[osol-discuss] Opensolaris - just a fake? (was: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] some questions about ksh93 integration)
that solaris:libcmd.so can't be transformed into solaris:libcmd_private.so, have overstated the difficulty of such a change, and anyway, it seems like the tail wagging the dog. To reiterate, I'm interested mostly in the architectural cleanliness of the project, and that things are done with appropriate rationale-- number of commits, number of customers requesting, and even backportability are in my mind at best secondary concerns. You have done an admirable job blazing a trail to accomplish a large and complex project. I'm part of the system of checks and balances which helps to make sure that we're doing things right not just with inertia. And making sure it is clean architecturally and in terms of maintainability sets a really strong precedent for future work. The current solution for libcmd based on Sun's prefernce for backwards-compatibilty and MANY MANY other issues were addressed this way, too. Just renaming the Solaris version of libcmd.so and annouce a flag day isn't even 5% of the work which would need to be done (and I expect around three/four months/engineer to get that propperly done). Like you, I write code for a living. So I didn't make this suggestion until after I had evaluated at least in part the feasibility of this change; Alan may be able to provide some more data (as he knows about CDE, JDS, etc), but I don't see why this change is so onerous: no ARC case (or a minimal one) would be needed, and notification to other consolidations of the date of the change and some commitment to make the appropriate makefile changes from them would be it. A putback to OS/Net altering several dozen makefiles would be needed. Cleverly doing this (with some symlinks) would even yield the ability to deliver this to ON, then get other consolidations updated. -dp -- Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp ___ ksh93-integration-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ksh93-integration-discuss It is interesting to observe that each time the project reaches another milestone a Sun employee steps in and demands a full change of the project. Very suspicious. Is Sun actually interested in a ksh93 migration or did Sun only allow the creation of this project to wear down the ksh93 migration supporters to a point where they give up themselves? Maybe IBM is right and Opensolaris is just a big FAKE project and contributions by external persons are only taken if they please Sun -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris - just a fake? (was: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] some questions about ksh93 integration)
On 8/24/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Schaffstall writes: It is interesting to observe that each time the project reaches another milestone a Sun employee steps in and demands a full change of the project. Very suspicious. Good grief! Would it be at all possible to comment on the technical issues with this project without continually veering off into absurd conspiracy theories? This is not absurd. It is a observation. If you want my opinion: Sun is SABOTAGING the project -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] ksh93 integration status
On 8/9/06, April Chin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some issues/work are still unresolved and are being investigated/discussed, including (but not limited to) manpage changes, putting ksh93 on /sbin, and 64-bit ksh93. Hopefully these can be finished/resolved by the end of the week. I know people are anxious to get ksh93 integrated, but doing it right involves some time. Why isn't it possible to upload the current version to Opensolaris and do further fine tuning later? The project seems to be a in a good shape and EVERYONE is complaining about the delays -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] ksh93 integration status
On 7/27/06, April Chin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a very brief status for those who are interested... The ksh93 project team is currently working out the final details on the PSARC case for the ksh93 integration project. The expectation is that it will be submitted for an open PSARC review by the week of Aug 7th. Today its Aug 8th. Do you have any problems? -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01 To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org -- Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC +1 I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent delays :( -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. Why not? ksh93 is mostly backwards compatible to Solaris ksh PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent delays :( whoa whoa whoa ... relax there guy Why? I just saying what many people already think. I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a manner consistent with solid engineering principles. The issue of backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in my less than humble opinion, critical to the success of any port. The issue of backwards compatibility is already addressed very well in ksh93 itself. Most of the opensolaris distributions - excluding Solaris itself - are shipping ksh93 as /bin/ksh or are going to ship it. The ksh integration tree contains a master built switch specifically for that purpose: http://polaris.blastwave.org/browser/on/branches/ksh93/gisburn/prototype002/m1_ast_ast_imported/usr/src/cmd/ksh/Makefile.ksh93switch?rev=277 While I am certainly not _fully_ aware of all the issues I can say with some degree of certainty that wide sweeping slurs will get you personally no where. Trust me, I ought to know! Yeah. But I am NOT alone with the feeling that something is going wrong. Why does this project need more than half a year to get some sources moved into the Solaris tree? This is a task which should be finished within weeks and NOT years. -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do you? -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: great! Lets hope we won't see an open sourced version of the old /bin/ksh -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent delays :( No, that's not true at all. I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris for a long time, provided it is done properly. Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate Casper Disk with the term ksh93 hater because each time we have this topic Casper Disk sends another hate mail -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Schaffstall writes: On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent delays :( No, that's not true at all. I and other have wanted ksh93 in Solaris for a long time, provided it is done properly. Somehow I can't really believe that. Currently I associate Casper Disk with the term ksh93 hater because each time we have this topic Casper Disk sends another hate mail Sorry, I don't see it. Where's the hate? Casper is always there when he can beat onto ksh93. I think this is getting personal, and I don't think that's at all necessary. The _only_ issues I've seen relate to technical matters, and not at all to hatred. This is not personal. It is just an observation Many of us use ksh93 on Solaris and would very much like to see it integrated. We just don't want to see a huge flood of bugs and broken applications as the result -- because we value compatibility. Call it a fetish if you like, but it's not hatred. Sometimes Sun values the holy backwards compatibility over usability. The PAIN for users and developers caused by this policy far outweighs the benefits. The majority of people who suffer from /bin/ksh in Solaris thinks like that. If you don't believe me read http://anotherhangover.blogspot.com/2006/06/solaris-can-fck-off-kinda.html http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15007limit=nothreshold=-1 or just search in Google for 'solaris ksh sucks': 15,100 hits -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Security: Only allow execution of cryptographically signed binaries?
I just had an idea: Would it be useful/feasible to sign all executabley in Solaris with a cryptographic key and only allow execution of signed binaries then? Would this help to improve system security? -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris roadmap and ksh93
What is the time frame in which we can expect the official put back of the ksh93 integration into OpenSolaris? The Roadmap at OpenSolaris document (http://opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/) lacks any information nor do any of the archived messages in the ksh93-integration list. Can anyone give us an estimation when we can expect this to happen? -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?
On 4/18/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Dan Price wrote: Naming a mailing list filled with technical kernel content after an obscure lake in Canada seems maximally confusing to me, and would seem to make As opposed to naming it after an obscure state in the US? ;-) Joking aside, I agree that mailing list names should be somewhat guessable by those not in the know. Obvious choice would be SKML, the Solaris Kernel Mailing List. -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?
On 4/18/06, Bart Smaalders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Schaffstall wrote: Obvious choice would be SKML, the Solaris Kernel Mailing List. That works, and seems somehow familiar. We've always (well, for the 17+ years I've been here) had a kernel mailing list. We could put your idea in first normal form and have [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing list names should be descriptive and consists of more than one word. Famous examples for bad list names include [EMAIL PROTECTED] (who receive requests like ... Hey, guys, can I hire you for to hack the Yahoo! account of my ex-girlfriend? I'd like to get the address of her new lover...), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (no subscribers are two months, renamed afterwards) and so on. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a worthy candidate for the 3rd place in that list. -- // Martin Schaffstall //EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ // \X/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
