Sven Luther wrote:
You brought up a very interesting point. Since on a file-by-file basis, CDDL
is essentially the same as GPL, I am now wondering whether it might a good idea
(at least for sanity purposes) to separate the Solaris/OpenSolaris kernel into
two parts: the GPL part and the binar
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:16:59PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
> > for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
> > GPL is incompatible wit
|> It used to be the case that if logging was enabled in the root disk
|> that CPR did not work - not sure if that is still the case.
Works for me with logging on the root filesystem and S10.
Hugh.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-disc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
> for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
> GPL is incompatible with any license that is not a sublicensable
> subset of GPL. That wasn't by acc
On 9/6/05, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i have heard others in the 53XXX zip code areas got there's as well...
> so keep the faith they are coming and they look really nice
Got mine here today as well (77063; Houston, Texas). They look *really* nice!
Bill
__
On Sep 7, 2005, at 02:07, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
GPL is incompatible with any license that is not a sublicensable
subset of GPL. That wasn't by accident -- it is the intenti
I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
GPL is incompatible with any license that is not a sublicensable
subset of GPL. That wasn't by accident -- it is the intention
of the FSF that all software be under the GPL. T
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:54:23AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2005, at 00:27, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> >>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> >>
> >>>Shawn Walker wrote:
> If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gon
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:37:08PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 9/6/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> > >
> > > > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > > > If opensolaris ever went GP
i have heard others in the 53XXX zip code areas got there's as well...
so keep the faith they are coming and they look really nice
James Dickens
uadmin.blogspot.com
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Sep 7, 2005, at 00:27, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I
suspect
others would as well. Because at that point, it wou
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:59:51PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 8/19/05, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an
> > > instant, and I suspect
> > > > others would as well. Because at that point, it
> > > would beco
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:23:30AM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> CDDL (or more specifically, a code licensed under the CDDL) can be considered
> as consisting of two portions: the GPL portion and the proprietary portion.
> If enough manpower (gender neutral) can be mustered to eliminate the nee
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 07:23:48PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>Not all BSD style licenses are compatible with the GPL:
> > >>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
> > >>
> > >>If you read that whole FAQ, you can see that the GPL has p
On 9/6/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> >
> > > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
> > > > others would as well.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
>
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
> > > others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
> >
> > Nobody
Last week at the SVOSUG meeting, I gave a quick update on build 22. It
seems beneficial to post something here as well so everyone can get an
update.
The biggest change aside from syncing up with Nevada build 22 is that
we're opening up the crypto code. This has been available as a
standalo
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:32:54AM +1000, Alan Hargreaves - Product Technical
Support (APAC) wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> >FSF's comments about CDDL:
> >"This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it
> >has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:06:42PM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
> GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
> other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
>
> Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 7/22/05, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > The biggest CDDL problem is that it includes a
> "choice-of-venue":
> > >
> > > «The problem with choice of venue clauses is that
> anyone who accepts
> > > the license must also acc
I saw a 12-way 486 that ran Sequent Unix before. I didn't see it
actually running but I saw it for sale as some unknown server. I
googled it and found out its specs. It was a Sequent S2000.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensol
I put your feed into opensolaris.org. Should update shortly.
Jim
Matthew Alton wrote:
My Sparc bias is showing. It's strictly a matter of taste. I have a history of
periodically diving into assembly language projects. My efforts to study x86 assembly
lanuage have always culminated in a vio
that's just your personal experience. My personal experience is that I have
recovered with reiserfs better than ext3...yes, you heard that right. reisefs
3.6 is as stable it gets, have been running it for about 2 years now. My system
hard powered off many times during these years, never once I h
My Sparc bias is showing. It's strictly a matter of taste. I have a history
of periodically diving into assembly language projects. My efforts to study
x86 assembly lanuage have always culminated in a violent motion away from. The
x86 architecture suffers mightily from the inverted pyramid o
Here you go!
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1854001,00.asp
Not to put too much spin on it...(read my blog for spin...) it does
seem to include constructive feedback... at the very least it warrants
some responses to the story...as it will definitely generate a lot of
readership and hop
This is great. Just a minor comment. Instead of a used Sparc system, why not
an Opteron or Athlon64? Many more (new) users will benefit from your Study
Blog.
BTW, during my recent trip to Taiwan, I have heard talks about Sun's new Galaxy
(?) system. I understand this is based on the Opteron
People of Earth,
I have just started a blog dedicated to the study of the OpenSolaris source
code. I will try to provide a step-by-step guide to understanding the kernel
code as I learn. All comments welcome.
http://www.opensunos.blogspot.com
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Daniel Johnsen wrote:
Wow, do you think it's easily portable to the Linux
kernel?
How long do you think it might take them?
That was one of the questions I hoped to get answered with this thread
;) "What do you think / Do you know, how much % of the zfs code
needs/neede
> Wow, do you think it's easily portable to the Linux
> kernel?
>
> How long do you think it might take them?
>
That was one of the questions I hoped to get answered with this thread ;)
"What do you think / Do you know, how much % of the zfs code needs/needed to be
rewritten ?"
Anyway I doubt
Young Joo Song wrote:
Since we are in the dark, perhaps you could let us know what has been done and
what you have in mind, so we can see how we could fit? Urls will be OK.
As you mentioned, there are localization efforts here and there. For Chinese
locales, one of the most common complaint
I've cc'd the discuss alias in case there is anyone there, not on the
marketing alias, that would like to participate in this discussion.
There has been much discussion about a mascot for OpenSolaris and a
competition/contest/voting system within the community to create one. We
have a couple
That's great! My group (Globalization) has translated and tested the
localized Solaris for many years. How about we start a separate
discussion (perhaps in the i18n-interest) on how to best organize
translation? It would be great for us to come up with a "process" that's
easy to follow for anyone w
>On Laptops and Solaris x86 drivers, I see some ways of combining those
>two (and potentially more) into one community. I'm thinking about the
>user group community I formed, which now has about 10 individual groups
>and three more in the queue. So, one community with 10 groups, not 10
>indivi
On Monday 05 September 2005 10:11 am, Daniel Johnsen wrote:
> Thanks for your replies, I will wait in suspense for ZFS to come on Solaris
> and hopefully also on Linux :)
Wow, do you think it's easily portable to the Linux kernel?
How long do you think it might take them?
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun
On 09/04/05 01:26, Felix Schulte wrote:
Does the Sun Fire 6800 support suspend to disk of single domains or
the whole machine?
Strictly speaking "CPR" (checkpoint-resume) is only supported on workstation
class systems. But if you *know* your 6800 is suitable for the operations
(likely meaning
35 matches
Mail list logo
