Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Unix Operating Systems Software

Open Solaris Derivative Available 209

Posted by Zonk
from the zonkx-is-coming-next dept.
tezbobobo writes "Well, Open Solaris has only been available a matter of days and already there are new projects available. SchilliX is an OpenSolaris-based live CD and distribution that is intended to help people discover OpenSolaris. When installed on a hard drive, it also allows developers to develop and compile code in a pure OpenSolaris environment. More details are available on the author's blog."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Solaris Derivative Available

Comments Filter:
  • by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Saturday June 18, 2005 @04:24PM (#12852555) Journal
    Thursday, March 24, 2005
    Pure OpenSolaris boots on x86
    Today, I have been able to boot from a disk that was empty before I did install a self compiled OpenSolaris on it.

    So we now reached a certain limit that makes it possible to start with creating a OpenSolaris based x86 distribution at BerliOS.
    • Why do your own distro? Just wait, Debian people will probably start a Debian GNU/Opensolaris clone soon
      • Just wait, Debian people will probably start a Debian GNU/Opensolaris clone soon

        This LiveCD would be a great platform to bootstrap Gentoo on, like Knoppix is now. See this thread [gentoo.org], and this one [gentoo.org] if anyone wants to help.

        Quote from ferringb:

        In other words, if you want it, get cracking, get it to the point where it's viable

      • > Why do your own distro?

        So that the open solaris community can create independently from Sun. So that the community knows this is real. Without the real potential of independence, non-Sun developers won't spend time on open solaris verus Linux, *BSD, etc.

        And if independence is achievable, it won't be possible for Sun to take its ball and bat home like it did with its aborted Community Source Solaris 8 effort. Sun can pull the plug on opensolaris.org when it wants, but if an independent distro

      • "Just wait, Debian people will probably start a Debian GNU/Opensolaris clone soon"

        Not likely, because Debian people care about Free Software and freedom in general, and they actually read licenses.

  • Battle of *nix(es) is on!!
  • Torrents (Score:5, Informative)

    by RickPartin (892479) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @04:36PM (#12852624) Homepage
    In case the Open Solaris site goes down or you just don't feel like clicking two links on the page

    Torrents! [sun.com]
  • by Transcendent (204992) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @04:37PM (#12852629)
    Technically, can't I change one line of code or some small functionality and call it a derivative? It even sounds like they didn't do much: "When installed on a hard drive, it also allows developers to develop and compile code in a pure OpenSolaris environment."

    It seems just a cut-down version (text only) of Solaris, so where's the improvement?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2005 @04:43PM (#12852653)
    Enough said.
  • Yes but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by diegocgteleline.es (653730) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @04:45PM (#12852662)
    does it have cdrecord?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2005 @04:46PM (#12852667)
    What is the *primary* reason anyone would use Open Solaris over Linux, *BSD, and Windows?

    When I use Linux, it is because I am hosting/running existing software like Trac/Subversion/PostgreSQL/... which appear most heavily used/tested on Linux than any other platform.

    When I use FreeBSD, it is because I am hosting/running/distributing my own software and I don't want to deal with LGPL requirements regarding binaries linked to LGPL C libs (yes, I consultant an IP attorney about differences between GPL and LGPL requirements and also consulted FSF.ORG).

    When I use Windows, it is because I am running software that is not available on either FreeBSD or Linux. And also for distributing software on a platform that has the largest marketshare.

    When I use Open Solaris, it is because ???

    • by Anonymous Coward
      It is a very stable, scalable and secure OS with extremely good backwards compatibility, derived from BSD UNIX and created by a reputable company.
      • says who?

        secure? Solaris? no more secure than anything else. Now that the code is open, we'll see how many of those reboot causing kernel updates we have.

        Reputable company? Reputable for being wishy-washy perhaps.

        "We love linux. We hate linux. We are selling linux to China! We are not selling linux to China. We HATE Microsoft. We are doing new cool things with Microsoft." -- Sun

        Scalable? Sure, on SPARC. Note there hasn't been a new SPARC processor in like 5 years.
      • It came from SysV.4 not BSD. SunOS = 5.x was SysV.4.
    • by njcoder (657816) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @05:19PM (#12852812)
      The OpenSolaris license is the CDDL. It is not a viral license like the GPL. It was derived from the Mozilla Public License.

      OpenSolaris is based off of the Solaris Next source tree which is the working codebase after (and built on code from) Solaris 10. I've run PostgreSQL 7.3, 7.4 and 8.0 on Solaris. http://www.sunfreeware.com/ [sunfreeware.com] has Subversion binaries. As for Trac it should compile fine. Solaris has a lot of development behind it and a lot of resources from Sun. OpenSolaris is still in its early stages though. Solaris 10 (the commercial one) might be a good fit for your hosting/running apps instead of FreeBSD. Solaris 10 is free to use but not open source. For distributing OpenSolaris might be a good choice but it was just released and not quite all the code is out there.

      The CDDL is a per file license so unless you're hacking the actual OpenSolaris code it should serve the needs you have for using the BSD's. Some different benchmarks (like the mysql os benchmark) showed Solaris doint better than FreeBSD. Different independant benchmarks (think zdnet had some and different ISV's) show that the new Solaris can even hold it's own against Linux.

      Though you'd probably want to consult a lawyer or at least check out the cddl faq and not just take my opinion.

      • by Curtman (556920) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @06:31PM (#12853115)
        The OpenSolaris license is the CDDL. It is not a viral license like the GPL

        Too bad they fucked up the Sun Contributor Agreement [opensolaris.org]

        2. You hereby assign to Sun joint ownership in all worldwide common law and statutory rights associated with the copyrights, copyright applications and copyright registrations in Your Contribution, to the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, and agree never to assert against Sun any "moral rights" therein. You understand that
        (i) this Agreement may be submitted by Sun to register a copyright in Your Contribution, and
        (ii) Sun may exercise all rights as a copyright owner of Your Contribution. This Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior copyright assignments for Contributions made by You to Sun. Neither party has any duty whatsoever to render an accounting to the other party for any use of a Contribution.

        If I contribute to Linux, I don't have to assign the copyright to Linus.
        • "If I contribute to Linux, I don't have to assign the copyright to Linus."

          No you don't but the FSF recommends that you assign your copyright to them for GPL'd code. Sun is asking for joing ownership. You don't give up your copyright completely. When GPL v3 comes out, if Linus wants to upgrade to it he'll have to track down all the copyright holders to get their permission to relicense it. Didn't something like this already happen?

          • When GPL v3 comes out, if Linus wants to upgrade to it he'll have to track down all the copyright holders to get their permission to relicense it.

            Bullshit [gnu.org].

            9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

            Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version numb

            • by njcoder (657816) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @07:22PM (#12853342)
              If you read that quote directly, the licensor has to specifically state [fsf.org] "any later version" in the license. "If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to discuss the change at length with numerous copyright holders, which would be a virtual impossibility. In practice, the chance of having uniform distribution terms for GNU software would be nil."

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

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

              Also note that in the COPYING file it specifically states

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

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

              • If you read that quote directly, the licensor has to specifically state "any later version" in the license.

                Not has... May..

                Also note that in the COPYING file it specifically states

                .. That unless otherwise explicitly stated ..

                Just for fun, try:
                grep -r 'later version' /usr/src/linux
                • "Not has... May.."

                  That's my point. The person licensing the code has to include that statement for future versions to apply. The person may choose not to in which case future versions don't apply.

                  Looks like there's also a bunch of files that don't include that clause. Including files that Linus holds the copyright to. I don't think he put that statment in the main COPYING file for nothing. Some specifically state version "2 only" or version 1. This one was cute.

                  This driver is free software;

                  • Looks like there's also a bunch of files that don't include that clause. Including files that Linus holds the copyright to. I don't think he put that statment in the main COPYING file for nothing.

                    So what are you saying, that when GPL-3 comes out, Linus will be having some kind of psychotic episode where he is unable to find himself to get aproval? Linus says a lot of crazy things, but I don't think he's that nuts.

                    It's way more than a couple, that's my point -- It's up to the contributer, not Sun or
        • The ASF take ownership of your code when you donate it to them.

          difference is, you know that Apache themselves wont run off with your code, though they may change the ASF license to something you dont agree with.
        • However, if you contribute to any GNU programs you have to assign copyright to the FSF. So it's not exactly unheard of, and doesn't make it non-free.
          • if you contribute to any GNU programs you have to assign copyright to the FSF

            I think this helps explain why Sourceforge is huge, and Savanah [gnu.org] isn't. And why of the 2402 projects on it, only 291 are "Official GNU software". I fear OpenSolaris will suffer the same fate. I wouldn't do it, I'd wait for the fork, and contribute to that.
          • "However, if you contribute to any GNU programs you have to assign copyright to the FSF. So it's not exactly unheard of, and doesn't make it non-free."

            Except the part where you don't.

            You only have to assign copyright (note, assign, not grant) to the FSF so they can defend you in the case of any litigation involving your code, such as a GPL (and hence, copyright) violation or other issues.

            It is not a requirement of the license to do so, unlike the CDDL, which requires it.

            Here's an example:

      • It is not a viral license like the GPL.

        1997 called. It wants it troll back.

    • by pedantic bore (740196) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @05:31PM (#12852862)
      Why run OpenSolaris:

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

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

  • author is well known (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2005 @04:46PM (#12852668)
    You might know the author from cdrecord. He has a rather low opinion of the ide-scsi/ide-cd component of the kernel in general and Linus in particular. Good to see him where he is happy.

    And solaris has a kick-ass kernel, no doubt about that. Debian/SunOS is the ultimate Unix environment in my mind. One day it will become reality, or so I hope...
    • Debian/SunOS is the ultimate Unix environment in my mind. One day it will become reality, or so I hope...

      Not likely. Take a look at the OSolaris license.

      • To make Debian/SunOS, you probably wouldn't need to mix CDDL and GPL code. There's nothing to stop CDDL and GPL binaries co-existing together.

        Just out of interest, has anyone started working on this? I've got a bit of free time and would like to look into it.
        • It may be technically feasible, but not socially. Most of the volunteers that make a project like Debian work care about Free Software, and read licenses.

    • Two threads appears on the debian-legal mailing list. One commented on the draft license, and the other on the OSI-approved license. I think the most pertinant entry from the former thread was this one, by Juhapekka Tolvanen which states: It probably fails the Chinese Dissident test, but I don't think that's a problem. The requirement to not modify "descriptive text" that provides attributions /may/ be a problem, but that'll depend on specific code rather than being a general problem... Andrew Suffield ela
    • by vsprintf (579676) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @06:44PM (#12853171)

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

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

    • To be fair he has a point. Why should he have to rewrite part of his program just because Linus doesn't like the interface he had been using?

      (I can see Linus' side too. He doesn't want to have to maintain a horrible kludgy driver that he saw as a bad idea from the start. But at the same time Solaris maintains APIs and even ABIs from about version 5. Enterprise people want to know their programs aren't going to randomly break with the next upgrade.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2005 @04:48PM (#12852685)
    ...is that there were those of us in Sun who wanted to do this kind of thing 5 years ago, but the pointy-hairs just didn't get it. There was talk of a GNU/Solaris as well.

    The pointy-hairs did get it eventually, but they RIF'd us and let external people do it instead. Meanwhile millions of $s of R&D money was wasted on stupid projects that were not needed, ill-concieved, cancelled, etc.

    • ...at least solaris will survive now.

      Can anyone dredge a copy of the old NeWS windowing system and release that now too; that could do stuff so much cooler than X11 can do today, even, what, 15 years later. Or is the tar file of the source slowly rotting away in a tape that wont be readable before long.
      • by SimHacker (180785) *
        I still have my old copy of the NeWS sources, but I don't think anyone at Sun does. But "open sourcing" NeWS would be a waste of time. Just because people are still using an inferior obsolete window system like X-Windows doesn't mean we need to revive another old obsolete window system to replace it. It's better to make something new with current technology, than to use X-Windows or NeWS [c2.com].

        -Don

  • by Anonymous Coward
    It looks like a interesting distro, and I'd be partially interested in downloading it and taking a look at it if wasn't for the whining and complaining about the GPL he makes. I don't like the idea of my contributions potentially being distributed/used in a closed-source project [total value of my code: err.. about 2 cents] if I contribute to an open-source (GPL or Compatible license) project, and the GPL gives me that control [not that I'm concerned about it]. I've not got much code out there [mostly reall
    • There are plenty of projects which are GPL but want you to assign copyright. Anything with a commercial/propriety version, like MySQL and Qt. And the GNU requires copyright assignment for anything you contribute, any bugfixes for gcc, glibc, emacs etc. have to be copyright assigned to the FSF.
  • by keesh (202812)
    After all the hype and press releases, where's the Gentoo port? You'd think that they'd've had time to put it together, what with all the promises they made and all...
  • SchilliX? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hikaru79 (832891)
    Heh, it should have been called "Scholaris"
  • Well, it looks like Sun came out with something bootable and runnable. That's nice. Now, users and developers can determine which is the better systems. The next thing after getting it compiled and booting will be to get some unbiased benchmarks and see how much hardware it is compatible with.

    Personally, I don't give Solaris much of a chance: I think it scratches itches that few people have. But, hey, in a year or two, we'll know.
  • Hosting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KidSock (150684) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @06:30PM (#12853113)
    Wouldn't this be good for hosting? You could sell zones w/ root like linode.com does with UML. Is anyone doing this or planning on it?
  • Is it worth it for a linux desktop home user to switch to OpenSolaria?

    Are there visible goodies to have? Better apps? Better fonts/graphics etc? Better stability? Better performance.

    Is there a reason for a desktop/end user to bother?

    Steve
    • As a desktop Solaris and Linux user, I would say no. At least for me, Linux, especially with the 2.6 kernel is *much* more responsive on the desktop, plus Solaris is missing many pieces that really help for the desktop (like Alsa). Granted, you can get audio running on Sun (I wrote the ARTS Solaris driver for KDE), but you're much better off under Linux.

      Also, at least on Sparc, Sun's X server doesn't appear to support a number of key features useful on the desktop, and Xorg doesn't run on Sparc Solaris d
  • Backport? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Digital Pizza (855175) on Saturday June 18, 2005 @10:19PM (#12854096)
    So, how long before someone backports this to the Sun architecures that have been EOL'd: sun4m, sun4d, and dare I say it: sun4c?

    I do believe I've heard that it's already running on the sbus-based sun4u's (Ultra 1 and Ultra 2), and there actually is a lot of interest in getting this for the sun4m's (Sparc 4, Sparc 5, Sparc 10, Sparc 20).

    It'd be kinda fun to pull my old IPX out of the closet again to try cramming OpenSolaris into it :-)

  • Bigotry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Craig Ringer (302899) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:12AM (#12854889) Homepage Journal
    The bigotry being displayed here is astonishing. Between whining about cdrecord, making uninformed snipes about how Linux is better, and writing off Solaris because of the CDDL, it's a pretty poor show. I know slashdot can do better than this :S

    note: I have concerns about the CDDL too, but it ONLY MATTERS if you want to contribute your code into the core codebase, use Solaris code in your own, or redistribute modified Solaris code. The contributor agreement only matters if you want to have your code merged into Solaris - you can simply maintain an outside patch/dist if you have a problem with it. I'm 99% sure none of the loud complainers here will be doing any of the above anyway.

    I also tried Solaris 10 - and got rid of it. It's not much of a desktop yet - old software, and it needs a comprehensive package collection of libs and GNU tools REALLY badly. It does, however, serve some people's needs fantastically, especially in the server space. Let's not write something off entirely because "sun are bad, mmkay" or because it doesn't have the latest GNOME.

    As for cdrecord ... come on. The fellow can be abrasive but I don't see how that's important here, and he can do what he wants with his code. He did license it under the GPL in the first place, which I for one appreciate, so we can use it and the extended DVD-supporting derivatives of it available in Linux distros. I don't see why him deciding *not* to give away *more* of his work draws such incredible indignation here. Sure, it'd be nice (FSF zealous would argue "morally required"), but really it's his work and his code.

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.

Working...