Re: [osol-discuss] [storage-discuss] NDMPCOPY Test Tool and NDMP Protocol Test Suite Released
Great! uploaded to Nexenta APT now, for NCP2 users just do: # apt-get install ndmpcopy On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 17:46 -0800, Ben Rockwood wrote: Vilas Deshpande, I love you!!! Thank you! I've been needing this badly! benr. ___ storage-discuss mailing list storage-disc...@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta's CEO blogging about 2009, OpenStorage, GPL, CDDL, etc
Hi folks, you might be interested in what Evan Powell (Nexenta Systems CEO) blogging about plans on 2009, OpenSolaris and Open Storage movement: http://www.nexenta.com/blog and so called community Statement of Policies: http://www.nexenta.com/community Enjoy! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] recent broadcom (bge) drivers failing to plumb bge0, but do plumb bge1
The below patch fixes the issue:
diff -r df5de422308d usr/src/uts/common/io/bge/bge_chip2.c
--- a/usr/src/uts/common/io/bge/bge_chip2.c Wed Jan 21 16:40:45 2009 -0800
+++ b/usr/src/uts/common/io/bge/bge_chip2.c Wed Jan 21 20:31:28 2009 -0800
@@ -3123,8 +3123,6 @@
for (i = 0; i 1000; ++i) {
drv_usecwait(1000);
gen = bge_nic_get64(bgep, NIC_MEM_GENCOMM) 32;
- if (i == 0 DEVICE_5704_SERIES_CHIPSETS(bgep))
- drv_usecwait(10);
mac = bge_reg_get64(bgep, MAC_ADDRESS_REG(0));
#ifdef BGE_IPMI_ASF
if (!bgep-asf_enabled) {
sunwbge package uploaded into NexentaCore 2 / unstable repository now
and ready for testing...
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 11:50 -0800, Joe Little wrote:
I also tested a B95 driver that failed, so its likely between B85 and
B95 that things stopped working. Still trying to isolate...
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Joe Little jmlit...@gmail.com wrote:
I still end up with the same error:
ifconfig :SIOCSLIFNAME for ip: bge0: Invalid argument
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Yong Tan yong@sun.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
That sounds very interesting. Could you try the following steps with the
B100+ driver as root?
rem_drv bge
add_drv -i 'pci14e4,1648' bge
reboot -- -r
Hopefully it will work for you. Any problem, please let me know.
Thanks,
Carson
Joe Little wrote:
I have a supermicro-based motherboard, Supermicro H8DA8/H8DAR, in
three separate systems with is likely an AMD-8131 chipset. It includes
broadcom gig-e interfaces that worked fine with my B85 and earlier
based opensolaris versioned systems. I moved up to B102, B103, and
B104-based solutions recently and in all cases, interface bge0 is
lost, but bge1 is retained.
A plumb of bge0 results in this dmesg output:
Jan 17 11:47:49 perth ip: [ID 205306 kern.error] bge0: DL_ATTACH_REQ
failed: DL_SYSERR (errno 22)
Jan 17 11:47:49 perth ip: [ID 670008 kern.error] bge0: DL_BIND_REQ
failed: DL_OUTSTATE
Jan 17 11:47:49 perth ip: [ID 328654 kern.error] bge0:
DL_PHYS_ADDR_REQ failed: DL_OUTSTATE
Jan 17 11:47:49 perth ip: [ID 954675 kern.error] bge0: DL_UNBIND_REQ
failed: DL_OUTSTATE
and this command line output:
ifconfig: SIOCSLIFNAME for ip: bge0: Invalid argument
prtconf shows bge at 1648:
dev_path=/p...@0,0/pci1022,7...@a/pci15d9,1...@5,1:bge1
dev_link=/dev/bge1
and lspci -n shows that the system finds both interfaces, but the
driver obviously does not configure the first:
02:05.0 0200: 14e4:1648 (rev 10)
02:05.1 0200: 14e4:1648 (rev 10)
Putting the B85 driver in /kerner/drv/bge and rebooting instantly
returns bge0 back into action. Erast from Nexenta gave me different in
versions of the bge driver between B85 to B100+, and so far we haven't
isolated where it broke, but this is obviously a regression.
Is this a known issue? I'm surprised this is no where to be found one
the list, but seeing as this was a common opteron-based supermicro
platform I presume others are affected by it.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Carson (Yong Tan)
Sun Microsystems China (ERI)
Email: yong@sun.com
Tel : (86-10)6267-3681 (x51681)
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] New community based development list
Very interesting development! I went ahead and setup a domain + site: http://www.kernelunix.org If there is an interest - we could extend its content over time. I like the idea of modular approach to build ON. I do believe that kernel, libc, networking all could be delivered as separate component rather than monolitic jumbo tar drop... And yes, we need to drop closed bins right from the start, i.e. to stimulate its open source alternatives... Yet another reason to split ON. On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 09:54 +0100, C. Bergström wrote: Hi all.. I've been tearing apart onnv-gate for a couple months now and have a very clear idea of what it would take to build an entirely from source OpenSolaris technology based distribution. I'll probably post patches and details of my work at a new development list I've setup. I know Nexenta has some core developers already, but for anyone who has questions about the code this is the place to ask. Visit http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/osunix-dev or put subscribe in the subject and send a quick email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Summary: This list provides a place for new and old OpenSolaris technology developers to collaborate, share ideas, patches and peer review entirely free of constraints. Our major goal is to bring together the pockets of developers to create a sustainable community and drive innovation. Cheers, ./Christopher ps.. ( ___ gnusol-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
Right. And in addition to autotools, such port complicates further ON merges which will unavoidably lead to higher rate of errors/bugs. But because GNU/kFreeBSD exists, I do not see why GNU/kOpenSolaris can't be... On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:27 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Debian's main issue is that parts of Sun's libc are not open (mostly libc_i18n; they require all bits to be open). Having seen the issues kFreeBSD has had with using glibc with their kernel, I'm not sure if its work having a ksolaris port since configure will no longer identify the platform as Solaris, so most autotools scripts will break. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjTqNQACgkQpblTBJ2i2pteBACdET5A0ycn3U+G3S2R+8mCN6vq 0oAAniom7MRTL3P4TR8H1PotiT+R+qSi =8cf5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! What do you expect from this port? In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that this port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue. makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, Debian is a license troll. There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling: 1) Ignore it comppletely 2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense. Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way. BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd applications against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does not say anything about it as this is something that happens outside the GPL work). Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain that Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright holder of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of implementing (2) above. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ gnusol-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
To me, this development is just yet another Debian architecture and sure, some in Debian community will like. It also connects to Nexenta in many ways - which is good for us. We can't stop such port from happening - so I think we should embrace it as a secondary lefty architecture. On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 11:37 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: The kFreeBSD port has had a lot of considerable issues with porting software. Remember, we'd need to port the ON tools such as the ZFS admin tools to glibc. http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/kfreebsd-i386 They also haven't been able to get things like the wifi tools for FreeBSD working. I'm not saying that adapting glibc is a bad thing, but we need to figure out if we really want to go down this path. Michael On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right. And in addition to autotools, such port complicates further ON merges which will unavoidably lead to higher rate of errors/bugs. But because GNU/kFreeBSD exists, I do not see why GNU/kOpenSolaris can't be... On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:27 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Debian's main issue is that parts of Sun's libc are not open (mostly libc_i18n; they require all bits to be open). Having seen the issues kFreeBSD has had with using glibc with their kernel, I'm not sure if its work having a ksolaris port since configure will no longer identify the platform as Solaris, so most autotools scripts will break. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjTqNQACgkQpblTBJ2i2pteBACdET5A0ycn3U+G3S2R+8mCN6vq 0oAAniom7MRTL3P4TR8H1PotiT+R+qSi =8cf5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! What do you expect from this port? In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that this port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue. makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, Debian is a license troll. There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling: 1) Ignore it comppletely 2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense. Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way. BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd applications against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does not say anything about it as this is something that happens outside the GPL work). Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain that Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright holder of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of implementing (2) above. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ gnusol-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
Hi David, Great work! Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! This is absolutely great development, and here is what I think it means for Nexenta Community: 1) We now have two architectures on-going: - NexentaCore Sun/OpenSolaris - NexentaCore GNU/kOpenSolaris 2) We should expect more developers coming on board from Debian/Ubuntu/Linux land and polish our APT repository even more 3) Nexenta OpenSolaris-oriented packaging will improve and many of Nexenta patches will be backported back to upstream - Ubuntu and Debian 4) Debian acceptance of these two architectures - might happen real soon. On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 00:18 -0400, David Bartley wrote: Hello, I've been working on porting GNU libc (glibc) to OpenSolaris (see [0] for source code and other downloads). I've also ported NPTL (the glibc thread library), using the corresponding OpenSolaris syscalls. I haven't benchmarked much, but I suspect speed should be comparable to native OpenSolaris. At this point I have a working chroot with a number of packages installed and working, and I hope to have a zone booting soon. Xorg, GNOME, and gdb all work. I also have a number of Solaris binaries working, including truss, dladm, zfs, and zpool. (I haven't tried, but it should be fairly straightforward to get dtrace working.) In order to get these working, I implemented additional OpenSolaris extensions (mostly trivial syscall wrappers). Examples are the functions defined in ucred.h, priv.h, and sys/pset.h. Since nexenta is trying to be OpenSolaris with the GNU userland, it makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, kNetBSD), I've used the target string i486-kopensolaris-gnu (the 64-bit target would be x86_64-kopensolaris-gnu). If you want to test this out in a chroot, there's a bunch of pre-built i386 binaries available [2] that can be just untarred into a directory. You'll also need to mount /proc, /dev, and /devices in the chroot via lofs (this won't be needed if done in a zone). Many applications will require OpenSolaris headers to build, which can just be copied from an OpenSolaris/Nexenta box (just don't overwrite any headers installed by glibc). -- David [0] http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/ [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/04/msg00069.html [2] http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~mspang/opensolaris/builds/ ___ gnusol-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta : Ubuntu Server with ZFS goodness
Anil just published nice article: http://www.osnews.com/story/20280/Nexenta_Ubuntu_Server_with_ZFS_goodness The idea is to engage Debian/Ubuntu community and position/create Nexenta Server 1.0 (Hardy Heron) which will match Ubuntu Server with its functionality + ZFS/Zones/SMF/COMSTAR goodness on top! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta Alpha2 Hackaton minutes
Hi All, Hackaton is still in progress! Here goes short history of events so far: * NexentaCore 2.0 Alpha2 first 'testing' ISO available - ON b97/b98 based. People reported successful installations, likely we will have official Alpha2 next week, as usual, upgradable with power of Debian tools - best in the world software packaging system which we all love some much * Slowly but surely we are making progress on porting latest Ubuntu LTS packages to the new shiny Nexenta Hardy repository: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-cache stats Total package names : 6502 (260k) Normal packages: 3907 Pure virtual packages: 41 Single virtual packages: 509 Mixed virtual packages: 49 Missing: 1996 Yes, almost 4000 packages ALREADY ported! * Work on our new powerful ZFS and Nexenta Zones integrated AutoBuilder continuing. We are hoping to quickly add 10,000 more packages in the Alpha3-Beta1 time frame by simply running AutoBuilder against the rest of Ubuntu Universe/Multiverse * There was some discussion on possibility of creation new distribution Nexenta Desktop - but so far inconclusive. This opportunity is still open for developers - DO NOT MISS IT * There was some discussion on possiblity of creation Nexenta Server distribution - that is to mirror and match Ubuntu Server - the decision so far - YES! The majority of members of Nexenta community thinks this is a great idea and willing to put efforts into it. Initial User Guide on how Nexenta Server will look like available here: http://doc.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/serverguide/C/ REMINDER: Hackaton still in progress - join and make a difference. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Update on the NexentaCore project
I like your blog entry on using graphviz to view Nexenta package dependencies graphically. Nice! On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 22:49 +0530, Anil Gulecha wrote: Hi All, We've setup a blogging infrastructure at http://blogs.nexenta.org. If you have a Nexenta blog, or want one let us know, and we'll set you up at blogs.nexenta.org/username. We're also working towards NexentaCore Platform Alpha2, which will be released in the near future. Contributions from this community are welcome. NCP2 will serve as a stable platform for future NexentaCore development. Goals for NCP2-Alpha2: * Fix unmet dependencies all over (we might schedule August's Hackathon) * Polish Debian development tools to work with NCP Hardy environment (*) * Updates for Installer * Migrate to latest ON/NWS build - targeting b98 for now (*) The long term goal for NexentaCore project is to provide 100% compatible Debian environment on top of OpenSolaris kernel and near-userland. Any Debian package (out of 25,000) should be possible to compile a package on the fly out of remote Ubuntu repository just by issuing command: apt-get -b source If you'd like to contribute by porting packages from Ubuntu's repository to Nexenta's, please find the details at http://www.nexenta.org/os/Hackathon . Nexenta Homepage: http://www.nexenta.org Nexenta Planet : http://blogs.nexenta.org Regards Anil Gulecha ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NexentaStor API Windows SDK published
Hey folks, just saw another cool news this morning - Nexenta Systems released documentation for remote API and Windows SDK with demos for accessing NexentaStor. News itself: http://www.nexenta.com/corp/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=154Itemid=56 ZFS and the rest of appliance functionality abstracted via Nexenta Management Server (NMS) and available remotely via API with following language bindings: C, C++, Perl, Python and Ruby: http://www.nexenta.com/nexentastor-api And another cool feature worth mentioning is - plugin architecture. There is no API for plugins available yet, but there are number of CDDL-licensed plugins available as an examples here: http://www.nexenta.com/nexentastor-plugins Nice! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Pogo Linux ships NexentaStor pre-installed boxes
Hi folks, wanted to share some exciting news with you. Pogo Linux shipping NexentaStor pre-installed boxes, like this one 16TB - 24TB: http://www.pogolinux.com/quotes/editsys?sys_id=3989 And here is announce: http://www.nexenta.com/corp/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=129Itemid=56 Pogo says: Managed Storage – NetApp features without the price... Go OpenSolaris, Go! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NexentaCore 2.0 Alpha1 Hardy Released
This is to announce availability of NexentaCore 2.0 Alpha1 - Debian Native OpenSolaris environment and platform. (unstable Hardy branch) NexentaCore 2.0 Alpha1 Release Highlights: -- * 3392 packages ported over just two weeks of Hardy Hackathon Fest! This includes latest dpkg/apt, gcc, binutils, coreutils, perl, python, ruby, Qt libs, GTK libs, etc you name it.. * Based on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (Hardy Heron) * 100% native Debian environment, easy to upgrade, easy to use * OpenSolaris b85+ based (x86 32-bit and 64-bit, non-debug), with critical patches from b87,b88 and b90 http://www.nexenta.org/os/Download Related News: - * NexentaCore 1.0.1 Elatte is our stable branch and were recently released to public. NexentaCore 1.x is based on Ubuntu/Dapper LTS repository. Download latest stable ISO here: http://www.nexenta.org/os/Download * NexentaStor 1.0.2 FREE Developer Edition also recently released. NexentaStor is a software based NAS and iSCSI solution with features that are superior to those of legacy hardware based NAS solutions, including unlimited incremental backups or 'snapshots', snapshot mirroring (replication), and the inherent virtualization, performance, thin provisioning and ease of use of the ZFS file system. Available for immediate download here: http://www.nexenta.com/products Enjoy! The Nexenta Team ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NexentaCore 1.0.1 Released
This is to announce availability of NexentaCore 1.0.1 - Debian Native OpenSolaris environment and platform. (stable Elatte branch) NexentaCore 1.0.1 Release Highlights: - * OpenSolaris b85+ based (x86 32-bit and 64-bit, non-debug), with critical patches from b87,b88 and b90 * ZFS write-throttle fixes * Now ZFS-root is the only default method for installation * Significantly improved speed of boot_archive creation - up to 5 times faster! * Support for new SAS/SATA controllers: Areca, LSI Mega, IBM ServeRAID * Many small improvements and bug fixes for APT repository http://www.nexenta.org/os/Download Related News: - * NexentaCore 2.x Hardy is under active development right now. More details here: http://www.nexenta.org/os/Hackathon * NexentaStor 1.0.2 FREE Developer Edition also recently released and available for immediate download here: http://www.nexenta.com/products Enjoy! The Nexenta Team ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta Hackathon in Progress - Status
Hi, A lot of fun these days and a lot of achievements! June's Hackathon-in-progress status: * Debian tools such as: devscripts, dpkg, apt, debarchiver, etc all ported * compiled bunch of NCP 2.0 packages (gcc prerequisites) * newisys-nas.stanford.edu machine prepared. It is 4-core 2.6GHz Opteron with 8GB RAM * gcc-4.2 and Hardy's binutils tool-chain is available NOW * rebuild of Hardy with new tool chain - pass #1 complete * started work on very first NCP 2.0 Alpha1 ISO * preparation to second Hardy rebuild in progress Outstanding issues: --- * Not all uploaded packages in Nexenta Hardy repository could be built out of source + diff * Many packages still missing - but we are making good progress on this one * Xorg is not yet uploaded * Firefox is not yet uploaded * Auto Builder work not yet started - with ZFS-powered Auto Builder in place we are planning to quickly port up to 10,000+ Ubuntu/Hardy packages in fully automatic way Since we have one more build machine - SSH access for developers much easier to grant - apply now at #nexenta on freenode IRC More information here: http://www.nexenta.org/os/Hackathon --- The Nexenta Team ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Announcing Nexenta Hackathon event this Saturday (05/31/08)
Dear OpenSolaris Developers and Users! Starting this Saturday, we are inviting all Debian/OpenSolaris developers and users to participate in our first Hackathon event. Hackathon starts on this Saturday 05/31/2008 and continues during first week of June. Development coordinated at #nexenta on freenode IRC. We are migrating from Ubuntu Dapper to Ubuntu Hardy user land and will be hacking on very initial version of NCP 2.0. You don't need to install Nexenta, (ZFS-powered) build environment and SSH access to the dedicated Zone will be automatically (see devzone package) provided to interested developers by request on #nexenta freenode IRC. The work coordinated at #nexenta freenode IRC and this static web page: http://www.nexenta.org/Hackathon ZFS-powered Nexenta Zones managed on specially prepared NexentaOS build servers connected to the public Internet. Servers and Internet collocation kindly provided by Stanford University, CA. Join now and make a difference! It is going to be fun! --- The Nexenta Team ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform 1.0 available
Thanks. FYI, www.nexenta.org website is totally open for editors (except front page) - login and change the way you like it - its Wiki after all. On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 11:05 -0800, Tim Cook wrote: Just a request/hint/whatever. Finding the actual download link on that site is the most convoluted unintelligent mess I've ever seen (no offense). Any chance you guys could just have a download now button, that goes straight to the download. Instead of a download link, that goes to a download page, that requires you to pick out the correct link (of about 15 different links), which goes to another page, which has 15 more links, one of which is a here that is finally the correct link. Just saying... the UI of that page is horrid right now. I've downloaded every release of nexenta so far, and everytime I have to search for a good 5 minutes to find the actual download link. Other than that, congrats on getting it out the door :) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform 1.0 available
http://linuxtracker.org/index.php?page=torrent-detailsid=8f4a28c436d2dc7f866560fc6ac3a6363c73e310 On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 19:56 -0800, Lucian wrote: Are There a metalink and bittorrent for download the iso images? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta Builder 1.0 available
Hi, This is to announce Nexenta Builder 1.0! Recently released NexentaCore 1.0 is especially well suited to serve as a platform for application distributions due to Nexenta Builder 1.0, an open source packaging solution included as part of NexentaCore that enables the simple creation of 'software appliances, which are software distributions that have been optimized for the broadest possible hardware and virtual machine compatibility and for ongoing support and upgrades. This article [1] explains how interested individuals, communities and companies could create highly customized and polished NexentaCore based distributions tailored for specific verticals - 'software appliances'. With power of Debian tools, Nexenta Platform is capable of merging multiple specialized remote application repositories (APT) into a single source of packages, which allows to create and have as many distributed (but well organized!) repositories as user wants to be available to meet specific needs. Availability of Nexenta Builder and integrated APT tools opens unique capability which allows developers easy create new derived distributions and grow community around them. Such distributions could be: * LiveCDs * Embeded OpenSolaris with small footprint of 128MB or less * KDE-centric Desktop * GNOME-centric Desktop * XFCE-centric Desktop or so called 'minimalistic Unix Desktop' * Specialized Web Server appliance * Specialized Database appliance * Xen Dom0 - ZFS powered appliance * Sound Studio with best of class OSS Sound stack integrated appliance * Graphical Studio appliance * Medical appliance * Financial appliance * Game station appliance * Storage appliances, such as NexentaStor [2] (good example of commercial appliance) .. and many many others! For the benefit of humanity, developers - jump on it, express yourself! Developers and Users - join official Nexenta IRC #nexenta [3], report bugs and request new kit features via Launchpad [4]. [1] Distribution Builder: http://www.nexenta.org/os/DistributionBuilder [2] NexentaStor appliance: http://www.nexenta.com [3] IRC channel: #nexenta on irc.freenode.net [4] Bug database: https://launchpad.net/nexenta -- The Nexenta Team ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform RC5 available
Nexenta Core Platform (NexentaCP) RC5 is available at: http://www.nexenta.org Release highlights: * Critical bootstrapping issue fixed * Minor apt-clone fixes * Minor packaging fixes Developers and Users - join official Nexenta IRC #nexenta now! Enjoy! The Nexenta Team. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software Change was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:08 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 5, 2008 12:49 PM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 12:44 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: Thus, I stand by the claim that Nexenta, at the very least, is a fork. You deeply mistaken here. As far as OpenSolaris is concerned - Nexenta is NOT a fork. We share the same code base. The integration part of userland IS a bit different, but than again, even Solaris 10 Update4 userland parts are differ from Solaris 10 GA, not even comparing to Nevada builds... And Nexenta provides switchable SUN/GNU personality, which allows as to run native Solaris applications and scripts when required. So, please be careful with your analysis.. :-) That's just it though; currently userland is part of ON. You have diverged from ON's userland right? No. You mistaken. We didn't change anything related to core libraries and applications. Changes only related to packaging but than again, packaging supposed to be changed, or otherwise what is the value behind any of distribution derivatives? If and when ips becomes integrated, you will also have a different packaging system, right? You mistaken again - SVR4 packaging is well supported (or at least we try to be compatible here) option for us. *And* it is NOT part of ON. Nexenta is very different in many subtle ways already. That is why many people loves us. We deliver something they want and asking us to deliver. We addressing segment of users which wants us to be as we are today. As I said before though, I don't believe Nexenta to be a *harmful* fork; just a fork :) If it was a win32 codebase project; I would call it a spoon ;) But to me, as along as a project seeks independent development, especially with those changes never being re-integrated -- that's a fork. I don't understand why people just assume that there is a negative connotation in classifying something as a fork. Its not that, it is just that not all people understand what ON fork really means. Just answer for yourself - is Indian a fork of OpenSolaris (i.e ON) ? Sound strange.. It is just yet another *derivative* distribution and delivers GNOME GUI on single CD on top of the same ON - that's all. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software Change was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:26 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: ...and I never said that wasn't a good thing. I'm just pointing out that Nexenta is different. in a good, practical and positive way... :-) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform RC4 available
Nexenta Core Platform (NexentaCP) RC4 is available at: http://www.nexenta.org Release highlights: * OpenSolaris build 82 (non-debug) + critical fixes from b83 [1]: * Storage consolidation updated with build 82 * More Network drivers (sfe, igb) * NFS and CIFS server fixes * Xen Dom0 fixes (still experimental) * Installer: support for installation on USB and other removable devices * APT repository: further clean up, more applications uploaded [1] http://www.nexenta.org/os/PatchSet_b82 Developers and Users - join official Nexenta IRC #nexenta now! Enjoy! The Nexenta Team. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NexentaCP and X
Martti, thanks for trying! NCP do not intend to ship any GUIs and GUI applications on top. Please read policy on what is allowed in 'main' repository: http://www.nexenta.org/os/NexentaRepositoryPolicyMain NCP main repository is self sufficient and any package in it could be installed and if needed rebuilt. The process is outlined here: http://www.nexenta.org/os/BuildingPackages We believe that there are a lot of talented developers out there with artistic skills who could add their value on top of NCP and produce best of the class OpenSolaris Desktops! If you one of them - you could start your own APT repository and share it with others. If you are just a user - simply wait till somebody else will jump in and produce it for you. On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 04:50 -0800, Martti Hamunen wrote: Erast how can I go on... 1. X-works, but there are messages:...no /root/.xsession no/root/.Xsession... no window manager where can I download: xdm, gdm, kdm... 2. Building/Porting packages for Nexenta. /etc/apt/sources.list deb-src http://archive.ubuntu... Done, but then 3. (=2 in the direction) Create GPG Keys How? I have only Command line no graphic. 4. Peharps this is too difficulty for beginners...I hope that the final Nexenta is a little easier to install. 5. But of course I want try. The earlier Nexenta was easier, perhaps in sources.list could be more for helping to start. Martti This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NexentaCP and X
for RC2, switch to unstable, than do: apt-get install x-window-system-core On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 12:16 -0800, Martti Hamunen wrote: I try install NexentaCP. Where is X or how can I get it? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform RC3 available
Nexenta Core Platform (NexentaCP) RC3 is available at: http://www.nexenta.org Release highlights: * OpenSolaris build 80+ (non-debug) + critical fixes from b81-b83 [1]: - critical fixes for native CIFS server - critical fixes for ZFS - critical bug fixes for SATA and networking stacks * CIFS client now included into default installation * Xen Dom0 (experimental support) [2] * GRUB-integrated memory test for x86 included * Installer fixes, now installs on machines with 256MB just fine * APT repository - status COMPLETE! ~2500 tested packages included * Minor bug fixes all over.. * Many new documents and articles now available [3] Developers and Users - join official Nexenta IRC #nexenta now! [1] http://www.nexenta.org/os/PatchSet_b80 [2] http://www.nexenta.org/os/NexentaXenDom0 [3] http://www.nexenta.org/os/Documentation Enjoy! The Nexenta Team. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NexentaCP and X
NCP ships Xorg with foundation libraries only - no GUI applications, no GNOME, no KDE, no XFCE, no GUI integration... Complete Desktop-oriented distributions will appear later as a network of NCP derivatives. On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 11:18 +0800, Robin du wrote: On 1/28/08, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: for RC2, switch to unstable, than do: apt-get install x-window-system-core X still doesn't work. I failed to see a GUI login session. #startx doesn't work either. Is there anything else need to do? Thanks, -Robin On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 12:16 -0800, Martti Hamunen wrote: I try install NexentaCP. Where is X or how can I get it? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.6 ready
Great job Joerg! wrt. Ubuntu/Nexenta NCP roadmap is here: http://www.nexenta.org/os/DevelopmentRoadmap NCP 1.5 will be Hardy-based. Hardy is upcoming next LTS (Long Term Support) release of Ubuntu repository. In April this year. On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 10:56 -0800, ken mays wrote: Have you looked at the kernel build done by the Nexenta team referring to Nevada b81/82 backported patches to Nevada b80 that they used for Nexenta RC2?!? Otherwise, great to see 'Schillix' back in the game! Maybe Ubuntu Server 7.10 equivalent... ? ~ Ken Mays - Hi all, Hello and thank you for this release. I knew you were working on it and we still need a slick installer but first steps first. I'll go get it right away and then see if I can boot it and use it to burn dual layer DVD's :-) The latest release of cdrecord has not gone very well for me in a testing environment so I will use your SchilliX 0.6 to see what I need to change on an older Solaris. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Integrated transactional upgrades with ZFS
Hi guys, new article available explaining details on how enterprise-like upgrades integrated with Nexenta Core Platform starting from RC2 using ZFS capabilities and Debian APT: http://www.nexenta.org/os/TransactionalZFSUpgrades What is NexentaCP? NexentaCP is a minimal (core) foundation that can be used to quickly build servers, desktops, and custom distributions tailored for specialized applications such as NexentaStor. Similar to NexentOS desktop distribution, NexentaCP combines reliable state-of-the-art kernel with the GNU userland, and the ability to integrate open source components in no time. However, unlike NexentaOS desktop distribution, NexentaCP does not aim to provide a complete desktop. The overriding objective for NexentaCP is - stable foundation. Enjoy! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Blastwave repository integrated with Nexenta!
Glad to announce that popular Solaris third-party repository Blastwave 'CSW' now integrated with Nexenta APT. To enable it on RC2, edit /etc/apt/sources.list like this: - deb http://apt.nexenta.org elatte-unstable main contrib non-free + deb http://apt.nexenta.org elatte-unstable main contrib non-free csw And use as you would usually do on normal Debian server: $ sudo apt-get install cswgdb Many credits to Nexenta Blastwave Communities for this! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Blastwave repository integrated with Nexenta!
good point. I marked download links with blinking icon.. though, web site is wiki based and features open edit policy for everyone, so if someone on the list find something on web site which needs fixing, don't hesitate - fix it! On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:12 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: Glad to announce that popular Solaris third-party repository Blastwave 'CSW' now integrated with Nexenta APT. To enable it on RC2, edit /etc/apt/sources.list like this: - deb http://apt.nexenta.org elatte-unstable main contrib non-free + deb http://apt.nexenta.org elatte-unstable main contrib non-free csw And use as you would usually do on normal Debian server: $ sudo apt-get install cswgdb Many credits to Nexenta Blastwave Communities for this! You know, Erast, I was loking at Nexenta yesterday and I wonder if you could put a download link thing right on the home page. Something that tells the average user to do this to get Nexenta sort of thing. I am guilty of the same fault with Blastwave of course. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Blastwave repository integrated with Nexenta!
This is great, thanks Dennis! In our turn, we will continue CSW polishing in Nexenta and maybe one day will make it default. It still needs fixing on our part, all bugs should be reported here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nexenta and discussed on #nexenta IRC channel if time permits. On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:29 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: good point. I marked download links with blinking icon.. though, web site is wiki based and features open edit policy for everyone, so if someone on the list find something on web site which needs fixing, don't hesitate - fix it! Yeah, I see the big beating icon there. Gee, why not just go all out and put in a looping heatbeat sound on the site too ? :-) I will now go and get some screenshots of Nexenta and do what I do .. blog it among other things. Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Blastwave repository integrated with Nexenta!
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:33 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: good point. I marked download links with blinking icon.. though, web site is wiki based and features open edit policy for everyone, so if someone on the list find something on web site which needs fixing, don't hesitate - fix it! we need to update this : http://www.genunix.org/distributions/gnusolaris/index.html At the moment I am dragging down from your server and it would be nice to offload that onto mirrors ya know ? I don't see login there, so, can't edit the page... and Alpha7 is dead and obsolete. Separate XFCE/Desktop Nexenta APT repository is been discussed on IRC, some people expressed an interested, something started... ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Blastwave repository integrated with Nexenta!
what about it? (Italian accent) On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 14:21 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: Glad to announce that popular Solaris third-party repository Blastwave 'CSW' now integrated with Nexenta APT. To enable it on RC2, edit /etc/apt/sources.list like this: - deb http://apt.nexenta.org elatte-unstable main contrib non-free + deb http://apt.nexenta.org elatte-unstable main contrib non-free csw And use as you would usually do on normal Debian server: $ sudo apt-get install cswgdb Hey there .. this is probably PXE bootable eh ? # mount -F hsfs -o ro /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0 /mnt # ls -lap /mnt total 22 dr-xr-xr-x 2 root sys 2048 Jan 14 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 27 root root 512 Nov 5 13:48 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 root root2048 Jan 14 02:38 .catalog dr-xr-xr-x 3 root root2048 Jan 14 02:37 boot/ drwxr-xr-x 3 root root2048 Jan 14 02:36 platform/ dr-xr-xr-x 4 root root2048 Jan 14 02:37 root/ # ls -lap /mnt/boot/ total 210 dr-xr-xr-x 3 root root2048 Jan 14 02:37 ./ dr-xr-xr-x 2 root sys 2048 Jan 14 02:37 ../ drwxr-xr-x 3 root root4096 Jan 14 02:31 grub/ -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 99256 Jan 14 02:37 memtest86+.bin # ls -lap /mnt/boot/grub/ total 1324 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root4096 Jan 14 02:31 ./ dr-xr-xr-x 3 root root2048 Jan 14 02:37 ../ drwxr-xr-x 2 root sys 2048 Jan 14 02:30 bin/ -r--r--r-- 1 root sys 10 Jan 12 12:12 default -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 8532 Jan 12 12:12 e2fs_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 8260 Jan 12 12:12 fat_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 7540 Jan 12 12:12 ffs_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 672 Jan 12 12:12 install_menu -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 7640 Jan 12 12:12 iso9660_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 9028 Jan 12 12:12 jfs_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root1882 Dec 20 01:41 menu-default.lst -rw-r--r-- 1 root root1619 Jan 14 02:37 menu.lst -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 7732 Jan 12 12:12 minix_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 132336 Jan 12 12:12 nbgrub -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 133360 Jan 12 12:12 pxegrub -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 9972 Jan 12 12:12 reiserfs_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 20378 Jul 29 2006 splash.xpm.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 512 Jan 12 12:12 stage1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 133008 Jan 12 12:12 stage2 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 133008 Jan 12 12:12 stage2_eltorito -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 7816 Jan 12 12:12 ufs2_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 7444 Jan 12 12:12 ufs_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 7220 Jan 12 12:12 vstafs_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 9852 Jan 12 12:12 xfs_stage1_5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys15948 Jan 12 12:12 zfs_stage1_5 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta Core Platform RC2 is available
Nexenta Core Platform (NexentaCP) RC2 is available at: http://www.nexenta.org Release highlights: * OpenSolaris build 80+ (non-debug) * Project integration: NWS, AVS, COMSTAR, in-kernel CIFS client * apt-clone: ZFS-integrated safe upgrade via remote APT repository. Support for in-place (live) and safe upgrades * Installer: multiple improvements * Nexenta Zones: multiple improvements. Integrated automatic Zone upgrades * Started using conventional Debian development cycle * New web site, moved to http://www.nexenta.org Regards, Nexenta Team ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] make softwares up to date
depends on which OpenSolaris distribution you are talking about.. For Nexenta, you can use Debian APT, its been around for 2+ years now.. Its the only option (as of today). But there is nothing preventing distro creators to build RPM based OpenSolaris too, so Yum could be used. On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 05:55 -0800, vuthecuong wrote: I searched arround but still not figure it out what app is equavalent to yum in linux and portsnap in freebsd? Just for purpose example update to latest firefox app etc. Thank you very much :) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nexenta/Debian APT integrated with ZFS now...
have you disabled samba? svcadm disable samba On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 22:39 -0800, MC wrote: 2) Unstable APT integrated with ON build 79, give it a try! I tried svcadm enable -r smb/server from http://opensolaris.org/os/project/cifs-server/gettingstarted.html in nexentacp and it didn't work. The CIFS page says those docs are accurate for build 79. Is the nexentacp version missing some parts of 79 or...? Thanks, MC This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nexenta/Debian APT integrated with ZFS now...
Currently, only apt-clone type upgrade know to work. Did you use apt-clone or apt-get ? We will modify apt-get to refuse upgrades if certain core bits (such as sunwcsr, sunwcsu, etc) detected. This functionality will be part of upcoming RC2. On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 16:20 +0100, Nico Sabbi wrote: Il Wednesday 19 December 2007 23:57:07 Erast Benson ha scritto: Hi All, This is the road to NCP 1.0... Our motto: Ubuntu makes best Debian Desktop platform - Nexenta makes best Debian Server/Storage platform. Some latest Nexenta related news: 1) Official Nexenta Core Platform (NCP) repository now is http://apt.nexenta.org 2) Unstable APT integrated with ON build 79, give it a try! 3) apt-get now fully integrated with ZFS cloning. New management tool provided: apt-clone. Never loose your upgrades again! 4) I'm seeking for developers who loves Debian and will help us to join Debian community. We've got general agreement with Debian leaders, but some work needs to be done, lets coordinate on official Nexenta IRC: #nexenta I've just installed NCP 1.0test3 and updated/upgraded it with the unstable repository in apt.nexenta.org, but aftert rebooting, just after the kernel logo, the machine reboots. What can I send you to understand what's wrong? Thanks, Nico ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nexenta/Debian APT integrated with ZFS now...
Hi All, This is the road to NCP 1.0... Our motto: Ubuntu makes best Debian Desktop platform - Nexenta makes best Debian Server/Storage platform. Some latest Nexenta related news: 1) Official Nexenta Core Platform (NCP) repository now is http://apt.nexenta.org 2) Unstable APT integrated with ON build 79, give it a try! 3) apt-get now fully integrated with ZFS cloning. New management tool provided: apt-clone. Never loose your upgrades again! 4) I'm seeking for developers who loves Debian and will help us to join Debian community. We've got general agreement with Debian leaders, but some work needs to be done, lets coordinate on official Nexenta IRC: #nexenta ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NexentaCP Beta1-test3 available
http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ncp_beta1-test3-b68_i386.iso Changes: * ON b68 based * man pages updated -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [zfs-discuss] NexentaCP Beta1-test2 (ZFS/Boot - manual partitioning support)
just use pkgadd -d wrapper. it will auto-magically convert SVR4 package to the .deb(s) and install them on the fly. You can also use pkgrm to remove them. pkginfo wrapper is also available. On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 16:38 +0200, Selim Daoud wrote: superbe job...synaptic package manager is really impressive is there a way to transform Sun package to a synaptic package? selim On 6/22/07, Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Erast Benson wrote: New unstable ISO of NexentaCP (Core Platform) available. http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ncp_beta1-test2-b67_i386.iso Also available at: http://www.genunix.org/distributions/gnusolaris/index.html Changes: * ON B67 based * ZFS/Boot manual partitioning support implemented (in addition to auto-partitioning). Both, Wizard and FDisk types fully supported. * gcc/g++ now officially included on installation media * APT repository fixed * first official meta-package: nexenta-gnome After installation, those who needs GNOME environment, just type: $ sudo apt-get install nexenta-gnome Known bugs: * after fresh install APT caches needs to be re-created: $ sudo rm /var/lib/apt/* $ sudo apt-get update -- Erast Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NexentaCP Beta1-test2 (ZFS/Boot - manual partitioning support)
New unstable ISO of NexentaCP (Core Platform) available. http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ncp_beta1-test2-b67_i386.iso Changes: * ON B67 based * ZFS/Boot manual partitioning support implemented (in addition to auto-partitioning). Both, Wizard and FDisk types fully supported. * gcc/g++ now officially included on installation media * APT repository fixed * first official meta-package: nexenta-gnome After installation, those who needs GNOME environment, just type: $ sudo apt-get install nexenta-gnome Known bugs: * after fresh install APT caches needs to be re-created: $ sudo rm /var/lib/apt/* $ sudo apt-get update -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: NexentaCP Beta1-test2 (ZFS/Boot - manual
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 15:15 -0700, MC wrote: You guys are making good progress :) Question: Is Nexenta capable of updating all of its systems from internet servers? I know you can update certain packages you've made, but can this build be updated to say b70 of ON when the time comes? Incremental ON/NWS upgrades have been provided started from A5+.. i.e. a year ago. However, on you own risk. This is Alpha software, but technology is there. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Announcing NexentaCP(b65) with ZFS/Boot integratedinstaller
On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 13:51 -0700, Thommy M. Malmström wrote: You must be missing something.. OK, but what. I didn't see any options of selecting ZFS in the install. It is default in NCP. UFS still supported in Manual and FDisk partitioning modes. I just installed it on my MBP using Parallels... What is Parallels? VMWare-like software for MacOSX This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Announcing NexentaCP(b65) with ZFS/Boot integrated installer
Announcing new direction of Open Source NexentaOS development: NexentaCP (Nexenta Core Platform). NexentaCP is Dapper/LTS-based core Operating System Platform distributed as a single-CD ISO, integrates Installer/ON/NWS/Debian and provides basis for Network-type installations via main or third-party APTs (NEW). First unstable b65-based ISO with ZFS/Boot-capable installer available as usual at: http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ncp_beta1-test1-b65_i386.iso Please give it a try and start building your own APT repositories and communities today! Note: this version of installer supports ZFS/Boot type of installations on single disk or 2+ mirror configuration. For now, only Auto partitioning mode could be used for ZFS root partition creation. More details on NexentaCP will be available soon... -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Announcing NexentaCP(b65) with ZFS/Boot integrated installer
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 16:26 -0400, Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:51:08PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: More details on NexentaCP will be available soon... Is it based on Alpha7? Alpha7 is the Desktop-oriented ISO, however they share the same main APT repository, i.e. Dapper/LTS. So far core team aggreed on following major decisions: 1) NexentaCP will follow Ubuntu/LTS releases only; 2) NexentaCP main set of packages shipped on ISO will be greately reduced and will contain only highly tested base minimum; 3) NexentaCP will offer Network-type installations using main(LTS-based) or third-party repository via Installer or after-install wizards. FYI, Martin mentioned some main goals of this move during LinuxTag conference: http://martinman.net/ -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:36 +0530, Moinak Ghosh wrote: Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:35:33AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking that the best option would be to include templates in the installation procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. What do you guys thing? -Brian On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. It is possible to do partial builds even today. nightly will build the whole thing. bldenv will start a new shell with the environment vars setup properly. Now in this shell you can only build libc by doing: cd usr/src/lib/libc; make Build kernel via: cd usr/src/uts; make The thing that is missing is a make menuconfig like stuff that can allow one to build a reduced set of kernel components or a reduced features kernel. Please don't do that... Usually feature like this heavily depends on macros within the kernel and changes its structuring. As the result Linux kernels suffers from beign incompatible even within the same minor release just because vendors jumping on this feature and building their variants with modified .config files. As far as Embedded OpenSolaris is concerned (if any), in my opinion it should just single option in bld-env which strips down existing components and produces reduced fat proto. Currently all kernel components are built. Regards, Moinak. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Open Solaris Distributions
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 12:40 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: James Mansion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I'd like to ask: *why* do you - all - maintain different distributions? It is obvious why I created a distribution: It was done in order to create a distribution as none did exist before. Why did other people create _different_ distributions? Same reason. Because Debian-based GNU/OpenSolaris never existed before. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
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 marketing and revenue streams around Solaris which is their product. This is similar to the relation between RHES and Fedora for Red Hat, and I see Ubuntu being much different than Fedora in that regard, isn't Ubuntu a business/company? There's absolutely nothing stopping Sun (or any other vendor) from potentially taking an OpenSolaris release and offering support for it. Will Indiana distro continue to re-distribute non-redistributable binaries as SXCR does? Only Sun so far has rights to do that. 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? -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NexentaOS Alpha 7 is now available
it does not support out of the box. You need to copy those. But remember, those binaries are not re-distributable... On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 21:14 +0800, xiaoming zhu wrote: Good. Just a question: does it now support UTF-8 locale? or can I install these (language) packages distributed with Solaris 10 on it? On 5/16/07, Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.gnusolaris.org/Download -- Nexenta Team ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- yours, Rick ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
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 them. OpenSolaris should not be thought of in that regard, and more to the point, Sun should focus their marketing and revenue streams around Solaris which is their product. This is similar to the relation between RHES and Fedora for Red Hat, and I see Ubuntu being much different than Fedora in that regard, isn't Ubuntu a business/company? There's absolutely nothing stopping Sun (or any other vendor) from potentially taking an OpenSolaris release and offering support for it. Will Indiana distro continue to re-distribute non-redistributable binaries as SXCR does? Only Sun so far has rights to do that. Which ones are you talking about? Remember that there are redistribution rights for many of the binary-only pieces that are part of ON, etc. I'm not talking about closed bins within ON... I'm talking about those binaries (which are plenty) which are not-redistributable with ON distros except those originated from Sun. 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? The same way Linspire and other distributions support users that have binary-only Linux drivers? You do the best you can I suspect. It is all a matter of how they choose to do that support, etc. I agree with you on that one. closed bins are not a huge problem for us. However, I'm a bit disappointed with the fact that non-debug versions of those are not always available. I hope that we will have a choice to get debug or non-debug closed bins for *every* nightly at: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads I'm curuios, what makes it so difficult to put non-debug closed bins there for every directory or at least for \/b\d+ directories ? -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Open Solaris Distributions
Humans are wired creatures, keep asking themself the same question over and over again... what's the meaning of life? :-) Diversity unavoidable. On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 21:51 +0100, James Mansion wrote: Guys, It really pains me to see the sort of finger pointing going on here about the various existing distributions and 'Indiana', and in particular I'm concerned at the prospect of alienation between Joerg and 'the rest' because - as an outsider - I do perceive that he did a lot, when Open Solaris was very young. I can understand that when one works on something for a long time, then to decide that its been eclipsed by others that came after can be hard. But I'd like to ask: *why* do you - all - maintain different distributions? All of these distributions seem to have started with a different focus and prioritisation. And so far as I can tell, all have been successful. And yet as an end user, I have to choose how to align *my* priorities with just one these systems in practice. And sometimes that's a shame. It strikes me that there is a lot of hassle and expense in maintaining and distributing a full distribution. You all get to work on what interests you - but to deploy it you have to pull in everything else too. Would it not be possible to work together more? Isn't the pie so large that you could not divide it up and still have big pools to swim in? (Whoa! Mixed Metaphore error!) Joerg clearly has great skill in hardware interfacing on X86 - and in the POSIX standard user space. Can't he drive that? Martin, similarly, has done much for SPARC and Xorg - can't he drive that? Moinak's team clearly has expertise in LiveCD and the 'friendly' Xfce environment - and a 'noob friendly' userspace - can't they drive that? Erast and Alex have a clear (and valuable) alternate userland and packaging system. And I haven't even considered Dennis, and the pkgsource people. And while we have GNU-ish stuff, what about BSD? These areas seem to me somewhat orthogonal. I can understand why a commercial entity might want to control a distribution that it sells support for - and for which it needs to control branding. But is that what drives YOU? Can we have peace and love? Well, not love - but trust and cooperation. The history of Linux small distributions has been one of towering egos hammering away resisting all the Not Invented Here until they just burn out and the bigger distros pick and choose until the benefits are gone. Can we put away the egos and learn from any of it? If Sun's proposal was to fund hardware and networking resources - and travel and accomodation for meetings etc - and a project manager (not boss, a facilitator) - and cede control to you all, in a way that made sense, would that be enough? Would you be able to cherry pick between you - and divide up the responsibilities? Why DO you have your own distributions? James (No, I'm not really that naive. Yes, this is a windup in some sense. But not entirely.) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:33 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote: Hey, Ian Collins wrote: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/emancipation/ Dale, Thanks for that link, I didn't even know the community existed. It exists, but it hasn't gone very far, at least with the i18n work. I'm absolutely rooting [1] for John Sonnenschein and his work in the Google Summer of Code - http://planet.opensolaris.org/soc2007/ I think it's a great start, and I'm hoping many other things will be solved before the summer is out. You reading my mind. I just wanted to suggest that we need an accent on project emancipation. Jump start it... It would also make sense if Sun would help Google to pay some $$$ to the students involved... -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: NexentaOS Alpha 7 is now available
$ sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -f On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 14:14 -0700, MC wrote: Good work :) I tried the A6 Nexenta Update Manager, but it failed saying packages were broken. Is there a suggested procedure to do a proper upgrade? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NexentaOS at OSDEVCON demos
3 little demos by Martin Man. Available as of today. http://martinman.net/software/nexenta Thanks Martin. Enjoy! -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris parted
This is great news! Thank you. Ported GNU Parted should speed up porting of various Linux-only installers to OpenSolaris-based distros. I'm thinking about NexentaOS, where we could benefit from libparted and make full port of Debian installer.. If anyone interested to start this effort, please contact me offline to coordinate. On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 05:02 -0700, sujay wrote: Greetings, We have ported parted :) The basic functionality of GNU Parted (libparted) has been implemented to work on OpenSolaris. The code is currently at a very beta stage although the basic functionality of editing fdisk partitions works on Solaris. The following commands of parted are fully functional: print, mkpart, mkpartfs, rm, mkfs, resize and toggle are fully functional as of now. The Parted code can be grabbed from: http://code.google.com/p/solaris-parted The following are known limitations that we are currently working on: * The code has only been tested on IDE disks. Support for SCSI is in the pipeline. * Solaris partitions are still displayed by parted as unknown. We need to add the VTOC identification support to parted. * The code needs quite some cleanup * Device probing is still incomplete. Regards, Nikhil Vyakaranam, Sujay Patil, Srivatsa V, Nitin Shekhar This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[osol-discuss] NexentaOS GNU/OpenSolaris - build 61 upgrade available
ON/NWS build 61 is now available for your regular APT upgrades. To upgrade your Alpha 6 NexentaOS box do: a) Switch your /etc/apt/sources.list to elatte-unstable. d) Do upgrade: # apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade # reboot Enjoy! -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: NexentaOS GNU/OpenSolaris - build 61 upgrade
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 14:41 -0700, MC wrote: The bad news is that the desktop doesn't appear upon bootup, oops :) Going back to do it again without the apt-get -f install. thanks for testing! you need to re-install those packages which has been removed during fix-ups (-f), so if you see: Correcting dependencies... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: evince gcalctool gnome gnome-applets gnome-control-center gnome-core gnome-desktop-environment gnome-panel gnome-session gnome-terminal nautilus totem totem-gstreamer totem-gstreamer-firefox-plugin ... than you need to apt-get them again after upgrade is finished: $ sudo apt-get install vince gcalctool gnome gnome-applets gnome-control-center gnome-core gnome-desktop-environment gnome-panel gnome-session gnome-terminal nautilus totem totem-gstreamer totem-gstreamer-firefox-plugin if i'm not mistaken synaptic suppose to do that auto magically.. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: NWS (Network Storage)
So, could we assume that NWS now will not be delivered as a separated tarball and will be part of ON tarball? Or this is just an effort to get dedicated web page on opensolaris.org? On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 10:19 -0700, John Forte wrote: The NWS project consists of drivers, libraries and utilities in support of storage interconnect technologies including both Fibre Channel and iSCSI. The NWS project source code has been available since 2/06, however, the project does not have its own project page but rather exists as part of the Storage Community. This proposal provides for NWS to be treated as a real project within OpenSolaris. Initially, it will be endorsed by the Storage Community. The NWS project currently includes: o iSCSI (software initiator) o Fibre Channel Transport o Interfaces for Fibre Channel HBA drivers o Storage Management APIs o Storage Management Utilities The initial leaders for this project would be: - Charles Baker - Aaron Dailey - John Forte - Stephen Salbato This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] apt-get functionality (Was joining Sun)
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 08:18 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Monday 19 March 2007 05:13 pm, David Lloyd wrote: Joe, Indeed, apt-get for Solaris would be quite useful :P Isn't that Nexenta? Had to say it. I don't want the Ubuntu Userland on an OpenSolaris code base. I'd prefer a distribution as close to Sun's release of Sun Solaris (tm) that I can get but without Sun Solaris', errrm, wonderful? package management. Why do you care about the packaging system, if it works? IOW, do you really care about what type of package is used if packaging in Solaris worked as it should, with dependencies resolving properly? I don't think you really care about .deb packages either, what I *think* you're saying is give me a packaging system that works like apt does!, But that just brings us back to Joe's original point: Isn't that Nexenta? Note the Nexenta project is by all rights and intentions (Erast, correct me if I'm wrong) a project of and by the OpenSolaris community. Yes, its entierly driven by the Community developers and users who generates bug reports... We just trying to coordinate the effort and sometimes(when time permits) contribute to the project. Money-wise, it relies on Users donatations and Google adverts. So, if you do not donated yet, please do.. :-) Periodic donations especially appreciated. We also need more build x86 machines to deploy. There are many areas which needs to be improved. ON/NWS better integration is just one of them. We also would like to move GNU/Debian userland to Feisty branch, but this will require 2 engineers 1 month full time, so the hope is that involved Companies(those who trying to use NexentaOS) will donate engineering force for us.. (Question for the future OGB: does a Project/Community have to be hosted on opensolaris.org in order to qualify its members for Core Contributor status?) Eric if I understand you correctly. I'm in agreement with you, if that is what you meant, and packaging is being looked at inside (Open)Solaris Engineering. I will be right in line behind you for a packaging system that works with proper dependency resolution, as apt does with Debian. I want to be able to install over the net also as apt has done for the past number of years. Between the Caiman project and the Packaging, we'll be much closer if not there in the future. Check out the Installation and Packaging Community, if you haven't yet. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/install/ -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: apt-get functionality (Was joining Sun)
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:22 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 08:18 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: But that just brings us back to Joe's original point: Isn't that Nexenta? Note the Nexenta project is by all rights and intentions (Erast, correct me if I'm wrong) a project of and by the OpenSolaris community. Yes, its entierly driven by the Community developers and users who generates bug reports... We just trying to coordinate the effort and sometimes(when time permits) contribute to the project. Money-wise, it relies on Users donatations and Google adverts. So, if you do not donated yet, please do.. :-) Periodic donations especially appreciated. We also need more build x86 machines to deploy. There are many areas which needs to be improved. ON/NWS better integration is just one of them. We also would like to move GNU/Debian userland to Feisty branch, but this will require 2 engineers 1 month full time, so the hope is that involved Companies(those who trying to use NexentaOS) will donate engineering force for us.. Would it help cost-wise to consider migrating some things? I would think at least some of your apps/DB/mail systems could use the HW/SW infrastructure and bandwidth that opensoloaris.org provides... We are pretty happy with hosting provided by Stanford University, but I think some projects could be moved to opensolaris.org, like apt-get/dpkg ports, debhelper, hackzone tools, fileutils, etc, as subprojects of some top-level consolidation - GNU/OpenSolaris (i.e. not Solaris), so it will create dedicated mailing lists for those small projects. Eric (Question for the future OGB: does a Project/Community have to be hosted on opensolaris.org in order to qualify its members for Core Contributor status?) -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] joining Sun
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 16:38 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: Really .. its so great to see Mr. Debian here. :-) +1 :-) -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What is OpenSolaris success?
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 21:25 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: I would like to see OpenSolaris buildable on OpenSolaris. This needs that some more pieces of code need to be at least redistributable. +1 -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Nexenta/format/fdisk
you can try testing builds: http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 01:28 -0800, Martti Hamunen wrote: Is it soon possible download Nexenta alpha 7? Martti This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NexentaOS: Introducing 'unstable' testing releases
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 11:52 +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: Hi. I'm really curious - what are your plans (I mean people behind Nexenta)? When are you going to come out of beta status? As far as NexentaOS (Open Source project) is concerned we will release Beta when all targeted bugs will be closed: http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/query?status=newstatus=assignedstatus=reopenedmilestone=Elatte+Unstable+Beta+1 This really depends on capabilities of our community. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
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 gpl3, that would be more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in the world Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that... Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests this is exactly what would happen. And this would matter how exactly? It's well known that there's a spat between Linux (Sorry, GNU/Linux) and the FSF; Hurd is the FSF's current OS and it is going nowhere; they'd be switching from Hurd to Solaris. Is that the kind of company we want to keep? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org So will Stallman ask us to call it GNU/Solaris? It obviously doesn't apply to Solaris since we have our own compiler, etc. and don't need GNU tools to exist (as far as I know). Solaris is a distribution of Sun Microsystem, only Sun can decide to go with GNU userland. On the other hand, we already have GNU/OpenSolaris NexentaOS: http://www.gnusolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
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 or something generic like that as reason), which have a chance of being available at some unknown date (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown date (in process). We may make a list which says pending review (so that an e1000g release does not surprise those working on cloning it) but in many cases we can't even tell why we can't open the source. This is a great idea, this way we could avoid double efforts. Lawyers are funny that way. no, that is fine. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
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/ Would be nice to address it too. Is that also legal-related issue? On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 10:46 -0700, Bonnie Corwin wrote: 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 continually and consistently said that we will open source all the code we legally can. That is exactly what we're doing. And that tells you why something is not available. Re: the suggestion for a 'pending review' list. We can not do that. We can only say either that something is coming when the only thing it's waiting on is engineering resources or that we have no plans to open source the associated code. Perhaps that's not good enough, but it's the best we can do. I will put it on my list to update the page listed above now that an open source version of e1000g is available. Bonnie Erast Benson wrote: 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 or something generic like that as reason), which have a chance of being available at some unknown date (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown date (in process). We may make a list which says pending review (so that an e1000g release does not surprise those working on cloning it) but in many cases we can't even tell why we can't open the source. This is a great idea, this way we could avoid double efforts. Lawyers are funny that way. no, that is fine. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
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 subscribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of downloads may be? On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 09:55 -0800, 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 contributions will come from outside of Sun? 50%? 75%? 100%? This community is intended to be inclusive of both Sun and non-Sun engineers; in my mind, it would be a disaster to have an OpenSolaris community where there was little or no Sun engineering presence. That would turn OpenSolaris into one of those worthless toss it over the wall and see if it survives debacles. My expectations are pretty modest: I don't expect individual contributers to take on huge projects, though there will always be exceptional people who do the impossible - and make it look easy! I expect lots of people (inside and outside of Sun) to take on and be successful at simple things - bugfixes, low hanging fruit, etc. Being pragmatic, I believe that it takes a long term commitment (meaning money and people) to do non-trivial projects, and as such, implies corporate backing - Sun's or Apple's or All open source efforts stratify into tiers: Core leaders, Core doers, Peripheral doers, Talkers and Watchers. OpenSolaris is no different. I expect that this will show itself in the beginning as Most community members will be content to sit back and watch Some will be vocal and want to be heard on the various mailing lists A few will get involved with the code Fewer still will actually submit bugfixes and simple RFEs A relative handful will get involved, start taking charge, make waves, etc A dozen or less will succeed and become leaders. This isn't just an OpenSolaris viewpoint; it holds true for all the other open source efforts I am or have been involved with as well. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
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: 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 subscribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of downloads may be? There are some metrics: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/metrics/latest/ -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote: From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very well when they do many of these things, so the community is in the dark. indeed, i don't know about others, but I feel that I do not see many things which are going on inside of ON development. Like, schedule of stabilization builds, code reviews, decisions made, etc. Also, it would be wonderful if Sun engineers invented a rule of thumb which will enforce every single putback to go through the community review before merging to the main tree, similar to what we see in Linux kernel, where patches goes directly to the mailing list and reviewed by thousands of kernel hackers. Not only it will increase community's input but also will stimulate outsiders to commit more often. This would also help outsiders to understand ON code and will create certain discipline among developers. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
nice! I'm especially hoping to see review process to happen on mailing lists. I think mail patch attachments would be ideal, so community people could reply-to-all and post their comments with no-time spent. On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 17:34 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote: After the constitution is ratified, and the OGB is in place, and all the source is in Mercurial outside the firewall, that next big thing for OpenSolaris will be for the communities (a la the constitution) to figure out what the process is to becoming a contributor and under what rules code may be checked in. It's all moving slower than I want, but it's moving. There's a lot of infrastructure required to do all of this, and we're bumping into some issues. (Ask Stephen Lau about the automounter sometime. :-)) But, what you ask will happen. Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote: From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very well when they do many of these things, so the community is in the dark. indeed, i don't know about others, but I feel that I do not see many things which are going on inside of ON development. Like, schedule of stabilization builds, code reviews, decisions made, etc. Also, it would be wonderful if Sun engineers invented a rule of thumb which will enforce every single putback to go through the community review before merging to the main tree, similar to what we see in Linux kernel, where patches goes directly to the mailing list and reviewed by thousands of kernel hackers. Not only it will increase community's input but also will stimulate outsiders to commit more often. This would also help outsiders to understand ON code and will create certain discipline among developers. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 22:07 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote: Currently, there is no possible way to build an opensolaris distribution without including the closed-source libc_i18n.a. What this means is that a traditional distribution is entirely out of the question. This is entirely unacceptable for a project which wishes to call itself Open Source. I propose that a project be started seeking to re-implement all necessary functions locked up behind that binary. I've done a rudimentary count of the work required, and from what I can tell there's a small number ( 100 - 200 ) utility functions ( wcwidth() for example) that need a rewrite. I would prefer if this project be attached to the name of closed-reimplementation or something similar, due to the fact that the primary focus at first will be to remove libc_i18n.a, and that must be integrated without delay, but ultimately I'd like for closed bins to disappear completely. +1 -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NexentaOS: Introducing 'unstable' testing releases
To improve quality of development releases, we decided to introduce 'unstable' ISO releases which will be available with or without announcement over here: http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso Interested users/developers, please report bugs over here: http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/Bugs Thank you. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:16 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote: On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote: It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant, and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual licensing? I have my doubts. I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge mess of the project. It sounds to me anti-GPL folks over here confused you. I doubt dual-licensing is that messy as they claim. As Stephen mentioned, assembly exception could be provided, this is the tool Sun should use to prevent possible single-license forking and code aggregation issues. I think GPLv3 licensed OpenSolaris is a *good* thing and I believe it will increase our community and make it stronger dramatically. This would be a positive strategic step. I think GPLv3 will be widely accepted just because of FSF/GNU will force it in distributions and because of GPLv2 or later clause in source files. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ Now, how many people we see contributing to Blastwave, SchiliX, BeleniX, Nexenta and Martux all together? 5-15? If you still think we don't have problems with our community, think again please. But I believe if GPLv3 dual-licensing is done right, it will improve this situation drastically. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat wrote: Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed or single licensed under GPLv3 ? Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ? If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence only opinions about what might happen. Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some precedence where CDDL hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and Debian community not acceptance of CDDL is another one. On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, emotions and fear. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:38 +, Darren J Moffat wrote: Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside Which changelog ? Are you looking at all consolidations or just ON ? ON I'm told only makes up about 20% of Sun's Solaris product and probably even less of a distro like Nextana I suspect. No matter how you count, I don't think you will see significant numbers. My guess it will be less than 0.1% overall. But, would be nice to count real number. I take your point though it would be great to have more, I'm just not personally convinced that a license change is what will change that because I don't think the license is what that problem is. Right. Re-licensing alone would be just a first step to resolve this problem. There are many other micro-steps we need to do. Like get rid off closed bins, most serious next step to do. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:42 -0800, Rich Teer wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote: it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. I submit that the license is not why there are fewer external contributions than we'd like. I think it's because it's an onerous process at the moment, and perhaps because people might be wary of signing a Contributor Agreememnt. I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins. If anything, I think people are afraid to contribute to non-Sun CDDLed projects is because of FUD spread by the anti-CDDL factions. I remember some assertions that said words to the effect of ownership of any CDDLed code reverts to Sun, when that is patently not the case. and we don't want to constantly fight against this FUD... -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:55 -0800, Bryan Cantrill wrote: And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed or single licensed under GPLv3 ? Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ? If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence only opinions about what might happen. Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some precedence where CDDL hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and Debian community not acceptance of CDDL is another one. On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, emotions and fear. Then allow me to add a data point: the CDDL was a -- and perhaps the -- major reason that Apple went ahead with a DTrace port (and apparently a ZFS port as well) to Leopard. Apple told us in no uncertain terms that the GPL would have been a non-starter. Does that mean that a dual license would have also been a non-starter? Hard to say -- but one can absolutely say that (1) the CDDL was critical to Apple's adoption, and that (2) Apple's adoption of OpenSolaris technology has been hugely validating for OpenSolaris. i'm not sure this data point applicable. Apple is just another company, not a community. Apple decided to take it not just because of CDDL, but because ZFS is so f**king great stuff, isn't it? Besides, we are talking about the possibility of dual-licensing, so Apple could still take ZFS on terms of CDDL part of dual-licensing agreement. To me personally, the CDDL is a great license that accurately conveys the zeitgiest of the OpenSolaris community. In my opinion, dual licensing doesn't solve the problems that we do have (e.g., lowering the barriers to non-Sun contributions), while giving us a bunch of new problems that we _don't_ have (e.g. license-based forks that become unresolvable). this is something I hope Sun lawyers could resolve. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:32 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Erast Benson wrote: I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins. But if we get rid of the Contributor Agreement we lose the mechanism that lets us change from CDDL to dual-licensed - you can't have it both ways! well, use it wisely... at least we do have one shot. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
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? 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? And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least we will be blessed by FSF/GNU and others GPLv3 supporters (which could be easily 50% of GNU/Linux community)? Isn't this will give us enough hopes that dual-licensing will be a good thing? On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 13:31 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote: No, but then again, you don't have any proof on the reverse case. The fact is that you really won't know until we do it, or don't do it, and then see what happens. And it makes it really hard to make an educated guess when you haven't seen the final GPLv3 license. But we can make somewhat an educated guess now based on what we do know. And we can always revise it as we obtain more data. Darren J Moffat wrote: Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed or single licensed under GPLv3 ? Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ? If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence only opinions about what might happen. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:24 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. I am sorry to read this from you. From the discussions we did have in the past, I know that you know that this is not true. I'm sorry I cited it. But this is fact of history. Yes I never fully agreed with what happened. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:14 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat wrote: Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed or single licensed under GPLv3 ? Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ? If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence only opinions about what might happen. Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some precedence where CDDL hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and Debian community not acceptance of CDDL is another one. On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, emotions and fear. -- Erast Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides benefits. We do not have just opinions, emotions and fear. I mean really, that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say. Debian doesn't even accept some of the Free Software Foundation's licenses, so what's your answer to that? Sorry, but Debian is unreasonable in their demands in many people's opinions. Why do you think Ubuntu is succeeding where they *failed*? -Shawn 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 first step. also, I'm not sure that anybody here could clearly proof me that keeping CDDL-only OpenSolaris will help either. I tend to think that it will not hurt us more than it did already, but at the same time I think dual-licensing will actually improve our outside appearance and attract more folks on board. I think we need to vote.. :-) http://www.gnusolaris.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5861 -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:11 +, Alan Burlison wrote: 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? No, because I don't agree with your premise that there has been almost zero participation. For example, the volume heat on this alias today reminds me of the heady days of perl5-porters - well known in the past for being the abode of Those With Asbestos Undergarments ;-) Just because we are a still relatively small community, it doesn't make us a *dead* community. 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... -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:19 +0900, Jim Grisanzio wrote: Alan Burlison wrote On 02/01/07 09:11,: Erast Benson wrote: 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? Considered a minority community by who? And based on what timeframe and measurement mechanism? Sorry, I don't agree with this line of thinking at all because it's pejorative. We are young, we are building, and we are growing. 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. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
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 license that Debian (you?) will fork a GNU only version. whatever it proves, it wasn't a good experience... And if I'm not mistaken Joerg refused to dual-license cdrecord. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 16:44 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote: I think that we (we being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an assembly exception to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities. That is what I thought. Indeed. And a lot of people think it would be a good idea. But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later. Here is NexentaOS (aka GNU/OpenSolaris) visitor voting: http://www.gnusolaris.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5861 2All: please join and vote too if you'd like. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:18 +0800, Brian Cameron wrote: Stephen: In my opinion, one concern is how well GPLv3 will be accepted by the FreeSoftware community. In my discussions with maintainers of various FreeSoftware projects (currently under GPLv2), they seem unsure about whether they will want to move to GPLv3 or not. GPLv3 will only be a good move, in my opinion, if it is accepted by the FreeSoftware community. I think it is a bit early to tell, since GPLv3 isn't done yet. oh, there are high hopes it will be accepted. FSF betting on GPLv2 or later clause in source file headers. This blog entry is particularly useful: http://hritcu.wordpress.com/2007/01/06/gplv2-or-later/ Brian Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one Sorry. In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process. As Rich has made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made. We've seen discussions in blogs and in the news, but I haven't seen much in the OpenSolaris community itself. I think that we (we being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an assembly exception to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities. But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:07 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote: Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're trying to solve with such a licensing change? its obvious... world domination. :-) and license shouldn't be a stopping factor. And that is why Mozilla dual-licensed their stuff, isn't it? -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] 3K man pages available
Thank you Michelle! Great news! NexentaOS 'unstable' APT repository updated too. Just 'apt-get upgrade' will bring additional pages... On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 18:31 -0800, Michelle Olson wrote: Hi, I'm pleased to announce that the snv_57 update to the Man Page consolidation adds more than 2700 files, bringing the total to 3146 SunOS man pages available under CDDL. http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/manpages/ Many thanks to Doug Stevenson and Bonnie Corwin for their efforts, time, and continued dedication to this project. To learn more about man page development for OpenSolaris, join the Docs community. http://opensolaris.org/os/community/documentation Regards, Michelle This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 08:20 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Jim Grisanzio wrote: Also, there will be an enormous amount of software under v3 when it's done, so wouldn't that benefit us? Don't we want to grow faster? It would enable that software to benefit from us, but not us to benefit from them, since any software we take in from another GPLv3 project will be GPLv3-only and unavailable to anyone who wishes to use the CDDL option. Since the CDDL allows OpenSolaris distros to exist with our current model of mostly source but some still encumbered binaries, while the GPL would not, that would simply be cutting off our distros, which would slow growth, not speed it. failed to understand you here... a) in case of dual-licensing model, distros will have full rights to choose under which license to progress. If they choose GPLv3, its their choice; b) needed encumbered binaries should be considered as separate modules and still distro-builders will have full rights to re-distribute them. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:33 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 08:20 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Jim Grisanzio wrote: Also, there will be an enormous amount of software under v3 when it's done, so wouldn't that benefit us? Don't we want to grow faster? It would enable that software to benefit from us, but not us to benefit from them, since any software we take in from another GPLv3 project will be GPLv3-only and unavailable to anyone who wishes to use the CDDL option. Since the CDDL allows OpenSolaris distros to exist with our current model of mostly source but some still encumbered binaries, while the GPL would not, that would simply be cutting off our distros, which would slow growth, not speed it. failed to understand you here... a) in case of dual-licensing model, distros will have full rights to choose under which license to progress. If they choose GPLv3, its their choice; Right - as long as all code was dual licensed - the implication of Jim's statement was that dual-licensing our sources would allow us to benefit from other GPLv3 code, but if we did pull that in, it would be GPLv3-only and not dual licensed, and distros would have no choice on using it. b) needed encumbered binaries should be considered as separate modules and still distro-builders will have full rights to re-distribute them. Will GPLv3 allow you to ship libc.so with most sources under GPL but the i18n components closed source? I certainly didn't think GPLv2 would. Even GPLv2 allows that. The key is to ship closed beastie separately, i.e. to download on package installation, ask EULA, etc.. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:53 -0800, Rich Teer wrote: On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote: Even GPLv2 allows that. The key is to ship closed beastie separately, i.e. to download on package installation, ask EULA, etc.. How would one ship the closed bits of libc.so separately, given that (in binary form) we're talking about one file? I'm saying in general it is possible. Closeness of i18n components is very BAD for OpenSolaris anyway, and needs to be fixed. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 09:24 -0800, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like it is: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL011507EP28A ( Sun to License OpenSolaris Under GPLv3) In my opinion, this is going to be a positive event and will attract a lot of new OSS developers on board. It will definitely increase popularity of various OpenSolaris projects and as long as it dual-licensed with CDDL it will stimulate businesses around it. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] [osol-announce] NexentaOS GNU/OpenSolaris - build 55 upgrade
ON build 55 is now available for your regular APT upgrades. To upgrade your Alpha 6 NexentaOS box do: a) Switch your /etc/apt/sources.list to elatte-unstable. b) Do upgrade: # apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade # reboot Enjoy! -- Erast ___ opensolaris-announce mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-announce ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Control + Backspace kills Xserver
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 01:05 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Pattison wrote: Can I just jump in and ask why there is a .org.conf file (with the dot at the start)? It confused me when I saw it as well. What does Xorg use for its configuration in the absense of a xorg.conf file (withouth the dot at the start)? It's generated at boot time to give xorgcfg a template to work with if you run xorgcfg but don't have an existing xorg.conf. It should be put somewhere else to avoid this confusion, but that's unfortunately a bit of hindsight we got after it shipped that way. This is not directly related but I believe it should be known: I got a feedback from a Sun employee that with build 54 it does not work to call eeprom kbd-type=German and to reboot to get a working German keyboard. Is this a known bug? kbd-type is obsolete. see related putback here: http://hg.genunix.org/onnv-gate.hg?cs=54126e4288ab And BTW: without X, the kbd tables are still as broken as they have been a year ago. The pipe | does not work depending on the initial state of the numlock key. Is there hope that non US keyboards will work more smoothly? Jörg -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Nexentas partitions
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 05:38 -0800, Martti Hamunen wrote: How many partitions is it possible manually to select? Is it so that only three: swap, / (root) and /export/home I have done partitions: swap, / (root) /opt, /usr and /export/home with Solaris Express-Community and then I try install Nexenta. I cannot select /opt and /usr. Why? It has been fixed just recently. If I install/auto Nexenta, so Nexenta makes swap, /(root) and /export/home and use the whole harddisk. If I have for example 80GB harddisk, so how big makes Nexenta: swap, /(root) and /export/home ? swap == memory size / == 8MB (if it fits) /export/home == (the rest of the disk if any) -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: New to OpenSolaris, need help?
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 05:45 -0800, UNIX admin wrote: I could download Nexenta, which I believe uses Debian's apt (something that I absolutely love) and GNU tools. Does it mean I will miss out on anything that is Solaris-specific? Of course you will. Nexenta is Ubuntu with an OpenSolaris kernel core and OpenSolaris userland mixed with GNU that Ubuntu comes with. If you really, honestly want to learn Solaris proper, then you should stick with (Open)Solaris. If you plan to run Solaris in production, Nexenta is most likely not what you want, nor will it ever be, unless you are keen on babysitting your servers. There is a tremendous amount of (re)engineering work that goes into Nexenta to graft Ubuntu on top of an OpenSolaris core, and this is why Nexenta will always lame behind (Open)Solaris proper. Please don't confuse people. What you just said is simply a lie. Nexenta uses exactly the same ON an NWS bits as any other OpenSolaris distribution out there. And starting from Alpha6, we now fully support native Sun userland command tools which previously has been disabled. Just set your shell in /etc/passwd to /sbin/sh and enjoy with pure Solaris environment. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: New to OpenSolaris, need help?
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 09:42 -0800, Hari Sundararajan wrote: Wow! Thanks everyone. Especially for the whacked.net link. Sweet. erast, you have mentioned the following --- [I] Nexenta uses exactly the same ON an NWS bits as any other OpenSolaris distribution out there. And starting from Alpha6, we now fully support native Sun userland command tools which previously has been disabled. Just set your shell in /etc/passwd to /sbin/sh and enjoy with pure Solaris environment.[/i] Does that mean I can build OpenSolaris on top of Nexenta once I have changed my shell and am in the pure environment? Sure. Why not? But nobody reported a success yet, so it might take some efforts on your part too. :-) I think Joerg tried it on SchilliX once and it took him almost 2 weeks to overcome various issues! Am I correct? I personally using SXCR nexenta zone to build ON/NWS bits because SXCR ships with all needed parts for that. This saves a lot of time. But it would be nice one day to verify that we can do that on Nexenta too. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
