Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On May 30, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it. Do you mind not spreading absolute FUD? Do you have any sources? No. You want to know why? Here: SCO's regulatory filings showed the TOTAL VALUE of the Sun/MS deals (with SCO) to be 13.2 million dollars. Sun was also offered the opportunity to purchase 210,000 thousand shares of SCO at $1.83 ($384,300 total.) I don't know if they exercised this option, but it was available. Assuming they did, and assuming MS gave SCO $0, then Sun (at most) gave SCO the 13.2 million + another $384,300. At *most*. Here's one source: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21894.html Now, supposedly the licensing deal was 9.3 million. I can't verify this, because I didn't see the report itself when it came out (and I can't be bothered to research it) but assuming that figure is correct (and we know the cap is 13.2 million) then Sun *at most* put $10 million into SCO. That's nothing, compared to costs of litigation and so forth. It's a drop in the bucket. Here: http://news.com.com/Fact+and+fiction+in+the+Microsoft-SCO +relationship/2100-7344_3-5450515.html Now, please, unless you want to back up your $200 million figure, please go crawl back into the hole from which you came, with this utterly ridiculous crap you are so keen to spread. It's really getting old to listen to your constant attempted character assassination of Sun, as if it's your mortal enemy. This discussion list is here for people to discuss OSOL, in general, both positive and negatives - CONSTRUCTIVELY. Simply flaming Sun and spouting absolute nonsense doesn't fall into that kind of activity, and it absolutely makes this mailing list painful to read at times. If you don't have anything useful to say, simply say nothing. Nobody wants to listen to FUD, and I don't want people who are here to learn about OSOL and contribute to OSOL to have to deal with this kind of silliness. Some people are going to assume what you say is true, and get turned off to Sun, and OSOL. This is not cool. I don't like spending my evenings reading inflammatory emails, with absolutely no useful content, either. So please, either contribute to the community in a positive manner, or don't bother. If SUN wishes to get the OSS world to start using Studio 11 as the compiler of choice for Linux, then SUN needs to mend ALOT of bridges with the OSS community - how about offering a version for FreeBSD, have double the participation? I think this might be a good road to take in the future, but unless some more evangelism goes on, nobody is going to have a clue what Studio 11 is, much less know why they should use it over GCC. That's the barrier to entry. People have to know it exists, and they have to have a reason to use it. Making a FreeBSD port won't solve either of these two problems. Now, once those two problems are sorted out, THEN a FreeBSD port would be wonderful (I'm a long-time FreeBSD guy myself..) rant As a side note, why the heck doesn't Sun opensource Java, JFC! the money is made off the middleware, not the framework. As for an internal debate - excuse me Johnnathon, but who is running the company? make a damn decision, and those who don't like it, show them the door. This has been discussed to death, and you should watch the stuff from the recent Java conference. There was clarification on this matter. My understanding (hopefully correct) is the plan *is* to open-source Java, it is being determined what the best route to take is that will keep Java *Java* without a half-gazillion forks everywhere, and while also pleasing the legal and economic beats inside Sun. This is a *huge* undertaking, and it is not something that Sun can afford to take lightly. I'd rather Sun sorts all this out, and open-sources Java when it's ready, so I don't have to deal with the kinds of problems that could emerge from poor planning. Respectfully - but upset, David ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a lot more Linux specific on GNOME. THe most important task we have with OpenSolaris is to convince people that trying to compile on Solaris is a must for every OpenSource project. For this reason, it is important to better advertize the free Sun Studio Tools. True, but there are alot of lazy programmers out there, still holding onto the idea of 'if it compiles, ship it' along with the 'if it compiles with GCC, it works' - its going to be difficult to convince some of the OSS programmers out there to test their software using Studio 10/11 compilers given that they'll say, 'well, it compiles with GCC, so why should I care about anything else? Maybe Sun should better advertize the fact that the Sun Studio Compilers are available for Linux also and produce better code than GCC. Given the fact that the Intel compiler is no longer available, it may be the right time to do it now. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yep. And lets be real here, it is much easier for us to fix GCC compiler to work properly on OpenSolaris than to fix or change mentality of those lazy programmers... Studio 11 seems to implement enough GCC bugs to allow to compile most free software that is not just rubbish. The more important problems arise from the fact that there are many Makefiles that have hidden dependencies on GNUmake. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 19:28 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it breaks CD/DVD writing (as it does on Linux) I would not call it cool. Not sure what you are talking about. HAL is an abstraction layer. It doesn't re-implements anything. On Linux there is a program called hald, this program frequently sends unaproproate SCSI commands to targets and thus dirsturbes CD/DVD-writing. AFAIK, hald is pure D-BUS service which might execute external programs to complete some pre-defined actions like mount/unmount/eject etc. It is not suppose to directly talk to SCSI/IDE/USB/etc devices. So, it most likely your setup been mis-configured. I don't know which piece of software on Linux is responsible for the problem. If hald is killed, the problems have been reported to disappear. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On 5/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a lot more Linux specific on GNOME. THe most important task we have with OpenSolaris is to convince people that trying to compile on Solaris is a must for every OpenSource project. For this reason, it is important to better advertize the free Sun Studio Tools. True, but there are alot of lazy programmers out there, still holding onto the idea of 'if it compiles, ship it' along with the 'if it compiles with GCC, it works' - its going to be difficult to convince some of the OSS programmers out there to test their software using Studio 10/11 compilers given that they'll say, 'well, it compiles with GCC, so why should I care about anything else?Maybe Sun should better advertize the fact that the Sun Studio Compilers are available for Linux also and produce better code than GCC.Given the fact that the Intel compiler is no longer available, it may be theright time to do it now.Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it. If SUN wishes to get the OSS world to start using Studio 11 as the compiler of choice for Linux, then SUN needs to mend ALOT of bridges with the OSS community - how about offering a version for FreeBSD, have double the participation? rant As a side note, why the heck doesn't Sun opensource Java, JFC! the money is made off the middleware, not the framework. As for an internal debate - excuse me Johnnathon, but who is running the company? make a damn decision, and those who don't like it, show them the door. Matty ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it. how do you know what sun paid sco for? If SUN wishes to get the OSS world to start using Studio 11 as the compiler of choice for Linux, then SUN needs to mend ALOT of bridges with the OSS community - how about offering a version for FreeBSD, have double the participation? I see, providing a compiler for freebsd will really help sun with linux Porting the compiler to linux is a big step forward, now all sun needs to do is show people it has a better software than the everyone else I'd like to see the compiler included with Solaris too, iirc someone told me it's being taken care of, i dont know, i guess it's wait and see rant As a side note, why the heck doesn't Sun opensource Java, JFC! the money is made off the middleware, not the framework. As for an internal debate - excuse me Johnnathon, but who is running the company? make a damn decision, and those who don't like it, show them the door. please, stop with that, the middleware only works because the framework is stable. While i would like to see an opensource java all the possible outcomes must be considered, give them time; in the meantime if you want to contribute to java you can do so with the current license, gpl zealots will only be happy if java is gpld anyway nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On 5/31/06, Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it. how do you know what sun paid sco for?IIRC, a Sun employee said it was 'drivers' and 'x86 related information' which I find hard to believe; $200million is a bit of cash to pay to a company who, quite frankly, is dying/dead/gone. For that number, why not just buy the whole damn company? If SUN wishes to get the OSS world to start using Studio 11 as the compiler of choice for Linux, then SUN needs to mend ALOT of bridges with the OSS community - how about offering a version for FreeBSD, have double the participation?I see, providing a compiler for freebsd will really help sun with linux Porting the compiler to linux is a big step forward, now all sun needsto do is show people it has a better software than the everyone elseI'd like to see the compiler included with Solaris too, iirc someone told me it's being taken care of, i dont know, i guess it's wait andseeNo, providing a compiler for FreeBSD will expand the OSS communtiy, as FreeBSD people also contribute to OSS projects; it'll also raise the profile of Studio as more 'large projects' start to use it - heck, why not team up with Novell, and work with them to ship a 'Studio 11 optimised' version of their desktop operating system? allow them to bundle Studio 11 free of charge with their OpenSuSE and corporate desktop/workstation versions. rant As a side note, why the heck doesn't Sun opensource Java, JFC! the money is made off the middleware, not the framework. As for an internal debate - excuse me Johnnathon, but who is running the company? make a damn decision, and those who don't like it, show them the door. please, stop with that, the middleware only works because theframework is stable. While i would like to see an opensource java allthe possible outcomes must be considered, give them time; in themeantime if you want to contribute to java you can do so with the current license, gpl zealots will only be happy if java is gpld anywaynachoWhy not release it under CDDL and make life a little easier for alternative operating systems to port and certify Java for their platform? Matty ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: On 5/31/06, *Ignacio Marambio Catán* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it. how do you know what sun paid sco for? IIRC, a Sun employee said it was 'drivers' and 'x86 related information' which I find hard to believe; $200million is a bit of cash to pay to a company who, quite frankly, is dying/dead/gone. In fact, it's many times more than the amount of cash SCO got that year, proving that you are simply making up such numbers. A simple google search shows how incredibly far off your numbers are from any sort of reality. http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=125088 -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On 5/31/06, Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/31/06, Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it. how do you know what sun paid sco for? IIRC, a Sun employee said it was 'drivers' and 'x86 related information' which I find hard to believe; $200million is a bit of cash to pay to a company who, quite frankly, is dying/dead/gone. For that number, why not just buy the whole damn company? I googled for a while and didnt find the exact number, however, everything i found seems to confirm it was way less than the number you came up with. This thread is not productive for the community any longer so I will drop it, please, next time you write something like that add a source that confirms what youre saying or dont write that at all. lets go back to talking about opensolaris instead of sun, shall we? nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: right time to do it now. Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it. So, approximately 10 years ago when SUN purchased a permanent license instead of leasing the license every year was against Linux? Paul ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
If you want to see software for Solaris x86/x64 you should consider having a look to NexentaOS http://www.gnusolaris.org Erast and Alex are working really hard to build all software using GCC. 9000+ packages now... And while Nexenta is a nice publicity stunt for OpenSolaris, if I wanted to use Linux, I'd just be running RedHat ES / CentOS, thank You very much. I want to run Solaris because it's Solaris, because of his userland tools, not run some GNU grafted stuff on top of the Solaris kernel. The point should be not to keep PORTING Linux software to Solaris, but to start using Solaris as THE main development platform for open source software (and freeware). This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
From this stand point, GCC-like and GNU-like environments are must to have and we are moving this road... aka NexentaOS GNU/OpenSolaris. I just happen to be working on porting a GCC written application to Sun Studio 11. And all I can say is, GCC is one of the worst, brain dead compilers in existence. If it were up to me, I'd lock all the GCC developers up on criminal charges for the rest of their lives, and explicitly forbid them to ever touch a computer by a means of a court order. I'd give them shovels and pickaxes, that's what. Those guys are only good to do road work, not work on compilers. To state my point, the Sun Studio C and C++ compilers picked a TON of warnings and just plain BAD CODE, that the braindead GCC compiler didn't even detect. And I didn't even get to the fact that Sun Studio 11 is now available for Linux, for free, so there is NO EXCUSE for using that GCC junk any more. On top of all that, Sun Studio can do just unbelievable optimizations like code reordering, binary optimizations and many other things on x86, x64 and SPARC that GCC can't even touch. Plus it just generates faster, better and tighter code. So when I read statements like the one you just made, my hair stands up on my head. This is horrible, just horrible. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On 5/29/06, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From this stand point, GCC-like and GNU-like environments are must to have and we are moving this road... aka NexentaOS GNU/OpenSolaris.I just happen to be working on porting a GCC written application to Sun Studio 11.And all I can say is, GCC is one of the worst, brain dead compilers in existence. If it were up to me, I'd lock all the GCC developers up on criminal charges for the rest of their lives, and explicitly forbid them to ever touch a computer by a means of a court order.I'd give them shovels and pickaxes, that's what. Those guys are only good to do road work, not work on compilers.To state my point, the Sun Studio C and C++ compilers picked a TON of warnings and just plain BAD CODE, that the braindead GCC compiler didn't even detect.And I didn't even get to the fact that Sun Studio 11 is now available for Linux, for free, so there is NO EXCUSE for using that GCC junk any more.On top of all that, Sun Studio can do just unbelievable optimizations like code reordering, binary optimizations and many other things on x86, x64 and SPARC that GCC can't even touch. Plus it just generates faster, better and tighter code.So when I read statements like the one you just made, my hair stands up on my head.This is horrible, just horrible. No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop applications as if the whole world revolved around Linux - take the gnome-cd application, its link to a linux cdrom.h header - now wouldn't it be smarter to create an abstraction layer between the devices and applications that that applications don't directly link to the system, thus make portability that wee bit easier? Matty ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 00:28 -0700, UNIX admin wrote: If you want to see software for Solaris x86/x64 you should consider having a look to NexentaOS http://www.gnusolaris.org Erast and Alex are working really hard to build all software using GCC. 9000+ packages now... And while Nexenta is a nice publicity stunt for OpenSolaris, if I wanted to use Linux, I'd just be running RedHat ES / CentOS, thank You very much. I want to run Solaris because it's Solaris, because of his userland tools, not run some GNU grafted stuff on top of the Solaris kernel. The point should be not to keep PORTING Linux software to Solaris, but to start using Solaris as THE main development platform for open source software (and freeware). Few comments: a) too late for wishes like that; b) majority of developers using GNU userland all over, even on Windows they prefer Cygwin over anything else; c) OSS upstreams are willing to run their babies everywhere and not just Linux, the problem is lack of OSS developers on other than Linux platforms, see (b); d) we do not port Linux-only software. i.e. which is not design to work on any platform other than Linux, such us kernel-specific software. FYI, Debian new package acceptance policy saying that software which willing to be accepted to the main should run at least on two architectures. Usually it is Linux and FreeBSD... -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 00:40 -0700, UNIX admin wrote: From this stand point, GCC-like and GNU-like environments are must to have and we are moving this road... aka NexentaOS GNU/OpenSolaris. I just happen to be working on porting a GCC written application to Sun Studio 11. And all I can say is, GCC is one of the worst, brain dead compilers in existence. If it were up to me, I'd lock all the GCC developers up on criminal charges for the rest of their lives, and explicitly forbid them to ever touch a computer by a means of a court order. I'd give them shovels and pickaxes, that's what. Those guys are only good to do road work, not work on compilers. To state my point, the Sun Studio C and C++ compilers picked a TON of warnings and just plain BAD CODE, that the braindead GCC compiler didn't even detect. And I didn't even get to the fact that Sun Studio 11 is now available for Linux, for free, so there is NO EXCUSE for using that GCC junk any more. On top of all that, Sun Studio can do just unbelievable optimizations like code reordering, binary optimizations and many other things on x86, x64 and SPARC that GCC can't even touch. Plus it just generates faster, better and tighter code. So when I read statements like the one you just made, my hair stands up on my head. This is horrible, just horrible. You sure do not like GCC... :-) Well, I like it, even I know it is buggy sometimes.. btw, do you know by any chance how to say Sun C compiler to always respect inlines statements? I tried different switches, never worked for me... -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop applications as if the whole world revolved around Linux - take the gnome-cd application, its link to a linux cdrom.h header - now wouldn't it be smarter to create an abstraction layer between the devices and applications that that applications don't directly link to the system, thus make portability that wee bit easier? There is a lot more Linux specific on GNOME. THe most important task we have with OpenSolaris is to convince people that trying to compile on Solaris is a must for every OpenSource project. For this reason, it is important to better advertize the free Sun Studio Tools. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, do you know by any chance how to say Sun C compiler to always respect inlines statements? I tried different switches, never worked for me... You are trying to get non-POSIX behavior. POSIX allows to always iognore the inline keyword. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 17:55 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, do you know by any chance how to say Sun C compiler to always respect inlines statements? I tried different switches, never worked for me... You are trying to get non-POSIX behavior. So, what? I don't care if this is non-POSIX. I want this feature. Sometimes I'm seeing significant improvements when inlines are widely respected. POSIX allows to always iognore the inline keyword. But I'm asking how to make Sun C compiler do what I want? It is unfortunate that Sun C compiler is not CDDL-licensed... OpenSolaris needs Open Sun C compiler, IMHO. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 29 May 2006, UNIX admin wrote: The point should be not to keep PORTING Linux software to Solaris, but to start using Solaris as THE main development platform for open source software (and freeware). I agree that the latter is the ultimate goal, but the former would be a good starting point. Regardless of what I think of some of the GNU tools, if Nexenta gets more people to try and use OpenSolaris, then it is a worthy project IMHO. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop applications as if the whole world revolved around Linux - take the gnome-cd application, Agreed! -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: It's called HAL (hardware abstraction layer) and it will land in nevada shortly. All goodness, provided HAL doesn't go nuts and starts killing its users. If my computer starts singing Daisy, Daisy when it boots, I'm yanking the power cord! :-) -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:34 -0400, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 20:50 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop applications as if the whole world revolved around Linux - take the gnome-cd application, its link to a linux cdrom.h header - now wouldn't it be smarter to create an abstraction layer between the devices and applications that that applications don't directly link to the system, thus make portability that wee bit easier? It's called HAL (hardware abstraction layer) and it will land in nevada shortly. ..and committed to upstream CVS. this would be cool. Here is the original proposal: http://opensolaris.org/os/project/tamarack/proposal.txt which developers seems to be following. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 09:36 -0700, Rich Teer wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2006, UNIX admin wrote: The point should be not to keep PORTING Linux software to Solaris, but to start using Solaris as THE main development platform for open source software (and freeware). I agree that the latter is the ultimate goal, but the former would be a good starting point. Regardless of what I think of some of the GNU tools, if Nexenta gets more people to try and use OpenSolaris, then it is a worthy project IMHO. Right. In addition I'd like to add that porting (C, C++ code) to Nexenta == porting to Solaris. Zero differences for both drivers and apps. So, it doesn't really matter where developers will settle at Nexenta or at Solaris. Besides, all SUN userland is provided at /usr/sun/bin, so SUN personality could be provided/enabled too. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On 5/29/06, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I'm asking how to make Sun C compiler do what I want? The compiler is doing what you want, within the limits of it being explicitly allowed to ignore what you want. :-) --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:51 -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote: On 5/29/06, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I'm asking how to make Sun C compiler do what I want? The compiler is doing what you want, within the limits of it being explicitly allowed to ignore what you want. :-) OK. Than how to disable it? :-) I'm seeing that one could specify explicit names of functions to always inline. How to make it a default policy for all my inlined functions? -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Laszlo (Laca) Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 20:50 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop applications as if the whole world revolved around Linux - take the gnome-cd application, its link to a linux cdrom.h header - now wouldn't it be smarter to create an abstraction layer between the devices and applications that that applications don't directly link to the system, thus make portability that wee bit easier? It's called HAL (hardware abstraction layer) and it will land in nevada shortly. And then we need to carefully check whether it harms Solaris. The current vold approach works nicely and does not cause problems. The program hald on Linux is known as a non-cooperative program that if often guilty for aborted CD or DVD write jobs. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's called HAL (hardware abstraction layer) and it will land in nevada shortly. ..and committed to upstream CVS. this would be cool. Here is the original proposal: http://opensolaris.org/os/project/tamarack/proposal.txt which developers seems to be following. If it breaks CD/DVD writing (as it does on Linux) I would not call it cool. Let us see how it has been implemented on Solaris 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On 5/29/06, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:51 -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote: On 5/29/06, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I'm asking how to make Sun C compiler do what I want? The compiler is doing what you want, within the limits of it being explicitly allowed to ignore what you want. :-) OK. Than how to disable it? :-) I'm seeing that one could specify explicit names of functions to always inline. How to make it a default policy for all my inlined functions? ISO/IEC 9899:1999:6.7.4 says: [ ... ] 5. A function declared with an *inline* function specifier is an _inline function_. The function specifier may appear more than once; the behavior is the same as if it appeared only once. Making a function an inline function suggests that calls to the function be as fast as possible[118]. The extent to which such suggestions are effective is implementation-defined[119]. 6. Any function with internal linkage can be an inline function. For a function with external linkage, the following restrictions apply: If a function is declared with an *inline* function specifier, then it shall also be defined in the same translation unit. If all of the function file scope declarations for a function in a translation unit include the *inline* function specifier without *extern*, then the definition in that translation unit is an _inline definition_. An inline definition does not provide an external definition for the function, and does not forbid an external definition in another translation unit. [ ... ] It is unspecified whether a call to the function uses the inline definition or the external definition[120]. [118] By using, for example, an altermative to the usual function call mechanism, such as inline substitution. Inline substitution is not textual substitution, nor does it create a new function. [...] [119] For example, an implementation might never perform inline substitution, or might only perform inline substitutions to calls in the scope of an *inline* declaration. [120] Since an inline definition is distinct from the corresponding external definition and from any other corresponding inline definitions in other translation units, all corresponding objects with static storage duration are also distinct in each of the definition. You can try: - set the optimization level to -xO4 or higher - pass -xinline=%auto However: A function is not inlined if any of the following apply (no warning is issued): o Optimization is less than -xO3 o The routine cannot be found o Inlining the routine does not look profitable or safe to iropt o The source for the routine is not in the file being compiled (however, see -xcrossfile). --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:51 -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote: On 5/29/06, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I'm asking how to make Sun C compiler do what I want? The compiler is doing what you want, within the limits of it being explicitly allowed to ignore what you want. :-) OK. Than how to disable it? :-) I'm seeing that one could specify explicit names of functions to always inline. How to make it a default policy for all my inlined functions? The Sun compiler supports .il files for a long time. I believe this was even before 1988. If the GNU compiler did follow this approach, maybe you would know it. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 19:15 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's called HAL (hardware abstraction layer) and it will land in nevada shortly. ..and committed to upstream CVS. this would be cool. Here is the original proposal: http://opensolaris.org/os/project/tamarack/proposal.txt which developers seems to be following. If it breaks CD/DVD writing (as it does on Linux) I would not call it cool. Not sure what you are talking about. HAL is an abstraction layer. It doesn't re-implements anything. Let us see how it has been implemented on Solaris One thing I don't get yet is why vold been dropped (was it?) over rmvolmgr? And will vold co-exist with rmvolmgr? But may be I just misread the document... -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it breaks CD/DVD writing (as it does on Linux) I would not call it cool. Not sure what you are talking about. HAL is an abstraction layer. It doesn't re-implements anything. On Linux there is a program called hald, this program frequently sends unaproproate SCSI commands to targets and thus dirsturbes CD/DVD-writing. Let us see how it has been implemented on Solaris One thing I don't get yet is why vold been dropped (was it?) over rmvolmgr? And will vold co-exist with rmvolmgr? But may be I just misread the document... I did not yet read enough... but I am afraid of seeing things going too smilar to Linux in this area. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
On 5/30/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop applications as if the whole world revolved around Linux - take the gnome-cd application, its link to a linux cdrom.h header - now wouldn't it be smarter to create an abstraction layer between the devices and applications that that applications don't directly link to the system, thus make portability that wee bit easier?There is a lot more Linux specific on GNOME.THe most important task we have with OpenSolaris is to convince people thattrying to compile on Solaris is a must for every OpenSource project. For this reason, it is important to better advertize the free Sun Studio Tools.True, but there are alot of lazy programmers out there, still holding onto the idea of 'if it compiles, ship it' along with the 'if it compiles with GCC, it works' - its going to be difficult to convince some of the OSS programmers out there to test their software using Studio 10/11 compilers given that they'll say, 'well, it compiles with GCC, so why should I care about anything else? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Software for Solaris (was Re: Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86)
Kaiwai others, I'll state that porting/migrating Microsoft-related software to Solaris is pre-Y2000 idealogy. A statement I made earlier mentions 'software maintenance' which is the inherit flaw in this venture. Can you imagine maintaining all of that software you've just ported/migrated?? What about software only available on the Mac OS X platform?? So if we tackle the post-Y2005 era, we'll see that virtualization environments,containers, zones, and abstraction layers seem more feasible and maintainable. This is more mainstream with video game emulation under one architecture. Basically, you can run any video game designed for any video game console under the same PC hardware environment. So, why not do this for everyday business/graphics apps and utilities?? Saves you time and money in the long run - and greatly increases end-user and corporate acceptance. Basically, you can install and run any Microsoft OS-oriented software (i.e. Microsoft Office 2003, Lotus Notes, SoftImage, or MS Flight Simulator) and Linux/*BSD/GNU-based software under Solaris x86 without much effort if architected correctly. You can even install and run the Nvidia SDK, as it is today, with very minimal effort as an end-user. ~ Ken Mays Many of us don't have the free time to port/migrate/test 20,847 GNU/Debian packages to Solaris overnite - which is why we buy supercomputers to do it for us On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 20:50 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop applications as if the whole world revolved around Linux - take the gnome-cd application, its link to a linux cdrom.h header - now wouldn't it be smarter to create an abstraction layer between the devices and applications that that applications don't directly link to the system, thus make portability that wee bit easier? It's called HAL (hardware abstraction layer) and it will land in nevada shortly. Laca __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
