Slashdot Mirror


Solaris Might Become LSB-compliant

lvv writes "Register: according to Sun's Jonathan Schwartz, Solaris - one of the most proprietary Unixes, might become LSB compliant OpenSolaris. Also some info about future of Solaris desktop (Gnome)."

31 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Darn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    For a second there I thought it said "LSD-compliant"... how cool would it have been to be able to hear the video output and see the audio output?

  2. wait a minite by JamesCronus · · Score: 5, Funny

    hang on, solaris, becomeing linux compliant???? eh???????? i thought solaris, being UNIX was posix complient, and so didnt need to be LSB compliant. hang on wont this turn solaris into a linux clone, but linux is a unix clone................ i'm gonna go and lie down, i think i'm dreaming

    --
    dybia felly dwi a hampster (i think therefore i am a hampster)
    1. Re:wait a minite by Empty+Threats · · Score: 5, Informative

      POSIX compliant and POSIX conformant are not at all the same thing.

      Windows is something like 85% compliant but not conformant; OpenVMS is 100% compliant but not conformant.

      I believe compliance is a matter of having the right API's in place, while conformance specifies just how things should work inside the OS.

  3. One of the most proprietary? by Clue4All · · Score: 5, Informative

    Solaris - one of the most proprietary Unixes

    I'm going to take issue with this statement. Solaris isn't open source by any means, but it's a free download on SPARC and until recently Intel platforms, and you can download the source after agreeing to Sun's license. You can make changes to the source, recompile anything you damn well please, and contribute changes back to Sun (I have done so myself), the only thing you can't do is redistribute it. It's not on par in the open nature of Linux or FreeBSD, but compare this to DEC/Compaq/HP Tru64 or HP-UX or AIX where you pay a huge sum of money for a binary CD. I'd hardly call that the most proprietary.

    --

    Is your browser retarded?
    1. Re:One of the most proprietary? by alsta · · Score: 3, Informative

      While I realise this is a troll, I just wanted to point out to others that most commercial UNICES do NOT come with C/C++ compilers. UnixWare, OpenServer, HP-UX, Solaris, DEC UNIX etc. do not come with C/C++ compilers.

      SunOS 4.x came with a K&R C compiler, but if you wanted ANSI C or C++ you needed to buy SparcWorks.

      Virtually the only UNICES that come with C/C++ compilers are the free ones, e.g. distributed with GCC. But first of all, these can not be called 'Unix' and second, GCC is available for most of the above commercial platforms anyway, so the point is moot.

      --
      Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
    2. Re:One of the most proprietary? by 1nt3lx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      GCC is a good compiler. It's neither as good as Compaq's C compiler on Alpha nor is it as good as Sun's compiler on Sparc, however. GCC couldn't even make 64 bit binaries until the 3.0 release.

      Although, the compiler is a minimal issue, I use Solaris as my desktop at work and we run it on the production servers. I've also worked with Tru64, etc. I've never worked with a UNIX so broken out of the box. It's a good 4 hours of work before you can comfortable use a Solaris system. Unlike many other UNIXes, which require post-installation work but aren't as ugly. (Ever service enabled by default, open mail relay, /bin/sh, insufficient path, hideously outdated drivers, 30,302 patches to apply, broken patches, patches that re-enable services you've disabled.)

      We recently purchased a Sun Fire 150 system to use for a few web-services. The system came preinsatelled with The Solaris Operating Environment version 8. It presented a minimally impressive configuration menu but it wasn't able to configure the NICs because it couldn't figure out what they were.

      Solaris may technically be a good Operating System, however I do not find it particularly excellent. I'll take MacOS X (or Server) over Solaris anyday. I'll even go so far as to say I'd rather use Debian than Solaris.

    3. Re:One of the most proprietary? by larien · · Score: 3, Informative
      Unix don't start GUI in single user mode.
      Huh?? What makes you think that Solaris does? I've booted loads of workstations/servers into single user mode for maintenance and I've never seen it start up a GUI for it.

      As others have pointed out, most other Unices don't come with a C compiler either, but I will allow the fact that it's strange to have /etc/vfstab instead of /etc/fstab. Then again, Solaris isn't unique in having certain files with different names in different places.

    4. Re:One of the most proprietary? by alsta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your frustrations with Solaris are most likely due to, forgive me if I sound condescending, inexperience.

      I have never heard of a Sun Fire 150. Sun has a Fire V100 and Fire V120. These have two ethernet interfaces, which I think are called dmfe[01]. I don't have access to one so I can't verify that. You can figure this out by using prtconf(1M).

      To harden a Solaris box takes a little time. But it shouldn't take 4 hours. You basically need to make sure that RPC services are turned off and that you step through inetd.conf.

      Patching Solaris is a breeze compared to various Linux distributions, including Red Hat. Apply the latest MU and then either use PatchPro or Recommended clusters.

      You're right, Solaris isn't exactly point-and-click. Perhaps you should, as you suggested, stick with MacOS X.

      --
      Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
  4. O.K.! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think that this will finally earn them the right to increment a Major Version Number!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  5. In related news... by steveadept · · Score: 5, Funny

    In another fantastic display of pandering, Schwartz noted, "OpenSolaris will be based on UnitedLinux, because that's the direction everybody's going, isn't it? Isn't it?"

  6. LSB means you can use source RPMs by yerricde · · Score: 5, Informative

    i thought solaris, being UNIX was posix complient, and so didnt need to be LSB compliant.

    Any LSB conforming operating system can use source RPM packages that meet the LSB specs. This should expand the selection of free software that runs on the Solaris operating environment as well as make it easier to install.


    All your Linux Standard Base are belong to us.
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  7. Sun and standards by germinatoras · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A lot of us like to accuse Sun of being no better than Microsoft at a lot of things. This may be true on some level, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. While their motivation may be purely profit-driven, at least they are taking the approach of "Linux is getting popular, so we should be more like it", rather than "We need to squeeze every last $0.01 out of our locked-in customers".

    Lately, Sun seems to be establishing a good track record for openness. They've created a fairly decent platform-independent programming language and development environment, and have made their Solaris environment look more like the other Unices out there. They are starting to come out with Linux products, or at least are talking about them. Even the source code to Solaris 7 used to be available for purchase on CD-ROM (although they may have backed away from that).

    I hope that this is more than just a bid to recapture lost market share, but a real committment to play fair and adhere to open, published, and somewhat popular standards.

    1. Re:Sun and standards by Richard_Davies · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > While their motivation may be purely profit-driven

      Um - aren't pretty much all (profitable) companies profit-driven?

      I mean Microsoft, Red Hat, Sun, IBM, etc - none of them are charities right?

    2. Re:Sun and standards by be-fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a difference between profit driven and profit obsessed. Microsoft is profit obsessed. Almost *everything* they do is there to further their own bottom line. Other companies (IBM and RedHat for example) are profit driven, in that making a profit is their number one priority, but they do non-profit oriented things as well that help the community. Just take a look at all the open source IBM projects. Do those help IBM? Maybe to the extent that they enable enterprise level applications and thus create a demand for more IBM h ardware, but that's indirect, and still helps the community in the process. Compare this to Microsoft's open source projects. Let's see, the only one I can think of is the CLI. Not only is the CLI directly profit-related (the more people that use it, the more people that are tied into Windows.NET) but it doesn't help the community a whole lot because it's under a draconion license.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  8. Commercial vs. proprietary by yerricde · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Proprietary: Having a good OS and making money at it

    No. Software that produces revenue is called "commercial". The term "proprietary", when used in the context of copyrighted works such as software, refers to licensing that restricts your users.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  9. Big Endian or Litle Endian? by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 5, Funny
    Solaris Might Become LSB-compliant

    Is Solaris already compliant with all the other bits?

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  10. It only makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Solaris doesn't make Sun any money. It's the hardware that keeps them afloat. Every developer they've got working on Solaris is a salary that doesn't go to working on the money-making hardware.

    Running Linux as their main system allows them to get an OS for free. Granted, it's not quite as polished or stable as Solaris, but they don't have to apply any development effort, people are willing to give their work away for free!

    1. Re:It only makes sense by ToasterTester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speed has nothing to do with real production servers. Solaris is a fine example of that, it appears sluggish to newbies, but as the load increases Solaris and your app's don't bat an eye. Plus all the features it has to support dynmaic reconfiguration and other HA features. Linux is good and will continue to mature. Yes, Linux Beowuld clusters are fast, but they are special purpose servers not day-to-day production workhorses. Linux is still mainly used in the same small niche it always has. Also Solaris scales better than Linux, but a lot that is Sun hardware. Intel systems can't scale as well as Sun systems. IBM and others are working on Intel based NUMA systems that will address scaling with Intel. Also Linux HA features are still in very early development stage.

  11. And vice-versa by Alethes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it's the fact that Linux apps will run almost out of the box on Solaris that makes the move wise. This means Sun now has the thousands of Linux software developers as a resource.

  12. And if they'd done that ten years ago... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Solaris isn't open source by any means, but it's a free download on SPARC and until recently Intel platforms, and you can download the source after agreeing to Sun's license. You can make changes to the source, recompile anything you damn well please, and contribute changes back to Sun (I have done so myself), the only thing you can't do is redistribute it.

    And if they'd done that ten years ago, when I (and others) had a significant need to hack up some min or features and no budget to buy into their source distribution package it wouled have been wonderful - and might have headed off the obsolescence of Solaris.

    Now, with Linux (+ GNU utilities + X + Gnome|KDE), and Free/Open/Net BSD, and Mach, and the rest of the Open Source world, it's too little too late.

    I've reverse-engineered OSes on IBM, Control Data, DEC, Mac, and Altos when useful to add features or custom hardware. But with Spark's RISC instruction set and Sun's insistance on keeping both hardware and software closed, the cost/benefit balance was tipped.

    I retired my last Solaris home machine on Dec 31, 1999, rather than upgrade it for Y2K.

    At work:
    - The serious networking software development is now done on NetBSD and variants. BSD desktops.
    - The ASIC development is still partly on Solaris ... because we still have legacy machines from when that was all the tools would run on. But the simulation farm was ported to Linux long ago. New machines are PCs and the Sun boxes will run - mostly as legacy desktops - until they die or become too painful to maintain.
    - And of course the administrators are still on Windoze - though it wouldn't surprise me to see them move to Linux in the near future.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:And if they'd done that ten years ago... by lemkebeth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You wrote:

      At work: - The serious networking software development is now done on NetBSD and variants. BSD desktops.

      That is quite ironic as Sun's OS used to be a BSD at one time.

    2. Re:And if they'd done that ten years ago... by sirinek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Upgrade it for Y2K? What were you running, 4.1.3? I'm pretty positive all the later versions had Y2k patches that you could freely download from Sun's site.

      siri

    3. Re:And if they'd done that ten years ago... by magellan · · Score: 5, Informative

      "But with Spark's RISC instruction set and Sun's insistance on keeping both hardware and software closed, the cost/benefit balance was tipped."

      First, Sun's hardware is not closed. Sun does not own SPARC. SPARC International does (www.sparcinternational.com). You can license the SPARC instruction set from them.

      You can buy boards from Sun and build your own SPARC computers.

      You can buy complete SPARC computers with no Sun hardware at all from Fujitsu.

      You can obtain a license Solaris for single SPARC CPU systems for free (beer).

      Solaris 8 is also available for Intel-based computers. Solaris 9 added no features of use for Intel, so the lack of availability for Solaris 9 is irrelavant.

    4. Re:And if they'd done that ten years ago... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

      SPARC and SBus are open, fully documented IEEE standards. Nowadays Sun uses PCI for I/O expansion. You wouldn't know "closed" if it bit you on the ass.

      That is now. This was then.

      Back when the Sun 4 was current, finding out anything about the SBus was like pulling teeth - and signing away your soul.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  13. You can already by turgid · · Score: 5, Informative

    RPM is provided on the Solaris Companion CD so you can already use source RPMs with Solaris.

    1. Re:You can already by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if that software uses Linux-only APIs, it won't compile on Solaris. If Solaris adopts LSB, most Linux apps will compile without needing to be ported.

    2. Re:You can already by turgid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's true, but most (not all) of the API's are already in there. A lot of Open Source/Free Software libraries have been migrated into the Solaris WOS (and are supported by Sun). I can't think of all of them off the top of my head but they're in /usr/sfw/lib on Solaris 9. Also, you get a lot more (but unsupported) if you install the Companion CD (which installs in /opt/sfw). So, for many applications, it's just a case of giving ./configure the right paths, and stuff Just Works(TM). I agree that being LSB compliant would be good, and an improvement, but a lot of the (important) stuff is already there.

  14. Least significant bit by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 5, Funny

    Until now, Solaris has been based on MSB (Most Significant Bit) technology, which made it incompatible with many PC devices. For instance, you couldn't network a Solaris and PC machine without going to the TCP/IP level, because what would leave the Solaris machine as

    11100000 00000111

    woule return as

    00000111 11100000

    As you can tell, this was a major PITA. I, for one, am glad that I'll be able to use all my favourite hardware on my Solaris machine now.

  15. Take a look at all the open source Sun projects by magellan · · Score: 3, Informative
  16. Developing LSB-compliant apps by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a quick howto by IBM developerWorks (in fact written by the actual chairman of the Linux Standard Base, George Kraft IV) on developing LSB-certified apps. It's got that October freshness about it...

    Incidentally there's a link to a Solaris-to-Linux porting guide in the resources section of that article but LSB isn't even mentioned in that lengthy document...

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  17. Why not... by joto · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The directory hierarchy, and location of important files on Solaris can only be called one thing: confusing. So I bet they've always wanted to clean it up somewhat, but once they do it, it's better if they do it one big change, rather than piecemal, which will break things continually (instead of once).

    And if you are going to clean it up, you might as well look at how other people have done it. As for going for full LSB compliance, that might be a bit overkill, and a very surprising move away from the NIH-principle Sun usually follows. But I don't think it's going to have too many negative consequences.