Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Now, is the infrastructure and process move behind where we'd like it to
be? Sure. But if the implication here is that nothing is happening or
that the OpenSolaris Engineering team hasn't thought of some of this,
that's wrong.
I certainly didn't mean to imply any such
On 5/21/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People are changing, and newcomers are more willing to use
opensolaris/sx/nevada as it is, but this doesn't say anything
for the large institutions, corporate 500s, and/or government
affiliates that use Solaris as it's been known.
These are the
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/21/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People are changing, and newcomers are more willing to use
opensolaris/sx/nevada as it is, but this doesn't say anything
for the large institutions, corporate 500s, and/or government
affiliates that use
On 5/17/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
Sure, Fedora is a great QA vehicle for Red Hat, but what about the hordes
of people who are putting Fedora into production (and, yes, there are a
lot of them--this is a different group of people than the
On 5/17/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
How do they avoid the Friendster problem--death by success?
Could you elaborate on this more, I don't think I understand what you're
describing.
A small group of developers has an idea for a web
Actually, I see them as two very different groups. The difference is
primarily the entry point.
Agreed. (Don't ignore the fact that goals and workloads are currently
very different.)
The current market for Solaris 10 (and the market RHEL etc. also target)
is the traditional enterprise, i.e.,
On 21/05/07, Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let the number of downloads of this new distro speak for themselves.
(One way or another).
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is of good quality
or high standards. See the movies in theatres for case in point :)
I've never liked
I've never liked popularity contests since long term popularity fades.
Shawn, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Anyone remember that
old old instruction set that the Intel 8086 popularized? See what
happens to popular technology? It fades from use, especially if it is
underpowered and
--- Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, so maybe they should have deployed RHEL at the outset, but the
developers know Ubuntu, not RHEL, and every minute that's not spent
on the
application is spent on something their users will never, ever see.
What a wonderful opportunity for a
On 5/21/07, Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think one distro can be all things to all
people.
Agreed. That's why there's still plenty of room for other distros,
regardless of what Sun does.
Ian, you aren't gonna win this one by trying to convince everyone here
that the Linux way
On 21/05/07, Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never liked popularity contests since long term popularity fades.
Shawn, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Anyone remember that
old old instruction set that the Intel 8086 popularized? See what
happens to popular technology? It
On 5/19/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Project Description
Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris
distribution with a regular release schedule.
Project Team:
Needed...
I am sorry, but the
I've never liked popularity contests since long term popularity fades.
Shawn, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Anyone remember that
old old instruction set that the Intel 8086 popularized? See what
happens to popular technology? It fades from use, especially if it is
underpowered
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/17/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
Sure, Fedora is a great QA vehicle for Red Hat, but what about the hordes
of people who are putting Fedora into production (and, yes, there are a
lot of
On 21/05/07, Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You will note that the monopoly market power, intel, that you
mentioned, tried to drive a stake through the heart of x86 at least
twice:
Nevertheless, I cannot attribute its success to popularity. I suspect
cost, familiarity, Microsoft, etc.
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Murdock wrote:
And that would break... what, exactly?
We don't know.
We know it has the potential of breaking scripts that,
for better or worse, parse the output of /bin/df.
It can (and has been) argued that those scripts are
already not
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Project Description
Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris
distribution with a regular release schedule.
Project Team:
Needed...
I am sorry, but the more I read about Indiana, the more I am uncomfortable
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creating Signed Packages:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-0406/6mg76stf9?q=signa=view
Thanks for that... I hadn't managed to track it down.
- meta-packages: There are a number of ways to provide, for
James Carlson wrote:
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
likely, nobody will care because supporting both is not one of the
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Speaking of that, how is the Emancipation Project doing these days?
It's there, doesn't look too busy yet, but as you may have seen there's a
guy doing some work for the google summer of code, or whatever it's
called.
(I almost called it the
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Shawn Walker wrote:
Sun tried that, and failed in my opinion.
Sure, and my opinion is that they didn't do it right. The ironic thing is
that the folks that couldn't market Solaris very well, now want to get
their hands in OpenSolaris. Scarey thought...:-/
Until they
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Alan DuBoff wrote:
OpenSolaris should belong to the community, the community should decide
it's destiny, the community should be the sum of the entire community. Yes,
Sun is a part of that, but it is only a part. It's not up to Sun to
determine the
Take the other side of Sun Marketing, there was an
ad with a single V880
in a lab. What is that about?:-/ With Apple ads you
know what it's about
somehow, there is no secrets.
Yeah I have heard comments about that ad of a trailer
in the middle of nowhere...
Send instant messages to your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but the problem with that is that the majority of the community and
OGB is Sun employees. Sun can use their power to pay people to work on
OpenSolaris, which is good, but it can also swing the scales in their
favor.
Why is this a problem? I see this as a
Sure, but the problem with that is that the majority of the community and
OGB is Sun employees. Sun can use their power to pay people to work on
OpenSolaris, which is good, but it can also swing the scales in their
favor.
Why is this a problem? I see this as a natural initial state of the
Hugh McIntyre writes:
James Carlson wrote:
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
likely, nobody will care because supporting
On Fri, 18 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Hugh McIntyre writes:
James Carlson wrote:
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
likely,
Frank Hofmann writes:
Any new LINUX_LIKE_ENVIRONMENT=1 variable or zone or other
non-standard method to change behavior would _not_ be something that
script writers would know about, nor would it be something that's
necessarily reasonable for them to accomodate. It wouldn't be a bug
James Carlson wrote:
Hugh McIntyre writes:
To some extent there are two environments right now, because people with
/usr/ucb first in the path see different versions of commands. Some
things occasionally break, and bugs get filed [*]. The /usr/gnu project
will cause the same type of issue.
On Fri, 18 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but the problem with that is that the majority of the community and
OGB is Sun employees. Sun can use their power to pay people to work on
OpenSolaris, which is good, but it can also swing the scales in their
favor.
Why is this a problem?
--- Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's there, doesn't look too busy yet, but as you may have seen
there's a
guy doing some work for the google summer of code, or whatever it's
called.
I followed the links given earlier. I'll be following up.
(I almost called it the Bob Marley
Ian Murdock wrote:
And that would break... what, exactly?
We don't know.
We know it has the potential of breaking scripts that,
for better or worse, parse the output of /bin/df.
It can (and has been) argued that those scripts are
already not portable to Linux, since the output is
different
Brian Gupta wrote:
So, I'd expect to see some documents from you that describe this
product. Have you a 1-pager that describes the basics?
template deleted
Ok, I think I see where the vision is going to hit a wall. There is
definitely a process disconnect between agile development and
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Peter C. Norton wrote:
Have you found a way to print the complete argv (or something like a
stackable w flag as in linux's procps) so that you can actually see
the entire java command line for the process that's chewing it's way
through VM (seprately from the other 20 java
Patrick Finch wrote:
I checked http://docs.opensolaris.org/ and
http://www.opensolaris.org/docs but there wasn't anything there. I
think we really need a newbie portal. (and link to it from everywhere)
I totally agree: this is no criticism of what OpenSolaris.org has
become, but it
Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Peter C. Norton wrote:
Have you found a way to print the complete argv (or something like a
stackable w flag as in linux's procps) so that you can actually see
the entire java command line for the process that's chewing it's way
through VM (seprately
Patrick Finch wrote:
I'd say the only marketing voice that counts for OpenSolaris is that
of the
Marketing Community here on OpenSolaris.org (of which Sun's marketing
is
but a member).
The OpenSolaris marketing community has never done anything on the lines
of product management
Brian Gupta wrote:
Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris
distribution with a
regular release schedule.
So, I'd expect to see some documents from you that describe this
product. Have you a 1-pager that describes the basics?
Project Description
Risks and Assumptions
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about making -h the
default? I doubt that would be standards compliant..
As I'll say till I'm blue in the face, I'm as obsessed with
compatibility as anyone here. But I have to ask:
On 5/16/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fundamentally, Sun seems to look at OpenSolaris as a product, and I think
there's fault in that vision. In your example, I would site that Fedora
and Ubuntu are different to me. Why? Because Fedora is supposed to be the
open and free version of
On 5/17/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about making -h the
default? I doubt that would be standards compliant..
As I'll say till I'm blue in the face, I'm as obsessed with
Ian Murdock writes:
(And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
with a Solaris classic environment.)
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one of
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
likely, nobody will care because supporting both is not one of the
requirements.
Worse, probably, some new features will work only in classic
and others will only
On 5/17/07, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Murdock writes:
(And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
with a Solaris classic environment.)
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
I don't see why. If both environments are present,
On 5/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If not, then one of those environments will just rot over time.
Things will fail to work right in one of the environments and, quite
likely, nobody will care because supporting both is not one of the
requirements.
Worse, probably, some new
Ian Murdock writes:
On 5/17/07, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Murdock writes:
(And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
with a Solaris classic environment.)
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
I don't see why. If
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/17/07, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Murdock writes:
(And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
with a Solaris classic environment.)
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
I
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:06:50 -0400, you wrote:
On 5/17/07, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Murdock writes:
(And, once again, I'm not sure I see anything here that isn't fixed
with a Solaris classic environment.)
Do we force future project teams to test in both environments?
I
On 5/16/07, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The opposite could be said about Solaris. A) Solaris has an
illustrious history of adopting useless standards,
That part is pretty well true. Anyone remember XFN?
I do. I even used it.
In fairness, I think the people who worked on that
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
I see Fedora as a missed opportunity (for RH). They had the volume market
(with Red Hat Linux), and they abandoned it. They created Fedora to fill
the void, largely because they didn't want Debian coming in and nibbling
away at them from below, but that
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
No, I'm simply pointing out that, like most things, there's
a spectrum here, where we can't change anything is on one end and
we can change everything is on the other end.
Solaris is closer to the former, and Linux is closer to the latter.
While I don't
--- Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
Another problem is closed binaries. Only Sun has source code for
it..
How do you think any other vendor can offer support
independently from
Sun?
Exactly why our community needs to replace any closed
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Speaking of that, how is the Emancipation Project doing these days?
You can see updates of the progress of the Google Summer of Code sponsored
work on either:
http://i18n-freedom.blogspot.com/
or: http://planet.opensolaris.org/soc2007/
--
-Alan
On 17/05/07, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimately, I'd like to see Sun start charging for Solaris use, in the
same way Red Hat charges for RHES use. Solaris belongs to Sun.
Sun tried that, and failed in my opinion. Until they build their
market share back up, the fact that you can
By the way,
earlier today we crossed 50,000 people registered on
the site. We are
diversifying indeed.
That is wonderful. I hope that figure also translates
to users. I wonder which distro draws new blood...
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Chung Hang Christopher Chan wrote:
By the way,
earlier today we crossed 50,000 people registered on
the site. We are
diversifying indeed.
That is wonderful. I hope that figure also translates
to users. I wonder which distro draws new blood...
The vast majority of the recent numbers are
One thing to think about is how standards have changed.. It's no
longer big vendors in a room deciding what the standard is (i.e.,
the top down approach). It's more the developers (largely in open
source projects) deciding what the standard is as a side
effect of writing their code.. How do we
And we can also make the utilities behave human friendly when the output
is a terminal and not in ohtercases, although that has the problem of
making ls -l and ls -l | less behave completely differently.
Another crazy idea would be to make utilities sensitive to a certain
environment
And we can also make the utilities behave human friendly when the output
is a terminal and not in ohtercases, although that has the problem of
making ls -l and ls -l | less behave completely differently.
Another crazy idea would be to make utilities sensitive to a certain
environment
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
Why not? Isn't OpenSolaris a product that has a market, and don't we
need to make sure we're addressing the right market? In my experience,
the most successful open source projects are the ones that are managed like
products (GNOME, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.).
Ian Murdock wrote:
As I'll say till I'm blue in the face, I'm as obsessed with
compatibility as anyone here. But I have to ask: What exactly
would break if -h *were* the default behavior?
All of the (admittedly limited) versions of Linux I've tried provide df
-k as the default, not df
Hey,
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Fundamentally, Sun seems to look at OpenSolaris as a product, and I
think there's fault in that vision.
Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris distribution with a
regular release schedule.
One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing to think about is how standards have changed.. It's no
longer big vendors in a room deciding what the standard is (i.e.,
the top down approach). It's more the developers (largely in open
source projects) deciding what the standard is as a side
effect of
I checked http://docs.opensolaris.org/ and
http://www.opensolaris.org/docs but there wasn't anything there. I
think we really need a newbie portal. (and link to it from everywhere)
I totally agree: this is no criticism of what OpenSolaris.org has
become, but it resembles http://www.tux.org/
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Rich Teer wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
Oh! None taken. We clearly don't know what we're doing, and it shows.
I hereby offer my services as a consultant in this process--on a fee-paying
basis (I'm currently resting between gigs and could really use the
Glynn Foster wrote:
I am very confused about some of the recent events in regards to
OpenSolaris, including your involvment, and not sure how marketing and
engineering co-exist in the free world to be honest.
Actually, in my experience there has been *more* of a need for open source
On Tue 05/15/07 at 17:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My larger point: There's a big difference between ABI breakage (something
Linux does regularly, and you're absolutely right to criticize it for
doing that--but that's OPPORTUNITY) and tweaking the default output of a
utility that may be
I have perhaps a more general question.
Why not fully flesh out the /usr/gnu personality and just provide
users with either a default .profile/.cshrc (or *gasp* new user
documentation) rather than wreaking havoc on 10+ years of
compatibility?
Why not provide default aliases for these new users
Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
hard time moving over to Solaris. I find the goal to be laughable and
I would far more upset if my OS of choice was diluted to support a
marketing initiative.
How exactly did you learn Solaris? (It's easy to forget).
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:50:34PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/12/07, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:05:38AM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/10/07, Frank Van Der Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter C. Norton wrote:
You may continue to be snarky
GNU/Linux has had a long and illustrious history of ignoring standards
when it suits them. I have no interest in seeing Solaris travel down
that same path.
The opposite could be said about Solaris. A) Solaris has an
illustrious history of adopting useless standards, and b) solaris has
an
Brian Gupta writes:
GNU/Linux has had a long and illustrious history of ignoring standards
when it suits them. I have no interest in seeing Solaris travel down
that same path.
The opposite could be said about Solaris. A) Solaris has an
illustrious history of adopting useless standards,
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:37 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their minds around
products, they start to associate revenue streams with them. OpenSolaris
should not be thought of in that regard, and more to the point, Sun
should focus their
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Al Hopper wrote:
Rich - please keep your sales pitch off this list. And your current work
status is equally off-topic and inappropriate. As an OGB member you
should be displaying a higher standard of examplary behavior.
You're quite correct, and I apologise for my OT
Doug Scott writes:
Steve Stallion wrote:
Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
hard time moving over to Solaris.
So you prefer that Solaris always will have a much smaller community the
Linux?
If the choice really is between change the default units for
James Carlson wrote:
Doug Scott writes:
Steve Stallion wrote:
Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
hard time moving over to Solaris.
So you prefer that Solaris always will have a much smaller community the
Linux?
If the choice really is
James Carlson wrote:
Doug Scott writes:
Steve Stallion wrote:
Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
hard time moving over to Solaris.
So you prefer that Solaris always will have a much smaller community the
Linux?
If the choice really is
Moinak Ghosh writes:
IMHO many of the little tidbits can be sorted out without breaking
compatibility.
Indeed, many can. Aliases might be part of the answer, as might be
better GUIs so that most people just don't care about df output.
My point was that _assuming_ that command line
James Carlson wrote:
Moinak Ghosh writes:
IMHO many of the little tidbits can be sorted out without breaking
compatibility.
Indeed, many can. Aliases might be part of the answer, as might be
better GUIs so that most people just don't care about df output.
My point was that
On 5/16/07, Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
hard time moving over to Solaris. I find the goal to be laughable and
I would far more upset if my OS of choice was diluted to support a
marketing initiative.
How exactly
Doug Scott writes:
James Carlson wrote:
My point was that _assuming_ that command line interfaces are somehow
less of an interface than C libraries, and just changing the
defaults without due consideration is a serious mistake. Fortunately,
a reasonable architectural review should point
On 16/05/07, Brian Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
hard time moving over to Solaris. I find the goal to be laughable and
I would far more upset if my OS of choice was diluted to support a
marketing initiative.
How exactly
On 16/05/07, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:37 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their minds around
products, they start to associate revenue streams with them. OpenSolaris
should not be thought of in that regard,
James Carlson wrote:
Yes, but that misses the point. We don't just write stability notices
into our man pages for our health. They actually do mean something
about what we're promising to deliver
Luckily df(1M) is lacking such a stability notice. Is this a bug :)
I am all for compatibility,
On 16/05/07, Doug Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Doug Scott writes:
Steve Stallion wrote:
Personally, I am not terribly worried about GNU/Linux users who have a
hard time moving over to Solaris.
So you prefer that Solaris always will have a much smaller community the
As far a I know, Sun's binary compatibility does not actually cover
scripts. My reading
of the terms and conditions, it seems that only C and C++ applications
are covered. Though
customers should be informed well in advance in any changes that could
affect their scripts.
Binary compatibility
On 16/05/07, Doug Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Moinak Ghosh writes:
IMHO many of the little tidbits can be sorted out without breaking
compatibility.
Indeed, many can. Aliases might be part of the answer, as might be
better GUIs so that most people just don't
Doug Scott writes:
James Carlson wrote:
Yes, but that misses the point. We don't just write stability notices
into our man pages for our health. They actually do mean something
about what we're promising to deliver
Luckily df(1M) is lacking such a stability notice. Is this a bug :)
By
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:53:16PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:50:34PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/12/07, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:05:38AM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/10/07, Frank Van Der Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Scott writes:
James Carlson wrote:
My point was that _assuming_ that command line interfaces are somehow
less of an interface than C libraries, and just changing the
defaults without due consideration is a serious mistake. Fortunately,
a
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:32 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 16/05/07, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:37 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their minds around
products, they start to associate revenue streams with
Joerg Schilling writes:
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our official binary compatibility guarantee agreement doesn't cover
scripts, mostly because there's no tool that could plausibly check
them for conformance to documented interfaces.
Do you mean checking the scripts for what
Doug Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am all for compatibility, but we now have to work out what is todays
standard, and how far we go preserving compatibility with older
standards. I have been through the change-over from SunOS 4.1.x to
Solaris 2.X (an extremely large change). While the
For me it took a few hours to port my apps that I use for everyday
work, my shell, my editor, The early access Solaris 2 Packages
did come with SunStudio so compiling was no problem.
The biggest headaches I found were things like signal() and fixing
off-by-one malloc errors the Solaris 2
Joerg Schilling writes:
Do it like SGI and let ps -efc behave like a SVr4 ps and ps aux
like a BSD ps. You only need to look for the '-' in the args.
Not just SGI, but AIX as well. That solution works fine, is pretty
well known, and since /usr/bin/ps without '-' just gives an error
message,
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:40:40PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
first were a real pain different ps command, in the end I got use to
the differences. All applications/scripts etc we needed to change came
This is the only real problem for now and it could be prevented easily:
Do it
On Wed, 16 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
Do it like SGI and let ps -efc behave like a SVr4 ps and ps aux
like a BSD ps. You only need to look for the '-' in the args.
Not just SGI, but AIX as well. That solution works fine, is pretty
well known, and since
Chris Ricker writes:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
Do it like SGI and let ps -efc behave like a SVr4 ps and ps aux
like a BSD ps. You only need to look for the '-' in the args.
Not just SGI, but AIX as well. That solution works fine, is pretty
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Ian Murdock wrote:
As I'll say till I'm blue in the face, I'm as obsessed with
compatibility as anyone here. But I have to ask: What exactly
would break if -h *were* the default behavior?
All of the (admittedly limited) versions of Linux I've
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Glynn Foster wrote:
Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris distribution
with a regular release schedule.
Yes, and what I'm saying is that Indiana should be the product that is
marketed, not OpenSolaris. I'm fine with Sun getting behind whatever
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
