This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OpenSolaris article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
This article states that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL, and gives a link to a wikipedia page listing free software licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences, however this page states that CDDL is compatible with GPL with no footnotes or other information given as conditionals. Mrsteveman1 10:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add a comment to this section concerning why GPLv2 wasn't chosen:
One of the philosophical differences between the two licenses is that the CDDL allows the combination of open and closed components into a derivative work, an action not allowed under GPLv2.
Solaris contains some components that were not written by Sun[1], and which whose owners (for whatever reasons) have kept proprietary. Since Sun could only release source code for the parts they owned, putting OpenSolaris under GPLv2 would have prevented the formation of derivative works that contain those closed components. And, without those closed components, the system would be incomplete - an undesirable situation for Sun and the new OpenSolaris community.
____
[1] such as drivers...
As I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, I would appreciate suggestions and feedback before making this addition. Plocher ( talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As this is contentious, this would need a reference (if there's a Sun press release or policy document that would do, but not a blog entry - perhaps unfortunate given Simon Phipps' preferred communication method). I'm not sure that "philosophical" is the best word either. Finally, it probably needs making clear that large portions of the OS are GPLed. JohnLevon ( talk) 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any published policy/press release documents; as one who interacted with the launch effort from within Sun, this was accepted as a constraint, to the frustration of those who wished things were otherwise. Given the lack of formal documentation, it is probably sufficient to leave this conversation on the discussion page as context. As for "philosophical", it was the best of several alternatives that came to mind :-) Plocher ( talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is information about CDDL's GPL incompatibility even mentioned here? This is an article about OpenSolaris, not about the license it's released under. It should just link to the CDDL article and any information about it here that's not already covered by the CDDL article should be moved there. Dracker ( talk) 13:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, add link to a timeline of builds.
After starting this article. I realized the name should be OpenSolaris rather than Opensolaris.
All fixed....let's try and get a bit more detail in here. - Ché
Thanks Pmsyyz for the cleanup, I'm new to Wiki so maybe I can learn formatting from you - Ché
I find Linus' comments childish and stupid, why should he care about other kernels and say they should die? Linus' should stop wasting his time saying such childish comments and work on making Linux as good, currently Solaris works better than Linux for a lot of things. And my opinion is Linus' should grow up and stop behaving as a baby. Who agrees? 220.233.48.200 15:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
He was CLEARLY being humourous. In fact, i could bet 100000$ that after Linux made that comment, he probably chuckled. Granted, it's not "real" criticism, but it is indeed valid enough, as it actually DOES represent what most people think the negative aspects of opensolaris are. Liquidtenmillion 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What will the role of the CAB be? The article doesn't mention this. Lupin 16:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone really think this article should be stubbed, seriously there's not much we can say about OpenSolaris until we have the code, I think what is here is a fair and informative representation of the current situation.
I'm not sure the Torvalds comments are very helpful here, especially without a citation. -- Webmink 12:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the article reads like it was written by Sun simply for PR purposes? I'm not saying it actually was, but it seems a bit filled with marketing-oriented jargon and the like, i.e. "The community's core values -- openness, inclusiveness, respect, honesty, quality, and independence -- are reflected in how the community and its leaders behave and help guide the community as it evolves the technology." -anonymous
I've edited a lot of things out of the new infobox that were erroneously copied from the Solaris article -- including the screenshot, since strictly speaking it's not of OpenSolaris, but of Solaris 10. (There's no such thing as "Open Solaris 10"). I also removed "Latest stable release" since what was there were the dates for Solaris 10, but also because I'm not sure what constitutes a stable release date / version number for the OpenSolaris project.
(2007-02-28) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. I'm hoping this will attract some contributors to this important article. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was CUPS. Gronky 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Project Indiana" links to the OpenSolaris entry, but there is no further mention of it :-/ 84.143.158.87 10:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's goofy. But more importantly, the article needs to be updated to mention that OpenSolaris (as of not too long ago) is now a BINARY distribution as well. This came as a result of Project Indiana. 134.48.137.11 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a lot of references to this OS inside the community use the term "GNU/OpenSolaris". I think this is a great step - very friendly to acknowledge the GNU contribution. Any comments on how it should be mentioned in the article? -- Gronky ( talk) 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reqscreenshot
The current screenshot is out of date. Shouldn't it be replaced with a screenshot of the new (and very different looking) Indiana release? I don't know how to update it myself, but a suitable image is located at http://opensolaris.org/os/project/indiana/ Dracker ( talk) 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks, this isn't a project homepage and it isn't a web portal. It's an encyclopedia article.
Web links are ok in the "External links" section, and are ok as references (which makes them appear in the "References" section), but they can't stay in the body of the article. I've already removed all such external links from the FSF article. I'll come back and do this article soon, but I'm no expert on OpenSolaris's community, so someone else might be able to do a cleaner job. If you think you can, then please give it a go before I do. -- Gronky ( talk) 10:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, napp-it is not a derivative, it is barely a web interface framework written in Perl and meant to run/configure/manage SXDE or Nexenta, not unlike Webmin, but with a strong focus on Solaris features and tools (ZFS, etc...). Jwarnier ( talk) 18:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I just realised why this article's scope and topic is so unclear: it's trying to be both an article for the free software operating system and an article for Sun's project to build a community. The GNU article had this problem a few years ago, so it was split into GNU operating system and GNU project. Maybe this should be similarly done here and let OpenSolaris be an operating system and let OpenSolaris community be a community/project. -- Gronky ( talk) 10:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I whole article reeks of the stench of marketing material. This is nothing against OpenSolaris developers, but more about Sun itself. Compare the wording of this and Sun's marketing material, and you will see parallels in the terminology where Sun's marketers want to insert certain ideas into our minds. A dead giveaway is the "technology" following each mention of "Solaris." It's almost cult-like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.228.206 ( talk) 15:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The screen shot looks very different from the opensolaris.com live cd. I suppose the current screen shot is either outdated, a developer edition or largely modified. It would be more appropriate to have a screen shot showing the current default desktop. The article could also use the logo image. I wonder, if it falls under fair use. Ubuntu article does this right. -- Easyas12c ( talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Who's a vendor that has picked up this project like Dell to Ubuntu? Was it Toshiba? Or who? I don't see it in the article, but I know it has occurred.
It truely needs some expansion. Toshiba sell Notebooks with Opensolaris and Fujitsu is making their super-computers on Sparc and Opensolaris. Minikola 20091120, 11:45AM CET (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikola ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to test OpenSolaris. Can anyone tell me if or if not OpenOffice works with OpenSolaris? -- 84.56.237.2 ( talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. OpenOffice was actually based on StarOffice which was originally a commercial product made by sun (which was obviously therefore designed to run on sun systems) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 ( talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, not quite true, as Sun bought off a company called StarDivision which created StarOffice, and it was already running on Solaris before Sun bought it. But Sun Open-Sourced it and the base was baptised OpenOffice, then OpenOffice.org because of legal matters. Jwarnier ( talk) 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
While this quote is relevant, perhaps there could be an explanation or some context for it? What does this quote mean for the legal status? 129.33.49.251 ( talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody knows. Thats the point. 81.23.50.232 ( talk) 09:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The entire criticism section does not have a very encyclopedic tone. While I can tell it was written to show both sides, it comes off as ranty. It also cites no sources. If I knew more about the subject, or I would work on it, but I was on the page to learn about it myself. -- Mintrepublic ( talk) 06:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Previous comment is for Criticism section that is removed. I added new Criticism section about security updates for Opensolaris, regarding release editions from Sun. Minikola, 20. November 2009, 11:43 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikola ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have wiped the section out. For it to be appropriate on Wikipedia a credible source needs to criticize OSOL/Sun for it and then what that source says can be used. The current section is criticism from an author who uses Sun's documentation as sources (rather than sources of actual criticism), which is inappropirate on Wikipedia due to it constituting original research. There is also neutrality problems and Veracity problems. ♣ Ameliorate! 10:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be www.opensolaris.org on the top description of the page. Opensolaris it community-driven as much as Oracle-driven project and everyone I ast is saying that www.opensolaris.org And www.opensolaris.com are both official main project pages and they deserve to be displayed. Moreover, opensolaris.org is more "official one" to anyone actually using Opensolaris so not only developer page but basically main page por Opensolaris. (As operating system distribution asd well as for kernel) Minikola ( talk) 12:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Кoolabsol, for putting back opensolaris.org as also main page for Opensolaris. ;) Minikola ( talk) 14:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section since it is irrelevant to OpenSolaris. The initial agreement was never fully disclosed and Novell received compensation during the case settlement specifically linked to SCO's agreement with Sun. Moreover, now that the merger with Oracle is complete means that the due diligence done by Oracle's legal counsel considered Sun's ownership of the entire source code of Solaris and OpenSolaris as well as it's re-licensing valid. BlanchardJ ( talk) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
OpenSolaris is not a Unix certified system. It however follows the Unix standard but never got tried for approval by Sun or Oracle (Yet). BlanchardJ ( talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
man standards
in Solaris/OpenSolaris), which should clear up any residual confusion you might have. In any case, kudos for your proofreading and fact-checking efforts!
71.246.150.178 (
talk)
09:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)What is a software "spork" as opposed to a fork? Please explain. -- 77.7.155.77 ( talk) 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
OpenSolaris is the basic OS and definitely not the name of a distribution.
Sun confused people by renaming the project "Indiana" into OpenSolaris against the will of the community.
There is no need to let this confusion take power over the WP article. The article should just mention the Sun initiated confusion.
OpenSolaris is not discontinued, it is still alife by the community. There is just no longer a distro that uses the name also to confuse people. -- Schily ( talk) 10:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
OpenSolaris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
OpenSolaris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OpenSolaris article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
This article states that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL, and gives a link to a wikipedia page listing free software licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences, however this page states that CDDL is compatible with GPL with no footnotes or other information given as conditionals. Mrsteveman1 10:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add a comment to this section concerning why GPLv2 wasn't chosen:
One of the philosophical differences between the two licenses is that the CDDL allows the combination of open and closed components into a derivative work, an action not allowed under GPLv2.
Solaris contains some components that were not written by Sun[1], and which whose owners (for whatever reasons) have kept proprietary. Since Sun could only release source code for the parts they owned, putting OpenSolaris under GPLv2 would have prevented the formation of derivative works that contain those closed components. And, without those closed components, the system would be incomplete - an undesirable situation for Sun and the new OpenSolaris community.
____
[1] such as drivers...
As I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, I would appreciate suggestions and feedback before making this addition. Plocher ( talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As this is contentious, this would need a reference (if there's a Sun press release or policy document that would do, but not a blog entry - perhaps unfortunate given Simon Phipps' preferred communication method). I'm not sure that "philosophical" is the best word either. Finally, it probably needs making clear that large portions of the OS are GPLed. JohnLevon ( talk) 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any published policy/press release documents; as one who interacted with the launch effort from within Sun, this was accepted as a constraint, to the frustration of those who wished things were otherwise. Given the lack of formal documentation, it is probably sufficient to leave this conversation on the discussion page as context. As for "philosophical", it was the best of several alternatives that came to mind :-) Plocher ( talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is information about CDDL's GPL incompatibility even mentioned here? This is an article about OpenSolaris, not about the license it's released under. It should just link to the CDDL article and any information about it here that's not already covered by the CDDL article should be moved there. Dracker ( talk) 13:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, add link to a timeline of builds.
After starting this article. I realized the name should be OpenSolaris rather than Opensolaris.
All fixed....let's try and get a bit more detail in here. - Ché
Thanks Pmsyyz for the cleanup, I'm new to Wiki so maybe I can learn formatting from you - Ché
I find Linus' comments childish and stupid, why should he care about other kernels and say they should die? Linus' should stop wasting his time saying such childish comments and work on making Linux as good, currently Solaris works better than Linux for a lot of things. And my opinion is Linus' should grow up and stop behaving as a baby. Who agrees? 220.233.48.200 15:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
He was CLEARLY being humourous. In fact, i could bet 100000$ that after Linux made that comment, he probably chuckled. Granted, it's not "real" criticism, but it is indeed valid enough, as it actually DOES represent what most people think the negative aspects of opensolaris are. Liquidtenmillion 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What will the role of the CAB be? The article doesn't mention this. Lupin 16:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone really think this article should be stubbed, seriously there's not much we can say about OpenSolaris until we have the code, I think what is here is a fair and informative representation of the current situation.
I'm not sure the Torvalds comments are very helpful here, especially without a citation. -- Webmink 12:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the article reads like it was written by Sun simply for PR purposes? I'm not saying it actually was, but it seems a bit filled with marketing-oriented jargon and the like, i.e. "The community's core values -- openness, inclusiveness, respect, honesty, quality, and independence -- are reflected in how the community and its leaders behave and help guide the community as it evolves the technology." -anonymous
I've edited a lot of things out of the new infobox that were erroneously copied from the Solaris article -- including the screenshot, since strictly speaking it's not of OpenSolaris, but of Solaris 10. (There's no such thing as "Open Solaris 10"). I also removed "Latest stable release" since what was there were the dates for Solaris 10, but also because I'm not sure what constitutes a stable release date / version number for the OpenSolaris project.
(2007-02-28) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. I'm hoping this will attract some contributors to this important article. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was CUPS. Gronky 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Project Indiana" links to the OpenSolaris entry, but there is no further mention of it :-/ 84.143.158.87 10:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's goofy. But more importantly, the article needs to be updated to mention that OpenSolaris (as of not too long ago) is now a BINARY distribution as well. This came as a result of Project Indiana. 134.48.137.11 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a lot of references to this OS inside the community use the term "GNU/OpenSolaris". I think this is a great step - very friendly to acknowledge the GNU contribution. Any comments on how it should be mentioned in the article? -- Gronky ( talk) 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reqscreenshot
The current screenshot is out of date. Shouldn't it be replaced with a screenshot of the new (and very different looking) Indiana release? I don't know how to update it myself, but a suitable image is located at http://opensolaris.org/os/project/indiana/ Dracker ( talk) 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks, this isn't a project homepage and it isn't a web portal. It's an encyclopedia article.
Web links are ok in the "External links" section, and are ok as references (which makes them appear in the "References" section), but they can't stay in the body of the article. I've already removed all such external links from the FSF article. I'll come back and do this article soon, but I'm no expert on OpenSolaris's community, so someone else might be able to do a cleaner job. If you think you can, then please give it a go before I do. -- Gronky ( talk) 10:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, napp-it is not a derivative, it is barely a web interface framework written in Perl and meant to run/configure/manage SXDE or Nexenta, not unlike Webmin, but with a strong focus on Solaris features and tools (ZFS, etc...). Jwarnier ( talk) 18:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I just realised why this article's scope and topic is so unclear: it's trying to be both an article for the free software operating system and an article for Sun's project to build a community. The GNU article had this problem a few years ago, so it was split into GNU operating system and GNU project. Maybe this should be similarly done here and let OpenSolaris be an operating system and let OpenSolaris community be a community/project. -- Gronky ( talk) 10:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I whole article reeks of the stench of marketing material. This is nothing against OpenSolaris developers, but more about Sun itself. Compare the wording of this and Sun's marketing material, and you will see parallels in the terminology where Sun's marketers want to insert certain ideas into our minds. A dead giveaway is the "technology" following each mention of "Solaris." It's almost cult-like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.228.206 ( talk) 15:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The screen shot looks very different from the opensolaris.com live cd. I suppose the current screen shot is either outdated, a developer edition or largely modified. It would be more appropriate to have a screen shot showing the current default desktop. The article could also use the logo image. I wonder, if it falls under fair use. Ubuntu article does this right. -- Easyas12c ( talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Who's a vendor that has picked up this project like Dell to Ubuntu? Was it Toshiba? Or who? I don't see it in the article, but I know it has occurred.
It truely needs some expansion. Toshiba sell Notebooks with Opensolaris and Fujitsu is making their super-computers on Sparc and Opensolaris. Minikola 20091120, 11:45AM CET (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikola ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to test OpenSolaris. Can anyone tell me if or if not OpenOffice works with OpenSolaris? -- 84.56.237.2 ( talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. OpenOffice was actually based on StarOffice which was originally a commercial product made by sun (which was obviously therefore designed to run on sun systems) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 ( talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, not quite true, as Sun bought off a company called StarDivision which created StarOffice, and it was already running on Solaris before Sun bought it. But Sun Open-Sourced it and the base was baptised OpenOffice, then OpenOffice.org because of legal matters. Jwarnier ( talk) 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
While this quote is relevant, perhaps there could be an explanation or some context for it? What does this quote mean for the legal status? 129.33.49.251 ( talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody knows. Thats the point. 81.23.50.232 ( talk) 09:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The entire criticism section does not have a very encyclopedic tone. While I can tell it was written to show both sides, it comes off as ranty. It also cites no sources. If I knew more about the subject, or I would work on it, but I was on the page to learn about it myself. -- Mintrepublic ( talk) 06:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Previous comment is for Criticism section that is removed. I added new Criticism section about security updates for Opensolaris, regarding release editions from Sun. Minikola, 20. November 2009, 11:43 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikola ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have wiped the section out. For it to be appropriate on Wikipedia a credible source needs to criticize OSOL/Sun for it and then what that source says can be used. The current section is criticism from an author who uses Sun's documentation as sources (rather than sources of actual criticism), which is inappropirate on Wikipedia due to it constituting original research. There is also neutrality problems and Veracity problems. ♣ Ameliorate! 10:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be www.opensolaris.org on the top description of the page. Opensolaris it community-driven as much as Oracle-driven project and everyone I ast is saying that www.opensolaris.org And www.opensolaris.com are both official main project pages and they deserve to be displayed. Moreover, opensolaris.org is more "official one" to anyone actually using Opensolaris so not only developer page but basically main page por Opensolaris. (As operating system distribution asd well as for kernel) Minikola ( talk) 12:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Кoolabsol, for putting back opensolaris.org as also main page for Opensolaris. ;) Minikola ( talk) 14:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section since it is irrelevant to OpenSolaris. The initial agreement was never fully disclosed and Novell received compensation during the case settlement specifically linked to SCO's agreement with Sun. Moreover, now that the merger with Oracle is complete means that the due diligence done by Oracle's legal counsel considered Sun's ownership of the entire source code of Solaris and OpenSolaris as well as it's re-licensing valid. BlanchardJ ( talk) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
OpenSolaris is not a Unix certified system. It however follows the Unix standard but never got tried for approval by Sun or Oracle (Yet). BlanchardJ ( talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
man standards
in Solaris/OpenSolaris), which should clear up any residual confusion you might have. In any case, kudos for your proofreading and fact-checking efforts!
71.246.150.178 (
talk)
09:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)What is a software "spork" as opposed to a fork? Please explain. -- 77.7.155.77 ( talk) 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
OpenSolaris is the basic OS and definitely not the name of a distribution.
Sun confused people by renaming the project "Indiana" into OpenSolaris against the will of the community.
There is no need to let this confusion take power over the WP article. The article should just mention the Sun initiated confusion.
OpenSolaris is not discontinued, it is still alife by the community. There is just no longer a distro that uses the name also to confuse people. -- Schily ( talk) 10:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
OpenSolaris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
OpenSolaris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)