Hello All
Any details on this?
-rupesh.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi all,
I just try to install web browser opera9 on my IBM
laptop R52. The software be installed without any
error, but when I try to run it,
/usr/local/bin/opera
It tells me:
--
---
Xlib: connection to :0.0 refused by server
Xlib:
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
It's a good notice.Can we expect official 3D drivers for Solaris x86?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
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.
(+1 for PowerPC)
Casper
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
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.
I think there is a PowerPC discuss
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
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
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
great!
On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Dennis Clarke 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, the
PowerPC team
may not have a choice but to install ksh93 as /bin/ksh
bingo [1]
--
Dennis Clarke
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
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:
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
//
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
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
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.
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 :(
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
Martin Schaffstall wrote On 07/27/06 06:48,:
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
Martin Schaffstall wrote:
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?
It's
[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.
What other
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
[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
renaming directory doesn't work.
I applied drivers using a shell but after a reboot the solaris install hang
after grub because of missing raid drivers :(
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
You probably must modify HP's ITU driver floppy for
use with Solaris Express /
Solaris Nevada / OpenSolaris: rename the DU/sol_210
directory to DU/sol_211.
renaming directory doesn't work.
I applied drivers using a shell but after a reboot the solaris install hang
after grub because of
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 15:55 +0200, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
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
(Apologies, please ignore disregard the blank email I just sent
Evolution threw a bit of a wobbler!)
--
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group
http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771
Any
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want,
of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
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
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-)
Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote! :-)
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL:
You probably must modify HP's ITU driver floppy
for
use with Solaris Express /
Solaris Nevada / OpenSolaris: rename the
DU/sol_210
directory to DU/sol_211.
renaming directory doesn't work.
I applied drivers using a shell but after a reboot
the solaris install hang after grub
You probably must modify HP's ITU driver floppy
for
use with Solaris Express /
Solaris Nevada / OpenSolaris: rename the
DU/sol_210
directory to DU/sol_211.
renaming directory doesn't work.
I applied drivers using a shell but after a reboot
the solaris install hang
What exactly happens when you boot?
Did you try to boot the kernel with flags -kv?
cannot mount root path
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 7/27/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want,
of
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-)
Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote! :-)
:-P
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Please do NOT reply to this address. If you have any problems,
feel free to send email to the alias [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Firefox 2.0b1 contributed builds on Solaris10, Solaris 8/9 is now
available on mozilla.org
Download Page and Location
==
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Stefan Teleman wrote:
How is gratuitous incompatibility defined in this particular case ?
The possibility that someone who will try the PowerPC Solaris port in
the future might be unhappy because this future port will default to
ksh93 instead of /bin/ksh, creating the
Solaris 10 SPARC is currently incompatible with Solaris x86/x64: Xsun
on SPARC vs. Xorg on x86/x64. I haven't heard of too many complaints
because of this compatibility breakage (source code written, compiled
and linked on Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64 will not compile and link on
Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC
I've integrated the fix for CR 6451513, the HP DL585/DL380 etc. boot hang
into Solaris Nevada b46; I'll backport it into an S10 patch/update as soon
as possible. In the meantime, it should show up soon in Solaris Express.
Thanks all for the help,
Dana
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean with source code written, compiled and
linked ... Xorg).
The X client runtime is exactly the same on both; the server is
different but by and large implements the same feature set
(with the exception of DPS on
Appling driver diskette does nothing. So I stated a
shell (open 6 on install menu) and executed HP
Smartarray drivers installation from diskette.
Lots of error but kernel module loaded!
So install goes on disks found ... reboot.
After reboot the kernel on the disks doesn't have
What exactly happens when you boot?
Did you try to boot the kernel with flags -kv?
cannot mount root path
OK, so it's not hanging, it seems to have a problem with missing drivers.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, wtwang wrote:
yeah,it works! thanks for your help.
then,i want to know how can i fix this bug.need i patch my solaris?i also get problems
to run updatemanager.it always complains Failure:Coneection reset when
analysising my system.
thanks again.
ÿÿ
The numlock
Appling driver diskette does nothing. So I stated
a
shell (open 6 on install menu) and executed HP
Smartarray drivers installation from diskette.
Lots of error but kernel module loaded!
So install goes on disks found ... reboot.
After reboot the kernel on the disks doesn't
Stefan Teleman writes:
i am specifically referring to:
Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite
none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code
which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and
runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never
What exactly happens when you boot?
Did you try to boot the kernel with flags -kv?
cannot mount root path
OK, so it's not hanging, it seems to have a problem
with missing drivers.
Yes. The hang problem is still here with our DL585.
We hope there will be soon a patch for
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning
that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz
later
I advocate against that; individual distros are free
to do what want,
of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes
Stefan Teleman wrote:
i am specifically referring to:
Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite
none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code
which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and
runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on
It's a good notice.Can we expect official 3D drivers
for Solaris x86?
How about a SUN/AMD/ATI designed ( licensed) set-top box that can double as a
Sun Ray client?
Or a Solaris-powered MyTV entertainment center?
The possibilities are infinite.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
i am specifically referring to:
Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite
Certainly the compilation environment should support all; Xrandr
seems to be present on SPARC (certainly the library and client
are).
All of them should compile and run (against Xorg servers) on SPARC.
none of these
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of them should compile and run (against Xorg servers) on SPARC.
There is nothing i would love more than to be able to run Xorg with
all these extensions working on SPARC and my XVR-1000 card, so i can
watch DVD's at more than
Yes it's true.However I hope to see taken some other good opportunities
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[ offlist ]
On 7/27/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mmmm. Perhaps I was overly assertive, although I stick to the principle.
'Course, the ensuing discussion about ksh88 not being able to be open
sourced doesn't help the debate.
you weren't being overly assertive.
this backwards
this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than
practical
Stefan Teleman writes:
this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather
On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The good news, I think, is that Linux is still readily available for
those who aren't so interested in compatibility. Nobody else really
needs to ape that model.
and Linux is also being readily deployed. 12,000+ workstations at ODF
There is some work being done as we speak. Take a peek at the
email that was sent to website-discuss.
Original Message
Subject:
Preview of new b.o.o.
Date:
Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:24:39 -0700
From:
Linda Bernal
* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 21:16]:
* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 11:19]:
The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.
Cool. But I need to ask a question: is someone likely to need or
want to trademark this use of Polaris?
+-- Stefan Teleman wrote:
this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point.
Agreed, but I don't think that this case is really that simplistic.
One currently expects that the scripts one writes today will run unchanged
between OpenSolaris/SPARC and
Original-Message
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:13:15 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Korn Shell 93 integration/migration project discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly
eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but
there isn't as much work going on in SPARC
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your
(mostly eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but
there isn't as much work going on in SPARC
Martin Bochnig wrote:
It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb driver for those older chipsets.
Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough.
I asked the SPARC team to allow binary redistribution of their
drivers a year ago, and last I heard they still hadn't
Martin Bochnig wrote:
It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb
driver for those older chipsets.
Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough.
I asked the SPARC team to allow binary redistribution of their
drivers a year ago, and last I heard they still
p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from
USB mass storage then.
The idea that GRUB or GRUB2 has anything to do with what devices a
system can or can not boot from is mostly a miss-conception.
A number of amd64/legacy-x86 systems have BIOSs that can talk to and
Jan,
thanks for your detailed answer!
I should have (finally) read all the ieee1275 datasheets before starting to
publically talk about that, and unintentionally spreading untruths.
Thanks for the correction, overview and outlook.
I should have known it better a bit: I once experimented with
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 22:11 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
this incompatibility,
Gino Ruopolo wrote:
What exactly happens when you boot?
Did you try to boot the kernel with flags -kv?
cannot mount root path
OK, so it's not hanging, it seems to have a problem
with missing drivers.
Yes. The hang problem is still here with our DL585.
We hope there will be soon a patch
Hello OpenSolaris folks,
I would like to open an OpenSolaris project - Packet Event Framework
(PEF), on behalf of the PEF project team.
The Packet Event Framework project is a follow-on to FireEngine, which
will provide a framework for fine-grain modularity of the network stack
based on the
Yu Xiangning wrote:
Hello OpenSolaris folks,
I would like to open an OpenSolaris project - Packet Event Framework
(PEF), on behalf of the PEF project team.
The Packet Event Framework project is a follow-on to FireEngine, which
will provide a framework for fine-grain modularity of the network
70 matches
Mail list logo
