Debian GNU/Solaris 213
An anonymous reader writes "Today "Nexenta" announced an initial pilot program of GNU/Solaris. Initial trials are limited to "Ubuntu developers and the entire Debian community". From the announcement: "As you might know, Sun Microsystems just opened Solaris kernel under CDDL license, which allows one to build custom Operating Systems. Which we did...created a new Debian based GNU/Solaris distribution with (the latest bits of) Solaris kernel & core userland inside. We'll open Nexenta web developer portal completely for the general public by mid-November. Today we are launching a Pilot Program. Ubuntu developers and the entire Debian community - you are welcome to participate in the Pilot!"
GNU/Solaris? (Score:2)
GNU/SunOS, surely?
Re:GNU/Solaris? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GNU/Solaris? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GNU/Solaris? (Score:2)
this information exists in several Tru64 documents. since many multi-plataform apps/scripts rely on the information from uname -a to identify the OS and adjust itself, changing the internal name would break compatibility with several important 3rd party stuff, which means users would have to spend lots of $$$ t
Re:GNU/Solaris? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GNU/Solaris? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the naming story is more complicated than that.
The SunOS 4.x series was just "SunOS", and it was more BSD-based.
The SunOS 5.x series has always also been called Solaris. In the SunOS 5.x series, SunOS is the name of either just the kernel, or the kernel plus the very basics of the operating system, depending on who you listen to, whereas the Solaris brand name refers to the entire "Operating Environment", including SunOS 5.x and a lot of other add-ons like NIS+, LDAP services, CDE, etc, etc. I don't think they have ever sold a stripped down SunOS 5.x, only a Solaris Operating Environment 2.x which happens to contain SunOS 5.x.
And then with the release of Solaris 2.7 (SunOS 5.7) they began marketing it as "Solaris 7", presumably for some dumb marketing reason. Since then that's been the case, so for any given release from 2.7 onwards, the possible alternate namings are:
Solaris 2.X = SunOS 5.X = "Solaris X"
2.7 of course turned out to be an absymal failure of an operating environment, so it's quite fitting that it was the launching point of a marketing-driven renaming policy. Whereas 2.6 was a solid stable platform for many years, building on the successes of 2.4 and 2.5.1, the 2.7 release is where they introduced transitional 64-bit support, and poorly. It wasn't until 2.8 that things settled down again. Many customers unfortunately still have "Solaris 7" installed here and there in production, and it's a nightmare to support. What we can learn from this is never buy/install the first release of an OS right after a major overhaul of its guts to support a new architecture.
Re:GNU/Solaris? (Score:2)
Trying 10.xxx.xxx.15...
Connected to sun-01.xxx.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
SunOS 5.9
login:
Re:GNU/Solaris? (Score:2)
So, in the long run, while I think a good number of developers will help out, I'm pretty sure Debian/Open S
We're speaking about kernels... (Score:3, Insightful)
In facts : Linux distributions. Which are nothing more than a small Linux Kernel, plus a bunch of GNU userland (gcc, bash...), some BSD (some part of the network apps, don't remember exactly) userland, some other useful userland apps (Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice.org).
Basically GNU/Solaris, is just the same, with only the tiny kernel part replaced with another kernel (OpenSolaris instead of Linux).
No way. Because what the
Re:GNU/Solaris? (Score:2)
Not the least cause it wasnt my favourite distro first.
Mostly because this explains why after the main talent behind the project provided explanations of how Debian reacted when they were called to comment about this earlier, ( the response was a poliite form of "fuck you and your CCDL licence you non GNU shitheads" ) they have dont a backflip and now they ARE doing it... well i still h
GNU/OpenSolaris (Score:3, Interesting)
--AC
Re:GNU/OpenSolaris (Score:2)
Where are the differences? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can someone give me a hint why I should consider looking at it or switching my router/server/notebook to it?
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:5, Informative)
Uhh, linux is a kernel, and nothing more.
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
That's a strange definition of "mostly" you have there. Admittedly, it's some important components, but "partly" would be far more accurate.
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a strange definition of "mostly" you have there. Admittedly, it's some important components, but "partly" would be far more accurate.
I think an even more accurate way to say it would be: What is popularly called Linux includes a userland almost entirely composed of software that is from GNU or depends on software from GNU.
You might even be able to remove the "almost".
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
What could be different? Well it's not the underlying OS (Debian distribution) since it has that in common. It's not the GNU userland utils. Hmmm...
In all seriousness, this is actually a fair question. I mean, the switch to a different kernel must have some other implications on the distro side? Can everything else really remain the same? Init scripts, supported programs (such as ones that make use of Linux specific API's and/or syscalls).
Basically what advan
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
Sure thre is Debian GNU/NetBSD just go here [debian.org].
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:3, Interesting)
According to W. Richard Stevens in Unix Network Programming: "The kernel is the operating system".
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:5, Informative)
Apt and Solaris should be pretty cool, though Solaris has had BlastWave for a while, which works pretty similar to apt.
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:5, Informative)
I've done some Solaris administration, but I have never been even remotely expert. I did get an idea of just how much I don't know, however.
In many ways, Solaris makes Linux and the BSDs look like tinkertoys. There is a vast array of functionality inside. Solaris feels like it was designed 'down', by people who are used to working with mainframes; Linux and the BSDs are more designed 'up' by people inventing (and often re-inventing) things for the first time.
There's a fundamental expectation in Solaris that the server will stay up under virtually all circumstances. If the hardware you're running it on is expensive enough, it's apparently pretty easy to hotswap almost anything... even RAM and CPUs. I believe it supports multiple running instances of Solaris on the same hardware at the same time, even different versions. And I'm fairly sure that a recent feature will let you upgrade OSes 'on the fly', though I think there would have to be at least a brief interruption of service. Pay attention to replies, if any. My knowledge in this area is very sketchy.
It's highly optimized to scale to amazing degrees, given more CPUs to work with. But that means it's not very well optimized to work with only one, which was why it was called 'Slowlaris' in the early days of Linux. Running multiprocessor requires a lot of locking to make sure that different CPUs don't step on each others' toes. This locking takes time. So the first versions of Solaris/Intel were dogmeat slow in comparison to Linux. There was no chance of a conflict, because multi-CPU Intel boxes almost didn't exist, but Sun was and is more interested in having it run WELL than run FAST. Removing all that locking would have introduced bugs. So they left it slow. And most folks went with SPARC boxen or Linux instead, for better performance.
At the time, Linux screamed on the same hardware, because it didn't worry about any of that. Up through 2.2, Linux had just a Big Kernel Lock... only one CPU could be in kernel space at any given time, and the rest of the CPUs either ran user code or sat around idle. Most user code makes fairly frequent kernel calls, so the extra CPUs blocked a lot. Running on one CPU was very fast, but there wasn't much benefit to adding more. A second was a moderate plus, adding maybe 50% overall throughput. Adding further CPUs did very little for most workloads.
Solaris does exactly the opposite. It's slow on one CPU, though 'slow' is pretty relative on a multi-gigahertz processor, but as you add more, it scales almost linearly. 64-way Solaris boxes run very nicely. And they do it without crashing, too. That's an area where Linux, for instance, has had a huge amount of trouble... as they add in new locks and try to rearchitect to let more and more CPUs into kernel code at once, they introduce bugs, often at a furious rate. You don't see much of that in released versions of Solaris. A lot of what you're paying for with the expensive Sun equipment is their QA department, which must be just incredibly good. (if any of you are reading this, thanks!)
Basically, this is enterprise-grade software. It's designed to run things like banks and air traffic control and medical equipment...stuff that just can't ever break or go down. It's not actually USED for air traffic control, as far as I know, but I'm sure Sun would be happy to sell systems into that market. If your hardware is good, Solaris can take an unbelievable beating... you can have loads in the thousands and still be able to connect to the box with SSH (eventually) and rescue it. It'll be slow, but you'll get in. Linux, in contrast, will often still die from dumb stuff like fork bombs. Yes, ulimits can prevent that problem, but Solaris will survive without the extra help.
Basically, Solaris is the kind of OS that you can bet your job on, and remain employed. Linux remai
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:4, Informative)
There is no provision for running multiple kernels on the same hardware, aside from 'domaining', which is more like IBM's LPARing (prior to P5 and 5.3, that is - splitting a single server into two or more hardware partitions). But, when you do this, each partition really is its own machine, with distinct and non-shared CPUs, memory, and IO buses. You can move hardware from one domain to another (even without shutting down applications), but a given kernel is only ever running on one machine at a time.
More recently, is the concept of 'Zones'. Here, you can install seperate copies of userland onto the same box, and when you are 'inside' of any one zone, you appear to have your very own box, complete with your own
Actually, I believe 'Slowaris' was coined in 93 or 94 or so, when admins started switching from SunOS 4.1.3/4.1.4 to Solaris on SMP boxes, and ran into bug where no matter how many CPUs, every thread was being scheduled on the same CPU. I forget what version this was - maybe 2.3? I remember logging onto my University's student shell machine (back then, SLIP and PPP were still not being used by home users - you'd dial up to terminal into a UNIX machine to check email, usenet, or IRC). Anyway, I remember logging in and seeing a load in the thousands, just after the upgrade.
You can "upgrade on the fly", in a way. The concept is you mirror your root disk, split the mirror, perform the upgrade against the inactive mirror, and finally reboot, this time off the upgraded side. It more or less works, but you do need to use your brain. Really what it gets you is the ability to immediately revert back to the pre-upgrade image with just a single reboot, and also shortens the outage window to one reboot. They've had this since Solaris 8, I believe, and you could use it to upgrade from say 2.6 to 8.
Over time, 'Slowaris' did come to refer to the performance disparity between Linux and Solaris on x86. Until Solaris 10, Linux pretty clearly outperformed Solaris on like-hardware (x86). I think in part, as you say, due to Sun's lack of effort in optimizing for x86 and small servers, but also because x86-based benchmarks tended to focus on things like web-serving, and Sun's networking stack was long overdue for an overhaul (the first phase of which was completed for Solaris 10, and returned enormous improvements).
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
and i did the entire process over ssh (the packagers take great care to make sure that existing ssh sessions are not terminated by the upgrade process).
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
Sure, as long as you don't update the kernel. However, what we're talking about here is the "Live Upgrade" feature of Solaris. It's only available for Sun's higher-end hardware (it depends on features of said hardware) but it allows *entire OS upgrades* with no service interruptions, in fact *no reboot*. This is vastly different from the fact that Debian (or any other Linux distribution or *BSD) lets you upgrade userland server daemons with
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
I don't know whether they still do, but Raytheon was using Solaris in their air traffic control systems in the '90s.
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
Anyway, thanks for the helpful answers. I just wanted to ask what the differences between the linux kernel and the solaris kernel are...
Re:Where are the differences? (Score:2)
eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Much thanks.
Re:eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypothetically, lets say SCO have an actual case (I know, but hypothetically!).
Isn't it better that if, for some reason the Linux kernel is no longer an option due to patents etc, there is another GNU system ready to switch to?
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it the other way: You want Debian GNU, but may need Solaris' kernel. That's when Debian GNU/Solaris is a good idea.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Not that I know of, but with Blastwave:
apt-get update --> pkg-get -U
apt-get upgrade --> pkg-get -u
apt-get install foo --> pkg-get -i foo
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Really, what I want is Debian userland, with Solaris's volume manager and kernel (and libc and so forth), running on the various Sun hardware that I've acquired over the years. That would be totally awesome.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've worked with most Unix systems and was always impressed with Solaris kernel's stability, and now it has excellent performance. My standard build on 2.6 and 7 was to install gnu userland, and v8 on included them on the install disks. But it was always a chore to strip a system
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
- The universe of utilities and software that make life fun and easy. GNU-licensed software certainly plays a huge part here, providing building-blocks that we take for granted today -- 'ps', for example. Have you ever tried using 'ps' on a Solaris box? I
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I have, and ps supports [sun.com] -ef just fine.
Check your path. Solaris also has BSD tools for people who prefer a different version of ps [sun.com].
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Linux is just a kernel, nothing more. So for all practical purposes most of the fanboys out there using 'linux' and loving 'linux' are probably ending up loving the latest version of KDE, or gnome or the nifty new GNU tools and not linux. Full power of linux ? So if you consider all the gui stuff and nifty userland tools that you are using, you are hardly getting the 'full power of linux'
2. Getting a different base kernel over the rocking GNU tools and environments for
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Long standing but seldomly seen bugs (hard to solve what you cannot repeat) can become repeatable and very visible in different combinations of software or hardware.
Different CPUs or architecture, different compilers and different kernels will all tickle and expose userland bugs.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Hmm. I could say the contrary and not be wrong either: Anyone who thinks that all linux users are fan boys and that Solaris is the "one true way" have never touched a box with a linux kernel.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Now *that* is what volume management is all about. I agree, SVM is a piece of junk, but that's why we have VxVM
Now, I have to take issue with what you're saying about Sun hardware -- it's a lot EASIER to maintain than any generic x86 box I've ever seen.
You don't understand just how cool it is until you start dynamically replacing system boards -- and you can do that in any server from the 2900 on up
It's all about availability -- and
Before you comment ... (Score:5, Informative)
Before people comment on why Debian is doing this i suggest reading Debains core statement of what they are all about http://www.debian.org/intro/about [debian.org]
Esspecially this bit:
Debian systems currently use the Linux kernel. Linux is a piece of software started by Linus Torvalds and supported by thousands of programmers worldwide.
However, work is in progress to provide Debian for other kernels, primarily for the Hurd. The Hurd is a collection of servers that run on top of a microkernel (such as Mach) to implement different features. The Hurd is free software produced by the GNU project.
Re:Before you comment ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux has a huge independent development community and more huge companies than it is easy to count behind it, and nobody can keep up with the pace of development. The GPL is a very important factor. It's the only partnership that would keep it fair for the big guys and the little ones at the same time. What technical lead Solaris has is rapidly diminishing because they can not - and never will - keep up the development team that Linux and the GPL have spawned.
And then there's the deliberately-incompatible licensing, Sun's lack of success at building Open Source communities (OpenOffice should have a community 100 times the size of the one it's got - IMO it's second in importance to the Linux kernel), and Jonathan's tendency to turn any gains that Sun makes in the Open Source community into defeat with his own words. All of these things hold them back.
Solaris has a few features at which the Linux folks look hungrily, and you know what happens when those folks like features. Linux gets them. These are the folks who replaced Bitkeeper in a month.
It would be fun to have a system that booted the same binaries into Linux, BSD, Solaris, and HURD. If someone makes that, it'll be an awesome hack. But at the same time it would demonstrate the futility of having all of those kernels do the same thing technically, while one of them does the community part much better than the others.
Bruce
Re:Before you comment ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Solaris is still very, very big in the commercial world. This is a sign things are probably going to change in the 'Open Source world' too.
Linux has a huge independent development community and more huge companies than it is easy to count behind it, and nobody can keep up with the pace of development. The GPL is a very important factor. It's the only partnership that would keep it fair for the big guys and the little ones at the same time. What technical lead Solaris has is rapidly diminishing because they can not - and never will - keep up the development team that Linux and the GPL have spawned.
You are confusing the kernel with the software that is available for it. Most of the development into 'Linux' isn't into the kernel, but the software that goes with it. The technical lead that Solaris has is harder for Linux to chase than the lead in x86 drivers that Linux has. It works both ways. A main advantage about the Solaris kernel is that it is very very stable with excellent backwards-compatibility. Looking at the poor quality of 2.6 due to the lack of a 2.7 testing kernel, Linux will not be catching up with this any time soon.
And then there's the deliberately-incompatible licensing, Sun's lack of success at building Open Source communities (OpenOffice should have a community 100 times the size of the one it's got - IMO it's second in importance to the Linux kernel), and Jonathan's tendency to turn any gains that Sun makes in the Open Source community into defeat with his own words. All of these things hold them back.
GPL code can't be integrated into BSD code either. What's your point? CDDL is a certified open-source licence. Quite frankly I don't think I would want the Linux and Solaris kernels to converge into one great big monolith.
Solaris has a few features at which the Linux folks look hungrily, and you know what happens when those folks like features. Linux gets them. These are the folks who replaced Bitkeeper in a month.
Not until they fix the developement model of the 2.6 kernel so that it becomes a lot more stable. The number of bugs in the 2.6 kernel is appalling. This isn't just about features, it's about rock-solid stability.
It would be fun to have a system that booted the same binaries into Linux, BSD, Solaris, and HURD. If someone makes that, it'll be an awesome hack. But at the same time it would demonstrate the futility of having all of those kernels do the same thing technically, while one of them does the community part much better than the others.
Some sort of unified binary format or flawless interoperability would be awesome.
Re:Before you comment ... (Score:2)
Not at all. I was the second Debian project leader and understand all too well the totality of a distribution and what is in and out of the kernel. I remain very impressed with the Linux kernel team. More innovative work goes on there than in any user-mode project I know of.
The technical lead that Solaris has is harder for Linux to chase than the lead in x86 drivers that Linux has.
The technical lead of the entirely portable portion o
Re:Before you comment ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I also don't see Solaris' lead diminishing, let alone rapidly. If anything, it appears to me that Sun further widened the gap with Solaris 10. Sun is regularly releasing very advanced and impor
Re:Before you comment ... (Score:2)
Oddly enough, Bruce, the BSD and Apache communities are full of "little guy" developers who do not feel they are being treated unfairly.
Re:Before you comment ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before you comment ... (Score:2)
Re:Before you comment ... (Score:2, Informative)
Ob. (Score:2)
They're still having some problems before releasing it to the public, like the Phantom port.
Sun Ray Client (Score:2, Interesting)
This is useful! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is useful! (Score:2, Interesting)
Like FreeBSD is doing with DTrace [slashdot.org].
Sweet! (Score:4, Funny)
Actually (Score:2)
About Time (Score:2, Insightful)
While I'm mostly happy with Solaris 10 running on my Sparc system, I must confess that the Solaris userland could certainly use a little TLC before its my "primary" desktop (which Id like it to be).
With any luck, the combo of a solaris kernel/core and a debian/ubuntu userland will provide some much needed juice to the solaris userland. Even if this does nothing more than get some more userland/"desktop" developers working on solaris, I cant see how this is anything but great news.
well it's not the first non linux debian .... (Score:2, Informative)
Does this mean that GNU is Unix? (Score:5, Funny)
The new name is... (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting for kernel performance comparisons. (Score:5, Interesting)
If they can keep virtually everything outside the kernel consistent with Debian, and replace only the kernel and drivers with Solaris versions, this would prove to be an interesting system for benchmarking and contrasting the two kernels.
As it is right now, you can benchmark entire systems, but it is difficult to do any meaningful kernel benchmarks.
If there is a significant difference in any particular area in either direction, I can forsee future server administrators choosing their kernel based on how well it performs in certain tasks. Perhaps the Linux kernels memory management is better, but the Solaris kernel's SMP scales better. Now you don't have to worry about changing your user or administrative environment, package management tools, or applications -- you can run the same on both, and just change the kernel architecture underneath in order to gain a benefit in an area important to you.
Heck, I can forsee a day when what kernel you want to use is queried as part of the install process, and where you might have a mix of machines that all appear to be running Debian, but which may be using different kernels based on the needs of the system.
We have competing web browsers that (generally) conform to the same interface standards (in terms of HTML rendering) -- why not have a choice in kernels, without having to sacrifice your user and administrative environment (or Open Source ideals)?
Yaz.
virtualisation (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you'll actually run several kernels, managing different tasks - virtualisation can do this. Are we going to see an explosion of different kernels (similar to distributions now), as it becomes easier to try different ones out?
Re:Interesting for kernel performance comparisons. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why GNU/Solaris? (Score:3, Interesting)
So if it is a Solaris kernel replacing the Linux kernel and a Solaris userland replacing the GNU userland what is the justification for calling it GNU/Solaris again?
Re:Why GNU/Solaris? (Score:2)
-Mark
Re:Why GNU/Solaris? (Score:2)
So if it is a Solaris kernel replacing the Linux kernel and a Solaris userland replacing the GNU userland what is the justification for calling it GNU/Solaris again?
I think because it says "core userland" that only the necessary or most reasonable components will be kept at that level. The rest of the entire operating system would be GNU, which would merit calling it GNU/Solaris. Even though it makes sense just to call it GNU, for some reason the kernel matters a lot to people, so I guess we might as w
Debian OpenBSD (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the things that plagues me about OpenBSD is that the base system is one large package, making it difficult to, say, only upgrade the kernel or sendmail if a security flaw is fixed in one of them. Another thing that has bugged me is that upgrading to a new release is difficult and error-prone, to the p
What libc does it use? (Score:2)
I once fancied I tried to set up a completely Free userland on Solaris, starting with glibc, but discovered that glibc wouldn't build on Solaris and efforts to make it build anywhere but Linux and HURD had pretty much stopped.
If this means they have built a complete Debian userland including glibc on Open Solaris then it is a spectacular accomplishment! If they had to continue to use pieces of Solaris userland like the Solaris libc it is still an impressive accomplishment but not quite the same as just b
Debian: The Universal Operating System (Score:5, Interesting)
To: debian-win32@lists.debian.org
Subject: Debian GNU/Interix (Windows 2003 Server R2)?
From: Sam Johnston
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:55:31 +0000
Afternoon all,
Windows 2003 Server R2 is to ship shortly with a POSIX subsystem
(Interix 5.2 of Services for Unix fame) which "includes more than 300
UNIX utilities and tools that behave as they would on UNIX systems,
plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports more than 1,900
UNIX APIs and migration tools, including make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc,
c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.".
Apparently future versions of Windows (eg Vista) will follow suit.
With a tweak of config.guess I have had no problems compiling
bash-3.0, wget, etc. on Windows 2003 and am now interested in tacking
some more interesting packages, like dpkg and apt, with a view to
getting a full port of Debian running on it. The problem is that I
have limited time and porting experience, and the fact that this was
previously attempted under Cygwin is disconcerting; the debian-win32
mailing list has been around for years and yet there there has only
been one non-spam post in the last 18 months according to the
archives.
According to http://www.interix.com/ [interix.com] many interesting packages have
already been ported over and are currently available for download for
$30 as 'Interop Toolworks 2.2'
(http://www.interix.com/InteropToolworks.htm [interix.com]). Presumably source is
provided/available - I have posted the question in their Unix Tools
forum as I figure this would be a good starting point.
While there's no X server included, the X libraries are and the new
release opens up the Win32 API which should pave the way for someone
to build one. In the mean time Starnet Software do ship a free 'LX'
version which will accept localhost connections only
(http://www.starnet.com/xwin32LX/get_xwin32LX.htm [starnet.com]
At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a
project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and
any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then
debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on. I would
like to think it will be possible to bootstrap a base Debian
installation (Debian GNU/Interix?) from an installer executable, or
possibly even deliver it via ActiveX, eventually getting to the point
where one can log into Windows and get a full Debian desktop complete
with your favourite window manager.
For the time being I'll be happy with bash, OpenSSH, etc. but it's
interesting to consider what is possible... SFU/SUA was meant as a
migration path *to* Windows, but there's nothing stopping it from
being a two way street.
Sam
Re:Debian: The Universal Operating System (Score:2)
I bet you could even work it out so X and whatever window manager you choose could be the default shell. I know KDE is mostly ported, a good portion of Gnome, XFCE, openbox, window maker, etc..
Re:Debian: The Universal Operating System (Score:2)
Who is Nexenta Systems, Inc.? (Score:3, Informative)
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: NEXENTA.COM
Created on: 15-Jul-05
Expires on: 15-Jul-08
Last Updated on: 11-Oct-05
Secure Debian (Score:3, Interesting)
Debian GNU/MINIX? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And the point is? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And the point is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And the point is? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Indeed. As many Python developers will tell you, "there's more than one way to do it" can often lead to confusion and inconsistency. Freedom and choice are great, but the fact is that many people often just want the choice made for them in as sensible a way as possible.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Nah, "more than one way to do it" is considered a feature of Perl, whereas Python tries to only allow there to be one (sensible) way to do things. The friction between the two groups mean that some Python developers get a little vocal about what they consider the "right" approach!
Debian isn't the sort of community that really wants to decide for anyone, no. But the problem here is that if you want to have a widely-accepted and consistent system (which many people don't, and which Ubuntu is basically trying
Re:Freedom of Choice will hunt you forever... (Score:3, Insightful)
I use OSS already. The fact is though, most people don't care what program they use so long as it works and it's easy to find. Look at all the people using IE.
'Tis interesting, anyway. The problem is that OSS is currently beginning to appeal to a whole new group of people, and these people don't know what the hell all these different packages are, let alone have any particular opinions over which are better or worse.
A lot of systems are good for this, and getting better, though. To be clear, removing the
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
I only drive one vehicle daily. Most people in the US probably drive one vehicle daily.
So why do we have all sorts of vehicles on the road? Everything from semis to motorcycles?
Quite simple: Even though we all prefer to drive one vehicle, we choose different vehicles to drive because of features/price/reliability/capacity/etc.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Yes, but chances are your car came with wheels, an engine, windows, a steering wheel, and seats by default. You can choose to change them with alternate models, but someone made the default choice for you.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
And my OS came with a kernel, a libc, some drivers, and a UI by default.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
A GUI, or did you have to choose your specific dashboard? :)
The point is that although the opportunity of choice is good, in many contexts the necessity of choice is bad. Most people are fine with choosing a car because they understand the differences. With OSs, this is much less clear, and isn't something many people need to understand.
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, giving us Open Office and paying many full time developers to work on it, and porting DTrace to BSD is obviously not a commitment. They ought to be ashamed of themselves!
Re:If I may be so bold... (Score:2)
Yes, I was being sarcastic, perhaps I wasn't being clear enough... My point was that Sun actually contributes a lot to open source, GNOME and Mozilla projects for instance.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
So it's no surprise at all that Debian can be built on top of a Solaris kernel: few of the core OS packag
Re:Free as what? cool as what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, even their developer portal [gnusolaris.org] requires login to even look at. Doesn't smell like something open to the public to me...
Re:Free as what? cool as what? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, hey, it's Sun and it's fashionable to slag them off in your little cult isn't it?
Re:Free as what? cool as what? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Debian GNU/Minix (Score:2)
available so we can have Debian GNU/OS/2 available.