Sure there is. :-) So, here comes a history lesson as all of this has been
talked about before to death.
I thank you kindly for the effort, but I should tell you at this point that I
closely follow the development of OpenSolaris.
How closely?
How about down to monitoring the changelogs -
Actually, we are usually accused of going too far towards catering towards
that sort of user
Yes, you are, but just look who the accusations come from, people that want to
stick stuff in /usr (in plain English: I've no clue what System V is, nor what
standards are, and can barely turn the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:47 AM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glen Lagasse Wrote:
Sure there is. :-)
So, here comes a history lesson as all of this has been talked about
before to death.
But I think the biggest issue is that there's no application packaging
developer's guide (that I
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] [solarisx86] Picking a Laptop for S10/x86
[...snipped...]
Have a look at:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/install/files/install_strategy.pdf
and
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/install/caiman_arch.pdf
And you'll get an idea for where we're going and why
Are you dense or being obtuse? What part of legally compelled to follow the
rules don't you grasp?
Let's go with the dense variant.
OK, after some clarification from James and Dr. Hahn, I guess things are
starting to com into perspective.
Glenn also points out that it's about Paper.
a b wrote:
Anyways, James I think is the closest to the mark: just remove the
legally encumbered (what a nonsense phrase!) stuff from (Open)Solaris
and plough on. Sounds good to me!
Great! You can download the beta of that now from:
Sort of. One problem is that Solaris is just one of
the product
groups that use the SDC website. We've talked to
them before; we can
try again...
Just to write: thank you! Such efforts won't go unnoticed, and are appreciated!
Thank you once again!
This message posted from
Great! You can download the beta of that now from:
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/indiana/resources/g
etit/
It still has a few rough edges as we replace the
legally encumbered
bits, but it's getting there.
As soon as /bin/bash isn't the default shell, the installer doesn't slice
UNIX admin wrote:
Great! You can download the beta of that now from:
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/indiana/resources/g
etit/
It still has a few rough edges as we replace the
legally encumbered
bits, but it's getting there.
As soon as /bin/bash isn't the default shell,
a b writes:
However, login data can be completely bogus. And like Glenn, I've worked in
the security industry for a number of years and know better than to give out
valid data to some web site run by marketing goons, out there on the big bad
Internet.
Security 101, no?
Sure. But this
Defaults are for people who have no preferences of
their own.
Defaults in Indiana are bad. Very bad. If you wanted people to have a sane
Bourne-like shell, you could've picked zsh, no problem.
And you can't be telling me that not having the option to pick one's own shell
(including
* UNIX admin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Defaults are for people who have no preferences of
their own.
Defaults in Indiana are bad. Very bad. If you wanted people to have a sane
Bourne-like shell, you could've picked zsh, no problem.
And you can't be telling me that not having the
UNIX admin wrote:
You guys are phenomenal engineers, but you do have one major flaw: a lot of
you think in terms of a single system managed by a guy with lots and lots of
time and the willingness to walk around from system to system and hack stuff
around.
I don't have one system. I have
Maybe, just maybe, if the clowns
at the DLC figure
out, that regardless of their attempts to obfuscate
the download
process, that there are reasonable people who can
always outwit them,
then they'll give up their demented plan to
marginalize SXCE.
I guess you are joking, but I'll
UNIX admin wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, if the clowns
at the DLC figure
out, that regardless of their attempts to obfuscate
the download
process, that there are reasonable people who can
always outwit them,
then they'll give up their demented plan to
marginalize SXCE.
I guess you
Ian Collins wrote:
UNIX admin wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, if the clowns
at the DLC figure
out, that regardless of their attempts to obfuscate
the download
process, that there are reasonable people who can
always outwit them,
then they'll give up their demented plan to
marginalize SXCE.
OpenSolaris != SXCE.
Ooohhh no, we're not going down that route!
I couldn't care less what gimmicks Ian Co. are pulling, to ME
OpenSolaris IS SXCE and SXDE, and it will remain that way no matter
WHAT. Even if they kill it.
And to anybody that asks me, I'm telling that SXCE and SXDE ARE
I'm not going to try to defend the SDC -- this is neither the right
list to discuss it nor do I have any connection at all with the people
who run that site -- but there's a complication here that I think the
folks posting (and vociferously at that) on the thread need to
realize.
a b wrote:
OpenSolaris != SXCE.
Ooohhh no, we're not going down that route!
I couldn't care less what gimmicks Ian Co. are pulling
Whether you care or not, Sun are free to do what they like with their
distribution.
Ian
___
opensolaris-discuss
a b wrote:
The existing Solaris Express distribution is not redistributable. It
includes licensed software from other entities, in the form of the old
CDE environment and Xsun server, among other things. As a result, it
just _can't_ be as simple as wget ftp://sun.com/sxce.iso;. I think
Whether you care or not, Sun are free to do what they
like with their distribution.
And I'm free to ignore it and call it whatever I damn well please.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
* a b ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm not going to try to defend the SDC -- this is neither the right
list to discuss it nor do I have any connection at all with the people
who run that site -- but there's a complication here that I think the
folks posting (and vociferously at that) on
* a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-11 20:36]:
I'm not going to try to defend the SDC -- this is neither the right
list to discuss it nor do I have any connection at all with the people
who run that site -- but there's a complication here that I think the
folks posting (and vociferously at
Ian Collins writes:
OpenSolaris != SXCE.
Sun are free to distribute their OpenSolaris distributions anyway they
see fit. Whether they shoot them selves in the foot is their business!
I'm not going to try to defend the SDC -- this is neither the right
list to discuss it nor do I have any
a b writes:
That's why it has that click-through license agreement, and why you
can't just wget it. The problem isn't just a technical bit of
stupidity that can be fixed by application of clue.
Sorry, but that is not logical at all. Either that, or I miserably failed at
grasping the
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, John D Groenveld wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Coopersmith writes:
No - SXDE 1/08 was build 79b - about 3 months before build 86.
(Numbered builds happen every two weeks.)
On the topic of Nevadas, which cookies must I pass to cds.sun.com
to download with
26 matches
Mail list logo
