Does anyone use the SysV/Solaris binary compat?

Do you use the SysV/OpenSolaris compat layer?

  • Yes, with binaries

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, but only with recompiled software

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Yes, with both

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • It's a thing‽

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Total voters
    11
Oops. My memory must be faulty. Wasn't it removed in FBSD 12. Ignore this thread? But why does the compat/opensolaris directory still exist but the sysv ome doesn't. I can't find any docs for the what-goes-where of the source tree, so I am just digging through it and trying to reverse-engineer it. If someone had some orginazation docs, then could you point me to them?
 
I’ve only ever managed to get it working with recompiled builds. Precompiled binaries usually choke on library or ABI differences.
 
There's Plan9 that works this way. There are two packages/ports which each comes with a whole set of programs in their own directories: devel/plan9base & devel/plan9port. Many overlap with what's in here.

There's a screenshot of one of these running an astronomy related program:
which astro
/usr/local/plan9/bin/astro
astro
hruodr said:
...
Click to expand...
snap-1756675045-jpg.23499
 
RetroComputingCollector said:
Wasn't it removed in FBSD 12.
Click to expand...
Nope. What you might be thinking of was the change of ZFS to OpenZFS with 13. On FreeBSD 12 (and before) ZFS depended on opensolaris.ko, that dependency is gone when 13 switched to OpenZFS.

There's been a svr4 but it got removed a long time ago. I remember there's another "binary compatibility" module but I forgot its name. It's a bit difficult to search for something you can't remember the name of :D
 
No, it was an actual kernel module, keep thinking it was something IBM, AIX maybe?
 
sidetone said:
There's Plan9 that works this way. There are two packages/ports which each comes with a whole set of programs in their own directories: devel/plan9base & devel/plan9port. Many overlap with what's in here.
Click to expand...
It is not plan9, but ported programs from plan9 user space.
The behave slightly different than in plan9.
I installed once plan9 in an old computer and never managed to do it again. It does not run in any hardware.

Perhaps it would be interesting to run 9vx from:


But some work would be necessary.
 
When I was starting Thread defunct-non-gpl-open-source-bsd-solaris-beos-based-operating-systems.99249, which looked into the history of SunOS, Solaris and OpenSolaris, and how illumos use seems to be slowly declining, I see the need for using a compat layer. I'd like to see illumos survive. If more of its software available on FreeBSD gives people familiarity with illumos, that would be good for their project. Though, I believe there would be redundancy of software in FreeBSD's ports/packages, and illumos. This is aside from the plan9 ports, which bring a set of programs.

The reason I write illumos, is because it was the leader of afterwards of the previous OpenSolaris operating system. The illumos Foundation supported other illumos based operating systems, including OpenIndianna. As of 2024, the nonprofit illumos Foundation is no more. illumos is still there. It's really illumos based than OpenSolaris based, as illumos carried much of that open source movement.

IIRC, when you searched online for software repositories or manpages for illumos derivatives, illumos' respository or manpage site showed up. Now, it seems OpenIndianna and OmniOS have their own sites.

I would guess that illumos based repositories for software is what to use for that illumos/OpenSolaris compat layer. Some need to try it to share about it. We need to start thinking of it as illumos, than Solaris.

Thread nature-of-opensource-non-bsd-non-linux-providers.99046

A few things hurt illumos: one was distributions insisting on GPL finding a way around CDDL in order to use ZFS, another one related to license is that FSF villified CDDL before people formed their own opinion on it, another reason was that illumos didn't lift its brand above that of OpenSolaris, there was also a lack of books on illumos. It would have also helped for the illumos Foundation to steward its own CDDL based license, not Sun MicroSystems' or Oracle's versions. Also, no one understood illumos as being the bearer of operating systems based on it. OpenSolaris sounded good, but illumos was the bearer. Sun MicroSystems wasn't around to carry OpenSolaris anymore, it was illumos which needed to gain itself that recognition. Not every many people understood why to use illumos variants, when there were a few to choose from, rather than BSD's.

illumos did good, and that it was a backer of a few operating systems, but it didn't have mobilization of conferences, literature and multimedia like BSD's did. Their foundation had direction for sustaining software for an extended time which had already been created, but it lacked direction for growth. When it existed, the illumos Foundation could have invited software foundations which only wanted to focus on libraries and software excluding building the operating system they ran on.

What originally separated Solaris from BSD's is that Solaris started using SysV, when its predecessor SunOS was a closed source BSD which used BSD's init. The different initialization systems may still be the main separation between BSD's and illumos'es.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top