On Thursday 01 February 2007 07:49 am, Shawn Walker wrote:
> I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know
> *why* in some cases. It would be helpful if there were a status list for
> the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available (due to
> 3rd part
On Thursday 01 February 2007 07:40 am, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Since they are closed, you can't fix bugs in them, port them to other
> architectures, try to increase the performance of them, learn from them,
> etc. I'm not convinced all the closed_bins are somehow perfect and free of
> any bugs or pe
On 2/1/07, Bonnie Corwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Look at:
http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source
This page has been available since shortly after the launch in June 2005.
I had seen that page before, but I didn't remember how to get back to
it. How exactly does one navigate to that page
> "sch" == Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/
>>
>> Probably ought to be linked to from the General FAQ
>> (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/)...?
sch> It already is, under the question "What source code does the
sch> OpenSola
* Mike Kupfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-01 11:05]:
> > "Shawn" == Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Shawn> It would be helpful if there were a status list for the
> Shawn> closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available
> Shawn> (due to 3rd party or something gener
> "Shawn" == Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shawn> It would be helpful if there were a status list for the
Shawn> closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available
Shawn> (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason),
Shawn> which have a chance of being ava
* Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-01 07:52]:
> > Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our
> > control
>
> I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't
> know *why* in some cases. It would be helpful if there were a status
> list for the closed_bi
Thanks Bonnie!
It would be nice to keep this page up-to-date.
Another concern which might need your attention is that some important
links on www.opensolaris.org could not be resolved. I'm talking about
PSARC descriptions like this:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2006/704/
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 2/1/07, Bonnie Corwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Look at:
http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source
This page has been available since shortly after the launch in June 2005.
I had seen that page before, but I didn't remember how to get back to
it. How exactly does on
Look at:
http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source
This page has been available since shortly after the launch in June 2005.
Some drivers were held back originally at launch simply because I ran
out of time. Some have been moved to usr/src; others are waiting for
resources.
We have continu
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 16:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't
> >know *why* in some cases. I t would be helpful if there were a status
> >list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be
> >available (due to 3r
>I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't
>know *why* in some cases. I t would be helpful if there were a status
>list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be
>available (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason),
>which have a ch
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:36 -0800, Shawn Walker
> wrote:
> > > >On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John
> > > Sonnenschein wrote:
> > > >>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start
> > > promoting Solaris instead
> > > >>> of tha
> Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our
> control
>
>
> Casper
I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know
*why* in some cases. It would be helpful if there were a status list for the
closed_bins that indicated what items would never be availa
>
> >It is "super easy" (IMO) for people to get Solaris,
> and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
> ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the
> integration process respectively.
>
> What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not
> being able
> to port to a different arc
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan
> Coopersmith wrote:
> > The only statement that makes is that you
> misunderstand the licenses.
> >
> > A BSD-licensed project could require contributor
> agreements to avoid the
> > sorts of headaches they had when UCB changed the
> BSD license to dro
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:02 pm, Shawn Walker
> wrote:
> > > I don't care what license is used, I care only
> about
> > > acceptance, and that
> > > means for the most amount of open source software
> > > that we can be accepted by.
> > >
> > > Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OE
On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
I can't agree with this. I think the processes are more of an issue
than any contributor agreement.
The CA is a process, and it's one process out of many that needs to
be rectified. I wasn't going to sit there and enumerate every one of
the
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:14 pm, Shawn Walker
> wrote:
> > Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are
> *proof* that the CDDL provides
> > benefits. We do not have "just opinions, emotions
> and fear." I mean really,
> > that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say.
>
> It is? When
> From where I see it, the participation issue is due
> to a process
> hat comes pretty close to making someone a unpaid Sun
> employee - of
> sorts. To even have a contribution considered, I have
> to sign the
> Contributor Agreement. That agreement is with Sun
> Microsystems Inc,
> not O
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> >
> > Alan said he *only* cared about acceptance, not the
> license. Whether
> > this means not anything else as well is not clear.
> I'm just saying
> > that I find that particular terminology in any
> context unsettling.
> > Acceptance should almost never be more import
21 matches
Mail list logo
