Slashdot Log In
Taking a Look at Nexenta's Blend of Solaris and Ubuntu
Posted by
timothy
on Saturday November 22, @04:56PM
from the little-a-this-little-a-that dept.
from the little-a-this-little-a-that dept.
Ahmed Kamal writes "What happens when you take a solid system such as Ubuntu Hardy, unplug its Linux kernel, and plug in a replacement OpenSolaris kernel? Then you marry Debian's apt-get to Solaris' zfs file-system? What you get is Nexenta Core Platform OS. Let's take Nexenta for a quick spin, installing and configuring this young but promising system."
Related Stories
Firehose:Solaris+Ubuntu, can you say SolaBuntu by Anonymous Coward
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Better Proposed Names... (Score:5, Funny)
But seriously, sounds like a great idea.
Reply to This
Re:Better Proposed Names... (Score:5, Funny)
Why are you making this so difficult?
Clearly this new distro should be called GNU/Solaris.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Better Proposed Names... (Score:5, Funny)
How about Usuntzu?
Fool around with Linux names on /. and you're dabbling in the art of war....
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Better Proposed Names... (Score:5, Funny)
Or at least confucius the issue.
Reply to This
Parent
More stories like this (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the types of stories I miss on /. No, politics, no civil procedure/court news, no DRM wars. Just plain old news for nerds (even if it doesn't matter all that much).
Reply to This
Re:More stories like this (Score:5, Funny)
Real slashdotters use lots of the nice checkboxes to change their preferences. Nerds are complex beasts.
Reply to This
Parent
Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
What happens when... (Score:5, Funny)
> you... unplug its Linux kernel, and plug in a[n]... OpenSolaris kernel...
What happens?
Neither Linus nor Richard are happy.
Reply to This
This is what Indiana should have been..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been working with Solaris for many years. When OpenSolaris was announced, I jumped for joy at what could be accomplished. When it was just a re-release of Solaris major, I said, ok, well, it is a certified Unix(tm) and now open source. But when they started working on Indiana, their replacement for the old Solaris system, I again jumped for joy, a chance to remove the cruft, while keeping ZFS and other Solaris goodies. When Ian jumped on the project, I thought, HOLY cow, we can get Debian GNU/Solaris. Well...... Guess what, they had to re-implement dpkg, why, well, I don't rightly know. Sure, you can install the old packages on the system and you now get a network repository, but darn it, why not just go with the darned proven system. Their current ipkg will break a system if the upgrade doesn't go well. I know dpkg can theoretically do this, but why re-code something that has had YEARS of testing and is used by almost half of the Linux community? I don't get it. Why the heck did they decide to re-implement something that could work so well? Just because it is GPL doesn't taint the core OS, it sits in userland. This must be so that they can sell proprietary Indiana builds to those who don't want to play out in the open. That is the only reason I can see. I really hoped for a good package system, but instead, we get a "me-too" system. It just doesn't make sense. And yes, I have been following OpenSolaris since it was barely usable, about nv 40 or something like that. I really wanted an old school Unix to survive, but at this point, I can't see it happening. They are now, not "Unix" they are "Not Linux" and I don't think they can handle the new market. Their Open Source strategy doesn't make sense. Their new storage line, I cannot see where this has a market. Sure, you get support, but once it is up and running well, there isn't much need for that support. There are much cheaper solutions for the SMB to MB segment, with much better support plans. I hope they survive for MySQL, VirtualBox, Java and NetBeans' sake, but I am not quite sure about it. I cannot find a revenue stream that they are first in class for anymore. Their workstations are a joke. I put together a home made Ultra 24 with the same specs for half of what they are asking. This was when they used the slower Q6600 quad cores. I see they upgraded. For outfitting a small to medium development group, I can't see going with the support premium. I know, support, etc... but hey, I can buy a service plan separately for OpenSolaris and when the H/W fails, just buy a new quad core workstation, which will be faster than the one it is replacing. I can't see the price premium. Apple is another story. Their system is integrated and will only work on their hardware. Sun is trying to compete in the commodity OS market. I just don't see it happening. Comments are welcome.
Reply to This
Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (Score:5, Informative)
You must have missed the memo. Sun has been open sourcing projects left and right: OpenSolaris, Java and VirtualBox to name a few high profile examples. Sure OpenSolaris isn't GPL'd, but Java and VirtualBox are.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not possible to compile Opensolaris without downloading and using a whole bunch of binary components which are distributed under a proprietary license. (see here for details [sun.com].
This is in stark contrast to OpenBSD (and to a lesser degree NetBSD and/or FreeBSD -both of which include proprietary binary-only blobs). Their license is OSI approved, but you can't compile a working system using only the parts that are open source.
And this is after three and a half years, guys.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:solaris and.....ubuntu? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus is the power of open source. If you don't like something, change it
Reply to This
Parent
Re:64 bit? (Score:5, Informative)
The x86 iso includes 64bit kernel. It auto detects on boot.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:64 bit? (Score:5, Informative)
as for the x86 port, it is both, you don't need a separate distro for 64 bit support because of isaexec and a smart kernel
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Even if.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Even if.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite that simple. You can distribute GPL (V2) code which links against an incompatible (or even closed-source) libc, provided you don't also distribute libc. This is the "special exception" in section 3. Of course, a distro like this does distribute libc, so it's not eligible for the exception.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Even if.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Debian people believe that distributing GPL'd code that links against a GPL-incompatible libc is a violation of the GPL (and they are probably right).
The FSF themselves distribute GPL'd code that links against GPL-incompatible libcs (including Suns) - and they have done for years (in fact decades), way before CDDL exsited, when Solaris / SunOS libcs were proprietary.
The FSF are right, "the Debian people" are wrong. If there was one thing the system libraries exception clearly covers, it is libc.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Even if.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Sun's libc/complier are my BANE! (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Got that backwards, and a misuse of term (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess the other software wasn't very Free then to start with if it disallows something as simple as linking with a GPL package, was it? After all, any GPL software can link with any other without legal complications...
Nice troll. The CDDL is roughly equivalent to the Mozilla Public License. It makes no demands on code linked to it at all. It is a per-file license, and can be linked with any other code unless the other code's license explicitly prohibits it. You can mix CDDL, Apache licensed, BSD licensed and any other per-file license together into a single program.
It is the GPL which makes this a problem. The GPL states that, if you distribute a GPL'd program, all parts of the program must be covered by licenses which impose the same conditions as the GPL and no others. The CDDL (along with every other Free Software license on this list [fsf.org]) does not fall into this category. This means that you do not have a distribution license for the GPL'd software if you attempt to distribute it along with any software under any of these licenses (and they link together - 'mere aggregation' is allowed).
Apple would have the same problem distributing bash on OS X if their libc were APSL'd (like most of the rest of Darwin), but since it comes from FreeBSD they kept the BSDL, which is GPL-compatible.
Any GPL'd software can link against any other GPL'd software without legal complications, but you can say the same about the CDDL, the APSL, the ASL, and even a load of proprietary licenses. It's only when mixing with the GPL that any of these have problems.
If the CDDL is the problem then it is not Free.
Well, the Free Software Foundation list it as a Free Software License, and the Open Source Initiative class it as an Open Source License, so it certainly seems free.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (Score:5, Insightful)
>really compelling reasons I should go through the Debian/Ubuntu learning curve.
A 7 year old child can?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the problem with Red Hat is it isn't as popular. Most people who know Linux know or at least have heard of Ubuntu, and know that it is easy to use, on the other hand Red Hat isn't as popular and so while there might be a small number of people who would only use it if it was based off of Red Hat, more people use Ubuntu than Red Hat and so it only is logical to base it off of Ubuntu.
That's one of my problems with Linux. Ubuntu has been out for what--less than 4 years, and popular for less than that? Before Ubuntu was the big thing, it was Gentoo. Etc etc, and before that, Redhat. (ignoring, Fedora, Suse, etc and of course the parent distro of Ubuntu--debian--has been around forever as well)...before that, slackware. And so on.
So far Ubuntu seems to have decent staying power (and most importantly--*one* man with money behind it). It just seems crazy to me that Red Hat which virtually WAS linux for the first decade of Linux has been relegated to near irrelevance?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason Ubuntu is so popular is because they took a standardized, stable, flexible, but up-to-date base (Debian) and took care of the desktop-oriented customization that a Debian user would normally have to do manually. Then they started filling in the holes in the UI, which trickled back to Debian of course.
The reason Red Hat is no longer popular (and I don't know why it ever was, since Debian has almost always been this good) is, in my opinion, because the packaging system is way too open and not nearly standardized enough. Although they have been fixing this in the recent years, when you run a Red Hat based system (Fedora, Centos, etc), you seem to end up installing packages from random places.
From Debian, if you stick with the official repositories (which is possible since they are very thorough and extensive), you are pretty much guaranteed that all your packages have passed through a standardized system where they are checked for problems, inter-dependencies, and are all compiled with the same methodology.
Additionally, Debian's seemingly-overbearing policies on legal issues are actually a good thing, as long as they have enough developers (and they do): as long as you have your "gold standard" distribution where every package meets very strict rules, you can always branch out from there by adding other trusted repositories or doing what Ubuntu has done. However, if you start from a "messy" packaging system / distribution where anything goes, its much harder to select the "standardized" subset of those packages.
Finally, Debian's developer base is very large, diverse, and relatively unified in their efforts, and their organization is *very* democratic and user-driven. There is no one central authority that has total and permanent control over the distribution. While this has the possibility for failure, they've done it in a way that seems to have worked out very well. In contrast, Red Hat is a corporation that has a vested interest in getting customers to pay for support contracts, while the Red Hat based distributions are more numerous and don't have nearly as much manpower (note: purely based on speculation). I don't know how much penetration Debian has in the enterprise, but if someone stepped up to provide paid Debian support, I think they could make a lot of money...
Anyways thats just been my view. I honestly don't mean to offend anyone who really likes Red Hat -- I just feel that Debian's packaging system is much more powerful, standardized, up-to-date, and trustworthy (the key being meeting all of these points, and not sacrificing one for another -- say more up-to-date for less standardization, etc).
Please feel free to correct me -- I am interested to hear a Red Hat admin's point-of-view on the issue.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (Score:5, Insightful)
So, to answer you question (mark, really), RH has only been "relegated to near irrelevance" on the desktop, and that happened only because they didn't want it.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Get me a Redhat/Centos userland (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, you mean that they saw the desktop was a market full of people who didn't want to pay for an OS, and didn't need to pay for support contracts, and realized that if nobody was paying them it was a useless market to chase?
Holy shit, it's almost like Red Hat aren't completely inept. Who knew that a company based in the same city as MIT and Harvard might be able to find a few people who are good technologists AND some who are good at business (not to mention I've heard their legal department isn't too shabby either...)
Reply to This
Parent