Slashdot Mirror

"Red Hat's" Linux simply distinguished it from "Suse's Linux", Mandrake's", etc, etc. The only implication is that Schwartz sees RH as the most important brand/distro or whatever, according to his commercial criteria, which may be debateable, but hardly insulting to "the community".

Why didn't the submitter link to the actual blog, instead of someone else selectively quoting from it? Schwartz's blog is here:

Confidence, commitment and execution are the three things every Sun constituent should expect from us. We'll deliver the systems, the innovation, the partner models, the services and ultimately the results that represent the best source of opportunity for everyone involved. We have never had a stronger product line to solve the problems faced by the developers, deployers and operators of network services. And with another UNIX falling by the wayside, it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux. Not surprinsgly, I agree with the aforementioned HP customer. Enough is enough. We're happy to help all HP's constituents move on in life - better you walk away from the football, than have it walk away from you.

ps - I guess I did a miserably poor job of communicating with George Colony. And he didn't take me up on reading my blog. Red Hat does not equal linux, and linux is not evil. But, linux in the enterprise datacenter (that is, not your basement or startup or dorm room or gamebox) does equal Red Hat - and competing against a company is what we do for a living. Competing against a social movement we helped to found is a waste of energy, George. My fault for not more effectively communicating. (2004-09-30 22:48:07.0)

How about the fucking submitter, or editor, RTFA before wasting everyone's time with a beatup like this?

the actual extract came from the link *to* the URL posted above; you can grep for it at the main page

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan

I don't think too many people here have actually in fact read John Schwartz's blog.

Extracted from his blog (his words):

Red Hat does not equal linux, and linux is not evil. But, linux in the enterprise datacenter (that is, not your basement or startup or dorm room or gamebox) does equal Red Hat - and competing against a company is what we do for a living

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040721 #competing_against_a_social_movement

I don't think being "technical" is what prevents users clicking. I suspect many Firefox users are simply more active in trying to control their desktop environment, and perhaps also are more averse to advertising in the first place (they may have chosen Firefox because of it's built-in option to stop popup advertising). In the end, I don't think Firefox is responsible for any decline in ad clicks.

I expect we will see more advertising using Flash; I don't think MacroMedia are going to let you tweak what you see and what you don't since advertising content is a key use of their technology.

The battle for our eyeballs will continue. I think the real question is - how much are online users willing to endure advertising to get reasonable content for free or cheap? Either way we pay, in either time or money. I for one am grateful for those folks who click on adverts because they in effect help to subsidise the internet, but advertisers are under pressure to convert page hits to ad clicks to sales so who knows how long the current model will last?

... as he did in an earlier blog entry.

Or maybe we're both misreading things?

Many of these tools can/are(!) ALSO be used on Solaris systems as appropriate/preferred.

Try out Solaris 10, it's pretty funny to see the default desktop. It must have taken those Sun engineers hours to search & replace Gnome with Java Desktop.

Sun is running some special promotions aimed at dissatisfied HP customers. Why not try Solaris?

Marc Hamilton, Director of Technology for the Global Education and Research group at Sun Microsystems, will be speaking at the Southern California Linux Expo. SCALE will be held at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles, CA.

Why did you switch to Windows workstations? Is it the Windows operating system itself, or is the hardware just cheaper? Surely it's not because of Windows' vastly superior scripting language and abilities! (cough)

And just remember not to obsess over any sunk costs you've already incurred, like your Windows licenses.

Well... subtle hint. Can you think of a reason for this? And yes, Alan does know what he's talking about...

3.1. Availability of Source Code.

Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.

Good, so maybe you can shine your light on this, I quote from the draft license itself:

"4.1. New Versions.

Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number."

So, besides distributing patches to software, we can start distributing patches to licenses as well?

Great. Just what everyone needed.

No one in their right mind would start a new project using the GPL. The GPL doesn't provide patent protection. With all the patent litigation lately it would reflect poorly on Sun to kick off such a large project using an outdated license that doesn't cover the legal issues developers face today.

Most new OSI-approved licenses seem to cover patents in some form. There's even talk about a new version of the GPL that will, but as of now there's nothing.

Using the GPL would have earned them a kick in my book.

Of course, if you (or anyone else here for that matter) are complaining without actually knowing the rationale behind the license, you should go take a look at Sun's detailed description of the license.

The CDDL is similar to the MPL and its derivative licenses (CPL, SPL, etc.) in terms of combination with software distributed under other licenses. As with the MPL, files made available under the CDDL can be linked together with files made available under another license, as long as the other license does not prevent such linkage. This means that (for example) files licensed under the CDDL can be linked together with files licensed under the MPL, SPL, CPL (or other licenses that allow files under different licenses to be linked together) as well as with code released under "academic" licenses such as BSD, AFL, Apache, and X11. In addition, source code licensed under the CDDL can be combined in the same file with code licensed under an academic license, as long as the resulting source file is distributed under the CDDL.

The CDDL is similar to the MPL and its derivative licenses (CPL, SPL, etc.) in terms of combination with software distributed under other licenses. As with the MPL, files made available under the CDDL can be linked together with files made available under another license, as long as the other license does not prevent such linkage. This means that (for example) files licensed under the CDDL can be linked together with files licensed under the MPL, SPL, CPL (or other licenses that allow files under different licenses to be linked together) as well as with code released under "academic" licenses such as BSD, AFL, Apache, and X11. In addition, source code licensed under the CDDL can be combined in the same file with code licensed under an academic license, as long as the resulting source file is distributed under the CDDL.

The CDDL is similar to the MPL and its derivative licenses (CPL, SPL, etc.) in terms of combination with software distributed under other licenses. As with the MPL, files made available under the CDDL can be linked together with files made available under another license, as long as the other license does not prevent such linkage. This means that (for example) files licensed under the CDDL can be linked together with files licensed under the MPL, SPL, CPL (or other licenses that allow files under different licenses to be linked together) as well as with code released under "academic" licenses such as BSD, AFL, Apache, and X11. In addition, source code licensed under the CDDL can be combined in the same file with code licensed under an academic license, as long as the resulting source file is distributed under the CDDL.

counter-disclosure: I read about this on CNet, just like everyone else, and I don't know any more about this than is available at Sun's CDDL site. Also, I don't really work anywhere near the Solaris group.

The CDDL is just a refinement of the MPL-- and I've read the redline diffs, and there doesn't seem to be anything sinister or extra-restrictive about the changes.

The MPL is nice, in that it is propagative but not viral. That is, if you distribute a modified binary you have to distribute the source for your modifications, but you can use MPL-licensed code in a larger project without any effect at all on the license of the larger project.

The only reason GPL compatibility is even an issue is that there was some hope that Solaris code could be picked up and used in Linux-- which I really think was pretty optimistic. Techniques learned from the Solaris source may be transferrable, though, and I think still will be as long as the Solaris source is truly open.

Twelve Step TrustABLE IT:
Virtualised Linux Standard Base (VLSB)
in Virtual Demilitarized Network Zones (VDNZ)
from Trusted Build Agents (TBA)

Back in August 11, 1998, Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil and Josh Cohen released a memorandum titled Linux OS Competitive Analysis: The Next Java VM?, in which they predicted that Linux would become ubiquitous as a services platform. However, the title of the paper could be even more prophetic.

Consider the following.

[1] It is well known that Linux is quite portable, in fact only NETBSD comes close to the number of hardware platforms supported.

[2] What is less well known is that the Linux kernel has even been ported to run on itself, as client for a virtual Monitor platform, and even to run virtualised on other operating systems including Win2K and XP.

[3] Other operating systems, such as BSD and Sun's Solaris can also use a compatbility layer to run applications compiled for Linux directly, without the need for virtualisation.

[4]The Linux Standard Base Mission Statement is to

To develop and promote a

set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for Linux.

[5] The above standard also defines a generic subset of the standards for each hardware platform as a source level application interface. In fact for an application to be certified for the LSB it must be tested on two of the plaforms supported by the LSB, one chosen at random by the testing body. Following the standard, it's not that difficult a job to write portable C and C++ code : Write once, compile for each platfom.

[6] The GNU Compiler Collection's future GCC 4.0 Release Series now divides the task of compiling into two stages based around Static Single Assignment trees. It should be possible to use the new GCC front ends to compile each language into a SSA tree that represents the common generic subset of the Linux Standard Base: [5].The resulting SSA tree for a build could be dumped into files, analogous to Java's JVM intermediate format, and then complied to native code for the target platform: Write once, run everywhere.

Be it open or closed source, every binary or script you execute represents a risk. It is possible to introduce hostile code at any point along the build chain, before the point where the binary is checksummed and the result digitally signed.

[7] It is possible to use constraints built into any Linux or Unix like operating system to isolate and restrict what a binary executable has access to or can do. Even without employing SELinux's manditory access controls or chroot/jail'ed environments, it is possible to run a process under a different user identity and group identity. Unix servers have used this te

Bah, 40K for two servers ain't crap. When you get to make decisions about things like http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process= SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=61161 then we can talk. And, yes, they run linux.

...at home. Seriously, recommending C++ or Java as introductory languages is IMHO a really bad idea. Both languages suffer from design problems that will take a lot of fun from the learning experience.

C++ is probably the worst choice besides C or Assembler (not talking about Braindead et al :) for learning a new language. With manual memory management, heavy generic programming (templates) and mostly speed-optimized libraries (easy interfaces vs. performance) C++ is the heavy machine gun of languages that can be very difficuly to handle...

Java does sufficently abstract low-level aspects of programming and thus is often used as introductory language, but in my experience teaching it at my university I noticed one huge problem that's very difficult to get over: the massive SDK, with it's miles deep object hierarchies, doesn't make sense for people not yet thinking in object oriented terms (arguably it does for the rest ;). It's too strict in this sense, at least for learning purposes. Take a look at the Java version of Hello world, does this look intuitive?

Lua might not be a good choice either, as it is very lightweight (missing some nice functionality you might better get a grip of early on).

Personally I would recommend Ruby (the cleanest language around) or Python (also very clean, with more mature community support) for a start. Both offer everything necessary to develop computer games...

Java doesn't HAVE pointers. No pointers at all. That's the point about Java.
Sure. And null pointer exception does not exist either.

The cell chips are interesting, but from the description they seem to be more of a variant of the current multi-core chips that Intel, Sun, HP, IBM, et. al, are doing. It sounds like they have the capability of putting more than one type of CPU on the same silicon, which is different, but it is still a variant of existing designs. It doesn't sound like they will be putting more than a hand full of cores on their chips. Sun is already talking about 8 cores on their new Throughput Computing chip line now, and more in the future. Sun claims that their Throughput computing chips will ultimately be 30x more powerful than what is out there today.

If you want to look at something really different, check out the Mathstar FPOA chips. Right now they can put up to 400 1Ghz processors / devices in different mixes on a single programmable chip. There will probably be a lot of applications that this will be a better match for than a multi-core IBM Power based chip, although in fairness they are probably targeted at different applications. On the other hand, maybe the FPOA will be the "IBM PC" of the multicore chip world. When the IBM PC first came out it was laughed at by the IT shops as being so small and limited, that it wasn't a "real computer". But the people who had PCs didn't have to wait weeks for the IT Department to rewrite their program, run their report, or crunch numbers for them on the mainframe. The PC changed the world. I wonder what the FPOA will do?

No, Sun has its own grid computing product that I'm sure it would rather support.

www.java.com is only offering j2re-1.4.2_05, a vulnerable version.

You should probably go to http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html instead which has 1.4.2_06, which I've been using for weeks.

WAKE UP prandal!

can I have split and join in Java, please?

I think this tries to highlight another reason why allowing a third party review your code is a good thing

I think this just shows that simply allowing a third party review does exactly nothing. The source to jse has been available for a long time now from Sun (http://wwws.sun.com/software/communitysource/j2se /java2/download.html)

That's why you should go to java.sun.com, not www.java.com

Get j2re from here.

follow the links to the JRE download.

www.java.com is STILL dishing out the wrong version (1.4.2_05). Grrrr. Naughty Sun!

1.4.2_06 is the latest. You can get it at here. Alternatively, use 1.5.0.

Auto-update is broken though. Hasn't been working for some time for me at least (always tells me I have the latest version). Sun might want to look into this.

Okay, I'm a doofus.

To fix this vulnerability, you have to go to

http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp

and download the J2SE 5.0 JRE, right?

(Yeah, yeah, I know, and then install it.)

www.java.com is only offering j2re-1.4.2_05, a vulnerable version.

Version 1.5.0 is available from java.sun.com.

WAKE UP SUN!

at least for Windows, using Update from Java control panel, I'm receiving

1.4.2 05 which STILL contains the hole!!

Only from

https://jsecom16.sun.com/ECom/EComActionServlet/Le galPage:~:com.sun.sunit.sdlc.content.LegalWebPageI nfo;jsessionid=E905362D3A165CC3656EFD992704CC78;js essionid=E905362D3A165CC3656EFD992704CC78

(stupid link, no?)

it's possible to get

1.4.2 06

Sun bad!

The latest version for download on java.com is still the 1.4.2_05... Someone needs to apply the cattleprod to the webmonkey :)

And you can quickly see which version you are running on this page which also thinks _05 is latest!

V1.4.2_06 is available for download here

This may not be a big step for Linux as a whole, but it is a huge step toward a Linux that is viable for corporate desktop users. In the past, Linux vendors seemed to believe that a full Linux install (everything but the kitchen sink) was fitting for any sort of desktop install. Increasingly, though, we see the sort of features like real manageability and simplicity that are necessary for large deployments.

Red Hat started moving in this direction, but their corporate desktop distro, Red Hat Desktop, was very (IMO) half-assed both in implementation and the way they marketed it (or failed to market it).

Sun's JDS is a nice corporate desktop Linux distro, but it will most likely only find a home with current Sun customers, unfortunately (or fortunately, if you have a beef with Sun's treatment of Linux like I do).

I think the biggest misconception out there on slashdot is that every machine is just another PC more or less, meaning a mainboard with just one PCI bus, a bunch of slots and an onboard ethernet and ide-controlled and one or two CPUs. A sun4m/sun4u desktop machine which propably most of the people here use to run Solaris at home is more or less like a standard PC (okay, so the sun4m has SBUS) and these machines are equally well supported both by Solaris and Linux.

However there is a vast difference between a Solaris/Linux box that sits on your desktop, and a Sun mid-range 6800 or even an Sun enterprise level E25K iron. These big highend machines are chock-full of redundancy and reliability features, interconnecting system components such as CPU boards (one board 1-8 CPUs & gigs of memory) and redundant i/o and network controllers over an also redundant backplane. The cool thing is that with these machines you can yank a (malfunctioning) CPU / IO / Network / whatever board and replace/upgrade it with a new one while the system is running. Not a second of downtime. However such features require kernel support. Solaris has that kind of support on Sun mid-range and enterprise machines. I doubt that most of you, me included, have a Sun Fire 6800 or even a Sun Fire E25K to play around with. If you're interested, this is what a big iron is like: Sun Fire E25K Hardware Manual

Their Java Desktop is a bunch of Java tools with a Sun setup on SUSE. I'm sure someday they'd drop that support, but for now, even they don't think that Solaris is enough of a LINUX killer to release the product on Solaris.

I've looked around and can't find what kind of license Solaris 10 is under. The only way I figured I can is to register with Sun, download it, and view the license, but I don't want to do that as I don't intend on using it. Perhaps this speaks something on its own. I can download the linux kernel all over the net and I don't have to register for it to boot.

I guess I don't see this as cut-and-dry as Mr. Ottnik is making it out to be.

Also, can I hack Solaris, write drivers, or port Solaris 10 to whatever platform I want? Can I even get the source? (Again, I don't have the license and I'm generally clueless about Solaris.)

The missing RMI component was not that relevant. MS didn't include JNI and its Java implementation had some other incompatibilities. See http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/111798ruling.html for details.

This is the same guy who wants to redine words to suit his meaning -- even the term 'Open Source' itself:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040808 #rewriting_history_and_vocabulary/

• odbc_connect
• ora_connect
• mysql_connect
• pg_connect

http://wwws.sun.com/software/products/appsrvr_pe/f aqs.html#2

"Java System Application Server Platform Edition 8 is free to use for development, deployment, and redistribution"

You can also obtain and modify Java's code as you wish (see http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp) but you can only *distribute* your modifications for the purpose of "research" (so not as part of a commercial product for example).

Java is "bazaar"-like because the JCP provides a mechanism for groups and individuals to create proposals to evolve or extend Java which are ratified by a committe (again of groups and individuals, essentially chosen in a meritocratic manner). This could be compared with Mozilla's team of super-reviewers.

Jonathan's point is that Linux (the kernel) is cathedral-like because decisions about changes to the kernel are made exclusively by Linus Torvalds.

Java has open processes for becoming a member of the change committee (see http://www.jcp.org/en/participation/membership) and for submitting proposals (see http://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#1).

"Linux" in the broadest sense (see http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/ColmSmyth/2004111 6#linux_is_an_open_source) has aspects of both the cathedral and the bazaar.

I really find Eric Raymond's seminal CATB article (see http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar /cathedral-bazaar/index.html) to be an essential read, but it's terminology is IMHO too obscure to be used effectively in discussions like this; I find well-known terms like "dictatorship" (Linux kernel), "meritocracy" (Mozilla.org, "Individual Expert"s on the Java JCP Committee) and "feudal" (GNOME.org) are clearer.

http://blogs.sun.com/ColmSmyth/

You can also obtain and modify Java's code as you wish (see http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp) but you can only *distribute* your modifications for the purpose of "research" (so not as part of a commercial product for example).

Java is "bazaar"-like because the JCP provides a mechanism for groups and individuals to create proposals to evolve or extend Java which are ratified by a committe (again of groups and individuals, essentially chosen in a meritocratic manner). This could be compared with Mozilla's team of super-reviewers.

Jonathan's point is that Linux (the kernel) is cathedral-like because decisions about changes to the kernel are made exclusively by Linus Torvalds.

Java has open processes for becoming a member of the change committee (see http://www.jcp.org/en/participation/membership) and for submitting proposals (see http://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#1).

"Linux" in the broadest sense (see http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/ColmSmyth/2004111 6#linux_is_an_open_source) has aspects of both the cathedral and the bazaar.

I really find Eric Raymond's seminal CATB article (see http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar /cathedral-bazaar/index.html) to be an essential read, but it's terminology is IMHO too obscure to be used effectively in discussions like this; I find well-known terms like "dictatorship" (Linux kernel), "meritocracy" (Mozilla.org, "Individual Expert"s on the Java JCP Committee) and "feudal" (GNOME.org) are clearer.

http://blogs.sun.com/ColmSmyth/

You can also obtain and modify Java's code as you wish (see http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp) but you can only *distribute* your modifications for the purpose of "research" (so not as part of a commercial product for example).

Java is "bazaar"-like because the JCP provides a mechanism for groups and individuals to create proposals to evolve or extend Java which are ratified by a committe (again of groups and individuals, essentially chosen in a meritocratic manner). This could be compared with Mozilla's team of super-reviewers.

Jonathan's point is that Linux (the kernel) is cathedral-like because decisions about changes to the kernel are made exclusively by Linus Torvalds.

Java has open processes for becoming a member of the change committee (see http://www.jcp.org/en/participation/membership) and for submitting proposals (see http://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#1).

"Linux" in the broadest sense (see http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/ColmSmyth/2004111 6#linux_is_an_open_source) has aspects of both the cathedral and the bazaar.

I really find Eric Raymond's seminal CATB article (see http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar /cathedral-bazaar/index.html) to be an essential read, but it's terminology is IMHO too obscure to be used effectively in discussions like this; I find well-known terms like "dictatorship" (Linux kernel), "meritocracy" (Mozilla.org, "Individual Expert"s on the Java JCP Committee) and "feudal" (GNOME.org) are clearer.

http://blogs.sun.com/ColmSmyth/

...there are no free (as in beer) quality servers

Actually, Sun Java System Application Server 8 PE is free as in beer, and it is high-quality with good documentation:

http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/download.html

It is a fully compliant J2EE 1.4 application server that is free for development, production deployment, and redistribution.

Disclaimer: I work for Sun.

Here's my answer to requests for tech support: "I work with these:

(http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire15k/i ndex.xml
http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/scalableserver s/superdome/index.html)
at work

and (http://www.apple.com/powerbook/) at home.

I don't know crap of about that cheap piece of plastic junk you're using."

Soko, you ask some very good questions here which I think are deserving of comment.

I started to reply in here, but as it started getting longer, I decided that my blog might be a better place for it.

As such, please find my response at Reply to a reply on slashdot "Linux - Sunisms debunked".

Tp.

From TFA:

``I asked Scott McNealy if he ever considered Java's closed licensing from a user's perspective, and I gave him the example of FreeBSD/AMD64, which has no native 64-bit JRE because Sun has not yet provided one.''

How about Sun Community Source Licensing? Sure, you cannot distribute modified versions, but the typical operation of BSD ports is to download original + patches anyway (so the modified version is created locally). I don't see how this can't be used to make a native port for FreeBSD/AMD64, or any system at all.

http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/features/articles/sola ris_zones.html

It's interesting that FreeBSD influence is getting
recognition at SUN... Maybe now they will be persuaded
to support some of their products on FreeBSD.(aka Java, and yes, i know about the FreeBSD java group
and their agreement on the 1.3.X jdk with sun)

Java Web Start is pretty cool regarding automatic updating of applications.

For example, I have installed jamp (which is a java based winamp lookalike) and it automaticaly installes a fresh version whenever there is one.