Slashdot Mirror


Open Solaris Derivative Available

tezbobobo writes "Well, Open Solaris has only been available a matter of days and already there are new projects available. SchilliX is an OpenSolaris-based live CD and distribution that is intended to help people discover OpenSolaris. When installed on a hard drive, it also allows developers to develop and compile code in a pure OpenSolaris environment. More details are available on the author's blog."

9 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Derivation on the purest form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It seems just a cut-down version (text only) of Solaris, so where's the improvement?

    The improvement is that it's a LiveCD.

  2. Re:Oh great, let the fun begin by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly i think your Jumping the gun a little. This wont happen to solaris , solaris will always be solaris and compatible with itself . If this distros goes so far as to be incompatible with Solaris main then it will cease to be a solaris.
    Solaris is an OS as opposed to linux which is just a kernel

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  3. Re:BSD, Linux and now Solaris-derivatives.. by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And Darwin.

    Battle of *nix(es) is on!!

    This time, it's all open (amazing!).

    This time, everyone's a winner.

  4. Re:Derivation on the purest form by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems just a cut-down version (text only) of Solaris, so where's the improvement?

    It's a milestone.

    After months (years?) of "show us the code" from the /. crowd, this sort of makes Open Solaris real.

  5. OSS? by pedantic+bore · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ... majority of the OSS community is made up of ego driven men striving to be the alpha.

    No need to smear the OSS community. That describes the non-OSS community perfectly also.

    There are people who hack for the love of it, and there are people who write code because they have a vision of making the world a better place through better technology... you just don't hear about them too much. They don't feel the need to self-promote.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  6. Re:When I choose ___ OS, it is because... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why run OpenSolaris:

    Tools like DTrace. The ability to scale to large numbers of processors. A security model that is quite strong. A stable code base. A reasonable license. Decent management tools; a server mindset.

    There's nothing all that revolutionary about it; it doesn't so much as fill a hole as provide another choice. Personally I see it as something to use when I would have used *BSD but I don't want to deal with the politics...

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  7. You're an idiot! by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He does cdrecord, not xcdroast. And he does use open standards, that's why it works on several unix OSs. Just because linux developers make some random change does not mean its magically an "open standard", its non-standard, linux-specific behaviour. Linux making random stupid changes and not informing people who use the now altered API is entirely the fault of linux developers. If you don't like it, use an OS that doesn't do this, or complain to the linux developers who created the problem.

  8. Re:author is well known by vsprintf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You might know the author from cdrecord. He has a rather low opinion of the ide-scsi/ide-cd component of the kernel in general and Linus in particular. Good to see him where he is happy.

    If you have any evidence to support your claim that he has ever been happy, quite a few of us would like to see it. Or maybe all those caustic replys to mailing lists are a sign of hidden joy?

  9. Re:When I choose ___ OS, it is because... by njcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you read that quote directly, the licensor has to specifically state "any later version" in the license. "If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to discuss the change at length with numerous copyright holders, which would be a virtual impossibility. In practice, the chance of having uniform distribution terms for GNU software would be nil."

    So if the file doesn't say "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version" then that clause does not apply.

    If you look at the linux kernel readme it says "It is distributed under the GNU General Public License - see the 19 accompanying COPYING file for more details. "

    Also note that in the COPYING file it specifically states

    "Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."
    And there were only a couple files I found that explicityly stated it.

    Next time, know what you're talking to before you call bullshit. This is from the 2.6.11 kernel. I didn't look at 2.6.12