Let me mention what I am interested in:
Binary compatibility to existing (pre Oracle) Solaris installations.
Why?
I've enjoyed Solaris binary compatibility with database and market data
systems and old apps as much as anyone. But that was in environments
that had paid for those things and
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> I'm back in action, and have started my work on Belenix.
One thing that I think would be hugely beneficial would be to
clarify exactly what Belenix is (or at least, how you see it).
The mission statement or elevator pitch, if you will.
-
A standards-compliant userland is important for software compatibility.
The key issue here is IMO:
What do you mean 'standards-compliant'?
Do you mean:
- the de-facto standard people currently use in reality?
- the de-facto standard that is 'old Solaris', bugs and warts and all?
- strict
Which minimum set of consensus? The point is to go boldly forward with
the userland modernization where Illumos has failed with it's
conservative policy.
Isn't that a major sticking point? Many Solaris old-timers don't
welcome such change.
It did seem to me that the OpenSolaris mechanism for
Correct and for this reason, Illumos did change too much at some places already.
Solaris Old-timers like to have standard compatibility and backwards
compatibility.
Well, as an outside observer who has worked on Solaris and Linux
professionally, I'd have to say:
Some of the behaviour wrt the
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Irek Szczesniak wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> >
> >> I should clarify, I decided to address release engineering first, since
> the
> >> whole non-oracle Solaris community will need to get together
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> David Halko wrote:
>
> > If there was failure, it was with OpenSolaris programmers being too
> > aggressive, and the rest of us inheriting the mess.
>
> I would call me an "OpenSolaris programmer", ar
> > You should add "..and expect no reward and to have your ideas stolen
> > from you." I think that the NetApp people have proven that to you.
>
> Coud you explain what you have in mind here and why you mention NetApp?
>
> NetApp has stolen the ideas for COW filesystems that I developed
>
My thoughts on this, even though it was addressed primarily to Joerg.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, james wrote:
> Let me mention what I am interested in:
>>
>> Binary compatibility to existing (pre Oracle) Solaris installations.
>>
> Why?
I have software. There are vendors looking at movi
> >
> Heh, I'm fine. Been interested with HPC and storage stuff lately.
I'm heads down doing programming, on Solaris. No surprise there. It's a good
gig where I get to keep the IP in the software, at least everything that isn't
specific to the target customers business. That is a rare agreeme
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
>
> > I'm back in action, and have started my work on Belenix.
> >
> > [...]
> > The areas that I've not thought about too much in detail are - what
> > does it take to add modern device driver support to illumos, should
> we
> > take L
james wrote:
> > A standards-compliant userland is important for software compatibility.
>
> The key issue here is IMO:
>
> What do you mean 'standards-compliant'?
>
> Do you mean:
> - the de-facto standard people currently use in reality?
> - the de-facto standard that is 'old Solaris',
David Halko wrote:
> If there was failure, it was with OpenSolaris programmers being too
> aggressive, and the rest of us inheriting the mess.
I would call me an "OpenSolaris programmer", are you talkig about the people
that have been employed by Sun?
In 2003, I developed a concept for a Solar
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > These are non-trivial and complicated by the fact that not all devices
> > behave strictly as per the standard. Scores of device variants need
> > to be tested, idiosyncracies addressed etc. Biggest of all debugging
> > in the kernel space is an art by itself. Sometimes o
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> Linux Driver porting is sufficiently challenging since there is zero
> similarity between the internal kernel ABIs of the two OSes. Even
> behavioral semantics are different. In addition stacks like USB3 and
> bluetooth are missing.
Correct and in addition, the VFS interfac
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Sriram Narayanan >wrote:
> >
> > > I'm back in action, and have started my work on Belenix.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > The areas that I've not thought about too much in detail are - what
> > > does it take
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> I'm back in action, and have started my work on Belenix.
>
> [...]
> The areas that I've not thought about too much in detail are - what
> does it take to add modern device driver support to illumos, should we
> take Linux drivers and mak
Irek Szczesniak wrote:
> Well, I'm strongly against importing more tools from FreeBSD. the
> damage caused by Garrett D'Amore eager "adopt FreeBSD tools to fill
> our needs" project has created gaping holes in
> functionality/interoperability and as side effect imported all the
> damn FreeBSD bug
I'm back in action, and have started my work on Belenix.
Here are my own thoughts on other discussions that have come up on this thread:
- People should be able to choose what they want. If someone wants
Solaris tools + API as of b147, then that should be possible. If
someone wants FreeBSD userlan
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM, james wrote:
>> Correct and for this reason, Illumos did change too much at some places
>> already.
>>
>> Solaris Old-timers like to have standard compatibility and backwards
>> compatibility.
>
>
> Well, as an outside observer who has worked on Solaris and Linux
>
james wrote:
> > Correct and for this reason, Illumos did change too much at some places
> > already.
> >
> > Solaris Old-timers like to have standard compatibility and backwards
> > compatibility.
>
> Well, as an outside observer who has worked on Solaris and Linux
> professionally, I'd have t
james wrote:
> > Which minimum set of consensus? The point is to go boldly forward with
> > the userland modernization where Illumos has failed with it's
> > conservative policy.
>
> Isn't that a major sticking point? Many Solaris old-timers don't
> welcome such change.
Correct and for this re
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> Sriram Narayanan wrote:
>
>> I should clarify, I decided to address release engineering first, since the
>> whole non-oracle Solaris community will need to get together to solve the
>> problem of tracking package changes, have the tools to
Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> I should clarify, I decided to address release engineering first, since the
> whole non-oracle Solaris community will need to get together to solve the
> problem of tracking package changes, have the tools to solve posix
> compliance debates, and then start to write dev
I should clarify, I decided to address release engineering first, since the
whole non-oracle Solaris community will need to get together to solve the
problem of tracking package changes, have the tools to solve posix
compliance debates, and then start to write device drivers.
Sriram
On Nov 29, 20
25 matches
Mail list logo
