Slashdot Mirror
Will Open Source Solaris Kill Linux?
Scott_Blayney writes "This guy contends that now that Sun is releasing Solaris 10 under an open source license, Linux will begin to wane in popularity. To quote, "Linux will probably not grow much beyond its current market share of about 10 % leaving Red Hat and especially Novell with a big problem."
"
And, you know Sun still hasn't open-sourced the thing. And, Sun still don't have said what license they'll use or explained how they'll get around SCO /Novell's IP claims on the Unix core of Solaris.
. as p
I, for one, have gotten as tired of hearing about wonderful open source Solaris will be as I have about how wonderful Longhorn will be.
Until, I've got the open-source code in my hands, I really don't want to hear more about open source Solaris.
For more of my ranting on the subject, see:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1645508,00
Steven
This is what Netcraft has to say about his site:
OS, Web Server and Hosting History for www.yeald.com
http://www.yeald.com was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 17-Nov-2004 18:00:38 GMT - refresh now FAQ
OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
Linux Apache/1.3.27 (Linux/SuSE) mod_jk/1.2.2-dev mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6i mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a 17-Nov-2004 213.95.11.10 YEALD AG
John
Their server is slow as all hell right now (big suprise), so here's the text of the article:
Let me start by saying that I'm not a technical expert. Although this might be a handicap it could very well be a positive in looking at the issue of Sun versus Linux in the server business from a decision maker's point of view.
Until today, the discussion around Linux pushed by Red Hat and recently by Novell after it took over Suse has been around the risks and opportunitites of the open source model versus the costs and slow adaptation of the proprietary model.
Opponents of open source software always argued that due to its nature there is a risk that version control, compatibility, future development and support is not guaranteed and could leave companies who use it at some point with a free but outdated system that is difficult to maintain.
Companies like Red Hat and Novell and on occasion other big players have tried to take away these arguments by committing to the open source model and vowed to make it work. Despite their efforts and some success, there still is a lot of skepticism within corporate IT departments and as a result Linux is not taking the market by storm.
With the decision by Sun to give away their latest version of their software, Solaris 10 for free all of these concerns have evaporated in one blow in favor of the now open source and compatible Solaris 10 supported by Sun.
Looking at the advantage of going the Sun route versus the Linux route it is hard to see why any IT executive would chose to switch to Linux.
- The Solaris software is of proven quality and at least equal or better then Linux and the open source model will assure that it stays up there.
- By making it work with competing hardware platforms, there is no reason anymore to switch software to facilitate lower hardware costs.
- Sun with Solaris has already a large installed base and by becoming free and open source there is no reason for existing Solaris users to switch to Linux.
- Sun has a proven reputation in terms of quality of support. This should be at least as good or better then that of the Linux supporters.
- Because Sun by default is the only designated party managing the open source software, there will be no risk of a version bonanza with multiple incompatible versions.
Again as a non technical person, the decision for me would be simple, I would go with Solaris unless I was already using Linux; Why take risks when I can choose a proven, high quality solution at comparable costs?
As a result Linux will probably not grow much beyond its current market share of about 10 % leaving Red Hat and especially Novell with a big problem
Of course I might very well be overlooking something here, if so, please let me and other readers know by posting your opinion in a reaction (see below).
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
Sun's main strength is that many commercial users (Ford, Boeing, ...) want a single vendor to support all the hardware and software used by projects that are scheduled to last three years or more.
As commercial CAD users, they will only consider hardware that is officially certified by the 3D CAD application developers. That usually requires a strict combination of memory chips, CPU's, motherboard, and graphics accelerator. They're not concerned about legacy hardware being supported, so long as E-mail, video conferencing and the required applications run on competitively priced systems with 24/7 support.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
/lib and /usr/lib are separate for similar reasons. /lib holds system libraries, while /usr/lib holds user-installed libraries. It makes threat containment easier.
The "usr" in "/usr" stands for Unix System Resources, it's not short for "user". User-installed binaries and libraries belong in "/usr/local/".
"/" should contain only the binaries and libraries that are needed to boot the system, and "/usr" should contain all other vendor-supplied binaries and libraries.
\No, "usr" stands for "user". In fact, the three letters came around because K&R couldn't stand to type "user", "source", "binaries", "shell", "list", "copy", "move", or a billion other little things. I submit to you, sir, that someone has royally yanked your chain.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The "usr" in "/usr" stands for Unix System Resources
Sorry, but no.
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"