There is obviously more to the technology, but the "unnecessary" information has been pruned in order to make the article tighter and more accessible to the masses. Unfortunately, they removed all the bits that separate the approach from the engineering norm so it no longer functions as News for Nerds.
Because nuclear weapons can always be redeveloped.
Be careful what you wish for...
The result of a world without nukes would be to make massive, existential, conventional wars practical _again_.
No chance, because that world can never happen. The best we can do is eliminate deployed nuclear weapons. The knowledge of how to build them and the ability to develop them quickly isn't going away. Any of today's officially recognized recognized nuclear powers could develop and deploy new bombs very quickly even if they had previously disposed of their arsenal. And they would, if they found themselves on the losing end of a massive existential conventional war. Bank on it.
Did you actually read the article? They aren't complaining about what they did in the cold war. They are saying that those strategies don't make any sense *now*. And they are right, although like any committee opinion, they did not state it forcefully enough.
Why do we have *any* nukes pointed at Moscow? Russia is not our enemy. Who else then? There are no nation states with motivation to nuke the US that have the means to do so. Who are these missiles supposed to deter? The only purpose these weapons ever had was deterrence. If they aren't any good that then they actually make us less safe by making nuclear war by accident possible when it wouldn't happen deliberately.
I know you were trying to be funny but, in a way, I think you are right. Hard drives may not cease to exist but they very well may disappear into the cloud. Hard disks have a lot of life left in them for server (i.e. "cloud") uses. But $/TB isn't all that important in notebooks or desktops. There, hard drive capacity is outstripping need and ssd are getting close to providing enough capacity at a reasonable price. What happens when hard drives disappear from Best Buy, Frys, etc and cease being a consumer visible technology?
I don't think desktop machines will move, or at least not move easily. However, unlike 1993, desktop machines aren't quite the PC universe anymore. On the top, we have legions of rack mounted servers. Coming up from the bottom are smart phones and tablets. Neither of these segments is as tightly wedded to Windows as the desktop. Tablets today already run ARM and don't run Windows. For Microsoft, this must be very disturbing.
With servers, the move hasn't happened yet but data centers are seriously looking at ARM. Microsoft is trying to make sure their OS and application don't get dumped along with the power hunger x86 servers they run on.
(*) OK you can argue 1993, day 1 for Win NT, since MIPS was supported. However I don't think there was any real push towards a consumer MIPS machine. The motivation was more internal, making sure Win NT was portable to other architectures.
On the contrary, there was a major push by the ACE consortium to replace the x86 PC with a common platform built around MIPS and Windows NT. Unfortunately, it was mostly industry hype with very little product appearing in the retail channel before the whole thing was discarded.
The explosion was the 70s and 80s. Today's software is really just the same 70s/80s inventions (word processors, spreadsheets, hyperlinks) going through minor changes in an attempt to convince people they MUST upgrade (and hopefully spend money).
Really? Where would you place linux in this world of yours, then?
(My first "non-hobby" computer was an Atari 400)
SB
Linux isn't merely of a type that was available in the 70's, it is an actual reimplementation of Unix, an OS with it's roots firmly in the 70's.
My Firefox has a CPU leak. I have to kill it and start over every couple of weeks because the CPU usage slowly rises until it hits 100%. This, of course, may be an extension or plugin that's doing it.
I would like the various browsers to have some way of controlling the CPU usage of plugins and web pages running Javascript.
I see this problem too only it happens much faster. I boot my machine every day and I still often run into cases where the browser is using too much cpu or memory without identifiable cause. The problem is that the browser has become an operating system within an operating system but without the administrative and monitoring tools we expect.
If a stand alone process goes amok and starts gobbling up cpu and/or memory, I can identify the culprit using "top". I can then either kill it or, if the process is doing something important, I can renice it so that the rest of the system can still be responsive.
But if the rogue agent is a script, plugin, or extension hidden among 20 odd browser tabs, what do I do? I can't see the source of the problem. At best, I can take a guess and close a tab. Often, I just have to restart Firefox. That's like rebooting every time your machine gets slow. That's worse than Windows!
There is desperate need for performance monitoring and control within the browser OS. If such things exist in the development toolkit, then by all means they should be brought out and their existence publicized so that end users can regain control of their machines.
The key was challenging the officers training and the calibration of the radar. The GPS was completely unnecessary. That fact that the officer could not validate his radar reading meant that, in the eyes of the law, he had no evidence. No evidence = case dismissed. If the calibration date were given but it was a little old, *then* the GPS data might have been useful. If the radar were calibrated recently, the defendant probably would have lost. An officer of the law wielding an official, calibrated instrument vs a consumer device of unknowable accuracy whose data could have tampered with is no contest.
For anyone that actually uses the flexibility available in private hosting, *any* outsourced email is a *huge* step backwards. I use more than 500 email addressed routed among 35 folders. I can bring up a new address or terminate one leaked to spammers in under a minute. All this means that most of my mail arrives in folders that don't need *any* spam filtering. If you send me mail, I know that it will arrive and not be directed to a spam folder or the ether by an ever changing agent over which I have no control. Even for the filtered addresses, I have logs going back months of every transaction and nothing is ever truly dropped unless the sending machine chokes.
Once a year, I archive all folders. I have a complete email history going back 17 years, broken out by year and category and all without clogging up current activity.
And I can access all of this with any client I want. I currently rotate among three different clients because each has unique features not found in the others or in Gmail.
RBL's are maintained by humans and they make mistakes. Your server can easily end up on an abuse,"dynamic IP", or "dialup" block list even if you have a static IP on DSL and have never sent a spam. http://www.anti-abuse.org/multi-rbl-check/ is a good start. If there is a match, fire off an email to the administrator and get it fixed.
Large ISP's often have their own private RBL's that can not be checked. Earthlink, at least, will send a bounce. Hotmail may not. It would be worthwhile to contact hotmail about your situation. My server's mail was bounced by Earthlink three times last year but there have been no problems for the last several months.
I also have run a private server on static IP on DSL. Since the last Earthlink bungle was fixed almost a year ago, I have had no problems sending mail anywhere including hotmail.
The Chinese aren't buying US debt out of the goodness of the heart. They do this to keep the Yuan's value down. They want *that* to give Chinese exporters an edge. If the Chinese government dumps all their US T-bills, they will lose control of the Yuan. It's value will rise sharply and Chinese exports will fall almost as dramatically. And the much of the world's economy will also tank since we are all addicted to cheap Chinese manufactured goods. With their customers in deep crisis there will be even less demand of Chinese export goods which the Chinese economy will probably tank too.
You are speaking of a time when Sunnyvale was still 100% orchards. National security expenditures may create a new "Silicon Valley" as it was in the earliest days. But if you want anything near the scale and economic impact of Silicon Valley of the last few decades, you will have to achieve large scale civilian use of the technology. Sponging off the taxes paid by others will never be enough.
It is not even clear that civilian use of the technology will be enough. Computers took off because selling a computer didn't just make money for the manufacturer. It made money for the purchaser too, in the form of increased productivity. That meant they had more money to buy even more computers and whole thing snow balled. But it is hard to see that kind of feedback mechanism in security or in the other great hope of our time: medical technology.
Sounds like you need to work for better companies. Every company I have worked for in the last 13 years has been multi-cultural and they all mixed even at lunch time. Of course, these were all startups. I would guess that you are employed by a much larger, more regimented company.
Not even security patches. That means that Solaris is essentially dead for a non-commercial use. There isn't even OpenSolaris to keep those admins in the fold. There won't be any supporters to bring Solaris into new environments. I've been running Solaris machines at home for 15 years. I have been happy having a slightly non-mainstream server even if it was a little less convenient than a Linux box. Now I have no choice. I have to replace the Solaris machine with something I keep secure.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned analog computers. There used to be free standing (as opposed to embedded) electronic analog computers for doing various scientific and engineering computation. While old units certainly exist and hobbyist and preservationists play with them, I doubt any are actually in use as tools.
A little known fact- The Golden Gate Bridge is a privately owned bridge. They can charge whatever they wish really.
Not exactly. Quoted from the annual report of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation district:
"On December 4, 1928, the District was incorporated as a political subdivision of the State of California as the entity that would design, construct, finance and operate the Golden Gate Bridge. The District is a special district of the State of California formed under the Bridge and Highway District Act of 1923 and is subject to regulation under this Act, as amended. The City and County of San Francisco, the counties of Marin, Sonoma, Del Norte, and portions of Napa and Mendocino counties comprise the District. A 19-member Board of Directors (Board), with representatives from each of the six member counties, sets policy for the District."
Down is a only a little worse than broken
on
Facebook Is Down
·
· Score: 1
And Facebook is so buggy that scarcely a day goes by that some basic functionality isn't broken. And it wasn't even down very long.
(not that Slashdot is all that much better. *How* often does the javascript get stuck in a loop?)
Fast, low complexity decisions is what machines do well. Is it really productive to train our brains to do what machines already do better? Would it not be better to train our brains to generate the deeper insight that, so far anyway, computers have been unable to provide?
They are reusing channels that are allocated for television but not actually in use for that purpose in particular areas. TV is pretty easy to work with. There are few, powerful, transmitters and they transmit all the time. In TFA, some even suggested using GPS and a database to figure out which channels are available.
That's pretty crude. In a fully cognitive radio system, the device listens for transmitters on a range of frequencies. If it finds open spectrum, it sets up shop. This can be tricky as it has to distinguish vacant channels from ones that are occupied but with a weak signal. Also, the owner could simply be off line. When the licensed transmitter comes back, the cognitive radios must vacate.
Still, the potential is huge. In principle, *all* licensed bands could be reused by cognitive radios. At any given time and space, a great deal of valuable spectrum is simply wasted. The licensee, if they even exist in this area, isn't using the channel and no one else is allowed. Cognitive radio would open up those regions to the rest of us.
Here, staff is kept at the barest minimum. People are only hired when absolutely necessary and, even then, only when they pass a bunch of arbitrary filters. The filters don't work well and block lot of good people, but if they are tight enough, the chances of someone slipping through that would need to be trained is minimized.
Offshore, they hire the new grads, the generalists, and the career changers. They often need training but they are cheaper so that's OK.
Here, they can never find enough qualified people because the requirements are too restrictive and new people are not allowed into the pipeline. Paradoxically, layoffs reduce the pool because anyone who is unable to find a new job in a short time is now considered unqualified.
Offshore, the pool of qualified engineers is growing by leaps and bounds as people train up and get experience doing real work. Here, expertise is shed in a macabre game of musical chairs where anyone caught without a job at the wrong time is ejected as a result of a disqualifying "gap".
Eventually, the only source for candidates to fill those "high level" jobs will legitimately be off shore. But it may not matter if the only thing left here is a sales office for an entirely foreign company.
I understand the arguments they make about "old" coders, but I find it weird that we don't see this as much in other related fields such as electrical engineering. You don't see nearly the same rate of "jettisoning" of the elderly that you do in computer science despite the continuing advances in EE or other engineering disciplines. Is it because the field of computer science still lacks the maturity and stability compared to traditional engineering fields?
A few things:
Quality is a bigger deal when designing physical devices. You can't just issue a quick patch for a dead chip and it is really easy to make mistakes that result in dead chips. Experienced engineers know where the traps are and how to avoid them.
Experience in Electrical Engineer means experience with tools and methods that are virtually inaccessible outside of a working environment. You can't hire a young kid who built an ASIC over summer break because, essentially, no one can do that.
In combination, this means that young, inexperienced engineers are less productive than young, inexperienced programmers.
In a way, chip design has the opposite pathology as programming. It is work experience obsessed. Nothing matters but what you did for pay, who you worked for, and when you did it. Good people are ejected all the time but, not because they are old. They got caught with the wrong skill set with no way to recover. (Experience with A but A is out. B is in but no one will hire for B without prior work experience doing B). Not working is a cardinal sin. You might have B but you haven't done it recently enough.
It's worth noting that Oracle is not kicking Solaris to the curb, they are kicking OpenSolaris to the curb.
It's really the same. OpenSolaris wasn't really about being open because they thought it was right. It was an attempt to push the bulk of OS development onto the community. Internal development ground almost to a halt. The last major release of Solaris was Solaris 10, in 2005. At least from what I see from the publicly available patches, Oracle isn't even keeping up with security patches anymore. Since I haven't heard about Oracle beefing up internal Solaris development, I can only conclude that killing OpenSolaris means they are "done" with Solaris.
Slashdot Mirror
There is obviously more to the technology, but the "unnecessary" information has been pruned in order to make the article tighter and more accessible to the masses. Unfortunately, they removed all the bits that separate the approach from the engineering norm so it no longer functions as News for Nerds.
A "drizzle" is a half-assed rain. Is Drizzle a database for those aren't really sure they want one?
Because nuclear weapons can always be redeveloped.
Be careful what you wish for...
The result of a world without nukes would be to make massive, existential, conventional wars practical _again_.
No chance, because that world can never happen. The best we can do is eliminate deployed nuclear weapons. The knowledge of how to build them and the ability to develop them quickly isn't going away. Any of today's officially recognized recognized nuclear powers could develop and deploy new bombs very quickly even if they had previously disposed of their arsenal. And they would, if they found themselves on the losing end of a massive existential conventional war. Bank on it.
Did you actually read the article? They aren't complaining about what they did in the cold war. They are saying that those strategies don't make any sense *now*. And they are right, although like any committee opinion, they did not state it forcefully enough.
Why do we have *any* nukes pointed at Moscow? Russia is not our enemy. Who else then? There are no nation states with motivation to nuke the US that have the means to do so. Who are these missiles supposed to deter? The only purpose these weapons ever had was deterrence. If they aren't any good that then they actually make us less safe by making nuclear war by accident possible when it wouldn't happen deliberately.
I know you were trying to be funny but, in a way, I think you are right. Hard drives may not cease to exist but they very well may disappear into the cloud. Hard disks have a lot of life left in them for server (i.e. "cloud") uses. But $/TB isn't all that important in notebooks or desktops. There, hard drive capacity is outstripping need and ssd are getting close to providing enough capacity at a reasonable price. What happens when hard drives disappear from Best Buy, Frys, etc and cease being a consumer visible technology?
I don't think desktop machines will move, or at least not move easily. However, unlike 1993, desktop machines aren't quite the PC universe anymore. On the top, we have legions of rack mounted servers. Coming up from the bottom are smart phones and tablets. Neither of these segments is as tightly wedded to Windows as the desktop. Tablets today already run ARM and don't run Windows. For Microsoft, this must be very disturbing.
With servers, the move hasn't happened yet but data centers are seriously looking at ARM. Microsoft is trying to make sure their OS and application don't get dumped along with the power hunger x86 servers they run on.
(*) OK you can argue 1993, day 1 for Win NT, since MIPS was supported. However I don't think there was any real push towards a consumer MIPS machine. The motivation was more internal, making sure Win NT was portable to other architectures.
On the contrary, there was a major push by the ACE consortium to replace the x86 PC with a common platform built around MIPS and Windows NT. Unfortunately, it was mostly industry hype with very little product appearing in the retail channel before the whole thing was discarded.
The explosion was the 70s and 80s. Today's software is really just the same 70s/80s inventions (word processors, spreadsheets, hyperlinks) going through minor changes in an attempt to convince people they MUST upgrade (and hopefully spend money).
Really? Where would you place linux in this world of yours, then?
(My first "non-hobby" computer was an Atari 400)
SB
Linux isn't merely of a type that was available in the 70's, it is an actual reimplementation of Unix, an OS with it's roots firmly in the 70's.
My Firefox has a CPU leak. I have to kill it and start over every couple of weeks because the CPU usage slowly rises until it hits 100%. This, of course, may be an extension or plugin that's doing it.
I would like the various browsers to have some way of controlling the CPU usage of plugins and web pages running Javascript.
I see this problem too only it happens much faster. I boot my machine every day and I still often run into cases where the browser is using too much cpu or memory without identifiable cause. The problem is that the browser has become an operating system within an operating system but without the administrative and monitoring tools we expect.
If a stand alone process goes amok and starts gobbling up cpu and/or memory, I can identify the culprit using "top". I can then either kill it or, if the process is doing something important, I can renice it so that the rest of the system can still be responsive.
But if the rogue agent is a script, plugin, or extension hidden among 20 odd browser tabs, what do I do? I can't see the source of the problem. At best, I can take a guess and close a tab. Often, I just have to restart Firefox. That's like rebooting every time your machine gets slow. That's worse than Windows!
There is desperate need for performance monitoring and control within the browser OS. If such things exist in the development toolkit, then by all means they should be brought out and their existence publicized so that end users can regain control of their machines.
The key was challenging the officers training and the calibration of the radar. The GPS was completely unnecessary. That fact that the officer could not validate his radar reading meant that, in the eyes of the law, he had no evidence. No evidence = case dismissed. If the calibration date were given but it was a little old, *then* the GPS data might have been useful. If the radar were calibrated recently, the defendant probably would have lost. An officer of the law wielding an official, calibrated instrument vs a consumer device of unknowable accuracy whose data could have tampered with is no contest.
Please...
For anyone that actually uses the flexibility available in private hosting, *any* outsourced email is a *huge* step backwards. I use more than 500 email addressed routed among 35 folders. I can bring up a new address or terminate one leaked to spammers in under a minute. All this means that most of my mail arrives in folders that don't need *any* spam filtering. If you send me mail, I know that it will arrive and not be directed to a spam folder or the ether by an ever changing agent over which I have no control. Even for the filtered addresses, I have logs going back months of every transaction and nothing is ever truly dropped unless the sending machine chokes.
Once a year, I archive all folders. I have a complete email history going back 17 years, broken out by year and category and all without clogging up current activity.
And I can access all of this with any client I want. I currently rotate among three different clients because each has unique features not found in the others or in Gmail.
RBL's are maintained by humans and they make mistakes. Your server can easily end up on an abuse,"dynamic IP", or "dialup" block list even if you have a static IP on DSL and have never sent a spam. http://www.anti-abuse.org/multi-rbl-check/ is a good start. If there is a match, fire off an email to the administrator and get it fixed.
Large ISP's often have their own private RBL's that can not be checked. Earthlink, at least, will send a bounce. Hotmail may not. It would be worthwhile to contact hotmail about your situation. My server's mail was bounced by Earthlink three times last year but there have been no problems for the last several months.
I also have run a private server on static IP on DSL. Since the last Earthlink bungle was fixed almost a year ago, I have had no problems sending mail anywhere including hotmail.
The Chinese aren't buying US debt out of the goodness of the heart. They do this to keep the Yuan's value down. They want *that* to give Chinese exporters an edge. If the Chinese government dumps all their US T-bills, they will lose control of the Yuan. It's value will rise sharply and Chinese exports will fall almost as dramatically. And the much of the world's economy will also tank since we are all addicted to cheap Chinese manufactured goods. With their customers in deep crisis there will be even less demand of Chinese export goods which the Chinese economy will probably tank too.
You are speaking of a time when Sunnyvale was still 100% orchards. National security expenditures may create a new "Silicon Valley" as it was in the earliest days. But if you want anything near the scale and economic impact of Silicon Valley of the last few decades, you will have to achieve large scale civilian use of the technology. Sponging off the taxes paid by others will never be enough.
It is not even clear that civilian use of the technology will be enough. Computers took off because selling a computer didn't just make money for the manufacturer. It made money for the purchaser too, in the form of increased productivity. That meant they had more money to buy even more computers and whole thing snow balled. But it is hard to see that kind of feedback mechanism in security or in the other great hope of our time: medical technology.
Sounds like you need to work for better companies. Every company I have worked for in the last 13 years has been multi-cultural and they all mixed even at lunch time. Of course, these were all startups. I would guess that you are employed by a much larger, more regimented company.
Not even security patches. That means that Solaris is essentially dead for a non-commercial use. There isn't even OpenSolaris to keep those admins in the fold. There won't be any supporters to bring Solaris into new environments. I've been running Solaris machines at home for 15 years. I have been happy having a slightly non-mainstream server even if it was a little less convenient than a Linux box. Now I have no choice. I have to replace the Solaris machine with something I keep secure.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned analog computers. There used to be free standing (as opposed to embedded) electronic analog computers for doing various scientific and engineering computation. While old units certainly exist and hobbyist and preservationists play with them, I doubt any are actually in use as tools.
A little known fact- The Golden Gate Bridge is a privately owned bridge. They can charge whatever they wish really.
Not exactly. Quoted from the annual report of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation district:
"On December 4, 1928, the District was incorporated as a political subdivision of the State of California as the entity
that would design, construct, finance and operate the Golden Gate Bridge. The District is a special district of the State
of California formed under the Bridge and Highway District Act of 1923 and is subject to regulation under this Act, as
amended. The City and County of San Francisco, the counties of Marin, Sonoma, Del Norte, and portions of Napa and
Mendocino counties comprise the District. A 19-member Board of Directors (Board), with representatives from each
of the six member counties, sets policy for the District."
And Facebook is so buggy that scarcely a day goes by that some basic functionality isn't broken. And it wasn't even down very long.
(not that Slashdot is all that much better. *How* often does the javascript get stuck in a loop?)
Fast, low complexity decisions is what machines do well. Is it really productive to train our brains to do what machines already do better? Would it not be better to train our brains to generate the deeper insight that, so far anyway, computers have been unable to provide?
This is tentative step toward cognitive radio.
They are reusing channels that are allocated for television but not actually in use for that purpose in particular areas. TV is pretty easy to work with. There are few, powerful, transmitters and they transmit all the time. In TFA, some even suggested using GPS and a database to figure out which channels are available.
That's pretty crude. In a fully cognitive radio system, the device listens for transmitters on a range of frequencies. If it finds open spectrum, it sets up shop. This can be tricky as it has to distinguish vacant channels from ones that are occupied but with a weak signal. Also, the owner could simply be off line. When the licensed transmitter comes back, the cognitive radios must vacate.
Still, the potential is huge. In principle, *all* licensed bands could be reused by cognitive radios. At any given time and space, a great deal of valuable spectrum is simply wasted. The licensee, if they even exist in this area, isn't using the channel and no one else is allowed. Cognitive radio would open up those regions to the rest of us.
Here, staff is kept at the barest minimum. People are only hired when absolutely necessary and, even then, only when they pass a bunch of arbitrary filters. The filters don't work well and block lot of good people, but if they are tight enough, the chances of someone slipping through that would need to be trained is minimized.
Offshore, they hire the new grads, the generalists, and the career changers. They often need training but they are cheaper so that's OK.
Here, they can never find enough qualified people because the requirements are too restrictive and new people are not allowed into the pipeline. Paradoxically, layoffs reduce the pool because anyone who is unable to find a new job in a short time is now considered unqualified.
Offshore, the pool of qualified engineers is growing by leaps and bounds as people train up and get experience doing real work.
Here, expertise is shed in a macabre game of musical chairs where anyone caught without a job at the wrong time is ejected as a result of a disqualifying "gap".
Eventually, the only source for candidates to fill those "high level" jobs will legitimately be off shore. But it may not matter if the only thing left here is a sales office for an entirely foreign company.
Setup a folder for each list and then filter, use different email address, whatever it takes to direct traffic to the right folder.
Sending list traffic to the inbox just clogs in the inbox and makes it difficult to follow threads on the lists.
I understand the arguments they make about "old" coders, but I find it weird that we don't see this as much in other related fields such as electrical engineering. You don't see nearly the same rate of "jettisoning" of the elderly that you do in computer science despite the continuing advances in EE or other engineering disciplines. Is it because the field of computer science still lacks the maturity and stability compared to traditional engineering fields?
A few things:
Quality is a bigger deal when designing physical devices. You can't just issue a quick patch for a dead chip and it is really easy to make mistakes that result in dead chips. Experienced engineers know where the traps are and how to avoid them.
Experience in Electrical Engineer means experience with tools and methods that are virtually inaccessible outside of a working environment. You can't hire a young kid who built an ASIC over summer break because, essentially, no one can do that.
In combination, this means that young, inexperienced engineers are less productive than young, inexperienced programmers.
In a way, chip design has the opposite pathology as programming. It is work experience obsessed. Nothing matters but what you did for pay, who you worked for, and when you did it. Good people are ejected all the time but, not because they are old. They got caught with the wrong skill set with no way to recover. (Experience with A but A is out. B is in but no one will hire for B without prior work experience doing B). Not working is a cardinal sin. You might have B but you haven't done it recently enough.
It's worth noting that Oracle is not kicking Solaris to the curb, they are kicking OpenSolaris to the curb.
It's really the same. OpenSolaris wasn't really about being open because they thought it was right. It was an attempt to push the bulk of OS development onto the community. Internal development ground almost to a halt. The last major release of Solaris was Solaris 10, in 2005. At least from what I see from the publicly available patches, Oracle isn't even keeping up with security patches anymore. Since I haven't heard about Oracle beefing up internal Solaris development, I can only conclude that killing OpenSolaris means they are "done" with Solaris.