Solaris 10 to be Open Source

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday September 14, 2004 @01:48AM from the here's-hoping-people dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It looks as though Sun is going to open source their new Solaris 10 operating system. It seems to include eveything except some device drivers. They plan to model the Darwin and Fedora projects. Sounds very interesting."

28 of 432 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Solaris Vs Linux? by Sanity · 2004-09-14 01:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can anyone explain why someone might choose to use Solaris over Linux other than for legacy reasons?
1. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by sneezinglion · 2004-09-14 01:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well let me see: 1. Familiarity. I have used solaris much much more often than linux in my work. 2. Maturity. Solaris is a very mature product with a long history and alot of tech support on the web. 3. It looks better on your resume if you say you know solaris, then it does if you say Linux....at least where I work it does. 4. Stability. Linux is stable yes, but stable like a wine glass, not stable like a plate.
2. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by Allen+Zadr · 2004-09-14 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  For most of the world... It's not one or the other, it's both. Solaris is a strong OS, despite losing some market share in the last 8 years. Open Source projects benefit from being listed on the solarisfreeware web site. As an admin I've always had a tendancy to use and support whatever project has the largest cross-platform capability.
  Well, how better to support a Solaris solution for your OSS project than to _run_ Solaris. More importantly, the issues in Solaris that have long dogged OSS projects (can only be compiled with gcc - must use OSS version of malloc, etc) can be found and fixed by debugging and recompiling now-open-sourced system libraries.
  
  --
  Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
3. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by cyngus · 2004-09-14 02:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Solaris has the best threading model and threading support that I've seen in what I'll call a mainstream operating system. The entire system was designed really well, why? Because these guys built it to make a profit. Not to take a shot at Linux, but dinner is a much better incentive to make something that runs well (and thus sells well) than [kernel] hacker pride. At the end of the day Linux is built on surplus time and energy. Solaris was built by people whose job and living depended on making good software. Not to mention that Sun employed (and employs) some really smart and creative people that have helped make Solaris an impressively scalable OS.
  
  If it has the applications I need, I'll pick Solaris over Linux in a hummingbird heartbeat. I was actually rather upset when I heard my old university moving the CS labs from Solaris to Linux.
4. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by dunstan · 2004-09-14 02:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's more to implementing stuff in your kernel than just lifing a bit of source code from elsewhere.
  
  The way the Solaris kernel is so scaleable across over 100 processors is not some clever hack, it's taken years of refinement of the kernel. I'm not a kernel hacker, but you won't just be able to lift bits of Solaris kernel code and drop them into a Linux kernel.
  
  What I would expect to see fairly quickly is a "GNU/Solaris" distribution, where (as many of us have been doing for years) you get a Solaris kernel and basic libraries, and then put a GNU based set of tools on top of it. Couple this with the Niagara processors and you have an awesome edge appliance.
  
  --
  The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
5. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by d_force · 2004-09-14 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  *Even* More secure than Linux
  
  *Whew*.. I'm glad you cleared that up. Because, for the life of me, I couldn't find any adequate metric that defines security using an agreed, quantitative metric within the Information Security industry.
  
  Oh wait, that's right, there is none.
  
  Shoo! Go back to marketing.
  
  -- dforce
  
  --
  SELECT * FROM USERS WHERE A_WINNER = "YUO";
6. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by secolactico · 2004-09-14 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What I would expect to see fairly quickly is a "GNU/Solaris" distribution, where (as many of us have been doing for years) you get a Solaris kernel and basic libraries, and then put a GNU based set of tools on top of it.
  
  Solaris is a sweet OS, but what I which the most is something like the FreeBSD port tree to be done for solaris. Sun already has niftly package tools, but a port collection would take care of dependencies and make updating easier.
  
  --
  No sig
7. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by vrai · 2004-09-14 02:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is no point running Solaris on x86 hardware - unless it's as a dev/test environment for Sparc production machines. If you're running a fully x86 shop then Linux/*BSD is the best choice - they were built with the architecture in mind and their lack of scalability isn't an issue on a 4 processor box.
  However, if you need an ultra-reliable, 128Gb, 32 processor server you buy a Sun and run Solaris on it. It's the only operating system that can fully take advantage of Sun's high-end hardware.
  Yes, you could run Solaris x86 exclusively in a PII/III shop. But you wouldn't gain anything from doing so.
8. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by joib · 2004-09-14 03:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The way the Solaris kernel is so scaleable across over 100 processors is not some clever hack, it's taken years of refinement of the kernel.
  
  Well, I'd guess that Linux with the various SGI patches that run on the SGI 512 CPU systems aren't "some clever hack" either, for that matter if that's what you're trying to imply. It's the result of years of work SGI put into making IRIX scale that has been ported to Linux.
9. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by flaming-opus · 2004-09-14 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Absolutely. The general methods for creating a scalable OS have been known to the linux kernel folk for a long time. It's just a lot of work, and requires some difficult design choices. Multiprocessor scalability usually comes at the expense of single cpu performance.
10. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by jedidiah · 2004-09-14 04:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ANY application that scales to 100 cpus will be highly tuned to the environment. You don't code an app for 2 or 4 cpus and have it magically scale to 40 or 80.
  
  Now if you are talking about applications that depend on an underlying application server then things get even trickier. First, the appserver needs to be able to scale to the given number of cpus. THEN, the application needs to be written to scale to that level.
  
  Oracle didn't scale on Sun E10Ks period.
  
  It has problems scaling on 15K's as well.
  
  This is likely why Oracle is pushing clustering now. Solving n smaller problems is probably easier than solving one really monsterous one.
  
  An Oracle database can already run quite effectively on Linux across 120-240 cpus. Those cpus just won't all be in the same chassis.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
11. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by tverbeek · 2004-09-14 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As far as I know solaris (not sun OS) came out in the early 90's because of the issues is BSD licencing. That is not what a call a long history, IE linux was released in 1991 so i would say that are on par
  In Linux in the early 90's were at all comparable to Solaris in the early 90's, you might actually have a point.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
12. Re:Solaris Vs Linux? by phaetonic · 2004-09-14 05:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  While I will agree with you based on my personal experience with Solaris 2.5.1/2.7/2.8/2.9, I will say that you left out VxFS, which as far as I'm concerned beats the pants off of ext3.
Too little too late? by jarich · 2004-09-14 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is this a desparate move of a company trying to regain relevance or a brilliant shrewd move?

--
Agile Artisans
Re:Model Fedora? by peragrin · 2004-09-14 01:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

What is better is how can you Model Darwin and Fedora????

Darwin is the just the Basic OS, you can't run any OS X apps on it without Apple's software.

Fedora is pure Open Source, it just changes regularly, and has trademark restrictions on Red hat's images and such.

How are these the same??

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Can they do this? by AnuradhaRatnaweera · 2004-09-14 01:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unlike Linux, Solaris is a derivative of UNIX. I am sure SCO will be keenly looking forward to the day when Solaris is open source. ;-)
Don't get tainted by SpaceLifeForm · 2004-09-14 01:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Remember, if you hack on Linux (or plan to), you best not review the code.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
1. Re:Don't get tainted by jpvlsmv · 2004-09-14 02:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And if you ever plan to write the Great American Novel, make sure you never read any books, magazines, websites, or other written work.
  
  And if you ever plan to write music, never listen to any CDs or recorded music from any other musician.
  
  Because you'll get "tainted".
  
  --Joe
Re:Market Pressure Cooker by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-09-14 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

*coughLinuxATINVIDIAalltheotherproprietaryhardware drivesinLinuxcough*

In other words, Linux is no better in this regard, get over it.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Open source != GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-14 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Open source is one thing, but I'm wondering how useful to us Sun's move really is if the code will not be put out under a GPL-like or BSD-like license

... lately I sense that "open-sourcing" is more an attempt of big companies to get some work done for free and get some PR at the same time, BUT with little real use to the community as GPL'ing the code would provide. Am I right?
Re:Market Pressure Cooker by mr_z_beeblebrox · 2004-09-14 02:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

When you make your source open then I'll be interested but until that, this is just a bone for the community to do work for Sun and not actually get a full fledge open source solution.

They are, that's what the article is about. They are not opening source they do not own. Your comment could also be directed at Linus for not opening up the Cisco VPN drivers for example...THEY ARE NOT HIS to do so. Also, I am sure that your market analysis is based on a lot of research but just one flaw. How would having less revenue force them to get rid of established drivers which work well and are mature and instead hope that the community will make them fast? Seems that would ultimately cost more and be counterproductive.
Uh huh by starseeker · 2004-09-14 02:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm waiting to see the license terms before I celebrate.

--
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The license is the key and it may not be "Free" by Tracy+Reed · 2004-09-14 02:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because it's "open source" (as opposed to "Open Source") as in "you can read the source" doesn't mean it's Free. And that may be all they do: let you read the source. If they don't use the GPL or BSD or some other well known FOSS license I doubt this will really help them all that much. If they come up with their own license (which a company as big as Sun is wont to do) it will probably be quite complicated and your average hacker won't understand it.
Re:Open Source, AMD Processors...? by cmaxx · 2004-09-14 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

They do everything they used to do.

Just cos they're taking advantage of what people want now (Linux, Opteron, Open Source) doesn't mean they're not also working on stuff that's cool that we don't know that we want yet, or even stuff that's not cool but is still worthy.

This is where Sun, IBM, SGI, even HP, do more for us than Dell and Microsoft. Though at least, and I hate myself for saying this, Microsoft are trying.

Cleary being first or having the best idea ever are no guarantees of esteem or profit - often the opposite, so kudos to Sun for slugging it out and continuing to bet on innovation. Ditto to IBM and AMD.

--
...an Englishman in London.
The $20,000 question by iqvoice · 2004-09-14 02:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

So does this mean that Sun is going to give up trying to squeeze $20,000 from me just for upgrading my 10-proc Ultra Enterprise from Solaris 7 to Solaris 10?

Reality Check available here. Heh!

--
Life is pain. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
I'll believe it when ... by HP-UX'er · 2004-09-14 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

... I have my hands on the install media, while reading the license it comes with. Sun says _many_ things. They rarely follow through, and when they do, it always falls short.
Re:Stability by upsidedown_duck · 2004-09-14 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

They run out of swap space, and they crash.

What ancient mummified version of SunOS did you work with? Just recently, I had a program go wacko and suck up every bit of virtual memory it could. My Sun workstation slowed down, of course, but I eventually got to an xterm to kill the offending process. No crash.

The book, Solaris Internals, details exactly what Solaris does when resources become scarce. It is designed to degrade gracefully by speeding up page scanning, for example, at certain thresholds of memory usage.

I think the crashing you saw was due to a specific program that you depended on (not Solaris) that was very poorly written.

--
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Re:Works the other way too... by kinzillah · 2004-09-14 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

They may be late, but they are bringing the hot blond that everyone stares at. She might just have a few makeover tips for the unibrowed linux kernel. :)

--
Douglas P. Price