Re: [osol-discuss] solaris index database?

On Wed, 30 May 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Anne wrote: > > Does anyone know if Solaris 10 has the ability to index all of it's contents > > and those contents are available for query? (Akin to Red Hat's "locate" and > > "updatedb" features.) The "find" command is so sllow > > Those aren't

Re: [osol-discuss] One Laptop per Child on 60 Minutes, Sunday May 20

On Mon, 21 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >One Laptop per Child on 60 Minutes, Sunday May 20 > >http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/18/one-laptop-per-child-on-60-minutes-sunday-may-20/ > > > >If you are following this project, you will find that they have > >standardized on a Linux dist

Re: [osol-discuss] Sun to make Solaris more Linux like

On Wed, 16 May 2007, James Carlson wrote: > Joerg Schilling writes: > > Do it like SGI and let "ps -efc" behave like a SVr4 ps and "ps aux" > > like a BSD ps. You only need to look for the '-' in the args. > > Not just SGI, but AIX as well. That solution works fine, is pretty > well known, and s

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote: > An increase in developers developing applications for OpenSolaris and an > increase in people using an OpenSolaris distribution. It's reaching out to an > audience that has been ignoring OpenSolaris. Embracing more people, making > more friends, gets

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote: > We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first place -- > and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are still folks > who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and create proprietary > solutions. CDDL all

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: SXCR Build 56 available

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Ben Rockwood wrote: > Since your commenting on good things in B56 I'll add the following server > observations (on X4100): On the down side, it still won't install on a Latitude D620 -- install just hangs forever (problem appears same as in previous sxcr releases that I've

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in > >foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for > >variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL > >project just because of that. > > >

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal : OpenSolaris on extended partitions

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote: > What would happen if there was already a "Linux installation" in the given > "Extended" partition, or DOS/Windows was using it for a "drive" ? Extended partitions aren't directly useable by Linux, or DOS, or Windows. All those OSes make logical parti

Re: [osol-discuss] Question about VMware and Solaris

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote: > >> I mean this is just insane. Don't tell me people actually fork out that > >> sort > >> of money to Red Hat for an inferior OS. In order to run VMware I need to > >> get a license of some Linux and then, and only then, am I able to run my > >> virtual

[osol-discuss] SXCR snv_46 images corrupt?

Is anyone else seeing corrupt zip files when they download SXCR snv_46? Multiple downloads of sol-nv-b46-sparc-v6-iso.zip sol-nv-b46-sparc-dvd-iso-e.zip from different servers in the load balance have failed for me -- looks like the images are corrupt server side since I get the same (wrong) m

Re: [osol-discuss] Is CDDL "illegal"? (Fwd: Remove cdrtools)

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Josh Hurst wrote: > Just a notification: Debian and Ubuntu are going to removal **ALL** > CDDL licensed materials from their distribution, stating that the > license is non-free and "illegal" (not GPL compatible). I think you're overstating -- the stuff you quoted was all abo

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: DHCPv6 Client

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Rainer Orth wrote: > True :-) Which servers do you plan to test the new v6 client against? > > Speaking of servers, I just stumbled across the following announcement from > ISC: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=dhcp-announce&m=115275750414621&w=2 > > So there's ano

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [powerpc-discuss] OpenWindows - How much is lost forever ?

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Cyril Plisko wrote: > Bottom line - I wouldn't count on old Solaris PPC packages. I think one > still can find XView sources and build them on modern system. As for > OpenLook toolkit - I am not sure its source is available. Check out l

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: [desktop-discuss] Project Proposal :: JDS

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: > Fedora doesn't even come with java in the iso. I guess your info is > totally wrong. I suppose it depends on what you're claiming "come with java" means. Fedora ships lots of java apps (tomcat, ant, xalan, etc). It doesn't come with the Sun JVM bec

Re: Main OS/Net repository - based on "Subversion" or "Mercurial" ? / was: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [tools-discuss] Distributed source codemanagement selection, draft

On Tue, 2 May 2006, John Levon wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:49:10PM +0200, Holger Berger wrote: > > > On 5/2/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On 02/05/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty dar

Re: [osol-discuss] [Fwd: OpenSolaris attacked by Novell]

On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: > I belive this comment is about the following > > "As an example, when Red Hat released the sources to their Enterprise > Server, but didn't provide any of the Makefiles or configure scripts to > create them. Of course there is nothing in the GPL

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: Virtual Console

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Riny Qian wrote: > We're just starting the investigation. And any ideas/comments are > welcome! A project webpage for this project will be published soon. Great, is this project going to be Sparc, x86, or both? later, chris ___ ope

Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Alan DuBoff wrote: > On Thursday 20 April 2006 06:19 am, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Some people are s stuck in thinking "it still works and so we are not > > going to fix it" attitude. When I see yet another E4000 ( not E4500 ) > > running Oracle for 70 people I just want t

Re[2]: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote: > CR> It's not so pretty from the user side either, though I suppose that's more > CR> a matter of taste. There are things about Solaris I prefer over Linux, but > CR> the package / patch duality versus the everything-is-a-package approach of > CR> Debi

Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Dave Miner wrote: > Not being a Debian user, I won't try to compare. I guess your > experience with Solaris patches is more from the user end, whereas I'm > looking at it from the creator/maintainer end; let's just say that there > are a lot of resources expended to make s

Re: [osol-discuss] problem downloading this one in particular sol-nv-b36-sparc-v4-iso.zip

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Nilotpal Bhattacharyya wrote: > File not found on this one in particular. > Problem downloading > > Solaris Express build 36 CD 4, Multi-language > sol-nv-b36-sparc-v4-iso.zip 605.34 MB The Sun web site's broken - it's pointing you to http://sdlc-esd.sun.com/ES

Re: [osol-discuss] b36 grew to 5 CDs

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Cyril Plisko wrote: > Just found that b36 > (http://javashoplm.sun.com/ECom/docs/Welcome.jsp?StoreId=7&PartDetailId=Sol-Express_b36-x86-SP-G-B&TransactionId=try) > grew to 5 CDs, what was added to it to make it that bigger ? > (I am still downloading and will find it out only

Re: Why LSB filesystem layout is bad, part 1 ... / was: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Proposal to remove /usr/sfw anditsdependencies from the bas

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Roland Mainz wrote: > My personal complaint is that they stuff everything into /usr/bin/. Unix > had some kind of "namespace" support via the elements in ${PATH} so > having package groups seperated into /usr/dt/bin/ (CDE), /usr/kde3/bin > (KDE3), /usr/xpg4/bin/ (XPG4 personal

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Features found in other OS you'd like to see in Solaris

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, James Carlson wrote: > Yann POUPET writes: > > "Hurg ! It seems your naughty sound card driver has crashed. > > Do you want to try to reset it ? [YES] [NO] > > Do you want to unload and reload it ? [YES] [NO] > > Do you want to send a bug report to the maintainer ? [YES] [NO]

Re: [osol-discuss] lchmod

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >What do you like to achieve with this call? > > > > There's one potential use: a chmod() call which doesn't follow > > symlinks. No race conditions, etc... > > OK, this makes sense. BTW, it's not just a Linux thing -

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The Solaris automounter actually works correctly in that respect; > it determines if a mountpoint is remote or local and will use an > NFS or loopback depending on the outcome. And Linux autofs uses bind mounts for local mounts, which is conceptu

Re: [osol-discuss] Dell and HP notebook options?

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Stephen Lau wrote: > I just installed Nevada succesfully on a Dell Latitude D600... which means the > Inspiron 600m should work pretty much the same. > > Wireless is an iwi (Intel 2200 centrino) which we have a driver for, but it > hasn't been released to OpenSolaris yet. I

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can we start OpenSolaris PMS enhancement project ?

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote: > On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, TJ Yang wrote: > > Previously, Eric Boutilier wrote: > > > > > > The project goal states > > > > > > "... provide OpenSolaris OS a modern package > > > age management system." > > > > > > > What will be the right wording of above sent

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: wifi (was "open source process")

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Tao Chen wrote: > I am not familiar with the Wi-Fi issue. > How is it handled by Redhat/SuSe/Debian right now, assuming it's not part of > the Linux kernel? Several of the drivers are part of the Linux kernel. Drivers for wi-fi for Linux fall into about 4 categories: 1. o

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Proposal of new community for Solaris x86 device driver

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:26:58PM -0700, UNIX admin wrote: > > > Me too. What is the reason that the ata driver wasn't released as source? > > In truth we're not allowed to tell you why it's not there, but you > could read our VP's blog at > http

Re: [osol-discuss] Debian with OpenSolaris: a broken dream

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Dragan Cvetkovic wrote: > Alvaro, you really need to explain this all better, especially the connection > between OpenSolaris and other architectures. E.g. programs like pstack, pmap, > pldd and others dealing with /proc stuff are and have been often life-savers > for me and t

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Glenn Lagasse wrote: > Now, if you packaged up your custom built software into Solaris > packages, your maintenance for 100+ machines goes down. You have a > build machine, that runs whatever version of Solaris that is running > on the rest of your machines, you build your so

Re: [blastware-discuss] [osol-discuss] Re: Can Solaris/OpenSolaris do what Linux has failed to do?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote: > And I still think calling POSIX "a key UNIX/Linux industry standard" is > a very good reflection of reality. > > > I actually fail to see a Linux industry standard in POSIX; > > Well at a minimum, it's certainly key to much of the development of >

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until > > recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and > > then it was realized that it could be extended to a BSD-licensed tar > > implemented using

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: > I see not reason why FreeBSD people did start another tar implementation > recently. Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and then it was rea

Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris vs. Linux

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: > And BTW: it is definitely unfair to compare an instable devleopment kernel > from > Linux (2.6) with a stable Solaris-10. A fair comparison would compare Linux2.6 > with Solaris-11 or Solaris-10 with Linux-2.4 (which is the latest stable > Linux). N

Re: [osol-discuss] vt's

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 7/6/05, Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I miss the most (from Gentoo system) is the ability to have access to > > multiple vt's from console without having to login onto X. I know I can use > > screen but its not quite as convenient as the v

Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris vs. Linux

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Michael K Dolan Jr wrote: > ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LinuxVersusSolarisAnalysis24Feb2005.pdf You might note who paid for that analysis. Like most such studies, it ends up supporting its sugar daddy -- no real surprise there. The technical inaccuracies in it (abo

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Albert White wrote: > The main things wrong with the SVR4 that I'm seeiing in this discussion is a > lack of features in the tools, rahter than a problem with the SVR4 package and > patch architecture. > > This would lead me to the conclusion that the best thing to do would b

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Blastwave unfortunatly currently is a binary "only" distribution. > I would be happy if we could have the knowledge from Blastwave > archived inside a source package system. I would be happy if this could be > done with sps as sps is easy to adopt. Th

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Chris Ricker wrote: > > ... > > > > Also, keep in mind the big difference between something like rpm and SysV > > package format -- rpm manages not just the packaging, but also the > > building...

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote: > My 2 cents: > > - A big strike against deb and portage (for Solaris/OpenSolaris) is > that no work's been done yet. > > - A big strike against Solaris packaging is it's not open-source yet. > > - A big point in favor of Solaris packaging is compati