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!

Linux Apps On Solaris

timothy posted about 10 years ago | from the writing-on-wall dept.

Sun Microsystems 356

querencia writes "Sun has announced that Solaris 10 will comply with the Linux Standard Base specification, thus allowing Linux apps to run unchanged on Solaris. This isn't emulation -- they claim that it is 'kernel-integrated and supported as an operating system feature.' While I appreciate the benefits of the Solaris OS, I've considered them on the losing end of the battle until now. Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?" Update: 08/04 15:50 GMT by J : At OSCON, Sun reaffirmed that Solaris 10 will be open-sourced. They said it would be one of the OSI licenses, not sure which yet; that this was approved at the highest levels of the company; and (with the expected "we're just guessing" language), it could happen as soon as year's end.

cancel ×


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

More like (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878187)

SLOWaris brought to you by Teens4Christ

first (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878190)


1st post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878191)


NO (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878193)


you mean like... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878195)

you mean like how wine put linux back in the running by allowing it to run windows apps? (or at least games...)

by the way, how well does doom 3 run under wine?

Re:you mean like... (2, Insightful)

vuvewux (792756) | about 10 years ago | (#9878229)

The problem is that this does the opposite - WINE takes Linux out of the running because there is now less of an incentive to write OPEN applications. The Doom 3 Linux port should be out soon if I have my way [] .

Re:you mean like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878251)

Wow, I'm sure Id will be overwhelmed by the groundswell of popular support. I'm sure those two trolls who signed your petition will have Carmack weeping in sorrow at his oversight.

Re:you mean like... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878261)

since when are you RMS?

Re:you mean like... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878267)

You're an idiot. They've said that there will be Linux binaries real soon, what's the point of a petition?

Re:you mean like... (4, Informative)

zz99 (742545) | about 10 years ago | (#9878297)

The Doom 3 Linux port should be out soon if I have my way.

According to the .plan of the ID software CEO [] there will be a Linux version soon:

Mac and Linux: Unfortunately I don't have dates for either of these. However, Linux binaries will be available very soon after the PC game hits store shelves. There are no plans for boxed Linux games. More remains to be done for the OSX version of DOOM 3 and that will take some time. We won't release the OSX version until it's just as polished as the PC version. The date for OSX DOOM 3 remains "when it's done", but I can confirm that it's definitely coming.

Re:you mean like... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878331)

Uh, you do realize that linux binaries will be officially released by id software in just a few days?

Oh, and wine is an implementation of a part of the Windows API on Linux. That's completely different from what this mentions. The OS actually operates in such a way that it will just work.

Re:you mean like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878245)

are you retarded? Doom 3 will have a native linux version. why use wine? oh I see, you're trolling. how cute, the way you referenced a new game. makes you seem like less of a bot.

Re:you mean like... (-1, Offtopic)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | about 10 years ago | (#9878273)

"by the way, how well does doom 3 run under wine?"

id software promised that a linux binary for Doom3 will be available pretty soon, so all that time pretty much spent tweaking Wine for Doom3 would be a waste.

I can wait a few more weeks.

Re:you mean like... (1)

Nailer (69468) | about 10 years ago | (#9878288)

by the way, how well does doom 3 run under wine?

Dunno, but I hear Far Cry works fine.

And Wine does more than games. BTW - Office XP, Flash / Dreamwaver MX, iTunes, etc.

By the way... (1)

Azureflare (645778) | about 10 years ago | (#9878383)

How well does iTunes run under wine, I mean Crossover Office?

Yeah, and how many people are switching to linux because they can run iTunes and Microsoft office in linux now?

Re:By the way... (0)

isolation (15058) | about 10 years ago | (#9878484)

Well I take support requests from at about 20 new people a day running CrossOver. Not to mention some of those customers are more than 1 user. In some cases you are talking about sites that have a license for 10-100 seats of CrossOver.

Re:you mean like... (1)

Nailer (69468) | about 10 years ago | (#9878398)

by the way, how well does doom 3 run under wine?

*Does 5 minutes of research*

Fine. You'll need this patch [] for Winex though.

Re:you mean like... (1)

mikael (484) | about 10 years ago | (#9878399)

If you really want developers to consider Linux as a viable to Windows, then the first thing that should be done is to make it easy to port projects designed for MFC/Visual Studio into KDdevelop projects.

Re:you mean like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878533)

Amm... Microsoft is doing it for everyone. Their .NET `executables' (which includes most recent C#/C++/J#/VB) run under Linux (unless the code uses some fancy libraries, etc.)

Re:you mean like... (1)

LittleBigLui (304739) | about 10 years ago | (#9878440)

by the way, how well does doom 3 run under wine?

On my machine, as good as under windows directly. See here [] .

Re:you mean like... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878470)

This freak really doesn't get it.
Wine put Linux back in the running? WTF, LISTEN UP FRUITF*CKER:

most linux implementations have little or nothing to do with win32 executables let alone gaming. just because you are 13 and can't figure out how to type somehting as simple as "startx" doesn't mean linux was ever "out of the running". in my books it's been running solidly and non-stop since 2000..

Anyway, I wonder how Solaris will be doing this, have they harvested GPL code? Have they infringed patents held by OS Companies/Organizations?

Look, Solaris boots fast, thats all, really for the rest it is truly "nothing to see here, please move along"

Not quite like....? (1)

LondonLawyer (609870) | about 10 years ago | (#9878549)

Isn't WINE an emulator?

From the Slashdot summary:

This isn't emulation -- they claim that it is 'kernel-integrated and supported as an operating system feature'.

This is like (2, Funny)

0x54524F4C4C (712971) | about 10 years ago | (#9878199)

Having The Godfather making a reference to Cops

No (4, Insightful)

IceFox (18179) | about 10 years ago | (#9878200)

Just like with MS and OS/2 people will now make apps for Linux that oh yah work on Solaris not the other way around. As a developer it is a pretty easy choice to make and as we all know it is all about developers developers developers...

-Benjamin Meyer

Re:No (0, Flamebait)

phrostie (121428) | about 10 years ago | (#9878258)

but no one was going to write apps for solaris anyway. it's dead.

Re:No (4, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | about 10 years ago | (#9878456)

As a developer it is a pretty easy choice to make...

Yes, it's the easy choice for these developers to make. It's not the correct one though - the correct one would be to figure out your environment and build accordingly.

For example, thanks to the wonders of "./configure ; make" I now build similar software for the three Unix environments I regularly use - SPARC Solaric, x86 Debian and OS X (PPC). Never have to worry about 'personalities', it just gets compiled and run.

It certainly is about developers, but it's about those developers becoming less sloppy and making fewer assumptions about environment. In many cases the sloppiness I refer to is entirely understandable: it was a pet project, only had to run in one environment, they only had access to x86 Lionux to test under etc.. All good arguments, but they don't really apply to the kind of applications you're likely to be running on your Solaris servers. These will be mostly custom-ordered vendor jobs, and the vendors should know better.

(Oh, and hi Ben - fancy running into you here. I'm the person who helped you out with your old Mac format floppies).

Much like the way Wine works (2, Informative)

isolation (15058) | about 10 years ago | (#9878201)

You can think of this support for Linux apps on Solaris as the same way Wine works. It provides a layer of support by implementing the needed APIs without having to deal with a total emulation enviroment.

Re:Much like the way Wine works (2, Interesting)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | about 10 years ago | (#9878333)

You can think of this support for Linux apps on Solaris as the same way Wine works. It provides a layer of support by implementing the needed APIs without having to deal with a total emulation enviroment.

Score 1: informative? No you can not think of that as the way Wine works. The technical explanation was given they are complying with the LSB which is much like the POSIX. This is an inherent change to the Solaris Kernel not just an emulator or a set of libraries.

Re:Much like the way Wine works (5, Informative)

isolation (15058) | about 10 years ago | (#9878463)

The LSB defines a set of APIs and libraries along with the locations in the filesystem. This project adds a layer to intercept the Linux Syscalls and either redirect them or implement them as Solaris Native. This is the same thing the Wine does except that Wine exists only in userspace.

A better example would be Linux emulation on FreeBSD. Solaris is doing the same thing the FreeBSD people have been doing for years.

IOW... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878202)

"We will now package glibc in Solaris."

Please. What is so groundbreaking about supporting Linux apps when all that's necessary is to stick a couple GNU libraries in the kit?

Re:IOW... (3, Interesting)

tekunokurato (531385) | about 10 years ago | (#9878253)

It's a good point, though. Linux will never have any application competitive advantage; only that of its core operating system's reliability, functionality, etc. Any application that will ever be developed for linux will be snatched up by anyone willing to implement a few relatively simple APIs in their OS.

Re:IOW... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878309)

That's right. However, why would this be a bad thing? The whole reason I moved to Linux was to avoid lock-in. If they port apps from Linux to Windows/Solaris/etc, yes, it's one less reason to move to Linux but it's also one less reason to stay on Windows/Solaris/etc.

Interesting, but what about the other way round? (3, Interesting)

hcdejong (561314) | about 10 years ago | (#9878203)

There's at least one Solaris application I'd like to run on Linux: Adobe FrameMaker.

There was a beta version once ! (1)

tarkin (34045) | about 10 years ago | (#9878290)

See: here []

I remember running it a couple of years ago, it was just another ugly motif applications to me ;-) But I was not a pro user.

I guess the demand for publishing under Linux stalled...

Re:There was a beta version once ! (2, Interesting)

zz99 (742545) | about 10 years ago | (#9878387)

Until Adobe started killing Framemaker, it was widely used as a word processor in multi os environments.

It didn't look great. It wasn't the most intuitive program. It wasn't the fastest. But it worked on all platforms, and the documents could be opened, edited, printed and saved on all platforms.

We put all our project documentation in it, due to our various OSes.

Now that Adobe no longer seems interested in supporting multiple platforms, we are migrating away.

Re:There was a beta version once ! (2, Insightful)

hcdejong (561314) | about 10 years ago | (#9878419)

There was a demand, just not at the price point Adobe wanted (FrameMaker is about $800 for the Windows version, $ 1400 for Solaris). IIRC the user survey showed Linux users expected it to be free.
It's a pity, FrameMaker still is one of the best tools around (and the most accessible) for long-document publishing, even if Adobe has been neglecting it forever.

Could this be (3, Interesting)

Druss.the.legend (701439) | about 10 years ago | (#9878208)

The initial move of SUN towards an OpenSource OS, or even towards a linux based business model.

Re:Could this be (2, Funny)

exi1ed0ne (647852) | about 10 years ago | (#9878422)

No, It's the "Me Too" syndrome.

Just LSB or ABI/API too? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878209)

Will Solaris simply comply with the LSB in a similiar manner as they supplied SunOS BSD tools with Solaris, or will it also be capable of running Linux ELF binaries unchanged? What about Linux-specific things such as clone()? That's not something you can emulate so easily.

It seems a bit of desperate measure. There was a time when Solaris was the leading UNIX on any platform. Now Sun seem resigned to play second fiddle..

Re:Just LSB or ABI/API too? (4, Interesting)

aphor (99965) | about 10 years ago | (#9878334)

Look at the FreeBSD Linux support: a kernel module and an ELF loader that support all the Linux syscalls and can decide at load time which flavor of syscall to implement. The runtime linker/loader knows to go to a certain directory tree to get Linux shared libraries, and Solaris will probably work much as the sparc 32/64 bit stuff works now.

Re:Just LSB or ABI/API too? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878357)

Yes that's what I'd expect, but just saying "We'll comply with the LSB" does not automatically mean that Solaris will include Linux binary support and syscall emulation. Although it probably will.

Linux APIs (4, Interesting)

Sebby (238625) | about 10 years ago | (#9878218)

"Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?"

I guess it can't hurt. Apple is also rumored to be integrating Linux API to future versions of OS X to help bring developers to the Mac side.

For the curious (2, Informative)

Sebby (238625) | about 10 years ago | (#9878351)

I tried to find the original article mentioning it but could only find this [] , which indicates it was originally mentioned on MacOSRumors [] (wow! they're actually back!).

Re:Linux APIs (1)

zz99 (742545) | about 10 years ago | (#9878426)

I guess it can't hurt

My guess is that this will be very popular among those that are planning to migrate. Now they can run things in parallell before they switch the bulk of their HW/SW....

What about Fink? (1)

pjt33 (739471) | about 10 years ago | (#9878457)

Surely (clones of) most Linux software is already available through Fink?

Re:What about Fink? (3, Interesting)

Sebby (238625) | about 10 years ago | (#9878497)

Right, but there might be some stuff that isn't - not all software is open source, though I really don't know of any Linux-only software not available on other platforms too, but I guess it could happen...

Just think of it as Wine for Linux apps.

I doubt it (4, Interesting)

metalac (633801) | about 10 years ago | (#9878230)

It seems that Solaris is having a real hard time getting trough no matter what. With the availability of so many BSDs and Linux distros Solaris is a lone wolf in the whole story. Also I don't think that people who are currently running Linux will be very eager to just jump up and switch since all of a sudden Solaris supports Linux binaries.

Re:I doubt it (3, Insightful)

hachete (473378) | about 10 years ago | (#9878268)

and 4/ 1233241&tid=163&tid=155&tid=218

If you join the dots, you might see a survival strategy if the Big Bad Wolf comes a hunting.


Re:I doubt it (4, Interesting)

Neil Watson (60859) | about 10 years ago | (#9878532)

You've hit the nail on the head. The days of commercial Unix are numbered. It's sad and tragic. The big commercial Unix vendors have no one to blame but themselves. Unix was powering workstations and servers when Windows was still in its 3.1 days. That was a large lead that they petered away. Instead of spending that time improving their procduct (e.g. making their tools more functional like the GNU tools have become) big Unix sat back and did very little.

  • Why didn't Sun fix their tar utility to properly strip '/'?
  • Why didn't Sun fix their tar utility to add on the fly compression (-j -z anyone?)?
  • Why didn't Sun ever develop a useful packet filtering application instead of relying on the ipfilter whose releases can often be worse than beta quality?
  • Why are there so many different bin directories that the environment never pointed to (e.g. /usr/ucb/bin)?
  • Sed, Awk, and Vi all had room for improvement. Why did they do nothing?

So what has Solaris got? (3, Insightful)

Chemisor (97276) | about 10 years ago | (#9878239)

So what does Solaris have that Linux doesn't, except for the hefty price tag? It sure isn't multiprocessing anymore.

Re:So what has Solaris got? (4, Informative)

chegosaurus (98703) | about 10 years ago | (#9878348)

dtrace, zones, zfs, Sun support, source compatibility with Solaris SPARC, better stability (IMHO), and some people just prefer it. And it's not very expenive, if you pay at all.

Also (1)

bsd4me (759597) | about 10 years ago | (#9878461)

I may be a little dense here, but what Linux binary-only packages or code that uses Linux-only system calls are available that you would want under Solaris?

Re:Also (1)

yusufg (3239) | about 10 years ago | (#9878505)

Skype [] is one such binary program which comes to my mind. Maybe CrossOver office

Re:Also (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878542)

its not the point - the benefit will be that you can take an allready working linux application binaries and throw them down on Solaris x86 and just run it - no porting or tidying up crappy code.

You dont waste time and resources porting the app, you can generally use the same hardware and but you do it under Solaris geting the advantages of that OS (dtrace, ZFS, zones, support etc).

I think the main benifit will be that once application providers are able to see that their app can run under Solaris and people use it, they might be interested in actually doing a Solaris port which with the Solaris source code compatibility you can then just compile for SPARC, opening up more markets.

Re:So what has Solaris got? (1)

njcoder (657816) | about 10 years ago | (#9878492)

Actually, solaris seems to be cheaper than the Enterprise branded linux distributions. In some cases WAY cheaper.

bsd is dying... (1)

stavrosfil (801247) | about 10 years ago | (#9878242)


I meant solaris is dying...

I can't wait... (4, Funny)

halivar (535827) | about 10 years ago | (#9878249)

It's just Solaris with glibc.

I can't wait for RMS to start demanding people call it GNU/Solaris.

Cheap way to develop for both? (4, Insightful)

grunt107 (739510) | about 10 years ago | (#9878255)

Although it seems a doomed strategy, Sun could be allowing for an internal Linux development path which they could then back-port' to Solaris, allowing Solaris to expand its portfolio.

This would, IMO, backfire since a potential customer would see Linux as the more influential and therefore desirable IT tool.

the cat didn't get my tongue (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878259)

what is with these articles? it seems like there's some kind of slashdot poster style guide somewhere, or the stupid editors take the bait

these kinds of articles seem to have some kind of lame question intended to provoke discussion, but in reality, is a thinly veiled linux promotion.

geez, can you folks make it seem a little more balanced?

oh, I just remembered: slashdot partisans = lame

Note this is only for Solaris x86 (4, Informative)

MojoRilla (591502) | about 10 years ago | (#9878260)

This only works on Solaris x86 machines, which has always been the ugly Solaris step-child.

This seems to me to be a little desperate. Sun seems to be saying that Linux has won, at least in terms of software support.

Re:Note this is only for Solaris x86 (1)

qweqazfoo (765286) | about 10 years ago | (#9878377)

Ummm, why wouldn't this work with Linux sparc binaries? Sure, they're rare, but people do run Linux on old sparc hardware. Seems like it wouldn't be worth all this effort JUST to do the API port to Slowlaris x86.

Re:Note this is only for Solaris x86 (1)

BJH (11355) | about 10 years ago | (#9878564)

The reason it wouldn't work with Linux SPARC binaries is that Sun isn't going to be supporting that, which you'd know if you'd read the article.

Re:Note this is only for Solaris x86 (4, Interesting)

jgardner100 (559892) | about 10 years ago | (#9878393)

Well, Solaris has actually allowed this for a long time via lxrun (all that's needed is to translate the linux system calls to Solaris, Xwindows etc remain the same) so all as they are doing is moving it into the kernel. It's a logical step as far as I can see. Does Wine mean that linux lost to Windows, of course not.

Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878414)

isn't this a great way for them to transition to linux as a company? remember they have that whole java desktop system thing going?

I think this is only a good idea. Sun seems to be doing better in terms of their strategy. Sure, solaris as an OS may be dying, but at least it can die gracefully right?

Apache (0)

bbrazil (729534) | about 10 years ago | (#9878283)

One Solaris 8 system I use runs Apache 1.3.27. We can't upgrade due to the complexity of getting PHP to work - as it stands its got a few bugs.

Maybe this will help to get a better version of Apache up...

Re:Apache (2, Informative)

chegosaurus (98703) | about 10 years ago | (#9878382)

How about getting someone who knows what they're doing to come in to compile it for you? Apache, PHP and all their dependencies shouldn't take more than half a day for any decent admin to build from source. And they can use Sun's great compilers (soon to be available for Linux) instead of gcc.

Re:Apache (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878465)

How about just doing a pkg-get -i apache php.
No compilation required anymore!

Re:Apache (2, Informative)

linsys (793123) | about 10 years ago | (#9878551)

What complexity of getting php to work??

If you can't run:

rpm -Uvh php-4.3.8-2.1.i386.rpm then it's hard?


rpm -Uvh apache2-2.0.47-1.7.2.i386.rpm

then it's HARD???

Try this:

1) Visit Apache's Web Site

2) Download httpd-2.0.50.tar.gz

3) Build Apache:

1. gzip -d httpd-2_0_NN.tar.gz
2. tar xvf httpd-2_0_NN.tar
3. gunzip php-NN.tar.gz
4. tar -xvf php-NN.tar
5. cd httpd-2_0_NN
6. ./configure --enable-so
7. make
8. make install

4) Visit the PHP Web Site
5) Download php-4.3.8.tar.gz

1. gtar zxvf php-4.3.8.tar.gz
2. ./configure --with-apxs2=/usr/local/apache2/bin/apxs --with-mysql
3. make
4. make install
5. cp php.ini-dist /usr/local/lib/php.ini

6) Configure httpd.conf

AddType application/x-httpd-php .php .phtml

7) Start Apache /usr/local/apache2/bin/apachectl start

The more *nix Software the better (5, Interesting)

njcoder (657816) | about 10 years ago | (#9878284)

When linux first came out they had a Solaris emulation to be able to run apps made for Solaris. These days that are a lot more apps written for linux than there were back when linux first came out (not sure on the ration of software for linux vs solaris just linux then and now).

Open Source Software isn't just Linux and the GNU userland software. It covers a wide range of different software including software that runs on Linux. In the whole sea of OSS, Linux is just a one small part. This is good for OSS projects because they now have the potential for being run on a wider range of platforms without porting issues.

Solaris has always been a good operating system. You can tell the kernel devs know this as well because searching the mailing list you'll see that solaris is referenced more than any other commercial unix. There are comparisons of how the current kernel compares to the solaris kernel as well as trying to figure out how solaris does things.

Solaris 10 is going to have a lot of improvements to it as well. There are a lot of sun hardware out there and still a lot of sun hardware being sold so it helps OSS projects reach further with less work.

For the people that see open source software as only being about Linux, I don't think they'll respond as favorably.

Short Answer (2, Insightful)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | about 10 years ago | (#9878285)

Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?


The long answer, Linux adaptation is slow because the FUD says that Linux is too hard, so IT managers avoid it. Linux is only now gaining ground as linux devotees have waged a constant war against that FUD. The FUD sources also say that Sun is too expensive and only caters to those who can afford their proprietary hardware. Sun has not yet begun to fight the PR campaign which it will take to overcome that. My thought is that by the time Sun gains that acceptance Linux will have near equal penetration into the corporate environment as MS.

Community Software ( (5, Informative)

sudohnim (248093) | about 10 years ago | (#9878295)

You've never heard of CSW [] ?

What is is a collective effort to create a set of binary packages of free software, that can be automatically installed to a Solaris computer (sparc or x86 based) over the network.

We (CSW) don't provide "Linux apps", but we natively compile and package software for Solaris.

Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?

The power of free software compiled natively for my SPARC has returned Solaris to being my primary desktop. (Now if only I could afford a Blade 2500....)

News of the Weird (2, Interesting)

Onimaru (773331) | about 10 years ago | (#9878301)

I find myself wondering what Sun's strategy is. I mean, they go to battle with MS, enter a closed room, and come out best buds. Then they rail against FOSS in favor of open standards and threaten to do a hostile takeover on a leading Linux company. So then you think they've gotten a big check and become a patsy, right?

And throughout this blustering, they put forward the idea that through buying Novell they can somehow "own" the OS IBM is married to, which is kind of missing the point of Linux, but right in line with SCO's claims

Then they come out with news like this. As far as I can tell, their reasoning goes like this:

  1. Microsoft's business practices are bad
  2. But Microsoft is good
  3. Open source is bad, you should run software implementing open standards instead
  4. Especially since someone could buy your open source and yank it out from under you (but not your open standard)
  5. But hey, if you want to run FOSS, we'll support your doing that.

Has anyone checked for schizophrenia?

Re:News of the Weird (1)

Troed (102527) | about 10 years ago | (#9878434)

Think about what you've written above, and then add this [] to it all.

Makes sense now, doesn't it?

Re:News of the Weird (1)

jgardner100 (559892) | about 10 years ago | (#9878439)

Show me where Sun ever said open source was bad, look to Openoffice etc if you want to see their opinion on the topic.

Yeah, of course! That makes sense! (1)

Schreckgestalt (692027) | about 10 years ago | (#9878305)

They are trying to buy Novell, who own SuSE. They probably want YaST on Solaris! Yuck!

Finally (5, Funny)

Nailer (69468) | about 10 years ago | (#9878306)

Solaris can be considered a real Linux ;^)

Re:Finally (0, Offtopic)

torstenvl (769732) | about 10 years ago | (#9878441)

Oh man, if I had mod points you'd get a +1 Funny

Application/OS Security? (3, Insightful)

akaiONE (467100) | about 10 years ago | (#9878308)

The thing I quite don't get a grip on here is how Sun can claim that Solaris is so much safer when it now can run Linux-applications. For years Sun have been preaching that applications they have are better and more secure. When they now comply with the LSB, wouldn't that make their OS just as "insecure" as Linux supposedly are in their views?

Their webpage says:
"You can safely run Solaris and Linux applications side by side in the same container, or you can configure separate containers that isolate Solaris and Linux applications from each other and from system faults. If an application fault occurs and the application needs to be restarted, other applications continue to run without interruption. ".

Okay, let's look at this. You can now run Solaris and Linux-applications side by side - This would mean a security breach in their previous views then? Or, you can choose to lock the Linux-applications away in their own container - This seem much more in line with previous statements from Sun.

"Unlike technology previously available for running Linux in other non-Linux environments, Project Janus functionality is kernel-integrated and supported as an operating system feature."

So, this LSB-compliance are kernel-integrated, and yet they claim Solaris is more secure than Linux? Can someone please help me out on this? I'll try to investigate myself, but I am not sure what I will find, as Solaris for now, still are, closed source.

Which apps, exactly? (4, Insightful)

YellowBook (58311) | about 10 years ago | (#9878319)

Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?

Which apps would those be, exactly? Just about everything significant that's available for Linux is available as source, and most of those build with autoconf and GNU tools for portability, so installation on Solaris is just a 'configure; make; make install' away.

There are a handful of proprietary applications for Linux that might be relevant, but I'd guess most of these are back-office type things that probably already have Solaris versions. That just leaves things like the Flash plugin, and I simply can't see that sort of thing as being very important.

Re:Which apps, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878368)

Besides which, there's a version of flash for Solaris anyways.

Re:Which apps, exactly? (2, Insightful)

JamesKPolk (13313) | about 10 years ago | (#9878410)

You'd be amazed at how much non-portable garbage GNU-using developers cram into applications. Gratuitous GNUisms all over the place...

Just browse through the patches in a BSD ports collection sometime if you want to see what I mean.

Re:Which apps, exactly? (2, Interesting)

chegosaurus (98703) | about 10 years ago | (#9878425)

Absolutely. A couple of years ago Sun made a big song and dance about lxrun, which I guess is somewhere at the base of this thing, and in all my travels as a Solaris consultant I never happened across *anyone* who had used it.

I think maybe linux has a more up-to-date Acrobat reader than Solaris, so I might use it for that. Nothing else springs to mind though.

BTW,there's already a port of the flash plugin for Sol x86, and it works just fine.

Re:Which apps, exactly? (1)

Nailer (69468) | about 10 years ago | (#9878570)

Which apps would those be, exactly? Just about everything significant that's available for Linux is available as source, and most of those build with autoconf and GNU tools for portability, so installation on Solaris is just a 'configure; make; make install' away.

A lot of Linux apps aren't portable to proprietary or non GNU Unix - they depend on glibc, for example. You could change that, but this takes away the need for that effort.

SCO did this first (1)

mrbill1234 (715607) | about 10 years ago | (#9878321)

Believe it or not, SCO did this about 5 years ago. They pulled this functionality out of UnixWare when the lawsuits started flying.

OS/2 and Unixware anyone? (3, Interesting)

M1FCJ (586251) | about 10 years ago | (#9878324)

Oh well, it didn't help OS/2 around 1995, it didn't hel Unixware around 2000. Why would such a move help Solaris in 2004/5? People never learn from other's mistakes and have to experience failure themselves all the time.

If you want your applications to run anywhere, use something truly portable. Java? PHP? Perl? ANSI C? Yes...

Darl Will Sue (4, Funny)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | about 10 years ago | (#9878338)

Isn't this just a "Linux Personality Kit" for Solaris? Is Sun infringing on SCO's IP? I can hear attack dog Darl growling in the distance. And the voice of his master Bill Gates saying 'Down Boy! We already own them!'

A slower death? (1, Insightful)

DCheesi (150068) | about 10 years ago | (#9878340)

It'll probably allow businesses to keep using their old Sun hardware a bit longer; they won't necessarily have to junk their Solaris boxes once they standardize on Linux for their core apps. However, I don't see it selling any new Sun product. "Oh boy, now I can pay thousands for Sun/Solaris HW/SW, so I can run the same apps I could have run on a $500 PC! Yay!!" :-)

All Propriety Solutions Welcome? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878347)

Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?


What does Slashdot have with this fallacy about something saving Sun? Sun's hardware is expensive - why should I buy another piece of proprietary hardware? Sun's OS isn't GPL'd (insert your favorite license) - why should I buy yet another piece of proprietary Software? Some say Sun has Java - yet another piece of proprietary software. No Sun has to compete in the open market - sink or swim.

Open source can't solve everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878560)

Open source solutions so far have been limited to commodity-type applications: web servers, browsers, email, etc. I see no evidence that's about to change any time soon

And I doubt that there will ever be an entire open-source OLTP system that Citi will be able to process all their credit card transactions, or anything of that ilk.

And all the open-source fanboys who run around touting their "new way of doing things" that "make propietary solutions obsolete" because they're not "mired in old ways of thinking" sound too damn much like dot-com stock salesmen from five years ago. Humanity has been around how many hundreds of thousands of years and now we have open source software that will cure the world of the many of its ills? Yeah, right. And I've got this huge was of cash tied up in some Nigerian bank account and I just need a little help from you....

Don't forget architectures.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878372)

Solaris traditionally runs on SPARC. Since almost all open source projects can be compiled on Solaris natively, I'd imagine being able to run Linux/SPARC binaries is at most a fringe interest to most people.. I seriously doubt it can run Linux/x86 binaries on SPARC, and even if it could it'd be emulated and thus way slow.

There is a Solaris/x86-port but it has always lagged behind SPARC version, and frankly if you're running on x86 hardware, why not use Linux directly. AFAIK, Solaris/x86 has even poorer hardware support than Linux/x86 :-)

Why do this? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | about 10 years ago | (#9878381)

Why not just start pushing a Sun Linux distro instead? I heard that was in the works, but I haven't heard anything about it in quite some time. I would use Sun Linux long before using x86 Solaris w/Linux compatibility.

Why would it? (1)

CarrionBird (589738) | about 10 years ago | (#9878385)

The most prominent Linux apps are open source anyway.

nope... (1)

aggieben (620937) | about 10 years ago | (#9878391)

The power of linux is not "the power of linux apps", and so linux apps running on Solaris will not really make that big a difference for Sun.

Not too bad (1)

rwven (663186) | about 10 years ago | (#9878445)

I think this is possibly one of the smarted moves they could have ever made. The great part about this, is that now they can install wine on solaris and run solaris, linux and windows apps, and if they install the mono project, they will literally have all ends covered... Sounds like a win-win-win situation here. I know my boss for one will be thrilled

What's this for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878446)

This is for proprietary software, right? If you have the source, it's not that hard to compile for Solaris. Most applications will compile out of the tarball just fine. The only reason I can think of to have this is to let people run proprietary apps that can't be recompiled.

err No? (1)

SQLz (564901) | about 10 years ago | (#9878501)

Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?"

I venture to say...hello no. This move stinks of SCO as well. Maybe Sun will try to position itself as the only 'Legal' Linux compatable OS.

useless (3, Insightful)

wobblie (191824) | about 10 years ago | (#9878511)

Of course, Sun is not talking about free software here ... it's easy enough to get any of that running on solaris.

They're talking about the software - proprietary - from vendors of theirs that are switching to linux because it's a cheaper (and better) platform for most apps. So, I really must ask, what is the point?

Solaris will - for the forseeable future - still be king on the mid to high end server end. They're talking here about workstation apps in the scientific and engineering realms which are moving wholesale to linux. So in essence Sun is saying here "you can run your linux apps on your legacy Sun workstations", and not much else. It's a nice gesture, but it is no earth shaker.

This may be a new SUNrise.... or maybe not (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878526)

I had a presentation from SUN yesterday on Solaris 10.

Essentially Solaris 10 is going to be a huge change. SUN states they are aiming to be the best UNIX solution out there. With the amount of money they are spending/investing in developing Solaris 10 I believe they are making a very good attempt.

1. Linux apps will run on Solaris 10 on Intel/Sparc. Someone said this is just for X86.
2. DTrace a developer's sweetheart.
3. A new filesystem that will be much better than UFS
4. N1 Grid Containers. Making that purchase of the big iron more attractive. Equivalent to LPAR on mainframe.
5. Even better Multi-Processor efficiency. Linux is making good ground here but Solaris still is years ahead on many cpu's.
6. Of course, more efficient OS, better tcp/ip stack, security, etc. etc. The things you expect to improve with a new OS.

In my opinion, Solaris 10 if it meets what they
are marketing will prove itself. If not, watch
the SUN set.....

No, Sun is Schizophrenic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878546)

Sun is wandering all over the landscape. They portray themselves as a friend to Linux, yet align with Microsoft. They cannot stabelize their position as to whether the x86 architecture is friend or foe. They are sympathetic to SCO but support open source. My head spins.

Trying to figure out Sun's values is like trying to assess the how genuinely a murderer has embraced jailhouse religion.

In short, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9878555)

Solaris lost...

The business model involving incredibly expensive hardware and absurdly expensive support contracts is giving way to commodity hardware *and* commodity software. Running linux applications under Solaris only addresses one aspect of how Sun is being beaten, and it's probably the least important of them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>