How to choose either Solaris or Linux for General 
Computing(workstations) and Utility(Server-based) computing with the 
knowledge that Sun supports Linux, and there were talk about opening up 
Solaris source code to the opensource community.

What's the +'es, and -'es between the two?

Some that are stuck in my head such as:
Cost?
Technical Superiority?
Ease of use?
Supportability?
Adaptation to change?
Hardware Requirements?
Software availability?
Compatibility?
Who has better chance of survival and de-throning MS might?
Would it be possible to merge best of Linux & Solaris into one standard 
Linux?

Perhaps someone can add something else I forget to mention ...

Sarah

In comp.os.linux.misc Sarah Tanembaum <sarahtanembaum@yahoo.com> wrote:
: How to choose either Solaris or Linux for General 
: Computing(workstations) and Utility(Server-based) computing with the 
: knowledge that Sun supports Linux, and there were talk about opening up 
: Solaris source code to the opensource community.

: What's the +'es, and -'es between the two?


Largely irrelevant until you investigate what you are trying
to do with the computer. Once you have a very good idea, then select
the applications that are needed- and only then does it make much
of any sense to be looking at an OS.

: Some that are stuck in my head such as:

Almost all of these questions end up with religious arguments

: Technical Superiority?
: Ease of use?
: Supportability?
: Adaptation to change?
: Software availability?
: Compatibility?
: Who has better chance of survival and de-throning MS might?
: Would it be possible to merge best of Linux & Solaris into one standard 

If you want a thorough OS analysis you would need to throw in
Windows, BSD, OSX at least.

But again- the OS itself is of no use until you decide upon
specific applications.

Stan

-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

In article <1102455454.646395@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>,
 <essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
>
>Almost all of these questions end up with religious arguments

One of the very big ones that doesn't is the question of compilers.
With Solaris, you get one suite, and it does not support C90 or
POSIX 1996, except for legacy code.  With Linux, you get a wide
choice, all of which are C90 and POSIX 1996 based as far as I know.

Now, if you are one of the people who wants the official C99 and
POSIX 2001 standards, incompatibilities and all, then Solaris is
obviously the choice.  But, if you are one of the people who wants
C99 like a hole in the head, or wants more compatibility with other
systems (including Solaris 9), then Linux has it.

I wish that were not the choice :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Nick Maclaren wrote:

> One of the very big ones that doesn't is the question of compilers.
> With Solaris, you get one suite, and it does not support C90 or
> POSIX 1996, except for legacy code.  With Linux, you get a wide
> choice, all of which are C90 and POSIX 1996 based as far as I know.

And of those Linux compilers (gcc, presumably), which of them
are not available for Solaris?  None of them woudl be my guess.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

> What's the +'es, and -'es between the two?

These are religious questions, but here is my take:

> Some that are stuck in my head such as:
> Cost?

If you don't care about support, they're equal (both free).  Sun's
Solaris support is cheaper than RedHat's.

> Technical Superiority?

Solaris.

> Ease of use?

I would say equal, given enough proficiency.

> Supportability?

Solaris.

> Adaptation to change?
> Hardware Requirements?

Equal, provided you stick to the respective HCLs.

> Software availability?

Solaris: most of the LInux apps have source which will compile
on Solaris (given enough cajuling), but Solaris has more closed
source applications.

> Compatibility?

Solaris.  Sun has commited to binary compatibility, something Linux has
publically said he doesn't want Linux to do (to discourage binary-only
apps).  SOlaris also conforms to all the important standards, like POSIX.

> Who has better chance of survival and de-throning MS might?

Evens.

> Would it be possible to merge best of Linux & Solaris into one standard
> Linux?

Nope; Solaris has too many technical advances.  By the time Linux
catches up, Solaris/Open Solaris will have upped the ante again.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

In comp.os.linux.misc Sarah Tanembaum <sarahtanembaum@yahoo.com>:
> How to choose either Solaris or Linux for General 
[..]

> What's the +'es, and -'es between the two?

[..]
> Software availability?

The only thing really relevant, if the apps you want to run
aren't available for one, you won't get lucky with it. No matter
what other advantages it has.

> Compatibility?
> Who has better chance of survival and de-throning MS might?
> Would it be possible to merge best of Linux & Solaris into one standard 
> Linux?

Why should one want that? The key behind *nix is interoperability
through unix/POSIX specifications.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 90: Budget cuts

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>
>> What's the +'es, and -'es between the two?
>
> These are religious questions, but here is my take:
>
>> Ease of use?
>
> I would say equal, given enough proficiency.

I would say Linux.  Specifically Mandrake Linux.
I don't believe Solaris has anything like URPMI.
You can download prebuilt stuff from Blastwave for Solaris
but that's far from matching the ease of use of
URPMI.

Then there are the GUI admin tools.  Much more capable
on Linux, and since they are admin tools, most are
unlikely to be helpful on Solaris.

Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
> 
> How to choose either Solaris or Linux for General
> Computing(workstations) and Utility(Server-based) computing with the
> knowledge that Sun supports Linux,

SUN's Linux support is handled by an external support
organisation. Solaris support is pure SUN.

> and there were talk about opening up
> Solaris source code to the opensource community.
> 
> What's the +'es, and -'es between the two?
> 
> Some that are stuck in my head such as:
> Cost?

Supposedly Solaris is now free as in beer and you pay for
support. Linux can be obtained under the same terms. Solaris
suport comes mainly from SUN. For Linux you can shop around.

> Technical Superiority?

On machines with up to and including 4 CPUs, I don't believe
that there is much difference. Linux will however use slightly
less memory to get the same job done.

> Ease of use?

Solaris package management is a royal PITA in comparison
to even Redhat Fedora let alone something really good like 
Debian.

Solaris user space tools (sh, awk, sed, grep etc) are pretty 
poor versions in comparison to the GNU ones. Yes, you can
install the GNU versions (see comments about packaging) but
you need to keep the SUN versions because some things like
the SUN package manager expects the SUN versions of the tools.

> Supportability?

SUN's support is very good indeed. Linux support is probably
cheaper.

> Adaptation to change?

Linux probably adapts faster because it doesn't need a
business reason for trying new stuff.

> Hardware Requirements?

Linux supports far more hardware than Solaris.

> Software availability?

Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.

> Compatibility?

Linux is becoming the standard by which others are judged.
Solaris will supposedly run some Linux binaries.

> Who has better chance of survival and de-throning MS might?

Linux is invulnerable to the attacks which killed of Netscape,
Borlad and others. SUN is vulnerable especially in its
current state with shrinking market.

> Would it be possible to merge best of Linux & Solaris into 
> one standard Linux?

Since SUN will probably choose a license that is not compatible
the the GNU GPL, this is unlikely.

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"These are the finest moments in (post)modern life, when satire is completly
indistinguishable from reality... I usually have to rely on the presidential
elections for such dada." -- frenomulax on Jesux a christian Linux distro.

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Dan Espen wrote:

> I would say Linux.  Specifically Mandrake Linux.
> I don't believe Solaris has anything like URPMI.

What is URPMI?

> You can download prebuilt stuff from Blastwave for Solaris
> but that's far from matching the ease of use of
> URPMI.

Blastwave is modeled on Debian's (?), IIRC.

> Then there are the GUI admin tools.  Much more capable
> on Linux, and since they are admin tools, most are
> unlikely to be helpful on Solaris.

Webmin is available on Solaris.  But frankly, a sysadmin
should know the command line.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> 
> Now, if you are one of the people who wants the official C99 and
> POSIX 2001 standards, incompatibilities and all, then Solaris is
> obviously the choice. 


As recently as a year ago, the SUN compilers did not
suport parts of C99.

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things,  because
that would also stop you from doing clever things."  -- Doug Gwyn

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

>> Technical Superiority?
> 
> On machines with up to and including 4 CPUs, I don't believe
> that there is much difference. Linux will however use slightly
> less memory to get the same job done.


.... i think Linux will have a broader reach
as far as drivers go.
-- 
cat: /home/mtobler/newersig: No such file or directory
/home/mtobler/t: line 3: fortune: command not found

Rich Teer wrote:

>> Technical Superiority?
> 
> Solaris.


.... solaris doesnt have the broad support
for drivers across different h/w as Linux
-- 
cat: /home/mtobler/newersig: No such file or directory
/home/mtobler/t: line 3: fortune: command not found

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> I would say Linux.  Specifically Mandrake Linux.
>> I don't believe Solaris has anything like URPMI.
>
> What is URPMI?

If you want to install the music editor "audacity".
First:

> urpmf bin/audacity
audacity:/usr/bin/audacity

That tells you the path "bin/audacity" is in
the package "audacity".

So then you do:

su - root
urpmi audacity

That installs audacity and all its prerequisite packages.

The software can come from your CD, but it makes more
sense to access a much larger amount of software
by going here:

http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/

and following the 3 step instructions.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> SUN's Linux support is handled by an external support
> organisation. Solaris support is pure SUN.

FRom what I've heard, at least some of Red Hat's support is handled
by an "external organisation", in this case, Usenet.

> Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.

What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Dan Espen wrote:

> So then you do:
>
> su - root
> urpmi audacity
>
> That installs audacity and all its prerequisite packages.

OK.  That would be pretty much like Blastwave's model than,
which was inspired by Debian, I believe.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On 12/08/04 11:36, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

AFAIK, none. It is not that easy for anyone to provide 100% binary 
compatibility and if the user's of Solaris want to run Linux binaries 
and, or packages why bother installing (and, or re-compiling) these on a 
Solaris; when all these run fine on any GNU/Linux. Why Sun will provide 
support for these?

IMHO, many a free, open-source and, or public-domain softwares including 
operating systems were available long before FSF initiative, GNU Project 
and even Linux; none of these attracted as much popularity as GNU/Linux.

Why the hell, I'm here in this world? and, or for how long? If I'm not 
wrong, nobody can tell.

-- 
Dr Balwinder Singh Dheeman            Registered Linux User: #229709
CLLO (Chief Linux Learning Officer)   Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Anu's Linux@HOME                      Distros: Knoppix, Fedora, FreeBSD
More: http://anu.homelinux.net/~bsd/  Visit: http://counter.li.org/

Rich Teer wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> 
> > SUN's Linux support is handled by an external support
> > organisation. Solaris support is pure SUN.
> 
> FRom what I've heard, at least some of Red Hat's support is handled
> by an "external organisation", in this case, Usenet.
> 
> > Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
> 
> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

Anything which requires ALSA, or Linux specific /dev/ or /proc/
stuff.


Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"No Silicon Heaven?  Preposterous!  Where would
all the calculators go?" -- Kryten, Red Dwarf

Virtual terminals. 

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:06:41 -0500, Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

> How to choose either Solaris or Linux for General 
> Computing(workstations) and Utility(Server-based) computing with the 
> knowledge that Sun supports Linux, and there were talk about opening up 
> Solaris source code to the opensource community.
> 
> What's the +'es, and -'es between the two?
> 
> Some that are stuck in my head such as:
> Cost?
> Technical Superiority?
> Ease of use?
> Supportability?
> Adaptation to change?
> Hardware Requirements?
> Software availability?
> Compatibility?
> Who has better chance of survival and de-throning MS might?
> Would it be possible to merge best of Linux & Solaris into one standard 
> Linux?
> 
> Perhaps someone can add something else I forget to mention ...
> 
> Sarah

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 23:14:41 GMT,
 Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>> One of the very big ones that doesn't is the question of compilers.
>> With Solaris, you get one suite, and it does not support C90 or
>> POSIX 1996, except for legacy code.  With Linux, you get a wide
>> choice, all of which are C90 and POSIX 1996 based as far as I know.
>
> And of those Linux compilers (gcc, presumably), which of them
> are not available for Solaris?  None of them woudl be my guess.
>


is icc available for Solaris? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBtsO1d90bcYOAWPYRAt+QAJoCToUTTbBSWjgquAqJAmemPO0eLQCg3FsV
ZpKz8yECvepBGFkxk1Xd8Co=
=GWP1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You shall be rewarded for a dastardly deed.

In comp.os.linux.misc Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com>:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
[..]

>> Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.

> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

Software might not be that big problem, hardware/drivers are. I
highly doubt you'll be able to get my Epson RX600 USB2
printer/scanner working under Solaris.

Same goes for sound/etc controller. Significant that someone
preferring Solaris starts trolling, do you fell inferior or what
is the reason? None out of the people running Linux started to
argue, Linux would be superior over Solaris or alike. Both have
their pros/cons and both work together without a problem.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 452: Somebody ran the operating system through
a spelling checker.

In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412071512550.14701@zaphod>,
Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>> One of the very big ones that doesn't is the question of compilers.
>> With Solaris, you get one suite, and it does not support C90 or
>> POSIX 1996, except for legacy code.  With Linux, you get a wide
>> choice, all of which are C90 and POSIX 1996 based as far as I know.
>
>And of those Linux compilers (gcc, presumably), which of them
>are not available for Solaris?  None of them woudl be my guess.

Nice try, but no banana.

gcc (for C/C++) and NAG (for Fortran 95) are probably the only two
that are available for Solaris; I have not heard of others (e.g.
Pathscale, PGI, Absoft, ICC etc. etc.), though there may be one or
two.

Furthermore, the situation isn't simply a matter of the compilers,
but of the headers and libraries.  Sun had a C90 compiler on SunOS,
but never provided C90 support in the latter.  Similarly, many Unix
vendors have poor POSIX support, and I was referring to the versions
of C and POSIX for good reason.

I don't know how well-integrated gcc is with Solaris 9, but I will
bet good money that it has either not yet been ported to Solaris 10
or is very poorly integrated with it.  My earlier postings explained
why, if you know the details of the C and POSIX standards.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article <41B65F3A.E99AA518@mega-nerd.com>,
Erik de Castro Lopo  <nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> 
>> Now, if you are one of the people who wants the official C99 and
>> POSIX 2001 standards, incompatibilities and all, then Solaris is
>> obviously the choice. 
>
>As recently as a year ago, the SUN compilers did not
>suport parts of C99.

Yes.  With Sun ONE Studio 8 and Solaris 9, the language was C90 (and
POSIX 1996) only; the C99 'features' were minimal and bolted on.  With
Studio 9 and Solaris 10, it is C99 (and POSIX 2001) only; there is no
support for C90 for new code, and no  C90/C99 migration option, though
there is still the K&R/C90 migration option.

Not a nice choice.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Rich Teer wrote:

>  What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

Valgrind.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

Nick Maclaren wrote:

> I don't know how well-integrated gcc is with Solaris 9, but I will
> bet good money that it has either not yet been ported to Solaris 10
> or is very poorly integrated with it.  My earlier postings explained
> why, if you know the details of the C and POSIX standards.

I know I'm opening myself up to a world of hurt here since I'm no
compiler or C standard expert.  Anyway gcc is ported to, works for,
and is integrated with Solaris 10:

   - the Solaris 10 amd64 64-bit kernel is currently compiled with gcc
   - it works
   - gcc is now included in the Solaris distribution, not just on
     a separate optional CD but as part of the main installation
     (this as of build 73 which hasn't hit the streets yet)

I'll make no comment on how fat integration extends in terms of
header files etc - not qualified to.

Gavin

Rich Teer wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> 
<snip>
> 
> > Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
> 
> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
> 

MATLAB (www.mathworks.com)

It is available for almost every other platform:  AIX, HP, IRIX,
Windows, MacOS, Solaris Sparc...


> --
> Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
> 

-- 
Dr Tristram J. Scott               
Energy Consultant

Tristram Scott writes:
>MATLAB (www.mathworks.com)
>It is available for almost every other platform:  AIX, HP, IRIX,
>Windows, MacOS, Solaris Sparc...

Apparently no AIX, IRIX, Tru64 (or Alpha, MIPS, Itanium) anymore...
http://mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.html
http://mathworks.com/support/sysreq/current_release/unix.html


Markus

In article <cp6ofe$jjv$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>,
Gavin Maltby  <g_a_v_i_n.m_a_l_t_b_y@s_u_n.com> wrote:
>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>> I don't know how well-integrated gcc is with Solaris 9, but I will
>> bet good money that it has either not yet been ported to Solaris 10
>> or is very poorly integrated with it.  My earlier postings explained
>> why, if you know the details of the C and POSIX standards.
>
>I know I'm opening myself up to a world of hurt here since I'm no
>compiler or C standard expert.  Anyway gcc is ported to, works for,
>and is integrated with Solaris 10:
>
>   - the Solaris 10 amd64 64-bit kernel is currently compiled with gcc
>   - it works

In language and library terms, the kernel is one of the simplest
programs around.  It is EXTREMELY common for kernels to sail through
seriously incompatible (or even broken) development environments,
oblivious to the problems.

This is largely because it uses its own mechanisms for all of the most
tricky areas (e.g. exception trapping and diagnosis) that it uses, and
simply doesn't use many of the others (e.g. advanced floating-point
or POSIX thread management).  Even when it uses the interfaces, it
tend to use them in simple fashions and have its own, cooperative
run-time implementation underneath.

>   - gcc is now included in the Solaris distribution, not just on
>     a separate optional CD but as part of the main installation
>     (this as of build 73 which hasn't hit the streets yet)

Now, that IS interesting.  I suppose that I shall have to make time
to investigate whether it has been properly integrated with other
components (not all of which have been properly integrated with
Solaris 9, let alone 10).  It is a nightmare area, I am afraid,
because of decades of history in specifications, products and so on.

>I'll make no comment on how fat integration extends in terms of
>header files etc - not qualified to.

Which is, unfortunately, where the problems arise :-(

The killer here is that C99 is syntactically and semantically
incompatible with C90, in both directions.  As with some of the
K&R versus C90 incompatibilities, it is the standard-conforming,
well-engineered applications that often get hit the hardest.

I don't suppose that there is any documentation on what configuration
and usage options, and language and library facilities, of Solaris 10,
Sun ONE Studio 9, gcc and the various extra Sun libraries are
compatible with each other?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

>  The killer here is that C99 is syntactically and semantically
>  incompatible with C90, in both directions.  As with some of the
>  K&R versus C90 incompatibilities, it is the standard-conforming,
>  well-engineered applications that often get hit the hardest.

Did you try to compile with -U__MATHERR_ERRNO_DONTCARE ?

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

In article <slrncrdt7f.2j3g.dave@fly.srk.fer.hr>,
Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr> writes:
|> Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> 
|> >  The killer here is that C99 is syntactically and semantically
|> >  incompatible with C90, in both directions.  As with some of the
|> >  K&R versus C90 incompatibilities, it is the standard-conforming,
|> >  well-engineered applications that often get hit the hardest.
|> 
|> Did you try to compile with -U__MATHERR_ERRNO_DONTCARE ?

That is one of the many things that is no longer supported, and
is an example of what I was referring to.  Any application that
relies on errno to indicate domain and range errors in <math.h>
is in trouble.  It isn't the only problem.

But who gives a damn about exception detection?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:

> In article <cp6ofe$jjv$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>,
> Gavin Maltby  <g_a_v_i_n.m_a_l_t_b_y@s_u_n.com> wrote:

>>   - gcc is now included in the Solaris distribution, not just on
>>     a separate optional CD but as part of the main installation
>>     (this as of build 73 which hasn't hit the streets yet)
>
> Now, that IS interesting.  I suppose that I shall have to make time
> to investigate whether it has been properly integrated with other
> components (not all of which have been properly integrated with
> Solaris 9, let alone 10).  It is a nightmare area, I am afraid,
> because of decades of history in specifications, products and so on.

There are already some problems with S10 b72 when you try to compile a
simple C program that include <stdio.h> and/or <stdarg.h>, using GCC
2.95.x:


/usr/include/sys/va_list.h adds some GCC 3.x specific varargs/stdargs
definitions, that don't work with GCC 2.95.x.

        ____________________

% cat xx.c
#include <stdio.h>

% gcc -v
Reading specs from /opt/sfw/lib/gcc-lib/i386-pc-solaris2.9/2.95.3/specs
gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release)

% gcc -c xx.c
In file included from /usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:35,
                 from /usr/include/stdio.h:67,
                 from xx.c:1:
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:162: parse error before `__gnuc_va_list'
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:162: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:168: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:168: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:67,
                 from xx.c:1:
/usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:215: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:216: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:218: parse error before `__va_list'
In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:136,
                 from xx.c:1:
/usr/include/iso/stdio_c99.h:54: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_c99.h:55: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_c99.h:57: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_c99.h:71: parse error before `__va_list'

        ____________________

% cat xx2.c
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <stdio.h>

% gcc -c xx2.c
In file included from /usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:35,
                 from /usr/include/stdio.h:67,
                 from xx2.c:2:
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:173: warning: `__va_copy' redefined
/opt/sfw/lib/gcc-lib/i386-pc-solaris2.9/2.95.3/include/stdarg.h:120: warning: this is the location of the previous definition
In file included from /usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:35,
                 from /usr/include/stdio.h:67,
                 from xx2.c:2:
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:162: syntax error before `__gnuc_va_list'
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:162: warning: empty declaration
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:168: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/sys/va_list.h:168: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:67,
                 from xx2.c:2:
/usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:215: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:216: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_iso.h:218: parse error before `__va_list'
In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:136,
                 from xx2.c:2:
/usr/include/iso/stdio_c99.h:54: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_c99.h:55: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_c99.h:57: parse error before `__va_list'
/usr/include/iso/stdio_c99.h:71: parse error before `__va_list'

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>  In article <slrncrdt7f.2j3g.dave@fly.srk.fer.hr>,
>  Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr> writes:

> |> Did you try to compile with -U__MATHERR_ERRNO_DONTCARE ?
> 
>  That is one of the many things that is no longer supported, and
>  is an example of what I was referring to.

I can try with another option, but it's probably futile. There's
fex_set_handling() & friends which can be used to set FP exception handler
that can update errno. Can you use that?

The example in the man page doesn't use #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON, so
it's probably not necessary, and therefore the translation unit limit
probably doesn't apply.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

>
> Solaris user space tools (sh, awk, sed, grep etc) are pretty
> poor versions in comparison to the GNU ones. Yes, you can
> install the GNU versions (see comments about packaging) but
> you need to keep the SUN versions because some things like
> the SUN package manager expects the SUN versions of the tools.

Couldn't agree more.  I spent half a day trying to mail an attachment on a
UNIX machine.  If only I had the linux "mail -a" available.

For me, tie breaker between Linux and Solaris (or BSD for that matter),  is
the availability of apps, especially free demo versions.

Currently, I am running a full-blown version of SAP on linux that would be
impossible under Solaris or BSD.  One could argue that BSD has linux compat
libraries, but I found them to be a PITA, and a bit dated.

Markus Gyger wrote:
> 
> Tristram Scott writes:
> >MATLAB (www.mathworks.com)
> >It is available for almost every other platform:  AIX, HP, IRIX,
> >Windows, MacOS, Solaris Sparc...
> 
> Apparently no AIX, IRIX, Tru64 (or Alpha, MIPS, Itanium) anymore...
> http://mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.html
> http://mathworks.com/support/sysreq/current_release/unix.html
> 
> Markus

No, not beyond MATLAB 6.5 (R13).  MATLAB 7 (R14) is only available for
Solaris Sparc, Windows, Linux and MacOS.

However, at least it does exist for IRIX etc.  You can still purchase
R13, and it is still supported.
 
-- 
Dr Tristram J. Scott               
Energy Consultant

Rich Teer wrote:

>>You can download prebuilt stuff from Blastwave for Solaris
>>but that's far from matching the ease of use of
>>URPMI.
> 
> 
> Blastwave is modeled on Debian's (?), IIRC.

Blastwave's pkg-get for Solaris is based on Debian's apt-get, e.g.

pkg-get install mozilla

Buck Turgidson wrote:

>  Currently, I am running a full-blown version of SAP on linux that would be
>  impossible under Solaris or BSD.  One could argue that BSD has linux compat
>  libraries, but I found them to be a PITA, and a bit dated.

You can install whichever library versions you like. The "emulation" is in
the kernel. But it is a pain to deal with all that.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

In article <slrncre27l.2jc4.dave@fly.srk.fer.hr>,
Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr> writes:
|> Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> 
|> > |> Did you try to compile with -U__MATHERR_ERRNO_DONTCARE ?
|> > 
|> >  That is one of the many things that is no longer supported, and
|> >  is an example of what I was referring to.
|> 
|> I can try with another option, but it's probably futile. There's
|> fex_set_handling() & friends which can be used to set FP exception handler
|> that can update errno. Can you use that?

I think that you have missed the point.  I manage a number of systems,
not all running Solaris, and advise a lot of people, none of whom use
solely Solaris.  When I write serious code, it is usually portable to
a level that few modern people think is possible - this means that it
usually ports to systems I have never used.

    1) Putting in system-dependent hacks is NOT a sane way to proceed
and, for reasons I could go into at GREAT length, using the nastier
C99 features will be system dependent for ever and a day.

    2) An even worse problem is imported, working, portable programs
failing in horrible ways.  Someone has to track them down, and I can
assure you that there are only a few dozen people who have an idea of
the full horrors of this area, worldwide.

I.e. yes, I can handle this area.  I am one of the VERY FEW people I
know of who can, but the cost is massive for me, and the problem is
completely beyond most of the people I deal with.

|> The example in the man page doesn't use #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON, so
|> it's probably not necessary, and therefore the translation unit limit
|> probably doesn't apply.

Oh, yeah?  Don't bet on it.  REALLY don't bet on it.  And don't even
THINK about reporting compiler bugs to Sun or porting code to other
C99 compilers if you don't set it appropriately.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Tristram Scott wrote:
> Rich Teer wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
>>
>>What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
> 
> MATLAB (www.mathworks.com)

I wonder if Mathworks and many others that have Solaris Sparc
and Linux packages but not Solaris x86 are just waiting for Sun's
project Janus (Linux binary compatibility) so that they do not have
to port their software...

Oscar del Rio wrote:
> 
> Tristram Scott wrote:
> > Rich Teer wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
> >>
> >>What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
> >
> > MATLAB (www.mathworks.com)
> 
> I wonder if Mathworks and many others that have Solaris Sparc
> and Linux packages but not Solaris x86 are just waiting for Sun's
> project Janus (Linux binary compatibility) so that they do not have
> to port their software...

At least for The MathWorks I believe this is purely a marketing
decision.  Does the projected number of future sales for platform x
cover the cost of building, testing and supporting the software on that
platform?  Seems they decided the answer was no for IRIX and AIX, and
until very recently I don't think they had even considered Solaris x86.

-- 
Dr Tristram J. Scott               
Energy Consultant

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 06:06:41 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

>> Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
> 
> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

Maple 9.5 (CAS system).  According to their web page, it is offered on
SPARC solaris, as well as three different flavors for linux x86, but no
mention of Solaris x86.  

I've been using Maple under linux for probably 10 years now.

It does run on some closed-source unices: HP9000, IBM/rs6000, Digital
UNIX/Compaq Tru64 and SGI IRIX as well.

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember
 _`\(,_  | that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ  
(_)/ (_) | 
           

In article <avej82-ja5.ln1@turf.turgidson.com>,
Buck Turgidson <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Solaris user space tools (sh, awk, sed, grep etc) are pretty
>> poor versions in comparison to the GNU ones. Yes, you can
>> install the GNU versions (see comments about packaging) but
>> you need to keep the SUN versions because some things like
>> the SUN package manager expects the SUN versions of the tools.
>
>Couldn't agree more.  I spent half a day trying to mail an attachment on a
>UNIX machine.  If only I had the linux "mail -a" available.

Install "nail" from blastwavew http://www.blastwave.org/packages.php
and use "nail -a"

The Program "mail" definitely has no -a option as this is the simple
mail program that was in use before sendmail came out.

Nail is an extended mailx.



-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>  In article <slrncre27l.2jc4.dave@fly.srk.fer.hr>,
>  Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr> writes:

> |> I can try with another option, but it's probably futile. There's
> |> fex_set_handling() & friends which can be used to set FP exception handler
> |> that can update errno. Can you use that?
> 
>  I think that you have missed the point.

I said it would be futile, didn't I?

From your posts I had the impression that it's entirely impossible to deal
with the errno problem, so I was curious.

>      1) Putting in system-dependent hacks is NOT a sane way to proceed
>  and,

I know.

>  for reasons I could go into at GREAT length, using the nastier
>  C99 features will be system dependent for ever and a day.

Implementation defined behavior has always existed. I'd be interested in
your list of things which shouldn't have been implementation defined
behavior. Unless I really missed the point this time.

> |> The example in the man page doesn't use #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON, so
> |> it's probably not necessary, and therefore the translation unit limit
> |> probably doesn't apply.
> 
>  Oh, yeah?  Don't bet on it.  REALLY don't bet on it.

I wasn't. I was betting on you testing it for me. But I suppose I lost
that bet. :-(

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:06:41 -0500, Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

> How to choose either Solaris or Linux for General 
> Computing(workstations) and Utility(Server-based) computing with the 
> knowledge that Sun supports Linux, and there were talk about opening up 
> Solaris source code to the opensource community.
> 
> What's the +'es, and -'es between the two?
> 
> Some that are stuck in my head such as:
> Cost?
> Technical Superiority?
> Ease of use?
> Supportability?
> Adaptation to change?
> Hardware Requirements?
> Software availability?
> Compatibility?
> Who has better chance of survival and de-throning MS might?
> Would it be possible to merge best of Linux & Solaris into one standard 
> Linux?
> 
> Perhaps someone can add something else I forget to mention ...
> 
> Sarah

So install each and dual boot.

In article <slrncre8i8.2jm4.dave@fly.srk.fer.hr>,
Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr> writes:
|> 
|> From your posts I had the impression that it's entirely impossible
|> to deal with the errno problem, so I was curious.

It's quite possible for Sun to deal with the problem - it isn't
possible for a programmer to deal with the problems caused by
C99, Studio 9 and Solaris 10.

|> >  for reasons I could go into at GREAT length, using the nastier
|> >  C99 features will be system dependent for ever and a day.
|> 
|> Implementation defined behavior has always existed. I'd be interested in
|> your list of things which shouldn't have been implementation defined
|> behavior. Unless I really missed the point this time.

I am afraid that you have.  One aspect that should not have been
implementation-defined is the choice of <math.h> error handling,
because it makes it impossible to write portable code, but most of
the problems I am referring to are undefined behaviour and (worse)
inconsistencies, ambiguities and fail-unsafe specifications in the
standard.

I could send you some things by Email, but this is NOT worth going
into on this group.  I will send you a simple demonstration of why
the errno/flag shambles is so bad, and you can see further evidence
if you look at the source of Python (one of the few C applications
that believes in robustness).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:55:11 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>> 
> Supposedly Solaris is now free as in beer and you pay for support. Linux
> can be obtained under the same terms. Solaris suport comes mainly from
> SUN. For Linux you can shop around.

Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.

If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

In article <pan.2004.12.08.16.15.31.174732@zianet.com>,
ray <ray@zianet.com> writes:
|> 
|> So install each and dual boot.

How do I run one application under each system, and cut-and-paste
between them, using only one workstation?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <pan.2004.12.08.16.15.31.174732@zianet.com>,
> ray <ray@zianet.com> writes:
> |> 
> |> So install each and dual boot.
> 
> How do I run one application under each system, and cut-and-paste
> between them, using only one workstation?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
With regard to the multiple booting, why not use VMWare Workstation - 
get a trial install as many OS on virtual machines as you like and see 
which you like best.

Regards,
Daniel

In comp.os.linux.misc Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

: In article <pan.2004.12.08.16.15.31.174732@zianet.com>,
: ray <ray@zianet.com> writes:
: |> 
: |> So install each and dual boot.

: How do I run one application under each system, and cut-and-paste
: between them, using only one workstation?


Run one of the OS's in an emulator.

Stan
-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

Nick Maclaren wrote:

> 
> I could send you some things by Email, but this is NOT worth going
> into on this group.  I will send you a simple demonstration of why
> the errno/flag shambles is so bad, and you can see further evidence
> if you look at the source of Python (one of the few C applications
> that believes in robustness).
> 

It certainly seems to be offtopic. But I am interested as well in
this theme. And I guess I am not alone. So why not post it here?

Tom
--
(to reply to me via e-mail remove "no-spam." from my e-mail address)

In article <cp7c44$7kj$1@wsc10.lrz-muenchen.de>,
Thomas Maier-Komor <maierkom@lpr.e-technik.no-spam.tu-muenchen.de> writes:
|> Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> 
|> > I could send you some things by Email, but this is NOT worth going
|> > into on this group.  I will send you a simple demonstration of why
|> > the errno/flag shambles is so bad, and you can see further evidence
|> > if you look at the source of Python (one of the few C applications
|> > that believes in robustness).
|> 
|> It certainly seems to be offtopic. But I am interested as well in
|> this theme. And I guess I am not alone. So why not post it here?

All right.  Note that this is an example of what you have to do
to bypass ONE of the problems introduced by C99; there are many
others, and some are much nastier.  In particular, look at the C90
versus C99 core code, and remember that must be replicated in every
code fragment that uses <math.h> function calls, and must NOT
surround a fragment that includes any OTHER function calls.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.



/* This code demonstrates the problems that the introduction of the C99
error handling model (math_errhandling) has caused.  As far as I can
recall, this serious incompatibility (an undeclared Quiet Change) was
inserted in the Final Committee Draft, which in itself is a pretty
unreasonable activity.  It is certainly a gross breach of principles
1, 4 and 9 (as described in the Rationale), even if it is not a breach
of ISO or ANSI rules.

The example is a function that applies a function provided as an
argument to an array, returning 0 for success, 1 if there was an error
detected (including failure of the detection mechanism).  Note that it
isn't bulletproof (especially when run under K&R or extended C90
compilers, or if the error detection is more than usually perverse), but
those aspects are both insoluble and unchanged in nature (even if very
different in detail) between C90 and C99.

Furthermore, note that the core code must be replicated fairly often,
and cannot simply be placed at the start and end of a large calculation
function.  This is because both C90 and C99 explicitly permit both errno
and the floating-point exception flags to be set spuriously by almost
all C90/C99 non-<math.h> functions and any non-C90/C99 ones (e.g. non-C
I/O or system calls).  Experience is that this problem is real.  There
is also an ambiguity about whether functions like tan() are permitted to
set errno and/or the flags spuriously, but I have not seen that happen.

Note that __STDC__ is not tested, both because it can't be used to
distinguish C90 and C99 (despite repeated requests to WG14) and because
it is set weirdly on many systems.  __STDC__ = 0 is commonly used to
indicate sort-of conformance, for example, and I have seen __STDC__ set
to other values. */



#if defined(C90) == defined(C99)

#error Exactly one of -DC90 or -DC99 must be set for this test

#elif defined(C90)

/* ==================== Start of C90 example ==================== */

#include <errno.h>
#include <stddef.h>

int apply (double array[], size_t length, double (*function)(double)) {

/* Note that this uses errno alone, as both HUGE_VAL and the
implementation-defined value returned on a domain error can be
reasonable values, such as 0.0.  Also, there is no way for a portable
function to check against an implementation-defined value!  This will
also work with all K&R compilers that support errno error flagging,
which is almost all that handle errors at all! */

    size_t i;

    /* ========== Start of core code ========== */

    errno = 0;
    for (i = 0; i < length; ++i) array[i] = function(array[i]);
    return (errno != 0);

    /* ========== End of core code ========== */

}

/* ==================== End of C90 example ==================== */

#elif defined(C99)

/* ==================== Start of C90/C99 example ==================== */

#include <errno.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

/* Note that the following code is NOT only for migration, but is needed
even if we can assume that we have a C99 compiler, because we still have
to deal with the case of math_errhandling == MATH_ERREXCEPT and
__STD_IEC_559__ unset.  Of course, C99 does not actually define what
that MEANS, so we have to assume that the implementor has done what we
expect. */

#if MATH_ERRNO == 1 || MATH_ERREXCEPT == 2 || defined(__STD_IEC_559__)
    #if MATH_ERRNO != 1 || MATH_ERREXCEPT != 2
        #error This implementation has inconsistent error handling
    #endif
    #include <fenv.h>
    #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON
    #if defined(FE_OVERFLOW) && defined(FE_INVALID) &&defined(FE_DIVBYZERO)
        #define OK_FLAGS 1
    #endif
    #define TRY_FLAGS 1
#endif

int apply (double array[], size_t length, double (*function)(double)) {
    size_t i;

/* Start with checking that we CAN handle errors.  C99 permits an
implementation to set neither MATH_ERRNO nor MATH_ERREXCEPT, in which
case we are dead (see above for why).  Note that the Annex F definition
of HUGE_VAL and the domain error return value does not help, as the case
we are testing for is when we are in C99 but not full IEEE mode.  We
also check for what should be an impossible state. */

#if TRY_FLAGS
    if (! (math_errhandling&(MATH_ERRNO|MATH_ERREXCEPT)) ||
            ((math_errhandling&MATH_ERREXCEPT) && ! OK_FLAGS))
        abort();
#endif

/* Note that the core code does not check for the consistency of the
error flagging, and that supporting C90 adds no complexity over that
needed to support all of C99.  It is extremely unlikely that more than a
few programmers will ever bother with error handling of this complexity,
let alone get it correct, yet it is the minimum necessary to comply with
C99's contortions. */

    /* ========== Start of core code ========== */

#if TRY_FLAGS
    if (math_errhandling&MATH_ERRNO) errno = 0;
    if (math_errhandling&MATH_ERREXCEPT) feclearexcept(FE_ALL_EXCEPT);
#else
    errno = 0;
#endif
    for (i = 0; i < length; ++i) array[i] = function(array[i]);
#if TRY_FLAGS
    if ((math_errhandling&MATH_ERRNO) && errno != 0) return 1;
    if ((math_errhandling&MATH_ERREXCEPT) &&
            fetestexcept(FE_OVERFLOW|FE_INVALID|FE_DIVBYZERO))
        return 1;
    return 0;
#else
    return (errno != 0);
#endif

    /* ========== End of core code ========== */

}

/* ==================== End of C90/C99 example ==================== */

#endif

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.

Solaris is also free for commercial use.

> If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.

Not true any more.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:28:31 +0100, Michael Heiming
<michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>In comp.os.linux.misc Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com>:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>[..]
>
>>> Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
>
>> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
>
>Software might not be that big problem, hardware/drivers are. I
>highly doubt you'll be able to get my Epson RX600 USB2
>printer/scanner working under Solaris.

Just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be
done.

-david-

"Tristram Scott" <tristram.scott@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:41B71E58.24B3392C@ntlworld.com...

> At least for The MathWorks I believe this is purely a marketing
> decision.  Does the projected number of future sales for platform x
> cover the cost of building, testing and supporting the software on that
> platform?  Seems they decided the answer was no for IRIX and AIX, and
> until very recently I don't think they had even considered Solaris x86.

Sol 10 x86 may well affect this equation. With its new licensing, new
feature set and (ideally) new committment from Sun, Sol 10 may well make a
strong impression. With Janus, Linux vendors can leverage that ability to
"support" Sol 10 as a marketing example, and if Sol 10 takes off, they can
port to it natively. For those with a Sol 10 SPARC solution already, I'd
like to hope that a port from SPARC to x86 will be little more than a
regression test (particularly if they also already have a x86 version of
some kind).

What I would suspect is that if Sol 10 becomes popular, that Sol 10 x86 will
be easier to support than a Linux binary.

This all applies to closed source projects, not things distributed in source
form, of course.

At this juncture it's a hard call.

What I would do is I would spec my machine to the Sol 10 HCL, but start with
Linux. Sol 10 is a bit young yet, and it will probably be 6 months before
software vendors start coming on line with it.

Regards,

Will Hartung
(willh@msoft.com)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:33:08 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:
> 
>> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
> 
> Solaris is also free for commercial use.
> 
>> If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.
> 
> Not true any more.

Did they change that in the last few months? When did that happen?

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
:> Not true any more.

: Did they change that in the last few months? When did that happen?
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
yes.  Wander by sun.com for details. Supposedly open source
early next year.

Stan


-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:33:08 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:
> 
>> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
> 
> Solaris is also free for commercial use.
> 
>> If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.
> 
> Not true any more.

Just went and checked:

Download Software Express for Solaris 11/04 - For Non Commercial Use

That appears to suggest it's for non-commercial use. Where did you see a
license that said you can use it for commercial use? I'd love to put my
Ultra Sparc to work.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

In article <pan.2004.12.08.17.57.09.681005@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

> Did they change that in the last few months? When did that happen?

When Sun launched Solaris 10 a couple of days ago.

-- 
G�ran Larsson     http://www.mitt-eget.com/

In <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412072203460.14701@zaphod> Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

>> SUN's Linux support is handled by an external support
>> organisation. Solaris support is pure SUN.

>FRom what I've heard, at least some of Red Hat's support is handled
>by an "external organisation", in this case, Usenet.

>> Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.

>What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

Matlab.  I wish Sun would pay the Mathworks to compile it for
x86 & x86-64, since Mathworks already does it for sparc.

>-- 
>Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

>President,
>Rite Online Inc.

>Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
>URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
-- 
David B. Chorlian
Neurodynamics Lab  SUNY/HSCB
chorlian@cns.hscbklyn.edu
davidc@panix.com

In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412080931450.14701@zaphod>,
Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
>
>Solaris is also free for commercial use.

Solaris 10 is free for any type of use.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:07:28 +0000, essteeaen wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> :> Not true any more.
> 
> : Did they change that in the last few months? When did that happen?
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> yes.  Wander by sun.com for details. Supposedly open source early next
> year.

Excellent *taps fingers together*

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

In article <pan.2004.12.08.18.07.30.798639@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:33:08 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> 
>>> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
>> 
>> Solaris is also free for commercial use.
>> 
>>> If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.
>> 
>> Not true any more.
>
>Just went and checked:
>
>Download Software Express for Solaris 11/04 - For Non Commercial Use

Not everything on the Sun website is reflecting the current state
already.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <pan.2004.12.08.18.46.33.593608@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:07:28 +0000, essteeaen wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>> :> Not true any more.
>> 
>> : Did they change that in the last few months? When did that happen?
>>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> yes.  Wander by sun.com for details. Supposedly open source early next
>> year.
>
>Excellent *taps fingers together*

You don't need to, Solaris _will_ go opensource soon.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <cp7hr1$j6r$1@reader1.panix.com>,
David B. Chorlian  <davidc@panix.com> wrote:
>Matlab.  I wish Sun would pay the Mathworks to compile it for
>x86 & x86-64, since Mathworks already does it for sparc.

I wish you would pay Mathworks to compile it for x86 & x86-64.

How much does Mathworks want?

John
groenveld@acm.org

"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:33:08 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:
|
|> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:
|> 
|>> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
|> 
|> Solaris is also free for commercial use.
|> 
|>> If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.
|> 
|> Not true any more.
|
|Just went and checked:
|
|Download Software Express for Solaris 11/04 - For Non Commercial Use
|
|That appears to suggest it's for non-commercial use. Where did you see a
|license that said you can use it for commercial use? 

That's Solaris Express, not the actual Solaris 10 release, which will
have different license terms when it arrives early next year.  See all
the announcements from the Solaris 10 launch in November for details.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
 http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/   *   http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
  Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

John D Groenveld wrote:

>>Matlab.  I wish Sun would pay the Mathworks to compile it for
>>x86 & x86-64, since Mathworks already does it for sparc.
> I wish you would pay Mathworks to compile it for x86 & x86-64.

I wish noone would pay Mathworks so they would die, people would use
scilab instead, and we wouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars on
the licenses anymore.

(this said, I don't wish anything bad to mathworks employees)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:16:28 +0000, Goran Larsson wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.12.08.17.57.09.681005@you.now>, Ivan Marsh
> <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> 
>> Did they change that in the last few months? When did that happen?
> 
> When Sun launched Solaris 10 a couple of days ago.

Where are you folks seeing this? It still says for non-commercial use on
their site when you try to download it.

Anyone have a URL?

I REALLY want to uncrate my Ultra Sparc.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> Where are you folks seeing this? It still says for non-commercial use on
> their site when you try to download it.

Some of us follow Sun's announcements more closely than others.  :-)

> Anyone have a URL?

Here ya go:

	http://www.sun.com/2004-1130/feature/

HTH,

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

> > Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
> 
> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

A whole bunch of Ethernet drivers, for a start.
-- 
Chris Morgan
   "Post posting of policy changes by the boss will result in 
    real rule revisions that are irreversible"

		- anonymous correspondent

In article <pan.2004.12.08.19.37.04.997655@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

> Where are you folks seeing this? It still says for non-commercial use on
> their site when you try to download it.

You are probably trying to download Solaris 9. The license is
very different between Solaris 8, Solaris 9 and Solaris 10 even
though all of them could/can be downloaded for "free".

> Anyone have a URL?

The Solaris 10 Business Model Overview:
   < http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/ssbmodel.html >

Regarding Solaris 10 -- Sun just launched it. That just means that Sun
acknowledges that the product "Solaris 10" exists. You have to wait
until early next year for the actual release.

-- 
G�ran Larsson     http://www.mitt-eget.com/

In comp.unix.solaris Alan Coopersmith <alanc@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
> |On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:33:08 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:
> |
> |> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:
> |> 
> |>> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
              ^^ (fact)
> |> 
> |> Solaris is also free for commercial use.
             ^^ (expected)
....
> |Download Software Express for Solaris 11/04 - For Non Commercial Use
> |
> |That appears to suggest it's for non-commercial use. Where did you see a
> |license that said you can use it for commercial use? 

> That's Solaris Express, not the actual Solaris 10 release, which will
> have different license terms when it arrives early next year.  See all
> the announcements from the Solaris 10 launch in November for details.

So the fact is that currently it is not free, but it is expected to change.

(No arguing with your expectations, but let's stick to facts).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

>>> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
>>
>>Solaris is also free for commercial use.
> 
> Solaris 10 is free for any type of use.

We'll see about that when it's (actually) released .

-- 
damjan

In comp.unix.solaris Goran Larsson <hoh@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Regarding Solaris 10 -- Sun just launched it. That just means that Sun
> acknowledges that the product "Solaris 10" exists. You have to wait
> until early next year for the actual release.

No, you're thinking of when it was "announced" a few months ago.
The "launch" is basically backing up the announcement, and giving a
date when it (should) be available.

Make sense now? :)

  Scott

In comp.unix.solaris Urban Cowboy <cowboy@therange.com> wrote:
> Virtual terminals. 

Solaris supports roughly as many virtual terminals as you can open telnet
sessions/X windows.

If you mean console virtual terminals, then either run X or use screen.

  Scott

In comp.unix.solaris Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>> That's Solaris Express, not the actual Solaris 10 release, which will
>> have different license terms when it arrives early next year.  See all
>> the announcements from the Solaris 10 launch in November for details.
> 
> So the fact is that currently it is not free, but it is expected to change.
> 
> (No arguing with your expectations, but let's stick to facts).

The FACT is that on the day it's released, it will be FREE.

Today, as for the past several months) you can get the beta-ish version
(ie, Solaris Express) of Solaris 10, also for FREE.

http://www.sun.com/2004-1130/feature/

These are announced facts, not expectations, and they will not change.

  Scott

Rich Teer wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> 
>> SUN's Linux support is handled by an external support
>> organisation. Solaris support is pure SUN.
> 
> FRom what I've heard, at least some of Red Hat's support is handled
> by an "external organisation", in this case, Usenet.
> 
>> Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
> 
> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
> 

Eagle (http://www.cadsoft.de)
Quartus II (http://www.altera.com)

For two.

Cheers,
-- 
 ** Matt van de Werken -- Cricket, Unix, Electronics Enthusiast **
 **   Linux -- Dual Athlon MP1800+ -- Thu, 09 Dec 2004  7:13AM  **
Without adventure, civilization is in full decay.
  -- Alfred North Whitehead

In comp.os.linux.misc Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
: These are announced facts, not expectations, and they will not change.

Umm. You may want to look up what a "fact" is. Something that
has not yet happened cannot be a "fact". very likely, intended
behavior, wishful thinking, sure- but not a "fact".

Bu the important thing is that Solaris 10 is looking to be
"free" ( whatever Sun's definition of free is in this case)
early next year- so it will be very interesting to compare it
side-by-side with other "free" OS's like Linux and freeBSD.

Looking forward to it!

Stan
-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com writes:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
> : These are announced facts, not expectations, and they will not change.
>
> Umm. You may want to look up what a "fact" is. Something that
> has not yet happened cannot be a "fact". very likely, intended
> behavior, wishful thinking, sure- but not a "fact".

Is the occurence of Christmass on December 25th 2004 a fact or just
wishful thinking?

Dragan

-- 
Dragan Cvetkovic, 

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole      No it isn't.  L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:40:37 +0000, Goran Larsson wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.12.08.19.37.04.997655@you.now>, Ivan Marsh
> <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> 
>> Where are you folks seeing this? It still says for non-commercial use
>> on their site when you try to download it.
> 
> You are probably trying to download Solaris 9. The license is very
> different between Solaris 8, Solaris 9 and Solaris 10 even though all of
> them could/can be downloaded for "free".

No, I'm well aware of the difference between the numeral 9 and the numeral
10.

Solaris 8 and 9 can be downloaded for free for non-commercial use.

The Solaris 10 download page
(http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/solaris-express/get.jsp) still says
for non-commercial use.
 
>> Anyone have a URL?
> 
> The Solaris 10 Business Model Overview:
>    < http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/ssbmodel.html >
> 
> Regarding Solaris 10 -- Sun just launched it. That just means that Sun
> acknowledges that the product "Solaris 10" exists. You have to wait
> until early next year for the actual release.

They are apparently going to offer a free RTU (right to use) license for
Solaris 10 that allows commercial use but that license, as of right now,
does not yet exist.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:12:32 +0000, Scott Howard wrote:

> In comp.unix.solaris Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>>> That's Solaris Express, not the actual Solaris 10 release, which will
>>> have different license terms when it arrives early next year.  See all
>>> the announcements from the Solaris 10 launch in November for details.
>> 
>> So the fact is that currently it is not free, but it is expected to
>> change.
>> 
>> (No arguing with your expectations, but let's stick to facts).
> 
> The FACT is that on the day it's released, it will be FREE.
> 
> Today, as for the past several months) you can get the beta-ish version
> (ie, Solaris Express) of Solaris 10, also for FREE.

For NON-COMMERCIAL use. It's right there on the page in black and white.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:08:19 +0000, Scott Howard wrote:

> In comp.unix.solaris Urban Cowboy <cowboy@therange.com> wrote:
>> Virtual terminals. 
> 
> Solaris supports roughly as many virtual terminals as you can open telnet
> sessions/X windows.
> 
> If you mean console virtual terminals, then either run X or use screen.

I suspect he means virtual consoles.  My family shares one
computer at home.  We don't log out, but switch virtual consoles
to each of our own X-window sessions.  *Much* faster in a trusted
environment.

At work, I regularly run one 24-bit X-window session on one
console and an 8-bit session on another (for legacy software
that requires 8-bit displays).  Again, beats the heck out
of restarting X-windows to switch screen depths.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:21:38 -0600 "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:55:11 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
>> Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>>> 
>> Supposedly Solaris is now free as in beer and you pay for support. Linux
>> can be obtained under the same terms. Solaris suport comes mainly from
>> SUN. For Linux you can shop around.
>
> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.

Only with heavy restrictions.  Most folks can't use the non-commercial
license.

/fc

In comp.unix.solaris Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
> The FACT is that on the day it's released, it will be FREE.

You're mixing your tenses (and providing no useful insight).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:37:32 +0000, essteeaenn wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
> : These are announced facts, not expectations, and they will not change.
> 
> Umm. You may want to look up what a "fact" is. Something that
> has not yet happened cannot be a "fact". very likely, intended
> behavior, wishful thinking, sure- but not a "fact".

I don't think this skepticism is really directed at Sun in particular. 
But most of us have been disappointed too many times by vaporware
promises. When it is released, great.  Until the details of the license
are made clear, though, there are questions to be resolved for some
people.  What "open source" or "free" mean (except as in beer) might be
interpreted as overly restrictive by some people.  

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but
 _`\(,_  | what canst  thou say?  -- George Fox.  
(_)/ (_) | 
           

In comp.unix.solaris Dragan Cvetkovic <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com writes:

>> In comp.os.linux.misc Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>> : These are announced facts, not expectations, and they will not change.
>>
>> Umm. You may want to look up what a "fact" is. Something that
>> has not yet happened cannot be a "fact". very likely, intended
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> behavior, wishful thinking, sure- but not a "fact".

> Is the occurence of Christmass on December 25th 2004 a fact or just
             ^                 ^ (spelling)
> wishful thinking?

It falls into the "very likely" category.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

In comp.os.linux.misc Dragan Cvetkovic <me@privacy.net> wrote:
: essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com writes:

:> In comp.os.linux.misc Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
:> : These are announced facts, not expectations, and they will not change.
:>
:> Umm. You may want to look up what a "fact" is. Something that
:> has not yet happened cannot be a "fact". very likely, intended
:> behavior, wishful thinking, sure- but not a "fact".

: Is the occurence of Christmass on December 25th 2004 a fact or just
: wishful thinking?

Certainly not fact- but probably more "very likely" than
"wishful thinking". If it actually occurs, then it becomes fact.
It is also fact that it is _scheduled_ to occur, but cannot
be a fact that it is _going_ to occur.

Stan
-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:13:23 -0800, Frank Cusack wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:21:38 -0600 "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:55:11 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>>>> 
>>> Supposedly Solaris is now free as in beer and you pay for support.
>>> Linux can be obtained under the same terms. Solaris suport comes
>>> mainly from SUN. For Linux you can shop around.
>>
>> Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
> 
> Only with heavy restrictions.  Most folks can't use the non-commercial
> license.

Hince the "if you want to do anything other than play with it..." part of
my post you snipped.

Since no one has yet to see the "free" Solaris right to use license no one
has any idea what rights they are going to have even after it's released
for "free". Which, at this point, it hasen't.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

In article <pan.2004.12.08.21.48.35.981856@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

> No, I'm well aware of the difference between the numeral 9 and the numeral
> 10.

Ok.

> Solaris 8 and 9 can be downloaded for free for non-commercial use.

Solaris 8 could be downloaded for free and could be used for commercial
use under certain conditions. The license changed for Solaris 9.

> The Solaris 10 download page
> (http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/solaris-express/get.jsp) still says
> for non-commercial use.

But this isn't Solaris 10. This is Solaris Express and it can be used
under a license that is different from the license that will be used
for Solaris 10 when it is released early NEXT year.

Are you aware of the difference between the numeral 10 and the name
Solaris Express?

> They are apparently going to offer a free RTU (right to use) license for
> Solaris 10 that allows commercial use but that license, as of right now,
> does not yet exist.

That doesn't matter as Solaris 10 doesn't exist as a free download yet.

-- 
G�ran Larsson     http://www.mitt-eget.com/

In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.10.48.861188@noao.edu>,
Steve Wampler  <swampler@noao.edu> wrote:

> At work, I regularly run one 24-bit X-window session on one
> console and an 8-bit session on another (for legacy software
> that requires 8-bit displays).  Again, beats the heck out
> of restarting X-windows to switch screen depths.

What a kludge. What primitive system are you using that requires
restarting the X server, or starting a new X server, just to run an
application with a different screen depth? Why not use a X server that
can run programs requireing different visual id on the same screen?

I have been mixing 24 and 8 plane applications since the SunOS 4 days
on a SPARCStation 20 and can not imageing using a system without this
capability.

-- 
G�ran Larsson     http://www.mitt-eget.com/

Most often usage of 'console' virtual terminals is to bail X11 out
of whatever putrid state it is in. As a long time Solaris user I 
fully appreciate what Linux offers, including multiple consoles
available with a simple hot key combo.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:08:19 +0000, Scott Howard wrote:

> In comp.unix.solaris Urban Cowboy <cowboy@therange.com> wrote:
>> Virtual terminals. 
> 
> Solaris supports roughly as many virtual terminals as you can open telnet
> sessions/X windows.
> 
> If you mean console virtual terminals, then either run X or use screen.
> 
>   Scott

In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.43.10.534843@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>Hince the "if you want to do anything other than play with it..." part of
>my post you snipped.

This is most likely because it has not yet been officially published and for 
this reason may still contain a lot of bugs. 

>Since no one has yet to see the "free" Solaris right to use license no one
>has any idea what rights they are going to have even after it's released
>for "free". Which, at this point, it hasen't.

It should be obvious that there cannot be a real limitation anymore if the
sources are (at the same time) distributed under an OSI aproved license.


-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.16.36.410430@lehigh-nospam.edu>,
David L. Johnson <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:

>I don't think this skepticism is really directed at Sun in particular. 
>But most of us have been disappointed too many times by vaporware
>promises. When it is released, great.  Until the details of the license
>are made clear, though, there are questions to be resolved for some
>people.  What "open source" or "free" mean (except as in beer) might be
>interpreted as overly restrictive by some people.  

Expect to get more freedom than you get with Linux (because Linux is under GPL)
and expect a bit less freedom than you get with FreeBSD.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <I8FDut.B0t@approve.se>, Goran Larsson <hoh@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pan.2004.12.08.21.48.35.981856@you.now>,
>Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>>
>
>Are you aware of the difference between the numeral 10 and the name
>Solaris Express?

Is Marketing? I see "Solaris 10" sprinkled heavily in the text and
graphics of that page.

>> They are apparently going to offer a free RTU (right to use) license for
>> Solaris 10 that allows commercial use but that license, as of right now,
>> does not yet exist.

Correct.

John
groenveld@acm.org

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, ray wrote:

> > How do I run one application under each system, and cut-and-paste
> > between them, using only one workstation?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nick Maclaren.
>
> I don't see that you need to do that in order to evaluate the two.

Agreed, although to answer Nick's question: run your Linux apps
in a Solaris 10 Container dedicated to the purpose.  You can't
do this quite yet--you'll need to wait for Project Janus to be
integrated, which is slated for S10 Update 1 or 2.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:22:35 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:

> 
> In article <pan.2004.12.08.16.15.31.174732@zianet.com>,
> ray <ray@zianet.com> writes:
> |> 
> |> So install each and dual boot.
> 
> How do I run one application under each system, and cut-and-paste
> between them, using only one workstation?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

I don't see that you need to do that in order to evaluate the two.

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

First three off the top of my head:
   ClearCase, Maple, and Mathematica.

tim

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Tim wrote:

> First three off the top of my head:
>    ClearCase, Maple, and Mathematica.

Fair enough--although this will essentially become a non-issue
when Project Janus is integrated.  BTW, what distros are those
apps supported on?

Another good question would be (and I have no idea of the answer)
what applications are supported on Solaris x86 but NOT on $DISTRO
Linux?

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Drazen Kacar wrote:
> 
> Rich Teer wrote:
> 
> >  What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
> 
> Valgrind.

Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb."
-- Steve Haflich, in comp.lang.c++

In article <cp88nv$61v$1@neuromancer.cse.psu.edu>,
John D Groenveld <groenvel@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <I8FDut.B0t@approve.se>, Goran Larsson <hoh@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <pan.2004.12.08.21.48.35.981856@you.now>,
>>Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Are you aware of the difference between the numeral 10 and the name
>>Solaris Express?
>
>Is Marketing? I see "Solaris 10" sprinkled heavily in the text and
>graphics of that page.

Not really.....

In spring 2005, Solaris Express is expected to become the successor of
Solaris 10. 

Solaris Express refers to the current development version of the OS.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:46:06 -0500,
 Dragan Cvetkovic <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com writes:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>> : These are announced facts, not expectations, and they will not change.
>>
>> Umm. You may want to look up what a "fact" is. Something that
>> has not yet happened cannot be a "fact". very likely, intended
>> behavior, wishful thinking, sure- but not a "fact".
>
> Is the occurence of Christmass on December 25th 2004 a fact or just
> wishful thinking?
>
> Dragan
>

Neither, it's a good possibility, but there is no guarantee that it will
happen, it's not a fact *yet* 




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuBPwd90bcYOAWPYRAlM0AKC6cyzbT2cBjJWg126EJWH4MHziPACfbfnn
tHflTS7dWxNXusny13ryLdc=
=Iap3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Live in a world of your own, but always welcome visitors.

In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412081718440.25725@zaphod>,
Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, ray wrote:
>
>> > How do I run one application under each system, and cut-and-paste
>> > between them, using only one workstation?
>>
>> I don't see that you need to do that in order to evaluate the two.
>
>Agreed, although to answer Nick's question: run your Linux apps
>in a Solaris 10 Container dedicated to the purpose.  You can't
>do this quite yet--you'll need to wait for Project Janus to be
>integrated, which is slated for S10 Update 1 or 2.

Amusing.  Since I posted, this thread has come full circle :-)

I was responding to an over-glib response that dual booting was the
answer to needing to run some Solaris and some Linux applications.
Project Janus is, indeed, a potential answer.  How complete it will
be, we shall have to wait and see.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Hi Nick,

Thank you very much for this good example. I was aware that C is a
nasty language and that all floating point calculations in C
are hideous. But I was unaware about the actual level of
complexity, as I never got deep into all that <math.h> stuff.

The necessary modifications to the source code to resolve the issue
you described, are of so-called "crosscutting concern". I am currently
preparing a Ph.D. thesis on exactly this theme. Therefore I have
implemented a tool that could realize exectly this kind of scattered
modifications automatically. Without doing some experiments, I
cannot tell whether your concrete problem can be solved with the
current implementation. But I will definetly do some investigations
concerning this. Up to now the applications that I was looking at
concerned mostly the abstraction of plattform specific interfaces.

If you have further examples that can only be solved by doing such
scattered modifications within multiple functions, I am defintly
interested in receiving those.

But anyway thank you very much.


Cheers,

Tom
--
(to reply to me via e-mail remove "no-spam." from my e-mail address)

In article <cp97gr$503$1@wsc10.lrz-muenchen.de>,
Thomas Maier-Komor  <maierkom@lpr.e-technik.no-spam.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>Thank you very much for this good example. I was aware that C is a
>nasty language and that all floating point calculations in C
>are hideous. But I was unaware about the actual level of
>complexity, as I never got deep into all that <math.h> stuff.

Few people do, and 90% of those that did gave up on the C standards
process in disgust.  There are very, very few people who understand
all of the relevant areas at enough depth to realise.

>The necessary modifications to the source code to resolve the issue
>you described, are of so-called "crosscutting concern". I am currently
>preparing a Ph.D. thesis on exactly this theme. Therefore I have
>implemented a tool that could realize exectly this kind of scattered
>modifications automatically. Without doing some experiments, I
>cannot tell whether your concrete problem can be solved with the
>current implementation. But I will definetly do some investigations
>concerning this. Up to now the applications that I was looking at
>concerned mostly the abstraction of plattform specific interfaces.

It might well be able to handle this specific case - as I said, it
is a simple one.  I very much doubt that it will be able to do much
about the problems that are purely semantic (i.e. without there being
any syntactic 'handle' to get a grip on), not least because it is
unclear what the C language requires, permits, forbids or even
specifies.

>If you have further examples that can only be solved by doing such
>scattered modifications within multiple functions, I am defintly
>interested in receiving those.

Grrk.  Yes, I have, but they are not written up in the way that was,
and will make sense only to people who are fairly deeply into the C
standardisation process.  If you aren't a member of DIS's C Panel,
you might like to think of becoming one, and to take a look at the
comments that the BSI C Panel made on C99, and why we voted against
the standard.  The numerics were not even the main aspect.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:55:22 +0000, Goran Larsson wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.10.48.861188@noao.edu>,
> Steve Wampler  <swampler@noao.edu> wrote:
> 
>> At work, I regularly run one 24-bit X-window session on one
>> console and an 8-bit session on another (for legacy software
>> that requires 8-bit displays).  Again, beats the heck out
>> of restarting X-windows to switch screen depths.
>
> What a kludge. What primitive system are you using that requires
> restarting the X server, or starting a new X server, just to run an
> application with a different screen depth? Why not use a X server that
> can run programs requireing different visual id on the same screen?

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  This is a specific application that
simply refused to run off a 24-bit display.  Other 8-bit programs
work just fine.  No, I don't know *why* this application is
different, and I don't know *how* it decides not to work
(no source), but it will not run on a 24-bit display.

I agree, though, that it is a kluge - but it is still the only
way I've found to get it to run.  (and, yes, it may be an issue
with XFree86 and not the application...)

Steve Wampler wrote:

> At work, I regularly run one 24-bit X-window session on one
> console and an 8-bit session on another (for legacy software
> that requires 8-bit displays).  Again, beats the heck out
> of restarting X-windows to switch screen depths.

X does have the ability to run 8 and 24-bit windows on the
same display.

-- 
Phillip Fayers                  School of Psychology, Cardiff University
Fayers@cf.ac.uk            http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/pub/Phillip.Fayers/
Tel: +44 (0)29 2087 9337         Attribute these comments to me not UWC.

In article <pan.2004.12.09.15.13.00.898972@noao.edu>,
	Steve Wampler <swampler@noao.edu> writes:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:55:22 +0000, Goran Larsson wrote:
> 
>> In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.10.48.861188@noao.edu>,
>> Steve Wampler  <swampler@noao.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> At work, I regularly run one 24-bit X-window session on one
>>> console and an 8-bit session on another (for legacy software
>>> that requires 8-bit displays).  Again, beats the heck out
>>> of restarting X-windows to switch screen depths.
>>
>> What a kludge. What primitive system are you using that requires
>> restarting the X server, or starting a new X server, just to run an
>> application with a different screen depth? Why not use a X server that
>> can run programs requireing different visual id on the same screen?
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't clear.  This is a specific application that
> simply refused to run off a 24-bit display.  Other 8-bit programs
> work just fine.  No, I don't know *why* this application is
> different, and I don't know *how* it decides not to work
> (no source), but it will not run on a 24-bit display.

Could that be the GUI vdiff program? I still have that
somewhere from well over 10 years ago (I seem to recall
buying it from some small company whose name I've completely
forgotten). It was (and still is) very good, but I don't use
it much as it will only work on an 8 bit-only display.
I have a dual head desktop, and I used to keep one head in
8 bit-only mode for it.

> I agree, though, that it is a kluge - but it is still the only
> way I've found to get it to run.  (and, yes, it may be an issue
> with XFree86 and not the application...)

-- 
Andrew Gabriel
Consultant Software Engineer

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:13:01 -0700, Steve Wampler staggered into the
Black Sun and said:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:55:22 +0000, Goran Larsson wrote:
>> In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.10.48.861188@noao.edu>,
>> Steve Wampler  <swampler@noao.edu> wrote:
>>> At work, I regularly run one 24-bit X-window session on one
>>> console and an 8-bit session on another (for legacy software
>>> that requires 8-bit displays).
>> What a kludge. What primitive system are you using that requires
>> restarting the X server, or starting a new X server, just to run an
>> application with a different screen depth?
> Sorry, I wasn't clear.  This is a specific application that simply
> refused to run off a 24-bit display.  Other 8-bit programs work just
> fine.  No, I don't know *why* this application is different, and I
> don't know *how* it decides not to work (no source), but it will not
> run on a 24-bit display.

This is relatively common with some pieces of software that were written
when sabre-toothed-tigers still roamed the earth.  Back then, 8-bit
color was pretty much the best thing that was available.  Some
applications did something like this:

if(!display.is8bit())
   /* crap, it must be 4-bit or 1-bit. We can't run under those
    * conditions! */
   barf();

....also, an 8-bit palettized display can change the colors of all pixels
(or some pixels) by manipulating the colormap.  This operation is much
more difficult and annoying on a 16- or 24-bit display.  If the
application makes extensive use of this 8-bit artifact, it might not be
able to run under other depths without extensive recoding.

> (and, yes, it may be an issue with XFree86 and not the application...)

I doubt that.  You could find out by tracing the app's X protocol
stream, but that's probably more work than you want to bother with.  If
you really want to run the app without running multiple instances of X,
you could always use Xnest to create a virtual X server with bit depth
8!  That'd have some performance penalties, but it'd let you run the
problem app on the same screen as all your other junk.  HTH,

-- 
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin /    mail: TRAP + SPAN don't belong
http://www.brainbench.com     /                Hire me! 
-----------------------------/ http://crow202.dyndns.org/~mhgraham/resume

Erik de Castro Lopo <nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
> Drazen Kacar wrote:
>> 
>> Rich Teer wrote:
>> 
>> >  What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
>> 
>> Valgrind.
> 
> Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.
> 
> Erik

Other than the price, 
what's lacking in Rational Purify or Sun's dbx RTC compared to Valgrind ?
-- 
#pragma ident "Seongbae Park, compiler, http://blogs.sun.com/seongbae/"

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:32:15 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.43.10.534843@you.now>, Ivan Marsh
> <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> 
>>Hince the "if you want to do anything other than play with it..." part of
>>my post you snipped.
> 
> This is most likely because it has not yet been officially published and
> for this reason may still contain a lot of bugs.
> 
>>Since no one has yet to see the "free" Solaris right to use license no
>>one has any idea what rights they are going to have even after it's
>>released for "free". Which, at this point, it hasen't.
> 
> It should be obvious that there cannot be a real limitation anymore if the
> sources are (at the same time) distributed under an OSI aproved license.

Not only is it not obvious you have evidently deluded yourself.

It doesn't say that the source will be available anywhere. Solaris is NOT
going to be open source. They are going to have a free RIGHT TO USE
license, that is not open source.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:28:51 -0600, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:32:15 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 
>> In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.43.10.534843@you.now>, Ivan Marsh
>> <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>> 
>>>Hince the "if you want to do anything other than play with it..." part
>>>of my post you snipped.
>> 
>> This is most likely because it has not yet been officially published
>> and for this reason may still contain a lot of bugs.
>> 
>>>Since no one has yet to see the "free" Solaris right to use license no
>>>one has any idea what rights they are going to have even after it's
>>>released for "free". Which, at this point, it hasen't.
>> 
>> It should be obvious that there cannot be a real limitation anymore if
>> the sources are (at the same time) distributed under an OSI aproved
>> license.
> 
> Not only is it not obvious you have evidently deluded yourself.
> 
> It doesn't say that the source will be available anywhere. Solaris is
> NOT going to be open source. They are going to have a free RIGHT TO USE
> license, that is not open source.

I stand corrected... though there is nothing about open source on the
Solaris 10 website (that I saw) they are talking about making Solaris 10
open source apparently.

I'm sure that will go just as well as the effort to open source java.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:46:48 -0600, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:28:51 -0600, Ivan Marsh wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:32:15 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <pan.2004.12.08.22.43.10.534843@you.now>, Ivan Marsh
>>> <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Hince the "if you want to do anything other than play with it..." part
>>>>of my post you snipped.
>>> 
>>> This is most likely because it has not yet been officially published
>>> and for this reason may still contain a lot of bugs.
>>> 
>>>>Since no one has yet to see the "free" Solaris right to use license no
>>>>one has any idea what rights they are going to have even after it's
>>>>released for "free". Which, at this point, it hasen't.
>>> 
>>> It should be obvious that there cannot be a real limitation anymore if
>>> the sources are (at the same time) distributed under an OSI aproved
>>> license.
>> 
>> Not only is it not obvious you have evidently deluded yourself.
>> 
>> It doesn't say that the source will be available anywhere. Solaris is
>> NOT going to be open source. They are going to have a free RIGHT TO USE
>> license, that is not open source.
> 
> I stand corrected... though there is nothing about open source on the
> Solaris 10 website (that I saw) they are talking about making Solaris 10
> open source apparently.
> 
> I'm sure that will go just as well as the effort to open source java.

I stand corrected on my own correction. Let's all look at an excerpt:

"On the subject of a probable licensing model for the open-source Solaris,
John Loiacono, executive vice president of Sun's software group, said: "We
have to consider what licensing model we use and what levels of free usage
we want. Then we also need to consider if we want to (segment the
licensing model to address) commercial, private and academic use."

"We are finalizing these things right now. You'll see that we'll be very
aggressive and progressive in our approach.""

So, as has been suggested "free" has not been defined by Sun.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

In article <pan.2004.12.09.16.28.50.43529@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>> It should be obvious that there cannot be a real limitation anymore if the
>> sources are (at the same time) distributed under an OSI aproved license.
>
>Not only is it not obvious you have evidently deluded yourself.
>
>It doesn't say that the source will be available anywhere. Solaris is NOT
>going to be open source. They are going to have a free RIGHT TO USE
>license, that is not open source.

Sorry, but it makes no sense to have a discussion with uninformed people.
Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <pan.2004.12.09.16.46.46.856082@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>I stand corrected... though there is nothing about open source on the
>Solaris 10 website (that I saw) they are talking about making Solaris 10
>open source apparently.

There have been many press releases about the fact that Solaris is going to 
become OSS soon. If you did miss them, it is your fault.

>I'm sure that will go just as well as the effort to open source java.

???? do you like a discussion or do you like to troll?

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> I stand corrected... though there is nothing about open source on the
> Solaris 10 website (that I saw) they are talking about making Solaris 10
> open source apparently.

Not apparently: it IS going to happen.  Both J�rg and myself are
members of the by-invitation-only Open Solaris pilot program, so
although we can't discuss specifics right now due to NDA obligations,
it's fair to say that we do know what we're talking about, and we
are more privvy to Sun's Open Solaris plans than most people.

It is a fact: in the not-too-distant future, the source code to
Solaris will be released under an OSI-approved license.

> I'm sure that will go just as well as the effort to open source java.

I never understood this.  Java is a language with an open specification.
If you want an Open Source Java, take the specs and write one!

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

In article <pan.2004.12.09.16.52.40.805981@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>I stand corrected on my own correction. Let's all look at an excerpt:
>
>"On the subject of a probable licensing model for the open-source Solaris,
>John Loiacono, executive vice president of Sun's software group, said: "We
>have to consider what licensing model we use and what levels of free usage
>we want. Then we also need to consider if we want to (segment the
>licensing model to address) commercial, private and academic use."

If this is true information, then it must be very very old.

>So, as has been suggested "free" has not been defined by Sun.

The term Free has not defined by Sun because this is a well known word
that does not need a new definition.

OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....

This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.
-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.

Does it do more than the debugging tools available for Solaris
(e.g., mdb, dbx, libumem, Dtrace, etc.)?

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Seongbae Park wrote:

> Erik de Castro Lopo <nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
> 
>>Drazen Kacar wrote:
>>
>>>Rich Teer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
>>>
>>>Valgrind.
>>
>>Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.
>>
>>Erik
> 
> Other than the price, 
> what's lacking in Rational Purify or Sun's dbx RTC compared to Valgrind ?

Well, this (<http://valgrind.kde.org/survey-summary>) document contains 
a valgrind-vs-purify chart plus valgrind-vs-many-others. Of course it's 
authored by the valgrind author so take that into account.

BTW, based on my readings valgrind may have a dependence on the x86 
processor but, being a user space app, should be portable to Solaris at 
least in the x86 variant.

-- 
Henry Townsend

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....

I don't see it that way!
> 
> This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.

Which protects your freedom, by insisting that the person who supplies
you a binary under GPL must give you the source code also, and that you
protect the freedom of the people who receive a GPL binary from you
also.

Peter

In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412090857520.26270@zaphod>,
Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
>> Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.
>
>Does it do more than the debugging tools available for Solaris
>(e.g., mdb, dbx, libumem, Dtrace, etc.)?

You should exclude dbx as you get it only if you have the non-free
Sun Compilers.

However, mdb, libumem and dtrace are nice _and_ free tools that
have no equivalent on Linux.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <o6dm82-enj.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....
>
>I don't see it that way!
>> 
>> This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.
>
>Which protects your freedom, by insisting that the person who supplies
>you a binary under GPL must give you the source code also, and that you
>protect the freedom of the people who receive a GPL binary from you
>also.

Try to imaginge that Solaris may be distributed under a license that
both gives you more freedom than the GPL _and_ requires you to distribute
sources......

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

: The term Free has not defined by Sun because this is a well known word
: that does not need a new definition.

OK I'll bite, which of the many existing "free" software definitions
is the "well known" one? 


: OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....

That remains to be seen- depends upon how Sun defines "free".

: This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.

Agreed- but Solaris may or may not be more restricted
than Linux- all depends upon what Sun wants to do.

Stan

-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

In article <1102612149.595951@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>,
 <essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com> wrote:

>: OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....
>
>That remains to be seen- depends upon how Sun defines "free".
>
>: This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.
>
>Agreed- but Solaris may or may not be more restricted
>than Linux- all depends upon what Sun wants to do.

Despite what you may have read from the Linux camp,
Sun likes OpenSolaris to become a true Open Source project.

...... We are currently working in this ....

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:52:47 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.12.09.16.28.50.43529@you.now>, Ivan Marsh
> <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> 
>>> It should be obvious that there cannot be a real limitation anymore if
>>> the sources are (at the same time) distributed under an OSI aproved
>>> license.
>>
>>Not only is it not obvious you have evidently deluded yourself.
>>
>>It doesn't say that the source will be available anywhere. Solaris is
>>NOT going to be open source. They are going to have a free RIGHT TO USE
>>license, that is not open source.
> 
> Sorry, but it makes no sense to have a discussion with uninformed
> people. Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.

Under a license of an, as yet, undetermined nature. Being uninformed is no
worse than making assumptions. You don't know what rights you have under a
license that doesn't exist.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Try to imaginge that Solaris may be distributed under a license that

Why should I? The solaris licenses I have seen don't seem to be that
way.

> both gives you more freedom than the GPL _and_ requires you to distribute
> sources......

But does it attach itself to the code produced by a recipient of source
code from that source cde?  (this is what I would class as an important
gurrantor of freedom).

Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Sorry, but it makes no sense to have a discussion with uninformed people.

It makes every sense. Place your information in the public domain, and
we will sensibly discuss whether it is sensical or not.

> Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.

I haven't ever seen anything coming out of Sun that implies they
understand what OSS is or, if they do, that implies that they have any
intention of doing anything other than subverting the idea of OSS.  In
this case I guess their intention is to discriminate against GPL by
refusing to allow cross-contamination of differently licensed source
(which would mean the licence was not OSS).  But that's just my guess,
and no, I wasn't born yesterday. Thanks.

Peter

In article <cpa08t$mpu$1@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>,
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
|> 
|> >So, as has been suggested "free" has not been defined by Sun.
|> 
|> The term Free has not defined by Sun because this is a well known word
|> that does not need a new definition.

Hmm.  Indeed, it is.  It has a long record of being used in ways
that its users thought appropriate, but where not everyone did.

If Microsoft had a sense of humour, they would start referring
to Linux, BSD and Solaris as the Wee Frees :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2004-12-09, Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

>>So, as has been suggested "free" has not been defined by Sun.
>
> The term Free has not defined by Sun because this is a well
> known word that does not need a new definition.

You do, however, have to specify which of the existing
definitions are intended.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  People humiliating
                                  at               a salami!
                               visi.com            

Seongbae Park wrote:
>  Erik de Castro Lopo <nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
> > Drazen Kacar wrote:
> >> 
> >> Valgrind.
> > 
> > Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.
> 
>  Other than the price, 
>  what's lacking in Rational Purify or Sun's dbx RTC compared to Valgrind ?

Other than the price? With Valgrind, one can write various tools which use
Valgrind's virtual machine. Like the ones here:

   http://valgrind.kde.org/related.html

And of course Valgrind itself has several tools, listed here:

   http://valgrind.kde.org/tools.html

Last time I read dbx documentation, it didn't have anything like Helgrind.
I don't know what Purify can do these days, I haven't used it in a long
time. But then, you can read those two pages and compare for yourself.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> writes:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:55:11 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

>> Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>>> 
>> Supposedly Solaris is now free as in beer and you pay for support. Linux
>> can be obtained under the same terms. Solaris suport comes mainly from
>> SUN. For Linux you can shop around.

>Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.

>If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.

Solaris 10 is "free"(period).

Casper
-- 
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Chris Morgan <cm@mihalis.net> writes:

>Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

>> > Linux has far more software available for it than x86 Solaris.
>> 
>> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?

>A whole bunch of Ethernet drivers, for a start.

Many can be (easily) found for Solaris.

Casper
-- 
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

In article <84em82-bqm.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Try to imaginge that Solaris may be distributed under a license that
>
>Why should I? The solaris licenses I have seen don't seem to be that
>way.

The fact that you did not yet see it does not necessarily require that 
I could not yet see it too....

>> both gives you more freedom than the GPL _and_ requires you to distribute
>> sources......
>
>But does it attach itself to the code produced by a recipient of source
>code from that source cde?  (this is what I would class as an important
>gurrantor of freedom).

You are now trying to ask for more information that I may currently give you.


-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <bcem82-bqm.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Sorry, but it makes no sense to have a discussion with uninformed people.
>
>It makes every sense. Place your information in the public domain, and
>we will sensibly discuss whether it is sensical or not.

Sorry, you ask for information I am not allowed to give you.


>> Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.
>
>I haven't ever seen anything coming out of Sun that implies they
>understand what OSS is or, if they do, that implies that they have any

There are many people on LKML who fail to understand what OSS is.
Does this make Linux less free?

>intention of doing anything other than subverting the idea of OSS.  In
>this case I guess their intention is to discriminate against GPL by
>refusing to allow cross-contamination of differently licensed source
>(which would mean the licence was not OSS).  But that's just my guess,
>and no, I wasn't born yesterday. Thanks.

Nobody needs to discriminate against GPL as long as the text of the GPL
does this already. GPL is a viral license, this makes it not free enough
for certain kind-of-use.


-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

"Rich Teer" <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.58.0412090850011.26270@zaphod

> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Ivan Marsh wrote:
> 
> > they are talking about making Solaris 10
> > open source apparently.
> 
> Not apparently: it IS going to happen. 

My dog IS going to die. Does that mean my dog is dead?

I'll take your word for it that Solaris IS going to be open-source. But
right now, it's not.

Vic.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article <pan.2004.12.09.17.16.49.953824@you.now>,
Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>> Sorry, but it makes no sense to have a discussion with uninformed
>> people. Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.
>
>Under a license of an, as yet, undetermined nature. Being uninformed is no
>worse than making assumptions. You don't know what rights you have under a
>license that doesn't exist.

People who are (together with Sun) working on this license may know more than 
you. This is why it makes sense to listen carefully to other people in the news
and to avoid to write own articles in case you don't know enough in order to
write an article that is useful to others.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <84em82-bqm.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >> Try to imaginge that Solaris may be distributed under a license that
> >
> >Why should I? The solaris licenses I have seen don't seem to be that
> >way.
> 
> The fact that you did not yet see it does not necessarily require that 
> I could not yet see it too....

Are you trying to say something? If so what? The fact that you claim
you have not seen a blue turkey also does not necessarily require that I
could not yet have seen a blue turkey.

Or does it?

> >> both gives you more freedom than the GPL _and_ requires you to distribute
> >> sources......
> >
> >But does it attach itself to the code produced by a recipient of source
> >code from that source cde?  (this is what I would class as an important
> >gurrantor of freedom).
> 
> You are now trying to ask for more information that I may currently give you.

I see no information that you have given me.  Personally, I would judge
most information in that area that came from you to be clinically
suspect - not through lack of technical intelligence on your part, but
through lack of ability to see the legal and moral implications of
politically and business-oriented actions.  Care to offer some evidence
that should bolster my confidence in your standing as an Expert in those
areas?

Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Nobody needs to discriminate against GPL as long as the text of the GPL
> does this already. GPL is a viral license, this makes it not free enough
> for certain kind-of-use.

No - it makes that kind of use (i.e. secretive, exploitative, etc.) not
compatible with the freedoms guarranteed by the GPL. So there you are,
I guess you are a patsy for Sun in such matters, judging by such a
statement as the above! My suspicions are strengthened.

Peter

In article <htfm82-90r.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> You are now trying to ask for more information that I may currently give you.
>
>I see no information that you have given me.  Personally, I would judge

Well, you did not give any information but FUD in this thread.

>most information in that area that came from you to be clinically
>suspect - not through lack of technical intelligence on your part, but
>through lack of ability to see the legal and moral implications of

OK, people who did read articles from you before know that its rather you 
wo is not able to either prove technical or legal knowledge.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <e4gm82-89r.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Nobody needs to discriminate against GPL as long as the text of the GPL
>> does this already. GPL is a viral license, this makes it not free enough
>> for certain kind-of-use.
>
>No - it makes that kind of use (i.e. secretive, exploitative, etc.) not
>compatible with the freedoms guarranteed by the GPL. So there you are,
>I guess you are a patsy for Sun in such matters, judging by such a
>statement as the above! My suspicions are strengthened.

Are you trying to prove that you also miss social knowledge and general 
knowledge? 

Freedom is a sensitive good. Trying to enforce freedom kills it.
The GPL tries to enforce freedom....



-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> I see no information that you have given me.  Personally, I would judge

Actually I now recall data that could explain your role. As I recall
you have a couple of applications that you offer in a "commercial" as
well as in an open version, and as I recall the open version is
restricted in the things that it can do (it has a binary only part?)
but which can be unrestricted by anyone with a binary editor, AND
I think these applications are available on solaris platforms.

Is that so?

If so, it would explain why Sun and you have common interests in trying
to set up a viable alternative to the GPL license, why both of you
dislike the GPL freedom-virus, and so on, and perhaps why both of you
would like to reshape the meaning of freedom in your terms, rather than
in those of the GPL.

Yes, monopoly is profitable, and the GPL prevents it. You're not free
to monopolise with it. Tsk tsk. How horrible.

As to how to make a profit from software, which I daresay is your
particular motive, the GPL encourages you to offer your expertise in 
modifying your program, and to offer your program for the cost of its
bits, not the cost of your bits.

Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <bcem82-bqm.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
[..]

>>> Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.

Wonder about the license and if this has any relation to the
large amount of cash Sun received from M$?

[..]

> Nobody needs to discriminate against GPL as long as the text of the GPL
> does this already. GPL is a viral license, this makes it not free enough
> for certain kind-of-use.

It does exactly what the inventors wanted, prevent anyone from
stealing GPL code and sell it as their product to others, without
making the source available.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 37: heavy gravity fluctuation, move computer to
floor rapidly

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:48:39 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.12.09.17.16.49.953824@you.now>, Ivan Marsh
> <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> 
>>> Sorry, but it makes no sense to have a discussion with uninformed
>>> people. Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.
>>
>>Under a license of an, as yet, undetermined nature. Being uninformed is
>>no worse than making assumptions. You don't know what rights you have
>>under a license that doesn't exist.
> 
> People who are (together with Sun) working on this license may know more
> than you. This is why it makes sense to listen carefully to other people
> in the news and to avoid to write own articles in case you don't know
> enough in order to write an article that is useful to others.

The point being: Solaris is not free for commercial use. It may be in the
future. If you say it will be fine... but that's rather irrelevant
becuause: Right now it is not. That cannot be disputed.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

In article <argm82-0nr.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>As to how to make a profit from software, which I daresay is your
>particular motive, the GPL encourages you to offer your expertise in 
>modifying your program, and to offer your program for the cost of its
>bits, not the cost of your bits.

Lies like this one seems to be typical for uneducated people like you :-(
You are definitely not a member of the open Source community why should 
anybody believe your unfounded rants?

You never did write any single piece of open source software, while I am
in the list of the most active open source contributors.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412090850011.26270@zaphod>,
Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>It is a fact: in the not-too-distant future, the source code to
>Solaris will be released under an OSI-approved license.

It is a fact that Sun has told you, me, and others it will release
Solaris under an OSI license.

Don't bet your life on it. Circumstances beyond our control and within
the realm of possibility could make our crystal ball and your NDA-provided
forecasts untrue.

How large a bribe would SUNW investors require to make Open Solaris
all the rage in 2004 and a cancelled project in 2005?

John
groenveld@acm.org

In article <41b88c47$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Casper H.S. Dik  <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote:
>Solaris 10 is "free"(period).

Solaris 10 is not FCS(period).

John
groenveld@acm.org

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> I haven't ever seen anything coming out of Sun that implies they
> understand what OSS is or, if they do, that implies that they have any
> intention of doing anything other than subverting the idea of OSS.  In

That has got to be one of the most stupid, uninformed, pieces
of diatribe I've read about this subject!

Next to the University of California Berkely (UCB), Sun is the
number TWO donor of software to the open source community.
Not IBM, not Red Hat, not HP: Sun.  When Open Solaris hits the
streets, I wouldn't be surprised if Sun became the number one
donor of software.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> Which protects your freedom, by insisting that the person who supplies
> you a binary under GPL must give you the source code also, and that you
> protect the freedom of the people who receive a GPL binary from you
> also.

I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
source be made available, also under the GPL.  The person making the
changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.

As for the nonsense about not linking with closed source code: well,
I won't go there, except to say that that also sounds like a restriction
on freedom.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes in alt.solaris.x86:
|In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
|> Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.
|
|I haven't ever seen anything coming out of Sun that implies they
|understand what OSS is or, if they do, that implies that they have any
|intention of doing anything other than subverting the idea of OSS.  

Right - because when Sun released StarOffice sources under GPL to
OpenOffice.org they had no clue what OSS was.   And having one of
the Open Source Initiative board members working for Sun and being
involved in the process of open-sourcing Solaris is so obviously
out of touch with the rest of the open source world.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
 http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/   *   http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
  Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes in alt.solaris.x86:
|In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
|> In article <bcem82-bqm.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
|> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
|>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
|[..]
|
|>>> Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.
|
|Wonder about the license and if this has any relation to the
|large amount of cash Sun received from M$?

Not yet announced, and well, settling the MS lawsuit did free up the
lawyers to do more useful work, like working through the huge number of
licenses & IP right issues in Solaris to determine which ones could and
could not be released.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
 http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/   *   http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
  Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> 
>>I see no information that you have given me.  Personally, I would judge
> 
> 
> Actually I now recall data that could explain your role. As I recall
> you have a couple of applications that you offer in a "commercial" as
> well as in an open version, and as I recall the open version is
> restricted in the things that it can do (it has a binary only part?)
> but which can be unrestricted by anyone with a binary editor, AND
> I think these applications are available on solaris platforms.

*Any software* can be "unrestricted" by the use of a binary 
editor - it is called reverse-engineering. It is all a 
matter of interpreting and understanding what your binary 
editor tells you. If you wish to h/crack applications using 
such an editor, please do it somewhere else and buy some 
fresh Kleenex.

OBO c.u.s. and especially Joerg, FOOOCUS (Fuck Off Out Of 
C.U.S.). We are fed up with you. Whatever rants you bore 
other NG's with, we have less interest.

Michael Heiming wrote:

>  It does exactly what the inventors wanted, prevent anyone from
>  stealing GPL code and sell it as their product to others, without
>  making the source available.

That's kind of easy. If you never ever give your source to anyone, no one
can run away with it. You don't need any kind of license for that. :-)

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Michael Heiming wrote:

> Wonder about the license and if this has any relation to the

Apart from a commitment that it will be OSI approved, no info
about the license is public knowledge yet.

> large amount of cash Sun received from M$?

None whatsoever.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Beardy wrote:
> 
> OBO c.u.s. and especially Joerg, FOOOCUS (Fuck Off Out Of C.U.S.). We 
> are fed up with you. Whatever rants you bore other NG's with, we have 
> less interest.

That took me a minute, Beardy.  For a bit, I Thought you were telling 
Joerg to FOOOCUS.  Then I parsed "On behalf of" correctly ;)

-- 
Coy Hile
hile@cse.psu.edu

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> Are you trying to say something? If so what? The fact that you claim

Yes - he's saying that as a participant of the Open Solaris pilot
program, he has access to information that other non-Sun employees
do not.

Now, you can either call him a liar (which isn't very productive),
or you can accept that for now people like J�rg and me DO know
more about this (Sun's Open Solaris plans) than you, even if we
can't openly discuss the details.

Interested people might be interested to watch Andy Tucker's
presentation at this years ApacheCon.  About half way through
he starts talking about Sun's Open Solaris plans.  You can find
the video by following the links on www.apachecon.com.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

John D Groenveld wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412090850011.26270@zaphod>,
> Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> 
>>It is a fact: in the not-too-distant future, the source code to
>>Solaris will be released under an OSI-approved license.
> 
> 
> It is a fact that Sun has told you, me, and others it will release
> Solaris under an OSI license.
> 
> Don't bet your life on it. Circumstances beyond our control and within
> the realm of possibility could make our crystal ball and your NDA-provided
> forecasts untrue.
> 
> How large a bribe would SUNW investors require to make Open Solaris
> all the rage in 2004 and a cancelled project in 2005?
> 
> John
> groenveld@acm.org

John, let me guess - Christmas is "Bah, humbug" to you. Such 
pessimism..... OSS is too big a project to be abandoned. It 
would undermine too much credibility IMO.

In comp.os.linux.misc Alan Coopersmith <alanc@alum.calberkeley.org>:
> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes in alt.solaris.x86:
> |In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> |> In article <bcem82-bqm.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> |> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> |>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> |[..]
> |
> |>>> Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.
> |
> |Wonder about the license and if this has any relation to the
> |large amount of cash Sun received from M$?

> Not yet announced, and well, settling the MS lawsuit did free up the
> lawyers to do more useful work, like working through the huge number of
> licenses & IP right issues in Solaris to determine which ones could and
> could not be released.

The mere fact that M$ is involved leaves enough room for anything
imaginable. Only the future will show, hope you'll be right.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 107: The keyboard isn't plugged in

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <htfm82-90r.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> 
> >> You are now trying to ask for more information that I may currently give you.
> >
> >I see no information that you have given me.  Personally, I would judge
> 
> Well, you did not give any information but FUD in this thread.

Hmm.. I think calling expressing profund skepticism about Sun's
intentions in this area "FUD" is something like calling skepticism
about a hungry rabid tiger's good intentions "scare mongering".

So kindlytake that back. Offer evidence forSun's good intentions. All I
see is a secret agreement between Micorsoft and Sun to stop suing each
other and to work together. To do what - well, I guess to do what we
are seeing.

> >most information in that area that came from you to be clinically
> >suspect - not through lack of technical intelligence on your part, but
> >through lack of ability to see the legal and moral implications of
> 
> OK, people who did read articles from you before know that its rather you 
> wo is not able to either prove technical or legal knowledge.

They'd assume the opposite on the first count, as you could check by
simply looking me up in the citations indices of this world. On the
second - I don't pretend to be a legal expert, but I read groklaw twice
a day. And my doubts come from the reports on what Sun was planning to
do there, on their agreement with Microsoft there, and on the analyses
of their preliminary versions of others and their license published
there (you do mean the one they are seeking feedback on, no)?

Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <argm82-0nr.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> 
> >As to how to make a profit from software, which I daresay is your
> >particular motive, the GPL encourages you to offer your expertise in 
> >modifying your program, and to offer your program for the cost of its
> >bits, not the cost of your bits.
> 
> Lies like this one seems to be typical for uneducated people like you :-(

Cease insults now. Do.

Or you will find "libel" is an interesting propositon.

> You are definitely not a member of the open Source community why should 

In what sense am I not "a member of the Open Source community"?

> anybody believe your unfounded rants?

What "rants", and what "unfounded rants"?

> You never did write any single piece of open source software, while I am

Uh, the only thing I have been able to conclude over the years is
exemplified by the little piece of (amazingly false) nuttiness above,
namely that you live on some other planet of your own invention, in
which words mean what you want them to mean, and that yu tend to dive off
the deep end rather easily.

> in the list of the most active open source contributors.

I wouldn't describe you that way - offhand I can think of three things
you have written, but perhaps there are more.  Actually, I'm not sure I
would describe one of then as "open source" from the accounts I have
heard, but then I'm not interested in investigating personally so that's
just hearsay.  My impression HERE is that you are interested in
developing a license that enables you to make money off writing source
and allows you to keep control of it - something like "all changes must
be posted back to the author and his permission sought".  If that is not
so, perhaps you would like to make a statement to that effect.  What
*is* your interest?

Petrer

In comp.os.linux.misc Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> > well as in an open version, and as I recall the open version is
> > restricted in the things that it can do (it has a binary only part?)
> > but which can be unrestricted by anyone with a binary editor, AND
> > I think these applications are available on solaris platforms.
> 
> *Any software* can be "unrestricted" by the use of a binary 
> editor

Recall that binary editors are restricted in what they can do, in the
normal sense of "binary editor".  They can change bytes that are there -
they can't add extra bytes on the end. What I mean is that there are a
couple of bytes you can change in order to unrestrict the software. In
this case, as I recall, there is a single number one can change to allow
burning to full capacity on a dvd.

> - it is called reverse-engineering.

No, that's something different, and in this case would be called
dissasembly (hah!) followed by reverse engineering.

> It is all a 
> matter of interpreting and understanding what your binary 
> editor tells you.

It tells me nothing.  It's a binary editor.  It edits bytes.  That's its
point.  The interpretation of those bytes is done by a cpu and an
operating system

> If you wish to h/crack applications using 
> such an editor, please do it somewhere else and buy some 
> fresh Kleenex.

?????

How many weird people are there in this world?

</rhetorical>

Peter

In article <41b89fd7$0$9359$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
Beardy  <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
>pessimism..... OSS is too big a project to be abandoned. It 
>would undermine too much credibility IMO.

Would you agree that SUNW investors would require a large bribe
to cancel the OpenSolaris project?

If so, more or less than Ed Zander paid for Stephen DeWitt, Peder Ulander
and the rest of Cobalt Networks?

John
groenveld@acm.org

In comp.os.linux.misc Coy Hile <hile@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
> Beardy wrote:
> > 
> > OBO c.u.s. and especially Joerg, FOOOCUS (Fuck Off Out Of C.U.S.). We 
> > are fed up with you. Whatever rants you bore other NG's with, we have 
> > less interest.
> 
> That took me a minute, Beardy.  For a bit, I Thought you were telling 
> Joerg to FOOOCUS.  Then I parsed "On behalf of" correctly ;)

What the heck is CUS? I am reasing in COLM, AFAIK!

Oh - this thread is crossposted to a gazillion groups. SOmeoone was
trying to start a flamewar. Look:

    alt.solaris.x86
    comp.unix.solaris
    comp.os.linux.misc
    linux.redhat

I don't know why they did that, but this thread can die now. I have no
interest in solaris and I have no wish to post on solaris groups, so
please FOAD the person who crossposted to them.

Thanks.

Peter

It is a long time since I have seen such a particularly beautiful
flame war, with each side of True Believers accusing the other of
precisely the same heresy.

No, please don't try to explain to me why one side is right and
the other wrong - I shall only get confused.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In comp.os.linux.misc Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> 
> > Which protects your freedom, by insisting that the person who supplies
> > you a binary under GPL must give you the source code also, and that you
> > protect the freedom of the people who receive a GPL binary from you
> > also.
> 
> I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
> code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
> then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
> source be made available, also under the GPL.

No it doesn't. It says that you have to give anyone you pass the binary
code to, the source code too. You can modify the code all you like
without making it available!

Yeah, quite right - it provents you from robbing the person you try to
pass the binary to of access to the source code. That's protecting yoru
freedom, just as not allowing burglars the "freedom" to rob is
protecting yoru freedom.


> The person making the
> changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.

Good - he's not free to bilk his customers. That's the way things
should be, in oorder to keep things free. Curious, is it not, that
so many people don't understand what freedom is?

> As for the nonsense about not linking with closed source code: well,
> I won't go there, except to say that that also sounds like a restriction
> on freedom.

No, it's a maintenance of the customers freedom by refusing the seller
the right to rob him.  See above, and reread the GPL for yourself if you
STILL don't undertstand it. 

Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com>:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Michael Heiming wrote:

>> Wonder about the license and if this has any relation to the

> Apart from a commitment that it will be OSI approved, no info
> about the license is public knowledge yet.

>> large amount of cash Sun received from M$?

> None whatsoever.

The mere fact that M$ is involved leaves enough room for anything
imaginable. Only the future will show, hope you'll be right.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 188: ..disk or the processor is on fire.

In article <cpa6ee$2o0k$2@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Alan Coopersmith  <alanc@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>Not yet announced, and well, settling the MS lawsuit did free up the

The transcript for Greg Papadopoulos and Hank Vigil's teleconference
with press and analysts is online. 
<URL:http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/investor/events/sun-ms.html>

John
groenveld@acm.org

In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412091049320.27671@zaphod>,
Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>Interested people might be interested to watch Andy Tucker's
>presentation at this years ApacheCon.  About half way through

<URL:http://apachecon.lpbn.org/>

John
groenveld@acm.org

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <argm82-0nr.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
[..]

> You never did write any single piece of open source software, while I am
> in the list of the most active open source contributors.

I'm sure you'll find out if you try freshmeat.net and enter
"enbd" in the search box.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 155: Dumb terminal

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:22:24 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Tim wrote:
> 
>> First three off the top of my head:
>>    ClearCase, Maple, and Mathematica.
> 
> Fair enough--although this will essentially become a non-issue
> when Project Janus is integrated.  BTW, what distros are those
> apps supported on?

That's not really relevant.  Unless they are packaged for a specific
installation tool, it doesn't matter which distribution you have, as long
as the required libraries are present.  Maple, at least, is independent of
distribution.  And even if it is packaged for, say, rpm, there are
workarounds to install them on other machines.

You make it seem as if each distribution of linux produced it's own
porting issue, which is false.  


> Another good question would be (and I have no idea of the answer) what
> applications are supported on Solaris x86 but NOT on $DISTRO Linux?

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember
 _`\(,_  | that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ  
(_)/ (_) | 
           

On 2004-12-09, Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>
>> Which protects your freedom, by insisting that the person who supplies
>> you a binary under GPL must give you the source code also, and that you
>> protect the freedom of the people who receive a GPL binary from you
>> also.
>
> I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
> code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
> then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
> source be made available, also under the GPL.  The person making the
> changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.

Lest anyone misunderstand, the GPL does _not_ require any
modifier to distribute the source code of their
modifications _unless_ said modifier distributes some form
of said modifications.  I can make a change to the source of
a GPLed package and keep everything to myself, and that is
entirely legal under the GPL.

Robert Riches
spamtrap42@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

On Thursday 09 December 2004 6:17 pm in alt.solaris.x86 Joerg Schilling
wrote:

> Lies like this one seems to be typical for uneducated people like you :-(
> You are definitely not a member of the open Source community why should
> anybody believe your unfounded rants?
> 
> You never did write any single piece of open source software, while I am
> in the list of the most active open source contributors.

Well said.
I have yet to see such ludicrous behaviour from anyone who actually makes
a real contribution to open source. Whilst my own contibutions[1] are rather
smaller than yours I find it distressing to see such unfounded rubbish and
vituperation from those who contribute nothing but noise.

[1] http://www.splack.org/

-- 
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.
> 
> 
> Solaris 10 is "free"(period).

Would _I_ be "free" to modify and sell it?

Paul

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Nick Maclaren wrote:

> It is a long time since I have seen such a particularly beautiful
> flame war, with each side of True Believers accusing the other of
> precisely the same heresy.

It IS an amusing (if somewhat timw wasting) distraction...

> No, please don't try to explain to me why one side is right and
> the other wrong - I shall only get confused.

Oh that's easy: we're right, because we're right, dammit, and
the other guys are just wrong.  :-)

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, David L. Johnson wrote:

> You make it seem as if each distribution of linux produced it's own
> porting issue, which is false.

OK. In that case, why are so many commercial "Linux" apps only
certified for use on Red Hat?

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:52:25 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, David L. Johnson wrote:
> 
>> You make it seem as if each distribution of linux produced it's own
>> porting issue, which is false.
> 
> OK. In that case, why are so many commercial "Linux" apps only
> certified for use on Red Hat?

Because that's all they tested it on, I would guess.  

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | Become MicroSoft-free forever.  Ask me how.  
 _`\(,_  | 
(_)/ (_) | 
           

On 2004-12-09, Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>> You make it seem as if each distribution of linux produced it's own
>> porting issue, which is false.
>
> OK. In that case, why are so many commercial "Linux" apps only
> certified for use on Red Hat?
  ^^^^^^^^^

Why do so many commercial "Linux" apps work just fine on a
wide range of distributions?

The commercial application vendors _certify_ on the most
commonly used distribution for maximum return on investment.
It's a financial decision.  For one unit of effort
(certifying on HatRed) they can get one unit of benefit
(sales to people who run HatRed).  Or, for five units of
effort (certifying on HatRed and four other distros), they
can get two units of benefit (sales to customers of HatRed
and those four other distros).  (Numbers are hypothetical.)

Many of the apps would probably work just fine on many other
distros.  I ran Applix 5.0 on HatRed 8.0 and 9.  I'm now
running it on Mandrake 10.0, re-installed on the same
machine from the same Applix CD after I switched the OS.

Robert Riches
spamtrap42@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

Rich Teer wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, David L. Johnson wrote:
> 
> 
>>You make it seem as if each distribution of linux produced it's own
>>porting issue, which is false.
> 
> 
> OK. In that case, why are so many commercial "Linux" apps only
> certified for use on Red Hat?

So that the vendor's support folks only have to be familiar with Red 
Hat.  It doesn't mean that the software won't work on another Linux 
distributions.  It just means that you can't call the vendor's tech 
support line for help.

Intel's 'icc' compiler is a good example.  Last I checked, it was listed 
as "supported" on Red Hat only.  I use it on Debian, but I had to 
convert the Red Hat-style .rpm packages to Debian-style .deb packages 
myself, then deal with dependancies myself, and if anything goes wrong 
I'll have to deal with that myself, too.  OTOH, if I were using Red Hat, 
tech support from Intel would be only a phone call away.

Another good example is Dell's OMSA server administration software. 
Converting Dell's .rpm packages to .deb format was a lot more difficult 
than for most other software, but it does work.  Also, since Red Hat 
hasn't yet released a version with the Linux 2.6.x kernel (current 
versions of RH Enterprise Linux are based on the 2.4.21 kernel), Dell's 
software doesn't yet run on 2.6.x kernels.  Once RH release their next 
version with a 2.6.x kernel, I'm confident the software will work on any 
distro with a 2.6.x kernel (as it does now on 2.4.x kernels)...we just 
have to wait for RH to release something that Dell can officially support.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:32:55 +0000, Casper H. S. Dik wrote:

> "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> writes:
> 
>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:55:11 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> 
>>> Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>>>> 
>>> Supposedly Solaris is now free as in beer and you pay for support.
>>> Linux can be obtained under the same terms. Solaris suport comes mainly
>>> from SUN. For Linux you can shop around.
> 
>>Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
> 
>>If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.
> 
> Solaris 10 is "free"(period).
> 
> Casper

Show me the license.

-- 
We used to have a president that worked with a chimp...
   I guess it was matter of time before we elected a chimp president.   

i.m.

"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:n3lm82-2v2.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es...
> In comp.os.linux.misc Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> > I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
> > code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
> > then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
> > source be made available, also under the GPL.
>
> No it doesn't. It says that you have to give anyone you pass the binary
> code to, the source code too. You can modify the code all you like
> without making it available!
>
> Yeah, quite right - it provents you from robbing the person you try to
> pass the binary to of access to the source code. That's protecting yoru
> freedom, just as not allowing burglars the "freedom" to rob is
> protecting yoru freedom.

Freedom is letting people choose what they want to do with the things they
have. If I choose to use something like a BSD licensed source code, I have
the freedom to choose whether or not I distribute my modifications to that
source code even if I choose to distribute a binary version created from
that source code. GPL removes that option, and is thus less free. More
options == more freedom. The GPL promotes the release of modified source
code, but that doesn't necessarily make it more free, it just promotes and
enforces an option that you like -- therefore it is more free to you. You
like limiting the options of others if those options are against your
philosophy. Limiting options is not more freedom.

To quote Websters regarding "freedom": "the absence of necessity, coercion,
or constraint in choice or action". The GPL is more limiting than, say, the
BSD license. Less options == less freedom. More necessity, more constraint,
fewer choices.

> > The person making the
> > changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.
>
> Good - he's not free to bilk his customers. That's the way things
> should be, in oorder to keep things free. Curious, is it not, that
> so many people don't understand what freedom is?

Of course he's free to bilk his customers. He can not follow through on the
contract. He can ship source code and that is utterly illegible,
undocumented, extraordinarily difficult to build, etc. He can simply
misrepresent himself. The levels of dishonesty within the human spirit of
without measure. You think something like the GPL can prevent that?

On the other hand, a vendor is not free to enter into a contract that meets
both his needs and his customers needs. There is no reason a customer need
enter a contract that the customer feels is limiting to what the customers
goals are, he need simply shop elsewhere. If the two parties reach an
impasse, then so be it. They're free to move on to other vendors and
clients.

> > As for the nonsense about not linking with closed source code: well,
> > I won't go there, except to say that that also sounds like a restriction
> > on freedom.
>
> No, it's a maintenance of the customers freedom by refusing the seller
> the right to rob him.  See above, and reread the GPL for yourself if you
> STILL don't undertstand it.

Simply put, you have no faith in the customers abilities to protect their
own interests. Simply put, most customers interests are not your interests,
which is why this is really rarely an issue. You like the GPL because it
fits your agenda, it protects your vision of your work. That's fine, and you
have the freedom to choose that. But the GPL is singularly myopic,
inflexible, and "less free" because of it.

We put these shackles on you to free you, but what if I desire to be free
from any shackles at all?

Regards,

Will Hartung
(willh@msoft.com)

In comp.os.linux.misc John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@binaryfoundry.ca> wrote:
:> 
:> OK. In that case, why are so many commercial "Linux" apps only
:> certified for use on Red Hat?

: So that the vendor's support folks only have to be familiar with Red 
: Hat.  It doesn't mean that the software won't work on another Linux 
: distributions.  It just means that you can't call the vendor's tech 
: support line for help.

That's it exactly. Check out major tools like from Mentor
or Cadence- they'll be supported for RHEL and maybe one or two other
distros and that's it. If you are paying megabucks for the software
you don't worry about the RHEL costs- but you really don't
want to lose access to support for major tools like this.

Put yourself in the vendor's position. Would _you_ want to install
and maintain a hundred or two Linux distros  so that you can test
and support your code on them? I suspect not.

Stan

-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

Nick Maclaren wrote:

> If Microsoft had a sense of humour, they would start referring
> to Linux, BSD and Solaris as the Wee Frees :-)
> 

Maybe referred to as the "Three Wee Frees"? Yes, yes I know there's 3 BSDs,
it was a joke, alright?

Cheers,
-- 
 ** Matt van de Werken -- Cricket, Unix, Electronics Enthusiast **
 **   Linux -- Dual Athlon MP1800+ -- Fri, 10 Dec 2004  8:15AM  **
It was a book to kill time for those who liked it better dead.

Coy Hile wrote:
> Beardy wrote:
> 
>>
>> OBO c.u.s. and especially Joerg, FOOOCUS (Fuck Off Out Of C.U.S.). We 
>> are fed up with you. Whatever rants you bore other NG's with, we have 
>> less interest.
> 
> 
> That took me a minute, Beardy.  For a bit, I Thought you were telling 
> Joerg to FOOOCUS.  Then I parsed "On behalf of" correctly ;)

:-} I used to play the clarinet - never the OBOe ;-) Upgrade 
your parser ;-)

In article <cpadis$ttq$1@zippy.saturnine.org.uk>,
Paul Black  <usenet5@saturnine.org.uk> wrote:
>Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>>If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.
>> 
>> 
>> Solaris 10 is "free"(period).
>
>Would _I_ be "free" to modify and sell it?

You would be free to modify and sell OpenSolaris.
Sun Solaris is "only" free for use.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
> 
>>Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>>
>>>well as in an open version, and as I recall the open version is
>>>restricted in the things that it can do (it has a binary only part?)
>>>but which can be unrestricted by anyone with a binary editor, AND
>>>I think these applications are available on solaris platforms.
>>
>>*Any software* can be "unrestricted" by the use of a binary 
>>editor
> 
> 
> Recall that binary editors are restricted in what they can do, in the
> normal sense of "binary editor".  They can change bytes that are there -
> they can't add extra bytes on the end. What I mean is that there are a
> couple of bytes you can change in order to unrestrict the software. In
> this case, as I recall, there is a single number one can change to allow
> burning to full capacity on a dvd.

Hence my point that its how you interpret the bytes that 
your binary editor presents you with.

>>- it is called reverse-engineering.
> 
> 
> No, that's something different, and in this case would be called
> dissasembly (hah!) followed by reverse engineering.

That it far too pure/restrictive a definition. You do not 
necessarily need disassembly to achieve reverse-engineering.

>>It is all a 
>>matter of interpreting and understanding what your binary 
>>editor tells you.
> 
> 
> It tells me nothing.  It's a binary editor.  It edits bytes.  That's its
> point.  The interpretation of those bytes is done by a cpu and an
> operating system

In this case the interpretation is done by the byte-reader.

>>If you wish to h/crack applications using 
>>such an editor, please do it somewhere else and buy some 
>>fresh Kleenex.
> 
> 
> ?????

Most crackers that I know whack off at the same time.

> How many weird people are there in this world?

Too many, but not enough; but I am doing my bit to keep the 
numbers up.

> </rhetorical>

Mismatched. I didn't see <rhetorical>

Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Coy Hile <hile@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
> 
>>Beardy wrote:
>>
>>>OBO c.u.s. and especially Joerg, FOOOCUS (Fuck Off Out Of C.U.S.). We 
>>>are fed up with you. Whatever rants you bore other NG's with, we have 
>>>less interest.
>>
>>That took me a minute, Beardy.  For a bit, I Thought you were telling 
>>Joerg to FOOOCUS.  Then I parsed "On behalf of" correctly ;)
> 
> 
> What the heck is CUS? I am reasing in COLM, AFAIK!

We ask ourselves that, daily ;-}

> Oh - this thread is crossposted to a gazillion groups. SOmeoone was
> trying to start a flamewar. Look:
> 
>     alt.solaris.x86
>     comp.unix.solaris
>     comp.os.linux.misc
>     linux.redhat

Yup. Flamewars betwixt c.u.s and col* are frequent, and oft 
enjoyable ;-)

> I don't know why they did that, but this thread can die now. I have no
> interest in solaris and I have no wish to post on solaris groups, so
> please FOAD the person who crossposted to them.

Don't be too harsh on the person who x-posted. It has been 
entertaining.

In article <41b88cc5$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Casper H.S. Dik  <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote:

>>> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
>
>>A whole bunch of Ethernet drivers, for a start.
>
>Many can be (easily) found for Solaris.

e.g.

http://homepage2.nifty.com/mrym3/taiyodo/eng/index.htm 

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Rich Teer wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> 
> 
>>Are you trying to say something? If so what? The fact that you claim
> 
> 
> Yes - he's saying that as a participant of the Open Solaris pilot
> program, he has access to information that other non-Sun employees
> do not.

What about unemployed people? Where do they stand? Are they 
excluded de facto??? ;-)

In article <u1hm82-b9m.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:

>>>> Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.
>
>Wonder about the license and if this has any relation to the
>large amount of cash Sun received from M$?

There are relations to Sun / M$ "contacts", it contains some kind
of patent protection against bad guys.....


>> Nobody needs to discriminate against GPL as long as the text of the GPL
>> does this already. GPL is a viral license, this makes it not free enough
>> for certain kind-of-use.
>
>It does exactly what the inventors wanted, prevent anyone from
>stealing GPL code and sell it as their product to others, without
>making the source available.

GPL does not give you the needed rights for certain usage forms of the
code. 

Freedom is a sensitive good. Trying to enforce freedom kills it. 
The GPL tries to enforce freedom.... 

Although the BSD license is not trying to enforce things, nearly all
modifications of code under BSD license are freely available.

Although the GPL tries to enforce propagation of source, not all 
modifiactions on GPLd code are freely available.

So What?


-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <mtlm82-dtm.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
>> In article <argm82-0nr.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>[..]
>
>> You never did write any single piece of open source software, while I am
>> in the list of the most active open source contributors.
>
>I'm sure you'll find out if you try freshmeat.net and enter
>"enbd" in the search box.

Wow, a re-implementation of something that has been thrown into the trash can
18 years ago.....

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <u1hm82-b9m.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
> Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:

>>>>> Solaris is definitely going to become OSS.
>>
>>Wonder about the license and if this has any relation to the
>>large amount of cash Sun received from M$?

> There are relations to Sun / M$ "contacts", it contains some kind
> of patent protection against bad guys.....

The official version, wouldn't surprise me if there'd be more
behind.

[..]

> GPL does not give you the needed rights for certain usage forms of the
> code.

Probably, but you are free to chose the license for your
software.

> Freedom is a sensitive good. Trying to enforce freedom kills it. 
> The GPL tries to enforce freedom.... 

> Although the BSD license is not trying to enforce things, nearly all
> modifications of code under BSD license are freely available.

What about the TCP/IP stack M$ took from *BSD, used in W2K/etc,
did they give the code back?

> Although the GPL tries to enforce propagation of source, not all 
> modifiactions on GPLd code are freely available.

Sure, if you don't give away the binary to third parties, you
don't need to give it away. Only if you distribute your software. 

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 75: There isn't any problem

begin  Rich Teer wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> 
>> I haven't ever seen anything coming out of Sun that implies they
>> understand what OSS is or, if they do, that implies that they have any
>> intention of doing anything other than subverting the idea of OSS.  In
> 
> That has got to be one of the most stupid, uninformed, pieces
> of diatribe I've read about this subject!
> 
> Next to the University of California Berkely (UCB), Sun is the
> number TWO donor of software to the open source community.
> Not IBM, not Red Hat, not HP: Sun.  When Open Solaris hits the
> streets, I wouldn't be surprised if Sun became the number one
> donor of software.
> 

Sure. And earth is flat
-- 
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow

In article <253n82-iao.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>> GPL does not give you the needed rights for certain usage forms of the
>> code.
>
>Probably, but you are free to chose the license for your
>software.

You don't have the freedom to do this if you like to reuse GPLd software from 
other people. 


>> Freedom is a sensitive good. Trying to enforce freedom kills it. 
>> The GPL tries to enforce freedom.... 
>
>> Although the BSD license is not trying to enforce things, nearly all
>> modifications of code under BSD license are freely available.
>
>What about the TCP/IP stack M$ took from *BSD, used in W2K/etc,
>did they give the code back?

This is one of the reare exceptions.

>> Although the GPL tries to enforce propagation of source, not all 
>> modifiactions on GPLd code are freely available.
>
>Sure, if you don't give away the binary to third parties, you
>don't need to give it away. Only if you distribute your software. 

Looks like you did not understand and like you don't know what happens
to GPLd software that is of real interest to companies.

Companies just ignore the GPL and create hard to track illegal software 
from it and sell it as their work

Companies also find ways to circumvent GPL restrictions in some cases.

So what real advantages does the GPL give you?

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <e4gm82-89r.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>> Nobody needs to discriminate against GPL as long as the text of the GPL
>>> does this already. GPL is a viral license, this makes it not free enough
>>> for certain kind-of-use.
>>
>>No - it makes that kind of use (i.e. secretive, exploitative, etc.) not
>>compatible with the freedoms guarranteed by the GPL. So there you are,
>>I guess you are a patsy for Sun in such matters, judging by such a
>>statement as the above! My suspicions are strengthened.
> 
> Are you trying to prove that you also miss social knowledge and general
> knowledge?
> 
> Freedom is a sensitive good. Trying to enforce freedom kills it.
> The GPL tries to enforce freedom....
> 

And braincells are also "sensitive". Good thing that you don't have to care
about that
-- 
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.12.09.16.52.40.805981@you.now>,
> Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> 
>>I stand corrected on my own correction. Let's all look at an excerpt:
>>
>>"On the subject of a probable licensing model for the open-source Solaris,
>>John Loiacono, executive vice president of Sun's software group, said: "We
>>have to consider what licensing model we use and what levels of free usage
>>we want. Then we also need to consider if we want to (segment the
>>licensing model to address) commercial, private and academic use."
> 
> If this is true information, then it must be very very old.
> 
>>So, as has been suggested "free" has not been defined by Sun.
> 
> The term Free has not defined by Sun because this is a well known word
> that does not need a new definition.
> 
> OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....
> 
> This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.

Is this a "freedom" as in the infamous "Arbeit macht frei" of the
concentration camp?

You spout you nonsense about how very "free" the Sun license will be.

Right now it is a piece of shit. And I suspect it will get worse

Prove me wrong. With facts
-- 
"The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected"
                -- The Unix programmers handbook, 1972

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <1102612149.595951@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>,
>  <essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
> 
>>: OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives
>>: you....
>>
>>That remains to be seen- depends upon how Sun defines "free".
>>
>>: This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.
>>
>>Agreed- but Solaris may or may not be more restricted
>>than Linux- all depends upon what Sun wants to do.
> 
> Despite what you may have read from the Linux camp,
> Sun likes OpenSolaris to become a true Open Source project.
> 
> ..... We are currently working in this ....
> 

I'm sure you are. 
Call back when you got it right. I'll expect you in 3 - 4 years
-- 
Only two things are infinite,
 the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
        - Albert Einstein

In article <cpana1$ggb$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>begin  Rich Teer wrote:

>> Next to the University of California Berkely (UCB), Sun is the
>> number TWO donor of software to the open source community.
>> Not IBM, not Red Hat, not HP: Sun.  When Open Solaris hits the
>> streets, I wouldn't be surprised if Sun became the number one
>> donor of software.
>> 
>
>Sure. And earth is flat

Do you like to prove that you are uninformed?

It may even be that a typical Linux system contains more software from Sun
or software that is based on Sun's contributions to the OSS community 
than official FSF software.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Rich Teer wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> 
>> Which protects your freedom, by insisting that the person who supplies
>> you a binary under GPL must give you the source code also, and that you
>> protect the freedom of the people who receive a GPL binary from you
>> also.
> 
> I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
> code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
> then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
> source be made available, also under the GPL.  The person making the
> changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.
> 

Nope. That person was stupid enough not to look at the license before
changing the code
In other words: No one in his right mind would bother to look at that idiots
code, as it can be only garbage

< snip more bullshit >

-- 
Tact, n.:
        The unsaid part of what you're thinking.

In article <cpanrg$ggb$00$4@news.t-online.com>,
Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>> Despite what you may have read from the Linux camp,
>> Sun likes OpenSolaris to become a true Open Source project.
>> 
>> ..... We are currently working in this ....
>> 
>
>I'm sure you are. 
>Call back when you got it right. I'll expect you in 3 - 4 years

It would really help, if uninformed people like you would stop
spreading FUD...

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Rich Teer wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> 
>> Are you trying to say something? If so what? The fact that you claim
> 
> Yes - he's saying that as a participant of the Open Solaris pilot
> program, he has access to information that other non-Sun employees
> do not.
> 

Let me tell you as a participant in the Open Earth Destruction pilot
program: I have access to information that other non-vorgon employees do
not

Idiot
-- 
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.

On Thursday 09 December 2004 10:39 pm in alt.solaris.x86 Beardy wrote:

> Rich Teer wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Are you trying to say something? If so what? The fact that you claim
>> 
>> 
>> Yes - he's saying that as a participant of the Open Solaris pilot
>> program, he has access to information that other non-Sun employees
>> do not.
> 
> What about unemployed people? Where do they stand? Are they
> excluded de facto??? ;-)

This has got to be one of the silliest comments so far in this
assine thread. A small number of people who are not employed by Sun
are taking part in the pilot project. Those people are constrained
by a non-disclosure agreement. This is perfectly normal practice in 
the industry. No amount of trolling and flaming in a newsgroup will
make them disclose information that they have agreed not to disclose.

Sun have made it perfectly clear that Solaris 10 will be open-sourced
in the near future and will be free of charge for commercial and
non-commercial use when it is officially released. Sun have also stated
that the exact terms of the open source licence have not yet been finalised.

In reply to your rather silly question, many open source developers
contribute code during periods of unemployment and it is quite likely that
some participants of the Open Solaris pilot project are in this category.

-- 
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

In article <cpao7s$ggb$00$6@news.t-online.com>,
Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>begin  Rich Teer wrote:
>> Yes - he's saying that as a participant of the Open Solaris pilot
>> program, he has access to information that other non-Sun employees
>> do not.
>> 
>
>Let me tell you as a participant in the Open Earth Destruction pilot
>program: I have access to information that other non-vorgon employees do
>not
>
>Idiot

Congratulations!

You just managed to become a certified troll....

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <cpana1$ggb$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>begin  Rich Teer wrote:
> 
>>> Next to the University of California Berkely (UCB), Sun is the
>>> number TWO donor of software to the open source community.
>>> Not IBM, not Red Hat, not HP: Sun.  When Open Solaris hits the
>>> streets, I wouldn't be surprised if Sun became the number one
>>> donor of software.
>>> 
>>
>>Sure. And earth is flat
> 
> Do you like to prove that you are uninformed?
> 
> It may even be that a typical Linux system contains more software from Sun
> or software that is based on Sun's contributions to the OSS community
> than official FSF software.
> 

You are free to prove that idiotic claim now
-- 
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <cpanrg$ggb$00$4@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>> Despite what you may have read from the Linux camp,
>>> Sun likes OpenSolaris to become a true Open Source project.
>>> 
>>> ..... We are currently working in this ....
>>> 
>>
>>I'm sure you are.
>>Call back when you got it right. I'll expect you in 3 - 4 years
> 
> It would really help, if uninformed people like you would stop
> spreading FUD...
> 

It would really help if idiots like you would stop posting nonsense
-- 
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <cpao7s$ggb$00$6@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6hlmann?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>begin  Rich Teer wrote:
>>> Yes - he's saying that as a participant of the Open Solaris pilot
>>> program, he has access to information that other non-Sun employees
>>> do not.
>>> 
>>
>>Let me tell you as a participant in the Open Earth Destruction pilot
>>program: I have access to information that other non-vorgon employees do
>>not
>>
>>Idiot
> 
> Congratulations!
> 
> You just managed to become a certified troll....
> 

Nope. I just managed to shoot down a really stupid "argument"
Coming from a solaris wanker, no less

You see, arguing with "information I am not at liberty to divulge to you" is
about the dumbest strategy you could use.

You could just as well declare that you are brainless cretins. Which is
exactly what you are. And no one would dispute it
-- 
Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings.

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <mtlm82-dtm.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
> Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
>>> In article <argm82-0nr.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
[..]

> Wow, a re-implementation of something that has been thrown into the trash can
> 18 years ago.....

Amazing, how arrogant someone that wrote pretty good software is
about other peoples work.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 40: not enough memory, go get system upgrade

On Thursday 09 December 2004 10:46 pm in alt.solaris.x86 Joerg Schilling
wrote:

> GPL does not give you the needed rights for certain usage forms of the
> code.
> 
> Freedom is a sensitive good. Trying to enforce freedom kills it.
> The GPL tries to enforce freedom....
> 
> Although the BSD license is not trying to enforce things, nearly all
> modifications of code under BSD license are freely available.
> 
> Although the GPL tries to enforce propagation of source, not all
> modifiactions on GPLd code are freely available.
> 
> So What?

We should not forget that the author is free to release his code
on whatever licence he choses, and I would personally resent any
attempt by others to impose their preferred licence terms on me.

On a somewhat lighter note, my own open source contibutions are
released on the basis that it is probably worth what I was paid 
for it and if it breaks you can keep the pieces.

-- 
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <253n82-iao.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
> Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>>> GPL does not give you the needed rights for certain usage forms of the
>>> code.
>>
>>Probably, but you are free to chose the license for your
>>software.

> You don't have the freedom to do this if you like to reuse GPLd software from 
> other people. 


>>> Freedom is a sensitive good. Trying to enforce freedom kills it. 
>>> The GPL tries to enforce freedom.... 
>>
>>> Although the BSD license is not trying to enforce things, nearly all
>>> modifications of code under BSD license are freely available.
>>
>>What about the TCP/IP stack M$ took from *BSD, used in W2K/etc,
>>did they give the code back?

> This is one of the reare exceptions.

One we have heard about, other perhaps remain completely unknown?

[..]

> Companies just ignore the GPL and create hard to track illegal software 
> from it and sell it as their work

> Companies also find ways to circumvent GPL restrictions in some cases.

And often don't get away with it.

[..]

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 99: SIMM crosstalk.

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <41b88cc5$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Casper H.S. Dik  <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote:

>>>> What software that runs on Linux is not available for Solaris x86?
>>
>>>A whole bunch of Ethernet drivers, for a start.
>>
>>Many can be (easily) found for Solaris.

> e.g.

> http://homepage2.nifty.com/mrym3/taiyodo/eng/index.htm 

"What's new?

11/20/2004 A serious problem found under Solaris10 b71 x86. For
many drivers, downloading is suspended now."

Doesn't look that reliable, yet.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 156: Zombie processes haunting the computer

"Casper H.S. Dik" <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote in message
news:41b88c47$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl

> Solaris 10 is "free"(period).

Excellent.

I'm building a server tomorrow (probably end up being used for
commercial purposes - if I can get it going).

Where can I download a free copy of Solaris 10 for it, then?

Vic.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Beardy wrote:

> What about unemployed people? Where do they stand? Are they
> excluded de facto??? ;-)

Nope; I'm living proof that unemployed bums are equally welcome
as the employed ones.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9 Dec 2004 16:59:09 GMT,
 Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <pan.2004.12.09.16.52.40.805981@you.now>,
> Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>
>>I stand corrected on my own correction. Let's all look at an excerpt:
>>
>>"On the subject of a probable licensing model for the open-source Solaris,
>>John Loiacono, executive vice president of Sun's software group, said: "We
>>have to consider what licensing model we use and what levels of free usage
>>we want. Then we also need to consider if we want to (segment the
>>licensing model to address) commercial, private and academic use."
>
> If this is true information, then it must be very very old.
>
>>So, as has been suggested "free" has not been defined by Sun.
>
> The term Free has not defined by Sun because this is a well known word
> that does not need a new definition.
>
> OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....
>

have they released what licence they will be distributing Solaris 10
under yet? 

> This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.

how do you know that Solaris won't be? if they haven't released their
licence for Solaris 10 yet.

After all, they GPL'd open office...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuS8Kd90bcYOAWPYRAm/6AJ9ug8MoiFvYkjGW0YbGVooxOREbuACeMt8K
En/SAcpc66ZmjwLMudcvLXA=
=vzRP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You're working under a slight handicap.  You happen to be human.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09 Dec 2004 17:32:55 GMT,
 Casper H.S  Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote:
> "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:55:11 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
>>> Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>>>> 
>>> Supposedly Solaris is now free as in beer and you pay for support. Linux
>>> can be obtained under the same terms. Solaris suport comes mainly from
>>> SUN. For Linux you can shop around.
>
>>Solaris is "free" for non-commercial use.
>
>>If you want to do anything but play with it you still have to buy it.
>
> Solaris 10 is "free"(period).
>
> Casper


great! um, can you point me to a download link? I can't seem to find
one...

Or were you meaning to say that Solaris 10 *will* be free, some time in
the not too distant (hopefully) future? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuTLYd90bcYOAWPYRAoXKAJ9ESkHP4yJEg7kwZYYRdSemOp8tmQCgk0RN
RCbFoJeSQvUOOJpwErpKNfg=
=DwOo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
That secret you've been guarding, isn't.

Seongbae Park wrote:
> 
> Other than the price,
> what's lacking in Rational Purify or Sun's dbx RTC compared to Valgrind ?

Price is onething. Freedom to fix bug if I find them
is another.

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"The earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer mind parents ...and it is evident that the end of
the world is approaching fast." -- Assyrian Tablet Engraved in 2800 B.C.

In article <31ruqtF3d065lU1@individual.net>, Will Hartung wrote:
> Freedom is letting people choose what they want to do with the things they
> have. If I choose to use something like a BSD licensed source code, I have
> the freedom to choose whether or not I distribute my modifications to that
> source code even if I choose to distribute a binary version created from
> that source code. GPL removes that option, and is thus less free.

Please, if you start to compare the BSD license against GPL do it fairly,
i.e. consider _all_ viewpoints. You are just considering the viewpoint
of someone who copies and modifies GPLed source. But please take also a
look at the other side to the developers of the original code. In case of
a BSD license the original developers are no longer guaranteed to have
the option to integrate the extensions back into the original system
even if the new development branch is no longer used privately. Hence,
the BSD license offers less options to the original developers.

GPL and BSD balance differently. The GPL favours the original developers,
the BSD license gives more options to those who create a new development
branch.

Simply telling that X is more free than Y (with X and Y out of GPL and
BSD) without explicitly stating the viewpoint is neither helpful nor correct.

Andreas.

-- 
Dr. Andreas F. Borchert, SAI, Universitaet Ulm | Habe Mut, dich deines
Helmholtzstrasse 18, E02, Tel +49 731 50-23572 | eigenen Verstandes zu
http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/sai/borchert/ | bedienen! -- I. Kant

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Beardy wrote:
|
|> What about unemployed people? Where do they stand? Are they
|> excluded de facto??? ;-)
|
|Nope; I'm living proof that unemployed bums are equally welcome
|as the employed ones.

But only after they write 1000+ pages summarizing their Solaris
knowledge...

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
 http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/   *   http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
  Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

John D Groenveld wrote:
> In article <41b89fd7$0$9359$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> Beardy  <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
> 
>>pessimism..... OSS is too big a project to be abandoned. It 
>>would undermine too much credibility IMO.
> 
> 
> Would you agree that SUNW investors would require a large bribe
> to cancel the OpenSolaris project?

Are there that many bits in the universe?

> If so, more or less than Ed Zander paid for Stephen DeWitt, Peder Ulander
> and the rest of Cobalt Networks?

Couldn't say - didn't pay much (any) attention to that one :-(

In article <ahnn82-uo4.ln1@grendel.myth>,
Jim Richardson  <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

>> The term Free has not defined by Sun because this is a well known word
>> that does not need a new definition.
>>
>> OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....
>>
>
>have they released what licence they will be distributing Solaris 10
>under yet? 

No, they did not.

>> This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.
>
>how do you know that Solaris won't be? if they haven't released their
>licence for Solaris 10 yet.

Because I have been discussing the license with Sun.....

I am under NDA so I cannot tell you more.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <41B94DA3.7405B1CA@mega-nerd.com>,
Erik de Castro Lopo  <nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>Seongbae Park wrote:
>> 
>> Other than the price,
>> what's lacking in Rational Purify or Sun's dbx RTC compared to Valgrind ?
>
>Price is onething. Freedom to fix bug if I find them
>is another.

In terms of freedom, a vanilla Solaris 10 gives you a lot more/better debugging
features than a vanilla Linux system.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <cpbmvf$g9b$2@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Alan Coopersmith  <alanc@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
>|On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Beardy wrote:
>|
>|> What about unemployed people? Where do they stand? Are they
>|> excluded de facto??? ;-)
>|
>|Nope; I'm living proof that unemployed bums are equally welcome
>|as the employed ones.
>
>But only after they write 1000+ pages summarizing their Solaris
>knowledge...

That's not sufficient, they also need to write 1000+ times:
"Buy my book!" ;-)

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <cpbo4t$t1l$1@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>,
Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <ahnn82-uo4.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> Jim Richardson  <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> >have they released what licence they will be distributing Solaris 10
> >under yet? 
> 
> No, they did not.

Obviously not since the license isn't ready yet. However, Sun has made
a draft of the proposed license available on the web.

 < http://www.sun.com/cddl/ >
 < http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html >   (Draft Revised 11/24/04)

-- 
G�ran Larsson     http://www.mitt-eget.com/

In article <ahnn82-uo4.ln1@grendel.myth>,
Jim Richardson  <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

>After all, they GPL'd open office...

And if you did read Alan's comment you would know that Sun is
already considering this to be a mistake...

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <41b9568e$1@news.uni-ulm.de>,
Andreas Franz Borchert <borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de> wrote:

>GPL and BSD balance differently. The GPL favours the original developers,
>the BSD license gives more options to those who create a new development
>branch.

GPL in fact favors the original developers but this is not the intention
of the GPL. The intention is to favor a putative and non existsing
"end user". I doubt that if you would ask unbiased end users that you would
get a pro GPL vote.

GPL gives no options to contributors. For a minor contributor, this os OK.
But the European Gopyright law already takes precautions on the "minor
contribution problem".

For major contributors, GPL is an impertinence. The only explanation I have
for the existence of major contributors is that they started as minor 
contributors and had no choice.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Chris Newport wrote:
> On Thursday 09 December 2004 10:39 pm in alt.solaris.x86 Beardy wrote:
> 
> 
>>Rich Teer wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you trying to say something? If so what? The fact that you claim
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes - he's saying that as a participant of the Open Solaris pilot
>>>program, he has access to information that other non-Sun employees
>>>do not.
>>
>>What about unemployed people? Where do they stand? Are they
>>excluded de facto??? ;-)
> 
> 
> This has got to be one of the silliest comments so far in this
> assine thread. A small number of people who are not employed by Sun
> are taking part in the pilot project. Those people are constrained
> by a non-disclosure agreement. This is perfectly normal practice in 
> the industry. No amount of trolling and flaming in a newsgroup will
> make them disclose information that they have agreed not to disclose.

That's "asinine". Having worked for a major financial 
information provider, and been part of a number of Sun EA 
projects, I know *exactly* what an NDA is, and how the 
people bound by one will never violate it; whatever coercion 
(no-one's tried beer on me yet, though...).

> Sun have made it perfectly clear that Solaris 10 will be open-sourced
> in the near future and will be free of charge for commercial and
> non-commercial use when it is officially released. Sun have also stated
> that the exact terms of the open source licence have not yet been finalised.

I know. I know.

> In reply to your rather silly question, many open source developers
> contribute code during periods of unemployment and it is quite likely that
> some participants of the Open Solaris pilot project are in this category.

It was a silly rhetorical question - you obviously missed 
that inference from the emoticon in the question. Not only 
unemployed open source developers are participants, but 
unemployed eminent authors too :-)

Please don't reply to this.

Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
> |On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Beardy wrote:
> |
> |> What about unemployed people? Where do they stand? Are they
> |> excluded de facto??? ;-)
> |
> |Nope; I'm living proof that unemployed bums are equally welcome
> |as the employed ones.
> 
> But only after they write 1000+ pages summarizing their Solaris
> knowledge...
> 

That was only the preface to Rich's Solaris knowledge ;-)

In article <cpbq0j$1do$1@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> In article <41b9568e$1@news.uni-ulm.de>,
> Andreas Franz Borchert <borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
> 
>>GPL and BSD balance differently. The GPL favours the original developers,
>>the BSD license gives more options to those who create a new development
>>branch.
> 
> GPL in fact favors the original developers but this is not the intention
> of the GPL. The intention is to favor a putative and non existsing
> "end user".

Neither the GPL nor the GPL related philosophical texts at www.gnu.org
are using the term ``end user''. They use the term ``user'':

   ``Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
   distribute, study, change and improve the software.''
   [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]

Andreas.

-- 
Dr. Andreas F. Borchert, SAI, Universitaet Ulm | Habe Mut, dich deines
Helmholtzstrasse 18, E02, Tel +49 731 50-23572 | eigenen Verstandes zu
http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/sai/borchert/ | bedienen! -- I. Kant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10 Dec 2004 08:52:45 GMT,
 Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <ahnn82-uo4.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> Jim Richardson  <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>> The term Free has not defined by Sun because this is a well known word
>>> that does not need a new definition.
>>>
>>> OpenSolaris will give you definitely more freedom than Linux gives you....
>>>
>>
>>have they released what licence they will be distributing Solaris 10
>>under yet? 
>
> No, they did not.
>
>>> This is because Linux is distributed under GPL.
>>
>>how do you know that Solaris won't be? if they haven't released their
>>licence for Solaris 10 yet.
>
> Because I have been discussing the license with Sun.....
>
> I am under NDA so I cannot tell you more.
>


Fair enough. I look forward to seeing what they came up with, I'd prefer
GPL, but we'll see. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuXJQd90bcYOAWPYRAvD0AJ4tNGU6haFosaI0SEkedrXO2yjpBACgtM3a
nEV1FtZy9ESS9fgPZZBd7Z4=
=kgAA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Courage is your greatest present need.

In article <41b9752d$1@news.uni-ulm.de>,
Andreas Franz Borchert <borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>In article <cpbq0j$1do$1@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> In article <41b9568e$1@news.uni-ulm.de>,
>> Andreas Franz Borchert <borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>> 
>>>GPL and BSD balance differently. The GPL favours the original developers,
>>>the BSD license gives more options to those who create a new development
>>>branch.
>> 
>> GPL in fact favors the original developers but this is not the intention
>> of the GPL. The intention is to favor a putative and non existsing
>> "end user".
>
>Neither the GPL nor the GPL related philosophical texts at www.gnu.org
>are using the term ``end user''. They use the term ``user'':

This does not make my statements less correct.......

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <gb8o82-j49.ln1@grendel.myth>,
Jim Richardson  <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

>Fair enough. I look forward to seeing what they came up with, I'd prefer
>GPL, but we'll see. 

I would prefer freedom before GPL.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On 12/10/04 02:22, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, David L. Johnson wrote:
> 
>>You make it seem as if each distribution of linux produced it's own
>>porting issue, which is false.
> 
> OK. In that case, why are so many commercial "Linux" apps only
> certified for use on Red Hat?

Just because, developers and, or programmers for such apps are stupid 
enough.

-- 
Dr Balwinder Singh Dheeman            Registered Linux User: #229709
CLLO (Chief Linux Learning Officer)   Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Anu's Linux@HOME                      Distros: Knoppix, Fedora, FreeBSD
More: http://anu.homelinux.net/~bsd/  Visit: http://counter.li.org/

Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>  begin  Rich Teer wrote:

> > I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
> > code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
> > then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
> > source be made available, also under the GPL.  The person making the
> > changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.
> 
>  Nope. That person was stupid enough not to look at the license before
>  changing the code

Understanding terms of a license usually requires very specialized
knowledge. Lack of that knowledge doesn't imply stupidity.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

Michael Heiming wrote:

>  "What's new?
> 
>  11/20/2004 A serious problem found under Solaris10 b71 x86. For
>  many drivers, downloading is suspended now."
> 
>  Doesn't look that reliable, yet.

But of course it doesn't. b71 is build 71 of a beta OS version. I suppose
you know what "beta version" means.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

In article <7r6n82-koo.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>> http://homepage2.nifty.com/mrym3/taiyodo/eng/index.htm 
>
>"What's new?
>
>11/20/2004 A serious problem found under Solaris10 b71 x86. For
>many drivers, downloading is suspended now."
>
>Doesn't look that reliable, yet.

I would call this more reliable than what you get from Linux.

I was referring beta drivers for a beta OS.
The Author (Masayuki Murayama) is only telling you that there
_might_ be problems...... 

Two weeks ago, I did report the problem in question to Masayuki Murayama
on a Saturday night before going to bed. When I did wake up on Sunday,
I had a working driver (with the warning you mention) available!

I call this a more serious offer than getting a driver on Linux that
is in a similar state but without this notice. 

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Drazen Kacar wrote:

> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>  begin  Rich Teer wrote:
> 
>> > I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
>> > code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
>> > then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
>> > source be made available, also under the GPL.  The person making the
>> > changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.
>> 
>>  Nope. That person was stupid enough not to look at the license before
>>  changing the code
> 
> Understanding terms of a license usually requires very specialized
> knowledge. Lack of that knowledge doesn't imply stupidity.
> 

Understanding the basic implications of the GPL does not require "very
specialized knowledge". It requires a certain amount of common sense

It certainly does not require any more "very specialized knowledge" than any
other license, including Suns new license
So that argument of yours actually is bullshit, if you want to apply it only
to the GPL and ignore all others
-- 
Warning: You have moved the mouse. 
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent

Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>  begin  Drazen Kacar wrote:
> > Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> >>  Nope. That person was stupid enough not to look at the license before
> >>  changing the code
> > 
> > Understanding terms of a license usually requires very specialized
> > knowledge. Lack of that knowledge doesn't imply stupidity.
> 
>  Understanding the basic implications of the GPL does not require "very
>  specialized knowledge".

But it does. For a start, it's written in English. I have a lot of friends
who have trouble with English in Sandman, for example (a comic book). GPL
wording is completely beyond their abilities. 

Second, it's deeply rooted in the USA copyright law. Even if one
understands the language, figuring out whether it means anything outside
the USA is not a trivial task. I've been told that it's void in France
just because it's not written in French. For example.

>  It requires a certain amount of common sense

I'd phrase that as "understanding the goals of the GPL requires a certain
amount of common sense, provided that you understand the language".

In practice, there are areas of GPL application which are quite clear, but
there are also gray areas. I could quote different lawyers interpreting it
differently. Since I don't posess very specialized legal knowledge, that's
all I can do about it.

>  It certainly does not require any more "very specialized knowledge" than any
>  other license, including Suns new license

BSD license, for example, is much simpler. I would not put it in the same
category with GPL and MPL and Sun's new license draft.

>  So that argument of yours actually is bullshit, if you want to apply it only
>  to the GPL and ignore all others

That was not my intention. BTW, how would you label argument which aplies
only to people who understand English and ignores all the others?

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <7r6n82-koo.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
> Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>>> http://homepage2.nifty.com/mrym3/taiyodo/eng/index.htm 
>>
>>"What's new?
>>
>>11/20/2004 A serious problem found under Solaris10 b71 x86. For
>>many drivers, downloading is suspended now."
>>
>>Doesn't look that reliable, yet.

> I would call this more reliable than what you get from Linux.

Ah well, I can hardly remember problems with something as simple
as a NIC driver in Linux. But then feel free to live in the world
of your imagination, I'll try NOT to respond any more to this
flamewar.


Good by
[..]

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 400: We are Microsoft. What you are experiencing
is not a problem; it is an undocumented feature.

In comp.os.linux.misc Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr>:
> Michael Heiming wrote:

>>  "What's new?
>> 
>>  11/20/2004 A serious problem found under Solaris10 b71 x86. For
>>  many drivers, downloading is suspended now."
>> 
>>  Doesn't look that reliable, yet.

> But of course it doesn't. b71 is build 71 of a beta OS version. I suppose
> you know what "beta version" means.

If you take a closer look, it wasn't me who posted the URL about
how easily one could find NIC driver for Solaris x86 and all you
get from the URL is that downloading is suspended because of
problems.

Thx for acknowledging that Solaris x86 is nowhere near what some
people want to make us belief in this flamewar.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 400: We are Microsoft. What you are experiencing
is not a problem; it is an undocumented feature.

In comp.os.linux.misc Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr>:
> Peter K?hlmann wrote:
>>  begin  Drazen Kacar wrote:
>> > Peter K?hlmann wrote:

>> >>  Nope. That person was stupid enough not to look at the license before
>> >>  changing the code
>> > 
>> > Understanding terms of a license usually requires very specialized
>> > knowledge. Lack of that knowledge doesn't imply stupidity.
>> 
>>  Understanding the basic implications of the GPL does not require "very
>>  specialized knowledge".

> But it does. For a start, it's written in English. I have a lot of friends
> who have trouble with English in Sandman, for example (a comic book). GPL
> wording is completely beyond their abilities. 

Sure and they couldn't even find one of the unofficial
translations, which would help them understanding:

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/translations.html#UnofficialTranslations

    * Albanian translation of the GPL
    * Brazilian Portuguese translation of the GPL
    * Bulgarian translation of the GPL
    * Catalan translation of the GPL
    * Chinese (Simplified) translation of the GPL
    * Chinese (Traditional) translations of the GPL (1) (2)
    * Czech translation of the GPL
    * Danish translation of the GPL
    * Dutch translation of the GPL
    * Esperanto translation of the GPL
    * Farsi translation of the GPL
    * Finnish translation of the GPL
    * French translation of the GPL
    * Galician translation of the GPL
    * Georgian translation of the GPL
    * German translation of the GPL
    * Greek translation of the GPL (PDF and TXT format)
    * Hebrew translation of the GPL
    * Indonesian translation of the GPL
    * Italian translation of the GPL
    * Japanese translations of the GPL (1) (2)
    * Korean translation of the GPL
    * Lituanian translation of the GPL
    * Polish translation of the GPL
    * Portuguese translation of the GPL
    * Brazilian Portuguese translation of the GPL
    * Romanian translation of the GPL
    * Russian translations of the GPL (1) (2)
    * Serbian translation of the GPL
    * Spanish translations of the GPL (1) (2 - four different
    * translations) (3 - Spanish Mexican)
    * Swedish translation of the GPL
    * Thai translation of the GPL
    * Turkish translation of the GPL
    * Ukranian translation of the GPL
    * Welsh translation of the GPL

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 390: Increased sunspot activity.

In article <d4jo82-f6t.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>>>Doesn't look that reliable, yet.
>
>> I would call this more reliable than what you get from Linux.
>
>Ah well, I can hardly remember problems with something as simple
>as a NIC driver in Linux. But then feel free to live in the world
>of your imagination, I'll try NOT to respond any more to this
>flamewar.

So it seems you don't have enough Linux experience to know what
this mean :-(

It has been more than once when a Linux NIC driver reliably did hang 
the whole system or died after transferring more than 1-2 Gigs of data.
I am speaking about drivers that have been delclared to be stable and
implementing frequently used hardware!


BTW: It's _you_ and others who did ignite this flamewar....
so it is nice to hear from you that you will stop now.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Michael Heiming wrote:
>  In comp.os.linux.misc Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr>:

> > But of course it doesn't. b71 is build 71 of a beta OS version. I suppose
> > you know what "beta version" means.

>  Thx for acknowledging that Solaris x86 is nowhere near what some
>  people want to make us belief in this flamewar.

But all you need to do about that is ask. People who use some operating
system usually know (some of) its faults and usually have a feature wish
list.  And they'll usually tell you all about it if you ask nicely. After
all, the subject is their favourite OS.

I'm not going to write a righteous rant about flame wars because this one
has been entertaining and contained in a single thread.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <d4jo82-f6t.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
> Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
[..]

> So it seems you don't have enough Linux experience to know what
> this mean :-(

> It has been more than once when a Linux NIC driver reliably did hang 
> the whole system or died after transferring more than 1-2 Gigs of data.
> I am speaking about drivers that have been delclared to be stable and
> implementing frequently used hardware!

Can't remember some problem in this area, perhaps buggy hw?

Anyway, I'd be surprise if the number of Linux systems you
maintain would exceed the number I'm responsible for. So you
don't need to start insulting.

> BTW: It's _you_ and others who did ignite this flamewar....
> so it is nice to hear from you that you will stop now.

Of course it's always the others fault.

Have a nice weekend.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 458: Windows 2000 is still light years away from
the stability and reliability of UNIX systems.

In article <b4no82-0mt.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
>> In article <d4jo82-f6t.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
>> Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>[..]
>
>> So it seems you don't have enough Linux experience to know what
>> this mean :-(
>
>> It has been more than once when a Linux NIC driver reliably did hang 
>> the whole system or died after transferring more than 1-2 Gigs of data.
>> I am speaking about drivers that have been delclared to be stable and
>> implementing frequently used hardware!
>
>Can't remember some problem in this area, perhaps buggy hw?

No, a buggy OS (Linux) did e.g. drop interrupts and the driver was unable
to recover from this problem.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <b4no82-0mt.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
> Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
>>> In article <d4jo82-f6t.ln1@news.heiming.de>,
>>> Michael Heiming  <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
[..]

> No, a buggy OS (Linux) did e.g. drop interrupts and the driver was unable
> to recover from this problem.

Then simply stop using it, if you can't handle it.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 262: Our POP server was kidnapped by a weasel.

begin  Drazen Kacar wrote:

> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>  begin  Drazen Kacar wrote:
>> > Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>> >>  Nope. That person was stupid enough not to look at the license before
>> >>  changing the code
>> > 
>> > Understanding terms of a license usually requires very specialized
>> > knowledge. Lack of that knowledge doesn't imply stupidity.
>> 
>>  Understanding the basic implications of the GPL does not require "very
>>  specialized knowledge".
> 
> But it does. For a start, it's written in English. I have a lot of friends
> who have trouble with English in Sandman, for example (a comic book). GPL
> wording is completely beyond their abilities.
> 

In other words, now you are starting to shift the goalposts
Have you *ever* met a competent programmer, who did not speak english?
Or has no access to someone who does?

> Second, it's deeply rooted in the USA copyright law. Even if one
> understands the language, figuring out whether it means anything outside
> the USA is not a trivial task. I've been told that it's void in France
> just because it's not written in French. For example.
> 
>>  It requires a certain amount of common sense
> 
> I'd phrase that as "understanding the goals of the GPL requires a certain
> amount of common sense, provided that you understand the language".
> 

You can't program without speaking english. We are talking programmers here,
not users.

> In practice, there are areas of GPL application which are quite clear, but
> there are also gray areas. I could quote different lawyers interpreting it
> differently. Since I don't posess very specialized legal knowledge, that's
> all I can do about it.
> 

The part we talk about here is absolutely clear. If you distribute an app,
you have to provide source. If you use it only inhouse, there is no
requirement. Even you should be able to understand such simple things

>>  It certainly does not require any more "very specialized knowledge" than
>>  any other license, including Suns new license
> 
> BSD license, for example, is much simpler. I would not put it in the same
> category with GPL and MPL and Sun's new license draft.
>

So you don't need to speak/understand english for them? Interesting how
dishonestly you start to argue. You introduce a requirement for the GPL
(speaking english, although this is not true) and exclude it for others
 
>>  So that argument of yours actually is bullshit, if you want to apply it
>>  only to the GPL and ignore all others
> 
> That was not my intention. 


But you did, and you still do. You state here that you need "special
knowledge" (have to speak english) for the GPL (although this argument is
even complete bullshit), but don't for the other licenses, which equally
are written in english


> BTW, how would you label argument which aplies 
> only to people who understand English and ignores all the others?
> 

What has that to do with your dishonest way of arguing?
-- 
Only two things are infinite,
 the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
        - Albert Einstein

Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>  begin  Drazen Kacar wrote:

> > But it does. For a start, it's written in English. I have a lot of friends
> > who have trouble with English in Sandman, for example (a comic book). GPL
> > wording is completely beyond their abilities.
> 
>  In other words, now you are starting to shift the goalposts
>  Have you *ever* met a competent programmer, who did not speak english?

Speaking is harder than understanding a written document. Yes, I know 
competent programmers who have trouble with written English. They learn to
read technical documentation somehow, mostly by scanning for keywords. If
the topic changes from computerese to something else (say legalese), they
are quite helpless.

>  You can't program without speaking english. We are talking programmers here,
>  not users.

Oh, it's perfectly possible.

>  The part we talk about here is absolutely clear. If you distribute an app,
>  you have to provide source. If you use it only inhouse, there is no
>  requirement. Even you should be able to understand such simple things

Why the insult?

Aside from that, how am I supposed to know the difference between derived
work and a compilation of works without certain amount of legal knowledge?
(I'd call it very specialized, but you're probably not going to agree.)
The GPL is grounded on the derived work thingie. And that thingie is
defined in the copyright law, not the GPL. And copyright laws and the court
practice differ among countries.

> > BSD license, for example, is much simpler. I would not put it in the same
> > category with GPL and MPL and Sun's new license draft.
> 
>  So you don't need to speak/understand english for them?

It's much shorter and the words are simpler. It's much easier to
understand for someone with (severely) limited knowledge of English.

>  Interesting how dishonestly you start to argue. You introduce a
>  requirement for the GPL (speaking english, although this is not true)
>  and exclude it for others

I do not. I said I wouldn't put BSDL in the same category with GPL. What
is dishonest in that? I also did not intend to introduce a requirement for
GPL or any other license. I merely objected to calling people stupid just
because they can't read the license with understanding.

> >>  So that argument of yours actually is bullshit, if you want to apply it
> >>  only to the GPL and ignore all others
> > 
> > That was not my intention. 
> 
>  But you did, and you still do. You state here that you need "special
>  knowledge" (have to speak english)

And have to understand certain things in the copyright law (quite possibly
in both copyright laws). While I believe that FSF's lawyers did everything
they could to make GPL fulfill their goals under the US copyright law,
that still doesn't mean that the GPL fulfills those goals under my local
copyright law. I can read English good enough and I've read the GPL many
times. I still don't know if it's valid in my country. I'm not a lawyer.

In other words, the license hasn't been ported and I lack the knowledge to
create such port. I put some of my code under the GPL, but I can't say
that that was an informed decision.

>  for the GPL (although this argument is
>  even complete bullshit), but don't for the other licenses, which equally
>  are written in english

Oh, come on. In the qouted paragraph above I wrote "GPL and MPL and Sun's
new license draft".

> > BTW, how would you label argument which aplies 
> > only to people who understand English and ignores all the others?
> 
>  What has that to do with your dishonest way of arguing?

I expected an honest answer.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
     |
     |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10 Dec 2004 10:19:29 GMT,
 Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <gb8o82-j49.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> Jim Richardson  <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>Fair enough. I look forward to seeing what they came up with, I'd prefer
>>GPL, but we'll see. 
>
> I would prefer freedom before GPL.
>


that's nice dear. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuhgpd90bcYOAWPYRAjyLAJoDhP42B/lDy+njcPBtfKkb8Hth0wCfd1Ac
QH0y147lMbdvZfIQTt0MAl0=
=kwKE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You will be divorced within a year.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10 Dec 2004 09:24:35 GMT,
 Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <41b9568e$1@news.uni-ulm.de>,
> Andreas Franz Borchert <borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>
>>GPL and BSD balance differently. The GPL favours the original developers,
>>the BSD license gives more options to those who create a new development
>>branch.
>
> GPL in fact favors the original developers but this is not the intention
> of the GPL. The intention is to favor a putative and non existsing
> "end user". I doubt that if you would ask unbiased end users that you would
> get a pro GPL vote.
>
> GPL gives no options to contributors. For a minor contributor, this os OK.
> But the European Gopyright law already takes precautions on the "minor
> contribution problem".
>
> For major contributors, GPL is an impertinence. The only explanation I have
> for the existence of major contributors is that they started as minor 
> contributors and had no choice.
>


It's an "impertinence" for someone to choose a licence you don't approve
of for *their own code*? 


I understand that many don't like the GPL, the solution is simple, don't
use the licence, and don't violate it by appropriating the code covered
by it. 

*I* prefer the GPL, most, (damn near all, although that isn't much) of
mine is GPL'd, which should have no bearing on your choice for licence
of course. Unless you wish to use my code. 

(like that would ever happen :) 

It's pretty lame to slag someone *elses* choice of licence to release
*their* code. 

If Sun releases Solaris 10 as open source, I'll be happy, if they chose
not to, for whatever reason, it won't make much impact on me. If they
chose to release it as open source, but non-gpl, then that's fine too. 

i don't get the acrimony you present. But that's usually the case with
me I guess. 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuhlyd90bcYOAWPYRAiU8AKCFcCPAb3ebUKQp9fYsEywZw/HU5gCfT32d
Kj/Gnupu5Q/Y7L4LrMmMhTg=
=M1jT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All generalizations are false, including this one.
		-- Mark Twain

Rich Teer wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> 
> > Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.
> 
> Does it do more than the debugging tools available for Solaris
> (e.g., mdb, dbx, libumem, Dtrace, etc.)?

I've used mdb and dbx. I have no clue about the other two.

Valgrind does things that neither mdb or dbx does.

Valgrind is much closer to purify although I haven't used that 
either. You can read about valgrind here:

    http://valgrind.kde.org/


Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"TLC declared bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175
million earned by their CD sales. That was about 40 times less than the
profit that was divided among their management, production and record
companies." -- Courtney Love on the REAL piracy

On 9 Dec 2004 17:06:53 GMT js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412090857520.26270@zaphod>,
> Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>>
>>> Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.
>>
>>Does it do more than the debugging tools available for Solaris
>>(e.g., mdb, dbx, libumem, Dtrace, etc.)?
>
> You should exclude dbx as you get it only if you have the non-free
> Sun Compilers.
>
> However, mdb, libumem and dtrace are nice _and_ free tools that
> have no equivalent on Linux.

They are not free, since Solaris itself isn't free.

/fc

Erik de Castro Lopo <nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
> Rich Teer wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>> 
>> > Thats a big one. Valgrind is one of the most useful debugging tools around.
>> 
>> Does it do more than the debugging tools available for Solaris
>> (e.g., mdb, dbx, libumem, Dtrace, etc.)?
> 
> I've used mdb and dbx. I have no clue about the other two.
> 
> Valgrind does things that neither mdb or dbx does.
> 
> Valgrind is much closer to purify although I haven't used that 
> either. You can read about valgrind here:
> 
>     http://valgrind.kde.org/
> 
> 
> Erik

dbx runtime checking (rtc) can do most of what purify can do.
-- 
#pragma ident "Seongbae Park, compiler, http://blogs.sun.com/seongbae/"

Michael Heiming wrote:

> Ah well, I can hardly remember problems with something as simple
> as a NIC driver in Linux. But then feel free to live in the world

Then you've had enormous luck so far.  Recent versions of RedHat 
(Fedora) are especially obnoxious by seemingly randomly "losing" 
ethernet devices, so that they simply don't show up anymore.  That might 
have something to do with modprobe braindeath and the way Redhat handles 
configuring/hw-"auto"-detection but for me as a user, when it craps 
itself, it doesn't really matter if it's in kernel space or broken 
userland tools.  I've never seen such idiocy on non-Linux systems.

-- 
   Matthias Buelow; mkb@{mukappabeta,informatik.uni-wuerzburg}.de

In comp.unix.solaris Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@sun.com> wrote:

> dbx runtime checking (rtc) can do most of what purify can do.

Not according to the description of dbx which I can read on the net.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> writes:

> In comp.unix.solaris Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@sun.com> wrote:
>
>> dbx runtime checking (rtc) can do most of what purify can do.
>
> Not according to the description of dbx which I can read on the net.

Try this one:

http://docs.sun.com/source/817-6692/RunTCheck.html

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Frank Cusack wrote:

> > However, mdb, libumem and dtrace are nice _and_ free tools that
> > have no equivalent on Linux.
>
> They are not free, since Solaris itself isn't free.

I don't want to put words into J�rg's mouth, but I think he
meant "free" as in "no extra cost" (over the cost, if any,
of the base OS).

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

In comp.os.linux.misc Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de>:
> Michael Heiming wrote:

>> Ah well, I can hardly remember problems with something as simple
>> as a NIC driver in Linux. But then feel free to live in the world

> Then you've had enormous luck so far.  Recent versions of RedHat 
> (Fedora) are especially obnoxious by seemingly randomly "losing" 
> ethernet devices, so that they simply don't show up anymore.  That might 
> have something to do with modprobe braindeath and the way Redhat handles 
> configuring/hw-"auto"-detection but for me as a user, when it craps 
> itself, it doesn't really matter if it's in kernel space or broken 
> userland tools.  I've never seen such idiocy on non-Linux systems.

Have seen exactly this problems with RH/suse enterprise and bcm?
NICs on cisco switches, the solution was to configure "portfast"
on the network switch and things worked immediately like a charm.

Perhaps you have the same problem?

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 388: Bad user karma.

Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
> Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> writes:

>> In comp.unix.solaris Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dbx runtime checking (rtc) can do most of what purify can do.
>>
>> Not according to the description of dbx which I can read on the net.

> Try this one:

> http://docs.sun.com/source/817-6692/RunTCheck.html

I read that among others.  But Park's comment was non-responsive, since he
doesn't address performance.  This one for instance says "slowly".  Hmm - how
slow?  Using the interpretive approach implied by the dbx documentation, that's
probably too slow(*).

(*) I have some numbers in mind of course - direct other responses to /dev/null

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

In article <x5yzn0lpvgb.fsf@mother.corp.google.com>,
Frank Cusack  <fcusack@fcusack.com> wrote:

>> You should exclude dbx as you get it only if you have the non-free
>> Sun Compilers.
>>
>> However, mdb, libumem and dtrace are nice _and_ free tools that
>> have no equivalent on Linux.
>
>They are not free, since Solaris itself isn't free.

They are free to use for now (as you get them for free - no extra charge -
when you run Solaris).

In addition, you have only to wait a short time in until even the sources for 
these tools are available for free.

So what is your point here?

If you like to use comparable tools, you need to pay a lot ot money or the other
tools are worse that what comes for free with Solaris.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <10rlq6knb05pod4@corp.supernews.com>,
Thomas Dickey  <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:

>>> Not according to the description of dbx which I can read on the net.
>
>> Try this one:
>
>> http://docs.sun.com/source/817-6692/RunTCheck.html
>
>I read that among others.  But Park's comment was non-responsive, since he
>doesn't address performance.  This one for instance says "slowly".  Hmm - how
>slow?  Using the interpretive approach implied by the dbx documentation, that's
>probably too slow(*).
>
>(*) I have some numbers in mind of course - direct other responses to /dev/null

Even purify slows things down...... and for most cases you need you can use
libumen which is really fast and works together with the free debugger mdb.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:

> If you take a closer look, it wasn't me who posted the URL about
> how easily one could find NIC driver for Solaris x86 and all you
> get from the URL is that downloading is suspended because of
> problems.

Perhaps there is similar stuff for Solaris 9 that's production
quality?  I wouldn't know, since I'm not a Solaris expert.

But given a post citing a URL to a site of Solaris beta drivers is not
a good basis for saying that all Solaris drivers are beta.

Kai

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>
>> Which protects your freedom, by insisting that the person who supplies
>> you a binary under GPL must give you the source code also, and that you
>> protect the freedom of the people who receive a GPL binary from you
>> also.
>
> I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
> code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
> then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
> source be made available, also under the GPL.  The person making the
> changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.

Choice for whom?  What about the recipient of the modified GPLed code?

Kai

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Kai Grossjohann wrote:

> > I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
> > code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
> > then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
> > source be made available, also under the GPL.  The person making the
> > changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.
>
> Choice for whom?  What about the recipient of the modified GPLed code?

The person making the modification, as I said.  As for your second
question, the rights of the recipient of the GPLed code are similarly
curtailed.

Here's one way of look at it, in decreasing amount of freedom
and choice:

	Public domain: anyone can do whatever they like with the SW, with
	no restrictions.

	BSD-type: anyone can do what they like, provided credit is given,
	and the name of the author is not used as an endorsement

	GPL: anyone can do what they like, provided that source for any
	mods is freely available, and derivatives must also be licensed
	under the GPL.  You (allegedly) can't link GPLed code with non
	open source code.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
> 
> 	GPL: anyone can do what they like, provided that source for any
> 	mods is freely available, and derivatives must also be licensed
> 	under the GPL.  You (allegedly) can't link GPLed code with non
> 	open source code.

Rich, this has already been pointed out a couple times now; the GPL
does not require the source for any mods to be made available in any
way EXCEPT when you distribute binaries compiled from the modified GPL
source.  If you don't distribute modified binaries, then you don't
have to make anything available.  If this condition is onerous, then
by all means do not use, modify or distribute GPL'ed software.

"Linkage" of a variety of types between GPL and non-GPL code does get
a bit tricky.  First, it is necessary to define precisely what you
mean by it, then conclusions about what you can and can't do might
realistically be drawn.

OTOH, if you're just playing with settings on the FUD machine, then
never mind.

Gregm

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
>
>> > I disagree.  Freedom is about choice.  If someone who modifies GPLed
>> > code has the right to distribute their source IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO,
>> > then freedom is preserved.  However, the GPL INSISTS that the modified
>> > source be made available, also under the GPL.  The person making the
>> > changes therefore has less choice, and hence, less freedom.
>>
>> Choice for whom?  What about the recipient of the modified GPLed code?
>
> The person making the modification, as I said.  As for your second
> question, the rights of the recipient of the GPLed code are similarly
> curtailed.

What I meant is, that the recipient of the modified GPLed code gets
the same choices as the original author, whereas the recipient of some
hypothetical BSD-licensed code might get fewer choices -- the source
could be missing.

This, of course, is the virality of the GPL.  This is either a
strength or a weakness, depending on whom you ask.

Kai

In article <86pt1f41zs.fsf@ketchup.de.uu.net>,
Kai Grossjohann  <kai@emptydomain.de> wrote:

>What I meant is, that the recipient of the modified GPLed code gets
>the same choices as the original author, whereas the recipient of some

This is not true: The original Author of course has the option of linking his
code against other closed source software and then publishing the resulting
binaries. Somebody who makes modifiactions has less choises.

So it is obvious that the GPL limits the rights of Authors who start
with other peoples sources.

>hypothetical BSD-licensed code might get fewer choices -- the source
>could be missing.

The BSD license does not limit the rights of Authors that prefer
to start with other peoples sources. BSD licensed software this
way patronizes reusing of software while the GPL discriminates the
Author that does not start from scratch.

This is the viral nature of the GPL.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <86pt1f41zs.fsf@ketchup.de.uu.net>,
> Kai Grossjohann  <kai@emptydomain.de> wrote:
> 
>>What I meant is, that the recipient of the modified GPLed code gets
>>the same choices as the original author, whereas the recipient of some
> 
> This is not true: The original Author of course has the option of linking
> his code against other closed source software and then publishing the
> resulting binaries. Somebody who makes modifiactions has less choises.
> 

Really? Explain how someone making changes is not allowed to link against
the same code. If the original author was allowed to do it, others should
be able to equally do it. Pray tell, how does this limit their rights then?

That the original author has more choices than subsequent ones is clear, as
he has the right to chose the licence. And also has the right to fork off
closed source versions.

This comes with being the original author. And what you in reality want is
stealing someone elses work

> So it is obvious that the GPL limits the rights of Authors who start
> with other peoples sources.
> 

Yes, in the sense that they can't chose a different licence or fork off a
closed version. Otherwise, no, they don't have less rights

>>hypothetical BSD-licensed code might get fewer choices -- the source
>>could be missing.
> 
> The BSD license does not limit the rights of Authors that prefer
> to start with other peoples sources. BSD licensed software this
> way patronizes reusing of software while the GPL discriminates the
> Author that does not start from scratch.
>

How is this "discriminating"? Be exact. Accuracy counts. You may need to
mention the weapon pointed to your head when chosing the source, though.
Because you would have to explain who forced you to chose a GPLed project.

Otherwise you simply show that you are either an idiot unable to read a
licence or a dimwit unable to chose a different base
 
> This is the viral nature of the GPL.
> 

No. This is your basic dishonesty showing
-- 
It's sweet to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Greg Menke wrote:

> Rich, this has already been pointed out a couple times now; the GPL
> does not require the source for any mods to be made available in any
> way EXCEPT when you distribute binaries compiled from the modified GPL

Fair enough.  Although I didn't state it, I was talking about the
situation where one would like to distribute binaries of the
modified programs.

> "Linkage" of a variety of types between GPL and non-GPL code does get
> a bit tricky.  First, it is necessary to define precisely what you
> mean by it, then conclusions about what you can and can't do might
> realistically be drawn.
>
> OTOH, if you're just playing with settings on the FUD machine, then
> never mind.

Not at all.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

In <o6dm82-enj.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>, on 12/09/2004
   at 06:04 PM, ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) said:

>Which protects your freedom,

In some directions, and restricts it in others. The Devil is in the
details. That's what makes the terms "free" and "open" ambiguous in
this context, and requires agreement on the intended meaning in order
for communication to be possible.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de> writes:

>What I meant is, that the recipient of the modified GPLed code gets
>the same choices as the original author, 

No he does not; he does not get to chose under which license
to distribute the code.  He gets the same choices as the secondary
authors: release under the GPL or to not release at all.

Casper
-- 
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

In article <cpihdr$isi$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>>What I meant is, that the recipient of the modified GPLed code gets
>>>the same choices as the original author, whereas the recipient of some
>> 
>> This is not true: The original Author of course has the option of linking
>> his code against other closed source software and then publishing the
>> resulting binaries. Somebody who makes modifiactions has less choises.
>> 
>
>Really? Explain how someone making changes is not allowed to link against
>the same code. If the original author was allowed to do it, others should
>be able to equally do it. Pray tell, how does this limit their rights then?
>
>That the original author has more choices than subsequent ones is clear, as
>he has the right to chose the licence. And also has the right to fork off
>closed source versions.

You should read carefully before answering.....

The OP did use the term "original Author" and so I of course refer to
the right of an "original Author" compared to the rights of someone who
modifies the work of another person.

In fact, the "original Author" has more rights that the Author of changes
if the SW is published under GPL. This is why GPL gives you less rights
as e.g. the BSD license.

>This comes with being the original author. And what you in reality want is
>stealing someone elses work

Stealing other peoples work is only one possible usage. The GPL does not
prevent this usage.

There are many other useful ways to deal with software that are not allowed
by the GPL but that are allowed if the source is licensed under BSD.

>> The BSD license does not limit the rights of Authors that prefer
>> to start with other peoples sources. BSD licensed software this
>> way patronizes reusing of software while the GPL discriminates the
>> Author that does not start from scratch.
>>
>
>How is this "discriminating"? Be exact. Accuracy counts. You may need to
>mention the weapon pointed to your head when chosing the source, though.
>Because you would have to explain who forced you to chose a GPLed project.

Just read my text...... I _am_ accurate, but it seems that you either 
fail to understand the background or you don't like to admit what's fact.

A person may add new code so that the code from the this person
is > 90% of the whole project. The fact that GPL grants less rights to the
person who did contribute more code is discriminating this person.


>Otherwise you simply show that you are either an idiot unable to read a
>licence or a dimwit unable to chose a different base

Well, why do the Linux zealots always start to become personally
offensively when they run out of arguments?

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

< snip >

>>
>>How is this "discriminating"? Be exact. Accuracy counts. You may need to
>>mention the weapon pointed to your head when chosing the source, though.
>>Because you would have to explain who forced you to chose a GPLed project.
> 
> Just read my text...... I _am_ accurate, but it seems that you either
> fail to understand the background or you don't like to admit what's fact.
> 
> A person may add new code so that the code from the this person
> is > 90% of the whole project. The fact that GPL grants less rights to the
> person who did contribute more code is discriminating this person.
> 
> 

You still fail to explain *why* that person choses a GPLed project as a base
to add his code. Noone has forced him, yet he did not chose a BSD project
or another project with a suiteable licence. No, it had to be a GPLed
project which he wants to expand.

Only to whine, moan and in general make an utter idiot out of himself later
because he can not do with the original authors code whatever he wants.

>>Otherwise you simply show that you are either an idiot unable to read a
>>licence or a dimwit unable to chose a different base
> 
> Well, why do the Linux zealots always start to become personally
> offensively when they run out of arguments?
> 

In general they don't. Just this show of dishonesty, lack of comprehension
and in general exhibit of total idiocy brings even wellmeaning people to
the brink.

You still fail to explain who forces you to chose a GPLed project as a base
to build on. Instead you whine how the original author does not allow you
to steal his code

If, as in your example above, someone writes >90% of the whole project, the
other <10% being GPLed, why does that person not write the small additional
amount himself and completely ignore the GPL project?

But no, you want to have that code for free (free for *you* to do what *you*
want), the original author(s) be damned. After all, who are they to
interfere with your wishes, right?
-- 
Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats
you with experience...

In article <cpk1ds$4b2$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Just read my text...... I _am_ accurate, but it seems that you either
>> fail to understand the background or you don't like to admit what's fact.
>> 
>> A person may add new code so that the code from the this person
>> is > 90% of the whole project. The fact that GPL grants less rights to the
>> person who did contribute more code is discriminating this person.
>> 
>> 
>
>You still fail to explain *why* that person choses a GPLed project as a base
>to add his code. Noone has forced him, yet he did not chose a BSD project
>or another project with a suiteable licence. No, it had to be a GPLed
>project which he wants to expand.

You still fail to explain why I should.....

The person my have chosen the GPLd project just because it is the only
available........ only to whine that the GPL is OK is no statement.


>> Well, why do the Linux zealots always start to become personally
>> offensively when they run out of arguments?
>> 
>
>In general they don't. Just this show of dishonesty, lack of comprehension
>and in general exhibit of total idiocy brings even wellmeaning people to
>the brink.

Well, so why do _you_ start such an attack against people who just
try to explain you why GPL does not grant freedom but rather reduces
freedom?


BTW: the fact that you _constantly_ try to modify the Newsgroup
list in order to prevent Linux people from seing replies to your
postings disqualifies you and your intensions.


-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Joerg Schilling wrote:

> In article <cpk1ds$4b2$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=  <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Just read my text...... I _am_ accurate, but it seems that you either
>>> fail to understand the background or you don't like to admit what's
>>> fact.
>>> 
>>> A person may add new code so that the code from the this person
>>> is > 90% of the whole project. The fact that GPL grants less rights to
>>> the person who did contribute more code is discriminating this person.
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>You still fail to explain *why* that person choses a GPLed project as a
>>base to add his code. Noone has forced him, yet he did not chose a BSD
>>project or another project with a suiteable licence. No, it had to be a
>>GPLed project which he wants to expand.
> 
> You still fail to explain why I should.....
> 

Because *you* whine and moan about the bad, bad GPL

> The person my have chosen the GPLd project just because it is the only
> available.

Oh, what a freaking bad luck. So he finds only someone who does not allow to
steal his code has written something useable. Now *that* is certainly a
clear case: If only the GPLed project exists, it is enough reason to steal
it. Original author be damned. After all, it was he who was so unfriendly
to provide the only implementation, right?

> ....... only to whine that the GPL is OK is no statement. 
> 1.
As it turns
> 
I did not whine that it is OK. I think it is the authors right to use any
license *they* whish. And you have absolutely no say in their decision
If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple

>>> Well, why do the Linux zealots always start to become personally
>>> offensively when they run out of arguments?
>>> 
>>
>>In general they don't. Just this show of dishonesty, lack of comprehension
>>and in general exhibit of total idiocy brings even wellmeaning people to
>>the brink.
> 
> Well, so why do _you_ start such an attack against people who just
> try to explain you why GPL does not grant freedom but rather reduces
> freedom?1.
> 

Becasue you don't explain it. You whine that authors make choices you don't
like
And what *you* want to do is to reduce the freedoms of the original authors
Yet you fail to explain by what rights you should be free to take away
freedoms from the authors of software

> 
> BTW: the fact that you _constantly_ try to modify the Newsgroup
> list in order to prevent Linux people from seing replies to your
> postings disqualifies you and your intensions.
> 

Another dimwit who never heard of Follow up if crossposted.
How do you explain the relevance of the redhat group? It has none
And no, I do not modify it. It is done automatically by the newsreader, and
I have to override it if I don't want that. Fact is, I want that feature.
It helps a great deal to bring discussions back into those groups they
belong to. In this case, yours. 

-- 
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> In comp.unix.solaris Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@sun.com> wrote:
> 
>> dbx runtime checking (rtc) can do most of what purify can do.
> 
> Not according to the description of dbx which I can read on the net.

I don't know which description you've read, 
but apparently the wrong one or you haven't read it carefully.

From http://docs.sfbay/source/817-6692/RunTCheck.html

> Memory Access Errors
> 
> Runtime checking detects the following memory access errors:
> 
>     * rui (see Read From Uninitialized Memory (rui) Error)
>     * rua (see Read From Unallocated Memory (rua) Error)
>     * wua (see Write to Unallocated Memory (wua) Error)
>     * wro (see Write to Read-Only Memory (wro) Error)
>     * mar (see Misaligned Read (mar) Error)
>     * maw (see Misaligned Write (maw) Error)
>     * duf (see Duplicate Free (duf) Error)
>     * baf (see Bad Free (baf) Error)
>     * maf (see Misaligned Free (maf) Error)
>     * oom (see Out of Memory (oom) Error
-- 
#pragma ident "Seongbae Park, compiler, http://blogs.sun.com/seongbae/"

On 12/13/04 16:23, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Well, why do the Linux zealots always start to become personally
> offensively when they run out of arguments?

Because, most of them have never read and, or do not comply with:
http://en.tldp.org/HOWTO/Advocacy.html

and, or are not genuine Linux users, but only pose as Linux zealots. 
Simply ignore them, they can be trolls; which I think you can easily 
identify.

-- 
Dr Balwinder Singh Dheeman            Registered Linux User: #229709
CLLO (Chief Linux Learning Officer)   Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Anu's Linux@HOME                      Distros: Knoppix, Fedora, FreeBSD
More: http://anu.homelinux.net/~bsd/  Visit: http://counter.li.org/

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> The person my have chosen the GPLd project just because it is the only

I agree with you.  I think many open source developers chose the
GPL when starting a new project because it is the most heard of,
without being fully aware of the repercussions of doing so.

That's one reason why I deliberately chose to release the source
code for all the examples in my book under a BSD-style license.
I don't agree with the restrictions the GPL places on people who
use it (in other words, I don't want to restrict their freedom).

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

begin  Rich Teer wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 
>> The person my have chosen the GPLd project just because it is the only
> 
> I agree with you.  I think many open source developers chose the
> GPL when starting a new project because it is the most heard of,
> without being fully aware of the repercussions of doing so.
> 

Sure. If it fits your purpose, you think of an OSS developer as a kind of
dimwit, unable to make proper choices.
Just able to write code you would dearly love to incorporate into your next
project. Do you even notice how ridiculous you sound?

> That's one reason why I deliberately chose to release the source
> code for all the examples in my book under a BSD-style license.
> I don't agree with the restrictions the GPL places on people who
> use it (in other words, I don't want to restrict their freedom).
> 

Thats your choice. and now please respect the choice of others also. After
all, you are in no way hindered to conract the original author and ask him
if he is willing to fork off a version under a different license. You know,
the authors of that project can do that. If they are willing. If not, tough
luck

Have you whiners ever thought of that?
-- 
Some people are incredibly witty AND intelligent AND sexy.
But enough about myself...

Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
>> Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> writes:
> 
>>> In comp.unix.solaris Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dbx runtime checking (rtc) can do most of what purify can do.
>>>
>>> Not according to the description of dbx which I can read on the net.
> 
>> Try this one:
> 
>> http://docs.sun.com/source/817-6692/RunTCheck.html
> 
> I read that among others.  
> But Park's comment was non-responsive, since he
> doesn't address performance.  

I was talking about features, not performance.
And I stand by what I said - dbx can do most of what purify can do.
If you disagree, let me know any major feature dbx lacks but purify has.

And about performance...

> This one for instance says "slowly".  Hmm - how
> slow?  Using the interpretive approach implied by the dbx documentation, that's
> probably too slow(*).
> 
> (*) I have some numbers in mind of course - direct other responses to /dev/null

I haven't done any comparative performance study,
but probably dbx rtc is slower than valgrind or purify in general.
However its method is general enough to be applicable to any processors
(contrary to valgrind), 
and can run executables unmodified (contrary to purify).
I've been using both purify and dbx rtc,
and dbx has been as useful for catching memory errors as purify.

As a compiler writer, I need a memory checking tool that do not change
the underlying code at all - and dbx is exactly that.
-- 
#pragma ident "Seongbae Park, compiler, http://blogs.sun.com/seongbae/"

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Peter [UTF-8] Köhlmann wrote:

> Sure. If it fits your purpose, you think of an OSS developer as a kind of
> dimwit, unable to make proper choices.

Don't be so foolish.  Many OSS developers are pretty smart, when it
comes to writing software.  But that doesn't mean that they give
more than a cursary consideration to what license to use.

PS: Please fix your newsreader so that it doesn't change the Followup-To
header.  Doing so without notice is very rude.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412130916130.8903@zaphod>,
Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> The person my have chosen the GPLd project just because it is the only
>
>I agree with you.  I think many open source developers chose the
>GPL when starting a new project because it is the most heard of,
>without being fully aware of the repercussions of doing so.

Most of my project are much older than 1990 when people did publish
a lot of sw.

When I did start publishing, I did chose GPL for my projects as this was 
a time when there was only BSD and GPL. As it was really hard for me to
understand what would be the best, I did chose GPL _because_ it is the 
most restrictive license.

Now, I found that GPL does not grant you what people tell you about it,
so many programs could be better published unter BSD license. BSD also
gives more acceptance if you like to use the program for distributing
your new technoligies (e.g. a tar with extensions).

Other software is based on a lot of work (e.g. libscg the portable SCSI
transport lib). I don't like it to be used with non-OSS projects.
But in general I would now prefer the license that allows wider acceptance 
of software.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
      schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

begin  Rich Teer wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Peter [UTF-8] Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> Sure. If it fits your purpose, you think of an OSS developer as a kind of
>> dimwit, unable to make proper choices.
> 
> Don't be so foolish.  Many OSS developers are pretty smart, when it
> comes to writing software.  But that doesn't mean that they give
> more than a cursary consideration to what license to use.
> 
> PS: Please fix your newsreader so that it doesn't change the Followup-To
> header.  Doing so without notice is very rude.
> 

I already explained it once, I now do it again for the benefit of the slow
thinkers:
I will *not* change that setting. Now now, not ever
If you have a problem with that, too bad for you
-- 
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:47:04 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
<Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>begin  Rich Teer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Peter [UTF-8] Köhlmann wrote:
>> 
>>> Sure. If it fits your purpose, you think of an OSS developer as a kind of
>>> dimwit, unable to make proper choices.
>> 
>> Don't be so foolish.  Many OSS developers are pretty smart, when it
>> comes to writing software.  But that doesn't mean that they give
>> more than a cursary consideration to what license to use.
>> 
>> PS: Please fix your newsreader so that it doesn't change the Followup-To
>> header.  Doing so without notice is very rude.
>> 
>
>I already explained it once, I now do it again for the benefit of the slow
>thinkers:
>I will *not* change that setting. Now now, not ever
>If you have a problem with that, too bad for you

So you're an asshole and you don't care what people think of it or
your opinion. Good for you. 
-- 
gburnore@databasix dot com          
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore                       |  �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
                                      |  �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
DataBasix                             |  �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
                                      |  �۳ 3 4 1 4 2  ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 �۳
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division |     Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
      Want one?  GET one!   http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@sun.com> wrote:
>> (*) I have some numbers in mind of course - direct other responses to /dev/null

> I haven't done any comparative performance study,

It would be nice to find out (performance affects the usefulness of a tool)

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

begin  Gary L. Burnore wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:47:04 +0100, Peter Köhlmann
> <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>begin  Rich Teer wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Peter [UTF-8] Köhlmann wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sure. If it fits your purpose, you think of an OSS developer as a kind
>>>> of dimwit, unable to make proper choices.
>>> 
>>> Don't be so foolish.  Many OSS developers are pretty smart, when it
>>> comes to writing software.  But that doesn't mean that they give
>>> more than a cursary consideration to what license to use.
>>> 
>>> PS: Please fix your newsreader so that it doesn't change the Followup-To
>>> header.  Doing so without notice is very rude.
>>> 
>>
>>I already explained it once, I now do it again for the benefit of the slow
>>thinkers:
>>I will *not* change that setting. Now now, not ever
>>If you have a problem with that, too bad for you
> 
> So you're an asshole and you don't care what people think of it or
> your opinion. Good for you.

Nope. Actually, you guys constantly reinserting the redhat group are the
assholes

And no, I don't care for the opinion of cretins. That would be you. It is
you who post their drivel in groups having nothing to do with it
Or how would you describe a group with "linux" in its name? As a group
worthy to flood with solaris stuff and anti-GPL idiocy, right?

You guys are not a dime better than the worst wintrolls
-- 
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.

In article <cpkfuk$26v$1@news1nwk.sfbay.sun.com>,
	Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@Sun.COM> writes:
> Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>> In comp.unix.solaris Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@sun.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> dbx runtime checking (rtc) can do most of what purify can do.
>> 
>> Not according to the description of dbx which I can read on the net.
> 
> I don't know which description you've read, 
> but apparently the wrong one or you haven't read it carefully.
> 
> From http://docs.sfbay/source/817-6692/RunTCheck.html

Which is http://docs.sun.com/source/817-6692/RunTCheck.html outside Sun ;-)

>> Memory Access Errors
>> 
>> Runtime checking detects the following memory access errors:
>> 
>>     * rui (see Read From Uninitialized Memory (rui) Error)
>>     * rua (see Read From Unallocated Memory (rua) Error)
>>     * wua (see Write to Unallocated Memory (wua) Error)
>>     * wro (see Write to Read-Only Memory (wro) Error)
>>     * mar (see Misaligned Read (mar) Error)
>>     * maw (see Misaligned Write (maw) Error)
>>     * duf (see Duplicate Free (duf) Error)
>>     * baf (see Bad Free (baf) Error)
>>     * maf (see Misaligned Free (maf) Error)
>>     * oom (see Out of Memory (oom) Error

-- 
Andrew Gabriel
Consultant Software Engineer

Here in comp.os.linux.misc,
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) spake unto us, saying:

>Well, why do the Linux zealots always start to become personally
>offensively when they run out of arguments?

I often see people online tossing out strong criticisms about the GPL
in online forums (or sometimes directly at those who choose to use the
GPL), but I rarely see people criticizing the BSDL or the programmers
who choose to use it.

Perhaps the harshness of the attacks (which are often based on little
more than a basic difference of philosphy w.r.t. to proprietary usage)
is the cause of the hostilities one often sees?

One line I often hear from BSDL advocates is is that "some programmers
release code under the GPL because they simply do not understand the
consequences."

Please.  The basic concepts of the GPL are not difficult to understand.
There are subtleties when it comes to linking issues, yes, but for the
most part the license is quite clear about the consequences of its use.

It's know frustrating to see a huge pile of useful code being licensed
under more restrictive terms than the ones you might choose, but that
(by itself) shouldn't generate the kind of hostility that it seems to
be generating.

If an author has released a piece of code under the GPL and you want
to use that code in a project released under another license, then ask
the author to relicense the GPL'd code to you under different terms.

This is often possible.

For larger projects with multiple contributors it might not be as easy,
but it could be worse.  The code you desire to use might not have been
made available to the public at all.

-- 
 -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Smyrna, GA USA
  OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
       WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
                   The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@binaryfoundry.ca> wrote:
> :> 
> :> OK. In that case, why are so many commercial "Linux" apps only
> :> certified for use on Red Hat?
> 
> : So that the vendor's support folks only have to be familiar with Red 
> : Hat.  It doesn't mean that the software won't work on another Linux 
> : distributions.  It just means that you can't call the vendor's tech 
> : support line for help.
> 

Well this brings back a good memory.  A long time ago my salesman from 
Veritas got me into the very first Cluster Server class offered - I was
the ONLY non-Veritas employee in the class.  I asked a question about
doing something, I don't remember what but one of the Veritas Support
guys taking the class jumped on my question with "Because it is not
supported and we won't help you then."  I looked him straight in the
eyes and said "What makes you think I am going to tell you I did it when
I open a case?"

The fact is the software is often tested and QA'ed against a kernel - 
run it on a different dist.  but be prepared to lie and bugger any 
config files support may request when opening a case.


> That's it exactly. Check out major tools like from Mentor
> or Cadence- they'll be supported for RHEL and maybe one or two other
> distros and that's it. If you are paying megabucks for the software
> you don't worry about the RHEL costs- but you really don't
> want to lose access to support for major tools like this.
> 
> Put yourself in the vendor's position. Would _you_ want to install
> and maintain a hundred or two Linux distros  so that you can test
> and support your code on them? I suspect not.
> 
> Stan
> 

Seongbae Park <Seongbae.Park@sun.com> wrote:

> I was talking about features, not performance.

As for features - I do have at hand an older copy of dbx (workshop version 6),
but the check for uninitialized memory references doesn't work in that (or
else is so limited that I'm not likely to notice it).

Presumably it's fixed by now.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Richard Steiner wrote:
> 
> I often see people online tossing out strong criticisms about the GPL
> in online forums (or sometimes directly at those who choose to use the
> GPL), but I rarely see people criticizing the BSDL or the programmers
> who choose to use it.

Probably because people like me who prefer the GPL over the BSDL
really could not care if you use the BSDL for you code as long 
as you don't expect me to use it for my code.

However, most of the people who piss and moan about the GPL do
in fact advocate the BSDL.

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"The lusers I know are so clueless, that if they were dipped in
 clue musk and dropped in the middle of pack of horny clues, on
 clue prom night during clue happy hour, they still couldn't get
 a clue."   --Michael Girdwood, in the monastery