Hello Michael,
Monday, January 15, 2007, 8:24:22 PM, you wrote:
ML If SXCR is a consistent cut of the build releases, then going to
ML a particular build will give you what you want, e.g.:
ML http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads/b54/ contains a link to the change log.
ML
This is only ON, you
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Pavan T C wrote:
Hi,
The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting
of OpenSolaris from an extended partition.
What is an extended partition in this context ?
Oh, apologies for the room for ambiguity.
It is DOS/Windows Extended partitions.
[
To
Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Pavan T C wrote:
Hi,
The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting
of OpenSolaris from an extended partition.
What is an extended partition in this context ?
Oh, apologies for the room for ambiguity.
On 1/16/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Pavan T C wrote:
Hi,
The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting
of OpenSolaris from an extended partition.
What is an extended partition in this
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Cyril Plisko wrote:
That is not entirely correct. Extended partition, IIRC, allows you
to break the limit of 4 primary partition per disk. Once the extended
partition is created another 4 partitions can be nested inside it.
And so on. Think Russian dolls.
I wish.
There's
Cyril Plisko wrote:
On 1/16/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Pavan T C wrote:
Hi,
The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting
of OpenSolaris from an extended partition.
What is an
Cyril Plisko wrote:
On 1/16/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
[
To be exact, the partition IDS are :
EXTDOS - Systid 5
FDISK_EXTLBA - Systid 15
]
So why should we be installing an OpenSolaris distribution in to a
partition type that belongs to DOS/Windows ?
That is not
Frank Hofmann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Cyril Plisko wrote:
That is not entirely correct. Extended partition, IIRC, allows you
to break the limit of 4 primary partition per disk. Once the extended
partition is created another 4 partitions can be nested inside it.
And so on. Think Russian
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Cyril Plisko wrote:
[...]
Oh, apologies for the room for ambiguity.
It is DOS/Windows Extended partitions.
[
To be exact, the partition IDS are :
EXTDOS - Systid 5
FDISK_EXTLBA - Systid 15
]
So why should we be installing an OpenSolaris distribution in to a
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Yes but the partition IDs that this project is suggesting be used are
explicitly tagged as being for DOS or Windows.
Just to clarify more:
A partition tagged with EXTDOS or EXTLBA will contain another
partition table. This is
called an EBR - Extended Boot Record.
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Yes but the partition IDs that this project is suggesting be used
are explicitly tagged as being for DOS or Windows.
Just to clarify more:
A partition tagged with EXTDOS or EXTLBA will contain another
partition table. This is
called an EBR -
The pdp11 /pre System V ar archive string comes from /etc/magic.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Whoops. So do the strings with executable.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hmmm...
No idea of standards document! I do not think any such document exists
at all for
MBR partitioning scheme. See this:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/GPT_FAQ.mspx
(Question: 2. What is wrong with MBR partitioning ?).
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Yes but the partition IDs that this project is suggesting be used are
explicitly tagged as being for DOS or Windows.
Ok.
Extended partitions is not new to OpenSolaris. PCFS handles it
internally. It is convenient to have them supported in
Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Yes but the partition IDs that this project is suggesting be used
are explicitly tagged as being for DOS or Windows.
Ok.
Extended partitions is not new to OpenSolaris. PCFS handles it
internally.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote:
What would happen if there was already a Linux installation in the given
Extended partition, or DOS/Windows was using it for a drive ?
Extended partitions aren't directly useable by Linux, or DOS, or Windows.
All those OSes make logical partitions
Pavan T C wrote:
Hi,
The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting
of OpenSolaris from an extended partition.
This project will be delivered in multiple phases. The first phase is to
introduce all OS changes necessary to support booting from and managing
extended
AFAIK this is what the project aims. An Extended
partition is
basically a container that can accommodate one or
more logical
partitions and we need the ability to have a
logical partition of type
Solaris2 (0xbf) and have OpenSolaris booting from
it.
This IMHO removes a barrier to
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Ian Collins wrote:
Just don't use it for any serious performance measurements!
:s/serious//
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
AFAIK this is what the project aims. An Extended
partition is
basically a container that can accommodate one or
more logical
partitions and we need the ability to have a
logical partition of type
Solaris2 (0xbf) and have OpenSolaris booting from
it.
This IMHO removes a
Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like it
is:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL011507EP28A
( Sun to License OpenSolaris Under GPLv3)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Hi Rod,
Thanks for the help.
Will it possible for you to help us in case we ask questions inside the dynamic
linker code ?
Regards
Deepak Bhatia
-Original Message-
From: Rod Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:11 AM
To: Deepak Bhatia
Cc:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
AFAIK this is what the project aims. An Extended
partition is
basically a container that can accommodate one or
more logical
partitions and we need the ability to have a
logical partition of type
Solaris2 (0xbf) and have OpenSolaris booting from
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like
it is:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL011507EP28A
Nothing is certain yet (to my knowledge), but I know of at least
two CAB members who
Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
AFAIK this is what the project aims. An Extended
partition is
basically a container that can accommodate one or
more logical
partitions and we need the ability to have a
logical partition of type
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 09:24 -0800, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like
it is:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL011507EP28A
( Sun to License OpenSolaris Under GPLv3)
In my opinion, this is going
[...]
However that is NOT how you are presenting this project, it is being
presented as having the ability to install an OpenSolaris distro into a
DOS/Windows fdisk partition.
No, not the least. It is called a DOS/Windows extended partition,
because thats what it is called. It refers to
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 12:24, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL0115
07EP28A
( Sun to License OpenSolaris Under GPLv3)
+1.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman 'Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition'
KDE e.V.
Pavan T C wrote:
Hi,
The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting
of OpenSolaris from an extended partition.
This project will be delivered in multiple phases. The first phase is to
introduce all OS changes necessary to support booting from and managing
extended
Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
[...]
However that is NOT how you are presenting this project, it is being
presented as having the ability to install an OpenSolaris distro into
a DOS/Windows fdisk partition.
No, not the least. It is called a DOS/Windows extended partition,
Darren J Moffat wrote:
It is as much windows/dos specific as much as a primary fdisk
partition is.
I disagree, if that were actually true there would be only two types of
partition primary and extended that isn't the case there are many
many tags for partitions. Linux would not have
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
[...]
However that is NOT how you are presenting this project, it is being
presented as having the ability to install an OpenSolaris distro into
a DOS/Windows fdisk partition.
No, not the least. It is called a
Darren J Moffat wrote:
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
AFAIK this is what the project aims. An Extended
partition is
basically a container that can accommodate one or
more logical
partitions and we need the ability to have a
logical partition of type
Solaris2 (0xbf) and have OpenSolaris booting
I'm not against this proposal at all and I thought I said that several
times all ready.
Before I just said +1 I wanted to understand more about the
architectural direction the project was proposing because it wasn't
clear to me.
The reason I raised the issue of SPARC is exactly because of
Darren J Moffat wrote:
I'm not against this proposal at all and I thought I said that several
times all ready.
Before I just said +1 I wanted to understand more about the
architectural direction the project was proposing because it wasn't
clear to me.
My isp's pop3 server currently delays
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote:
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
AFAIK this is what the project aims. An Extended
partition is
basically a container that can accommodate one or
more logical
partitions and we need the ability to have a
logical partition of type
Solaris2 (0xbf) and have
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
I'm not against this proposal at all and I thought I said that several
times all ready.
Before I just said +1 I wanted to understand more about the
architectural direction the project was proposing because it wasn't
clear to me.
My isp's pop3
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Dave Miner wrote:
Pavan T C wrote:
Hi,
The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting
of OpenSolaris from an extended partition.
This project will be delivered in multiple phases. The first phase is to
introduce all OS changes necessary to support
Deepak Bhatia wrote:
Will it possible for you to help us in case we ask questions inside the dynamic
linker code ?
I recommend you send questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm on this alias, and so are a lot of others who may be able to
help.
--
Rod.
Frank Hofmann wrote:
...
What Pavan's project does is to allow putting the Solaris VTOC
elsewhere (not into a place accessible via a device node on
Solaris/x86) and add detection code into the disk target driver to
locate the VTOC elsewhere.
I.e. you'll be able to have sX device nodes
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
snip
This project is about bringing in capability in OpenSolaris to
read/manipulate extended partitions. As a result you could also install
and boot off from one of the logical drives.
+1 for this project proposal.
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Justin Gombos wrote:
There is a ZFS FAQ somewhere indicating that ZFS *appears* to hog
memory because it uses as much as it can, but it supposedly
relinquishes memory as soon as an app calls for it.
I thought that should be pointed out, though I am not quick to
Joerg Schilling wrote:
W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like it
is:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL011507EP28A
( Sun to License OpenSolaris Under GPLv3)
I hope this is not true.
Hello folks,
I have a perl script which is monitoring and diagnosing our cluster (running
Solaris 10). The script is doing a backup of the known_host list and creating
a cleaned the known_hosts file and recreating it by running a second script
using expect. It prevents wrong entries into the
Frank Hofmann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Martin Bochnig wrote:
Why would someone be against that so called user friendliness?
Being against this proposal means actively harming Solaris' prevalence.
If the result is user-friendly I'm all for it.
I'm just not sure it will be.
The
Ivan Buetler wrote:
I solved the problem by just upgrading to snv_54, where everything
works as expected. I do not know details, why my self-compiled progs
are corrupt with snv_53. I tested different gcc versions, from
sunfreeware and from the CDROM. While the binaries worked, if
compiled on
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Blindly trying to follow Linux is not the right way to deal with the challenge.
Blindly trying to follow Linux would result in declaring the GPLv3
unsuitable for our project and declaring our lifelong dedication to
GPLv2-only.
--
-Alan Coopersmith-
Now if only this worked on PSARC :-)
-John
zfs_arc_max: This is the maximum amount of memory you want the
ARC to be able to use. Note that the ARC won't
necessarily use this much memory: if other applications
need memory, the ARC will shrink to accommodate.
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 14:48, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Blindly trying to follow Linux is not the right way to deal with
the challenge.
Mr. Torvalds has, thus far, expressed an unfavorable view of GPLv3.
While i have zero interest in getting involved in another Pointless
License War(TM), i
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Blindly trying to follow Linux is not the right way to deal with the
challenge.
Blindly trying to follow Linux would result in declaring the GPLv3
unsuitable for our project and declaring our lifelong dedication to
bBathing ape hoody/b Bape hoody bathing ape hoody clothing clothes
a href=http://wholesale-distributors-dropship-suppliers-sources.com;img
src=http://wholesale-distributors-dropship-suppliers-sources.com/01hoodie.jpg;
border=0 height=101 width=142/a Bape a
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take this opportunity
to propose that we collaborate with the KDE e.V. and kde-core-devel in order to
integrate KDE as an OpenSolaris project
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 19:56, John Sonnenschein wrote:
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take this
opportunity to propose that we collaborate with the KDE e.V. and
kde-core-devel in order to integrate KDE as an OpenSolaris project
+1.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
Follow-up FUD article appeared:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084493,00.asp
OpenSolaris Wins with GPL 3 Move
martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
John Sonnenschein wrote:
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take this
opportunity to propose that we collaborate with the KDE e.V. and
kde-core-devel in order to integrate KDE as an OpenSolaris project
+1
I don't particularly like kde, but I see no reason why it
should
On 1/17/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take this opportunity
to propose that we collaborate with the KDE e.V. and kde-core-devel in order to
integrate KDE as an OpenSolaris project
I support it.
+1
Bruno
Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 19:56, John Sonnenschein wrote:
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take this
opportunity to propose that we collaborate with the KDE e.V. and
kde-core-devel in order to integrate KDE as an OpenSolaris project
+1.
Hello Dennis,
Monday, January 15, 2007, 10:38:40 PM, you wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Martin Bochnig wrote:
James C. McPherson wrote:
...
IMNSHO the bottom line is this - if you want to have a fair
crack at seeing what ZFS can do for you, you need a 64bit
processor and 1Gb of ram.
On 1/16/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello James,
Monday, January 15, 2007, 10:14:31 PM, you wrote:
JD On 1/15/07, Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James C. McPherson wrote:
Despite the years of experience with ZFS and how it uses kmem...
IMNSHO the bottom
Hello John,
Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 2:37:55 AM, you wrote:
JW Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 19:56, John Sonnenschein wrote:
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take this
opportunity to propose that we collaborate with the KDE e.V. and
De Togni Giacomo wrote:
My idea is that CDDL (or MPL) represents the best compromise between
commercial and open world.It seems to resolve a lot of number of problems (for
example piece of code with different license). If the major problem of
OpenSolaris project is around acceptability by
Hello James,
Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 2:53:55 AM, you wrote:
JD On 1/16/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello James,
Monday, January 15, 2007, 10:14:31 PM, you wrote:
JD On 1/15/07, Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James C. McPherson wrote:
Despite the years
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take this
opportunity to propose that we collaborate with the KDE e.V. and
kde-core-devel in order to integrate KDE as an OpenSolaris project
http://solaris.kde.org/
Am I missing something???
Hello Robert,
Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 3:07:47 AM, you wrote:
RM Hello James,
RM Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 2:53:55 AM, you wrote:
JD On 1/16/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello James,
Monday, January 15, 2007, 10:14:31 PM, you wrote:
JD On 1/15/07, Martin Bochnig
Red Hat looked at creating a foundation for Fedora and found it wasn't
worth the hassle - what benefits would it bring to the OpenSolaris
community that it's not getting now? More legal bills and tax headaches?
Is there enough money waiting to be donated to a non-profit foundation to
have any
Javier O. Augusto wrote:
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take this
opportunity to propose that we collaborate with the KDE e.V. and
kde-core-devel in order to integrate KDE as an OpenSolaris project
http://solaris.kde.org/
Am I missing something???
No.
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 21:08, Javier O. Augusto wrote:
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like to take
this opportunity to propose that we collaborate with the KDE
e.V. and kde-core-devel in order to integrate KDE as an
OpenSolaris project
http://solaris.kde.org/
Am I
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Isn't it just a matter of resources? Developers time is limited...
On the other hand maybe putting KDE as a project under Open Solaris
will at least... well will do what exactly?
I guess you're asking for putting KDE into Solaris.
Last time I checked RedHat provides both
Following the official proposal guidelines, I'd like
to take this opportunity to propose that we
collaborate with the KDE e.V. and kde-core-devel in
order to integrate KDE as an OpenSolaris project
+1
---Bob
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Stefan Teleman wrote:
Yes.
This [ http://solaris.kde.org/ ]
is the URL for the KDE Solaris site at KDE, under the kde.org domain,
sponsored, paid for and maintained by The KDE Foundation [KDE e.V.].
It is completely independent from Sun, or OpenSolaris.
This Project Proposal is about
This [ http://solaris.kde.org/ ]
is the URL for the KDE Solaris site at KDE, under the kde.org domain,
sponsored, paid for and maintained by The KDE Foundation [KDE e.V.].
It is completely independent from Sun, or OpenSolaris.
This Project Proposal is about creating a KDE Project at
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Don't forget all the things, that needed to be done: Adding all the
locales, testing, testing, verifying..., rewriting the documentation etc.
Rewriting Qt in C so it doesn't suffer from the lack of a standard C++ ABI...
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL
Yes,but the genetics of Linux is quite different to Solaris.Linux is born as an
OS free and indipendent while solaris as advanced commercial implementation of
the standard Unix SystemV.Solaris is a strategic OS and generally supported for
commercial world.The greater independence through a
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Stefan Teleman wrote:
OpenSolaris Project != OpenSolaris Community
[snip]
--Stefan
I had overlooked this bottom-most unequation, sorry.
If you say that, ok (no hair-splitting?).
+1 for your [EMAIL PROTECTED] project proposal.
But I think SUNW should save the
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 22:09, Martin Bochnig wrote:
OpenSolaris != KDE e.V.
KDE e.V. != OpenSolaris
Strictly speaking this cannot be true, as there exists at least one
element 'n' element 'N', that is part of both organizations at
once: YOU
At most, you can say that the intersection
Stefan Teleman wrote:
At most, you can say that the intersection between KDE e.V. and
OpenSolaris is not the Null Set, since it contains at least one known
element. :-)
--Stefan
However, it depends on how the original unequations are interpreted
(they did not come with any further
Frank Hofmann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Dave Miner wrote:
Pavan T C wrote:
Hi,
The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting
of OpenSolaris from an extended partition. This project will be
delivered in multiple phases. The first phase is to introduce all OS
changes
I agree that the support for extended partitions in the utilities is
critical. I am wondering how you propose to do the install support in
OpenSolaris when the install consolidation is currently not open. And,
the installation team is working on a new installer, Caiman, which would
likely be
Hi Everyone,
Normally I try to stay out of such politics, but I have to put my $0.02 in:)
Hopefully, OpenSolaris will not fall under any GPL license. The CDDL works
well. Point in fact look at how features (Dtrace and ZFS) from OpenSolaris are
being ported to the BSD's and finally to MacOS X
Am I missing something???
Yes.
This [ http://solaris.kde.org/ ]
is the URL for the KDE Solaris site at KDE, under the kde.org domain,
sponsored, paid for and maintained by The KDE Foundation [KDE e.V.].
It is completely independent from Sun, or OpenSolaris.
Rephrasing Martin's question:
Pavan Chandrashekar - Sun Microsystems wrote:
[...]
Creating device nodes is not too much of a hassle with our project.
The only issue is that there is a devnames project that seems to cover
this issue, and we dont know about the time of its delivery. The issue
is,
How do we name the new
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 23:39, John Plocher wrote:
Am I missing something???
Yes.
This [ http://solaris.kde.org/ ]
is the URL for the KDE Solaris site at KDE, under the kde.org
domain, sponsored, paid for and maintained by The KDE Foundation
[KDE e.V.]. It is completely
Martin Bochnig wrote:
John Plocher wrote:
Am I missing something???
Yes.
This [ http://solaris.kde.org/ ]
is the URL for the KDE Solaris site at KDE, under the kde.org domain,
sponsored, paid for and maintained by The KDE Foundation [KDE e.V.].
It is completely independent from
Stefan Teleman wrote:
There is currently no place where Things that align well with the
kernel and/or the core utilities, that demand or require tight
integration can happen for KDE Solaris,
Consider me to be ignorant; you won't be too far off ;-)
The proposal says collaborate with the KDE
Rich Teer wrote On 01/17/07 02:43,:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like it
is:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL011507EP28A
Nothing is certain yet (to my knowledge), but I
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 01:03, John Plocher wrote:
Stefan Teleman wrote:
There is currently no place where Things that align well with
the kernel and/or the core utilities, that demand or require
tight integration can happen for KDE Solaris,
Consider me to be ignorant; you won't be
Please. UFS basically does the same - uses most of free memory as a
cache. It's just the way page cache is divided and accounted for so
you can actually see UFS cached pages reported as free (not all of
them but you get the idea).
The big difference here is that when UFS was fixed so the pages
Martin Bochnig wrote:
John Plocher wrote:
Am I missing something???
Yes.
This [ http://solaris.kde.org/ ]
is the URL for the KDE Solaris site at KDE, under
the kde.org domain,
sponsored, paid for and maintained by The KDE
Foundation [KDE e.V.].
It is completely
89 matches
Mail list logo
