PDA

View Full Version : Will Ubuntu Switch To The Solaris Kernel?



jrickmar
February 13th, 2007, 04:37 AM
I was just wondering, since Sun will be making Solaris GPL v.3 and Linus has in his mind that Linux will stay as GPL v.2, could there be a possibility that Ubuntu switches to the Solaris kernal? If so, what kind of changes will have to take place in Ubuntu?

boredandblogging.com
February 13th, 2007, 04:40 AM
Considering Ubuntu is very dependent on Debian, I would not think so.

Albi
February 13th, 2007, 04:43 AM
Yes, and no

Yes, such a thing exists:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki

No, it probably won't be default.

Anthem
February 13th, 2007, 04:45 AM
Not sure I see why it would be a problem for Linux staying with GPL v2.

And it's not like you just swap out a kernel and you're done. That's a non-trivial change. Plus, you think hardware support is bad now, just wait.

Switching to a Solaris kernel is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't gain anything for the desktop user, and it loses quite a bit.

the_darkside_986
February 13th, 2007, 05:33 AM
Solaris, yuck. I once tried a liveCD of it called Bellenix and it couldn't get very far. It was really slow and spit out strange error messages while trying to launch. I would like to try it again someday when they get better hardware support. But for now, Linux supports my hardware very well.

Kateikyoushi
February 13th, 2007, 05:56 AM
I think as the solution to the FF situation showed us this won't happen, they will sort things out without the need for solaris.

SunnyRabbiera
February 13th, 2007, 05:59 AM
why would it need to?
Honestly I see no benifits to switching over to the solaris kernal

Anthem
February 13th, 2007, 06:09 AM
Honestly I see no benifits to switching over to the solaris kernal
Everything I wanted to say, in a quarter of the space.

Well done, sir.

SunnyRabbiera
February 13th, 2007, 06:10 AM
I am a girl :D

tubasoldier
February 13th, 2007, 06:13 AM
The Solaris Kernel is not quite as desktop oriented as the Linux kernel currently is. The future of Solaris depends on Sun's willingness to add more hardware support into their kernel. The positives of Solaris is that there will be a big corporation that the end users can point the finger at when something goes wrong. Linux does not have that. Linux has no major corporation that end users can go to when they have problems. (technical or legal) ...

So basically, Solaris needs more hardware support and Linux will never have a large corporation to point the finger at. Solaris has the potential, but Linux is much more mature.

usernamebob
February 13th, 2007, 08:37 AM
I'd say the majority of people I've talked to are very happy that the kernel is staying gpl 2.. so I don't see why we'd change kernels. If we did (which would be an insanely huge change anyway) we'd be much better off to go with bsd than solaris.

Sunnz
February 13th, 2007, 10:44 AM
The Solaris Kernel is not quite as desktop oriented as the Linux kernel currently is. The future of Solaris depends on Sun's willingness to add more hardware support into their kernel. The positives of Solaris is that there will be a big corporation that the end users can point the finger at when something goes wrong. Linux does not have that. Linux has no major corporation that end users can go to when they have problems. (technical or legal) ...

So basically, Solaris needs more hardware support and Linux will never have a large corporation to point the finger at. Solaris has the potential, but Linux is much more mature.

Exactly, I would like to see Solaris mature for the desktop audience too.

Though I think it has already matured enough on workstations and servers.

Spr0k3t
February 13th, 2007, 11:04 AM
What are the major differences between GPL2 & GPL3? I mean, why would one be better than the other?

rai4shu2
February 13th, 2007, 11:36 AM
If you seriously want to understand the GPL, I suggest you consult a lawyer. Anything else said here is most likely Microsoft-sponsored FUD.

Quillz
February 13th, 2007, 11:54 AM
I don't think this will happen.

glotz
February 13th, 2007, 12:05 PM
What are the major differences between GPL2 & GPL3? I mean, why would one be better than the other? See http://gplv3.fsf.org/ and http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/gplv3#transcripts

jrickmar
February 13th, 2007, 01:13 PM
The whole reason that there is that whole Novell-Microsoft deal is because of legal flaws in GPL 2. GPL 3 is desgined to fix those flaws, so deals like these won't happen again.

Magnes
February 13th, 2007, 01:29 PM
GPLv3 is good for me. But GPLv2 is not bad. :)

Sunnz
February 13th, 2007, 01:37 PM
GPLv2 has been 'working' for what? 15 or so years?

Don't expect GPLv2 just to vanish.

ON TOPIC: someone could well fork Ubuntu and puts it back together with a Solaris kernel - if there is enough interest in the eye of developers. Oh mine the beauty of FLOSS!!! :D

Kateikyoushi
February 13th, 2007, 02:07 PM
I think that would be even less popular than gentoobsd.

3rdalbum
February 13th, 2007, 02:27 PM
I think that would be even less popular than gentoobsd.

Gentoobsd? Wow, I've gotta try that thing out, right after my bi-weekly prostate examination!

Sunnz
February 13th, 2007, 02:42 PM
Yea but why not just use FreeBSD? Oh wait...

Kernel Sanders
February 13th, 2007, 02:54 PM
The whole reason that there is that whole Novell-Microsoft deal is because of legal flaws in GPL 2. GPL 3 is desgined to fix those flaws, so deals like these won't happen again.

If GPL 3 stops deals such as the novell-microsoft deal, surely thats more restrictive than GPL 2?

I prefer GPL 2. It gives people more freedoms. Restricting things to protect freedoms doesnt make sense.

usernamebob
February 13th, 2007, 03:33 PM
If GPL 3 stops deals such as the novell-microsoft deal, surely thats more restrictive than GPL 2?

I prefer GPL 2. It gives people more freedoms. Restricting things to protect freedoms doesnt make sense.

while I do essentialy agree with you.. couldn't it be fairly easily argued that the gpl2 forcing people who make their own version of the source to re-release under the gpl is restricting to protect freedom?

Sunnz
February 13th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Well it ensures the freedom doesn't ends there... yes it can be viewed as a restriction I suppose, but I think it is a nice blend between not forcing things to be free like BSD licence to the GPLv3 of forcing freedom in every direction.

bapoumba
February 13th, 2007, 03:42 PM
Nexenta (http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki) ;)
Edit: never mind, it's linked on the first page. Sorry for the noise /o\

BrokeBody
February 13th, 2007, 04:15 PM
In the enterprise fields, where the most of the money is rolling, Solaris was, is, and will be leading. As with Open Solaris... That is a calculated move, and Sun generally don't care for the community. They don't live from software, they live from hardware. For years, Solaris is free of charge. Putting Solaris under GPL will give them bigger hardware sales, because, normally, Solaris works best on Sun's hardware. Then, Solaris will be the only one who will give technical support... And big companies don't come to forums to beg some horny teenagers for help, but they will expect for the real support.

Conclusion, Sun is winning... Community also, but more like some side effect, than for some exact cause. It's a question of months when Solaris is going to become the absolute leader when it comes to anything server related. When it comes to anything desktop related, GNU/Linux will be the absolute leader. And as for Windows (Microsoft), they are gonna play it lower.

This was not some "empty talk", it is the information "from the first hand" (Sun insider). ;)

laxmanb
February 13th, 2007, 04:32 PM
i find any version of GPL restrictive from a "commercial use" view point... GPL v2 code has legal problems linking it to proprietary code (NVidia/ATi drivers... )

GPLv3 has less legal problems doing that but it has that huge anti-DRM tilt (or so i think... )

huge reason i like CDDL...

shining
February 13th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Yea but why not just use FreeBSD? Oh wait...

Maybe for losing the consistency?

Anthem
February 14th, 2007, 06:23 AM
If you seriously want to understand the GPL, I suggest you consult a lawyer. Anything else said here is most likely Microsoft-sponsored FUD.
Wait, what? I'm all for consulting a lawyer, but are you really suggesting that the posters on this forum are sponsored by Microsoft?

Sunnz
February 15th, 2007, 02:00 PM
Maybe for losing the consistency?
What consistency? FreeBSD per se, is VERY consistent, even more than your everyday Linux distro.