Still beating the dead Nexenta horse?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Jun 17, 2006 7:03 AM EDT |
Usually closed source binaries drivers re-distributed by hardware manufactures. This is a basic way for HW companies to supply their drivers. Unfortunetly, Linux kernel does not support it. Linux kernel interfaces are unstable which creates a lot of headaches for an end users especially on a Desktop. NexentaOS has a chance to succeed on a Desktop - it supports binary-only drivers the way Windows XP does via utilizing Kernel Device Driver API interfaces, which are stable and preserved over time. This and the enormous arrogance of Mr. Benson himself (Yes, I've read the thread over on the Debian mailing-list over the GPL spat. Mr. Benson seems to think NexentaOS, which is no more than Ubuntu with a kernel transplant, is equivalent to the new Mesiah) is one reason I wouldn't use NexentaOS as my main operating system. If binary drivers and the largest collection of software were my concern, I'd be running Microsoft Windows. In comparison NexentaOS is but an inaudible fart in the universe. I'll take Free Ubuntu every day above an aggressive copy cat with a Cuddly kernel. |
| grouch Jun 17, 2006 2:29 PM EDT |
r_a_trip: I'll bet you're one of those wacky zealots who thinks freedom has some kind of value. |
| drgrep Jun 27, 2006 4:24 PM EDT |
This and the enormous arrogance of Mr. Benson himself (Yes, I've read the thread over on the Debian mailing-list over the GPL spat. Mr. Benson seems to think NexentaOS, which is no more than Ubuntu with a kernel transplant, is equivalent to the new Mesiah) is one reason I wouldn't use NexentaOS as my main operating system. I've read the thread as well, and Erast was nothing but polite. The Nexenta project is a brilliant idea. And Mr. Benson is far from arrogant, although if he was, he certainly would have a right to be. If you had half a clue about the work he has accomplished thus far, you'd shut your yappie mouth. Erast has more UNIX and development experience on both Linux and Solaris in his pinky finger than you'll ever have in your lifetime. Nexenta's contribution is nothing short of wonderful. Have you bothered to even read the comments from the founder of Debian on this whole mess? Guess whose side he's on? http://ianmurdock.com/?p=278. Nexenta combines the best of everything. It's an extremely hard and ambitious project, and if you think it's a simple a drop in kernel replacement, then this only shows how clueless you are. I'd like to see you try to compile Solaris ON and create a bootable image with a GNU userland. I am not affiliated with Nexenta, nor do I use it. But at least I have the sense to appreciate good ideas, and the humility to avoid insulting the valiant work of others in the open source community. In comparison NexentaOS is but an inaudible fart in the universe. As was Linux once upon a time. Good thing you weren't around to insult it too. I'll take Free Ubuntu every day above an aggressive copy cat with a Cuddly kernel. And what is Ubuntu, but the very same copy cat of another distro: Debian. Go rent a clue you troll. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 27, 2006 4:44 PM EDT |
Now now, r_a_trip is far from being a troll; just presenting a viewpoint you don't care for is not trolling. Nexenta sounds interesting on the surface: "NexentaOS is a complete GNU-based open source operating system built on top of the [WWW] OpenSolaris kernel and runtime. It is a result of our inspiration and desire to build a great system based on the best existing software: SunOS kernel and GNU software. We use Debian - one of the best existing software distribution/packaging mechanisms - to glue the numerous pieces together." But then Mr. Benson touts the value of supporting closed binary drivers, which is antithical to everything that Debian and GNU stand for. The Linux kernel devs have explained many times why they don't go all gooey over supporting closed binary drivers. What is it with people, anyway? Have we reached the magic point where we have enough Free Software, and can go back to the old closed proprietary ways? It might be an interesting project, and it might even succeed. But from my point of view it's just another non-Free project making pointless compromises, and going against the very system that made it possible in the first place. edit: Additionally, coupling the GPL and CDDL, which are not compatible, and adding non-Free binaries raises all manner of legitimate licensing questions and problems. Just waving hands and saying "go away, it's not a problem" does not make it not a problem. |
| jdixon Jun 27, 2006 5:47 PM EDT |
> Good thing you weren't around to insult it too. Ahem, unless he's still a teenager, he was. |
| drgrep Jun 27, 2006 8:47 PM EDT |
Now now, r_a_trip is far from being a troll; just presenting a viewpoint you don't care for is not trolling. Nexenta sounds interesting on the surface: Comments such as "In comparison NexentaOS is but an inaudible fart in the universe." and "aggressive copy cat with a Cuddly kernel" are not trolling? We obviously have different definitions. But then Mr. Benson touts the value of supporting closed binary drivers, which is antithical to everything that Debian and GNU stand for. Really, then why does Debian tout its ability to run with non-linux kernels (i.e. BSD), which do permit binary drivers without any licensing problems at all? What is it with people, anyway? Have we reached the magic point where we have enough Free Software, and can go back to the old closed proprietary ways? And since when does allowing binary drivers decide the entire fate of an operating system? If that's the case, let's get rid of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, the latter of which tout this as an advantage of using it over Linux in embedded systems -- http://www.wasabisystems.com/gpl/. Linux is not the only open source operating system, and the GPL not the only open source license. Theo de Raadt doesn't like binary drivers (http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39), but that doesn't make him change OpenBSD's license to GPL. I don't like binary drivers, but I'm not about to turn down the chance at using something like Nexenta. edit: Additionally, coupling the GPL and CDDL, which are not compatible, and adding non-Free binaries raises all manner of legitimate licensing questions and problems. Just waving hands and saying "go away, it's not a problem" does not make it not a problem. And this brings us to the best part of this whole sordid mess. The so-called licensing issues. Why don't you ask Eben Moglen, the Free Software Foundation's lawyer, his opinion on this? I'll save you the time. You can link GPL software with Microsoft's closed libc, with HP closed libc, with SCO's closed libc. Yet, because of a of a specific phrasing of a specific clause in the GPL v2 it seems like if you distribute the operating system's components, you can't link a GPL program to your component. So if a system's libc is closed, its perfectly acceptable for someone to link GPL software to it (if they are not the distributor). But if the libc is open, and non-GPL, and you are the distributor it appears everything falls apart. So distributing GPL software linked against open source (albiet non-GPL code such as Sun's CDDL libc) along with an open source OS, is not allowed. This is not only ludicrous, it was never the intent of the clause in question. This clause was intended to allow GPL software to run on proprietary systems, nothing more. Two interesting points: 1. This clause is left out of the GPL v3 draft to date. 2. Eben Moglen said that this clause never carried this intent and the GPL v3 will amply address this, as it has caused many problems. He said: On the screen at the moment, is our modified version of what came to be known in the past 15 years as "the system library exception". Dealing with the question: when source code need not be provided for components of combined works including GPL software because the components were already available as part of the operating system or operating environment and the user could be expected to have either the source code or as much access to the source code as the operating system or environment permitted. That version of the exception, in GPL2, was both over- and under-inclusive in ways that created difficulties. Certain behaviour, such as combining the GCC compiler or other GPL'd applications, with the C libraries of proprietary operating systems, or operating systems under GPL-incompatible licenses, had been challenged as violations of GPL where we thought that they were reasonable and permissible uses of GPL'd works. Other modalities which we considered evasions of GPL had been claimed to qualify under the system library exception. (See http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html for more.) Furthermore, it has been made clear that the FSF does not see Nexenta's use of (GPL) dpkg linked to Sun's libc to be an issue. This was discussed on Debian-legal: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20060406.232410.a... If you follow the thread, you'll see in interesting comment brought up: It is interesting to note, though, that the GPLv3 has apparently dropped this restriction. That will mean that software with "or later version" clauses potentially won't have this issue once GPLv3 is formally released, although I haven't analyzed it in detail. dpkg is one of the packages with an "or later version" clause. In Summary: With respect to Nexenta's use and distribution of GPL software: This is a complete non-issue. There is no hand waving. It's not a problem. And in Nexenta's case, it has indeed gone away. Just not everyone wants to accept it. What's amazing about all this is that you'd think that people would be thankful there are people out there creating this wonderful new open source software (under and OSI approved license), yet instead you get these massive NIH complexes that are more concerned that Erast didn't bow before them in the proper manner and first sacrifice 15 bulls before the altar of Debian. I can deal with that. But what I can't stand is when some people decide that they simply want to outright insult these developers without even the most basic understanding of what they are trying accomplish, or the value of what they are doing. That's just plain wrong. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 27, 2006 9:27 PM EDT |
You can like closed, binary, proprietary drivers all you want to. I don't like them, and I wish more effort went into opening them up instead of needlessly accomodating vendors who want to keep everything locked up. Open Source is not Free Software, and folks like me who support Free Software and are not comfortable with these sort of compromises are not going to roll over and go "oh yes, black is the new white." The license issues are not a non-issue, and your handwaving isn't working. Smarter people than me are arguing this; I'll leave it to them to sort it out. I don't care if you like and support Nexenta, that's your business. May they live long and prosper and have many happy users. Linking to closed binaries is not forbidden, and you can put that strawman away, because no one is arguing that it is. I'm tired of the propaganda about how backwards the Linux kernel devs for not eagerly welcoming closed binary drivers. Their reasons are sound and well-known. I don't particularly care for projects that take first-class Free Software like Debian, and roll it up with non-Free glop, and advocate it as a good thing. It's sometimes a necessary evil, but never a good thing. It's exploitation, and yes, the GPL allows it, but I don't have to like it. I know it's hurtful to tell a dev his baby is ugly- but that's how I feel about Nexenta. |
| jimf Jun 27, 2006 10:03 PM EDT |
> I don't particularly care for projects that take first-class Free Software like Debian, and roll it up with non-Free glop, and advocate it as a good thing. It's sometimes a necessary evil, but never a good thing. It's exploitation, and yes, the GPL allows it, but I don't have to like it. I know it's hurtful to tell a dev his baby is ugly- but that's how I feel about Nexenta. I'll second that. |
| drgrep Jun 28, 2006 5:24 AM EDT |
the GPL allows it, but I don't have to like it. I know it's hurtful to tell a dev his baby is ugly- but that's how I feel about Nexenta. And attempts the justify this kind of treatment toward Nexenta because of an issue as tiny as binary drivers is the equivalent of not just calling the baby ugly, but calling him ugly because he's not a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan. I realize Erast brought up the driver issue: Linux kernel does not support it. Linux kernel interfaces are unstable which creates a lot of headaches for an end users especially on a Desktop. The first sentence is objectively true, the second completely subjective, and should have been left out. Nevertheless, the ability to write binary drivers in no way warrants these kind of comments. Apple does it, all of the BSD's do it, and there should be nothing new or wrong with Nexenta doing it. And I never said you have to like it. You are entitled to like whatever you like. I don't like binary drivers either. But there is a difference between personal preference, constructive dialog, and outright insult, the latter of which has been the concern of my posts. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!