Slashdot Mirror


Solaris No Longer Free As In Beer

rubycodez writes "Oracle, having acquired Sun Microsystems, including its Unix, will no longer give away free Solaris licenses. Oracle also states that some features of its Oracle Solaris will not appear in OpenSolaris, which means OpenSolaris may start to die."

44 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. That's fine by Darkk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We still have choices of free OS to choose from.

    They don't scare me.

    1. Re:That's fine by Teancum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development. Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.

      Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct.

    2. Re:That's fine by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development. Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.

      Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct.

      Nothing is being "switched" all the OpenSolaris stuff is still there, Oracle just won't be adding new features it develops to it. All the code that was there is still open even without the magical GPL and can be developed further. From TFA :

      "The good news is that those of us who have worked so hard to bring this project to life still wholeheartedly believe in it. A core group of the Wonderland team intends to keep the project going. We will be pursuing both for-profit and not-for-profit options that will allow us to become a self-sustaining organization. "

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    3. Re:That's fine by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is this insightful?

      However short-sighted it would be for Oracle to strangle OpenSolaris development, the OpenSolaris code that's out there is forever licensed under the CDDL - which is a cleaned up version of the Mozilla Public Licence don't forget.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    4. Re:That's fine by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, shut up. What is it with GPL fanatics always feeling the need to claim the GPL will save the world?

      The GPL would have absolutely no impact on this. Oracle owns the Solaris copyrights. It would make absolutely no difference if Sun had chosen the GPL instead of the CDDL for OpenSolaris. They would still have the right to release future versions as proprietary software and not release their changes (although no one else would have, which would have killed things like NexentaStor). The exact same can happen with MySQL now; Oracle could simply decide not to release any future improvements under the GPL and keep shipping the proprietary version. You'd have exactly the same choice; either use the proprietary version, use something else, or fork.

      With OpenSolaris, there are already a couple of active forks, so the code remains open, it just doesn't necessarily get enhancements from Oracle. The FSF owns the copyright on all GNU software; they unilaterally relicensed most of it as [L]GPLv3 when the new license came out, meaning that you couldn't link it with any GPLv2-only code (e.g. Poppler, which is currently the only decent PDF rendering library for *NIX). Is this safer according to your FSF-approved definition of freedom?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:That's fine by diegocg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The license don't matter in this case. Even if Opensolaris was 100% GPL, Oracle still would release Solaris with propietary addons. They can do that because they own the copyright (if you want to get a patch into the opensolaris repositories, you need to give first your copyrights with Sun/Oracle). The license doesn't matter to them. Sun/Oracle can release propietary versions of Solaris, but nobody else can - that's the sad truth behind Sun's "open source".

  2. I feel sorry by SigNuZX728 · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the person that this affects.

    1. Re:I feel sorry by Venik · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clearly, very few people here have any enterprise-level Solaris experience. In terms of stability and performance I compare Linux to Solaris like you compare Windows to Linux. Well, this may be too harsh but this is mostly addresses to the fat dorks on Slashdot screaming "death to Solaris". The biggest file server guys like that had to support is the one sitting under their desk with all the porn on it.

      When I transitioned from Solaris and AIX to supporting RH and SuSE several years ago, I experienced somewhat of a shock: servers hanging on shutdown, lousy NFS performance, Samba slowing down to a crawl under moderately heavy load and a crapload of other issues I never thought a unixoid OS can suffer from. All these problems coupled with consumer-grade hardware and what you get is one big, never-ending downtime. Something is always down or barely limping along.

      There were times when all our servers were running Solaris, AIX or HP-UX. I could come to work, drink my coffee, read the news, space out for a couple hours, then break for lunch, work a couple hours on some project and go home. As more and more real servers are being replaced by cheap HPs and Dells running the blasted RHEL or, worse yet, SLES, all this free time I used to have is a distant memory.

    2. Re:I feel sorry by rodgerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      YMMV. We have more problems with our Sun hardware than we ever do with our HP Lintel boxes. Hell, we had an M5K dead within a week of delivery due to a single point of failure with a fan stopping and frying a backplane. And let us not speak of the 4xx series machines, whose memory controllers appear to be made from components eMachines rejected as too crappy.

    3. Re:I feel sorry by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      very few people here have any enterprise-level Solaris experience

      Actually, anyone with serious enterprise level Solaris experience would remember getting stung by everything from faulty cache memory design on the E450 resulting in time between reboots measured in days to ZFS causing solid crashes quite often when it was new.

      Rose coloured tint on the rear view mirror aside, things weren't always that good.

      Personally I've found Linux machines to be at least as stable, but there are about ten times as many of them which will of course increase incidence of problems. And there's new untested hardware and platform changes more often than there used to be with Sun (for better or worse), so if you want to prioritize stability you'll have to take more care while shopping.

    4. Re:I feel sorry by dpastern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say you're right to a large extent - Solaris on dedicated boxes, set up correctly, runs forever. Very secure. Very stable. Very scalable. Look at a large site like EBay - it runs off Solaris and is incredibly stable.

      The downsides to that are usually dedicated Sun hardware to get the utmost out of the operating system, supreme knowledge of how to install/setup and tweak Solaris to the nth degree to get it to be the best that it can be. Cost. Any decent organisation will have a support licence with the vendor for those things that their in house techs can't solve. That costs money.

      Still, I think that this decision by Oracle will kill Solaris. There was some uptake over the past few years due to Sun's changing attitude toward the desktop user, and more reasonable support contracts (cost wise) - it was actually cheaper to get support on Solaris than RH or Suse products. I'm glad I've alrady got a copy of Solaris 10 for x86. I've never liked Oracle as a company to be honest, as good as their dbase product might be, them, along with Apple, I'd love to see go bust. They are a nasty trash p.o.s company.

      Dave

      --
      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
    5. Re:I feel sorry by VolciMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have two words for you: Patch Management.

      Are you saying that Solaris has or has not "Patch Management"?

      The only platform I've worked-with that comes close to doing actual "patches", and allows them to be unrolled at will*, and has a steady schedule, and can be relied-upon is Microsoft Windows.

      Sure - go ahead and jest that it's because they need more patching.

      Linux distributions release entire new packages - not patches.

      AIX patches come out whenever IBM feels the need, and may or may not be announced well.

      Solaris patches are released willy-nilly with poor announcements, the patch clusters don't always include everything that has been released since the last one, and.. oh yeah: it'll try to install patches that aren't needed, then complain they're not installed. And the number of times I've have to run cluster installs more than once because dependency-mapping was incorrect? Not pleasant.

      * except for service packs - but those are effectively new revisions to the underlying OS

    6. Re:I feel sorry by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well what where you doing running consumer grade hardware on your severs? HP and Dell enterpise stuff is actually pretty good.

      I have heard that NFS on Linux isn't or wasn't as good as on Solaris or even BSD way back when but I have no real experience with NFS .

      Sounds like a lot of issues you are having may be hardware based.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:I feel sorry by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I transitioned from Solaris and AIX to supporting RH and SuSE several years ago, I experienced somewhat of a shock: servers hanging on shutdown, lousy NFS performance, Samba slowing down to a crawl under moderately heavy load and a crapload of other issues I never thought a unixoid OS can suffer from. All these problems coupled with consumer-grade hardware and what you get is one big, never-ending downtime. Something is always down or barely limping along.[emphasis added]

      I dunno how many years this was ago but in the time I have been using Linux (since 1999), scalability and performance on the server-side have improved greatly, in large part due to IBM's interest in trying to bring Linux up to the level of AIX in these areas..... Comparing Linux to Solaris in 1999 would have been like comparing Windows ME to Linux at the same time. However things have improved a great deal. In particular the schedular wars have left us with a far better OS than we ha before.

      I have generally found Linux to be the most admin-friendly OS out there. This is reason to use it where it works well. More recently Linux has gotten a lot of effort in resolving those very problems you mention.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  3. They certainly like to send people away. by sethstorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For trying to get people to want to use the OS, Sun and Oracle sure like to piss people off.

    Oracle just seems to make it more pronounced.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:They certainly like to send people away. by Third+Position · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if Sun's strategy was making them any money, Oracle wouldn't own them now.

      This isn't really a surprise. Somehow, I have the feeling Oracle will just unload the server business on someone else within a few years. I expect they'll milk it to the max while they can, and just dump it at a bargain basement price when it's no longer profitable.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    2. Re:They certainly like to send people away. by VolciMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      at the moment, Oracle is focusing on large data-warehousing applications using the Sun hardware and OS until OEL is more-widely deployed. When Oracle brought out OEL, they effectively proclaimed that Solaris was no longer the OS of choice - if it were, why bother with their own Linux distribution?

  4. So fork it. by doishmere · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's nothing stopping anyone from forking the existing distribution and maintaining it separately from Oracle; if Oracle does release any code back into the public, it can be incorporated too. FTA, "The good news is that those of us who have worked so hard to bring this project to life still wholeheartedly believe in it. A core group of the Wonderland team intends to keep the project going."

    1. Re:So fork it. by Brandon+Hume · · Score: 3, Informative

      And if you read http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/no_source , which is the ACTUAL list of non-source-available components, you'll only see "libc_i18n" listed. Not libc.

      --
      Brandon Hume
      hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
  5. May? by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will. Oracle is not in the business of giving stuff away for free.

    Have you heard? They license their database software not by the servers it runs on, nor by the processor, but by the core. How absurd is that? Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores, or to support it? Believe it or not, they also charge extra for installed memory, as if that had anything to do with their production or support costs. Failover? Now you're into serious money. And don't you dare run it on stuff that's not on the secret list, or your support contract is invalid.

    If Cisco's motto is "that feature is enabled through the purchase of an optional license", Oracle's is more so.

    I guess Oracle doesn't get that we have options, and the pace of hardware technology will quickly erase any software advantage they think they have.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:May? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess Oracle doesn't get that we have options, and the pace of hardware technology will quickly erase any software advantage they think they have.

      People have been saying this for a long time, but we are still around (and quite healthy as well). Because the fact is, we understand the market better than geeks. To make money, you don't need to persuade geeks that our stuff is better (even when this is the case, especially now after all the acquisitions -- between stuff like Weblogic, Essbase, dbxml, ocfs, virtualbox, zfs and dtrace I'm sure we can find something you'll like); you only need to persuade managers that our "solution" (including support etc) will cover their ass should anything go wrong.

      (anon because I work there)

    2. Re:May? by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not absurd at all, perfectly valid economics. That you're incapable of understanding the economics involved is your failure not Oracles.

      Essentially different people are willing and able to pay different amounts for the same product. As a result if you could charge people individual amounts you could not only meet the needs of more consumers (ie: sell more software) but also make more money in the process. That is, if you couldn't price differentiate than you'd need to (ie: while maximizing profit) charge everyone an amount that certain customers just couldn't afford. If you could somehow charge just those customers less than everyone would be better of. Since you don't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy. Oracle uses features, the number of cores and ram as their proxy.

    3. Re:May? by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who can be swayed by one persuasive salesman await the next to find their door.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:May? by Builder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You need to persuade ME that you can support your products. Every chance I get, I replace Oracle products with non-Oracle products because I'm pretty much sick and tired of having to rely on some random guy at Veritas who has happened to see the same RAC problem as I am having when your tech monkeys force me to raise a ticket with my storage vendor because theyr'e too clueless to work out the problem.

      About the only things I'm likely to keep (for now) are coherence and Java, just because there's nothing else out there that competes with it. But for most of my other needs, other products exist. MSSQL, JBoss, etc.

      We don't get the support we pay for, not even on a level 1 outage, so I'll be damned if I ever spend another cent with Oracle that I don't have to.

    5. Re:May? by swilver · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you treat any of those products the way you bungle your main Oracle product, then I'm sure they'll soon be as despised as your 1970's Database that needs constant supervision and doesn't even know the difference between NULL and a known empty value.

      Eventually I think having the programmers, architects and designers against you is gonna cost you -- I sure as hell will not use your Database product as more than a glorified storage system (and a picky one at that), I will not touch JHeadStart or Oracle Developer with a 10ft pole, and I will actively try and replace anything Oracle with a free solution. It will no doubt please you that Oracle has been above Microsoft on my "evil" list for quite a few years now.

    6. Re:May? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhhhh...you DO realize you just described exactly why there are multiple versions of Windows, which most geeks here at Slashdot have a royal shitfit about, right? While I don't have a problem with different SKUs charging per core and per RAM amount is getting a little anal about it. Hell even MSFT as far as I know doesn't charge per core but per socket.

      As for Solaris my guess is old Larry is gonna be cracking the whip on the developers to make it THE platform for Oracle DB, which means he can pretty much charge whatever he wants as those addicted to Oracle DB will buy whatever platform Oracle tells them to. So I wouldn't be surprised if old Larry is doing this so the next version of Oracle/Solaris will be a tightly integrated unit that will kick ass on SPARC and give him a top to bottom solution he can make big piles 'o cash from, followed by him killing unbreakable Linux which he can't control like he can Solaris. Remember old Larry didn't get all that money by being a dumbass, I'm sure he has a plan to make some serious cash out of it one way or another.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:May? by Kerrigann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How much is it?

      I dunno, how much you got?

    8. Re:May? by Builder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You really think that's how it works right now? Awwww cute!

      For a lot of deployments, Oracle databases are deployed because a vendor of a product you want requires oracle. These vendors are often niche providers so you can't just choose someone else who doesn't have an oracle dependency. So you buy oracle.

      Here's a fun game for you ... Phone Oracle and ask for a price to run Oracle 11i on 2 servers, one with 8 cores (2 x 4 way CPUs) and the other with 16 cores. Also, ask if there is a price difference if Hyperthreading is enabled. Tell me how long it takes to get that quote. And how many different people you have to speak to.

      About halfway through the above little game, you'll realise I left out a load of key information that you need to get it. How many people will be accessing these databases? Will they be accessing as named users, or through a web portal? Oh, and don't forget about maintenance.

      Oracle is a joke that stays around for now because they provide some things that no-one else does. No-one I work with (other than Oracle DBAs) seems to like using them, and we're always on the lookout for something else.

      Any chance we get, we use something else.... Sybase ASE, MSSQL under Polyserve, PostgreSQL where it fits.

    9. Re:May? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People have been saying this for a long time, but we are still around (and quite healthy as well). Because the fact is, we understand the market better than geeks.

      Healthy? Sun laid off practically everyone with a clue at practically every company they bought to cut costs, and now Sun is a barely-amalgamated collection of disparate enterprises. And Sun employees are still waiting for the other shoe to drop. I've met some and they don't seem happy. Sun is anything but healthy, and adding that on to Oracle was not a smart move.

      you only need to persuade managers that our "solution" (including support etc) will cover their ass should anything go wrong.

      Oh, if only I could believe that. I might believe it of IBM, which appears to have a future.

      Sun and Oracle are alike in that they are both alive due to momentum. But without a reason to continue to exist, that momentum will be lost. And ZFS is a pretty thin hope to hang your future on.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:May? by epine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since you don't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy. Oracle uses features, the number of cores and ram as their proxy.

      This is a valid recitation of economic orthodoxy which unfortunately leaves off right at the moment where thinking begins. Ships are lost on this basis.

      The problem is that the choice of proxy has downstream consequence which can destroy a lot of value, or in the worst case, almost the entire value of the sales proposition.

      In the case of licensing by core, it introduces a huge non-linear term in right-sizing infrastructure. I can't stand this stuff myself, but some of my closest friends have made an excellent living showing up to solve the Oracle license fee non-linear optimization problem, which contains large elements of uncertainty and non-determinism because the outcome depends on unknown future events.

      Anyone with the least insight into systems theory knows that non-linearities are like a sexual disease. They have a noted tendency to give on giving. Properly understood, the effort involved in damping out these non-linearities can easily exceed the value proposition of adopting Oracle solutions in the first place.

      Fortunately for Oracle, there's a huge real world shortfall in the quantity "properly understood". Microsoft, among others, makes a mint from truncated TCO studies. The assumption underlying every TCO study I've ever seen is that the higher order non-linearities can be safely neglected. If that were true, why is anyone relying on a vendor-funded TCO? In the case where the higher order terms can be safely neglected, it's usually easy enough for the customer to work their own TCO on the back of napkin, and get an immediate answer everyone immediately believes.

      The cases where this breaks down are the sales propositions absolutely freighted with non-linearities, to the point where no one trusts their own numbers, surprise, surprise.

      The first rats off a sinking ship are the best swimmers. The first wave of people to abandon Oracle are those outfits with a larger than average insight into "properly understood".

      From [http://www.riskglossary.com/link/barings_debacle.htm Barings Debacle]

      In November 1993, BSL was merged into BB&Co. in anticipation of a subsequent initiative to form a Barings Investment Bank (BIB). The merger was not easy because the two firms had markedly different cultures. It was a distraction right in the middle of Leeson's tenure at BSL.
      ...
      Barings was just starting to form a risk management function. Risk controllers were appointed in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong during 1994, but not in Singapore.
      ...
      As part of the 1993 reorganization, Barings had adopted a "matrix" approach to management of its offices. ... Employees complained that lines of reporting were not always clear. ... Another issue was that Leeson was an accomplished liar.

      Every aspect of this is situation normal at most medium or large companies. You best executive attention is devoted to various political fires. Many organizations are just too busy with other pressing demands to step back and engage in the kind of clear thinking it takes to put out the Oracle fire. So what if the Oracle pricing model induces non-linearities? We're planning to auction block that division anyway.

      However, in the companies where choosing the right database and the right database architecture is the dominant fire, non-linearities associated with proxy pricing models can escalate into a serious business concern. Some of those people will go talk to Oracle and try to cut a special deal. Many of them won't. An attrition sets in.

      Look what happened to Microsoft when Google became the hot job opportunity. That sucking sound is your technical clout packing family photos into their briefcases.

      A major coming of age event in commoditization of a technology is crossing the threshold where the price proxy shifts from being a

    11. Re:May? by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frequently, the developers, admins, and DBAs that you're pissing off become the next managers.

    12. Re:May? by dekemoose · · Score: 3, Informative

      you only need to lie to managers that our "solution" (including support etc) will cover their ass should anything go wrong.

      FTFY.

      I worked support at a company that Oracle acquired and we went from having the best support money could buy to having the most expensive answering service money could buy. Oracle works very hard to make sure that their support process is consistent, repeatable and efficient at handling the volume of issues submitted. You'll notice I didn't say anything about being good at handling issues, that is not a concern for them. Most of the folks who were any good at all found jobs elsewhere and were replaced by offshore staf with little to no knowledge of the product whose primary purpose was to shuffle requests around while they drowned the few remaining decent support staff with inane questions. This is my understanding at least based on talking with folks who are still there, I was one of the first rats who fled that sinking ship.

      No matter how bad Sun's support may have been in recent years* you can rest assured that it will be worse under Oracle's ownership.

      All the being said, AC is right, Oracle sells to management not to the geeks. There's still a general perception amongst the management types that "you can't be fired for buying Oracle".

      *I've never used Sun's support, no idea if it's been decent or not.

  6. Re:How different does it have to be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the closed source version of Solaris, you can't redistribute it period.

  7. Re:How different does it have to be? by symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For GPL works you take a distro, file off the serial numbers somebody else was using (usually this is just trademark logos and such), stamp your name on it, and it's DeadPixelOS. Of course, DeadPixelOS isn't going to get much of a following unless you're continuously developing some value-add as well as keeping up with the patch management of 1000+ packages. It's some work. For your first clone distro I'd start with a low-maintenance one like Pentoo.

    The line is drawn in the license. For OpenSolaris, that would be here. If the license says you can do what you want with the code, then you can. If it says you can't, then you can't. And if it doesn't say, then it's all about how good your lawyer is and how much you want it.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  8. Oracle's short term memory by Korgan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole reason Sun opened up Solaris in the first place was to try and get it a wider audience and more of a community around it. Linux was encroaching on Solaris as much as it was on any other Unix, if not faster.

    Oracle will probably find that the only way they can sell Solaris is to bundle it as a database appliance OS or something stupid like that. Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it.

    Solaris wasn't the healthiest until the OpenSolaris project gave it a significantly greater audience that allowed anyone to use it and get familiar with it. OpenSolaris sold Sun hardware and the proprietary Solaris. It is what kept Solaris from dead ending and stagnating.

    Oracle will either realise this soon, or wait till its too late. This is essentially the first nail in the Solaris coffin after Sun managed to get it off life support.

    Fare thee well, old friend.

    1. Re:Oracle's short term memory by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is Solaris so much better than Linux that Sun couldn't merge it with Linux?

      What is Solaris? Solaris is SunOS plus a GUI. What is SunOS? SunOS is SVR5 with customizations. What is SVR5? It's a kernel, a libc, and a set of applications and other associated libraries. So here is the point; the applications (the userspace) are more or less the same on both operating systems already; most Linux commands behave like their SysV ancestors more than the BSD ones today. So really, any Sun-required advances could be easily merged into the GNU userspace tools. But the kernel? Merging the best features of the Solaris kernel into the Linux kernel is non-trivial. dtrace, zones, and ZFS are basically the appeal. dtrace would require changes all over the kernel. zones' functionality is provided by a combination of KVM and colinux, depending on your particular goal. That leaves ZFS, which Sun took special measures to keep out of Linux. Oracle can safely be assumed to have the same idea about its value as Sun. So when the only thing that really needs merging (linux is getting better profiling and debugging tools over time, and dtrace will be outclassed by it eventually anyway) is the one part that the corporate master doesn't want to merge...

      Sun was never that interested in Free operating systems. OpenSolaris was simply a way to try to attract users away from Linux, which was destroying Sun. Back in 1996 I was replacing SparcStation workstations, low end ones like SS1+, SS2, SS5, and IPX, with intel-motherboard PCs with onboard Mach64 video (drivers were crap even then, sigh) and maybe 64MB RAM. They were just as capable of being an X terminal and far MORE capable at running the various local applications you would expect than anything even vaguely cost-competitive with Sun. You could get two systems with 19" monitors for the cost of one performance-competitive system from Sun, without a display or keyboard. The same is true today. Unless you need a megalithic server for a RDBMS, there is no reason whatsoever to use big iron when a cluster will do, and IBM does that better than Sun no matter how you measure. And of course, rather than trying to merge it, IBM is just letting AIX die in favor of Linux.

      Short answer: Denial is not a river in Egypt.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Re:That Article's Title Should Be... by CaptainZapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what next? MySQL?

    Yes!

    next question, please...

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  10. Re:That Article's Title Should Be... by Issarlk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh god ; yes please!!

  11. End of New Solaris Customers by CranberryKing · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If I were the head of any IT/company/initiative trying to decide on a platform for a new system.. Nobody in their right mind would now invest in a Solaris system anymore than they would start developing PowerBuilder or SQLWindows applications.

    It's been a fun ride Solaris.

  12. Re:Well then by Anpheus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Technologies. Solaris and OpenSolaris are full of things that geeks, Windows and *nix, would love to see in their OS of choice but Sun invented first. ZFS, Dtrace, and dozens of other features languished in Solaris covered by patents or from a just plain lack of ability and motivation to recreate those features in other OSes.

    Even now the comparable features in other OSes are just now starting to approach a release candidate quality, and Sun has already started building new technologies and completely unique solutions based on stuff only Solaris has. Look at Oracle/Sun's new hybrid storage SAN for example. It uses a bunch of spinning disks (which everyone knows are so passé now) in a huge ZFS pool combined with 100-200GB of very fast SSD storage as an active logging and cache system. The result is that even very nearly random writes, when done to a small enough area on disk, can be done almost linearly once fully cached by the SSDs. You thought your RAID card was clever being able to cache 256MB-1GB. These things cache ten or a hundred times as much.

    Really clever stuff which is hard to duplicate on other platforms. You certainly can't get a supported solution for something like that from anyone but Sun/Oracle.

  13. Re:start to die? by paganizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I picked up a bunch of solaris hardware during the dot-bomb for scrap metal prices; none of it was top-end even then, but gods I love their stuff. I loved their software ca solaris 7, but as linux got better...well, I would still take Solaris 10 over most Linux distro's. And I grabbed the free distro of Solaris 10 as soon as I heard about it.
    IIRC, in storage I have a SPARCstation 5, a ZX, a ELC, 2 or 3 Sun Ultra 5's, a Ultra Enterprise 3000 (which, BTW, rocks) and some other stuff that I have to think must have been one-offs, like a Solaris laptop and a really very pretty workstation that does not seem to exist; it's Dark orange and blue.

    I used to have most up and running, in my little mini-datacenter, but I moved to some place without decent internet and had to move my servers to hosting services (which, by the way, after having everything in my basement from 1994 to 2003, was a convoluted mess from hell to get sorted out).
    I might be helping to start up an ISP soon, which means I get my datacenter back up...yay!

    --
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  14. Re:Fuck the market by Ramze · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Capitalism works, in theory, by survival of the fittest and is subject directly to consumers' support providing for their self-interests. It is the perfect solution for creating the fittest organizations to provide the goods and services people want at a price they want. It is fueled by people's selfish needs to grow and prosper by working hard as well as their selfish needs for goods, services, and the perception of wealth. It's really the only system that allows for a certain level of greed. Socialism is perfect in a perfect world with a benevolent, wise dictator where everyone agrees that we should all do equal work for equal pay and equal outcome... and the dictator tells us all what we should make, how much, and of what kind, shape, color, etc. etc.

    The standards I use to say other systems do not work is that there hasn't been one yet that worked. The USSR tried and failed. Do you know that there was once a glass company that told its workers they would be paid by the hour, so they worked long hours and produced almost nothing? Then they were told they would be paid by the square inch produced, so they produced thin sheets of glass that would easily snap. Then they were told they'd be paid by the weight of the glass, so they added lead and other heavy metals to the glass and made it too thick to fit into standard window sizes. Eventually, they had to state every specification for the product and how much to be produced. It would've been so much easier if the company's income were based on the demand. Command Production and Quotas implemented by the USSR had detrimental consequences USSR

    All systems have flaws -- they just take time to surface. Even capitalism requires government interference to provide laws to prevent monopolies, price-fixing, fraud, etc... but I have yet to hear of a system that works better to allow the masses to prosper.

  15. Re:Solaris? by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Solaris? What's that?

    It's a science fiction novel by Polish author Stanislaw Lem, famously adapted to film in 1972 by Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky. Its main theme is the impossibility of communication between humans and a completely non-humanoid alien life form.

  16. Re:Well then by petree · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can you name just five more of these things? Two real examples followed by some handwaving about dozens of others doesn't really convince, especially when everyone knows those are the only two interesting things about Solaris.

    Here's five:

    • Crossbow
    • Kernel Mode CIFS Server
    • Zones
    • Logical Domains
    • COMSTAR: iSCSI & Fibre Channel

    ...plus five more reasons why ZFS counts as more than one 'feature'. Just cause it's easy to do with ZFS, doesn't each of these aren't killer features on their own.

    • Snapshots & Time Slider
    • Boot Environments
    • Checksums for Data Integrity ('zpool scrub' lets me sleep at night)
    • Deduplication
    • Hybrid Storage Pools (Hard Disks and Flash are more useful together)

    ZFS+DTrace are great, but certainly not the only features Solaris10/OpenSolaris/SolarisNext have going for it.