Slashdot Mirror


Sun Says Project Indiana is Not a Linux Copy

eldavojohn writes "Ian Murdock (Debian author & Sun's OS Chief) made some comments about Project Indiana that many have said is an attempt to make Solaris simply "more Linux-like." But Murdock quashes any concerns that this is just another Linux clone — muddying up the waters of distribution selection. He says that it's more a 'best of both worlds' attempt to make an OS that appeals to a broader audience. From the article, "Project Indiana will include a revamped package management system, which should prove popular with developers unaccustomed to Solaris. The OS has some clunky, archaic aspects, and Murdock thinks the new package system will modernize Solaris.""

161 comments

  1. NexentaOS by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apart from being an official Sun project, how is this project different from NexentaOS? http://www.gnusolaris.org/ Any explanation is appreciated!

    1. Re:NexentaOS by Macrat · · Score: 1

      A reference distribution for the distros. A reference distro for developers.

    2. Re:NexentaOS by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      how is this project different from NexentaOS
      Nexenta is GNU+OpenSolaris. That is, GNU tools + OpenSolaris kernel, or more specifically, Ubuntu using the OpenSolaris kernel instead of Linux.

      "Project Indiana" will use OpenSolaris as the kernel (obviously), but it isn't yet clear what else. Sun has their own set of tools for package management and so forth, so they don't need GNU (and not Debian or Ubuntu which are specialized systems built on GNU). So, it may turn out that Indiana and Nexenta only have the OpenSolaris kernel in common.

      However, is this the right thing to do? I don't think so. Nexenta are very wise to build a system on Ubuntu, which was wise to use Debian, which was wise to use GNU. Sun should accept that GNU and systems based on GNU are the best foundation for an operating system these days. Sun's best move would be to just support or even make official the Nexenta project, if they want to compete with Linux.

      However, one reason why they might not is control. Despite rumors of GPL-ing OpenSolaris, it hasn't yet happened. Perhaps Sun doesn't want an operating system based on GPL2/3 code, and just for that reason will use their own userspace tools, to whom they own all copyrights, and can pick their licenses as they please.
    3. Re:NexentaOS by br0k_sams0n · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eh, maybe a working web site? Nexenta's site has been down for three days now.

    4. Re:NexentaOS by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Interesting
      i just read the article and it seems project indiana is just solaris adopting some linux-like features, such as a 6 monthly community version on top of the 3 yearly enterprise release (think red hat) plus a new package management system, as the solaris one is apparently rather clunky.

      It has nothing to do with blending it with linux in any way. It seems they are trying to make it appeal to the linux community in order to reap the benefits of community feedback, without actually just giving in and GPL'ing solaris.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  2. Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by reporter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The morphing of Solaris into a Linux clone is best described by the well-known pithy aphorism: "If you cannot beat them, join them."

  3. Where have we seen this before? by wellingj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh yea, It looks like Ian Murdock is making Solaris more like Debian/Ubuntu, RedHat/Fedora and SLED/OpenSUSE.
    If it has worked for other distributions, it will probably work well for Solaris, especially since they don't
    have to bicker over what goes into upstream or not. Not that debate is a bad thing... not by any stretch.

    1. Re:Where have we seen this before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AIX 5L

    2. Re:Where have we seen this before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks like Ian Murdock is making Solaris more like Debian/Ubuntu, RedHat/Fedora and SLED/OpenSUSE This has the most potential of any Unix/Linux project I've seen for a _long_ time. I'd be very
      surprised if Sun doesn't blow it though. They've blown so many promising projects in the past,
      while concentrating on selling hardware.

      The best thing Sun could do would be to get rid of the Linux kernel. I can't tell you how many
      times I've rebuilt that legacy code, only to see (vmware|audio drivers|wireless|...) break because
      something had been changed and not tested very well. One thing Solaris has always done right is
      the kernel.

      Of the many things Sun has _always_ done wrong, and all Linux distributions too, is software
      distribution. There are far, far too many dependencies, architectural, library, version, and
      otherwise to maintain binary distributions well. I've learned this from hard experience...
      But do you think sun will adopt a state of the art, a system like FreeBSD's ports? Well,
      let's just say it would be out of character.

      I will say that Debian/Ian et al has come up to speed pretty quickly these past few years
      and is at the head of the pack when it comes to a graphical installer and package front-end
      (synaptic). It's too bad they've kept the same kitchen-sink, RPM/RLL-hell binary compilations
      as the RPM distros.

      One thing is clear, and that's Sun's background in customer support. If their new
      distribution even comes close to compatibility with RHEL and SuSE they'll soon have the
      commercial Linux/Unix market all to themselves.

  4. Re:Bummer... by wellingj · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes you are indeed a troll. But mostly because you are talking out your ass.
    In 1996, Bruce Perens replaced Ian Murdock as the project leader.

  5. package management by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be great to see Solaris become tightly integrated with something like apt. pkg-get is ok, but it isn't currently used for all packages, and a Sun-backed and -improved version would be better. For example, I'd like to see it manage security updates in a way that meets the needs of Solaris sysadmins, with separate actions for downloading, applying and rolling back. I'd also like to see my attempts to install gvim not download 50 megabytes worth of libraries that are already on my system, in a slightly different version number.

    1. Re:package management by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to see my attempts to install gvim not download 50 megabytes worth of libraries that are already on my system, in a slightly different version number.

      I can't speak for that package system since I don't know it, but usually that's the fault of the packages not the system. Sometimes maintainers don't know, don't care or just by policy think you should be using a fairly new library version with all the latest fixes. With dependencies that can easily lead to every library being knocked up an inch just so you can install the one application.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:package management by wellingj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds bizar but, isn't that what Debian avoids with its stable/testing/experimental branches?

    3. Re:package management by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for that package system since I don't know it, but usually that's the fault of the packages not the system.

      It depends where one draws the boundary between "packages" and "system". In the case of pkg-get, it isn't used for the core operating system, so there is a lot of installed software outside of its worldview. Of course it's partly the fault of gvim for requiring something different from what's installed, but if Sun were the maintainer for the entire repository, then packages would hopefully not get out of sync like that.

    4. Re:package management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF does, "bizar", mean?

    5. Re:package management by wellingj · · Score: 1

      It's a strange way of spelling odd.

  6. Re:Bummer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the better, since Murdock decided to trade in his principles for money.

  7. Muddying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would this "muddy up the waters of distribution selection"? It will be good to have some distros with alternate kernels. Or alternate kernels for existing distros. Adds flexibility, adds choice, removes the weakness of a monoculture. What's not to like?

  8. Pithy Aphorism:If you can't beat them,pirate them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering Operating Systems are now a commodity item. That's not saying much.

  9. Why look at Solaris now? by delire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there really room for a new player right now? With many years of Linux experience why should I look at Solaris? Curiosity only holds so much water when you just want to get stuff done.

    Will it offer me a more productive development environment? Probably not. Will it give me a wider audience? Definitely not.

    1. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not much longer than 10 years ago, most people in the world were asking the same question in reverse. Solaris is hardly a "new player" - lest we forget that Bill Joy, co-founder of SUN and designer of the SPARC, was the original BSD developer as well. Solaris is as real as it gets.

    2. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by VENONA · · Score: 2, Informative

      Productivity improvements might be determined by how badly you need Dtrace functionality: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/dtrace/
      I'm not confident that a clone will make it into Linux any time soon.

      In audience terms, I'm thinking that the limiter is still hardware support. I don't get much time to look at OpenSolaris, so I could be in left field.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    3. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there really room for a new player right now? With many years of Linux experience why should I look at Solaris? Curiosity only holds so much water when you just want to get stuff done. Solaris is very stable. Also, unlike Linux, large parts of it's kernel are not constantly being rewritten. It also has a stable ABI.

      Personally, once OpenSolaris goes GPLv3 I'm switching.
      --
      "The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
      End The FED. -
    4. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, unlike Linux, large parts of it's kernel are not constantly being rewritten You know, one thing that struck me in the scheduler discussion yesterday was that no one said 'WTF? Why are you replacing a (working) core component of the kernel with a more-or-less untested one in a minor release?' With that kind of commitment to stability, I'm glad I don't run Linux anywhere important.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by delire · · Score: 1

      Who switches to minor releases other than developers? Surely you'd just use the one that works and switch when you're ready, not 'Linux'.

      Seems to work for a gazillion enterprises out there.

    6. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why look at Linux when Solaris has better technology ?
      With a Solaris that has better package management, easy install etc. it'll be great, they'll be no need for some people to even try Linux.
      You make it sound like Solaris is new, Linux is new and copies most things from Solaris.
      Solaris is already widely used on servers so expanding that to desktops will be interesting.

    7. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by VENONA · · Score: 1

      The kernel rewrites can be a problem. I'm overdue to look through the IBM Linux Performance Tuning Redbook (July, 2007 version) again. Grovel through 168 pages of PDF. Compare to my current production kernels, compare to notes from the previous Redbook version, sort through my last round of production performance metrics. Test any changes, and fold into the configuration management system. Gack. The manhours do stack up, but luckily, I can do it in my copious free time.
      http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp428 5.pdf

      I'm hoping that the LSB 3.0 will make life easier in future, regarding the ABI stability issue. They're claiming six years, going forward. But Sun have always done an excellent job there. Perhaps the best job amongst the commercial Unix vendors. They beat the stuffing out of HP-UX, but I've little experience with AIX, so I really can't claim they're best. But they're definitely someone to beat.
      http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Application_Com patibility

      I don't know that I'd recommend switching any workloads to OpenSolaris if and when they release on GPL, as there are costs for hardware, support contracts, and staff to consider. So that would have to be determined on a client-by-client basis. But take a very serious look at it? Oh, yeah.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    8. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      System Tap.

    9. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by VENONA · · Score: 1

      You can't run it on a production server. You still need a debug kernel. Given how hard it can be (sometimes nearly impossible on complex systems) to duplicate an issue, the ability to run on a production system can be *the* killer feature.

      OTOH, it's getting better fast, and the feature list is already pretty sweet.

      But, I also have to comment that SystemTap was developed as a response to DTrace. This would have been useful to kernel devs a long time ago. But SystemTap didn't happen until the Solaris folk paved the way, and people began to clamor. Yet more proof that competition is good, and Solaris bears keeping an eye on.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    10. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by LuSiDe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, one thing that struck me in the scheduler discussion yesterday was that no one said 'WTF? Why are you replacing a (working) core component of the kernel with a more-or-less untested one in a minor release?' With that kind of commitment to stability, I'm glad I don't run Linux anywhere important.
      You ehm, can like, still run a version which is well tested and came with your distribution? One which, you know, contains only backported security and reliability fixes? The one ehm... the one your Linux distribution provides you? You know, much like *BSD does? Bravo, you figured it out now. Thanks for flaming. Or, if that doesn't suit you, you use the 2.6.x.[1+]-x revisions e.g. 2.6.20.2 instead of 2.6.20. This process is well documented and pointed out esp when they started to change to this way (Torvalds et all did).

      Working component is very relative since it doesn't work well in some situations at all.

      The FreeBSD folks are also writing new schedulers for FreeBSD 7 (as you know, since you actually talked a bit about this in the other thread), and finally are including a GEOM based journaling implementation. Neat, but again the 7.0 will also follow revisions quickly (esp if not well tested) just like 2.6.24.1 is more stable than 2.6.24. The Linux kernel follows the 'release early, release often' path and the development goes much faster than other kernels (or cores/bases). Plus, I happen to know some folks simply prefer to stick with FreeBSD 4 or 5 on production servers. Once 7 is out, the same will be true for 6 until 7 has matured a lot. You see this behaviour elsewhere too; e.g. Windows world. New != best to run. Same is true for Linux kernel. Not news, sorry.
      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
    11. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Also, Sun's X supports display postscript. I use solaris (plus the gnu toolset) just for that. Display Ghostscript isn't good enough.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    12. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      - Much finer grain security (RBAC principles in Solaris are much better handled than in grsecurity for GNU/Linux).

      - ZFS is now bootable (ZFS is now bootable)

      - DTrace is much more powerful than strace (a number I read in one of the Sun DTrace presentation stated ~40000 probe points in Solaris to ~40 in GNU/Linux).

      - All the p* tools on Solaris are much more powerful (and in some instances, there are no equivalents in GNU/Linux requiring users to have to code their own inotify CLI program)

      - Service management is also much better taken care of with SMF than anything else I've seen in any of the BSDs or GNU/Linux as of late.

      - Project Athena (used for handling massive users+groups / computers invented by MIT) runs with SunOS (and I believe Solaris as well))

      - All GNU tools are available in /usr/sfw, all BSD tools in /usr/ucb, plus all of Solaris' goodness.

      - Unlike GNU/Linux, Solaris adheres more strictly to standards much better and so if you have to write programs that are to be cross platform... developing them on Solaris will probably be your best bet of seeing if it works on other platforms.

      - Another thing (that is if this matters to you), it's the only open source Sys V UNIX available.

    13. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by anilg · · Score: 1

      # dtrace -l | wc -l
            78565
      # uname -a
      SunOS solaris 5.11 snv_69 i86pc i386 i86pc
      #

      Thats 78k probes on my default install of Solaris Express curretn build (69)

      --
      http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
    14. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      New player? Sheesh, if anything Linux is the new kid on the block... Anyway, this is good news for solaris, there are two problems with solaris currently, it is missing a debian like approach to packaging, and it is missing a lot of drivers (which is mostly a desktop issue) seems like Sun is tackeling at least one of the holes in Solaris, I just expected that when the announcement came, that they hired Murdock. As for the drivers, this issue will be resolved over time.

    15. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In audience terms, I'm thinking that the limiter is still hardware support.


      Ignoring desktops / workstations for a moment, it's certified and fully support by HP on a lot of their hardware (both regular and blade systems). Many Dell and IBM servers are also on the HCL.

      If you pick some random hardware there may be issues here and there, but if you have a mainstream system (Asus, MSI, Gigabite), there's a fair chance it will work (including accelerated NVidia video cards).

      You can find the HCL at:

      http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/
    16. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Is there really room for a new player right now? With many years of Linux experience why should I look at Solaris?

      Well, one unexpected turn of events is that Solaris will probably be GPLv3 years before Linux. Maybe that won't make a difference, but should the need arise to link a GPLv3 library into the kernel to add some functionality, that may not be legally possible under Linux.

      Irony, thy name is FSF.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    17. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've got about 45k on 57... yeah i know it's outdated.

    18. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by croddy · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why the FSF recommend the "or any later version" application of the GPL. Don't hold the FSF responsible for Torvalds' decision to lock himself into GPL2.

    19. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Oh, hey, I didn't mean that as a slam on the FSF. I'm wholeheartedly behind them on this one. I just think it's highly ironic that Solaris may end up closer to RMS's heart than Linux.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    20. Re:Why look at Solaris now? by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because Solaris can do things Linux can't. First off Solaris scales better.

      To make an analogy, You might argue that Toyota makes nice pickup trucks and "Who needs Caterpillar?". Well those 20 foot tall earth moving machines do a different job and are very usfull to some people. But yes Toyota sell __way__ more trucks than Cat. Those 20 foot tall machine are real "clunkers" f you try to use then for every day tasks like driving to work or the store.

      If you really need a machine with four dozen CPUs then Solaris is the way to go. It Also wins in terms of reliability. Linux is good but Solaris is about 10X better. (Yes really, one more "9" to the right of the decimal point) Solaris has better fault tolerance. For example Solaris can "boot around" failed CPU cores and bad memory. And then there is D-trace and ZFS. These two alone will make some people go for Solaris. Solaris also has the same advantage as Apple's Mac OS X in that Sun builds the hardware and the OS so you can be pretty sure the two work together. And what about storage and I/O bandwidth? Again Solaris scales better.

      Operating costs. Sun's new T1 really does offer the best compute power per watt of any server class machine. At $0.14 per KWH power adds up fast. In fact power and cooling costs more than some machines do over a several year lifetime. So Solaris might save you big $$ per month on power bill if you have a large data center running many light weight processes.

      Now, if you have a PC, even a "high end" quad core Xeon based PC and you need to select an OS then Linux may work well but Sun calls a machine like this "entry level"

      Many end users could not tell a Solaris system from a Linux system. Both can run the Gnome desktop and both run the same csh and bash shells and so on. The differience is the Kernels

      I use Solaris, Linux and Mac OS X. Mission critical stuff goes on Solaris. I develop on a Linux system and use GNU Autotools to make it portable to Solaris. Use the Mac at home for photo/video and so on. One OS is not "better" but each has strengths.

  10. Good Gnus? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Beyond fixing software distribution and pkg mgmt (which is lonnnnngggg overdue!!), how about making GNU utils the default and tossing the archaic Solaris versions of common tools into some compat directory? If the GNU tool doesn't support some Solarisism (like, say, RBAC or extended attributes), hack the GNU tool and release the change as GPL.

    Oh, and while you're refactoring, please fix JES. It is a clusterfuck mess, particularly the Delegated Administrator.

    1. Re:Good Gnus? by slapyslapslap · · Score: 1

      I agree. Almost every GNU tool is superior to the tools they ship.

    2. Re:Good Gnus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or actually maintain control and not use GNU and choose a BSD derivative for the tool.

    3. Re:Good Gnus? by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      pkg is a problem? I actually wish that RedHat had gone with pkg, instead of re-inventing the wheel. And, a layer (like yum) could be put on top of pkg.

      As to the plethora of tools -- SUN customers may be running scripts done on SunOS, using BSD semantics. Or Sys5 semantics. Or GNU semantics. Especially difficult if they are all needed.

      So, Solaris defaults to Sys5, and gives (ccs/bin) the option to use BSD, and (via installing) the option to use GNU. Seems reasonable to me.

      Even Linux has such schisms (eg. the 2.0 kernel does BSD ptty, 2.2 does Sys5 ptty). I don't know if the old way is supported on new kernels... (I don't care, either, it's just illustrative). On Solaris, I do have the back compatibility available, if needed (generally).

      Murdoch should look at expanding AppCert, and put the GNU tools in like the ccs one. Also, a pkg/rpm converter might be nice. Beyond that... why?

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    4. Re:Good Gnus? by packetmon · · Score: 1

      RBAC's and re-visiting Trusted Solaris... I happen to like a lot of the security functions Sol10+ has integrated into new releases. Sort of reminds me slightly of Trusted Sol. What I do semi agree on is gnu compatibility but to be honest with you, I have no problem administrating a Sol box (any version) without GNU utils. One thing I can foresee with Solaris moving towards this route is the introduction of more security issues. It's kind of rare to see dozens of Solaris security issues - granted when they're there, their extreme. However, GNU*anything you're escalating security risks. Let's be realistic, jump on any security mailing lists and you will see all sorts of issues with third party GNU stuff.

    5. Re:Good Gnus? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's keep package. Then, every time there is a patch we can reboot to single usermode to install it. We can even have changing versions of packages that are now longer compatible with older versions - and hell, who needs config file management? We can just have it overwrite everything without asking.

    6. Re:Good Gnus? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      None of those problems you describe sound particularly fundamental to the package format. More, they are features(!) of the tool which installs them and the folks who create the packages.

    7. Re:Good Gnus? by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

      I remember reading a discussion by the Opensolaris folks claiming how much better their tools were than the Gnu tools. They were singling out Solaris TAR and saying what a mess the Gnu version is. As a user, Solaris TAR is crap to use compared to GnuTAR. It can't even handle tar files over 2GB, for example, and I've had several tar files it can't handle that GnuTAR can. I also like the built-in support for bzip2 and gzip in GnuTAR. Now granted, I haven't tried Solaris 10, but I suspect the problems remain. That isn't to say that GnuTAR is perfect... I was running an older version that would truncate some filenames.

      Another one that caused me endless frustration was Solaris newgrp did not allow you to specify a command line like the Linux one did. I ended up porting over the Gnu version just so I could do my job without having to manually type in a command as part of a build procedure.

      At my job I've been maintaining KDE for Solaris for a bunch of Sun users. When I migrated my desktop to Linux I'm still having to support KDE for them (and that's not my job, I'm not in IT). None of the developers like Sun's Gnome 2.0 that's included with Solaris 9, and newer versions have problems compiling because Sun still does not support the X render extension (on Sparc). Trying to compile KDE was difficult, since Sun's libraries and tools are often broken or so out of date. I also have had to compile GCC for Solaris to do it, since Sun's C++ compiler we have barfs on a lot of open source packages. I've also hit a number of problems because numerous features are missing in Sun's libc, even though they've been part of the posix or ISO standard for many years (i.e. missing stdint.h), including some parts of stdio.h. (stdint.h is part of the ISO C99 standard, well before Solaris 9 came out).

      I remember having tons of problems with Sun's sed because it would silently truncate after 4-8KB of input.

      -Aaron

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    8. Re:Good Gnus? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      I looks like this thread is the whole point of their project. Find a way to make solaris as usable and attractive as Linux. Folks on the MyNix is better than YurNix trip need not apply. I would like to see an OpenSolaris project feel like Linux and a Linux distro feel like Solaris. This way someone proficient in one can comfortable use the other. Not only would it make some of our lives easier it would improve the quality of both by aligning them towards the same standards.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    9. Re:Good Gnus? by Lally+Singh · · Score: 1

      I just want the ability to auto-download package dependencies.

      --
      Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
    10. Re:Good Gnus? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They should have a "linux" distribution with a solaris kernel. I'd try that.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    11. Re:Good Gnus? by Thomas+the+Doubter · · Score: 1

      Of course it is not "Linux" without Linus. I guess we will have to call it GNU/OpenSolaris. Or not. How about GnuSun?

    12. Re:Good Gnus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading a discussion by the Opensolaris folks claiming how much better their tools were than the Gnu tools. They were singling out Solaris TAR and saying what a mess the Gnu version is. As a user, Solaris TAR is crap to use compared to GnuTAR. It can't even handle tar files over 2GB, for example, and I've had several tar files it can't handle that GnuTAR can. I also like the built-in support for bzip2 and gzip in GnuTAR. Now granted, I haven't tried Solaris 10, but I suspect the problems remain. That isn't to say that GnuTAR is perfect... I was running an older version that would truncate some filenames.
      GNU tar has issues with some POSIX tar formats, generates non-standard tar files, barfs on standard tar files with optional headers (instead of just issuing a warning or ignoring them), and has disagreements with POSIX tar about the meaning of some command line switches.

      Solaris tar has the size problem you mentioned, and I've had it generate POSIXly correct but wierd and bloated tar files which make gtar barf.

      BSD tar works with standard and GNU tar files, and some extra formats. It's tarballs don't cause gtar or star to crash. It also recognizes handles bzip2ed and gzipped files without requiring any extra commandline arguments (which makes scripting much easier when you have to extract a buch of tarballs of various types).
    13. Re:Good Gnus? by assantisz · · Score: 1

      None of these points have anything to do with Solaris's package format. I really don't understand why packages has been singled out as something that represents how badly Solaris is lacking. I've been using Solaris packages for ages and so far I was able to do anything and everything that is needed to maintain software packages. Btw, bringing the system down into single user for kernel patches is just a recommendation by Sun. I haven't put any system into single user for years. The current Solaris kernel is so modular and dynamic that you can replace files as you wish. Just don't forget to reboot when you are done.

    14. Re:Good Gnus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a user, Solaris TAR is crap to use compared to GnuTAR


      So use star and be done with it:

      http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/star.html
    15. Re:Good Gnus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. They are both crap. The one with solaris may stink a bit more, but shit is shit. Use star.

  11. Re:Bummer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mod me troll if you must

    Good idea. I'm almost tempted to give you an "insightful" for that suggestion, but it'd rather detract from the "troll" rating.
  12. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by packetmon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Out of curiousity have you ever even used Solaris (http://www.infiltrated.net/sunDesk.jpg) I have do and have for the past 8+ years. Did it occur that maybe Sun is trying to woo Linux users over. One can get into the whole "Linux/BSD/Solaris" penis envy arguments about the pros and cons of each so here goes:

    http://www.infiltrated.net/openpimp.jpg (my openbsd screen)
    http://www.infiltrated.net/currentPentestDesktop.j pg (linux (Backtrack screen))
    http://www.infiltrated.net/sunDesk.jpg (Solaris Nevada)


    I could go on with Scientific Linux, FreeBSD and NetBSD screens if you'd like, I use most on a daily basis. Linux for a lot of Asterisk use (professionally), OpenBSD for firewalls and security (professionally), Solaris for DB stuff (professionally), and so on. Anyhow, perhaps Sun is trying to simply trying woo Linux users over to using Sun nothing more nothing less.. Highly doubtful Sun is aiming to be Linux. Sorry to inform the zealots before you come along posting a "but my Linux penis does x recursive foo bar zip zilch sequencing faster that..." ... Look there are certain things that should not be left to Linux at least in my shops and that's what counts to me not what you think or someone's distorted benchmarkings, and no I will not get into zealotry here. Stating facts.

  13. This is Nice! by miffo.swe · · Score: 1, Funny

    What the world really needs is more OS players. Welcome SUN!

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:This is Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, Sun is not a new OS player. Judging by the informed content of your post, I would estimate that you were a fetus when Solaris was under development at Sun.

  14. more 'compatible' might be better by Qwavel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It can hardly be called a Linux clone if it uses a different kernel.

    But they can still make the OS more Linux compatible, particularly from the software development perspective.

    1. Re:more 'compatible' might be better by pschmied · · Score: 1

      Why not compatible? *BSD, AIX, and others have had binary compatibility for several other *nixen for a long time. Adding binary compatibility between such systems isn't trivial, but it's certainly within Sun's reach.

    2. Re:more 'compatible' might be better by maxume · · Score: 1

      Would you call it a Linux clone if it used the same kernel, or would you just call it Linux?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:more 'compatible' might be better by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      I would assume that if Solaris began to use a Linux kernel, it would cease to be a UNIX based OS and became a Linux distro.

    4. Re:more 'compatible' might be better by turgid · · Score: 1

      Adding binary compatibility between such systems isn't trivial, but it's certainly within Sun's reach.

      Sun did it over 2 years ago now (Linux compatibility at the kernel level). I saw it with my own eyes.

    5. Re:more 'compatible' might be better by risk+one · · Score: 1

      It can hardly be called a Linux clone if it uses a different kernel.

      Actually, it can. If it used the Linux kernel, it would be a distribution.

      I find such valuable ways to use my time...

    6. Re:more 'compatible' might be better by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Binary compatibility isn't the only kind of compatibility. Many Linux folk try Solaris, only to lose interest when they see that familiar tools aren't provided.

      I recently implemented a TWiki on an old Sun x64 system. When I got it, the system had Solaris installed on it. I would have preferred to stick with Solaris, but it was just too difficult to install all the Perl modules I needed. Perl itself is well supported on Solaris, but too many Perl library modules have dependencies on software that isn't included in Solaris, on is included and works differently. Finally replaced Solaris with Fedora, which eliminated all the strange little compatibility issues.

    7. Re:more 'compatible' might be better by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      It can hardly be called a Linux clone if it uses a different kernel.

      Well, a kernel is a kernel... thing is, the new Solaris won't be widely adopted - outside the world it's adopted now, that is - until it gets drivers, drivers, drivers. Now, what's the easiest way ? I'd guess it'd be using Linux drivers. Then, you use the gnu toolchain, a package management system which probably will be somewhat dpkg/apt-like (not that I'd object) and what you'll end up with will hopefully be a Linux-like and somewhat Solaris-like distribution, hopefully with everything that's good in Solaris and everything that's good in a Linux-based distro. I mean that's the optimistic version. I very much hope they don't just try to make a Linux distro-mimicking Solaris distro and try to "steal" users. The only way I'd forgive that would be if they'd create a truly superior distro, which would use the same licenses as Linux-based distros do. That would do good not just for them - since this is their main concern, they being a company, you see - but for FOSS and Linux users too.
       

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  15. It never was after lopping off some good bits... by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Since they removed sun4(c/d/m) support and defended that decision, there's no doubt that anything current in Solaris is not a copy.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  16. Re:Bummer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They copyied the GPL code from linux kernel and did put it as CDDL code.

    They copyied > 1 KLOC.

  17. muddying? by crossmr · · Score: 1

    "...muddying up the waters of distribution selection..."

    I think at this point, adding a single new distribution isn't really muddying. When the list of distributions is as long as your leg, one more doesn't really make things that hairy.

  18. Re:Wanna see something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's my wife you asshole!

  19. Re:Bummer... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

    D'oh! I guess I was inadvertantly talking out my ass, but it's a sleepy Sunday morning here and I was confused Perens with Murdock.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  20. Re:Bummer... by VENONA · · Score: 1

    I'd want to see references. If it's just some header lines, I doubt anyone much cares.

    --
    What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  21. Wake up, guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not intending to troll (but I'll probably be modded down even below zero as such anyway), but wake up guys.

    It's linux which is and has always been the clone/lookalike/imitation, not the other way around.

    The linux kernel was written to come as close to a real unix kernel as possible without using original unix source code.
    The rest is mainly GNU, which started its life as exactly the same sort of copyright-evading free rewrite of just about every utility you could find in commercial unices. They just took the man pages plus observed behavior, and started writing utilities that did exactly the same. They even kept the same names, to be as compatible as possible for shell scripting.

    If the name hadn't been registered and protected, GNU would probably have been called GAU: Gnu is Another Unix.

    1. Re:Wake up, guys by G+Morgan · · Score: 1

      Of course there have been absolutely no developments since 1980 and as a result Gnu/Linux hasn't produced anything. AFAIK no commercial Unix has anything like apt.

    2. Re:Wake up, guys by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      Sure, initially. Then they started going off on their own and making it better. I work with Solaris boxes every day, and I always wind up trying to make them work as closely as possible to Linux. There are still a lot of things that frustrate the hell out of me on Solaris that I simply take for granted on Linux. Maybe that's just because I'm used to Linux and how it operates, but Solaris just seems so arcane it's ridiculous.

      Why doesn't this work yet: 'tar jxvf meh.tar.bz2' ? That's just one silly example, but it requires me to stop and remember how Solaris does it, which interrupts my train of thought. It's not even like the Solaris way has some great advantage that's gained at the expense of that feature. It simply doesn't have a feature that would take less than ten minutes to write in, including compile time. Take that idea, and apply it to almost every userland tool they have.

      I understand that Solaris isn't Linux, but geeze, I wish they'd at least steal the good ideas. GNU and Linux have come a long way in the direction of user and developer friendliness, even at the CLI level. Solaris and other proprietary Unixes (HP/UX, AIX in particular) just feel like I'm constantly pounding my head against a wall.

      Oddly enough, when dealing with Solaris, it's the CLI user friendliness that I'm worried about, because I'm always accessing it via SSH. I wouldn't give a rats ass about about Sun's GUI because I'd never use it. At my last job, I got around that by having an Ubuntu desktop where I did most of my work and just NFS mounted key filesystems to copy stuff to Solaris, but now I have to use Windows, which kills even that advantage.

      A slightly off-topic plea to IT managers out there: PLEASE consider giving developers Linux desktops. They make life so much easier for Unix developers. It used to be standard to have a Sun workstation at least, but they've taken those away in preference to Windows with 3rd-party X servers, SSH clients, and other unixy stuff bolted on that doesn't integrate well, and certainly could never replace a real unix workstation. It's like trying to hammer a nail with a badger.

    3. Re:Wake up, guys by maney · · Score: 1

      I suspect that is an artifact of where you cut your teeth. I'm always beating my head against the wall with Linux. The fact that there really is no clear distinction between system and userland or between core system and optional add-ons on Linux drives me batty. What numbskull decided it was a good idea to put static webpages in /var or to put configuration files for optional software in /etc/opt?

      The fact that Sun seems to be drinking the Linux Kool-Aid, or caving to the non-technical business types on Wall Street that seem to think that in order to be a success you must have a Linux solution, is not good thing in my mind. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly areas where Sun could improve, and many of them are areas where Linux shines - mainly in the GUI and package management - but if what I was looking for was Linux, I wouldn't be buying Sun.

      Sun had the solution to "the Linux Problem" as well as "the Microsoft Problem" in hand more than a decade ago and screwed it up by repeatedly burning adopters of Solaris x86 and by not using the opportunity provided by the purchase of Cobalt to split the hardware lines while maintaining a cohesive OS on top. Combined with the SunRays and StarOffice, they could have easily provided a single provider solution from the call center and home office to the office desktop through the server room.

      The problem is that Sun ignored Linux for too long while wasting time and energy on Microsoft instead of using their assets and innovation to move the fight onto ground of their choosing. They let the snowball build too big and are now chasing it down the hill trying to get in front of it to stop it. Only time will tell if they are going to be able to pull it off.

  22. Re:Bummer... by wellingj · · Score: 1

    No it was good ass talking... I enjoyed it.
    But that still doesn't change the fact that you think Debian is full of bloat...
    You should try a minimal net-install and only apt-get what you want then...

  23. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by Lally+Singh · · Score: 2, Informative

    Download the free developer edition. It's included.

    --
    Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
  24. Re:Bummer... by VENONA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Contrary to the opinion of some people, it is possible to have both principles and an income.

    --
    What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  25. Re:Bummer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I care, because even though I've never contributed a single line of code in my life to any GPL project all (I can't even code), I'm a still a GPL fanboy and I recognize that it is my best chance at getting software for free as in I don't pay anything for it for the rest of my life.

  26. solaris is starting to sound good by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    There seems to be a lot of sun bashing on slashdot, but I've got to say I have no understanding of why. I haven't used solaris yet, but everything I've heard about what they're doing with it has been good.

    D-trace sounds pretty sexy, apparently sexy enough that the next OSX version is going to include a port. Binary drivers that don't break compatibility across versions are pretty nice, although I've heard they still don't support as much hardware as linux.

    Really, lack of good profilers and the need to compile drivers every time you need to install them is a nuisance on linux and I'm hoping that if solaris does nothing else it will put pressure on linux to improve.

    1. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by jgrahn · · Score: 2, Informative

      There seems to be a lot of sun bashing on slashdot, but I've got to say I have no understanding of why.

      The plagues called Java and C# are their fault, but I don't think that's the reason.

      I haven't used solaris yet, but everything I've heard about what they're doing with it has been good.

      Regarding Unix, Sun was Unix in the 1980s to the mid-1990s, at least for many of us. High-resolution, diskless workstations, networking, all the cool free software available ... And Bill Joy in management!

      I feel personally indebted to SunOS and Solaris -- I might have been running Windows right now, if we didn't have such a great Solaris environment at University and my first few jobs!

    2. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Solaris is a pretty nice system overall. Sun's biggest failing from a user experience is their adherence to obsolete versions of the standard *NIX applications. Most of the stuff in /bin has none of the useful features added by POSIX. The POSIX stuff is all sequestered in /usr/xpg4/bin. This is a PITA when you want to write portable shell scripts that aren't restricted to a 25-year old subset of UNIX.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by AaronW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. I can't count how many scripts fail on Solaris 9 because of Sun's /bin/sh missing some key functionality (usually replacing it with /bin/bash fixes it). And why should scripts have to hunt around all over the place just to find a working version of very common tools (like Sun's sed which used to be quite broken). And some very useful features are always missing (recursive grep anyone).

      Trying to compile GNU software on Solaris 9 is often a painful experience because even their libc and header files are in the dark ages (i.e. many ISO C99 features are missing). I haven't tried Solaris 10 and moved on to Linux at work.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    4. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 2

      Yeah ignoring the fact that Java is actually a fairly good language and that all the negative conceptions of it are based on older versions from 10 years ago. Java isn't the slow, annoying language it may have once been to some extent. It is a very good cross-platform language and it is also object orientated and well structured, and it runs a million times faster than it used to; it runs fast enough to the point that it is pretty much indistinguishable from a regular system code OS-specific compiled program for most things. The only hangup I have with Java is the installation which seems to be very nice for developers but not so nice for end-users who don't care about version numbers, SDKs and the like.

      Anyway the point is that dissing Java shows that your knowledge of current tech affairs dates back to 2001 and before. Also, C# while more of a VB sort of language is not necessarily bad (in fact VB these days is getting better and supports OO and a bunch of other things and even if C# and VB are more non-programmer languages to some extent, they are underestimated a lot).

    5. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by khb · · Score: 1

      C# are their fault ... credit where credit is due. C# is from the folks at Redmond, not Sun.

    6. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      Actually...

      Every Java app in use at the shop where I work is crappy slow. It's not really Java's fault, the business under-spec'ed their database server. But sitting and looking at it blocking while it talks to the server only serves to make me think Java is a toy.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    7. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I believe he was implying that Microsoft would not have made C# except to compete with Sun's Java. By that reasoning C#'s existence is due to Sun.

    8. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about sexy? Dude, you sound just like the average Slashdotter: get a girlfriend!

    9. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by nebosuke · · Score: 1

      If the UI is blocking during network I/O then someone either did a poor job writing the application, or you ended up with a beta/proof of concept mock-up that the boss deemed 'good enough' to ship.

    10. Re:solaris is starting to sound good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Exactly. I can't count how many scripts fail on Solaris 9 because of Sun's /bin/sh missing some key functionality (usually replacing it with /bin/bash fixes it).


      You have it backwards. The scripts you are talking about use non-standard extenstions to the Bourne (POSIX) shell because they were probably written under Linux without any thought to portability.

      If you want to use bash for shell scripts, just put /bin/bash on the first line instead of /bin/sh. It will solve a lot of grief.

      (Now, if you want to talk about Solaris' ksh, that's another story.)
  27. Re:Bummer... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

    That's the way I do install it, but (and now we're getting way off-topic, but what the hell, I've already been modded troll over not being awake before posting) it's not that I feel Debian is full of unavoidable bloat -- it isn't. It's just all the resources that have been spent on useless things like the GUI installer have spread the project too thin and it really shows in that there are so many broken packages now, more than ever before I believe. Or maybe they're just the ones I was accutomed to using. Anyway, I still find use for it on some machines but it is no longer my desktop OS because of that.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  28. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    I hate to feed the trolls, but last time I installed Solaris, it came with Sun's C compiler and GCC.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  29. Re:Bummer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially when you can sell some of them. Then it's quite easy, as evidenced by Murdock. He still has principles, for sure, just that some of them are demanded by his income.

  30. Sun as usual is copying IBM by civik · · Score: 1

    Just thought that I'd note that for years IBM has been trying to make AIX's administration more Linux-like so SystemP administrators can use overlaping skillsets for the 2 OSs that run on SystemP. Whats the 'L' in AIX5L stand for... thats right "Linux"

    I dont understand how Sun can be seen as innovative anymore. They just lurch this way and that, never following any kind of coherant strategy.

    --
    Make it a malt liquor. I want to be as clever and handsome as possible.
    1. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by fimbulvetr · · Score: 3, Funny

      I dont understand how Sun can be seen as innovative anymore. They just lurch this way and that, never following any kind of coherant strategy.

      No need to try to reverse engineer their strategy, it's openly published:

      http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.me dia/sunstrategy1.gif

    2. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by allenw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Sun is copying IBM, where is "OpenAIX"?

    3. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by civik · · Score: 1

      First of all I never said that Sun was copying IBM. I said that Sun isn't doing anything new by making a commercial UNIX more Linux-like.

      Second of all, open-sourcing a piece of software =! innovation. Its a business/licensing decision.

      --
      Make it a malt liquor. I want to be as clever and handsome as possible.
    4. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I've seen it before but how much of that strategy image are from before Jonathan Schwartz took over and how much is actually true after that?

    5. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by civik · · Score: 1

      Duh I guess I did say that didnt I in the subject didnt I. Well I might have been a little over the top with my subject selection but my points still stand.

      --
      Make it a malt liquor. I want to be as clever and handsome as possible.
    6. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that's the only reply you could muster. Tell you what, I'll let you go look in your 1001 insults book to find another. Keep trying, you may still succeed!

    7. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by sengork · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by allenw · · Score: 1

      Hardly.

      Having worked with AIX 5L (as well as 1.x on PS/2, 3.x on RS6k and 4.x on PPC), my impression of the 'L' part was mainly "Look! We have rpm! Now you can install OpenSSH and a bunch of other freeware from this companion cd! See how Linux compatible we are!" Junior admins are still "stuck" with SMIT until they get enough experience to learn all of the funky commands that AIX requires you to learn in order to actually manage the system from the shell.

      While it is nice to see IBM (slowly) moving away from the ODM, AIX is hardly setting the world on fire with innovation. Just looking at the AIX Beta 6 page posted in this thread. Comparing the listed features is... laughable. IBM is *clearly* playing catch up.

      Workload Partitions sounds like Zones
      RBAC==RBAC in Trusted Solaris, moved to Solaris 8 in 2000
      probevuew==dtrace (but is probevuew as good?)
      Is AIX the only OS that doesn't have a working NSCD or graphical install at this point?
      Trusted AIX==Trusted Solaris (15 years?) and its replacement Trusted Extensions for Solaris
      Secure By Default==Secure By Default as added in Solaris 10 Update 3

      SMIT has always been superior to the equiv. Sun utilities, but putting a web interface on it should have happened in 1995. Now it just looks like they are copying Sun, which has had some form of a web console for a while now. The "AIX Security Expert" LDAP template thing sounds interesting. I wonder just how comprehensive it really is though, especially considering how glued on Kerberos always felt. [Why did it take NFSv4 for IBM to add RPCSEC to NFS? That should have happened *years* ago!]

      Of the list, I'd love to have some IBM gear to play with the installation revamp. [I've since changed jobs and no longer do AIX... almost pure Linux shop now.] Doing a fresh install of AIX was always painful and NIM is probably the worst P.O.S. ever compared to pretty much every other network installation system. I always wanted IBM to open source that so it could be replaced with something decent and cross platform, rather than the seemingly black box that it is.

    9. Re:Sun as usual is copying IBM by sengork · · Score: 1

      Many of AIX's features have been there prior to AIX 6 arriving... Basically you get what you pay for - Solaris's cheap compared to AIX (not long term wise). - Work load partitions ? Yes like Zones, except partitions can be moved online from platform to platform... - SMF ? AIX had managed services years ago. - Volume manager aware of the filesystem that's on it? Was in AIX years ago (expand filesystem & underlying volume in a single command, no - not through smitty). - LDOMs ? Hey, LPARs are better and been around for years already (including virtual IO for NICs & SCSI). - NFSv4 ? AIX had it already in 5.3. - For more see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX_(operating_sy stem)#Versions (While I'm at it, Solaris 10 will support standardised ACLs, how long did Windows NT support these already for?)

  31. Re:Bummer... by Hatta · · Score: 1

    You know, through the magic of apt you can forgo the installation of that "user-friendly GUI crap" and have all the functionality and stability you want.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  32. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by kv9 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Otherwise, it's a toy OS, just like that Microsoft thing. what, Xenix?
  33. The sincererest form of flattery by Zigurd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sun has been groping for a way to compete with Microsoft for over 10 years. Well, "groping" might be too harsh, considering the strategy consisted mainly of denial about the fact that Windows on commodity hardware could run serious applications.

    Ubuntu showed the way in both how to do it and the right business model, and Sun has done absolutely the right thing by directly imitating the Ubuntu way by becoming, effectively, a downstream Debian distro. Heck, they hired Ian Murdock to make sure you get it right. At Sun, this is probably necessary because corporate conservatism about cannibalizing revenues would have watered down a purely internal initiative.

    Sun could still screw it up. There are plenty of weasel words like "two tier" in this article. But if Sun gets it right and "dissolves" Solaris into a number of userland projects and a kernel alternative to Linux (the way GNU Hurd theoretically is), and executes an a la carte support model like Canonical, they deserve to win a big slice of the business.

    1. Re:The sincererest form of flattery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buisness model? Ubuntu?!? LOL you lost all cred now. Ubuntu is kept afloat by Mark Shuttleworth pouring his millions into Ubuntu at a HUGE loss. Yes a millionare giving millions to a project with no real return is a good buisness model.

      Next!

    2. Re:The sincererest form of flattery by vhogemann · · Score: 1

      Just to add some more spin...

      Linux will stay as GPL2, but we know Sun is going GPL3 for Solaris. What if some big player, such as RedHat or Canonical drop the Linux kernel, and instead go with solaris for a full GLP3 distro?

      --
      ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
    3. Re:The sincererest form of flattery by sworoc · · Score: 1
      Stick around it will happen.... although, it will more likely be Debian that picks up a GPLv3 kernel and RH and friends that stick with the v2 Linux kernel.

      Linux can't really be made GPLv3 because of the number of contributors that didn't include the "or later", although I suppose they might make an exception if Linus demanded it be moved to version 3, but he won't. On the other hand, Solaris will be moved to GPLv3, and some GNU and FSF fans will pick it up and run with it.

      This really isn't a problem because this just diversifies the open source salad bar of choice. BSD is great for proprietary developers that want to use OSS as a basis for their program. Linux is great for OSS that will be used in business settings (think Tivo), and Solaris will become the new pet of the FSF.

      All of the open source communities (yes, there are several different groups of ideology) will be served by this move, and it will be great for OSS in the long run. Short-term it will hinder the popularity of current Linux distros, but should help the open-source community grow as a whole over the long-term.

      --
      If knowing is half the battle, what is the other half?
  34. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by jimicus · · Score: 1

    Solaris does a lot of things very nicely. ZFS and DTrace spring to mind - and unlike Linux, Solaris AIUI can boot off ZFS.

    A former lecturer when I was at university back in 2002 reckoned commercial Unix had 5-10 years left to live. Looks like he may not have been far off the mark - where they're not dying, commercial unixes are being made to look more like Linux and less commercial (witness OpenSolaris) by the month.

  35. Re:Bummer... by VENONA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, some hand-waving and vague flammage going on. I'm not aware that he's done anything heinous. I'm willing to be corrected. But he's undoubtedly done some Good Things. If you must slander the guy, at least provide a link to something he's done that's so frapping evil. People trash Bill Gates, me included. But in the Gates case I could point to specific things. Given his contributions, don't you think Murdoch deserves as least that much respect?

    --
    What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  36. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can you please explain why your links point to a file called "spybotsd14.exe" instead of the announced jpeg images?

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  37. Re:Bummer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the manifesto:

    "The time has come to concentrate on the future of Linux rather than on the destructive goal of enriching oneself at the expense of the entire Linux community and its future."

    Ian must have figured this time was over, because now his main goal is to enrich himself by helping sun enrich themselves by exploiting GNU and the benefits the community brings them.

  38. Re:Bummer... by VENONA · · Score: 1

    I can understand that viewpoint. I'm benefitting from it even as we speak.

    But if it's just some header lines, this will have no affect on you. That's *why* I doubt anyone will care very much. In some respects, particularly where there's some push for a move to GPL, as is the case with OpenSolaris, header commonality might even be regarded as desireable.

    Some people, for instance, do small-scale systems administration. One source of information on some of the limits of their systems, such as how many characters can be used in a filename, are defined in a header file called, appropriately enough, limits.h. So, say, /usr/include/linux/limits.h contains a line reading:
    #define NAME_MAX 255 /* # chars in a file name */

    It's probably better that users of different systems didn't have to keep track of different naming conventions, especially
    as comments may not be provided. In a system I'm looking at right now, for instance, there's another line:
    #define RTSIG_MAX 32

    That's the maximum number of realtime signals supported. But there's no comment--you just have to know it. Standardization has it's points. Ideally, you learn this once, for one Unixy OS, and it's portable knowledge. It's a far cry from a wholesale rippoff, including algorithms and their implementations, such as SCO implied in the SCO-IBM insanity.

    I seriously doubt very much that more than a tiny percentage Linux kernel developers would have a problem with a few header lines. I'm far from certain that copyright law should be pushed that far, lest developers have to use values with names like THIS_NAME_SO_WE_DO_NOT_INFRINGE. That's not in *anyone's* best interest.

    --
    What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  39. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1, Funny

    Good grief, you even KNEW I was trolling, and yet you still answered.

    I know. I'm a Solaris bigot, actually. I do believe that only child molestors use Linux, so I do know that there are compilers included in Solaris.

    --
    No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
  40. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by wwwillem · · Score: 1
    . . .a file called "spybotsd14.exe" instead of . . .


    Must be because on his site, network security is handled by FreeBSD, instead of Linux or Solaris. ;-)

    Jokes aside, I 100% agree with GP. Each of these unixy OSes have their own strength. And in a professional environment, you should use them where they have the best fit.

    --
    Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
  41. Re:Bummer... by VENONA · · Score: 1

    I don't see how he's doing anything at the 'expense' of Debian or GNU folk. Without a specific reference, I don't see how he's 'exploiting' anything. The FSF, with the GPL3 changes made in response to the SuSE imbroglio, have proven that they can and will react to exploitation. But I've not seen anything done in response to any of Murdoch's or Sun's actions.

    Is the man considered to be somehow ensnared in Debian his entire life, just because he created the project? In '93, as a student? Lives evolve. Responsibilities change. For all I know, he's trying to put children through college, and a Debian relationship just wasn't making that possible. I'm a *long* way from willing to brand the man a some sort of traitor to the cause. Did he, or did he not, create something valuable to many people, which is being built upon to this day, 14 years later? At what point do you decide, "Yeah, he's been an overall force for good," and cut the man some slack?

    I know that Sun have contributed to a lot of open standards, etc., over the years. I'm not claiming that they are 100% knights in shining armor. But they are slowly moving in good directions. Given Murdoch's early environment, I'd expect him to be rather more a force for long-term good than some sort of Dark Lord of the Sith.

    Our differences here (if you're one poster) are about religion. I value free (as in freedom) software as well. But I don't think I'm willing to be nearly as rigid as you. Quoting a manifesto is a far cry from evidence, and I simply don't see how he has harmed Debian, or GNU.

    --
    What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  42. "Just another Linux clone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm... wouldn't there need to be a Linux clone before you could have "just another" one? Seriously, this comment is utterly meaningless. Does the submitter mean "Just another Linux distro" or "Just another *nix OS"? He obviously doesn't mean what he said.

  43. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by IvyKing · · Score: 1

    When Solaris installs a full C compiler as a default part of the installation, then I might consider it as a serious operating system. Otherwise, it's a toy OS, just like that Microsoft thing.


    The hell with the full C compiler, when are they going to, by default, a full Cobol compiler??? Or a Pascal Compiler (especially one with MS-Pascal and Turbo-Pascal emulation???


    If you're going to feed the trolls, you might as well go hog wild...

  44. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by newr00tic · · Score: 1

    Out of curiousity have you ever even used Solaris (http://www.infiltrated.net/sunDesk.jpg) I have do and have for the past 8+ years. That looks like the ultimate hell of desktops; thank god for OS X..
    --
    A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
  45. Solaris and GPLv3 by Danathar · · Score: 1

    If and when Solaris goes GPLv3 I'd hope many people take notice. It's a bit historical considering where UNIX has been license wise over the last 35 years.

    Not that there is much (any?) code left in Solaris from the early UNIX days. Imagine the shock of the UNIX camps 20 years ago if a traveler from the future came back and told them that eventually Solaris would be re-licensed under the FSF's GPL.

    They probably would of laughed pretty hard and said "riiiiiight"

  46. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..thank the BlueJean Pederast for OS X, I mean.. (sorry) ;)

  47. Who gives a shit? by etnu · · Score: 1

    As long as all the tools work fundamentally the same, does it matter? Isn't the whole point of Open Source to have "freedom"? Just like there is more than one open source database, more than one open source window manager, who cares if there are several kernels, each designed with specific goals in mind? As long as they're all conforming to POSIX standards, there really shouldn't be an issue.

    1. Re:Who gives a shit? by jonasj · · Score: 1

      Isn't the whole point of Open Source to have "freedom"?

      If you believe that, you should maybe be careful using the term "Open Source", because that term was invented specifically to have a way to talk about some of the practical aspects of Free Software without mentioning that it's about freedom. You should read http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software- for-freedom.html
      --
      You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
  48. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

    All excellent suggestions, I agree completely. Sun, are you listening?

    --
    No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
  49. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by Braino420 · · Score: 1

    Stating facts.
    There isn't a single fact in your post.
    --
    They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
  50. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by packetmon · · Score: 1

    There goes the idiotic penis OS envy zealotry. I use OSX too. Does nothing for me considering the majority of time I spend at a machine I have about 10+ shells opened logged into various machines. OSX will do what... Nothing that any other distro I have won't do. I'm gonna place you at around the age of 16-22 for that comment. And its likely you've been using ANYTHING nix related for more than 5 years.

  51. Linux schedulers by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I had a similair thought, why can't they just ship it with all of them and let the user choose whatever they want when compiling the kernel or thru some tool? Solaris let you switch between various schedulers, why can't Linux (if it can't that is, I have no idea if Linux ships with various schedulers or not?)

  52. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be a through-and-through faggot.

    The point was, why show off a screenshot of fscking "Solaris" (cough^n) when we all know how tacky it is? --Wasn't the first screendump announced by Sun themselves (back when/then) more than enough to fuck our eyesights up?

    Shit..

    fuck off with that "I place you"-shit; (fuck off altogether, for all your "nobleness.")

    (Damn collecto-rhetoric slashfags..)

  53. This shows one of the problems with Solaris today. by aliquis · · Score: 1

    I wanted to use and learn Solaris, I really did, but I don't have a work and even less at a huge company with lots of Sun machines (please mail me if you want to get me one ;D) and I only had a 64-bit machine which I could play around more with ZFS in and so on so I installed it as desktop.

    But that failed completely for me and I found myself booting Windows XP all the time which I only had installed to be able to play Warcraft III, why is that? Where did Solaris fail on me?

    1) Desktop performance.
    This might be 50% because of the fact that I have a VIA-based motherboard (MSI MS-6702 with Via K8T800 chipset to be precise) but probably also 50% because of Sun since the motherboard works decent with other OSes.
    Anyway, when I ran torrent which put just a little network or disk load on the system, or connected my digital camera thru USB, the system become dog slow and was a major pain to use. I have no idea if this is because of some OS design, bug in the drivers for my system or hardware issues, but it made me so fucking angry about everything that it was unusable to me.

    2) Package management.
    Sure there are sun freeware, blastwave, netbsds pkgsrc and so on, Sun even ships a companion CD, but all the options suck! Blastwaves package manager are decent but all the packages you want aren't there, so then you might have to get some from sun freeware which isn't as convenient, and you end up with multiple versions of stuff you already had. Also Blastwave didn't hosted the patches/source code which where used so you didn't got any help or advice from old ports on how to get a new one running.
    Solaris needs a unified package manager which works and where all the developers/porters can focus their effort and the user find whatever they need.

    3) Open Sound System support.
    Sun uses "sunaudio", sure it might be decent on a Sun machine, not so decent on my Creative Audigy. There is sunaudio drivers for it downloadable from the web but they didn't offered all the functionallity of the card and I never got Ekiga to work good with it (that is I got it to compile but it where unusable as a telephone.)
    The packages need to be built with OSS support so that they will work if you choose to install it. It's free now aswell isn't it? Maybe even open source? What are the excuse?

    4) Ekiga didn't worked.
    I read that this would be fixed, was fixed, and whatever, but it never WORKED. And I only use SIP for my home telephony, I don't wanna live without telephone, another show stopper.

    5) No up to date KDE port.
    IMHO KDE is the best desktop environment there is out there, I don't want to run Gnome. Some german made a KDE port which where linked from Sun freeware but it seems like he stopped and since then there haven't been a KDE 3.5 port. I hate to be forced to use Gnome, why does so many commercial dists/oses seem to like it so much? KDE is far superior. Sun needs to make sure that KDE runs.

    6) Various versions of tools.
    This have already been mentioned among others, so you want to compile something and it expect another version of the shell, install, compiler or whatever, sure you can change your PATH settings to something else but what about the other things which want Suns versions or whatever? Another major pain in the ass.

    7) Somehow blindfolded community.
    When you point some of these things out, such as the package management issues, the old school users will want to just forget about it and tell you that hey! You can compile and install the software yourself! I don't want to, it takes time, I'm sorta lame so I can't figure out all the troubles, it takes time again, why do the same work over and over again and finally it takes a lot of time!

    What I did like about Solaris:
    Stable kernel.
    Stable environment (code and binary compatiblitity).
    ZFS for server environments, not as much needed for desktop but still nice.
    Zones! Those are awesome and so easy to use.
    The very friendly people in #opensolaris at freenode.
    Free

  54. Ian is not Sun's OS chief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ian is not Sun's OS chief. He carries the title Chief OS Platform Strategist. He does not direct Solaris development. His sole function is to come up with ways for Solaris to be more compatible with the Linux end user.

  55. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You seemed quite sane and reasonable until I got to the sig. It's in the courts - let them work it out before calling somebody a murderer.

  56. Re:Bummer... by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

    POSIX specifies what #include files are available and what macros they #define. (For example, limit.h).

    Most operating systems tend to include other nonstandard stuff as well.

    Anyhow, header files are inherently open source -- you can read them, you can edit/modify them (assuming you have write permission or can copy them to a local include directory). And more importantly, my understanding is that they're not copyrightable.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  57. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by hauk · · Score: 1

    idiot!

  58. Re:Bummer... by VENONA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "my understanding is that they're not copyrightable"

    OK, a derived work, even with the nonstandard bits. Good! I thought I'd heard something intimating that part of IBM being sued by SCO was about header files. But I'd gotten numb and quit following a lot of that, so maybe I misheard, and that was part of why the suit was bogus. Or maybe I heard a bunch of bull.

    --
    What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  59. Well... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there really room for a new player right now? With many years of Windows experience why should I look at Linux? Curiosity only holds so much water when you just want to get stuff done.

    Stability, security, and frankly scalability. Solaris has been running on huge SMP systems for many years longer than Linux. It takes security very seriously right up there with Open BSD. And let's face it, Sun has some of the most brilliant Unix developers on the planet.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  60. Dear Sun by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Regarding OpenSolaris: GPL3 or STFU.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  61. oh god the first words of every unix fork master by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are putting together a new PACKAGE MANAGER!

    HAHAHAHAHAH!

  62. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by kelleher · · Score: 1

    funniest Slashdot post I've read in months... even if you were serious...

  63. Re:Why *NOT* look at Solaris now? by Bondolo · · Score: 1

    Personally, once OpenSolaris goes GPLv3 I'm switching.

    Why wait? It's entirely possible that OpenSolaris may never adopt the GPL. Most of the current community members are very happy with CDDL license and some even making "over my dead body" comments regarding adopting the GPL.

    OpenSolaris is a nice friendly OS with a nice friendly community and a nice friendly open source license. So unless you're RMS and insist on waiting for GPLv3 to get on board the best time to start with OpenSolaris is probably now!

    --
    -- "Most people prefer a popular myth to an unpopular truth"
  64. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by ArcherB · · Score: 1

    Out of curiousity have you ever even used Solaris (http://www.infiltrated.net/sunDesk.jpg) I have do and have for the past 8+ years. Did it occur that maybe Sun is trying to woo Linux users over.

    I used Solaris for about 8 minutes. It took me that long to figure out that pressing the TAB key at the CLI did not complete my command. The next 15 minutes was spent reinstalling Linux.

    I was going to see if there is some way to get command line completion enabled, but it didn't seem worth it once I saw that I was unable to utilize my history by pressing the UP arrow. Come on! Even DOS had Doskey! Oh, and the DOS style 80 column display...

    Sorry, BASh has spoiled me. Maybe Solaris is the greatest OS on earth, but out of the box... it kinda sucked.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  65. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it highly amusing that you keep commenting on this penix envy thing, then you post screen shots of the systems you use, maybe you're compensating for something? Yep that's funny, and if your penix really is as big as you claim I'd be floored if your primary desktop wasn't either a Mac Pro or an equivalent Solaris desktop. Oh, and my penix might not be bigger than yours, but it lasts longer and I know how to use it :)

  66. Re:This shows one of the problems with Solaris tod by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    Solaris and Mac are very similar I would suggest buying Sun's hardware if you are going to use Solaris professionally, the desktop, running on desktop hardware, is probably at best a hobby system unless you start with the HCL.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  67. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used Solaris for about 8 minutes. It took me that long to figure out that pressing the TAB key at the CLI did not complete my command. The next 15 minutes was spent reinstalling Linux.

    That is the lamest excuse for switching I have ever heard.

    Why didn't you just run bash? Solaris has it. Either set your account to use it, or exec it from your .profile. Alternatively, you could have run tcsh, which uses the same completion and history keys that you are used to.

    ...or you could have learned how to use the completion and history functions of ksh by using man.

    If you're going to install an OS, why not actually try to learn how to use it instead of dismissing it after 8 minutes.

    Seriously, you're a total moron. Your mother failed it.

  68. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right. It's so easy to get spyware on 64-bit Mandriva.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  69. Debate, a bad thing? Even at lists.debian.org? by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    Murdock's the package-manager man. Sources inside Sun say his office whiteboard has details of the project plan. Its three features: port Apt to OpenSolaris, adopt "it's ready when it's done" for milestone releases and start a set of mailing-lists for flamewars...

  70. Re:This shows one of the problems with Solaris tod by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I remember reading that eventually the Via chipsets couldn't do that many interupts or something and that it might had been because of that or whatever =P, anyway might be a combo of shitty chipset and therefor also bad drivers from Sun. I bought the case, psu, motherboard, cpu, 256MB ram and 52x cd-rom for 500 sek so I can't complain so much on the hardware even thought I know the motherboard (and CPU) is shit and I wouldn't have bought these things if I would buy anything new.

  71. Gemini 2: Sun's booboo by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    Novell tried to do something like this, too.
    Back when Novell's wallet was a big as their head they bought out UNIX (yes, the REAL code), told everybody that they wanted to merge NetWare and Unix together and have ONE OS code-named: Gemini. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3649/is_1 99507/ai_n8727330)

    The announcement angered Netware and Unix people alike, Both vowing to not learn the other stuff. Novell saved face by calling the thing "UnixWare" and limiting the scope of the OS merger.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  72. Re:Pithy Aphorism: "If you cannot beat them ..." by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

    No, I wasn't serious. I was just really bored on a Sunday afternoon. I just find all these OS wars silly, and I was just taking this article as seriously as it deserved to be taken.

    --
    No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
  73. Catfight Suggestion: Alicia Witt vs. Anne Hathaway by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > is an attempt to make Solaris simply "more Linux-like."

    Which is to say, more Unix-like-like.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  74. Re:Bummer... by wellingj · · Score: 1

    Ok, so as long as we are being OT and friendly about it, what packages were broken and what did you move to?