ideal. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
I can't speak for everybody, but personally I was not discussing nor Joerg/cdrecord/Debian. I learned a long time ago to stay out of such discussions. I have not read debian-legal, nor do I care to - this issue is not one which concerns me, at all. My responses have been in response to the comments/blog posts made by Danese Cooper, and nobody else. I find it amazing you think that everyone taking part of this discussion is involved in the whole Joerg vs. Debian war. It's none of my business, and I am staying as far away as I can. I can still have valid views concernig Danese's comments, and it does not require debian-legal to have such views. Please do not add more fuel to the fire, it is already annoying enough as it is. You're doing no better than the person you seem to loathe at this point in time. Thanks, David Clarrification: Joerg added conditions to cdrecord that forbids a user to change certain lines in the code and then distribute it Thanks, Derek E. Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dlewis On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Derek E. Lewis wrote: There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris and me. s/the CDDL, OpenSolaris and // Would you please stop mis-representing the issue to this mailing list, which includes various people who are unassociated with Sun, but also Sun employees who are willing to modify OpenSolaris-related information to respsond to this imaginary war you've greated? I find it amazing that (1) no one in this thread has read the debian-legal discussion regarding the removal of cdrecord and the CDDL (2) Joerg has failed to mention that he's added conditions to cdrecord that forbids anyone to modify the line(s) and distributed the code and (3) the fact that Joerg has combined GPL'd and CDDL'd code in cdrecord and expects Debian to distribute it. The *real* reasons why Debian has removed cdrecord are (2) and (3). ___ 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] Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
Joerg has given the mailing list the impression that there is an on- going war against the CDDL by Debian, and certain Sun employees are willing to change various OpenSolaris-related informational materials (such as the CDDL FAQ) to respond to it. The fact that Debian is anti-CDDL is blatantly false, and mis-represents why Debian has removed cdrecord from their package repositories. No such thing has been done. I am sorry that you feel we are incapable of interpreting things on our own. Joerg's sentiment is his sentiment, I am staying out of that battle as I said - I am quite clearly ONLY operating on information I have gotten on my OWN, without help of Joerg. I wouldn't have cared who started the thread, I did my own research and came to my own opinions. If you don't want to be informed about these issues, great -- you shouldn't create pejorative replies, though. It is obvious the creator of this thread thinks that there is a war, started by Debian, against the CDDL. Again, I will tell you, I do not care about this war you keep discussing. Most of this thread has been about this Danese's comments unrelated to Joerg. Yet you come, and perpetuate the very war you claim to want to end. Your mails are becoming rather ironic, and bothersome. Good day, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Solaris Hosting Service Provider
http://webhostingtalk.com would be a good place to ask around. Cheers, David - Original Message - From: Ram [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:41 pm Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: Solaris Hosting Service Provider To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Hi Dennis, Please let me know the correct opensolaris discussion forum to post thequestion. Ram Bondit Construction Chemicals www.bonditindia.com This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] picture of dtrace integration in osx (xray)
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, John Martinez wrote: the like. Copying Windows (JDS) is not my idea of usability. Couldn't agree more! Thirded, if there is such a thing. :) I don't understand the animousity towards non-destructive change/possible ideas for the future. I personally am happy with CLI on my servers, I don't even consider running OSOL on the desktop anymore - I gave up. So, for me, I would never use such GUI tools. I just felt if you want desktop users, you should cater to them somewhat as well. Apple has done many things wrong, but out of all the GUIs I've used (short of something like Nextstep - and this is kinda apple-ish) Apple has done the best. Cloning the basics of windows and extending it for your purposes is status quo nowadays for unices. I understand the logic/reasoning, it's easier for new users to learn - but there is something to be said for breaking the mold now and then. Desktop design is one of those nasty little areas that we've been stuck in a rut for a LONG time in. Oh well, I'm typing this on an OSX laptop, and sending it via Sun Java Messenging Server, can't complain. Best server os: osol, best desktop os: osx. Maybe some decade somebody will get the equation figured out and combine the best of both. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] picture of dtrace integration in osx (xray)
http://corenode.com/~ormandj/images/screenshots/picture3ap0.png (taken from aeroxp) Picture speaks for itself. ;) Some GUI stuff like this sure would help ease new-users into using the advanced functionality of OSOL. A really slick ZFS management tool, really slick Dtrace tool (for app devs and whathave), etc.. it could make a big difference. Food for thought, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Apple's new Time Machine goodies
Is the new Time Machine detailed at WWDC the offshoot of the Apple guys interacting with the ZFS list a lot some time ago? The ability to roll back file changes, etc. It doesn't sound like they switched filesystems (but can't be sure yet) - maybe they took the idea of the easy to use snapshots from ZFS and extended it even further to occur on each file change? Hmmm. Boy, those Apple machines sure do look good too.. Wonder if they'll boot OSOL? :P ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: revisiting software issues
On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:08 PM, James Carlson wrote: I'm a bit confused about what you want. Achieving those standards means a high degree of attention to detail. It's not just grabbing the latest and greatest source, typing 'make', and tossing it over a wall. There's a _large_ amount of work that goes into making those amazing things, and having an open source base to draw from doesn't somehow cancel out the other issues. (As has been said before, free software isn't free of cost.) I'm asking about a compromise. Keeping software reasonably up to date, at the same time not so bleeding edge as to it coring all the time. I understand it is an undertaking, but you have a lot of resources to draw from in this very community. I.E. Blastwave, SFW. They have this process pretty much down, some slight modification, some tweaking here and there, and some additional testing cycles, and you'd be all set. Stable software, reasonably up to date, and a *part* of Solaris. That's what people look for, myself included. If you haven't seen the thousands of posts around the net of disgruntled people who tried out Solaris based on the technical merit of ZFS/ Dtrace/etc, and were amazed at how easily they all worked, and how well - then when they decided to get php5+modules up and running - oh - have fun. ;) That work takes time, people, and effort. It means figuring out how the software may need to change to fit with the rest of Solaris. It means coming up with test cases. Exactly the things it sounds like you don't want us to do. After all, if we were to do that, then you would get something like /usr/sfw -- software that's out of date or otherwise unwanted because it has gone through an intentional and painstaking design and review process. There is a balance to be found.. So, which do you want? I want (and lots of other people want) reasonably up to date software that is stable and monitored for security issues. Basically, what Blastwave offers (or SFW). Is our (OSOL) community position to simply make a kernel, and a very basic userland, and let people slap whatever they want on there, however they want, with no best-practice? Personally, I *like* having blastwave and sunfreeware being independent and robust. They give me exactly what I would have if I were to run Linux -- easy access to the newest things, all pre- compiled and ready to run, but no deeper guarantee that they're going to play well together or not just dump core unceremoniously. In many cases, that's good enough, and it certainly mirrors the experience you get elsewhere. Yeah, ok, you're not seeing eye-to-eye with me I think. I'm saying OSOL should have something like blastwave (if not blastwave itself) integrated into solaris, with a few more layers of testing slapped on top. That'd be the best of both worlds, easy access to relatively new things, all pre-compiled and ready to run, and a deeper guarantee that they will play nicely together and not dump core. Why settle for good enough? Is that the community stance? It works, who cares if we could do something better - I don't need it so let's just stick with it. We'd all be riding horses across the open plain if that were the case. There is *always* room for improvement, and something as core to the success of the OS I would think should be a priority, because right now it's a major detractor. Go look up any of the OSNews posts about Solaris/OSOL this or that. The primary complaint is always software packaging. People want to throw on the OS, and be ready to go. There is no reason why we should not have something like that. I don't understand the logic behind retarding OSOL's development simply because we have good enough. I think the remaining issue is a contractual one: you seem to want to pay Sun for support of open source software that's actually developed elsewhere. In that case, contact your support folks. I don't know how they draw up agreements or evaluate costs (I'm not involved in that), but perhaps it's a business model that could be made to work. No, that wasn't my position nor intent to get across. My apologies for my miscommunication. My point is, the software management/etc should be integrated into OSOL (and thus eventually Solaris) and have a best practice sort of methodology to it. Just like *every* other server OS short of Windows. Well, Slackware is kinda iffy I suppose. There is a reason they are all doing this, and there is a reason why Solaris (and conversely) OSOL take a back seat to these other OSs. Let's make this clear now, it is NOT technical related issues. Nobody even dares say anything negative about ZFS/Dtrace/Zones/etc anymore, it's generally accepted they are superior to just about everything out there. Think about it - if our OS (OSOL) is the best technically, what other reasoning might there be that it is lagging behind other OSS OSs? Usability. HW support used
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: revisiting software issues
On Jun 17, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Hugh McIntyre wrote: Potentially what would help here is to integrate a stub pkg-get command into the base install, but out of the box this would just be a wrapper, not linked to any specific back-end repository. Then, the first time you used it (via GUI or command line) you would get a question/dialog asking you to choose one of the back- end sources [*] along with a Help me choose button for people who have not heard of the choices. The page displayed by help me choose would then say something like: * Companion CD- stable, but often not the latest version. * Blastwave - generally up to date; 1,511 packages; not from Sun; tends to install a ton of it's own dependencies. On this note, I think a lot of this could be resolved if there was more collaboration between Sun/BW. I'm sure there are valid reasons for the dependency issues, however. * sunfreeware.org - insert description * etc.. Once configured, the top level pkg-get would pass the command onto a real command under /usr/sfw/libexec/pkgget/blastwave/... or whatever, in the same way that mount calls /usr/lib/fs/ufs/mount or some other backend. And if necessary also with a stub command called apt-get that just says please use pkg-get and exits, for those from Linux who don't know the command is pkg-get. That's a pretty good idea. :) While blastwave does it, I can't use blastwave as a part of some other solution. And that's the problem with all the package management systems - they're fine, as long as you use them in complete isolation. Exactly. Say I want PHP to run with the bundled Apache. Blastwave won't do this, unlike Fink, for example. Well, I didn't go so far as to suggest what kind of package system to implement, I just used BW as an example because it's the #1 (I believe) used source for Solaris/OSOL people. Personally, I'm a fan of the ports system from FreeBSD (much akin to fink). I just think we need some kind of system like this in place for users. Hugh. [*] in fact the ability to configure a path of sources might be preferred. For example: sun.com if the package exists, otherwise Blastwave. Right. :) David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] revisiting software issues
Well, it's been a month or two since the last time I brought this up, but I've seen no progress being made or even further discussion concerning the issues I raised originally. Is it possible we could get a status report, as I'm hopeful Sun *is* working on this. Basically, I've sent in mails from time to time to this list, inquiring about software management, and what a terrible shame it's so... yuck right now. Every time, I've been told it's a known issue and is being addressed. This isn't something that's only affecting me, it's turning off huge amounts of people to running Solaris, because the user-land has a learning curve the size of mount everest, and once you learn it, you wonder why on earth a lot is done how it's done. Then you hit the out-of-date software, we're talking lon out of date. Stable doesn't have to mean older than dinosaur droppings. A post on OSNews prompted this most recent inquiry, about Ubuntu now being available for Sparc. I'll just paste the post here, and let that act as my mail inquiring about the status of things, and what Sun's intentions are. This is absolutely an OSOL related issue, I use the name Solaris, but as OSOL is the basis for what Solaris becomes, insert OSOL where you see that name if it makes you feel happier. ;) PS - Don't take this as insulting, I mean no disrespect and I know a lot of people put a lot of hard work into this project. It's just an important point that's turning away users, and at least externally, I haven't seen any visible changes - I just want to know what's going on, sort of a status report. :) From the post, in response to a story about Ubuntu on Sparc: It's really cool to see this done. Great work, and best wishes to everyone involved. Now, that out of the way, Sun really needs to think long and hard about what it's doing. While some argue which is better so to speak, pretty much everybody will admit Solaris is a great server OS. Well, as far as the kernel/technical stuff goes. It's a usability nightmare. Even for a server - sorry - this isn't 1980 - why am I still compiling by hand to have up-to-date software? Ubuntu does pretty much all the things right that Solaris does wrong (nice up-to-date gui, up-to-date software, etc.) I know Sun has this we don't update so we're sure it's stable standpoint but Ubuntu really does have some pretty stable software, maybe a bug or two here and there, but overall stable. Fixes for the bugs come out quickly. Like most things, within a month or two of its' release, it'll be rock solid. Not only that, but *reasonably* up to date. I can't say the same thing for Solaris/included software. So, what is Sun going to do? The current model they have isn't going to work. Nobody except masochists, die-hard Sun fans (me), or Sun-based developers would even consider running Solaris on a desktop. I don't, it runs like dog-poo as a desktop on all the systems I've tried it on, AFTER I've had to go edit the hell out of config files because it didn't setup PATH, hosts don't get entered properly, etc. I won't even get into the mess that is installing software newer than 5 years old. Now, I run Solaris on my servers. Guess what though, #1 - I have to keep a few FreeBSD boxes around, because I can't maintain a whole bunch of software via hand compiling it/keeping up with security updates. I keep trying to get rid of them, so I can only maintain one platform, but it's not going to happen. Blastwave doesn't do it for me, simply because if Dennis and the other hardworking people involved someday decide to do something else, I'll be stuck in a software back alley. I want something supported by Sun, that's why people pay for support contracts (Sun's supposed new bread-and-butter.) Sun needs to figure out what it's doing. I'm gonna hit the OSOL lists with this too, but like most things, we'll probably see a bunch of yes that's great yes we're working on it type posts, but then observe no changes for the next 6 months. Something needs to be done now, while Sun has a *little* momentum, and something drastic needs to be done. The old software model isn't working, somebody with the power to make decisions in Sun needs to finally come to realize this. Solaris the kernel is rocking, Solaris the user-land stinks. Hurry up and join 2006 with the rest of us... ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: revisiting software issues
Yes it does. Have you not heard of Blastwave.org? Rich, I have a lot of respect for you, did half of my email get cut off? Blastwave fills this void pretty well, but it's not Sun supported. -- one of the points made. Also, in my original mail: Now, I run Solaris on my servers. Guess what though, #1 - I have to keep a few FreeBSD boxes around, because I can't maintain a whole bunch of software via hand compiling it/keeping up with security updates. I keep trying to get rid of them, so I can only maintain one platform, but it's not going to happen. - Blastwave doesn't do it for me, simply because if Dennis and the other hardworking people involved someday decide to do something else, I'll be stuck in a software back alley. I want something supported by Sun, that's why people pay for support contracts (Sun's supposed new bread-and-butter.) -- Let me know if my mails were truncated, I'd hate for people to get the wrong impression! Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: revisiting software issues
Hmmm... Blastwave isn't the only wget (and therefore pkg-get) service around. :) Steve Christensen's SunFreeware site (http://www.sunfreeware.com) has been around for 14 years, and also supports pkg-get access. Used it too. :) Thanks for mentioning another excellent tool. Not speaking in any way for Sun, but I *like* having these folks managing the OSS pool of packages for us. If you look at the list of Credits on SunFreeware, or Who is on Blastwave, you'll notice that they are not just one guy running make a million times on a box in his garage... they are thriving communities of developers. Just like us. :D I like it too. I'd like it more if Sun decided to support one of these two, and make it official just like Debian has their official .deb repositories, they handle security, keeping them up to date, etc. Blastwave, SFW, whatever - we need something like this, and until they are supported/a part of OSOL/Solaris - it's no good. Thriving communities can disappear in a heartbeat. No disrespect to either of these two excellent projects, of course. It's just an issue Sun needs to resolve, it's been a thorn in the side for long enough - and telling consumers oh just use this unsupported software from this community, they are really grand guys isn't going to cut it, not in the market you are trying to appeal to. It's just another step the consumer has to go through to get going on Solaris. Why? OSOL/Solaris needs something integrated. With developers who can make such amazing things as ZFS/Dtrace/etc, why is it SO hard to pick a package format, setup some guidelines and routines , setup a maintenence schedule (updates/new features and bug/security fixes), and start work. The community could easily help, look at the amazing job Dennis and cew did with Blastwave, and the SFW team have done. Sun just needs to pick something, stand behind it, and give it a bit of support (make sure things are up to Sun's high stability/etc standards.) It really is 2006, even Gentoo, known for being one of the most do it yourself type distros of linux has a management system/repository for its' software. We need something, and the longer it gets pushed backed and the more people get told we know it's a problem, we'll fix it - no eta, the more turned off people are going to be. For goodness sake, I've got two FreeBSD boxes doing all my web serving because I didn't want to go through the hassle of hand compiling apache/php/modules/mysql/postgresql/etc (not to mention it was a mess to even try, all the path issues, library issues, blah blah blah.. blame the dumb linux-oriented scripts, but this is exactly what a supported package management system would *fix*). Etc etc, I don't want to beat a dead horse any longer, I was just looking to see the status of this, and apparently I'm going to get no more an answer than I have before. It's ETA indefinite, shoot craps and hope Blastwave/SFW are around in a year, or you're SOL - sorry but we don't care that our OS is unusable for the average person. Sorry to be harsh, but it really is the impression I get - and all the people I've had try Solaris have gotten. I can't even get my employees to use it as a desktop because they can't figure out how to get new software/install it. They aren't engineers/computer s cience guys, they are just general office-type people. Why should you need a 4 year degree in science to be able to use a desktop computer? Somebody has things backwards over @ Sun. An awesome kernel, and amazing stability don't help when you can't even use the OS. :) My apologies again for the tone, no offense is intended, I'm just frustrated with the lack of direction I see in this area. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] You are Invited! Birthday Blog Party on June 14th!
http://corenode.com/content/view/10/1/ - Original Message - From: David J. Orman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2006 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] You are Invited! Birthday Blog Party on June 14th! - Original Message - From: Dan Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2006 1:49 pm Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] You are Invited! Birthday Blog Party on June 14th! On Tue 06 Jun 2006 at 04:50PM, Dan Price wrote: So... 24 hours gone by and I've heard (privately) from only one person about this proposal. Is anyone planning to blog on the 14th? I'm trying to gauge the apparent lack of interest... The only people I know who blog are a few Sun-diehards (jamesd for example) and @sun people. I didn't respond because I don't blog, and nobody I know (except the previously mentioned people) blog. It's not so much a lack of interest on my part, it's just that blogging isn't how I'd handle the birthday. :) I didn't want to derail your thread, so I didn't comment. To ask it another way: if what I proposed isn't good, what adjustments need to be made? Add something to your proposal that doesn't involve blogging. To explain, some people (such as myself) generally thing blogs are a waste of space on the internet. Of course, that is completely my opinion, and quite obviously a lot of people disagree. To each their own! This isn't intended to start an argument, please don't. The point is, I am excluded from your grassroots b-day movement, because I don't blog/don't condone blogging. I would suggest instead of limiting it to blogging, you open it up to other areas. News sites, etc. I'd be glad to put a little blurb about the birthday on my business's main page, something like: We run Solaris and wanted to point out how far things are progressing with the OpenSolaris community, it's been a year and OpenSolaris is still gaining momentum. The OpenSolaris community is full of innovation and technical capability, and our infrastructure benefits greatly! We want to take the time to thank all of the community members that make our a bsolutely amazingly reliable servers possible, and let all of our clients know that we will continue to interact and work with the OpenSolaris community to keep improving our systems. However, you want to write it, something like this. The key is not limiting the scope of the grassroots movement you suggest we start. Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Nomination : Rich Teer
I think maybe it was related to Mr. Teer making the statement he'd like to attend the convention and be at the booth. :) Respectfully, David On Jun 6, 2006, at 6:56 PM, Ché Kristo wrote: I think this message was intended as a nomination for the OpenSolaris contributor awards. Nominations for the awards should go to [i]mktg-discuss[/i] This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] You are Invited! Birthday Blog Party on June 14th!
- Original Message - From: Dan Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2006 1:49 pm Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] You are Invited! Birthday Blog Party on June 14th! On Tue 06 Jun 2006 at 04:50PM, Dan Price wrote: So... 24 hours gone by and I've heard (privately) from only one person about this proposal. Is anyone planning to blog on the 14th? I'm trying to gauge the apparent lack of interest... The only people I know who blog are a few Sun-diehards (jamesd for example) and @sun people. I didn't respond because I don't blog, and nobody I know (except the previously mentioned people) blog. It's not so much a lack of interest on my part, it's just that blogging isn't how I'd handle the birthday. :) I didn't want to derail your thread, so I didn't comment. To ask it another way: if what I proposed isn't good, what adjustments need to be made? Add something to your proposal that doesn't involve blogging. To explain, some people (such as myself) generally thing blogs are a waste of space on the internet. Of course, that is completely my opinion, and quite obviously a lot of people disagree. To each their own! This isn't intended to start an argument, please don't. The point is, I am excluded from your grassroots b-day movement, because I don't blog/don't condone blogging. I would suggest instead of limiting it to blogging, you open it up to other areas. News sites, etc. I'd be glad to put a little blurb about the birthday on my business's main page, something like: We run Solaris and wanted to point out how far things are progressing with the OpenSolaris community, it's been a year and OpenSolaris is still gaining momentum. The OpenSolaris community is full of innovation and technical capability, and our infrastructure benefits greatly! We want to take the time to thank all of the community members that make our a bsolutely amazingly reliable servers possible, and let all of our clients know that we will continue to interact and work with the OpenSolaris community to keep improving our systems. However, you want to write it, something like this. The key is not limiting the scope of the grassroots movement you suggest we start. Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message - From: James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 4:38 am Subject: Re: What is OpenSolaris? snip snip I guess that's where I'm getting confused. The way things have been discussed here, OSOL *is* SX. Untrue. I missed a word. The way things have been discussed here, SEEMINGLY OSOL *is* SX. That, my friend, is true in apparently more than just my eyes, as I'm not the only one who was under the impression it was. More on this later. Solaris Express is one distribution of Open Solaris. It's Sun's distribution. There are several other distributions of Open Solaris. I understood, I even listed a few of them. Using the food metaphor, Open Solaris is the grocery store. There are all sorts of items (technically foodstuff) there that you might want to use to create a meal. Your restaurant could be a drive-through window or a gourmet feast. The grocery store neither knows nor cares much about how you decide to put your meals together. If the grocery store had a recipe which you typed a command and suddenly the grocery store's contents got cooked into a nice big pie, you might as well say that grocery store was a nice big pie, it just changes state so to speak. In relation to OSOL, this is going from source (ingrediants) to binary (prepared food.) I don't think this comparison holds up well. The only way this wouldn't be so if Sun intentionally broke OSOL so to speak, so the code didn't mimic SX. Maybe this is the plan, that's what I'm unclear on. Again, more in a bit... I thought more and more of the stuff that isn't released as source from SX was being opened as time progressed, and eventually all of SX (that was legally possible) would be OSOL. Indeed. That's the goal. Ok, so then, OSOL will be all that is SX. I'm not talking about just the pure source, but the build scripts and everything else. Is this correct? In other words, OSOL *would* be SX, in other words - would include all these goodies. No, still not true. Open Solaris is the raw source repository and the bug tracking and development projects that go with it. Sun uses it to build Solaris Express. You can use it to do something similar. But even if you build *exactly* the same sequence of bits from the source you find on the opensolaris.org web site, your bits will *NOT* be Solaris Express. Yes they will. I just wouldn't be able to use the name SX. It's like CentOS. It *is* RHEL. Nobody in their right mind would say otherwise. It just doesn't use the same name, and doesn't have the support of RH. Just like if I build an identical version of software to a SX release, from the identical source, it *is* SX. I just can't use the name, and it won't be Sun supported. They won't be that distribution, because they won't represent one of our official distribution builds. They don't have our imprimatur. They don't have your name, and they don't have your support. They have everything else, and it will (for all intensive purposes) be SX. I don't see how it's any other way, other than in name/support. I didn't realize OSOL meant *only* kernel/very most core parts. That's just not accurate, and I never said any such thing. I never said you said such a thing, but that is what it seems is being said. If it's not just the kernel/very most core parts, and it is indeed (or will be) everything, then it is SX. Same logic as above. Open Solaris is meant (over time) to have it all. I realize other distributions (example: ShillyX Be-whatever, etc) are built from OSOL, just as other distributions are built from Debian, for example Nexenta (which is a hybrid, being both based on some of OSOL and some of Nexenta), Ubuntu, etc. No, that's not a good analogy. A good analogy is between Linux itself (via kernel.org), and the various distributions including Debian, Nexenta, Ubuntu, and so on. That there's some interrelations between those distributions (they share ideas) is of no consequence. Linux is an open source repository and set of projects. Debian is a distribution. Linux isn't anything but a kernel. You're telling me OSOL is going to be everything in SX. That's like taking all the source from Debian, along with the linux kernel, and tossing it up in complete source form. If somebody builds that, I'm sorry, but it's Debian. If Debian were sun by some company and were trademarked and disallowed the use of the name, it wouldn't be called Debian, but it *would* be Debian. Everything you've said points to OSOL being far more than just a kernel and this makes the kernel.org/linux analogy you drew absolutely unusable. Sorry. Open Solaris is an open source repository and projects. Solaris is a distribution. SX is a distribution, OSOL is the source form of that distribution. That makes OSOL SX unless you're telling me Sun is going to somehow *change* OSOL, or leave parts of SX out of source form in OSOL. If OSOL is
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message -
From: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 9:11 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
Nexenta tries to preserve core OpenSolaris infrastructure and makes
changes with reasonable degree to remain OpenSolaris
binary-compatible. That means OpenSolaris is much bigger than just
kernel but much less than SX{CR}.
Well, I understand it means OSOL is much more than a kernel, but I do not see
how that means it's much less than SX. The only thing keeping it from being all
of SX is the non-release of some of the source (yet... supposedly it will be
opened eventually..)
I tend to think of OpenSolaris upstream as of piece of code which is
reusable across *any* OpenSolaris-based distros. I.e. bare minimum
whichis enough to build minimal console-only distribution.
I understand what you say, but according to even the people who say OSOL isn't
SX, ALL of SX will eventually be opened (as much as possible, anyways..), in
which case OSOL will be the upstream of SX. Now yes, it will all be re-usable
across any of the distros, but it won't be a bare minimum. It'll be all of SX,
you can pick and choose what parts you want to use. At least, that is what has
been/is being preached.
David
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message -
From: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 9:34 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
It is confusing... Or may be we should think of OpenSolaris as set of
projects which could be {re-}used as a bricks to build OpenSolaris-
baseddistributions.
That's what I'm trying to clarify. If that *is* what OSOL is, then I don't
belong here. I'm not a distro builder (never will be), I'm not contributing
code, and my interest is Solaris/SX. The only reason I contribute ideas/etc is
because I thought OSOL is what becomes SX is what becomes Solaris. It seems I
was horribly mistaken.
David
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message - From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 9:40 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris? No - you're both right - it's different things to different people. So which is it (or is it both, officially, which would be fine for me...) There are people @sun saying two different things now, and I really need to know which to go by. It can't be wishy-washy, I need to have a firm answer on this one, and I think it's important that the community does too (OSOL isn't self-supporting right now, and in order for it to get to that point, these kinds of things have to be clear so people can get involved in the community knowing exactly what they are getting involved in). Otherwise, I'm contributing efforts to no point. ;) Thanks, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message - From: Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:00 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris? OpenSolaris is that, but that's not the only thing that it is. Ok, this also what Alan says. Hey! *Everyone* who would like to have anything to do with anything that involves OpenSolaris belongs here. I understand. :) Just, from some of the responses I got, it sounded like my reasoning for being here, wasn't valid. Now I'm hearing the opposite, and I'm waiting on an official response. But you *are* contributing to the overall community. Thanks, and right. :) Not at all. I too am primarily interested in OpenSolaris because it and Solaris proper are closely interwoven, and any code I contribute is with the primary aim of improving Solaris. And I think that the statement OSOL is what becomes SX is what becomes Solaris is also true, and I'm sure that OpenSolaris is other things too. The one thing that OpenSolaris isn't is restrictive or exclusive . If OSOL is what becomes SX is what becomes Solaris, AND it is other things, that's perfectly fine, I'm in the right spot! If it's not though, then I'm not. ;) Need official clarification! (Perhaps I'm being needlessly shortsighted in ignoring the other distributions. But while I'm not - currently at any rate - having any involvement with them, I'm glad that they exist and are contributing to the diversity of OpenSolaris.) I'm the same, I'm very glad they exist, and I want them *all* to succeed. I just want to make sure I'm putting my efforts where they belong. If OSOL is what becomes SX is what becomes Solaris, then cool! Otherwise, I shouldn't be here, I should be picking a distro I like and contributing to the overall direction for it. That's what I'm good at, and that's what I can contribute. Not code, or direction in technical aspects. That's why I need clarification on this issue, to make sure my efforts are well places. Thanks, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message - From: Bev Crair [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:15 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris? David, I you can consider me 'official', then, yes, OSOL - SX - Solaris is the idea. Bev Crair Director, Solaris Approachability Engineering (aka KISS) You're twisting my arm! I guess I'll just hav to accept your response as official...darn... just kidding. ;) This is great news, thanks for clarifying! Hope this clears up things for everybody involved, and our future participants in the project as well. :) Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message - From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:19 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris? David J. Orman wrote: Now I'm hearing the opposite, and I'm waiting on an official response. I don't know about an official response. Just because any particular person @sun.com says something doesn't make it the gospel truth any morethan anyone else in the community. The truth of the situation, is, right now OSOL is not self-sustaining (nor anywhere close) and it is maintained/operated/successful because of @sun people. I'm not saying nobody is contributing except @sun folk, that is absolutely not true. Just the majority of development of the code itself is @sun folk. In other words, if Sun suddenly decided OSOL is only a code dump, I'd be at their mercy, and all of my work would have been for nothing. *That* is why I asked for some sort of official-ish response from Sun, because reality as it is NOW, is Sun's opinion/choice is the deciding factor at this point. Sun also controls SX/Solaris, and since they are my primary interest, I needed to know what OSOL means to them, so I can determine if/where/how I should apply myself. Then you've found your place. The code base you see in OpenSolaris is the code we are using to build the next version of Solaris, which is released as Solaris Express while it's under development. Other distrosuse various portions of it to build their own distros like Nexenta,Schillix, and Belenix as well. In fact, build 41 should be the first SX build in which pretty much all the code you see on opensolaris.org is included, since the JDS Vermillionproject (GNOME 2.14, Firefox 1.5, etc.) that's been on opensolaris.org for a while has integrated into that build. That's awesome! David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message - From: James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:49 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris? David J. Orman writes: The truth of the situation, is, right now OSOL is not self-sustaining (nor anywhere close) and it is maintained/operated/successful because of @sun people. I'm not I'm not sure that's an entirely fair comment. There are several other distributions, and we don't tell them how to do what they do. Maybe you should quote me in entirely then - there was more to my comment that was relevant: I'm not saying nobody is contributing except @sun folk, that is absolutely not true. Just the majority of development of the code itself is @sun folk. Is it or is it not true that @sun people contribute the majority of the code that is OSOL? I'm pretty sure my comment was fair, and in NO way was it intended as negative/insulting/etc. I have upmost respect for Sun, and I am *trusting* Sun in their intent. This should be viewed as positive. It's fair to say that the processes that manage the source base are still incomplete, but you can join the 'tools' community if you'd like to help work on that problem. I understand, and if I had the means, I'd be glad to. :) saying nobody is contributing except @sun folk, that is absolutely not true. Just the majority of development of the code itself is @sun folk. In other words, if Sun suddenly decided OSOL is only a code dump, I'd be at their mercy, and all of my work would have been for nothing. *That* is why I asked for some sort of official-ish response from Sun, because reality as it is NOW, is Sun's We've had many official declarations about our intent and direction from the highest levels of the company. If you're not moved by those, then I doubt that anyone here can help. Yes, I realize that, but you (again, not attempting to be inflamitory, but you bring this up) stated various things in earlier emails that led me to believe maybe there had been a shift. It could completely have been my *incorrect* interpretation of your words. I'm not putting blame nor pointing fingers. I'm simply saying, I saw things said that made me believe there was something different going on than what I had heard officially prior, and I was needing clarification (again, obviously other people questioning things too, they responded!) opinion/choice is the deciding factor at this point. Sun also controls SX/Solaris, and since they are my primary interest, I needed to know what OSOL means to them, so I can determine if/where/how I should apply myself. I'm rather surprised to hear that there could be some question about what it means to us. There was question in my mind directly in response to your previous emails. It has now been clarified by Alan and Bev, and I understand. Open Solaris _is_ the future. It's what we use to produce future Solaris releases. It is the source base that represents Solaris (as well as a number of other distributions). I understand that now, and that's what I asked in my previous mail directed at you. You replied I was incorrect, OSOL is not SX, is not Solaris. It is, it's the source/upstream/whatever term you want to call it, but it is SX/Solaris (albiet those releases are delayed.) I'm not saying OSOL can only be used for those, obviously other distros have sprung up and used OSOL as their basis. Just OSOL in it's stock form, as a project, is what becomes SX and is what becomes Solaris. This has been confirmed, and I am clear on things now. Your previous mail to me (at least through my interpretation) told me I was incorrect in this type of thinking. Right now, the open processes are just a year old, and they certainly need to grow quite a bit and become more robust, but the change is rather fundamental. That's understood. It's also a community. We don't have absolute say here, so saying we do is missing the point. We do have say over what ends up shipped as Solaris proper -- our distribution -- but not over the community as a whole or what it does. The CAB, which is not just Sun, does that. I never said Sun had absolute control. I did say they are the primary force behind OSOL *right now* and without them, OSOL wouldn't exactly be going anywhere. When the community is doing a large part of the coding/etc, then Sun won't be in a position that they could (theoretically - I'm NOT saying they would!!!) pull out their support and the project would die. If Sun jumped ship from OSOL right now, it'd almost assuredly die. No offense is intended, but if you look at the code, it's 99% Sun. Distros are of course maintained outside of Sun, but the large portion of what makes them OSOL distributions, is Sun maintained. Getting it? All that said, again, I'm trusting Sun to continue with OSOL, I just needed clarification as to what their intent for the OSOL project was, because of my interpretation of your
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
I'm clear on everything, thank you for your input. :) I think we are talking on two different levels and that is why I keep misunderstanding you. Alan and Bev got me all sorted out! :P Respectfully, David - Original Message - From: James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 11:37 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris? David J. Orman writes: Is it or is it not true that @sun people contribute the majority of the code that is OSOL? I'm pretty sure my comment was fair, and in NO way was it intended as negative/insulting/etc. I have upmost respect for Sun, and I am *trusting* Sun in their intent. This should be viewed as positive. It's true ... but it also seems sort of beside the point. Take a look at the makeup of the CAB and then decide. We've had many official declarations about our intent and direction from the highest levels of the company. If you're not moved by those, then I doubt that anyone here can help. Yes, I realize that, but you (again, not attempting to be inflamitory, but you bring this up) stated various things in earlier emails that led me to believe maybe there had been a shift. No, there's no shift here. It could completely have been my *incorrect* interpretation of your words. I'm not putting blame nor pointing fingers. I'm simply saying, I saw things said that made me believe there was something different going on than what I had heard officially prior, and I was needing clarification (again, obviously other people questioning things too, they responded!) I think there must be a misinterpretation here. I understand that now, and that's what I asked in my previous mail directed at you. You replied I was incorrect, OSOL is not SX, is not Solaris. Right, and that's still true. Open Solaris is _not_ Sun Solaris. It is where we (Sun) have, keep, maintain, and develop the source code that (at least in part) _becomes_ Solaris. And also BeleniX and several other products. Big difference. It is, it's the source/upstream/whatever term you want to call it, but it is SX/Solaris (albiet those releases are delayed.) To me, it's like saying that www.kernel.org is RedHat. Really? How is that true? Sure, RedHat uses (some of) those bits to make their distribution. Sure, if you get something into www.kernel.org, RedHat may well pick it up and use it. But that doesn't make them the same thing. One is the source base, and the other is a distribution -- a product. I'm not saying OSOL can only be used for those, obviously other distros have sprung up and used OSOL as their basis. Just OSOL in it's stock form, as a project, is what becomes SX and is what becomes Solaris. That part's correct. This has been confirmed, and I am clear on things now. Your previous mail to me (at least through my interpretation) told me I was incorrect in this type of thinking. It's still incorrect to say that the source repository is the same thing as the product. The distinction is important because there may well be lots of products (distributions) that are based on the same source, and yet are intentionally *NOT* the same. -- James Carlson, KISS Network [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
- Original Message - From: Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 12:54 pm Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris? James Carlson wrote: snip snip Keep in mind, though, that those Sun engineers are all now OpenSolaris developers. The goal is open development without the need to think of @sun people and non-Sun people. Granted, this will take more time as more and more people move to working in the open and on new infrastructure. But you can see that after the initial launch of OpenSolaris last year, we've been releasing code quite literally all year long, forming communities and projects, etc. We are opening in stages, which is the only way to do this. But the *foundation* for being a self-sustaining community is being constructed. I'm happy you trust us, and I think our intent will be acknowledged (eventually) by those who don't. Yes, it's absolutely apparent that things are moving forward, and more and more as time goes by this will be absolutely and 100% be The OpenSolaris community, nothing more nothing less! No differentiation between people other than based on their contributions, insight, and personality. :) Sun is serious when it says that the OpenSolaris *community* now controls OpenSolaris, although I certainly recognize that people outside the company can't always see that in all areas right now because the program is not yet complete (Constitution to come, Dev process to come, SCM to come, more code to come, etc). Most people are cutting us the slack we need, which is great. The intent is there, the road maps are there, the infrastructure to support all that is coming, and it's all being discussed out in the open. All that works for me. Yes, I can see that now - it looks like everything is going in the right direction! I'm glad people are open to discussing it in public lists as well, because it really does clear up a lot, and not everybody has been here since the big bang that formed OSOL. Sometimes re-clarifying things is in need, as it was in this case, for myself. James mentioned the CAB. Good point. The CAB is now the OGB, as per the OpenSolaris Charter. I think the Charter outlines well the scope of the OGB -- an independent body representing the OpenSolaris community: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/charter/ That's a pretty extraordinary document for a big company to sign off on, don't you think? It turned a few heads around here, you know. Non-OpenSolaris heads, I mean. :) You're right, and I hadn't really looked through it myself until James brought it up. It also clarified a lot for me. I hope all new (and even old) community members give it a good read. It speaks volumes. There have been relatively few comments about the Charter from the community and no comments from observers outside the community -- press, analysts, competitors, supporters, etc. But it's a big deal. It's quite literally the creation of a community and the formation of a system of open governance. I think awareness might be an issue. I personally wouldn't have read it if it weren't for James/you. Look for feedback once I go back, re-read it, and have time to digest. ;) I hope everybody takes a moment to do the same, they (Sun) need as much feedback from us as we need from them. The other half of that is the OpenSolaris Constitution, which will fill in all the specifics of membership, elections, etc. The current draft is here: http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=8813tstart=0 I'll be reading that following this mail. :) I have absolute confidence that the Constitution will reflect a truly open, merit-based community model and one where everyone is welcome to participate at whatever level. Which is good for me since I doubt I'll be writing code anytime soon. :) Hehe, seems you're in the same boat as me! I've enjoyed this thread, so thanks for starting it, David. The issue comes up from time to time, as it should. Opening something the size of Solaris (in terms of people and technology) is complex. Certainly way beyond my brain. Mine as well, which is *why* I started this thread. I'm glad it's been of use to somebody beside myself. I'm excited to see how things progress, it's almost like watching an Opera (or fast paced action movie for those who prefer it..) The best part, it's interactive! Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun lost one of it's biggest and oldest x86 customer
Sorry to top post, but here goes: you'll find that seemingly EVERYTHING on lxer.com is no better than your observations of this particular topic. They are no better than extreme right/left publications on politics, they just cover linux/everything that is not linux, and it's *ALWAYS* the same outcome to them. I wouldn't even mind it if they'd at least substanciate what they preach, they never do. lxer.com is on my url blacklist. :) David - Original Message - From: Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, June 1, 2006 8:27 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun lost one of it's biggest and oldest x86 customer On Thu 06/01/06 at 09:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Solaris is a better Linux than Linux ?Marc Andreessen You know what...that ticked me off. I love Sun but such viral marketing campaigns? Anyways, here is a response on that topic http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/55094/index.html I rarely follow this sort of link, since I inevitably end up rolling my eyes and sighing a lot. I'm not sure why I did this time, but I found that this response: - takes issue with the claim that ZFS is superior to Linux filesystems. He lists 4 Linux filesystems, but doesn't explain how any of them come close to matching ZFS. - Admits that Linux doesn't have containers, but makes the silly suggestion that UML is more or less the same. - Claims that Linux is somehow more free than Solaris because it uses the GPL instead of CDDL, without offering any explanation of why GPL is preferable. Both are approved Open Source licenses. - Says something about proprietary software and interoperability. I can't figure out what he is trying to say, or what he is responding to, but he certainly doesn't offer any evidence (even anecdotal) that Linux is more interoperable than Solaris. - Quotes a reader who has a friend who has been a Senior Engineer at Sun for well over a decade and claims that we had completely rewritten the kernel for Solaris 10. Anybody who has even glanced at the source available on opensolaris.org would know that one or more of these people are simply making stuff up. - Has some fair, if typically overstated and blustery, criticism of our installer, which tails off with a complaint about CDE. Since we have been shipping Gnome for years now, this last bit seems a little silly. - And my favorite: [Since 2004...] Linux has matched Solaris almost feature for feature. So Linux now has the functionality offered by zones, SRM, Predictive Self Healing, SMF, ZFS, and (of course) DTrace? C'mon. This doesn't even pass the laugh test. These responses would be much more effective if the authors would juststick to those areas in which Linux actually is superior - because they certainly exist. Comparing Ubuntu's installer to ours makes that blindingly obvious. Hardware support is generally another area where they win - although I can use wifi on my Ferrari under Solaris, but not Linux. Instead, they seem to spend most of their time and energy vigorously handwaving away the areas in which we have the advantage. Since this inevitably requires listing all the cool stuff available in Solaris, they are really making our case for us. Nils ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] What is OpenSolaris?
As a precursor, I apologize for the subject change, but that old subject was way off base. - Original Message - From: Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:39 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Sun lost one of it's biggest andoldest x86 customer But how can you point out that JDS, X, or any other OSS is a part of OpenSolaris? This makes no sense to me. I guess that's where I'm getting confused. The way things have been discussed here, OSOL *is* SX. I thought more and more of the stuff that isn't released as source from SX was being opened as time progressed, and eventually all of SX (that was legally possible) would be OSOL. In other words, OSOL *would* be SX, in other words - would include all these goodies. I didn't realize OSOL meant *only* kernel/very most core parts. I realize other distributions (example: ShillyX Be-whatever, etc) are built from OSOL, just as other distributions are built from Debian, for example Nexenta (which is a hybrid, being both based on some of OSOL and some of Nexenta), Ubuntu, etc. Big deal, Sun uses them in the entree at thier resturaunt, seems these were being pointed out as being a part of OpenSolaris. I thought they were myself, even if some were not available in source form yet. I'm sorry if I'm woefully incorrect! David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On May 30, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it. Do you mind not spreading absolute FUD? Do you have any sources? No. You want to know why? Here: SCO's regulatory filings showed the TOTAL VALUE of the Sun/MS deals (with SCO) to be 13.2 million dollars. Sun was also offered the opportunity to purchase 210,000 thousand shares of SCO at $1.83 ($384,300 total.) I don't know if they exercised this option, but it was available. Assuming they did, and assuming MS gave SCO $0, then Sun (at most) gave SCO the 13.2 million + another $384,300. At *most*. Here's one source: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21894.html Now, supposedly the licensing deal was 9.3 million. I can't verify this, because I didn't see the report itself when it came out (and I can't be bothered to research it) but assuming that figure is correct (and we know the cap is 13.2 million) then Sun *at most* put $10 million into SCO. That's nothing, compared to costs of litigation and so forth. It's a drop in the bucket. Here: http://news.com.com/Fact+and+fiction+in+the+Microsoft-SCO +relationship/2100-7344_3-5450515.html Now, please, unless you want to back up your $200 million figure, please go crawl back into the hole from which you came, with this utterly ridiculous crap you are so keen to spread. It's really getting old to listen to your constant attempted character assassination of Sun, as if it's your mortal enemy. This discussion list is here for people to discuss OSOL, in general, both positive and negatives - CONSTRUCTIVELY. Simply flaming Sun and spouting absolute nonsense doesn't fall into that kind of activity, and it absolutely makes this mailing list painful to read at times. If you don't have anything useful to say, simply say nothing. Nobody wants to listen to FUD, and I don't want people who are here to learn about OSOL and contribute to OSOL to have to deal with this kind of silliness. Some people are going to assume what you say is true, and get turned off to Sun, and OSOL. This is not cool. I don't like spending my evenings reading inflammatory emails, with absolutely no useful content, either. So please, either contribute to the community in a positive manner, or don't bother. If SUN wishes to get the OSS world to start using Studio 11 as the compiler of choice for Linux, then SUN needs to mend ALOT of bridges with the OSS community - how about offering a version for FreeBSD, have double the participation? I think this might be a good road to take in the future, but unless some more evangelism goes on, nobody is going to have a clue what Studio 11 is, much less know why they should use it over GCC. That's the barrier to entry. People have to know it exists, and they have to have a reason to use it. Making a FreeBSD port won't solve either of these two problems. Now, once those two problems are sorted out, THEN a FreeBSD port would be wonderful (I'm a long-time FreeBSD guy myself..) rant As a side note, why the heck doesn't Sun opensource Java, JFC! the money is made off the middleware, not the framework. As for an internal debate - excuse me Johnnathon, but who is running the company? make a damn decision, and those who don't like it, show them the door. This has been discussed to death, and you should watch the stuff from the recent Java conference. There was clarification on this matter. My understanding (hopefully correct) is the plan *is* to open-source Java, it is being determined what the best route to take is that will keep Java *Java* without a half-gazillion forks everywhere, and while also pleasing the legal and economic beats inside Sun. This is a *huge* undertaking, and it is not something that Sun can afford to take lightly. I'd rather Sun sorts all this out, and open-sources Java when it's ready, so I don't have to deal with the kinds of problems that could emerge from poor planning. Respectfully - but upset, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
On May 30, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: Feel the love. -Shawn And with that fine message from Shawn, I'd like to propose an end of thread. This conversation isn't productive, scares the living crap out of me each time I start writing the OpenSolaris weekly news, and discourages people from posting value to the lists. Take this to private mail or IRC please. The original topic is very important to OSOL, I don't think discussion of it should cease due to one user's actions. This *is* an important issue, but we should not all have to pay for one particular user's opinions if it is indeed so bad we are being urged to simply stop discussion. No offense meant of course, I completely agree that the issue needs to be resolved so we can continue on being productive instead of bickering, I just don't think completely shutting a door on an important part of OSOL is the correct solution. Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
On May 30, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Personally, I'd love for Solaris x86 to get to the point where we aren't bitching about hardware support or lack of ISV's, but instead complaining about how we're *TOO* productive with Solaris, and how there are too many software and hardware pices we can choose from. HW support is an issue (known and acknowledged by Sun engineers), and it is being worked on. This takes time. Maybe you weren't, but I was dealing with linux in the .99-pre days, and OSOL is FAR ahead of where linux was during this this period. It takes *time*. It took linux 5-6 years, from the .99-pre point I got involved, until it was semi-usable on a fair amount of HW. OSOL is in the same boat, but it is progressing much more rapidly. Concerning ISVs, Solaris/OSOL has way more support than linux ever did during it's inception. OSOL is new, and it is gaining ground at a phenomenal pace. Don't criticize a project for doing it's best, offer input (negative or positive) in a constructive manner. Code submissions are more than welcome, I am absolutely sure. This isn't the issue I was commenting about, however, nor is it the content of the majority of your recent posts, and that is the problem. The day when I hear someone complain on this forum about the fact that there are too many choices when it comes to desktop publishing, photo manipulation and music capturing etc. on Solaris x86, then I think Solaris has made progress. I agree, if people are complaining about too many choices, Solaris (maybe you meant OSOL?) is in a good position. The day when I hear geeks say, why would I want to run Linux when I can run Solaris, have a great desktop, and all those awesome mainstream applications, then Solaris has made progress - until then, Solaris will remain the red headed step child of the x86 UNIX world, with FreeBSD and Linux users asking why they should move to a platform that is wowfully lacking in hardware support, mainstream software vendor support and lacks any strong direction from the powers that be. That's funny, and THIS was the reason for my post. I moved from Linux (Debian) to FreeBSD for various reasons, mostly technical, around the 2.2.x days. Now, I've moved to Solaris 10 for the same reasons. Usability comes with USERS. People are interested in OSOL (this mailing list makes it apparent.) Usability will follow. The key is users providing constructive feedback, code, and so forth to improve things as they wish. Just like it happened with linux from .99-pre on, from FreeBSD 2.x on, and so forth. This most recent mail from you clarifies the important things that need to occur in order to make OSOL viable on the desktop (as you so wish.) And I'm sure *anybody* reading this mail from you would have absolutely no problem with it, and would be more than happy to help clarify things, expand on the roadmap, give you the current direction and so forth. The key is how you deal with us (the community.) When you approach us (the OSOL community) in the manner you displayed in *THIS* mail, all of us would do our best to help you, clarify things, and provide what you ask. We're all open to your opinions as well, and your opinions very well may change our viewpoints, or at least give us more direction. This is what constructive discussion does! This is what the community needs! Not negative harsh feedback with no basis, and unsupported and unsubstantiated claims of meaninglessness simply aimed at hurting those involved. I hope you spend time to reflect on that, and I sincerely hope the rest of your stay on this mailing list is as clear and non-inflamitory as the post I am replying to. Nobody is out to get you, we are all here by choice. You should be too. If you truly want the OSOL community/project to succeed, please be a part of the positive influence that is needed for it to do so. I truly hope that your intent with this most recent post was to head in a more positive direction, because we need to stick together if what you want (Solaris/OSOL on the desktop) is to be true. Thanks, David\ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
It would be nice to hear a 'this is what we're working on in the way of hardware support - then atleast whiners like me can say, hey, it'll be around soon, they're working on it now . It's been said a dozen times, use the search function of your email client (or the forums..) The issue can actually be split into two parts; the first is the OSS side of the equation, and getting OSS coders to not only embrace the Forte/Studio compiler, but to realise that the world doesn't revolve around Linux, as much as they would it to occur. The second part I'm not sure what you're alluding to, OSOL is OSS. The second part is a function of the two points I mentioned in my response to you. The second party is getting commercial ISV's onboard, which is where the whole Adobe/Acrobat issue came into fruitition; it isn't about bashing Sun but saying, hey, Sun has cash, why don't they do something - if I had $4billion sitting around in my closet, building up dust, I'd do something about it right now, but since I am not endowed with such a large fortune, the best I can do (and my cohorts) is to whine to Sun. Sun attempted, Adobe wasn't interested. Exactly how much of the $4 billion you seem to see as expendable do you think Sun should throw at Adobe, for something you've stated a dozen times over should be replaced regardless? They've already attempted that route reasonably, it didn't pan out. Again, Adobe Photoshop + Intel mac. There is *way* more demand for that, and it's still not here. If Apple can't get a port with all the die-hard PS guys using Apple computers, what makes you think Sun can toss money into the pot and get a port done of Acrobat? This has been rehashed over and over. Solaris/OpenSolaris - OpenSolaris as an official distribution hasn't been released yet; it'll be interesting to actually see if OpenSolaris turns into the what Fedora does for RHEL; if we have a fully blown OpenSolaris 'community distro' then I think things will move forward, but if we for ever and a day going to see splintered versions out there, then progress is going to be more difficult. RHEL is a mess, I don't even want to begin emulating their model. That's all I'm going to say on this. I've moved back to FreeBSD 6.1 - before that I was running an PPC970 iMac with MacOS X - gave it to my brother so he could do his engineering study in comfort; I in turn received his Dell Dimension 8400 - which, all things considered, isn't a bad computer, and given its Intel processor, it does a great job heating up the room during winter (which seems to be the only season in Christchurch) Ok. Discussion is also a two way street - when someone brings up an issue; the quesiton shouldn't be 'how shall we lynch this individual' but, lets probe this guy, and get some more information, so that we can address the deficiencies in the system - sure, this is a 'community' and the issues of Adobe can't be addressed by this 'community' as it has no political or fiscal muscle, but what it can address for example, is the creation of a OpenSolaris distribution based off the OpenSolaris core, Xorg and offering the end user with two desktops, GNOME and KDE, using the common 'blue print' theme for both desktops. Life is a two-way street. Expect to receive what you give. If you act like a 12 y/o punk, you're going to have people treating you like a 12 y/o punk. Apparently you didn't bother to contemplate my responses to you as I asked (and hoped) you would. As per distributions, there are a few already, and this project/ community is new. I suggest you give them a shot, they may answer a lot of the needs you express (as improperly as I feel you have). Nexenta would seem to fit your ramblings best, from what I've read. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
On May 30, 2006, at 11:43 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Well, lets assume we go free software and free love - someone has to create this software - and with 5000 employees given the sack at Sun, wouldn't of it been bettter to direct those 5000 (lets assume 1,000 were programmers) or so to put together a decent Adobe Acrobat replacement? I'm not going to debate Sun's financial responsibility here, nor the events that led up to recent events, but based on my knowledge of the market, let me put it bluntly. If you want to fund those 5000 employees given the sack at Sun to make a replacement for Acrobat/ PDF, please do. If you don't, and you can explain to me how you think with the current financial situation at Sun they can justify this to stakeholders, please do. Otherwise, STOP MAKING INFLAMITORY POSTS. This isn't Sun-Discuss. This is OSOL-Discuss. Please stay on topic. If you want to debate this further, take it to email directly with me and whomever else you feel you need to vent to. I mean, sure, if 5000 were just sitting around with nothing to do, then sure, let them go, but givent he laundry list of things that need to be done in OpenSolaris/Solaris, Sun should be hiring, not firing. I'm starting to get the idea you don't listen to reason, and your sole purpose is to cause trouble. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] onnv SXCR status
A nice little 'this is what the band of Sun's merry people did on the week end' journal would be good - so then people can track Solaris progressing, and see what is being developed. This week, we payed particular attention to improving the SATA I/ O, specifically decreasing the CPU utilisation and increasing throughput as an example of a good speal for the OpenSolaris Journal. Here's a helpful (well known to anybody who has paid attention in the past year+) URL: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/main.do Enjoy, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun lost one of it's biggest and oldest x86 customer
They did make the final decision last year. The process did start in autumn 2000 when the Linux Verband Deutschlanddid aproach the OFD Niedersachsen and did tell them that Sun will shut down Solaris x86 support. The final convincing work did start in autumn 2004.This is wy I did aproach Sun marketing at that time when I was in Menlo Park. That's really, and I mean REALLY dirty. What an absolute shame, especially with the cause being such disgusting actions on the part of LVD. :( From the information I have, the final decision must have been made recently. Yarr, let's loot and ransack LVD! In all seriousness, I hope now with larger community involvement we can spot FUD campaigns like this one before they become successful, and Sun can intervene. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun lost one of it's biggest and oldest x86 customer
We need to be fair here. Sun did defer Solaris for x86 in 2002. We didn't really get it fully back on track until Solaris 10 in 2005. So even in late 2004 all a customer had from us was statements of intent, not an actual product. Good point. I wasn't involved with Sun at all during this time period, so I didn't realize this was true. If someone tries something like this now, it would in fact be FUD and we could vigorously combat it. We couldn't do that prior to the release of Solaris 10, and to some extent even OpenSolaris. Makes sense. There is no question Sun made mistakes that we're still trying to recover from. Well, I'm glad at least the mistakes are realized and that the company is headed in the right direction now. I guess that's the first key to recovery at least in this sense. Thank you for the clarification, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - Simplified Solaris Device
To expand on Casper's post: http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bicid=655720 I hope this makes it clear it's a *bit* more than slightly more than a song. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:33 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - Simplified Solaris Device I think I've mentioned before that SGI can probably be bought for slightly more than a song. Ther e's a couple of technologies that might be worth the cost to Sun. Well, it's not slightly more than a song; there's the balance sheet to consider and that isn't looking rosy. (You'll have to buy all shares*and* pay off all debts) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: GCC Issues, was (Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On May 31, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Xorg 6.9 performs nicely on my FreeBSD box, besides the DRI issue (which hopefully get corrected), I expect a delay due to the nature of this new, more modular approach. Same for me. We already ship 6.9.0 which was released at the end of December, and is the same source code as 7.0, only with the old build system still - the change between that and 7.1 is not that major. What are you looking for that you don't already have? As a desktop, the lag is terrible, I'm using a Radeon X300/550 sitting on a PCIe; all lovely-jubbly - running FreeBSD, my desktop with KDE is 'teh snappy' (to coin a Mac phrase), but when it comes to using the default Xorg with Solaris 10 01/06 (which is 6.8.2), coupled with the drivers provided, there is terrible lag, especially when it comes to responsiveness under a heavy load. Unfortunately, I absolutely have to agree here. With a dualcore cpu, multiple gigs of ram, and a 7900GT (which Nvidia assured me was supported with their binary driver), Solaris was *unusable* for me as a desktop due to this lag being described. It's almost like a stuttering. I saw it on network activity and hd activity *i think*. It was so terrible, I didn't even bother trying to diagnose it. I'm willing to give it another shot if somebody wants to help me figure out what the issue is. It's occured on lots of different hardware for me though, everything from old athlon xp systems to this current beast. All with Nvidia video cards, all using the binary nvidia driver. Oh, and intel 1000g ethernet cards. It's the *only* thing keeping me from deploying Solaris on my desktop as my primary development/administration platform. Help me! The problem is made worse when compiling things on Solaris - the paths aren't setup, things break when compiling, its a nightmare just trying to get KDE working - which is the original reason why I was compiling Xorg 7.1 on Solaris 10; to have a nice snappy server, KDE desktop. The paths are something already acknowledged, I brought that up a week back or so. It's really not hard to fix, it's just a 30 second PITA when you first install. If you were trying to install/get studio 11 working in a full root zone, I could understand your frustration (you have to manually link a java directory) but even then it's not that bad, again a 30 second fix. It sounds like to me you just don't have the patience to learn a different OS, and you expect Solaris to be as user-friendly as the current crop of desktop OSs. It's not, nobody is going to make-believe it is, either. It's getting there though, just perhaps not quickly enough for your tastes. Enjoy FreeBSD. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun lost one of it's biggest and oldest x86 customer
On May 31, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: One assumes that when Sun is solely backing GNOME, that there is no 'officiallly supported' KDE for Solaris - all very nice to have a 'community working on it' but companies like the warm fuzzy feeling knowing that there are people they can ring up and abuse when things go wrong. Sun has the resources it has, and they are allocated how they are. With all of the issues you have stated you encountered with Solaris as a desktop OS, don't you think they should be focusing on getting *one* thing working before spreading their limited resources thin? Yikes, you want the world, and you want it NOW! Which brings up the other question - why on gods green earth did SUN go with GNOME? why not just buy out Trolltech, release Qt under CDDL? Is your solution to everything Sun buying out/paying off *insert random company here with questionable value to Sun*? David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun lost one of it's biggest and oldest x86 customer
On May 31, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: So, what is it? is Solaris a desktop or a server operating system? come on, admit it, you're just burning to say, Matty, its a server OS! Don't make the mistake again of putting words in my mouth. Solaris is both, and it is improving quite nicely in both areas. I'd say the desktop part is developer oriented right now, or administrator oriented, not normal people oriented. This is improving however. The server part is no different, however. Most linux distros are easier to administrate for somebody who hasn't spent time in UNIX before. That doesn't make them technically better, but they are (generally) more usable from a newbie's perspective. Again, Solaris (OSOL) is improving in this area. So, both. Don't attempt a career as a psychologist. Lets see; on one had you have a bag of half baked rubbish, collated together, and called GNOME every 6 months OR you have on the other hand, a desktop where all the applications have been developed to work together in an integrated fashioned, called KDE. That is your opinion. You are entitled to it, and you are of course welcome to express it. I would, however, suggest you express it with civility, something you seem to have not learned yet. Sun has limited resources, is it wise to invest so much time and money into a desktop (GNOME) that requires so much TLC when the better option would have been to choose KDE which is already 'there' interms of desktop usability, integration, well written documentation, good GUI based development tools etc. etc. Funny, Ubuntu doesn't seem to be having a problem being usable. Last I checked, Ubuntu was Gnome. I believe RH's default is Gnome 2.8, and the large majority of people using RH use Gnome. Between those two distros, you've got a heck of a lot of gnome in the desktop- unix space. KDE has a place too (Suse), but it's quite obvious Gnome isn't the pile of garbage you allude to. But hey, you keep drinking the GNOME koolaid, one day GNOME just might actually achieve something besides being a 'me too' desktop. What is that supposed to mean? Sorry, I'm not caught up with the pre- teen lingo. As for the second part, I think Gnome has already done that, seeing as it's one of the most widely deployed desktop environment in the unix space. David PS - I personally prefer KDE myself, that doesn't mean I'm going to run around bashing projects WITH NO BASIS like you are. PLEASE support your statements from now on, better yet - don't make them. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: GCC Issues, was (Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On May 31, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: The funny part, when running CDE; there doesn't seem to be that issue to the same extent as it is with GNOME running. I thought that maybe upgrading to Xorg 7.1 would correct the issue, but it seems to be more to do with how Solaris schedules its tasks. I believe it's more related to the relatively light requirements of CDE on the gfx infrastructure vs. Gnome/KDE. It is quite possibly the lack of DRI (my understanding... maybe it's there now..) Its even worse; I tried downloading and installing the Studio 11 patches using the Solaris update tool, like a good boy - well, the installation failed; I cruised over to /var/sadm/spool and found that the downloaded files were being added, but failed because the individual who wrote the Solaris Update tool, failed to include the -G to allow a global installation of the patch; and hence, I had to manually add the patches; something that shouldn't happen had there been some testing in that area. I'm sure it's tested, but as with all things, there are always flaws. Instead of flaming, post your troubles and ask for help, and it'll get noticed and you'll get assisted. Outright flaming every time you run into an issue is just irritating everyone. As for the paths; why aren't they setup correctly in root? if one tries to compile something in user, then drop down into root to go make install, why aren't all the necessary directories setup by default? I can handle having to install and use GCC; thats all good, but when paths aren't setup correctly; it is pretty painful. Again, this was already discussed, I brought something to this effect up in the past week, and it was already responded to by Sun, along with a roadmap of what they plan to do. Go search. As for FreeBSD; I might give Solaris Express (the next build) a try; I don't want bleeding edge, but I would like to be able to go, you know, I really like that application; I'll download it, and compile it and it actually compiles without needing to jump through 100 flaming hoops. I give up discussing things with you, all you want to do is spout unsubstantiated garbage. I'd be quite happy to make packages, upload them etc. etc. if it were made alot easier to compile software for Solaris, but due to the above issues, I can't. If you can't figure out these basics, somehow I doubt you'll be making any packages anytime soon. I never realized setting PATH was that difficult. As FreeBSD right now, the only thing I dislike is the slow C++ compiling, thanks to GCC, then again, I play Mr Conservative using - Os -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe, which, although not heavily optimised to the hilt, still provides a pretty damn good desktop experience. Xorg + KDE 3.5.2 + Amarok + Koffice = great desktop. That's nice, but this is OSOL-Discuss. I give up, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
On May 31, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Wednesday 31 May 2006 12:47 am, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Personally, I'd love for Solaris x86 to get to the point where we aren't bitching about hardware support or lack of ISV's Even if we got the point that *YOU* weren't [EMAIL PROTECTED] about it, we'd all be better off. +1 to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] project. Are we allowed multiple votes? David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: GCC Issues, was (Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On May 31, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Bart Smaalders wrote: Weird. You see this on all sorts of hardware including dual core machines. What kind of hardware are you seeing this on now? Intel 945PSN motherboard Intel 805 Pentium D processor eVGA CO Nvidia 7900GT PCI-E Video card 2 gigs of pc(6200 i think - the stuff capable of 800mhz) ram (i know it's running at 667mhz) gateway 2185 21 widescreen lcd @ 1680x1050 Solaris U1 was installed on a 74gb raptor, attached to onboard SATA. I had to add a line to driver_aliases as the HCL suggests for the on- board ethernet (http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/data/sol/components/ details/1170.html) I installed the nvidia driver (the most recent version they released, since it's the only one that supports the 7900), and then patched the system completely. I know whenever I saw network activity, the machine started to sort of stutter (the mouse was stuttering across the screen, windows didn't move smoothly, etc...) Pretty much everything goes on/off pause very rapidly in little spurts. I think it might have occurred on disk access too. Cheers, David PS - If I need to reinstall to diagnose this, it can be done. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
On May 27, 2006, at 10:21 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Explain? Explanation follows below: Me: hey, here are some issues I have with Solaris SUN Employees: Its YOU with the problem Getting technical support from SUN must be a dream, oh, this is a problem I'm experiencing..., reponse, nope! the problem is with you! Hope that helped clarify things for you. Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
On May 27, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
Hmm, if that fails, perhaps we (Solaris users) should take the hint
from
Adobe, and boycott the use of PDF? We should rename it to NVPDF
(for Not
Very Portable...). If {Star, Open} Office supports read-only docs,
maybe
that is the way for us to go?
Unfortunately, that really isn't a good solution. The whole point of
using PDFs is just about anybody can read them, and they look the
same on whatever platform. Unfortunately, that leaves Solaris x86 out
in the pasture. The problem with going with some read-only ODF
format, is it won't be readable by the vast majority of people out
there (Windows/Mac users), because 99% of them will have some form of
MS Office installed, and *not* OO/SO. This is how the MS monopoly
works, and it's also how the Adobe monopoly works. There isn't much
we can do about it, unless somebody has an idea how to get ODF a
sudden 99% market share across all platforms. ;)
Why don't we get one of the free pdf alternatives ported and running
(maybe it's already done?) I haven't run FreeBSD in a while, but way
back when I'm sure I remember using something other than Adobe
Acrobat to read/create PDFs.
Cheers,
David
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
I take your point, but this is very much a chicken-and-egg problem. Adobe's monopoly didn't appear overnight. Acrobat became popular as more people used it to distribute documents. Perhaps the same trick would work for ODF. You are, of course, completely correct. The same trick *might* work for ODF, that's surely true. At least in my situation (and I'm sure most business user situations) PDF is required, not optional. That's the only issue I have. So, possibly, start distributing ODF when you *can*, and for all other times PDF. Try to convert the people who use PDF right now to ODF, kind of a grass-roots movement of sorts. We have gpdf, but I don't know how good it is, and ISTR something called evince (sp?) is the way forward in that arena... Yeah, I looked up evince, it looks pretty nifty if it actually works well. That might be a good stop-gap solution. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
Easily solved; SUN gets off its fat chuff, heads over to Adobe, asks how much it'll cost to get Adobe Acrobat running on Solaris x86, then throw some money at the problem. Matty I don't believe this kind of response is appropriate. I think you've also missed the part of this discussion where it was mentioned Sun had already attempted to deal with Adobe to no avail. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
Bureaucracy, paperwork, and no (as far as they are concerned) reward worth the effort. Just like it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Adobe hasn't released an Intel Mac version of CS2. No sense whatsoever. Submitting forum posts will probably do nothing. Calling them (reasonably) in mass, might make a difference. I doubt it though. David - Original Message - From: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:47 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86 Matt Ingenthron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to have more up to date software options ? I for one have posted to their user forum, asking for a recompile to x86. I suggest all interested parties do so. I do this since more than three years on every fair where I see an Adobeboth. I don't understand their behavior. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D- 13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] curious about solaris + software stack + patching/software management in future
Hi David, I can't pretend to say I'll be able to fix all the problems, but I can try to help address the roadmap. The other thing I can tell you is I got your feedback to the right people. While many of us Sun employees send in the same feedback (and it is generally addressed), it's always more powerful when coming from someone outside Sun. I've already received an acknowledgement of the feedback, so I know it's currently being digested Thanks Matt! That's the kind of response I was looking for. :) +1 for Sun! The good news here is with the next Java ES release, the need for whole-root zones is scheduled to go away. This should help to simplify some of the patching. Excellent, I've heard a lot of good things about the upcoming release from the relevant mailing list. I'm curious about the Java issue. Lately, I myself have had an issue with the Portal 7 IFR installer, which has a panel that asks, essentially, Should I update the JVM or do you want to do it yourself. Regardless of what you answer, it lays down 1.5_04! Which patch was it? I'll have to dig through my email this evening to find the relevant discussion, I believe it occured on the arnold mailing list. I'll fish it out and send you the relevant information as soon as I get a chance. My issue was related to the (I can't remember which, off-hand) gnome package failing to install when installing the zone - this caused the links to /usr/java to not be properly created. Thus, the Studio 11 compiler would not install, because it couldn't find java. A quick manual linking session in each zone was required to sort this. It wasn't a huge issue for me, because it only took a minute per zone, and I only have 18 zones - but you can imagine the pain on a large-scale deployment, all over a simple bug related to a GUI application on a *server* that is headless. :) Agreed. In general, Java ES is on a path of becoming dramatically simpler. You can see some of this in things like the pre-release of Access Manager next in the NetBeans Enterprise Pack. It's now just a WAR file that is deployed to the server. That's awesome, I can't wait! We've also announced turning the Portal into an Open Source project (under CDDL) (https://portal.dev.java.net and https://portlet-repository.dev.java.net). Parts of Access Manager have been open source under CDDL for some time on the OpenSSO project. There has been a bit of a gap between the OpenSSO project and Access Manager, but the team is focused on getting rid of the gap. Interesting. Why mention open source? Because my (personal) observation is that folks tend to work harder to make things simpler to use when they open source them (proper Open Source, with community involvement and transparency-- not just lobbing the source over the wall). I've seen this trend with OpenSSO/AM and I know that's the goal with Portal. That's absolutely what's happened with Project Glassfish. I've seen the same thing happen. Also, code magically gets cleaner prior to being opened - I think it's a reputation thing. :P People don't want to disgrace themselves with hackish code. ;) I wish I could say it'll happen in 90 days, but the reality is it may take a while. Believe me, the product teams want to get it done in 90 days-- the tough part is meeting the backward compatibility, the migration, the support of existing customers and keeping all of the features. Then, with Java ES, they're forced (for the customer's benefit) to do a significant amount of integration testing. With as broad and cross platform as a stack as Sun has (only one other company I can think of is similar-- and they don't integration test for you), that's a non-trivial effort. Oh, I completely understand. I was simply interested in the direction/plans/rough roadmap for the future. I can make due with what's there right now, I'm looking at long-term usage myself, and planning for the long-haul. As with most things in life, it's a balance and they're on the right track (in my opinion) and trying to strike that balance. Again, I've forwarded along your feedback to the right folks so they see the challenges even our supporters face. From what you've described, it sounds like things are moving forward. Very much agreed. Thanks for sending in the feedback. - Matt Any time. Thanks for actually listening and caring about the feedback. That's what matters, and it impressed the heck out of me. :) David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] curious about solaris + software stack + patching/software management in future
We agree. You should soon be seeing proposals and work related to this posted to the Installation and Packaging community, which I'd suggest you join and contribute to. I'm sorry I can't be more specific yet, but I'm not the one doing the work. Ok, that'll make 6 mailing lists I participate in, now. ;) Good thing I'm learning java now, I'm going to have to write my own mail client to manage all of these discussion lists! :P All kidding aside, I'm really glad to see this is being addressed, and I look forward to the upcoming discussions and changes! Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] curious about solaris + software stack + patching/software management in future
Hi, I'm a bit curious about the direction Sun is going with Solaris/their software stack (JES) and patching/software management. I've been evaluating Solaris for quite some time, and been (generally) impressed with it. The main issues revolve around the above mentioned curiosities. #1 - Short of dedicating years of my life to the process (exaggeration.. bear with me) it's nearly impossible to get a Solaris 10 system working 100% correctly. For example (maybe you've seen the posts on the zones list) I've had a lot of issues with full root zones required by JES. Full root zones don't get java properly installed. *Yes*, I have all the latest patches, including the one I was referred to by a Sun employee on the Zones list. I had to manually go into the zones (all 18 of them) and setup the correct links because of a bug in a *gnome* package. This is on a server which is headless (the irony!) This kind of silliness applies in various places, it's not just this one issue. #2 - Patch management is a nightmare. I've seen various posts on discuss describing various technical reasons why this is true - that's great - but you can't expect non-10-year-solaris-vets to be enthused when there is a huge learning curve. smpatch really does help, but it's still fairly difficult. This is more true of the software stack than the OS itself. Solaris seems to patch *ok* with smpatch without much hassle, although like the above mentioned incident, there seems to be a lack of fixes for rather obvious/glaring issues. Let me elaborate on software stack issues: JES. JES JES JES JES. Dear Abby, I've attmempted to patch various JES components, and my brain has gone critical. Never in my life had I ever imagined something as absolutely and utterly insane as the patch management for the software stack. You have to know the obscene patch numbers for each individual component, which you can only get from support. There are all kinds of different types of patches, some are zips, some are patches, some are ... etc. You get the idea. This is a terror. I realize this is more JES related (as it's not directly OSOL related), however - I feel that management of software is part of the core os's function. Obviously, we've got the SVR4 package system and this patching system (whatever the technical name is.) I'm not very impressed with either of them. I can't complain about the technical side of things, I don't know anything about that. I'm talking about usability. The only reason alternative distro's have sprung up has generally been this aspect. This would tend to suggest that people aren't happy with the current system, and things should be improved. I've heard many times this is in the game plan, but I've yet to see any actual factual information on what's going on. Are gears turning? Or is this something I should look for in 2008? #3 - Hardware support has gotten a lot better, I've been pretty happy with it overall. However, at the same time, there are tons of NICs that have time-tested drivers floating around, yet those drivers are not in the OS. Why? Also, 90% of the NICS I've used that have drivers in the OS, I've had to hand edit driver_aliases to get them working. They've always worked flawlessly, but why is this necessary? I realize Sun can't test everything, but even looking in the HCL the mobo/nic listings are filled with add this to driver_aliases posts. Why can't Sun? Maybe this is something technical, I'm just curious. #4 - Strange PATHs and various other oddities. I don't know if this is a holdover for backwards-compatibility reasons, but there should be no need for every person running Solaris to have to hand edit /etc/hosts to add proper entries, nor any reason that the default PATH is so...non-inclusive. Nearly nothing works with the out-of-the-box setting, you've got to go futz with a dozen settings to get things functional. Sure, it only takes a few minutes once you've done it a dozen times, but we're talking about people trying out Solaris/OSOL for the first time. Related to #2, because there is no good package management (or repositories, whatever) it's a complete pain to administrate Solaris for me. I've got to hand compile a bunch of software - which was pretty painful when I didn't know about /usr/ccs/bin, had to install the sun compiler - which wouldn't work because java was broken in the full root zone due to a broken gnome package. Can you see how these *small* issues string together to become a nightmare for somebody who isn't a pro already? I didn't want this to come off as an attack, or anything of the sort. I am honestly curious what the roadmap is for these particular issues (if there even is one) and what the planned directions are. I've seen most (maybe all) of these issues acknowledged at one point or another, but I've not seen much come out of any of it. I also could be quite wrong about some things, I don't proclaim to be a Solaris/OSOL Guru.
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [zfs-discuss] Best. Solaris Tees. Ever.
This one works for me too. Much cooler and non-offensive/vulgar (yet still capable of stirring up emotions in people who are forced into the drudgery known as windows administration..) David - Original Message - From: UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:57 am Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: [zfs-discuss] Best. Solaris Tees. Ever. Why not just put a picture of your middle finger raised with Use OpenSolaris printed below it? That would have the same meaning, and people won't think you made a typo. Because Ben Rockwood came up with a much cooler slogan than that: use UNIX or die. (Ben, you rock.) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Best. Solaris Tees. Ever.
I'm not quite sure I understand the posting of advertisements for t-shirts for sale by a private company to discussion lists. I don't see how this is anything more than an advertisement for $25 dollar t-shirts. That being said, I somehow don't think FSCK You is going to go over well (just about anywhere), nor am I sure this is quite the advertisement we as the OSOL community would want for ZFS. Maybe I'm just a prude. The other shirt is ok, but any joke that needs explaining generally isn't that funny. To each their own I suppose, but I am -1 on the first tshirt, and -1 on advertising things for sale on a discussion list for OSOL. But hey, maybe people want to shell out $25 to have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] vulgar phrase that is far too over-used by the 14 y/o i'm-better-than-everyone-because-i-use-linux crowd (really, I think I've seen that spouted at least a thousand times in various ways on FreeNode) proudly displayed on their chest telling the world how wonderful ZFS is. Why not just put a picture of your middle finger raised with Use OpenSolaris printed below it? That would have the same meaning, and people won't think you made a typo. My apologies if I offend, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: sol-nv-b36 just released as Solaris Express 4/06
Wasn't 3/06 b33? I'm going by memory but that's what I recall. The download page does seem rather odd, there is two downloads available for both ISO and DVD - as in two sets. One is b36 and one is b33, but both are labeled 4/06. ??? :) David On Apr 28, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: This is the even more tested edition and, in my opinion, really solid: Is there any modifications made vs SCXR released ? Or is it really just more tested ? I was wrong on that version : SXCR : sol-nv-b36 Solaris Express 4/06 : sol-nv-b33 But its all very confusing because when I go to the download page there are headings for SPARC Platform - Solaris Express 4/06 which is : Solaris Express 4/06, CD 1, Multi-language sol-nv-b36-sparc-v1- iso.zip through to CD 5 and also x86 Platform - Solaris Express 4/06 Solaris Express 4/06, CD 1, Multi-language sol-nv-b36-x86-v1- iso.zip On the same page I also see SPARC Platform - Solaris Express 4/06 Solaris Express 3/06, CD 1, Multi-language sol-nv-b33-sparc-v1-iso.zip 372.71 MB Solaris Express 3/06, CD 2, Multi-language sol-nv-b33-sparc-dvd-iso-b.zip 513.63 MB Solaris Express 3/06, CD 3, Multi-language sol-nv-b33-sparc-v3-iso.zip 614.27 MB Solaris Express 3/06, CD 4, Multi-language sol-nv-b33-sparc-v4-iso.zip 562.09 MB Solaris Express 3/06, Languages, Multi-language sol-nv-b33-sparc-lang-iso.zip 481.33 MB so I think a typo or something is amiss. Even the second file there is wrong. -- Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] SX Releases - Visibility
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@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Interesting blog entry on Solaris 10
To sum, I would borrow from Dennis Ritchie's anti-forward from the UNIXHater's Handbook: this blog entry is like excrement -- it may contain some nutritional nuggets, but it is hardly a tasty pie... That was far too colorful for me, I believe I will not be sleeping for a few nights attempting to avoid visualizations. :P That being said, I agree wholeheartedly, the blog seems like a ranting/raving lunatic with no clue about his actual subject matter. This is one of the most telling lines: But if you want to run a stable production enviroment, you can forget about Solaris 10. Solaris is known for *many* things, some from the past, some from the present, but instability is *not* one of them. Except for patching, which is ugly and difficult. You have to have all zones running (albeit perhaps only at single user) and the pkgadd utility effectively re-runs the pkgadd in each zone, sequentially. If you have some zones that are halted, patchadd will start them up, patch them, then shut them down. Hope you don’t have too many! What does he propose should be done? If they are virtual servers as he puts it, would he prefer he has to go to each one and patch them one by one by hand? How is that any less painful than waiting on pkgadd to up/down zones without user interaction. I know which I'd choose. The zettabyte file system. Details have been removed from the official training materials. Insufficient testing—the words “filesystem bugs” made too many people run away screaming, and rightfully so! #1 - This isn't even in Sol10U1 #2 - I think there are quite a few people running nevada *current builds* who would disagree. What do they know, they actually run the OS, this guy just talks about running it. Obviously he's far more knowledgable. BUT D IS STILL CRAPPY AND UGLY Please, someone get DTrace working with a decent front-end language!!! And NOT JAVA!!! Ok, I'm done. Not even going to read the rest of this waste of life. What a CRAPPY AND UGLY blog, as well as blog entry. Yuck. *Goes back to trying to avoid mental images of previously mentioned description of this blog entry. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Looking Glass on OpenSolaris
Just a FYI - nVidia doesn't support consumer level cards with the Solaris drivers, so I took it upon myself to #1 - contact them and #2 - test. Happy to report 8756 supports everything I threw at it, including the 7900 and 7600 series. nVidia also says it should work but we do not support it. I had no troubles beyond the display sticking issues I always seem to have (short pauses where all mouse input does not move the cursor and nothing on the screen refreshes.) I managed to fix it as root by disabling DHCP on my network card (e1000g), but logging in as a normal user it returned. No idea what causes it. ;) Regardless - the nVidia drivers worked wonderfully, even detecting and selecting the correct resolution for my strange 21 16:10 lcd. Cheers, David - Original Message - From: Deron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:20 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Looking Glass on OpenSolaris I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't work. I recommend using LG release 0.8.0 (which will be released in mid-May) and the Nvidia 8756 driver (which has already been released). Bob Palowoda wrote On 04/19/06 00:13,: I was using the latest livecd Looking Glass CD and it's based on SLAX Linux. Is there any reason any of the OpenSolaris livecd distributions cannot include Looking Glass, Java and the latest Nvidia drivers like the SLAX Linux version? Other than space but that could be solved with a live DVD version. Come to think of it, is it posible to make a live DVD version? ---Bob This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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] [Fwd: OpenSolaris attacked by Novell]
However the ignorant masses rarely read them. The ignorant masses are cut cut chop tear etc not on this mailing list. No more so than they are reading those blogs. I believe the idea is to educate the non-ignorant, and leave it up to them to educate the ignorant. Actually, I suspect they don't even care about educating the ignorant masses as you put it, as long as somebody in their organizations is putting money into Sun. ;) Asking people to use the resources provided to them doesn't seem to be asking too much, to me. That being said, I don' t think it's up to you (nor I) to claim anything about ignorant masses. Broad generalizations that are relatively insulting have no business in a community discussion. Cheeers, David - Original Message - From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:20 am Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] [Fwd: OpenSolaris attacked by Novell] Gentlefolk, y'all have blogs for a reason :) However the ignorant masses rarely read them. The ignorant masses are led by the nose by what they read in eWeek and ComputerWorld Magazine. Written by press people that often have no clue what ZFS is or what a Zone is. It will take a great deal more work to get the message across thatopen source is not Linux only. -- Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?
Now I'm really confused. This last statement sounds like you're inventing new process. Are project teams now expected to cross-post things like PSARC cases and design documents to muskoka-discuss? This doesn't sound very good to me, from an outside-of-sun perspective. I'm in agreement with Mr. Price on this one. To be clear: OpenSolaris is not an OS. It is a collection of people, processes, and a forest of codebases; you can assemble various bits of OpenSolaris into any number of OS's. That's a not-insignificant distinction. I'm glad somebody sees things in the same light as I do, I believe the Open in OpenSolaris stands for a lot more than you can download the source code and look at it. A lot more. First, isn't the muskoka project the opposite of what we've been busydoing in creating projects and communities? I don't want to have to monitor and refer people posting about zones to tech-discuss or muskoka-discuss over to zones-discuss where all the expertise lives. We have to do that today inside of Sun and it's super annoying. This list (OSOL-Discuss) already serves as a good general/I-don't-know-where-it-goes location. I also agree that it might not be wise to create lists which might collide with existing lists. A day or two ago, I was in support of another general tech discussion list, but logic/reasoning is now starting to kick in from a management perspective, and I can forsee potential issues (some of which you mentioned). I don't have a good solution, but it is certainly something that needs to be addressed before it does become and issue. snip Finally, I'll criticize myself in that last week we had a big brewhaha on this list about whether it was OK to be in opposition to a project. I'll accept the purity of the idea that anyone who wants to can have a project can have one if seconded (as in this case). So from that perspective, go ahead. But I object to this being called something really generic (like tech-discuss) or imposing new processes or expectations (you should post your specs/cases/RFCs to this list) without a much more vigorous review. I think the brewhaha wasn't so much about opposing a project, but more about the method in which you oppose a project. Obviously not everyone is going to agree on every proposition/idea. People should feel comfortable voicing their opinions, both yay and nay. At the same time, voicing an opinion is not the same thing as telling people they can/can not. That was the cause of the brewhaha at least as far as I followed it. Opposition/criticism is quite a good tool in decision making, *assuming it is constructive*. Therin lies the key! Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?
I agree about keeping the scope broader (with perhaps sub-discussions more specific? Don't know if this is do-able..). At the same time, I also agree a better name is in order, when I saw Muskoka I quit reading previously. I didn't even realize it was simply the technical mailing list, due to the name. Cheers, David - Original Message - From: Dan Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress? On Mon 17 Apr 2006 at 04:55PM, Bart Smaalders wrote: Martin Schaffstall wrote: Obvious choice would be SKML, the Solaris Kernel Mailing List. That works, and seems somehow familiar. We've always (well, for the 17+ years I've been here) had a kernel mailing list. We could put your idea in first normal form and have [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are, however, significant areas of both interest and technical complexity actually not in the kernel... there really is intelligent life on the other side of the trap table. Should the mailing list name reflect this? The Muskoka Project tells us it is more broad: Anyone is welcome to post content here, provided it is technical in nature and is relevant to the OpenSolaris community. (and I should note to Bart that the primary Sun-internal kernel list is mostly defunct at this point (20 members) and that he isn't on it). -dp -- Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] niagra + solaris vs linux article, possible idea for the technically capable
What do people think about this? I just saw it on some OSNews story I was reading (don't cane me please..) http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/category/niagara/ Maybe somebody would be interested in working with the guy to analyze the situation and determine the cause of the performance disparity? That's a pretty big leap in performance considering Solaris really *should* be #1 on the hardware designed by the same company who writes the OS. ;) I realize it might be a bad test or some such, I just found it interesting. Maybe people (with the technical knowledge/know-how) should start approaching people who do comparisons like this one, and determine the root cause. If it's an actual issue with Solaris, then it could be reported and used to better Solaris itself. I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in performance, because this is more of a something people should consider doing in general type post than a setup X beat setup Y, what's the technical reasoning type. Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Delete files older than 1 hr
-mtime (or maybe -ctime) would work in Solaris 10, but it's by 24
hour periods. I don't know if you can use decimals to get down to an
hour. Maybe give it a shot? man find either way. ;)
Cheers,
David
On Apr 13, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Bhupinder wrote:
Hi All,
I have to write a shell script for Sun solaris 8 to delete files in
one particular directory older than 60 mins. On linux I can use the
following
find . -type f -mmin +60 -exec rm \{} \;
But this is not working on Solaris, please help me to find a
similar command for Sun. I am using the K shell.
Thanks in Advanced
Bhupinder
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
snippity snip snip What packages should be migrated over and treated as parts of the system? I don't doubt that we've missed the boat here, and that there are common parts that everybody installs. Do we have a plan for them? I think it'd be great to have a place to discuss all this. I don't have a stake in this -- I don't really care whether the answer is Blastwave, sunfreeware, companion CD, or anything else -- other than seeing that the Open Solaris community looks at the problem seriously. Considering this is OpenSolaris, I'd like to see it here. I don't want to have discussions strewn about all over the world, and I really don't want to have to hunt down whichever group of people is working on whichever chunk of OSOL. No thanks, let's keep it all in one spot. If all it ends up doing is recommending some existing solution, I'd be thrilled. I would *not*. Neither works for me. This is why we *need* a place to discuss these issues, and quite frankly, I don't want to have to sign up at Blastwave to discuss OSOL related issues. I'll sign up there if I want to discuss Blastwave related issues. What has been discussed before on this list, and what will likely continue to be discussed *is* an OSOL issue. It is entirely seperated from Blastwave/sunfreeware/etc. Those are potential solutions to the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is what needs addressing, and if bits and pieces of those existing solutions can be used, cool.. but I want to discuss it. Neither of those solutions I mentioned work for me in their current state. Hence, I had to build everything myself. We need to have a place to discuss these topics with everybody involved. Favoring blastwave/sunfreeware/whomever and using their project as a forum for this discussion isn't going to work for me. That would be doing the same thing that Sun is constantly being accused of doing right now on this very list! Can we stop bickering now and create a discussion forum? At least those involved could bicker-it-out there, and then I can subscribe once the dust has settled. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
I say this as someone who has no vested interest in Blastwave, Sunfreeware, or the companion CD but I still don't see the point, the community already has a more than one project to get pre-built open source software. I still can not see a reason to create yet another project unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing projects. I have no animosity towards Keith's proposal, just scratching my head and still wondering why it is even needed. Solaris/OpenSolaris has SFW so everything else you are on your own for anyway. I think the thought is to create a community ie. something like OSOL-Discuss or ZFS-Discuss, but for this software. I don't think it's intended to re-create things that have already been done. Besides Dennis has said something like this several times in this thread alone: if you think blastwave sucks then join the group and help fix things. Sorry, but the way opensource works (better get used to this) I don't *have* to do that. I can go and create my own project if I want to. Who are you to tell me I can't? You don't pay me to do the work... David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
I think the problem is one of perception. Maybe your own? I perceive that the OpenSolaris project is about opening the source to Solaris. That is why it's called OpenSolaris.. The problem is that Solaris is a product. Why exactly is this a problem? It's been no problem for RedHat (Fedora) and now SuSE (OpenSuSE). It's actually helped them out, tremendously. That product wants to now include Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL and a number of other things. These did not all exist in Solaris 8 and certainly SeaMonkey, GNU chess and Scribus never did. Ok. These have all been addressed at great expense of personal effort and extending partnerships within the Solaris Community. That's wonderful that you (the community) did that on their free time/of their own free will. I perceive that Sun would now like to replace all of that with some new project in order to get all things open source, Linux or BSD or UNIX world or maybe even Windows based, into the software product known as Solaris in some sort of supported fashion. Perception can be wrong, as you stated. I see it as pretty clear Sun wants to make a forum for us to discuss these kinds of issues, the end. They don't care what solution arises, as whatever it is will better OSOL/Solaris, and ultimately generate them more revenue. This is something that the Solaris Community has already been working at. Great. Essentially, the lists server is at : https://lists.blastwave.org/mailman/listinfo Join the Solaris Community Software project ( CSW ) and join in. Get a login userid and get involved. Tell the world that you want a package built for AMD64 on Solaris 10 Update 1 and you also want the same software for Solaris 8 sun4m. Then build both. Submit them both. Do testing. Release them. Smile. I'm tired of seeing mails telling me to go signup at Blastwave if I want to talk about OSS software packaging on OSOL! I don't want yet *another* place I have to go to get information about OSOL. This isn't Blastwave discussion, these aren't topics that only relate to Blastwave. This *is* OSOL. I'm personally so agitated at how this is being handled I will *never* even *consider* using Blastwave again, period. Not only that, but every client I provide a solution for will be told to avoid Blastwave. I don't like being told I'm not allowed to do things simply because somebody else feels it's overlapping with what they do. Sorry, but life doesn't work like that, and it especially isn't true of OSS. I can do as I please, and there is nothing you can do to stop me from it. So, because you feel that somehow *a discussion forum* created by Sun is going to put your project in the street, *I* am not allowed to have it? Sun is not allowed to have it? That's quite funny! I'm done with this topic, let me know when the new forum is up. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
exlusivity ? I give up. I really do. Once upon a time I thought it would be a really great idea to build a project that allows people to login and play. To build software and do things. Like create open source software in an open way, for free, and get involved. Doors were always open. Sun had no such thing at the time and people seemed to want something like that. Here I am in 2006 with people upset and outright angry with me. I have a guy sending me an email that tells me to issue an apology to Kieth and Steve C. I see another guy wants to run around to all his clients and tell them to avoid blastwave. Well done, build a bridge and then watch people complain as they drive over it. At least I have a few people that tell me that its great that they can get all this software so easily. I can live with that I guess. Now then .. is someone actually creating a new maillist ? You're rather crossing the line now. I said I was going to drop this topic, but this is going a bit too far. People aren't upset/angry/etc with you because you started/created this project. I *was* happy you did. I'm sure tons of people are very appreciative, and happy you did. My problem is your absolute unwillingness to let people do their own thing. You've repeatedly said (in so many words) it's Blastwave for you, or it's nothing. This whole discussion started out of a request for a place to discuss these issues. At first you were almost attacking it, then you started telling people to use your discussion forums, and even more recently you said go ahead and create a discussion area here. Well done, build a bridge and then watch people complain as they drive over it. Look buddy, I'm not driving over your bridge. I have no intention of ever driving over your bridge. I'm also not putting dynamite under it. The way you've treated people on this list, the way you've been attempting to push and shove your way around - never forgetting to include a nice i did all this work for my vision statement, and your inability to allow other people to do what they would like to do because you don't agree - REALLY bothers me. Quite obviously it's bothered other people too. Just two days ago, I considered blastwave a wonderful project, and I had a lot of respect for your work on it (as well as the community involved.) While it didn't work for my needs in most cases, that didn't make me belittle it, nor your efforts. My issue isn't with Blastwave, or your work on the project, nor anybodies. I am not out to *harm* you in some way. My issue is entirely related to your words here. You cannot tell people you can't do that because I've done something like it and my way is the only way to do such a thing! You cannot play the guilt game and talk about how much effort you've put into your project and how X or Y company is trying to take away from it. I hope when you decided to offer a free service, you understood like most things in life - everything is temporary. If you make a free/open source product/service/whatever, and later down the road somebody else re-implements it in a different way than yours, and that way becomes *accepted* by X Y or Z company... that's life. The issue at hand isn't even the above mentioned case! Nobody has said such a thing will occur! We (me, other *non-sun* folk, and sun folk) have all expressed interest in a place to discuss this software. Nowhere had anybody said Blastwave is not a possible solution. Until now, and you brought that onto yourself/your project. This is a very common complex with people who lead OSS/free projects, I've watched it destroy *many* more projects than I care to name. Your way isn't the only way, accept it now and work with other people instead of trying to force them to see things through your eyes. If we want a community to discuss things in OSOL, just let it pass if you don't agree, +1 if you do. By all means participate in the discussion. Do *not* tell me what I can/can't do, and that I am right/wrong simply based on the fact you run an OSS/free project related to what I want. Back it up with some technical reasoning, logic, whatever - that's fine. That's what discussion is about, and that's why we need the community. David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
Hi folks, I was informed there was a bit of a broohaha over here, about packaging up open source binaries for solaris and opensolaris. So, as the author of pkg-get, and the creator/leader of the CSW packaging efforts living on blastwave.org, I thought I'd poke my head in and wave. *wave*. I'm glad you came. Hi! I've been skiming through some of the archives on this subject thread. I'd like to think that I can offer a calm and cool response to any outstanding issues or questions reguarding blastwave/CSW packaging. I'm on too many mailing lists as it is, so this will probably be a short-term (few weeks) visit :-) But I'll do my best to pay attention during that time. That sounds wonderful. At this point, there's only one clear thing that i'm not sure people have explained: Why blastwave offers packages that are redundant to some sun ones. Yes, lots of people have had that question, myself included.. This issue came up wy back 5 years(?) ago when I started things off. We initially tried to build on top of Sun shipped stuff, which at that time, was all living in /opt/sfw. It didnt work. The libs themselves worked fine enough. But the problem is that open-source software is very undisciplined about any kind of binary or API compatibility. The majority of new stuff, always seems to demand the latest new stuff from the other projects that it compiles against. This means that if we wanted to offer foo 2.0, which depended on bar 1.1, but sun only shipped bar 1.0 ... we were stuck with either not offering foo 2.0 at all, or offering our own bar 1.1 for foo 2.0 That's been witnessed by countless people. Ever heard of dependency hell? It's a common phrase when describing linux distributions and their attempts at updating/installing/changing software. Been there, done that.. Then, if we were shipping bar 1.1 ourselves, it made no sense to have our other stuff that also used bar, compile against sun's bar 1.0, when we had the newer,better,whatever bar 1.1 I can somewhat understanding this, assuming bar 1.1 really was better. Now, eventually, sun caught up, and shipped bar 1.1 But by that time, we were already shipping packages that depended on CSWbar, not SFWbar. It would be really bad policy to go back and force-recompile and repackage CSWfoo to depend on SFWbar, when SFWbar is going to be out of date again soon enough. At an early point, (mostly for laziness reasons :-) we tried to go with, use SFWbar, unless we need a newer version, then compile against CSWbar. But this eventually dwindled to such a small percentage, there was no longer any real gain to depending on the SFW versions any more. So I made the decision to simplify the user experience ;-) Also simplying the package maintainer's experience... This also hopefully gives end users/admins the cleaner option of, If you like the way CSWgnome looks, you can standardize on it, and eventually pkgrm SFW/SUNWgnome* cleanly, without worrying about, 'oops, I can remove all those sun gnome packages EXCEPT those special ones over there...' This is what I want to avoid, and why I have so many problems with various package management systems. Dependencies suck! There's no clean way to manage that last EXCEPT piece. It was cleaner to just treat Solaris as the pure base OS, and ignore all the SUNWgnome/SFWgnome type stuff. Ok, still following you... This becomes even more of an issue in the fact that we support our latest version of gnome, on sun's oldest officially supported OS release: Solaris 8. Sun doesnt support SUNWgnome fully on sol8. (last time I checked anyway). We do. That's quite cool. Given that we have to do the full gnome dependancy build on sol8 anyway... it would make life far too complicated to ship two very differently linked versions of gnome; one for sol8, and one for sol10. I can understand. The single version approach is actually beneficial to the USERS, as well as the blastwave maintainers!! This way means that our users can NFS-export out a single /opt/csw, to ALL their solaris 8, 9, and 10 machines, and have gnome work *exactly the same way* on all of them. Makes sense. I think a good way to integrate this work is make sfw modular, and have some kind of update mechanism in place for it. Give non-sun people access to the repository/update mechanism, as well as tools to create/work on/etc packages. Have a staging system in place, so it passes through various levels until it's certifiably working/not bugging out. Then give it final approval and pump it out to the world. It sounds like a lot of what Blastwave is already doing could be applied here, if not integrated directly. I'd also like to add, as an additional feature it would be quite cool if the update/install/whatever tool allowed an administrator to specify options that aren't a part of the package already. In this case, instead of fetching the default pre-built package, the source along with
Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software
perhaps project approval is just too easy for Sun's pet projects. This project was okayed only by Sun employees, I didn't notice anyone outside of Sun giving an okay on this project, and at least one of the one of the two people that okayed the project had a vested interest in it, (a volunteer on the SFW-Cteam in my copious free time), Perhaps persons with a vested interest in a project should recuse themselfs from the approval proccess. Sorry if I'm mistaken, but if nobody with a vested interest okayed things, nothing would ever get okayed. You quite obviously have a vested interest in this topic (or at least appear to have one..) Does that make your input/okay/yes/no not worthwhile? I feel something as important as an OpenSource instalation standards needs broarder support than just a couple members of the project approving it. It will be too easy for this project to create a standard that doesn't meet the current needs of the community, that appears to have chosen sunfreeware and blastwave as standards allready. I think starting a project/community to discuss this kind of collaboration as asked for by Dennis and so forth isn't creating a standard dictated by Sun. It's just a discussion forum.. Time will tell how standards come out of it, from the looks of things they will come when everybody involved comes to a general consensus. That's how things should happen, anyways. I don't agree with having packages only built one way, with no recourse in changing options. Currently, that's where I'm stuck with blastwave. I understand this is changing, but this kind of discussion would be better served by a forum *for* this kind of discussion, instead of on a general discussion list. this particular project seems to need more than a project offers, it really needs to be a community to support the numerous packages that this encompasses. So starting a project/community/whatever you want to call it in order to plan and lay out the future direction of this particular facet of OpenSolaris is bad? I don't understand your logic. It would seem to me this would benefit all of those involved, Dennis and so forth included. I don't see this as some kind of draconian Sun-run group that doesn't allow anybody any freedom, and whatever they say goes. It looks like a simple attempt to create a *place* to discuss these topics and come to agreement on what the future plan should be. If that's using Blastwave, so be it. If it's taking Blastwave and morphing it into something else, so be it. It sounds like Dennis is open to anything as long as we move *forward*. it would of been better to engnlist parties that are involved to work together on this task, so that you would have broarder support. Isn't that the idea of this? yes its planned, a subversion repository is being setup and will be ready for code to be added to it shortly. Cool, Dennis went into more detail on this in an earlier post. It sounds great, and it's a necessary step in order to progress. James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: C shells
Understandably, latest and greatest may not always be the *best* option. There is a lot to be said for stability/status quo. However, you need to look at both ends of the spectrum. Here in the State of Hawaii, I am a data processing systems analyst in order to help fund the startup of my data center. The state has the same theory, stability/stasis mode is foremost to the bane of any modern functionality. That's why I write OS/VS COBOL and JCL on OS/360 systems. It's stable as hell, I can't recall a time where we had any failure non-hardware/power related. We run batches every night with millions of records (I specifically write/maintain the system which handle's the states finances), and we never have any issues other than the extreme processing time, huge power draw, and complete pain in the ass to maintain/modify. This, however, does not mean this is the best, or even a *good* solution. It's terrible. For every little change it takes me 20x the amount of time it would if this were running on a modern system. The mainframes draw enough power to light up NYC. You could re-write the whole financial system in a more modern language (c, java, whatever) and within a *year* already reap the benefits in time/money. The state is more concerned with keeping everything backwards compatible and stable, to the point they don't even *attempt* to stay somewhat modern, at their own peril. There is a balance point, somewhere in-between, that has to be found. It doesn't make any sense that we still have a system from 1960 running the state. We still have two digit years, with a kludge for y2k issues. It's a mess. A new system *could* have been designed to replace this mess, and probably ran on a 4u server in less time than it takes on these monster IBM mainframes. Not only that, but we could get away from this terrible batch processing, and start doing real time work. I realize this is a gross exaggeration of the situation in Solaris, I don't think the version of tcsh being discussed in Solaris is from the 1960s. I was just using exaggeration to make a point (clearly.) ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/tcsh/Announce-6.14.00 That's the release notes for 6.14.00. I don't know if all those bug fixes have been backported to our version, but considering the changes, it doesn't exactly look like a feature release but instead more of a service pack/bugfix release. I don't think this is a case of latest and greatest - more like latest and least buggy. That said, I haven't looked at the code, I don't know. Obviously you know best in this regard. That being said, I'm new to Solaris. Maybe the stance is if something is buggy and put into a production release, then people might rely on those *bugs/non-intended behavior* with their programs, so you can't fix the *bugs/non-intended behavior* because it would remove backwards compatibility. I really don't know. I sure hope this isn't the case! I don't want to have to write code that relies on bugs/odd behavior simply because somebody else did 5 years ago. Cheers, David On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, UNIX admin wrote: I disagree. Having latest-and-greatest, if it comes from the Linux camp, does not mean quality. And if the potential user looks mainly Indeed; the latest isn't necessarily the greatest. :-) But OTOH, there's something to be said for keeping reasonably current. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Slowaris vs. Solaris
Seconded. I really love Solaris (now... I've seen the light!) - but forget doing DVD installs. I can literally *hear* the drive spinning up and down repeatedly. I have no problem when transferring contiguous files from the dvd once Solaris is installed, it is almost certainly something related to the install/installer/etc. When it takes me less time to download all 5 parts of the dvd, cat them together (on a Solaris 10 machine) and transfer to a machine with a dvd burner, AND burn the dvd then it does to simply install Solaris, something is wrong. Yes, that's exactly what I did. I managed to do all that with SX's DVD image while installing S10U1 on a relatively fast machine. It's not the drive or the interface, as I said - once installed I have no problem reading from dvd's quite acceptably. Of course, other types of installs are much faster. A new user isn't going to be doing a flash install, however. That's what I believe the thread starter was suggesting. Do you really want a user's *first* experience with Solaris to be a dreadfully long install on a machine that you can get linux up and going with a full desktop install in a few minutes? Most people will just kill the install halfway through and just go back to using whatever OS they know well. Human nature! Most people know that the speed of an install really has nothing to do with the speed of an OS, but that won't stop people from going wow, this is going really slow, forget this piece of junk I'm going back to using *insert linux distro here*, I could have been done with my job already and surfing the net. Cheers, David PS - Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock Solaris. It's a great OS, but the install process from DVD is terrible. I believe this is a known/acknowledged issue though, and I've heard plans floating around to fix it. I'd say it should be more of a priority than it's been given though. That'd be thing #1 I'd fix. I'd try to have it ready for U2, because that's when ZFS (BrandZ too? Not sure..) gets integrated, and I bet a bunch of people are going to try Solaris around that time. You don't want to lose those potential customers over a slow install process. I'm speaking from experience btw, a year or so ago I had a need for a server OS, and the client even had a preference for Solaris. I ended up getting them setup with FreeBSD because I tried the 3/05 install and waited an hour and said to heck with it, I could have had FreeBSD on 3 machines by now. I'm not so naive as to think the install speed has anything to do with the OS itself, I just felt like I was wasting my time. It's a human thing, it's not conscious/rational thought. Yes a flash/jumpstart/whatever install would have been much quicker, but how many people are going to do that the first go-around with Solaris? On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 16:33, Joerg Schilling wrote: Thomas Maier-Komor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I thought about in what parts of Solaris the Slowaris image is still valid. Especially, where does the system give a bad impression that might be valid, but is not applicable to Solaris in general. I have come up with the following points: - default DVD based install process (slow) Sure? ... Maybe, your DVD drive is not very dast or you have other problems. With a decent drive and a clean media, you should see speeds starting at aprox. 9MB/s going to more than 20 MB/s. But the Solaris installer doesn't read the data at that rate. If it got the drive going then it would be fine, but it spends half its time jumping all over the place, and even when doing nothing but reading a simple data stream it's at a very much slower rate. The problem is in the install process being slow, not in how fast the media is. -- -Peter Tribble L.I.S., University of Hertfordshire - http://www.herts.ac.uk/ http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Slowaris vs. Solaris
This is very true, but I question what you meant by that. In my own experience, 95% of the people don't use a lot of the features of Solaris because they're almost completely incompetent when it comes to Solaris. That is not a good thing, I do agree, but at the same time - I'd say it's Solaris that needs to improve in this regard. If people can't use your product properly (95% of the time to use your statistic) then something is wrong with the usability of your product. Not the (95%) of people. Not saying a competent Solaris admin can't run the OS for all it's worth. Just competent Solaris admin's are few and far inbetween if 95% is indeed the amount who are not. If this is the case, then usability is the flaw. Now, if 5% can't use the features, I'd blame the 5% for being ignorant. The so called IT experts seem to be experts only in clicking on pictures in Windows and Linux. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, except these guys try to sell themselves as the experts, and make it harder for people that actually know something to get in. I think anybody who was really good with Solaris, would have no problem getting a position above one of these clicky clicky folks. They'd probably be better at the clicky clicky too. I don't see how it would be hard at *all* to get a job if you knew Solaris well. Agreed. SMC sucks dead bunnies through a bent straw sideways; but then again, being a hardcore shell guy, perhaps I'm the wrong person to write that. However, to me SMC is confusing, slow and useless. Well, two things. #1 - I agree, SMC sucks, even for clicky clicky people. I think pretty much everybody would agree with that. #2 - You've just defined why you made the (above) responses you made. You're one of the few hardcore guys around, who knows what they are doing. Of course from your perspective, it's a flaw in the users if they can't handle Solaris in it's full glory. I'm new to Solaris. I'm not a stupid person (I would like to think...) Solaris administration has a huge learning curve. Would you blame me for my difficulties in using it? I've stuck with it and I've come to like it a lot, but that doesn't mean I think the admin/user experience is very good. It's a beautiful OS technically, but it's pretty damn ugly usability wise. For me, the technical value makes the learning curve worthwhile, but for companies who would have to employ 5 Solaris gurus at hundreds of thousands a year to maintain a bunch of servers, vs. a dozen linux guys at 15-20/hour who got the job done, a lot would go the cheaper route. That's why I say Solaris has a bit of usability issues to get past. Technically, they win. Usability wise, there is work to be done. Starting with writing documentation aimed at *normal users* and not Solaris veterans would be helpful. Think FreeBSD handbook. The Sun docs on Solaris/JES/etc seem to be more like the O'Reilly in a nutshell series. You know, kind of like an encyclopedia. For new users, this is pretty tough to digest, ESPECIALLY if you have no unix background. I could go on for hours, but I don't want to derail the thread. :) Cheers, David This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenBSD donation request
I don't think this is the right place to be soliciting donations, as I really don't want to have my emailbox full of Please donate posts - and I imagine other people do not as well. Pointing fingers and saying you use our OPEN/FREE code but never donated so donate now! is just going to inflame people/companies. Guilt trips are the realm of teenagers, I expect more out of a professional organization such as yours. While I am very appreciative of the Open* projects, I think this is really a bad way to go about things. If you'd like, I'll be more than happy to help you understand possible solutions to your financial problems via direct email exchange. I'll also be happy to clarify why this method of soliciting donations is improper. I am not the owner nor do I have any control over the usage of this list, let me make that clear - but I would appreciate it if solicitations were kept off of it. I hope you are not here speaking officially on Open*'s behalf. Thanks, David Hi all Probably most of you have heard about the financial problems the OpenBSD project has. The OpenSSH project is part of it too. Now the OpenBSD project suffers because it's income is dwindling. It's dwindling because people just download the software but don't buy CDs and donate. Large companies who have been using OpenSSH for a long time in their products haven't donated either. Namely companies like Cisco, IBM, Sun and HP. I think that a significant donation by Sun would not only help the OpenBSD project in sustaining the development of OpenSSH, but would also be a good public relations opportunity. So please consider donating to the OpenBSD project to maintain high-quality components in OpenSolaris too. For special donations or sponsoring please refer to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or donate directly here: http://openbsd.org/donations.html Thank you all for your time reading this. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Proposal to remove /usr/sfw and itsdependencies from the bas
Alan Coopersmith wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: Was there a document at some point in history ( this is UNIX and it has tons of history ) called the FSSTD or was it FHS ? http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html ( this may be a Linux animal however ) That's the Linux Standards Base filesystem layout, and should be violently ignored by Solaris. Yes, I can only second that comment. The Linux Standards Base filesystem layout is totally braindead. Thirded. It's terrible. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [Fwd: Funding OpenSSH]
Hello, Please understand that this is a mailing list. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=7083tstart=0 While your request is much more well thought out than the previous one today, I suggest you send your requests for donation to the appropriate entities. I don't believe a public mailing list for the discussion of OpenSolaris is an appropriate place to request for vendor funding. Please note that this request is intended for *vendors* - our individual userbase already helps us in every appropriate way. Then contact the vendor. :) I'm sure many people would appreciate if you talked with whoever is suggesting people come spam public mailing lists requesting donations for your project, and asked them to stop. Most of the people on these mailing lists are not Sun employees, and most of the Sun employees on the mailing list probably have nothing to do with donations. Again, I am only a subscriber, but I don't like constant bombardment by donation requests when I have nothing to do with the company you are soliciting. Thank you kindly, David Hi! Just forwarding this request as this affects OpenSolaris, too: Original Message Subject: Funding OpenSSH Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:32:04 +1100 (EST) From: Damien Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, This mail is a request for vendors who have integrated OpenSSH into their products or devices to step up and provide some financial assistance back to the project. Please note that this request is intended for *vendors* - our individual userbase already helps us in every appropriate way. You may have noticed a similar request for OpenSSH/OpenBSD funding made by Marco Peereboom in this last couple of days, but I would like to reiterate: money donated to the project goes directly to development, either by funding individual developers for medium-long term projects or by putting developers in a room together, without distractions so they can improve OpenSSH. Having long term developers around ensures that small and boring, but important changes receive the attention that they deserve. OpenSSH hasn't had 9am-5pm developer attention for a while, but we believe it would greatly benefit from it. The second consumer of funds above refers to the annual hackathons that the OpenBSD project runs. These provide a forum where major functionality improvements can be initiated, fleshed out, reviewed and committed. The last two hackathons alone have been directly responsible for: - Fixing of dozens of bugs - The addition of connection multiplexing - The idea for the layer-2/layer-3 VPN over SSH released in 4.3 - The implementation of auto-reexecution - Many proactive signed vs. unsigned integer cleanups ... and a bunch of other improvements and ideas at various stages of conception and development. There really isn't a substitute for pulling a bunch of developers from around the world to focus on one thing for a solid week. Many vendors have integrated OpenSSH into their operating systems or devices and quite a few of these proudly list the secure management ability that OpenSSH provides as a major feature in their marketing material - something which translates directly to product sales. This is an opportunity for these vendors to give somthing back. For a relatively tiny amount of money, you can help ensure that OpenSSH continues to extend its functionality and proactively improve security. If you are interested, please email myself, Markus Friedl and/or Theo de Raadt: - Damien Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Markus Friedl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you work for a vendor who uses or has integrated OpenSSH, please consider this request and forward it to anyone else in your organisation who is able to assist. Thanks, Damien Miller ___ openssh-unix-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Is it possible to upgrade SX 3/06?
Hi, As recently suggested on the ZFS list, I'd like to move from 3/06 of SX (not CR!) to the more recent osol (b36? whatever it might be at now..) I looked at the installation pages, it looks like there is a pre-built archive I can (BFU?) install. Is it possible to simply upgrade my SX 3/06 release? It says only SXCR is supported, but people on IRC have said 3/06 is doable as well. I am just looking for confirmation before I blow up my machine. ;) As a second question, is it possible to BFU upgrade remote? Or does it require console access (i.e. setting up a remote KVM or something)? Thanks, David This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Is it possible to upgrade SX 3/06?
If you just want to have build 36 installed, yes, you can Upgrade from SX 3/06. If you want to have your own custom ON bits that you've changed, or you're planning to do this later and want to get familiar with BFU, you can use that utility with the current BFU archives available from opensolaris.org. In general I don't see any reason to BFU instead of Install/Upgrade unless you need or want customised ON bits - say, from a project you're testing, or to include a bugfix you need that went back after the last build. I'm not sure how I'd upgrade to build 36, as I don't see any SX releases using b36. Only b35 for CR of SX. Maybe it's my lack of understanding of upgrading versus BFUing. http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/ That makes it sound like prebuilt archives or from source == BFU, which is an upgrade from the definition of the acronym. It sounds like you are suggesting an upgrade via downloading the SXCR dvd/cd though. Am I correct? If so - where can I get my hands on a SX build b36? I'd much prefer this method! SXCR definitely isn't supported, nor is any BFU'd system. If you need support, stick with the official SX or Solaris 10 releases. If you mean supported for building ON then any of these will work although you need to read each set of release notes carefully to make sure you're recent enough to build whatever sources you have. Unfortunately, I need support, but at the same time I need stability with ZFS. I've experienced some panics already (posted in ZFS list) that are supposedly fixed in b36. I have to pick between support or stability at this point until S10U2 is out, and I'm choosing stability. :) Possible? Sure. It usually works, but it's not recommended; it's possible that whatever programs you use to access the box remotely will be disrupted by the replacement of libraries, etc., causing you to lose your connection and probably leaving the system in an inconsistent state. It's best to BFU only on the console rather than remotely or in an xterm. Well, it sounds like I'm going with an upgrade - however that is done. So this is a non-issue. :) Wise advice, I'll just go pick up a KVM. If you could just enlighten me as to how I can upgrade to b36, I would be greatly appreciative! Cheers, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Is it possible to upgrade SX 3/06?
You'll have to wait for SXCR 36 to come out. According to Karyn's latest status note, it's on track for 3/31. Thanks! When most people say 'Upgrade' they mean the full upgrade process offered by the installation CD/DVD/netinstaller. There's also LiveUpgrade, another supported upgrade method. BFU is very different in that (a) it only upgrades ON content, (b) it's completely unsupported by anyone for anything, and (c) it doesn't use (and in fact breaks) packaging. Understood. :) If you need support + ZFS, your only option right now is the official SX release. If you need support + ZFS + changes in build 36, you're SOL. Please wait until an official SX based on 36 or later is available, or find a vendor willing to support SXCR 36 or SXCR 35 + BFU of 36. I'm sure if you offered your Sun sales rep enough money we'd be willing to give you the support contract you want, but it's not a standard offering and it's sure not going to be cheap. I understood that previously. Thank you. supposedly fixed in b36. I have to pick between support or stability at this point until S10U2 is out, and I'm choosing stability. :) It's hard to understand what it is you want. Earlier you said you do need support; now you're saying that you don't. I can't tell whether you're a bleeding edger itching to test the lastest stuff, supported or not, and help fix ZFS bugs, or a Solaris customer who needs a reliable operating system and a reassuring support contract. So instead of trying to understand you, I'll just list your options and let you do the choosing. You might also benefit from reading http://www.whacked.net/2005/06/21/confused-so-was-i/. I want both, I realize I can only have one or the other at this point in time. I am choosing to go without support until which time I can get a supported version, because I have too many problems with b33 to use it in production, and ZFS is a necessary function for what I am trying to do. I think maybe I wasn't clear enough and you read deeply into my rather shallow words. ;) I simply intended to say: I'm going to forgo support in order to use a release of Solaris that has the bugs I am experiencing fixed. Support is less of a priority to me than the bug fixes. Once there is a supported version with the newer bug-fixed bits, I will move to it so I can have support AND less buggy operation. Sorry to have confused you. - SX or SXCR + BFU to 36. Advantages: most recent available ON content, including ZFS changes. BFU is much faster than upgrade. Disadvantages: Absolutely no support offerings available, little integration testing has been done on this combination, BFU itself is unsupported, can't Upgrade after BFUing. Sounds like BFU is not the way to go for me then, as I'm not intending on doing development myself. Thank you for clarifying this. - SXCR 36 - Advantages: most recent available content from all consolidations, including the ZFS changes you're looking for. Has had a small amount of testing, preserves future upgrade path. Disadvantages: No support available, won't be out until around 3/31. Super, 3/31 isn't too far off. - SXCR 35 - Just like SXCR 36 except it's available today and doesn't have the ZFS changes you want. No reason to upgrade at this point then, I'll just hold off until I see 36 hit the web. - SX 3/06 - Advantages: Support is available, has been through more successful testing than SXCR builds. Disadvantages: doesn't have the ZFS work you want, somewhat out of date relative to current builds. ZFS is broken for me with this release, generating kernel panics multiple times a day isn't going to work for my needs. I'll just wait for 3/31, I'm not in that much of a rush. :) - S10U1 - Advantages: Fully supported, has been through a full QA workup. Disadvantages: can't be used to build OpenSolaris source, doesn't contain ZFS at all. S10U1 has been incredibly stable for me, I just need ZFS. I am anxiously awaiting S10U2, SX is simply a stop-gap for me due to a few customers requesting features we cannot provide at reasonable costs without ZFS. :) Unfortunately, stability is relatively important, and b33 isn't working out in this regard (that's why we test!) It sounds like b36 will be perfect, and I can wait until the 31st for that. - Other OpenSolaris-based distributions: Consult vendors for available features and support options. Thank you for clarifying everything for me, I'm quite clear on where things stand now. Sorry for my miscommunication earlier, I didn't intend on misleading of confusing you. Best wishes, and thank you again! David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Error 28: Selected item cannot fit in to memorywhen installing Open Solaris 10-U1 from DVD
280b0fa85e1f193bc93e036f a6e7311a is correct. I had the *exact* same problem you describe, it was caused by a bad burn. I imagine a corrupt image would do the same thing (your md5sum doesn't match.) It sounds like yours is due to a bad download. As to the second poster with issues, if your iso matches that md5sum (the correct one) then I suggest making sure your burn wasn't bad. Also, you do have to disable the memory hole in the BIOS, and you do need at least 256 megs of ram. See this thread to determine if GRUB sees your memory: http://forum.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=28616tstart=0 Cheers, David This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and
I'm curious what you expect to find in terms of a 'how-to' for your problem. If you don't want to use the version of bundled software that ships with Solaris, your 'on your own' to roll your own solution (as you've done) or leverage the work of others (such as blastwave, sunfreeware, etc). Although, I suppose if you wanted to pay Sun enough money, our Professional Services division might be able to ease some of this burden (but I'd expect that to be prohibitively expensive in the long haul). Oh, I understand that completely. I was looking for a how-to concerning the proper way to go about installing non-sun-supplied software. I.e., software you can't find packages of. I know how to build from source, etc. I just didn't know the entire procedure to go about doing this properly to make it the least hassle possible. So far I've gathered you compile everything by hand, build packages out of it, then use those packages to keep things up to date. Makes sense. I just didn't know where to look to get this generalized information. Now that I know I should be dealing with package creation, I'll go dig in the docs for that. This was the pointer I was needing! Sun isn't like Gentoo or FreeBSD (I believe their ports collection is similiar to Gentoo) where you get 'rolling' updates of bundled software whether the updates are security related or not. You get tested, stable versions at the time of shipment. Patches get released to address security issues naturally but new features (or versions) aren't integrated generally until the next full release (there are exceptions). Completely understood, and would be my preferred way of doing things if it were always possible. Let me try to make an example from memory (it's been a bit since I tried the Sun pre-packaged apache/php/etc combo). I believe it was php4.x, apache1.3, and mysql 4.x. If I wanted to use postgresql with php, what would I have done? I don't remember there being any postgresql packages, and even if there were, I'm almost positive the included php4 package had no postgresql support built in. That doesn't mean there aren't stable versions of postgresql (quite the contrary!) But needs aren't met, so things have to be done by hand (mySQL isn't good enough for some people, and Oracle is too much.) Of course, I'm going off memory, so maybe postgresql was there, and php4 was compiled with support for it. If so, just replace it with some other software not available on Solaris 10 GA, I hope I'm a bit more clear in what I meant now. :) This really isn't much different than the way Debian (or most linux distributions) does things for example. They ship a stable version of their OS that contains bundled software which then only receives security updates throughout it's lifetime. Completely agreed, but from my experience this far with Solaris, the amount of available sun-created packages is much much less. Granted, the quality is (questionable, but for the sake of argument) much better with the Sun packages, they are generally rock solid/stable, and secure. However, there are times when you just _need_ certain software. For example, I'm not so big on _needing_ php5, even though lots of people request it, because php4 is obviously more tested, and I'd rather have a more stable/tested setup than pleasing a few clients asking for a bleeding edge version. However, when I need postgresql (or as stated before, whatever sun doesn't have a package for if postgresql is there), what am I to do? That was my problem, and what I couldn't find in docs. Now I _think_ I might have an answer. :) If you want/need to live on the bleeding edge (or really any edge other than what Sun defines as it were), you need to 'roll your own' solution or leverage other's work. I understood that, I just didn't know how I should go about doing it. There was no general documentation I could find concerning it. I guess I build, then make packages? Now, if you packaged up your custom built software into Solaris packages, your maintenance for 100+ machines goes down. You have a build machine, that runs whatever version of Solaris that is running on the rest of your machines, you build your software on it, package it up, and then deploy your packages to x number of machines. You've still got work to do (keeping up to date with the software, initial building, packaging work) but it's far more manageable. Plus, your packaging work is essentially a one-off. Plus, if you have packages of software you've built on your own, you could integrate them into jumpstart (thereby easing your installs of new machines). That sounds like the best-fit solution considering the choices available. However, I could not find this solution anywhere in the documentation. You can play other games (like say exporting something over nfs to all your machines that contains all the software you want to deploy) but that has
