Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
Jakub Jirku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah. I would be happy if someone build opensolaris distribution with standard sun system (= kernel and basic userland) and optional gnu and all other applications in some kind of port tree, like in bsd. Such a system existst since June 17th 2005 and is called SchilliX. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Boutilier writes: [...] That's why I don't think we want all OpenSolaris-based distros to be strictly Solaris/UNIX compliant. I agree with that completely, though it doesn't quite address one of the original comments that started the email torrent. There's certainly a problem for third-party software makers if they have to recompile for N different kinds of Solaris, as they often have to do (with not inconsiderable pain) for Linux. Most of these problems are caused by Sun - sorry for being forced to say this. As long as most of the bits from Sun Solaris are closed source (and I count even SUNWbash to this list because the build process is not open), creators of distros are forced to be incompatible to Sun Solaris. If we follow Eric's proposal, will _Sun_ create a fork called Sun Solaris or is there hope that we could have a chance to have binary compatibility? For binary compatibility, we need the following things to do: - Path names need to be agreed on. As most of the current filesystem hierarchy on Sun Solaris looks like it had never been properly designed, it would make sense to agree on a new nd useful FHS. - Binaries need to be compiled the same way. If Sun does not open the build process for free software that is needed in order to run Solaris, Sun needs to be called a deviant that creates a fork off OpenSolaris. SchilliX did open it's build process.. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
Scott N. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that not all of Solaris has been opensourced so there will inevitably be inconsistentcies betweem the commercial ones released from Sun and any opensolaris distros. I didn't want to cut down the great efforts of Nexenta or others as I also do realize that these types of projects are different than the goals for Solaris 10/SolExpress. Mainly trying to create a desktop for more for the types who may have used Fedora or Ubuntu. This is great. I actually downloaded the latest Nexenta to play with again. But I hate having to go to a Sol 10 server to Nexenta and feeling like I am starting over again and not even in Solaris anymore. I just don't understand why every new project or distro must start with the linux mentality of my way and seemingly purposely *trying* to fork. You need to distinct between the distros that make things different because they have been forced to do so by Sun (missing source availability) and distros that just decide to be different. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
Having a distro (or two) that is really, really different from standard Solaris is actually a very good thing to have -- as long as it's different in all the right ways. On the LugRadio, Adam Leventhal interview[1], when a LugRadio guy asks something like: I'm an Ubuntu user, should I try OpenSolaris? Adam's answer of course was: Yes -- try Nexenta. In other words, I for one am thrilled that we have precisely that answer for Ubuntu and other Linux users/developers who have never tried Solaris. For the vast majority of them, the existence of a viable GNU/Solaris project and distro makes Solaris (and ultimately ZFS[2], Zones, DTrace, SMF, etc!) finally worth trying for the first time. soap-box mode on: At the risk of sounding like a broken record, OpenSolaris is and should be an integral part of -- not the UNIX-pure community -- but the broader UNIX/Linux community. (Why self-isolate ourselves from such an _immense_ pool of scientists, engineers, and programmers from which undoubtedly many future innovations will come?!) That's why I don't think we want all OpenSolaris-based distros to be strictly Solaris/UNIX compliant. Eric [1]: See: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/patrickf?entry=opensolaris_on_lugradio [2]: Feeding-frenzy alert: In 6 days, the ZFS mail-list has seen ~200 messages by ~70 different people! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
UNIX == UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: UNIX Unfortunately, the BSD style of things, lack of wide HW driver UNIX support have kept a really solid operating system from gaining UNIX critical momentum; it's simply too exotic (OS X comes to mind!), UNIX plus SVR4 (from which BSD also stems) has been adopted as THE UNIX standard for UNIX almost 20 years ago. Huh? BSD stems from SVR4? In what way? My recollection of history is System V catching up to many BSD things years later. So could you clarify what you mean by BSD stemming from SVR4? -- Dave Marquardt Sun Microsystems, Inc. Austin, TX +1 512 401-1077 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
UNIX admin writes: That is unlikely to happen, although I hope that Moinak G. will make it possible. Why? Because someone who really knows and understands UNIX won't give GNU five minutes. GNU is all about the hype and brute force and none of the quality/snandards. UNIX people (and don't tell me that there are no UNIX people!) that could bring it together will spring for b) because they know that's the right way of doing things (sorry, but that's just the way it is). [...] Can we _please_ not repeat the OS holy wars here? They're really quite off-topic, besides just being silly. (Check my headers and you'll see I'm using VM on GNU emacs. Yes, I intentionally use GNU tools when they do the job that I need to do. Many others, both inside and outside of Sun, do likewise. I don't think that painting GNU with a broad brush helps anybody or any effort, least of all Open Solaris.) -- James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
Eric Boutilier writes: [...] That's why I don't think we want all OpenSolaris-based distros to be strictly Solaris/UNIX compliant. I agree with that completely, though it doesn't quite address one of the original comments that started the email torrent. There's certainly a problem for third-party software makers if they have to recompile for N different kinds of Solaris, as they often have to do (with not inconsiderable pain) for Linux. It'd be nice if that problem were mostly avoided by having folks involved with the various flavors attempting to make sure that key parts are still compatible (e.g., not replacing libc with glibc), but managing at least that won't be simple. -- James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
To me, it sounds like you lost the ground... Where are you? On Mars? So, how is the craters? :-) Have you ever noticed that GNU/Linux is everywhere? I'm still not so sure in bright OpenSolaris future because of 2 main non-thechnical reasons: a) mind set shift (GNU/Linux = */OpenSolaris) might not happen at all or will take too much time to happen and than GNU/Linux will close the gap on server side too. And people like you will scare existing GNU/Linux user base which is very bad for OpenSolaris community in general. b) SUN Microsystems still do not care to explain their oficial position on CDDL vs. GPL compatability issue in terms of shipping GPL apps on single media as Solaris Express, Nexenta, BeleniX and others do or will do. This is purely publiciy thing, but it *must* be clarified ASAP. So, users will not be afraid to jump on OpenSolaris-based distros. In regard to (b). One simple thing SUN could do is to dual license SUN libc as GPL and CDDL. The way FreeBSD, Mozilla and many others resolved it. This will immediately resolve publicity issue. But at the same time I *LOVE* OpenSolaris and very much would like to continue on conquer existing GNU/Linux users hearts and believe in our final success! Erast On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 07:46 -0800, UNIX admin wrote: As J.S. mentioned before, in the future we should expect at least 2 types of OpenSolaris-based distros: a) GNU-centric, those who trying to re-use GNU/Linux as much as possible b) Solaris-centric, those who trying to mimic Solaris as much as possible But I'm hoping that both (a) and (b) will be *much more* compatable than any two distros in GNU/Linux world. And the reason for my hope is that we are using the same Least Common Denominator(LCD) - OpenSolaris(tm) which is not just a kernel but userland too and developed under the single roof. In my sense, LCD will preserve inter-distro compatability. That is unlikely to happen, although I hope that Moinak G. will make it possible. Why? Because someone who really knows and understands UNIX won't give GNU five minutes. GNU is all about the hype and brute force and none of the quality/snandards. UNIX people (and don't tell me that there are no UNIX people!) that could bring it together will spring for b) because they know that's the right way of doing things (sorry, but that's just the way it is). Those who don't yet know UNIX and have grown up on GNU diet as Moinak puts it (rightly so), will be pushing for GNU. With a few notable exceptions, those people don't have the necessary experience to bring it all together properly, and if they keep pushing GNU, they're not likely to get that experience either. So, with a few exceptions, things will stay as they are. I can't really say that I'm sorry about that, GNU tools are very poor in every respect. I'd much rather be using Sun Studio compilers than GCC, for example. Good/usable/quality applications from GNU land will find their way into Solaris. Yet, there is some hope left. If Solaris attracts critical enough mass of developers (and it looks poised to do so), those people may start using Solaris as their main development platform. This, I hope, would eventually lead to extinction of GNU in its present form. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
Erast Benson wrote: In regard to (b). One simple thing SUN could do is to dual license SUN libc as GPL and CDDL. But not all the source to Sun libc is available, so releasing it under the GPL would forbid people from re-distributing it, and make it less free than the CDDL allows. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote: Please don't top post. Have you ever noticed that GNU/Linux is everywhere? Not here, and not on ANY computer I have a say in. a) mind set shift (GNU/Linux = */OpenSolaris) might not happen at all or will take too much time to happen and than GNU/Linux will close the I agree that the mindset shift will take time. gap on server side too. And people like you will scare existing Please. That assumes that OpenSOlaris is going to stand still, giving other OSes a chance to catch up. That ain't gonna happen. b) SUN Microsystems still do not care to explain their oficial position That's Sun Microsystems. Others have addressed this, so I won't add to the discussion. In regard to (b). One simple thing SUN could do is to dual license SUN libc as GPL and CDDL. The way FreeBSD, Mozilla and many others resolved it. This will immediately resolve publicity issue. I see no publicity issue to resolve, and I see no reason why Sun would want to license libc (or any other part of OpenSolaris) under the GPL. The CDDL is fine. But at the same time I *LOVE* OpenSolaris and very much would like to continue on conquer existing GNU/Linux users hearts and believe in our final success! Same here, but there will always be some Linux hold-outs. But also, there's room for both OSes--just not on any of my machines. :-) -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 12:23 -0800, Rich Teer wrote: a) mind set shift (GNU/Linux = */OpenSolaris) might not happen at all or will take too much time to happen and than GNU/Linux will close the I agree that the mindset shift will take time. Right. that is precisely my point gap on server side too. And people like you will scare existing Please. That assumes that OpenSOlaris is going to stand still, giving other OSes a chance to catch up. That ain't gonna happen. I'm pretty sure that ain't gonna happen. But history tells us that technical superiority is not a gold key to success. Remember IBM OS/2 vs. M$ Windows 95 story? i.e. we need something more than just thechnical advances. To me, there are 2 main reasons(aside of technical advantages) for GNU/Linux user to migrate: a) OpenSolaris kernel and core userland interface stability. Long time Solaris users do not appreciate this, but this is exactly what is missing in todays GNU/Linux. So, lets keep it this way. b) Availability of the Distributions which he used to work with in the past. Debian/Ubuntu = Nexenta OS is a perfect solution for their problems. So, lets help and use Nexenta as the best migration path for the newcommers. Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
Perhaps what he meant to say was that SVr4 comes in part from BSD. As I recall the order events: You forgot the first event: which is that Unix escaped from Bell Labs and is enhanced elsewhere, including Berkeley; BSD did include ATT materials -People at Berkeley write BSD, some of these people go work for Sun. -ATT and Sun take the parts of Unix, BSD, and some new stuff to create a new Unix, which eventually becomes Unix SVr4 and Solaris. Much of what became SVR4 came from Sun, not BSD. -Post lawsuit with ATT, 4.4 BSD Lite is created, which in turn is th= e basis for Free, Net and OpenBSD. -ATT anti-trust. Open Group is created as the holder of the Unix `standard' but not the source code, and POSIX and UNIX standards as we know them today are based on for the most part on SVr4. So chronologically I guess SVr4 pre-dates 4.4 BSD, so maybe that's th= e source of confusion. Clearly a lot of ideas happened in BSD first and made there way into the current incarnation of Solaris. Clearly? If you discount the inventions done for SunOS at Sun, I don't think there's that much to show: sockets, reliable signal handling, r* commands. I think it's safer to say that there's common ancestry and that the torch of development passed from ATT to BSD to Sun (and that's where it still is, if you ask me :-) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Schily medium age (starting in 1982). The tools are e currently in /opt/schily/* but as they are not optional on on SchilliX, it seems that they belong to /usr/schily/* in future. Just a moment. What is the reason that your tools are not optional? You cannot boot SchilliX without /opt/schily/bin, but moving it to /usr would not work either as we need software on /opt/schily in order to mount /usr ;-) GNU tools are purely optional, and therefore there is no technical reason why these, as 3rd party software, shouldn't go into /opt. Don't call things optional that are needed to make UNIX homey to people 20 years ago, the schily tools have been important to several people because e.g. all of them use a unique pattern matcher (*) and bsh was the only shell with an interactive history editor (**) *) Pattern matching was a real nightmare n UNIX that times. **) ksh has been developed at the same time as bsh but it was not known by me and not available for 99.9% of the UNIX users. Since approx. 1995 when bash became usable, things did change and it seems that there are people who like to see bash everywhere. Note that csh is just a nightmare compared to bash. Not everyone like vi. I prefer my ved and other people like to use emacs. Although emacs has it's roots at James Gosling (a Sun Employee), people nowadays would call emacs a GNU tool. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erast Benson wrote: In regard to (b). One simple thing SUN could do is to dual license SUN libc as GPL and CDDL. But not all the source to Sun libc is available, so releasing it under the GPL would forbid people from re-distributing it, and make it less free than the CDDL allows. The FSF did start with SunOS-4.0 as the main development platform when they started the GNU project. Why should something be wrong in 2005 that has been OK for the FSF people in 1988? ... and even before when libc was a static lib Just ignore those people from Debian who are not well informed about facts and try to start a religuous discussion. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
David Schanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of this is going to happen regardless, mostly because of the clash of egos. Whether GNU/Linux or the BSD OS's are more fragmented is questionable--there is just one Linux kernel source, but is Free, Open, and NetBSD all have their own sources. If you think about it, most of the compability problems in the GNU world are not due to fragmentation anyway, but rathter stuff like the kernel (2.4 vs 2.6) and glibc, and large projects like GNOME with many dependencies that will change their abi over time. OK, so send proposals on _how_ to fragment OpenSolaris without repeating ideas from Linux or *BSD :-) Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
Scott N. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After my initial trial with Nexenta and then finding that X was installed in non-stardard Solaris location, I have now made an effort to only support TRUE Solaris-like 'distro's' like Schillix or even better may just stick with Solaris Express for my needs (Why hasn't there been a 'distro' where I can install SE without the long 4-cd install process). If I am going to use and support Solaris, I want to be learning and using SOLARIS. Not some distro that goes off in its own direction (namely the dumb Linux direction) and then just adds the SunOS kernel. This is unnessary, Just continue to use Linux/Debian/Ubuntu/GNU then if it is SO good! All this wasted effort could be put to better use like making Blastwave better or something. Could you explain your problems with the X location? I'll probably do something similar from your view as I don't know what's important for you... Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Is 'forking' inevitable here too?
On 11/17/05, Scott N. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really think that opensolaris should remain a core that Sun uses to gather enhancements from some great minds in the open source community for its Solaris flagship rather than have opensolaris available to bastardize it with countless 'distro's to fit what others have in mind of what OpenSolaris should be. And then taking their ball with them if the opensolaris community doesn't like it. This is what happened to, and continues to happen, with Linux and this is the reason I eventually came to like the bsd's so much better. The feeling of coherentsy in the BSD's fit more my philosophy and felt so much more better than the ridiculous mess of Linux. Sun opening up and making Solaris Free (source) was not for it to be 'forked' into distro hell but rather to gather help, Q/A and some momentum. With that, we all get the most advanced OS for free (price) now. Some of this is going to happen regardless, mostly because of the clash of egos. Whether GNU/Linux or the BSD OS's are more fragmented is questionable--there is just one Linux kernel source, but is Free, Open, and NetBSD all have their own sources. If you think about it, most of the compability problems in the GNU world are not due to fragmentation anyway, but rathter stuff like the kernel (2.4 vs 2.6) and glibc, and large projects like GNOME with many dependencies that will change their abi over time. After my initial trial with Nexenta and then finding that X was installed in non-stardard Solaris location, I have now made an effort to only support TRUE Solaris-like 'distro's' like Schillix or even better may just stick with Solaris Express for my needs (Why hasn't there been a 'distro' where I can install SE without the long 4-cd install process). If I am going to use and support Solaris, I want to be learning and using SOLARIS. Not some distro that goes off in its own direction (namely the dumb Linux direction) and then just adds the SunOS kernel. This is unnessary, Just continue to use Linux/Debian/Ubuntu/GNU then if it is SO good! All this wasted effort could be put to better use like making Blastwave better or something. So long as Sun remains in business you will continue to have be able to use their version of Solaris, and I suspect they will continue to implent standards like the single unix specification, etc. Solaris Express is also their thing, and changing it will have to be something they do. Not everything in there is re-distributable, so we cannot just repackage in some other way. I wouldn't make too many judgments about Nexenta at this point, since that was a pre-alpha, which may or may not reflect the first release. Whether there is one OpenSolaris distribution or 5, people are still going to end up pooling efforts on most of the coding. The differences between various Linux distributions and between the BSD's are mostly superficial, and they end up sharing lots of code anyway. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
