Fedora 9 is also one of the first linux distributions (along with Ubuntu) to include OpenJDK. Fedora also includes Netbeans.
They moved from IcedTea, which was based on the upcoming java7 to the stable java6 release. Looks like some of the stuff in IncedTea made it into OpenJDK 6.
Dell's probably going to take a larger hit than Sun. Customers may still want some of Dell's lower end servers and desktops where HP can't compete on price. While HP's desktops and x86 servers can easily replace Dell's, there are more dependencies and loyalties when it comes to Unix. With Unix, it's not just the hardware but also the OS.
When HP comes up with marketing to get Solaris customers, the plan is to migrate them to Linux, not HP/UX. I don't think that HP has put the same effort into HP/UX that Sun has in Solaris. IBM seems to at least be trying to play catch-up.
HP does offer and certify Solaris on their x86 servers I wonder if they may take the plunge and make an OpenSolaris port for their HP 9000 and even Alpha based servers. There's are a couple projects to port OpenSolaris to IBM's Power and Z series mainframes, both of which seem to have some support from IBM. I doubt that IBM would give up on AIX but it would be an interesting scenario for HP to move to OpenSolaris on their hardware. In the Unix world, Solaris seems to have the most momentum. But then again in the unix world, most people are probably still running OS versions that are 2 release behind current.
"Isn't it about as basic as it gets that code (outside of Java) should be developed on the same platform that it will ultimately be deployed upon? "
You're still in school or new to the real world, arent' you?
I do most of my Java web development on either win2k or winXP. (For other reasons I need certain windows apps).
I use netbeans to develop and I generally deploy to RedHat, CentOS or Solaris using different servlet engines. Mainly Tomcat and Resin. I don't remember the last time I had problems deploying a WAR file from Windows to Linux or Solaris, other than what's in Context.xml, which is what that file is for. Sometimes people put things in web.xml that are related to the context and run into issues.
Usually, if I have a problem it is when going from one servlet container to another or between versions of the same container. These are problems have been with stuff the stuff that's configured in the container such as JDBC DataPools, Environment Variables and other external resources.
I've used all sorts of different libraries (jar files) that get included in the war file and haven't run into any issues.
I've done some stuff in PHP and haven't been too impressed. One thing I really hate is that connections to mysql and postgresql require different code. In Java it's all JDBC. The few times I've had to switch between databases in Java the only changes necessary to the code were in the actual SQL if some advanced query options were necessary.
There's just not enough consistency in PHP and you get some really odd method names that don't match up too well with similar functions in other libraries. I know some people have been critical over Sun for how much control they seem to want over the platform, but it has really helped developers in most cases. Having a well defined specification means and a verification of that specification before you can call your product java-something-compatible is nice.
One thing I do like about php is that you don't have to wait as long as you do for a jsp to compile. When you're developing this can be a pain. Since Java5 this seems to have gotten better, Java6 improved it even more. PHP still has the edge here, but not as much as it did before especially with a decent processor. The JSP only needs to compile once though, after that there's really no noticable difference. In personal benchmarks I've done, I've had Tomcat put PHP to shame for code that was basically the same, except that the Java code was doing slightly more.
I think PHP 4 was good for what it was. I remember a lot of past debates over Java vs PHP where people were trying to argue that you could do anything you can in Java in PHP except it is easier and faster. You couldn't. I'd be surprised if that was even true now. Although PHP does seem to be moving more towards features that Java has. OO, exceptions, namespaces, and more. To me that's a mistake. PHP was popular because it was easy. OO concepts and some of the other new features aren't that easy. In my opinion, PHP would have been better off sticking to what it started out as with better integration with Java, C maybe even.Net instead of trying to rewrite the features available in other languages. At the time PHP was gaining momentum, JSP wasn't that great. Because of PHP the JSP spec has made great strides to compete.
Memory wise, if you're using mod_php, you'll probably use less memory between similar apps. In a shared environment though, using mod_php isn't very secure and the hacks to try and make it more secure are far from perfect. So if you're using fastcgi or something like that, so you can run a separate php engine per user, you will use more memory overall, and lose out on the performance of mod_php. Default Tomcat 6 on JDK6 takes up 30M of memory for me with no apps deployed and no tuning. Big apps like Drupal can have memory and performance issues. It all depends on how you code your app.
Yes, actually very soon you will need to update your server. PHP4 is no longer being updated - this means security and all types of other bugs, including data loss/critical bugs. Yes, if only they thought to write it under an open source license so that the many people that stayed with php4 and will continue to do so could write their own fixes for any major bugs that have not already been discovered.
By the way, you do realize that you don't have to upgrade your server right? You can leave the current version of PHP and everyone will be happy. There are tons of hosts still only offernig php4.
The part where I said there are ways to run different versions of php for different users didn't seem to register for you either.
Um, no it's not. It's only downfall is that it's too easy to do powerful things so idiots make dangerous code. Most people don't write their own php scripts, they use what other's have written. And if one big vulnerability gets discovered in a script and you start seeing a bunch of websites getting defaced or worse. Most people are using some sort of shared hosting, so your site may get affected even if you don't have any php.
Since it takes less resources and performs better, most hosting companies run all php scripts as the same user. Yeah there are ways to jail it to a certain directory per user but that's not very secure. PHP's stance has pretty much been it shouldn't be the languages responsibility to come up with the security.
Sounds like you're using mod_php. That's a very insecure way to run php in a shared hosting environment and also doesn't give you the ability to run more than one version of php.
May not seem like a big deal until some idiot doesn't update his scripts and some script kiddie comes along and you get 350 calls from your clients asking you why there's some terrorist propaganda on their website.
(to MS apparently OSX's APIs are just things that are there for other people) This is too easy, where do I start.
1. Yes those 2 other people are very upset MS hasn't joined the OSX API party.
2. OSX API? Which one? Cocoa, Carbon, Posix, Toolbox, Java?
3. Yes because it's great to have a separate source tree in a totally different language for 3% of the population. You never know when GNUstep will get really huge and you'll be ready for it.
4. "Hi, I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC. And I'm Microsoft's VP of not porting any more cool shit to OSX hippie!"
Nothing. It's a piece of shit actually. Sun is all about Java so many of the tools like IPS are written in it. It eats memory like no tomorrow and performance suffers. Don't even think of running this stuff on a machine with less than 1GB of RAM. From what I've seen IPS doesn't use Java. I think you're confusing it with Patch Manager (smpatch) which is used for patches on Solaris. I'm applying patches right now to a Solaris 10 server and the Java component is only using about 70M of memory.
There doesn't seem to be an smpatch utility in/usr/sbin in OpenSolaris so I guess IPS takes care of patches too.
I don't know about ultra low cost pc's but I've held on to an old laptop that's falling apart, had a failing drive and the replacement never quite fit so I just pulled it out and have been using a Damn Small Linux CD to boot so I can browse the web and even VNC into my main desktop.
I also found this today. MilaX which claims to be like DSL but is based on OpenSolaris. But it doesn't look like that POS laptop will be able to run this.
MS is planning on charging betweek $26-$32 bucks for Windows XP Home Edition for these machines. That's still a significant cost compared to the price of these machines. Especially the One Laptop Per Child based on reports of what they're planning on charging. But then again it seems their prototypes wound up being 2x as much as planned.
Walls are not that expensive to build and power outlets are not that difficult to install, unless you have a bunch of union Facilities guys at your company who work maybe 15 minutes a day and control everybody's aesthetics. It's not that walls are expensive to build. Have you ever priced cubicles? They're not cheap. What they give you is flexibility in redesigning the space at a later date.
If you're leasing the space you may not be able to build it out. If you're the one leasing the space you may not want to have it built out in a way that makes it difficult for you to rent if the current tennant leaves.
Either that or you're a part of a completely separate entity which does not see the world only in its most extreme shades. We live in a digital world, you can either be a one or a zero.
I dislike when people act as if you can solve all the world's problems by pressure with the pocketbook. Put some sanctions on China, impose tariffs on products from China, get rid of WalMart and watch how quickly China will capitulate when they see their economy stall or even decline. Look how well it's worked with Iran. Awe crap. I thought I had a valid rebuttal.
Sigh. You obviously care far more passionately about this issue than I do. I don't own any products from either company. I don't run OpenSolaris/or/ OpenSuse, although I will admit to trying out Suse about 6 or 7 years ago. I'm not even sure why I'm still replying.;)
I care because I feel that Sun is a very important company in the open source community. They have donated a lot of time and money to different open source projects. They may not contribute as much to the linux kernel but as I mentioned earlier that EU study showed they were by far the largest corporate contributor based on code in the Debian project. This did not seem to count the OpenOffice.org code which was even more than their contributions in Debian. OpenOffice.org has been the first entry for a lot of people into open source, which has led some to investigate open source and free software more. They are a patron of the FSF, as can be verified on the FSF website. Though I can't say Sun has been perfect in the open source world, events regarding OpenDS being a big disappointment from what I've seen.
I like Solaris too. While the linux kernel has made improvements, Solaris has the lead in some areas. Especially in scaling on machines with multiple processors and cores. Here's some comparisons with FreeBSD. Some applications work better when scaled vertically rather than clustered. There's a group porting OpenSolaris to IBM's Z series mainframes, apparently with IBM's assistance, and it seems that it can do a better job than Linux there since Linux seems to do better running a number of virtual instances vs one large instance.
Linux was a wakeup call to Sun so they got their asses in gear and kept innovating with Solaris and they have done a good job in terms of x86 support, performance and new features. OpenSolaris should do the same for Linux and back and forth until they can cure cancer, feed the hungry, and bring peace and harmony throughout the world. Or at least be really really good:)
Novell not only is not a patron of the FSF other than $5k they donated a few years ago, the FSF has stated that they wouldn't accept any money from Novell because of the deal they signed with Microsoft.
I still think we have to wait and see what Judge Kimball says. If he rules simply that Novell's case is invalid, then clearly the whole question is moot. This, however, is a highly unlikely outcome when you consider the entirety of the history of the case to date.
The genie's already out of the bottle and Sun has already had enough unwarranted bad press regarding the whole SCO deal. This is were groklaw really had it wrong. I mean, a Unix company, goes to the authorized licensing agent for Unix IP and purchases Unix related stuff. Yeah the timing was bad, yeah McNealy as usual said some stupid stuff. THough some of it was taken the wrong way. Just because Sun said they would indemnify it's linux customers doesn't mean they said Linux was in violation of anything. Just because they said Solaris couldn't be contested in the same way doesn't mean they were validating SCO's claims. Meanwhile HP who was probably the biggest UnixWare reseller and continued to resell UnixWare for some time after SCO started making a fuss, who also made claims that they would indemnify their RedHat and SuSE customers "if they didn't modify the source", received no such scrutiny on Groklaw.
There were a lot of things I read on groklaw that were just assumptions on top of assumptions that were used to verify their conclusions. Most of the comments were even worse. It's one thing for a lawyer to argue their case in a court with an opposing attorney there to defend against those claims with a presumption of innocence. It's another to do it on a biased blog. It just left a bad taste in my mouth. It's a good site to get the transcripts and exhibits but beyond that they really stretc
A reasonable argument. At the same time, having the court tell SCO, "you weren't allowed to do that, but you get to keep the money for doing it" would strike me as a miscarriage of justice. Stuff like that happens all the time. If court found the SCO/Sun deal to be invalid he has no authority to get SCO to give the money back. Just because SCO shouldn't have it doesn't mean Novell gets it. Sun and MS could sue SCO to try and get the money but SCO doesn't really have much left.
But Novell is claiming that Sun did gain rights in the 2003 deal. And I'm still seeing the implication that "SCO exceeded its authority" = "we declare the deal invalid", which I don't think is right. I suspect it's more like, "SCO exceeded its authority, and we want a ruling to that effect so they don't do it again; but we'll honor the deal anyway." Novell is claiming that in the SCO trial. Nothing has been done with respect to Sun or MS.
I already had this discussion on another thread here and not in the mood to go through it again. Basically, it just sounds like Novell FUD. I wonder if MS gave them a free lesson along with their recent partnership.
I assume this is what you meant when you said earlier in this trail that Sun had released Solaris as open source in 1999? I don't see the SCSL on Opensource.Org's website. While granted, that is not conclusive in determining whether or not I always regarded the SCSL more or less as just exposing the source code without allowing people to actually do anything with it. In my view, that is not an open source license. It certainly doesn't meet the OSI's 10 point model, RMS's four freedoms, or even Lessig's 4 point model. Novell may not have had a problem with Sun's release for these reasons. What license the code was released under is irrelevant. The code was put out there for every one to see. Sun could have put it out there with a license that said "Don't look at this under any circumstances." If Sun didn't have the right to release the code, Novell should have done something.
Yes, I know I was quoting Novell's argument and a _very_ short excerpt of the cross examination. I only did so because the thread that you pointed me to had only one or two people who seemed to know what they were talking about from a legal perspective, and they claimed that there was nothing "there" there. Worse, they provided no evidence, just assertions. But what those people have said is in line with Sun's official statements as well as backed up by some things that came out in the SCO trial.
I simply trying to indicate that Novell's position is that there is plenty of "there" there, and I gave a link to a snippet of relevant statements from the legal records. I dissagree. Novell has no legal position in regards to Solaris source code. They may have said some things at the SCO trial or to the press but they have not done anything. They've had 10 years to do so. They could have tried to get a temporary injunction until the matter was decided. That's what people do when they're rights are being violated. They don't wait 10 years and make vague statements to the press.
We are in agreement, I think, that we'll have to wait to see what the judge decides. That will either give Novell a solid foundation or not for any potential legal action against Sun. No we're not. This is clearly FUD spread by a company in bad shape that feels threatened. And you're falling for it.
If Judge Kimball rules that Novell should get some of the money, he is validating that the contract was valid and case closed regarding Sun. If he rules it was invalid, Sun's position has been that they were granted the rights in the 1994 contract and it doesn't mean anything. The fact that Novell didn't call anyone from Sun to the stand, hasn't taken any legal action means a lot.
Rather than read speculation by non-lawyers, how about
I see your link and respond with another [groklaw.net]?:)
To be honest, reading Groklaw irritates me. Most of it is speculation. People there don't seem to have much understaning of the law let alone the technology. At least here, people understand the technology:)
No doubt that, in the 2003 agreement, Sun got the ability -- it contained the ability to open source their product. Jay Petersen, the deputy of SCOsource, tells this Court that that has substantial commercial value to Sun because they can now indemnify their customers. There undoubtedly is commercial value in that license, Your Honor.
No doubt, I don't see how they proved that. The most telling point for me is that Sun first released the Solaris source code in 1999 under the SCSL before the agreement with SCO. They didn't do it secretly. There was a lot of press around it. Novell didn't make a peep.
Q. And it's Sun's 2003 SCOsource license that gave Sun the right to expose SVRX source code to the public; isn't that right?
A. It's my understanding that it gave Sun the right to expose the UnixWare code as well.
Not a very strong statement.
Q. But it gave -- the answer is: Yes, it gave Sun the right to expose to the public the SVR 4.0 code that you have admitted is in OpenSolaris.
Isn't that right?
A. That's correct.
Can you say leading the witness.
"Q. And if you went to them and say -- after the Asset Purchase Agreement, went to them in 1996 and you said; you know what, we want to strip out all of that UNIX System V Release 4 code from Sun Solaris. What do you think their reaction would have been?"
They can't do that if what Sun says is true that they bought out their licenses giving them the right to distribute and relicense the source and binaries in 1994 in perpetuity. At the time, according to the transcripts, regular source licenses for SYSVX were in the $100k-$200k range. Sun paid around $100million.
Just because some lawyer says something in court doesn't make it true. Nowhere in the transcripts was there any reading of the contract that clearly showed SCO gave Sun the right to open source Solaris. In fact Novell's lawyer pointed out that it was pretty much just a copy/paste of the 1994 agreement plus some other stuff relating to SYSVR5 and UnixWare. When Sun first started talking about making an OpenSolaris in 2004, SCO was the first one to say they didn't think they could do it, at least not under the GPL.
Q. And that would have been a commercial -- that would have commercial value for Sun if they could provide indemnity to customers that were using their OpenSolaris product, right?
McNealy was mouthing off constantly about indemnifying it's customers who bought linux from them on their servers. There was no OpenSolaris at the time. Big Unix vendors like Sun, IBM and I believe HP had already paid a large sum to buy out their licenses to avoid having to pay royalties in the future and avoid headaches. Sun, probably because of it's contributions developing SYSVR4, secured more rights than the others.
No doubt that, in the 2003 agreement, Sun got the ability -- it contained the ability to open source their product. Jay Petersen, the deputy of SCOsource, tells this Court that that has substantial commercial value to Sun because they can now indemnify their customers. There undoubtedly is commercial value in that license, Your Honor.
I didn't see anything concrete in the transcripts that asserted that.
Well, we just heard testimony here this morning from Mr. Nagle that they don't know. Nobody knows. No one sat down and compared the two. There's no evidence before this Court that there is unique code in the Sun Solaris system.
Look, you stated publicly and clearly that OpenSolaris resulted in a reduction in memory usage from 200MB to 50MB when you knew full well that those numbers were wrong. Again, I consider that dishonest. I was using the smallest value that was shown from the different tools that show memory usage. If linux can't give me accurate results with multithreaded applications, how is that my fault? Before going to the final setup, the application was also tested on a Sun brand server, using JDK 1.5. On that machine it was running at about 90MB. The new server (non sun) with that application and JDK 1.6 used much less. I've benchmarked some of my web apps on different platforms and JVM's. This wasn't a formal test but the results really stood out.
That is where they spend their money; they've talked about that many times. And the fact that they use Linux there tells you that the other possible choices (OpenSolaris, BSD, etc.) can't be significantly better performing or significantly more reliable. I said "make" not "spend". Some estimates for the number of servers Google has is in the 450,000 neighborhood. They also put a lot of time into developing their OS and according to reports are running they're own modified kernel. I would be surprised if the kernel they use resembles modern day linux. Changing their platform is not a trivial matter.
Where Sun technology could really benefit google is if they started switching some of their servers to Niagara based servers. They'd could probably save 10's of millions of dollars a year.
Anyway, this was an interesting thread but you're arguments are making less and less sense. You don't like Sun.
Slashdot Mirror
Fedora 9 is also one of the first linux distributions (along with Ubuntu) to include OpenJDK. Fedora also includes Netbeans.
They moved from IcedTea, which was based on the upcoming java7 to the stable java6 release. Looks like some of the stuff in IncedTea made it into OpenJDK 6.
Dell's probably going to take a larger hit than Sun. Customers may still want some of Dell's lower end servers and desktops where HP can't compete on price. While HP's desktops and x86 servers can easily replace Dell's, there are more dependencies and loyalties when it comes to Unix. With Unix, it's not just the hardware but also the OS.
When HP comes up with marketing to get Solaris customers, the plan is to migrate them to Linux, not HP/UX. I don't think that HP has put the same effort into HP/UX that Sun has in Solaris. IBM seems to at least be trying to play catch-up.
HP does offer and certify Solaris on their x86 servers I wonder if they may take the plunge and make an OpenSolaris port for their HP 9000 and even Alpha based servers. There's are a couple projects to port OpenSolaris to IBM's Power and Z series mainframes, both of which seem to have some support from IBM. I doubt that IBM would give up on AIX but it would be an interesting scenario for HP to move to OpenSolaris on their hardware. In the Unix world, Solaris seems to have the most momentum. But then again in the unix world, most people are probably still running OS versions that are 2 release behind current.
What makes you think they're not coming for us?
"Isn't it about as basic as it gets that code (outside of Java) should be developed on the same platform that it will ultimately be deployed upon? "
You're still in school or new to the real world, arent' you?
I do most of my Java web development on either win2k or winXP. (For other reasons I need certain windows apps).
.Net instead of trying to rewrite the features available in other languages. At the time PHP was gaining momentum, JSP wasn't that great. Because of PHP the JSP spec has made great strides to compete.
I use netbeans to develop and I generally deploy to RedHat, CentOS or Solaris using different servlet engines. Mainly Tomcat and Resin. I don't remember the last time I had problems deploying a WAR file from Windows to Linux or Solaris, other than what's in Context.xml, which is what that file is for. Sometimes people put things in web.xml that are related to the context and run into issues.
Usually, if I have a problem it is when going from one servlet container to another or between versions of the same container. These are problems have been with stuff the stuff that's configured in the container such as JDBC DataPools, Environment Variables and other external resources.
I've used all sorts of different libraries (jar files) that get included in the war file and haven't run into any issues.
I've done some stuff in PHP and haven't been too impressed. One thing I really hate is that connections to mysql and postgresql require different code. In Java it's all JDBC. The few times I've had to switch between databases in Java the only changes necessary to the code were in the actual SQL if some advanced query options were necessary.
There's just not enough consistency in PHP and you get some really odd method names that don't match up too well with similar functions in other libraries. I know some people have been critical over Sun for how much control they seem to want over the platform, but it has really helped developers in most cases. Having a well defined specification means and a verification of that specification before you can call your product java-something-compatible is nice.
One thing I do like about php is that you don't have to wait as long as you do for a jsp to compile. When you're developing this can be a pain. Since Java5 this seems to have gotten better, Java6 improved it even more. PHP still has the edge here, but not as much as it did before especially with a decent processor. The JSP only needs to compile once though, after that there's really no noticable difference. In personal benchmarks I've done, I've had Tomcat put PHP to shame for code that was basically the same, except that the Java code was doing slightly more.
I think PHP 4 was good for what it was. I remember a lot of past debates over Java vs PHP where people were trying to argue that you could do anything you can in Java in PHP except it is easier and faster. You couldn't. I'd be surprised if that was even true now. Although PHP does seem to be moving more towards features that Java has. OO, exceptions, namespaces, and more. To me that's a mistake. PHP was popular because it was easy. OO concepts and some of the other new features aren't that easy. In my opinion, PHP would have been better off sticking to what it started out as with better integration with Java, C maybe even
Memory wise, if you're using mod_php, you'll probably use less memory between similar apps. In a shared environment though, using mod_php isn't very secure and the hacks to try and make it more secure are far from perfect. So if you're using fastcgi or something like that, so you can run a separate php engine per user, you will use more memory overall, and lose out on the performance of mod_php. Default Tomcat 6 on JDK6 takes up 30M of memory for me with no apps deployed and no tuning. Big apps like Drupal can have memory and performance issues. It all depends on how you code your app.
I think people that a
By the way, you do realize that you don't have to upgrade your server right? You can leave the current version of PHP and everyone will be happy. There are tons of hosts still only offernig php4.
The part where I said there are ways to run different versions of php for different users didn't seem to register for you either.
sucks to be them
Since it takes less resources and performs better, most hosting companies run all php scripts as the same user. Yeah there are ways to jail it to a certain directory per user but that's not very secure. PHP's stance has pretty much been it shouldn't be the languages responsibility to come up with the security.
Sounds like you're using mod_php. That's a very insecure way to run php in a shared hosting environment and also doesn't give you the ability to run more than one version of php.
May not seem like a big deal until some idiot doesn't update his scripts and some script kiddie comes along and you get 350 calls from your clients asking you why there's some terrorist propaganda on their website.
Hahaha, you were modded insightful and interesting.
Google also has Google Apps which allows you to use your own domain name with GMail.
1. Yes those 2 other people are very upset MS hasn't joined the OSX API party.
2. OSX API? Which one? Cocoa, Carbon, Posix, Toolbox, Java?
3. Yes because it's great to have a separate source tree in a totally different language for 3% of the population. You never know when GNUstep will get really huge and you'll be ready for it.
4. "Hi, I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC. And I'm Microsoft's VP of not porting any more cool shit to OSX hippie!"
There doesn't seem to be an smpatch utility in
I don't know about ultra low cost pc's but I've held on to an old laptop that's falling apart, had a failing drive and the replacement never quite fit so I just pulled it out and have been using a Damn Small Linux CD to boot so I can browse the web and even VNC into my main desktop.
I also found this today. MilaX which claims to be like DSL but is based on OpenSolaris. But it doesn't look like that POS laptop will be able to run this.
MS is planning on charging betweek $26-$32 bucks for Windows XP Home Edition for these machines. That's still a significant cost compared to the price of these machines. Especially the One Laptop Per Child based on reports of what they're planning on charging. But then again it seems their prototypes wound up being 2x as much as planned.
If you're leasing the space you may not be able to build it out. If you're the one leasing the space you may not want to have it built out in a way that makes it difficult for you to rent if the current tennant leaves.
While it would be nice if people did things for the greater good, warm fuzzy feelings can't feed a family.
Sigh. You obviously care far more passionately about this issue than I do. I don't own any products from either company. I don't run OpenSolaris /or/ OpenSuse, although I will admit to trying out Suse about 6 or 7 years ago. I'm not even sure why I'm still replying. ;)
I care because I feel that Sun is a very important company in the open source community. They have donated a lot of time and money to different open source projects. They may not contribute as much to the linux kernel but as I mentioned earlier that EU study showed they were by far the largest corporate contributor based on code in the Debian project. This did not seem to count the OpenOffice.org code which was even more than their contributions in Debian. OpenOffice.org has been the first entry for a lot of people into open source, which has led some to investigate open source and free software more. They are a patron of the FSF, as can be verified on the FSF website. Though I can't say Sun has been perfect in the open source world, events regarding OpenDS being a big disappointment from what I've seen.
:)
I like Solaris too. While the linux kernel has made improvements, Solaris has the lead in some areas. Especially in scaling on machines with multiple processors and cores. Here's some comparisons with FreeBSD. Some applications work better when scaled vertically rather than clustered. There's a group porting OpenSolaris to IBM's Z series mainframes, apparently with IBM's assistance, and it seems that it can do a better job than Linux there since Linux seems to do better running a number of virtual instances vs one large instance.
Linux was a wakeup call to Sun so they got their asses in gear and kept innovating with Solaris and they have done a good job in terms of x86 support, performance and new features. OpenSolaris should do the same for Linux and back and forth until they can cure cancer, feed the hungry, and bring peace and harmony throughout the world. Or at least be really really good
Novell not only is not a patron of the FSF other than $5k they donated a few years ago, the FSF has stated that they wouldn't accept any money from Novell because of the deal they signed with Microsoft.
I still think we have to wait and see what Judge Kimball says. If he rules simply that Novell's case is invalid, then clearly the whole question is moot. This, however, is a highly unlikely outcome when you consider the entirety of the history of the case to date.
The genie's already out of the bottle and Sun has already had enough unwarranted bad press regarding the whole SCO deal. This is were groklaw really had it wrong. I mean, a Unix company, goes to the authorized licensing agent for Unix IP and purchases Unix related stuff. Yeah the timing was bad, yeah McNealy as usual said some stupid stuff. THough some of it was taken the wrong way. Just because Sun said they would indemnify it's linux customers doesn't mean they said Linux was in violation of anything. Just because they said Solaris couldn't be contested in the same way doesn't mean they were validating SCO's claims. Meanwhile HP who was probably the biggest UnixWare reseller and continued to resell UnixWare for some time after SCO started making a fuss, who also made claims that they would indemnify their RedHat and SuSE customers "if they didn't modify the source", received no such scrutiny on Groklaw.
There were a lot of things I read on groklaw that were just assumptions on top of assumptions that were used to verify their conclusions. Most of the comments were even worse. It's one thing for a lawyer to argue their case in a court with an opposing attorney there to defend against those claims with a presumption of innocence. It's another to do it on a biased blog. It just left a bad taste in my mouth. It's a good site to get the transcripts and exhibits but beyond that they really stretc
I already had this discussion on another thread here and not in the mood to go through it again. Basically, it just sounds like Novell FUD. I wonder if MS gave them a free lesson along with their recent partnership.
There is also some more discussion that I found at the OpenSolaris message board
If Judge Kimball rules that Novell should get some of the money, he is validating that the contract was valid and case closed regarding Sun. If he rules it was invalid, Sun's position has been that they were granted the rights in the 1994 contract and it doesn't mean anything. The fact that Novell didn't call anyone from Sun to the stand, hasn't taken any legal action means a lot.
Rather than read speculation by non-lawyers, how about
:)
I see your link and respond with another [groklaw.net]?
To be honest, reading Groklaw irritates me. Most of it is speculation. People there don't seem to have much understaning of the law let alone the technology. At least here, people understand the technology :)
No doubt that, in the 2003 agreement, Sun got the ability -- it contained the ability to open source their product. Jay Petersen, the deputy of SCOsource, tells this Court that that has substantial commercial value to Sun because they can now indemnify their customers. There undoubtedly is commercial value in that license, Your Honor.
No doubt, I don't see how they proved that. The most telling point for me is that Sun first released the Solaris source code in 1999 under the SCSL before the agreement with SCO. They didn't do it secretly. There was a lot of press around it. Novell didn't make a peep.
Q. And it's Sun's 2003 SCOsource license that gave Sun the right to expose SVRX source code to the public; isn't that right?
A. It's my understanding that it gave Sun the right to expose the UnixWare code as well.
Not a very strong statement.
Q. But it gave -- the answer is: Yes, it gave Sun the right to expose to the public the SVR 4.0 code that you have admitted is in OpenSolaris.
Isn't that right?
A. That's correct.
Can you say leading the witness.
"Q. And if you went to them and say -- after the Asset Purchase Agreement, went to them in 1996 and you said; you know what, we want to strip out all of that UNIX System V Release 4 code from Sun Solaris. What do you think their reaction would have been?"
They can't do that if what Sun says is true that they bought out their licenses giving them the right to distribute and relicense the source and binaries in 1994 in perpetuity. At the time, according to the transcripts, regular source licenses for SYSVX were in the $100k-$200k range. Sun paid around $100million.
Just because some lawyer says something in court doesn't make it true. Nowhere in the transcripts was there any reading of the contract that clearly showed SCO gave Sun the right to open source Solaris. In fact Novell's lawyer pointed out that it was pretty much just a copy/paste of the 1994 agreement plus some other stuff relating to SYSVR5 and UnixWare. When Sun first started talking about making an OpenSolaris in 2004, SCO was the first one to say they didn't think they could do it, at least not under the GPL.
Q. And that would have been a commercial -- that would have commercial value for Sun if they could provide indemnity to customers that were using their OpenSolaris product, right?
McNealy was mouthing off constantly about indemnifying it's customers who bought linux from them on their servers. There was no OpenSolaris at the time. Big Unix vendors like Sun, IBM and I believe HP had already paid a large sum to buy out their licenses to avoid having to pay royalties in the future and avoid headaches. Sun, probably because of it's contributions developing SYSVR4, secured more rights than the others.
No doubt that, in the 2003 agreement, Sun got the ability -- it contained the ability to open source their product. Jay Petersen, the deputy of SCOsource, tells this Court that that has substantial commercial value to Sun because they can now indemnify their customers. There undoubtedly is commercial value in that license, Your Honor.
I didn't see anything concrete in the transcripts that asserted that.
Well, we just heard testimony here this morning from Mr. Nagle that they don't know. Nobody knows. No one sat down and compared the two. There's no evidence before this Court that there is unique code in the Sun Solaris system.
From what I recall not a single person from Sun w
Where Sun technology could really benefit google is if they started switching some of their servers to Niagara based servers. They'd could probably save 10's of millions of dollars a year.
Anyway, this was an interesting thread but you're arguments are making less and less sense. You don't like Sun.