|
Replies:
117
-
Last Post:
Aug 1, 2008 10:11 PM
by: dana002
|
|
|
Posts:
15
From:
The World
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 10, 2007 10:58 PM
|
|
There has been lots of discussion this week in the press and on this forum about Project Indiana. As I said in my blog last Sunday, albeit somewhat buried in a long entry, Sun is not making any big Solaris related announcements this week at JavaOne. What Ian did do this week, during the CommunityOne event, is talk about a concept we are calling Project Indiana. CommunityOne was intended as a face-to-face event for participation, contribution, and innovation and Ian and I thought this was a good place to introduce the Project Indiana concept. As some of you might agree, face-to-face forums are sometimes better to discuss new concepts than via email. Then you can call someone a dude without implying they work on a farm. CommunityOne was also an open event and quite a few press were present and wrote followup articles on Project Indiana. Since CommunityOne, both Ian and myself have been busy taking advantage of having 15,000 developers in one place to talk to as many people as we can, face-to-face, and haven't had time to discuss Project Indiana on this forum, but I am sure you will be hearing more about Project Indiana here in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, let me clear up some misconceptions and make a few observations:
- Project Indiana is the name Ian and I are using to refer to some of our high level goals and strategy for Solaris. There is nothing radically new about Project Indiana. It is a collection of things that are either already being worked on by Solaris engineering and/or the OpenSolaris community or have been widely discussed and generally recognized as things we needed to do with Solaris including making it more familiar to a wider community (yes, including the Linux community) and making it easier to install.
- Sun is not co-opting the OpenSolaris community. In fact, I am adding several new staff members to Solaris marketing who's full time job will be to ensure we work through and with the community. When we are ready to actually start on what we are referring to as Project Indiana we plan to do so through the OpenSolaris community process, adhering to the existing community governance model. If it is appropriate to start a new OpenSolaris community to implement the concepts in Project Indiana, we will do so following the published community creation process, and there is no expectation that any new community will be called Indiana.
- Sun is not anti-Linux, and Sun is not against the Linux community. Sun competes in the commercial operating systems market against multiple companies that distribute Linux operating systems. The two are not inconsistent. Some of the first non SunOS work done by Sun was helping port NFS to non SunOS operating systems distributed by companies that we competed against.
-For the record, I use csh, not sh, bash, tcsh, etc. There are no plans to make csh the default Solaris shell. I still love Solaris!
I'm sorry some of you were upset to hear about Project Indiana in the press. The dates for CommunityOne were set long before Ian or I started working on the Solaris team and it was a chance to talk about our ideas that we didn't want to pass up. I'm not sorry that the Solaris community received a lot of press this week. I think more people every day are taking another look at Solaris, and that is good for all of us.
Marc Hamilton Vice President, Solaris Marketing, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Phone: (310)607-2450
|
|
|
Posts:
937
From:
AU
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 10, 2007 11:19 PM
in response to: marc
|
|
Hi Marc,
Marc Hamilton wrote:
> There has been lots of discussion this week in the press and on this
> forum about Project Indiana.
...
THANKYOU for sending this email. I particularly appreciate
the acknowledgement of the importance of our OpenSolaris
community in your reply.
best regards,
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer, system admin and troubleshooter
http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
Find me on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamescmcpherson
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
352
From:
AU
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 11, 2007 1:49 AM
in response to: marc
|
|
On 05/11/07 06:58, Marc Hamilton wrote:
>
> -For the record, I use csh, not sh, bash, tcsh, etc. There are no plans
> to make csh the default Solaris shell. I still love Solaris!
Beware - csh causes irreversible damage to your health
:-)
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
567
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 11, 2007 6:20 AM
in response to: marc
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Good post. Too bad it didn't come sooner to cut off the FUD before it started :)
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
337
From:
NZ
Registered:
7/1/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 11, 2007 6:46 AM
in response to: marc
|
|
Hi Marc,
Thanks for sending this.
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:58 -0700, Marc Hamilton wrote:
> - Project Indiana is the name Ian and I are using to refer to some of
> our high level goals and strategy for Solaris. There is nothing
> radically new about Project Indiana. It is a collection of things that
> are either already being worked on by Solaris engineering and/or the
> OpenSolaris community or have been widely discussed and generally
> recognized as things we needed to do with Solaris including making it
> more familiar to a wider community (yes, including the Linux
> community) and making it easier to install.
So what exactly is the secret that Jonathan couldn't reveal yet here:
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/update
Thanks,
Laca
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
50
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 11, 2007 9:37 AM
in response to: marc
|
|
On 5/11/07, Marc Hamilton <Marc dot Hamilton at sun dot com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, let me clear up some misconceptions and make a few observations:
Dude, you really nailed it.
I'm here, plowing through the thread(s), and will be responding in more detail
shortly.
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
50
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 11, 2007 8:32 PM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
As promised:
Ok, so Project Indiana has caused a bit of a stir both internally at Sun
and externally... It wasn't meant to come out quite this way (and the
timing was particularly bad, given that I've been consumed with
JavaOne all week and haven't been able to respond till today). Look
on the bright side though--the tech world's abuzz about Solaris!
Bottom line, this could have been communicated better, but we
honestly didn't expect the interest level to ramp up this quickly
(again, a GREAT thing, don't forget that!). My fault, so let
me put it right and tell you what Project Indiana is (and isn't).
First of all, as Marc said, Project Indiana is more of a concept than
anything else. Importantly, there's not an army of engineers working
away in a back room somewhere on a top secret project that's just going
to be dumped on you, take it or leave it. The key decisions have yet
to be made, and we want this community to be a big part of making them.
There ARE people working on parts of the overall problem we're hoping
to solve, at Sun and in the community too. Indiana is not meant to be a
replacement for these projects, but rather a project that brings them
all together with integration as the key goal. You know, like a distro..
Yes, Project Indiana refers to a binary distro of OpenSolaris
that Sun plans to build in the OpenSolaris community in full
community view, and with full community participation.. I.e.,
this is not Sun sticking the community brand on a Sun product,
it's Sun making an additional contribution to the community. We'll
be going by the book here and plan to begin the formal
process of creating the community/project (as appropriate) shortly.
Think of this as the next natural step in the open
sourcing of Solaris that began in 2005. In other words, the source
has been in the community for a while, and now we're moving the
binary version and related machinery into the community too. Why?
Because even in open source, it's the binaries that people want.
Furthermore, we're not presenting OpenSolaris as crisply as we could
be.. In particular, people familiar with how Linux works (and that's A LOT
of people) hear the name "OpenSolaris", assume it's the community
version of Solaris, and are confused to find out that isn't actually true.
This is actually just one part of what I've been referring to as
"the familiarity problem" (formerly known as "the usability gap" until I
realized that "usability" was relative). I.e., that while Solaris has
compelling technology, that technology remains somewhat inaccessible to
users that are familiar with the Linux environment (and, again, that's
a BIG market). Addressing the familiarity problem is another
big goal of the Indiana project. In other words, the goal is to make
what Solaris has to offer available to the larger market
that by and large is more familiar with Linux as things stand today.
That said, even as we aggressively move to make Solaris more familiar to
Linux users, we will be equally aggressive in pushing Solaris'
unique features to the fore--i.e., to the extent that Solaris
starts to look like a distro to solve the familiarity
problem, it's not "yet another Linux", but a _better Solaris_.
Note that this doesn't mean we'll be doing a brain transplant and just
sticking the Linux userland on top of the Solaris kernel. First of all,
as anyone who has spent any time actually talking to me about this
knows, I'm a huge believer in the importance of backward compatibility
in Solaris. Even as we're moving forward with major change,
we must ensure that this major change does not mean a major break
between past, present and future. That would violate one of
the fundamental promises--and competitive advantages--of Solaris.
This also doesn't mean if you're an existing Solaris user and don't see
anything wrong with the current userland that we're going to take it
away from you. One of the compelling technologies, after all, is Zones..
So, what will be the big features in Indiana? You tell me--and,
indeed, a discussion of features could be a great way to actually
get off on the right foot here given the somewhat rocky start so
far.. My list: packaging, installation, GNU userland alongside
"Solaris classic userland", and laptop support (see what
I mean that there are already people working on these things?).
The big feature from my point of view though is the 6 mo. timed release
cycle. Timed release cycles have done wonders to introduce predictability
into other open source projects (e.g., Gnome, Ubuntu). And 6 mos. is the
clear winner in terms of frequency among Linux community/developer
distros--it's just enough time to do interesting work
AND have a reasonably long hardening period so the thing is stable.
That's it for now. I hope I've given you all something to think about. :-)
I'm running on fumes.. Will check in again tomorrow.
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 11, 2007 11:00 PM
in response to: imurdock
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
[...]
> far.. My list: packaging, installation, GNU userland
> alongside
> "Solaris classic userland", and laptop support (see
> what
> I mean that there are already people working on these
> things?).
At least you didn't use the pejorative marketing term "legacy".
Hopefully, if different userlands were to appear in different zones,
the alien, er, I mean immigrant-friendly (pain. from. PC. speak.)
environments would optional and not in the global zone.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 1:38 AM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> As promised:
Maybe that's a part of being in marketing, you've only posted a few
messages to this list, and already you're making promises!<g>
> First of all, as Marc said, Project Indiana is more of a concept than
> anything else.
So far, I haven't heard anything from either of you that has much
substance to it. I mean, no disrespect, but it seemed more like mumbling
in your hand...
Unfortunately, much of these comments are taken out of context, but it's
up to all of us to represent our own comments for ourselves.
> Yes, Project Indiana refers to a binary distro of OpenSolaris
> that Sun plans to build in the OpenSolaris community in full
> community view, and with full community participation.. I.e.,
> this is not Sun sticking the community brand on a Sun product,
> it's Sun making an additional contribution to the community. We'll
> be going by the book here and plan to begin the formal
> process of creating the community/project (as appropriate) shortly.
That's all good, and others in the community (Nexenta, Shillix, Belenix,
et al) are doing it today already. This is only natural for the community
to grow into a larger consolidation of software, this aspect confuses me,
and I think many of the people that have come to the opensolaris community
have shown some confusion as well.
> Furthermore, we're not presenting OpenSolaris as crisply as we could
> be.. In particular, people familiar with how Linux works (and that's A LOT
> of people) hear the name "OpenSolaris", assume it's the community
> version of Solaris, and are confused to find out that isn't actually true.
Linux means a lot of different things to people, some it's a kernel,
other's it's a distribution, and even others it's just a clone of UNIX.
There needs to be a core/kernel to any OS, and the ON portion is that for
OpenSolaris.
I think it's a mistake for us to make ourselves "linux like", and I'm not
against linux at all, I just think Solaris has/had it's own strength, and
in many ways it has more strength than linux struggles with already.
How would most of those folks know about OpenSolaris, or even Solaris in
the same way? It wasn't until recentely that Sun even started to market
themselves as being able to run on commodity hardware, afterall.
There's where the biggest change has come for Solaris/OpenSolaris, IMO, in
regards to being able to run on commodity hardware. Oh, it did previously,
but you really needed to be selective in your hardware purchases to run
the x86 version, and even though it's has a long history, the new boot
architecture, being ported to AMD64, and low cost of entry have now opened
the door for linux users to come and look at what Solaris/OpenSolaris has
to offer on it's own. Sure, if they have some software that we can layer
on, hey, more software is better after all, right? We certainly want to
keep it out of ON, as we know it today though!
In fact, one of the goals should be to rid the sources of all closed
binaries that are distributed, and replaced with open and free solutions.
I'm sure you're planning something like that also, but this is nothing
new. I want to hear how you're gonna make a difference in what you're
going to do, or maybe I should just watch and see how you evolve your
project.
Being able to run web servers in secure zones, where even if the server
did get hacked, there's not much for them to get anyway...that's the type
of features that developers need to know about so they can develop better
mouse traps, the Solaris/OpenSolaris way.
Running on zfs, and really being able to design the system so that it
takes advantage of zfs, opensolaris will have a bright future. Funny
though, it would be nice if we did have ext2/3 support, but we shouldn't
encourage our users to store their data on ext2/3. I see no advantage in
that aspect of linux. We should help people get their data off of those
filesystems though...<g>
> it's not "yet another Linux", but a _better Solaris_.
I didn't hear your comments, so not sure what exactly was said. I got the
impression that you might not have clarified that well enough. Again,
context is important.
> Note that this doesn't mean we'll be doing a brain transplant and just
> sticking the Linux userland on top of the Solaris kernel.
Well, duh, aren't you in marketing? <gd&r>
> So, what will be the big features in Indiana? You tell me--and,
> indeed, a discussion of features could be a great way to actually
> get off on the right foot here given the somewhat rocky start so
> far..
That kinda seems to sum up what I got out of both yours and Mark's
messages. Not that it won't grow into a nice project, just that there's
nothing there really yet.
> My list: packaging, installation, GNU userland alongside
> "Solaris classic userland", and laptop support (see what
> I mean that there are already people working on these things?).
These horses have been beaten for a long time, I'm curious what will be
different about the approach that you take, so I'll be watching.
> The big feature from my point of view though is the 6 mo. timed release
> cycle.
To give Sun credit, even though they have had about a 2 year development
between major releases (so it seems, until nevada), they do in fact come
out with bi-anual or quarterly updates, don't they?
How would you help that in marketing? I don't understand how some of these
pieces fit together, to be honest. I'm a little slow...so bear with me.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
50
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 5:00 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
On 5/12/07, Alan DuBoff <alan dot duboff at sun dot com> wrote:
> > First of all, as Marc said, Project Indiana is more of a concept than
> > anything else.
>
> So far, I haven't heard anything from either of you that has much
> substance to it. I mean, no disrespect, but it seemed more like mumbling
> in your hand...
So, wait, you *want* us to go off in a back room and figure all this stuff
first? Talk about mixed messages..
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Clarke
blastwave@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 5:54 AM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
On 5/12/07, Ian Murdock <imurdock at imurdock dot com> wrote:
> On 5/12/07, Alan DuBoff <alan dot duboff at sun dot com> wrote:
> > > First of all, as Marc said, Project Indiana is more of a concept than
> > > anything else.
> >
> > So far, I haven't heard anything from either of you that has much
> > substance to it. I mean, no disrespect, but it seemed more like mumbling
> > in your hand...
>
> So, wait, you *want* us to go off in a back room and figure all this stuff
> first? Talk about mixed messages..
>
Personally I like getting some things out in the open.
One of those items that is near and dear to my heart is the open
source software packaging scenario. For some time now I have watched
as Sun did little to help get open source software out to the actual
Solaris end user. Piece by piece and very very slowly there seems to
be internal processes that would allow something "critical" like
Apache and PostgreSQL to be rolled into the Solaris product. I have
"heard" of a process by which the Companion CD was to be moved out
into the community but that train left the station over five years ago
and we built the Blastwave project to remedy the ills. After two years
of watching the OpenSolaris project I go looking for tangible results
and I don't see any from either Sun or OpenSolaris.org. We have a few
actual community distro projects and then there is Solaris Nevada (
rebranded Solaris Express ) which we know lives behind the Sun
firewalls. The SFW namespace which was to provide us with SunFreeWare
( or open source packages ) has failed utterly after years and years
of pushing, marketing, and bickering.
Enough is enough.
I am personally funding, pushing and providing an open source software
community project for five years now ( with some cool hardware from
Sun too ! ) and while the Companion CD and the SFW namespace has
barely managed to squeeze out 120 software packages we, the community
people that sought to remedy this situation, have delivered 1682
software packages via mirror sites and we have done so freely. We have
penetrated into every market sector. Into Wall Street, into banking,
into manufacturing, into universities and into the home user. We have
penetrated right into Sun Microsystems back yard and taken hold of a
large chunk of that market sector; the open source software user on
production Solaris.
I would think that we have some things to talk about and while I know
that we are scheduled for a conference call next week there is nothing
quite like just coming right out in the open and talking about these
things here, in the community that I value so dearly.
Dennis Clarke
Director and Founder
Blastwave.org
ps: partial list of active updates http://www.blastwave.org/cronlist/index.html
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 11:05 AM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On 5/12/07, Alan DuBoff <alan dot duboff at sun dot com> wrote:
>> > First of all, as Marc said, Project Indiana is more of a concept than
>> > anything else.
>>
>> So far, I haven't heard anything from either of you that has much
>> substance to it. I mean, no disrespect, but it seemed more like mumbling
>> in your hand...
>
> So, wait, you *want* us to go off in a back room and figure all this stuff
> first? Talk about mixed messages..
No, not at all...that was never said. In fact, it seems you would be best
to talk to some of the engineers about it so some of them actually know
what you have in mind. From what I can tell, there are few if any folks in
engineering that know about project Indiana. I don't think figuring stuff
out in the backroom will work very well, if the recent events are any
example of that outcome.
It is not as if the community here hasn't been aware of some of the
shortcomings/problems that you have mentioned.
OpenSolaris is different than Linux. I would go out on a limb and say that
it has been and is currently developed in the Cathedral style, opposed to
the Bazaar. Before I get attacked for typing this, the OpenSolaris
community is not as open and/or welcoming to outside developers, and it's
not developed in the same fashion. This is a key point, because the
community works differently. This is not to say that it is bad, it is
different so far, than the Linux roots and the community works a bit
different, not to mention that it is changing. There is not nearly anarchy
in this community, and that needs to be taken into consideration as it
moves forward, because this community is not wrong because of such.
What is also important to understand is that there are a lot of enterprise
customers that have relied and much of their operations depends on the
very sources we discuss. This is much different than the Linux community,
where the base of the software was created in the Bazaar fasions, and had
no customers and/or userbase to speak of as it was developed.
Transitioning to the Bazaar from the Cathedral might not be as easy as
some might think, and presents challenges in itself, if the community
wanted to move in that direction (I'm not even trying to imply that must
take place). I know that Eric Raymond states that most all development
must be created in the Cathedral style before it moves to the Bazaar, but
he also points out that people need to have people skills in the way they
work with the community and/or developers in the Bazaar fashion. This is
an area that Solaris/OpenSolaris has not excelled at to date, but it seems
to be *slowly* evolving, and the community is slowly opening up for others
to participate in. OpenSolaris is out for close to 2 years, and we still
do not have source code management in place for the Bazaar, we continute
to use the Cathedral for that. Some of this trasition will be harder than
others, this is just one case. Maybe this community won't end up in a
complete Bazaar, maybe it will be held together as a partial Cathedral, I
don't think that will prevent us from being successful.
Now, let's get down to the roots of this "Solaris should be more like
Linux" markteting hooey that is getting tossed around to the public. What
is it that we really need? I contend what folks want is to have and
continue to move towards open source solutions, but in general to make
OpenSolaris more usable for the masses, which it does continue to move
forward and get better at. It's the smaller and more simple solutions that
Solaris/OpenSolaris is not as good at, but at the same time it has solved
some of the huge problems that are presented to use (i.e., ZFS, DTrace,
Zones, FMA, SMF, etc). Linux has a more usable desktop, it install easier,
it updates easier (and does it over the net), and has a much broader
selection of software. Given the choice, I'd rather be looking at the
simple solutions than the difficult ones, because some of those won't be
easy to tackle.
Yes, Solaris/OpenSolaris is more difficult to install, configure, and/or
even use. We continue to evolve in that regard. More software is provided
today that is configured better and is more usable, and OpenSolaris is in
fact getting easier to install and use for the average folks on commodity
hardware. This is important, as most prior users of Solaris were customers
of Sun, and most of them paid nice sums of $$$s to have the hardware to
run it. This is changing, and we should give some consideration in our
community for this, because Solaris/OpenSolaris is now available and
running on 32/64 bit x86, the commodity market can only continue to help
more.
This opens up the system to more people, even though some folks have used
Solaris on commodity hardware, it's been a well kept secret with a much
smaller community. You can now go down and buy a laptop that runs well
with both Solaris/OpenSolaris, we have a new boot architecture that
facilitates this for us, and folks can download and use
Solaris/OpenSolaris much easier. We need to get more people to load and
look at opensolaris, and I content that we will win many of them on
quality alone. This doesn't mean the best product wins, far from it, and
this community has it's work cut out for them.
More importantly, we have some of the most difficult problems solved
today, like ZFS, this is not the type of solution that will be created
willy-nilly in the bazaar, and in fact, if it was so easy it would have
been solved many times over. But it hasn't, and Solaris/OpenSolaris is the
first place to see such a solution today. Linux can certainly be more
Solaris/OpenSolaris like also, that sword has 2 edges.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
12/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 13, 2007 10:02 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
> Linux has a more usable
> desktop, it install easier,
> it updates easier (and does it over the net), and
> has a much broader
> selection of software. Given the choice, I'd rather
> be looking at the
> simple solutions than the difficult ones, because
> some of those won't be
> easy to tackle.
Easier to install? I do not see much difference in the
difficulty of installing a Linux distribution versus
Open Solaris/Solaris. I still have to get a shell to
get what I want during installation on Linux.
As for updates, you missed one thing. Linux
distributions give you more control over your software
while Open Solaris distributions have nothing (nexenta
excepted) in this regard.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 7:41 AM
in response to: freetown
|
|
> Easier to install? I do not see much difference in the
> difficulty of installing a Linux distribution versus
> Open Solaris/Solaris. I still have to get a shell to
> get what I want during installation on Linux.
I like the fact Linux installers often let you configure root
mirroring and LVMs durin install. Also the disk partitioning section
can be a bit confusing to non-solaris users.
Also the descriptions are fine for solaris admins, but sometimes I
think that a "this is used for" might be missing.
-brian
P.S. - This is all from the text console installs.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 8:04 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
Brian Gupta wrote:
>> Easier to install? I do not see much difference in the
>> difficulty of installing a Linux distribution versus
>> Open Solaris/Solaris. I still have to get a shell to
>> get what I want during installation on Linux.
>
> I like the fact Linux installers often let you configure root
> mirroring and LVMs durin install.
If you use jumpstart you can mirror the root disks with SVM very easily.
The feature is only missing from the interactive installer :(
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 8:09 AM
in response to: Doug Scott
|
|
> The feature is only missing from the interactive installer :(
Yeah well, for the sake of this discussion, the interactive installer
is all that matters. If they have gotten past the initial barrier to
entry and are working on setting up a JumpStart server, then they are
well on their way to being Solaris admins. (vs. just Linux).
-brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 8:43 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
Brian Gupta wrote:
>> The feature is only missing from the interactive installer :(
>
> Yeah well, for the sake of this discussion, the interactive installer
> is all that matters. If they have gotten past the initial barrier to
> entry and are working on setting up a JumpStart server, then they are
> well on their way to being Solaris admins. (vs. just Linux).
>
> -brian
I was not saying that it was perfect. Just that with Solaris it can be
done very
easily with Jumpstart.
If somebody is trying Solaris out for the first time. The initial
barrier is not going
to be mirroring the root disks. It is actually very easy if you read the
manual! (Most don't!)
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 8:23 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
>> Easier to install? I do not see much difference in the
>> difficulty of installing a Linux distribution versus
>> Open Solaris/Solaris. I still have to get a shell to
>> get what I want during installation on Linux.
>
> I like the fact Linux installers often let you configure root
> mirroring and LVMs durin install. Also the disk partitioning section
> can be a bit confusing to non-solaris users.
I am writing an SVM extension to this :
http://www.blastwave.org/docs/s10u3_howto.html
I think that over the years I have written the process at least a dozen
times and I find links to those posts all over the place. The ones that I
really love are the sites that copy me verbatim and then they slap a
"copyright" notice on their website. Sadly, my "how to install Solaris 10"
document looks to be copied whole hog a few times already. Oh well ...
better for the end user I guess.
Dennis Clarke
ps:
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.unix.solaris/msg/2f834a1772784e75?dmode=source&hl=en&output=gplain
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
12/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 9:04 PM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
--- Brian Gupta <brian dot gupta at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > Easier to install? I do not see much difference in
> the
> > difficulty of installing a Linux distribution
> versus
> > Open Solaris/Solaris. I still have to get a shell
> to
> > get what I want during installation on Linux.
>
> I like the fact Linux installers often let you
> configure root
> mirroring and LVMs durin install. Also the disk
> partitioning section
> can be a bit confusing to non-solaris users.
Well, install root on zfs is coming soon so this is
going to be a moot point. I did not notice whether
there was a 'Help' option during installation.
Installers for quite a few Linux distributions provide
information that way.
Some of the latest Linux distro installers however do
not seem to support every possible installation like
root on a raid10 array or that plus lvm on top and so
I would have to get a shell to manually get things in
place for the installer to chew on.
>
> Also the descriptions are fine for solaris admins,
> but sometimes I
> think that a "this is used for" might be missing.
Yes, I had to brush up on slices but that is not too
bad. The real kicker was not realising the advantage
of an extra root slice for live upgrades. This is not
something that is commonly done on the Linux side of
things...but I doubt that any help information will
help a Linux admin to understand on the spot...
I have as yet to get my head wrapped around Solaris
software dependencies and therefore what is involved
in a live upgrade which now lives me stuck with the
b59 release because I do not want to bother upgrading
it anymore. At least under NCQ support becomes
available for the si3124 driver in which case I will
just wipe out the existing installation and import the
zpools and zfs's unless of course there is a better way...
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 12:53 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff <alan dot duboff at sun dot com> wrote:
Alan, thank you for staring this kind of discussion!
> > Yes, Project Indiana refers to a binary distro of OpenSolaris
> > that Sun plans to build in the OpenSolaris community in full
> > community view, and with full community participation.. I.e.,
> > this is not Sun sticking the community brand on a Sun product,
> > it's Sun making an additional contribution to the community. We'll
> > be going by the book here and plan to begin the formal
> > process of creating the community/project (as appropriate) shortly.
>
> That's all good, and others in the community (Nexenta, Shillix, Belenix,
> et al) are doing it today already. This is only natural for the community
> to grow into a larger consolidation of software, this aspect confuses me,
> and I think many of the people that have come to the opensolaris community
> have shown some confusion as well.
I would like to know whether this is a marketing project that is intende to
produce glossy paper or is it a development project that is expected to produce
code?
If it should be a development project I would expect it to be a typical
community project as it seems that Sun is talking about adding more softare
from the OSS community outside Sun.
For this reason, it should be discussed in this list together with the community
and not an idea that at some time springs off an otherwise closed chamber.
Another question is whether this project own money to use up for the it's goals.
> > Furthermore, we're not presenting OpenSolaris as crisply as we could
> > be.. In particular, people familiar with how Linux works (and that's A LOT
> > of people) hear the name "OpenSolaris", assume it's the community
> > version of Solaris, and are confused to find out that isn't actually true.
>
> Linux means a lot of different things to people, some it's a kernel,
> other's it's a distribution, and even others it's just a clone of UNIX.
> There needs to be a core/kernel to any OS, and the ON portion is that for
> OpenSolaris.
>
> I think it's a mistake for us to make ourselves "linux like", and I'm not
> against linux at all, I just think Solaris has/had it's own strength, and
> in many ways it has more strength than linux struggles with already.
I would like to see an easy way to set up an environment for immigrants
comming from Linux distributionsm but I like this tobe done the way Solaris
used to offer different universes in the past (e.g. for xpg4 or ucb).
> In fact, one of the goals should be to rid the sources of all closed
> binaries that are distributed, and replaced with open and free solutions.
> I'm sure you're planning something like that also, but this is nothing
> new. I want to hear how you're gonna make a difference in what you're
> going to do, or maybe I should just watch and see how you evolve your
> project.
Good point!
star is under the CDDL and includes CLI variants for cpio and pax.
Sun currently distributes a closed source pax from the "Open"Group.
It seems that Sun is missing the resources to even integrate star into Solaris
although this has been approved in 2004.
Will the project Indiana be able to change this lack of resources?
> Being able to run web servers in secure zones, where even if the server
> did get hacked, there's not much for them to get anyway...that's the type
> of features that developers need to know about so they can develop better
> mouse traps, the Solaris/OpenSolaris way.
I would like to see a program or script that is easy to handle and
allows to take a snapshot of a webserver installation and that
is able to clone a new version from this snapshot if the server has
been hacked. Sun could advertize on a 5 minute desaster recovery
fro webservers in zones.
But with Indiana I would like to see a smoother cooperation between
inside and outside Sun and thus resources that allow for doing this.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Manoj Joseph
manoj@clusterfs.com
|
|
|
|
ext2/3 support on Solaris, was About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 13, 2007 11:24 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> ... Funny
> though, it would be nice if we did have ext2/3 support, but we shouldn't
> encourage our users to store their data on ext2/3.
I believe Belenix has support for ext3 and ntfs filesystems. It does
this IIRC by setting up a userland nfs-v2 server and using
ext3progs/ntfsprogs to feed the nfs server.
It would be great if this could be packaged and made downloadable from
opensolaris.org...
Cheers
Manoj
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
383
From:
GB
Registered:
10/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 3:14 AM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:32:53PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
Firstly, let me state that upfront that I'm not sure that I have much
sympathy for the "familiarity" problem; one problem for the non-Linux
world is that a large proportion of free software developers have been
ignorant of the fact that there are systems that aren't Linux and work
in different ways, although this has been improved recently. Therefore,
I'm somewhat loathe to change anything in OpenSolaris to help perpetuate
that mindset.
Having said that, of course Sun want to grow their mindshare and install
base and breaking down some barriers is part of that.
> That said, even as we aggressively move to make Solaris more familiar to
> Linux users, we will be equally aggressive in pushing Solaris'
> unique features to the fore--i.e., to the extent that Solaris
> starts to look like a distro to solve the familiarity
> problem, it's not "yet another Linux", but a _better Solaris_.
So does it replace Solaris? I'm all for having an additional project
pushing a distribution of OpenSolaris that smells like Linux, but I want
you to leave Solaris out of it, thanks very much.
If it's not Solaris, but something different, then it doesn't really
bridge the barrier to adoption and "Solaris proper" will actually suffer
worse than it apparently does now.
> This also doesn't mean if you're an existing Solaris user and don't see
> anything wrong with the current userland that we're going to take it
> away from you. One of the compelling technologies, after all, is Zones..
So long as the global zone stays sensible fine; you do your fiddling in
an Indiana branded zone and I won't have a problem. Make my job more
difficult by confusing vendors as to what the global zone looks like
and I'll be rather upset.
Stability is the key here; whether it's API, ABI or the quirks of the
userland. Sun have shown that it's possible to grow groundbreaking features
while preserving these interfaces and that's the reason why Solaris is used
by those who use it; bollix it up and those folk will go elsewhere. If that
happens, Sun won't have the hardcore enterprise users and they won't have
the desktop either; they'll just have the grey bits in the middle where
people haven't made up their mind yet.
The 6 month release cycle is a reasonably good idea if this is not
Solaris too; in the real world I can't be evaluating and testing a major
release for my platforms that often and be getting actual work done. If
a 6 month release cycle leads to the support life being shortened or the
"upgrade or be damned" mentality then you can keep that too. :)
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGRZOMocfcwTS3JF8RAjZ2AJ9Xy1+x7GYBglGGoro7X5Ve4MOktACaAjhx
VshEETAB7uo5ooKjIB1pAvc=
=6hkn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 3:49 AM
in response to: ceri
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Firstly, let me state that upfront that I'm not sure
> that I have much
> sympathy for the "familiarity" problem; one problem
> for the non-Linux
> world is that a large proportion of free software
> developers have been
> ignorant of the fact that there are systems that
> aren't Linux and work
> in different ways, although this has been improved
> recently. Therefore,
> I'm somewhat loathe to change anything in OpenSolaris
> to help perpetuate
> that mindset.
>
> Having said that, of course Sun want to grow their
> mindshare and install
> base and breaking down some barriers is part of that.
>
> > That said, even as we aggressively move to make
> Solaris more familiar to
> > Linux users, we will be equally aggressive in
> pushing Solaris'
> > unique features to the fore--i.e., to the extent
> that Solaris
> > starts to look like a distro to solve the
> familiarity
> > problem, it's not "yet another Linux", but a
> _better Solaris_.
>
> So does it replace Solaris? I'm all for having an
> additional project
> pushing a distribution of OpenSolaris that smells
> like Linux, but I want
> you to leave Solaris out of it, thanks very much.
>
> If it's not Solaris, but something different, then it
> doesn't really
> bridge the barrier to adoption and "Solaris proper"
> will actually suffer
> worse than it apparently does now.
Solaris with more of a GNU userland, as either a separate distro
or as a branded zone, might, as long as all libs, devs, and config files
remained the same as on plain Solaris (so that anything developed
in the Linux-friendly environment would Just Work in a plain Solaris
environment) ease porting Linux apps to Solaris; at least it would cut
out for the most part the excuse (IMO) that the usual tools weren't
handy in the usual places; hopefully the remaining differences other
than code things (for which the app developers should then be able
to focus on or at least accept patches!) wouldn't be too much greater
than between Linux distros. That is, they wouldn't have to waste a lot
of time on just build mechanics.
IMO it's critical that that be usable in that fashion (and not result in
packages that won't run on regular Solaris), and that it be utterly optional
and non-interfering on the traditional Solaris distro.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 4:55 AM
in response to: rlhamil
|
|
>Solaris with more of a GNU userland, as either a separate distro
>or as a branded zone, might, as long as all libs, devs, and config files
>remained the same as on plain Solaris (so that anything developed
>in the Linux-friendly environment would Just Work in a plain Solaris
>environment) ease porting Linux apps to Solaris; at least it would cut
>out for the most part the excuse (IMO) that the usual tools weren't
>handy in the usual places; hopefully the remaining differences other
>than code things (for which the app developers should then be able
>to focus on or at least accept patches!) wouldn't be too much greater
>than between Linux distros. That is, they wouldn't have to waste a lot
>of time on just build mechanics.
Even a choice through $PATH is just fine with me; or compatible extended
changes of our own utilities, though one shudders to think what on
earth gave rise to "make -C"
>IMO it's critical that that be usable in that fashion (and not result in
>packages that won't run on regular Solaris), and that it be utterly optional
>and non-interfering on the traditional Solaris distro.
Clearly.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
383
From:
GB
Registered:
10/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 8:29 AM
in response to: rlhamil
|
|
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 03:49:52AM -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> > Firstly, let me state that upfront that I'm not sure
> > that I have much
> > sympathy for the "familiarity" problem; one problem
> > for the non-Linux
> > world is that a large proportion of free software
> > developers have been
> > ignorant of the fact that there are systems that
> > aren't Linux and work
> > in different ways, although this has been improved
> > recently. Therefore,
> > I'm somewhat loathe to change anything in OpenSolaris
> > to help perpetuate
> > that mindset.
> >
> > Having said that, of course Sun want to grow their
> > mindshare and install
> > base and breaking down some barriers is part of that.
> >
> > > That said, even as we aggressively move to make
> > Solaris more familiar to
> > > Linux users, we will be equally aggressive in
> > pushing Solaris'
> > > unique features to the fore--i.e., to the extent
> > that Solaris
> > > starts to look like a distro to solve the
> > familiarity
> > > problem, it's not "yet another Linux", but a
> > _better Solaris_.
> >
> > So does it replace Solaris? I'm all for having an
> > additional project
> > pushing a distribution of OpenSolaris that smells
> > like Linux, but I want
> > you to leave Solaris out of it, thanks very much.
> >
> > If it's not Solaris, but something different, then it
> > doesn't really
> > bridge the barrier to adoption and "Solaris proper"
> > will actually suffer
> > worse than it apparently does now.
>
> Solaris with more of a GNU userland, as either a separate distro
> or as a branded zone, might, as long as all libs, devs, and config files
> remained the same as on plain Solaris (so that anything developed
> in the Linux-friendly environment would Just Work in a plain Solaris
> environment) ease porting Linux apps to Solaris; at least it would cut
> out for the most part the excuse (IMO) that the usual tools weren't
> handy in the usual places; hopefully the remaining differences other
> than code things (for which the app developers should then be able
> to focus on or at least accept patches!) wouldn't be too much greater
> than between Linux distros. That is, they wouldn't have to waste a lot
> of time on just build mechanics.
What worries me is that if Indiana is some third thing between
Solaris and Linux then apps will never be ported past Indiana, making
the availability of applications on Solaris actually suffer.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGRd1pocfcwTS3JF8RAnMcAJ0SJ71HrkY2JKnvA4DOM0H7F5CGVQCfRWGV
02rQidJno1faHY1bO4+AUj0=
=FJpG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Clarke
blastwave@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 8:51 AM
in response to: ceri
|
|
On 5/12/07, Ceri Davies <ceri at submonkey dot net> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 03:49:52AM -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > Having said that, of course Sun want to grow their
> > > mindshare and install
> > > base and breaking down some barriers is part of that.
> > >
>
> What worries me is that if Indiana is some third thing between
> Solaris and Linux then apps will never be ported past Indiana, making
> the availability of applications on Solaris actually suffer.
Perhaps like the effect that WinOS2 had on OS/2 ? Windows better than
Windows was the IBM message of the day and they were right. No one
needs apps for OS/2 anymore.
No .. somehow I think that sort of thing is not in the works again.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
567
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 9:00 AM
in response to: ceri
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
It has been said by Sun folks that compatibility is very important, and I think everyone agrees. So I think we can move on to greener topics :)
BTW, good thread. Especially if we each do our part to keep it focused and on topic. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
283
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 6:39 PM
in response to: imurdock
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> My list: packaging, installation, GNU userland alongside
> "Solaris classic userland", and laptop support
Ian, your list sounds a lot like what I would call usability issues. If you feel
like you have to use the term "familiarity" to sell the concept to
Sun management, then you have my sympathy and my understanding. :-)
I hope it's okay if I continue to call these issues "usability" issues.
There's really not enough room in the universe for a server-only operating
system. I think if Solaris becomes marginalized on the desktop, it'll
be the start of a downhill slide. Therefore, we need to be more usable
*relative to* all the people who are currently using the most popular
UNIX-like desktop operating systems. (That would be mostly Linux).
If you're asking for my list of priorities, it would be:
packaging, installation, GNU userland alongside
"Solaris classic userland", and laptop support
Go, man, go!
--chris
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
12/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 13, 2007 10:36 PM
in response to: quenelle
|
|
> packaging, installation, GNU userland alongside
> "Solaris classic userland", and laptop support
may I insert gcc extension support before GNU userland
(not that it is not getting there)?
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
707
From:
SE
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 13, 2007 7:10 AM
in response to: imurdock
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
>Ian Murdock wrote:
>So, what will be the big features in Indiana? You tell me--and,
>indeed, a discussion of features could be a great way to actually
>get off on the right foot here given the somewhat rocky start so
>far.. My list: packaging, installation, GNU userland alongside
>"Solaris classic userland", and laptop support (see what
>I mean that there are already people working on these things?).
Hi,
I would like to report that regarding the laptop issues many of them
have actually been resolved already.
with Build 63 SXDE I have :
Automatic Graphics card recognition.
Automatic Wireless driver installation.
Automatic Network setup with wireless.
Whats needed in the laptop arena is more effort from SUN to convince
Vendors to make Specs for hardware available to the open source community
I bought an Intel 2200BG Mini-pci wireless card off a local shop. The comment
from the salesman was : " I cant believe how popular this wireless card is, do you know why ? "
So I told him that Intel made the specs for the device available to the opensource community , and
lots of people running Unix/Linux on their laptops were replacing the wireless devices from
Broadcom and others who did not publish the specs.
Thats the kind of effect on sales that opensourceing a hardware driver has.
Vendors need to be told.
So a large part of the usability of laptops is in the area of drivers rather than a
linux style userland. Heck, even linux users are suffering from the the lack of
will to opensource drivers from hardware vendors.
Regarding the Userland and the Toolchain needed to produce the userland:
Solaris has by now at least 4 different sets of toolchains/userland that I know of
( apart from Nexenta/benelix/shilix/martux distros ) for opensource S/W
Companion CD
Blastwave
Sunfreeware
KDE-Solaris
All this stuff has risen from the need to compile and deliver opensource S/W on
solaris , because the ON-Solaris toolchain/libraries was not compatible enough at some
point in time.
There has been discussions over and over again to address this problem
and create a common single set of opensource toolchain/userland for opensource
applications .
PLEASE: Do NOT create a FIFTH set of userland/toolchain to be used on top of
Solaris.
If you want to achive usability and familiarty for the developer which
results in more applications for the users:
Spend 20 million dollars or so and unify these existing environments.
and secure agreements from the people involved to work together on
one environment.
//Lars
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 13, 2007 8:31 AM
in response to: tunla
|
|
Lars Tunkrans wrote:
>> Ian Murdock wrote:
>> So, what will be the big features in Indiana? You tell me--and,
>> indeed, a discussion of features could be a great way to actually
>> get off on the right foot here given the somewhat rocky start so
>> far.. My list: packaging, installation, GNU userland alongside
>> "Solaris classic userland", and laptop support (see what
>> I mean that there are already people working on these things?).
>>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to report that regarding the laptop issues many of them
> have actually been resolved already.
> with Build 63 SXDE I have :
> Automatic Graphics card recognition.
>
Most graphics cards are recognized with Solaris Express. I fact Solaris
Express is the 'only'
OS that installed the Nvidia drivers off the OS media for my desktop.
For both Windows and
Linux it involved a download.
> Automatic Wireless driver installation.
> Automatic Network setup with wireless.
>
> Whats needed in the laptop arena is more effort from SUN to convince
> Vendors to make Specs for hardware available to the open source community
>
> I bought an Intel 2200BG Mini-pci wireless card off a local shop. The comment
> from the salesman was : " I cant believe how popular this wireless card is, do you know why ? "
> So I told him that Intel made the specs for the device available to the opensource community , and
> lots of people running Unix/Linux on their laptops were replacing the wireless devices from
> Broadcom and others who did not publish the specs.
>
Yeah I would never buy another laptop with a ATI graphics card and a
broadcom wireless network card.
> Thats the kind of effect on sales that opensourceing a hardware driver has.
> Vendors need to be told.
>
It does not need to be opensource, as long as they make a driver
available for every platform :) Their Choice!
> Regarding the Userland and the Toolchain needed to produce the userland:
>
> Solaris has by now at least 4 different sets of toolchains/userland that I know of
> ( apart from Nexenta/benelix/shilix/martux distros ) for opensource S/W
>
> Companion CD
> Blastwave
> Sunfreeware
>
> KDE-Solaris
If you call KDE-Solaris a 'toolchain', then you should multiply your
figures by 100's. I don't see a problem
with 'multiple tool chains'. Most cater for different needs. Blastwave
for instance best suited for Solaris 8 to 10.
As long as they openly share patches and build specs I do not really see
a big problem.
> All this stuff has risen from the need to compile and deliver opensource S/W on
> solaris , because the ON-Solaris toolchain/libraries was not compatible enough at some
> point in time.
>
No it is more the case that Sun could not afford to "support" costs for
their customers.
> There has been discussions over and over again to address this problem
> and create a common single set of opensource toolchain/userland for opensource
> applications .
>
Personally I quite like choice. Not everybody builds their systems the
same way. Everybody has
different needs. For instance you will get a very heated discussion on
what packages and library
dependencies an application has. Some people want only the minimal
dependencies and give up
features of an application. Where others want the kitchen sink thrown in.
> PLEASE: Do NOT create a FIFTH set of userland/toolchain to be used on top of
> Solaris.
>
Please do!
> If you want to achive usability and familiarty for the developer which
> results in more applications for the users:
> Spend 20 million dollars or so and unify these existing environments.
> and secure agreements from the people involved to work together on
> one environment.
>
A waste of 20 million...
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 13, 2007 8:55 AM
in response to: Doug Scott
|
|
Doug Scott wrote:
> Yeah I would never buy another laptop with a ATI graphics card and a
> broadcom wireless network card.
Hmmm, maybe I was just a little hasty with not buying AMD/ATI anymore -
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=17902
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,575
From:
GB
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 13, 2007 9:28 AM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
Ian,
First, thanks for taking the time to get so directly involved.
Now:
> Yes, Project Indiana refers to a binary distro of OpenSolaris
> that Sun plans to build in the OpenSolaris community in full
> community view, and with full community participation.. I.e.,
> this is not Sun sticking the community brand on a Sun product,
> it's Sun making an additional contribution to the community. We'll
> be going by the book here and plan to begin the formal
> process of creating the community/project (as appropriate) shortly.
How does this relate to the OpenSolaris Reference Distribution
we've been discussing in the community recently?
Do you see Indiana as *replacing* it, *competing* with it, *coexisting*
with it, *built on top* of it, or providing the backing to make it a success?
--
-Peter Tribble
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 18, 2007 6:01 AM
in response to: imurdock
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Hi Ian, hi community,
I hope not to be late for an opinion about Indiana.If I correctly understand it's a new opensolaris distribution with a binary centric goal.If so,it could be an error.These are months of discussions about pros and cons of CDDL vs GPL and this could be a great occasion to demonstrate the real face (and advantages) of CDDL.This is the occasion to build a real and complete CDDL opensource distribution and offer as *first choice* only products with sources.It's not very important start with the best product,but is important to have all sources.I think that for many people out of here it is a prerequisite,and it is a clear message for all: "CDDL is an opensource license same GPL and BSD" and Sun with opensolaris community offer it.So,for example,Indiana should be offer as first choice GNU CC and not SunPro compiler because it is a only binary product.Then,but only after that, we can demonstrate the advantages of our license to take other good opportunities,missing in GPL, to offer different and sometimes best products like only binary and commercial products.However it should be remains an user choice.
Giacomo
_______________________________________
OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 18, 2007 6:28 AM
in response to: axposf
|
|
opensolaris community offer it.So,for example,Indiana should be offer
as first choice GNU CC and not SunPro compiler because it is a only
binary product.Then,but only after that, we
My understanding is the Forte was going to be OpenSourced? Is this not the case?
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 18, 2007 6:32 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
>opensolaris community offer it.So,for example,Indiana should be offer
>as first choice GNU CC and not SunPro compiler because it is a only
>binary product.Then,but only after that, we
>
>My understanding is the Forte was going to be OpenSourced? Is this not the case?
Even so, why should project Indiana offer opensource variants first
when better software exists?
(E.g., nVidia drivers)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 18, 2007 7:36 AM
in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Because I think,many users out of this community prefer the sources as first choice and after the best products,but only after.Many people probably is waiting a complete open source OS like linux and BSD.The best products are an add value that Sun,opensolaris community and CDDL can offer after the sources not before.
Giacomo
_______________________________________
OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 18, 2007 5:49 PM
in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
[i]Even so, why should project Indiana offer opensource variants first
when better software exists?
[/i]
Because,I think,is more important to offer a product with sources before anything.Out of here people would something like FreeBSD,Fedora or Ubuntu. This is an opensource community like any linux or BSD group,so it could be a strange but real prerequisite offer a complete fully functional with sources OS by default.After,but it remains an user choice,add things like superb SunPro compiler.
Giacomo
_______________________________________
OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 18, 2007 7:05 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
"Brian Gupta" <brian dot gupta at gmail dot com> wrote:
> opensolaris community offer it.So,for example,Indiana should be offer
> as first choice GNU CC and not SunPro compiler because it is a only
> binary product.Then,but only after that, we
>
> My understanding is the Forte was going to be OpenSourced? Is this not the case?
You know that Sun plans to opensource everything over the time?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 18, 2007 7:17 AM
in response to: brandorr
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
There are different opinions about opensource concept.The large accepted
vision is a program with all sources.At the moment,Forte is free but
binary product.So,for many people out of here it could be a problem.(not
for me!).
Giacomo
______________________________________
OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
283
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 11, 2007 10:32 AM
in response to: marc
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
Cc: Communities » install » discuss
Cc: Projects » caiman » discuss
Cc: Projects » sfwnv » discuss
|
|
I wrote this rant in response to a question about how to solve the problems
that show up when two different versions of the same library get pulled into a
program through different dependencies and chaos ensues.
This thread seems like a better thread to attach my rant to. :-)
---------
The practical consideration that keeps this from happening in
Linux distros is a unified software distribution model that
includes "OS" packages like gnome, and "USER" packages like
the stuff in blastwave in the same distribution and update system.
This makes it possible to "fix" such overlap problems in a way
for covers many more packages.
My desktop has important, common, portable utilities in:
/usr (apache 1.3) -- from OS/Net
/usr/sfw (mysql) -- from SFW consolidation
/opt/csw (ruby, etc) -- from blastwave
/opt/sfw (xemacs, vnc) -- from companion dvd
Trying to get various pieces from these different sources
working together is enough to make me want to install Ubuntu.
The solution that seems acceptable to the majority of
Solaris developers (meaning devs OF solaris, not devs ON solaris)
is to bundle everything into Solaris. I'm not sure that will
ever get us to a state where it's easy to keep up-to-date
with the open source world in a sane way.
I understand the stability and quality that we get in Solaris
as a direct result of our "bundle and test" orientation.
But it's in direct conflict with being able to rearrange
your file system and libraries to make them sane in response
to changes coming in from the open source side.
What I'm hoping we'll have one day is distribution system for
packages (like pkg-get, for example, or something like it).
This system should be able to supply and install all the latest:
1. packages to create Solaris 10 update N
2. patches to update this release
3. packages to produce latest nevada release
4. packages to install user-contributed software
If the dependencies permit, I should be able to use
the same user-contributed package on either Solaris 10 update N
or on Nevada.
This still supports a model where we "bundle and test" the set
of packages that produce Solaris 10 update N. (And other FCS
releases). The we need a unified distribution system that
INCLUDES user-supplied packages. (For example, by having
the user supply a list of URLs to scan for packages)
I haven't seen any practical work towards this end. All the
real installer / ease-of-use projects at Sun I've seen focus on
"Solaris". Meaning they ignore blastwave, companion cd, etc.
We need to do better at "facilitating" the ability of our external
developer community to do what they want to do. That is:
produce, release, maintain and distribute software for Solaris
without asking permission from Sun.
--chris
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 11, 2007 11:11 PM
in response to: quenelle
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> What I'm hoping we'll have one day is distribution
> system for
> packages (like pkg-get, for example, or something
> like it).
> This system should be able to supply and install all
> the latest:
> 1. packages to create Solaris 10 update N
> 2. patches to update this release
> 3. packages to produce latest nevada release
> 4. packages to install user-contributed software
>
> If the dependencies permit, I should be able to use
> the same user-contributed package on either Solaris
> 10 update N
> or on Nevada.
>
> This still supports a model where we "bundle and
> test" the set
> of packages that produce Solaris 10 update N. (And
> other FCS
> releases). The we need a unified distribution system
> that
> INCLUDES user-supplied packages. (For example, by
> having
> the user supply a list of URLs to scan for packages)
>
> I haven't seen any practical work towards this end.
> All the
> eal installer / ease-of-use projects at Sun I've seen
> focus on
> "Solaris". Meaning they ignore blastwave, companion
> cd, etc.
>
> We need to do better at "facilitating" the ability of
> our external
> developer community to do what they want to do. That
> is:
> produce, release, maintain and distribute software
> for Solaris
> without asking permission from Sun.
Then there needs to be cooperation, so that (a) binary compatible
upgrades of shared libraries are distinguished from binary _in_compatible
upgrades, (b) the version numbers of a shared library consistently reflect
particular binary _in_compatible versions of the library, and (c) the
header files supplied with the system correspond to the out-of-the-box
environment, with some convention as to where to put header files
corresponding to alternative versions. And probably (d) that some of the
coding and building approaches that contribute to controlling dependency
hell in an environment where most use is shrink-wrapped be well written
up, with real examples, and widely publicized (along with an offer of help
where applicable), so that the various application developers start to
pick them up. Some hints on how to avoid unnecessary and gratuitous
Linux-isms might also be in order, along with of course always feeding
back patches for Solaris support upstream.
Not that everyone will ever do things "our" way, or even the same way,
but that the ideas of how to do things in a more orderly manner would
be out there, discussed, and eventually far more widely understood. That
would actually help the Linux distros at least as much as us, I think, but
while I wouldn't go to any particular effort to that end, I don't oppose it
as a side-effect (and one which might be useful in making the point, if
nothing else).
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,127
From:
US
Registered:
7/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 6:59 AM
in response to: marc
|
|
- Sun is not anti-Linux, and Sun is not against the
Linux community. Sun competes in the commercial
operating systems market against multiple companies
that distribute Linux operating systems. The two are
not inconsistent. Some of the first non SunOS work
done by Sun was helping port NFS to non SunOS
operating systems distributed by companies that we
competed against.
-----------------------
Marc & Others,
The resolution is in not focusing so much on
anti-Linux mindsets but on why clients are choosing
Linux over Solaris.
A part of this is historical to the availability of
Linux, brand identity amongest developers, and
developer tools/APIs on that platform.
Sun needs to turn the tables a bit. Provide a modern
'production' version of Solaris with open source
developer tools as well as a competitive user desktop.
Rebuild the Solaris brand within the open source
developers mind and recognize developers for porting
their projects to Solaris. We've proven we can provide
various open source solutions using Martux, ShilliX,
Nexenta, and Belenix. Yet, I'd like to see more
business-oriented solutions dealing with professional
workstations and enterprise-class architectures where
Linux has dominated.
I'm not saying Sun is not doing this (I know better),
yet Solaris needs to become the next 'household word'
that relates to enterprise-class UNIX operating system
in every young entrepreneurs mind with or without an
MBA. I hope to see that in my lifetime.
Ken Mays
EarthLink, Inc.
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Clarke
blastwave@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 7:07 AM
in response to: kmays
|
|
On 5/12/07, ken mays <maybird1776 at yahoo dot com> wrote:
> - Sun is not anti-Linux, and Sun is not against the
> Linux community. Sun competes in the commercial
> operating systems market against multiple companies
> that distribute Linux operating systems. The two are
> not inconsistent. Some of the first non SunOS work
> done by Sun was helping port NFS to non SunOS
> operating systems distributed by companies that we
> competed against.
> -----------------------
>
> Marc & Others,
>
> The resolution is in not focusing so much on
> anti-Linux mindsets but on why clients are choosing
> Linux over Solaris.
>
For those that do not know, Ken Mays is the man that ported GNOME
2.16.2 to Solaris in such a fashion that a user of *any* current
Solaris can have a modern desktop. You can see the screenshot at the
bottom of my blog post here :
http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/blog/?q=node/28
Dennis Clarke
ps: Ken also ports some nice games :
http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0053/index.html
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
168
From:
SE
Registered:
6/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 12, 2007 7:20 AM
in response to: kmays
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
[...]
> Rebuild the Solaris brand within the open source
> developers mind and recognize developers for porting
> their projects to Solaris. We've proven we can
> provide
> various open source solutions using Martux, ShilliX,
> Nexenta, and Belenix. Yet, I'd like to see more
> business-oriented solutions dealing with professional
> workstations and enterprise-class architectures where
> Linux has dominated.
I think that one is already here and called OpenSolaris/Solaris.
Most Linux runs on ordinary PCs and that's as far from professional
workstations and enterprise-class architectures as you ever can come.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
15
From:
The World
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 8:58 AM
in response to: kmays
|
|
Thanks Ken, and thanks to everyone else who responded to my post. Project Indiana is all about turning the tables. Sun absolutely could take the work you and many others have already done and turn it into a modern production version of Solaris. But, Ian and I and many others would rather work through the OpenSolaris community to decide what should actually go into a modern production version of Solaris. This is not a naming proposal, but the result of this work could become an OpenSolaris production reference distro. If there was such a thing, I am fairly certain you would find Sun offering production support for it.
Of course we wouldn't want the OpenSolaris production reference distro to be static, we would want to encourage the community to make regular production updates, maybe every six months like Ubuntu does. Of course Sun's service organization could not support an unlimited number of six month releases, so we would pick a time period significantly shorter than the current seven year support window for major Solaris releases to support the OpenSolaris production reference distros. Ubuntu provides support for 18 months so that doesn't seem like a bad starting point for discussion. We could then pick every nth OpenSolaris production reference distro and call that a major release of Solaris, and that release we would support for the current seven years.
Now please, no hate mail that I have finalized Project Indiana without talking to the community or to Sun engineering. The paragraph above is not a final plan, in fact it is simply a description of Ubunto's release model. We are not only looking closely at Ubuntu but also at every other major OS distro to try to understand what works and what doesn't. What we don't want to do is introduce a three way Fedora/RHEL/CentOS split like RedHat does. Of course our Solaris licensing model avoids the RHEL/CentOS problem. But we also don't want Solaris to become the RHEL of OpenSolaris. You don't see too many ISVs saying they support Fedora (in comparison to RHEL). Again, our licensing model helps here, but this is really an issue for Solaris engineering more so than for the OpenSolaris community. If the OpenSolaris community creates a production reference distro, then it should be relatively easy for Solaris engineering to align major Solaris releases with OpenSolaris releases and avoid the Fedora/RHEL chasm.
Again, these are just some thoughts, not a plan. Constructive comments are welcome.
On May 12, 2007, at 6:59 AM, ken mays wrote: - Sun is not anti-Linux, and Sun is not against the Linux community. Sun competes in the commercial operating systems market against multiple companies that distribute Linux operating systems. The two are not inconsistent. Some of the first non SunOS work done by Sun was helping port NFS to non SunOS operating systems distributed by companies that we competed against. -----------------------
Marc & Others,
The resolution is in not focusing so much on anti-Linux mindsets but on why clients are choosing Linux over Solaris.
A part of this is historical to the availability of Linux, brand identity amongest developers, and developer tools/APIs on that platform.
Sun needs to turn the tables a bit. Provide a modern 'production' version of Solaris with open source developer tools as well as a competitive user desktop. Rebuild the Solaris brand within the open source developers mind and recognize developers for porting their projects to Solaris. We've proven we can provide various open source solutions using Martux, ShilliX, Nexenta, and Belenix. Yet, I'd like to see more business-oriented solutions dealing with professional workstations and enterprise-class architectures where Linux has dominated.
I'm not saying Sun is not doing this (I know better), yet Solaris needs to become the next 'household word' that relates to enterprise-class UNIX operating system in every young entrepreneurs mind with or without an MBA. I hope to see that in my lifetime.
Ken Mays EarthLink, Inc.
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
Marc Hamilton Vice President, Solaris Marketing Sun Microsystems Inc. Phone: 1-310-607-2450
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
567
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 9:48 AM
in response to: marc
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Again, these are just some thoughts, not a plan. Constructive comments are welcome.
The Solaris community seems to be stratified into two very different layers. One group is made up of the people who have worked with Unix systems for years. And the other group is people looking to push the OS into places it has never been before. You could say that one group wants the status quo, while the other wants significant change.
Those two groups seem to want things that are very nearly mutually exclusive. As such, is there a way to accommodate both groups? A way to continue producing traditionally featured Solaris releases for one part of the community, while developing a cutting edge system of new designs for the other part of the community?
I think that is almost being done right now. But the problem is that everyone is smushed into the same group, so the different identities are conflicting, which is holding the whole group back.
So what if you created two distinct communities. One that pushes the OpenSolaris code base to new places with smart *new* (key word) ideas and research. You'd see frequent builds of this, say "OpenSolaris Edge". Meanwhile, Sun continues to pull code from this base to build the classic Solaris that everyone knows, for as long as it is demanded.
The first thing I ask myself is "why is that OS-OS distinction better than keeping the distinction in two branded zones of one OS?", and maybe there isn't much difference. But we already see a gaping hole where people say "isn't OpenSolaris an OS? What is it?", so maybe there is a need that can be filled by two distinct OS products. Maybe everyone in the community needs to find their home in a cause that they support (Solaris vs OpenSolaris cutting edge), so that everyone can move forward to cooperate in what they agree upon, and go their own way on what they disagree upon.
If you look into the future you might see one product swallowing the other. But for now, as long as two special cultures exist, maybe two distinct projects/products/communities should be formed to allow mostly-similar but somewhat-different directions to be taken. Maybe then everyone can have and eat their cake :)
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 9:57 AM
in response to: loomy
|
|
I proposed in an earlier thread that there I felt there should be two
products/distros developed within OpenSolaris.org.
- OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition (classic Solaris)
- OpenSolaris Community Edition (swiss army knife distro)
It would be Sun's digression to support and/or productize either
version. (Also, they of course retain the right to make changes when
productized, but my hope would be that Sun would propose their changes
within the community).
Cheers,
Brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Little
jmlittle@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 10:27 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
On 5/14/07, Brian Gupta <brian dot gupta at gmail dot com> wrote:
> I proposed in an earlier thread that there I felt there should be two
> products/distros developed within OpenSolaris.org.
>
> - OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition (classic Solaris)
> - OpenSolaris Community Edition (swiss army knife distro)
>
> It would be Sun's digression to support and/or productize either
> version. (Also, they of course retain the right to make changes when
> productized, but my hope would be that Sun would propose their changes
> within the community).
I thought it best to add in here that Nexenta itself is not stagnant,
and has tried to be the swiss army knife distro. I'm a little biased
to getting Solaris over its perceived hurdles and taking ideas
liberally from others. All that said, my slides on Nexenta's use at
Stanford as our new preferred Solaris solution, presented at
CommunityOne, are now online at http://jmlittle.blogspot.com
Furthermore, expect an A7 release this week of Nexenta on B61. As
noted from the slides, it will quickly approach a 1.0 as all the
latest Ubuntu (Feisty Fawn) packages are integrated, the installer has
ZFS boot/root support, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 10:40 AM
in response to: Joe Little
|
|
> > - OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition (classic Solaris)
> > - OpenSolaris Community Edition (swiss army knife distro)
> >
> I thought it best to add in here that Nexenta itself is not stagnant,
> and has tried to be the swiss army knife distro. I'm a little biased
Thanks for info! I am thinking that the existing distros should play
parts in this strategy, as some have overlapping goals. Off the top of
my head, I think that for the dual d9stro strategy, the following
would be the best suited starting points.
- Belenix - base for building OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition (SEE)
- Nexenta - base for building OpenSolaris Community Edition (SCE)
One question. Should there be a third build? OpenSolaris CBR (Common
Base Reference)?
This would be the minimum runnable build that all distros could use as
a starting point. (Both of the above would be build on top of the
Reference build).
Cheers,
Brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
12/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 9:52 PM
in response to: Joe Little
|
|
> Furthermore, expect an A7 release this week of
> Nexenta on B61. As
> noted from the slides, it will quickly approach a
> 1.0 as all the
> latest Ubuntu (Feisty Fawn) packages are integrated,
> the installer has
> ZFS boot/root support, etc.
yah! let the packaging begin! i'll live with gcc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
142
From:
Adelaide, South Australia
Registered:
9/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 11:24 PM
in response to: freetown
|
|
Ooo,,,
>> the installer has
>> ZFS boot/root support, etc.
Huzzah! Now, I wonder if a Solaris built on built on Sun Studio (such as
SXCE) would live nicely in a distro built on GCC...
*That* would be interesting.
DSL
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
12/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 11:29 PM
in response to: lloy0076
|
|
> >> the installer has
> >> ZFS boot/root support, etc.
>
> Huzzah! Now, I wonder if a Solaris built on built on
> Sun Studio (such as
> SXCE) would live nicely in a distro built on GCC...
>
> *That* would be interesting.
ROTFL. Well running Sun Studio did not seem to be a
problem (except for missing sun linker...) so may sun
studio compiled stuff will be okay since i believe sun
studio is sun studio compiled ;).
Can't wait for root on zfs install eh?
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About Project
Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 9:32 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
Brian Gupta wrote:
> I proposed in an earlier thread that there I felt there should be two
> products/distros developed within OpenSolaris.org.
>
> - OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition (classic Solaris)
> - OpenSolaris Community Edition (swiss army knife distro)
This is a simple idea that gets hard rather quickly.
Coming up with a roadmap/plan that describes what is
intended is where we have always run into problems.
Some of these imponderables are:
Given that we want to have multiple distros, how do we
expect that they will be developed? What are the
relationships between them? Do we intend to have
independent branches, parent-child feature waterfalls,
cross-dependent peers, no relationshoip at all, or
something else all together?
Given a relationship, what is the desired endgame?
Does the classic source base go the way of SunOS4.x,
becoming a frozen, bugfix-only, no new features
platform? Is this simply a request that we do a
Major release of Solaris instead of the sequence
of compatible Minor releases that we have been
doing for the last 15 years?
Which of the development trees do we expect ISVs
to port their applications to? Both? - if so,
are we sure we all understand what drives ISV
adoption and customer deployments? Who are the
target audiences for each of these releases?
If we do this, and it is successful, what does
the world look like in 2 years? 5? 10?
> It would be Sun's digression to support and/or productize either
> version. (Also, they of course retain the right to make changes when
> productized, but my hope would be that Sun would propose their changes
> within the community).
Once we have committed to having multiple development
branches, we need to figure out how we can avoid doubling
the development efforts needed to sustain the code (for
bugfixes and patches, feature backports, etc).
Of course, it is in Sun's best interest to try and ensure
that the work-product of the community aligns with its
product plans; IM(NS)HO, it would be a disaster if Sun
was forced staff an entire porting team just to maintain
its own divergent fork of OS.o ...
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About
Project Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 10:30 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
> > - OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition (classic Solaris)
> > - OpenSolaris Community Edition (swiss army knife distro)
>
>
> This is a simple idea that gets hard rather quickly.
> Coming up with a roadmap/plan that describes what is
> intended is where we have always run into problems.
> Some of these imponderables are:
>
> Given that we want to have multiple distros, how do we
> expect that they will be developed? What are the
> relationships between them? Do we intend to have
> independent branches, parent-child feature waterfalls,
> cross-dependent peers, no relationshoip at all, or
> something else all together?
I would say you have one main branch (let's call in OSM: OpenSolaris
Main). the OSEE and OSCE distros would take what is in that main
branch and make modifications to that base. (Preferably just adding to
it.)
When any addition is to be made to a OSEE or OSCE, it must be
evaluated for integration into OSM. (With input from the community)
> Given a relationship, what is the desired endgame?
> Does the classic source base go the way of SunOS4.x,
No. The thought is that OSEE, might be the basis for the classic
Solaris source base. (Free to be modified by Sun)
> becoming a frozen, bugfix-only, no new features
> platform? Is this simply a request that we do a
> Major release of Solaris instead of the sequence
> of compatible Minor releases that we have been
> doing for the last 15 years?
> Which of the development trees do we expect ISVs
> to port their applications to? Both? - if so,
> are we sure we all understand what drives ISV
> adoption and customer deployments? Who are the
> target audiences for each of these releases?
> If we do this, and it is successful, what does
> the world look like in 2 years? 5? 10?
I would expect ISVs to port their apps to OSes that Sun distributes
and supports. Whether that is one or two OSes, is still an open
question that Sun has to answer outside of the scope of OpenSOlaris).
Who is to say what it will look like in ten years. One possible
scenario is that OSCE gains critical mass and ends up pulling OSEE
into an eventual convergance, with Solaris named releases being 3 year
snapshots of OSCE. (Possibly with major changes being backported into
the 3 year releases, where they would not be in the 6 month releases)
Another possibility is that they diverge and that Sun sells and
supports two distros. One for webbies, and the other for bigiron
enterprise shops. Initially I see this as somewhat likely, in the next
two years, but over the next 5-10 years, it would move to a model
closer to the convergance.
> > It would be Sun's digression to support and/or productize either
> > version. (Also, they of course retain the right to make changes when
> > productized, but my hope would be that Sun would propose their changes
> > within the community).
>
> Once we have committed to having multiple development
> branches, we need to figure out how we can avoid doubling
> the development efforts needed to sustain the code (for
> bugfixes and patches, feature backports, etc).
Try to keep as much code in OSM as possible. (See above for some very
rough backporting guidelines).
> Of course, it is in Sun's best interest to try and ensure
> that the work-product of the community aligns with its
> product plans; IM(NS)HO, it would be a disaster if Sun
> was forced staff an entire porting team just to maintain
> its own divergent fork of OS.o ...
You wouldn't need an entire team, as a lot of the work would be in
OSM. The thought would be that Sun developers would focus on OSM, and
OSEE, with a few bodies dedicated to OSCE. Most of the community work
would be done in OSM and OSCE, with the goal to backport any
universally useful OSCE changes into OSM, so that OSEE can leverage
that work.
Let's use this as a strawman and work from here to figure out how to
make this work.
brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About Project
Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 4:04 PM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
Brian Gupta wrote:
> OSEE - OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition (classic Solaris)
> OSCE - OpenSolaris Community Edition (swiss army knife distro)
Please don't take my comments as throwing cold water on your
strawman; rather, try to use them to help drive a deeper common
understanding. I agree with you - we really need to have this
kind of discussion.
> I would say you have one main branch (let's call in OSM: OpenSolaris
> Main). the OSEE and OSCE distros would take what is in that main
> branch and make modifications to that base. (Preferably just adding to
> it.)
In poor "word pictures", I think we have this today with
either (a true source code management system view)
OSM = Solaris10RR baseline as of June 2005
|
+- OSEE = Solaris10 update releases
+- OSCE = OpenSolaris-Nevada (Minor Release)
or (a cherry picking model requiring manual back porting
of desired features from Nevada)
OSM = Solaris10RR baseline as of June 2005
|
+- OSCE = OpenSolaris-Nevada (Minor Release)
|
+- OSEE = Solaris10 update releases (pseudo-child of Nevada)
+- Solaris Express
+- The various existing OS.o distros
One could evolve either of these into a more radical
scenario where we charter a new Major release:
OSM = Solaris10RR baseline as of June 2005
|
+- OSEE = OpenSolaris-Nevada (Minor Release of ON5.10)
| |
| +- Solaris10 update releases (pseudo-child of Nevada)
| +- Belinix
| +- Schillix
| +- Martux
|
+- OSCE = OpenSolaris-1.0 (Major Release)
|
+- Solaris 3.0 (aka SunOS 6.0...)
+- Nexenta
(Don't ask where Indiana fits here - I haven't a clue.
As it is, I'm probably maligning Moinak, Erast, Joerg and
Martin :-)
> When any addition is to be made to a OSEE or OSCE, it must be
> evaluated for integration into OSM. (With input from the community)
In the ARC world view, part of this evaluation is to see
if the "scope of change proposed" matches the target's
"scope of change allowed", based on the expectations set
by the project that first introduced the things being
changed, the interface and release taxonomies, and which
(if any) things are going to be changed incompatibly.
Think of this as:
You promised us that XXX would exhibit <some level
of stability>, and now you wish to break it. The
"magic decoder ring" says you can do so only in a
<it picks one: Major, Minor, Micro> release tree.
This means that, depending on their release taxonomy
bindings, changes that are allowed in OSCE might not
be allowed in OSM or OSEE. (duh! :-)
> I would expect ISVs to port their apps to OSes that Sun distributes
> and supports.
Today Sun distributes and supports
Solaris 8
Solaris 9
Solaris 10
Solaris 10 update 1,2,3,4...
Solaris Express
Solaris Developer Express
Historically, ISVs (and Blastwave, too :-) tended to support
only Solaris 8, counting on binary compatibility to let it
"just run" on S9 and S10. I'd guess that the number
supporting S10 is still ramping up. I wouldn't expect
anyone to be offering SX or SDX support at this time,
though I assume that many are playing with it "in house".
The $64K question is whether any of them would support a
non-Sun distro; just as interesting is whether or not any
of the various distro-producers would care and/or whether
there was any expectation of compatibility between distros.
> You wouldn't need an entire team, as a lot of the work would be in
> OSM. The thought would be that Sun developers would focus on OSM, and
> OSEE, with a few bodies dedicated to OSCE. Most of the community work
> would be done in OSM and OSCE, with the goal to backport any
> universally useful OSCE changes into OSM, so that OSEE can leverage
> that work.
When I read your comments above, I get the impression that
there will be two rather disjoint communities - the Sun-
dominated OSM/OSEE one and the non-Sun dominated OSCE.
If this is how it works out, what would motivate the OSCE
crowd to do the backport work, especially since it would
undoubtedly involve more work?
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
34
From:
San Francisco
Registered:
11/6/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About Project
Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 9:05 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John,
> This means that, depending on their release taxonomy
> bindings, changes that are allowed in OSCE might not
> be allowed in OSM or OSEE. (duh! :-)
One of the questions I'd like to answer with the new plan is to find a way to
get stuff into some form of OpenSolaris which are not on a roadmap to be in a
supported version -- the same way that Linux distros do, such as Fedora and
Debian-unstable. There should be a way for things to get into an Opensolaris
edition which do not go though the full ARC process; we just check that their
file paths are acceptable, flag them as "unsupported" and leave it at that.
As an example, it's probably in the future that Sun Solaris will not support
every single release of PostgreSQL; they are too frequent and users are too
reluctant to upgrade, so we will probably skip some releases. But we want to
offer the "cutting edge" versions in an unsupported, rapid-release fashion
for the users who care more about the latest features than they do about API
stability. I'd like a way to do that which is more mainstream than the
current Blastwave <-> Solaris relationship.
So if that's OSCE then I'm for it.
> When I read your comments above, I get the impression that
> there will be two rather disjoint communities - the Sun-
> dominated OSM/OSEE one and the non-Sun dominated OSCE.
> If this is how it works out, what would motivate the OSCE
> crowd to do the backport work, especially since it would
> undoubtedly involve more work?
Frankly, I don't see the opensolaris community doing backport work at all.
Why would we? Backporting is for supported versions, where (presumably)
support customers will pay for someone to do the boring backporting work. I
guess I'm not seeing why this is a problem?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Lead
Sun Microsystems
San Francisco
01-415-752-2500
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About Project
Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 11:27 PM
in response to: jberkus
|
|
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Frankly, I don't see the opensolaris community doing backport work at all.
> Why would we? Backporting is for supported versions, where (presumably)
> support customers will pay for someone to do the boring backporting work. I
> guess I'm not seeing why this is a problem?
Both Brian's and your messages seem to imply that the
developers doing the backport work are somehow not full
members of the opensolaris community - I'm obviously
not too comfortable with such an exclusionary perspective.
I'm worried about us developing into an OpenSolaris community
where Sun's engineers are relegated into a small corner
where they only work on Sun's "Solaris" additions in an
OpenSolaris fork, while the rest of the community sees
itself as being predominately of and for non-Sun-employed
developers. Witness the "it was said/done by someone at sun dot com,
therefore it must be a conspiracy to undermine OpenSolaris"
type comments that have cropped up several times in Ian's
Indiana thread...
I'm also worried that we at Sun haven't yet figured out
how to make a product/distro based on OSCE. IMO, we have
all the enterprise stability OSEE mindset we will ever
need - so much so that it is blinding us to all those new
OSCE-based opportunities. Maybe that is what Indiana is
intended to be.
Its late; my spring allergies are raging and the kids have
all gone to bed - I should follow their example myself...
Maybe things will look better in the morning :-)
G'night,
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
34
From:
San Francisco
Registered:
11/6/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About Project
Indiana
Posted:
May 16, 2007 1:19 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John,
> I'm worried about us developing into an OpenSolaris community
> where Sun's engineers are relegated into a small corner
> where they only work on Sun's "Solaris" additions in an
> OpenSolaris fork, while the rest of the community sees
> itself as being predominately of and for non-Sun-employed
> developers.
Huh? What's my domain? What's the e-mail domain of 80% of the posters on
this or any other OSOL forum? It's gonna be years before Opensolaris stops
being 70% Sun.
I do think that a lot of us folks on the OSS side of Sun want to see
Opensolaris be the leader and Solaris be the distribution, which isn't the
way it is right now. But I think we're correct in assuming that that is
everyone's eventual goal, else why open source Solaris?
> Witness the "it was said/done by someone at sun dot com,
> therefore it must be a conspiracy to undermine OpenSolaris"
> type comments that have cropped up several times in Ian's
> Indiana thread...
Heh. Because, after all, Sun spent hundreds of millions open sourcing Solaris
so it could fail. Man, some people see conspiracies *everywhere*.
> I'm also worried that we at Sun haven't yet figured out
> how to make a product/distro based on OSCE. IMO, we have
> all the enterprise stability OSEE mindset we will ever
> need - so much so that it is blinding us to all those new
> OSCE-based opportunities. Maybe that is what Indiana is
> intended to be.
That's the general goal as I understand it. As someone who's been with Sun
for most of their career put it to me, "We're good at making Solaris for
hospitals. What we need now is a Solaris for developers."
Red Hat and Microsoft had to start with unstable single-user OSes and make
them enterprise-capable; surely our task is easier?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Lead
Sun Microsystems
San Francisco
01-415-752-2500
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About
Project Indiana
Posted:
May 17, 2007 11:54 AM
in response to: jberkus
|
|
> I do think that a lot of us folks on the OSS side of Sun want to see
> Opensolaris be the leader and Solaris be the distribution, which isn't the
> way it is right now. But I think we're correct in assuming that that is
> everyone's eventual goal, else why open source Solaris?
While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, I don't
completely agree with this. I see: "OpenSolaris is the leading distro
and codebase. Solaris is *a* distro based on one of the opensolaris
distros.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About
Project Indiana
Posted:
May 17, 2007 11:57 AM
in response to: jberkus
|
|
> Red Hat and Microsoft had to start with unstable single-user OSes and make
> them enterprise-capable; surely our task is easier?
I would consider Microsoft NT the basis of Modern windows. It took 5/6
major revs before it was ready for use as a mass market OS.
The same could be said for RedHat, from the beginning it was targeted
as a server OS, with the whole desktop revolution being a distant
afterthought.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Multiple development trees... Re: Re: About
Project Indiana
Posted:
May 17, 2007 11:48 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
> > OSEE - OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition (classic Solaris)
> > OSCE - OpenSolaris Community Edition (swiss army knife distro)
>
> Please don't take my comments as throwing cold water on your
> strawman; rather, try to use them to help drive a deeper common
> understanding. I agree with you - we really need to have this
> kind of discussion.
Sorry, I missed replying to this thread.
> > I would say you have one main branch (let's call in OSM: OpenSolaris
> > Main). the OSEE and OSCE distros would take what is in that main
> > branch and make modifications to that base. (Preferably just adding to
> > it.)
>
> In poor "word pictures", I think we have this today with
> either (a true source code management system view)
>
> OSM = Solaris10RR baseline as of June 2005
> |
> +- OSEE = Solaris10 update releases
> +- OSCE = OpenSolaris-Nevada (Minor Release)
This would be the simplest to implement, and the most likely course of action.
> or (a cherry picking model requiring manual back porting
> of desired features from Nevada)
>
> OSM = Solaris10RR baseline as of June 2005
> |
> +- OSCE = OpenSolaris-Nevada (Minor Release)
> |
> +- OSEE = Solaris10 update releases (pseudo-child of Nevada)
> +- Solaris Express
> +- The various existing OS.o distros
Ok let me explain what I want:
S100RR = Solaris10RR baseline as of June 2005 (Is now SXCE)
|
+ OSM = A completely Opensource Nevada distro/sourcebase. (Our
starting point.)
|
+- OSCE = OpenSolaris-Nevada - Linuxy/Indiana distro (this is a
delta against OSM)
+- OSEE = Communituy update releases (maybe Belenix based) (This would be an
| | OpenSolaris supported distribution of what is
now being called SXCE)
| +- Solaris Express (Sun's version of OSEE that will be feed
into the product Solaris)
+- The various existing OS.o distros
Changes are reviewed by the ARC for inclusion into OSM, just as they
are currently done for Nevada. If for some reason they do not fit, and
cause a conflict between OSCE and OSEE, they would be moved into the
delta summary of that distro.
Please let me know if I am unclear.
> One could evolve either of these into a more radical
> scenario where we charter a new Major release:
>
> OSM = Solaris10RR baseline as of June 2005
> |
> +- OSEE = OpenSolaris-Nevada (Minor Release of ON5.10)
> | |
> | +- Solaris10 update releases (pseudo-child of Nevada)
> | +- Belinix
> | +- Schillix
> | +- Martux
> |
> +- OSCE = OpenSolaris-1.0 (Major Release)
> |
> +- Solaris 3.0 (aka SunOS 6.0...)
> +- Nexenta
>
> (Don't ask where Indiana fits here - I haven't a clue.
> As it is, I'm probably maligning Moinak, Erast, Joerg and
> Martin :-)
This is interesting, but I'm sure no-one really wants a completely
separate code fork for the Community Edition...
> > When any addition is to be made to a OSEE or OSCE, it must be
> > evaluated for integration into OSM. (With input from the community)
>
> In the ARC world view, part of this evaluation is to see
> if the "scope of change proposed" matches the target's
> "scope of change allowed", based on the expectations set
> by the project that first introduced the things being
> changed, the interface and release taxonomies, and which
> (if any) things are going to be changed incompatibly.
>
> Think of this as:
> You promised us that XXX would exhibit <some level
> of stability>, and now you wish to break it. The
> "magic decoder ring" says you can do so only in a
> <it picks one: Major, Minor, Micro> release tree.
>
> This means that, depending on their release taxonomy
> bindings, changes that are allowed in OSCE might not
> be allowed in OSM or OSEE. (duh! :-)
>
> > I would expect ISVs to port their apps to OSes that Sun distributes
> > and supports.
>
> Today Sun distributes and supports
> Solaris 8
> Solaris 9
> Solaris 10
> Solaris 10 update 1,2,3,4...
> Solaris Express
> Solaris Developer Express
>
> Historically, ISVs (and Blastwave, too :-) tended to support
> only Solaris 8, counting on binary compatibility to let it
> "just run" on S9 and S10. I'd guess that the number
> supporting S10 is still ramping up. I wouldn't expect
> anyone to be offering SX or SDX support at this time,
> though I assume that many are playing with it "in house".
Can I get commercial support for SX/SDX from Sun? I know it is
distributed by Sun, but I thought it was strictly buyer beware?
> The $64K question is whether any of them would support a
> non-Sun distro; just as interesting is whether or not any
> of the various distro-producers would care and/or whether
> there was any expectation of compatibility between distros.
I don't think this really matters, as this is entirely up to the third
party developers. (I suspect their decisions would largely be driven
by customer demand).
One other note, my feeling is that the community edition would be
initially geared more towards those that want a platform for running
open source applications, vs. heavyweight commercial applications.
> > You wouldn't need an entire team, as a lot of the work would be in
> > OSM. The thought would be that Sun developers would focus on OSM, and
> > OSEE, with a few bodies dedicated to OSCE. Most of the community work
> > would be done in OSM and OSCE, with the goal to backport any
> > universally useful OSCE changes into OSM, so that OSEE can leverage
> > that work.
>
> When I read your comments above, I get the impression that
> there will be two rather disjoint communities - the Sun-
> dominated OSM/OSEE one and the non-Sun dominated OSCE.
> If this is how it works out, what would motivate the OSCE
> crowd to do the backport work, especially since it would
> undoubtedly involve more work?
There would be one main community: OSM. If something is ruled out of
scope by ARC, it will have to be picked up for inclusion into OSCE.
(Or someother distro) If something that is initially ruled our of
scope ends up becoming widely deployed, it would be up to OSM/OSCE to
coordinate with OSCE, to move it back into the mainline if so desired.
brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 14, 2007 11:02 AM
in response to: loomy
|
|
MC wrote:
>> Again, these are just some thoughts, not a plan. Constructive comments are welcome.
>>
>
> The Solaris community seems to be stratified into two very different layers. One group is made up of the people who have worked with Unix systems for years. And the other group is people looking to push the OS into places it has never been before. You could say that one group wants the status quo, while the other wants significant change.
>
There are actually 3 types (actually more). You missed the people you
have use Unix systems for years, and thinks that the "status quo" always
sux! ( Not the Band ). Also there is a 'I hate Linux at all cost' crowd.
> Those two groups seem to want things that are very nearly mutually exclusive. As such, is there a way to accommodate both groups? A way to continue producing traditionally featured Solaris releases for one part of the community, while developing a cutting edge system of new designs for the other part of the community?
>
You are fixated by the only 2 groups that are just the representatives
of noise.
My views on people who wants the traditional is to give them Solaris 2.6
and an Ultra 1. As long as they have electricity, they will be happy as
a pig in..... No really, people who do not want change, would be better
suited by "Closed Solaris".
> I think that is almost being done right now. But the problem is that everyone is smushed into the same group, so the different identities are conflicting, which is holding the whole group back.
>
> So what if you created two distinct communities.One that pushes the OpenSolaris code base to new places with smart *new* (key word) ideas and research. You'd see frequent builds of this, say "OpenSolaris Edge". Meanwhile, Sun continues to pull code from this base to build the classic Solaris that everyone knows, for as long as it is demanded.
>
Why bother. Just keep on patching Sol 2.6, and let everybody else
progress. In 10 years time they will still be able to upgrade to Solaris 8.
> The first thing I ask myself is "why is that OS-OS distinction better than keeping the distinction in two branded zones of one OS?", and maybe there isn't much difference.
Actually there is a hell of a difference. My desktop is in the global
zone. I would hate to see it stuck in the last century.
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 12:52 AM
in response to: Doug Scott
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Actually there is a hell of a difference. My desktop
> is in the global
> zone. I would hate to see it stuck in the last
> century.
Last century? How much difference would there be for a GUI desktop?
And why use provocative phrases like "last century" to describe a difference
that not everyone dislikes? Not everyone who likes it pretty much the
way it is, is an inflexible old fogy, either! But I can't imagine choosing Solaris
2.6 over Solaris 10 or later, except insofar as one had some dedicated box
already running it that could just stay stable until it died.
An awful lot of whining seems to be about control-H (which ought to
be trivially fixable _now_, even self-fixable by tweaking options.conf or
somesuch, plus perhaps some stuff for various X-based terminal emulators)
and default shells. Both of those are site selectable now, AFAIK,
although conceivably useradd could be modified to take a config file or
the like that would allow something other than /bin/sh to be the default
for new accounts in the absence of -s /path/to/sh.
Insofar as the ARC regarding /usr/gnu will make _non_conflicting GNUish
executables visible in /usr/bin, I have no problem with that; I don't care
how much new stuff is visible as long as some action, even if only at
install time, is required to get other than a traditional Solaris environment
as the default.
Speaking of which, I don't see why there couldn't be an install option that
would set various things (default PATH, default shell, options.conf, maybe
a couple of others) to provide an environment more approachable to those
whose expectations were based on prior experience with Linux. I think
that could be done without breaking anything for anyone, and without
two distinct distros - unless the more like Linux advocates insist that all
possible pathnames have to be aligned with the LSB, GNU ld must replace
Solaris ld, and various other (IMO) extremisms (that should have little enough
to do with anything, unless either you're porting something and want to
do zero work beyond "./configure;make;make install" or have an existing
.bashrc file and are too lazy to be bothered with stuff like
case "`uname -s`" in
Linux) PATH=[whatever];export PATH;;
SunOS) PATH=/usr/gnu/bin:/usr/sfw/bin:/opt/sfw/bin:/usr/xpg6/bin:/usr/xpg4/bin:/usr/cc s/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin;export PATH;;
esac
In any case, if virtual consoles could support multiple zones, and the option
of switching the screen to a zone that looked more like what you seem to
want after multiuser boot completed, such that you could run your desktop
with a non-default personality, what difference would it make what
the global zone's personality was?
There may be some advantage to something more stable and supported
than SXDE and more current than regular Solaris releases, but I don't see
that the issue of what sort of personality one prefers the OS to offer
has to have anything to do with a separate distro, unless what we're
really dealing with here is that some of the newcomers just want to
_take_over_.
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 2:57 AM
in response to: rlhamil
|
|
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>> Actually there is a hell of a difference. My desktop
>> is in the global
>> zone. I would hate to see it stuck in the last
>> century.
>>
>
> Last century? How much difference would there be for a GUI desktop?
> And why use provocative phrases like "last century" to describe a difference
> that not everyone dislikes? Not everyone who likes it pretty much the
> way it is, is an inflexible old fogy, either! But I can't imagine choosing Solaris
> 2.6 over Solaris 10 or later, except insofar as one had some dedicated box
> already running it that could just stay stable until it died.
>
This comment comes from that I have just looked at building Xfce 4.4.1
for the "latest" Solaris 10.
The libraries for Gnome are that old that to build Xfce you need to
remove Gnome completely and
start from scratch. It is obvious that the Solaris version update time
is a little long for the desktop. The
current timing is focussed around the server market, most of which think
that Solaris 10 is a bit modern.
> An awful lot of whining seems to be about control-H (which ought to
> be trivially fixable _now_, even self-fixable by tweaking options.conf or
> somesuch, plus perhaps some stuff for various X-based terminal emulators)
> and default shells.
Sorry, I do not think that people wanting something fixed that is
obviously stupid can
be described as 'whining'. Re: default shell - The reason why /sbin/sh
was the default
for root has now been eliminated. People should be given a choice during
install.
Simple things like this just highlight the need for Project Indiana. Do
you want a list?
> Both of those are site selectable now, AFAIK,
> although conceivably useradd could be modified to take a config file or
> the like that would allow something other than /bin/sh to be the default
> for new accounts in the absence of -s /path/to/sh.
>
From the Solaris Installer?
> Insofar as the ARC regarding /usr/gnu will make _non_conflicting GNUish
> executables visible in /usr/bin, I have no problem with that; I don't care
> how much new stuff is visible as long as some action, even if only at
> install time, is required to get other than a traditional Solaris environment
> as the default.
>
To a point I agree, but what do you call "traditional". Do you want
things never to change?
P.S. "Traditional" Solaris to me is SunOS 4.1.X
> Speaking of which, I don't see why there couldn't be an install option that
> would set various things (default PATH, default shell, options.conf, maybe
> a couple of others) to provide an environment more approachable to those
> whose expectations were based on prior experience with Linux. I think
> that could be done without breaking anything for anyone, and without
> two distinct distros - unless the more like Linux advocates insist that all
> possible pathnames have to be aligned with the LSB,
> GNU ld must replace Solaris ld.
>
Sorry I stop at replacing something that works very well with something
that does not.
> to do with anything, unless either you're porting something and want to
> do zero work beyond "./configure;make;make install"
I can tell you that it nice when that works :)
> In any case, if virtual consoles could support multiple zones, and the option
> of switching the screen to a zone that looked more like what you seem to
> want after multiuser boot completed, such that you could run your desktop
> with a non-default personality, what difference would it make what
> the global zone's personality was?
>
I think the whole idea of forcing people who want an up to date
environment into a
zone is just backwards.
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 3:12 AM
in response to: Doug Scott
|
|
Doug Scott wrote:
> Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>>> Actually there is a hell of a difference. My desktop
>>> is in the global zone. I would hate to see it stuck in the last
>>> century.
>>>
>>
>> Last century? How much difference would there be for a GUI desktop?
>> And why use provocative phrases like "last century" to describe a
>> difference
>> that not everyone dislikes? Not everyone who likes it pretty much the
>> way it is, is an inflexible old fogy, either! But I can't imagine
>> choosing Solaris
>> 2.6 over Solaris 10 or later, except insofar as one had some
>> dedicated box
>> already running it that could just stay stable until it died.
>>
>
> This comment comes from that I have just looked at building Xfce 4.4.1
> for the "latest" Solaris 10.
> The libraries for Gnome are that old that to build Xfce you need to
> remove Gnome completely and
> start from scratch. It is obvious that the Solaris version update time
> is a little long for the desktop. The
> current timing is focussed around the server market, most of which
> think that Solaris 10 is a bit modern.
>
Have you tried it with the subject of the alias, a recent OpenSolaris build?
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: About Project Indiana
Posted:
May 15, 2007 3:27 AM
in response to: ian
|
|
Ian Collins wrote:
>> This comment comes from that I have just looked at building Xfce 4.4.1
>> for the "latest" Solaris 10.
>> The libraries for Gnome are that old that to build Xfce you need to
>> remove Gnome completely and
>> start from scratch. It is obvious that the Solaris version update time
>> is a little long for the desktop. The
>> current timing is focussed around the server market, most of which
>> think that Solaris 10 is a bit modern.
>>
>>
> Have you tried it with the subject of the alias, a recent OpenSolaris build?
>
> Ian
>
The answer is yes, and you can see the outcome here -->
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/xfce
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 14, 2007 12:50 PM
in response to: marc
|
|
I realize the Indiana Project is in the early requirements stage,
nevertheless I think it would be _very_ useful to note the alignment
between where the Indiana project appears to be headed and the design goals
of the BeleniX OpenSolaris developer community.
Some very recent news and related discussion was posted here:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-mktg/2007-May/003747.html
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ug-bosug/2007-May/001948.html
My take is that the BeleniX community endeavors to create (figuratively
speaking) an "emancipated" Solaris Express, which of course includes
having/tracking all the same ABIs/APIs, etc. In addition they equally
endeavor to be wonderfully approachable to people coming from a Linux
background. One could say BeleniX intends to be a Linux-friendly Solaris
Express. It's also very actively developed and quickly growing in use and
popularity, though mostly in India so far.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 14, 2007 1:07 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> I realize the Indiana Project is in the early requirements stage,
> nevertheless I think it would be _very_ useful to note the alignment
> between where the Indiana project appears to be headed and the design goals
> of the BeleniX OpenSolaris developer community.
Why should a project like Indiana support a Sun internal project?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 14, 2007 1:16 PM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at Sun dot COM> wrote:
>
>> I realize the Indiana Project is in the early requirements stage,
>> nevertheless I think it would be _very_ useful to note the alignment
>> between where the Indiana project appears to be headed and the design goals
>> of the BeleniX OpenSolaris developer community.
>
> Why should a project like Indiana support a Sun internal project?
Please explain. That seems like a very inaccurate label.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 2:52 AM
in response to: ericb
|
|
Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> >
> >> I realize the Indiana Project is in the early requirements stage,
> >> nevertheless I think it would be _very_ useful to note the alignment
> >> between where the Indiana project appears to be headed and the design goals
> >> of the BeleniX OpenSolaris developer community.
> >
> > Why should a project like Indiana support a Sun internal project?
>
> Please explain. That seems like a very inaccurate label.
Well, Belenix is a project run by a Sun employee. Do you believe it is
not a Sun project?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 3:53 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
> Well, Belenix is a project run by a Sun employee. Do you believe it is
> not a Sun project?
Well, the homepage is hosted by Blastwave:
http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/?q=about
No mention of Sun in the about page.
Personally I didn't think it was a Sun project, just as my involvement
in OpenSolaris is not representative of my employer.
Does it really matter. It is one of two distros that meet the needs of
a community distro. Nexenta being the other. Fully OpenSource, and
very feature rich.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
803
From:
Plano, TX
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 5:18 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > Well, Belenix is a project run by a Sun employee. Do you believe it is
> > not a Sun project?
>
> Well, the homepage is hosted by Blastwave:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No its not. See: http://sol10frominnerspace.blogspot.com/
You might reach that conclusion by looking at the DNS registration.
Dennis Clark took the initiative and registered the name while the
discussion took place on the mailing lists as to what we would call it.
Genunix.org is a community run, independent resource, with the broad goal
to further the OpenSolaris project in any way that makes sense.
PS: I'll be putting more effort into this resource over the coming months.
If you have any ideas on how we might make better use of this community
resource, please email me directly.
> http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/?q=about
>
> No mention of Sun in the about page.
>
> Personally I didn't think it was a Sun project, just as my involvement
> in OpenSolaris is not representative of my employer.
>
> Does it really matter. It is one of two distros that meet the needs of
> a community distro. Nexenta being the other. Fully OpenSource, and
> very feature rich.
>
> -Brian
>
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 7:01 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
"Brian Gupta" <brian dot gupta at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > Well, Belenix is a project run by a Sun employee. Do you believe it is
> > not a Sun project?
...
> Does it really matter. It is one of two distros that meet the needs of
> a community distro. Nexenta being the other. Fully OpenSource, and
> very feature rich.
Of course, it matters....
SchilliX was already fully Opensource before, so what is special in Belenix?
When I started with SchilliX, I asked for collaboration but it seems that this
does not really happens.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 7:22 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling writes:
> Of course, it matters....
>
> SchilliX was already fully Opensource before, so what is special in Belenix?
>
> When I started with SchilliX, I asked for collaboration but it seems that this
> does not really happens.
You can lead 'em to the URL, but you can't make 'em code.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 8:37 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
> Of course, it matters....
>
> SchilliX was already fully Opensource before, so what is special in Belenix?
Moinak managed to convince 5 or 6 friends of his to help out. Belenix
also seems to have reached or almost reached critical mass, as one of
the top two leading non-sun OpenSolaris distros. (From a completeness
point of view).
I don't know why Schillix has not. I'd imagine it's a matter of how
persuasive you are and how clearly your goals are defined. Personally
I feel that having a goal of being an open source distro does not
provide enough differentiation.
Also, I probably would not contribute to Shillix, because it makes me
very uncomfortable when a project is named after the project
initiator. (e.g. - Linux) I know it doesn't have sound technical
reasons, but like anything, decisions are often made based on personal
preference.
One other reason is Moniak has put alot of work into Belenix, and by
your own admission, you've lowered your priority of updating Schillix.
(Or at least haven't had the time to work on it in awhile.)
-Brian
P.S. - If Belenix does become a base for a community project, I
personally would like to see the name changed to a more descriptive
name. e.g. - OpenSolaris Community Edition.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 8:52 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
"Brian Gupta" <brian dot gupta at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > Of course, it matters....
> >
> > SchilliX was already fully Opensource before, so what is special in Belenix?
>
> Moinak managed to convince 5 or 6 friends of his to help out. Belenix
> also seems to have reached or almost reached critical mass, as one of
> the top two leading non-sun OpenSolaris distros. (From a completeness
> point of view).
>
> I don't know why Schillix has not. I'd imagine it's a matter of how
> persuasive you are and how clearly your goals are defined. Personally
> I feel that having a goal of being an open source distro does not
> provide enough differentiation.
Well, Belenix stared with the claim that it will deliver what Schillix does not.
At that time, Schillix did already deliver what Belenix claimed to bo but
Belenix did not. This looks a bit unfair....
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 9:05 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
> > > SchilliX was already fully Opensource before, so what is special in Belenix?
> >
> > Moinak managed to convince 5 or 6 friends of his to help out. Belenix
> > also seems to have reached or almost reached critical mass, as one of
> > the top two leading non-sun OpenSolaris distros. (From a completeness
> > point of view).
> >
> > I don't know why Schillix has not. I'd imagine it's a matter of how
> > persuasive you are and how clearly your goals are defined. Personally
> > I feel that having a goal of being an open source distro does not
> > provide enough differentiation.
>
> Well, Belenix stared with the claim that it will deliver what Schillix does not.
>
> At that time, Schillix did already deliver what Belenix claimed to bo but
> Belenix did not. This looks a bit unfair....
Fair? It's all about personal motives, personality and critical mass.
Fairness wise, Linux shouldn't have taken off because there were a
number of fully functional open source operating systems already
available. Now they play second fiddle.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 8:38 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Brian Gupta" <brian dot gupta at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, Belenix is a project run by a Sun employee. Do you believe it is
>>> not a Sun project?
> ...
>
>> Does it really matter. It is one of two distros that meet the needs of
>> a community distro. Nexenta being the other. Fully OpenSource, and
>> very feature rich.
>
> Of course, it matters....
>
> SchilliX was already fully Opensource before, so what is special in Belenix?
>
> When I started with SchilliX, I asked for collaboration but it seems that this
> does not really happens.
but why should there be only one ?
BeleniX appears to have quite different goals to SchilliX. Or maybe the
people doing BeleniX just wanted to have the experience of building a
distro from scratch.
The whole point of OpenSolaris is that people get to do that if they
want to. People should not be forced or even lead to believe that they
must participating an existing distro.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 8:54 AM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
Darren J Moffat <Darren dot Moffat at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> > SchilliX was already fully Opensource before, so what is special in Belenix?
> >
> > When I started with SchilliX, I asked for collaboration but it seems that this
> > does not really happens.
>
> but why should there be only one ?
>
> BeleniX appears to have quite different goals to SchilliX. Or maybe the
> people doing BeleniX just wanted to have the experience of building a
> distro from scratch.
Well they did not start from scratch but from my experiences. I was the only
person who did start from scratch.
Could you tell me what different goals Belenix has?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
976
From:
Винницкая область — область на западе Украины. (Vinnitsya, Ukraine)
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 9:08 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
> Well they did not start from scratch but from my experiences. I was the
> only
> person who did start from scratch.
Maybe on x86 ...
Cheers,
www.martux.org/xorg
>
> Could you tell me what different goals Belenix has?
>
> Jörg
>
> --
> EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353
> Berlin
> js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
> schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog:
> http://schily.blogspot.com/
> URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 9:30 AM
in response to: bochnig
|
|
"Martin Bochnig" <mb1x at gmx dot com> wrote:
>
>
> > Well they did not start from scratch but from my experiences. I was the
> > only
> > person who did start from scratch.
>
>
> Maybe on x86 ...
Depends on what you are talking.....
There are of course many things needed for sparc that are not in SchilliX,
but there are also things that may be used.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 10:06 AM
in response to: bochnig
|
|
>
>
>> Well they did not start from scratch but from my experiences. I was the
>> only
>> person who did start from scratch.
>
>
> Maybe on x86 ...
>
> Cheers,
> www.martux.org/xorg
>
>>
http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/blog/?q=node/44
I still have martux running here and it runs just fine. There are a LOT of
mounted lofiadm style filesystems but that is a feture of martux.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
976
From:
Винницкая область — область на западе Украины. (Vinnitsya, Ukraine)
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project
Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 11:50 AM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
> >> Well they did not start from scratch but from my experiences. I was the
> >> only
> >> person who did start from scratch.
> >
> >
> > Maybe on x86 ...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > www.martux.org/xorg
> >
> >>
>
> http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/blog/?q=node/44
>
> I still have martux running here and it runs just fine. There are a LOT of
> mounted lofiadm style filesystems but that is a feature of martux.
>
> Dennis
Hi, that was marTux_0.2 for x86/64.
However, the many lofi-mounts are actually not a "feature of martux" (at the max a "characteristicum"), but rather a feature that Solaris has potentially offered since early 2000.
And I used two of Moinak Ghosh's / Belenix's ideas and Moinak Ghosh's publically_and_openly_available_code to double LiveCD/DVD capacity, while quadripling hsfs io throughput performance (literally, believe it). I used Rainer Orth's UltraSPARC_1 revival patches. Menno Lageman has invested lots of effort to prepare and set up a 32 threads T2000 for me, with full ALOM root access, with snv63 pre-installed ready to use. To get sun4v support tested and going (works, except for Xorg). I'm currently trying to port Xorg's pci bus scanning to the sun4v pci bridge. Yet another time based on the work of others (taking comments in the Linux and BSD kernels as reference). Al Hopper (and Ben Rockwood) have set up the martux.org domain for me, have uploaded marTux to www.genunix.org. I could also list my girl-friend and my family, who are giving me critical support.
I initially (once, back last year in March) also took ideas from Schillix's "distro-kit". On x86/x64 Joerg Schilling allowed me to adopt his method of finding and mounting the proper live media CD/DVD (I have "my own" approach on sparc). And a lot of his other outstanding tools can be used as well, because I naturally put them on-board (cdrecord, smake, star etc.). Much further: I used Blastwave's entire massive and excellent /opt/csw distribution (9GB on a plain 4.7GB DVD, thanks to Belenix's methods).
And I never made a secret of the fact, that martux is indeed based on the good work of many people. Many. See /etc/release on the x86/x64 LiveDVD (http://www.martux.org/RELEASES/x86_and_x64/DVD/), where I list every single Blastwave maintainer.
OpenSource should ideally be a harmony of taking
<-->
and giving.
I have taken many other's IP.
<-->
I'm also giving away some code and ideas:
I encourage anyone (or any distro) to use (or adopt) Xorg on sparc, which itself is, again, based on the work of many brilliant minds) :
http://www.martux.org/xorg/
I have also made it clear that "my" method of getting LiveMedia working on sparc can be freely cloned. It is quite different from how things work on x86, due to the problem that the "/"-fs doesn't sit in a writable ramdisk, but continues to stay on readonly CD/DVD media.
Also my method of creating the actual iso files is unique, but can be freely used by anyone who is interested. I already said a few words on that during OSDEVCON2007. More documentation is to be followed, as soon as I finally join the OpenSolaris Starter Kit community. Anyone who wants it instantly should write me a mail.
Taking and giving.
Schillix is open to so much opportunity, so much.
Others may have taken ideas from you. They are already waiting for you to go vice versa.
My heart is bleeding when I see discussions like that, like "my car is faster", "my wife is more beautiful", "my son's IQ is higher", sort of.
I like OpenSolaris, as a whole living project.
Growth happens through multiplication, not division.
Martin
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
38
From:
Registered:
3/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 18, 2007 8:19 AM
in response to: bochnig
|
|
On May 15, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Also my method of creating the actual iso files is unique, but can
> be freely used by anyone who is interested. I already said a few
> words on that during OSDEVCON2007. More documentation is to be
> followed, as soon as I finally join the OpenSolaris Starter Kit
> community. Anyone who wants it instantly should write me a mail.
Martin, could I get a copy of your iso instructions .....
Thanks
Kev
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 9:09 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Could you tell me what different goals Belenix has?
They don't start arguments with everyone who isn't helping
their personal projects progress, and try to derail those
working on other areas.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: BeleniX meets Indiana (Was: About Project Indiana)
Posted:
May 15, 2007 9:30 AM
in response to: alanc
|
|
Alan Coopersmith <alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Could you tell me what different goals Belenix has?
>
> They don't start arguments with everyone who isn't helping
> their personal projects progress, and try to derail those
> working on other areas.
???
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
