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).
Open Source Java is on its way?
Some time in the last few months, Sun Microsystems has lost their collective mind. Not that I don't agree with their decisions, but they have changed quite a bit. I'm just not sure yet whether it's good or bad.
This is an epic thing. If Sun does what Sun usually does and makes Solaris available under the BSD style licenses this will boost all unix like OS's. However I think they will end up using a Sun specific license (one that was developed for this specific purpose). I also think they did this because by opensourcing solaris they can start some serious cutbacks, a large amount of the OS can be handled by the community, and this might be a major cost cutting move motivated to save sun's ass.
Solaris has probably the best security and stability out of any of the widely used *nix's. Not to mention the superior threading of the actual OS and its core.
However the article makes mention of using something similar to java's licensing, which is *NOT* open source in any way shape or form. This sounds like another wait-and-see thing from the leader of wait-and-see (although not leading in much else these days.)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
do they think they can pull off a profit from providing support services
Yes, they have the experience and cred in the industry to do just that, unlike Red Hat who were (are) viewed as an upstart by many CTOs.
One thing holding back the adoption of Sun (and it was true in my office when we started looking to replace HP-9000 MPE based systems) is uncertainty as to the future of the OS. If we drop a boatload of cash into a bunch of Solaris boxes, and MSFT buys up and dissolves Sun tomorrow, then what?
Hell forget the hardware, what happens to our all our apps that we've tightly integrated into Solaris? Do we port all that stuff yet again to another unix?
With the source, that worry is gone. This is why Linux is succeeding, and because of Linux and the various free BSD's, folks who write checks are nervous about proprietary Unixes. Thing is, they want the support and expertise of a company like Sun, but they see the value in the openness of systems like Linux.
This is a very smart move on Sun's part, it'll push a lot of folks onto their side of the fence, and they should net a metric assload in support contracts and hardware sales.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
And will we some integration of Solaris' strong points into other open source OSes like Linux and BSD?"
I hope not, as unpredictable and indecisive as Scott McNealy is, Darl McBride is relatively stable.
One week McNealy likes Linux, the next week he doesn't. That and the fact after years of slamming Microsoft (as much as they deserve it), and making himself appear like a raving lunatic to the detriment of other important business decisions, Sun and Microsoft kiss and make up, and everything is suppossed to be OK now.
Well, its not OK, this looks like another desperate move by a company seeking something, anything to gain mindshare and revenue. If solaris becomes free, and their hardware will be free, how exactly is Sun supposed to make money again? And why should the open source community use source from Solaris from a company with such conflicting outlooks on open source and Linux?
But, Sun says that hardware will be free. My question is, if they open source Solaris and provide hardware for free, what's left? Pure support? Companies stopped paying big bucks for support years ago. That's why DEC died.
I dont think its strange at all, I could even imagine that Microsoft wanted this to happen. If Solaris servers are cheaper than IBM/RedHat ones then it will be harder for RH to grab a serious place in the enterprise server market. This also prevents "desktop RH" by (A) preventing RH from getting serious funds, (B) decreasing the RH-is-a-good-thing buzz among company management.
As a community, the OSS kernel writers need to be very wary of this. Let's try this scenario:
1). Sun releases its code as a "open" with a non-GPL compatible license, possibly a license that states clearly that you cannot use the code in any other product.
2). OSS kernel contributor writes something similar to a Solaris feature into his patch, having read or not read the Solaris code, just because it "makes sense".
3). Sun pulls a SCO and starts suing everyone they can find for the misuse of its IP.
This move could very well poison the free kernel projects out there.
To a $500/year/seat service contract would be my guess.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Please don't flame me! I love Solaris!
BUT: I humbly predict that when Solaris is opened, people will pour through the code and find (a) many old security holes, unpatched, and (b) many new security holes, due to the number of eyes on the code.
This will probably result in:
- Frequent patching for a while;
- Frequent security alerts for a while;
- Many hacks into existing unpatched systems;
- Cross-polination of good (security and other) ideas from Solaris into xxxBSD and Linux;
- Gradual settling down of security problems to even lower numbers than before.
This is not a dire prediction - Solaris is already Pretty Damned Secure - and it'll be an unmitigated Good Thing once the initial flurry of patches come through. I'm just concerned for the interim timeframe when "Security Through Obscurity" goes away and hasn't yet been replaced by "Security Through Code Quality".--Kevin (at justanyone dooooooooootttt cooooommmmmmm).
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
Sometimes true. But it's worth mentioning that many PHBs (purchasers, CFOs, etc.) are fincancially rewarded based on the percentage or number of dollars "saved". Sure, it may not be the best technical (or financial) solution for their business, but if they are able to negotiate 30% savings on solution A versus 10% savings on solution B, they may get a much larger end-of-quarter bonus if they "save" the company the 30% by choosing option A.
You may want to chat with the folks (read: Board of Directors) who establish potentially counter-productive incentives like this.
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.