On Sun, 12 May 2013, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
We're going to have to support a 32-bit userland for some time to
come, unfortunately, but we should no longer make that the default,
and we should deliver all of our system utilities in 64-bit only
form, IMO; and we could entirely kill off the 32-b
garrett.dam...@dey-sys.com said:
> So, out of curiosity -- *who* is actively running illumos on 32-bit kit
> today? I'm not interested in hypothetical uses or kit that is sitting around
> in your garage waiting for you to do something with it
. I'm interested in
> people who would be immediately i
On 12/05/2013 00:17, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
But nobody else has built a compelling Linux or Unix desktop with a reason to exist
besides being "free".
> And there is no commercial value in just being "free" ...
But there are other values than commercial values; i.e.,
being "free" OI is not
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 06:17 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
The exception here is the Chromebook experience and OLPC…. they were able to do something cool and
make a compelling argument. But nobody else has built a compelling Linux or Unix desktop with a
reason to exist besides being "free". And
D'Amore
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list
Cc: "oi-dev@openindiana.org"
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Don't misunderstand me. I want to eliminate 32 bit kernels and delivery of
certain 32 bit versions of sy
D'Amore
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list
Cc: "oi-dev@openindiana.org"
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Don't misunderstand me. I want to eliminate 32 bit kernels and delivery of
certain 32 bit versions of sy
Don't misunderstand me. I want to eliminate 32 bit kernels and delivery of
certain 32 bit versions of system utilities. This should in no way affect any
3rd party apps. We need to keep the 32 bit app runtime for the foreseeable
future.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "Niko
I have a hard time believing you would choose to switch to Linux instead of
taking the time to upgrade the hardware. A two or three year or even five year
old system will probably be a big upgrade and cost less than the labor to
switch to Linux.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2013, at 12:13
On 05/12/13 07:06 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> We're going to have to support a 32-bit userland for some time to come,
> unfortunately, but we should no longer make that the default, and we should
> deliver all of our system utilities in 64-bit only form, IMO; and we could
> entirely kill off th
On 05/12/13 07:10 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On May 12, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe, 32-bit should be retained. While it is of little utility
>> for ZFS and other huge-RAM jobs, it may be required for some netbooks,
>> older hardware repurposed for tests and SOHO server
I am running a small web and ftp server at university on a 32-bit AMD
Athlon. So I would be affected.
However I cannot argue for retaining 32-bit support in OI, because any
baggage certainly should be dropped in order for OI project to proceed.
I can upgrade the hardware (unlikely);
I can swi
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Alan Coopersmith
> wrote:
>
> > It has been a few years since Oracle upstream dropped 32-bit i386
> support,
> > so that's just one of the decisions OI has to make - track upstream as is
> > or fork/patch as
On May 12, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2013-05-12 19:06, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> So, out of curiosity -- *who* is actively running illumos on 32-bit kit
>> today? I'm not interested in hypothetical uses or kit that is sitting
>> around in your garage waiting for you to do some
On 2013-05-12 19:06, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
So, out of curiosity -- *who* is actively running illumos on 32-bit kit today?
I'm not interested in hypothetical uses or kit that is sitting around in your
garage waiting for you to do something with it…. I'm interested in people who
would be immed
On May 12, 2013, at 7:10 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-12 17:51, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>> On 05/12/13 05:19 AM, David Höppner wrote:
I noticed Oracle upstream moves aggressively to amd64 only;
installing amd64 just in
On May 12, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Magnus wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
>>
>>
>> I believe, 32-bit should be retained. While it is of little utility
>> for ZFS and other huge-RAM jobs, it may be required for some netbooks,
>> older hardware repurposed for tests and SOHO
On May 12, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2013-05-12 17:51, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> On 05/12/13 05:19 AM, David Höppner wrote:
>>> I noticed Oracle upstream moves aggressively to amd64 only;
>>> installing amd64 just in bin not in bin/$(MACH64).
>>
>> It has been a few years since
On May 12, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> On 05/12/13 05:19 AM, David Höppner wrote:
>> I noticed Oracle upstream moves aggressively to amd64 only;
>> installing amd64 just in bin not in bin/$(MACH64).
>
> It has been a few years since Oracle upstream dropped 32-bit i386 support,
On May 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
>
>
> I believe, 32-bit should be retained. While it is of little utility
> for ZFS and other huge-RAM jobs, it may be required for some netbooks,
> older hardware repurposed for tests and SOHO servers, as well as for
> resource-constrained testing
On 2013-05-12 17:51, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 05/12/13 05:19 AM, David Höppner wrote:
I noticed Oracle upstream moves aggressively to amd64 only;
installing amd64 just in bin not in bin/$(MACH64).
It has been a few years since Oracle upstream dropped 32-bit i386 support,
so that's just one o
On 2013-05-12 16:54, ken mays wrote:
Hello,
Just so we can tack up a goal for the visionaries who like roadmaps and
such...
Proposed list of 'core' updates for oi_151a(8-9):
* Bump illumos to 19e11862653b
Implement accept4()
stack overflow due to zfs lz4 compression
On 05/12/13 05:19 AM, David Höppner wrote:
I noticed Oracle upstream moves aggressively to amd64 only;
installing amd64 just in bin not in bin/$(MACH64).
It has been a few years since Oracle upstream dropped 32-bit i386 support,
so that's just one of the decisions OI has to make - track upstrea
l
* Wifi Stack improvement patches (enrico)
Hope that helped,
Ken Mays
From: Andrzej Szeszo
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Hi Piotr
I made some choices without
pkg.depotd is misbehaving when you publish packages directly to it. I am
looking at it now.
Andrzej
On 12 May 2013 14:19, David Höppner <0xf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I actually get a permissions error.
>
> $ sudo pkg set-publisher -O http://pkg.openindiana.org/hipster/
> openindiana.org
> pkg set
I actually get a permissions error.
$ sudo pkg set-publisher -O http://pkg.openindiana.org/hipster/ openindiana.org
pkg set-publisher: Could not refresh the catalog for openindiana.org
http protocol error: code: 403 reason: Forbidden
URL:
'http://pkg.openindiana.org/hipster/openindiana.org/catal
Hi Piotr
I made some choices without consulting anyone but it allowed me to get
something set up in a short period of time.
oi_151a8 is based on sfw-gate, that's correct. Milan built JDS against
oi_151a8.
Because oi_151a8 and JDS bits were already available I thought it would be
a shame to not to
Andrzej,
oi_151a8 is still based on sfw-gate, wouldn't be better to resurrect
/experimental which was based on illumos-userland?
To me it was hard to manage different IPS versions along with the build
environments/zones because some were based on /experimental while my main host
was /dev.
Anot
Hi All
Apologies for a delay. Some things are set up now.
New IPS repository is up: http://pkg.openindiana.org/hipster/. It is a
clone of the /dev repo + oi_151a8 bits from Jon Tibble and JDS bits from
Milan Jurik merged in. Run commands below to update your system. You can
ask Jon Tibble where t
On May 11, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Nikola M. wrote:
> On 05/10/13 02:19 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> more constructive than whinging about it will be to find ways to either a)
>> make a commercially viable case for it so people can get paid to work on it,
>> or b) lead a volunteer effort to make t
On 05/10/13 02:19 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> more constructive than whinging about it will be to find ways to either a)
> make a commercially viable case for it so people can get paid to work on it,
> or b) lead a volunteer effort to make this work.
I think that without Desktop that is running
Hi Alasdair
I would like to try setting up a repo on github, give trusted people direct
access and support pull requests from independent developers. And then have
jenkins publish packages incrementally to publicly accessible repository.
In theory, it should only take few minutes from a push to a
On 10 May 2013 14:13, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Are there many (any?) OI-private deviations from illumos-gate?
> I thought it was built with the "vanilla kernel" already.
>
I don't believe that KVM is in the default Illumos kernel, but is in OI.
I don't know whether the planned new Wireless stack is
On 2013-05-10 13:43, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
I agree with what Peter and Garrett wrote earlier. OI is lacking a clear
vision. It should be different than other illumos distros' as well to
avoid duplicating work unnecessarily.
I think, OI could be "illumos hacker distro", and:
- carry on providing
On 2013-05-10 14:11, Jonathan Adams wrote:
On 10 May 2013 12:54, Jim Klimov mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru>> wrote:
Well, Oracle does provide and promote SunRays ...
Actually, if you check the SunRay forums people are getting the
impression that Oracle does _not_ promote SunRays, and some of th
On 10 May 2013 12:54, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Well, Oracle does provide and promote SunRays ...
>
Actually, if you check the SunRay forums people are getting the impression
that Oracle does _not_ promote SunRays, and some of their sales guys are
actively trying to dissuade people from buying them ..
Andrzej,
Your vision is pretty much the same one I had. The challenge is this:
"Existing releng process and contribution process prevent anything from
happening though. I would like to help to change that."
How?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2013-05-10 02:19, Garre
On 2013-05-10 02:19, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
There is little "commercial future" in the desktop for Linux distributions as
well yet almost all of them have a graphical desktop.
I would be entirely *unsurprised* if distro vendors like RedHat and Oracle
simply *ditched* their desktop support at
I agree with what Peter and Garrett wrote earlier. OI is lacking a clear
vision. It should be different than other illumos distros' as well to avoid
duplicating work unnecessarily.
I think, OI could be "illumos hacker distro", and:
- carry on providing GUI support, good enough for illumos hackers
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!
O
On May 9, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
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 to pay for it, but
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Ian Johnson wrote:
> 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 bugs.
> It's not the af
On 2013/05/09, at 17:09, Martin Bochnig wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Milan Jurik 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
Precisely.
Cheers
Dave
Bob Friesenhahn 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 peddle it (e.g. Canonical ha
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 hund
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Milan Jurik 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 agree with you: Wh
On May 9, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Milan Jurik 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 more and more t
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 more and more time consuming and I
enjoy it (and my private life also). And to
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?
Privet !
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Jim Klimov 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 just too .
On 9 May 2013 18:10, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Fundamentally, the question you all should be asking is, what is the
> purpose of the project?
>
What I want from OI is very similar to what was described by Ken Mays:
1. Provide an updated kernel userland (i.e. Illumos-gate, rev: 19e11862653b
or h
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 foll
On 05/ 9/13 04:06 AM, 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.
OI's original plan was also based mainly around building the c
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 scratc
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 t
On 05/09/2013 03:55 PM, mag...@yonderway.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 15:39:39 +0200, Sašo Kiselkov
> 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?
Cause not every
On Thu, 09 May 2013 15:39:39 +0200, Sašo Kiselkov
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?
___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindi
On 2013-05-09 14:45, Peter Tribble wrote:
I think you need to go back a level further. What's the project for?
Try to put together a quick mission statement (or even a mission word).
And work on an elevator pitch that can grab any member of your potential
audience.
I'd think OI is for develope
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
gt;
>
> ------------------
> *From:* Andrzej Szeszo
> *To:* OpenIndiana Developer mailing list
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 9, 2013 4:01 AM
> *Subject:* [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
>
> Hi All
>
> (Instead of replying to a message in one of the other
and
DilOS are maintained by 1-2 people.
Hope that helped,
Ken Mays
From: Andrzej Szeszo
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 4:01 AM
Subject: [oi-dev] OI project reboot required
Hi All
(Instead of replying to a
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
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 H
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 an
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.
Individual gates provide some semi-automated ways of building things. I
don't know anyone who managed to auto
Hi Sašo
Thanks for your support!
Andrzej
On 9 May 2013 10:36, Sašo Kiselkov 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 I don't s
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 hand
I think Igor Pashev has done some valueable work with
https://github.com/Nexenta/cibs
https://github.com/ip1981/last-hope
When I was core member of the Homebrew project we just used
github pull requests. Contributing should be simple and easy.
If I found problems with a patch, I just fixed it in
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 bag
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 pro
69 matches
Mail list logo
