Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a "hybrid" will
> > not run any existing Solaris apps like you will not be able to run
> > simple thinks like Macromedia flush player, JRE, JDK, Oracle, SAP, etc
> > etc... Do you still wanna do that?
>
> Erm.
>
> If Oracle and SAP are on your list of “simple things”, what then are large
> complex things for you?
But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these "things" are
existing applications which must run. The world is not 100% open sourced
yet and we are in it, we are part of it, therefore my ideal OS need to
be capable to run existing freeware and closed binaries as is without
re-compilation. I want to run VMware, Oracle, Skype, SAP, Macromedia
flush, etc, etc, etc. I want my Nexenta to run DTrace, BrandZ
virtualization, ZFS, Zones without major re-design, etc, etc, etc...
Once you accompany OpenSolaris kernel with GLIBC, you will kill this
capability, you will not be able to run anything other than OSS compiled
for your particular distro. That was my point. And isn't LSB is what
GNU/Linux moving towards to? In OpenSolaris we have its Core which we
following as a standard and I don't see any single reason not to do so.
Now, I really think Fink was a good idea to begin with and sure Nexenta
following the same idea and in many ways extends it. i.e. Fink capable
to run Debian packaged OSS stack on existing Darwin core, while they
need to trade off some design issues. Meanwhile Nexenta is the OS from
ground to up, which helps us to make/design a lot of things in cleaner
way and form. The fact that in Nexenta OSS porting efforts are minimized
is not a coincidence...
--
Erast
Reply to: