G B: There are some build instructions on the wiki. I also put some notes
together here https://gist.github.com/aszeszo/2855864 when building and
rebuilding upstream repositories as an experiment. Note that the repos
referenced in the gist were not synced with upstream in almost a year.
Build
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its current
form. There is simply too many packages and too much baggage for a handful
of people to look after.
I think the
On 05/09/2013 10:01 AM, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its current
form. There is simply too many packages and too much baggage
On 2013-05-09 10:01, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads
I thought I will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its
current form. There is simply too many packages and too much baggage for
a
Hi Sašo
Thanks for your support!
Andrzej
On 9 May 2013 10:36, Sašo Kiselkov skiselkov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/2013 10:01 AM, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that
On 2013-05-09 13:06, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
The process you have described sounds a lot like OI's original plan. It
didn't work out. There was too much baggage. No one was willing to spend
time learning it. It was just too ... ugly.
It's possible to try it differently this time :)
One way or
Hi David
Igor is doing great job with his CIBS stuff. Certainly worth consideration
for a project reboot.
I agree on the contribution front. I had similar experience with Vagrant.
It took probably less than 1h for my change to end up in the official repo.
Andrzej
On 9 May 2013 11:08, David
Hi,
(Instead of replying to a message in one of the other threads I thought I
will create a new one.)
Just wanted to say that I don't see a future for the project in its
current form. There is simply too many packages and too much baggage for a
handful of people to look after.
I think you
Hello,
1. Provide an updated kernel userland (i.e. Illumos-gate, rev: 19e11862653b or
higher). This allows people that use OI for server-based projects to stay in
sync with Illumos development on a much wider scale.
2. Optionally, implement JDS updates already maintained by Milan from
Hi,
One thing to keep in mind that OI has (or at least, had) the largest
install base of any OpenSolaris derived distro, thanks to the fact it is
upgrade compatible with OpenSolaris. If you don't maintain that, then
there is no point in continuing with OI - you may as well start with OmniOS.
My
On 05/09/2013 03:29 PM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
It certainly had plenty of users.
Still has. What needs to be done is stop bickering about stuff on the
mailing list and starting pushing out releases. By that I don't mean
that you or anybody else in the community is doing something bad - you
did
On 05/09/2013 03:55 PM, mag...@yonderway.com wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2013 15:39:39 +0200, Sašo Kiselkov skiselkov...@gmail.com
wrote:
The finer details of release engineering and project architecture is of
course something to be debated, but probably not on a public forum.
Why not?
On Thu, 9 May 2013, Peter Tribble wrote:
And also what differentiates you from other offerings. Specifically,
thinking about other similar projects, what would OI offer that you
wouldn't get from OmniOS (which I regard as the closest distro)?
The main differentiators appear to be the ability
On 2013-05-09 16:02, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The Tribblix approach is likely a good one. Start off with a good
smaller core and then add more sophisticated features via packages.
This requires a new distribution though.
Two words: backwards compatibility ;)
Reinventing the wheel from scratch
Fundamentally, the question you all should be asking is, what is the purpose of
the project?
The problem with OI has always been lack of a clear vision. The original
purpose, to be a free community-run clone of Solaris 11, had no future. It was
doomed to fail because it was an attempt to
Privet !
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
On 2013-05-09 13:06, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
The process you have described sounds a lot like OI's original plan. It
didn't work out. There was too much baggage. No one was willing to spend
time learning it. It was
Having the server is key to the linux / unix world. Portability is the
newer direction that several distros are moving toward so a
multi-platform architecture is key. Would we be able to include a few
compilers (C / C++ etc. ) stock for when the driver is not available
after initial install?
On May 9, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Milan Jurik milan.ju...@xylab.cz wrote:
Hi,
OK, so start yet another distro :-)
OI needs one thing it does not have - release engineering team. Jon is
too busy and I cannot do that. I am happy to work on some things from
time to time for fun but my job is
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Milan Jurik milan.ju...@xylab.cz wrote:
enjoy it (and my private life also). And to be fair, with total lost of
interest in desktop systems in Illumos by core team, I have less and
less motivation to work on it.
Hi Milan,
good observation.
Sadly I must
On Thu, 9 May 2013, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Upshot, *today* anyone who thinks there is a commercial future in
illumos on the desktop is probably smoking something. There are a
few people who would be willing to pay for it, but it needs more
than a few dozen people willing to pay a couple
Precisely.
Cheers
Dave
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
Availability of a graphical desktop is seen as a requirement for
common acceptance. Much/most of the graphical desktop development
taking place for Linux does not seem to be done by the companies which
popularly
On 2013/05/09, at 17:09, Martin Bochnig mar...@martux.org wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Milan Jurik milan.ju...@xylab.cz wrote:
enjoy it (and my private life also). And to be fair, with total lost of
interest in desktop systems in Illumos by core team, I have less and
less
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Ian Johnson ian...@yahoo.co.jp wrote:
snip
Oracle seems to be taking good enough care of the Solaris desktop on its
end. I'm sure it's a peripheral part of their overall effort, but somebody
at Oracle is keeping hardware support up to par and fixing desktop
On May 9, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2013, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Upshot, *today* anyone who thinks there is a commercial future in illumos on
the desktop is probably smoking something. There are a few people who would
be willing
For what it's worth, I only need Xorg, xpdf and xterm to take care of my
graphics needs. Everything that doesn't involve coding happens on linux,
mac and winxp.
As long as a distro can support Xorg, it is viable for me. So whatever you
guys do, please don't remove the basic graphics capability!
25 matches
Mail list logo
