[osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve. For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ? What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one of the existing distros ? What special status should a reference distribution actually have ? What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently to other distros ? My personal opinion is that I don't want to see a reference distro, at this time I just don't see any value in it. What I do see today is great competition and collaboration based on the distros we have. I think there is scope for more distros (and if I had the time I would be creating my own to experiement with some ideas), however I don't think any single distro (not even the "original" Solaris from Sun) should be elevated to "reference" at this time. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is
quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ?
What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one
of the existing distros ?
What special status should a reference distribution actually have ?
What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently
to other distros ?
My personal opinion is that I don't want to see a reference distro, at
this time I just don't see any value in it. What I do see today is
great competition and collaboration based on the distros we have. I
think there is scope for more distros (and if I had the time I would be
creating my own to experiement with some ideas), however I don't think
any single distro (not even the "original" Solaris from Sun) should be
elevated to "reference" at this time.
Two reasons in my view:
1. We need a better answer to the question, "What is OpenSolaris?" Ideally,
it's something tangible, i.e., something people can download and install.
The current "OpenSolaris is just the source code, like kernel.org, and Sun
and others take that code and make operating systems out of it" is
confusing.. Bottom line, the market thinks OpenSolaris is an
operating system ("OpenSolaris is the community version of Solaris..
Right?"). I consider this a big part of the "familiarity gap".
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've
spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess,
with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible
implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at
building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure.
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
> On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
>> binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
>> the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
>>
>
> Two reasons in my view:
>
> 1. We need a better answer to the question, "What is OpenSolaris?" Ideally,
> it's something tangible, i.e., something people can download and install.
Excellent. This seems to be what Solaris Nevada is with the exception
of being built behind Sun firewalls. It should not take too much work
to take snv outside entirely. I'm merely thinking out loud here.
> The current "OpenSolaris is just the source code, like kernel.org,
I hate to be the one to say this but Linux is the kernel. Now that I
feel like an idiot for saying that ( to you of all people ) I must
now quickly say that the JDS/Vermillion bits far outweigh the ON
bits. The GNU + all open source software packages at Blastwave
outweigh both of them combined by an order of magnitude.
The trick I think is to have a reference distro that allows a new
user to have access to everything in the palm of their hand but
without all the confusion. Also, we need to carry the legacy Solaris
users forward without any more loss in the herd.
Again .. just thinking out loud here.
> and Sun
> and others take that code and make operating systems out of it" is
> confusing.. Bottom line, the market thinks OpenSolaris is an
> operating system ("OpenSolaris is the community version of Solaris..
> Right?"). I consider this a big part of the "familiarity gap".
From twenty thousand feet up .. its a good place to start.
The blades of grass down here are a real issue to deal with however.
Quickly. We don't need a two year process.
> 2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
> to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
> compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've
> spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess,
> with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible
> implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at
> building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure.
That has been an item of some discussion in various off-line places.
No argument there.
Dennis
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to
solve.
For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is
quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ?
What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one
of the existing distros ?
What special status should a reference distribution actually have ?
What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently
to other distros ?
My personal opinion is that I don't want to see a reference distro, at
this time I just don't see any value in it. What I do see today is
great competition and collaboration based on the distros we have. I
think there is scope for more distros (and if I had the time I would be
creating my own to experiement with some ideas), however I don't think
any single distro (not even the "original" Solaris from Sun) should be
elevated to "reference" at this time.
Two reasons in my view:
1. We need a better answer to the question, "What is OpenSolaris?"
Ideally,
it's something tangible, i.e., something people can download and install.
The current "OpenSolaris is just the source code, like kernel.org, and
Sun
and others take that code and make operating systems out of it" is
confusing.. Bottom line, the market thinks OpenSolaris is an
operating system ("OpenSolaris is the community version of Solaris..
Right?"). I consider this a big part of the "familiarity gap".
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know,
I've
spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess,
with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible
implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at
building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure.
-ian
I certainly understand the goal of avoiding compatibility issues, then I
think this means the reference should be:
1) Smallish (least common denominator between all distributions, if
your binary works here, it will work anywhere...)
2) Completely free from proprietary and other incompatibly licensed
components: (If you have an encumbered lib in a reference dist, someone
is going to use it)
Unfortunately these may go against what I believe should also be a
requirement of a reference distribution:
3) It should run on as many platforms as possible and be usable by as
many people as possible (to shake out bugs).
The problem here is that a "pure" distribution is unlikely to have
drivers for everyone's wifi card or accelerated drivers for every
proprietary graphics card (e.g. ATI and their closed drivers.) A pure
distribution probably won't have codecs for proprietary streaming media,
is unlikely to be able to play equally license encumbered DVDs unless a
mechanism for installing proprietary add-ons is also part of the
reference. How do we combine purity and usability in a single
distribution? Debian came close, but it seems from its popularity that
Ubuntu increased usability by leaving some slack in purity.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Darren J Moffat wrote: For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ? Because many people have asked for something like it and some other group has decided to go scratch that itch. Do you really need any other reason? What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one of the existing distros ? Someone wishes to do their own distro and do it their own way. See the recent thread on why the existing distros were started... What special status should a reference distribution actually have ? What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently to other distros ? None and None. My personal opinion is that I don't want to see a reference distro, at this time I just don't see any value in it. Then don't work on it. Put your energies elsewhere. Vote with your feet. But please don't shut down the people who /want/ to work on it. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Ian Murdock wrote: 2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess, with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure. But what is the purpose of such a reference ? To tell other people they are doing it wrong ? To be the supported platform people point to when an ISV starts porting their application ? I don't think saying Linux is in a mess because it doesn't have one is fair here. OpenSolaris is very different it has Solaris as a legacy, and it conforms to standards that many Linux distros don't. So what problem are you trying to solve here ? I just don't get it. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
I know that Ian, in his capacity as LSB leader, has many opinions here, but I'd like to chime in with my own. Darren J Moffat wrote: > But what is the purpose of such a reference ? To tell other people > they are doing it wrong ? To be the supported platform people point > to when an ISV starts porting their application ? Answers, in sequence: no and yes. The other OpenSolaris-based distros are already using different toolkits from SE. Can you say "incompatibility"? If not now, then certainly in the future. This is not a path you want to go down. > > I don't think saying Linux is in a mess because it doesn't have one is > fair here. OpenSolaris is very different it has Solaris as a legacy, > and it conforms to standards that many Linux distros don't. The longer you go without the officially-sponsored, Sun-blessed OpenSolaris distro, the more likely it is that downstream distros are going to fragment from the upstream. Why take that chance? > > So what problem are you trying to solve here ? I just don't get it. I'm not trying to be flip here, but the problem and solution seems rather simple to me. I see a lot of good that can come from having a reference distro, and a lot of bad that can come from not having one. I'm curious - what about a reference distribution do you not like? -JM http://www.hyperic.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
John Plocher wrote: What special status should a reference distribution actually have ? What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently to other distros ? None and None. The it isn't a reference distribution but just another distro. The word I have issue with is "reference" that implies some special status. If this distro isn't intended to have such special status then its just another distro and that is good. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
John Mark Walker writes: > I'm not trying to be flip here, but the problem and solution seems > rather simple to me. I see a lot of good that can come from having a > reference distro, and a lot of bad that can come from not having one. > I'm curious - what about a reference distribution do you not like? It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions that focus on different needs and different areas. At one point, this was seen as a potential strength of OpenSolaris, and we (Sun) actually pointed to it proudly as a badge of success. We could have a Nexenta that tried to be soft Debian with a crunchy Solaris core. Or we could have Belenix with an interesting new install experience. And so on. Granted, it has the obvious risk that Linux faces with multiple independent distributions with the possibility of disasterous forks. It also has the benefits. I think having a "Sun Experimental" distribution -- something even less structured than SX -- would be neat to have, and may well satisfy a fair percentage of folks interested in this new distribution. However, I'm not sure I understand the point of having a specific OpenSolaris reference distribution, or its risks. (No, I'm not saying I'm opposed, or that I'm standing in the way [any more than trying to discuss the issue is apparently seen by some advocates as "standing in the way"], but rather that the implications aren't at all clear to me.) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following is my best attempt at an answer: James Carlson wrote: > It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions > that focus on different needs and different areas. > This is where we fundamentally disagree. An [official|reference|experimental] OpenSolaris distribution would not shut down this possibility. You're assuming that an OpenSolaris project will magically fulfill all of the requirements of its users - it will not. Look what happened with Fedora Core - "extras" repositories pop up all over the place, giving users an easy way to supplement what came from RedHat. It's important to note that the Extras repo is now an official part of Fedora, thus closing the feedback loop. So what we have is a community effort to build a better Fedora, recognition from the core Fedora developers of a helpful effort, and the ultimate collaboration between the two. The end result? A better user experience. Debian provides a different example of community collaboration, where another community (Ubuntu) develops to fill the gaps. Debian has always been a fully functional Linux-based operating system, and yet, there were still gaps to be filled by downstream developers. Other communities formed around those gaps. The end result is not the same as the Fedora example above, but it's another example of the reference distro not shutting out community innovation. > At one point, this was seen as a potential strength of OpenSolaris, > and we (Sun) actually pointed to it proudly as a badge of success. We > could have a Nexenta that tried to be soft Debian with a crunchy > Solaris core. Or we could have Belenix with an interesting new > install experience. And so on. > A healthy ecosystem is a badge of success. Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that an official distro would cut off the ecosystem. I don't buy that argument, because I've seen too many examples where an official distro fed the downstream innovation. > I think having a "Sun Experimental" distribution -- something even > less structured than SX -- would be neat to have, and may well satisfy > a fair percentage of folks interested in this new distribution. > However, I'm not sure I understand the point of having a specific > OpenSolaris reference distribution, or its risks. > I think the experimental distro would be interesting - and maybe this issue boils down to semantics, after all. In my mind, the real question is... do you prefer the Fedora or Debian model? > (No, I'm not saying I'm opposed, or that I'm standing in the way [any > more than trying to discuss the issue is apparently seen by some > advocates as "standing in the way"], but rather that the implications > aren't at all clear to me.) Personally, I like a good debate :@) -JM ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
John Mark Walker writes: > Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following > is my best attempt at an answer: > > James Carlson wrote: > > It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions > > that focus on different needs and different areas. > > > > This is where we fundamentally disagree. An > [official|reference|experimental] OpenSolaris distribution would not > shut down this possibility. You're assuming that an OpenSolaris project > will magically fulfill all of the requirements of its users - it will > not. I suspect it will seriously curtail the ability for other distributions to walk outside of the lines set by the reference distribution. > Look what happened with Fedora Core - "extras" repositories pop up > all over the place, giving users an easy way to supplement what came > from RedHat. It's important to note that the Extras repo is now an The situation is not analogous to that one. There isn't a "Linux reference distribution." Nobody is held accountable for being compatible with that sort of situation. Instead, there are multiple Linux-based distributions, each of which is free to do its own thing. (The most notable difference being .deb versus .rpm; but many others exist.) What's being proposed here seems quite a bit different. It's a community distribution akin to getting full system binaries from kernel.org, and expecting each of RedHat, Debian, and the others to do something "compatible." > Debian provides a different example of community collaboration, where > another community (Ubuntu) develops to fill the gaps. Debian has always > been a fully functional Linux-based operating system, and yet, there > were still gaps to be filled by downstream developers. Other communities > formed around those gaps. The end result is not the same as the Fedora > example above, but it's another example of the reference distro not > shutting out community innovation. It does however constrain it. > A healthy ecosystem is a badge of success. Our difference of opinion > stems from your belief that an official distro would cut off the > ecosystem. I don't buy that argument, because I've seen too many > examples where an official distro fed the downstream innovation. So, if the reference distribution decides that SysV packaging is the right answer, should Nexenta be expected to disappear? > > I think having a "Sun Experimental" distribution -- something even > > less structured than SX -- would be neat to have, and may well satisfy > > a fair percentage of folks interested in this new distribution. > > However, I'm not sure I understand the point of having a specific > > OpenSolaris reference distribution, or its risks. > > > > I think the experimental distro would be interesting - and maybe this > issue boils down to semantics, after all. That's possible. It's the issue of the use of "OpenSolaris" in the name that unnerves me. It puts this distribution in a special position that no other distribution holds. If that special place doesn't wield influence over the others, then what's the point? If it does, then do we understand what we're asking for? > In my mind, the real question > is... do you prefer the Fedora or Debian model? Actually neither. ;-} -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve. For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ? What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one of the existing distros ? What special status should a reference distribution actually have ? What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently to other distros ? My personal opinion is that I don't want to see a reference distro, at this time I just don't see any value in it. What I do see today is great competition and collaboration based on the distros we have. I think there is scope for more distros (and if I had the time I would be creating my own to experiement with some ideas), however I don't think any single distro (not even the "original" Solaris from Sun) should be elevated to "reference" at this time. It depends on how you see a reference distribution fitting into the overall scheme. I see two possibilities (although in reality it's a continuum): a reference distribution can either be something above other distributions, or it can be something underneath it. Are you worried about the former? (Your usage of the word "elevated" implies a distribution that is above all others.) I would like to see a reference distribution that is the latter: a foundation distro, something fairly simple and neutral (even bland), but one which can be used by others to build their own distributions - with their own unique character - on top of. It might be a proper distribution in its own right (but would be essentially a freely redistributable SXCE, which wouldn't be all that technically interesting), but may also supply a base kit that could be used to build other distributions. Having such a base makes it much easier - you just scrap the bits you don't want and replace the bits you find interesting, without having to worry about building and maintaining the whole infrastructure necessary for a standalone distribution. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Darren J Moffat wrote: Ian Murdock wrote: 2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess, with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure. But what is the purpose of such a reference ? To tell other people they are doing it wrong ? To be the supported platform people point to when an ISV starts porting their application ? I don't think saying Linux is in a mess because it doesn't have one is fair here. OpenSolaris is very different it has Solaris as a legacy, and it conforms to standards that many Linux distros don't. So what problem are you trying to solve here ? I just don't get it. I would see a reference distribution responsible for defining things like: - CLI for essential utilities - minimum set of features/bugs in borne shell - starting and stopping services - package maintainance - and so on...maybe even just establishing "ON" as "the reference" To pick a trivial example of where Lin*x fails, the command line for enabling a service for run levels 3/4/5 is different on RedHat and SuSe. Thus it is impossible to ship a single rc script that works for both. If someone were to take OpenSolaris today and build a distribution that shipped with a wildly different package or SMF front end, what value does that add vs the cost to 3rd parties to "deal with" ? A reference needs to be established so that 3rd parties and systems folks have a common core set of interfaces that they can expect to interact with for basic system tasks. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess, with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure. Then document some standards, and make that the requirements to carry some type of identifier indicating compatibility to that standard (and I do believe there is value in this, and it's probably something that should be done sooner rather than later, if it is to be done). But please don't call that standard the "OpenSolaris Standard", and don't raise one specific distribution to become the "OpenSolaris Reference Distribution". Either of those implies endorsement by the community at large, and implies that those that don't comply aren't really doing it right... The reason I'm not keen on that is that I'd really like to see someone build something on top of the OpenSolaris kernel that doesn't want or need to be like something that's already out there: something that's not like Solaris, that's not like GNU/Linux, that's not like BSD,... (Some random examples: a distribution with a non-Unix-y user land, or one that removes most of the compatibility features -- so you'd only have SMF to run services (no more rc scripts), that get their configuration from within SMF (so no more /etc/ banana.conf)...), the barrier for which is raised if it means fighting against (the perception of) such community endorsement. Bart ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
1. We need a better answer to the question, "What is OpenSolaris?" Ideally,
it's something tangible, i.e., something people can download and install.
The current "OpenSolaris is just the source code, like kernel.org, and Sun
and others take that code and make operating systems out of it" is
confusing.. Bottom line, the market thinks OpenSolaris is an
operating system ("OpenSolaris is the community version of Solaris..
Right?"). I consider this a big part of the "familiarity gap".
I completely agree but don't like the term market, since I don't see this
as a product that is marketed. Even if I was to agree that it is a product
that should be marketed, I certainly wouldn't want any of the folks that
were involved with Solaris marketing involved with it. Why pick people
that have failed at the same job before?
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate!
When you say "we", who do you refer to?
I know, I've
spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess,
with mixed results. It's far easier to create an ecosystem of compatible
implementations if you *start* with a reference. All attempts at
building a reference after the fact in Linux have been an abject failure.
I certainly don't agree with that, and think you will find that by
creating a reference you create the same mess than Red Hat vs the rest of
the world created in the Linux space.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
> There are many (good) reasons for the confusion: > > * OpenSolaris is not even 2 yet. Jim, thank you for laying out the "big picture" with some history also. Often times the techies get caught up in the blades of grass and totally miss the fact that we cleared the field of rocks and stumps, plowed it, worked it with bare hands and are now in the middle of it. So it takes some time to reap a crop. Okay. No one said this was going to be easy. At this point I think that Bryan C. laid out the clearest thinking, create a prototype and then hold it up and say "see, here is something we grew". Personally I am leaning towards BeleniX with all the Blastwave software bolted in because ALL of that happened with community people. Just my thoughts. Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is
quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ?
What is so special about the reference distribution that it can't be one
of the existing distros ?
What special status should a reference distribution actually have ?
What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently
to other distros ?
My personal opinion is that I don't want to see a reference distro, at
this time I just don't see any value in it. What I do see today is
great competition and collaboration based on the distros we have. I
think there is scope for more distros (and if I had the time I would be
creating my own to experiement with some ideas), however I don't think
any single distro (not even the "original" Solaris from Sun) should be
elevated to "reference" at this time.
Two reasons in my view:
1. We need a better answer to the question, "What is OpenSolaris?" Ideally,
it's something tangible, i.e., something people can download and install.
The current "OpenSolaris is just the source code, like kernel.org, and Sun
and others take that code and make operating systems out of it" is
confusing.. Bottom line, the market thinks OpenSolaris is an
operating system ("OpenSolaris is the community version of Solaris..
Right?"). I consider this a big part of the "familiarity gap".
There are many (good) reasons for the confusion:
* OpenSolaris is not even 2 yet.
* The opening of Solaris isn't finished (as we've always stated)
* The market has changed substantially since we opened
* Sun's position in the market has changed substantially recently
* The perception of Solaris/OpenSolaris has changed substantially
* The attention being focused on Solaris/OpenSolaris has changed
* We've been *very* successful when *everyone* predicted utter failure.
We've been dealing with the confusion all along, but only recently has
it been a *market* issue. Before we opened it was just the pilot
community (about 300 people inside and outside). Then for the entire
first year after opening, no one outside our community really knew we
existed. Aside from a few of Sun's competitors slapping us around from
time to time, people pretty much left us alone. Most of the attention
(and hostility) towards OpenSolaris occured pre launch and most of that
was around the license announcement. Yet, we continued to release code
and build community. Also, there has been very little in the way of mass
marketing/publicity around the project, whereas we preferred community
marketing and that's where the Sun marketing people have contributed
very well.
This was all by design, actually, since we didn't want Sun to over spin
OpenSolaris while we were also saying that the project would be opened
over time and in stages (releasing code, building infrastructure, moving
projects, migrating gates, etc). In other words, we didn't want to shoot
our mouths off in the market before we had earned our way as an
engineering project. Sun is known to have an aggressive corporate voice,
but we felt that was not appropriate for OpenSolaris. This was a
deliberate decision and one that we debated often. I was supportive of
this strategy -- and lobbied hard for it, actually -- knowing full well
that there would be a time in the future for us to get more assertive.
Then, as a result of our successful first year, we started getting a lot
more attention. Now, instead of the confusion being limited to
relatively few people, it was magnified among many -- across many
markets and cultures and regions around the world. Right around the
start of year two we started promoting the project more aggressively via
conferences and other such activities, and the community became much
more popular as a result.
Bottom line: the market thinks OpenSolaris is an operating system
because OpenSolaris has been unbelievably successful.
I think a distro built entirely from open source and branded as
"OpenSolaris" would be helpful to answering the question of "What is
OpenSolaris?" but I also think that it will not solve the "familiarity
gap" entirely. From a marketing and communications perspective, you have
to consider that you have an entire world to educate. So as your team
works on Indy I'd very much support the notion of community-based
marketing (Advocacy, PR, marketing, user groups, whatever) programs to
support the effort. I'd be happy participate in those activities,
obviously, and I think you'll find a community willing to participate as
well.
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here,
Oh, the other guys pounded on us a great deal, too. :) I kept a nice
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 5/31/07, John Mark Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The other OpenSolaris-based distros are already using different toolkits from SE. Can you say "incompatibility"? If not now, then certainly in the future. This is not a path you want to go down. *Amen*. Given how negative this community is on Linux and how positive it is on compatibility, I'm floored this is even an issue. This is not the feature of Linux you want to be emulating! -ian -- Ian Murdock 650-331-9324 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note that that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything, it has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros *can* continue to exist even with OpenSolaris expanding to incorporate a distro, and that we can avoid Linux-style fragmentation in the face of multiple distros by thinking of the new thing as a reference. That is all. *Building a reference isn't the main goal*. What is the main goal? Making OpenSolaris more accessible to people like this: As an outsider to the Solaris community that's been interested in trying it out, let me say that it's about damn time this happens. If you go to the OpenSolaris web site, all bright eyed and eager to download a new operating system, you will walk away in bitter disappointment. Sure, it says the word "open" in two dozen languages on the web page, but when you go hunting for an installer disk to download, suddenly you are cast into a maze. Nevada builds? What the hell is Nevada? Oh, it's what they're calling the OpenSolaris code base. You'll need to download these components and build them. Well, how do I install it? Oh, you can't do that, you need to have a Solaris machine up already to build on. But you can get started if you go to Sun's site and download their Solaris Express Enterprise Pro Champion Edition (after dutifully registering), and then enjoy that pleasant install experience. And when that's done, you still have the work ahead of you of getting ON (what the hell is that? Oh, OS and Network. Sorry, I don't work at Sun) built and updated. Did I miss anything? We haven't gotten to packages to make the system usable yet. I just want an ISO that says OpenSolaris and installs THE OpenSolaris system. In a usable state. Then I'll be able to test my apps against it and claim they work. "Well, it runs on Belenix" doesn't quite feel the same, does it? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/31/sun_project_indiana/comments/#c_17095 -ian -- Ian Murdock 650-331-9324 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Ian Murdock wrote: People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note that that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything, it has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros *can* continue to exist even with OpenSolaris expanding to incorporate a distro, and that we can avoid Linux-style fragmentation in the face of multiple distros by thinking of the new thing as a reference. That is all. *Building a reference isn't the main goal*. What is the main goal? Making OpenSolaris more accessible to people like this: [snip] How is Indiana going to fix his issue? Note he's not complaining about the lack of GNU tools (for example), he's complaining about not being able to find a download. This is *despite* the great big button on the home page that would allow him to order a starter kit, or the paragraph on the download page (1 click away) which says: -- Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release is unsupported. Developers can build the OpenSolaris source by using this release as the base system. It is updated every other Friday. -- Plus similar info for all the other distros. Which seems pretty damn clear to me. I talked to two people from the Indiana team a couple of weeks ago for over an hour, and at the end of it I *still* had no clear idea of what problem Indiana was supposed to solve or how, and I *still* don't. You've said that Indiana is going to fix this guy's problem - How? It seems to me that his problem is more to do with the mechanics of getting an install, not the contents of the install. You keep claiming that Indiana is going to solve all our problems without explaining exactly what you think those problems are, and how you are going to fix them. We were all under the assumption (mistaken, it now seems) that Indiana was a reference distro, if it isn't, please tell us what it is. Glynn's project proposal mail says nothing more than telling us that Indiana is a distro (well, duh) with the aim of "increasing the userbase and growing mindshare in the volume market by providing easy access to the technology created within the OpenSolaris community" which is so general as to be meaningless - *any* distro helps do those things. As I've already said I fully support your right to run 'Project Indiana', whatever it actually is - even though I personally have no interest in it. But *please* stop telling us that you are going to fix every random gripe that someone makes. If you give us a specific, measurable and realistic list of goals we can have some sort of meaningful discussion about your project and whether we as individuals want to be involved. Until that happens, all you are doing is confusing people, and that's not going to incline them to want to help you. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
2007/6/1, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Ian Murdock wrote: > People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note that > that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything, it > has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros *can* > continue to exist even with OpenSolaris expanding to incorporate a distro, > and that we can avoid Linux-style fragmentation in the face of > multiple distros by thinking of the new thing as a reference. That is all. > > *Building a reference isn't the main goal*. What is the main goal? Making > OpenSolaris more accessible to people like this: [snip] How is Indiana going to fix his issue? Note he's not complaining about the lack of GNU tools (for example), he's complaining about not being able to find a download. This is *despite* the great big button on the home page that would allow him to order a starter kit, or the paragraph on the download page (1 click away) which says: -- Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release is unsupported. Developers can build the OpenSolaris source by using this release as the base system. It is updated every other Friday. -- Plus similar info for all the other distros. Which seems pretty damn clear to me. I talked to two people from the Indiana team a couple of weeks ago for over an hour, and at the end of it I *still* had no clear idea of what problem Indiana was supposed to solve or how, and I *still* don't. You've said that Indiana is going to fix this guy's problem - How? It seems to me that his problem is more to do with the mechanics of getting an install, not the contents of the install. I think that the idea is clear, fixing the usability problems of OpenSolaris by creating a new binary distro within the opensolaris.org community, as a community effort. I think as a first goal Indiana should identify a comprehensive list of usability problems for newcomers, and then figure out solutions for that. It's pretty obvious to me, that all that problems should be implemented on a distribution, and some of those implementations might not fix on the existing ones (which doesn't mean that we cannot take advantage of the work that is already done). At the same time, I have the feeling that for production purposes, none is recommending anything but Solaris Express, and Solaris Express is not a distribution aimed to be easy to use however it has its own goals, which makes the idea of a new distribution, not necessarily a reference one, a good idea to me. You keep claiming that Indiana is going to solve all our problems without explaining exactly what you think those problems are, and how you are going to fix them. We were all under the assumption (mistaken, it now seems) that Indiana was a reference distro, if it isn't, please tell us what it is. Glynn's project proposal mail says nothing more than telling us that Indiana is a distro (well, duh) with the aim of "increasing the userbase and growing mindshare in the volume market by providing easy access to the technology created within the OpenSolaris community" which is so general as to be meaningless - *any* distro helps do those things. As I've already said I fully support your right to run 'Project Indiana', whatever it actually is - even though I personally have no interest in it. But *please* stop telling us that you are going to fix every random gripe that someone makes. If you give us a specific, measurable and realistic list of goals we can have some sort of meaningful discussion about your project and whether we as individuals want to be involved. Until that happens, all you are doing is confusing people, and that's not going to incline them to want to help you. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote: Given how negative this community is on Linux and how positive it is on compatibility, I'm floored this is even an issue. This is not the feature of Linux you want to be emulating! FWIW, I don't think we can stop incompatibility. Indeed, it's not desirable - it would might things like an OpenSolaris distro targetted at small-footprint devices, or Nexenta. And to echo-chamber Casper's comment: The compatibility distro exists already, it's Sun Solaris. Ensuring the required levels of compatibility are kept is something Sun will invest in /independently/ of OpenSolaris, as part of Solaris engineering. So possibly Indiana doesn't need to try be a reference for compatibility.. Echoing Alan's comments: Just do what you think is best for Indiana, given your goals for it (which, as Alan has stated, aren't immediately obvious to all here). You don't need a rubber-stamp from the OpenSolaris community to build an interesting distro.. :) - you'll automatically get participation if you build one though. Personally, I'd love to see an OpenSolaris distro with a nice balance between Solaris and GNU/Linux compatibility: One that remained reasonably compatible with Solaris, but had the freedom to change things incompatibly, or experiment, where it made sense. E.g.: - GNU tools the default, as much as sensibly possible - Remain essentially compatible with Solaris C library ABIs and APIs - should be "free", as part of Suns' engineering work on Solaris.. - Sys PKG'ing, but with fine-grained pkg dependencies - If this worked out, it could benefit Solaris too eventually. - package-centric upgrades, with some pkg-get/apt like tool - Metronomic release cycles That'd grab me at least.. regards, -- Paul Jakma, Solaris Networking Sun Microsystems, Scotland http://opensolaris.org/os/project/quagga tel: EMEA x73150 / +44 15066 73150 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Alberto Ruiz wrote: I think that the idea is clear, fixing the usability problems of OpenSolaris by creating a new binary distro within the opensolaris.org community, as a community effort. No it *isn't* clear - what do you mean by "usability problems"? That's a phrase which is so general as to be meaningless. As I said I had this conversation with the Indiana folks and they couldn't tell me what they actually meant when they said "usability problems". Plus there are already several ongoing projects (/usr/gnu, approachability) that are already trying to address these sorts of issues. What is Indiana going to do that isn't already being done, and why is a distro the right vehicle for addressing usability issues? I think as a first goal Indiana should identify a comprehensive list of usability problems for newcomers, and then figure out solutions for that. It's pretty obvious to me, that all that problems should be implemented on a distribution, and some of those implementations might not fix on the existing ones (which doesn't mean that we cannot take advantage of the work that is already done). I think the first thing the Indiana team should do is carry out a detailed evaluation of all the existing distros and tell us what they think their strengths and weaknesses are, and how Indiana would be different. That would have two major benefits: 1. It would help us all understand what the Indiana team think the issues are with the existing distros, and what they propose to do in concrete terms. 2. It would provide the existing distros with invaluable feedback on areas where they need to improve. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Paul Jakma wrote: FWIW, I don't think we can stop incompatibility. Indeed, it's not desirable - it would might things like an OpenSolaris Gack: s/might/preclude/ distro targetted at small-footprint devices, or Nexenta. regards, -- Paul Jakma, Solaris Networking Sun Microsystems, Scotland http://opensolaris.org/os/project/quagga tel: EMEA x73150 / +44 15066 73150 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/31/sun_project_indiana/comments/#c_17095 > > -ian +1, exactly why OpenSolaris is not running on any of my machine. -- Francois Saint-Jacques http://www.networkdump.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Alan Burlison wrote: > > -- > Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for > OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the > latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been > published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release is unsupported. > Developers can build the OpenSolaris source by using this release as > the base system. It is updated every other Friday. > -- Because it's been marketed as "OpenSolaris", so people expect to download an installer for OpenSolaris. If you think the Register guy is the only one to have complaints, you're wrong. The first time I went to opensolaris.org, I wondered "where the F*** is OpenSolaris?" I know I'm not the only one. Thanks to Jim for providing more of the project's history. Being a newcomer, I'm not aware of everything that was involved in making OpenSolaris happen, and it's important to realize the progress that has been made - it was, and continues to be a great undertaking. Perhaps the answer to all of this is just to make an OpenSolaris distro happen - and if it works great, if not move on and learn from it. Do folks have the patience for that type of experimenting? -JM ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
2007/6/1, John Mark Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Alan Burlison wrote: > > -- > Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for > OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the > latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been > published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release is unsupported. > Developers can build the OpenSolaris source by using this release as > the base system. It is updated every other Friday. > -- Because it's been marketed as "OpenSolaris", so people expect to download an installer for OpenSolaris. If you think the Register guy is the only one to have complaints, you're wrong. The first time I went to opensolaris.org, I wondered "where the F*** is OpenSolaris?" I know I'm not the only one. It would be interesting to tracks visitors activity, don't we have something like google analytics? That helped me to figure out what should be fixed in other project sites in term of usability ( pygtk.org). However, I had this problem. And everyone that comes to the site with basic knowledge of what opensolaris is (open source solaris), falls into that problem. And most of them get annoyed about the sun.com registration to download Solaris Express. So, Solaris Express is not helping our community to make newcomers feel welcome. Newcomers are the main source of user base, and user base is the main source of new contributors and developers, and without more developers, there is no way to success. Perhaps the answer to all of this is just to make an OpenSolaris distro happen - and if it works great, if not move on and learn from it. Do folks have the patience for that type of experimenting? Good point. I don't understand why there are so many people against something new that can be potentially good for the community, if they think is not needed, they shouldn't contribute, and that's all. I would like to see more constructive approaches to this issue. We have anything to loose, and lot to gain. -JM ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
John Mark Walker wrote: Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release is unsupported. Developers can build the OpenSolaris source by using this release as the base system. It is updated every other Friday. -- Because it's been marketed as "OpenSolaris", so people expect to download an installer for OpenSolaris. If you think the Register guy is the only one to have complaints, you're wrong. The first time I went to opensolaris.org, I wondered "where the F*** is OpenSolaris?" I know I'm not the only one. Steve Lau has explained this very clearly, perhaps there should be a link to his diagram on the download page... http://whacked.net/2007/02/13/opensolarissolaris-relationships/ -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Alan Burlison wrote: Steve Lau has explained this very clearly, perhaps there should be a link to his diagram on the download page... http://whacked.net/2007/02/13/opensolarissolaris-relationships/ The way I see it, is all the distributions have their own theme. SXCE -> SXDE -> S11 is Suns theme, their installer, Gnome and CDE Nexenta, their theme is GNU and so on. The OpenSolaris reference binary can be what everybody says is needed. People gripe about the desktop, they want KDE and XFCE. Why couldn't these be part of the distribution? The only catch is any binary added should be from an OpenSolaris project or source. It would be great to get Blastwave as an OpenSolaris Project so all the dependencies would be consolidated. I see this as being good, if mostly everyone cooperates. Paul ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Paul Gress wrote: It would be great to get Blastwave as an OpenSolaris Project so all the dependencies would be consolidated. This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which combines the current work done in Blastwave and the build scripts/patches SFE and PMPKG etc. Doug ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which combines the current work done in Blastwave and the build scripts/patches SFE and PMPKG etc. Dennis has said on numerous occasions that he is willing to work with OS.Oto standardize a pathing, and packaging scheme. He is waiting for the invitiation. -Brian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Brian Gupta wrote: This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which combines the current work done in Blastwave and the build scripts/patches SFE and PMPKG etc. Thats what I meant to say. You couldn't consolidate the dependencies unless it were integrated properly into the OpenSolaris reference. Dennis has said on numerous occasions that he is willing to work with OS.O to standardize a pathing, and packaging scheme. He is waiting for the invitiation. -Brian Maybe this project will be the start of integrating all the projects into one distribution and possibly starting Blastwave integration. Obviously, if this were the case, you may not want to install everything. So a good installer is needed. I'm not up on all the projects, I believe there is an installer project. This may be the project to sync all other projects to come together. Paul ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Brian Gupta wrote: This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which combines the current work done in Blastwave and the build scripts/patches SFE and PMPKG etc. Dennis has said on numerous occasions that he is willing to work with OS.O to standardize a pathing, and packaging scheme. He is waiting for the invitiation. An invitation from who??? Doug ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
The OpenSolaris reference binary can be what everybody says is needed. People gripe about the desktop, they want KDE and XFCE. Why couldn't these be part of the distribution? The only catch is any binary added should be from an OpenSolaris project or source. It would be great to get Blastwave as an OpenSolaris Project so all the dependencies would be consolidated. I see this as being good, if mostly everyone cooperates. Paul -> Paul, There is an OpenSolaris distro of packaged open source software now on Blu-Ray media. There were a few ISPs having corrupted files so we put something the Blu-Ray distro for ISV/IHV/OEM/user groups/schools and partners needing a "sandbox" of ported open source software and device drivers for OpenSolaris. I was originally did this for a Debian consolidation of the three DVDs. OpenSolaris now has a platform library of open source software as large as Debian (and will equal any *BSD distro in ported packages). The entire Debian 4.0 and OpenSolaris package collection can now sit on ONE Blu-Ray disc for worldwide distribution in matter of 1-2 business days. ;o) Also on the technology front are the recently available HD-DVD/Blu-Ray dual players (i.e. LG BH100 at $1100 USD) - in which I'm hoping to see the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray burner component soon at a reasonable cost. Anyhow, I think an OpenSolaris 'mini' reference distro is no problem to build other larger OpenSolaris distros. This keeps a common ground between distros. Ken Mays EarthLink, Inc. Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
James Carlson wrote: John Mark Walker writes: Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following is my best attempt at an answer: James Carlson wrote: It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions that focus on different needs and different areas. This is where we fundamentally disagree. An [official|reference|experimental] OpenSolaris distribution would not shut down this possibility. You're assuming that an OpenSolaris project will magically fulfill all of the requirements of its users - it will not. I suspect it will seriously curtail the ability for other distributions to walk outside of the lines set by the reference distribution. Look what happened with Fedora Core - "extras" repositories pop up all over the place, giving users an easy way to supplement what came from RedHat. It's important to note that the Extras repo is now an The situation is not analogous to that one. There isn't a "Linux reference distribution." Nobody is held accountable for being compatible with that sort of situation. Instead, there are multiple Linux-based distributions, each of which is free to do its own thing. (The most notable difference being .deb versus .rpm; but many others exist.) What's being proposed here seems quite a bit different. It's a community distribution akin to getting full system binaries from kernel.org, and expecting each of RedHat, Debian, and the others to do something "compatible." Debian provides a different example of community collaboration, where another community (Ubuntu) develops to fill the gaps. Debian has always been a fully functional Linux-based operating system, and yet, there were still gaps to be filled by downstream developers. Other communities formed around those gaps. The end result is not the same as the Fedora example above, but it's another example of the reference distro not shutting out community innovation. It does however constrain it. A healthy ecosystem is a badge of success. Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that an official distro would cut off the ecosystem. I don't buy that argument, because I've seen too many examples where an official distro fed the downstream innovation. So, if the reference distribution decides that SysV packaging is the right answer, should Nexenta be expected to disappear? I think having a "Sun Experimental" distribution -- something even less structured than SX -- would be neat to have, and may well satisfy a fair percentage of folks interested in this new distribution. However, I'm not sure I understand the point of having a specific OpenSolaris reference distribution, or its risks. I think the experimental distro would be interesting - and maybe this issue boils down to semantics, after all. That's possible. It's the issue of the use of "OpenSolaris" in the name that unnerves me. It puts this distribution in a special position that no other distribution holds. If that special place doesn't wield influence over the others, then what's the point? If it does, then do we understand what we're asking for? In my mind, the real question is... do you prefer the Fedora or Debian model? Actually neither. ;-} I suspect this debate boils down to "What is the base level of compatibility that the openSolaris 'Brand' should denote such that Applications are portable between the various implementations. I think this boils down to: A. Define a "Reserved ABI" thats all distros have to adhere to. B. Define the core applications that make up the "Base system" C. Define filesystem organisation to a level where applications are able to find other components between the distros The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this as closely as possible without adding extra features that could inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro. Oh BTW this would probably imply that all distros would have to (For example) carry a functional SysV packaging system, but this doesn't preclude a particular distro using another in addition to this. The distro is still compatible at the base (defined) level ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Robert Lunnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suspect this debate boils down to "What is the base level of > compatibility that the openSolaris 'Brand' should denote such that > Applications are portable between the various implementations. I think > this boils down to: > > A. Define a "Reserved ABI" thats all distros have to adhere to. > B. Define the core applications that make up the "Base system" > C. Define filesystem organisation to a level where applications are able > to find other components between the distros > > > The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this > as closely as possible without adding extra features that could > inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro. > > Oh BTW this would probably imply that all distros would have to (For > example) carry a functional SysV packaging system, but this doesn't > preclude a particular distro using another in addition to this. The > distro is still compatible at the base (defined) level It is not sufficient to define this all, there is a need to have tests to verify compliance. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Robert Lunnon writes: > The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this > as closely as possible without adding extra features that could > inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro. That's possibly doable, but I think it also runs directly into one of the (apparent) goals of Indiana: having a reference distribution that we *want* people to see on the top-level site and download as the preferred introduction to Solaris. A stripped-down version would fail miserably at attracting new users, as it'd appear (by definition) to be even less functional than what we have today. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
2007/6/5, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Robert Lunnon writes: > The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this > as closely as possible without adding extra features that could > inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro. That's possibly doable, but I think it also runs directly into one of the (apparent) goals of Indiana: having a reference distribution that we *want* people to see on the top-level site and download as the preferred introduction to Solaris. A stripped-down version would fail miserably at attracting new users, as it'd appear (by definition) to be even less functional than what we have today. Don't think so, there are a lot of people that like to learn how the OS works by learning how to fit all the pieces from scratch, a stripped-down version would help to attract that profile. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
>Robert Lunnon writes: >> The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this >> as closely as possible without adding extra features that could >> inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro. > >That's possibly doable, but I think it also runs directly into one of >the (apparent) goals of Indiana: having a reference distribution that >we *want* people to see on the top-level site and download as the >preferred introduction to Solaris. > >A stripped-down version would fail miserably at attracting new users, >as it'd appear (by definition) to be even less functional than what we >have today. What would it include then? Something less than Solaris Express? Solaris Express and then some? Solaris Express + something - something? I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference distribution which you can rebuild yourself. - Download opensolaris.iso - Install opensolaris.iso (Compilers and everything???) - Boot reference release - cd /usr/src make opensolaris.iso and have pretty much the same thing as before. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking that the best option would be to include templates in the installation procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. What do you guys thing? -Brian On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Robert Lunnon writes: >> The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this >> as closely as possible without adding extra features that could >> inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro. > >That's possibly doable, but I think it also runs directly into one of >the (apparent) goals of Indiana: having a reference distribution that >we *want* people to see on the top-level site and download as the >preferred introduction to Solaris. > >A stripped-down version would fail miserably at attracting new users, >as it'd appear (by definition) to be even less functional than what we >have today. What would it include then? Something less than Solaris Express? Solaris Express and then some? Solaris Express + something - something? I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference distribution which you can rebuild yourself. - Download opensolaris.iso - Install opensolaris.iso (Compilers and everything???) - Boot reference release - cd /usr/src make opensolaris.iso and have pretty much the same thing as before. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference > distribution which you can rebuild yourself. I completely agree. The part that's unclear to me is whether solving the "I can't find downloads at opensolaris.org" is any part of that problem. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
>One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a >mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking >that the best option would be to include templates in the installation >procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what >kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. > Excellent model; who will host the packaging database? Or would you be able to build a subset? make opensolaris.iso COMPONENTS='minimum Xorg GNOME' URL='http:// mydistro.com' ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Brian Gupta writes: > One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a > mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking > that the best option would be to include templates in the installation > procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what > kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. > > What do you guys thing? That seems reasonable. I think it assumes, though, that you can pull from different distributions in order for it to be effective. Otherwise, it's all about one (maximal) distribution and a new download mechanism. Don't get me wrong; I very much think we need a *new* download mechanism. The current one seems quite awful. It's unclear to me whether that necessarily means a different distribution, or just a new ftp server. :-/ -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
The thought is that things that are part of the OpenSolaris code base would definately be hosts by OpenSolaris.org. Being that all the code hosted by OpenSolaris is freely distributable, it would obviously make sense to develop and leverage mirror sites. One thing that will also be hosted is repository redirectors that other repositories can register packages with. This would likely also include links to closed source packages. -Brian On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a >mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking >that the best option would be to include templates in the installation >procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what >kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. > Excellent model; who will host the packaging database? Or would you be able to build a subset? make opensolaris.iso COMPONENTS='minimum Xorg GNOME' URL='http:// mydistro.com' ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 6/5/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference > distribution which you can rebuild yourself. I completely agree. The part that's unclear to me is whether solving the "I can't find downloads at opensolaris.org" is any part of that problem. would it be possible to have links to the rest of the distributions at osol.org? that would at least solve ONE problem easily nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
As I understand there are links on the homepage?? Speaking of homepage, I would suggest that once we have a working distro that we have a splash page that says "Get OpenSolaris" and "Develop OpenSolaris". The get OpenSolaris would feature the ref build, but also provide links and descriptions of the top alternate distros. On 6/5/07, Ignacio Marambio Catán <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/5/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference > > distribution which you can rebuild yourself. > > I completely agree. The part that's unclear to me is whether solving > the "I can't find downloads at opensolaris.org" is any part of that > problem. would it be possible to have links to the rest of the distributions at osol.org? that would at least solve ONE problem easily nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: would it be possible to have links to the rest of the distributions at osol.org? that would at least solve ONE problem easily What, you mean something like http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ ? -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a >mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking >that the best option would be to include templates in the installation >procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what >kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. > Excellent model; who will host the packaging database? Or would you be able to build a subset? We really need the indiana-discuss list. ~Anil ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 6/5/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: > would it be possible to have links to the rest of the distributions at > osol.org? > that would at least solve ONE problem easily What, you mean something like http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ ? yes, something like that but more visible and in the front page (you now need to go to downloads, and scroll down) nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Brian Gupta wrote: As I understand there are links on the homepage?? Speaking of homepage, I would suggest that once we have a working distro that we have a splash page that says "Get OpenSolaris" and "Develop OpenSolaris". The get OpenSolaris would feature the ref build, but also provide links and descriptions of the top alternate distros. What, you mean like the two CD icons with 'Download' written under them on the homepage, or the 'Download' link on the left hand side of the home page, or the 'Request a DVD' link on the top right hand side of the page, or even the page at get.opensolaris.org? It might help if some of the people who are criticising what we have at the moment had actually bothered to look at the thing they are criticising *before* criticising it. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: What, you mean something like http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ ? yes, something like that but more visible and in the front page (you now need to go to downloads, and scroll down) Have you actually looked? -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 6/5/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brian Gupta wrote: > As I understand there are links on the homepage?? Speaking of homepage, I > would suggest that once we have a working distro that we have a splash page > that says "Get OpenSolaris" and "Develop OpenSolaris". The get OpenSolaris > would feature the ref build, but also provide links and descriptions of the > top alternate distros. What, you mean like the two CD icons with 'Download' written under them on the homepage, or the 'Download' link on the left hand side of the home page, or the 'Request a DVD' link on the top right hand side of the page, or even the page at get.opensolaris.org? It might help if some of the people who are criticising what we have at the moment had actually bothered to look at the thing they are criticising *before* criticising it. I mean something like this: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Brian Gupta wrote: It might help if some of the people who are criticising what we have at the moment had actually bothered to look at the thing they are criticising *before* criticising it. I mean something like this: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ Please don't hold the Mozilla site up as an example - it used to be virtually impossible to find the Solaris builds. And opensolaris.org should more properly be http://developer.mozilla.org/ rather than that site. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: On 6/5/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference > distribution which you can rebuild yourself. I completely agree. The part that's unclear to me is whether solving the "I can't find downloads at opensolaris.org" is any part of that problem. would it be possible to have links to the rest of the distributions at osol.org? that would at least solve ONE problem easily http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ has had links to all of them for a while. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking that the best option would be to include templates in the installation procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. What do you guys thing? -Brian --- Brian, Oh, not bad as this is done by Debian installs. Yet, think of the users that don't connect certain workstations to the network or have high network bandwidth. I'd think the distro would at least be the core functional OS without X or GUI related binaries. Basically enough that an ISP or educational institute to run UNIX commands (i.e. comparable to FreeBSD-mini.iso). You can install this image on 128MB RAM computers and compile software using GCC or a subset of Sun Studio 12 (CLI-based only). Take a look at the FreeBSD-mini.iso which is a decent example of a 'reference' distro. Ken Mays EarthLink, Inc. ___ You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 6/5/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: >> What, you mean something like http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ ? >> > yes, something like that but more visible and in the front page > (you now need to go to downloads, and scroll down) Have you actually looked? ops, i did look, however, i missed the quick downloads table... stupid me but from http://www.theregister.com/2007/05/31/sun_project_indiana/comments/ i can see people are still confused (and complaining). maybe we should add something like the image at a nice blog entry from stevel http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/ still people will always complain about something :) nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: Have you actually looked? ops, i did look, however, i missed the quick downloads table... stupid me but from http://www.theregister.com/2007/05/31/sun_project_indiana/comments/ i can see people are still confused (and complaining). I don't know what the current download statistics are, but if we stack them against the proportionately tiny number of complaints we've had, it seems that *most* people understand that a CD icon with the word 'Download' under it is probably what they should click on. Just as opensolaris-discuss is in no way representative of the OpenSolaris community as a whole (as I've already pointed out), neither are the comments pages of El Reg a reliable mechanism for gauging the success of our download pages. maybe we should add something like the image at a nice blog entry from stevel http://whacked.net/2007/03/01/opensolarissolaris-relationships-updated/ Yes, I suggested that last week. still people will always complain about something :) Exactly so. We need to be very careful *not* to make knee-jerk judgements based on a small number of complaints - as you say, some people will *always* complain. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Alan Coopersmith wrote: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ has had links to all of them for a while. It still does. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
ken mays writes: > Oh, not bad as this is done by Debian installs. Yet, > think of the users that don't connect certain > workstations to the network or have high network > bandwidth. Of course, this is also already part of the stated goals of the Caiman project ... -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On 6/5/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brian Gupta wrote: >> It might help if some of the people who are criticising what we have at >> the moment had actually bothered to look at the thing they are >> criticising *before* criticising it. > > I mean something like this: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ Please don't hold the Mozilla site up as an example - it used to be virtually impossible to find the Solaris builds. And opensolaris.org should more properly be http://developer.mozilla.org/ rather than that site. Please don't take my example as the way, when I type http://www.firefox.comit redirects to http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ from there there is a developers tab that takes you to the the mozilla.org homepage. If you were to extend the analogy to us, the "splash" page would have two predominantly displayed links: "Get OpenSolaris" would send you to http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads and "Get involved" that points to what is currently at http://www.opensolaris.org/ . This is just an idea to improve approachability of the site, as the current homepage, no offense, is a little busy and overwhelming for newcomers. brian P.S. - I cc'ed website discuss as this might be of interest to them. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:35:33AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a > mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking > that the best option would be to include templates in the installation > procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what > kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. > > What do you guys thing? > > -Brian > > On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. -- Francois Saint-Jacques http://www.networkdump.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:35:33AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking that the best option would be to include templates in the installation procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. What do you guys thing? -Brian On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. As monolithic as it may be, when you're building an entire platform, something of that nature is required to deliver it all. While it may be an unfamiliar task to Linux folks, it isn't to those from the BSD world. Similar commands exist for FreeBSD - "make buildworld" - and NetBSD "make build" - that build the entire operating system, kernel, commands, man pages, etc. However unlike Solaris, on both of those BSD platforms there is no extra special bits required. If I want to build just a specific kernel module, I cd to usr/src/uts/intel/ip (for example, to build just ip) and type "make all" in that directory. Similarly I can do a "make" in various other directories for libraries, binaries, etc. However it isn't safe to build just in one place until after you've done a complete build as there may be dependencies, etc. At least one "short cut" required if you wan to try building just a small part is to do a "make install_h" in usr/src. Being able to do "make" in usr/src and have that invoke nightly or whatever would be "nice". Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Francois Saint-Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we > need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is > really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that > 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? > > Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build > what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following > this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. This is the wrong way to go. ON is not even complete. Why do you believe are flagdays needed? This is a result of inconsistences in ON because it is incomplete, you need a build machine that is very similar to the just crerated ON release. This is not Linux but UNIX and if you like to compare, look at *BSD. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:35:33AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking that the best option would be to include templates in the installation procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. What do you guys thing? -Brian On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. It is possible to do partial builds even today. nightly will build the whole thing. bldenv will start a new shell with the environment vars setup properly. Now in this shell you can only build libc by doing: cd usr/src/lib/libc; make Build kernel via: cd usr/src/uts; make The thing that is missing is a make menuconfig like stuff that can allow one to build a reduced set of kernel components or a reduced features kernel. Currently all kernel components are built. Regards, Moinak. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Moinak Ghosh writes: > The thing that is missing is a make menuconfig like stuff that can allow > one to build a reduced set of kernel components or a reduced features > kernel. > Currently all kernel components are built. Ugh. Please, let's not go the way of the sort of #ifdef madness that tragically afflicts other platforms. Modularity in the the Solaris kernel is achieved by creating separate loadable modules. So long as you understand what those modules do and how they relate to each other, you can build and change subsets of them to alter your system as you choose. I don't agree that 'make menuconfig' would be a good thing. It's a maintenance and testing nightmare. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:08:16AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Francois Saint-Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we > > need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is > > really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that > > 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? > > > > Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build > > what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following > > this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. > > This is the wrong way to go. > > ON is not even complete. Why do you believe are flagdays needed? > This is a result of inconsistences in ON because it is incomplete, > you need a build machine that is very similar to the just crerated > ON release. > > This is not Linux but UNIX and if you like to compare, look at *BSD. Reposting due to bad from: I've runned OpenBSD and FreeBSD for many years, I know the difference between the base system and ports/packages. My point is: neither OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD provides a decent way to upgrade the core system AND packages at the same time. I love *BSD, but I'm not running it on production server simply because you can't upgrade it quickly. On the other site, if the packaging system is also aware of the base system and packages. That's all I request :) PS: It seems I didn't read the build process correctly. "Ordinary SVR4 packages can be built from the files installed into the proto area (see section 4.4.1). This is done automatically by the main makefile's all and pkg_all targets (see usr/src/Makefile) as part of a successful build." So if we could build something around 'pkgbootstrap' which could build a working system only from packages, that would be a good step. -- Francois Saint-Jacques http://www.networkdump.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
James Carlson wrote: Moinak Ghosh writes: The thing that is missing is a make menuconfig like stuff that can allow one to build a reduced set of kernel components or a reduced features kernel. Currently all kernel components are built. Ugh. Please, let's not go the way of the sort of #ifdef madness that tragically afflicts other platforms. Modularity in the the Solaris kernel is achieved by creating separate loadable modules. So long as you understand what those modules do and how they relate to each other, you can build and change subsets of them to alter your system as you choose. I don't agree that 'make menuconfig' would be a good thing. It's a maintenance and testing nightmare. Okay. But to have OpenSolaris on appliances and constrained platforms it will require the ability to build a kernel with a reduced set of features. Leaving out individual modules can be done but only till a point. Regards, Moinak. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:09:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... If I want to build just a specific kernel module, I cd to usr/src/uts/intel/ip (for example, to build just ip) and type "make all" in that directory. Similarly I can do a "make" in various other directories for libraries, binaries, etc. However it isn't safe to build just in one place until after you've done a complete build as there may be dependencies, etc. At least one "short cut" required if you wan to try building just a small part is to do a "make install_h" in usr/src. Being able to do "make" in usr/src and have that invoke nightly or whatever would be "nice". My point is: neither OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD provides a decent way to upgrade the core system AND packages at the same time. I love *BSD, but I'm not running it on production server simply because you can't upgrade it quickly. On the other site, if the packaging system is also aware of the base system and packages. That's all I request :) The point is you're not meant to upgrade both at the same time. And I thought that was the flexibility being sought :) Through various compatibility options, you are meant to be able to upgrade the kernel and base OS independant of the packages/ports. For ports/packages, updating the relevant tree is required, along with a "make deinstall; make install", to do an upgrade. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
Joerg Schilling wrote: Francois Saint-Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. This is the wrong way to go. ON is not even complete. Why do you believe are flagdays needed? This is a result of inconsistences in ON because it is incomplete, you need a build machine that is very similar to the just crerated ON release. This is not Linux but UNIX and if you like to compare, look at *BSD. *BSD have flag days for similar reasons to Solaris - when you change (for example) the major number of libc, chances are things will care about this. Darren ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:36 +0530, Moinak Ghosh wrote: > Francois Saint-Jacques wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:35:33AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > > > >> One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a > >> mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I have been thinking > >> that the best option would be to include templates in the installation > >> procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what > >> kind of distro you want. e.g - Indiana, minimum, Reference. > >> > >> What do you guys thing? > >> > >> -Brian > >> > >> On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we > > need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is > > really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that > > 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stuff? > > > > Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build > > what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following > > this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. > > > > It is possible to do partial builds even today. > nightly will build the whole thing. bldenv will start a new shell with the > environment vars setup properly. Now in this shell you can only build libc > by doing: cd usr/src/lib/libc; make > Build kernel via: cd usr/src/uts; make > > The thing that is missing is a make menuconfig like stuff that can allow > one to build a reduced set of kernel components or a reduced features > kernel. Please don't do that... Usually feature like this heavily depends on macros within the kernel and changes its structuring. As the result Linux kernels suffers from beign incompatible even within the same minor release just because vendors jumping on this feature and building their variants with modified .config files. As far as Embedded OpenSolaris is concerned (if any), in my opinion it should just single option in bld-env which strips down existing components and produces reduced fat proto. > Currently all kernel components are built. > > Regards, > Moinak. > > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
>*BSD have flag days for similar reasons to Solaris - >when you change (for example) the major number of libc, >chances are things will care about this. We do not have such flag days in Solaris. We only have build environment flag days because ON is not self-contained. The flag days are typically of the form: - As of today - you should be using compiler X - you should have libz version >= A - you should have libxml version >= B - you should have Java version >= C - you should have GNOME version >= D Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:09:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As monolithic as it may be, when you're building an entire > platform, something of that nature is required to deliver > it all. While it may be an unfamiliar task to Linux folks, > it isn't to those from the BSD world. > > Similar commands exist for FreeBSD - "make buildworld" - and > NetBSD "make build" - that build the entire operating system, > kernel, commands, man pages, etc. However unlike Solaris, > on both of those BSD platforms there is no extra special > bits required. I've runned OpenBSD and FreeBSD for many years, I know the difference between the base system and ports/packages. > If I want to build just a specific kernel module, I cd to > usr/src/uts/intel/ip (for example, to build just ip) and > type "make all" in that directory. > > Similarly I can do a "make" in various other directories > for libraries, binaries, etc. However it isn't safe to > build just in one place until after you've done a complete > build as there may be dependencies, etc. > > At least one "short cut" required if you wan to try building > just a small part is to do a "make install_h" in usr/src. > > Being able to do "make" in usr/src and have that invoke > nightly or whatever would be "nice". My point is: neither OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD provides a decent way to upgrade the core system AND packages at the same time. I love *BSD, but I'm not running it on production server simply because you can't upgrade it quickly. On the other site, if the packaging system is also aware of the base system and packages. That's all I request :) PS: It seems I didn't read the build process correctly. "Ordinary SVR4 packages can be built from the files installed into the proto area (see section 4.4.1). This is done automatically by the main makefile's all and pkg_all targets (see usr/src/Makefile) as part of a successful build." -- Francois Saint-Jacques http://www.networkdump.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Do we even need a reference OpenSolaris binary distro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build > >>what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following > >>this method, you give more freedom to external distribution. > >> > >> > > > >This is the wrong way to go. > > > >ON is not even complete. Why do you believe are flagdays needed? > >This is a result of inconsistences in ON because it is incomplete, > >you need a build machine that is very similar to the just crerated > >ON release. > > > >This is not Linux but UNIX and if you like to compare, look at *BSD. > > > > > > *BSD have flag days for similar reasons to Solaris - > when you change (for example) the major number of libc, > chances are things will care about this. *BSD does not have problems to compile in such a case but problems to upgrade to the new binaries. If you do it in the wrong order things may fail in a way that prevents further booting. The main problem with Solaris ON is that it does not include everything you need to dompile it (e.g. math.h) This forces you to have a build machine that uses a version close to the build. While you could remove a lot of code from ON whithout braking things, you could make the problems on flag days less big if ON would be self containing. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
