Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Hmm, sex, drugs and rock 'n roll :-)
One would assume that since there isn't that what is Opensolaris all about
means that it is what ever you as an individual want it to be - you want to port it to
your toaster or roaster - great. You want to run it as a desktop
Hi,
How about this one: OpenSolaris: What ever you want it to be
Open ended, aiming all areas.
Matthew
On 25/06/07, Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Hmm, sex, drugs and rock 'n roll :-)
One would assume that since there isn't that what is Opensolaris all
Hmm, sex, drugs and rock 'n roll :-)
One would assume that since there isn't that what is Opensolaris all about
means that it is what ever you as an individual want it to be - you want to
port it to your toaster or roaster - great. You want to run it as a desktop
operating system - hey, what
On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:34 pm, Amey wrote:
Recently F-Secure announced a security alert for Solaris OS. Is it a
co-incidence ? The link
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/worm_solaris_wanuk_a.shtml
How many know this ? :(
Wow, I think you're the first person to find that out!
BTW, did
Yes, I'm sure a lot of people are aware of it.
http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta/entry/the_in_telnetd_vulnerability_exploit
temporary patch out fairly quickly, regular patch not too much later.
It was a really stupid bug, though (IMO). But people have obviously also
been thinking about the bigger
It's limited at enterprise level only. Not affordable or user friendly solution
for mid size companies who are running x86 systems with not much support for
Sun hardware software.
Would prefer to stick to Intel based servers with Microsoft Windows Server
2003 .
Regards,
Amey Abhyankar.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Amey wrote:
Please quote some context! We have absolutely no clue what you're
responding to.
It's limited at enterprise level only. Not affordable or user
friendly solution for mid size companies who are running x86 systems
with not much support for Sun hardware
On Thursday 15 March 2007 04:59 am, Amey wrote:
It's limited at enterprise level only. Not affordable or user friendly
solution for mid size companies who are running x86 systems with not much
support for Sun hardware software.
Would prefer to stick to Intel based servers with Microsoft
Recently F-Secure announced a security alert for Solaris OS. Is it a
co-incidence ?
The link http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/worm_solaris_wanuk_a.shtml
How many know this ? :(
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss
There seems to be a lot of talk regarding CDDL, GPLv3,... but no one
(especially Sun, ...) mentions a BSD-like license. It seems, imho, BSD-like
license is the eventual way to go for all concerns - User-end wise undoubtedly.
This is OpenSolaris afterall.
as Roy mentions below:
...If Java had
Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy, I would like to meet you in Berlin at OSDEVCON for a more
in depth talk on the CAB and license stuff...
The first day that the CAB met, almost two years ago, we talked about
all of the things that OpenSolaris needed to do to become successful.
I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
possible solutions.
Sun did not decide to move to Hg; it was pretty much an open process
which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
possible solutions.
Sun did not decide to move to Hg; it was
Joerg Schilling wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
possible solutions.
Sun did not
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
lots of wise words elided .
Otherwise, stick with the CDDL. GPLv3 cannot be evaluated seriously
until it is actually approved by the FSF and published in final form.
Even then, dual-licensing wouldn't make any sense, but at least we'd
have
I believe that there is little, if any, benefit to dual-licensing
OpenSolaris with CDDL and the yet to be approved/upcoming GPLv3 license -
aside from possible good press for the project. In addition, I believe
that there are significant downsides to dual licensing, including, but not
limited
Frank Van Der Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun did not decide to move to Hg; it was pretty much an open process
which led to the selection of Hg.
I am not aware of a real discussion on that.
Read the tools-discuss archives. The whole selection process was out in
the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
On the basis of what evidence?
I can assure you it wasn't
Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this
discussion.
On the basis of
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
I can assure you that everyone approached it with an open mind.
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
On the basis of what evidence?
Based on my impression.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
possible solutions.
Sun did not decide to move to Hg; it was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
possible solutions.
Sun did not decide to move to Hg; it was
The fact is that Teamware had been EOL'd by Sun before OpenSolaris
started - see http://docs.sun.com/source/816-7532/relnote40.html,
Removal of Features, and it was well recognised within the Sun Solaris
community that we needed to move to something else, and OpenSolaris
moved the switch up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact is that Teamware had been EOL'd by Sun before OpenSolaris
started - see http://docs.sun.com/source/816-7532/relnote40.html,
Removal of Features, and it was well recognised within the Sun Solaris
community that we needed to move to something else, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The tools-discuss group discussed this issue at length, including
the criteria for selection and how the other candidates fell by the
way side.
Was it really necessary to wait until SCCS or teamware were opensourced?
Of course it was.
Teamware was pretty much in
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Well, there was a statement (from I believe it was Keith) that Sun was
going to work OSSing Teamware in 2005. I was waiting for the results on this.
If you read the links I posted, you'll see that this was in fact the
case, but that it never came to fruition.
From
This is not much work but it does not make sense to discuss _before_
SCCS is opensourced. The fact that the SCM discussion started before
OSSing SCCS makes it obvious to me that there was a Sun internal vote
against SCCS before the discussion went public.
It saddened me to see a dedicated
Ghee Teo wrote:
It saddened me to see a dedicated honorable OpenSolaris community
member such as
yourself drew such conclusion (or having such perception) about Sun,
I feel like I
am wasting all my time reading all the discussion here :-(
If we can build up trust among us day in
Oh boy. Now you've done it!
Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
list, you've pretty much just started another flamefest!
Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh boy. Now you've done it!
Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
list, you've
Oh boy. Now you've done it!
Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
list, you've pretty much just started another flamefest!
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Frank Van Der Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was an open process.
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In earnest, I think that flamefest is really overstating what is
happening here.
If this is a flamefest, I can show the people who call it that *real*
flamefests and then some :-) Seriously, this isn't bad at all for a
community of opinionated geeks.. Maybe I'm
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-07 09:04]:
When the community controls this, it will be the community volunteers
who will carry more of the burden; what we're doing is quite unique:
continue to develop an OS while opening up the development process
and the source code management
When the community controls this, it will be the
community volunteers
who will carry more of the burden; what we're doing is
quite unique:
continue to develop an OS while opening up the
development process
and the source code management system. I'm not sure
how we could
approach this much
Al Hopper wrote:
Agreed. I followed that discussion, downloaded the SCMs and was a
proponent of git to begin with. But git failed miserably in testing.
Personally I had hoped for git to succeed - but it failed on its own
demerits in fair and open testing against the competition.
git
The first day that the CAB met, almost two years ago, we talked about
all of the things that OpenSolaris needed to do to become successful.
Central to that discussion were three principles:
1) everyone needs to work on a common version control system
2) everyone needs to use a common issue
The first day that the CAB met, almost two years ago, we talked about
all of the things that OpenSolaris needed to do to become successful.
Central to that discussion were three principles:
1) everyone needs to work on a common version control system
2) everyone needs to use a common
Embracing more
people, making more friends, gets more people
talking about you,
participating, and developing with you. Growing the
population.
There's other ways to achieve this though - a simple
license change may not
necessarily be the best approach [1]. A very obvious
example
Otherwise, stick with the CDDL. GPLv3 cannot be
evaluated seriously
until it is actually approved by the FSF and
published in final form.
Even then, dual-licensing wouldn't make any sense,
but at least we'd
have an idea of the actual impact of a switch from
CDDL to GPLv3.
Roy
[
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.
2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
(or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
and the
Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i still see no benefit in dual licensing but i'm trying to be unbiased here
isn't most of that already possible now? the only difference is that
the gplv3-only news would give them a little short lived publicity and
opensolaris would not be able
Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This can be done right now, without any involvement with a GPL dual
license, solely under CDDL.
This hypothetical competitor can take the current OpenSolaris, under
CDDL, set up an open development environment somewhere, and purposely
and explicitly
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
And again, a derivative of both could still resolve the divergence.
The problem comes when, under a dual-license, the fork becomes unresolvable
because the forks are licensed differently. Such a fork would force
each member of the OpenSolaris community to choose one or
Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
feasible. Sure, some would use
John Plocher wrote:
Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
feasible.
Q. OpenSolaris success?
A. (my version)
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by Green Rating at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Q. OpenSolaris success?
- Success is when open source developers see
OpenSolaris as the #1 or #2 choice for any UNIX
development or most embeddable projects involving a
UNIX-based OS.
- When people start wearing OpenSolaris T-shirts
during halftime at the Super Bowl. Need a cool
OpenSolaris
Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
feasible. Sure, some would
[...]
ourselves. I also care
about Apple because the presence of our technology on
their platform
greatly expands the community for that particular
technology. Do I want
DTrace on my phone? You bet -- and at the moment,
Apple's looking like
the most likely vector to get us there...
Any
Alan Burlison wrote:
When the
projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed
binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop
someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the
CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed
Thanks for that, John, it was exactly what I was going to write. It's
easy in these discussions to forget the power of the community we all
comprise. People creating a fork take on the burden of re-porting,
regression testing and rework unless they can attract a significant
number of the
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
It is our responsibility in
the OpenSolaris community to not just reflect today's economics, but
understand tomorrow's possibilities -- and to have a license that protects
our community from the internecine feuds that have destroyed or hindered
so many software efforts.
On the third hand,
{ third hand? really ? } :-)
Any fork with a chance of doing anything would need guys like Jeff Bonwick
and Jonathan Adams on staff. Bryan Cantrill and Mr. Schilling. Millions of
dollars would be needed. Millions.
Let me check my bank account .. just .. a sec .. here
On 2/4/07, Bryan Cantrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Emancipation project finally does its last putback into
OpenSolaris/ON Build x, replacing the last of the closed
binary code.
Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
CDDL license, making a pure
On 2/4/07, Bryan Cantrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me lay out a scenario that I just elucidated on Stephen O'Grady's
blog (http://redmonk.com/sogrady/): let's say that several years down the
track, a major competitor to Sun in the server space decides that, much to
their regret,
Let me lay out a scenario that I just elucidated on Stephen O'Grady's
blog (http://redmonk.com/sogrady/): let's say that several years down the
track, a major competitor to Sun in the server space decides that, much to
their regret, OpenSolaris is an option that they must not just provide,
project. This assumes, of course, that
Sun/OpenSolaris.org/et al are
contributing in good faith and adding real value to
the project.
So far, everything has indicated that they are. SUN did not have to do what
they did, and it has a very costly and time-conuming process.
When people ask
Apple's XCode
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a
kick-ass front-end
for their version of DTrace. I don't see them
contributing that back to
OpenSolaris.
That's not shipping yet, so let's be fair and wait first before saying that
please.
Stephen Harpster
On Feb 4, 2007, at 05:49, Shawn Walker wrote:
They speak of the GNU Operating System and I have been approached
by many, many FSF members and supporters around the world who would
welcome the chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS,
licensed in a way they felt ethically able to use,
An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a
license. Suppose I
have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual
licensed under CDDL
and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster
license, a
proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
Now normally, linking
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
[snip]
+lots ;-)
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Stack against that the issues we will have to endure
if we dual license
- the potential for one license to be ripped off and
the source forked
*incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
bit), the inability
to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion
that dual-licensing
And, perhaps, can we in fairness in this discussion
say that we're
using GPLv3 with the assembly exception; that makes
GPLv3 much
more like the CDDL; and I'm sure that the community
isn't stupid.
If they like that property of the GPL, then they
won't stand for
the exception.
Completely
Unless GPLv3 is phrased such that the assembly
exception is the norm,
this won't buy is anything, PR wise.
To claim that the GPL was instrumental in Sun
getting it for Java is
a fallacious argument; Java's previous license was
not conductive to
Open development
Casper
+1
-Shawn
Alan Burlison wrote:
OpenSolaris is already perfectly usable by a
community 10x or 100x as
large as the one we have today. I really *don't*
think the license is
the main impediment we face, I think all the other
issues that have been
raised around ease of participation are *far*
Yes,yes.A Community Free,Open and Independent,this could be the correct way to
follow.Great Post Alan,Thank you!
+1
Giacomo
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
In our SunLabs/CTO organizational All-Hands meeting
this
morning I had the chance this morning to ask Rich
Green
(Sun's EVP/Software) about what Sun has learned in
the
last few years about licenses and open source,
especially
with the recent GPL'ing of Java and this OpenSolaris
thread.
Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James mentioned the CAB. Good point. The CAB is now the OGB, as per the
OpenSolaris Charter. I think the Charter outlines well the scope of the
OGB -- an independent body representing the OpenSolaris community:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 05:01:42PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:54 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:52:48PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
sound like debdelta which has been around for years is what you are
looking for.
S'funny.. there was an
Alan DuBoff writes:
On Thursday 01 June 2006 11:20 am, James Carlson wrote:
If they wanted a restaurant instead of a grocery store, they should
have looked up restaurants instead. 'Solaris Express' is one such
restaurant. 'BeleniX' is another. 'SchilliX' a third. And so on.
But how
- Original Message -
From: James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 4:38 am
Subject: Re: What is OpenSolaris?
snip snip
I guess that's where I'm getting confused. The way things have been
discussed here, OSOL *is* SX.
Untrue.
I missed a word. The way things have
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 08:02 -1000, David J. Orman wrote:
To elaborate just a tad, because I can sense a bit of disagreement here,
I'd like to clarify the distrubutions popping up. Even if OSOL were 100% of
SX's source code, I mean completely available, in the same form Sun uses to
- Original Message -
From: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 9:11 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
Nexenta tries to preserve core OpenSolaris infrastructure and makes
changes with reasonable degree to remain OpenSolaris
binary-compatible
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 09:19 -1000, David J. Orman wrote:
I tend to think of OpenSolaris upstream as of piece of code which is
reusable across *any* OpenSolaris-based distros. I.e. bare minimum
whichis enough to build minimal console-only distribution.
I understand what you say, but
- Original Message -
From: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 9:34 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
It is confusing... Or may be we should think of OpenSolaris as set of
projects which could be {re-}used as a bricks to build OpenSolaris
David J. Orman wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 9:34 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
It is confusing... Or may be we should think of OpenSolaris as set of
projects which could be {re-}used as a bricks
- Original Message -
From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 9:40 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
No - you're both right - it's different things to different people.
So which is it (or is it both, officially, which would be fine for me
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 20:39, David J. Orman wrote:
It is confusing... Or may be we should think of OpenSolaris as set of
projects which could be {re-}used as a bricks to build OpenSolaris-
baseddistributions.
That's what I'm trying to clarify. If that *is* what OSOL is,
OpenSolaris is
- Original Message -
From: Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:00 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
OpenSolaris is that, but that's not the only thing that
it is.
Ok, this also what Alan says.
Hey! *Everyone* who would like to have
: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
OpenSolaris is that, but that's not the only thing that
it is.
Ok, this also what Alan says.
Hey! *Everyone* who would like to have anything to do
with anything that involves OpenSolaris belongs here.
I understand. :) Just, from some of the responses I
- Original Message -
From: Bev Crair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
David,
I you can consider me 'official', then, yes, OSOL - SX - Solaris
is
the idea.
Bev Crair
Director, Solaris Approachability
David J. Orman wrote:
Now I'm hearing the opposite, and I'm waiting on an official response.
I don't know about an official response. Just because any particular
person @sun.com says something doesn't make it the gospel truth any more
than anyone else in the community.
If OSOL is what
- Original Message -
From: Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:19 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
David J. Orman wrote:
Now I'm hearing the opposite, and I'm waiting on an official
response.
I don't know about an official response
David J. Orman writes:
The truth of the situation, is, right now OSOL is not
self-sustaining (nor anywhere close) and it is
maintained/operated/successful because of @sun people. I'm not
I'm not sure that's an entirely fair comment. There are several other
distributions, and we don't tell
- Original Message -
From: James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:49 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
David J. Orman writes:
The truth of the situation, is, right now OSOL is not
self-sustaining (nor anywhere close) and it is
maintained
The criteria is if someone wants to use an OpenSolaris
distro [i.e. community release or variant] on
mission-critical or 24/7 production projects.
We agreed at one time that the term 'OpenSolaris' is
not a commercial or open source product like FreeBSD
or Redhat Linux or OpenSuse. We said it was
David J. Orman writes:
Is it or is it not true that @sun people contribute the majority of
the code that is OSOL? I'm pretty sure my comment was fair, and in
NO way was it intended as negative/insulting/etc. I have upmost
respect for Sun, and I am *trusting* Sun in their intent. This
should
, 2006 11:37 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
David J. Orman writes:
Is it or is it not true that @sun people contribute the majority of
the code that is OSOL? I'm pretty sure my comment was fair, and in
NO way was it intended as negative/insulting/etc. I have upmost
James Carlson wrote:
David J. Orman writes:
Is it or is it not true that @sun people contribute the majority of
the code that is OSOL? I'm pretty sure my comment was fair, and in
NO way was it intended as negative/insulting/etc. I have upmost
respect for Sun, and I am *trusting* Sun in their
On Friday 02 June 2006 07:38 am, James Carlson wrote:
I don't see how having an accumulation of source code that's known to
work on a particular operating system (and some of which that might
have needed to be tweaked to do so) is itself a bad thing. In fact, I
think it's helpful for those
Alan DuBoff wrote:
When JDS and X are putback into the OpenSolaris components of Solaris. then to
me they will be a part of OpenSolaris.
That's the point - we did that months ago!
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:59 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Friday 02 June 2006 07:38 am, James Carlson wrote:
I don't see how having an accumulation of source code that's known to
work on a particular operating system (and some of which that might
have needed to be tweaked to do so) is itself
On Friday 02 June 2006 03:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Alan DuBoff wrote:
When JDS and X are putback into the OpenSolaris components of Solaris.
then to me they will be a part of OpenSolaris.
That's the point - we did that months ago!
Is JDS distributed with the OpenSolaris sources?
- Original Message -
From: Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 2, 2006 12:54 pm
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What is OpenSolaris?
James Carlson wrote:
snip snip
Keep in mind, though, that those Sun engineers are all now
OpenSolaris
developers. The goal is open
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:19:23PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
The problem I'm seeing is that SVR4 packaging system wasn't developed to
inter-operate with upstream tarballs and patching system is not an easy
one to enable. At least it is not as easy as with Debian or RPM. That
means patches for
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Is JDS distributed with the OpenSolaris sources?
Yep. It's right there on http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ next to
X, Network Storage, SFW, and even ON.
If you have put that back to ON, by all means
wake me up at 11:00 with news.
ON is one small piece of
Erast Benson wrote:
Regarding this last statement. Could we expect upstream putback any time
soon? I think JDS and X changes must be putback into their upstreams
sooner or later...
It's a long-term/ongoing process. We cut the amount of files we have to
patch in Xorg in half between 6.8.2 and
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:33 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:19:23PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
The problem I'm seeing is that SVR4 packaging system wasn't developed to
inter-operate with upstream tarballs and patching system is not an easy
one to enable. At least it is
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
