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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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
First off, if Linus picks a GUI, he's going to piss off half the users of Linux, who will in turn, fork Linux. I'm not sure what you mean "starts up a desktop linux fork". What's wrong the the kernel going to the desktop? The kernel is *not* the problem, the problem is the desktop (KDE/Gnome/Whatever), and hardware detection (see this for an idea), and whatever else is keeping Linux from the desktop (lack of programs?). Whatever it is, it's not the kernel (if you ask me...).
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
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.
----
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!!!!
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.
I think you should have read more as a kid - the tortoise DOES beat the hare.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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.
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.
??? First of all, why should Linus pick a GUI? He's the head of the kernel development, not a distribution vendor.
And as for a desktop linux fork, that also makes no sense. There are lots of desktop distributions (SUSE, Knoppix, etc). There are no reasons to fork the kernel for desktop use. If the distribution vendor doesn't want RAID, SCSI, etc, they can just configure them out.
You mean like stability, security, efficiency, etc? Using a recent distribution is no more difficult for home and office users than using windows or MacOSX. Installing it may be annoying, but few home users do that with windows anyways. Most get it with their computer or use the restore disk that came with the computer.
The one GUI-related thing I think Linus ought to help with would be a UNIFIED, distro, toolkit, and desktop environment independent hardware control panel. It seems to me that Linus + Freedesktop.org + Linux Standard Base is what would be required for "the Linux Desktop" to be widely accepted.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
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.
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.
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