Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Taking a Look at Nexenta's Blend of Solaris and Ubuntu

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the little-a-this-little-a-that dept.

Unix 248

Ahmed Kamal writes "What happens when you take a solid system such as Ubuntu Hardy, unplug its Linux kernel, and plug in a replacement OpenSolaris kernel? Then you marry Debian's apt-get to Solaris' zfs file-system? What you get is Nexenta Core Platform OS. Let's take Nexenta for a quick spin, installing and configuring this young but promising system."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Web Server (0)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860209)

I'm not a fan of Ubuntu pacakges, so I'm unlikely ever to run this on the desktop but I've been looking pretty seriously at this project for a while. If I switch from paid hosting to building my own web servers, I'd definitely try this out.

I want you to know (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860441)

I gave yo mama this DICK and it was GOOD! She really, really knows what she's doing.

where's the ubuntu? (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860221)

debian debian debian!

Re:where's the ubuntu? (1)

mebrahim (1247876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860927)

Buzzwords talk

Re:where's the ubuntu? (2, Informative)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861343)

no... it's pretty clearly based on Hardy.

solaris and.....ubuntu? (0, Flamebait)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860241)

id like a dash of the proprietary with my FOSS thank you ;)

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860253)

Open Solaris is OSI approved Open Source.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (5, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860377)

It's not possible to compile Opensolaris without downloading and using a whole bunch of binary components which are distributed under a proprietary license. (see here for details [sun.com] .

This is in stark contrast to OpenBSD (and to a lesser degree NetBSD and/or FreeBSD -both of which include proprietary binary-only blobs). Their license is OSI approved, but you can't compile a working system using only the parts that are open source.

And this is after three and a half years, guys.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (4, Informative)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860403)

Their license is OSI approved, but you can't compile a working system using only the parts that are open source.

Let me clarify this before someone gets confused -by "Their" I only meant Opensolaris.
NetBSD and FreeBSD include binary blob device drivers -but you can compile a working system without them.
You can't compile a working system without using the binary-only components of OpenSolaris.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860591)

Instead of replying to yourself, why don't you try getting it right the first time you douchebag.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860941)

Settle down, Larry.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (2, Informative)

Grey_14 (570901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861029)

Also, I'm fairly sure that under OpenBSD at least, they include proprietary device firmware blobs, but the device drivers themselves are open source.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (4, Insightful)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860541)

So come help rewrite them [opensolaris.org] .

Thus is the power of open source. If you don't like something, change it

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (0, Troll)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860877)

If it was any sort of priority for Sun, that project would have actually gotten somewhere after three and a half years. If it's not important to Sun, it's not important to me, either.

Not to mention the fact that Sun is financially circling the drain [slashdot.org] , which means that the future of OpenSolaris is very much in question. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see Sun try to sue people for distributing the binary bits later on down the road if they ever reach a point of financial desperation (or if they ever get sold off to a SCO-like organisation).

Personally, I'd rather install FreeBSD, which I trust will continue to be here and relevant (-not here in a technical "it's available and there's a usergroup of five people" sense like plan 9 is) and which I am able to compile a working, 100% Free [gnu.org] version of.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860913)

If it was any sort of priority for Sun, that project would have actually gotten somewhere after three and a half years.

Alternate assessment, Sun may not legally be able to rewrite them, depending on the terms of whatever licensing agreement keeps those bits closed

I wouldn't be surprised to see Sun try to sue people for distributing the binary bits later on down the road if they ever reach a point of financial desperation

Immediately and rapidly accelerating the pace at which the binary bits are rewritten.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860955)

If it was any sort of priority for Sun, that project would have actually gotten somewhere after three and a half years.

Alternate assessment, Sun may not legally be able to rewrite them, depending on the terms of whatever licensing agreement keeps those bits closed

If that was the case, they wouldn't sponsor a project to rewrite those parts of the tree. Sun is nothing if not extremely careful about what legal ground they walk on.

If there was even a slight bit of doubt about whether or not they could rewrite those portions, that project would not exist on a sun-sponsored site.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25861001)

Sun isn't responsible for the content of OS.o, nor are they in a position to stop community members from doing anything.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25861011)

Don't be naive. Financing OS.o as well as having most of the CAB stocked with SUN employees makes them more than reponsible, in damned near any court of law.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (5, Informative)

edalytical (671270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860307)

You must have missed the memo. Sun has been open sourcing projects left and right: OpenSolaris, Java and VirtualBox to name a few high profile examples. Sure OpenSolaris isn't GPL'd, but Java and VirtualBox are.

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860509)

You must have missed the memo. Sun has been open sourcing projects left and right: OpenSolaris, Java and VirtualBox to name a few high profile examples. Sure OpenSolaris isn't GPL'd, but Java and VirtualBox are.

You must have missed the reality.. They open source as a marketing strategy and not something which is community based. Even if you do end up contributing they won't protect your copyrights and may end up just pulling a Blackdown like they did years ago. Their stock is crashing and with all the uncertainties I'm curious how things will all unfold over the next 6 months/year

Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (3, Insightful)

edalytical (671270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860589)

Perhaps you are just jaded.

Better Proposed Names... (5, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860261)

  • Solbuntu
  • Ublaris
  • Blarunt
  • UbunSunTu
  • or just Usuntu
  • Gnolaris
  • Somnambulent

But seriously, sounds like a great idea.

Re:Better Proposed Names... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860383)

I kinda like the sound of Somnambulent

Re:Better Proposed Names... (3, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860587)

Somnambulent sounds like a good trade mark for sleeping pill. I'm getting somnolent just thinking about it.

Re:Better Proposed Names... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860631)

"Somnambulent" is a real word, which makes it unusable to pharma companies. Maybe "Somnioxx," or "Somnagra".

Re:Better Proposed Names... (2, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860725)

One word (maybe two?): D'oh!

Re:Better Proposed Names... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25861375)

The floppsey bunnies were positively soporific after eating all those cabbages.

Re:Better Proposed Names... (1, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860779)

Somnambulent sounds like a good trade mark for sleeping pill. I'm getting somnolent just thinking about it.

Did you get an urge to walk around while asleep as well?

Re:Better Proposed Names... (3, Funny)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861025)

i don't think i'd take a sleeping pill that causes sleep walking.

but maybe if they marketed it as a diet pill that lets you lose weight while sleeping...

Re:Better Proposed Names... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860981)

I hear it leaves stout old ladies standing.

Re:Better Proposed Names... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860385)

or just Usuntu

How about Usuntzu?

Re:Better Proposed Names... (5, Funny)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860405)

How about Usuntzu?

Fool around with Linux names on /. and you're dabbling in the art of war....

Re:Better Proposed Names... (5, Funny)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860535)

Or at least confucius the issue.

Re:Better Proposed Names... (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860859)

Better call it SunGnu, or Stallman will have to use his katana.

Re:Better Proposed Names... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25861061)


S o l A R i s
_U B u n t U

Re:Better Proposed Names... (5, Funny)

spoonist (32012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860553)

Why are you making this so difficult?

Clearly this new distro should be called GNU/Solaris.

Re:Better Proposed Names... (2, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861063)

Well sure, if you want to guarantee it'll be called "Solaris" (if history is any guide).

Re:Better Proposed Names... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861073)

It used to be referred to as GNU/OpenSolaris in quite a few places on the Nexenta site. I haven't checked for a few months, so I don't know if it still is.

More stories like this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860269)

These are the types of stories I miss on /. No, politics, no civil procedure/court news, no DRM wars. Just plain old news for nerds (even if it doesn't matter all that much).

Re:More stories like this (5, Funny)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860445)

Real slashdotters use lots of the nice checkboxes to change their preferences. Nerds are complex beasts.

Re:More stories like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860653)

amen, brother

Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (3, Interesting)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860289)

I'll look at it when there's a Redhat/CentOS userland to go with it. I'd say I'm pretty familiar with both Redhat Linux and
Solaris and the BSDs but you would have to give me some really compelling reasons I should go through the Debian/Ubuntu
learning curve.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860299)

Well, the problem with Red Hat is it isn't as popular. Most people who know Linux know or at least have heard of Ubuntu, and know that it is easy to use, on the other hand Red Hat isn't as popular and so while there might be a small number of people who would only use it if it was based off of Red Hat, more people use Ubuntu than Red Hat and so it only is logical to base it off of Ubuntu.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860689)

Well, the problem with Red Hat is it isn't as popular. Most people who know Linux know or at least have heard of Ubuntu, and know that it is easy to use, on the other hand Red Hat isn't as popular and so while there might be a small number of people who would only use it if it was based off of Red Hat, more people use Ubuntu than Red Hat and so it only is logical to base it off of Ubuntu.

That's one of my problems with Linux. Ubuntu has been out for what--less than 4 years, and popular for less than that? Before Ubuntu was the big thing, it was Gentoo. Etc etc, and before that, Redhat. (ignoring, Fedora, Suse, etc and of course the parent distro of Ubuntu--debian--has been around forever as well)...before that, slackware. And so on.

So far Ubuntu seems to have decent staying power (and most importantly--*one* man with money behind it). It just seems crazy to me that Red Hat which virtually WAS linux for the first decade of Linux has been relegated to near irrelevance?

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (2, Interesting)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860775)

Naw the way I see it replying to you and the guy calling Redhat 'not as popular'.. I think there's a lot of bias in any OS
discussion and obviously you're going to be batting for the ones you are familiar with. Now the thing is, it's not necessarily
a matter of what I like, it's more take for an example that Redhat/CentOS is probably the most common operating system
you'll find in a datacenter next to Solaris. It is only for my personal home use these fall short so I've used Ubuntu at home
for a few days.. only to find it a learning curve that conveys little benefit outside of what I could already do with Rhel/CentOS
and a little work of my own.. That's why I finally got a Mac. There still is a learning curve here with OSX but I'm willing to
take it because knowing my way around OSX is something I can use at work.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860803)

That's why I finally got a Mac. There still is a learning curve here with OSX but I'm willing to
take it because knowing my way around OSX is something I can use at work.

I use OSX too. For my server usage I prefer FreeBSD. Point taken about Redhat/CentOS/etc for server vs desktop usage.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (3, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861105)

What's so different in Ubuntu vs. Red Hat, on a desktop machine?

The packaging system is very similar AFA what the end user sees, and there's a GUI program installed by default that can handle all that for you anyway. I suppose config files might sometimes be located in different places, but how many of those to you edit on a regular basis, if any? Especially with modern, highly effective automatic hardware detection and configuration, it's unlikely that you'll need to edit a large number of config files on a desktop machine. Just locate the one or two (if any) that you need to work with and you're done.

The GUI is Gnome or KDE in either one, or any of the other WMs that you can install on either. No big learning curve.

Bash and 99.9% of the console tools are the same.

Installing a program that doesn't have a package is going to be the same on either, usually a configure and a make.

Hell, I'm pretty sure the network manager in Ubuntu was originally created for (and, I assume, is still used by) Red Hat.

What's the learning curve? I'm not trying to be a dick, I really just can't figure out what would be so different, and would like to know what gave you trouble. I can understand servers being troublesome, since Red Hat has tons of tools that other distros don't, but the desktop experience ought to be very similar, considering they're largely composed of the same 3rd party apps.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860883)

Why is that a problem? It isn't like all things developed for Redhat were utterly useless on Ubuntu. I think its good that Linux doesn't get attached to one particular distribution - It allows it to continue to develop and avoid stagnation.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861269)

It isn't like all things developed for Redhat were utterly useless on Ubuntu

They may be - dependencies hell is alive and well, and it's all manual work. Most commercial software requires a specific Linux distribution, if it offers any Linux binaries to begin with. For example, Xilinx ISE is supported (and works out of the box) only on RH or CentOS; I tried SuSE and got quite a few missing libraries; chasing those is doable, of course, but not a trivial thing, not something you'd gladly recommend to others at work.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (5, Interesting)

slifox (605302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860905)

The reason Ubuntu is so popular is because they took a standardized, stable, flexible, but up-to-date base (Debian) and took care of the desktop-oriented customization that a Debian user would normally have to do manually. Then they started filling in the holes in the UI, which trickled back to Debian of course.

The reason Red Hat is no longer popular (and I don't know why it ever was, since Debian has almost always been this good) is, in my opinion, because the packaging system is way too open and not nearly standardized enough. Although they have been fixing this in the recent years, when you run a Red Hat based system (Fedora, Centos, etc), you seem to end up installing packages from random places.

From Debian, if you stick with the official repositories (which is possible since they are very thorough and extensive), you are pretty much guaranteed that all your packages have passed through a standardized system where they are checked for problems, inter-dependencies, and are all compiled with the same methodology.

Additionally, Debian's seemingly-overbearing policies on legal issues are actually a good thing, as long as they have enough developers (and they do): as long as you have your "gold standard" distribution where every package meets very strict rules, you can always branch out from there by adding other trusted repositories or doing what Ubuntu has done. However, if you start from a "messy" packaging system / distribution where anything goes, its much harder to select the "standardized" subset of those packages.

Finally, Debian's developer base is very large, diverse, and relatively unified in their efforts, and their organization is *very* democratic and user-driven. There is no one central authority that has total and permanent control over the distribution. While this has the possibility for failure, they've done it in a way that seems to have worked out very well. In contrast, Red Hat is a corporation that has a vested interest in getting customers to pay for support contracts, while the Red Hat based distributions are more numerous and don't have nearly as much manpower (note: purely based on speculation). I don't know how much penetration Debian has in the enterprise, but if someone stepped up to provide paid Debian support, I think they could make a lot of money...

Anyways thats just been my view. I honestly don't mean to offend anyone who really likes Red Hat -- I just feel that Debian's packaging system is much more powerful, standardized, up-to-date, and trustworthy (the key being meeting all of these points, and not sacrificing one for another -- say more up-to-date for less standardization, etc).

Please feel free to correct me -- I am interested to hear a Red Hat admin's point-of-view on the issue.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (5, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860947)

I guarantee RH is the most popular in the enterprise, which is how they want it. RH gave up fighting for the Linux desktop, which they see as irrelevant and unprofitable.

So, to answer you question (mark, really), RH has only been "relegated to near irrelevance" on the desktop, and that happened only because they didn't want it.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (4, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861037)

Wait, you mean that they saw the desktop was a market full of people who didn't want to pay for an OS, and didn't need to pay for support contracts, and realized that if nobody was paying them it was a useless market to chase?

Holy shit, it's almost like Red Hat aren't completely inept. Who knew that a company based in the same city as MIT and Harvard might be able to find a few people who are good technologists AND some who are good at business (not to mention I've heard their legal department isn't too shabby either...)

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (2, Funny)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861081)

Who knew that a company based in the same city as MIT and Harvard might be able to find a few people who are good technologists AND some who are good at business

MIT and Harvard relocated to the Triangle too? Jeez! ;-)

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (4, Informative)

laddiebuck (868690) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861071)

Gentoo was never the big thing. For geeks perhaps. In the enterprise, it has always been Red Hat or SUSE, and that certainly hasn't changed, and is unlikely to change quickly. What you read on Slashdot, or the stats you see on Distrowatch, are not a good measure of relative use of distros.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861079)

That's one of my problems with Linux. Ubuntu has been out for what--less than 4 years, and popular for less than that? Before Ubuntu was the big thing, it was Gentoo. Etc etc, and before that, Redhat. (ignoring, Fedora, Suse, etc and of course the parent distro of Ubuntu--debian--has been around forever as well)...before that, slackware. And so on.Z

While Gentoo might have been the distro with the most buzz before Ubuntu, the audience for Gentoo was never the same as the audience for Ubuntu. Each has had its share of buzz, but for totally different reasons.

So far Ubuntu seems to have decent staying power (and most importantly--*one* man with money behind it). It just seems crazy to me that Red Hat which virtually WAS linux for the first decade of Linux has been relegated to near irrelevance?

Irrelevance? By what standard? Red Hat has a market capitalization of $1.64 billion. You think they got it from their rich uncle?

The reasons you don't hear a lot of buzz about Red Hat on Slashdot are A.) Red Hat is well-established, produces a stable, reliable, quality product -- and that kind of thing doesn't make the news; and B.) most of the people reading Slashdot are not Red Hat customers. You can't fiddle around with Fedora and decide "Red Hat is irrelevant." Talk to me when you actually pay for a Red Hat Enterprise support contract, then tell me you're going to give it up and go back to Gentoo. I believe if you investigate you'll find that Red Hat enjoys a quite healthy popularity -- in the markets it cares about.

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860327)

You should be able to run red hat linux within a branded zone [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (4, Insightful)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860767)

>really compelling reasons I should go through the Debian/Ubuntu learning curve.

A 7 year old child can?

64 bit? (1, Informative)

viridari (1138635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860313)

The only downloads I see seem to be for 32 bit x86 systems. No 64 bit at this time? No sparc64?

Re:64 bit? (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860339)

2009 will be the year of the x64 desktop.

Re:64 bit? (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860345)

There is no support for sparc64 in OpenSolaris at this time. I don't remember Nexenta having x64 support, but, opensolaris does support it.

Re:64 bit? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860363)

The x86 iso includes 64bit kernel. It auto detects on boot.

Re:64 bit? (4, Informative)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860521)

only SPARC 64 is supported, 32 bit SPARC was dropped from any Solaris support with the release of S10.

as for the x86 port, it is both, you don't need a separate distro for 64 bit support because of isaexec and a smart kernel

Even if.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860337)

Even if the idea behind all this is sound.. Try to consider that Nexenta has been around for 2+ years and still not finished the process to being a Debian port. Is it because the parent company is too busy trying to sell storage appliances or they simply don't have any developers to pull it off? The long term maintenance plans for the project to stay in sync with both upstream OpenSolaris and Debian/Ubuntu is fatally flawed and will cause extraneous effort. Then ask yourself.. why? If you really want ZFS + Ubuntu/debian/linux then please.. start work on that.. smf and a lot of the other useland tools *can* be ported to linux with relative ease if you guys actually knew what you were doing..

Re:Even if.... (3, Informative)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860415)

Note too the latest releases of FreeBSD have begun to integrate ZFS support....

Re:Even if.... (2, Interesting)

Lennie (16154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860463)

Well, there is a kfreebsd-port for Debian, but it's not gonna be in the upcoming release of Debian (Lenny) so it seems.

Re:Even if.... (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860431)

If you read the flame wars on Debian Legal - which is usually a bad idea - yu'd see that the reason it isn't an official Debian is because Solaris' libc is CDDL, which is not GPL-compatible. The Debian people believe that distributing GPL'd code that links against a GPL-incompatible libc is a violation of the GPL (and they are probably right). Something to think about when you use the GPL for your own code - you may be preventing it from being bundled with other Free Software.

Re:Even if.... (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860551)

I think you mean "preventing it from being bundled with other Open Source software." Free software is pretty much GPL'd software. Or have I been drinking too much Stallman Kool-Aid?

Whoever modded you down is a jackass tool and their moderator access should be revoked!

Re:Even if.... (3, Insightful)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860693)

I claim that it is you who has drunk the kool-aid. GPL is not the be-all-end-all of free software.

Got that backwards, and a misuse of term (1, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860675)

Something to think about when you use the GPL for your own code - you may be preventing it from being bundled with other Free Software.

I guess the other software wasn't very Free then to start with if it disallows something as simple as linking with a GPL package, was it? After all, any GPL software can link with any other without legal complications...

If the CDDL is the problem then it is not Free.

Re:Got that backwards, and a misuse of term (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861049)

I guess the other software wasn't very Free then to start with if it disallows something as simple as linking with a GPL package, was it? After all, any GPL software can link with any other without legal complications...

Nice troll. The CDDL is roughly equivalent to the Mozilla Public License. It makes no demands on code linked to it at all. It is a per-file license, and can be linked with any other code unless the other code's license explicitly prohibits it. You can mix CDDL, Apache licensed, BSD licensed and any other per-file license together into a single program.

It is the GPL which makes this a problem. The GPL states that, if you distribute a GPL'd program, all parts of the program must be covered by licenses which impose the same conditions as the GPL and no others. The CDDL (along with every other Free Software license on this list [fsf.org] ) does not fall into this category. This means that you do not have a distribution license for the GPL'd software if you attempt to distribute it along with any software under any of these licenses (and they link together - 'mere aggregation' is allowed).

Apple would have the same problem distributing bash on OS X if their libc were APSL'd (like most of the rest of Darwin), but since it comes from FreeBSD they kept the BSDL, which is GPL-compatible.

Any GPL'd software can link against any other GPL'd software without legal complications, but you can say the same about the CDDL, the APSL, the ASL, and even a load of proprietary licenses. It's only when mixing with the GPL that any of these have problems.

If the CDDL is the problem then it is not Free.

Well, the Free Software Foundation list it as a Free Software License, and the Open Source Initiative class it as an Open Source License, so it certainly seems free.

Re:Even if.... (4, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860733)

The Debian people believe that distributing GPL'd code that links against a GPL-incompatible libc is a violation of the GPL (and they are probably right).

Not quite that simple. You can distribute GPL (V2) code which links against an incompatible (or even closed-source) libc, provided you don't also distribute libc. This is the "special exception" in section 3. Of course, a distro like this does distribute libc, so it's not eligible for the exception.

Re:Even if.... (4, Interesting)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860749)

The Debian people believe that distributing GPL'd code that links against a GPL-incompatible libc is a violation of the GPL (and they are probably right).

The FSF themselves distribute GPL'd code that links against GPL-incompatible libcs (including Suns) - and they have done for years (in fact decades), way before CDDL exsited, when Solaris / SunOS libcs were proprietary.

The FSF are right, "the Debian people" are wrong. If there was one thing the system libraries exception clearly covers, it is libc.

Re:Even if.... (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860959)

You are missing the point. The FSF is not also distributing the libc in question. You can distribute the CDDL libc, and you can distribute the GPL'd app, but if you distribute them together then the combination has to be under the GPL (slight simplification, the exact requirements are slightly different, but that's effectively what it means) and this is not possible with a GPL-incompatible license.

Re:Even if.... (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861039)

*BSD distros include their own libc and GPL software that links against it. OS X includes their own libc and GPL software that links against it. BeOS included their own libc and GPL software that linked against it. Microsoft SFU includes their own libc and GPL software that links against it. OpenSolaris includes their own libc and GPL software that links against it.

Re:Even if.... (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861117)

*BSD distros include their own libc and GPL software that links against it. OS X includes their own libc and GPL software that links against it

All of these have a BSDL'd libc, which does not have this problem because it's not a GPL-incompatible license. It's been a great many years since I used BeOS so I can't speak for their case, but possibly they were in violation. As I understand it, GPL'd software in SFU links against the libc which is part of Windows (and not distributed with SFU) and so falls under the 'system libraries' exemption in the GPL.

Re:Even if.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25861465)

But section 2c states: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."

The "accompanies" in the exception is more than just "distributed in the same ISO image" - it means that the system component is considered a part of the derivative work.

Think about it: If distributing the libc makes it fall under the GPL as you say, then one could solve it by putting the libc on a separate ISO image. This would be the same as Microsoft distributing closed-source Windows, and also distributing a GPL HelloWorld that links with Windows' libc, which intuitively can be seen is legal.

First we apply section 2c, which says that works that just happen to come on the same piece of data-transfer medium ("mere aggregation") as a GPL program, doesn't put this other thing (in this case, Solaris) under the GPL. Next, we apply section 3c, and find that Solaris libc certainly can be considered part of the OS.

The Debian people would be correct, if, for example, it wasn't libc, but say, a proprietary Word processor plugin, because that wouldn't be a "major component" of the OS.

Sun's libc/complier are my BANE! (4, Informative)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860931)

This isn't the only problem with libc/compilers in Solaris. A few years ago, I was trying to use Solaris 10 to do a project in perl. The project had to do with parsing street addresses, so I was trying to use the CPAN module for that. Turns out that the Sun provided perl binary on Solaris is absolutely borked because it is compiled on the Sun Forte compiler and it won't work with CPAN, which expects to build parts of its modules against GCC and there are some fatal incompatabilities. There are some work-arounds involving shims, but they are serverly non-trivial and I never got them working properly. I was using solaris because all the data was in a berkley-db on the solaris box. I ended up runing the perl part on linux and mounting the berkley-db directory via NFS, which was far easier and reliable than trying to untangle the entire shim business. The other option, I suppose, might have been to compile a completely new perl binary against GCC/glibc and call that whenever I used my project. But still, a major tool like perl should "just work". Perl without CPAN isn't much use. I was completely flabergasted.

Re:Even if.... (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860937)

Something to think about when you use the GPL for your own code - you may be preventing it from being bundled with other Free Software.

Of course the same applies to the CDDL. Whenever this example is mentioned people like to blame the copyleft provisions of the GPL, not mentioning that the CDDL is also copyleft which is in fact why the incompatibility arises. If you replaced either the CDDL or the GPL with the X11 license there would be no problem. It's just that the GPL and CDDL, both of which are copyleft free software licenes, are incompatible with one another. It's no more the fault of the GPL and the FSF than it is the fault of the CDDL and Sun. However, for one reason or another people like to use this example to bash the GPL, not mentioning that you could equally well see it as a problem with the CDDL. The conflict arises because the requirements of the CDDL and GPL differ on some points, and neither license allows you to change those requirements to resolve the conflict.

Re:Even if.... (3, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861007)

In this case, the GPL is the problem. The CDDL is a per-file license. This is why Apple can put ZFS and DTrace into OS X, linking directly against their code. Because the CDDL'd code they get from OpenSolaris is under a per-file license. The same is true of FreeBSD - they can put ZFS code into their kernel and the CDDL only affects those portions of the kernel. People who don't want to use ZFS still get a BSDL kernel, people who do get a BSDL kernel with a few CDDL components. Linux, on the other hand, can't incorporate any of this code, because of the GPL.

The CDDL isn't the only license to be incompatible with the GPL. The FSF maintains a long list of Free Software licenses which are incompatible with the GPL [fsf.org] . Other notable examples include the Apache Software License (version 2 is compatible with GPLv3), the Apple Public Source License, and the Mozilla Public License. None of these license place any requirements on the final product, only on the code released under that license, and so all three can be mixed together without issue.

Solid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860393)

HA!

Excellent! (5, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860399)

We need to prevent another monoculture in the information sector, even in open source. If everyone uses the same kernel, they will all have the same vulnerabilities. Safety in numbers means having more than one popular kernel.

Re:Excellent! (2, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860467)

Yes: more is better. And it might breathe some life into Solaris. Sun could use some of that right now. Solaris has the benefit of solid code developed at a comparative snail's pace, but with the energy of being hard, and toughened. Any distro mix is a good mix, because you learn from it.

um waste of time (0, Troll)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860483)

if i wanted ubuntu packages why not get ubuntu

ugh
ya waste power and your life trying ot be linux...

Re:Excellent! (1)

Lawand (1345185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860527)

But what about software fragmentition, don't we have enough already?

Re:Excellent! (3, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860531)

We need to prevent another monoculture in the information sector, even in open source. If everyone uses the same kernel, they will all have the same vulnerabilities.

Good point, but we already have the whole BSD family. Having a third family of kernels available is probably a lot less important than having a second one. I would think that avoiding monoculture would be a much less important argument in Nexenta's favor than the availability of ZFS, for people who need specific features of ZFS. Hmm...but then, the licensing issue that makes ZFS incompatible with the Linux kernel doesn't apply to BSD, and ZFS is already available on BSD. I suppose if you want specific features of ZFS, and you're used to the GNU toolchain, then Nexenta might be more congenial than BSD. But an awful lot of the user-visible differences between BSD userland and Linux userland have been going away lately. E.g., GNU m4 is now the default on BSD.

Re:Excellent! (2, Interesting)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860879)

Having a third family of kernels available is probably a lot less important than having a second one.

For the major kernels I'm counting 7: Linux, BSD/Darwin, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, QNX, Win..

Probably forgot some, but the point is, that this kind of number is ok, could also be more, but not less. I mean, some also have kind of specialized uses and the larger number of kernels also ensures, that somebody cares about standards (because if that would not be the case, then the whole tool set for every platform wold be need complete reimplementation - and yes, we are doing this for a well known platform and it is cumbersome to work around the problem instead of solving it).

Similar to browsers, the more, the merrier.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860785)

Amen!

No monoculture also means no third-party software (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860793)

Look at how much trouble supporting even Linux is for third-party software developers now. The kernel ABI changes constantly, so device manufacturers can't write drivers. There are 2+ desktop environments, so your application looks bad on at least some users' desktop. 64-bit Linux is a completely different beast from 32-bit, so Flash breaks. There are 2+ major package management systems, so distributing software is a pain. System directory hierarchies are different on each of the major distributions. Finally there are a myriad versions of the kernel, libc, etc all in use in various combinations. Monoculture is exactly why Microsoft won the desktop space - developers knew that if they develop for Microsoft, they can spend more time making a good app rather than spending it developing compatibility with other OSes.

Re:No monoculture also means no third-party softwa (1)

n00kie (986574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861003)

64-bit Linux is a completely different beast from 32-bit, so Flash breaks.

Soo untrue [slashdot.org]

Looks interesting (2, Insightful)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860505)

Looks fun but I am still waiting for 3ware Solaris drivers. And I am not holding my breath either.

No (1)

dvh.tosomja (1235032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860559)

Where the f. is gnome?

devfsadm? (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860609)

If this packs the devfsadm command, I'm interested.

What happens when... (5, Funny)

neonsignal (890658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860619)

> you... unplug its Linux kernel, and plug in a[n]... OpenSolaris kernel...

What happens?

Neither Linus nor Richard are happy.

Re:What happens when... (2, Insightful)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860837)

Neither Linus nor Richard are happy.

And nothing of value was lost.

Re:What happens when... (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861033)

Neither Linus nor Richard are happy.

Sounds like the reason enough to do it. Shut some loudmouths up

Is this GNU/Solaris? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25860629)

Replacing Linux with FreeBSD's kernel gives GNU/kfreebsd [debian.org] . Could Nexenta's OS be called GNU/Solaris or maybe GNU/kopensolaris?

This is what Indiana should have been..... (4, Insightful)

anlprb (130123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860667)

I have been working with Solaris for many years. When OpenSolaris was announced, I jumped for joy at what could be accomplished. When it was just a re-release of Solaris major, I said, ok, well, it is a certified Unix(tm) and now open source. But when they started working on Indiana, their replacement for the old Solaris system, I again jumped for joy, a chance to remove the cruft, while keeping ZFS and other Solaris goodies. When Ian jumped on the project, I thought, HOLY cow, we can get Debian GNU/Solaris. Well...... Guess what, they had to re-implement dpkg, why, well, I don't rightly know. Sure, you can install the old packages on the system and you now get a network repository, but darn it, why not just go with the darned proven system. Their current ipkg will break a system if the upgrade doesn't go well. I know dpkg can theoretically do this, but why re-code something that has had YEARS of testing and is used by almost half of the Linux community? I don't get it. Why the heck did they decide to re-implement something that could work so well? Just because it is GPL doesn't taint the core OS, it sits in userland. This must be so that they can sell proprietary Indiana builds to those who don't want to play out in the open. That is the only reason I can see. I really hoped for a good package system, but instead, we get a "me-too" system. It just doesn't make sense. And yes, I have been following OpenSolaris since it was barely usable, about nv 40 or something like that. I really wanted an old school Unix to survive, but at this point, I can't see it happening. They are now, not "Unix" they are "Not Linux" and I don't think they can handle the new market. Their Open Source strategy doesn't make sense. Their new storage line, I cannot see where this has a market. Sure, you get support, but once it is up and running well, there isn't much need for that support. There are much cheaper solutions for the SMB to MB segment, with much better support plans. I hope they survive for MySQL, VirtualBox, Java and NetBeans' sake, but I am not quite sure about it. I cannot find a revenue stream that they are first in class for anymore. Their workstations are a joke. I put together a home made Ultra 24 with the same specs for half of what they are asking. This was when they used the slower Q6600 quad cores. I see they upgraded. For outfitting a small to medium development group, I can't see going with the support premium. I know, support, etc... but hey, I can buy a service plan separately for OpenSolaris and when the H/W fails, just buy a new quad core workstation, which will be faster than the one it is replacing. I can't see the price premium. Apple is another story. Their system is integrated and will only work on their hardware. Sun is trying to compete in the commodity OS market. I just don't see it happening. Comments are welcome.

Re:This is what Indiana should have been..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25861441)

There, there, just put everything under a root partition like everyone else. The pain will go away eventually.

Oh the irony... GNU really IS unix now (1)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25861461)

So GNU's Not Unix, but what is it when it is sitting on a true SVR4 UNIX Kernel? GNU iNcludes Unix? Can we say "GNU/SVR4 Unix" without risking RMS having an apolexy?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?