--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I mean was
--Works in x86 32bit but not in 64bit, and not in Sparc
--Works with Bash but not ksh
--Works with single core but not dual or even 8 cores
--Works with cli but crashes X Window
etc.
None of these are considered acceptable at Sun.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a
CDDL
failure proofs?
No; it only proves that if we dual license that Debian (you?) will
fork a GNU only version.
The anti
From where I see it, the participation issue is due to a process
that 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 OpenSolairs.ORG.
It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source base,
I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living daylights
out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's mostly a
one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's just not open
I will have to agree with you and stay corrected here. Indeed it is hard
to measure growing speed. We are growing, but I *think* we could achieve
better speed if a) we change license, b) we will simplify contribution
and c) we will fix closed bins issue.
Oh, I think we can grow faster, too.
Since your commenting on good things in B56 I'll add the following server
observations (on X4100):
- Boot seems faster
- There isn't any more first boot lag... Solaris has always dog'ed when
dealing with devices aft
er an install finishes. This is often seen when you have installed a system
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
interesting.
Good thing that people who disagree with you are insulted, otherwise
we might get the impression that OpenSolaris is a welcoming
community... glad we got
Folks,
I've been following this thread and I think we're missing an important part of
the Honeycomb project proposal... the desire to create a fixed content storage
capability for the OpenSolaris environment.
Note: It's cool that these folks initially delivered the functionality in an
from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/, about CDDL:
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the
GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained,
while the GPL only requires certain
Erast Benson wrote:
I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
participation from outside of Sun which is what currently our relative
numbers are by looking at ON consolidation. And yes, we are growing, but
not fast enough to me...
Sun's had a 20+ year head start in terms
Shawn Walker wrote:
Exactly. I don't see hordes of people flocking to develop for GNU Hurd despite
it's GPL license. I also don't see tons of Linux drivers available for it
either despite compatibility of the licenses.
The GNU Hurd project is proof enough that a license alone doesn't mean
Alan Burlison wrote On 02/01/07 17:46,:
Dale Ghent wrote:
So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
Which bits of the site are you interested in helping
Hey,
Alan Burlison wrote:
Dale Ghent wrote:
So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
Which bits of the site are you interested in helping with? As I said
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since your commenting on good things in B56 I'll add the following server
observations (on X4100):
- Boot seems faster
- There isn't any more first boot lag... Solaris has always dog'ed when
dealing with devices aft
er an install finishes. This is often seen
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Christopher Mahan wrote:
What I mean was
--Works in x86 32bit but not in 64bit, and not in Sparc
You broke my laptop it runs 64 bit and you broke my NFS server it is
SPARC.
In specific cases this one might actually be okay if it is functionality
that only applies to x86 in 32bit and there
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which we
wouldn't be able to take back.
so do we need to continue this discussion then, that doesn't sounds like
a fair outcome ?
--
Nope, stock firmware.
It might be a good thing to upgrade it.
Was this the 4-8 minute hang on boot trying to access the fake USB
floppy/CD?
4-8 minute? Nope, never seen that one, thankfully. On B43 a system can
panic and be back online in 8 minutes, which is the time for the dump,
Hello opensolaris-discuss,
Sun is able to give ok to other companies to redistribute Solaris
(see http://solaris.task.gda.pl/). So why not SXCR?
I can help with http://sxcr.task.gda.pl or
http://solaris.task.gda.pl/sxcr to make it happen, probably others
can help too in their locations.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 09:09:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and when did kprobes and ReiserFS integrate?
In Opensolaris? Not at all. In Linux which is probably offtopic
here it's 2004 (kprobes) and 2001 (reiserfs).
___
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 09:09:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and when did kprobes and ReiserFS integrate?
In Opensolaris? Not at all. In Linux which is probably offtopic
here it's 2004 (kprobes) and 2001 (reiserfs).
How about lkcd
Christopher Mahan writes:
Could performance regression be acceptable if there is, let's say,
tangible development potential? For example: a tool is reimplemented
in Python to allow very competent python devs to take it to the next
level?
Sure. You just need to be explicit about what you're
On 2/1/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello opensolaris-discuss,
Sun is able to give ok to other companies to redistribute Solaris
(see http://solaris.task.gda.pl/). So why not SXCR?
I can help with http://sxcr.task.gda.pl or
http://solaris.task.gda.pl/sxcr to make it
while running make for ssh . i am getting the following error
sshconnect1.c: In function `respond_to_rsa_challenge':
sshconnect1.c:162: `MD5_CTX' undeclared (first use in this function)
sshconnect1.c:162: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
sshconnect1.c:162: for each function it
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 that other kernel, and they would if we went
gpl3, that would be
more helpful to the project than any
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 architecture
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 that other kernel, and they would if we went
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 available
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 that other kernel, and they would
I don't see where they're distributing it themselves (other than possibly on
DVD). It looks like all their download links just point back at the main SUN
site.
-Shawn
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
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 chance
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
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 3rd party
Yes, they can, but if that happened today, it wouldn't be a problem
since CDDL mixes with CDDL. If OpenSolaris were dual-licensed, it still
wouldn't be a problem because incoming CDDL only files will mix ok with
OpenSolaris. The problem is pulling in GPLv3-only files --- those won't
mix with
Yes, they can, but if that happened today, it wouldn't be a problem
since CDDL mixes with CDDL. If OpenSolaris were dual-licensed, it still
wouldn't be a problem because incoming CDDL only files will mix ok with
OpenSolaris. The problem is pulling in GPLv3-only files --- those won't
mix
Hello Shawn,
Thursday, February 1, 2007, 4:52:29 PM, you wrote:
SW I don't see where they're distributing it themselves (other than
SW possibly on DVD). It looks like all their download links just point back at
the main SUN site.
No. Actually I tried it to be sure and quickly received an
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:49 -0800, 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 party or
mewalal yadav wrote:
while running make for ssh . i am getting the following error
sshconnect1.c: In function `respond_to_rsa_challenge':
sshconnect1.c:162: `MD5_CTX' undeclared (first use in this function)
sshconnect1.c:162: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
sshconnect1.c:162:
Great work everyone!
benr.
Ditto (wholeheartedly)!
I have changed my default boot option from SuSE 10.2 to SXCR 56.
I also strongly recommend the Asus M2N motherboard for anyone interested in
getting on the Solaris Express train. With Build 56, now everything (both NIC
ports, sound,
--- Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
What I mean was
--Works in x86 32bit but not in 64bit, and not in Sparc
You broke my laptop it runs 64 bit and you broke my NFS server it
is
SPARC.
In specific cases this one might actually be okay if it is
Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't someone just as easily fork under the CDDL?
I think it's the Can't take back changes bit that is problematic, not
the Fork bit. If I'm understanding correctly, if a bug was fixed in a
GPLv3-only fork it would appear that fix could *not* be
Hello,
I'm running Sol 10 x86. I keep it up to date.
I'm having a problem with the usb keyboard going offline. Is anyone familiar
with this? To get it back online, I have to unplug it and plug it back in.
This is from the messages log.
Feb 1 10:58:32 ws1209 genunix: [ID 408114 kern.info]
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you mis-read my message or i didn't explain it fully. I do appreciate
CDDL benefits, I just trying to say there is a theory :-) that
GPLv3/CDDL dual-license will benefit us even more. Again, dual-licensing
alone is not enough, but still will be helpful
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
numbers are by looking at ON consolidation. And yes, we are growing, but
not fast enough to me...
I'd like us to grow faster too, but at the end of the day, these
things happen at their own pace. If we adopt GPLv3, has the Open
Solaris community
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
Erast Benson wrote:
I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
participation from outside of Sun
What are your expectations here? That at some point in the
future, more than 25% of the contributions will come from
outside of Sun? 50%? 75%? 100%?
This community is
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 03:53 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Some people started a personal attack against me. These people just dislike
cooperation and did combinetheir personal attacks with anti CDDL FUD.
Meanwhile there is an official statement from
Not true. All contributions require you to sign a CA. We need to be
sure that you either wrote the code or have the right to it. We don't
want to run afoul of hidden patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Correct. If the code is a pull, i.e., a Sun employee is pulling
outside code into OpenSolaris, then a CA isn't required because a) all
Sun employees sign a similar agreement when they join; and b) all code
that comes in via this route undergoes a more extensive legal review.
(We have an
With the current OSS driver, there's a bug in the full duplex operation. You
need to get the older rc2-179 version from
http://www.opensound.com/test/rc2-179/ directory.
ALternatively you can edit /platform/i86pc/kernel/drv/ossaudios.conf and set
ossaudios_openmode=0 and reboot and now your
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/
Well said John. This is my expectation as well.
-- mark
John Plocher wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
participation from outside of Sun
What are your expectations here? That at some point in the
future, more than 25% of the
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 08:34 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
failure proofs?
No; it only proves that if we dual
John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
interesting.
Good thing that people who disagree with you are insulted, otherwise
we might get the impression that
* 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_bins that
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
knowingly, without a
OK. I'll buy it.
Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed
fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could
somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6 months?
Could it be over-all number of users on mailing lists? How many
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
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 available at
On 1-Feb-07, at 10:51 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
interesting.
Good thing that people who disagree with you are insulted,
* 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 generic like that as
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 11:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because their primary beef is Linux versus Solaris, *not* GPL versus
CDDL. If they weren't beating us with the license stick, they be using
something else instead. Trying to satisfy the Linux community is
wrong-headed, the
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
knowingly, without a
On Thursday 01 February 2007 12:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source
base, I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living
daylights out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's
mostly a
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 OpenSolaris project
And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the
community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?!
That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas
are worthless, but insulting me as a person is unacceptable. You're
guilty of it,
My apologies. I meant no offense.
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a
CDDL
failure proofs?
No; it only proves that
On 2/1/07, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. I'll buy it.
Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed
fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could
somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6 months?
Could it be over-all number
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 08:49 pm, Simon Phipps 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 that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the
community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?!
That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas
are worthless, but insulting me as a person is
While that would be handy, we already have a good program in place, its just
buried. I refer to Bite Sized Bugs.
I've pointed to this problem before: how do you find them? Bugs are (were)
flagged in the database but finding a list of these is difficult or impossible.
I've suggested in the
Ben Rockwood wrote:
While that would be handy, we already have a good program in place, its just
buried. I refer to Bite Sized Bugs.
I've pointed to this problem before: how do you find them? Bugs are (were)
flagged in the database but finding a list of these is difficult or
impossible.
Lynn,
all good points - but you're missing the point that Rich, Alan,
Darren, and I have raised:
Honeycomb is not yet ready to have source be published, or do open
development.
Given that, I will reiterate for the 3rd time:
I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss, and develop the
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Ben Rockwood wrote:
The idea here is that if someone sits down on a Saturday afternoon
and wants a challenge they pull up the list, pull one that looks tasty
and start working on a solution. Its got to be super easy for people
to get started this way.
FWIW, I think
We don't. I was being hypothetical.
Shawn Walker wrote:
OpenSolaris. The problem is pulling in GPLv3-only
files --- those won't
mix with CDDL. (The GPLv3 files already in
OpenSolaris have the
assembly exception which allows them to mix with
incoming CDDL files.
But if incoming GPLv3
Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?
In my opinion,yes
And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least
we
On 2/1/07, Ben Rockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While that would be handy, we already have a good program in place, its
just buried. I refer to Bite Sized Bugs.
...
The idea here is that if someone sits down on a Saturday afternoon and
wants a challenge they pull up the list, pull one
Peter Tribble writes:
I think we need to advertise what projects or communities need help at any
point in time, and for each community or project to identify key issues
where extra hands would make a difference. At the moment it's very difficult
even for those of us who've been involved with
My install went fine have audio drivers now as well but I'm having difficulty
with my OpenSolaris.org registration; a couple days in a row now when I try to
login my username or password fails . Once I had to change the password to
login another time I had to re-register with OpenSolaris.org.
unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers,
but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not
to late to fix that if at all possible/needed.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:28 +, Peter Tribble wrote:
On 2/1/07, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers,
but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not
to late to fix that if at all possible/needed.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:28 +, Peter Tribble wrote:
On 2/1/07, Erast Benson [EMAIL
James C. McPherson wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers,
but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not
to late to fix that if at all possible/needed.
Hi Erast,
I *really* do not understand why you appear to
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the
community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?!
That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas
are
On Thursday 01 February 2007 12:57 pm, James C. McPherson wrote:
Yes, the number of those who would call themselves part of the
OpenSolaris community is probably not as large as Linux-adherents,
but who really cares? Why does it matter?
Hear, hear!
One thing is for certain...the Linux
On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what they want you to think Alan; he'd be promoting it
rather than Gnu/Hurd; so we get all those followers (what, all five
of them)
I don't want to be misled by a smoke screen though.
But if they don't say it in public
[b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank
you.[/b]
James C. McPherson wrote:
Hi Erast,
I *really* do not understand why you appear to be
so concerned
about how large or extensive the OpenSolaris
community actually
is.
Yes, the number of those who
A friend mentioned to me today that it was interesting that Sun licensed Java
under GPLv2, but Solaris under CDDL, and that it would have seemed more
logical to license them the other way around. On the surface this is true,
but for those that know what is underneath the surface, know that it
[b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank
you.[/b]
How nice of you.
S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was about to send a repy but now I won't.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
S Destika wrote:
[b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank
you.[/b]
James C. McPherson wrote:
Hi Erast, I *really* do not understand why you appear to be
so concerned
about how large or extensive the OpenSolaris
community actually
is.
Yes, the number of
S Destika wrote:
[b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank
you.[/b]
If you cannot be bothered setting up a valid email
address for the mailing lists then perhaps you're
not really interested in being part of the community.
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you friend does not understand much of licensing; one of
the nice things of the CDDL is that it allows you to build things without
having to go to the trouble to publish all your modifications.
As the friend in question, I'm going to have to say that there
Hello,
I wasn't sure which forum to post to, so if there is a more appropriate one
then please let me know.
Earlier this week I installed Build 55 on my old E250 to test out ZFS. I setup
a couple of zpools and used SVM to mirror my boot disks. Now I'm trying to run
a LiveUpgrade to Build 56
I want to exit of this group opensolaris-code.
Thanks
Kuene Robson
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 1/31/07, Mike Kupfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn == Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shawn Although puzzling enough it still has proprietary source code
Shawn headers in the diffs.
An unfortunate artifact of how we delete files. (Or are there others
besides e1000g_ddict.h?)
mike
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
Trying to satisfy the Linux community is wrong-headed, the only
community that's we need to satisfy is *our* community.
Satisfying and existing are two completely different things, and unfortunately
we must exist with them, Linux will not go away any time soon.
Oh, we don't need to co-exist
On Thursday 01 February 2007 02:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A friend mentioned to me today that it was interesting that Sun licensed
Java under GPLv2, but Solaris under CDDL, and that it would have seemed
more logical to license them the other way around. On the surface this is
true,
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
Alan DuBoff wrote:
These are the same people that wonder why after close to 2 years, open source
software that is in Sun's Solaris distribution are not in OpenSolaris. When
they ask why Xorg, GNOME, CUPs, or any other technology that is included in
Solaris is not in OpenSolaris at this time,
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 party
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
