When Telstra in Australia started walking down the path towards replacing Microsoft Office with Star Office, Steve Ballmer made a uick trip out to make some incredible offers to the people concerned.
Take a step back and ask yorself "Who is thie really going to hurt?"
SCO? No, not really. Do you really think that the management and legal types at SCO give two hoots about gcc? Of course they don't. They sell their own compilers.
The people who get hurt here are the END USERS who happen to be using it on a SCO system. You know, the folks who are more than likely ALREADY ONSIDE!!!
Removing support for the SCO platform is petty and against the spirit of all that I have come to believe that the FSF stood for.
Anyone remember the Xenix days? If you have a SVr4 license and browse through the code, you will see any number of (surprising) utilities that have a Microsoft Copyright notice in them.
No, it was never EOL'd. It was deferred. There is a big difference. From everything that I am reading and hearing. All that stopped happened was that it was not brought to market. Development never stopped.
Who is to say that these will only be sold into markets which have lots of DELL of HP? There are a lot of companies out there that run a lot of Sun hardware at the high end. Implementing Sun Linux at the lower end for these companies makes a lot of sense. For starters you get rid of the finger pointing involved when something goes wrong or doesn't interoperate properly, as you are looking at a single vendor who has committed to getting it right. The liklihood of the kit actually interoperating properly is also substantially raised.
Sun is also doing a lot more than just the PCs and Linux. That's just what's making the headlines at the moment. As an example, just this morning I saw an ad for one of the new Nokia phones. The advertorial made a big thing about it being java enabled. Licensing Java engines into phones is certainly one way to make some money. You've also got N1 on the horizon.
I own shares in Sun, I'm not selling, in fact I'm buying.
Sun has committed to Solaris on the LX50 platform.
We're all waiting with baited breath to hear of any other platforms it might be supported on. It would make sense to do a similar qualification for any other intel hardware that they sold.
From what I read, Sun is doing Linux because customers have been constantly asking them to do it.
The difference here is that SGI mortgaged their Souls to Redmond to start selling intel hardware. This was a shame because the MIPS based boxes were very nice. When Sun sells an intel based box, there will be no tax to Microsoft attached.
I'm even more surprised that Bob mentioned Sun AND neglected to research the facts on the article he quotes.
The problem in Computerworld was a problem with cache (ie hardware), NOT a problem with Solaris (ie software). I would have expected that he would have at least known the difference between hardware and software!
As far as I can determine by sifting through the FUD to find any gems of truth, the NDAs were not to forbid discussion of the problem, nor were they a requirement of any work being done on the problem. The NDAs that were used (and I believe there hasn't been one in quite some time) were to cover disclosure about future products, which is perfectly reasonable and standard business practice.
If you read this Bob, as a long time user and supporter of RedHat Linux, I am disappointed that you feel in that in order to take a defensive position, you need to sling mud and attempt to create FUD; even more so that you couldn't be bothered to get the facts right first.
Disclaimer: I have trouble enough speaking for myself, let alone my employer (or anyone else for that matter).
I'm no big microsoft fan, but come on, anyone who actually "guarantees" a product as secure is asking for big trouble. Guaranteeing or even implying such is like waving a red rag at a bull. Someone will take it as a challenge.
The best that anyone can do in this area is to take all possible precautions in development and address issues as they happen.
The really sad thing about this is that a majority of people will not load the patch and as such be vulnerable. The Morris worm all over again... *sigh*
Many believe that other Sun open initiatives, such as the Java platform, aren't really open, since Sun continues to control the intellectual property and evolution of the technology. Isn't this just another example of Sun disguising proprietary solutions as open technology?
Sun is changing the rules and taking office software into the dot-com age. Significantly, Sun announced three initiatives:
We will offer the StarOffice 5.2 binary code for free download to anyone
Slashdot Mirror
It is not beyond the realms of belief the MS Office could be run under WINE. All kinds of things already do.
Tp.
I thought it was Microsoft who "Bill"ed people :-)
Tp.
Ahhh, isn't it great to have mates in power.
Tp.
It would be interesting to see SCO attempt to try this in China. I wonder just how far they would (or would not) get.
Tp.
When Telstra in Australia started walking down the path towards replacing Microsoft Office with Star Office, Steve Ballmer made a uick trip out to make some incredible offers to the people concerned.
I wonder if teh ticket to CHina is booked yet.
Tp.
This appears to me to be a very parochial and linux-centric view. Since when was the FSF only about Linux?
Gcc as a case in point was around for an awful long time before Linus even started thinking about an O/S.
I remember using it on a VAX/VMS system, simply because we needed a C compiler but at the time could not afford one from DEC.
Tp.
I think the reality check has bouced.
Take a step back and ask yorself "Who is thie really going to hurt?"
SCO? No, not really. Do you really think that the management and legal types at SCO give two hoots about gcc? Of course they don't. They sell their own compilers.
The people who get hurt here are the END USERS who happen to be using it on a SCO system. You know, the folks who are more than likely ALREADY ONSIDE!!!
Removing support for the SCO platform is petty and against the spirit of all that I have come to believe that the FSF stood for.
Tp.
It's not like this is new ground for Microsoft.
Anyone remember the Xenix days? If you have a SVr4 license and browse through the code, you will see any number of (surprising) utilities that have a Microsoft Copyright notice in them.
Tp.
I note that someone has addressed the 6.0 issue with the IM. I can do a little with regard to the clarification of 5.8/8 etc.
.... you get the picture.
First off, Solaris went from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 7. Note that this number is a representation of the Operating Environment.
Now, when you start talking about 5.8, you are talking about the kernel.
5.7 is the kernel that goes with the Solaris 7 OE
5.8 is the kernel that goes with the Solaris 8 OE
5.9 is the
So it's not a case of Solaris 8 reporting itself internally as 5.8. The uname -a output is giving you the kernel version.
It's no different from RedHat X using Linux version Y.
It certainly comes with a webserver now. And an awful lot more to boot.
Sun has committed to providing the entire Sun ONE software stack on Solaris/Sparc, Solaris/Intel and Linux/Intel.
I also believe that as the details of Project Orion come out we'll see a lot more interesting stuff in that arena.
By the way, I am happily running Solaris 9 on a on old P90 notebook (with all of 40mb memory).
Tp.
Yet Sun DID release the source code t oSolaris 8 FCS and SCO did not come chasing them.
Tp.
You missed the last product announcement. It was in there. Have a look at http://www.sun.com/bignews/blades/
Tp.
Looks like someone at M$ reads slashdot. The files appear to be gone.
You are of course correct, the stuff from the companion installs in /opt.
So why not go for the Early release that is ude a few months earlier?
You could also simply install perl from the companion cd. It installs in /usr/local and is compiled with gcc.
I've done this, it works fine.
EOL'd?????
No, it was never EOL'd. It was deferred. There is a big difference. From everything that I am reading and hearing. All that stopped happened was that it was not brought to market. Development never stopped.
[I am also a stockholder]
Who is to say that these will only be sold into markets which have lots of DELL of HP? There are a lot of companies out there that run a lot of Sun hardware at the high end. Implementing Sun Linux at the lower end for these companies makes a lot of sense. For starters you get rid of the finger pointing involved when something goes wrong or doesn't interoperate properly, as you are looking at a single vendor who has committed to getting it right. The liklihood of the kit actually interoperating properly is also substantially raised.
Sun is also doing a lot more than just the PCs and Linux. That's just what's making the headlines at the moment. As an example, just this morning I saw an ad for one of the new Nokia phones. The advertorial made a big thing about it being java enabled. Licensing Java engines into phones is certainly one way to make some money. You've also got N1 on the horizon.
I own shares in Sun, I'm not selling, in fact I'm buying.
Sun has committed to Solaris on the LX50 platform.
We're all waiting with baited breath to hear of any other platforms it might be supported on. It would make sense to do a similar qualification for any other intel hardware that they sold.
From what I read, Sun is doing Linux because customers have been constantly asking them to do it.
The difference here is that SGI mortgaged their Souls to Redmond to start selling intel hardware. This was a shame because the MIPS based boxes were very nice. When Sun sells an intel based box, there will be no tax to Microsoft attached.
Ahh the /. effect. Could this be viewed as a DOS attack?
I'm even more surprised that Bob mentioned Sun AND neglected to research the facts on the article he quotes.
The problem in Computerworld was a problem with cache (ie hardware), NOT a problem with Solaris (ie software). I would have expected that he would have at least known the difference between hardware and software!
As far as I can determine by sifting through the FUD to find any gems of truth, the NDAs were not to forbid discussion of the problem, nor were they a requirement of any work being done on the problem. The NDAs that were used (and I believe there hasn't been one in quite some time) were to cover disclosure about future products, which is perfectly reasonable and standard business practice.
If you read this Bob, as a long time user and supporter of RedHat Linux, I am disappointed that you feel in that in order to take a defensive position, you need to sling mud and attempt to create FUD; even more so that you couldn't be bothered to get the facts right first.
Disclaimer: I have trouble enough speaking for myself, let alone my employer (or anyone else for that matter).
Contrary to popular belief, the United States is not the only country to have English as a primary language.
The best that anyone can do in this area is to take all possible precautions in development and address issues as they happen.
The really sad thing about this is that a majority of people will not load the patch and as such be vulnerable. The Morris worm all over again... *sigh*
Partially quoted it reads
Sun is changing the rules and taking office software into the dot-com age. Significantly, Sun announced three initiatives: