* Andrey N. Oktyabrski [2011-08-02 07:03]:
> On 02.08.11 00:30, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
> >* Guido Berhoerster [2011-08-01 22:24]:
> >>* Andrey N. Oktyabrski [2011-08-01 21:10]:
> >>>With these libraries I have the same eror :-(
> >>> libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
>
On 02/08/2011 12:14 a.m., Harry Putnam wrote:
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk writes:
AFAIK, exporting an rpool while running on it, is quite
impossible. Why would you want to export it?
So use livecd then?
The reasons to do this have been discussed here at least twice. Thats
why I didn't include tha
On 02.08.11 12:05, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
without gcc libraries dependency?
That is a mainly a policy issue, for now we compile all C++
packages (including LLVM/Clang) in OI-SFE with GCC, however that
may change in the future. If it is really important to you, you
could modify the specfile an
* Andrey N. Oktyabrski [2011-08-02 10:56]:
> On 02.08.11 12:05, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
> >>without gcc libraries dependency?
> >
> >That is a mainly a policy issue, for now we compile all C++
> >packages (including LLVM/Clang) in OI-SFE with GCC, however that
> >may change in the future. If it i
One more thing.
> So I'm not saying I'm against open source (who is?) but I feel
> that every business has a choice over which licensing model is
> most appropriate for their products and profitability.
Oracle wanted to get for free patches from RH, but in fact she
was stealing customers from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Aug 2011, at 12:09, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
> In a nutshell, Oracle wants free patches for its Linux, but
> she does not want to share technology with others. Nice
> "licensing model"...
Yes, it is a nice licensing model, because Oracle i
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Tom Kranz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 2 Aug 2011, at 12:09, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
>
>> In a nutshell, Oracle wants free patches for its Linux, but
>> she does not want to share technology with others. Nice
>> "licensing m
> Yes, it is a nice licensing model, because Oracle is a business, not a
> charity,
> and it's first duty is to it's shareholders. Red Hat, IBM, Microsoft,
You cannot compare RH with Oracle and Microsoft. RH is selling support for
an OpenSource OS while Oracle and Microsoft have donated to the
On 08/02/11 11:49, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
>> Yes, it is a nice licensing model, because Oracle is a business, not a
>> charity,
>> and it's first duty is to it's shareholders. Red Hat, IBM, Microsoft,
>
> You cannot compare RH with Oracle and Microsoft. RH is selling support for
> an OpenS
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/451243/ - top employers of contributors to the Linux
> 3.0
> release cycle, by changeset includes both Microsoft (support for running Linux
> as a guest in Microsoft HyperV) and Oracle (btrfs & general kernel tuning).
>
In the by changeset column:
RH did a 11,1%, O
On 08/02/11 13:45, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
>> http://oss.oracle.com/ - Oracle's contributions to Linux & other open
>> source
>> products.
>
>
> Please tell us what Oracle did before Sun's takeover, because the things
> listed there are Sun's legacy!
BerkeleyDB, btrfs, eclipse, and basicall
Alan,
Good links, but if you were going to emphasize that Oracle gave some code to
the community, Microsoft gave the double. Even worst Oracle has "Unbreakable
Linux (sic)", which is no more than a glorified clon of Red Hat (love Red
Hat by the way). So in short, they gave up a little, steal a lot
For us the biggest issue is the price of the OS. We don't mind paying
something like $99/year/system or some thing of that sorts to run Solaris
(with patches). Sorry, support not required. Why can't Oracle do something
like that? What's it got to loose? The pricing they gave us was ridiculous,
so w
So sun tried that, it wasn't $99 but it was 349 for a year, for
basically self support.. and sun ended up on the side of the street with
a sign "will build os for food"
Oracle will make you pay enterprise pricing for enterprise products, the
idea of concept of enterprise is diminished by not c
Was that before things like ZFS etc?
That happened to Sun because they were "donating" everything away, including
the source. Open source might increase community involvement, but won't
keep the boat afloat.
Finding the right price isn't my job, but all I can say is, I am not gong to
pay $800-$10
On 8/2/11 9:23 PM, Anil wrote:
Was that before things like ZFS etc?
that actually came out with opensolaris. there was some number that we
hardly sold any of them, which made it ok to cancel.
That happened to Sun because they were "donating" everything away, including
the source. Open source m
On 08/02/11 14:04, Pablo Oddera wrote:
> Good links, but if you were going to emphasize that Oracle gave some code to
> the community, Microsoft gave the double. Even worst Oracle has "Unbreakable
> Linux (sic)", which is no more than a glorified clon of Red Hat (love Red
> Hat by the way). So in s
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 22:30 +0200, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
> * Guido Berhoerster [2011-08-01 22:24]:
> > * Andrey N. Oktyabrski [2011-08-01 21:10]:
> > > With thid libraries I have the same eror :-(
> > > libstdc++.so.6 =>/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
> > > libgcc_s.so.1 =>
18 matches
Mail list logo
