David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
Inflammatory, maybe. Incorrect, I don't think so. Joerg has made a
fairly convincing, and consistent, point of showing where the
reliability problems with GNU tar lie - in bugs that were filed 16
years ago. You even acknowledged them in your
On Thu, February 12, 2009 03:01, Joerg Schilling wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
Inflammatory, maybe. Incorrect, I don't think so. Joerg has made a
fairly convincing, and consistent, point of showing where the
reliability problems with GNU tar lie - in bugs that were filed
Fredrich Maney fredrichma...@gmail.com wrote:
And I totally agree that Solaris will not benefit from Joerg-style postings
-- as long-time Linux user I saw discussion he participated in on debian
maillists and I know which reaction it causes among people.
There are many issues in lists and
On Tue, February 10, 2009 11:40, Fredrich Maney wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Tim Bray tim.b...@sun.com wrote:
On the other side, GNU tar is unreliable.
It is really unhelpful to Solaris when its advocates make inflammatory
and
incorrect statements like this. We agree that you
Julian Wiesener j...@vtoc.de wrote:
i'm not sure if it is really necessary to have all the GNU tools
preferred over Solaris tools. The most user expect GNU behaviour of tar
(-z, -j), grep (-r), find (-iname, . as default path) and may be some
For most users, the GNU tar -z/-j behavior is not
Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
Others have pointed out that the GNU tools tend to be broken for
various different definitions of broken. I'll add that their designs
are also broken. They seem to suffer from creeping featurism and
bloat. Try figuring out what it would take to turn the
casper@sun.com wrote:
* A proper find option would be -filedepth +/-[num]
Unless you are able to explain this, I prefer -maxdepth and -mindepth
and I even implemented it in libfind + sfind three years ago.
All options in find which take a numeric argument, work like this:
+n
casper@sun.com wrote:
I agree (though I also use, incorrectly names, maxdepth and mindepth *)
Casper
* A proper find option would be -filedepth +/-[num]
Unless you are able to explain this, I prefer -maxdepth and -mindepth
and I even implemented it in libfind + sfind three years
On the other side, GNU tar is unreliable.
It is really unhelpful to Solaris when its advocates make inflammatory
and incorrect statements like this. We agree that you have reported a
bug. There is no bug-free software in the world. The immensely huge
numbers of people who, like me,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Tim Bray tim.b...@sun.com wrote:
On the other side, GNU tar is unreliable.
It is really unhelpful to Solaris when its advocates make inflammatory and
incorrect statements like this. We agree that you have reported a bug.
There is no bug-free software in the
Hello,
Also, I find it odd that you are posting from a sun.com email address
while making statements like Solaris people are out of touch,
clearly putting Solaris people in the Them category in an Us vs.
Them comparision. As a Sun employee, I would think that you should be
a Solaris person.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Alexander Vlasov
alexander.vla...@sun.com wrote:
[...]
English is not my first language (nor second), however I'm able to
understand original phrase:
huge number of people using GNU tools are apt to conclude...
Tim and I have already traded email on this.
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 14:41 -0500, Fredrich Maney wrote:
There are many issues in lists and email with regards to phrasing,
particularly when speakers of multiple languages and different
cultures are involved and I do not disagree that Joerg could have
worded his complaint more sensitively.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Sergio Enrique Schvezov
sergius...@ieee.org wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 14:41 -0500, Fredrich Maney wrote:
There are many issues in lists and email with regards to phrasing,
particularly when speakers of multiple languages and different
cultures are involved
Hi,
i'm not sure if it is really necessary to have all the GNU tools
preferred over Solaris tools. The most user expect GNU behaviour of tar
(-z, -j), grep (-r), find (-iname, . as default path) and may be some
other tools. But for ls, chmod and df (zfs) i assume the most GNU
familiar users would
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:54:15 -0600 (CST) David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
On Wed, January 14, 2009 13:39, Fredrich Maney wrote:
I agree with one caveat: the native fully supported and integrated Sun
tools should be come first the default PATHs when shipped and
modifying that value
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
If a GNU utility is a proper superset of the Solaris version, would patches
to replace the Solaris version with the GNU version be accepted?
I would think so, but it would depend on
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:42:00 -0500 (EST) Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org
wrote:
If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
position becomes a fait accompli.
Thus avoiding the entire question of whether or not that's the best -
or even a desirable - goal.
mike
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:04:03 -0800 Bart Smaalders bart.smaald...@sun.com
wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:42:00 -0500 (EST) Dennis Clarke
dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
position becomes a fait accompli.
[ I've moved opensolaris-discuss to the Bcc ]
The utilities in question do not support Linux specific features. Why do you
believe you will be able to feed back such enhancements for Solaris to the
upstream?
Is it your personal experience that this is the case or can you point
to mail
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:03:12 +0100
Mika Borner opensola...@bluewin.ch wrote:
We should not forget that Apple welcomes users with a BSD userland. Many
developers also use Mac OS X as their preferred platform. And almost
everybody seems quite happy with it...
This isn't quite true. Yes, OSX is
For as rare as such an event could be, I was affected by this: more
than once GNU tar couldn't extract it's own files while fortunately
pax could. I had to back up some big directories with GNU tar on
Solaris 10 and sometimes it happened that tar exited with exit status
0 doing nothing. Archives
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote:
Enrico Maria Crisostomo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
If a GNU utility is a proper superset of the Solaris version, would patches
Joerg, you're right, I think I copied from an old post of mine without
double checking, sorry for it. By the way, I was just saying that I
remember I was hit by that issue little more than a years ago: I began
to correlate things when you cited larger sparse files and
multivolumes.
By the way,
Hi,
i'm not sure if it is really necessary to have all the GNU tools
preferred over Solaris tools. The most user expect GNU behaviour of tar
(-z, -j), grep (-r), find (-iname, . as default path) and may be some
other tools. But for ls, chmod and df (zfs) i assume the most GNU
familiar users
Jason King ja...@ansipunx.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Dave Miner dave.mi...@sun.com wrote:
Because I'm an optimist? There's trying and failing, and then there's
failing to try.
My experiences are that after you negotiated things with the maintainer, RMS
chimes in and
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Miner dave.mi...@sun.com wrote:
My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with
modifications fed back upstream, so that we get maximum leverage going
The utilities in question do not support Linux specific features. Why do you
believe you will
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Dave Miner dave.mi...@sun.com wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Miner dave.mi...@sun.com wrote:
My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with
modifications fed back upstream, so that we get maximum leverage going
The utilities in question do
Jason King ja...@ansipunx.net wrote:
It's not complete, and could probably be a bit cleaner. The long
options from GNU chmod aren't supported yet, but -c, -v are
implemented (and a couple quick tests look ok). Also -H -L, -P from
BSD has also been implemented (but not tested yet, I'll try
Joerg Schilling wrote:
-H -L -P are Options defined by POSIX.2-1001
In general, it makes sense to act similar to the POSIX standardization
process. Options from other implementations are first checked and discussed
for
their significance and importance. Under these constraints, a GNU find
+1
I think the AST tools are better contenders to replace the Solaris commands.
On 15/01/2009, I. Szczesniak iszczesn...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be better to go with the ATT AST tools
(http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/). AST supports many of the
BSD and GNU command line options
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
casper@sun.com wrote:
For some time I had gtar as my tar but it was broken too often (it
doesn't properly unpack certain archives I encountered)
A serious problem with GNU tar is that it is unreliable and in a signficant
number of cases is
Jon Trulson j...@radscan.com wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
casper@sun.com wrote:
For some time I had gtar as my tar but it was broken too often (it
doesn't properly unpack certain archives I encountered)
A serious problem with GNU tar is that it is
Mostly, yes. If you take someone 'off the street' (ie someone who has
never touched a Solaris environment) and ask them to choose between
using a Solaris userland or a GNU userland (which is what the question
is) I'll bet that a majority of those questioned won't know how to
answer. Because
if ( strstr( argv[0], gnu ) != NULL ) { foo
Typically, argv[0] is ls; use getexecname().
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
A serious problem with GNU tar is that it is unreliable and in a
signficant
number of cases is unable to read back it's own archives.
I've been using tar on linux since about 1996 and I've never had such
a failure, nor have I ever heard
casper@sun.com wrote:
There is nothing like The Fraunhofer Institute and our institute has no
lawyer. I am however doing enough contract and law related stuff to know that
a contract that was written in an ambiguous way has a high probability to
become
missinterpreted later.
I
But please believe me that it does not look convincing if Sun is not willing
to replace an abiguous wording.
But what if their lawyers say there's nothing ambiguous in the wording?
(And, of course, we first need to tak to our lawyers, they need to agree
and they would need to redraft the SCA,
casper@sun.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
A serious problem with GNU tar is that it is unreliable and in a
signficant
number of cases is unable to read back it's own archives.
I've been using tar on linux since about 1996 and I've never had such
Enrico Maria Crisostomo enrico.m.crisost...@gmail.com wrote:
For as rare as such an event could be, I was affected by this: more
than once GNU tar couldn't extract it's own files while fortunately
pax could. I had to back up some big directories with GNU tar on
Solaris 10 and sometimes it
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:03:12 +0100
Mika Borner opensola...@bluewin.ch wrote:
We should not forget that Apple welcomes users with a BSD userland. Many
developers also use Mac OS X as their preferred platform. And almost
casper@sun.com wrote:
For some time I had gtar as my tar but it was broken too often (it
doesn't properly unpack certain archives I encountered)
A serious problem with GNU tar is that it is unreliable and in a signficant
number of cases is unable to read back it's own archives.
If so,
Dave Miner dave.mi...@sun.com wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
...
I would prefer if the user account installation could ask during OS install
whether the user like to have a UNIX or a Linux profile and inform people
that
the GNU profile (as known fro Linux) could not support all features
Brian Smith br...@briansmith.org wrote:
Dave Miner wrote:
We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
chosen the default
Dave Miner dave.mi...@sun.com wrote:
My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with
modifications fed back upstream, so that we get maximum leverage going
The utilities in question do not support Linux specific features. Why do you
believe you will be able to feed back such
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
Or, is
there some kind of rule that says that all Solaris functionality must be
present without depending on any GNU-licensed software?
Nope, since most of our desktop functionality depends entirely
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote:
Alan, you are missunderstanding Solaris.
The basic OS (ON) should not depend on GPLd software. This is the same
approach
as the *BSD people use.
So the basic OS should also not have a libm math library? ON is not a whole
OS and
On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
A serious problem with GNU tar is that it is unreliable and in a
signficant
number of cases is unable to read back it's own archives.
I've been using tar on linux since about 1996 and I've never had such
a failure, nor have I ever heard
Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
So a /usr/gnu/bin will be needed, even if the number of such conflicts
is very low.
All things being equal one would be stuck using argv[0] to determine if
/usr/gnu/bin/ls was called.
...
star is an example for how different CLIs can be
Bart Smaalders bart.smaald...@sun.com wrote:
There are lots of proposals for someone else to do work, but few
volunteers stepping up to the plate. I'm suggesting that those who
Whether people implement proposals depends on the way Sun deals with the
results.
If implementors need more time
Octave Orgeron wrote:
As things stand, continuing to go after the Linux user base is like trying to
convert the religion of people.. pointless and a waste of effort. Apple
understands that the real attraction for everyday users is differentiation
and quality. OpenSolaris has come a long way
Tim Bray tim.b...@sun.com wrote:
I've been using tar on linux since about 1996 and I've never had such
a failure, nor have I ever heard of anyone having one. I'm not saying
that it can't happen, I'm just saying that the experience of the
community is that's an extremely reliable tool.
Bart Smaalders wrote:
There are lots of proposals for someone else to do work, but few
volunteers stepping up to the plate. I'm suggesting that those who
argue in favor of extensive changes to the existing Solaris commands
can demonstrate their commitment and interest by helping out. It's not
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote:
Alan, you are missunderstanding Solaris.
The basic OS (ON) should not depend on GPLd software. This is the same
approach
as the *BSD people use.
So the basic OS should also not have a libm math library? ON is not a
Enrico Maria Crisostomo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
If a GNU utility is a proper superset of the Solaris version, would patches
to replace the Solaris version with the GNU version be accepted?
I would think so,
Brian Smith wrote:
I agree. But, the project leaders need to let potential contributors know
what the strategy is first. Is the goal to make the default userland a 100%
superset of GNU tar and Solaris tar or is something less than 100%
compatibility with one of them OK? Is GNU compatibility
, 2009 5:03:12 PM
Subject: Re: [indiana-discuss] [osol-discuss] why gnu chmod in os2008.11?
Octave Orgeron wrote:
As things stand, continuing to go after the Linux user base is like trying to
convert the religion of people.. pointless and a waste of effort. Apple
understands that the real
; indiana-disc...@opensolaris.org
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:49:48 PM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] why gnu chmod in os2008.11?
Bart Smaalders wrote:
There are lots of proposals for someone else to do work, but few
volunteers stepping up to the plate. I'm suggesting that those
On Jan 17, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Octave Orgeron wrote:
Hi,
I totally agree. The BSD userland is not bad at all and I haven't
heard any developers on the Mac OS X platform complain
Well, as a long-time Linuxoid, when I started using a Mac I
was fairly astounded how invisible the
The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
is a rather good way to do that in my view.
I completely agree. And it's important that your vote counts.
For me it is very difficult to use Indiana
casper@sun.com wrote:
The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
is a rather good way to do that in my view.
I completely agree. And it's important that your vote counts.
For me it
casper@sun.com wrote:
The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
is a rather good way to do that in my view.
I completely agree. And it's important that your vote counts.
For me it
Brian Utterback brian.utterb...@sun.com wrote:
I did the google and I remain unenlightened. In fact, I would say it
is quite understandable that someone from fraunhofer would be
concerned, although I am not sure how much of Joerg attitude has to do
with having a fraunhofer account.
Thank
Hi,
casper@sun.com wrote:
casper@sun.com wrote:
The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
is a rather good way to do that in my view.
I completely agree. And it's
This thread seems to have become unproductive.. Can one of the /leaders/
(if there are any around) please bring this back on track, move this in
private or end it.
Thanks
./C
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Scott Rotondo scott.roto...@sun.com wrote:
basics:) It's happening in other areas, such as Xorg.. minus the fact
that MacOSX has a better GUI and doesn't need X11.
Hear, hear. We need to offer much more than just parity with Linux.
If the GNU utilities are as unstable (from an interface
I did personally read the agreement and I found two time bombs that I like to
be
fixed before I am going to sign it because I have a more wide spread
commitment
with my contributions than the majority of the involved people. Because of my
more wide spread commitment, I am affected by the named
casper@sun.com wrote:
I did personally read the agreement and I found two time bombs that I like
to be
fixed before I am going to sign it because I have a more wide spread
commitment
with my contributions than the majority of the involved people. Because of my
more wide spread
Joerg Schilling wrote:
All I ask Sun is to remove the ambiguous parts.
Could you please let me know what you think is ambiguous?
Cheers,
Trond
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
There is nothing like The Fraunhofer Institute and our institute has no
lawyer. I am however doing enough contract and law related stuff to know that
a contract that was written in an ambiguous way has a high probability to
become
missinterpreted later.
I still suggest that you ask a lawyer;
We had this discussion last week. The problem is in section 3 of the
SCA, regarding the granting of patent rights. The structure and layout
of the sentence leads to two possible interpretations, one granting
rights to patents included in the contribution, but the other
interpretation is that
Brian Utterback brian.utterb...@sun.com wrote:
We had this discussion last week. The problem is in section 3 of the
SCA, regarding the granting of patent rights. The structure and layout
of the sentence leads to two possible interpretations, one granting
rights to patents included in the
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Mark R. Bowyer mark.bow...@sun.com wrote:
casper@sun.com wrote:
The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
is a rather good way to do that in my view.
I
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Paul Gress pgr...@optonline.net wrote:
Michael Schuster wrote:
it's the people who aren't in these communities that we want to convince,
and - or so I understand - giving them something (a lot of) them are
familiar with (even if it's inferiour to what many of
On Thu, January 15, 2009 20:47, Fredrich Maney wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:27 PM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Thu, January 15, 2009 12:51, Octave Orgeron wrote:
However, if the hope is that the GNU toolset will
attract users and developers.. I think that idea maybe a
* Paul Gress (pgr...@optonline.net) wrote:
Michael Schuster wrote:
Fredrich Maney wrote:
I want Sun and the Solaris and OpenSolaris communities to realize that
they have, bar none, the best OS on the planet
You're preaching to the choir :-)
it's the people who aren't
Jason King wrote:
As I think has been mentioned before, I seriously doubt if you talk to
most any UNIX user they are one bit about GNU grep vs Solaris grep vs
BSD grep (or gnu tar vs solaris tar vs bsd tar vs star). What they
care about is 'grep -r works' 'tar -xvzf works' etc.
Exactly. The
Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is
too difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work,
deciding that what the proper path order is and then modifying either
/etc/profile or $HOME/.profile is acceptable?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
It is simple.
If a GNU utility is a proper superset of the Solaris version, would patches
to replace the Solaris version with the GNU version be accepted? Or, is
there some kind of rule that says that all Solaris functionality must be
present without depending on any GNU-licensed software?
But that's an
Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is
too difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work,
deciding that what the proper path order is and then modifying either
/etc/profile or $HOME/.profile is acceptable?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
+1.
Casper
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:05:42PM -0500, Brian Utterback wrote:
It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one
or a GNU one? If you want both, you have to provide a knob to switch
them back and forth.
I agree, but that knob should be made to work via shell startup
* Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is too
difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work, deciding
that what the proper path order is and then modifying either /etc/profile
or $HOME/.profile is
Nicolas Williams wrote:
The Indiana team evidently want GNU utils be preferred, and evidently
would like to see the compatibility issues with Solaris utils fixed.
I see no problem with that, provided those issues are addressed, and
I'm sure they will be.
If so, the native Solaris versions
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:28 -0800, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one or a
GNU one? If you want both, you have to provide a knob to switch them back
and forth.
And at some point,
* Sebastien Roy (sebastien@sun.com) wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:28 -0800, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one or a
GNU one? If you want both, you have to provide a knob to
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:28 -0800, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one or a
GNU one? If you want both, you have to
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:52:33PM -0600, Brian Smith wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
The Indiana team evidently want GNU utils be preferred, and evidently
would like to see the compatibility issues with Solaris utils fixed.
I see no problem with that, provided those issues are addressed,
Joerg Schilling wrote:
...
I would prefer if the user account installation could ask during OS install
whether the user like to have a UNIX or a Linux profile and inform people that
the GNU profile (as known fro Linux) could not support all features of the
UNIX programs. Note that Solaris
Fredrich Maney wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Brian Utterback
brian.utterb...@sun.com wrote:
Are you saying that a question about which should be the default is
too difficult to figure out, but deducing why the flags don't work,
deciding that what the proper path order is and
Dave Miner wrote:
We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
chosen the default which makes the most sense for the most users,
Brian Smith wrote:
Dave Miner wrote:
We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
chosen the default which makes the most sense
Brian Smith wrote:
Dave Miner wrote:
We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
chosen the default which makes the most sense
What is the strategy to fix the utilities? Will the GNU utilities be
modified to be supersets of their Solaris counterparts? What is the strategy
for the cases where the default behavior is different between the Solaris
version and the GNU version (and/or when the GNU version is non-POSIX by
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
Dave Miner wrote:
We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too
subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely
necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've
chosen the default which
Fredrich Maney wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Mark R. Bowyer mark.bow...@sun.com wrote:
casper@sun.com wrote:
The problem is making sure that you do not alienate the audience that
you currently have. Making non-Solaris compatible binaries the default
is a rather good way to do
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 04:14:01PM -0500, Dave Miner wrote:
My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with
modifications fed back upstream ... snip
Sometimes that doesn't work. GRUB is a good example.
I don't know whether GRUB is a good example, as I'm not up on
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
goals. Everyone has their own favourite software that probably isn't
installed by
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
goals. Everyone has their own favourite software that
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
goals. Everyone has their own favourite software that
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
goals. Everyone has their own favourite software that
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
