On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:49 +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:35, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > > > > Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a "hybrid" will > > > > not run any existing Solaris apps like you will not be able to run > > > > simple thinks like Macromedia flush player, JRE, JDK, Oracle, SAP, etc > > > > etc... Do you still wanna do that? > > > > > > Erm. > > > > > > If Oracle and SAP are on your list of “simple things”, what then are > > > large complex things for you? > > > > But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these "things" are > > existing applications which must run. The world is not 100% open sourced > > yet and we are in it, we are part of it, therefore my ideal OS need to > > be capable to run existing freeware and closed binaries as is without > > re-compilation. I want to run VMware, Oracle, Skype, SAP, Macromedia > > flush, etc, etc, etc. I want my Nexenta to run DTrace, BrandZ > > virtualization, ZFS, Zones without major re-design, etc, etc, etc... > > > > Once you accompany OpenSolaris kernel with GLIBC, you will kill this > > capability, you will not be able to run anything other than OSS compiled > > for your particular distro. That was my point. And isn't LSB is what > > GNU/Linux moving towards to? In OpenSolaris we have its Core which we > > following as a standard and I don't see any single reason not to do so. > > You have your points right, but you should realize that Debian GNU / > <Kernel>, > is glibc based. This means that your Base System without the kernel should > come from GNU sources. Having that said, you should invest some efforts to > port glibc to the Solaris (or OpenSolaris, Nevada, whatever[1]) kernel (to > support all these fancy features mentioned above), as this has been done for > glibc and the FreeBSD kernel by Bruno Haible.
I'm personally will not do that. As I said earlier, I did it a year ago, I even managed to run statically linked binaries on GLIBC + OpenSolaris kernel. Than I realized that the resulted Operating Environment will not be compatible with *anything* existing... how much it will be better than GNU/Linux or GNU/OpenSolaris or SUN/OpenSolaris? I realized that porting effort might be greatly minimized by utilizing different approaches: 1) provide 100% Debian environment, so native Debian scripts will run as is; 2) extend SUN C library with missing GLIBC functionality; 3) use of side libraries like libiconv, gettext, libintl; 4) use of transitional packages. As the result, we are fast approaching to the point when all existing Debian APT repo will be fully ported to Nexenta. We have 7000+ packages at the moment and will probably have 10000+ by the end of next month. > On the other hand if you go for Solaris [1] own kernel and libc and porting > Free Software on the top of that, your Nexenta OS is as much GNU as say MS > Windows or Mac OS X since such (non-core or non-base) applications could be > ported and compiled on them too, but these OS'es does not have GNU in their > names (yet ;). Thus in this case Nexenta or GNUSolaris should be named like > Nexenta Sun / OpenSolaris ( as in Distributor Base / Kernel ;-) > > P.S. no offence implied, just sharing some thoughts ;-) > > [1] http://opensolaris.org/os/community/onnv/ > Note that Opensolaris / Nevada are not GCC ready yet, Sun Studio 10 is the > preferred compiler > > -- > pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> > fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB > > -- Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
