The groupthink at Slashdot is worthy of an Orwellian novel. It's pretty unnerving.
I think its more like followers of a religion - there is more hatred against those who believe almost the same thing, but don't quite follow the true faith. If you open source something, but its not GPL, that seems to make you more evil than those who don't open source anything. I find the situation with Java particularly laughable. Its a zero-cost product that has been a one of the main factors in the use of Linux as a serious platform for commercial software, yet it is hated so much because Sun doesn't give away the source code under the right license. The fact that the open source 'community' can't seem to come up with a quality Java VM is conveniently ignored.
Sun has been part of the free software community for quite a while. Just because something isn't GPL and FSF doesn't mean it's not OSS.
Well, there seems to be an attitude here that unless Sun does things exactly according to the GPL and FSF they are 'untrustworthy' and, of course, obviously doomed.
Java is not free and Sun has made numerous efforts to prevent it from becoming free.
I pay nothing for it. I can distribute it with any of my Java applications.
Java is a wonderful language, but it will not move significantly outside of the enterprise datacenter until there is a fully Open Source implementation that is both more efficient and which can be distributed with every copy of Linux and Mozilla.
Blinkered nonsense. Java is used widely everywhere. Just look at the number of java projects on sourceforce. It's the Linux licences that stop the distribution, not Java licenses, as proved by the fact that many Linux distributions already do redistribute Java.
The core reason is this: Sun doesn't like to play along without first changing the well-accepted rules.
Before Sun, there were no rules. They pioneered the use of open standards.
They absolutely refuse to become a true member of the community, as IBM and Novell very clearly have.
What community? All these organisations do what they do for commercial reasons, not part of a worthy charitable motive. Its ALL politics - by IBM, by Novell, by Sun. It's just that Sun have a very long record of really contributing, and not just making a few gestures over the past few years, as IBM and Novell. Two products alone have changed the IT industry: Open Office and Java. Both were given away FREE.
The fact that Sun purposely made its OpenSolaris license incompatible with every other open source license (not just the GPL) signifies to me that they have no intention of encouraging a free exchange of ideas both into and out of their project.
This suggests a rather lazy attitude from the 'community'. You can exchange all the ideas you like, but not the code, but so what? There have been plenty of ideas exchanged between Solaris and Linux for example: both conform to open standards, and Linux uses many APIs that were freely donated to the community by Sun. Why should Exchange of Ideas mean 'let me have all your code'? There may be good reasons for Sun's licence. OK, so I would have preferred GPL, but this attitude of 'unless Sun does things exactly our way, they are not to be trusted' is rather immature.
The most disgusting thing about the whole scenario is that Sun is trying to use software patents as their primary means of control. Combined with possible ramifications of the Sun-MS settlement terms, which are under tight wraps, this is simply not a company I believe we can trust.
This is plain nonsense. Sun has been a pioneer in open systems, open source and encouraging standards for decades and donating free code and products to the industry. Without them, the IT industry would be a much poorer place. Linux certainly would not be as popular.
But of course, because they are a commercial company and don't follow the pure religion of GPL, and don't understand that Linux is the only true perfect operating system for all situations, we have to distrust them.
They probably won't release enough code to make a version of Solaris independent of the proprietary parts
A little research was all that is needed to show that this is untrue. All of Solaris 10 will be open sources except for a small number of device drivers.
We should still appreciate the release of OpenOffice, but the rest of their openness is nothing but product names and press releases.
And, nothing but millions of lines of open sourced Solaris and tools code... A bit more than just product names and press releases?
that is as OO as Java but creates native applications.
This is completely losing one of the most important aspects of Java - the ability to choose the platform on which you deploy code after compilation. For example if I make a J2EE application, I can open a web interface to Tomcat, and deploy the application. I don't know or care what operating system Tomcat is running on. Why should I have to? Why should it be up to me to maintain compiled binaries for each operating system?
That's not the kind of support I'm talking about, and I think you know it.
I do find it annoying when posters assume to know what I am thinking.
The kind of support I assumed you were talking about was the kind of support that companies like Microsoft doesn't provide, but Unix companies generally do: Very long term support for security and patches. The kind of companies who are after high-end Unix boxes aren't necessarily after an improvement in feature set on a month-by-month basis. They are after a system that will stay up and running, and will remain patched and secure for years, or even potentially decades.
Active development is not the issue - its long-term active support. That is why I would choose and recommend Solaris in some situations.
I'm sure no one will read this, but I very recently took some class files that run under Windows XP, loaded them to a node in an AIX cluster, and they worked exactly the same, just at a different speed since the machines are so different. I took them home, ran the exact same files on my Sun Blade . . . and it behaved exactly the same way. It wasn't anything intensive, but there were absolutely no problems, either.
I read it, and it matches my experience too. However, anti-Sun and anti-Java rants are pretty popular here. I have given up trying to understand why.
Wasn't everything you mention other than Java aquired through the purchase of another company? Star/OpenOffice certainly, Netbeans? iPlanet? Would Sun have ported these to other systems if they developed them internally? Somehow I doubt it.
Why do you doubt this? Do you have any evidence to back this point of view? Sun specifically designed Java to be portable. Why should they be any less keen on application portability for other products? You realise that Sun has been releasing portable software and specifcations for decades? Still, why let the facts get in the way of anti-Sun bias?
Sun be trusted not to drop support again if it thinks it's not making money, especially when it really needs to make money ?
Sun still provides patches for Solaris 2.5!
Sun is back in profit, and has a huge cash reserve (it could have continued making a loss for a decade and remained viable).
Solaris x86 needs a real, good, strong selling point. What is it?
It is rock-solid, and very mature. It is of sufficient quality to be used for the most critical applications. It has very high-quality tools for management and support.
In other words, will Sun make the new APIs that will be specific to ZFS available to other operating systems, so that if their underlying file system can perform similar operations they can export the same API to userspace, so that, in time, the new APIs Sun is pushing will be as common, and COMPATIBLE, as open/close/read/write?
ZFS is part of Solaris 10. Solaris 10 is going to be released as open source, under an OSI-approved licence. The only parts of Solaris that are not going to open sourced is some third party device drivers.
Let's see - will Sun be making the API for their new file system's extra-special features available so that other *nix OSs can support it with their own native file systems?
No?
Why should they? Why should developers of other OSs be allowed to sit back lazily and simply pick up the benefits of this product?
Well, will Sun make their new file system available for other *nix OSs?
No?
Why should they?
Well, will Sun have ANY compatibility between Solaris with their new, all-signing-all-dancing file system and any other OS?
No?
This is a bizarre statement. Solaris supports all the standard Unix services, including NFS. It is highly compatible with other Unixes, and has always been. How is a new filesystem supposed to stop that? You can NFS share it for example. With project Janus, you will be able to run Linux binaries on it.
Then to Sun I say - "SHUT THE FBOMB UP ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S COMPATIBILITY UNTIL YOU ARE COMPATABLE YOURSELF!"
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. Sun has been pushing open systems and compatibility since the 1980s, when they released NFS as an open spec for the Unix community.
I call BS. Sun's Java for Linux is just the Blackdown port rebranded. And it took an outcry to get them to even give proper credit.
This is far too simple a statement. It was a combined effort, not a rebranding. The port was based on Sun's code. There was a problem with giving credit, but Sun did publically apologise over the confusion.
" How many of IBM's platforms does Java run on? None."
All of them. Name a platform of IBM's that you can't run Java on.... MVS, TPF, AIX, OS/2, AS400....hell.... they all run Java.
Maybe you meant something else? Or you had a typo?
I think the original poster mean that Sun's Java would not run on those platforms. I think it was based on some kind of strange belief that Java isn't really ported to an OS unless Sun provides the VM.
The word you need to learn is "churn". Here's some help: I'm talking about stabilizing Linux by adding Solaris tech, which is superstable.
In your post you did not say that Solaris was stable. You said used the phrase 'superstable Linux'. There is an implication there, even if you did not intend it. Of course Sun is already working on providing Linux support. Project Janus will allow linux binaries to run natively on Solaris.
IBM has a good reason to use Linux, and it is nothing to do with open source support or stability - its that IBM needs a common Unix-type platform for all its hardware. Linux is used in that role. Sun has virtually always had a single OS on whatever hardware it has supported.
Oh, and "personal attack" means criticizing a person's actions which are irrelevant to their argument, unlike my criticizing Schwartz for throwing his weight around at competitors, rather than leading his own company in technology or marketing.
I would not call using the phrase 'throwing weight around' and mentioning 'derision' criticising a person's actions. You don't mention any actions.
Schwartz has been one of the main people driving Sun's support for AMD hardware and the open-sourcing of Solaris.
Schwartz has to throw his weight around while he can, as he drives his company into the Sunset...And Sun might have a chance to churn Solaris tech into the kind of superstable Linux that IBM produces by hybridization with AIX.
So, a personal attack on someone followed by nonsense about Solaris being unstable compared with Linux is modded 'insightful'? Must be some strange new definition of the word I have never encountered.
IBM has to produce their own version of Java for AIX, z/OS, etc. In fact they also produce a Windows version (which performs better than the Sun version I might add), but they aren't allowed to distribute it (except bundled with an IBM product) because Sun wants to make sure they remain associated with Java.
IBM provide Java for Linux, which is freely downloadable.
How many of IBM's platforms does Java run on? None.
IBM has their own port for AIX, mainframes, etc.
So... you first say that Java does not run on IBM's platforms, then list the platforms on which Java has been ported to... using Sun's source code. See the contradiction?
You can have tachyons It's a little misleading to say that, I think. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, no evidence of tachyons (a certain amount of radiation emitted by a vacuum) have ever been observed, and a large percentage of physicists in this field do not believe they exist.
There is no evidence of tachyons, I agree. But, Special Relativity says that you can have them! This says nothing about whether or not the actually exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting!
I was astonished at the reaction of Bruce Perens - someone I used to have a lot of respect for.
The groupthink at Slashdot is worthy of an Orwellian novel. It's pretty unnerving.
I think its more like followers of a religion - there is more hatred against those who believe almost the same thing, but don't quite follow the true faith. If you open source something, but its not GPL, that seems to make you more evil than those who don't open source anything. I find the situation with Java particularly laughable. Its a zero-cost product that has been a one of the main factors in the use of Linux as a serious platform for commercial software, yet it is hated so much because Sun doesn't give away the source code under the right license. The fact that the open source 'community' can't seem to come up with a quality Java VM is conveniently ignored.
Sun has been part of the free software community for quite a while. Just because something isn't GPL and FSF doesn't mean it's not OSS.
Well, there seems to be an attitude here that unless Sun does things exactly according to the GPL and FSF they are 'untrustworthy' and, of course, obviously doomed.
Java is not free and Sun has made numerous efforts to prevent it from becoming free.
I pay nothing for it. I can distribute it with any of my Java applications.
Java is a wonderful language, but it will not move significantly outside of the enterprise datacenter until there is a fully Open Source implementation that is both more efficient and which can be distributed with every copy of Linux and Mozilla.
Blinkered nonsense. Java is used widely everywhere. Just look at the number of java projects on sourceforce. It's the Linux licences that stop the distribution, not Java licenses, as proved by the fact that many Linux distributions already do redistribute Java.
The core reason is this: Sun doesn't like to play along without first changing the well-accepted rules.
Before Sun, there were no rules. They pioneered the use of open standards.
They absolutely refuse to become a true member of the community, as IBM and Novell very clearly have.
What community? All these organisations do what they do for commercial reasons, not part of a worthy charitable motive. Its ALL politics - by IBM, by Novell, by Sun. It's just that Sun have a very long record of really contributing, and not just making a few gestures over the past few years, as IBM and Novell. Two products alone have changed the IT industry: Open Office and Java. Both were given away FREE.
The fact that Sun purposely made its OpenSolaris license incompatible with every other open source license (not just the GPL) signifies to me that they have no intention of encouraging a free exchange of ideas both into and out of their project.
This suggests a rather lazy attitude from the 'community'. You can exchange all the ideas you like, but not the code, but so what? There have been plenty of ideas exchanged between Solaris and Linux for example: both conform to open standards, and Linux uses many APIs that were freely donated to the community by Sun. Why should Exchange of Ideas mean 'let me have all your code'? There may be good reasons for Sun's licence. OK, so I would have preferred GPL, but this attitude of 'unless Sun does things exactly our way, they are not to be trusted' is rather immature.
The most disgusting thing about the whole scenario is that Sun is trying to use software patents as their primary means of control. Combined with possible ramifications of the Sun-MS settlement terms, which are under tight wraps, this is simply not a company I believe we can trust.
This is plain nonsense. Sun has been a pioneer in open systems, open source and encouraging standards for decades and donating free code and products to the industry. Without them, the IT industry would be a much poorer place. Linux certainly would not be as popular.
But of course, because they are a commercial company and don't follow the pure religion of GPL, and don't understand that Linux is the only true perfect operating system for all situations, we have to distrust them.
They probably won't release enough code to make a version of Solaris independent of the proprietary parts
A little research was all that is needed to show that this is untrue. All of Solaris 10 will be open sources except for a small number of device drivers.
We should still appreciate the release of OpenOffice, but the rest of their openness is nothing but product names and press releases.
And, nothing but millions of lines of open sourced Solaris and tools code... A bit more than just product names and press releases?
There are lots of things that Java is perfectly suited for. Databases are not one of those things.
Funny, I remember the 'it's too slow' argument being used against C++ 20 years ago.
that is as OO as Java but creates native applications.
This is completely losing one of the most important aspects of Java - the ability to choose the platform on which you deploy code after compilation. For example if I make a J2EE application, I can open a web interface to Tomcat, and deploy the application. I don't know or care what operating system Tomcat is running on. Why should I have to? Why should it be up to me to maintain compiled binaries for each operating system?
That's not the kind of support I'm talking about, and I think you know it.
I do find it annoying when posters assume to know what I am thinking.
The kind of support I assumed you were talking about was the kind of support that companies like Microsoft doesn't provide, but Unix companies generally do: Very long term support for security and patches. The kind of companies who are after high-end Unix boxes aren't necessarily after an improvement in feature set on a month-by-month basis. They are after a system that will stay up and running, and will remain patched and secure for years, or even potentially decades.
Active development is not the issue - its long-term active support. That is why I would choose and recommend Solaris in some situations.
I'm sure no one will read this, but I very recently took some class files that run under Windows XP, loaded them to a node in an AIX cluster, and they worked exactly the same, just at a different speed since the machines are so different. I took them home, ran the exact same files on my Sun Blade . . . and it behaved exactly the same way. It wasn't anything intensive, but there were absolutely no problems, either.
I read it, and it matches my experience too. However, anti-Sun and anti-Java rants are pretty popular here. I have given up trying to understand why.
Wasn't everything you mention other than Java aquired through the purchase of another company? Star/OpenOffice certainly, Netbeans? iPlanet? Would Sun have ported these to other systems if they developed them internally? Somehow I doubt it.
Why do you doubt this? Do you have any evidence to back this point of view? Sun specifically designed Java to be portable. Why should they be any less keen on application portability for other products? You realise that Sun has been releasing portable software and specifcations for decades? Still, why let the facts get in the way of anti-Sun bias?
Sun be trusted not to drop support again if it thinks it's not making money, especially when it really needs to make money ?
Sun still provides patches for Solaris 2.5!
Sun is back in profit, and has a huge cash reserve (it could have continued making a loss for a decade and remained viable).
Solaris x86 needs a real, good, strong selling point. What is it?
It is rock-solid, and very mature. It is of sufficient quality to be used for the most critical applications. It has very high-quality tools for management and support.
I actually ran Eclipse using JikesRVM a few months ago. You're wrong on that point.
That is interesting! This will teach me to look further than the link supplied in the post I am replying to!
In other words, will Sun make the new APIs that will be specific to ZFS available to other operating systems, so that if their underlying file system can perform similar operations they can export the same API to userspace, so that, in time, the new APIs Sun is pushing will be as common, and COMPATIBLE, as open/close/read/write?
ZFS is part of Solaris 10. Solaris 10 is going to be released as open source, under an OSI-approved licence. The only parts of Solaris that are not going to open sourced is some third party device drivers.
Let's see - will Sun be making the API for their new file system's extra-special features available so that other *nix OSs can support it with their own native file systems?
No?
Why should they? Why should developers of other OSs be allowed to sit back lazily and simply pick up the benefits of this product?
Well, will Sun make their new file system available for other *nix OSs?
No?
Why should they?
Well, will Sun have ANY compatibility between Solaris with their new, all-signing-all-dancing file system and any other OS?
No?
This is a bizarre statement. Solaris supports all the standard Unix services, including NFS. It is highly compatible with other Unixes, and has always been. How is a new filesystem supposed to stop that? You can NFS share it for example. With project Janus, you will be able to run Linux binaries on it.
Then to Sun I say - "SHUT THE FBOMB UP ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S COMPATIBILITY UNTIL YOU ARE COMPATABLE YOURSELF!"
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. Sun has been pushing open systems and compatibility since the 1980s, when they released NFS as an open spec for the Unix community.
I call BS. Sun's Java for Linux is just the Blackdown port rebranded. And it took an outcry to get them to even give proper credit.
This is far too simple a statement. It was a combined effort, not a rebranding. The port was based on Sun's code. There was a problem with giving credit, but Sun did publically apologise over the confusion.
" How many of IBM's platforms does Java run on? None."
All of them. Name a platform of IBM's that you can't run Java on.... MVS, TPF, AIX, OS/2, AS400....hell.... they all run Java.
Maybe you meant something else? Or you had a typo?
I think the original poster mean that Sun's Java would not run on those platforms. I think it was based on some kind of strange belief that Java isn't really ported to an OS unless Sun provides the VM.
The word you need to learn is "churn". Here's some help: I'm talking about stabilizing Linux by adding Solaris tech, which is superstable.
In your post you did not say that Solaris was stable. You said used the phrase 'superstable Linux'. There is an implication there, even if you did not intend it. Of course Sun is already working on providing Linux support. Project Janus will allow linux binaries to run natively on Solaris.
IBM has a good reason to use Linux, and it is nothing to do with open source support or stability - its that IBM needs a common Unix-type platform for all its hardware. Linux is used in that role. Sun has virtually always had a single
OS on whatever hardware it has supported.
Oh, and "personal attack" means criticizing a person's actions which are irrelevant to their argument, unlike my criticizing Schwartz for throwing his weight around at competitors, rather than leading his own company in technology or marketing.
I would not call using the phrase 'throwing weight around' and mentioning 'derision' criticising a person's actions. You don't mention any actions.
Schwartz has been one of the main people driving Sun's support for AMD hardware and the open-sourcing of Solaris.
Schwartz has to throw his weight around while he can, as he drives his company into the Sunset...And Sun might have a chance to churn Solaris tech into the kind of superstable Linux that IBM produces by hybridization with AIX.
So, a personal attack on someone followed by nonsense about Solaris being unstable compared with Linux is modded 'insightful'? Must be some strange new definition of the word I have never encountered.
The initial Jikes RVM infrastructure was independently developed as part of the Jalapeño research project at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
This has no relevance. Jikes is a research project, and is not the VM that IBM use for production work - it can't even run Eclipse.
The Java VMs that IBM use for their production work, and that they distribute for general use are based on Sun's source code.
IBM has to produce their own version of Java for AIX, z/OS, etc. In fact they also produce a Windows version (which performs better than the Sun version I might add), but they aren't allowed to distribute it (except bundled with an IBM product) because Sun wants to make sure they remain associated with Java.
IBM provide Java for Linux, which is freely downloadable.
How many of IBM's platforms does Java run on? None.
IBM has their own port for AIX, mainframes, etc.
So... you first say that Java does not run on IBM's platforms, then list the platforms on which Java has been ported to... using Sun's source code. See the contradiction?
It is quite hypocritical of Sun to be saying this when so little of their software runs on anything but Solaris.
Java Runtime/SDK
Java Enterprise System, including Application Server
Java Desktop
NetBeans/Sun Studio
Star/Open Office
NFS
You can have tachyons It's a little misleading to say that, I think. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, no evidence of tachyons (a certain amount of radiation emitted by a vacuum) have ever been observed, and a large percentage of physicists in this field do not believe they exist.
There is no evidence of tachyons, I agree. But, Special Relativity says that you can have them! This says nothing about whether or not the actually exist.