Slashdot Mirror
Sun COO Schwartz Promises Open Source Solaris
Alapan writes "According to C-Net Asia, Sun plans to make Solaris open source soon. While I hardly expect Sun to make it GPL compatible, I wonder how much restrictions Sun will place on distributing modified solaris systems. And will we some integration of Solaris' strong points into other open source OSes like Linux and BSD?" Update: 06/02 14:16 GMT by T : Correction: Schwartz is Sun's COO and President, but not CEO (as the headline originally had it).
Doesn't anyone else find it strange that we have a Microsoft and Sun deal and now Sun starts touting, "You should not be using Linux, as some day we are going to be making Solaris open source." Yeah sure but are we certain that "some day" will arrive? It has long been a tactic of M$ to announce something as being "almost ready" to forestall interest in a competing product that they really have no answer for. Then by creating enough uncertainty and doubt, they repeatedly harm their competitors with vaporware announcements.
Addressing the question of how Sun plans to make money with an open-source Solaris, he simply said that Sun doesn't have to rely on only the operating system. "We have hardware, storage, services and support. What we are doing is taking that whole thing and selling that whole thing," he said.
This looks like the exact opposite approach of Apple, who makes really cool closed source software to sell their hardware.
It seems to me that it's pretty easy to slap together hardware systems, but developing software systems is a little more daunting of a task. In hardware, it's like putting legos together.
Software tries to do that too, but everybody and their brother tries to make a better lego, and so you end up with millions of incompatible partial solutions that are very difficult to build up into a complete solution.
Would it be possible -and I'm no expert by any means- that this is a direct attack on Linux. By that I mean that in all likelyhood Sun will probably use a GPL incompatible license, and aim to steer development effort away from Linux and on to Solaris; over which they would have more control, causing, in essence, a fork in Linux Kernel Development. I bet Microsoft got a good deal of influence on Sun's business decisions for $2Billions.
...Considering how they licensed their Gnome-based Java Desktop System. And that software was LGPL to begin with! Pray tell, what kind of god-awful monstrocity of a license are they going to come up with Solaris!?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
"Look, you only need to look at what we've done with Java to understand how Sun views the value of incorporating community feedback. Java could not exist if only Sun is supporting it. It exists because there are hundreds and thousands of partners. We need to now take the model with Java and bring it to Solaris," he said.
... according to Mr. Schwartz, Solaris will be open source soon, just like Java is open source today. Evidently this is some new definition of "open source" that I was not previously aware of.
Ok, so
I want some of whatever he's been smoking.
It's a shame, because if they would truly open source Solaris and Java, the open source community would rally around both products and actually help Sun get out of the death spiral they seem to be in right now. If they have any doubt about that, all they have to do is look in their own source repositories to see how well it's worked for OpenOffice.org.
Sun needs a regime change. The current crop of morons are not fit for management.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Oh, so you also support the MIT/BSD license.
I've got a mind like a steel trap - it's got an animal's foot stuck in it.
I don't know, but in my humble opinion, Solaris has a lot more going for it than does Linux. No, this isn't meant to be a troll or flamebait. I've used Solaris since 4.1.3 and through 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and now 2.9 and can tell you that this is a really nice operating system. Simple, logical, and extremely robust. Granted, I've used it on SPARC machines and that is where it really shines. I have used 2.7 and 2.8 on the intel platform with decent results. Maybe it's just the familiarity and comfort level associated with working on Sun hardware, but Solaris is solid and a dream to work with. I've used (and still do) RedHat and SuSE and though they look good, and in many cases is more suited to the intel platform, I can't believe that if Sun took to making Solaris more available that more folks wouldn't use it. I know, you need applications and other vendor support, but still ... this is welcome news!
Is that free as in beer, speech, GPL, or BSD? Not everyone agrees what FREE means. The BSD crowd claims that the GPL is not free because you force people that use GPL code to release the source so you are limiting their freedom to do what they want with the code. The GPL people claim that the BSD people are letting the code be locked away. A lot of people only want free as in I don't pay for it.
Sun could say that it is GPL but only from the Sparc chip AKA QT. Which many feel is free but I do not.
Or it could be you get the source code but you may not sell your changes and must give them back to Sun so they can distrubute it to other Solaris users. This is Free as in getting free labor. Could it be free as in GPL but only for a single CPU?
I do not see it as free as in pure GPL or BSD but who knows.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Solaris may end up open source, but you are going to find it work very much like Java.... if you want to make your own implementation, you have to follow VERY VERY strict guidelines as to maintain PERFECT compatibility.
I am sorry, but I dont want another linux mess, where there is a "Debian Solaris" and a "SESolaris", etc. I am happy with a single one... maybe two... for workstation and server.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
That's a disaster waiting to happen. Java needs to be under strict control, else we'll have a dozen forks that won't play nice with each other. Open Source and Free Software are all well and good, but when it comes to Java, I'm drawing a line in the sand. It's a noble goal, but not worth the risk of shattering the language. The "write once, run anywhere" mantra would go right out the window. It'll be like 1997 again.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Oh, come off it.
All it takes is them retaining the rights to the Java (TM) name, ala TeX. I.e. you can't call it Java (TM) if it's not compatible. Same thing goes for TCP/IP - that's been open source for a long time, and you don't see a million incompatible versions.
Enforce compatibility through test suites and (open) standards, not by grabbing everyone by the balls via a proprietary platform.
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
Because SUN has partnerships with other vendors, they cannot release all of their OS code.
This is similar to when they released the Solaris 8 source code. I believe anyone could download it for some period of time, or at least it was really easy to get (partners || edu). However, even limiting their distribution channel, they were bound by contracts to vendors to not release parts of their code. I.e. a lot of the fibre source was written by Qlogic or JNIC, so none of that will be released, Open Source or not.
I have to think Sun will release their code, since the Solaris 8 code was pretty publicly available for quite some time. It wouldn't be a major step to release the code publicly now.
Solaris source code is already widely available, just not legally for most people. You can bet that anyone with serious interest in exploiting flaws in Solaris already has the source.
I'm not excessively familiar with Solaris from an admin standpoint, but I have done quite a bit of porting C/C++ stuff to it and a lot of admin'ing AIX. To be blunt, I don't care much for Solaris and should I ever be in the position to authorize a purchase I'd almost certainly look at Linux first and AIX second. Here's why:
... geez by this time you've almost got GNU/Linux again on Sun hardware. AIX 5L has at least started to reverse the trend -- you can get most of the GNU tools pre-installed. (Yes, the native compiler on Solaris and AIX produces much faster code than gcc. Most of my apps don't need the speed, they need the portability. I can optimize at the higher layers and get the speed I need.)
1) Linux is pretty darn good. It would take some *unusually* serious needs before you *have* to look outside the Linux camp to find a workable solution. Linux has XFS, JFS, and ReiserFS, really good support for reliable and fast high-end SCSI, SMP, Beowulf'ing, and a huge community to provide free-as-in-beer help.
2) On a per-processor basis, Linux-on-Intel/PowerPC is faster than Solaris-on-anything hands down. (This will probably change after the next generation of Sparc chips comes out.)
3) Solaris tends to be a pain to port code to. Much like AIX, it's got the AT&T-derived libraries and proprietary crud that doesn't function with as much polish as the GNU stuff. So you end up installing a huge set of GNU tools and libraries on Solaris and
I see plenty of places where *today* Solaris has a great role, but I don't see much in the future. And Sun hardware is nice, but certainly not extraordinarily better than IBM hardware.
This just seems like "too little too late". (Of course, this leads right into the critical question: is there *anything* Sun can do that would be worth paying for?)
Comments?