Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Posted May 26, 2009 1:51 UTC (Tue)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/
This uses the GNU C library like all the other Debian ports.
Posted May 26, 2009 4:09 UTC (Tue)
by jasonjgw (subscriber, #52080)
[Link] (15 responses)
Last time I looked at it, OpenSolaris and its derivatives were, to use Richard
The above may have changed by now, however. If it has, I might give it a try
Posted May 26, 2009 10:05 UTC (Tue)
by sanxiyn (guest, #44599)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 17:49 UTC (Tue)
by rriggs (guest, #11598)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 28, 2009 19:58 UTC (Thu)
by TRS-80 (guest, #1804)
[Link]
Posted May 26, 2009 10:37 UTC (Tue)
by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
[Link] (4 responses)
Build system or no build system OpenSolaris is still nonfree because of its license. The development model is also very monolithic and cathedral-like.
Posted May 26, 2009 11:42 UTC (Tue)
by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 12:30 UTC (Tue)
by Zack (guest, #37335)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 12:40 UTC (Tue)
by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
[Link]
You're right. I often confuse the two.
Posted May 28, 2009 10:42 UTC (Thu)
by alex (subscriber, #1355)
[Link]
Posted May 26, 2009 13:45 UTC (Tue)
by regala (guest, #15745)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 14:27 UTC (Tue)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 15:03 UTC (Tue)
by regala (guest, #15745)
[Link]
Posted May 26, 2009 19:22 UTC (Tue)
by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)
[Link] (1 responses)
Nothing wrong with that.
Posted May 26, 2009 19:52 UTC (Tue)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link]
Posted May 26, 2009 19:51 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
The guy takes a RMS quote out of context and applies it to a question about Nexenta and all of a sudden your jumping up and down claming some sort of victory?
That does not make any sense at all.
Seriously, if your going to attack a guy do it for something they actually said or did, and do it in the context. Making up BS and then spouting silliness about 'misleading phrases not backed up by fact' and 'strawman' is just... well.. silly.
Talk about "Teapot calling the Kettle black".
The only quote about OpenSolaris that I can find on Google that came from Stallman was a interview a few months ago was:
> OpenSolaris is already free software, and I can endorse it as such. If Sun releases it under GPLv3, that will be even better; however, when choosing between free programs, the main factor is practical.
ffs
Posted May 27, 2009 2:02 UTC (Wed)
by jasonjgw (subscriber, #52080)
[Link]
Posted May 26, 2009 13:03 UTC (Tue)
by pranith (subscriber, #53092)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 13:51 UTC (Tue)
by rjdymond (guest, #51625)
[Link]
(Just summing up all the possible responses you could get. So are you going to download, install and try this OS now? :) )
Posted May 26, 2009 14:58 UTC (Tue)
by zooko (guest, #2589)
[Link] (9 responses)
Except I haven't tried it yet, because my personal server is in a co-lo a couple of thousand miles away, so if something goes wrong it will be awfully inconvenient to get console access. :-)
Anyway, there are the normal sorts of surprises and weirdnesses that you should expect when using a different operating system. "df" and "ps" and so forth don't have all the same fields and formats that you've gotten used to over the last ten or fifteen years.
It does have a full GNU userland, but not everything you care about is userland. Also there are a bunch of features like zfs and dtrace and Zones and SMF that you don't have to use if you don't want to, but which are there as part of the standard toolset.
I mostly just use mine as a GNU/POSIX userland and leave the advanced stuff alone. :-)
Posted May 26, 2009 16:02 UTC (Tue)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (8 responses)
The fact that you do not have access to the system sorts of defeats the idea of being able to boot back into a working OS. Otherwise it is, of course, a cool feature, and one that existed long before anyone had heard of ZFS. In any case, good luck, and let us know how it went. ;-)
But I think it is really in the proprietary world, where you have to watch out for binary incompatibility and have limited test resources, that this kind of functionality is very nice to have. For most users, it is much better to cleanly separate the OS files from their personal stuff, and simply overwrite the OS image with a working one in case an upgrade fails. Console access is *always* mandatory for remote systems. ;-)
Posted May 26, 2009 17:17 UTC (Tue)
by zooko (guest, #2589)
[Link] (7 responses)
The fact that you do not have access to the system sorts of defeats the idea of being able to boot back into a working OS. Otherwise it is, of course, a cool feature, and one that existed long before anyone had heard of ZFS. But I think it is really in the proprietary world, where you have to watch out for binary incompatibility and have limited test resources, that this kind of functionality is very nice to have. For most users, it is much better to cleanly separate the OS files from their personal stuff, and simply overwrite the OS image with a working one in case an upgrade fails. Console access is *always* mandatory for remote systems. ;-)
Posted May 26, 2009 19:31 UTC (Tue)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (6 responses)
AIX has had this for years. Solaris with Veritas as well, and I am sure there are more. The basic idea is the same as the ZFS one: you split a mirror or make a snapshot, keep one half untouched and upgrade the other one.
I think it is really cool that ZFS has made this available for home users, but it has existed for a long time in the proprietary Unix datacenter -- I used it. Technically, the possibility has or should have been there for years for Linux systems as well.
But I have never actually missed it. Especially with proprietary systems it is only *after* the reboot that you will find out whether an upgrade actually was successful (or rather, unsuccessful), because you are not upgrading a well-tested distribution, but a system typically consisting of a number of binary components not at all guaranteed to keep playing nicely together. It is mandatory that you have a way to actually go back to what worked before, and nothing else.
No problem, but that is not what I said. I prefer reinstalling the base system over making snapshots, if the very unlikely event of a completely screwed up upgrade occurs. Sorry if I was not clear, but all this has nothing to do with proprietary software, but with systems management.
Posted May 26, 2009 22:28 UTC (Tue)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (5 responses)
However, this kind of transactional package management has been an AIX feature since last century. In most serious environments, having a full, pristine copy of your operating system is a requirement anyway, so then having separate inline snapshots is simply overhead -- and note the obvious risk of not being able, for whatever reason, to get your hands on the snapshots, before or after boot.
Really, a console is all you need. ;-)
Posted May 26, 2009 22:32 UTC (Tue)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 23:09 UTC (Tue)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (1 responses)
(It seems to have nothing to do with nix of LWN fame. ;-)
Posted May 27, 2009 17:51 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
It seems like the sort of thing I'd like to come up with if I was better
Posted May 27, 2009 10:23 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 27, 2009 15:05 UTC (Wed)
by dtlin (subscriber, #36537)
[Link]
Unlike LVM1, LVM2's snapshots are writable by default. It's very, very
cool. With sbuild, I use
r/w snapshots all the time: it can be set up to take a snapshot of a
minimal base system, add minimal dependencies to run a package compile in
this environment, and remove the snapshot when all is done.
The changes made to a snapshot go to the bit bucket when the snapshot is
removed. There's patches
which allow for merging a snapshot back into the origin device. They don't
seem to be upstream yet, though.
Posted May 26, 2009 15:49 UTC (Tue)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 20:04 UTC (Tue)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 26, 2009 23:23 UTC (Tue)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 27, 2009 3:44 UTC (Wed)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link]
I'm not sure how you interpretted my statement that way, but I do see that it was
unclear.
I will try to rexplain it better.
What I meant was, although an OS may currently support your current hardware, it would
seem wise to think about whether this OS will support your hardware in the future before
commiting to that OS. Two possible specific problematic scenarios I would consider are:
"will this OS sustain enough development to support future currently non existing
hardware that you might want to upgrade to?" and "will the OS developers care enough
about my current hardware when it becomes old to not drop support for it in future
versions of the OS?"
Posted May 27, 2009 9:03 UTC (Wed)
by Tuxie (guest, #47191)
[Link]
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
compiler/assembler?
Stallman's phrase, "free, but shackled", as they could only be compiled by
non-free tools - and there didn't appear to be a strong effort underway to fix
this.
on a machine.
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/gcc/
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Um, no. GCCfss has only been available for gcc 4.x, whereas the gcc 3.4.3 that ships with Solaris is pure gcc (albeit using the Solaris linker) and functions fine without Sun Studio installed. The Solaris linker source is available here and here.
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
I was expecting Sun to relicense (open)solaris to GPL3 to try and "one up" linux in due time, but now with the Oracle takeover, it's anybody's guess where Solaris (development) will end up.
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
this is 30 months ago. it builds with gcc.
as far as I know, RMS's "phrases" have to be backed up by facts, not just "someone told me but I cannot verify as I don't use the web". RMS doesn't take care of verifying what he is told and what he repeats all over the world. Maybe this is another "subversion is bad, karl fogel emacs author is bad" unjustified rant... and sadly, maybe should we not care anymore what this strawman wants us to believe.
Please read this, that will stop the pain. It is not everyday that one gets to see a rant disproving itself so spectacularly, by the way. Congrats!
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
The rant I was referring to was not RMS' statement, but the LWN comment. I thought that was obvious, but I guess it was not. Sorry!
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
from
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/01/rms-rss-interview/
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
If the upgrade fails then apt-clone will have made a ZFS snapshot so that it doesn't actually boot to the new operating system.
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
What? Oh, I see, yes without console access I can't check whether the new version actually boots and then if not reboot to the old version. I should really get remote console working...
What I can do without console is observe whether the apt-get dist-upgrade completed without any errors before configuring it to boot into the new version on next boot.
Do tell -- when has it been possible to do something like this before? I know that you can, for example, use grub to select among different kernels, and different /lib/modules, for example, but that's much less than letting you select among entire different operating systems -- an entire set of core packages that get installed by an apt-get dist-upgrade. It does so using ZFS's very cheap and convenient snapshot feature so that you don't have to do something crazy like make a separate copy of your operating system before upgrading.
If anything like this has been possible before, I'd like to learn about it.
It's fine with me if you prefer reinstalling your operating system instead of having a transactional upgrade tool. But what does this have to do with proprietary vs. open source? As far as I know, proprietary operating systems such as Windows are typically fixed by reinstalling the OS or by manually patching it, and the only case of transactional operating system upgrade that I know of is Nexenta's apt-clone, which is open source. So it kind of sounds like to me that you got it backwards.
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Do tell -- when has it been possible to do something like this before?
It's fine with me if you prefer reinstalling your operating system instead of having a transactional upgrade tool. But what does this have to do with proprietary vs. open source?
If you're interested, here's a 2004 article about using rpm's rollback feature when doing system upgrades. Not so long ago it was removed, because it was considered to be unreliable: think of scripts changing the system irreversibly. To be honest, I can't immediately see how ZFS would solve that. But I am no expert.
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Indeed. Or check out the Nix package manager and NixOS!
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
name :)
at functional languages, though :) A very nifty piece of work indeed.
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released
Nexenta Core Platform 2 Released