from:"John Sonnenschein"

So, GDM is rather large, and very tied to the GNOME desktop environment, 
dtlogin is being sadly jettisoned, and everyone seems opposed to xdm for some 
reason.

Anyone have any comments about replacing it with something like SLiM ( 
http://slim.berlios.de ), which is lighter, has less dependencies  is desktop 
environment agnostic ( all good things, imo ) and can be themed all pretty to 
boot.

Both GDM and SLiM are GPL, so either way we're left with viral licenses. 

Bear in mind, I haven't done any footwork on this yet. Some time next week  
I'll build  Solaris-up SLiM and real evaluations can begin, but for now, just 
asking for comments on the idea
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Emancipation SUNWsprot

Hello

It's come to my attention that /usr/ccs/bin/as is not redistributable.  
Since Indiana's aiming to be in the running to be considered some sort  
of reference distribution (despite how I feel about the concept in  
general) it ought to at least be able to build ON, which it currently  
cannot.

So, the lack of a useful assembler is a bug. What I want to know is if  
anyone else is working on a fix, so that I don't end up duplicating  
effort by writing it all over again, and if so if they need help. ( If  
not, no big deal, I'll keep doing what I'm doing )

Cheers

-John
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [osol-code] Emancipation SUNWsprot


On 24-Nov-07, at 1:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

 John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hello

 It's come to my attention that /usr/ccs/bin/as is not  
 redistributable.
 Since Indiana's aiming to be in the running to be considered some  
 sort
 of reference distribution (despite how I feel about the concept in
 general) it ought to at least be able to build ON, which it currently
 cannot.

 So, the lack of a useful assembler is a bug. What I want to know is  
 if

 Schillix comes with gas (used by the included gcc). If you install  
 SunStudio,
 you get as from SS.

 Jörg


$ ls /opt/SUNWspro/bin/as
/opt/SUNWspro/bin/as: No such file or directory

and gas cannot build ON to my knowledge, only /usr/ccs/bin/as can.

correct me if I'm wrong ( which is a real possibility ). If I am  
correct, however, it's a matter which should be resolved.

Further research has lead me to Yasm, which is licensed under BSD ( so  
it can actually be integrated ) and built as a library loosely tied to  
a frontend ( which can be jettisoned in favour of one that takes  
solaris' syntax ). Assuming nobody's working on a replacement for  
SUNWsprot's copy, I was thinking of starting from there. Comments?
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [osol-code] Emancipation SUNWsprot

It appears we had a misunderstanding. :) such is the internet.

On 24-Nov-07, at 2:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

 John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 $ ls /opt/SUNWspro/bin/as
 /opt/SUNWspro/bin/as: No such file or directory

 Older SS did come with a separate as, recent versions seem to  
 include the
 assembler in acomp, check cc -# output

 and gas cannot build ON to my knowledge, only /usr/ccs/bin/as can.

 If you like to make OpenSolaris self hosting, things are different.

Yes, this was my goal with Emancipation from the beginning


 Further research has lead me to Yasm, which is licensed under BSD  
 ( so
 it can actually be integrated ) and built as a library loosely tied  
 to
 a frontend ( which can be jettisoned in favour of one that takes
 solaris' syntax ). Assuming nobody's working on a replacement for
 SUNWsprot's copy, I was thinking of starting from there. Comments?

 It would be nice if someone from the compiler group could comment this
 and tell us whether as will become OSS in spring.

or at least redistributable.


 Jörg


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [kde-discuss] Display Managers


On 26-Nov-07, at 10:28 AM, Michael Schuster wrote:

 John Sonnenschein wrote:
 So, GDM is rather large, and very tied to the GNOME desktop  
 environment,
 dtlogin is being sadly jettisoned, and everyone seems opposed to  
 xdm for
 some reason.

 can you (or someone else) elaborate on those reasons?

the PSARC case to remove CDE was approved yesterday, so that's why  
dtlogin's going away. I'm not sure why xdm isn't being chosen as the  
default login and GDM is, but that's what I've been told by the people  
in charge of the case.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [kde-discuss] Display Managers


On 26-Nov-07, at 10:56 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:

 On 26/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 26-Nov-07, at 10:28 AM, Michael Schuster wrote:

 John Sonnenschein wrote:
 So, GDM is rather large, and very tied to the GNOME desktop
 environment,
 dtlogin is being sadly jettisoned, and everyone seems opposed to
 xdm for
 some reason.

 can you (or someone else) elaborate on those reasons?

 the PSARC case to remove CDE was approved yesterday, so that's why
 dtlogin's going away. I'm not sure why xdm isn't being chosen as the
 default login and GDM is, but that's what I've been told by the  
 people
 in charge of the case.

 Probably because GNOME is Sun's desktop choice so it makes logical  
 sense?

it doesn't make logical sense to me, but I'm inclined to look for what  
we'd gain by having it rather than the lighter-weight option, and so  
far all we gain from gdm over xdm is pretty background images... hence  
my looking for alternatives that satisfy that need and don't result in  
the huge gamut of ram-hungry dependencies that GDM has
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [desktop-discuss] [kde-discuss] Display Managers


On 26-Nov-07, at 11:07 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:

 Shawn Walker wrote:
 On 26/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 26-Nov-07, at 10:28 AM, Michael Schuster wrote:
 John Sonnenschein wrote:
 So, GDM is rather large, and very tied to the GNOME desktop
 environment,
 dtlogin is being sadly jettisoned, and everyone seems opposed to
 xdm for
 some reason.
 can you (or someone else) elaborate on those reasons?
 the PSARC case to remove CDE was approved yesterday, so that's why
 dtlogin's going away. I'm not sure why xdm isn't being chosen as the
 default login and GDM is, but that's what I've been told by the  
 people
 in charge of the case.

 Probably because GNOME is Sun's desktop choice so it makes logical  
 sense?

 I missed part of this thread, so am responding to what I see here.
 I don't
 know of any major opposition to xdm (and as the xdm maintainer for  
 the X.Org
 community and the person who does the most work on Solaris's version  
 of xdm,
 I'd hope they'd tell me), just a realization that gdm has more  
 features and
 looks better.

 Specifically, gdm provides for accessibility helpers during login,  
 has much more
 advanced theming support, is supported by Sun Ray's server for  
 adding and
 removing Sun Ray displays on the fly, and probably has a few other  
 features I've
 forgotten.

 None of this is impossible to do with xdm, if someone wanted to do  
 the work to
 add all that, but why duplicate all that effort when gdm works? 
 Is there some
 reason a user would prefer xdm over gdm?(The main reason I know  
 of xdm still
 exists and is used is at sites who want the same login gui on all  
 their
 different varieties of Unix machines, even the old ones without  
 GNOME.)

Okay, fair enough.

All those reasons seem to me to be reasons to use something other than  
xdm. I don't see that they're particularly good reasons to use GDM in  
particular, however.

I'm still hoping to find an option that isn't so dependency laden   
heavy. Which is why it's a shame dtlogin's being removed.


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [desktop-discuss] [kde-discuss] Display Managers


On 26-Nov-07, at 11:20 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:

 John Sonnenschein wrote:
 All those reasons seem to me to be reasons to use something other  
 than
 xdm. I don't see that they're particularly good reasons to use GDM in
 particular, however.

 gdm just happens to be the one we have that fits the bill, since it  
 comes
 with GNOME.   Brian Cameron has had to do a lot of work on it to  
 bring gdm
 up to the point where it can become the default display manager.

 I'm still hoping to find an option that isn't so dependency laden 
 heavy. Which is why it's a shame dtlogin's being removed.

 But dtlogin is encumbered, so could only be in Solaris itself, and  
 every
 other OpenSolaris distro would have to find something else anyway.

Which they will if GDM is chosen anyways. The GNOME distros will use  
GDM, and the KDE distros will use KDM, just like on other open-source  
operating systems.

This is the default case, but no thought has been given to is this a  
good thing, and my point is primarily to try to spark that discussion.

Perhaps we /do/ want a unified login, and if that's the case neither  
desktop environment ought to take precedence as a dependency than the  
other. And on low-memory machines, loading the whole of gdm and it's  
dependencies is a lot of memory wasted if the user is going to then  
log in to something like fluxbox so as to avoid having to pull in GTK/ 
Qt. 
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [kde-discuss] Display Managers


On 26-Nov-07, at 11:36 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:

 John Sonnenschein wrote:
 On 26-Nov-07, at 11:26 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
 John Sonnenschein wrote:
 On 26-Nov-07, at 11:05 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
 Both KDE3 and KDE4 have their own display manager -- kdm.
 I know, but then it has KDE dependencies. I'm hoping to find  
 something  that has neither GNOME or KDE dependencies so that  
 both camps can be  made happy

 kdm has dependencies on libX11.so, libXext.so, libXau.so,  
 libXdmcp.so, libsocket.so, libresolv.so, and the optional security/ 
 authentication libraries: MIT KRB5, pam, rpcsvc. It doesn't have  
 any dependencies on KDE libraries.
 Really? I didn't know that.
 Is this the case for kdm4 as well?

 Yes.

Cool, whereas

$ ldd gdm-binary
 libsocket.so.1 =/lib/libsocket.so.1
 libnsl.so.1 =   /lib/libnsl.so.1
 libpam.so.1 =   /lib/libpam.so.1
 libwrap.so.1 =  /usr/sfw/lib/libwrap.so.1
 libcmd.so.1 =   /usr/lib/libcmd.so.1
 libsecdb.so.1 = /lib/libsecdb.so.1
 libbsm.so.1 =   /lib/libbsm.so.1
 libdevinfo.so.1 =   /lib/libdevinfo.so.1
 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 =   /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 =   /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
 libgobject-2.0.so.0 =   /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
 libglib-2.0.so.0 =  /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
 libXdmcp.so.6 = /usr/openwin/lib/libXdmcp.so.6
 libXau.so.6 =   /usr/openwin/lib/libXau.so.6
 libX11.so.4 =   /usr/openwin/lib/libX11.so.4
 libXext.so.0 =  /usr/openwin/lib/libXext.so.0
 libc.so.1 = /lib/libc.so.1
 libmp.so.2 =/lib/libmp.so.2
 libmd.so.1 =/lib/libmd.so.1
 libscf.so.1 =   /lib/libscf.so.1
 libast.so.1 =   /usr/lib/libast.so.1
 libtsol.so.2 =  /lib/libtsol.so.2
 libnvpair.so.1 =/lib/libnvpair.so.1
 libsec.so.1 =   /lib/libsec.so.1
 libgen.so.1 =   /lib/libgen.so.1
 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 =/usr/lib/ 
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 =   /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0
 libatk-1.0.so.0 =   /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0
 libcairo.so.2 = /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2
 libpango-1.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0
 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 =/usr/lib/ 
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
 libXfixes.so.1 =/usr/sfw/lib/libXfixes.so.1
 libm.so.2 = /lib/libm.so.2
 libXi.so.5 =/usr/lib/libXi.so.5
 libfontconfig.so.1 =/usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1
 libXrandr.so.2 =/usr/X11/lib/libXrandr.so.2
 libmlib.so.2 =  /usr/lib/libmlib.so.2
 libuutil.so.1 = /lib/libuutil.so.1
 libavl.so.1 =   /lib/libavl.so.1
 libz.so.1 = /usr/lib/libz.so.1
 libfreetype.so.6 =  /usr/sfw/lib/libfreetype.so.6
 libpng12.so.0 = /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0
 libXrender.so.1 =   /usr/sfw/lib/libXrender.so.1
 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 =  /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0
 libexpat.so.0 = /usr/lib/libexpat.so.0
 /platform/SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000/lib/libc_psr.so.1
 /platform/SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000/lib/libmd_psr.so.1
 /usr/lib/cpu/sparcv9+vis2/libmlib.so.2



eww.

So, why use GDM instead of KDM then? Other than because it's there ?
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] IA64laris, anyone ? (an RFC)

2007-11-12 Thread John Sonnenschein


On 12-Nov-07, at 9:06 AM, Holger Berger wrote:

 On Nov 12, 2007 6:01 PM, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 12/11/2007, Holger Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Nov 11, 2007 3:36 AM, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
 Is anyone other than myself interested in seeing an IA64/Itanium  
 port
 of OpenSolaris?

 My reasoning is that Solaris already runs on two of the 4 major
 enterprise architectures (SPARC  x86/amd64) and a port to a  
 third is
 making strides recently ( I'm referring to the ppc32 port ).

 Since Sun already had an IA64 port underway half a decade ago, they
 may be able to look in to the legalities of opening it back up. I'm
 sure there's some sort of legal wrangling between them and Intel  
 that
 can go on, since Intel would undoubtedly love to see more ia64
 customers, and Sun already sells Solaris to HP's x86 customers.

 Failing that, of course, if anyone's interested in doing a  
 straight-up
 re-port based on the current onnv-gate ( or ppc-dev gate, if that
 proves to be more portable ) that's an option as well.

 This port may actually prove easier logistically than the PPC  
 port, as
 there's already an accurate ia64 simulator ( it's called ski ) out
 there, though it only runs on HPUX, Linux ( I haven't tried it with
 brandZ )  FreeBSD.


 So, that in mind, any comments?

 The project will not have a chance. The Solaris/IA64 project was

 The source code is open and no one can stop such a thing from
 happening; Sun may not have any desire to help and may actively not
 help at all. So, actually, the project has a very good chance of
 succeeding. There are no rules to prevent integration of said source
 code either.

 Unlike the Polaris project you'd have to start from scratch, without
 sources of a previous project. You don't have machines or funding
 either, right?

intel has a program not unlike Sun's trybuy, but for longer. This can  
prove to be a source of machines if the emulators prove to be not  
helpful.

As for funding... no... unless HP or one of the other vendors wants to  
pony up the cash and give a couple of us internships, that is  
something we don't have



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] IA64laris, anyone ? (an RFC)

2007-11-12 Thread John Sonnenschein

That's actually a really good idea, I didn't know Xen worked on itanium2

On 12-Nov-07, at 2:33 PM, Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:

 I think this is a bit nuts, but if you really want to go down that  
 path...

 You might want to look at Xen.  The hypervisor has been ported to  
 IA64 and
 Solaris has been ported to the hypervisor.  There would still be a  
 huge
 amount of work to do, but running Xen instead of bare metal might  
 make the
 task a bit more manageable.

 In addition to giving you a simpler model to port to, using Xen lets  
 you
 begin by doing a domU port instead of a dom0 port.  This would let  
 you make
 a huge amount of progress even before tackling the painful early- 
 stage boot
 problems on bare metal.

 Nils

 On Sat 11/10/07 at 18:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Is anyone other than myself interested in seeing an IA64/Itanium port
 of OpenSolaris?

 My reasoning is that Solaris already runs on two of the 4 major
 enterprise architectures (SPARC  x86/amd64) and a port to a third is
 making strides recently ( I'm referring to the ppc32 port ).

 Since Sun already had an IA64 port underway half a decade ago, they
 may be able to look in to the legalities of opening it back up. I'm
 sure there's some sort of legal wrangling between them and Intel that
 can go on, since Intel would undoubtedly love to see more ia64
 customers, and Sun already sells Solaris to HP's x86 customers.

 Failing that, of course, if anyone's interested in doing a straight- 
 up
 re-port based on the current onnv-gate ( or ppc-dev gate, if that
 proves to be more portable ) that's an option as well.

 This port may actually prove easier logistically than the PPC port,  
 as
 there's already an accurate ia64 simulator ( it's called ski ) out
 there, though it only runs on HPUX, Linux ( I haven't tried it with
 brandZ )  FreeBSD.


 So, that in mind, any comments?
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [Fwd: IA64laris, anyone ? (an RFC)]


On 11-Nov-07, at 4:31 AM, Jakub Jermar wrote:


 On Nov 11, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Milan Jurik wrote:
 This port may actually prove easier logistically than the PPC port,  
 as
 there's already an accurate ia64 simulator ( it's called ski ) out
 there, though it only runs on HPUX, Linux ( I haven't tried it with
 brandZ )  FreeBSD.

 Well, ski has been opensourced sometime in august/september and can
 be compiled on any reasonable UNIX platform.

 Then there is Simics, which can, besides other platforms, simulate
 ia64 as well. It runs on Windows, Linux and the Sparc version of
 Solaris.

 Jakub

I suggested ski because it's free to download  redistribute whereas  
simics isn't. Theoretically it /should/ compile on solaris, but if you  
look at the ski source there's a lot of OS dependent code in there so  
it actually needs a port to solaris rather than a simple fixing of GNU  
Autobreak configurations
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] IA64laris, anyone ? (an RFC)


On 11-Nov-07, at 11:07 AM, UNIX admin wrote:

 Is anyone other than myself interested in seeing an
 IA64/Itanium port
 of OpenSolaris?

 Would that be cool?  Why, yes it would!

 Would it be a justifiable return on investment? No.

 Here's the deal:

 who's running IA64? Only two firms, sgi and hp.

And Bull, Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, UNISYS, and a gamut of small beige- 
box server vendors


 hp's servers are WAY TOO EXPENSIVE to buy just to run HP-UX, let  
 alone (Open)Solaris. Take a look at USED rx Integrity servers on  
 ebay, even those are expensive enough to make one's nose bleed (as  
 much as I would love to run HP-UX on Itanium!)

One could say the same about Solaris/SPARC, or AIX/POWER

 Where it might make sense to run (Open)Solaris on Itanium, it would  
 be the sgi Altix servers. That's sgi's NUMAflex hardware with  
 Itanium CPUs, currently running a sgi Propack Suse Linux because  
 sgi is in so much financial trouble (and too stupid) to have ported  
 IRIX 6.5 to Altix.

 Has anyone heard anything about Polaris, the PPC port lately? Um,  
 nope. Why? Because once people got into the port, they realized that  
 it's a lot of work; and that's even with the existing prior work  
 done by Sun for Solaris 2.5.1.

They're making great strides currently... Polaris boots userland code  
and the main thing keeping development back is a lack of a good  
simulator or accessible hardware ( the second won't be alleviated by  
an ia64 port, but the first will )

 If you can muster enough developers to work on the port of  
 (Open)Solaris to sgi Altix, then sure, go for it. But where are you  
 going to get the people who know enough about Altix hardware? sgi's  
 hopped up on Linux, I doubt any help would come from them.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] IA64laris, anyone ? (an RFC)

They have already actually, I'm not sure how much progress was made,  
but the project was scrapped. If Sun's willing to lawyer a little bit  
and see if it's legally possible for them to disclose the code, it may  
be a possibility...

Sun types, likelyhood of this happening?

On 11-Nov-07, at 11:40 AM, andrewk9 wrote:

 I would be very surprised if Sun put any effort into porting Solaris  
 to Itanium. This doesn't prevent anyone else from trying though.

 Andrew.


 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] IA64laris, anyone ? (an RFC)


On 11-Nov-07, at 1:59 PM, Brandorr wrote:

 On Nov 11, 2007 4:52 PM, Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Nov 11, 2007 4:30 PM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Nov 11, 2007 2:07 PM, UNIX admin
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Is anyone other than myself interested in seeing
 an
 IA64/Itanium port
 of OpenSolaris?

 Would that be cool?  Why, yes it would!

 Would it be a justifiable return on investment? No.

 Here's the deal:

 who's running IA64? Only two firms, sgi and hp.

 Actually, believe it or not, IA64 seems to have found
 a niche with
 worldwide Mainframe builders. (excluding IBM).
 http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/37050
 16

 200,000 pieces? That's miserable.

 Love this quote:
 Despite its low profile, RISC-based processing continues to hold  
 between 45 and 50 percent of the market and the revenues are still  
 substantial

 Yeah, no kidding, the IA64 based hardware is way, waaay  
 overopriced! When will companies, Sun INCLUDED, finally get it  
 into their head that the days of fat profit margins are GONE.

 Expensive SILICON DOESN'T SELL.

 It has to be CHEAP and MASS PRODUCED, or else forget it!!!

 While I would agree that the growth is in the commodity spaces, IBM
 has proven time and time again, that mainframes aren't going  
 anywhere.
 Do you think Sun, IBM, and HP would still be making this hardware if
 customers weren't still buying it?

 I would guess the majority of Fortune 500 corporations still have
 Mainframes in the basement running some hypercritical processes.

 Also another interesting trend in Enterprise IT is that most of the
 innovation going is basically reinvention of 30 year old mainframe
 technologies on commodity hardware. ;) (Virtual Machines,
 fiberchannel/isci, JCL, thin-client computing, utility computing,  
 high
 availability, throughput computing, etc.)

 That all said there are far most interesting, (IMHO) targets for
 porting. Like MIPS and ARM. (I suggest these if we wish to compete
 with Linux in the high volume embedded space. e.g. Linksys routers,
 smartphones, toasters...) ;)

I'm sure that part of the reason Solaris doesn't do well embedded is  
the massive resource requirements. When you're talking enterprise  
computing, 512M of ram is negligible, but in embedded stuff, a 512M  
memory footprint makes Solaris a no-go. I'm also not sure that this is  
an area where Solaris /can/ shine since all the observability tools  
that make SA's grin aren't worth a hill of proverbial beans when  
they're locked up inside a wireless router



 If anyone is interested, in pursuing alternate hardware platform
 ports, you would probably be well educated, by having a talk with Tom
 Riddle, who's team did the PPC port, which to date is the only
 cross-compiled build of OpenSolaris. (It is built exclusively with GCC
 on x86).

 Cheers,
 Brian


 Cheers,
 Brian


 This message posted from opensolaris.org
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org





 --
 - Brian Gupta

 http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/




 -- 
 - Brian Gupta

 http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] IA64laris, anyone ? (an RFC)

2007-11-10 Thread John Sonnenschein

Is anyone other than myself interested in seeing an IA64/Itanium port  
of OpenSolaris?

My reasoning is that Solaris already runs on two of the 4 major  
enterprise architectures (SPARC  x86/amd64) and a port to a third is  
making strides recently ( I'm referring to the ppc32 port ).

Since Sun already had an IA64 port underway half a decade ago, they  
may be able to look in to the legalities of opening it back up. I'm  
sure there's some sort of legal wrangling between them and Intel that  
can go on, since Intel would undoubtedly love to see more ia64  
customers, and Sun already sells Solaris to HP's x86 customers.

Failing that, of course, if anyone's interested in doing a straight-up  
re-port based on the current onnv-gate ( or ppc-dev gate, if that  
proves to be more portable ) that's an option as well.

This port may actually prove easier logistically than the PPC port, as  
there's already an accurate ia64 simulator ( it's called ski ) out  
there, though it only runs on HPUX, Linux ( I haven't tried it with  
brandZ )  FreeBSD.


So, that in mind, any comments?
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Do programs made for linux work in solaris?

you have brandz for closed source software ( 
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/ 
  ) and most open-source software should run with a little hackery

On 7-Nov-07, at 1:01 PM, Reggie wrote:

 Hi, do programs saying made for linux, etc. work in Solaris?


 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] Password formats...

it's in /etc/security/policy.conf .

On 7-Nov-07, at 1:23 PM, Kyle McDonald wrote:

 Cyril Plisko wrote:

 Linux MD5 passwords should work with Solaris as well.
 At least it works for me.


 Hmm.

 I must have missed that change in Solaris.

 How does one get passwd, and ypppasswd to use MD5 when storing new
 passwords in the shadow file?

  -Kyle


 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Is there a restart option button?

or alternately, use facilities already in solaris so you don't have to  
use hackish things such as sudo ;)

with RBAC you can make it so your regular login user has privileges to  
reboot/poweroff the machine
On 7-Nov-07, at 4:34 PM, Paul Gress wrote:

 W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
 Hi, is there a restart option button in Solaris 10?


 No.  But if you are running a stand-alone Solaris desktop you can  
 improvise by changing the sticky bit of the /usr/sbin/reboot  
 script, and creating a desktop launcher.



 For me, I just created a Launcher with:

 /opt/sfw/bin/sudo /usr/sbin/init 6

 and called it Reboot

 Please note, you may need to install sudo and/or find where you have
 sudo installed.

 Paul
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Is there a restart option button?

role-based access control. one of the most underrated solaris features  
out there. basically it does everything sudo can do, but better, and  
then some  more

guide from Sun:
www.sun.com/software/whitepapers/wp-rbac/wp-rbac.pdf

quick overview from a third party:

http://www.samag.com/documents/s=7667/sam0213c/0213c.htm
On 7-Nov-07, at 4:46 PM, Paul Gress wrote:

 John Sonnenschein wrote:
 or alternately, use facilities already in solaris so you don't have  
 to
 use hackish things such as sudo ;)

 with RBAC you can make it so your regular login user has privileges  
 to
 reboot/poweroff the machine
 On 7-Nov-07, at 4:34 PM, Paul Gress wrote:
 Pardon my ignorance, but whats RBAC?

 Paul
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it

2007-11-06 Thread John Sonnenschein

As I've mentioned numerous times before, it's not the particular  
implementation users are after, it's functionality.

users don't want gnu tar per se, they want tar -z... or tar -j. We can  
have a standards compliant tar with the -z or -j options, and I'm sure  
ARC won't complain too much. wholesale replacing tar with gnu tar, on  
the other hand, they will ( and should ) have a fit over.

On 6-Nov-07, at 2:23 PM, John Plocher wrote:

 Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities
 Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause

 I'm not at all sure that this change would actually affect me - or  
 most
 of y'all either.

 Since our target growth market for OpenSolaris is users of linux  
 systems
 where gnutools are the defacto standard, then it seems clear that  
 *they*
 certainly won't care about being incompatible with old Solaris or  
 POSIX.
 They are the ones who would find not having tar-gtar to be a bug.

 The only people who will care are the old Solaris users who haven't  
 yet
 figured out how to set PATH= in their shell scripts and/or don't have
 their own .profile/.login/.bashrc/.cshrc scripts.

 Since I have my own .startup-scripts, and they explicitly set PATH,
 I won't even notice that this change has happened.

 [It would be nice if this choice was reflected in the new user
 account setup dialog instead of being hardcoded by the installer,
 but that is nit...]

  -John



 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it

2007-11-06 Thread John Sonnenschein


On 6-Nov-07, at 1:10 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

 On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

 Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to  
 apply.

 Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class  
 of potential Solaris users to be confused and irritated and many of  
 them will walk away.

 The choice seems obvious to me.  -Tim

I disagree. People willing to try the platform will be capable of  
understanding that there will be differences. These differences will  
be no more and no less confusing than the differences between gnu/ 
linux distro classes themselves ( I use 'class' here to mean those  
derived from redhat, debian, gentoo, slackware, etc... major root  
level distros that others derive from ).

Should we seek to change all of opensolaris around and introduce  
incompatible changes and functional/standards regressions just to try  
to possibly appease some potential non-code-contributing GNU/Linux  
users? I would argue that the price of that is far too high and if we  
go that path we may as well pack up and start shipping a linux distro  
rather than opensolaris, because everything that makes opensolaris  
great will have been sacrificed at the altar.

Note that I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't make OpenSolaris more  
comfortable for new users and immigrants, but breaking it is not the  
method to go about this.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it



On 4-Nov-07, at 7:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:




Mario Goebbels wrote:

Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
de-jure UNIX
or hawever you want to characterise it).


I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the
easiest way to defuse that userland situation.

After all, it was said from the beginning, that Indiana was meant to
lure some of the Linux users. So I won't mind GNU being the  
default, AS
LONG there's a comfortable way to avoid this, being a radio button  
list

in the installer.

Ideally, the radio options come with descriptive text, explaining  
to the

user what they're about to select.

Also, add POSIX as option.


Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear  
(and this is
purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate  
*more* users than

you'll make happy.




In beautiful ASCIIvision

 __
|   _ o X |
|-|
| |
|   Choose a command-line environment |
|style| 
| | 
|   0 Traditional Solaris  ?  | 
|   O GNU  ?  | 
|   O BSD  ?  | 
|   O POSIX/UNIX03 Standards Compliant ?  |
| | 
|   _ |
|   |Next -| |
|   - | 
--- 

*shrug*

the question marks pops up something to the effect of

Traditional Solaris:
shell: /usr/bin/ksh93
PATH: /usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin:/usr/ccs/bin
GNU:
shell: /bin/bash
PATH: /usr/gnu/bin:/usr/sfw/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin
BSD
shell: tcsh
PATH: /usr/ucb/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin
POSIX
shell: /bin/sh
PATH: /usr/xpg4/bin:/usr/xpg6/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it


On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:

 On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and
 this
 is
 purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more*
 users than
 you'll make happy.


 This sounds like a solution looking for a problem :)

 Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of the  
 new
 installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a  
 runtime in
 the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU  
 runtime for
 *every* user on the system.

 Simply put, why not have the option of selecting a runtime post- 
 install by
 modifying your PATH (this is precisely what we do today)? If you  
 want a GNU
 runtime, simply place /usr/gnu/bin at the head of your PATH. Still  
 want
 xpg6? How about a BSD runtime? This is functionality we already have  
 today,
 why not keep it around in Indiana?

 If you want to change the default PATH (in effect setting the  
 runtime for
 each user), you have the option of changing /etc/profile etc.


Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of  
$PATH in the indiana preview ;)
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it


On 5-Nov-07, at 10:41 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:

 On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:

 On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear  
 (and
 this
 is
 purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate  
 *more*
 users than
 you'll make happy.


 This sounds like a solution looking for a problem :)

 Please correct me if I am wrong, but one of the primary goals of the
 new
 installer is simplicity. Why go to the trouble of selecting a
 runtime in
 the installation? I certainly would not want to instate a GNU
 runtime for
 *every* user on the system.

 Simply put, why not have the option of selecting a runtime post-
 install by
 modifying your PATH (this is precisely what we do today)? If you
 want a GNU
 runtime, simply place /usr/gnu/bin at the head of your PATH. Still
 want
 xpg6? How about a BSD runtime? This is functionality we already have
 today,
 why not keep it around in Indiana?

 If you want to change the default PATH (in effect setting the
 runtime for
 each user), you have the option of changing /etc/profile etc.


 Tell that to whoever violated ARC by putting /usr/gnu at the head of
 $PATH in the indiana preview ;)

 No violation of ARC occurred. ARC is not a required process until
 consolidations are integrated, etc. You will see that the Sun
 engineers making those changes made it clear that any changes made
 would go through ARC once they were ready.

not really my point here...

you're aiming for simplicity. Manually setting $PATH and $SHELL is not  
simplicity. Forcing everyone to use the GNUserland isn't either.

An dialog box somewhere in the 'advanced' install path I think, is.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success

Shawn.

You seem to be of the opinion that a strong leader is necessary to the  
success of a project.

Might I point out that the governance structure of FreeBSD (the most  
successful of the BSD's, and arguably the second most successful open- 
source operating system project in the world ) is governed by  
committers (analogous to our core contributors ) electing a 9-member  
core leadership team every 2 years who are responsible for overall  
project direction and granting of CVS commit access to new members.

On 5-Nov-07, at 7:35 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:

 This proposal is intended to provoke productive discussion,
 surrounding our current governance structure, by highlighting some of
 the deficiencies that currently exist. While not exhaustive, it
 attempts to explain why the current governance structure is
 insufficient for the success and growth of the community, by comparing
 and contrasting our existing governance model with that of other
 organisations at a high level. It also suggests how our governance
 structure might be changed to address those deficiencies.

 It is the author's hope that all recipients of this proposal will take
 the time to reflect on and carefully consider the points made here
 before responding. This proposal is primarily directed at the OGB, as
 representatives of our current governing structure. However, all
 recipients are encouraged to respond. The inspiration for this
 proposal is a direct result of recent events which revealed that
 governance of the community is at the heart of issues facing the
 community today.

 The OpenSolaris community has existed as a self-governing entity since
 Friday February 10th, 2006 [1]. Since that time, individual parts of
 the community (and thus, the community as a whole) are continuing to
 make progress in many areas, including: technical, communication, and
 growth [2]. The community has grown slowly, but surely, into something
 that we can continue to be proud of. The Advocacy (User Group),
 Desktop, DTrace, and ZFS community groups are just a few examples of
 that growth and progress.

 However, the majority of this progress is a result of Sun's indirect
 leadership [3], involvement, and the contributions of many individuals
 within the community. Many of those individuals are paid by Sun to
 work on Solaris, OpenSolaris, and related community projects. It is
 important to note the distinction of paid by; as many individuals
 are not employees of Sun (contractors) or were not employed by Sun at
 the beginning but currently are. By observation, it is apparent that
 none of this progress would have been possible without Sun's
 initiative to provide the source code that served as the nucleus
 around which the OpenSolaris project formed, and without their
 ongoing, significant financial support (which the author estimates to
 be in the range of millions of dollars).

 Clearly, governance is one of the most important aspects of the
 community. However, governance alone is not sufficient to achieve
 sustained growth and success in a completely self-governing body, such
 as the one we currently have. The leadership hierarchy must be clear,
 and seen as inspirational [4], creative, shrewd, and fair.

 Upon reflection, it should become apparent that leadership and
 guidance is a necessary part of governance. To help us better
 understand our current governance model, it is helpful to compare and
 contrast our own governance model with that of others. Narrowing our
 focus, from the many governance models widely known, results in
 several which we will briefly examine. Commercially related projects
 include: Mac OS X [5], PostgreSQL [6], MySQL [7], and Ubuntu  [8]
 (created and supported by Canonical [9]). Other projects are those
 such as Fedora [10], which are essentially alpha or beta
 representations of commercial products [11]. Finally, we have Apache
 [12] and OpenBSD [13]; which are organised around completely open
 source [14] products.

 All these projects or products share several common characteristics.
 However, some characteristics are common and clearly visible:
 sustained growth and success. Each project or product has a parent
 entity that continues to build a community providing sustained growth
 and success, whether they are primarily proprietary in nature [5],
 have taken a hybrid approach between open source and proprietary
 add-ons [7], or have the primary focus of the project completely as
 open source [6, 8, 10, 12, 13]. They may also be experimenting with
 pay-for-contribution models.

 In each case, clear leadership within well-defined areas of expertise
 is evident. There is a direct correlation between the quality of the
 leadership and the sustained growth and success of each project or
 product. The results are evident in a successfully delivered and
 widely-adopted end-product within their respective target markets.

 For a moment then, let us consider the leadership that is integral to
 these projects and

Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it

2007-11-04 Thread John Sonnenschein


On 4-Nov-07, at 2:08 AM, James Mansion wrote:

 Jim Grisanzio wrote:
 itself thrives. We started this project four years ago to build a
 developer community. That was the primary goal from which multiple
 objectives would grow. In fact, the notion of building a developer
 community was part of virtually every meeting I attended even a year
 before we launched. Also, we always knew we would eventually grow to
 have multiple layers to the community, not simply kernel developers.


 Surely, having a kernel developer community is the least of Sun's  
 actual
 problems.
 Sun has developers and having most development done in the context  
 of a
 funded and
 managed environment is very valuable.  What is needed most of all is a
 *user* community
 that extends beyond those of us who work in large corporates who have
 medium and
 large Sun servers.

 From that perspective, having a community that contributes to an
 involving user-land
 has to be the primary focus, and I suspect that the decisions to call
 this 'OpenSolaris'
 and to make it much more receptive to people familiar with packaging  
 for
 Linux
 is right on the money.

 Please, however, don't ignore the BSD community.  In particular, I  
 would
 encourage
 anyone interested in (Open)Solaris to download PC-BSD and look at the
 user experience
 there with the installation and PBIs.

 Presumably, it would also be feasible to offer a BSD userland, not  
 just
 a GNU one.

 Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
 de-jure UNIX
 or hawever you want to characterise it).


+1

a radio button in the installer that simply sets $PATH and default  
shell up should be a trivial task and is a reasonable compromise  
between old-guard UNIXphiles and Linux immigrants

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] PATH setup and environment compatibility was Re: [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it

2007-11-04 Thread John Sonnenschein


On 4-Nov-07, at 8:24 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:

 On 04/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 4-Nov-07, at 2:08 AM, James Mansion wrote:

 Jim Grisanzio wrote:
 itself thrives. We started this project four years ago to build a
 developer community. That was the primary goal from which multiple
 objectives would grow. In fact, the notion of building a developer
 community was part of virtually every meeting I attended even a  
 year
 before we launched. Also, we always knew we would eventually grow  
 to
 have multiple layers to the community, not simply kernel  
 developers.


 Surely, having a kernel developer community is the least of Sun's
 actual
 problems.
 Sun has developers and having most development done in the context
 of a
 funded and
 managed environment is very valuable.  What is needed most of all  
 is a
 *user* community
 that extends beyond those of us who work in large corporates who  
 have
 medium and
 large Sun servers.

 From that perspective, having a community that contributes to an
 involving user-land
 has to be the primary focus, and I suspect that the decisions to  
 call
 this 'OpenSolaris'
 and to make it much more receptive to people familiar with packaging
 for
 Linux
 is right on the money.

 Please, however, don't ignore the BSD community.  In particular, I
 would
 encourage
 anyone interested in (Open)Solaris to download PC-BSD and look at  
 the
 user experience
 there with the installation and PBIs.

 Presumably, it would also be feasible to offer a BSD userland, not
 just
 a GNU one.

 Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
 de-jure UNIX
 or hawever you want to characterise it).


 +1

 a radio button in the installer that simply sets $PATH and default
 shell up should be a trivial task and is a reasonable compromise
 between old-guard UNIXphiles and Linux immigrants

 That would be wonderful except that it won't always be a complete
 answer; especially since many broken pieces of software assume
 everything they want is in /usr/bin.

 Admittedly, I am somewhat fuzzy on what software is supposed to do if
 it needs a specific version of a utility.

 For example, if a configure script decides that it wants to and needs
 to use only gnu versions of utilities on an OpenSolaris environment;
 should it assume that it should explicitly reference all utilities via
 the /usr/gnu/ path?

 Likewise, if something needs a xpg4 compliant environment, should it
 assume all relevant utilities live under /usr/xpg4/?

Shawn.

For one, scripts can be $PATH relative. If some script needs the  
GNUserland a lot of times it's a simple matter of running it something  
to the effect of
$ PATH=/usr/gnu/bin:$PATH ./myscript.sh

Secondly, it's my understanding that the intent is to get developers  
to create packages etc and not just pull vanilla sources out of  
sourceforge, and as such, the menial task of either POSIX-izing the  
script or changing all the references in it around to reflect our  
filesystem layout should be done by them, and the user need never know  
that some particular script is POSIX or not.

Thirdly, if OpenSolaris ( the codebase, not indiana ) becomes popular  
enough ( which is the goal ), and people start writing scripts  
specifically for it, the point is moot on the one hand (since they'll  
work) and it will benefit other UNIXes as well to have standards  
adhering scripts
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Self-hosting ON

2007-11-02 Thread John Sonnenschein


On 2-Nov-07, at 6:31 AM, Ceri Davies wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:

 Not true: OpenSolaris is not even a complete basic OS.

 This has been a nagging concern for me for some time.

 I find it somewhat uncomfortable that OpenSolaris (or rather, ON) is  
 not
 self-hosting.

...


 2) Is there any mileage in cleanrooming the contents of closed/ (and
anything in SUNWonbld that can't be opened now) ?

Yes! I spent the summer working on libc_i18n.a. a lot of closed_bins  
can be lifted straight out of freebsd, and there are a couple other  
bits not strictly necessary to boot


 3) If so, how do I help or get this started?  [I obviously need  
 someone
with the sources, so it's no use telling me to just get started]

pull down the emancipated tree @ ssh://[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]/hg/emancipation/emancipation-gate 
  and build it. For now you still need some of closed/. Contact me off- 
list for specific details
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Even those in favor of Indiana==OpenSolaris feel there should be a vote. Let's focus.

2007-11-02 Thread John Sonnenschein

perhaps it doesn't express how strongly I agree with you but  +1

On 2-Nov-07, at 7:46 AM, Brandorr wrote:

 We all need to put our differences on naming aside to focus our energy
 on trying to give Sun an opportunity to address and acknowledge the
 community's disapproval.

 For me this is the biggest concern. Whether we are for or against
 anyone's naming proposal, the perception among the OGB and the members
 is that Sun chose a less than desirable method of making it's wishes
 reality.

 If we are to hope to have Sun treat as a community we need to support
 the OGB's efforts, in finding an amicable resolution to this immediate
 firestorm, so that we can reengage Sun in finding a solution that the
 community as a whole can find acceptable.

 There have been some drastic options put on the table, as the OGB does
 not have much recourse, unless Sun steps up to the plate.

 The team responsible (Ian and Sara) for this divisive action have
 actually been ridiculing those who don't subscribe to their world
 view. This cavalier attitude is doing nothing put inflaming this
 issue.

 At this point, I feel the Project Indiana leadership group is out of
 control, and out of touch with the community. The OGB needs to address
 this with the highest levels of Sun leadership.

 Cheers,
 Brian

 -- 
 - Brian Gupta

 http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Name Change?

On 11/1/07, S h i v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I hope the OGB's talk with Sun helps both Sun and the community and
 this thread becomes irrelevant.

that would be the ideal scenario, but without a vote on the matter,
it's just Sun being a dictator

-- 
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Trust: Trademark, Sun and the Community

fair enough

Revision 1.1: change contributors and core contributors to core contributors

On 11/1/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 01/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I propose that we as a community implore Sun to hold a vote on the
  issue, open to all contributors and core contributors. While Sun isn't
  legally bound to follow the results of the vote, it shall be seen as a
  hostile attack on the community values should they ignore it again.

 A nitpick; only core contributors have the right to vote per the constitution.

 --
 Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
 http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/

 We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all
 junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics
 are not in our favor... --Larry Wall



-- 
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Trust: Trademark, Sun and the Community

On 11/1/07, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 John Sonnenschein writes:
  Note that this is quite aside from how I or anyone else feels with
  respect to the name. I'm not asking for the name OpenSolaris to be
  attached to the indiana project or the contrary, I'm asking the OGB,
  whose job it is to stand up for the community to urge Sun to hold a
  vote, and Sun to hold that vote and act in good faith by following it.

 We're working through the issue right now.  Stay tuned.

fantastic. thank you.
-- 
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Name Change?

I'm relatively sure I did name him, it's Murdock that betrayed the  
community with that announcement the other day so I'm going to place  
the blame at his feet.

On 1-Nov-07, at 11:05 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:


 On Nov 1, 2007, at 16:37, S h i v wrote:

 Neither of the 2 is a win-win situation
 - The current situation
 - Going independant without Sun's involvement

 Completely agree here.

 By the way (and not directed just at you), speaking of Sun as a
 decision-maker is unhelpful in my view. Sun is a legal fiction[1]
 and plenty of people with divergent opinions in this community work
 speak on its behalf. It is far better to name names when a decision
 is concerned - they have all been taken by a living person somewhere
 since legal fictions are unable to do so.

 If you know who took a decision, name them. If you don't, refer to
 them as the un-named decision maker and ask who it is. I think
 knowing who we're criticising is key to reaching a resolution.

 S.



 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personality
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Trust: Trademark, Sun and the Community

Indiana's just a developer preview, the name can be revoked for the
general release or next preview without causing too much harm

On 11/1/07, Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 James Carlson wrote:
  John Sonnenschein writes:
  Note that this is quite aside from how I or anyone else feels with
  respect to the name. I'm not asking for the name OpenSolaris to be
  attached to the indiana project or the contrary, I'm asking the OGB,
  whose job it is to stand up for the community to urge Sun to hold a
  vote, and Sun to hold that vote and act in good faith by following it.

 How do we vote /after/ the fact? It seems to me that the OpenSolaris
 Community has learned a great lesson here.

 Jim
 --
 http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris



-- 
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Name Change?

Fair enough, I apologize.

On 1-Nov-07, at 11:53 AM, Doug Scott wrote:

 John Sonnenschein wrote:
 I'm relatively sure I did name him, it's Murdock that betrayed the   
 community with that announcement the other day so I'm going to  
 place  the blame at his feet.


 I am sorry, but when you use 'Murdock' or Mr Murdock' I see everyone  
 one of your posts emotionally based. My finger gets an itching to  
 press the delete key. I know we 'all' post emotional comments, but  
 please at least do not treat others name/color/creed with  
 disrespect. Stick to the facts or code.

 Doug

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Name Change?

I specifically am referring to how certain unknown elements within Sun
made a decision, and whether that decision was correct or not, it was
imposed on the community with little or no consultation. Not having a
vote on the issue and refusing to acknowledge those who feel strongly
that it was a bad decision ( correctly or not... once again, I'm not
talking about the merits of the decision itself ).

This is how I define betrayal

On 11/1/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 01/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I'm relatively sure I did name him, it's Murdock that betrayed the
  community with that announcement the other day so I'm going to place
  the blame at his feet.

 Please define what you see as betrayal here, specifically, just so we're 
 clear.

 Not everyone's definition is the same. For example, what was done does
 not, yet, meet my definition of betrayal.

 --
 Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
 http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/

 We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all
 junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics
 are not in our favor... --Larry Wall



-- 
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Democracy and open source - nit - Re: Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name

+1

On 1-Nov-07, at 11:56 AM, Menno Lageman wrote:

 John Plocher wrote:
 Brian Gupta wrote:
 In other words, Ian seems to have decided that democracy is a bad  
 way
 to run an open source project, and wants to install himself as
 benevolent dictator.

 OpenSource efforts are invariably meritocracies.

 Those that /do/, lead.

 Ian and the OpenSolaris Project are out there /doing/.  They
 chartered a Project to do this, found several CGs to endorse
 their vision, and have just delivered the first distro built
 by the community out of the community's source code.

 I don't mind them /doing/. In fact, having just tried the LiveCD on a
 recent laptop, I'm fairly impressed with their product. What I  
 object to
 is the fact that the *project* Indiana seems to have unilaterally  
 taken
 possession of the name OpenSolaris, and even the homepage of
 opensolaris.org as if there weren't any other OpenSolaris  
 distributions.

 Menno
 -- 
 Menno Lageman - Sun Microsystems - http://blogs.sun.com/menno
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Democracy and open source - nit - Re: Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name

except that they /are/ ubuntu, whereas it's derivatives latched on
after the fact.

If Ubuntu started calling itself simply Linux, you better believe
that Linus would be suing canonical like there's no tomorrow.

On 11/1/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 01/11/2007, Menno Lageman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  John Plocher wrote:
   Brian Gupta wrote:
   In other words, Ian seems to have decided that democracy is a bad way
   to run an open source project, and wants to install himself as
   benevolent dictator.
  
   OpenSource efforts are invariably meritocracies.
  
   Those that /do/, lead.
  
   Ian and the OpenSolaris Project are out there /doing/.  They
   chartered a Project to do this, found several CGs to endorse
   their vision, and have just delivered the first distro built
   by the community out of the community's source code.
 
  I don't mind them /doing/. In fact, having just tried the LiveCD on a
  recent laptop, I'm fairly impressed with their product. What I object to
  is the fact that the *project* Indiana seems to have unilaterally taken
  possession of the name OpenSolaris, and even the homepage of
  opensolaris.org as if there weren't any other OpenSolaris distributions.

 Should we accuse Ubuntu.com of taking possession of the name since
 they don't list the other Ubuntu-based distros on their homepage?

 Is Mark Shuttleworth evil for making decisions about Ubuntu without
 consulting the community?

 Ah, double-standards...

 --
 Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
 http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/

 We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all
 junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics
 are not in our favor... --Larry Wall
 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org



-- 
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Name Change?

Once again, it's still just a developer preview. We can still change
the name before the next one comes out if that's what the community
decides.

it's not a matter of standstill vs. progress, it's a matter of a
single issue. Development can still proceed unimpeded while we decide
what we want to call the thing.

On 11/1/07, Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Nov 1, 2007, at 19:15, Brandorr wrote:

  Pretty much the only
  people who don't have an issue with the branding process are Sun
  marketing and a few people defending them.

 Hey, I'm not saying I don't have an issue. But I am trying to be
 positive because we get to move on from where we are now and not
 where we wish we were.

 S.

 ___
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org



-- 
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Democracy and open source - nit - Re: Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name


On 1-Nov-07, at 2:31 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:

 On 01/11/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 wrote:
 Menno Lageman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 As far as I know Ubuntu came to life as a Debian derivative. *After*
 that, others created their own Ubuntu derivatives such as Xubuntu,
 Kubuntu etc. So that is hardly comparable with our case.

 Ubuntu is more free than Debian as the e.g. provide a package for the
 real cdrtools instead of the broken fork.

 Ubuntu != Debian

 My remarks were more to with Ubuntu derivatives than Debian.

and they're wrong no matter how you slice it.

if someone based a project off indiana and changed it around a lot,  
then came back and declared their project the one true project  
indiana, people would get pretty pissed off, and rightly so.

now replace Indiana with OpenSolaris and you see where we are now.

Similarly if PI continued to call itself Indiana to the exclusion of  
all other indianas ad infinitum, nobody would have a problem with  
that. It's not the control of the word that's the issue, it's that  
OpenSolaris was usurped without any real meaningful consultation

and yes, once again, we all recognize that legally sun can do whatever  
they want with the trademark. We're not talking legalities here, we're  
talking about the rightness in the moral sense of action.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Democracy and open source - nit - Re: Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name


On 1-Nov-07, at 3:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:


 On Nov 1, 2007, at 21:59, John Sonnenschein wrote:

 the press releases


 What press releases?  I am talking now to Terri Molini of Sun PR and  
 there have been no press releases around the Indiana alpha.

Fine, not press releases, only official statements posted in public  
places by people empowered by Sun (not the community. sun. ) to make  
them.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Name Change?


On 1-Nov-07, at 8:09 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:



 Shawn Walker wrote:
 Actually, it's more than one issue. Folks were repeatedly asked to
 participate in the trademark and usage guidelines which covers more
 than just the name of a single distribution. I think the entire
 proposal needs to be addressed rather than being vindictive about
 decisions made that aren't agreed with by some.

 And those discussions are far from being complete. I think a *lot*  
 of people are
 making assumptions based on a trademark guidelines they haven't yet  
 seen, or
 haven't yet been finalized.

 It should also be said, I don't think the trademark guidelines are  
 necessarily
 going to discourage the likes of Nexenta to be a distribution - holy  
 shit, why
 would we want to discourage that? Sun is going to protect it's best  
 interests in
 making sure the trademark is used responsibly - that shouldn't be a  
 surprise.

Which is a completely separate issue from the one involving an  
executive decision to name Indiana the canonical OpenSolaris.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Name Change?

2007-10-31 Thread John Sonnenschein

Since Murdock and the rest of Sun's marketing department decided to  
stab the community in the back by defining by executive fiat what  
exactly OpenSolaris meant, perhaps it's time to rename what the old  
bits used to be.

Anyone on OGB or other committees, what's the likelihood we can  
reclaim ON et al. with a new name to allow people like Nexenta to  
continue to be part of the community.

Sun can call their distro OpenSolaris if they like, but perhaps the  
solution to keep them happy and not anger and split the community is  
to ignore OpenSolaris as being the Sun Microsystems product it is,  
and call $foo the community and the code

comments?
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] [opensolaris-summit] Summit recordings from first day

2007-10-15 Thread John Sonnenschein


Hey.

I caught a recording halfway through of Garrett's first driver  
session ( the small one ) if anyone's interested


On 14-Oct-07, at 2:20 AM, Glynn Foster wrote:


Hey,

Thanks to the awesome work of both John and Tim, we now have  
recordings of the

various sessions we've had during the first day here -

 http://dlc.sun.com/osol/advocacy/opensolaris_summit/2007/

I haven't listened to the recordings, but hopefully you'll get a  
better idea of

what we discussed during the day.


Glynn
___
opensolaris-summit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-summit


--

Encrypted Communication Preferred
PGP Key: 0x437AF1A1




PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Kill PPC port? (was: Re: [powerpc-discuss] Re: Re: Code drop?)

2007-06-25 Thread John Sonnenschein


On 6/17/07, William James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 5/31/07, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Therefore, as a leader in this project :

 I call for a vote of the members of this project to terminate
 this project at OpenSolaris.org.  Please indicate a YES or NO
 below :

YES [  ]  -   kill this project at OpenSolaris.org

 NO [  ]  -   no .. not yet.  Let's work this out.

I propose YES if Sun Labs does not provide a source snapshot in one week



That's ridiculous. We have some code, we can just carry forward with that.


--
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Availiable on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

 Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the
 Blastwave software
 bolted in because ALL of that happened with community
 people.  Just my
 thoughts.

I concur. 

Are we building an open community, or are we building products for Sun 
Microsystems?

what Ian-diana is supposed to be already exists, sun just had little to do with 
it.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

Okay, after thinking a bit harder about it, I withdraw my -1. 

This isn't to say I support the project, I still fail to see a purpose beyond 
what we already have and I think indiana's a waste of time, but I'm not 
actively hostile towards it. 

I do think that if it goes ahead, calling the reference distribution by the 
name OpenSolaris is dangerous ( does that mean that Belenix /isn't/ 
opensolaris? ).

I also have huge fears that this becomes just another Sun product that we can 
only watch, lacking real non-sun community contributions ( which is the heart 
of my complaints about tools )
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro


On 5/31/07, Giles Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the
  Blastwave software
  bolted in because ALL of that happened with community
  people.  Just my
  thoughts.

 I concur.

Not what I want.


to bad for you? I don't know how to respond to that... some people
don't want Gnome as the default desktop environment, but sometimes
decisions need to be made



 Are we building an open community, or are we building products for Sun 
Microsystems?

Do you want to ban Sun Microsystems from using anything that comes out
of the OpenSolaris community?


who said anything about banning? Sun's allowed to make whatever
products they like.



 what Ian-diana is supposed to be already exists, sun just had little to do 
with it.

Wrong. Otherwise, it will get no support. You are free NOT to get involved.


sun could easily start offering support, and it can be community
supported as well. As I understand it they want ian's distro to be a
community distro as well... why bless SUNW's community distro
instead of one that already exists with the elevated position of being
The reference? just because they're Sun microsystems? That's not how
open development works...


--
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Availiable on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)


On 6/1/07, Giles Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I feel that you will never ever get what Ian is going to do from the
OpenSolaris community. Not from Solaris users. Period.



This doesn't strike you as a bad thing? That's a sign of a lack of
transparency, and without transparency what you're doing isn't open
source.

--
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Availiable on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

On 5/31/07, Giles Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I threw in my -1 for a very specific reason, and that's that I don't
think that this project benefits us ( where us is the opensolaris
community ), and is at best a distraction a sink for developer
talent that could be better used towards creating an open process.

I disagree. Those developers need input. To get input they need a user
base. Right now, that user base almost entirely consists of Solaris
users and not OpenSolaris users which means things are skewed in a
particular direction.

is OpenSolaris then just a comment card for Sun ( how are we doing?
poor() fair() good() ) or is it a real open source project? if it's
the first, then yeah... all they need is just some people to use their
stuff and give comments back. If it's supposed to be a real open
source project then the absolute most important thing is to get the
development infrastructure out in the open as fast as possible, and to
attract as many developers as possible.

Users come later, they'll follow whatever's sexy. Developers are far
more valuable far more willing to reject a project permanently if
the dev. infrastructure isn't up to par.

On 5/31/07, Giles Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(sorry for the duplicates...do you want this on osol or not?)

Open development agreed and things are moving in that direction from
what I see. I do feel that a distro to jump start a larger user base
that is different from Sun's current clients. I do not see why Sun
being involved in it would drive new users away unless Sun adds enough
strings to their OpenSolaris distro such that they discourage new
users.

Sun seems to be trying to use ian-diana to attract new community
members, I'm trying to make the point that if they want to do that,
they should stop wasting time with this silly project and get to doing
the things that actually will benefit the developer community

Scratch 'developer community'. developer-communities should stay
behind closed doors where they belong if that is what they want.

So then what's the point of open at all? If you don't concern
yourself with developers, you may as well just buy an off the shelf
product and forget open-source even exists

Sorry, I should have had 'developer-only'. What is the point of an
open developer-only community?

Same as the point of an open mixed community. create great products
that people ( developers are people too they just smell different )
want to use.

As it stands we have a bug database behind sun's firewall that stuff
occasionally goes missing from and other times is entirely useless ( see description isn't a
useful description ), and a code repo which is similarly behind sun's walls.

That is another problem and not related to this thread. Please start
your own thread if you must.

As for the distro idea itself, if sun wants to build another distro,
that's their perogative, but we already have a couple fine unencumbered distros as it is (
BeleniX, Nexenta ), so what's the point of this one, beyond another product that Sun
Microsystems can sell support for?

Even if it is only so that Sun Microsystems can sell support for it,
it is not unreasonable for the parent to get a little something back
from their child.

Again, if sun wants to make a new opensolaris distro, that's their
prerogative... the license allows for that. They just shouldn't try to
hijack the community machinery to make it look like it's anything more
than a Sun Microsystems product

Why should Sun not be allowed to have one of their products in the
community? How are they hijacking the community?

They're hijacking the community by trying to use our community
machinery as an engine for press releases about new products.

Sun is part of the community.

fair enough. I concede that point

We already have a bunch of distros, and ian-diana isn't going to
attract new people to the project any more than belenix and nexenta
will, it's just going to take users from the other ( actually
community-run ) distributions. So then why not just use Belenix? why
do we need iandiana at all, if not just so that Sun can keep
controlling things instead of handing them off to the community like
they should be doing?

If a Sun OpenSolaris distro does take users from the other distros
(community run? right...I thought this was about a community distro?)
then they are likely suffering for reasons other than the fact that a
Sun OpenSolaris distro exists.

It'll inevitably take users from other distros for the same reason
other distros will take users from each other, the question is what
niche ian's project is hoping to fill, what's the point? If Sun just
wants to build a distro, that's their prerogative, the license allows
it i've no problem with it. Why bother discussing it here

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)


I threw in my -1 for a very specific reason, and that's that I don't
think that this project benefits us ( where us is the opensolaris
community ), and is at best a distraction  a sink for developer
talent that could be better used towards creating an open process.

On 5/31/07, Giles Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

(sorry for the duplicates...do you want this on osol or not?)

  Open development agreed and things are moving in that direction from
  what I see. I do feel that a distro to jump start a larger user base
  that is different from Sun's current clients. I do not see why Sun
  being involved in it would drive new users away unless Sun adds enough
  strings to their OpenSolaris distro such that they discourage new
  users.
 

 Sun seems to be trying to use ian-diana to attract new community
 members, I'm trying to make the point that if they want to do that,
 they should stop wasting time with this silly project and get to doing
 the things that actually will benefit the developer community

Scratch 'developer community'. developer-communities should stay
behind closed doors where they belong if that is what they want.


So then what's the point of open at all? If you don't concern
yourself with developers, you may as well just buy an off the shelf
product and forget open-source even exists



  
   As it stands we have a bug database behind sun's firewall that stuff occasionally 
goes missing from and other times is entirely useless ( see description isn't a useful 
description ), and a code repo which is similarly behind sun's walls.
 
  That is another problem and not related to this thread. Please start
  your own thread if you must.
 
  
   As for the distro idea itself, if sun wants to build another distro, 
that's their perogative, but we already have a couple fine unencumbered distros as it is 
( BeleniX, Nexenta ), so what's the point of this one, beyond another product that Sun 
Microsystems can sell support for?
 
  Even if it is only so that Sun Microsystems can sell support for it,
  it is not unreasonable for the parent to get a little something back
  from their child.
 

 Again, if sun wants to make a new opensolaris distro, that's their
 prerogative... the license allows for that. They just shouldn't try to
 hijack the community machinery to make it look like it's anything more
 than a Sun Microsystems product

Why should Sun not be allowed to have one of their products in the
community? How are they hijacking the community?



They're hijacking the community by trying to use our community
machinery as an engine for press releases about new products.

We already have a bunch of distros, and ian-diana isn't going to
attract new people to the project any more than belenix and nexenta
will, it's just going to take users from the other ( actually
community-run ) distributions. So then why not just use Belenix? why
do we need iandiana at all, if not just so that Sun can keep
controlling things instead of handing them off to the community like
they should be doing?

--
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Availiable on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

2007-05-31 Thread John Sonnenschein

A big -1 from me

We don't need YetAnotherDistro to jump start the community ( some might argue 
that Ian-diana does the opposite, since it's entirely a Sun initiative ), we 
need open development. 

As it stands we have a bug database behind sun's firewall that stuff 
occasionally goes missing from and other times is entirely useless ( see 
description isn't a useful description ), and a code repo which is similarly 
behind sun's walls. 

As for the distro idea itself, if sun wants to build another distro, that's 
their perogative, but we already have a couple fine unencumbered distros as it 
is ( BeleniX, Nexenta ), so what's the point of this one, beyond another 
product that Sun Microsystems can sell support for?


 Hey,
 
 Here's the project proposal that should have been out
 a long while back
 (apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on this one).
 Before anyone gets too
 caught up in how little the proposal actually covers,
 I intend to follow up with
 my thoughts if and when the project alias gets
 created - I'd like that
 discussion to be far more focused than
 opensolaris-discuss has been.
 
 
 Glynn
 
 ==
 
 1.1 Summary
 
 This project proposes to create an OpenSolaris
  binary distribution,
previously known as 'Project Indiana'.
 2 Description
 
 This project proposes to create an OpenSolaris
  binary distribution
 with a long term goal of increasing the userbase
  and growing
 mindshare in the volume market by providing easy
  access to the
 technology created within the OpenSolaris
  community.
 A 6 monthly time based release schedule will
  focus energies in producing
 a single CD install, and putting OpenSolaris on a
  path to being a
 distribution as well as a source base. With a
  focus on the user experience,
 it is hoped that with wide distribution, the
  OpenSolaris ecosystem will
grow, providing valuable feedback to the project.
 This project is expected to be long term, with
  regular releases and
 regular goals with a focus on closing the
  familiarity gap for new
 users of the platform, but also compatible to
 Solaris users today.
 This project will have an emphasis on release
  engineering process
 and infrastructure initially, coupled with some
  user visible
 improvements to the existing pain points within
  Solaris.
 
 1.3 Sponsors
 
 This project has a lot of overlap with a number
  of Community Groups in
 terms of technology but has particularly strong
  links to the
'Distributions  Packaging' Community Group.
 4 Involvement
 
 There is a strong intention for this to be a
  community grass roots
 project, with open contribution. We hope for this
  project to be
 consensus driven, though ultimately the project
  leads will need
 to dictate direction if that proves unfeasible for
  delivering
 a timely release. While many of those decisions
  can be made within
 that specific project area, based on requirements,
  there may be a
real need for a sole arbitor, Ian Murdock.
 5 Related Projects
 
 This project will, over time, start to include
  many of the existing
 projects that are already being worked upon and
  stable enough to
 include under the opensolaris.org umbrella,
  encouraging the best
innovation within the community.
 6 Other
 
 With this proposal there is an opportunity to
  create a base
 distribution that other community groups can
  re-distribute for
 their own needs. This distribution proposal hopes
  to draw
 together existing innovations across the
  OpenSolaris
 community, encouraging collaboration and
  communication.
 __
 opensolaris-discuss mailing list
 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro

2007-05-31 Thread John Sonnenschein

with rising tide sometimes comes storm.

Is it going to benefit others, or is it smoke and mirrors to wrestle control 
away from the community? 

Will it attract new users to OpenSolaris, or will it just scuttle BeleniX by 
taking users away from them back in to the fold of Sun-owned distributions?
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: [summerofcode] Reviewing projects, assigning mentors

2007-04-02 Thread John Sonnenschein


I'm perfectly fine with no code coming back my way, I expected as
such. Really my only concern is that the code ends up rejected for
putback because someone perceived some NDA violation or another, which
would be very unfortunate. I'm not privy to the precise legal
encumberences with the code, so I really have no way of know what is
or is not kosher.

On 3/29/07, Garrett D'Amore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

If just having access to the i18n code rules out mentors, then you have
to rule out everyone with access to SWAN, as that code is posted in
places where anyone on SWAN can find it.

I would argue that as long as the mentor is not providing code back to
the student, then there shouldn't be any problems.  Ideally, there would
be zero reference to Sun code.  If you can live with that restriction
then I can mentor.  Otherwise I cannot, since I'm now on the inside. :-)

-- Garrett

John Sonnenschein wrote:
 Hey, Just to clarify

 One of those emancipation projects is mine, and if any of them are
 going to be accepted in a useful way, a mentor who isn't tainted by
 license issues needs to be found. So ideally, someone outside Sun, but
 practically, anyone who's not involved in ON should be fair game ( ask
 your manager! )...

 Sucks if me  the other emancipation proposals don't get accepted
 because the only potential mentors are tainted by the old code, but
 I'd rather not be accepted  end up doing it for free over a longer
 time scale, than be accepted and have the code thrown out because of
 inability to prove that there wasn't NDA violations.

 On 3/29/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hey,

 Thanks to Rob, we're already starting the process of being able to
 rate the
 submitted student proposals. We have some pretty tight deadlines of
 deciding the
 best ones, and assigning mentors.

 We are still looking for mentors for these, particularly as point of
 contacts
 for various projects. We cannot realistically accept student
 proposals if we
 have no mentors for them, so *everyone* loses out.

 Here's a list of project titles we've received -

   BPF for Solaris
   i18n Emancipation Project
   Freedom! OpenSolaris Emancipation
   Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools to OpenSolaris
   Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools
   Porting Racoon to OpenSolaris
   IPfilter and IPSec Configuration GUI on OpenSolaris
   RACOON2 PORTING STRATEGY DOCUMENT
   Ext2fs read/write driver for OpenSolaris
   Porting Racoon IKE to OpenSolaris
   Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools
   Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools
   Virtual Window System for BrandZ on OpenSolaris
   Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools
   Camera based HCI System: libraries and accessibility tool
   Camera Based HCI system
   Port mprime, etc to OpenSolaris
   A Camera-Based Human Computer Interaction System
   Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools to OpenSolaris
   IPFilter GUI using GTK+
   Enhancements to LiveMedia  BeleniX Projects (Update)
   Retriever - Java port of Beagle on OpenSolaris
   More options of open systems.
   IPsec and IPfilter Rules GUI application
   DTrace Probes for ksh93
   Profiling Firefox with DTrace
   IPsec and IPfilter Rules GUI
   Let retrieval on the System more efficiently
   Centralized Software Repository Framework
   Port of libburnia to OpenSolaris
   Optimizing ZFS for 32-bit Architectures; Implementing Resizing
 Support for
 RAIDZ1/2 Pools
   Virtualization and X
   Converting any filesystems to ZFS
   A camera based HCI system for the Solaris OS
   NYou Tube-this what i propose
   Dynamic Load Balancing In Decentralised environment
   Centralised Multi Client Data Access And Security
   Human computer Interface
   XFS driver for OpenSolaris
   Porting Fast Fourier Transform tools to OpenSolaris
   ALGORITHM TO FIND AND VALIDATE THE ORTHOLOGUS AND PARALOGOUS
 SEQUENCE FOR
 PHYLOGENTIC ANALYSIS
   Ants and Algorithms (new idea)

 It gives you a rough idea of what projects may make the final list. The
 following is the rough list of order that we now need to figure out -

 o Find reviewers
 - By my reckoning, we'll need people who are familiar
   with security, livemedia/belenix, desktop/firefox,
   ZFS, BrandZ, HCI and general kernel awareness in
   the case of the emancipation ideas
 o Review current project proposals
 - We have signed up for about 8 slots. We may not get
   all of them. Projects are rated on whether they are
   good quality, or spam.
 o Assign mentors
 - In some cases above we already have a mentor assigned
 o Google decides how many projects we get, and the highest rated
   are accepted

 Please, if you are interested in mentoring a student or reviewing
 proposals this
 summer, please join [EMAIL PROTECTED] or contact me
 directly. I'm not
 going to mail opensolaris-discuss about it again. Please also feel
 free

[osol-discuss] Re: [summerofcode] Reviewing projects, assigning mentors

2007-03-29 Thread John Sonnenschein


Hey, Just to clarify

One of those emancipation projects is mine, and if any of them are
going to be accepted in a useful way, a mentor who isn't tainted by
license issues needs to be found. So ideally, someone outside Sun, but
practically, anyone who's not involved in ON should be fair game ( ask
your manager! )...

Sucks if me  the other emancipation proposals don't get accepted
because the only potential mentors are tainted by the old code, but
I'd rather not be accepted  end up doing it for free over a longer
time scale, than be accepted and have the code thrown out because of
inability to prove that there wasn't NDA violations.

On 3/29/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hey,

Thanks to Rob, we're already starting the process of being able to rate the
submitted student proposals. We have some pretty tight deadlines of deciding the
best ones, and assigning mentors.

We are still looking for mentors for these, particularly as point of contacts
for various projects. We cannot realistically accept student proposals if we
have no mentors for them, so *everyone* loses out.

Here's a list of project titles we've received -

  BPF for Solaris
  i18n Emancipation Project
  Freedom! OpenSolaris Emancipation
  Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools to OpenSolaris
  Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools
  Porting Racoon to OpenSolaris
  IPfilter and IPSec Configuration GUI on OpenSolaris
  RACOON2 PORTING STRATEGY DOCUMENT
  Ext2fs read/write driver for OpenSolaris
  Porting Racoon IKE to OpenSolaris
  Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools
  Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools
  Virtual Window System for BrandZ on OpenSolaris
  Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools
  Camera based HCI System: libraries and accessibility tool
  Camera Based HCI system
  Port mprime, etc to OpenSolaris
  A Camera-Based Human Computer Interaction System
  Porting Fast Fourier Transform Tools to OpenSolaris
  IPFilter GUI using GTK+
  Enhancements to LiveMedia  BeleniX Projects (Update)
  Retriever - Java port of Beagle on OpenSolaris
  More options of open systems.
  IPsec and IPfilter Rules GUI application
  DTrace Probes for ksh93
  Profiling Firefox with DTrace
  IPsec and IPfilter Rules GUI
  Let retrieval on the System more efficiently
  Centralized Software Repository Framework
  Port of libburnia to OpenSolaris
  Optimizing ZFS for 32-bit Architectures; Implementing Resizing Support for
RAIDZ1/2 Pools
  Virtualization and X
  Converting any filesystems to ZFS
  A camera based HCI system for the Solaris OS
  NYou Tube-this what i propose
  Dynamic Load Balancing In Decentralised environment
  Centralised Multi Client Data Access And Security
  Human computer Interface
  XFS driver for OpenSolaris
  Porting Fast Fourier Transform tools to OpenSolaris
  ALGORITHM TO FIND AND VALIDATE THE ORTHOLOGUS AND PARALOGOUS SEQUENCE FOR
PHYLOGENTIC ANALYSIS
  Ants and Algorithms (new idea)

It gives you a rough idea of what projects may make the final list. The
following is the rough list of order that we now need to figure out -

o Find reviewers
- By my reckoning, we'll need people who are familiar
  with security, livemedia/belenix, desktop/firefox,
  ZFS, BrandZ, HCI and general kernel awareness in
  the case of the emancipation ideas
o Review current project proposals
- We have signed up for about 8 slots. We may not get
  all of them. Projects are rated on whether they are
  good quality, or spam.
o Assign mentors
- In some cases above we already have a mentor assigned
o Google decides how many projects we get, and the highest rated
  are accepted

Please, if you are interested in mentoring a student or reviewing proposals this
summer, please join [EMAIL PROTECTED] or contact me directly. I'm not
going to mail opensolaris-discuss about it again. Please also feel free to
forward to interested sub-communities or colleagues.



thanks,

Glynn
___
summerofcode mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/summerofcode




--
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Availiable on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Update to B60 ?

2007-03-24 Thread John Sonnenschein

Incorrect. 
The site just sometimes doesn't update properly for some reason. Latest is 
always here: http://opensolaris.org/sxce_dvd
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: Next Generation Web Stack

2007-03-15 Thread John Sonnenschein



On 15-Mar-07, at 6:54 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:


Project Proposal: Next Generation Web Stack

Summary

We would like to create an OpenSolaris project to assume and enhance
the community and work originally created in Sun's CoolStack project
as part of the CoolTools project.  This project will assume all of
the CoolStack components, including Apache HTTP Server, MySQL
Database Server, Perl, PHP, Ruby, Rails, Squid and others.  The
existing CoolStack forums will be retired and replaced with
discussions at OpenSolaris.org.

Goals

The aim of this project is to address the OpenSolaris community needs
for a set of Next Generation Web Tier Technologies.  The initial
seeding of this project will be based on the work already put into
CoolStack, but it is not intended to be tied to the set of
technologies currently in CoolStack.

The project will provide the following:
- A forum for discussion on which next generation web tier
components should be part of various Solaris distributions
- A codebase from which various packaged software can be
derived for various OpenSolaris distributions, including
build scripts and best practices for building this software
with OpenSolaris
- A forum for discussion on what kind of integration and
features users would like to see integration between
OpenSolaris and these external Open Source projects

Overview of CoolStack

In 2006, Sun introduced CoolStack - a Solaris-optimized,
full-featured open-source based Web Tier stack which includes all of
the traditional components of an AMP stack.  This project proposes to
take the best of the technologies and practices delivered by
CoolStack and fully integrate them into OpenSolaris, optimized to
utilize the features within OpenSolaris such as DTrace and the
Solaris Management Facility.

Many details can be found on CoolStack and the associated forums at
http://cooltools.sunsource.net/coolstack/.

However, we would like to summarize the history and goals to clarify
how they relate to this project proposal.

CoolStack had been originally conceived to provide a set of
out-of-the-box optimized binaries for a common set of software
components on the UltraSPARC T1 based systems.  By performing this
packaging for the community, the OpenSPARC project and Sun's
Performance Technologies group had a goal to make it easy for users
to quickly add packages to their existing systems to quickly obtain
optimized performance and reducing time to service.

Over time, there was sufficient demand for an equivalent set of
packages on x64, so a similar set of optimized packages and build
scripts were put together for the i386 and amd64 architectures as
appropriate.

CoolStack derives its name from the CoolTools project it is
associated with.  Because the community has already gained
familiarity with the CoolStack name, there is no plan to change the
name, despite the fact it's moving away from the CoolThreads
processor and CoolTools project.

Q: Why should this project exist here instead of upstream source code
bases?

In attempting to keep the various components under this project in
step with the latest and/or most popular releases from the component
projects, core code modifications will be contributed to the upstream
projects wherever possible.  However, it is expected that some
contributed items, such as build scripts, a community forum, SMF
manifests and the like, are more appropriate for an OpenSolaris
project than the codebase of the component project.

It is also anticipated that this project may have specific
discussions about packaging as it relates to various OpenSolaris
distributions and a need for there to be a forum to discuss how
OpenSolaris technologies such as DTrace and SMF integrate with these
component projects.  Accordingly, this project will serve as the
source for the OpenSolaris.org discussions and community decisions.

From experience with the CoolStack project forums already, we know
there may be some overlap with questions on issues/bugs and how
things are intended to work that may be more appropriate for the
project from which the component was derived, but the members of the
OpenSolaris CoolStack project will encourage working with the
component projects wherever possible.  This project is intended to
add to the communities surrounding those projects, not fragment
them.

-
1. Public interfaces as defined in the ARC release taxonomy at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/policies/interface- 
taxonomy/


--
Stefan Teleman
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




+1


--
This Message has been Digitally Signed

PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Availiable on hkp://pgp.mit.edu



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Sun joins the Free Software Foundation

2007-03-03 Thread John Sonnenschein



On 3-Mar-07, at 4:07 PM, Octave Orgeron wrote:



And this is where Sun needs to spend some $$ on good marketing and
reaching out the schools and universities to change these perceptions.
I mean when was the last time we saw a Sun commercial on the TV? There
are some good ones on-line poking fun at Dell, but that's about it.


+1

I see IBM's Linux ads on TV all the time, I've yet to ever see any  
Sun advertising. Sun needs to realize that people in charge of buying  
watch TV... more importantly, people in charge of the people in  
charge of buying watch TV.



--
This Message has been Digitally Signed

PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Availiable on hkp://pgp.mit.edu



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal :: Google's Sumer of Code

2007-02-28 Thread John Sonnenschein

+1 from me as well
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: Enable/Enhance Solaris support for Intel Platforms

2007-02-08 Thread John Sonnenschein

Wasn't the recent intel/sun announcement to do precisely this thing?  
I mean, rock on if your plans are to offer more than Sun+intel are  
willing to


On 8-Feb-07, at 1:02 PM, Sherry Moore wrote:

I'd like to propose a project to enable and enhance Solaris support  
for

shipping and future Intel processors and platforms.

As we are all aware of, Sun and Intel have formed an alliance to make
Solaris the Unix operating system of choice on Intel platforms.  We
believe the only sensible and the most effective way to pursuit this
goal is to do development in the OpenSolaris community.

Our first effort will focus on the following areas on Bensley  
platform,

but will be ongoing as new processors and platforms become available:

- Performance improvement
- CPU feature enabling
- Power management support
- Virtualization support
- FMA support (coming soon)

Some of the detailed technical discussions will likely to be conducted
in other communities, such as Virtualization, but this project will be
the central hub for the collaboration.  We encourage contributions  
from

all community members.

Thanks,
Sherry Moore
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation

2007-02-06 Thread John Sonnenschein



On 6-Feb-07, at 6:03 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:


Hey,

Jim Grisanzio wrote:

Some have been considering a bug bounty program, so yes, I think we
ought to consider specific programs to engage more people in more  
ways

and then call attention to their contributions.


We really need to get our submission for the Summer of Code rocking  
this year -
an exceptional line up of interesting projects would be awesome to  
see!


Anyone know when SoC2007 starts taking applications?
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] project emancipation now open!

2007-02-06 Thread John Sonnenschein

Just a quick announcement that the closed binary emancipation project  
is now open at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/emancipation/ .  
I've put some skeleton .c files up corresponding with the functions  
of libc_i18n that need to be reimplemented on our hg repo:  
hg.opensolaris.org/hg/emancipation/libc_i18n


so, if you want to help, join the project, checkout the repo, and  
have at it :)


Let's try to make all of OpenSolaris fit it's name
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

2007-02-04 Thread John Sonnenschein



On 3-Feb-07, at 5:29 PM, Alan Hargreaves wrote:


John Sonnenschein wrote:

I think I like the Project Emancipation title
However, as for starting with all of closed bins, as I mentioned  
in the initial proposal, libc_i18n.a comes first. That bit *MUST*  
be reimplemented  shoved in to ON as fast as possible. The rest  
is not as important in as far as you can, theoretically, build a  
mostly working opensolaris distro without them. The reason why I  
posted a libc_i18n rewrite is because I don't want to have that  
finished, waiting for the rest of the emancipation project to  
finish before getting it in to ON. As soon as libc_i18n is done, I  
want it upstreamed

  This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org


There are currently two components that are needed before one can  
do an open build. The first one is one that has been talked a lot  
about, the other is only required on SPARC, that is the sparc  
disassembler.


If you want a project that has as it's goal to be able to build the  
opensolaris sources without encumbered binaries, AND you want this  
to be able to be done on both SPARC and x86, then both of these  
need to be addressed.


I knwo that SPARC is not generally popular here, but if we are  
going to do something, it needs to be done correctly.


Agreed.

So i18n and sparc disassembler.  I don't happen to own a SPARC, so  
anyone up to the task? ( unless it can get done in the 60 day trybuy  
period, which I doubt )

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

2007-02-02 Thread John Sonnenschein

By the way, if anyone from sun legal watches this forum, I'd like an overview 
of what I am and am not allowed to do with the project (if the project is 
approved)
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

2007-02-02 Thread John Sonnenschein

I think I like the Project Emancipation title

However, as for starting with all of closed bins, as I mentioned in the initial 
proposal, libc_i18n.a comes first. That bit *MUST* be reimplemented  shoved in 
to ON as fast as possible. The rest is not as important in as far as you can, 
theoretically, build a mostly working opensolaris distro without them. 

The reason why I posted a libc_i18n rewrite is because I don't want to have 
that finished, waiting for the rest of the emancipation project to finish 
before getting it in to ON. As soon as libc_i18n is done, I want it upstreamed
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

2007-02-01 Thread John Sonnenschein



On 1-Feb-07, at 10:51 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:


John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



On 31-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
interesting.


Good thing that people who disagree with you are insulted, otherwise
we might get the impression that OpenSolaris is a welcoming
community... glad we got that cleared up...


I am not sure about what's your point is...

I cannot see any insult from Casper. If you dislike insults, you would
need to talk to the bigots who already attack the CDDL and CDDL based
projects.


Of course you can't see my point, you're a GPL bigot  a fascist.

See? It's not nice to insult people.

My point is just that when we're attempting a rational discourse,  
lowering yourself to ad hominem causes you to lose credibility, not  
gain it. I support the GPL, I think it's good for the authors, in as  
far as one's work isn't picked up  locked away in something closed  
source against the authors' will.


And now I'm told by Casper, someone  who's supposed to represent the  
community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?!  
That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas  
are worthless, but insulting me as a person is unacceptable. You're  
guilty of it, Casper's guilty of it.



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

2007-02-01 Thread John Sonnenschein

Currently, there is no possible way to build an opensolaris distribution 
without including the closed-source libc_i18n.a. What this means is that a 
traditional distribution is entirely out of the question. This is entirely 
unacceptable for a project which wishes to call itself Open Source. 

I propose that a project be started seeking to re-implement all necessary 
functions locked up behind that binary. 

I've done a rudimentary count of the work required, and from what I can tell 
there's a small number ( 100 - 200 ) utility functions ( wcwidth() for example) 
that need a rewrite. 

I would prefer if this project be attached to the name of 
closed-reimplementation  or something similar, due to the fact that the 
primary focus at first will be to remove libc_i18n.a, and that must be 
integrated without delay, but ultimately I'd like for closed bins to disappear 
completely.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

2007-02-01 Thread John Sonnenschein



On 1-Feb-07, at 10:26 PM, Stephen Lau wrote:


here's my vote for a project name:
Project Emancipation


fantastic! :) I'll take it
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]



On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote:



It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider  
OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant,  
and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual  
licensing? I have my doubts.


I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge  
mess of the project.


Really, I think if Sun wants to go GPLv3, it should be an explicit  
license change

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]



On 31-Jan-07, at 8:51 AM, Erast Benson wrote:


On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:16 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:

On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote:



It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider
OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant,
and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual
licensing? I have my doubts.


I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge
mess of the project.


It sounds to me anti-GPL folks over here confused you. I doubt
dual-licensing is that messy as they claim. As Stephen mentioned,
assembly exception could be provided, this is the tool Sun should  
use
to prevent possible single-license forking and code aggregation  
issues.


I meant more for contributors who want to pull in changes from  
another gpl3 project, for example... it won't be possible to package  
that with the CDDL fork of opensolaris, only the gpl3 fork



I think GPLv3 licensed OpenSolaris is a *good* thing and I believe it
will increase our community and make it stronger dramatically. This
would be a positive strategic step.


I absolutely agree. I'm pro-gpl3, just not pro dual license

I think GPLv3 will be widely accepted just because of FSF/GNU will  
force

it in distributions and because of GPLv2 or later clause in source
files.


If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead  
of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3,  that would be  
more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in  
the world



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]



On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
 Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement.  CDDL is OK. I would be  
better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.


+1

contributor agreement's gotta go.

GPL or CDDL is worthless mouth flapping with this, closed_bins  
(particularly the closed parts of libc) , and the internal ON gate  
(which I'm told is being worked on  that's great)

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation



On 31-Jan-07, at 11:31 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:



--- Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 1/31/07, Christopher Mahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Please forgive the newbiness.

Can Open Solaris be built entirely from source?


Ask in opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org for details. The answer is
yes
except some closed binary parts which still await approval from the
stupid lawyers. I'd expect Open Solaris being built entirely from
source in a year


So really no then.

Thanks though.

How hard would it be to reimplement the binary parts? Are there
patent issues?


I counted for defined but unimplemented i18n parts of libc. there's  
about 150 functions that need to be rewritten. IBM released an  
implementation under an artistic license, so those can just be  
lifted. I just finished the count a few days ago, i was going to  
start working on them this weekend

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]



On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the  
OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration  
process respectively.


What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not being able
to port to a different architecture or chance the bits in closed_bins?

Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control


Rubbish.
It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't  
have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility  
functions?The good chunk of closed bins can be taken from gnu/bsd,  
there's only a couple libs (ipsec is one, and the critical one that  
you can't build ON at all, even in a degraded state, is libc_i18n.a )

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation



On 31-Jan-07, at 1:13 PM, Tom Haynes wrote:



Right now, OpenSolaris implies Sun. It doesn't have to. You could  
take the latest

source code drop and fork it for your development effort.


Not while critical pieces of libc are closed you can't. This very  
scenario you describe is currently impossible due to Sun's  
restrictions on parts of libc

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation



On 31-Jan-07, at 9:37 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:



Some have been considering a bug bounty program, so yes, I think  
we ought to consider specific programs to engage more people in  
more ways and then call attention to their contributions.


Fantastic!
:) I honestly think that'd be a great idea. Either I imagined it  
(which is a possibility) or OpenBSD has hack-a-thons where everyone  
meets at $PLACE and programs nonstop all weekend... also a cool idea..

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]