"The Register keeps talking about when we'll basically have to start fighting off the machines with pitchforks in the streets."
When it comes to that point, all manual labor will be donen by machines. We won't even have pitchforks to defend ourselves. Maybe that's why all these tech execs play golf?
"Imagine the possibilities of history classes of the future... maybe there are already a lot of ghosts watching us right now... the future students studying history!!"
Great. It's not like I wasn't uncomfortable enough having sex in front of the just the dog. I have to worry about porn technology from the future.
"Not quite that obvious. OpenPower refers to a line of servers specifically designed to run Linux (hence the "Open") part. This is a small, very small, part of the IBM lineup (which includes some serious heavy metal)."
Hate the name. Running linux doesn't make the architecture "Open". For an affordable power based workstation look here. It runs a few different distros of linux and other os's and more are in the works.
I don't really agree with all the hype around IBM's open source moves. Seems like a lot of what they are doing is using open source as a way to get salespeople in the door to sell proprietary IBM solutions. That's not necessarily a bad thing depending on how it's done. Look at some of the Apache projects, things like Jetty where IBM was a big supporter until they decided it was good enough to fork it internally for WebSphere Portal. That's not so bad, the license allows it but it's still a bit messed up in my opinion.
But other things like Derby and Geronimo are different all together. Take a look at the IBM Cloudscape pages. Cloudscape is not open source. It's "open source-based". They released the code as the Apache Derby project, but Cloudscape is not an open source project. The download link says "trials and betas". It may be free now but it has the potential of not being free when IBM senses it can charge for more than just support. Why would IBM release this? It's not because there weren't other open source java based RDBMS's out there. Hypersonic and Mckoi were already quite popular in that space and there are more. The difference is, Cloudscape has been designed to be a stepping stone to DB2. The java rdbms's have a niche market. One segment of which is users that want an easy portable system to develop on with little administrative requirements. These types generally outgrow the capabilities of such database systems and the user needs to migrate. If you're already using Cloudscape, the logical migration path is DB2. Which definately isn't free.
Also look at their recent acquisition of Gluecode. This gives them the developers of the Geronimo project. It's going to turn into Websphere-Lite. Same type of deal with Cloudscape. Both of these will be at the expense of open source software that is trying to be real open source, not just a carrot on a stick. Hopefully people see this and projects like Jonas and JBoss continue to grow.
I feel IBM is abusing the phrase "Open Source" in it's marketting where it's not appropriate. Like a couple of days ago when they announced they were moving to a more open source type of development for all their projects. They didn't say they were open sourcing all their projects, just that they will be using open source methodologies within IBM. I guess you could call it the Bazaar in the Cathedral. Yet so many mistakenly took the news to mean that ibm was doing more with open source and releasing more products via open source.
To me it looks like IBM is turning Open Source into shareware. They have their free versions to tinker around with but when you're ready for the real thing, a non crippled version, you have to pay for it. From Jonathan Schwartz's Weblog we have this quote:
"Jonas (Red Hat's app server) is just a toy, it's just for the low end" said IBM's exec at the Smith Barney Tech Conference I just attended in NYC.
Also look at Eclipse. It's used as an IDE but in many respects it is crippled in that regard, it's real purpose is as a tools platform. To get real productivity out of it you need to purchase plug-ins or upgrade to professional tools based on Eclipse like WebSphere Studio. The Eclipse Foundation is working on a number of open sourc
"The trouble with so much success is that people are going to come out the woodwork claiming trademark issues. And I can only wonder what will happen when it reaches 50%..."
And they're going to try and get their grubby little hands on all this money free software is makeing.
First, the hackers they had at this thing seemed mostly to be "security experts". They don't do this "on their own time", they try and build a business out of it.
Second, we don't know why they turned red. It might not have been anger, it might have been embarassment. If it was anger it might have been anger at themselves. They may have all stubbed their toes at the same time:)
People who code, or create things in general, usually have a strong attachment to their work. It's part of what makes the good ones so good. Being at a conference where you have to sit through and watch people point out your mistakes and not bring up your accomplishments can't be fun.
759/* FIXME: this function is truly horrid. We try opening the device, 760 then severely abuse the GEOMETRY->flags field to pass a file 761 descriptor to biosdisk. Thank God nobody's looking at this comment, 762 or my reputation would be ruined. --Gord */
Haha... I guess that supposed to be funny since it came from a GRUB file. Considering GRUB is GPL licensed and all.
Solaris and Apple could probably work on something like this together. I don't see it happening with linux because of the GPL. The way the licenses are it looks like the Solaris and Apple code could go into GPL code, but not the other way around without having to change the CDDL and BSD licenses to GPL. So if this does happen, it would have to be an MPL type license. The linux community could work on it under something like that, or they could just sit back and let Sun and Apple do the work and incorporate it.
You also have to keep in mind that just because there's OpenSolaris there's still Solaris 10 which is available for free or with optional paid support. What OpenSolaris does is help build the solaris community. Most likely it will be current Sun customers and ISV's just like the pilot seems to indicate. You'll also start to have more users and hobbyists trickling in. My guess is they're banking on OpenSolaris and free Solaris 10 to increase deployments and get more people using those products. Just like their JES and JDS pricing lowers the barrier of entry.
Once you get more people using your products you increase brand awareness and this will drive more sales of support contracts, hardware and consulting services.
Sun has some interesting tech in the works in addition to Solaris and some of their recent technology purchases should strengthen their position as a full service technology firm a la IBM. The only thing their lacking is a DB but there are rumors that one might be coming. Sun has been pretty good with partnering with other companies to offer 'best of breed' (hate that term) packages in conjunction with home grown designs. Hopefully they keep that up so they don't get locked in to the wrong product.
I think their stock price is a result of a few things, all circling around the dot com bubble. Durring the bubble sun was making money like there was no tomorrow. They grew their business very fast and were very slow to cut the excess fat when the bubble burst. They also made a couple of mistakes by not concentrating on lower end servers and x86 earlier on. Sun's stock price is trading at just over 1x revenues. During the boom it was trading at around 10x revenues. After the drop Scott McNealy pretty much told investors what where you thinking inflating the price so much, at that level he'd have to run the business with no overhead (salaries, property, taxes, r&d, etc) for 10 years to be able to have the type of return they would need to recoup their investment. I'm sure some people might have been put off a bit by hearing it was their own fault after losing millions of dollars. Sun doesn't control their stock price, it's the demand from investors that drove it up. During that same time where people were racing to buy SUNW and driving the stock up Sun itself was acting as if it was a 200 billion dollar company. Both sides screwed up. Sun realized and admitted their mistake and started resizing the company and correcting for some bad choices. Sun lost a good deal of money but they weren't out of the picture, unlike other dot com high fliers they were still around as a reminder to the people that lost so much money on SUNW. That last split at the end of 2000 was probably a mistake. They were already heading down pretty fast. If they didn't have that split they'd be trading somewhere around the 7 dollar range today. When you drop bellow 5 you're in trouble because certain types of institutional investors have provisions in their plans to not hold on to stocks that are below 5 bucks. And if I remember correctly when Sun dropped bellow 5 there was a lot of selling going on. If you look at the whole stock history it doesn't look so bad if you bretend that bump around the late 90's didn't exist.
At least that's my opinion on the matter.
Sun's put a lot of money into R&D and is really opening up in ways to turn their customers into a community. Not just with OpenSolaris and all their other open source projects but with their blogs too. Hopefully people realize all their doing and Sun doesn't make any major misteps, especially since so many people are critical of them. HP is pretty much out of the RISC business except for what looks like an extended support period and their Unix lines are going to go away with that. Fujitsu's not a big player in the US compared to the other guys. That leaves IBM, WinTel and RedHat (maybe SuSE). Apple might grab a bigger part of the profitability in that market seems to be dropping. Probably why IBM sold off thei
:( damn. I was too busy writting this long ass summary and poking around on the cvs site to notice the free tshirts. Bored today I guess and I knew the enws was coming. I noticed that the cvs site was up before the main site came up but you couldn't get to it unless you you went to http://cvs.opensolaris.org./ Tried to get SmartCVS to connect earlier this morning to see what would happen. So much for breaking news before it's broken... (Especially considering last night there were articles online saying Sun already released OpenSolaris).
My mistake. I missed the info on the charts. Looks like the 7sec boot time was for a zone running on 1 processor. The dual opteron workstation the zone ran in, booted in just over 30. Still. That's pretty fast.
If you peice the stories together, it seems that Larry let the linux community use a free bitmover client and provided the back end for free. The only stipulation was that they don't try to reverse engineer his product. Someone at OSDL, where Linus was employed at the time started working on reverse engineering BitKeeper. Larry tried to get him to stop but when he didn't he retracted the free version. Somehow the free version was costing BitMover 500,000 a year.
I don't think it was unreasonable what Larry did. Sounds like an Apple and Eve thing. Maybe there's even a snake to the story.
"But this has potential to do what MS could not. Solaris is at least respected by the development world. This is simply another trap being laid by Sun and MS against Linux."
Try reading the CDDL FAQ before you start trolling.
Can code licensed under the CDDL be combined with code licensed under other open source licenses?
CDDL is file-based; that means that files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary. However, other licenses may have different restrictions which may prevent such combination; be sure to read and recognize those.
So how can they "trap" people when the code is released under and OSI approved license?
"What is funny is how little ppl seem to remember from just 7 years ago. Sun actually ported to X86 once before AND "opened" their source code. Then when they thought that things were going well, they dropped it. If Sun ever feels like things are going in their favor, it is almost certain that they will do it again."
Sun has had an x86 port for a long long time. They dropped it around the time they bought Cobalt. Probably because Cobalt and Solaris x86 competed for some of the same market. The Solaris x86 community rallied together and got Sun to bring it back. I'm sure that the appliance market wasn't panning out helped too. But now Sun is really pushing forward with Opterons. Some details were leaked on the new Galaxy line of Opterons coming out. Should be good stuff. And as for dropping it, well it's open source now. It's going to be out there for ever.
Dennis Clarke, who runs blastwave.org, posted an interesting comment on Solaris x86 here. He's been having success with Solaris on x86 since 2.5.1
It seems that Solaris 2.9 wasn't going to come out for x86 because that was after Sun had bought Cobolt. Then a bunch of happy Solaris x86 users got Sun to change their mind.
I have had a Solaris 9 x86 server since about the time it came out and it runs just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, didn't you see it said Apple in the story? Geez.
Power refers to the Power line of chips which includes PowerPC Power4 and Power5.
When it comes to that point, all manual labor will be donen by machines. We won't even have pitchforks to defend ourselves. Maybe that's why all these tech execs play golf?
All that crap and you missed the most important point. The villain in the move was Gene Simmons of KISS!
Great. It's not like I wasn't uncomfortable enough having sex in front of the just the dog. I have to worry about porn technology from the future.
Hate the name. Running linux doesn't make the architecture "Open". For an affordable power based workstation look here. It runs a few different distros of linux and other os's and more are in the works.
I don't really agree with all the hype around IBM's open source moves. Seems like a lot of what they are doing is using open source as a way to get salespeople in the door to sell proprietary IBM solutions. That's not necessarily a bad thing depending on how it's done. Look at some of the Apache projects, things like Jetty where IBM was a big supporter until they decided it was good enough to fork it internally for WebSphere Portal. That's not so bad, the license allows it but it's still a bit messed up in my opinion.
But other things like Derby and Geronimo are different all together. Take a look at the IBM Cloudscape pages. Cloudscape is not open source. It's "open source-based". They released the code as the Apache Derby project, but Cloudscape is not an open source project. The download link says "trials and betas". It may be free now but it has the potential of not being free when IBM senses it can charge for more than just support. Why would IBM release this? It's not because there weren't other open source java based RDBMS's out there. Hypersonic and Mckoi were already quite popular in that space and there are more. The difference is, Cloudscape has been designed to be a stepping stone to DB2. The java rdbms's have a niche market. One segment of which is users that want an easy portable system to develop on with little administrative requirements. These types generally outgrow the capabilities of such database systems and the user needs to migrate. If you're already using Cloudscape, the logical migration path is DB2. Which definately isn't free.
Also look at their recent acquisition of Gluecode. This gives them the developers of the Geronimo project. It's going to turn into Websphere-Lite. Same type of deal with Cloudscape. Both of these will be at the expense of open source software that is trying to be real open source, not just a carrot on a stick. Hopefully people see this and projects like Jonas and JBoss continue to grow.
I feel IBM is abusing the phrase "Open Source" in it's marketting where it's not appropriate. Like a couple of days ago when they announced they were moving to a more open source type of development for all their projects. They didn't say they were open sourcing all their projects, just that they will be using open source methodologies within IBM. I guess you could call it the Bazaar in the Cathedral. Yet so many mistakenly took the news to mean that ibm was doing more with open source and releasing more products via open source.
To me it looks like IBM is turning Open Source into shareware. They have their free versions to tinker around with but when you're ready for the real thing, a non crippled version, you have to pay for it. From Jonathan Schwartz's Weblog we have this quote:
A similar message is presented (though a little less harshly) when IBM compares AIX to Linix
Also look at Eclipse. It's used as an IDE but in many respects it is crippled in that regard, it's real purpose is as a tools platform. To get real productivity out of it you need to purchase plug-ins or upgrade to professional tools based on Eclipse like WebSphere Studio. The Eclipse Foundation is working on a number of open sourc
And they're going to try and get their grubby little hands on all this money free software is makeing.
wait.....
how about Notie ;)
Second, we don't know why they turned red. It might not have been anger, it might have been embarassment. If it was anger it might have been anger at themselves. They may have all stubbed their toes at the same time :)
People who code, or create things in general, usually have a strong attachment to their work. It's part of what makes the good ones so good. Being at a conference where you have to sit through and watch people point out your mistakes and not bring up your accomplishments can't be fun.
When questioned further... "Oh! I thought you meant SHEEP attacks. That damn Chupacabra!"
Haha... I guess that supposed to be funny since it came from a GRUB file. Considering GRUB is GPL licensed and all.
No, what'as REALLY fascinating is that Renai LeMay is an uncreative fuck who writes a story based on a slashdot thread i started and doesn't even mention me. :-p
who cares. Now I can go back to buying "The Catcher in the Rye" without worrying about silent black helicopters.
These people sure think so :)
to myself!
Thanks for the marketting tip IBM :)
try the support forum at http://forum.sun.com/
Solaris and Apple could probably work on something like this together. I don't see it happening with linux because of the GPL. The way the licenses are it looks like the Solaris and Apple code could go into GPL code, but not the other way around without having to change the CDDL and BSD licenses to GPL. So if this does happen, it would have to be an MPL type license. The linux community could work on it under something like that, or they could just sit back and let Sun and Apple do the work and incorporate it.
Once you get more people using your products you increase brand awareness and this will drive more sales of support contracts, hardware and consulting services.
Sun has some interesting tech in the works in addition to Solaris and some of their recent technology purchases should strengthen their position as a full service technology firm a la IBM. The only thing their lacking is a DB but there are rumors that one might be coming. Sun has been pretty good with partnering with other companies to offer 'best of breed' (hate that term) packages in conjunction with home grown designs. Hopefully they keep that up so they don't get locked in to the wrong product.
I think their stock price is a result of a few things, all circling around the dot com bubble. Durring the bubble sun was making money like there was no tomorrow. They grew their business very fast and were very slow to cut the excess fat when the bubble burst. They also made a couple of mistakes by not concentrating on lower end servers and x86 earlier on. Sun's stock price is trading at just over 1x revenues. During the boom it was trading at around 10x revenues. After the drop Scott McNealy pretty much told investors what where you thinking inflating the price so much, at that level he'd have to run the business with no overhead (salaries, property, taxes, r&d, etc) for 10 years to be able to have the type of return they would need to recoup their investment. I'm sure some people might have been put off a bit by hearing it was their own fault after losing millions of dollars. Sun doesn't control their stock price, it's the demand from investors that drove it up. During that same time where people were racing to buy SUNW and driving the stock up Sun itself was acting as if it was a 200 billion dollar company. Both sides screwed up. Sun realized and admitted their mistake and started resizing the company and correcting for some bad choices. Sun lost a good deal of money but they weren't out of the picture, unlike other dot com high fliers they were still around as a reminder to the people that lost so much money on SUNW. That last split at the end of 2000 was probably a mistake. They were already heading down pretty fast. If they didn't have that split they'd be trading somewhere around the 7 dollar range today. When you drop bellow 5 you're in trouble because certain types of institutional investors have provisions in their plans to not hold on to stocks that are below 5 bucks. And if I remember correctly when Sun dropped bellow 5 there was a lot of selling going on. If you look at the whole stock history it doesn't look so bad if you bretend that bump around the late 90's didn't exist.
At least that's my opinion on the matter.
Sun's put a lot of money into R&D and is really opening up in ways to turn their customers into a community. Not just with OpenSolaris and all their other open source projects but with their blogs too. Hopefully people realize all their doing and Sun doesn't make any major misteps, especially since so many people are critical of them. HP is pretty much out of the RISC business except for what looks like an extended support period and their Unix lines are going to go away with that. Fujitsu's not a big player in the US compared to the other guys. That leaves IBM, WinTel and RedHat (maybe SuSE). Apple might grab a bigger part of the profitability in that market seems to be dropping. Probably why IBM sold off thei
:( damn. I was too busy writting this long ass summary and poking around on the cvs site to notice the free tshirts. Bored today I guess and I knew the enws was coming. I noticed that the cvs site was up before the main site came up but you couldn't get to it unless you you went to http://cvs.opensolaris.org./ Tried to get SmartCVS to connect earlier this morning to see what would happen. So much for breaking news before it's broken... (Especially considering last night there were articles online saying Sun already released OpenSolaris).
My mistake. I missed the info on the charts. Looks like the 7sec boot time was for a zone running on 1 processor. The dual opteron workstation the zone ran in, booted in just over 30. Still. That's pretty fast.
If you peice the stories together, it seems that Larry let the linux community use a free bitmover client and provided the back end for free. The only stipulation was that they don't try to reverse engineer his product. Someone at OSDL, where Linus was employed at the time started working on reverse engineering BitKeeper. Larry tried to get him to stop but when he didn't he retracted the free version. Somehow the free version was costing BitMover 500,000 a year.
I don't think it was unreasonable what Larry did. Sounds like an Apple and Eve thing. Maybe there's even a snake to the story.
Yeah. I just didn't think I should put all that in the summary :)
Try reading the CDDL FAQ before you start trolling.
So how can they "trap" people when the code is released under and OSI approved license?"What is funny is how little ppl seem to remember from just 7 years ago. Sun actually ported to X86 once before AND "opened" their source code. Then when they thought that things were going well, they dropped it. If Sun ever feels like things are going in their favor, it is almost certain that they will do it again."
Sun has had an x86 port for a long long time. They dropped it around the time they bought Cobalt. Probably because Cobalt and Solaris x86 competed for some of the same market. The Solaris x86 community rallied together and got Sun to bring it back. I'm sure that the appliance market wasn't panning out helped too. But now Sun is really pushing forward with Opterons. Some details were leaked on the new Galaxy line of Opterons coming out. Should be good stuff. And as for dropping it, well it's open source now. It's going to be out there for ever.
It seems that Solaris 2.9 wasn't going to come out for x86 because that was after Sun had bought Cobolt. Then a bunch of happy Solaris x86 users got Sun to change their mind.
I have had a Solaris 9 x86 server since about the time it came out and it runs just fine.
SCO was the biggest commercial SysV on x86, BSD drivers will likely be more compatible than Linux drivers. It's at least a start.