Slashdot Mirror
Sun to run unmodified Linux Binaries
Quite a number of people wrote in to address the latest announcement and news from Sun Microsystems. Using a program they are calling lxrun, Solaris will be able to run "unmodified Linux binaries".
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
So now I can play Minesweeper
-- on top of WINE
-- on top of lxrun (or whatever it will be called)
-- on top of Solaris
/* and OS/2 *sucks*. unfriendly quasi win3.1
user interface, crappy command line, unfriendly buttons for doing even the simplest things. i used it once for a week and hated every minute. and this from a person who *likes* dos. */
Actually, win3.1 had a quasi OS/2 1.3 interface. I assume that's what you're talking about because with OS/2 2.0, the interface changed completely.
In fact, the Win95 interface is essentially a half-assed imitation of the OS/2 2.x and later interface.
The OS/2 command line is quite a bit more powerful than the DOS version by itself, however there are Unix type shells and tools available as well as the venerable 4OS2 enhancements.
OS/2 was a truly wonderful operating system, but when IBM gave up, I chucked it as well.
Sun isn't bundling anything. The Solaris x86 port of lxrun has been around for a while. They just contributed some changes and have started demoing it at trade shows.
This will encourage more people to develop Linux applications since they will have a wider audience. I don't think people will start running Solaris x86 instead of Linux. I've never heard of anyone doing that.
People who run Solaris typically have good reasons to do so.
Try the Artistic License. It has no such
unchecked recursion bugs.
FreeBSD can run some Linux executables without trouble--about 1/3. Then there is about 1/3 that will run but with problems (odd colors, misplaced text, various error messages). And then there is another 1/3 that won't run at all (VMWare, Green Mountain VHDL, etc.). And in all cases you must twiddle with fragile configuration scripts, set klugey library paths, and tweak wrapper files. So it is misleading to claim that FreeBSD can "run" Linux executables seamlessly. It isn't true. If you have an occasional need to run a Linux executable under FreeBSD then it might only be a minor inconvenience. But if you need to run the full gamut of Linux software, doing it with FreeBSD is an excercise in banging your head against a brick wall. It is better to use Linux for running commercial professional application software.
Binary compatability is added as a convinience for the situation when a user wants to run the occasional binary from another platform. This usually arises when commercial software is released in binary-only format, and a native version is simply not available (why projects like WINE are started, for instance). It's not intended to be used to run a Linux system under a native FreeBSD system as you're suggesting (or a Windows system under Linux using WINE)
That's just stupidity.
If you intend to run your system with the majority of applications compiled natively for Linux, logic implies you'd probably want to *run* Linux. If, however, you intend to run native binaries under FreeBSD like most people do, there is an excellent resource known as the ports collection that will allow you to compile and install most of your favourite open-source Linux apps *natively* for FreeBSD.
-jake
But in contrast, Linux executables are completely portable between Linux distributions. All Linux distributions share a common kernel. But all the BSD kernels are different and incompatible without an emulation layer.
1. You have a commodity box intel multiprocessor system.
2. You need high performance SMP
3. Better Java x86 support than Linux
4. Oracle more mature on Solaris x86
5. Need log-structured file system
6. Are a fortran or numerical analysis type.
Now, you could say "why not just buy an UltraSparc", but then again, you can buy a multicpu system for as little as $3k.
Linux isn't the answer because:
1) Linux SMP performance still sucks, and it's thread model sucks.
2) Java support still in its infancy
3) Oracle8 is barely out of its diapers on Linux
4) Linux has a shitty default file system (ext2fs) that takes FOREVER to fsck, especially if you have a 72gb RAID, and, its performance sucks.
5) Linux doesn't have a parallelizing compiler that can even come close to Sun's. Go run a dejanews search on linux, solaris, and linpack. You'll see that the performance difference is as much as 1000% on some of the tougher Linpack benchmarks.
Basically: You want to use cheap hardware, but don't want to settle for Linux's bottom-rung compiler, SMP, I/O handling, and filesystem.
Now, if you run Solaris x86 on a single-processor machine than you are a *dummy*
(yes, performance sucks. Solaris is tuned for SMP, not single-cpu)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
In the early days of Linux, there was iBCS to get SCO, Solaris and other Intel Unix binaries to run on Linux. I know iBCS hasn't disappeared, but I'm finding it increasing less important). Now SCO and Sun are scrambling to run Linux binaries.
Today, Linux tools like WINE provide Win32 compatability. One day, Bill Gates and Co. will be scrambling to run Linux binaries.
Having Solaris capable of running Linux binaries, even of apps that will compile under Solaris, means you can have only one version on your file servers if you have both Linux and Solaris clients. It may also reduce administrative headaches in such situations by having administrators only need a single version.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Try $3495.00 for a C++ compiler.
Visit www.gnu.org - it's on the front page.
:) That Linus thread in your sig is incredibly funny. I need to read more news...
:)
:)
Hey, xmame compiles fine on Linux and Solaris, we don't need any of this to play Dig Dug.
I don't see why linux binary compatibility should be such a big thing for Solaris. On SPARCs, the binary-only applications already get ported, so all this sounds like is Sun further giving up their commitment to x86 Solaris, and leaving the market to Linux, while doing a half-assed job of trying to keep their existing customers.
That's ok, since I run Linux, and I've seen x86 Solaris, I think this is all pretty silly anyhow. However, it's nice to see iBCS going the other way around now, we know we've won in being an accepted Unix, I just didn't know we'd be *the* accepted Unix.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I have lately had poor luck though. I constantly find it annoying that I have to update glib, gcc, make, etc. all the time. Oh well, it's free.
_damnit_
It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
FreeBSD does not use the (inferior) system call emulation technique that lxrun uses, rather it supports alternate ABI models based on the individual binary's original platform. This basically translates to as-fast-as-native (or faster, in some cases) performance. In contrast, lxrun depends on signal delivery to notify the wrapper of an attempted system call. This technique is elegant and portable, but imposes a severe performance penalty. It also makes emulating many system functions difficult if there is not a direct native ABI equivalent.
Don't confuse the FreeBSD (and NetBSD/OpenBSD) ABI emulation with the very much inferior lxrun; the two are quite different animals.
It's a nice cover for them. We are still catching up with them in a lot of ways but we'll be leading pretty soon. Suppose some linux application really takes off as a hit? At least they wouldn't be totally left out in the cold.
It's a moral victory though, it means that Sun is worried about binary only linux applications becoming important.
For referance... This is soo far off topic, I think it would be best served delt with in mail (only posted here to point that out to others before incase they are tempted to continue this conversation).
For all of you who were waiting for "The Application People" (ISV's) to port to Linux, Keep Waiting. MS Word on Linux? Why? Well, if we port to Linux, we get a Solaris, FreeBSD, etc... market automatically also.
Remembering all the "I wish product X was avaliable in Linux" stuff over the last year here on SlashDot, well, it may be comming, and it's things like this that will help, and may be needed before that happens.
I don't honestly know what I think yet, I haven't seen it run yet, and I haven't studied the licence (Mozilla style?) enough yet to comment on it or it's implications... But, I will say, it is likely to cause some more ISV intrest in porting to Linux. (Good, more apps. Bad, more commercial influance, less intrest in Gnome apps, KDE apps, etc... Impact? Unknown).
What I would love to see (especially if Sun starts supporting running Sparc Linux binaries on Sparc Solaris) is the ability to mount ext2fs filesystems on Solaris. This would make dual booting much less painful.
Sun UK used to do it completely free (they'd order it for you from the US) but stopped doing it because of excessive demand.
It was cheap publicity. Sun didn't write lxrun, it already existed and only needed "improvements" so that it would run on x86 Solaris.
Sun releases a Linux article, thousands of Linuxers stampede their site, and they get to be even more buzzwordy than before.
Oh, and lxrun get's some improvements and some industry endorsement. So I suppose it's a win all around. That's the best part of this open source stuff. Even when I am being cynical I have to admit that announcements like this help the Linux community. The fact that they might help Sun as well just makes it a happy place for everyone.
Those of you familar with the Win32-OS/2 Project (recently renamed to Project Odin), know that it's possible to load and run some Win32 exectuables under OS/2 (most notably Quake II). The next step for Project EverBlue is to create an ELF loader so that OS/2 can load Linux binaries. Then Wine will be ported to OS/2 (via a merge with Odin), and at that point, OS/2 will be able to run ...
1. DOS apps better than any other OS
2. 16-bit Windows apps, better than most other versions of Windows can
3. Most Win32 apps (just like Wine)
4. All OS/2 apps
5. Most, if not all, Linux apps
Combine that with the power of the WorkPlace Shell, and you'll have one kick-ass operating system.
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
With modern RAM and disk capacities and the dropping cost of computers, I would much rather have statically linked binaries. Too damn much time is wasted hunting down shared libraries to get something to link. There may be some exceptions to this (e.g. servers), but IMHO, shared libraries are for masochists.
rm -rf microsoft*
Sun hasn't shipped their compiler with their OS for quite some time.
Sounds dangerous with things like GCC/EGCS around. Or do they have problems with compiling for Solaris???
The prices for the current Ultra line are rediculus. (My favorite in the price list is the "multimedia kit": 1500$ for a PCI-based video camera)
So Solarix x86 is a nice alternative if you want the buzzwords (scalability, reliability) or need software that is only available for Solaris. For example, the Netscape Enterprise server is not available for Linux, and the JavaVMs for Linux are very weak compared to the Solaris versions.
Personally, I think this is excellent news for the Solaris and Linux platforms. Right now it only runs on x86, but Sun says they are considering a SPARC port.
Keep an eye on the lxrun web site for more news. There is a download link available. Solaris Central will be covering the product as well.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
BSDI's Linux compatability is done diffrently from their SCO compatability (and diffrently from FreeBSD's as well). I don't know much about lxrun, from skiming the FAQ it looks like it works the same was as FreeBSD's Linux emulation.
The FreeBSD Linux compat stuff, and the BSD/OS SCO compatability stuff both hook into the syscall interface and do their emulation inside the kernel . Which makes it harder to modify, and fix, and bugs in it will cause the whole system to be less stable.
The BSD/OS linux emulator works entirely in userland. It is basically a diffrent ld.so (the runtime shared linker), which remaps calls to things like write(2), read(2), ioctl(2), and syscall(2). It works quite well for dyanmically linked ELF stuff. It doesn't work for statically linked code, nor for code like Netscape which has inline assembly for system calls (in their case select).
I don't think one system should be any faster then the other. So the only real issue would be whether the incresed ease of modification is worth giving up a.out support (YES), and static bin support (maybe).
They are only talking about x86 Solaris; this item from Sun's Web site (linked to by the article) says:
(emphasis added by me).
I don't think it would be tremendously difficult to port it to NT.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I'm glad I don't have to ask you for cookies :-)
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I haven't seen GNU come out with a 64-bit compiler yet... Meanwhile although we did pay for Workshop 3.0 and support, we did get the 64-bit Workshop 5.0 as a free (or more accurately, already paid for) upgrade.
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
Yeah yeah BSD has had this for a while, but the exciting part is the big picture. The various UNIXen will likely stay "fragmented", but if other vendors rally around a common binary that's a big step.
Sure, you probably have to statically link all yer friggin libraries (I'm reacting to the headline NOT the announcement text), maybe not. I'm sure there will be drawbacks, but it's one less thing for the NT crowd to point at.
"I may not understand what I'm installing, but that's not my job. I just need to click Next, Next, Finish here so I can walk to the next system and repeat the process" - anonymous NT admin
-- Sneaking Atari equipment into the datacenter since 1994.
;)
Yah, I got my Jaguar in the server room so I can play AvP while trying to dl redhat 6.0 from the Netherlands..
Quite true except that Sun hasn't shipped their compiler with their OS for quite some time. The poor user would have to go and get a binary of the compiler, then set up the compiler to work on their system, and *THEN* compile the code. A lot more painful that just downloading the binary.
----------------------------- Work Sucks - Let's Go Flying!
I gave up on OS/2 a long time ago due to gross mismarketing and mismanagement by IBM.
I just don't see it gaining much mindshare unless IBM dramatically changes the way it sells and presents OS/2.
OS/2 users got the short end of the stick and they got shafted by IBM, and it's hard to forget that.
Ben
The figures I've seen (and I'll distance myself by saying I haven't verified this at all) is that the Sun compilers produce 10-30% faster binaries than the GNU compilers. So that may be one reason to plunk down the $1500 or so for the compiler license from Sun.
If Linux(x86) binaries can run native on Linux(x86) and, by using Ixrun library interpretation, run natively on FreeBSD, Solaris(x86) and SCO, could Linux(PPC) binaries that run native on LinuxPPC and MkLinux(PPC) be able to run natively on Darwin(PPC) if a port of Ixrun was available for Darwin(PPC)?
;)
:(
Would a port of Ixrun to Darwin(PPC) potentially be capable of running Linux(x86) binaries just as a port of Ixrun to Solaris(SPARC) might also be able to?
Darwin (whether PPC, x86 or whatever) is another BSD 4.4 variant. It's design is a combination of the BSD's and is basically POSIX compliant. Because of it's similarities to the BSD's, would it not be fairly simple to port Ixrun to it? If this is not the case please reply as to why? (Other than "an X-windows system would have to be in place first")
I realize in order to run Linux(PPC) binaries on Darwin(PPC) it might make more sense just to place a modified Linux kernel right over Mach 3.0. (identically to MkLinux) However, wouldn't a direct port of Ixrun to Darwin(PPC) reduce system load as one would not really have to be running two OSes at once?
If LinuxPPC, MkLinux and Darwin(PPC) had binary computability I believe Darwin(PPC) would become a very useful freeware OS. A powerful OS with the best mix of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, with Linux binary support running over a powerful Mach 3.0 microkernel with IPC server capable of clustering far better than any Beowulf set-up sounds good to me.
Now THAT would be nice
If only someone could port an X-windows environment to Darwin, all this might come true...
First, yes: operating systems do seem to be moving towards running each other's stuff. But no, linux is not The Answer, any more than Windows Was The Answer in the 80's. Let me explain...
Linux came about because there was a need for something that Microsoft could not reasonably provide - speed and reliability. Linux is not userfriendly, nor does it have a "standard interface". You can marginalize that if you want, or refute it as FUD, but it's true. Work is being done here, however my point is - operating systems are built to spec - to do a specific task. No program can do everything (witness emacs) and still be efficient. Bug free, yes, but not efficient.
As long as this remains true, there will be a need for more than 1 Unified Operating System.
Why do you think linux got here in the first place?
--
Well, while this is all nice and everything, there's two things worth considering:
/can/ be run, it /will/ run. Case in point: fbset. Solaris doesn't have a frame buffer for it's console.. so this program will likely segfault.
- Most OSS software can be cross-compiled with little/no-effort. Infact, I believe all the GNU tools, and about 2/3rds of the stuff posted to freshmeat can be compiled on a Sun without modification.
- There's no guarantee that just because the binary
In short, it's a great idea, but it's usefulness is rather limited - if you have the source, you can be assured of system-level compatibility. All this offers is the chance to watch your program segfault on a *new* platform.
--
Linux shouldn't be just about beating Microsoft. It should be about freedom of information. If beating Microsoft is your only goal, then you may just as well throw in the towel now. Linux/GNU may beat them someday as a market force, but not if OSS perishes. It's not as if Linux has anything to offer that you can't get in Windows or other OSs. It's advantage is the supporting community and philosophy of sharing. That's it. Don't try to delude us into thinking Linux is meant to succeed just because you happen to support it. Without grounding values, who really cares?
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
I've had experience of this too. :)
The shop I work for isn't really into UNIX development of any flavour, but we do maintain a small solaris box for testing connectivity of our own software.
When I needed to compile something on it I had a choice - go get a purchase order approved for the Sun compiler, or get gcc.
Tough choice huh ?
+----------------------+
| GodEater |
Gentlemen, start your penguins
I've used nothing other than gcc under Solaris 2.x, with no worse results than I would get with gcc under Linux. Gcc always performs nicely, doesn't seem to have an portability problems, and has that nice "standard-gcc-interface" thing going on, so I don't have to remember all the command-line switches for foo-cc.
Although a bit off-topic, I've also used gcc under SunOS 4.1.x (oops... I meant Solaris 1.x ;) ) with much better results than Sun's (K&R-only) cc.
GNU tools just rock the party that rocks the party. I honestly don't know why people buy C/C++ compilers anymore, except to maybe get the snazzy IDEs that come with them.
However, I can say that I've never used EGCS on Solaris. Isn't EGCS x86-specific, though? Anyway, I've had problems with inconsistent code generation on Intels, so I just use the tried-and-true gcc. It's never steered me wrong (unless I had an extra paren somewhere).
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
You've missed the point completely. I'm not saying that loading Linux apps requires a device driver. It requires loading a subsystem that sits atop the NT kernel.
OS/2 protected-mode applications that do not rely on the Workplace Shell can run on Windows NT through such a subsystem. Trapping INT requests is not that difficult a matter. You simply install INT handlers (not unlike any OS kernel does) that point to your subsystem which, in turn, calls the NT system calls. The subsystem has almost all the properties of an OS. I mean, Microsoft Word isn't an NT-native application. It's a Win32 application running on a Win32 subsystem on the Windows NT Kernel. Why should Linux apps be so much harder? The Linux API actually has more in-common (in terms of design goals) with the NT native API than the Win32 API does.
Page faults, etc. magically happen (for the most part), once you trap syscalls, since, by then, you're asking NT for the memory and passing it to the application. Opening files (in fact, IO in general) is handled by NT. That's why the kernel is there.
Why should I assume that anything is impossible from a computer? Only things that are not computable (refer to the many wonderful examples of things not computable in a Turing machine) are impossible. Speed, that's another issue, but whether things are possible or not isn't.
I mean, seriously, I can run Nintendo binaries on my NT box, but you think it's impossible to run binaries designed for the same type of hardware, but different OS? You have too little faith in the code, my friend.
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
I don't see how it would hurt us to have NT have our whole application base. Isn't the whole purpose of OpenSource(TM) to let people use solutions without hassle or reinventing of multiple wheels? I don't think many of the authors of that application base would appreciate a Linux-only (or even Unix-only) mindset towards the application of those solutions.
While NT can be considered somewhat of a lesser operating system (I'm trying to be nice here), it does have a modicum of a POSIX subsystem, so portability is theoretically doable. Although, the real issue is most-likely that NT's POSIX is to POSIX as NT's OpenGL is to OpenGL (IE: not "pure").
Seriously, though. What would be wrong if I could run ncftp under NT (I know there's a native version, but I'm thinking examples here)? I run NT on one machine almost full-time (because I have to develop front-ends for lusers (IE: Win95 weenies) who use the Unix server software that my company pays me to write), and I'd love to be able to run Linux binaries.
To be honest, I think what hurts our application base the most is the elitism that seems to surround GNU/Linux. Were it not for the fact that some people believe see software as solutions that benefit the human race without regard to money or system, we wouldn't even have the GNU system, or many of the works created with it.
Seriously, how many people do you know that wouldn't even know Unix because they wouldn't have gotten there start in Linux, if everyone still saw software as property rather than a solution? I know I'm one of them.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Richard, Linus, Alan, and everyone else who has not thought along the same lines that the previous poster has. Were it not for you guys, I'd probably be flipping burgers and still running OS/2. *shudder*
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
Honestly, I think a big part of it is the last one. There is a general anti-corporate feeling in the community. Now, as with most things, that feeling can be healthy to a degree, but you don't want to overdo it.
Also, speaking as a Sun shareholder, I think everyone should run out and buy as many SPARCstations as possible. Now if I only had the money to both a) keep my SUNW and b) actually buy a new SPARC for myself.
PS. I think the term you're looking for is muckraking.
What you really want to do is play Miner 2049er
-- on top of an Apple II emulator
-- on top of vMac
-- on top of WINE
-- on top of lxrun
-- on top of Solaris
-- on top of vmware
> Sadly enough though there is still no common format across systems that run on the same CPU.
*cough*java*cough*
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
What about ELF? Those run unmodified on x86 under FBSD and Linux.
The original poster must have been smoking crack, because Running binaries on a different arch, and running x86 linux bins on FBSD, are two totally different things. Unless of course they are only talking about x86 Solaris.
This clearly shows that in fact, I am smoking crack.
---------------------------------------------
"I don't compose, I decompose" -Daniel Elfman
I think the real motivation for Sun supporting this is so Sun sales reps can say, "Yes, and it can run any program Linux can in addition to our vast library of supported applications for Solaris." This isn't about helping the Open Source movement out. This is Sun saying "We can do everything Linux can and more." Seriously. What use is being able to run Linux-native binaries on Sun machines. Basically none. 97% of Linux software is available as source and will compile with cc or gcc on Solaris. I'd say 70% of Linux applications that source isn't available for (distributed as binaries) are available on Solaris. So what is the subtext. MARKETING! This isn't about Linux this is about Sun impressing clueless suits!
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
>x86 Solaris isn't that big of a hit, and frankly, >I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Sun is
>looking for a way to justify its existance. If
>they can sell a suit on, "Have the power of
>Solaris and the freedom of Linux", so
> be it. There's nothing wrong about it either,
>unless you're trolling for Stallman.
What the Hell is the power of Solaris? Solaris only seems worthwhile on SPARC for me. x86 UNIX-like OS's have been done better. Yes I know its good to maintain the same operating system between the low-end (x86) machines and the big (ultrasparc) servers.
>A lot of the *in house* code you'll find at
>various companies isn't so portable. It is a
>selling point for Linux and a selling point for
>Sun if they get binary emulation on the SPARC
>hardware. Then, a scalability argument against
>Linux could possibly be nullified.
My guess is code like this would have trouble being run on Scum... perhaps features implimented differently.. or not at all. Remember SysV IPC? Yeah. It is cool... but it would be cooler simply if Solaris became linux compadable itself... implimenting syscalls and features... but I wouldn't use it. (OpenBSD r0x)
I made bunch of technical errors I bet
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
I see quite a few but any x86 operating system worth the CD's it comes on needs IDE support. IDE is cheap and fast (with one drive... heh) for lower end boxes that don't need gigs of porn... hot swapable.
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
This is a good way for Sun to cash in on the Linux wave without embracing Linux itself.
They are scared of Linux, as are all of the other UNIX Vendors. Sco and Sun are just starting to show their paranoia.
**************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. -Sifu
I don't think so because I think BSD uses a different file system, and while it can read and write ext2 it needs to set up it's root partition in it's file system.
God does not play dice - Einstein
Not only does God play dice, he sometimes throws them where they
Even then, we possibly are going to install linux in these machines finally. Minitab will be a problem but we may get it installed in public computer labs running NT - after all, we TA's have a hard time getting the students to use unix.
So when will we see products that go the other way?
zero
I would imagine most Open Source apps out there will compile to a Solaris x86 target. This seems like it targets an extremely small niche.
-josh
Sun, BSDI, OS/2... This may be good short term news, but in the long term it bodes ill.
It shows that the corporate mentality is not shifting towards open source, but rather is attempting to pacify the OSS movement by anointing it's BINARY product. Or simply benefiting the end users with more available software - but we can just compile that - so NO.
This may be a genuine attempt at drawing closer to the OSS developers, to make them feel welcome and included and appreciated. Then to flesh out the good ones, hire them for the shrink-wrap market, and let OSS fall where it may.
This probably won't be so extreme, but it smells of 'embrace and extend' from here.
Until the big houses open their source, beware.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Wouldn't this be a good time for Sun to announce that they will start supporting Linux JDK officially now... (and porting from Linux to FreeBSD etc shouldn't require very much effort)
The volunteers porting it now are doing a good job (I think), but wouldn't it be good to have Linux as an officially supported platform..
--
How about renaming Linux:
GNGL
which stands for:
GNGL's not GNU/Linux
Binaries are Evil, and, while making the market larger for companies porting to Linux (And therefor more interresting), it may perhaps chrinken the number of open sourced programs?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
What is the reason for Linux to exist? There is no One True solution, GUI, API or shell at all, even in the OS. How could you then motivate a One True OS? OSes performs different tasks and are optimized for different operations. That they are able to emulate each other does not say they are the same (I would like to see anyone calling Linux a Windows version, just because of Wine!).
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
This is just FUD. Only modifications to the source
of GCC are covered by its license (in this case the GPL).
The output it produces is unencumbered. However if
you link with libraries covered by the LGPL then
the source to your program remains unencumbered
but people using your program have the right to
the source of the LGPL libraries, usually this is
never a problem since they are all widely available.
Isn't there a legal issue with using gcc?
I understand not all the code you link with is under the LGPL, so you can't sell your binaries without releasing source.
That is certainly why our shop won't use gcc, and shells out for lots of Sun compiler licences so more than one person can compile at a time.
Wonder if anyone has the facts on this, as we may just be being paranoid.
Many just download pppd for Solaris x86, and use that. Works well.
Richard
Solaris x86 workstation: $450 US
Solaris X86 Server: $695 US
I believe the difference in costs is due to the different licensing for the server (i.e. you _may_ use it to serve other workstations, etc.) Not too sure as the web site says there's a single-user RTU included.
I also don't know what the 1 or 2 year subscription prices are, or if these prices include a subscription.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Don't get me wrong -- lxrun is a nice piece of software, and pretty simple in concept. Since Solaris and Linux both use the ELF executable format, each can _attempt_ to execute the binaries for the other. Unfortunately, other incompatibilities soon scuttle that.
:~(
Lxrun is basically a wrapper for executing Linux binaries. What lxrun does, first of all, is set up the search paths for loading the dynamic libraries that a Linux binary needs instead of trying to use the Solaris libraries.
However, even with the native libraries, Linux and Solaris have different sets of syscalls. The other part of lxrun's job is to intercept those syscalls and translate them to something that supposedly does the same thing in Solaris. There are still quite a few that are missing, but it seems enough of them work to get all those programs Sun has demonstrated running.
I find it interesting that they had Quake 2 running because when I tried it, the path names that it searched for its files were all wrong. The same with Quake 3 test (and now it bombs out completely because it searches for stuff in a directory with the CTRL-A character for a name!) It's possible that because I'm using Solaris 2.6 things are different then in Solaris 7, and that causes the errors.
Finally, there is at least one isssue with the OS itself (at least version 2.6) that causes problems. It seems Solaris can't access memory addresses that PCI cards get mapped to (stuff like 0xf7000000) for whatever reason. Therefore, you wouldn't be able to use VESA framebuffers or the Voodoo driver
Of course, you need all the Linux libraries required for the programs yoou want to run. And given the GPL, you need to make source available for them too. What I want to know is if Sun is going to distribute the libraries with the OS, or as a separate package.
lxrun on Solaris does seem like it's been developed for Solaris 7 anyway, though. So some of these problems may be figments of my old OS.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Moreover, Solarix x86 is dog slow in our lab here at school. It's running on a bunch of P166s, and I swear it's slower than the Sparc LX boxen we used to have.
Maybe it's just NFS. Everything is NFS here.
--
-- Spankmeister General
I worked at Sun for a while in the resolution center (read: internal helpdesk.) They have x86 widely deployed for laptop users - which tend to be sales types, who would really not be able to handle 'compiling' software. (That was the kind of thing they'd ask us to do for them.) So, that's one more type of user that might be on x86.
You can also get Solaris x86 for free, if it's not for commercial use. This isn't very widely publicized, and it's not open source, and there's really not much software available that you don't have to compile yourself. Now, that changes somewhat.
I see this as very useful for someone who, for some reason or another, is tied into Solaris (be it tradition, I Work For Sun, or a key internal application) being able to actually get useful software without having to work very hard.
And geeks may forget this, but to the average person, a compile is harder than they are willing to attempt, and if it doesn't work out of the box, they have no way to get it to work ever. And we all know how often we need to make minor tweaks to compile software.
What does this mean for Linux? Well, hopefully it's a step towards wider industry acceptance. Sun is realizing that Linux has a broader application base than Solaris in many respects, and wants in on that. It would be fantastic if we could move towards more binary compatibility across Unix flavors, and if Linux is the standard, great! I may be capable of compiling software, but I'd still rather download it and expect it to work. (One definite _good_ feature of the windows experience. We want to copy everything they do right, rather than be different just to be contrary.)
-- Kate
GNU= GNU's Not UNIX
The Government uses Solaris a lot, using both SPARC and x86. Where I work we have to abide by the Common Operating Environment (COE), which means Solaris, Oracle, and other stuff.
The ability to run Linux binaries is good news for people who have to use Solaris x86 and want to run applications that are only distributed in binary. Due to marketing concerns, a lot of proprietary applications are available to Linux that aren't available to every Unix OS. For example, at work there is a team that has standardized all help files on PDF, but Adobe doesn't make Acrobat Reader for Solaris x86 (or at least it wasn't available a couple of months ago). Now they can run Acrobat Reader without waiting on Adobe to support them.
And there are other reasons for using Solaris. Java and Oracle support is better under Solaris than Linux, and a lot of companies use them. Solaris also has better SMP support (64 CPU's anyone?), journelling filesystem, and other high-end features that isn't quite available for Linux.
This should be good for everyone. Sun benefits, and it looks like Linux is not only getting acceptence by the big Unix makers, but it looks like an emerging standard. (Just imagine seeing Solaris advertised as 100% Linux compliant!)
Homogenous operating environment?
Hardly. We have a dozen or so x86 and a couple ultra 60s.
The problem --> Little/Big endian. No bin compat.
Which sucks real bad if you do any binary IO (e.g. SEGY).
As for the server pack, for the ultras its worth any extra money cause you can mirror disks, but (I think) this is NA for the x86. So cost for x86 is much less than $1150. Certainly it aint free.
Ever say "No thanks, I have enough RAM"?
Linux is headed for global domination, folks. This is a major win for Linux, for Sun, and for everyone*. What would be even MORE interesting is Solaris binary compatability in Linux. Hoo Hoo!
* - Microsoft is excluded from participation.
Putting an Atari SX212 modem in the data center is easy enough, but the suits just aren't buying the "Power Without the Price " line anymore. Linux is lumped into the same boat as the Atari ST's and TT's.
What's harder to do is to sneak an upright Dig Dug into a corner without being spotted. The blanket helps.
I love Sun to death and they have a 50:1 ratio in the data center to the Atari equipment. :) I have to take exception to your characterization of Sun.
x86 Solaris isn't that big of a hit, and frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Sun is looking for a way to justify its existance. If they can sell a suit on, "Have the power of Solaris and the freedom of Linux", so be it. There's nothing wrong about it either, unless you're trolling for Stallman.
Binary compatibility is nice to have, but it really isn't going to marginalize Linux in any way on the x86 hardware. It really looks like a win for Sun and a win for Linux. Hurray!
> 97% of Linux software is available as source
> and will compile with cc or gcc on Solaris
A lot of the *in house* code you'll find at various companies isn't so portable. It is a selling point for Linux and a selling point for Sun if they get binary emulation on the SPARC hardware. Then, a scalability argument against Linux could possibly be nullified.
Of course, it could be the evil trick of Sun to try to convert Linux from an operating system and into a language. Ohhhhh... that would be EVIL. And then marginalize that with Java! HA!
[Actually, the thought of Linux being a language and not an OS. Hmmmm... I like it, but I hate it for a reason I don't understand. Hmmmm....]
As soon as I read the topic, I knew I could find a quote for the ever-loving gnulinux guy! Thanks for keeping up to my expectations.
(Remember, folks! My replies are about self-expression, not providing value!)
Everytime I see an article about Sun on Slashdot, no matter how positive, there's always a lot of mudraking going on? Bitter SGI folks? OS envy? Hatred of computing corporations?
Sun has done some nice things for Linux. Sure, they get something out of the deal too, but that's the name of the game. They're not betting the farm on Linux, but they really have gone the extra mile more than other vendors to work with us.
Take a look at this article... BSDI is doing the exact same thing with their operating system. But OS emulation on the UNIX side isn't anything new. BSDI also has SCO binary compatability, for example.
I hear you, I tried to install Solaris 7 on my box yesterday. I gave up.
No support for my video card (Millenium G200), support for my Montego costs US$40 from 4Front (I already paid for the Linux ones), and, of course, no support for my 10GB drive.
On top of that, NO GUS SUPPORT. Unacceptable.
I gave up. Slackware 4 works fine for me. At least it works.
I naively thought that Solaris would support this hardware but it is evidently not the case
As it only runs on a very select list of hardware.
:)
And last time I checked, a single user Solaris x86 licence cost about NZ$1,150 for the desktop and NZ$1,800 for the server.
About the only reason I can see for using it, is if you already have lots of SPARC servers and want a homogeneous operating environment for your support staff, and can't afford Ultra 5's.
I guess this means those people can use Netscape and Applixware
I would define an 'unfriendly button' in OS/2 as one of the myriad of buttons you can press that lock up the input queue rendering your keyboard and mouse useless until you reboot. Of course, it doesn't lock up the whole OS, so if you're running something in the backround, it will continue to run.
And on a side note, for all those that claim OS/2 is a knock off of Mac OS need to study their history of GUIs. The WPS in OS/2 incorporates far more from Motif and X than MacOS or Windows. Not that their isn't some traffic between Apple and IBM in intellectual property, but for the most part IBM ignores Apple products (except perhaps for good old dead AUX or porting AIX to some of Apple's servers).
if (Solaris) then SCSI.
I work with Solaris at work and Linux at home. The reason I got a job working with Solaris (on the big boxes mind you) is because of my experience with Linux.
I work for a Sun reseller, Sun supports their resellers selling and supporting machines with Linux on them. Sun is committed to delivering solutions on Solaris and for support and advanced computing reasons should continue with Solaris development.
To continue to give Unix the scalability and reliabilty with advanced reliability features like Alternate Pathing and Dynamic Reconfiguration that allow Unix systems to be used for the largest OLTP environments, we need companies like Sun. With regard to Unix computing, SGI has fuzzy plans these days, IBM has fuzzy plans these days, HP is very fuzzy these days. Sun is pretty much, last time I checked, the only company without some kind of deal with Microsoft to push NT boxes.
I honestly don't see how this is a bad thing. Some software packages might like to port to Unix, but don't want to go open source (for any one of a number of reasons). This gives them the vehicle. It's better than looking at the Unix world and saying they can't afford to port/support the myriad of OS variants.
I also don't see the anti-establishment banter helping. Support companies that support open computing: Sun's supported open computing for a long time.
This hack makes things look brighter for the Sun community - binaries from the world's most popular hacker OS run unmodified on yours! I can't see this harming Linux in any way; in fact, it seems to me that boosting compatibility between the two systems can only be good for both. Sun isn't really interested in helping Linux out with this - I quote, "When Linux gains, we believe Sun wins. When Solaris wins, Sun wins, obviously." But as a side effect, Lxrun has made a bigger market for Linux programmers. The news article mentions that tools are in development to let single sources be compiled without modification to run on either OS. Take a snapshot of the OS market in the early 80's. You have your Commodores, your Apples, your PC's, various other small manufacturers, all running OSs that are wildly different. Now peek at the early 90's. OS-2 is still around, Windows 3.1 is big, Mac OS looks pretty, and it is the age of the GUI. Everything is beginning to gravitate together. Now, 1999, you see NT becoming as Unix-like as possible without losing the trademark Microsoft cruft, different Unices are bonding together, and OSs are becoming good enough to run each other's software. Call me futuristic, but I foresee One True Operating System - or if Microsoft is still around, it seems we are trending toward a semi-standard OS design. And goodness gracious me, it looks more like Linux than anything else. May the Source be with you.
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
Well, I am inclined to think he broke more than one law also and the things that I would vote to convict for would have gotten him a few months, tops.
The only problem is, you need a trial to earn the badge of criminal. The feds would do well to persue a course of either having a trial or dropping a case, rather than using "pre-trial custody" to impose a multi-year sentence to punish people that have not even been tried yet.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
You don't have to be root to run Linux binaries under FreeBSD, either. I used to run the Linux binary of Netscape as user 'chris' all the time. (and I plan on doing it again, since there are no plugins for the FreeBSD version of Netscape)
FreeBSD has had that for ages and in the form of a kernel module, so you don't _have_ to run it under a special command. That's real binary compatibility.
I just have to ask: what are "unfriendly buttons"?
Although, if you want to start getting uppity about it, Jobs nicked it all from PARC.
-- Twelve|71
If this is only good for running Linux-x86 programs under Solaris-x86 (and not Solaris-sparc), then why bother? Save yourself some pain and run a *BSD, Linux, or even better, gnulix derivative of *nix instead!
...signed, the ever-lovable gnulix guy!