Joe Little wrote:
On 5/20/07, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One picks Linux as the best choice only if one doesn't know
what one is doing. It is as simple as that.
This kind of thing is coming across more and more as irrational
hatred.
Take it elsewhere, it's not helpful.
It's not
Legal issues appear to favor GNU/Linux drivers:
The average user probably doesn't care why device X
works on GNU/Linux
but not on OpenSolaris, but when I find that DVD
players and the
built-in SD-Card reader on my laptop work on Linux
but not Solaris and
then I learn that IP and Legal
Is not Sun in the US, the land of the
trigger^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyer-happy? Maybe it will be
possible for an OpenSolaris distribution.
It's generally also a case of does the person to be sued have enough $$ in
the bank; true for Sun, not true for Joe Blow's disstro.
But I can play DVDs on
It's generally also a case of does the person to be
sued have enough $$ in
the bank; true for Sun, not true for Joe Blow's
disstro.
You can easily tell I have never lived in the US :P.
But I can play DVDs on Solaris just fine :-)
:)
Send instant messages to your online friends
on x86, its still the sore point of drivers.
*Some* drivers, yes. And some will never be supported, simply because it
doesn't bring much return on investment to employ engineers to write drivers
for obsolete hardware. That itch will have to be scratched by a developer in
the wild. That's a
On 5/20/07, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One picks Linux as the best choice only if one doesn't know what one is
doing. It is as simple as that.
This kind of thing is coming across more and more as irrational hatred.
Take it elsewhere, it's not helpful.
It's not hatred, it's true.
On Sat, 19 May 2007, UNIX admin wrote:
are we talking about IT professionals here, or just plain Joe Sixpacks?
I couldn't agree more with your sentiments, but it seems to be a sad
fact these days that many shops hire Joe Sixpacks as their IT pros...
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB
I couldn't agree more with your sentiments, but it seems to be a sad fact
these days that many shops hire Joe Sixpacks as their IT pros...
You know why? Because Joe Sixpacks, or x-mas tree experts as I like to call
them, are cheap.
And beancounters in charge of budgets don't have the brains
This is absolutely true from experience, as well; however, I would restrain
myself from calling it incompetence on the part of academics. Its simply
a matter that engineering experience (as you call it) is exclusive to the
curriculum of the average Computer Science program. One doesn't
Brian Gupta schrieb:
It might not be clicky-bunty like Linux, but a real IT/CS
professional never needed or used clicky-bunty tools to begin with.
And if I read about people running Linux for enterprise workloads and
complaining about lack of clicky-bunty in Solaris, I have to ask:
are we
Patrick Georgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems like you haven't heard about the reputation of linux users, admins
and coders alike on non-linux groups. The reasons are different, but the
sentiments are about the same.
Linux people about the others:
- They behave so elite (maybe because
One picks Linux as the best choice only if one doesn't know what one is
doing. It is as simple as that.
This kind of thing is coming across more and more as irrational hatred.
Take it elsewhere, it's not helpful.
It's not hatred, it's true. There is nothing Linux has that Solaris
Yeah all those Joe six-pack PhDs running Google are definitely not
real IT/CS professionals. They are clearly not capable of system
engineering, with degrees not worth the paper they are printed on. I
mean come on what kind of two bit organizations are these: CMU, MIT,
Stanford, Caltech,
a b wrote:
Yeah all those Joe six-pack PhDs running Google are definitely not
real IT/CS professionals. They are clearly not capable of system
engineering, with degrees not worth the paper they are printed on. I
mean come on what kind of two bit organizations are these: CMU, MIT,
Stanford,
I don't see that it would help to have a second Sun
Solaris distribution.
If Sun likes to put money into OpenSolaris, this
should be done in a way
that enables collaboration and in a way that allows
to contribute code by
non-Sun people.
It doesn't matter if it helps or not, or does it?
Initially Linux was not suitable for Enterprise
deployments, but as
time goes on Linux is acceptable, for more and more
tasks. (Many times
being the best choice).
One picks Linux as the best choice only if one doesn't know what one is
doing. It is as simple as that.
A real system engineer
On 19/05/07, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One picks Linux as the best choice only if one doesn't know what one is
doing. It is as simple as that.
snip a load of bile
This kind of thing is coming across more and more as irrational hatred.
Take it elsewhere, it's not helpful.
--
On 5/19/07, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Initially Linux was not suitable for Enterprise
deployments, but as
time goes on Linux is acceptable, for more and more
tasks. (Many times
being the best choice).
One picks Linux as the best choice only if one doesn't know what one is
doing.
Tell me, when you use df, do you always type df -k or df -h. If
you do, then why do you care???
I have df aliased to df -h -k (which has one drawback and that is
that df -o requires me to type \df)
But I have one script which is used all over engineering which
will break if the df output is
Until an open collaboration of developers achieves
the same
documented process as industry or formal membership
based bodies
(ECMA, IEEE) or national (ANSI) or international
standards bodies (ISO),
_and_ there is a commitment to developing their
standards in such a way that
they are
And the patches give you one thing by default that
wholesale package
replacement does not: the option to back them out.
You can also roll back on a package system.
You can in principle, but the present tools (which has nothing
to do with the SVR4 pkg format itself) are only up to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tell me, when you use df, do you always type df -k or df -h. If
you do, then why do you care???
I have df aliased to df -h -k (which has one drawback and that is
that df -o requires me to type \df)
But I have one script which is used all over engineering which
Rob McMahon wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tell me, when you use df, do you always type df -k or df -h.
If you do, then why do you care???
I have df aliased to df -h -k (which has one drawback and that is
that df -o requires me to type \df)
But I have one script which is used all
The command is /usr/sbin/pkgchk -v $PKGINST, eh?
Nice, I need to know the exact path.
Not magic really. We're talking about Solaris
here,
not Voodoo-hoodoo-what-you-don't-dare-do-people.
No, we're talking about folks who are used to rpm,
apt and
what have you, and Sun is catering
I wasn't trying to say that there was anything wrong
with
the universe concept.
I think I like it better than two different distros, because it
pushes the choice down to the lowest level, without requiring
two different installations.
OTOH, two different distros in the sense of Solaris and
In theory, it sounds great. The only thing that
bothers me is that if
you have a mode that is Linux mode will people ever
bother to learn
the other one?
In other words, if we have this Linux mode will
people continue to
write non-portable software and never be motivated to
make their
Yes, what you say is all true: we can take it up with
vendors for driver support or purchase NVidia
graphics cards. But the far more realistic
alternative is just switch to Linux and not deal with
it. From the point of view of a desktop, it's the
best of all possible worlds: it's like Unix
From the point of the desktop user, yes.
From the point of the developer aiming at the highest
volume
open-source OS, presently, yes.
From the point of the developer aiming at high
quality, portable
code, no.
Richard,
What actually stops a developer from
Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please note that POSIX (ot SUS) is a source standard.
It does not
define e.g. paths.
Agreed. However, POSIX/SUS is just the beginning of an orderly environment.
Of course.
The really good thing about trying to maintain binary compatibility
You can't do that with zones as they stand now. There's a whole list of
things you can't do in a non-global zone. So you'd have to pick one
environment for the global zone (which can do everything you want), and
then one for another zone (which can't do a number of things).
The topic under
You can't do that with zones as they stand now. There's a whole list of
things you can't do in a non-global zone. So you'd have to pick one
environment for the global zone (which can do everything you want), and
then one for another zone (which can't do a number of things).
The topic under
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't do that with zones as they stand now. There's a whole list of
things you can't do in a non-global zone. So you'd have to pick one
environment for the global zone (which can do everything you want), and
then one for another zone (which can't do a number of
I agree with much of your post. Though rather than using the
execution PATH, why not
use the function call 'isatty' to change the behavior only in an
interactive session, and leave
scripts un-touched. As it this is already used by several commands in
Solaris, where is it a
problem with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with much of your post. Though rather than using the
execution PATH, why not
use the function call 'isatty' to change the behavior only in an
interactive session, and leave
scripts un-touched. As it this is already used by several commands in
Solaris, where
f) leave Solaris precisely how it is, and add additional personalities
(ie: /usr/gnu) to support disparate runtimes with sensible aliases for
new users.
On 5/17/07, Doug Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with much of your post. Though rather than using the
I don't think that's necessarily true for non-developer users. What if
your global zone ran the desktop, you're browsing the web, download a
cool program or interesting content file. Wouldn't it be convenient if
an agent in that global zone found an appropriate (and secure)
zone/container/vm
Tell me, when you use df, do you always type df -k or df -h. If
you do, then why do you care???
Doug
Steve Stallion wrote:
f) leave Solaris precisely how it is, and add additional personalities
(ie: /usr/gnu) to support disparate runtimes with sensible aliases for
new users.
On 5/17/07,
Please note that POSIX (ot SUS) is a source standard.
It does not
define e.g. paths.
Agreed. However, POSIX/SUS is just the beginning of an orderly environment.
The really good thing about trying to maintain binary compatibility is that it
means thinking through the consequences of changes,
How does switching to Linux help here?
- Does any of the Linux installations come with a pre-installed
3D accelerated graphics?
Sabayon Linux. It's gentoo based, stable enough. Has preinstalled
ATI/Nvidia and Intel drivers.
- What happened again if you installed such a driver and tried
Manish Chakravarty wrote:
How does switching to Linux help here?
- Does any of the Linux installations come with a pre-installed
3D accelerated graphics?
Sabayon Linux. It's gentoo based, stable enough. Has preinstalled
ATI/Nvidia and Intel drivers.
How can they include
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia
drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
Heh. Who is going to sue? Linus? Who will he sue?
Linus put a stop to those zealots who wanted to make
sure you would not be able to use a binary driver...I
don't see him going after
Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote:
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia
drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
Heh. Who is going to sue? Linus? Who will he sue?
Linus put a stop to those zealots who wanted to make
sure you would not be able to use a
FSF or maybe http://www.gpl-violations.org/. Just
as the Kororaa
LiveCD was forced to stop distributing the
Nvidia/ATI drivers. It
was one of the first GNU/Linux LiveCDs to bundle
Compiz. It
is redistribution in installed form along with a
GPL kernel.
Ah well. The solution?
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Um the drm kernel components of the Intel drivers may or may not
recompile. For eg. was I using Cisco VPN Client on kernel 2.6.9 and
the kernel module gave a compile error after I upgraded to 2.6.11
because of a kernel variable name change.
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
The NVIDIA/ATI drivers work off-the-DVD even when used as a live DVD/
You can play a quake-clone 3D fps shooter, right off the DVD.
Infact the DVD offers a Play Game option right in the
I saw a posting on Belenix 0.6.x DVD development and
would just like to add:
1. Nevada b65+ recommended
2. JDS Vermillion 65+ (stable, GNOME 2.18.1)
recommended
3. KDE 3.5.6 + Koffice 1.6.2
4. Xorg 7.2 (full port)
5. Compiz 0.5 + Nvidia drivers
6. Better GUI for network and printing
Moinak Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
Where do you believe that there is a GPL violatioon?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL
Moinak Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote:
Heh. Who is going to sue? Linus? Who will he sue?
...
FSF or maybe http://www.gpl-violations.org/. Just as the Kororaa
The FSF is not able to do this.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353
Manish Chakravarty wrote:
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
The NVIDIA/ATI drivers work off-the-DVD even when used as a live DVD/
You can play a quake-clone 3D fps shooter, right off the DVD.
Infact the DVD offers a
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia
drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
Heh. Who is going to sue? Linus? Who will he sue?
If it were a GPL violation, FSF lawyers would be in touch with the
infringing party.
On 15/05/07, Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia
drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
Heh. Who is going to sue? Linus? Who will he sue?
If it were a GPL violation, FSF lawyers would be in touch with the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Moinak Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
Where do you believe that there is a GPL violatioon?
This is admittedly a grey area there is a good
Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia
drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
Heh. Who is going to sue? Linus? Who will he sue?
If it were a GPL violation, FSF lawyers would be in touch with the
infringing
Moinak Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Moinak Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can they include closed-source ATI/Nvidia drivers in a GNU/Linux
LiveDVD without violating the GPL ?
Where do you believe that there is a GPL violatioon?
Moinak Ghosh writes:
This is admittedly a grey area there is a good writeup on this
topic at the Kororaa website after one Linux kernel developer
accused them of violating GPL:
http://kororaa.org/static.php?page=gpl
In any case Nvidia itself explicitly allows
I'd be more worried if I were the author of such a module. I don't
see how you could develop a kernel module for Linux that isn't
considered to be based on the GPLv2 kernel itself and thus forced to
be released as source to anyone who receives the binaries.
If you don't distribute the GPL'ed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd be more worried if I were the author of such a module. I don't
see how you could develop a kernel module for Linux that isn't
considered to be based on the GPLv2 kernel itself and thus forced to
be released as source to anyone who receives the binaries.
If you
ken mays wrote:
I saw a posting on Belenix 0.6.x DVD development and
would just like to add:
1. Nevada b65+ recommended
Will be in 0.6.1. 0.6 will be based on B60.
2. JDS Vermillion 65+ (stable, GNOME 2.18.1)
recommended
Yes planned for 0.6.1 DVD.
3. KDE 3.5.6 + Koffice 1.6.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd be more worried if I were the author of such a module. I don't
see how you could develop a kernel module for Linux that isn't
considered to be based on the GPLv2 kernel itself and thus forced to
be released as source to anyone who receives the binaries.
If you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not the sticky part. The sticky part is making your own code
that is in fact based on a work by someone else that is under GPLv2.
This very much hinges on the fact that based on can be taken to
mean calls interfaces in; untenable.
Actually, it's
That's not the sticky part. The sticky part is making your own code
that is in fact based on a work by someone else that is under GPLv2.
This very much hinges on the fact that based on can be taken to
mean calls interfaces in; untenable.
Secondly, in order to write the code based on the
Why do you believe this?
From:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This
means that only
the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on
all GPL
violations reported on
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For Linux, there is no documented DDI other than the source code. In
order to write a decent driver for Linux, you *have to* read the Linux
code. In order to do that, you must accept the terms of the GPLv2,
and, as you use the information you learn in
What if someone were to attempt to reverse engineer the kernel
interface for Linux strictly by reading what is available on the web.
(Commentary)
I would pick a popular kernel that has the most commentary. (Don't
look at source though).
You could then document the kernel interface for say 2.4.x
Joerg Schilling writes:
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For Linux, there is no documented DDI other than the source code. In
order to write a decent driver for Linux, you *have to* read the Linux
code. In order to do that, you must accept the terms of the GPLv2,
and, as you use
What if someone were to attempt to reverse engineer the kernel
interface for Linux strictly by reading what is available on the web.
(Commentary)
Doable in theory, probably worthless in practice given the kernel
interface churn. No DDI == no reason for stability.
I don't think it is
Brian Gupta writes:
What if someone were to attempt to reverse engineer the kernel
interface for Linux strictly by reading what is available on the web.
(Commentary)
Doable in theory, probably worthless in practice given the kernel
interface churn. No DDI == no reason for
--- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh come off it. You want to tell me that all Linux
systems are thus administered?
I do happen to write from *experience* of what I
witnessed in me years as a consultant for various
firms both big and small.
Heh. Thank you LPI. No wonder you ran
It may not be clean for a number of systems or
server farms,
but it seems to me the intention of making
OpenSolaris more
friendly to the other side is to get more
development and
following for OpenSolaris. As the training ground,
we'd all
hope that they come around to more structured
Yes, what you say is all true: we can take it up with vendors for driver
support or purchase NVidia graphics cards. But the far more realistic
alternative is just switch to Linux and not deal with it. From the point of
view of a desktop, it's the best of all possible worlds: it's like Unix and
Yes, what you say is all true: we can take it up with vendors for
driver support or purchase NVidi a graphics cards. But the far more
realistic alternative is just switch to Linux and not deal with it.
From the point of view of a desktop, it's the best of all possible
worlds: it's like Unix and o
On Mon, 14 May 2007 20:51:03 +0200, you wrote:
Yes, what you say is all true: we can take it up with vendors for
driver support or purchase NVidi a graphics cards. But the far more
realistic alternative is just switch to Linux and not deal with it.
From the point of view of a desktop, it's the
On 14/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, what you say is all true: we can take it up with vendors for
driver support or purchase NVidi a graphics cards. But the far more
realistic alternative is just switch to Linux and not deal with it.
From the point of view of a desktop,
On 14/05/07, Gerald Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 20:51:03 +0200, you wrote:
Yes, what you say is all true: we can take it up with vendors for
driver support or purchase NVidi a graphics cards. But the far more
realistic alternative is just switch to Linux and not deal
--- Michael Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, what you say is all true: we can take it up
with vendors for driver support or purchase NVidia
graphics cards. But the far more realistic
alternative is just switch to Linux and not deal
with it. From the point of view of a desktop, it's
the
We need those college kids who are
coming out of university
today who reach for Linux when they start companies
or go to work in
Fortune 500 companies because that's what they know
to
reach for Solaris. A whole lot of interesting things
stem from that.
Then you're going about it in the
Greatly improved sound support is already on the way
with the apparent
soon-to-be-included OSS drivers from 4Front
Technologies.
That may be true on the cheap^H^H^H^H^Hcommodity x86 platform, but on
SPARC, I'm not all that impressed to date; performance, actual functioning of
some allegedly
Oh come off it. You want to tell me that all Linux
systems are thus administered?
I do happen to write from *experience* of what I witnessed in me years as a
consultant for various firms both big and small.
And that you don't
have
such examples too in the Solaris side of things?
Ooohhh
UNIX admin wrote:
...
Mostly what you have in the latter scenario are Windows/UNIX well
rounded system administrators which have never seen a 50-pin
narrow SCSI cable before. I'm not kidding, that's a true story also.
Now, the link between the 50-pin narrow SCSI cable and Solaris might
not be
Oh, you mean I shouldn't compile any of my own code
on my own system cause I might have to rm -rf it instead of
builiding a package every time. I'm really sure the new
users we are catering too are just *gonna* love that.
Course, packaging for Solaris is quite a bit of magic for
( ( cd /src/dir/ find . -depth -print | cpio
-pvdmu /dst/dir/ ) /tmp/cpio.stdout )
/tmp/cpio.stderr
Ha ha, that's the ugliest thing I ever saw.
The beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder(TM).
The parenthesis in the above example will capture ALL STDOUT and ALL STDERR and
redirect them
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 09:29:19AM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
( ( cd /src/dir/ find . -depth -print | cpio
-pvdmu /dst/dir/ ) /tmp/cpio.stdout )
/tmp/cpio.stderr
Ha ha, that's the ugliest thing I ever saw.
The beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder(TM).
The parenthesis in the
Comment from Dennis :
I don't want to get caught up in a rolling street fight but I do
have a qualified comment or two. I snipped liberally. See below.
snippage
Some work in the system, and modify the autoconf/configure,
makefiles and other files in a portable way that
allows the
On 13/05/07, Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greatly improved sound support is already on the way
with the apparent
soon-to-be-included OSS drivers from 4Front
Technologies.
That may be true on the cheap^H^H^H^H^Hcommodity x86 platform, but on
SPARC, I'm not all that impressed
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 09:19:12PM +0100, a b wrote:
Well yes, I can see that, no need to shout. :)
I wasn't shouting, STDOUT and STDERROR are traditionally written in UPPERCASE.
Now I don't wish to be contrary, but even if that were true, the same
cannot be said of the word all.
Ceri
--
All that needs to happen is for those developers to start using Solaris as
the main development platform. Again.
Oh, well, that sounds SIMPLE!
SIMPLE is robust. Can you do SIMPLE? Do you know how?
_
Explore the seven
I don't see anything wrong with `exec tcsh -l`. That's only in root's
case anyway, and hopefully not much time should be spent working as root
anyway.
http://solaris.reys.net/english/2006/09/root_shell_in_solaris_10
with rbac and friends you'd have to have a really really good
UNIX admin wrote:
...
Mostly what you have in the latter scenario are Windows/UNIX well
rounded system administrators which have never seen a 50-pin
narrow SCSI cable before. I'm not kidding, that's a true story also.
Now, the link between the 50-pin narrow SCSI cable and Solaris might
Well yes, I can see that, no need to shout. :)
I wasn't shouting, STDOUT and STDERROR are traditionally written in UPPERCASE.
Now that's one piece of history I wouldn't mind knowing more about myself, as
in, why they're written that way.
--- UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need those college kids who are
coming out of university
today who reach for Linux when they start
companies
or go to work in
Fortune 500 companies because that's what they
know
to
reach for Solaris. A whole lot of interesting
things
Wakes the Charlie Kaufmann in me. (Artem takes out
the dusty Underwood, replaces
the ribbon...)
White background. Two men enter the view:
a young, stylish man with a smile on his face,
an older man with orange crumbs in his beard.
YOUNG MAN
Hi, I'm a Mac.
It never stops to amaze me to hear things like this,
i've been a unix
admin for a long time too, but at least I wouldn't
have said something as
ridiculous as that.
For the record, i've written enture programs in bash,
and wouldn't look back.
Then I really have to question your UNIX
Dude
Can we please drop the dude part? Thank you kindly in advance.
Oh, you mean I shouldn't compile any of my own code
on my own
system cause I might have to rm -rf it instead of
builiding a package
every time. I'm really sure the new users we are
catering too
are just *gonna* love
On 5/10/07, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All that needs to happen is for those developers to start using Solaris as the
main development platform. Again.
Oh, well, that sounds SIMPLE!
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
Don't look back--something might be gaining
The correct way to fix this whole situation is for
Linux developers to migrate to Solaris, and forget
about Linux. That would fix all these compilation
issues.
OOh, I like this one. Forget gcc compatibility. Kill
Sun Studio gcc extension support now! Just make that
hoard of gcc extension
UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh crappity, Solaris users aren't all old beards. At least I'm not THAT
old! (:-)
In fact, I'm probably no older than a contemporary Linux user. I've just used
Solaris since I was a kid! It was the first UNIX I ever used, and I grew up
with it. Did a
Oh crappity, Solaris users aren't all old beards.
My bad, I guess I'm just looking at the world through too small a hole.
Here in Menlo Park 17 we all wear beards, so I just assumed... But don't
tell me not all Mac users are young and hip, and not all Windows users
look like Steve Ballmer.
On 5/10/07, Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/05/07, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what's the default? Oh yeah that shell
that's still stuck in
the first century?
I don't see anything wrong with `exec tcsh -l`. That's only in root's case
anyway, and hopefully not
Thomas De Schampheleire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/10/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that I had the Schily userland, did allow me mostly forget
about the platform I was working on.. using my editor, my shell, my
match insteas of *grep, my tar, my make,
--- Gueven Bay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the Solaris people should adapt some things
from Linux. But I vote for staying in the Solaris
way. I don't vote as the linked press articles say
for bringing more Linux-isims into (Open)Solaris.
For example a better package manager:
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
