On 04/30/10 08:22 AM, Stefan Parvu wrote:
With the right portability framework, it is sufficient to develop on Solaris
and the code will work on Linux and FreeBSD also.
True. However I dont see Opera's troubles caused by Oracle integration:
support costs, etc but rather a more simplistic
hi all -
Im having momentary(i hope) brain death. can i and if so how do i,
roll-back an application upgraded via packagemanager??
because it was simply an application upgrade no new BE was created...
TIA,
rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Shawn Walker wrote:
Rich Reynolds wrote:
hi all -
Im having momentary(i hope) brain death. can i and if so how do i,
roll-back an application upgraded via packagemanager??
because it was simply an application upgrade no new BE was created...
Rollback functionality for individual packages
Allan -
is .10 still available??? all i see is .12 in the IPS
and it broke some things, i need to reinstall .10 ASAP...
rich
Alan Steinberg wrote:
OK, it is now available! -- Alan
Alan Steinberg wrote:
We hope to have the IPS version up in the next day or so. I don't
think you would want
there is also a best practices page at:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/policies/install-locations/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi all -
where do we need to log issues with the dev repository???
I have tried to fetch some things and every fetch breaks in the same
way, even after flushing my download cache...
so i suspect broken files, because if it was network, it would not
likely be a break at the same place...
Shawn Walker wrote:
Rich Reynolds wrote:
Hi all -
where do we need to log issues with the dev repository???
Report them to the pkg-discuss mailing list.
I have tried to fetch some things and every fetch breaks in the same
way, even after flushing my download cache...
so i suspect broken files
This is actually not so hard, depending on the version of Vista you
have. you need a USB stick with a FAT32 formated partition, which my
version of Vista will do just fine, put the network driver bits on it
and run the OpenSolaris install as expected...
you can then install the network drivers
no, but it does show community/customer support!!!
rich
Alexander Vlasov wrote:
Well, feel free to consider this flame, but I haven't seen any business
decision being influenced by online petition.
Octave Orgeron wrote:
I don't mean to stir up any flame wars or for this to be spam. I setup
a
. Can you give the specific path you gave for
wget? Or what you chose for image type (SPARC or x86, single or split
image)?
-- Alan
Rich Reynolds wrote:
hi all --
anyone else having issues with b110 of SXCE??? I wget the ISO
from the SDLC and unzip it to find a directory of stuff, not unlike
hi all --
anyone else having issues with b110 of SXCE??? I wget the ISO from
the SDLC and unzip it to find a directory of stuff, not unlike the
install media, but NOT an ISO...
ok... so just think a little different and point luupgrade at the
directory... .install_config is not the
the specific path you gave for
wget? Or what you chose for image type (SPARC or x86, single or split
image)?
-- Alan
Rich Reynolds wrote:
hi all --
anyone else having issues with b110 of SXCE??? I wget the ISO from
the SDLC and unzip it to find a directory of stuff, not unlike the
install
Hi all --
In which SXCE did the executable mkcd fall off the distro but not the
man page???
I had not used it in a while, but it seems that at least in b110 there
is a man entry for it pointing to /usr/bin/mkcd but no one is home there...
rich
Hi all -
i IPS upgraded my 106 Vbox environmen to 107 and the new one will not
boot to a graphics login, in fact if the console=graphics entry exists
I dont even get -v messages from the kernel... so it seems to be in
that never-never land of whose issue is it Vbox or OS107??? worked
2.1.4!!!
rich
Shawn Walker wrote:
Rich Reynolds wrote:
Hi all -
i IPS upgraded my 106 Vbox environmen to 107 and the new one will not
boot to a graphics login, in fact if the console=graphics entry
exists I dont even get -v messages from the kernel... so it seems to
be in that never
--- i mis-typed that upgrade was from 105 to 106, I have been
trying to justify a base system upgrade to IPS based 107, but still can't..
I just keep compiling my own
it's just like SunOS 3.5 days..
build Unix from Source!!!
rich
Rich Reynolds wrote:
shawn -
while things have changed
Hi all -
so for grins i went and fetched their BM suite...
guess what -- no call to compliers!! all php and xml and some
fairly standard sh scripts
so guess in whose lap optimization of executables lands...
just some added facts to the fray..
ill build and run it on my
also two revs of he BM have happened since that article..
rich
ken mays wrote:
The benchmark cannot be called a benchmark, as it does
not mention
what software has been compiled in which way (e.g.
which optimizer options
have been in effect).
For this reason, all performance differences
it is never the benchmarker's job to apologized for the inadequatices of
the benchmarked products.
now I will give to the point that they compared apples and oranges, at
the level of detail we understand, but as the market/marketing seems to
imply the products are competitive and
no it was clear the problem was not nwam, but its maintainance state,
was a good indicator as to the real problem...
and as with many problems, a bigger hammer usually helps...
thanx,
rich
James Carlson wrote:
Rich Reynolds writes:
I had a similar problem on different hardware, and found
Martin -
I firmly beg to differ...
the tests were done with out of the box released versions in that there
is no mention of doing ubuntu package upgrades. this is just an artifact
of Sun's release engineering schedule. should another distribution of
the opensolaris.org code base opt to
Hi all -
I had a similar problem on different hardware, and found that hand
plumbing the interface and re-enable nwam served as a sufficient work
around...
hth,
rich
Alexander Vlasov wrote:
Hello,
this is known P2 bug, see
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=6331
Actually
world and the nature of the customer base
has changed and we as a community need to help all the opensolaris.org
based distros compete more effectively or perish under our own weight...
rich
Greg Palmer wrote:
Martin Bochnig wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Rich Reynolds
r...@redstar
potentially better than SXCE, but nowhere near as atomic as BFU...
just a view from the dark,
rich
Shawn Walker wrote:
Rich Reynolds wrote:
Greg -
thanx for the clarification... my intent was only to suggest that
the old BWOS train model that Sun has used for MANY years many no
longer hold them
sorry --- i mis-typed that upgrade was from 105 to 106, I have been
trying to justify a base system upgrade to IPS based 107, but still
can't..
I just keep compiling my own
it's just like SunOS 3.5 days..
build Unix from Source!!!
rich
Rich Reynolds wrote:
shawn -
while things have
wrote:
Rich Reynolds wrote:
shawn -
while things have changed... the fact that a IPS upgrade from b106
to b107 involved 600+MB of download tells me that the model is still
substantially a WOS. I can understand that in a substantial upgrade
like 2008.05 to .11, but a basic two week development
did you wade through the docs here:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/x2100???
rich
Mark Blackman wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if anyone can help with an unusual query. I've good reason
to believe i've modified my partition sizes on a Solaris 10 X2100
box. (for one, I can no longer boot Solaris 10).
this is not a good place for this. if you look to virtualbox.org, you
will find a whole set of forums for discussion of guest OS's. in fact
there is a minix3 community of users there.
good luck,
rich
kevin wrote:
Sorry, since I'm new to this forum, I don't know where should I ask this
What does release mean when describing a probably patched system???
last time i looked at an old Solaris 10 u5 system, 'uname' gave me the
base OS install '10_u5', but not even the patch ID of the kernel jumbo
patch. and what about all the other patches that have been applied???
are they
where have you looked??? and what are you looking for???
try here to start...
Should already be there, given that Sun Blade T6300's have SATA as an
option (LSI SAS1068E controller)
rich
rich
Javier O. Augusto wrote:
Peeps,
Anyone knows what's the state of SATA support for SPARC(for both Solaris
05/08 and OpenSolaris)? I don't need booting off SATA as I have SCSI
James Carlson wrote:
CLF writes:
LU effectively disappears in the OpenSolaris distribution (replaced by
'beadm' and IPS snap upgrades), so that's mostly a no.
It is currently present in Solaris Express, though.
Is the source available for the various LU components, or is it likely
ever to
James Carlson wrote:
Mike Meyer writes:
it. What I found was flat out scary. To wit, from the project overview
page:
... the OpenSolaris project does not provide an end-user
product or complete distribution.
That doesn't mean that _nobody_ does this; it only means it's not a
CPU's in the hardware sense are not allocated to zones, but the
available compute resources are..
so in you scenario if all zones including the global are running at full
utilization, i.e. CPU bound, then zone a gets 80/86*100% of the CPU
resources,
if you stop the CPU bound tasks in zone b
jerry -
I'm always assuming there is contention for resources, its not REAL
interesting if there is no contention and in this case there is none..
thanx, for the insight...
rich
Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Victor Feng wrote:
Given the importance of zones and some other info, is there any
35 matches
Mail list logo
