[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris build 134a has closed

Those of us feeling left in the dark might be pleased to know that build 134a, the first candidate for the next stable release of OpenSolaris, has been tagged in Oracle's release branch (in project jargon: "snv_134a, the first respin of 134, closed earlier this week"). A packaged build should be av

Re: [osol-discuss] Sendmail as SASL auth client?

> The problem I had to deal with was smart phones! > > I run the family website/mail server. Everything was > fine when it was just people at home on desktops. > Laptops weren't big in the family at the time, smart > phones came first. > > So I had to get SASL authentication working. I ended >

Re: [osol-discuss] MythTV

On 4/23/10 2:59 PM, Bill Werner wrote: Yes, I would love to have MythTV for Solaris. It's one of 2 critical, IMHO, missing apps. The other being NoMachine (but at least SGD is a somewhat workable replacement for that). I would even be happy with just the back end and HDHR ethernet based tune

Re: [osol-discuss] MythTV

Yes, I would love to have MythTV for Solaris. It's one of 2 critical, IMHO, missing apps. The other being NoMachine (but at least SGD is a somewhat workable replacement for that). I would even be happy with just the back end and HDHR ethernet based tuner support. Another media app I'd like t

Re: [osol-discuss] Sendmail as SASL auth client?

The problem I had to deal with was smart phones! I run the family website/mail server. Everything was fine when it was just people at home on desktops. Laptops weren't big in the family at the time, smart phones came first. So I had to get SASL authentication working. I ended up building gen

Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?

> On 04/23/10 04:23 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: > > On 22/04/2010 22:14, Charles Hedrick wrote: > >> For a transition period: > >> > >> Oracle has exercised its right to terminate HP’s > Solaris Agreement. > >> HP clients that have purchased Solaris > Subscriptions10 for HP > >> ProLiant server

Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?

On 04/23/10 04:23 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: On 22/04/2010 22:14, Charles Hedrick wrote: For a transition period: Oracle has exercised its right to terminate HP’s Solaris Agreement. HP clients that have purchased Solaris Subscriptions10 for HP ProLiant servers from HP will continue to rece

Re: [osol-discuss] Sendmail as SASL auth client?

Hi John, Thanks for the reply. John Beck wrote: Hugh> ... what, if anything, are people doing for a setup which includes: Hugh> 1. a dynamic IP-based home system which wants to send email from the Hugh> command line. Hugh> 2. a mail server with custom domain name on a static IP-based system H

Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?

Svein, I did only try to "correct" the "most negative emotions" coming from your emails, at least from some... Yes, I might have called it FUD, because, publicly we KNOW NOTHING. Therefore any interpretation in any direction can be FUD... OR be used to create such things... This one, I will forfa

Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?

On 23.04.2010 15:08, Edward Martinez wrote: *SNIP!* > > "Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Windows -- dominating the commercial operating > system market. Proprietary Unix is on the downswing, with many Unix systems > (AIX, HP-UX and Solaris)" > > http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/news/article

Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?

> If we get 2010 right..it will start appealing to > integrators,resellers and support organisations in > far greater numbers as producitivity per station > increases.At this point in time a new unique low cost > business solution set could be developed. > > Comment on osnews.com > > Oracle Start

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris Distributions

Some of the distribution creators tend to specialize in certain areas very similar to the variants of Ubuntu like Edubuntu, Kubuntu, and even Mythbuntu. For OpenSolaris, Korona is very similar to Kubuntu. I worked on MythTV porting to OpenSolaris but now you have MythDora (Fedora/MythTV-based) a

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

Folks, he had simply be quoting Wikipedia, can we fix it there? Matthias You (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > bsd wrote: > > > The way he states it in his article is that Sun made significant changes > > after buying SVR4, which is incorrect, because changes to SVR4 were made > > after Solaris

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

On 23/04/2010 12:52, Calum Benson wrote: At least two unique desktop features (Time Slider, and Package Manager's installation into a new boot environment) pretty much rely on ZFS, though, and neither of those were mentioned either. (Correction-- package insatallation into a new boot environme

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

On 23/04/2010 10:40, Alexander wrote: As I understood it was overview of OpenSolaris as a desktop product. And desktop user doesn't need know anything about SMF and ZFS. At least two unique desktop features (Time Slider, and Package Manager's installation into a new boot environment) pretty mu

Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?

On 23/04/2010 11:19, Peter Jones wrote: Maybe micheal O'leary of Ryan Air wants to step forward? Unlikely, they seem to be pretty tight with Microsoft: That said, it appears they do run Red Hat and HP-UX on their servers...

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

casper@sun.com wrote: > >I have a SVR3 AT&T source from 1986 and a S5R4V1 source from January 1992. > >This allos to verify, that the SVR4 kernel is _very_ close to the SunOS-4.0 > >kernel and very far from the S5r3 source. > > Possible; but much of the Solaris userland was derived from SysV

Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?

If we get 2010 right..it will start appealing to integrators,resellers and support organisations in far greater numbers as producitivity per station increases.At this point in time a new unique low cost business solution could quite easily be developed.Maybe micheal O'leary of Ryan Air wants to

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

>casper@sun.com wrote: > >> >The SVR4 kernel was developed from SunOS-4.0, but SunOS-5.x (Solaris-2.x) >> >was developed from SunOS-4.1.x. >> > >> >> I don't think that that is correct; SVR4 was developed with AT&T from >> SunOS 4.x and SVr3; the SCCS files proof that. Unfortunately, the code

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

casper@sun.com wrote: > >The SVR4 kernel was developed from SunOS-4.0, but SunOS-5.x (Solaris-2.x) > >was developed from SunOS-4.1.x. > > > > I don't think that that is correct; SVR4 was developed with AT&T from > SunOS 4.x and SVr3; the SCCS files proof that. Unfortunately, the code > was co

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

My point completely...we need our own review done by a marketing expert to send out to all the relevent press.There is more to a sucessful community than technical development. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

"Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: > Solaris 2.0 release AFAIK had nothing to do with Sun buying the > full rights to the SVR4 code. Those were indeed separate events. I received my first Solaris-2.0 together with a SparcStation-LX as some kind of Christmas gift from Sun in early January-1992. This w

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

As I understood it was overview of OpenSolaris as a desktop product. And desktop user doesn't need know anything about SMF and ZFS. He only wants some usual desktop applications and usual task (as system update) to work without any issues... > And > he stuff he didn't even mention: DTrace, ZF

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

bsd wrote: > I didn't say there weren't significant changes since 2.0 and the release of > SVR4, but the article implies that "significant changes" occurred to Solaris > after 1994 when he says Sun bought the SVR4 codebase. That is not an > accurate statement, given the timeline of Solaris de

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

>bsd wrote: > >> The way he states it in his article is that Sun made significant changes = >after buying SVR4, which is incorrect, because changes to SVR4 were made af= >ter Solaris was open sourced. Significant changes were made when SVR4 was = >developed, not after. Solaris 2.0 was developed

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

bsd wrote: > The way he states it in his article is that Sun made significant changes > after buying SVR4, which is incorrect, because changes to SVR4 were made > after Solaris was open sourced. Significant changes were made when SVR4 was > developed, not after. Solaris 2.0 was developed fro

Re: [osol-discuss] Why are prices for Solaris 10 OS support not on Oracles Web pages?

On 22/04/2010 22:14, Charles Hedrick wrote: For a transition period: Oracle has exercised its right to terminate HP’s Solaris Agreement. HP clients that have purchased Solaris Subscriptions10 for HP ProLiant servers from HP will continue to receive subscription support from Oracle and Techni

Re: [osol-discuss] Review of OpenSolaris at Desktop Linux Reviews

> I didn't say there weren't significant changes since > 2.0 and the release of SVR4, but the article implies > that "significant changes" occurred to Solaris after > 1994 when he says Sun bought the SVR4 codebase. That > is not an accurate statement, given the timeline of > Solaris development an