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."
"
"Will Open Source Solaris Kill Linux?"
No.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
Frankly, an Open Source Solaris stands a better chance at killing Solaris than it does Linux.
The author starts the article by declaring "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." He's basically lost most of his credibility there, because a good decision maker needs to bring in technical people to explain this.
Though I understand the PHB philosophy of needing a brand name on their *nix product, I don't understand what's wrong with Red Hat or Novell now?
Moreover, it's setting itself up for patent lawsuits once the usual suspects start going through the newly open sourced code. Not that it's an agreeable method, but it's a fact of life.
The points the author makes are weak:
o 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.
An open source model assures it of nothing, unless they get good contributors....but:
o 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.
No risk of a version bonanza with multiple incompatible versions? Does this individual not recall that this is the company who had put out Java 2 (1.2) and Java 5 (1.5) before a real version 2?
o 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.
Sun's support isn't bad no, but IBM's been an awesome proponent of Linux - including Red Hat's 3.0 offering. Big names do know Linux, and work with you on it. Not to mention that Google is an awesome knowledge base for Linux users. And how much does it cost to search google vs. a support incident with Sun?
I don't buy that this will affect Linux's growth in the server market any more than the stray bullet SCO lawsuits. Open Source Solaris will definitely invite more hobbyist interest, but I don't understand why any of this makes it a more viable server product.
If Sun makes inroads to the desktop, then I would agree. But if Linus finally picks a GUI and starts up a desktop linux fork, I will disagree. But neither are going anywhere until they innovate, simplify and give desktop users a reason to use it.
/.
When I say "desktop users", I'm not talking about anyone here on
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
If Sun continues to support it with their engineers, and IBM continues to support Linux with Their engineers, it will still be a battle. I do not look for either side to gain much ground, (netcraft aside.)
Have you Meta Moderated t
Doesn't Linux support a vastly large collection of hardware than Solaris? Also, Linux isn't just popular because of its open-source nature, but also the philosophy behind its design and development, as well as the number of professionals behind it. I don't see the NSA donating to Solaris, now do I see most of europe backing Linux.
I haven't RTFA yet so please correct me if I'm wrong.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
...In a magical fairyland where people co-exist with dinosaurs and we live in gingerbread houses on lollipop lane!
;-)
Seriously though... this is a good question -- can the tortoise beat the hare? The answer is no. And I think we all know who the tortoise (read: slow) one is
I think this will only be true for shops that would have choosen Solaris anyway. The draw of open source is more than just cheap software. It has to do with familiarity and the availability of expert administratiors, developers, etc. Solaris will still have the same number of developers and, especially, administrators for awhile.
This article is a pointless exercise, but since my alternative to commenting on it is to go do actual work, let's consider:
In terms of Sun's conversion to open source: Too little, way too late. If Sun had pulled this seven or eight years ago they might have had a chance at stopping Linux before it got rolling, but frankly I don't see any way a system developed as proprietary in-house software is going to be able to come out and defeat the reigning champion of the OSS movement. Everything else aside, consider the simple fact that you can't go open source overnight. Look at how long it took to turn Mozilla into something useful -- by the time the open source version finally hit the mainstream it was hugely reorganized and largely rewritten. This process took years to complete, and that was just for a web browser. So unless Sun's programmers had a *lot* more discipline than Netscape's (doubtful) and a lot fewer tangled licenses (impossible), forget about it right there.
Aside from the huge initial development issue, consider the business side: What possible reason is there to think that Solaris is going to be able to come out and impact Linux's market share? The author himself uses language that doesn't support the idea that more people are going to switch to Solaris as a result of this. In fact, the most logical outcome of the points made in the article is that Sun *may* slow the erosion of their install base over to Linux. Not exactly killing Linux there.
Then we get some more of the same 'ol. The reasons he states in the article for the impending demise of Linux could have been (and were repeatedly) written ten years a go and are just as wrong now as they were then -- sure, any of the fears he listed *could* happen, but they haven't.
To sum up, this article makes incorrect assumptions, starts from a place of poor understanding and leaps to unsupported conclusions. The greatest revelation is creates is probably that YEALD needs to find themselves a new COO.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.
If you're Sun: Yes.
Finially, a Linux is going to die story... in a couple years it'll be a linux is dead story... and it will be just like BSD.
Evolution or ID?
Couple of false assumptions in the guys story. Typical when suits try to make tech decisions, especially when they are fool enough to believe their LACK of knowledge makes them more qualified, as this guy does.
A few of the obvious clues missed are:
1) Linux is already ahead of Solaris on Intel hardware, not behind as this guy believes from reading Sun press releases.
2) Solaris is not known to be portable beyond Sparc, Sparc64 and ia32. ia64 and AMD64/x86-64 might happen but as far as I know don't yet exist.
3) Sun has yet to announce a license for Solaris, it is very doubtful it will be actual Open Source and almost certainly not Free Software in the FSF sense of the term.
4) Sun is almost certain to keep parts totally closed due to licensing terms with third party suppliers.
5) Sun will rig things to retain ALL creative control from the Java experience. This will preclude any sort of community involvement on the scale needed to compete with Linux.
Democrat delenda est
As a Linux user, I would also like to see Linux continue to do well. I think there's enough room enough out there for all of us.
"Can't we all just get along?!?"
The game is over. Linux will probably be bankrupt by the end of this fiscal quarter. I understand the Linux stock has already been delisted from the Nasdaq. The shares of Linux have been tumbling ever since Sun first dropped the bomb. I understand Linux has laid off all but the core legal staff and some of the top marketing and HR people and the eighty-five story Linux building in Manhattan is already in recievership. Clearly Linux was no Match for Sun.
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
If Sun opens Solaris, and if my mind serves me correctly they are switching to using AMD CPUs instead of their SPARCs, what exactly will Sun be producing?
Linux's long-term future has always been a bit of a question mark. Who's to say that 10 years from now something new in the open-source world might not emerge and overtake it, taking many things from it? It's always possible, and it seems that _eventually_ it would inevitably happen as the mood of the open-source community will eventually shift to feeling that linux is crufty and a fresh start is needed.
But all of that being said, I think I can say two things with a fair amount of certainty:
1) That time is not now. Linux is really just getting into it's game. It has lots of growth and evolution left in the commercial world. The time may come, but not in the next 4-5 years for damn sure. Even then, while the industry may begin to swing away from Linux to something new, Linux will remain a strong force for many many years to come during the transition.
2) Whatever that New Thing is that comes along to supplant Linux as the new Open Source Darling Operating System, it damn sure won't be Solaris.
11*43+456^2
Until Solaris becomes a user-friendly and error free (and non-resource hogging) as Linux, then I would say no. But I would definately give it a run for the money, on the other hand.. Didn't MS and Sun just do a deal? Doesn't MS have a big beef with Linux? Is this MS's way of getting rid of Linux? CONPIRACY THEORISTS UNITE!!!
Its as if a million gnu/linux geeks suddenly cried out at once.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
respond to this. Then I found out it was this guy who was making these statements. Once I realized that, I sold all my Linux stock, wiped off all my installs, sold the house and have moved my family to the secret shack in the hills. After all, this guy has never steered me wrong before.
i'll go install it on my sharp zaurus. what's the url for the arm solaris distro?
right.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Solaris can't be "open-sourced" because of the confidentiality parts of the Unix license agreements. They'd be in trouble for the same things that got IBM a lawsuit and started Groklaw, leaking trade secrets.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
For one thing, Linux is now as much a "brand" as Solaris. And there are too many people making difefrent distros for Linux to really wane for some time.
But also, consider what "Open Source" really means. I'm not familiar with what OS licence Sun is using, but if it's really "Open" then Linux can make use of the best bits to keep going. If it's not really that "Open" then the current forces that move Linux will continue the course unchanged.
In a world that already has BSD and Linux living together in harmony (well, as much harmony as a VI and Emacs user sharing the same house) there is also room, and a place, for Solaris.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why does one have to 'kill' the other? Why can't they stay in a state of equilibrium goading each other to improve?
Why do people always assume one product has to erradicate all the competition and become the only product of it's type.
----
That having been said, Sun has some relly nice hardware at the high end of the scale. I don't expect that to change in the near future.
Sun is just roadkill on Linux's crusade to take out Microsoft.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Solaris couldn't kick linux out of every possible niche (embedded wagoo 3sx-12 cpus or whatnot), it could cream it on the desktop.
Sun will throw all its muscle behind it's Java Desktop to deliver a polished, cohisive system. Linux will continue to be pulled in 100 directions at once.
Distros need to stop offering Gnome, KDE, fluxbox, and 9000 other window managers, and pick a path and stick to it.
There really isn't that much of a market for people who like to dick around with 10000 different ways to close a window, each with it's own myriad of quirks and bugs. They like to plug it in, turn it on, and have it work pretty much the same way as the one in the next cubicle, or the next building.
Linux' strength (versatility) is it's achilles heel when it comes to the desktop market.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
Even giving him the first half of his argument (which is debatable), just becasue an OS is open source doesn't mean it's going to grow as fast as Linux. Leadership and general community interest is a HUGE part of the picture. Hurd anyone?
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.
Ah I see, so being open source is the only edge that Linux has over the competition. Hmmmm.
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.
I can't really speak to this, never worked with Sun's support.
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.
I think this is much a negative as a positive. "Becasue Sun is by default the only designated party managing the open source software, you might be stuck with what they think is best." After all we know Sun has a great track record with managing semi-open projects in the past, right? (Java...)
Laugh at stupidity: mod idiots +1 Funny.
They are only makeing the core Open source, like Darwin, Linux still has a much greater Application base to draw from and keep it going. When Doom3 does Solaris, then panic.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
If Solaris had done this TEN YEARS AGO, then maybe. As things stand today, no. It comes down to a matter of trust. Do most Linux users trust Solaris enough to let go of Linux? No.
Take a choice between A and B. A is commonly considered a better product than B. Most will choose A. But B offers something that A has never dreamed of. In fact, A hates the idea of offering what B offers. B gains a lot of support. Time ticks by, and after seeing how much B has benefitted A changes it's mind and offers something similar to what B offers - but only because it has to.
Do all those people who would have originally chosen A, but chose B go back to A? NO. Because B is of a similar mindset to the choosers. B WANTS to offer things to the chooser. A offers because it has to remain competitive. That is HUGE. And that is why Solaris will not kill Linux.
P.S. A is not necessarily better than B.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Since when has a programmer enthusiastically dropped their own code to pick up someone elses? Not a technical person, yeah, obviously. =)
How many architechures does Solaris support? Sparc and x86? Is that all?
How many does Linux support?
Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!
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).
Short answer: Yes, with an if; Long answer: No, with a but.
That's a really stupid question. It's like asking if proprietary software will kill Microsoft. Of course open source won't kill Linux. Linux is part of the open source movement. Plus Solaris is still controlled by Sun Microsystems, so it really won't be open in the sense that Linux is. Until there is a distrobution of Solaris that isn't from Sun, there's very little reason to make silly statements like "will Solaris kill Linux", or "will open source kill Linux".
Later on he goes further and says he is "not a technical person". WTF. Why would anyone choose an operating system based on the advice of a non-technical person? He even seems to think that being non-technical makes him more qualified for giving advice on choosing an operating system.
Should I let a vegetarian tell me how to cook a steak? Should a let a blind person choose what color to paint my house?
His logic seems to say that the only people who are well qualifed to give advice in a field are the ones that aren't experts in that field. Maybe he is looking to get a job with SCO.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I for one welcome our Solaris Wielding Overlords.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
We've been using the beta of 10 for about 3 months now in testing with Oracle at our site. It's pretty, that's for sure, with it's nice Gnome facelift and all, but I think essentially that Linux and Solaris fill different roles, at least for us.
.... once .... in a lab... and it isn't reproducable to the average joe...
Linux feels a lot more like a general purpose OS than Solaris, and 10 while friendlier is still very much rooted in the proprietary Solaris tradition.
To sum it up, this is good for Solaris users who can throw away the whole CDE/Openwin experience and replace it with something refreshingly cleaner, however we were going to adopt 10 anyway. It seems to me that Sun is going to have to really dig and build new things rather than merely say 'hey we're OSS now too!' and expect Linux users to suddenly flock their way.
Looking Glass is an excellent example of software people could see as a reason to change platforms, and IMHO Sun should focus on this type of admittedly risky innovation instead of attempting to lure existing Linux users into a Solaris world. Someday, all these marketing guys are going to realize that there's more to an OS than just a name, and that actually creating something new is the best approach to picking up market share (OSX == good example).
All that said, ZFS is a really cool thing if it works as spec'd, however ZFS is NOT in open beta AFAIK, and it has not been released to us little guy partners as of yet (though I'm betting they've started testing at the larger shops), so all we have here to go on so far is a marketing claim of improved i/o that could be true, false, or in that grey area salespeople like to use where the whole thing ran great!
I'm guessing we'll all know in about 2 months.
-chitlenz
Imagination is the silver lining of Intelligence.
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.)
:wq
As anyone who's tried out x86 Solaris is aware; it's no match for Linux on the platform - or any other platform other than Sun's own hardware for that matter. The hardware support is pretty dire. Sure, it's supposedly a superior kernel, but if it's unable to take advantage of the metal underneath it, then it's not going to win market share.
;-)
(yes I have tried it out, and it lasted a full week before I threw up my hands in disappointment and went back to the penguin
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Seriously... although it may well be plausable that a good number of places which once would have installed a free Linux will now instead install a free Solaris x86, everyone knows good and well that even that scenario wouldn't "kill" Linux.
Depending on how "open" Solaris code turns out to be, it's success may indeed make all of Open Source stronger, prompting more companies to follow suit, releasing their core products under some sort of Open Source license and placing more engineers on open-source-based projects.
In any event, it's going to take a lot more than a free and open Solaris to "kill" Linux. Seriously, show me the Solaris fanatics... I haven't seen them. The Linux fanatics, on the other hand, are everywhere... and as long as they are alive, Linux will be alive as well. Which is a good thing.
That's just dumb. Open sourcing Solaris won't automagically make it more popular than Linux.
Besides, this is Sun we're talking about. I bet it won't be an OSI-approved license and therefore will only be considered open source "because Sun tells you it is" (familiar?).
Linux is strong because it's a worldwide community effort where both individuals and companies are welcome to participate.
Meanwhile, the open source Solaris will remain tightly controlled by Sun, and therefore will only go in the direction Sun wants it to (forks may happen, but their chances of survival are very low). Sun never really cared about the "community" and you can bet open sourcing Solaris won't change that.
I really doubt Solaris represents much of a threat to Linux. Linux has been going for over ten years, and has built up a great amount of momentum; developers aren't just going to switch from coding for their operating system of choice to work on an unfamiliar Solaris. There isn't enough incentive.
Whilst I'm sure Solaris will attract some attention, I'd guess that the majority of developers will stick with the operating system they know. Whilst Sun can throw a lot of weight behind this project, it's easier to keep an open source project moving along at speed, than it is to start a new one. I'm skeptical as to whether open-source Solaris can attract the developer attention that Linux has.
Whilst businesses are pretty much free to choose what they want, the writer seems to be suggesting that because Solaris is open source, that will somehow make it magically better. Businesses are not usually known for choosing software simply because it is open source. Unfortunately, just making a product open source is not an automatic recipe for success, otherwise Hurd would garner just as much attention as Linux.
It will make it easier to get management to switch from Windows to Solaris than Linux. You bring up Linux to managers in an enterprise and they instantly start pointing out lack support contracts. Management wants someone whose feet they can hold to the fire when something goes wrong. Sun is a well known name so it will be an easy sell.
Also Solaris is more of a real enterprise class operating system. Linux is working on it, but not there yet. Solaris has decades of use and refinement, it is a solid OS that scales great as the load increases.
OK, imagine with me...
/atleast/ on par if not far ahead feature-for-feature with their competition. Yet, they arn't adopted more than their niche(but rabid) markets.
Sun has, in Solaris 10, arguably the most powerful core OS of any on the market for general/server/production use(not counting embedded, rt, or mainframe systems and I know not enough about them). They have some killer stats, powerful new features, and amazing development coming out. This all sits under xorg+gnome for a gui...
ok, transition time... please don't kill me, just hear me out...
Apple(*ducks*) has arguably, the most powerful gui on the market. Feature wise, simplicity, elegance and consistant... Very powerful, though not perfect, ofcourse. Darwin is a nice enough system but doesn't have much more the 'average' features. Nothing makes it have a selling point other than it exists and it is freebsd-like.
What both companies have is an amazing half OS that by all accounts is
I propose a merger. Sun is marginally(25-50%, i think) larger than Apple income wise and whanot. Merging the two systems, the Aqua and solid gui on top of Solaris 10 core system. This would take time and would coincide with the System 11 release(ironically) for both companies.
To make this really work though, they need to migrate. Procide highend workstations and servers(as Sun and Apple always have) but offer a lowend as well... Sun offers x86 systems for lowend servers, and has talked about a ppc port of solaris. Personally, I think ppc is superior, with IBM's work they have made it very powerful. But an AMD64 system would be fine as well.
The companies need to flood the markets with their OS, even if it is on amd64, only, at a less-supported(community support for the free version)... I mean, send free boxed copies of their software to every university with a cs department, free of charge. They need to literally hand this software out to everyone they can. Free download for personal or non-profit use (minimum) and have a good resource/community site for support.
The more open the system the better, but both companies use open source where it makes sense in their systems, not because they are sucking up, but because it is the best choice for the product.
PS. yes, I know Apple is a hardware company. I wrote this on my 12" pbook. Sun is a hardware company too, which makes demand for an operating system that(for full use/support like sparc or ppc's cooler features) require a more highend(expensive) machine.
IBM does this with Linux, they are a hardware company using a generic operating system on highend machines.
Most of the comments I've see so far are essentially "No." I disagree, but before I do so I'll make the following assumptions:
a) Sun uses a real open source license - meaning GPL compatible. This is unlikely, and if they don't Linux isn't going anywhere.
b) Sun doesn't reserve major high end components of the system. If they do, they are essentially another Linux with different and unfamiliar source code. Solaris can do some things well that Linux isn't good at, but if Sun cuts it down, game over. Open source Solaris is a non-starter.
NOW, let's assume they do it the Right Way. Several things immediately happen. Solaris has a good track record in high end servers that has been earned through experience. That gives it a lot of interest right there. Now, with real open source, drivers from Linux start arriving in droves. Intel performance is improved. GNU tools become standard parts of the system at almost all levels. Solaris becomes a more robust Linux, with a proven commercial track record.
Now, remember - to everyone above kernel level, KDE on Linux vs. KDE on Open Solaris is going to look VERY similar. Ditto for any other user (and even most developer) tools. Parts of Solaris that annoy users suddenly are fixable, and get fixed. Open Solaris can now go head to head with Linux, as a tier one platform for virtually all open source applications.
The parts of Linux that are not available in Solaris will be adsorbed in. Things like Dtrace are already available on Solaris, and not available on Linux. As people rapidly add in the goodies, Solaris adsorbs Linux's strengths (drivers, file systems, etc.) while leveraging Solaris's robust, tested, industry strength core. As far as I know, there is very little about Linux to fundamentally recommend it over Solaris, except for it's ability to function well on many platforms. If Solaris proves able to do this (impossible to say right now, but I'm assuming well done code will be able to do this, given enough eyes and hours) Linux will essentially dissolve into Solaris, and the end product will be Open Solaris with the best parts of Linux preserved. Does that constitute killing Linux? I wouldn't say so. If you mean will Linus stop being the prime mover, maybe, but the effort put into Linux will survive.
So I, for one, would welcome our GPL Solaris overlords, because the only thing that will happen is net gains all around, regardless of whether the end product is called Solaris or Linux.
Now, do I believe Sun will Do It Right? Nope. But I sure hope they do.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Open sourced Solaris might surpass Linux if and only if Sun released it under license that would allow me to make a Solaris distro, name it Slowaris, and still get away with it.
In other words, on a particularly cold day in hell...
Anyway, Here's a copy of the article on linuxtoday.com.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Why not a Mach based Solaris. You take Solaris's crappy utilities, and Hurd's slow kernel. Then you have a real open source operating system.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Now the editors are just trolling.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
What games will be available for Solaris?
BC
As an employee for a very large ISP (the one that's dispised), I can say that Linux is going to win this one. Sun has been the primary platform for the last 5 years, and now many of those old 400mhz Sun boxes are coming off lease. Their replacments are all Linux. Why? Simple - It's disposable. The hardware, the software, everything. Once we use it up, we throw it away like a bent paperclip. Sun simply can't compete. For one thing, their prices are still insane (not Apple Hardware insane, but close). Their support, while excellent, is way too expensive. In fact, it's so expensive, that third parties offer discount Sun support. HP does. And third, their hardware underperforms.
Compare that with run of the mill dual proc 3Ghz Intel boxes, which are super fast, cheaper than a used Camry, and abundant. And Linux runs great on them.
Linux has won this contest, and this is Suns attempt at making amends to all those customers they raped for the last 10 years by overcharging for support and hardware.
I think that we've been arguing from a fallacious standpoint. The purpose of being public domain is to make systems interoperable and to benefit from the intellectual efforts of other open source ventures.
A simple question: Why?
For anyone who has used the Solaris operating systems knows that there are many non-POSIX compliant and fairly obsolete programs packaged with the OS. To speak frankly, I have not used Solaris 9, but find it unlikely that they have been able to reproduce all of the GNU created features and improvements, nor would they want to.
Sure, they have a slew of Sun proprietary applications for such things as security management, their own filesystem with logging/journaling, and gobs of support from other vendors such as Oracle, but they are falling far behind the open source community in the areas of system useability and interoperability. Anyone who has tried to conduct simple administrative tasks and write some shell scripts finds annoying differences in basic commands. Those programs that are ported from the GNU community lag farther behind than needed.
Going open source has benefits. Sun is releasing this as an open source project so that their operating system can benefit by the incorporation of GNU licenced software. They will be able to concentrate development effort on their core technology while reaping the benefits of GNU technology.
Benefits for Linux
All of those great proprietary applications that I mentioned above are going to either be directly available for porting (a la Open Source), or much easier for Sun to port for other systems. This improves the number and potentially the quality of Linux management applications.
Solaris is a Unix. This cannot be bad for Linux. Interoperability is one of the key problems with Unix/Linux. Another Unix system joining the Open Source efforts will provide another choice for consumers and provide collaborative potential with existing Linux projects.
In brief
Another significant open source operating system on the market is good for everybody!
Just like Windows NT killed UNIX.
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
Sun doesn't get it. Their sense of open source only works when you write FOSS like this: F|=O$$.
As said before:
1) no Solaris on a mobile phone
2) no Solaris on a laptop/notebook/pda
3) no Solaris on a media centre
4) no Solaris in an automotive ECM, and so on.
I've talked to their PR people, and Sun engineers. They DON'T get it. Their idea of community is a country club. It's stockholder interests that they have at heart. That's ok.
What's not ok is to make believe that they're going to get Linux Love by putting on a blond wig and some lipstick.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Whatever kind of weed this guy is smoking, he really ought to share.
What the hell is he talking about? People will use Slowlaris if it's free? Like that's the only reason we're not using it? Please.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
What SUN and many others miss is that the most compelling thing about linux and linux distributions isnt the system in itself, its the license its released under. The GPL license is a protection against malicious corporations and what prevents anybody from gaining strangelhold. It forces corporations to work together with the users in a never before seen way. I and many with me will not migrate to a license that makes it possible for SUN to just rip the floor from under our feet in five years time. Even a GPL license will be very scrutinized so that all the bases are covered and not just some parts of the system.
I think they put all to much weight into peoples cheapness and think that GNU/linux is all about money. Well a big part of the money bit is to not let anyone lock you in like MS did. I find this a desperate move from SUN who cant decide what leg to stand on. MS is sure to be happy to have one single entity to crush if SUN should gain foothold with Solaris. With linux its just not possible to stomp it out in one blow.
HTTP/1.1 400
While I'm a GNU/Linux user myself, I can't understand all those people who insist on pitting Linux vs. BSD, Debian vs. Redhat, or Gnome vs. KDE. If opensource Solaris is as free as Java is now, I doubt it will make much headway. But if Sun licenses Solaris the way it licensed OpenOffice, then I guess Linux is in danger. But who would care then, but the few Linux überzealots? Redhat is already packaging OpenOffice into their OS offerings. I fancy in the future, they might come up with a co-branded Redhat Solaris. Maybe we could even hear of Linus contributing patches to make sure free Solaris interoperates well with legacy Linux.
Do you really think the hardware vendors who now have linux in their lines will let Sun eat their market share? Even with x86 Solaris from Sun as a token of collaboration in the IA platfrom, you can be sure the hardware guys will be pushing back. Not to mention Intel.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Solaris full of copyrighted, licensed SysV code? Solaris is also a SCO License holder. How on earth could Sun even attempt to OpenSource it?
Well, the site's been slashdotted...
Linux isn't about the OS, it's about the community. At this late date, could any kind of realistic Open Source Solaris get the kind of mindshare Linux has among the people who are in a position to do something useful with it?
The Linux distros only had a year or two community-growth head start over the BSD releases, for example, and BSD was much further ahead of Linux technically... but Linus had the right formula and Linux took off.
Now the distance between Red Hat or Suse and Solaris is much less, and Linux has been growing as an open source OS for a decade and change... I don't see any reason to worry about an Open Source Solaris kicking its butt.
Apparently Sun has been able to communicate with Linux user's over the Internet. They sent them the following message:
"We're about to release Solaris as Open Source. We're going to completely take over the OS market and if you resist us we're going to sue you for patent infringement. But we don't want to do that. So really the best thing for you to do when we relase it is to stop using Linux."
Well, seeing how Solaris has this nasty tendency to take mental constructs and create physical manifestations of lost relatives, lost wife, etc., using a stabilized field of neutrinos, it will probably freak people out too much to really be able to take over Linux's market share.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
- If they go really GPL-ish, SUN code will be used to improve Linux even further. Ergo: Linux will grow.
- If they don't, they will not get a decent developer base. They win nothing. Ergo: Linux will grow.
Sounds like a no-lose situation for Linux IMHO...
Solaris will never replace linux. Solaris and linux should not even be compared. Sun is a hardware co., they want to sell more hardware. That is why they are giving away their little solaris build. Solaris sux on intel based systems, always has, always will. Not to mention the lack of support/drivers available for any hardware build that isn't from Sun. Linux on the other hand is at home on the most dominent computer builds in the world and getting better.
Solaris is more for the enterprise, Linux is more at a server or workstation for personal or small business.
Really? Our enterprise is dumping Sun and SGI boxes in favor of Linux. Over 60 new Linux servers in the past year (and that doesn't include the personal desktop machines). The payoff is in commodity hardware instead of high-priced boxes and reduction of the very expensive support costs. There are tradeoffs in performance, sometimes worse but generally better. Sun would have to come up with a really good reason to get us to go back.
As examples of where that "stockholder" mentality shows up:
"man syseventadm", -v vendor
The string specifying the vendor defining the event. Events defined by third-party software should use the company's stock symbol. Sun-defined events use SUNW.
"man pkginfo",
PKG* Abbreviation for the package being installed. All characters in the abbreviation must be alphanumeric and the first may not be numeric. The abbreviation is limited to a maximum length of 32 characters. install, new, and all are reserved abbreviations. It is customary to make the first four letters unique to your company, such as the company's stock symbol.
There is no mind share to keep. What will happen is what has always happened. UNIX religious wars, which became *NIX religious wars. Solaris will start to look like a very advanced stable and robust Linux distro to big business users and developers. SuSE will become Solaris's kid sister and fast tract to merge with Solaris x86.
Eventually Novell and SUN will merge and make an honest woman out of SuSE. 64 bit development will flood the market and AMD 64 and Ultrasparc cpus will start flooding the market. Intel and Redhat will start flooding the market with Intel 64 related stuff. And poor microserf will have to kick XP into the 64 bit world alot sooner the Ballmer's timetable plans for.
Suddenly all those over 35 years old coders will admit they used Solaris and can now still claim they are always Linux programmers. Solaris will at last get a decent user interface and CDE will be dropkicked back to what ever icy part of hell it came from.
Second Bubble here we come.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Having worked with unix for over 20 years I can assure you that originally /usr WAS short for user and that all user home directories were indeed in /usr. As a previous poster pointed out Unix shipped on two 1/2 inch tapes one was the root and the other one /usr with "userland" software. As Unix has grown over time user homedirs were moved to /home and /usr took a more general place and /usr was re-identified as an acronym for Unix System Resources.
Here's his list of reasons, and my comments on them (I'm a java and Oracle developer working on large UK projects)...
Why will the Open Source model automatically work? The majority of developers are already on Linux work and will have to be attracted to move across. Sun has had limited success in fostering support in the community so far.
Only applies to people already using Solaris. What about new deployments? I suggest that many SMBs will adopt Linux as (1) it'll work on a low-power machine and (2) their techies will suggest it!
Again, this only applies to people already using Solaris.
That's a serious judgement call there. Plus from what I read, this isn't necessarily true even if it 'should' be!
In short, I don't think this article was worth my time rebutting it. Oh...
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
This is my fault. Six months ago I wrote an email to Sun saying that if they freed Solaris it might gain developer support. (true story)
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Have you tried installing Solaris on x86 hardware? Good luck finding hardware that works. Maybe with an open-source version more drivers will be written, but right now Linux has the advantage on hardware compatibility over Solaris (and BSD).