Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: juha_teuvon...@yahoo.com (Relational DBA)
Newsgroups: alt.solaris.x86
Subject: Did anybody try to build Solaris X86 from source?
Date: 28 Feb 2002 14:01:58 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <7f8bbb9e.0202281401.17055fcf@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 171.72.5.226
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1014933719 21012 127.0.0.1 
(28 Feb 2002 22:01:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Feb 2002 22:01:59 GMT

Hi,
I have downloaded Solaris source and the Forte C/C++ from Sun. I also
bought a book on solaris internals and I am planing to study how the
darn thing works. Can anybody point me at any resources on the
subject? Any experiences? My other question is why is it impossible
(according to Sun) to build Solaris with gcc? I haven't looked at the
code yet, so please excuse my ignorance if it's something really
obvious.

P.S. IMHO a successfull DBA needs to know the underlying operating
system well for tuning and etc.
----
The opinions belong to me, not my employers.

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!
news-x2.support.nl!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.xnet.com!dfw-peer!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!
phil+s3
From: phil...@bolthole.no-bots.com (Philip Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.solaris.x86
Subject: Re: Did anybody try to build Solaris X86 from source?
References: <7f8bbb9e.0202281401.17055fcf@posting.google.com>
Reply-To: phil...@bolthole.no-bots.com
Message-ID: <slrna7tlsd.mp1.phil+s3@bolthole.com>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (FreeBSD)
Lines: 29
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 01:19:27 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.220.72.215
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 1014945567 192.220.72.215 
(Fri, 01 Mar 2002 01:19:27 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 01:19:27 GMT
Organization: Verio

On 28 Feb 2002 14:01:58 -0800, juha_teuvon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Hi,
>I have downloaded Solaris source and the Forte C/C++ from Sun. I also
>bought a book on solaris internals and I am planing to study how the
>darn thing works. Can anybody point me at any resources on the
>subject?

You've got the docs, and that's it.

It's impossible to "build solaris from source" from the "foundation source
release". You can only build parts of it. Key components were not released.

> My other question is why is it impossible
>(according to Sun) to build Solaris with gcc?

it isnt.

>P.S. IMHO a successfull DBA needs to know the underlying operating
>system well for tuning and etc.

not THAT well. It is sufficient for DBAs to carefully read the many 
"tune solaris for oracle" type documents out there.
Now, linux, on the other hand...

-- 
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ca1.html

Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: juha_teuvon...@yahoo.com (Relational DBA)
Newsgroups: alt.solaris.x86
Subject: Re: Did anybody try to build Solaris X86 from source?
Date: 1 Mar 2002 09:49:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <7f8bbb9e.0203010949.ac15333@posting.google.com>
References: <7f8bbb9e.0202281401.17055fcf@posting.google.com> 
<slrna7tlsd.mp1.phil+s3@bolthole.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 171.72.5.225
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1015004965 17510 127.0.0.1 (1 Mar 2002 17:49:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Mar 2002 17:49:25 GMT

> It's impossible to "build solaris from source" from the "foundation source
> release". You can only build parts of it. Key components were not released.
Oops. It ain't good. I was under the impression that the whole darn
thing was there. I guess I misunderstood Sun. BTW, could you name a
few key pieces that are missing.

> > My other question is why is it impossible
> >(according to Sun) to build Solaris with gcc?
> 
> it isnt.
Si I can build it with gcc? Cool!
 
> >P.S. IMHO a successfull DBA needs to know the underlying operating
> >system well for tuning and etc.
> 
> not THAT well. It is sufficient for DBAs to carefully read the many 
> "tune solaris for oracle" type documents out there.
I guess it's my curiosity and past experience in Unix system
programming that adds to it. I wrote an RPC server once, it was fun. I
used to be a developer, now that I am old, fat and lazy I became a DBA
:) I still write code, though...

> Now, linux, on the other hand...
Nah, I ain't no big fan of Linux. It has a bunch of issues.

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!
news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!phil+s3
From: phil...@bolthole.no-bots.com (Philip Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.solaris.x86
Subject: Re: Did anybody try to build Solaris X86 from source?
References: <7f8bbb9e.0202281401.17055fcf@posting.google.com> 
<slrna7tlsd.mp1.phil+s3@bolthole.com> 
<7f8bbb9e.0203010949.ac15333@posting.google.com>
Reply-To: phil...@bolthole.no-bots.com
Message-ID: <slrna7vk4g.934.phil+s3@bolthole.com>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (FreeBSD)
Lines: 31
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:01:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.220.72.215
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 1015009314 192.220.72.215 
(Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:01:54 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:01:54 GMT
Organization: Verio

On 1 Mar 2002 09:49:25 -0800, juha_teuvon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> It's impossible to "build solaris from source" from the "foundation source
>> release". You can only build parts of it. Key components were not released.
>Oops. It ain't good. I was under the impression that the whole darn
>thing was there. I guess I misunderstood Sun. BTW, could you name a
>few key pieces that are missing.

oh, small bits like one file from the disk internals modules. I think also
critical parts of 'ls' are not present.
but 99% of the source IS there.



>> > My other question is why is it impossible
>> >(according to Sun) to build Solaris with gcc?
>> 
>> it isnt.
>Si I can build it with gcc? Cool!

well, let me rephrase that a bit.
You cant just type "make CC=gcc" and have it work :-)
You have to pick a specific module or program to compile,and then do a lot
of Makefile rewriting. It's not pleasant, but it's doable.



-- 
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ca1.html

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
cyclone.bc.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!agate.berkeley.edu!
agate!not-for-mail
From: al...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Alan Coopersmith)
Newsgroups: alt.solaris.x86
Subject: Re: Did anybody try to build Solaris X86 from source?
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 01:38:37 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <a5paet$1tlb$1@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <7f8bbb9e.0202281401.17055fcf@posting.google.com> 
<slrna7tlsd.mp1.phil+s3@bolthole.com> 
<7f8bbb9e.0203010949.ac15333@posting.google.com> 
<slrna7vk4g.934.phil+s3@bolthole.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.csua.berkeley.edu
X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 1015033117 63147 128.32.247.226 
(2 Mar 2002 01:38:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 01:38:37 +0000 (UTC)
Originator: al...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Alan Coopersmith)

phil...@bolthole.no-bots.com writes in alt.solaris.x86:
|but 99% of the source IS there.

99% of the source to the core OS (aka the SunOS bits) is in the free
source packages.  0% of the source to the rest (Xsun, CDE, OpenWindows,
etc.) is included in the foundation source packages.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith                              al...@alum.calberkeley.org
http://soar.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/           aka: Alan.Coopersm...@Sun.COM
  Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: juha_teuvon...@yahoo.com (Relational DBA)
Newsgroups: alt.solaris.x86
Subject: Re: Did anybody try to build Solaris X86 from source?
Date: 4 Mar 2002 11:57:54 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <7f8bbb9e.0203041157.21e881dc@posting.google.com>
References: <7f8bbb9e.0202281401.17055fcf@posting.google.com> 
<Xns91C4990142C7Debsposts@204.71.68.78>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.95.115.76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1015271874 17590 127.0.0.1 
(4 Mar 2002 19:57:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2002 19:57:54 GMT

First of all I would like to thank everybody for your responces. You
made a bunch of things a helluva lot clearer to me :)
Basically I would like to play around with Solaris source mainly for
my own education. I have reasonable understanding of the inner
workings of Unix and specifically Solaris, but I would like to improve
my skills there. I also have c and c++ coding experience, so it should
help. Now I understand that you can accomplish a lot in Solaris
without of touching the source code, however access to the source
should be educative and fun. For example I think that it's a must for
Linux kernel developers to read Solaris code.

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO v IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/