May as well build your own packages that will install non-interactively
and make them available in your jumpstart installation NFS shares and
profiles. Finish scripts are good too.
=)
Allen Wittenauer wrote:
The lack of integration into jumpstart is also a bit of a pain, even if someone
> one quick addendum: mod_php is available via the
> companion CD, fwiw.
The last time I looked at the companion CD, it also suffered from
ancient-version-itis as well as bad compile options for certain applications.
The lack of integration into jumpstart is also a bit of a pain, even if someone
I have been trying to do this as well but do not get the upgrade option when
installing Solaris 10 aver Solaris 8.
Anybody understand why?
brick
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@openso
Danese Cooper has always struck me a GPL biased individual. If its not
GPL its not good enough.
Shawn Walker wrote:
> cdrtools forked by Debian Project, claims that build system is incompatible,
> Joerg is wrong, they know better, and that Danese Cooper claims that the CDDL
> was purposefully
>
>
> Hi,At the company I work in, we use apache, openssh and
> openssl on (commercial) Solaris.
You can :
(1) build it yourself
(2) use what is available in the Solaris 10 Update 2 wos
(3) Check out SunFreeware
(4) Check out Blastwave
http://www.blastwave.org/packages.php/opens
Stephen Lau wrote On 09/05/06 10:58,:
How about we all just ignore Danese. Ignore Debian. Ignore whatever
posturing is going on about whatever license on whatever forum/list,
and just get back to working on OpenSolaris.
The best way to get people to shut up is to demonstrate it by code,
not b
How about we all just ignore Danese. Ignore Debian. Ignore whatever
posturing is going on about whatever license on whatever forum/list,
and just get back to working on OpenSolaris.
The best way to get people to shut up is to demonstrate it by code,
not by flames.
cheers,
steve
(note: this is
one quick addendum: mod_php is available via the companion CD, fwiw.
-steve
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:25:29AM -0700, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> > The main concern I have is whether Solaris will provide
> > the patches as soon as any vulnerabilities come out, especially for
> > Apache?
>
> While
Later this week I'm getting a new box to build a home fileserver on.
The box is on order, and will have (initially) 6 SATA controller ports
and 8 hot-swap locations (they came in units of 4, and 4 wasn't
enough; eventually I'll no doubt add an additional controller to bring
the last two into use).
I may need to re-watch the Debconf video again, but I don't recall Simon
or Danese clarrifying her current employment status at Sun, so I can see
why anyone who watched the video and possibly those in attendance to the
conference would think that Danese was still an employee of Sun, and thus
co
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a powerhouse in the open source world. His software has been around a
> very long time and if the Debian people have an issue with the CDDL then
> I wonder if its the CDDL or rather Jörg that annoys them? Emotions at
> the table again perhaps.
The ag
>
> On Sep 4, 2006, at 19:54, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on
>> the CDDL issues.
>
> Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris
> engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way
> because she los
I really don't understand why we are all supposed to care so much about what
Debian do, or what Danese Cooper said. Debian have their own licensing
culture, and it's only right and proper that they decide what fits in with
their world view. As others have already pointed out this isn't a purel
On Sep 4, 2006, at 22:13, James C. McPherson wrote:
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Sep 4, 2006, at 19:54, Dennis Clarke wrote:
It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on
the CDDL
issues.
Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the
Solaris engineering team i
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Sep 4, 2006, at 19:54, Dennis Clarke wrote:
It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on the CDDL
issues.
Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris
engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way because
s
On Sep 4, 2006, at 19:54, Dennis Clarke wrote:
It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on
the CDDL
issues.
Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris
engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way
because she lost an argum
"Derek E. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Could _you_ please stop your primitive FUD here?
>
> Absolutely, but that would require you stop mis-representing the nature of
> the CDDL, the GPL, and the certain conditions you've created that surrou
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Could _you_ please stop your primitive FUD here?
Absolutely, but that would require you stop mis-representing the nature of
the CDDL, the GPL, and the certain conditions you've created that surround
cdrecord.
Everyone who reads e.g. http://www.he
> Joerg has given the mailing list the impression that there is an on-
> going
> war against the CDDL by Debian, and certain Sun employees are
> willing to
> change various OpenSolaris-related informational materials (such as
> the
> CDDL FAQ) to respond to it. The fact that Debian is anti-CDD
"Derek E. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clarrification: "Joerg added conditions to cdrecord that forbids a user to
> change certain lines in the code and then distribute it"
Calrification: this is well known FUD and incorrect.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-133
"Derek E. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris and me.
>
> s/the CDDL, OpenSolaris and //
>
> Would you please stop mis-representing the issue to this mailing list,
> which includes various people who are unassociated with Sun, but
> also Su
Joerg has given the mailing list the impression that there is an on-going
war against the CDDL by Debian, and certain Sun employees are willing to
change various OpenSolaris-related informational materials (such as the
CDDL FAQ) to respond to it. The fact that Debian is anti-CDDL is blatantly
f
I can't speak for everybody, but personally I was not discussing nor
Joerg/cdrecord/Debian. I learned a long time ago to stay out of such
discussions. I have not read debian-legal, nor do I care to - this issue is not
one which concerns me, at all.
My responses have been in response to the comm
Clarrification: "Joerg added conditions to cdrecord that forbids a user to
change certain lines in the code and then distribute it"
Thanks,
Derek E. Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dlewis
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
There is a big campaign against the CD
There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris and me.
s/the CDDL, OpenSolaris and //
Would you please stop mis-representing the issue to this mailing list,
which includes various people who are unassociated with Sun, but
also Sun employees who are willing to modify OpenSolaris-related
> When you are dealing with the equivilant of modern day hippies, this should
> be the expected mode of operation. There really isn't much "argument" at
> all, except for the people who are riding these waves as surfers, throwing
> punches and kicking for the heck of it. Basically, a VERY vocal mi
> It would be nice if such a thing would be possible; I think we
> certainlyshould expound the CDDL FAQ some, specifically those
> points which are
> seen controversial.
I was meaning something to specifically address the issues that are being put
forth right now. Not a general CDDL defense pap
>I think a very clear written one to two page rebuttle with absolute
>proof or very clear logic behi nd the choice of CDDL released without
>much fanfare would be the best approach to extinguishing thi s current
>fire, anything more and you're just going to be pouring petrol.
It would be nice if
> I know; but *who* is she?
>
> It is interesting how people quote the FSF on the CDDL; they
> invariablyneglect to mention that the FSF says the *exact* same
> things about
> the Apache 2.0 license yet Apache 2.0 is still part of Debian.
>
> Casper
This is her:
http://www.perl.com/supersnail/
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on the CDDL
> issues.
OK, then let us try to find out why she does not tell the truth when she talks
about the CDDL in public.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13
>
>>former sun employee, member of the opensolaris pilot project they are
>>using to give the appearance as having inside information that makes
>>the CDDL and the people behind it look evil.
>
> I know; but *who* is she?
I think we all know that she was a lot more than just some Sun employee.
>former sun employee, member of the opensolaris pilot project they are
>using to give the appearance as having inside information that makes
>the CDDL and the people behind it look evil.
I know; but *who* is she?
It is interesting how people quote the FSF on the CDDL; they invariably
neglect to
On 9/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danese Cooper is wrong in that many of the folks who were
involved in picking of the license wanted the GPL but that
the GPL did not qualify because of all the encumbered code in
Solaris.
But since "GPL Compatible" really only means "You
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Danese Cooper is wrong in that many of the folks who were
> involved in picking of the license wanted the GPL but that
> the GPL did not qualify because of all the encumbered code in
> Solaris.
This is exactly what I have in mind from my talk with Andy Tucker
in Se
Danese Cooper is wrong in that many of the folks who were
involved in picking of the license wanted the GPL but that
the GPL did not qualify because of all the encumbered code in
Solaris.
But since "GPL Compatible" really only means "You can rip of this
license and replace it with the GPL", a "G
Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> cdrtools forked by Debian Project, claims that build system is incompatible,
> Joerg is wrong, they know better, and that Danese Cooper claims that the CDDL
> was purposefully made CDDL GPL incompatible:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/
cdrtools forked by Debian Project, claims that build system is incompatible,
Joerg is wrong, they know better, and that Danese Cooper claims that the CDDL
was purposefully made CDDL GPL incompatible:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg2.html
http://linux.slashdot.org/ar
Thanks. That's pretty much what my manager said as well. I think we'll
definitely stick with our own Apache and Postfix, but I'm worried about the
openssl version as 0.9.7d is subject to vulnerabilities, and presumably the SSH
is compiled against this.
This message posted from opensolaris.or
> The main concern I have is whether Solaris will provide
> the patches as soon as any vulnerabilities come out, especially for
> Apache?
While vulnerabilities get fixed fairly quickly, the biggest problem with using
the bundled Apache is that new features (such as large file support) tend to
t
hi,
>Solaris 10 now which provides this software as part of the OS, so I'm
>not sure whether it's best just to use that instead of my own builds?The
the answer is "yes" unless you really need a new functionality not
present in versions shipped with S10
>main concern I have is wh
Is anything happening with the zfs boot project???
Doug
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi,At the company I work in, we use apache, openssh and
openssl on (commercial) Solaris. Up until now I've always downloaded
the code, compiled and packaged it myself. However we're moving to
Solaris 10 now which provides this software as part of the OS, so I'm
not sure whether it's best just t
Jürgen Keil wrote:
>
>Maybe this is one of the following two firewire issues:
>http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=41741
>http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=10796
>
>
>
Wow!
Like always, when JK fixes a bug :)
___
Hey,
Adding opensolaris-announce to send these weekly summaries there, as well as
-discuss. All follow ups should be to -discuss.
Glynn
==
> Stephen Lau announced that build 47 [1] and the ON nightly [2] were available,
> but noted that this delivery included the flag day for the Sun Studio 11
Hi,
Sorry if this isn't really the place for this, but I've been over the list
archives and the HCL from Sun, and can't find what I'm after.
Very soon we plan on getting a backup archival server (I hate tapes), to run
Solaris on, for ZFS naturally.
It's likely to be a new dual core Xeon, on a I
> I had exactly the same experience: I bought two 500GB
> PATA drives to attach to my SunBlade 150 (Sparc
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]); at first I tried to connect them through
> FireWire with a USB2/FW box, but whenever the drives
> are accessed simultaneously, one of them locks up,
> and the system respo
Hi there,
This process is there for various optional management services coded in Java -
rather than each one having its own JVM, there's one shared JVM process to
minimize the (non-zero) impact of having a JVM running on the system.
Idle Java processes can eat up background CPU doing internal
47 matches
Mail list logo
