[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[James Falknor]

To all the Unix Officiando's,

    Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10 
source code known as OpenSolaris?

    What are your thoughts on the subject?

    Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4?

     Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or 
Version 7 of  Unix into the modern world of x86 usage?

Thank you,
James Falknor

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[Andrzej Popielewicz]

Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:

> To all the Unix Officiando's,
>
> Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10
> source code known as OpenSolaris?
>
> What are your thoughts on the subject?
>
> Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4?
>
> Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or Version
> 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage?
>
> Thank you,
> James Falknor
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>

I did not check sources of Solaris 10 yet, but as an owner of many
Solaris 8/9 licenses I will certainly do it.
As far as Unix Version 7 is concerned I see some chances . Let us
consider such idea .
For example Coherent is based on Unix version 7. It has also support for
DKI/DDI driver interface (but not complete implementation). Solaris
drivers as far as I know use DKI/DDI. So there is some chance that at
least drivers could be in some way portable .
Probably using NetBSD would be also an alternative.

Andrzej

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[Gregg C Levine]

Hello from Gregg C Levine
However, it happens that I spent some time talking with the folks at
the company in question, during the boot camp sessions that launched
Sol 10. It happens that the code is one hundred percent theirs. Now
there might be some lingering strangeness that follows from the BSD
evolved forms of Sol leading up to 10, that is all there will be.

Although I suspect a good hacker would be able to sort out the
differences and dummy up a working kit to support the assertions of
yours James Falknor, I myself do not have those talents.

However, Andrzej Popielewicz, I welcome your efforts.
----
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
---
"The Force will be with you... Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org
[mailto:tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrzej Popielewicz
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: James Falknor
> Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code
> 
> Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
> 
> > To all the Unix Officiando's,
> >
> > Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10
> > source code known as OpenSolaris?
> >
> > What are your thoughts on the subject?
> >
> > Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4?
> >
> > Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or
Version
> > 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > James Falknor
> >
> 
<<<SNIP!>>>
> I did not check sources of Solaris 10 yet, but as an owner of many
> Solaris 8/9 licenses I will certainly do it.
> As far as Unix Version 7 is concerned I see some chances . Let us
> consider such idea .
> For example Coherent is based on Unix version 7. It has also support
for
> DKI/DDI driver interface (but not complete implementation). Solaris
> drivers as far as I know use DKI/DDI. So there is some chance that
at
> least drivers could be in some way portable .
> Probably using NetBSD would be also an alternative.
> 
> Andrzej

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Sunday, 19 June 2005 at 15:17:54 +0200, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
> Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 18 June 2005 at 15:35:05 -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised how little resemblance I find between this code and
>> FreeBSD.
>
> I am not that surprised given the fact that BSD was forced to drop
> the AT&T code more than ten years ago in order to become free.

I was looking in the ufs code, which was derived from BSD.

Greg
--
The virus contained in this message was not detected.

Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20050620/2718ddaa/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[Gunnar Ritter]

Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 18 June 2005 at 15:35:05 -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
> > Pretty amazing that this comment hasn't changed in 30+ years...
> It would seem that it's the exception.

There are more such cases in the utilities collection. For example,
most of the essential code of OpenSolaris bc, dc, diff, fgrep, ed,
and egrep is the same as in v7. (Most comments are new indeed.)

I have created a portable version of the OpenSolaris Bourne shell at
<http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html>. In the future, utilities
from OpenSolaris will also be included in the Heirloom Toolchest.
This particularly applies to System V utilities that were not in v7
and have not yet been rewritten by me for this purpose. Many
OpenSolaris utilities still contain line length limits, though, and
their multibyte code often exits when it encounters illegal byte
sequences in its input.

> I'm surprised how little resemblance I find between this code and
> FreeBSD.

I am not that surprised given the fact that BSD was forced to drop
the AT&T code more than ten years ago in order to become free.

	Gunnar

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[Gregg C Levine]

Hello from Gregg C Levine
Bryan, nice to see someone here, I might have met. Were you present at
any of the boot camp gatherings since the official release? According
to Ambreesh at the one in March, there isn't any further BSD based
things inside Solaris. 

Mind you we didn't discuss anything from original UNIX at that
gathering, but it did come up during later discussions.

Now I'll grant you that exit just may be something that all of you
have not gotten around to constructing a replacement for, but that's
all.

Incidentally this is the one issue that Groklaw has definitely Charlie
Foxed themselves out.
---
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
---
"The Force will be with you... Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org
[mailto:tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On
> Behalf Of Bryan Cantrill
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 6:35 PM
> To: James
> Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code
> 
> 
> > Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of
the
> 'openness' of this code...
> 
> Can we please restrict this kind of dogmatic assertion to Groklaw?
CDDL
> (the license for OpenSolaris) is an OSI-approved license; it is just
as
> open as the BSD license or the MPL or any other OSI-approved
license.
> 
> As for Unix history, you can definitely see the Sixth Edition roots
> of Solaris.  Look, for example, at the comment above exit():
> 
>
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/usr/src/uts/common/os/exit.c#ex
it
> 
> Pretty amazing that this comment hasn't changed in 30+ years...
> 
> 	- Bryan
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development.
http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Saturday, 18 June 2005 at 15:35:05 -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>
>> Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of
>> the 'openness' of this code...
>
> Can we please restrict this kind of dogmatic assertion to Groklaw?

And if it has to be discussed here at all, correct URLs would be
useful.  There's no mention of the strings "Solaris" or "CDDL" on the
page specified above.

> CDDL (the license for OpenSolaris) is an OSI-approved license; it is
> just as open as the BSD license or the MPL or any other OSI-approved
> license.
>
> As for Unix history, you can definitely see the Sixth Edition roots
> of Solaris.  Look, for example, at the comment above exit():
>
>   http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/usr/src/uts/common/os/exit.c#exit

Thanks.  That's very interesting.

> Pretty amazing that this comment hasn't changed in 30+ years...

It would seem that it's the exception.  I'm surprised how little
resemblance I find between this code and FreeBSD.

Greg
--
The virus contained in this message was not detected.

Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20050619/bce33f63/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[Bryan Cantrill]

> Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of the 'openness' of this code...

Can we please restrict this kind of dogmatic assertion to Groklaw?  CDDL
(the license for OpenSolaris) is an OSI-approved license; it is just as
open as the BSD license or the MPL or any other OSI-approved license.

As for Unix history, you can definitely see the Sixth Edition roots
of Solaris.  Look, for example, at the comment above exit():

  http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/usr/src/uts/common/os/exit.c#exit

Pretty amazing that this comment hasn't changed in 30+ years...

	- Bryan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development.       http://blogs.sun.com/bmc

[TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

[James]

Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of the 'openness' of this code...

 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gregg C Levine" <hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:52:35 
To:<tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org>
Subject: RE: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code

Hello from Gregg C Levine
However, it happens that I spent some time talking with the folks at
the company in question, during the boot camp sessions that launched
Sol 10. It happens that the code is one hundred percent theirs. Now
there might be some lingering strangeness that follows from the BSD
evolved forms of Sol leading up to 10, that is all there will be.

Although I suspect a good hacker would be able to sort out the
differences and dummy up a working kit to support the assertions of
yours James Falknor, I myself do not have those talents.

However, Andrzej Popielewicz, I welcome your efforts.
----
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
---
"The Force will be with you... Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org
[mailto:tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrzej Popielewicz
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: James Falknor
> Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code
> 
> Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
> 
> > To all the Unix Officiando's,
> >
> > Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10
> > source code known as OpenSolaris?
> >
> > What are your thoughts on the subject?
> >
> > Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4?
> >
> > Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or
Version
> > 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > James Falknor
> >
> 
<<<SNIP!>>>
> I did not check sources of Solaris 10 yet, but as an owner of many
> Solaris 8/9 licenses I will certainly do it.
> As far as Unix Version 7 is concerned I see some chances . Let us
> consider such idea .
> For example Coherent is based on Unix version 7. It has also support
for
> DKI/DDI driver interface (but not complete implementation). Solaris
> drivers as far as I know use DKI/DDI. So there is some chance that
at
> least drivers could be in some way portable .
> Probably using NetBSD would be also an alternative.
> 
> Andrzej

_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.