[advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM)

[Brandorr]

On 10/22/07, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote:
> On 22/10/2007, Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> wrote:
> > On 10/22/07, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote:
> > > On 22/10/2007, ameya agnihotri <ameyaagnihotri22 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> How about having OpenSolaris Kernel and other related utility programs as
> > > > >> reference?
> > > > >> Let say we will call OpenSolaris Kernel and other related utility
> > > > programs
> > > > >> as "OpenSolaris Core"
> > > >
> > > > >That isn't good enough; simply having the same kernel and utilities
> > > > >isn't enough to guarantee compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > if we have same kernel, loader, linker, compiler,a shell ( and libraries and
> > > > other utilities build using these tools) i think it will be reasonable to
> > > > say that we are compatible. We will face issues with directory hierarchy (
> > > > location of binaries /bin, /usr/local/bin etc) and environment variables.
> > > > what else do we need to ensure compatibility? Have i missed something?
> > >
> > > Almost every GNU/Linux distribution has the same loader, linker,
> > > compiler, shell, etc. yet they are obviously not wholly compatible.
> > > It's quite easy to produce *binaries* that run on one distribution and
> > > not another. So, yes, that isn't enough.
> >
> > Shawn, I would say Linux is unique because kernel "bumps" break
> > compatibility within a single distro.
>
> The same thing could happen in the OpenSolaris world too if someone so chose.
>
> > I'd also argue that "It's quite easy to compile..." a binary on an IPS
> > based system, that wouldn't run on the minimum slim-install of an IPS
> > distro, despite being based on identical binaries.
>
> Exactly; which is why (from what I can tell) the trademark usage
> policy that is being worked on for OpenSolaris focuses on re-usage of
> the existing components instead of trying to claim compatibility at a
> source-code level (which is what Linux distributions do and its
> worthless).
>
> > I think the big issue that is causing confusion is that Open + Solaris
> > brings to mind OpenBSD.
>
> Maybe for you; but Open + Solaris does not bring OpenBSD to mind for
> me. OpenSolaris only brings Solaris to mind for me.

Ian kept saying, that the uninitiated think OpenSolaris is a thing
like OpenSuse.

In principle I agree, but I think that many think of OpenBSD as the
example of a thing. (Keep in mind there is still confusion in the
market as to what OpenSUSE is, as until recently it was know as SuSE
Linux).

Within the BSD family of OSes, BSD is the base code, and the distros
are allowed to differentiate by adding a modifier to BSD, if they so
choose.  (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD)

Linux is similar. Distros have a common way of identifying themselves
w/ Linux: RedHat Enterprise Linux, SuSE Linux, PCLinuxOS, Debain Linux
(GNU/Linux), etc.)

For Solaris based distros we have no such common term, other than OpenSolaris.

>
> > It seems to imply that there are other Solaris
> > distros out there: GNUSolaris, FreeSolaris, NetSolaris, and such.
>
> It doesn't to me; but that's just my view.
>
> > Since no one but Sun can call a distro RandomSolaris, OpenSolaris must
> > be reserved for that purpose.
>
> What purpose?

A common identifier to identify products as members of the Solaris
family of OSes. (Meaning derived from Solaris source code.)

>
> --
> Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
> binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
>
> "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
> tried it. " --Donald Knuth
>


-- 
- Brian Gupta

http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/