Linux Apps On Solaris 356
querencia writes "Sun has announced that Solaris 10 will comply with the Linux Standard Base specification, thus allowing Linux apps to run unchanged on Solaris. This isn't emulation -- they claim that it is 'kernel-integrated and supported as an operating system feature.' While I appreciate the benefits of the Solaris OS, I've considered them on the losing end of the battle until now. Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?" Update: 08/04 15:50 GMT by J : At OSCON, Sun reaffirmed that Solaris 10 will be open-sourced. They said it would be one of the OSI licenses, not sure which yet; that this was approved at the highest levels of the company; and (with the expected "we're just guessing" language), it could happen as soon as year's end.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
-Benjamin Meyer
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's the easy choice for these developers to make. It's not the correct one though - the correct one would be to figure out your environment and build accordingly.
For example, thanks to the wonders of "./configure ; make" I now build similar software for the three Unix environments I regularly use - SPARC Solaric, x86 Debian and OS X (PPC). Never have to worry about 'personalities', it just gets compiled and run.
It certainly is about developers, but it's about those developers becoming less sloppy and making fewer assumptions about environment. In many cases the sloppiness I refer to is entirely understandable: it was a pet project, only had to run in one environment, they only had access to x86 Lionux to test under etc.. All good arguments, but they don't really apply to the kind of applications you're likely to be running on your Solaris servers. These will be mostly custom-ordered vendor jobs, and the vendors should know better.
Cheers,
Ian
(Oh, and hi Ben - fancy running into you here. I'm the person who helped you out with your old Mac format floppies).
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Much like the way Wine works (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Much like the way Wine works (Score:3, Interesting)
Score 1: informative? No you can not think of that as the way Wine works. The technical explanation was given they are complying with the LSB which is much like the POSIX. This is an inherent change to the Solaris Kernel not just an emulator or a set of libraries.
Re:Much like the way Wine works (Score:5, Informative)
A better example would be Linux emulation on FreeBSD. Solaris is doing the same thing the FreeBSD people have been doing for years.
Interesting, but what about the other way round? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There was a beta version once ! (Score:3, Interesting)
It didn't look great. It wasn't the most intuitive program. It wasn't the fastest. But it worked on all platforms, and the documents could be opened, edited, printed and saved on all platforms.
We put all our project documentation in it, due to our various OSes.
Now that Adobe no longer seems interested in supporting multiple platforms, we are migrating away.
Re:There was a beta version once ! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a pity, FrameMaker still is one of the best tools around (and the most accessible) for long-document publishing, even if Adobe has been neglecting it forever.
Could this be (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could this be (Score:2, Funny)
Just LSB or ABI/API too? (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems a bit of desperate measure. There was a time when Solaris was the leading UNIX on any platform. Now Sun seem resigned to play second fiddle..
Re:Just LSB or ABI/API too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the FreeBSD Linux support: a kernel module and an ELF loader that support all the Linux syscalls and can decide at load time which flavor of syscall to implement. The runtime linker/loader knows to go to a certain directory tree to get Linux shared libraries, and Solaris will probably work much as the sparc 32/64 bit stuff works now.
Linux APIs (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it can't hurt. Apple is also rumored to be integrating Linux API to future versions of OS X to help bring developers to the Mac side.
For the curious (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux APIs (Score:2)
My guess is that this will be very popular among those that are planning to migrate. Now they can run things in parallell before they switch the bulk of their HW/SW....
What about Fink? (Score:2)
Re:What about Fink? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just think of it as Wine for Linux apps.
Re:What about Fink? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about Fink? (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I doubt it (Score:4, Insightful)
and
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/
If you join the dots, you might see a survival strategy if the Big Bad Wolf comes a hunting.
h.
Re:I doubt it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I doubt it (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of the times, sun doesn't fix stuff so that they can maintain compatability between different versions which is one of their strong selling points. If you don't need that kind of compatability you can use the GNU version.
"Why didn't Sun fix their tar utility to add on the fly compression (-j -z anyone?)?"
I wouldn't call that a "fix" that's a feature that they chose not to implement. Why put it in when people are happy to pipe the compression tools in themselves. It gives them more flexibility to choose the versions they want and it makes it easier for tar by not having to worry about those things. Each utility serves it's purpose and you can use them together. That doesn't mean they should be integrated. So I wouldn't call it broken.
"Why didn't Sun ever develop a useful packet filtering application instead of relying on the ipfilter whose releases can often be worse than beta quality?"
What about SunScreen? In Solaris 10, they're going to have Solaris IP Filter which they claim to be enterprise class. From what I've read there is some shared code between SunScreen and ipfilter. Not sure which way it goes. I read the ipfilter guy licensed code from sun but couldn't confirm it. Also, Sun's main deployment areas are corporate data centers, telco's and isp's. These people use seperate firewalls to secure all their servers. Looks like sun has been coming around to smaller deployment users since at least Solaris 9.
"Why are there so many different bin directories that the environment never pointed to (e.g. /usr/ucb/bin)?"
Again, this is for compatability reasons. /usr/bin is the Sun versions, /usr/bin is the berkley tools, /usr/local/bin is usually where the gnu tools go. One of the best things about sun is their commitment to binary compatability. You can develop on your workstation and deploy on a e25k without making any changes. You can also deploy most applications written for prior versions on new os versions. To facilitate that and still allow people to use other tools, they set up different directories. They're not pointed to because you should only point to them if you need to.
"Sed, Awk, and Vi all had room for improvement. Why did they do nothing?"
Beats me. But you can download the gnu versions of them if you need them. Those three things have never been a bother to me in any work I've done on sun servers.
Re:I doubt it (Score:3, Interesting)
I've only used SunScreen to play with and I don't have any real opinions. I'm still of the mindset that packets should be filtered before they get to the host. Also just because it didn't come with ipfilter doesn't mean you couldn't put it on there afterwards. Remember, you always had the choice, everything doesn't have to come bundled. What's good is that now Sun is making improvements to IP Fil
Re:I doubt it (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't used any of these, but I think that you can get similar functionality for at least some of them (keep in mind I'm going off a quick Google for a description of each Solaris utility). Not familiar with how completely a replacement each is:
pmap
Linux pmap. If, for some reason, your system doesn't have it (can't imagine why; it's part of procps on Fedora Core 2), I imagine that you can get similar data from:
trapstat
oprofile
loc
So what has Solaris got? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what has Solaris got? (Score:5, Informative)
Also (Score:2)
I may be a little dense here, but what Linux binary-only packages or code that uses Linux-only system calls are available that you would want under Solaris?
Re:So what has Solaris got? (Score:2)
Re:So what has Solaris got? (Score:2)
Re:So what has Solaris got? (Score:2, Informative)
Soalris 10:
$99 (One-year subscription) - Commercial Use
FREE - NON Commercial
Soalris 9: New Sun Computer Systems. The end user is authorized to use the latest version of the Solaris Operating System (or any other version still commercially offered by Sun) with the new Sun computer system and system board purchased from Sun or an authorized reseller."
And if it's for development, or educational use it's FREE as well.
"
Re:So what has Solaris got? (Score:3, Interesting)
The only up to date versions of Linux that can touch Solaris in scalability terms are now development versions. It's up to the distros to figure out how to make it stable.
Re:So what has Solaris got? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I was asked what OS to run Oracle on in a large enterprise where rock-solid stability under load is the number one criteria, such as in a financial institution, I'd feel safer with Solaris but wouldn't see Linux as a particularly dangerous choice.
Solaris has had superior (in terms of stability) LVM and VM for instance. This stuff can be important in certain situations.
I have been very impressed thus far with Linux 2.6: it's the most stable and "polished" Linux Kernel series I've experienced. I haven't thrown it in production yet but plan to roll it out on a couple of the least business-critical machines in a few months time.
I think it's inevitable that Linux will surpass Solaris (and all other Operating Systems, for that matter) in almost every way but it's not there yet: Linux has evolved at a fast pace and often features have been merged that didn't turn out well at all, requiring band-aids, re-writes, bug fixes, etc. and causing unknown bugs, regressions and unmaintained code. This seems to have slowed down a lot though. Maybe it's just me but some of the Kernel devs seem a lot more quality-focused and critical now. Praise Andrew Morton.
If over the next year 2.6 keeps impressing me with it's stability, performance and responsiveness under load when I place it in production we could have a winner. Big time.
Cheers
Stor
I can't wait... (Score:4, Funny)
I can't wait for RMS to start demanding people call it GNU/Solaris.
Not quite, oh intelligent one. (Score:2)
2) You might need to provide linux type headers (dev_t, time_t, etc.)
3)
4) ld-linux
etc. No, it's not nearly as simple
Re:I can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)
RMS died of a massive heart attack when he discovered that GNU had been certified Unix... He kept mumbling, "How can 'GNU's not Unix' be 'Unix'," while drool ran down his chin.
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've used both Linux and Solaris for development for years. Was a sysadmin for both types of systems as well. And my dream operating system is something along the lines of GNU/Solaris.
Meaning it the same way that wackjob RMS means it: the GNU userspace utilities, with the Solaris kernel. I /really/ like some of the things that Solaris offers, but I vastly prefer the GNU command-line utils. Putting them together would make a nice, nice system.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
Cheap way to develop for both? (Score:5, Insightful)
This would, IMO, backfire since a potential customer would see Linux as the more influential and therefore desirable IT tool.
This is the issue they're already facing (Score:3, Insightful)
Go to www.oracle.com and click on "technologies". What do you see? You see Linux (and, to be fair, Windows). What don't you see? You don't see Solaris. Hmmm....
Note this is only for Solaris x86 (Score:5, Informative)
This seems to me to be a little desperate. Sun seems to be saying that Linux has won, at least in terms of software support.
Re:Note this is only for Solaris x86 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Note this is only for Solaris x86 (Score:2)
Re:Note this is only for Solaris x86 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Note this is only for Solaris x86 (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point is taken, but with the release of full 64-bit Solaris 10 for X86-64 and Sun's new 2-way AMD Opteron workstations, 2 and 4-way Opteron servers, and soon to be released 8-way Opteron servers, Sun is betting the farm on X86-64. The plain and simple truth of the matter is that Opteron offers two to three times the performance of current UltraSparc chips, and I predict that Sun will replace their entire product line, except for the extreme high-end, with Opteron, in the next 5 years.
The other thing you should consider is that more Sysadmins know Solaris than any other flavor of Unix, so giving them the capability of running 64-bit Solaris with 32 or 64-bit Linux applications side-by-side is clearly a winning move on Sun's part. Now, if only they can execute properly. Some of the benchmarks on the new Java Workstations (I don't know why they call them that when they're really just AMD Opteron workstations) have them running the BLAST benchmark on Solaris 10 x86 up to 61 percent faster than a Dell Precision Workstation running Linux. [sun.com]
Given the choice between a 32-bit Dell Xeon workstation with no console port, running Redhat, and a real 64-bit Sun workstation with a console port and everything, running Solaris 10, with full Linux compatibility (or dual-booting to Redhat if I so desire), at a lower price, guess which one I'm going to choose?
The more *nix Software the better (Score:5, Interesting)
Open Source Software isn't just Linux and the GNU userland software. It covers a wide range of different software including software that runs on Linux. In the whole sea of OSS, Linux is just a one small part. This is good for OSS projects because they now have the potential for being run on a wider range of platforms without porting issues.
Solaris has always been a good operating system. You can tell the kernel devs know this as well because searching the mailing list you'll see that solaris is referenced more than any other commercial unix. There are comparisons of how the current kernel compares to the solaris kernel as well as trying to figure out how solaris does things.
Solaris 10 is going to have a lot of improvements to it as well. There are a lot of sun hardware out there and still a lot of sun hardware being sold so it helps OSS projects reach further with less work.
For the people that see open source software as only being about Linux, I don't think they'll respond as favorably.
Short Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
The long answer, Linux adaptation is slow because the FUD says that Linux is too hard, so IT managers avoid it. Linux is only now gaining ground as linux devotees have waged a constant war against that FUD. The FUD sources also say that Sun is too expensive and only caters to those who can afford their proprietary hardware. Sun has not yet begun to fight the PR campaign which it will take to overcome that. My thought is that by the time Sun gains that acceptance Linux will have near equal penetration into the corporate environment as MS.
Community Software (blastwave.org) (Score:5, Informative)
What is blastwave.org?
blastwave.org is a collective effort to create a set of binary packages of free software, that can be automatically installed to a Solaris computer (sparc or x86 based) over the network.
We (CSW) don't provide "Linux apps", but we natively compile and package software for Solaris.
Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?
The power of free software compiled natively for my SPARC has returned Solaris to being my primary desktop. (Now if only I could afford a Blade 2500....)
Errr... (Score:3, Insightful)
News of the Weird (Score:2, Interesting)
I find myself wondering what Sun's strategy is. I mean, they go to battle with MS, enter a closed room, and come out best buds. Then they rail against FOSS in favor of open standards and threaten to do a hostile takeover on a leading Linux company. So then you think they've gotten a big check and become a patsy, right?
And throughout this blustering, they put forward the idea that through buying Novell they can somehow "own" the OS IBM is married to, which is kind of missing the point of Linux, but righ
Re:News of the Weird (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:News of the Weird (Score:3, Informative)
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Application/OS Security? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their webpage says:
"You can safely run Solaris and Linux applications side by side in the same container, or you can configure separate containers that isolate Solaris and Linux applications from each other and from system faults. If an application fault occurs and the application needs to be restarted, other applications continue to run without interruption. ".
Okay, let's look at this. You can now run Solaris and Linux-applications side by side - This would mean a security breach in their previous views then? Or, you can choose to lock the Linux-applications away in their own container - This seem much more in line with previous statements from Sun.
"Unlike technology previously available for running Linux in other non-Linux environments, Project Janus functionality is kernel-integrated and supported as an operating system feature."
So, this LSB-compliance are kernel-integrated, and yet they claim Solaris is more secure than Linux? Can someone please help me out on this? I'll try to investigate myself, but I am not sure what I will find, as Solaris for now, still are, closed source.
Re:Application/OS Security? (Score:2)
There's a reason why they're going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, and it's doublespeak. Marketing blathers on about what they think you want to hear now. Remembering what they said yesterday is a pointless exercise, they were lying then just as much as they're lying now.
I may be a bit bitter, I'm just about to present my company's product in a marketing event where one of the other vendors is going to tell people th
Which apps, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which apps would those be, exactly? Just about everything significant that's available for Linux is available as source, and most of those build with autoconf and GNU tools for portability, so installation on Solaris is just a 'configure; make; make install' away.
There are a handful of proprietary applications for Linux that might be relevant, but I'd guess most of these are back-office type things that probably already have Solaris versions. That just leaves things like the Flash plugin, and I simply can't see that sort of thing as being very important.
Re:Which apps, exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just browse through the patches in a BSD ports collection sometime if you want to see what I mean.
Re:Which apps, exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
The ultimage gnutastic gnuventure: compiling GNUCash under Solaris. Not only is GNUCash a GNOME app, it's a GNOME 1.4 app, and libtool just barfs all over the place with doubly-listed libraries and unfound libraries. Bleh. There's a reason why pre-compiled GNUCash versions for Solaris seem to be stuck at 1.6. I did finally manage to get version 1.6.x compiled, but even then the graphing features segfaulted.
Re:Which apps, exactly? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think maybe linux has a more up-to-date Acrobat reader than Solaris, so I might use it for that. Nothing else springs to mind though.
BTW,there's already a port of the flash plugin for Sol x86, and it works just fine.
Re:Which apps, exactly? (Score:2)
A lot of Linux apps aren't portable to proprietary or non GNU Unix - they depend on glibc, for example. You could change that, but this takes away the need for that effort.
Another thing (Score:2)
(PS. I'm not arguing with you. I liked your post.)
OS/2 and Unixware anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want your applications to run anywhere, use something truly portable. Java? PHP? Perl? ANSI C? Yes...
Darl Will Sue (Score:5, Funny)
A slower death? (Score:2, Insightful)
All Propriety Solutions Welcome? (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
What does Slashdot have with this fallacy about something saving Sun? Sun's hardware is expensive - why should I buy another piece of proprietary hardware? Sun's OS isn't GPL'd (insert your favorite license) - why should I buy yet another piece of proprietary Software? Some say Sun has Java - yet another piece of proprietary software. No Sun has to compete in the open market - sink or swim.
Why do this? (Score:2)
Re:Why do this? (Score:2)
There's no room for yet another distro - customers don't want it and ISVs don't want to certify against anything beyond Red Hat and Suse.
When Sun launched their Intel based server, the LX50, it came with 'Sun Linux', which was basically Red Hat 7.3. The plan was to make it a bonafide distribution, supported, developed, etc.
Customers weren't interested. They either had a distro they were used to and preferred, or they had apps that needed to run on a cer
Why would it? (Score:2)
nope... (Score:2)
err No? (Score:2)
I venture to say...hello no. This move stinks of SCO as well. Maybe Sun will try to position itself as the only 'Legal' Linux compatable OS.
useless (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, Sun is not talking about free software here ... it's easy enough to get any of that running on solaris.
They're talking about the software - proprietary - from vendors of theirs that are switching to linux because it's a cheaper (and better) platform for most apps. So, I really must ask, what is the point?
Solaris will - for the forseeable future - still be king on the mid to high end server end. They're talking here about workstation apps in the scientific and engineering realms which are moving wholesale to linux. So in essence Sun is saying here "you can run your linux apps on your legacy Sun workstations", and not much else. It's a nice gesture, but it is no earth shaker.
Re:useless (Score:2)
No.
"Legacy Sun workstations" all use SPARC-based processors. This announcement is solely about compatibility for x86 Linux apps on Solaris x86. Sun just announced their first x86-based workstations (I'm not counting the ancient 386-based one from the '80s), which run Solaris x86, Linux and Windows. All Sun is trying to do is to make life easier on their customers who want to run Solaris x86.
Re:useless (Score:3, Insightful)
As for Solaris/x86, I'm sorry, but the facts just don't back you up. When Sun most recently tried to kill Solaris/x86, it was the user community who compalined to Sun to get it back. See the thread here [save-solaris.org] for more info. Further, if you look at Blastwave [blastwave.org]'s main mirror stats, you'll see that the x86 packages are down
This may be a new SUNrise.... or maybe not (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially Solaris 10 is going to be a huge change. SUN states they are aiming to be the best UNIX solution out there. With the amount of money they are spending/investing in developing Solaris 10 I believe they are making a very good attempt.
1. Linux apps will run on Solaris 10 on Intel/Sparc. Someone said this is just for X86.
2. DTrace a developer's sweetheart.
3. A new filesystem that will be much better than UFS
4. N1 Grid Containers. Making that purchase of the big iron more attractive. Equivalent to LPAR on mainframe.
5. Even better Multi-Processor efficiency. Linux is making good ground here but Solaris still is years ahead on many cpu's.
6. Of course, more efficient OS, better tcp/ip stack, security, etc. etc. The things you expect to improve with a new OS.
In my opinion, Solaris 10 if it meets what they
are marketing will prove itself. If not, watch
the SUN set.....
Multiprocessor efficiency (Score:3, Informative)
In the x86 world things are quite different. Having been a desktop-oriented architecture for a long time, the main x86 chips (Opteron/Pentium IV) are pretty much the best these days at executing single-threaded st
Conspiracy Theorist (Score:2, Interesting)
First the SCO/Microsoft connections, then the Microsoft/Sun settlement... Now this? It seems odd to me that they are running in this direction in light of all of the Linux hoopla that's going around. Just look at "City of Munich Freezes Its Linux Migration" posted a little bit ago here. It almost seems like they are trying to put themselves into the position of snatching up those who are wavering on the Linux/licensing front.
Great! I like it. (Score:2)
OS Diversity (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun has lost ground because their OS/Hardware solution is comparatively expensive; not necessarily because Solaris is not a capable OS.
It just amuses me that Windows homogeneity is bad; but Linux everywhere is good.
The "GNU" part of GNU/Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The "GNU" part of GNU/Linux (Score:3)
So is it GNU/KDE now? Since when did the GNU foundation claim ownership of KDE? If Stallman wants to call it GNU linux fine, but really shouldn't it be "KDE/GNOME/GNU/X.org/And a whole shitload of university students & profs/Many other bright people/Nasa ethernet drivers/NSA Security Enhancements/Linux"?
WHAT Linux apps? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Already available for Solaris
2) Open-source and thus available for immediate porting
Come on. Think of the commercial closed-source stuff that's available for Linux, but not Solaris.
1) VMWare.
2) Uhh... VMWare.
3) Umm
4) Ohyeah. VMWare Server.
Oh, and *laugh*Accelerated-X*laugh*. Seriously. Who the heck uses that?
Oh, and maybe some random assorted browser plug-ins. Anything else? Anybody? Hello?
Seriously, why is this even worth Sun's time?! If I were a Sun shareholder (which I would never do, now that they have a "technology sharing" agreement with MS and are all buddy-buddy after accepting a settlement bribe from MS... well, I'd be frothing at the mouth even more than I am now.
just a few days ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, this is a true Unix getting certified as a Linux!
We are actually winning. Amazing.
Re:you mean like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:you mean like... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the .plan of the ID software CEO [shacknews.com] there will be a Linux version soon:
Mac and Linux: Unfortunately I don't have dates for either of these. However, Linux binaries will be available very soon after the PC game hits store shelves. There are no plans for boxed Linux games. More remains to be done for the OSX version of DOOM 3 and that will take some time. We won't release the OSX version until it's just as polished as the PC version. The date for OSX DOOM 3 remains "when it's done", but I can confirm that it's definitely coming.
Re:you mean like... (Score:2)
Dunno, but I hear Far Cry works fine.
And Wine does more than games. BTW - Office XP, Flash / Dreamwaver MX, iTunes, etc.
By the way... (Score:2)
Yeah, and how many people are switching to linux because they can run iTunes and Microsoft office in linux now?
Re:you mean like... (Score:2)
*Does 5 minutes of research*
Fine. You'll need this patch [linux-gamers.net] for Winex though.
Re:you mean like... (Score:2)
Re:you mean like... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh Why?
MFC is dead. It hasn't been updated since version 4.2 and even MS don't use it any more. It was a hideous abortion to start with anyway.
Porting a project that's written properly is trivial - I write multiplatform stuff all the time . If your code is correctly written then it'll run anywhere
Not quite like....? (Score:2)
From the Slashdot summary:
This isn't emulation -- they claim that it is 'kernel-integrated and supported as an operating system feature'.
Re:you mean like... (Score:2)
By following a speification apparently.
Re:IOW... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:IOW... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IOW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as a simple, grade A, introductory issue: How does a Linux application issue a system call? Using int80. How does a Solaris application issue a system call? Using syscall, sysenter, or lcall depending on the application and the version of the OS.
The two OSes don't even agree on the basic mechanism by which applications can communicate with the kernel. And you think it's just a matter of putting glibc on the CD. Put down the keyboard and go back to CS101 until you learn something.
Re:IOW... (Score:3, Informative)
Mmmm.. but the vast majority of syscalls made on a Linux system are made by glibc. They'd have to tweak the syscall interface in glibc for Solaris, but an adapted glibc would still be one of the defining features for Linux API compatibility.
Re:IOW... (Score:2)
Then why can't you just copy the glibc libraries into \winnt\system32?
</not-serious>
Re:Apache (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apache (Score:2, Informative)
If you can't run:
rpm -Uvh php-4.3.8-2.1.i386.rpm then it's hard?
and
rpm -Uvh apache2-2.0.47-1.7.2.i386.rpm
then it's HARD???
Try this:
1) Visit Apache's Web Site
2) Download httpd-2.0.50.tar.gz
3) Build Apache:
1. gzip -d httpd-2_0_NN.tar.gz
2. tar xvf httpd-2_0_NN.tar
3. gunzip php-NN.tar.gz
4. tar -xvf php-NN.tar
5. cd httpd-2_0_NN
6.
7. make
8. make install
4) Visit the PHP Web Site
5) Download php-4.3.8.tar.gz
1. gtar zxvf php-4.3.8.tar.
Re:SCO, Phase II (Score:4, Informative)
There are cases where people need Sun, and Sun apps. Lots of Geophysical apps run only on Solaris/Sparc right now. However, people might also want Linux apps, so making them available on the already mandatory Sun gear will keep some people gruntled.
Ultimately, you're right--if Linux compatibility is wanted, Linux is generally going to be the best solution in a vacuum. However if Linux compatibility is wanted on top of other requirements, then a compromise like this is better than having two machines on your desk.