Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debian GNU/Solaris

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the matches-made-in-heaven dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Today "Nexenta" announced an initial pilot program of GNU/Solaris. Initial trials are limited to "Ubuntu developers and the entire Debian community". From the announcement: "As you might know, Sun Microsystems just opened Solaris kernel under CDDL license, which allows one to build custom Operating Systems. Which we did...created a new Debian based GNU/Solaris distribution with (the latest bits of) Solaris kernel & core userland inside. We'll open Nexenta web developer portal completely for the general public by mid-November. Today we are launching a Pilot Program. Ubuntu developers and the entire Debian community - you are welcome to participate in the Pilot!"

59 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. GNU/OpenSolaris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Shoudn't it be named GNU/OpenSolaris?

    --AC

  2. Re:GNU/Solaris? by jedZ · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the article:
    "This is to announce Nexenta: the first-ever distribution that combines GNU and OpenSolaris. As you might know, Sun Microsystems just opened Solaris kernel under CDDL license, which allows one to build custom Operating Systems. Which we did... created a new Debian based GNU/Solaris distribution with (the latest bits of) Solaris kernel & core userland inside."
  3. Where are the differences? by Vario · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had some contact with AIX, Linux is running at home but other than some minimal stuff I have no idea what makes Solaris different from the other systems. GNU/Solaris sounds like only the kernel is not linux.
    Can someone give me a hint why I should consider looking at it or switching my router/server/notebook to it?

    1. Re:Where are the differences? by The+Nine · · Score: 5, Informative

      GNU/Solaris sounds like only the kernel is not linux.

      Uhh, linux is a kernel, and nothing more.

    2. Re:Where are the differences? by Mancat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Besides the kernel it looks like it also uses the Solaris userland. That would include common commands (ps, ftp, m4, etc.) as well as Solaris-specific commands (psrinfo, prtconf, etc.). Also Solaris libc, as well as some other libraries. It will be interesting to see how much of the "original" Solaris userland will need to be replaced with, or supplemented with GNU tools. Some of Solaris' default tools are pretty bare in functionality.

      Apt and Solaris should be pretty cool, though Solaris has had BlastWave for a while, which works pretty similar to apt.

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    3. Re:Where are the differences? by Malor · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's probably not the best choice for a notebook or a router. It might be a good choice for a server, depending on what you're doing with it.

      I've done some Solaris administration, but I have never been even remotely expert. I did get an idea of just how much I don't know, however.

      In many ways, Solaris makes Linux and the BSDs look like tinkertoys. There is a vast array of functionality inside. Solaris feels like it was designed 'down', by people who are used to working with mainframes; Linux and the BSDs are more designed 'up' by people inventing (and often re-inventing) things for the first time.

      There's a fundamental expectation in Solaris that the server will stay up under virtually all circumstances. If the hardware you're running it on is expensive enough, it's apparently pretty easy to hotswap almost anything... even RAM and CPUs. I believe it supports multiple running instances of Solaris on the same hardware at the same time, even different versions. And I'm fairly sure that a recent feature will let you upgrade OSes 'on the fly', though I think there would have to be at least a brief interruption of service. Pay attention to replies, if any. My knowledge in this area is very sketchy.

      It's highly optimized to scale to amazing degrees, given more CPUs to work with. But that means it's not very well optimized to work with only one, which was why it was called 'Slowlaris' in the early days of Linux. Running multiprocessor requires a lot of locking to make sure that different CPUs don't step on each others' toes. This locking takes time. So the first versions of Solaris/Intel were dogmeat slow in comparison to Linux. There was no chance of a conflict, because multi-CPU Intel boxes almost didn't exist, but Sun was and is more interested in having it run WELL than run FAST. Removing all that locking would have introduced bugs. So they left it slow. And most folks went with SPARC boxen or Linux instead, for better performance.

      At the time, Linux screamed on the same hardware, because it didn't worry about any of that. Up through 2.2, Linux had just a Big Kernel Lock... only one CPU could be in kernel space at any given time, and the rest of the CPUs either ran user code or sat around idle. Most user code makes fairly frequent kernel calls, so the extra CPUs blocked a lot. Running on one CPU was very fast, but there wasn't much benefit to adding more. A second was a moderate plus, adding maybe 50% overall throughput. Adding further CPUs did very little for most workloads.

      Solaris does exactly the opposite. It's slow on one CPU, though 'slow' is pretty relative on a multi-gigahertz processor, but as you add more, it scales almost linearly. 64-way Solaris boxes run very nicely. And they do it without crashing, too. That's an area where Linux, for instance, has had a huge amount of trouble... as they add in new locks and try to rearchitect to let more and more CPUs into kernel code at once, they introduce bugs, often at a furious rate. You don't see much of that in released versions of Solaris. A lot of what you're paying for with the expensive Sun equipment is their QA department, which must be just incredibly good. (if any of you are reading this, thanks!)

      Basically, this is enterprise-grade software. It's designed to run things like banks and air traffic control and medical equipment...stuff that just can't ever break or go down. It's not actually USED for air traffic control, as far as I know, but I'm sure Sun would be happy to sell systems into that market. If your hardware is good, Solaris can take an unbelievable beating... you can have loads in the thousands and still be able to connect to the box with SSH (eventually) and rescue it. It'll be slow, but you'll get in. Linux, in contrast, will often still die from dumb stuff like fork bombs. Yes, ulimits can prevent that problem, but Solaris will survive without the extra help.

      Basically, Solaris is the kind of OS that you can bet your job on, and remain employed. Linux remai

    4. Re:Where are the differences? by zxm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have installed Windows, Debian Linux, and Solaris 10 on my ThinkPad. Usually I use Solaris (Now I'm typing on it), I have installed 2 Zones on it, one for my personal web server, the other for My Desktop, in it I have installed many many applications from blastwave.org using pkg-get; The global zone is not used yet, because if there was something wrong with the 2 local zones, I could easily setup a new zone! I'd like to say Solaris is very, very stable and like very power efficient (comparing with Linux)
      But there is lack of perfet media players on Solaris, i.g., I cannot play any rm/rmvb video files, so I have to switch to Linux to play them.
      Comparing to Windows, Linux is not of course perfect. If I want to play PC games, then I would reboot to Windows.

      --
      -- forgive me my poor Engl...
    5. Re:Where are the differences? by foorilious · · Score: 4, Informative

      A few corrections / notes:

      There is no provision for running multiple kernels on the same hardware, aside from 'domaining', which is more like IBM's LPARing (prior to P5 and 5.3, that is - splitting a single server into two or more hardware partitions). But, when you do this, each partition really is its own machine, with distinct and non-shared CPUs, memory, and IO buses. You can move hardware from one domain to another (even without shutting down applications), but a given kernel is only ever running on one machine at a time.

      More recently, is the concept of 'Zones'. Here, you can install seperate copies of userland onto the same box, and when you are 'inside' of any one zone, you appear to have your very own box, complete with your own /etc and everything else (or you can opt to share parts of the install with the 'global' zone), however there is still a single kernel running all of the zones on a given server. Applying a kernel patch, for example, still requires a reboot of the whole enchilada to take effect.

      Actually, I believe 'Slowaris' was coined in 93 or 94 or so, when admins started switching from SunOS 4.1.3/4.1.4 to Solaris on SMP boxes, and ran into bug where no matter how many CPUs, every thread was being scheduled on the same CPU. I forget what version this was - maybe 2.3? I remember logging onto my University's student shell machine (back then, SLIP and PPP were still not being used by home users - you'd dial up to terminal into a UNIX machine to check email, usenet, or IRC). Anyway, I remember logging in and seeing a load in the thousands, just after the upgrade.

      You can "upgrade on the fly", in a way. The concept is you mirror your root disk, split the mirror, perform the upgrade against the inactive mirror, and finally reboot, this time off the upgraded side. It more or less works, but you do need to use your brain. Really what it gets you is the ability to immediately revert back to the pre-upgrade image with just a single reboot, and also shortens the outage window to one reboot. They've had this since Solaris 8, I believe, and you could use it to upgrade from say 2.6 to 8.

      Over time, 'Slowaris' did come to refer to the performance disparity between Linux and Solaris on x86. Until Solaris 10, Linux pretty clearly outperformed Solaris on like-hardware (x86). I think in part, as you say, due to Sun's lack of effort in optimizing for x86 and small servers, but also because x86-based benchmarks tended to focus on things like web-serving, and Sun's networking stack was long overdue for an overhaul (the first phase of which was completed for Solaris 10, and returned enormous improvements).

    6. Re:Where are the differences? by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What is popularly called Linux includes a userland mostly composed of GNU software.

      That's a strange definition of "mostly" you have there. Admittedly, it's some important components, but "partly" would be far more accurate.

      I think an even more accurate way to say it would be: What is popularly called Linux includes a userland almost entirely composed of software that is from GNU or depends on software from GNU.

      You might even be able to remove the "almost".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Where are the differences? by vegetasaiyajin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uhh, linux is a kernel, and nothing more.

      According to W. Richard Stevens in Unix Network Programming: "The kernel is the operating system".

      --

      My heart is pure, but make no mistake, it's pure evil
  4. eh? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could someone translate this into English?
    Much thanks.

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
    1. Re:eh? by Dolda2000 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Could someone translate this into English?
      Much thanks.
      Sure thing. Here you go: "Many thanks."
  5. Re:And the point is? by dzakuha · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is not the Debian team who is starting this pilot. If I am not mistaken this new project just happens to be compatible with Debian and Ubuntu package management.

  6. Why? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't get me wrong, but I don't think this is worthwhile. This is almost as stupid as the debian/freebsd thing. If you want to get the full power from freebsd, use freebsd. If you want to get the full power from solaris, use solaris. If you want to get the full power from linux, use....well....ubuntu? redhat? suse? :P

    1. Re:Why? by GuerillaRadio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because choice is good!
      Hypothetically, lets say SCO have an actual case (I know, but hypothetically!).
      Isn't it better that if, for some reason the Linux kernel is no longer an option due to patents etc, there is another GNU system ready to switch to?

      --
      If a man empties his purse into his head no man can take it from him. An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.
    2. Re:Why? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm gonna go out on limb here and ask what if someone wants a Solaris kernel but all the Debian extra packages and utilities?

    3. Re:Why? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's no need of debian for using GNU software. You can use pretty much any GNU utility (including gnome etc) in solaris right now, without wasting time in developing a new distro. Which is exactly my point. Why such waste of time?

    4. Re:Why? by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Duh. Because you don't have to search all over for packages, then compile everything from source, fix dependencies manually, follow dozens of security mailing lists, ... And of course, Debian's package management isn't only a gigantic repository with automatic dependency checking, it also lets you configure stuff, and in a much more pleasant way than Yast and other centralized tools. Basically, Debian is one of the best distributions of GNU.

      Look at it the other way: You want Debian GNU, but may need Solaris' kernel. That's when Debian GNU/Solaris is a good idea.

    5. Re:Why? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, solaris has packaging tools (solves dependencies, etc) and there're packages for lots of software. http://www.blastwave.org/

    6. Re:Why? by Spit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Linux is only a kernal and in some situations leaves a lot to be desired, jack of all trades and all that. I'm not comfortable with a kernal that changes so much mid-release and I've seen some (documented) crashes that shouldn't be.

      I've worked with most Unix systems and was always impressed with Solaris kernel's stability, and now it has excellent performance. My standard build on 2.6 and 7 was to install gnu userland, and v8 on included them on the install disks. But it was always a chore to strip a system for secure production.

      I've been using Debian personally and in production for seven years and it's by far the easiest and most stable system I've used. A stripped Debian is easier to script.

      I think it would be great to combine the clean Debian system with a stable and mature 64-bit platform like Solaris. especially now with Sun's excellent AMD systems.

      If we put the heat on, Sun may go the whole hog and cut the strings, that would be a great day for free software.

      --
      POKE 36879,8
    7. Re:Why? by chhupa_rustam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're missing the point: the Linux kernel is valuable, but on its own it's far from remarkable. There are plenty of other kernels around, some with sizeable communities. The two factors that make Linux the earth-shattering, ground-breaking force it is are:

      - The universe of utilities and software that make life fun and easy. GNU-licensed software certainly plays a huge part here, providing building-blocks that we take for granted today -- 'ps', for example. Have you ever tried using 'ps' on a Solaris box? It's a massive pain -- I have to do 'ps -auxwww' rather than my default 'ps -ef' to get a decent printout of the processes. In addition, there are countless other products, some commercial.
      - The die-hard community of Linux super-freaks.

      This project is awesome because it will allow all our favourite GNU utilities, and hopefully other software, to be available by default on Solaris (you can build them from source right now if you're desperate). It also lowers the barrier-to-entry for the super-freaks, who will have all the familiar Linux goodness of Debian available, as well as the pieces that Sun's built into Solaris (virtualization/containers, DTrace...which really is quite amazing).

      There's a common misconception that Linux now mirrors everything *BSD and Solaris provide -- nothing could be further from the truth. Each OS still boasts areas of excellence (or focus, anyway) that the others would do well to learn from. Or, as free software is supposed to work, include rather than replicate.

    8. Re:Why? by MarkKnopfler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, the answer would be manifold.

      1. Linux is just a kernel, nothing more. So for all practical purposes most of the fanboys out there using 'linux' and loving 'linux' are probably ending up loving the latest version of KDE, or gnome or the nifty new GNU tools and not linux. Full power of linux ? So if you consider all the gui stuff and nifty userland tools that you are using, you are hardly getting the 'full power of linux'

      2. Getting a different base kernel over the rocking GNU tools and environments for me is always cool. It is choice that I am getting. I will certainly try it out on an x86 machine, and if the kernel source is included, I would love to look through the design of the thing. Everybody loves tearing opening that shrink wrap from the latest gizmo.

      3. Sun has been pushing out some great publicity stuff wrt. Solaris 10 and how it 'screams'. I sure would like to check that out. I also would be very interested to see whether my bluetooth dongle or usb mass storage device will work with it or not. If it does not, it is less ready than linux for the desktop.

      4. I always thought that the linux kernel was a bit convoluted and unreadable compared to the BSD kernel. ( I have worked in the NetBSD and FreeBSD and Linux kernels ) I would love to have an opportunity to look into a new kernel and see how well it has been written and whether I can consider it a viable OS to suggest to my PHB for my next project, if it fits in there.

      So, if someone out there is pushing across the new kernel in a familiar looking distro, I am certainly all for it. To sum it up, I think everybody stands to gain. The developer (choice) the user (choice again) and Sun (publicity).
      Hurrah for Open Source !

    9. Re:Why? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Informative
      Have you ever tried using 'ps' on a Solaris box? It's a massive pain -- I have to do 'ps -auxwww' rather than my default 'ps -ef' to get a decent printout of the processes.

      Yes, I have, and ps supports -ef just fine.

      Check your path. Solaris also has BSD tools for people who prefer a different version of ps.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  7. Re:And the point is? by c0007031 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is the point of having 3k text editors? What is the point of having 20 window managers? Why don't you stick with only one operating system then? I look forward to see a first version of this OS and experiment it as soon as possible. Choice is one of the most valuable things Open Source Software has.

  8. Re:GNU/Solaris? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe what the GP poster was refering to is that according to Sun the name of the base OS is SunOS (do a "uname -a" on a solaris box). Solaris supposedly inially refered to SunOS + OpenWindows 2.X + some other stuff... in other words it was the full distro. In fact, they retroactively renamed the complete SunOS 4.X distros as "Solaris 1.X" So if a project is dumping the GNU/Debian userland on top of the kernel/basic-OS from Solaris it would be more proper to call it "GNU/SunOS" rather than "GNU/Solaris"

    Of course, almost noone refers to it as SunOS anymore so "GNU/Solaris" is probably less confusing.

  9. Before you comment ... by oztiks · · Score: 5, Informative

    Before people comment on why Debian is doing this i suggest reading Debains core statement of what they are all about http://www.debian.org/intro/about

    Esspecially this bit:

    Debian systems currently use the Linux kernel. Linux is a piece of software started by Linus Torvalds and supported by thousands of programmers worldwide.

    However, work is in progress to provide Debian for other kernels, primarily for the Hurd. The Hurd is a collection of servers that run on top of a microkernel (such as Mach) to implement different features. The Hurd is free software produced by the GNU project.

    1. Re:Before you comment ... by borggraefe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-cd

    2. Re:Before you comment ... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It's interesting because it's another proof that Debian doesn't need the Linux kernel. Sun is making inroads into BSD's territory. Not Linux territory. Their kernel fills a role similar to the *BSDs in the Open Source world. Technically interesting, used in some projects, and a far second to Linux.

      Linux has a huge independent development community and more huge companies than it is easy to count behind it, and nobody can keep up with the pace of development. The GPL is a very important factor. It's the only partnership that would keep it fair for the big guys and the little ones at the same time. What technical lead Solaris has is rapidly diminishing because they can not - and never will - keep up the development team that Linux and the GPL have spawned.

      And then there's the deliberately-incompatible licensing, Sun's lack of success at building Open Source communities (OpenOffice should have a community 100 times the size of the one it's got - IMO it's second in importance to the Linux kernel), and Jonathan's tendency to turn any gains that Sun makes in the Open Source community into defeat with his own words. All of these things hold them back.

      Solaris has a few features at which the Linux folks look hungrily, and you know what happens when those folks like features. Linux gets them. These are the folks who replaced Bitkeeper in a month.

      It would be fun to have a system that booted the same binaries into Linux, BSD, Solaris, and HURD. If someone makes that, it'll be an awesome hack. But at the same time it would demonstrate the futility of having all of those kernels do the same thing technically, while one of them does the community part much better than the others.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    3. Re:Before you comment ... by asuffield · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the article. This has got nothing to do with Debian, they're just trying to ride off our name. For one thing it's Ubuntu, and for another it's being done by some random person with no connection to Debian.

    4. Re:Before you comment ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's interesting because it's another proof that Debian doesn't need the Linux kernel. Sun is making inroads into BSD's territory. Not Linux territory. Their kernel fills a role similar to the *BSDs in the Open Source world. Technically interesting, used in some projects, and a far second to Linux.

      Solaris is still very, very big in the commercial world. This is a sign things are probably going to change in the 'Open Source world' too.

      Linux has a huge independent development community and more huge companies than it is easy to count behind it, and nobody can keep up with the pace of development. The GPL is a very important factor. It's the only partnership that would keep it fair for the big guys and the little ones at the same time. What technical lead Solaris has is rapidly diminishing because they can not - and never will - keep up the development team that Linux and the GPL have spawned.

      You are confusing the kernel with the software that is available for it. Most of the development into 'Linux' isn't into the kernel, but the software that goes with it. The technical lead that Solaris has is harder for Linux to chase than the lead in x86 drivers that Linux has. It works both ways. A main advantage about the Solaris kernel is that it is very very stable with excellent backwards-compatibility. Looking at the poor quality of 2.6 due to the lack of a 2.7 testing kernel, Linux will not be catching up with this any time soon.

      And then there's the deliberately-incompatible licensing, Sun's lack of success at building Open Source communities (OpenOffice should have a community 100 times the size of the one it's got - IMO it's second in importance to the Linux kernel), and Jonathan's tendency to turn any gains that Sun makes in the Open Source community into defeat with his own words. All of these things hold them back.

      GPL code can't be integrated into BSD code either. What's your point? CDDL is a certified open-source licence. Quite frankly I don't think I would want the Linux and Solaris kernels to converge into one great big monolith.

      Solaris has a few features at which the Linux folks look hungrily, and you know what happens when those folks like features. Linux gets them. These are the folks who replaced Bitkeeper in a month.

      Not until they fix the developement model of the 2.6 kernel so that it becomes a lot more stable. The number of bugs in the 2.6 kernel is appalling. This isn't just about features, it's about rock-solid stability.

      It would be fun to have a system that booted the same binaries into Linux, BSD, Solaris, and HURD. If someone makes that, it'll be an awesome hack. But at the same time it would demonstrate the futility of having all of those kernels do the same thing technically, while one of them does the community part much better than the others.

      Some sort of unified binary format or flawless interoperability would be awesome.

    5. Re:Before you comment ... by oztiks · · Score: 2

      Agreed, but the fact that it outlines that it is a debian based system, therefore it is set to follow debians intended purpose and mission statement ... this is most likey the reason why debian a base was chosen instead of say redhat.

    6. Re:Before you comment ... by foorilious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is your criteria for calling the Solaris kernel a "far second" to Linux? OSS community involvement? x86 hardware support? ISV support on x86? I'll give you those three, but if you've got something else in mind, you'll probably get an argument from me and others who have used both kernels for a long time.

      I also don't see Solaris' lead diminishing, let alone rapidly. If anything, it appears to me that Sun further widened the gap with Solaris 10. Sun is regularly releasing very advanced and important OS features, in fully-baked and rock-solid form, and the FOSS community is doing its best to keep up, but even though Solaris 10 shipped nearly a year ago, look at the current state of SystemTap, for example - a project spawned in direct response to Solaris 10 dtrace, that is still nowhere near ready to primetime. Where (for example) also is the modern full-fledged resource management? This is a critical feature for an 'enterprise' kernel, and it's still nowhere in sight, though everyone's known it's been necessary for Linux to achieve for several years.

      It's one thing to reimplement BitKeeper in a month - advanced kernel features are something else entirely, and we have a decade to look back on and see Sun's record of innovating and Linux following. What happens when Linux has cannibalized the last true innovator, and there's no one left to follow? Lest you think I'm trolling, I have a serious question: what major kernel innovations in the last decade appeared in Linux *first*? I can think of one, maybe two, but put up against the parade of inventions and innovations that have come from Solaris in the last decade, I don't know.

  10. Sun Ray Client by Vampo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know if I'll be able to use sun ray clients with this? This could be the best news ever.

  11. This is useful! by eldacan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is an interesting project: developers will have the power of opensolaris tools, like DTrace (a very powerful tool to study the behaviour of programs - and optimize them) available for all debian packages...

    1. Re:This is useful! by DaPoulpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm pleased to see diversity but can't we get these usefull tools with a Linux kernel too ?
      Like FreeBSD is doing with DTrace.

  12. Re:And the point is? by LarsWestergren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a hint that they may just be playing games and chasing publicity as usual rather than showing a serious commitment to f/oss.

    Yes, giving us Open Office and paying many full time developers to work on it, and porting DTrace to BSD is obviously not a commitment. They ought to be ashamed of themselves!

    --

    Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

  13. Re:Free as what? cool as what? by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Open? Free? No way.

    Hell, even their developer portal requires login to even look at. Doesn't smell like something open to the public to me...

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  14. Re:And the point is? by FishandChips · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It can be helpful to look at the bigger picture and think for yourself from time to time. Choice is not an absolute virtue and computer users have already shown in 1001 different ways that they prefer one app that just works to half a dozen that don't regardless of where they come from. And if these guys want to do GNU/Solaris, then kudos and every success to them. But as an ordinary end-user I'll stick with Debian Sid. Don't fancy investing hundreds or thousands of hours in a project that turns out to be a cul de sac with parking space for as many as 15 users. There's already been enough of that on Linux, at least, to last a lifetime. The best folks to take an open version of Solaris forward are Sun and if they can't be shagged then keep clear imho.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  15. Sweet! by dafunn · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's just what I've always wanted... the kludginess of Solaris combined with the user-friendliness of Debian.

  16. About Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    About damn time!
    While I'm mostly happy with Solaris 10 running on my Sparc system, I must confess that the Solaris userland could certainly use a little TLC before its my "primary" desktop (which Id like it to be).

    With any luck, the combo of a solaris kernel/core and a debian/ubuntu userland will provide some much needed juice to the solaris userland. Even if this does nothing more than get some more userland/"desktop" developers working on solaris, I cant see how this is anything but great news.

  17. Re:Free as what? cool as what? by tfb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, did you check this, or are you just bullshitting? Oh, look, you're just bullshitting aren't you? For instance, let's see. www.opensolaris.org, there's a download link, with some blurb and ... links to various things, including http://www.genunix.org/mirror/index.html which has tar files. Or of course you could have a (free, yes, really) login on opensolaris.org and got it from there or the SDLC.

    But, hey, it's Sun and it's fashionable to slag them off in your little cult isn't it?

  18. Re:Free as what? cool as what? by hjsb · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dunno about this specifically, but Solaris has been freely available for developers since I was a student, at least 5 years. Hell, they even posted me the CDs. Still is, by the looks of things.

  19. well it's not the first non linux debian .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.debian.org/ports/index#nonlinux

  20. Re:And the point is? by c0007031 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't want anyone choosing for me. I think Debian is not the kind of comunity to choose for anyone (maybe that's why they have so many packages and developers). You can always install Ubuntu on your machine and get an Operating System with the default configurations, but will you stick with gedit (the text editor that comes default with ubuntu)? By the way, I think you're talking more about Perl than Python don't you? http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/oreillyshirts/5bc 2/back/

  21. Does this mean that GNU is Unix? by kerskine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this the end of recursive humor?

    --
    ****

    "I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
  22. Re:GNU/Solaris? by photon317 · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Actually, the naming story is more complicated than that.

    The SunOS 4.x series was just "SunOS", and it was more BSD-based.

    The SunOS 5.x series has always also been called Solaris. In the SunOS 5.x series, SunOS is the name of either just the kernel, or the kernel plus the very basics of the operating system, depending on who you listen to, whereas the Solaris brand name refers to the entire "Operating Environment", including SunOS 5.x and a lot of other add-ons like NIS+, LDAP services, CDE, etc, etc. I don't think they have ever sold a stripped down SunOS 5.x, only a Solaris Operating Environment 2.x which happens to contain SunOS 5.x.

    And then with the release of Solaris 2.7 (SunOS 5.7) they began marketing it as "Solaris 7", presumably for some dumb marketing reason. Since then that's been the case, so for any given release from 2.7 onwards, the possible alternate namings are:

    Solaris 2.X = SunOS 5.X = "Solaris X"

    2.7 of course turned out to be an absymal failure of an operating environment, so it's quite fitting that it was the launching point of a marketing-driven renaming policy. Whereas 2.6 was a solid stable platform for many years, building on the successes of 2.4 and 2.5.1, the 2.7 release is where they introduced transitional 64-bit support, and poorly. It wasn't until 2.8 that things settled down again. Many customers unfortunately still have "Solaris 7" installed here and there in production, and it's a nightmare to support. What we can learn from this is never buy/install the first release of an OS right after a major overhaul of its guts to support a new architecture.

    --
    11*43+456^2
  23. Interesting for kernel performance comparisons. by Yaztromo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they can keep virtually everything outside the kernel consistent with Debian, and replace only the kernel and drivers with Solaris versions, this would prove to be an interesting system for benchmarking and contrasting the two kernels.

    As it is right now, you can benchmark entire systems, but it is difficult to do any meaningful kernel benchmarks.

    If there is a significant difference in any particular area in either direction, I can forsee future server administrators choosing their kernel based on how well it performs in certain tasks. Perhaps the Linux kernels memory management is better, but the Solaris kernel's SMP scales better. Now you don't have to worry about changing your user or administrative environment, package management tools, or applications -- you can run the same on both, and just change the kernel architecture underneath in order to gain a benefit in an area important to you.

    Heck, I can forsee a day when what kernel you want to use is queried as part of the install process, and where you might have a mix of machines that all appear to be running Debian, but which may be using different kernels based on the needs of the system.

    We have competing web browsers that (generally) conform to the same interface standards (in terms of HTML rendering) -- why not have a choice in kernels, without having to sacrifice your user and administrative environment (or Open Source ideals)?

    Yaz.

    1. Re:Interesting for kernel performance comparisons. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Presumably any benchmarks (meaningful ones at least) are going to interface with the kernel via core POSIX libraries such as libc and pthreads, which may also differ between the two. On Solaris one could also benchmark Sun libc vs GNU libc, but on the linux kernel that's not an option, nor is there a serious Linux/Solaris kernel-portable implementation of pthreads that I'm aware of.

  24. Why GNU/Solaris? by rjw57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Which we did...created a new Debian based GNU/Solaris distribution with (the latest bits of) Solaris kernel & core userland inside.

    So if it is a Solaris kernel replacing the Linux kernel and a Solaris userland replacing the GNU userland what is the justification for calling it GNU/Solaris again?

    --
    Rich
  25. Debian OpenBSD by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been daydreaming about as OpenBSD system (kernel and userland) with Debian package management. Imagine the security of OpenBSD merged with the package collection, quality, and ease of use of Debian!

    One of the things that plagues me about OpenBSD is that the base system is one large package, making it difficult to, say, only upgrade the kernel or sendmail if a security flaw is fixed in one of them. Another thing that has bugged me is that upgrading to a new release is difficult and error-prone, to the point that it's easier to just do a clean install of the new release and reinstall all packages. Plus the package manager isn't nearly as nice as apt-get.

    On the other hand, Debian doesn't incorporate all the great pro-active security measures that OpenBSD has, and I believe these are very important in the modern world. The OpenBSD userland also feels a lot lighter and cleaner than the GNU userland Debian uses.

    This situation leaves me in a split situation, where I run OpenBSD on the server where security is paramount, and Debian (actually, Ubuntu these days) on my laptop where easy installation, deinstallation, and upgrading are more important. When working on the server, I sometimes wish it were Debian, but when working with Debian I wish it were OpenBSD so I could worry less about buffer overflows and other vulnerabilities I _know_ are in the software I use.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  26. The new name is... by Srdjant · · Score: 5, Funny

    GNU's Now UNIX

  27. virtualisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did you read yesterdays piece about Redhat wanting Xen in the kernel?

    Maybe you'll actually run several kernels, managing different tasks - virtualisation can do this. Are we going to see an explosion of different kernels (similar to distributions now), as it becomes easier to try different ones out?

  28. Re:Freedom of Choice will hunt you forever... by zootm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use OSS already. The fact is though, most people don't care what program they use so long as it works and it's easy to find. Look at all the people using IE.

    'Tis interesting, anyway. The problem is that OSS is currently beginning to appeal to a whole new group of people, and these people don't know what the hell all these different packages are, let alone have any particular opinions over which are better or worse.

    A lot of systems are good for this, and getting better, though. To be clear, removing the freedom of the user to choose is a bad thing, but making choices that they don't want to make for them is generally a very good thing. "Sane defaults" and all that. :)

  29. We're speaking about kernels... by DrYak · · Score: 2, Insightful
    but today Linux is driving innovation


    In facts : Linux distributions. Which are nothing more than a small Linux Kernel, plus a bunch of GNU userland (gcc, bash...), some BSD (some part of the network apps, don't remember exactly) userland, some other useful userland apps (Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice.org).

    Basically GNU/Solaris, is just the same, with only the tiny kernel part replaced with another kernel (OpenSolaris instead of Linux).

    poses no real threat to Linux for the forseeable future


    No way. Because what the 99% these projects share is the user apps, which is what users benefits most of.
    I mean, look... OpenOffice.org, GIMP, FireFox, all these are even developped on Windows. And it *definitly* doesn't hurt Linux. On the contrary, it brings good apps for Linux.
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  30. Debian: The Universal Operating System by samj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why shouldn't Debian run on various kernels - Linux, Hurd, Solaris, Interix... the list goes on. I'd personally like to see Debian running on Microsoft's Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (Interix), which will be included with Windows 2003 Server R2 and apparently also future operating systems like Vista. Here's my post to debian-win32 from last week:

    To: debian-win32@lists.debian.org
    Subject: Debian GNU/Interix (Windows 2003 Server R2)?
    From: Sam Johnston
    Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:55:31 +0000

    Afternoon all,

    Windows 2003 Server R2 is to ship shortly with a POSIX subsystem
    (Interix 5.2 of Services for Unix fame) which "includes more than 300
    UNIX utilities and tools that behave as they would on UNIX systems,
    plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports more than 1,900
    UNIX APIs and migration tools, including make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc,
    c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.".
    Apparently future versions of Windows (eg Vista) will follow suit.

    With a tweak of config.guess I have had no problems compiling
    bash-3.0, wget, etc. on Windows 2003 and am now interested in tacking
    some more interesting packages, like dpkg and apt, with a view to
    getting a full port of Debian running on it. The problem is that I
    have limited time and porting experience, and the fact that this was
    previously attempted under Cygwin is disconcerting; the debian-win32
    mailing list has been around for years and yet there there has only
    been one non-spam post in the last 18 months according to the
    archives.

    According to http://www.interix.com/ many interesting packages have
    already been ported over and are currently available for download for
    $30 as 'Interop Toolworks 2.2'
    (http://www.interix.com/InteropToolworks.htm). Presumably source is
    provided/available - I have posted the question in their Unix Tools
    forum as I figure this would be a good starting point.

    While there's no X server included, the X libraries are and the new
    release opens up the Win32 API which should pave the way for someone
    to build one. In the mean time Starnet Software do ship a free 'LX'
    version which will accept localhost connections only
    (http://www.starnet.com/xwin32LX/get_xwin32LX.htm) .

    At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a
    project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and
    any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then
    debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on. I would
    like to think it will be possible to bootstrap a base Debian
    installation (Debian GNU/Interix?) from an installer executable, or
    possibly even deliver it via ActiveX, eventually getting to the point
    where one can log into Windows and get a full Debian desktop complete
    with your favourite window manager.

    For the time being I'll be happy with bash, OpenSSH, etc. but it's
    interesting to consider what is possible... SFU/SUA was meant as a
    migration path *to* Windows, but there's nothing stopping it from
    being a two way street.

    Sam

  31. Who is Nexenta Systems, Inc.? by samj · · Score: 2, Informative

    Who is Nexenta Systems, Inc. (gleaned from the HTML title attribute of http://www.nexenta.com/ anyway, and why do they feel the need to hide their identity (http://whois.sc/nexenta.com)? They're referring to this Debian port as 'Nexenta OS', but then using the domain gnusolaris.org (where they have also hidden their details behind a Domains by Proxy registration). They have this to say on 'the future': "We do hope that at some point, sooner rather than later, our changes (so far for the most part just cleanups to build the DEBs in the new Solaris-like environment) will be integrated with the upstream. At the end of the day - this would be the right thing to do." - presumably they mean that they intend for this to become an official Debian port (eg Debian GNU/Solaris)?

    Registrant:
          Domains by Proxy, Inc.
          DomainsByProxy.com
          15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
          Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
          United States

          Registered through: GoDaddy.com
          Domain Name: NEXENTA.COM
                Created on: 15-Jul-05
                Expires on: 15-Jul-08
                Last Updated on: 11-Oct-05

  32. Secure Debian by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about GNU/TrustedSolaris?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  33. Debian GNU/MINIX? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And when will Debian start a Debian GNU/MINIX project? There is already a Debian GNU/Hurd project and MINIX is alive, well and ready for production. Now that would be cool.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  34. Re:GNU/Solaris? by thre5her · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, GNU/SunOS is appropriate. Linux is a kernel, not ls/grep/etc. Without the Linux kernel, there is no "Linux" involved.