>
> On 11 May 2010, at 17:55, Edward Martinez wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, with these kind if news i get concern
> and once i get concern lot of ideas start flowing in
> my head on how i can help out.
>
> Concerned about what? That somebody who was actively
> working on OpenSolaris is now go
On Tue, 11 May 2010 23:55:09 +0100, Calum Benson
wrote:
> On 11 May 2010, at 18:46, Francois Laagel wrote:
>
>> There's also vpnc (http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/) I
haven't
>> tried it
>> but it seems that development/maintenance of that project stopped
>> several years ago.
>
> It w
On 11 May 2010, at 18:46, Francois Laagel wrote:
> There's also vpnc (http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/) I haven't
> tried it
> but it seems that development/maintenance of that project stopped several
> years ago.
It works just fine any time I've used it, as an alternative to Cisco's
On 11 May 2010, at 17:55, Edward Martinez wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, with these kind if news i get concern and once i get concern
> lot of ideas start flowing in my head on how i can help out.
Concerned about what? That somebody who was actively working on OpenSolaris is
now going to be... a
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Dave Johnson
wrote:
> This is how Oracle treats open communities and projects. Will OGB intervene?
Given the evidence we've been given on these matters by those who
are directly involved, it would seem that the most likely intervention by
the OGB would be to remo
Subject says it all.
--
Giovanni
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Dave Johnson
wrote:
> This is how Oracle treats open communities and projects. Will OGB intervene?
While I have not been following this soap opera in excruciating
detail, my reading of the ARC discussions was that the ksh-93 project
to replace existing GNU utiliti
Where is the email threads to substantiate your claims?
-Ghee
On 10/05/2010 11:50, Dave Johnson wrote:
This is how Oracle treats open communities and projects. Will OGB intervene?
David
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dave Johnson
Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Subject: Re:
I forgot to say: I don't know what "face browser" means. If it is the
feature that enables the possibility of "choosing" users at the login
and/or poweroff/restart the the answer to this question is no.
- Robin.
On 2010-05-07 18:34, Brian Cameron wrote:
Robin:
According to the GDM debug outpu
> can nexenta become the fork?
Just my opinion:
1. It cannot. Nexenta is mostly Ubuntu with OpenSolaris kernel. Nexenta
engineers do not contribute (much) to OpenSolaris codebase. They are Oracle
(Sun) engineers who do.
2. The fork is not needed. OpenSolaris is actively developed at Oracle and
They did indeed, back in the days of Solaris 2.6. Their client is Sparc only
though.
The thing is you don't necessarily need client software to implement a VPN using
Cisco gear. I myself, am currently implementing a very small scale VPN
(L2TP over IPsec, LAC initiated dialin remote access) and th
> Concerns are OK, but not the drastic moves you
> proposed... And combining
> those, is not a good thing...
>
> Matthias
> ward Martinez) wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Edward Martinez
> > > wrote:
> > > > I was wondering with D'Amore jumping over to
> > > Nexenta. if the
On 11 May 2010, at 17:27, russell aspinwall wrote:
> Cisco do support Solaris SPARC on one of their VPN client applications,
> however the latest Cisco AnyConnect VPN client is Windows only and is a SSL
> VPN technology.
FWIW, there are Mac and Linux versions of the AnyConnect client as well.
Am 23 Apr 2010 um 04:04 schrieb Richard L. Hamilton:
Surely "sufficient people" exist that would pay for low-end support
(sunsolve+patches only, or sunsolve+access to a repo with bug fixes,
for OpenSolaris)
that otherwise might simply do without, or go elsewhere.
Staying profitable is import
Concerns are OK, but not the drastic moves you proposed... And combining
those, is not a good thing...
Matthias
You (Edward Martinez) wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Edward Martinez
> > wrote:
> > > I was wondering with D'Amore jumping over to
> > Nexenta. if the time comes
The problem with specifying VPN solutions is that it allows for SSL and IPSec
VPNs.
Worked with Checkpoint for over 14 years I do not remember their ever being a
Solaris VPN client but they do offer SSL VPN. Cisco do support Solaris SPARC
on one of their VPN client applications, however the la
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Edward Martinez
> wrote:
> > I was wondering with D'Amore jumping over to
> Nexenta. if the time comes to take drastic
> measures, if they are willing and have the
> resources, can something be organized with nexenta
> to become the fork?
>
>
> Troll.
> __
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Furthermore I must also agree with Richard Hamilton: With (some more)
> authoritative community interaction and communication from Oracle's
> side, nobody could ever have believed such a troll in the first place.
> Not for a minute! It is Or
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Edward Martinez wrote:
> I was wondering with D'Amore jumping over to Nexenta. if the time comes to
> take drastic measures, if they are willing and have the resources, can
> something be organized with nexenta to become the fork?
Troll.
__
I am getting repetitive motion disorder just deleting all of the emails
in this thread. Really, you are hurting me. Isn't there something
more worthwhile that we can talk about? Can we create a separate forum
for OpenSolaris armchair speculators to blab away at each other without
bothering tho
>> No need to wait that long. If there is a call for a vote on the matter you
>> have my public input for a formal ban under the terms of the TOU now. If
>> there are some procedural details we can sort that out as required.
>>
>>
>
> Quick question -- will a ban do any good? Is there anyway to ve
I was wondering with D'Amore jumping over to Nexenta. if the time comes to
take drastic measures, if they are willing and have the resources, can
something be organized with nexenta to become the fork?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
On 05/11/10 09:54 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
John Sonnenschein wrote:
You are forging emails for your own political gains and I'm going to
have to ask you to stop slandering me and my work *immediately*. It is
completely unacceptable behaviou
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> > You are forging emails for your own political gains and I'm going to
>> have to ask you to stop slandering me and my work *immediately*. It is
>> completely unacceptable behaviour.
>>
>> Given Mr. Johnson's previous posts about Opera dr
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
> > You are forging emails for your own political gains and I'm going to have
> > to ask you to stop slandering me and my work *immediately*. It is
> > completely unacceptable behaviour.
>
> Given Mr. Johnson's previous posts about Opera droppi
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> You are forging emails for your own political gains and I'm going to have to
>> ask you to stop slandering me and my work *immediately*. It is completely
>> unacceptable behaviour.
>
> Given Mr. Johnson's prev
[...]
> Nice attempt, unfortunately (for you) the ARC emails
> are being archived.
[...]
Thank you.
I think you did confirm one point I've been making - that _authoritative_
communication can quickly put rumors to rest.
If the folks inside the firewall had a little more freedom to speak
as those
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> You are forging emails for your own political gains and I'm going to
>> have to ask you to stop slandering me and my work *immediately*. It is
>> completely unacceptable behaviour.
>
> Given Mr. Johnson's previous posts about Opera dropping support to
> avoid huge Ora
John Sonnenschein wrote:
> You are forging emails for your own political gains and I'm going to have to
> ask you to stop slandering me and my work *immediately*. It is completely
> unacceptable behaviour.
Given Mr. Johnson's previous posts about Opera dropping support to
avoid huge Oracle fees
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Roland Mainz
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Dave Johnson
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Bye,
>> Roland
>>
>> P.S.: Wearing my hat as ksh93-integration project lead: No, neither
>> the ksh93-integration project nor the POSIX modernisation project are
>> de
*** Apologies to all ***
... that I fell in Mr. "Dave Johnson"'s traps twice.
Recently I didn't have much time for OpenSolaris.
I did not back-check "Dave Johnson"'s claims sufficiently enough.
Sorry!
%martin bochnig
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Roland Mainz wrote:
> On Mon, May 10,
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Dave Johnson
wrote:
[snip]
> Here is the evidence:
>
> Evidence 1:
> - Project cooperation with ksh project withdrawn
> - GNU commands as replacements are the future
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: John Sonnenschein
> Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at
On 2010-05-10, at 6:15 AM, Dave Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Where's your "evidence", troll?
>
> Here is the evidence:
>
> Evidence 1:
> - Project cooperation with ksh project withdrawn
> - GNU commands as replacements are the future
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: John Sonnenschei
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> BTW, if it was true that every /usr/bin utility was going to be replaced
> by a GNU one, would there have been a half dozen bug fixes to the Solaris
> version of tar over the past couple of months?
Depends on how you look at it we could expect non-POSIX compliant ar
34 matches
Mail list logo
