Hello Radu,
Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 1:28:08 PM, you wrote:
RP Hi!
RP I think a community that would cover the database installation,
configuration and performance tuning on Solaris would be necessary.
-1
I don't think it's needed - and performance issues could be discussed
on general or
Why? That's not that important. You can not know now
what other distros will be good for. It could be that
there is a distro you can put in your coffee-cup and
that coffee-cup communicates with the computer you
are in front of - so probably there is not enough
space for ksh in such a distro
Tian Siyuan wrote:
The original poster is back.
My idea is to have a place for Chinese users,
mainly for education (and then marketing).
If we other communities are better suitable for
specific topics posted to this one, we can redirect
them.
What's the next step?
There's
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 09:34, Markus Moeller wrote:
If I use
cc -I/usr/share/src/uts/common -D_KERNEL I find all included header files.
What is the difference/issue if I use -D_KERNEL ?
The header file you found is really only for the kernel-space gssapi
code. it's not likely to be useful
Mike Kupfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg But currently, I don't believe that community driven integration
Joerg is possible soon as there already is an aproval for star
Joerg integration but asking about a realization did not end up in a
Joerg useful discussion.
Yes, and I apologize for
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 04:49 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Hello ... we formed a user group community here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_groups/
snip
This is excellent.
A group is forming in Broomfield and setup a spot on google groups. Let's get
Is Solaris 10 considered Solaris Nevada (11) build 14 and later ? Thanx
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Roy == Roy T Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roy Any code that is not open source is dead code that needs to be
Roy replaced, and the way to do that is by creating communities with
Roy live code that can be worked on in public. The only code in
Roy OpenSolaris is open source code.
What
Joerg I did hear from Dworking and Frank that the idea that started 2.5
Joerg years ago has been ap[proved in spring.
Joerg I don't know what to do now
I'm working to figure out who can act as a sponsor. Dworkin was a
natural fit, but alas, he is leaving Sun soon.
Once we've found a
On Jul 28, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Mike Kupfer wrote:
What about things like wifi drivers? I'm not an expert in the area,
but
I'm told that these drivers often contain a binary-only component (even
in Linux). It's apparently the result of US (FCC) regulatory
requirements on the wifi hardware.
Is Solaris 10 considered Solaris Nevada (11) build 14 and later ? Thanx
No. Only current Solaris Express is.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Thursday 28 July 2005 09:37 am, Lisa Week wrote:
Thanks for the update and yes it is possible for us to join.
As you may have already seen from her email, Ginnie Wray
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is going to be setting this up for the
(Colorado) Front Range OpenSolaris User Group.
Yes, I saw.
1. Sound: on a notebook I don't really care anyway; but it didn't work on my
Fedora Core 4, eithe
r;
What type of sound? Tried oss?
2. Scroll bar on the touch pad: this is very important in web/file browsing;
it works with FC4;
WHat type? If Synaptics, it'll soon work.
3. Wi-Fi: never
Hi!
Sorry to ask are you a maintainer or a user expressing
own opinion?
TY
Radu
--- Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Radu,
Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 1:28:08 PM, you wrote:
RP Hi!
RP I think a community that would cover the
database installation, configuration and
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Thursday 28 July 2005 09:37 am, Lisa Week wrote:
Thanks for the update and yes it is possible for us to join.
As you may have already seen from her email, Ginnie Wray
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is going to be setting this up for the
(Colorado) Front Range OpenSolaris User
Which is exactly how things had been working in practise inside Sun.
That's what I thought originally, but a lot of the posts I have seen
are emphasizing the business decisions made by an ARC rather than
the technical review.
The only real difference with OpenSolaris ARCs should be that
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 14:38, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That's what I thought originally, but a lot of the posts I have seen
are emphasizing the business decisions made by an ARC rather than
the technical review.
ARC is all about the technical architecture and almost always doesn't
get involved
On 7/28/05, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
POSIX documentations (man pages) are written in a way that allows you
to implement all features of the program from only reading the apropriate
man page.
I'm not certain how that point is relevant. All we know in this case
is that ksh88 may
On Jul 28, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
For an operating system, the constraints of existing interfaces are a
_technical_ problem, _not_ just a business problem.
That is absolute rubbish. A technical problem is something for which
a technical solution can be created to resolve the
On 7/28/05, Tao Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/28/05, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that's a very practical view. There is a *lot* of
hardware out there that cannot be used without some binary component.
Not just wifi, but many others. Quite frankly, it
Tao Chen wrote:
...
I am not familiar with the Wi-Fi issue.
How is it handled by Redhat/SuSe/Debian right now, assuming it's not
part of the Linux kernel?
ipw2200.sourceforge.net et al have what some people refer to as a HAL
(hardware abstraction layer) for the FCC-mandated non-changeable
Roy ... a lot of the posts I have seen are emphasizing the business
Roy decisions made by an ARC rather than the technical review.
Bryan For an operating system, the constraints of existing interfaces
Bryan are a _technical_ problem, _not_ just a business problem.
Roy That is absolute rubbish...
Roy == Roy T Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roy On Jul 28, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
For an operating system, the constraints of existing interfaces are a
_technical_ problem, _not_ just a business problem.
Roy A technical problem is something for which a technical solution
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:08:12PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The latter constraint of requiring a commit be complete is
just as true for collaborative open source projects as it is for
Solaris. Most open source projects are distributed on several
orders of magnitude more platforms than
Takaaki Higuchi wrote:
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
Sorry for the delay in following up on this. I
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 06:12:55PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
The point is if a driver exists that can be integrated, but has a
required binary only component due to legal or other restrictions and
that is the only way that hardware will work, then to me and many
others it is perfectly
On Thursday 28 July 2005 13:24, Virginia Wray wrote:
And I still have that same little cantankerous system that you helped me
install
Sun needs to get you a new laptop!
but more importantly, we're up on the Open Solaris community page!
On 7/28/05, John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[stop, stop, you are bringing out the verbose monster in me!]
snip
You are advocating starting off the OpenSolaris community on a track that
immediately abandons this core value. I disagree (obviously), and instead
advocate keeping the core
On Jul 25, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
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%
John:
I hope that:
One of those core values will be backwards compatibility is a
constraint,
not a goal. This implies that it is seen as a feature (and not a bug)
that there is no Major version development branch following the
current production branch.
I very much agree
30 matches
Mail list logo
