Well on powerfull aspect of solaris command recall using the vi is the ability
to search and execute a command which is e.g. 20 in the history list with a
simple /, while in linux bash you have to hit the up arrow 20 times.
I think this makes the speed difference.
Setting up the command recall
On 7/15/05, George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well on powerfull aspect of solaris command recall using the vi is the
ability to search and execute a command which is e.g. 20 in the history list
with a simple /, while in linux bash you have to hit the up arrow 20 times.
I think this makes the
Sunil wrote:
The above quoting is all I can see of your problem.
I have no idea how to try to help.
(web fora are not useful discussion tools.)
you mean you can't see all the messages in the same thread here on os.org? I
can see them alright.
I'm on the mailing list. I don't use web
because someone pointed out in IRC that it was news to them:
']' and '[' are single-key accelerators for ::step and ::step over,
respectively.
they're awfully handy.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi Shawn,
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 7/14/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last time i built DBUS (about 9 months ago or so), it sort of worked,
emphasis on sort of. AFACS, HAL is in a pretty incipient stage, and,
to my knowledge, there's been very little (if any) Solaris work done.
Jasse Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tests that are only based on SX don't help OpenSolaris.
I think you mean that tests on SX don't help Schillix.
Do you think your Schillix distro is the OpenSolaris reference?
It sounds like that anyway.
If SX Build 18 it out, then Sun now also has an
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blastwave has all of their own set of libraries, and Sun has many of
their own in /usr/sfw even, Sunfreeware has their own, pkgsrc has theirs,
and I imagine that gentoo/portaris has their own also...
With OpenSolaris,
Also note that my song is in one fat32 partition and
mozilla tar is on another fat32. The destination of
untar is on / which is logging. Is the pcfs driver
the culprit here? I have doubt about that because
bzip2 never figured in the above mentioned 5 seconds
in iosnoop. Moreover, the
James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that there needs to be a separateion between OpenSolaris
source and the software base sources. So how about something simple ?
Each distribution would be free to keep there own source management
location/solution, this would only expect a
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/14/05, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main features of GNU tar is compliance problems.
I recommend to avoid GNU tar whereever possible.
You cannot replace /usr/bin/tar with a program that does not implement
the features os
Theo Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's worse than adding double hyphened long options? Also require
no hyphen for other tools:
http://jerkcity.com/jerkcity2434.html
PS wars have been started by ATT in 1984.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353
Joerg,
Given you are author of SPS PMS, Do you have time to evaluate TWW HPMS ?
And provide your comments ?
Here is an example software build source for apache.
ftp://support.thewrittenword.com/dists/7.0/src/apache-2.0.52/sb-db.xml
anyone with sb tool installed can run sb sb-db.xml to get
Jake Hamby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right. At least my comment led to an interesting discussion, as I
didn't know about star and its functionality. It might also be worthwhile to
look at FreeBSD's tar, which is fast, automatically recognizes .gz and .bz2
archives (and decodes them
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options
of GNU related software?
Personally, I now consider it preferable (like a little bonus) when a
tool or command provides long option equivalents for short options.
Why?
If long
George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well on powerfull aspect of solaris command recall using the vi is the
ability to search and execute a command which is e.g. 20 in the history list
with a simple /, while in linux bash you have to hit the up arrow 20 times.
I think this makes the speed
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/05, George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well on powerfull aspect of solaris command recall using the vi is the
ability to search and execute a command which is e.g. 20 in the history
list with a simple /, while in linux bash you have to hit the
George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well on powerfull aspect of solaris command recall using the vi is the
ability to search and exe
cute a command which is e.g. 20 in the history list with a simple /, while in
linux bash you have
to hit the up arrow 20 times.
I think this makes the speed
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Smake warns about all illegal Makefile content. If you dowmload the latest
illegal according to which standard document and version ?
Please give a
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If long options are present, then people will use them and if people use them,
they are not POSIX compliant anymore.
Who or what is not POSIX compliant? The people? :-)
But even if you are talking about scripts, this is not correct. A script
that
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I see not reason why FreeBSD people did start another tar implementation
recently.
Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until
recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and
then it was
Hello opensolaris-discuss,
I've installed snv_b18 yesterday completely over the network on my
laptop using PXE. Most of the installation went smoothly, but here
are some problems I encountered:
1. GRUB can't load it's configuration (menu.lst) from tftp server.
I snooped traffic
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until
recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and
then it was realized that it could be extended to a BSD-licensed tar
implemented using
Chris Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot see that it would give more performance than star.
star at the time libarchive was started was:
* GPL
* not a library
Before that lib project started, I did aproach the FreeBSD people
and offered to change star's license to *BSD.
They were
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If long options are present, then people will use them and if people use
them,
they are not POSIX compliant anymore.
...
...
But again, it is not acceptable to misrepresent the standard...
+1. Most
Star ised -bz long before GNU tar started with -j
Star implement -o as documented on SUSv2 (UNIX-98)
GNU tar does not correctly follow this standard.
but Jorg, now that -j is there and is present all over in many places, does it
not make sense to provide an alias for -bz and -o in star.
Sunil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Star ised -bz long before GNU tar started with -j
Star implement -o as documented on SUSv2 (UNIX-98)
GNU tar does not correctly follow this standard.
but Jorg, now that -j is there and is present all over in many places, does
it not make sense to
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:46:35AM -0700, Dan Mick wrote:
you mean you can't see all the messages in the same thread here on os.org?
I can see them alright.
I'm on the mailing list. I don't use web fora. See above.
This continues to be a problem we'll need to resolve.
Auto-quoting in
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options
of GNU related software?
Personally, I now consider it preferable (like a little bonus) when a
tool or command provides long option
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 12:54:49PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If a few things are granted with the packages, it would be possible to
reuse the work of other people:
Yes, and while there are some good points here, this list in general
shows exactly the kind of provincialism that makes it
149 nscan = (last_total_pages *
es * (tune.t_fsflushr))/v.v_autoup;
nscan can be reduced by removing memory from the
system; by lowering
tune.t_fsflushr (but apparently that is already
reduced to 1 on S10 GA); or
by increasing the v.v_autoup tunable.
tune.t_fsflushr used to be
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 12:54:49PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If a few things are granted with the packages, it would be possible to
reuse the work of other people:
Yes, and while there are some good points here, this list in general
shows
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling POSIX a law and calling it a recommendation are extreme
ends of the spectum is you ask me. How about meeting in the middle and
calling it a key UNIX/Linux industry standard?
This amounts to a recommendation which many have followed.
Then again,
All,
I wanted to flag to the community that I will be developing a metrics package
to be published eventually somewhere on OpenSolaris.org. I already have a few
key measures ready, such as volumes of page views, numbers of community
members, number of discussion posts etc., but I really would
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling POSIX a law and calling it a recommendation are extreme
ends of the spectum is you ask me. How about meeting in the middle and
calling it a key UNIX/Linux industry standard?
This amounts to a
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
build a community so we don't just have a community of 1 or two, we
need others opinions as well and
ghee teo wrote:
The HP testdrive program offers machines setup with different distros, for
this to work, we will need to set up machines with different favours of
OpenSolaris so that the setup times are minimum. In those cases, each owners
of the different favours of OpenSolaris should take
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 7/14/05, Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn wrote:
... I see a similar trend in Linux attempting to be birthed even now:
http://www.componentizedlinux.org/. The idea of a similar project
being birthed for OpenSolaris is an exciting
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kinds of risk? By definition, existing scripts and customers don't use
the long options, so this would be justified only by how it enabled new
markets (i.e., porting from Linux...); adding long options diverges the
commands from the POSIX spec, so
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling POSIX a law and calling it a recommendation are extreme
ends of the spectum is you ask me. How about meeting in the middle and
calling it a key UNIX/Linux
because someone pointed out in IRC that it was news to them:
']' and '[' are single-key accelerators for ::step and ::step over,
respectively.
And don't forget about widescreen mode: ^/ (And ^/ to restore again.)
Not to put too sharp a point on it, but it's the best feature ever in the
What is the current status of the Cypto Code
integration with the main sources? Are they still
seperate or are they merged and part of nightly builds
now?
Thanks,
-STEVEl
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
Because these forums are surely being read by many (probably thousands)
of people who are far less familiar with Solaris/OpenSolaris than the
people who post here, I'd like to strongly caution people about the use
of the phrase on OpenSolaris -- especially saying something resides
or runs on
Can we all at least agree on two things right now.
#1 if we work together and commit changes/ports/updates/security fixes to
a single repository it will help out everyone.
Agreed.
#2 That we will work together to make #1 happen.
Agreed.
If we can just just agree on these two
Hi there,
a week ago I read, that the development resources for the Java Desktop System
will be decreased, since JDS stayed behind the expectations.
I think it never had the chance to become a platform for third party apps, what
would be necessary for a future-oriented unix desktop.
Using Gnome
On 7/15/05, Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because these forums are surely being read by many (probably thousands)
of people who are far less familiar with Solaris/OpenSolaris than the
people who post here, I'd like to strongly caution people about the use
of the phrase on OpenSolaris
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:48:48PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Let's start talking about Sun make when it is opensource.
Fair enough.
One problem with GNU make is that it is not well maintained (it still has
unfixed bugs that have been reported and accepted as bugs in 1998).
Another
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
It is currently impossible to create a 100% Sun compatible libm.
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why?
Joerg Schilling wrote:
libm not only depends on ANSI C-99 but on undocumented hidden
behavior of Studio 10.
Can you report
On 7/15/05, Daniel Johnsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
a week ago I read, that the development resources for the Java Desktop System
will be decreased, since JDS stayed behind the expectations.
I think it never had the chance to become a platform for third party apps,
what would be
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
This amounts to a recommendation which many have followed.
Sure, but my point is that standards like POSIX are more important than
even that wording conveys.
It cannot have been exceedingly important to the people who wrote the
code in
Is it important (as an architectural goal...) that we could say
runs on OpenSolaris[1]
in the face of multiple OpenSolaris based distros?
That is, if someone develops an application for Sun's Nevada release,
*should* we expect it to, at a binary compatable level, just run
correctly on
On 7/15/05, Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's fine to suggest that the makefiles should be fixed; I agree with
that worthy goal. In many cases, however, it's not worth the effort,
especially if the upstream maintainers won't accept the changes. In
these cases it doesn't really
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well on powerfull aspect of solaris command recall using the vi is the ability
to search and exe
cute a command which is e.g. 20 in the history list with a simple /, while in
linux bash you have
to hit the up arrow 20 times.
I
Calling non-POSIX code illegal is clearly a distortion; it implies
that POSIX is a law, while it is really just a recommendation. Nobody
is required to write conforming applications.
This seems to be an utter nit. I knew exactly what Joerg meant when he
said illegal. Did anyone really
On 7/15/05, John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it important (as an architectural goal...) that we could say
runs on OpenSolaris[1]
in the face of multiple OpenSolaris based distros?
That is, if someone develops an application for Sun's Nevada release,
*should* we expect it to,
The only thing I have heard about JDS development is that the focus
was shifting to JDS/Solaris instead of JDS/Linux. Are you certain
about this? Can you quote a source?
I don't think SUN would speak this out that directly.
They aimed to create an alternate to Windows:
While I respect that is your opinion, please don't
start KDE vs. GNOME
flamewars using inflammatory language.
hey, they are so much fun...:-)
and I have to admit that gnome developers have no regard for portability. kde
3.4.1 compiles OOB on solaris, while every other pkg for gnome 2.10.1
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 10:51, Steve Logue wrote:
What is the current status of the Cypto Code
integration with the main sources? Are they still
seperate or are they merged and part of nightly builds
now?
It is still a separate tar ball you can download. Mike Kupfer and I met
this week to
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, John Plocher wrote:
Is it important (as an architectural goal...) that we could say
runs on OpenSolaris[1]
in the face of multiple OpenSolaris based distros?
When Solaris and Solaris Express can fairly be be called OpenSolaris
based distros, then yes. But right now
My two cents (from someone who has been using Linux desktops since the late
90's):
since JDS stayed behind the expectations.
JDS never took off b/c imho it was based on a platform (GPL/Linux) that was,
on hindsight, never suitable for a desktop OS. A desktop involves as much
hardware as it
On 7/15/05, Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, and since a deliberate Linus decision can override a POSIX
requirement in that process
http://www.opengroup.org/personal/ajosey/tr01-04-2005.txt, I
continue to call POSIX a recommendation rather than an industry
standard in this context.
Stefan's patches are needed to build with studio. With gcc, no patch is needed
(in fact with portage I just do 'emerge kde' as on linux, and I get free
generic patches for various issues identified after the release).
That probably is understandable because untill now people at large didn't
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually fail to see a Linux industry standard in POSIX;
Well at a minimum, it's certainly key to much of the development of
POSIX-like Linux distro standards and other Linux standards such as
those
I know this topic can easily lead to a flame war, but
I don't think my message has the potential to start
one. You see, I also told what I like on Gnome, that
KDE isn't perfect, and that I prefer KDE.
But I accept people who don't like it (flavours are
different).
I am really serious about
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between Linux and Solaris is that Solaris has been certified
for being SUSv3 compliant.
Solaris, not OpenSolaris. This is an OpenSolaris list, Jörg.
Gunnar
___
opensolaris-discuss
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between Linux and Solaris is that Solaris has been certified
for being SUSv3 compliant.
Solaris, not OpenSolaris. This is an OpenSolaris list, Jörg.
So you believe that we should not try to
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually fail to see a Linux industry standard in POSIX;
Well at a minimum, it's certainly key to much of the development of
POSIX-like Linux distro standards and other Linux standards such as
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between Linux and Solaris is that Solaris has been
certified
for being SUSv3 compliant.
Solaris, not OpenSolaris. This is an OpenSolaris list,
Dan Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did anyone really suspect the police at their door if they violated
the recommendations of some specification?
Probably not, but Jörg's endless campaigns of I detected that
this program is broken because it does not implement POSIX and
they did not fix it for
Shawn I noticed that the sdlc has a tarball of the OpenSolaris sources
Shawn dated July 1st, 2005, while the one that was distributed on
Shawn launch day is dated June 12th, 2005
The July 1st update was just to include a security fix for rtld
(ld.so.1).
The build 18 delivery (which I'm
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:48:48PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The implicit assumption here is that Sun make will be available as
open source sometime in the next year and possibly sooner still. If
you don't trust that assumption, and are
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between Linux and Solaris is that Solaris has been
certified
for being SUSv3 compliant.
Solaris,
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 12:12, Shawn Walker wrote:
Is there some particular area you are interested in ?
Are you certain that they're not even partially integrated? I noticed
that the sdlc has a tarball of the OpenSolaris sources dated July 1st,
2005, while the one that was distributed on
On 7/15/05, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please tell me what particular things it is you are looking for.
Is it crypto algorithm implementations, eg our AES code, or are
you looking for our IPsec or Kerberos protocol layer stuff ?
I'm personally not interested in any of them, it
--- W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My two cents (from someone who has been using Linux
desktops since the late 90's):
since JDS stayed behind the expectations.
JDS never took off b/c imho it was based on a
platform (GPL/Linux) that was, on hindsight, never
suitable for a
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 13:37, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sun could make Sun make more compatible to free make programs like GNU make
and smake.
Bug# 4866328 covers this.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, John Martinez wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Sunil wrote:
have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility
for star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu
programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die
Dan Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term illegal is
misplaced.
No. Jörg's further derogatory wording (broken, defective etc.)
leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly claim that people have a
free choice whether to implement a
Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Dan Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term illegal is
misplaced.
No. Jörg's further derogatory wording (broken, defective etc.)
leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly claim that people have a
free choice whether
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term illegal
is
misplaced.
No. Jörg's further derogatory wording (broken, defective etc.)
leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly claim that people
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jasse Jansson wrote:
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
build a community so we don't just have a community of 1 or
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
...
...
(but I should add that Portage provides a tool for converting to the
Solaris package standard)...
Correction, it's pkgsrc that provides that tool.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
The main question is: does all those previously
mentioned
packaging systems have anything in common.
The answer to that question should be the focus of
this discussion.
(Personally, I don't have a clue, but it seems that
I'm not
the
My impression is that you are not interested in a fruitful discussion
but only listen to certain buzzwords and then start to pick on people.
Sigh.
Productive discussion focuses on the technology, not on the personalities.
This sort of statement could easily be (mis?)construed as a personal
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming you mean the five I identified as planning (AFAICT)
redistributable distros:
Blastware
JDS/GNOME + KDE
Pkgsrc
Portage
SchilliX
... have anything in common. The answer to that question should be the
focus of this discussion.
The
Bart Smaalders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My impression is that you are not interested in a fruitful discussion
but only listen to certain buzzwords and then start to pick on people.
Sigh.
Productive discussion focuses on the technology, not on the personalities.
This sort of statement
On Jul 16, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jasse Jansson wrote:
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
build a
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 19:24, Bob Palowoda wrote:
Something like 'appcert' minus the interpretation of the private interfaces
of OpenSolaris. That is kind of a brain twister what private interfaces mean
in OpenSolaris.
Not really.
Private has never meant Secret. It's always meant Subject
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 19:24, Bob Palowoda wrote:
Something like 'appcert' minus the interpretation
of the private interfaces
of OpenSolaris. That is kind of a brain twister
what private interfaces mean
in OpenSolaris.
Not really.
Private has never meant Secret. It's always
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When someone has figured out how to the initial 'make' stage,
then each distro-maker just has to fill in his part.
This requires a central repository for these makefiles,
might be at
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any makefile that uses $ in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
claims to be portable and authors of free software usually claim to
write portable software.
_If_ they claim that. Otherwise they rely on documented behavior of
GNU make. This is
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 11:31:12AM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
Is it important (as an architectural goal...) that we could say
runs on OpenSolaris[1]
in the face of multiple OpenSolaris based distros?
There is some mention of this at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/trademark_faq/
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 16:24, Bob Palowoda wrote:
Something like 'appcert' minus the interpretation of the private interfaces
of OpenSolaris. That is kind of a brain twister what private interfaces mean
in OpenSolaris.
In the Sun interface taxonomy Private does not mean you can't see it.
It
Bob Palowoda wrote:
So it would be an advantage to OpenSolaris developers to have a list
of such private interfaces as not to consider developing any software
that has a dependency. Or maybe the definition isn't clear. Example
the 'pcic' module is a private interface. Wait is it a
Bob Palowoda wrote:
Bob Palowoda wrote:
Interfaces which you should not use because they may
change incompatibly at
any time, but private is a lot easier to say/type.
And or removed. According to Bill Sommerfeld.
Removal is an extreme form of incompatible change, so yes, he's right.
Heya,
a week ago I read, that the development resources for the Java Desktop
System will be decreased, since JDS stayed behind the expectations.
I think it never had the chance to become a platform for third party
apps, what would be necessary for a future-oriented unix desktop.
Actually,
steps on soapbox
Hi.
i would like to start by saying that the generosity of OpenSolaris'
proposal for the desktop community exceeded my expectations.
i somehow get the feeling that all these discussions are straying us
away from what we set out to accomplish initially: reach an agreement
(read:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:18:06PM -0700, Bob Palowoda wrote:
So it would be an advantage to OpenSolaris developers to have a list
of such private interfaces as not to consider developing any software
that has a dependency.
All interfaces are Private unless marked otherwise. All
On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When someone has figured out how to the initial 'make' stage,
then each distro-maker just has to fill in his part. This requires a central
On 7/15/05, James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well this all seems to be a great plan we are still waiting for feed back
from the other distro's and individuals that might be interesting in working
on this project. As an individual if you got involved you could do step one
or two on a
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Chris Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until
recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and
then it was realized that it could be extended to a
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
