NexentaOS, Debian-based GNU/Solaris, has opened a pilot-program. "We'll open Nexenta web developer portal completely for the general public by mid-November. Today we are launching a Pilot Program. Solaris developers and the entire OpenSolaris community - you are welcome to participate in the Pilot!"
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
is months old. Please replace it with the newer one:
http://opengui.net/images/solaris_logo.gif
Sorry this is a bit off-topic.
Otherwise it sounds quite interesting. I just learnt that Nexenta is not simply Solaris with GNU userland (like debian freebsd) but Solaris with debian package management (See the comment: http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=12504&comment_id=54716 ). This is good news and the project seems to do something new.
Edited 2005-11-02 19:47
Member since:2005-07-21
Member since:2005-07-06
I like the newer logo in the case of Solaris. All the changes (font, the shining of the sun) seem to be good choices. For NetBSD and FreeBSD the older logo was far better. Especially for FreeBSD the new logo is simply unacceptable IMHO. And please don't tell me mascot/logo difference, FreeBSD has long had a logo with beastie 
Member since:2005-09-10
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
I think you mistook the post you replied to. btw, you went a little over the top in your response and it shows.
Pardon? I was responding to your musing "what is so wrong with Solaris userland?". In my mind there are many aspects of the debian userland that I prefer over solaris's and I listed a few of them.
Member since:---
>GNU/zealots used to say that "Solaris is not Free Software" and that "the CDDL is not an OSS license" for no obvious reason
WTF? I don't think anyone ever said that. The issue was incompatibility with the GPL.
Don't just make up enemies and then attack them. Why don't you make up friends instead? It's probably better for your mental health.
You can say stuff like Solaris people (my people) kick ass. They're coming over for beers tonight, and we'll have a great time.
Member since:---
You should at least try to understand why GNU/ is used. You say "nobody knows" - that's not true, it's just that you haven't bothered to read about it.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
"going to write a complete
Unix-compatible software system called GNU"
GNU is a complete operating system. If you choose to replace one specific part of it (for example, replacing the GNU Mach kernel with the FreeBSD kernel) it makes sense to refer to it as GNU/kFreeBSD, so people can easily understand it's the GNU system with the FreeBSD kernel.
Anyway, please try not to start a big discussion about something not related to the topic.
Member since:2005-09-22
Solaris is impressive, but in comparison to Debian it is very difficult to install, patch and maintain. Furthermore, their bundled OSS software is very poorly assembled. Also, the GNU utilities like tar, grep, and sed have far more features than their Sun counterparts.
Debian and Solaris are the only two operating systems I use, but I've often wished that I could have the best of both worlds. It sounds like this could be it... but they don't want to let me into their site yet 
Member since:---
From
http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2005-November/012745....
=====
If interested, please send e-mail to support at nexenta.com, and tell us a few
words about yourself. We'll respond with a user/password.
Thanks!
Nexenta Team
Member since:---
I would say you are half right.
Sun's build of GNU software on their companion CD is junk. I install software from sunfreeware or build my own packages. In my case I have a custom "support CD" I made with all of the packages we install plus a recent patch cluster, patches for our particular hardware and software. Debian Solaris might eliminate the need for me to do all of this.
Sun's new patch tools are really slick though. Old patchpro wasn't bad but their new updatemanager is gravy. My only criticism of it is that being java based it is slow.
Member since:2005-09-10
Debian package management is cool (or so I heard). Sun userland - I never used solaris, but if it's the same as with FreeBSD, than that userland is already partly gnu, isn't it? Why is the idea dumb? Is every sun tool better than the debian/gnu equivalent - tht is, if there are nongnu tools for every userland util you might nedd: what tar are they using? some sort of sun tar - like bsdtar - or gnutar? gmake or some sun version of make? which top? (aix's top sucks for instance, is sun's top better?). Etc.
So if you going to make such offhand remarks, please explain.
Member since:---
Debian package management is cool (or so I heard). Sun userland - I never used solaris, but if it's the same as with FreeBSD, than that userland is already partly gnu, isn't it? Why is the idea dumb? Is every sun tool better than the debian/gnu equivalent - tht is, if there are nongnu tools for every userland util you might nedd: what tar are they using? some sort of sun tar - like bsdtar - or gnutar? gmake or some sun version of make? which top? (aix's top sucks for instance, is sun's top better?). Etc.
Do us a favor, go grab a good UNIX manual... it will do good for your knowledge..
Member since:2005-07-06
True vim is better and sometimes its nice to have -z option for tar these are simple additions to a Solaris system if someone can't live without it. Solaris doesn't have top they use prstat which is just as good or better then top. I do not have any problems using Solaris's package management system its clean and simple. My point is that GNU userland is not significantly better then SUN's as to go through the trouble of replacing it.
Member since:---
My point is that GNU userland is not significantly better then SUN's as to go through the trouble of replacing it.
My point is that I disagree and I'm therefore excited about a blend of the best from both worlds. I want to have my prstat and /usr/bin/(gnu)tar it too :-)
It's not JUST gnu tar, of course. It's the entirety of gnu and its debianfriends, well patched and maintained, which the sun oss tools don't seem to be.
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Member since:---
> Is the Sun open source license compat with the GPL ?
No, it isn't, but that doesn't matter. OSI compliance is sufficient for Debian integration, GPL compatibility is not required. The CDDL is not GPL compatible, but OSI compliant => no problem.
> I didn't think it was, if not, how does this work?
No GPL code is combined with non-GPL code in this SUN Solaris distro. It's only aggregated, but not combined => no problem.
Member since:---
Member since:---
That's not correct: Debian uses the Debian Free Software Guidelines to determine which software licenses are acceptable for it, while the OSI uses the open source definition.
While both documents are similar in nature and contents, they are being intepreted very differently by their users: where OSI interprets the OSD very liberally, Debian takes a more conservative and pragmatic (if you are doing what Debian does) approach regarding the licenses approved for distribution.
Metaphorically speaking, the OSI sets a minimum standard, and some distributors, like Debian, can chose to raise the bar.
That's why, say, CDDL meets OSI's open source definition, but it's not clear yet (afaik, I have not really been following it all) whether source code licensed under it is in general acceptable for the Debian project.
Other software distributors, like the OpenBSD project, similarly have a stricter practice than OSI's for their approval of licenses for their purposes.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-08
This seems to be based on Ubuntu, rather than Debian. Why don't they say that they are actually based on Ubuntu, instead of (falsely) claiming based on Debian?
Here's my evidence:
$ telnet www.gnusolaris.org 80
...
GET / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Server: Apache/2.0.54 (Ubuntu) DAV/2 SVN/1.2.0 PHP/4.4.0-3gnusol1
...
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-08
> Actually, they're not claiming their servers run Debian.
No, they are, at least implicitly. From the announcement:
Nexenta OS: Debian based GNU/Solaris
...
A working prototype that runs on our 32-bit laptops and AMD64 box; the latter is used for development of the system itself, and it in turn runs our entire development environment, and hosts the *web portal*.
(Emphasis is mine.)
Member since:2005-07-12
Well indeed why state that it is based of debian. If indeed it is a sub Ubuntu/solaris project?? linux/unix??? oh thats right PC-BSD has a linux package... port that and you have a UNIX LINUX. Why not just say we will be using solaris with the debian mentality.
I am a debian user and I dont have the sterio typical Debain user mentality. Why not help the CORE PROJECT??? Open solaris would kill for some good drivers...
Member since:
---
Taken from the following thread: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=9797
Here's one of RMS's posts:
------------------------------------------
>> 1. Instead of rampantly speculating about what the FSF website means when it
>> says the CDDL and GPL are incompatible, has anybody tried asking the FSF?
We say two licenses are "incompatible" when combining code released
under those two licenses into a single program is legally impossible
because any way of licensing the combination would violate at least
one of the licenses.
>> 2. Many of us consider GPL/CDDL compatibility a prerequisite for the Open
>> Solaris project to flourish.
The current license of Solaris is a free software license, which means
it is basically ethical. But it would be a more useful contribution
to the free software commnuity if it had a GPL-compatible license, and
I wish Sun would make that change.
Consider the wonderful cross-pollination between
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, and the vast repertoire of the FSF.
*BSD and Linux don't belong in the same list, because *BSD are
operating systems. Linux, however, is just a kernel. If you're
thinking of the operating system in which Linux is used, then what
you've said is an understatement. That system is not just cooperating
with our work, it basically *is* our work. It is a variant of the GNU
system. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more
explanation.
---------------------------------------
So in other words RMS main objection is that you can't mix GPL and CDDL code in one program, aka linux kernel can't take code from the Solaris kernel and vice versa.
Member since:---
...linux kernel can't take code from the Solaris kernel and vice versa.
The linux kernel is LGPL rather than GPL. Does that make a difference?
Plus the architectural differences between the Solaris kernel and the Linux kernel may make code sharing more work than writing new code from scratch.
Member since:2005-07-08
The linux kernel is LGPL rather than GPL. Does that make a difference?
http://lxr.linux.no/source/COPYING disagrees. The Linux kernel is explicitly licensed under GPL version 2.
