Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Aug 2010 14:55 UTC, submitted by anilg
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris The Nexenta Core Platform marches on with the release of version 3.0 of the OpenSolaris based distribution, based on b134. It has also officially unveiled plans of moving from OpenSolaris to Illumos, the fully open branch of OpenSolaris. It will also now plan on moving to a new userland release. Grab the iso here.
Thread beginning with comment 437723
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: As a desktop OS
by Dubhthach on Sun 22nd Aug 2010 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: As a desktop OS"
Dubhthach
Member since:
2006-01-12

Nexenta uses OpenSolaris kernel and libc they then use GNU/debian userland (GNU coreutils and apt-get) it's kinda equivalent to way the now deceased OpenSolaris/Indiana distro included a /gnu/bin path containing GNU coreutils.

The first thing I always changed in Indiana was the default path which pointed at /gnu/bin (GNU coretutils do not support stuff like ZFS ACL's etc.)

The fact that they do use the OpenSolaris LibC cause a ruckus in the Debian community, people basically said there were breaking the GPL by distributing a system with GPL software linked off a libc that was licensed under the CDDL. (FSF thought otherwise)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: As a desktop OS
by kaiwai on Sun 22nd Aug 2010 11:49 in reply to "RE[4]: As a desktop OS"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Nexenta uses OpenSolaris kernel and libc they then use GNU/debian userland (GNU coreutils and apt-get) it's kinda equivalent to way the now deceased OpenSolaris/Indiana distro included a /gnu/bin path containing GNU coreutils.

The first thing I always changed in Indiana was the default path which pointed at /gnu/bin (GNU coretutils do not support stuff like ZFS ACL's etc.)

The fact that they do use the OpenSolaris LibC cause a ruckus in the Debian community, people basically said there were breaking the GPL by distributing a system with GPL software linked off a libc that was licensed under the CDDL. (FSF thought otherwise)


How is it breaking the GPL by linking to libc? I'd love to gear what evidence they have besides just sour grapes!

Reply Parent Score: 3