Hi,
This was already discussed at [EMAIL PROTECTED] And
decided to have both. But there seem some troubles on Chinese
languages as described the URL below.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=1206tstart=0
regards,
Takaaki Higuchi(http://blogs.sun.com.thiguchi)
TJ Yang wrote:
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/22/05, Alvaro Lopez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The biggest CDDL problem is that it includes a choice-of-venue:
«The problem with choice of venue clauses is that anyone who accepts
the license must also accept the burden of defending
They're shipping ksh93, which is open source.
Solaris includes ksh88
(g I believe), which is not. We'd love to just
upgrade, but they're
not 100% compatible.
In the document:
http://www.kornshell.com/info/
it says it's compatable. Just curious what the big compatiblity
problems are?
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:39:09PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
justifiably or not is a matter of opinion. Even if the CDDL wasn't an
obstacle, I don't believe they would accept the binary redistribution
guidelines that parts of ON will likely
They're shipping ksh93, which is open source. Solaris includes ksh88
(g I believe), which is not. We'd love to just upgrade, but they're
not 100% compatible.
We can certainly ship ksh 93 as /bin/ksh93.
It would be nice if we could somehow qualify the differences and
have a single binary
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 7/23/05, Sunil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
grep pkg-name /var/sadm/install/contents |awk '{print $1}' to see which
files were installed by a package? when is this simple request going to be merged in 'pkginfo
-l'?
Workaround example:
pkgchk -v SUNWGtku
Glynn Foster wrote:
So, let us not get so caught up in the numbers game. I'd just like
to see a Companion DVD worth of optional open source software
comparable to what you get when buying a Linux/FreeBSD at a computer
store or buy it from Sun (with those Ultra 3 laptops!!!). Hey, 1K-3K
packages
Ferdinand O. Tempel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like I said earlier, both camps (opensolaris and debian) aren't too thrilled
about the idea. I've already discovered that. The good news is that
debian-legal finally pointed out the exact problem with the CDDL as it
relates to the DFSG, instead
Joerg Schilling wrote:
If you look closely, there are a few paragraphs about taking
kernels and building the Debian OS around those kernels (Debian
GNU/OpenSolaris = Solaris kernel with Debian infrastructure (OS
w/ported apps) built around it). I think the NetBSD people are
doing something
On Jul 25, 2005, at 2:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They're shipping ksh93, which is open source. Solaris includes ksh88
(g I believe), which is not. We'd love to just upgrade, but they're
not 100% compatible.
We can certainly ship ksh 93 as /bin/ksh93.
It would be nice if we could
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Like I said earlier, both camps (opensolaris and debian) aren't too
thrilled about the idea. I've already discovered that. The good news
is that debian-legal finally pointed out the exact problem with the
CDDL as it relates to the DFSG, instead of just saying they
On Jul 25, 2005, at 2:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They're shipping ksh93, which is open source. Solaris includes ksh88
(g I believe), which is not. We'd love to just upgrade, but they're
not 100% compatible.
We can certainly ship ksh 93 as /bin/ksh93.
It would be nice if we could
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
Glynn Foster wrote:
[...]
I'm just pointing out, that the average user will probably
not even use close to 3000 packages - if we can focus on a good set
of packages, and maintain with a repository model it seems like a
better
Ben Rockwood wrote:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
The next release of the nVidia driver should install the PCI id's
for GeForce cards/chipsets as well as the Quadro ones it currently
does.
Has there been any reaction from nVidia thus far? I'd think of adding
the id's for GeForce as a sign that
Hi Rod,
Thanks for the detailed response.
Of course I agree that it's better to avoid the problem by
carefully controlling public interface changes. However more
and more software in Solaris comes from external sources
and while we can work with community maintainers and try
and make sure they
On 7/25/05, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:39:09PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
justifiably or not is a matter of opinion. Even if the CDDL wasn't an
obstacle, I don't believe they would accept the binary
If the space is mapped by the kernel, you can use /dev/allkmem
so, if the kernel maps the APCI tables, they should be visible there.
(If they're not mappable, then /dev/mem should not give access).
max
On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Martin Cerveny wrote:
2) xsvc is a hack that should be
From: Bryan Cantrill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Etymology of BFU
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Teer)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff
Bonwick), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger A. Faulkner)
Hi all,
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Did you compile them yourself?
. or do you just asume that it was simple to compile them
because you did see the binaries made by other people?
Of course, I do know how the Debian packaging system works.
Otherwise I would remain in silence.
Once a
On Jul 25, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
exists, it should be possible to implement a clean set of extensions
to ksh93 for backward compatibility; that implementation could then be
used by Solaris and included with
Keith What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
Keith exists, it should be possible to implement a clean set of extensions
Keith to ksh93 for backward compatibility; that implementation could then be
Keith used by Solaris and included with OpenSolaris for other
Hello Casper,
Friday, July 22, 2005, 9:24:06 PM, you wrote:
Hello opensolaris-discuss,
I tried to install b18 on Acer 4101WLM notebook with Pentium M
(Sonoma) 1.6GHz with 512MB DDR2 and PCI-X.
Just after kernel started it panics, stack looks like:
kaif_enter+7
kdi_dvec_enter+0x32
Hello opensolaris-discuss,
I tried to install snv_b18 (and 17 - the same result) on Dell
Inspiron 8200 - I get system panic at the very beginning of booting.
S10 03/05 works out of the box. I belive that initial SX builds
worked too.
kaif_enter+7
kdi_dvec_enter+0xa
On 7/25/05, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 25, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
exists, it should be possible to implement a clean set of extensions
to ksh93 for backward compatibility; that
On 7/25/05, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello opensolaris-discuss,
I tried to install snv_b18 (and 17 - the same result) on Dell
Inspiron 8200 - I get system panic at the very beginning of booting.
S10 03/05 works out of the box. I belive that initial SX builds
worked
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Actually I think it was more a sign of our people and theirs getting
tired of answering how to enable it with GeForce cards and how to
recover when people tried to bind the video driver to their PCI bridge
or other devices on nForce motherboards, and the higher levels in
fyi ... James Gosling is looking for feedback on source code management:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jag?entry=happily_subversive
I just thought I'd kick the link to the list since this issue is
critical for us here on OpenSolaris. If you like, let him know what you
think.
Jim
On Jul 25, 2005, at 10:43 AM, John Beck wrote:
The first is that all the mechanisms which you rail against are in fact
how things work now.
Yes. I intend to change that.
Your statement of how things should work matches my
understanding of how things ought to work in the *long* term, but we
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:48:52AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Why does it have to be 100% compatible? That is a serious question.
What breaks so bad that not having access to the source is considered
a viable solution?
100% compatibility is not always required. Sometimes, no
Hey,
A 'DVD worth' doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the only
medium. I'm just pointing out, that the average user will probably
not even use close to 3000 packages - if we can focus on a good set
of packages, and maintain with a repository model it seems like a
better
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:30:19PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
OpenSolaris is intended to be a collaborative project. In order
to collaborate with the rest of the world, future progress has to
be made in public, using public tools, on public work products.
Any code that is not open source
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 15:30, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
What exactly is blocking us from creating a directory containing ksh93 code
Nothing. We should probably import ksh93 as ksh93 sooner rather than
later.
and making it the current ksh for OpenSolaris?
One of the goals for opensolaris is
JBeck Your statement of how things should work matches my understanding
JBeck of how things ought to work in the *long* term, but we have a lot
JBeck of short- and medium-term work to do before we get there, and much
JBeck of that work may be somewhat challenging.
Roy Like what?
Like migrating
Roy:
On Jul 25, 2005, at 10:43 AM, John Beck wrote:
The first is that all the mechanisms which you rail against are in fact
how things work now.
Yes. I intend to change that.
Everybody involved with Open and Free software is involved with changing
how things work. I think it is great
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, John Beck wrote:
Keith What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
Keith exists, it should be possible to implement a clean set of extensions
Keith to ksh93 for backward compatibility; that implementation could then be
Keith used by Solaris and
Bryan Cantrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I went googling for differences and found a pretty significant one:
It looks like ksh88 uses dynamic scoping while ksh93 uses lexical
scoping. As I understand it, a similar disagreement caused something of
a schism within the lisp community.
Keith and Roy's conversation about ksh...
Keep in mind the traditional Sun/Solaris development model that we are trying
to seed our community with:
Germinate an idea into a plan,
Commit to that plan from both resource and technical perspectives
(do we _want_ to
So, this all begs the question, why isn't Sun making more of an
effort to define a workable OpenSolaris process for interface
review. There should be something on the http://www.opensolaris.org/
website addressing this topic, even if it just says We are
working on figuring it out. Here are the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Let me note about another problem:
I did try to discuss important issues several times and have been ignored.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Ignored sounds so premeditated and malicious; more likely the lack of response
39 matches
Mail list logo
