When it was announced that MySQL would be releasing some features in MySQL Enterprise and not in the community edition the original Slashdot headline was "Sun to close MySQL" or something similar.
Then Mickos (former CEO of MySQL AB and SVP of Sun Database group) comes here and says that it was MySQL's plan to do this before the acquisition by Sun and that it was in fact Sun who wanted them to release everything to the community. And if Sun had their way it would.
So now that Sun convinces Mickos to change his strategy the headline is "MySQL Reverses Decision On Closed Source"
Another mistake on your part. My appologies, I mixed this up with another thread.
As for using GCC, that was usually because Solaris didn't come with the Sun compiler tools. You had to buy those seperately. And at the time, and still to this day, they tend to compile code that performs better than GCC.
You say that as if it's a good thing. Running code faster is not a good thing?
Sigh. Yes, it does. The point is, Sun needs to deal with _Novell_, not SCO. Sun has been warned by Novell that they do not regard the deal as valid. What Novell is doing is demanding that SCO give them the money that is rightfully theirs from an invalid deal. Once that money is in hand, Novell will decide whether or not to pursue Sun for violation of their original contract.
You're wrong. Sun does not need to deal with Novell. SCO was the licensing agent. Nobody could go directly to Novell for any sort of Unix licensing. That part is clear.
An analogy I made in a previous article was that if you walk into a store, go to the counter and buy something, the cashier takes the money and pockets it, you're not at fault. You did what you were supposed to do and the store owner has to go after the employee for the money, not you.
It was countered by someone giving a different example. You go into a store, the cashier sells you the register, which isn't for sale.
Lets assume the cashier works on commission. The store owner can't demand that the employee give him the store owners cut, then go back to you and get the register back. The store owner cannot and should not be remedied twice for the same violation. If you get in a car accident and your insurance company pays your hospital bills, you cannot sue the driver at fault for your hospital bills as well.
Sun worked with AT&T to create SYSVR4. SYSVR4 also contains a bit of BSD of which Bill Joy (founder of Sun) was one of the leading developers. According to Schwartz. Novell suing Sun over SYSVR4 is like someone suing Linus over Linux.
Schwartz: We took a license from AT&T initially for $100 million as we didnt own the IP. The license we took also made clear that we had rights equivalent to ownership. When we did the deal with SCO earlier this year we bought a bunch of drivers and when we give money to a company oftentimes we get warrants, which is part of the negotiations. I have warrants in 100 different companies, we have a huge venture portfolio. I cant do anything about the perception thats out there and to be blunt, I dont care as those people arent going to drive our futureâ"customers are.
The APA seems to be a poorly written contract. In one way it helped Novell, but in another it shot them in the foot by the provisions it made for UnixWare.
The CEO of Novell has been saying a lot of stuff regarding OpenSolaris. It's all FUD. Novell claimed they would not pursue their rights to Unix previously (I have a link to the article somewhere else). Now they're claiming they are going to?
Novell is a desperate company. Much like SCO was when they started all this. If you look at their quarterly reports, you'll see that most of their revenue comes from legacy products. Their revenues from SuSE is a small fraction of total revenues. Their Identity Management Solutions do pretty well but lately revenues have been flat.
So basically, Novell tried to purchase Unix to defend NetWare against MS, then they tried the same with SuSE and while their Linux lines is growing, the company isn't really doing much better financially.
One thing I read was that Ray Noorda, who started Novell and was CEO for a long time, resigned his post at Novell when Novell decided to purchase Unix instead of moving to Linux. I don't know how accurate this is, but the fact that he provided the startup capital for Caldera does give some weight to that comment.
Novell may also be a little pissed because back when they were competing with Sun to buy SuSE, Novell had to fork over a lot more money to counter Sun's bid. They even had to get $50million from IBM to be able to do so. And now Sun owns MySQL which Novell relies on for some of their products and services.
Novell may be saying certain things in court to strengthen their claims against S
It still doesn't make sense. An example I used previously was that if you walk into a store, buy a product and pay the cashier, but the cashier pockets the money instead of putting it in the register, you can't expect someone to take what you bought away from you. The issue the store owner has is with the employee not you.
Someone countered that with the analogy, you walk into a store, the cashier sells you the register, which he is not authorized to sell and then pockets the money. Well, the store owner can't claim the money and get the register back.
By arguing that SCO owes them the money because the transaction should have been covered by the APA, they're asserting the transaction was valid under the APA.
Novell's argument seems pretty weak. If you could backup your claims with direct quotes or line numbers and links to the appropriate day of testimony I'd be interested in seeing it.
Sun along with IBM bought out their Unix licenses a long time ago. Sun paid close to $90million for that. Since 1994 they have been developing Solaris mostly in house.
In addition, the original SYSVR4 was developed jointly by Sun and AT&T. Parts of BSD were also included in SYSVR4. And as you probably know, Sun and Bill Joy (a founder of Sun) had a lot to do with the writing of BSD. So I think it's safe to assume that Sun probably wrote more of than Novell.
AT&T and Sun transferred the Unix code to Unix Laboratories to license, so that other companies could benefit from their open standards. Eventually Novell bought Unix Labs for around $300mil so they could try and save NetWare which was dieing now that Windows had some server capabilities. That never really worked out for them. Then they sold SCO the licensing rights for $120-150mil in stock.
Imagine Linus moves all the rights for the Linux Kernel to some separate entity, then years later that entity gets bought and sold a few times. Then that company sues Linus for using the kernel.
I get it, you don't manage a lot of servers, you're not a developer, you say a lot of stuff with out backing it up, you don't make much sense, you're an MBA. Fun game. Thanks for letting me play.
SCO was the licensing agent for Unix according to the APA. All SYSVR4 licensing had to go through SCO. This is not in dispute.
Novell is currently suing SCO to get their 95% of the fees paid by MS, Sun and some other smaller fish. How is it that Novell can say SCO didn't have the rights under the APA to license what they did, and then on top of it claim SCO owes them 95% of what Sun paid because it was under the APA? That doesn't make any sense.
If Sun gets sued by Novell over this it would be very funny. Firstly, Novell has had plenty of time to contest the matter with Sun since OpenSolaris had been announced such a long time ago. Secondly, Novell claimed that they will not be pursing any claims against Unix. "We're no longer in the Unix business" I think was the direct quote.
If you understood the history of SYSVR4 it would paint Novell in a very bad light to squabble over this with Sun. If Novell does take action against Novell it would be similar to what SCO did. A last desperate attempt by a once profitable company with a good product trying to keep themselves afloat. Sun is no SCO.
SCO's UnixWare had probably the best i386 support of any Unix out there at the time. Part of what Sun bought was related to that since they needed to add better support for Solaris on x86 after fumbling around with x86.
To say Unix has languished for over a decade is wrong. UnixWare and the base of SYSVR4 may have but others like Solaris and AIX have not. Solaris has been making many improvements over the years. Some major ones at that.
Personally, I have my doubts about how this whole thing was started, McBride used to work at Novell, Raymond Noorda was also the CEO/founder of Novell and he has strong ties to Caldera and the group that bought SCO I can't remember the name of.
Every time I can remember that Noorda bought a significant IP from Novell he wound up using it to file lawsuits. Primarily MS. He hated them. So that one of his companies suing over Novell's IP is nothing new.
That's not from the article, it's from Sun's marketing blurb. Those capabilities fall into two categories: those that Linux already supports at least as well, and those that are irrelevant. That's from the zdnet blog I posted a link from.
That depends on the track record of that company, and Sun's is that when Sun workstations were actually popular, people would replace Sun's utilities, compilers, and window system with the GNU and MIT versions. Were you even around to use sun workstations "when they were actually popular"? It doesn't seem like it. For the most part Sun's utilities work fine. Some of the GNU utilities had incompatibilities with some of Sun's and GNU's had some more features which is why it was common to grab and compile a bunch of GNU tools. As for using GCC, that was usually because Solaris didn't come with the Sun compiler tools. You had to buy those seperately. And at the time, and still to this day, they tend to compile code that performs better than GCC.
Microsoft dropped the Ballmer. HA! Funny, but I wonder if it was Yahoo!'s mistake not MS.
I've been monitoring the stats for this one website since we did a redesign and some changes to the application to get more search engine traffic. And I noticed something different.
Google has always been the search engine that brought by far most traffic to this site. Not that it's a very popular site or anything. But lately, while the number of hits from Google are roughly the same (a decent increase because of the changes), the hits from www.live.com have been big. The combined hits from MSN Search and Windows Live are greater than the hits from Google. These used to be hardly noticable before.
Yahoo was always a very distant second behind Google's traffic to the site. Something like 8x more traffic from google than Yahoo. I never even noticed Windows live before.
Has anyone else seen anything similar? I doubt it's just the changes that were made to the site.
Also, how can Novell claim they're owed money from the Sun agreement and claim that SCO didn't have authority to execute that agreement at the same time? That doesn't make any sense.
Can you be more specific because and include any links because I don't plan on reading all the transcripts. It is also contrary to what Novell has openly said before, which makes it kind of a dickish move in my book.
I do know that SYSVR4 was jointly developed by Sun and AT&T before Novell bought any rights to it and that Sun had certain rights even before purchasing anything from Novell.
I know that (been trying Solaris since some time now) but in my case the NIC was Intel e1000e and Masayuki san has not gotten around to writing a driver for it and nor does the e1000 driver work when adding the mapping. Same problem with SATA and bog standard Intel AHCI. I know it has e1000g but I'm not seeing anything for e1000e. The only other Intel driver I know that comes installed is iprb for Intel Pro/100 VE Ethernet, Intel 82559 PRO/100 VM Ethernet, Intel 82801DB Ethernet 82562ET/EZ PHY, Intel 82801DB PRO/100 VE Ethernet, Intel Pro100/B Fast Ethernet, Intel i815/82559 Ethernet or similarly labeled. If that helps any.
I think I was wrong about SuSE but I'm still pretty sure if you installed RHEL and accepted all the defaults you'd wind up with Gnome, not KDE. Same is true for Fedora. From here "The default display manager on Fedora is GDM - The GNOME Display Manager."
Sun may prefer Gnome, but you shouldn't generalize that every major distro defaults to it, because that just isn't true. I didn't. I wasn't claiming "every major distro", just the mainstream linux distros that Sun wants to compare OpenSolaris with.
Nothing against KDE, just my rationale for why I think Sun went with Gnome.
So what you're saying is that OpenSolaris is to Solaris as Fedora is to RHEL? Thanks, but no thanks. The difference is you can get and use Solaris for free. You can't do that with RHEL.
And CentOS is not RHEL in that you can't go using CentOS for free until you decide you want support and then buy a RHEL license and expect them to support it.
Novell taking on SCO is one thing, Novell taking on Sun is quite another. Sun is a much bigger company than Novell and a lot more money. It's not worth the fight.
It seems like SCO stiffed Novell by not giving them their cut of the licenses, but that doesn't mean the licenses they gave were invalid. If that was the case, the issue would have come up already.
Novell gets some good publicity in their fight against SCO, but in reality, they're not much of a player in anything. SuSE isn't that popular, at some point their revenues for their legacy products will dry up, and then what's left? There revenue has been declining for years and their profits have been iffy. All they're going to get out of the SCO trial is some pats on the back since SCO doesn't have any more money.
While there's no arguing that what SCO did was messed up, I don't really see Novell in a good light either. Novell purchased the rights to Unix for $300mil. The transaction between Novell and SCO was for about $120-150Mill. So SCO paid about half of what Novell paid and only gets 5% in licensing fees and no patent or copyrights according to Novell.
This just doesn't seem right to me. Either Novell seriously screwed over SCO and they were too stupid to know it, or something else is going on. Ray Noorda, who was CEO of Novell, left to start Caldera. Noorda is undeniably the reason Novell was who they were. From what I could gather they did have a good relationship.
Bottom line, I don't understand how Novell can claim they pretty much just sold a 5% commission deal for 50% of what they paid and act like their shit doesn't stink either.
According the wikipedia
Up to his death, Noorda owned the Canopy Group. One of its holdings, Caldera Systems, purchased the Unix assets in 1995 from the Santa Cruz Operation, which had acquired them from Novell. In 1996 it also acquired the Digital Research assets from Novell and immediately brought a lawsuit against Microsoft that largely duplicated the claims that the FTC and Department of Justice had pursued in the early 1990s. The lawsuit was ultimately settled in 2000 with a $275 million payment to Caldera. Every time one of Norda's companies purchases something that used to belong to Novell, they sue. Usually Microsoft (Noorda hated MS).
Sorry but it just seems fishy to me. How would Novell not expect that SCO/Caldera would ultimately sue. Maybe Novell was aware of a possible lawsuit to attack RedHat while they were making moves with SuSE?
Is it just me, but it seems that stories related to Sun, at least the ones that aren't bashing it in some way, always seem to come late in the day. Even when the submission was a lot earlier than that.
Crap. gnome?! WTF is wrong with people? Sun put a lot of time and money into GNOME when they were working on JDS. Most notably in the accessibility features of GNOME.
GNOME is also the default for most mainstream linux distributions that Sun would want to position OpenSolaris against. RHEL, SuSE, CentOS, Ubuntu, Fedora.
You should be able to compile KDE, or you can get a precompiled package on blastwave.org.
Moving to a OpenSolaris based distribution just feels awkward and wrong It's been about 3 years since the source for ZFS has been released through OpenSolaris and it doesn't seem like the other platforms have a suitable version yet. Maybe OS X but I'm not sure.
Get over your fanaticism and use the tool that works for what you need. You 5 digit ID freak!:)
If I remember correctly, they swapped linux kernel with sun kernel and added some tools. Since debian (foundation of Ubuntu) is kernel agnostic (but linux is the working kernel), SUN just ported Ubuntu to solaris. More on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexenta_OS What you said relates to Nexenta which is a distribution of OpenSolaris. Indiana is the distribution from OpenSolaris.
I'm not sure if this is the case, but I got the impression that RAID-Z isn't the way they'd like you to use ZFS because you'd get better reliability and performance from just adding multiple mirrored sets to the pool. You can add multiple RAID-Z sets to a pool and that will give you better performance than adding one big RAID-Z. I can't find the link but there was a blog posting comparing IOPS in different setups and the recommendation was to use a max of 4-5 drives per RAID-Z vdev.
I haven't played around with ZFS so I'm surprised to hear that it can't grow like you described. Hopefully that changes soon.
Do you know if you can add a mirrored vdev to a pool that contains a RAID-Z vdev?
read these comments From that same article you linked to:
UPDATE: See our follow-up story for more. Joyent was using an older version of ZFS, and the bug in question was fixed nearly a year ago. From that article it seems that patching/updating OpenSolaris isn't the same as patching/updating Solaris. I have no personal experience in updating OpenSolaris though. OpenSolaris does seem to have the smpatch utility.
They're in FreeBSD. There's more to free unix then Linux you know.. I was referencing the original poster's Linux reference.
I knew that ZFS and DTrace ports were in the works, though I haven't really followed up to see if they were finished. I didn't think Zones were being ported, rather that FreeBSD were focusing their efforts on improving Jails.
Hey! It's Debian! Debian founder, Ian Murdock (the "ian" in Debian) was hired by Sun to lead Project Indiana. "Since joining Sun, he has led Project Indiana, which he describes as "taking the lesson that Linux has brought to the operating system and providing that for Solaris," making a full OpenSolaris distribution with GNOME and userland tools from GNU plus a network-based package management system."
Yep, I knew someone would come in and fill in the gaps. It's also worth mentioning, Solaris Express, OpenSolaris and Sun's Solaris releases all use the same codebase.
I see nothing compelling in there. Solaris is an unpopular kernel with few drivers, a bunch of second-rate command line utilities, and Sun software engineering behind it. Now, tell me again: why do I want that? Well if you bothered to read the article...
unpopular kernel with few drivers Less popular maybe, unpopular definately not and the drivers available for Solaris have been growing fast. Sun derives a lot of their $12Billion+ a year revenue from products related to Solaris.
From the article:
Beauty is not only skin-deep. OpenSolaris employs the very same enterprise-proven high-performance Solaris 10 kernel that powers the biggest and baddest Sun boxes, and has the stability and monolithic scalability to match, something that commodity Linux desktops and servers â" while far more stable and sprightly than Windows OSes â" lack in comparison. In addition to the Solaris 10 kernel, OpenSolaris makes use of Sunâ(TM)s advanced 128-bit Zetabyte File System or ZFS, which permits âoepoolingâ of storage on networked Solaris-based systems, as well as Solaris 10â(TM)s native âoecontainersâ for OS-based high performance virtualization. Like its Linux cousins, OpenSolaris and Solaris 10 is also Xen-hypervisor enabled as both a virtualization domain and guest.
a bunch of second-rate command line utilities Open Solaris comes with the same GNU utilities I commonly use in CentOS and Debian in the/usr/sfw directory.
and Sun software engineering behind it To many this is a plus to have a large company that has been around for a long time behind a product they use.
It seems to me they adopted some of the stuff from blastwave's pkg-get.
Blastwave provided tools like Debian's apt tools. They also hosted a large number of precompiled solaris packages. You could use pkg-get install some-package and it would fetch and install dependant packages as well. For people used to linux packaging systems, this is no big deal but Solaris' pkgadd tools kinda sucked in comparison.
I have a feeling that somehow Blastwave was involved in this project but I haven't really seen much, though I admittedly haven't really searched a lot.
I know that in the past Blastwave didn't get a lot of Sun's attention or support like Sunfreeware used to, and there were at least a couple of times where Blastwave was about to go offline because it didn't have the financing to pay the bandwidth.
It seems now that IPS can get packages from blastwave.network.com (network.com being Sun's grid engine). So has Sun embraced Blastwave now?
Slashdot Mirror
When it was announced that MySQL would be releasing some features in MySQL Enterprise and not in the community edition the original Slashdot headline was "Sun to close MySQL" or something similar.
Then Mickos (former CEO of MySQL AB and SVP of Sun Database group) comes here and says that it was MySQL's plan to do this before the acquisition by Sun and that it was in fact Sun who wanted them to release everything to the community. And if Sun had their way it would.
So now that Sun convinces Mickos to change his strategy the headline is "MySQL Reverses Decision On Closed Source"
HAHAHAHAHA
You say that as if it's a good thing. Running code faster is not a good thing?
Sigh. Yes, it does. The point is, Sun needs to deal with _Novell_, not SCO. Sun has been warned by Novell that they do not regard the deal as valid. What Novell is doing is demanding that SCO give them the money that is rightfully theirs from an invalid deal. Once that money is in hand, Novell will decide whether or not to pursue Sun for violation of their original contract.
You're wrong. Sun does not need to deal with Novell. SCO was the licensing agent. Nobody could go directly to Novell for any sort of Unix licensing. That part is clear.
An analogy I made in a previous article was that if you walk into a store, go to the counter and buy something, the cashier takes the money and pockets it, you're not at fault. You did what you were supposed to do and the store owner has to go after the employee for the money, not you.
It was countered by someone giving a different example. You go into a store, the cashier sells you the register, which isn't for sale.
Lets assume the cashier works on commission. The store owner can't demand that the employee give him the store owners cut, then go back to you and get the register back. The store owner cannot and should not be remedied twice for the same violation. If you get in a car accident and your insurance company pays your hospital bills, you cannot sue the driver at fault for your hospital bills as well.
Sun worked with AT&T to create SYSVR4. SYSVR4 also contains a bit of BSD of which Bill Joy (founder of Sun) was one of the leading developers. According to Schwartz. Novell suing Sun over SYSVR4 is like someone suing Linus over Linux.
Schwartz: We took a license from AT&T initially for $100 million as we didnt own the IP. The license we took also made clear that we had rights equivalent to ownership. When we did the deal with SCO earlier this year we bought a bunch of drivers and when we give money to a company oftentimes we get warrants, which is part of the negotiations. I have warrants in 100 different companies, we have a huge venture portfolio. I cant do anything about the perception thats out there and to be blunt, I dont care as those people arent going to drive our futureâ"customers are.
The APA seems to be a poorly written contract. In one way it helped Novell, but in another it shot them in the foot by the provisions it made for UnixWare.
The CEO of Novell has been saying a lot of stuff regarding OpenSolaris. It's all FUD. Novell claimed they would not pursue their rights to Unix previously (I have a link to the article somewhere else). Now they're claiming they are going to?
Novell is a desperate company. Much like SCO was when they started all this. If you look at their quarterly reports, you'll see that most of their revenue comes from legacy products. Their revenues from SuSE is a small fraction of total revenues. Their Identity Management Solutions do pretty well but lately revenues have been flat.
So basically, Novell tried to purchase Unix to defend NetWare against MS, then they tried the same with SuSE and while their Linux lines is growing, the company isn't really doing much better financially.
One thing I read was that Ray Noorda, who started Novell and was CEO for a long time, resigned his post at Novell when Novell decided to purchase Unix instead of moving to Linux. I don't know how accurate this is, but the fact that he provided the startup capital for Caldera does give some weight to that comment.
Novell may also be a little pissed because back when they were competing with Sun to buy SuSE, Novell had to fork over a lot more money to counter Sun's bid. They even had to get $50million from IBM to be able to do so. And now Sun owns MySQL which Novell relies on for some of their products and services.
Novell may be saying certain things in court to strengthen their claims against S
I actually read the transcripts now.
It still doesn't make sense. An example I used previously was that if you walk into a store, buy a product and pay the cashier, but the cashier pockets the money instead of putting it in the register, you can't expect someone to take what you bought away from you. The issue the store owner has is with the employee not you.
Someone countered that with the analogy, you walk into a store, the cashier sells you the register, which he is not authorized to sell and then pockets the money. Well, the store owner can't claim the money and get the register back.
By arguing that SCO owes them the money because the transaction should have been covered by the APA, they're asserting the transaction was valid under the APA.
Novell's argument seems pretty weak. If you could backup your claims with direct quotes or line numbers and links to the appropriate day of testimony I'd be interested in seeing it.
Sun along with IBM bought out their Unix licenses a long time ago. Sun paid close to $90million for that. Since 1994 they have been developing Solaris mostly in house.
In addition, the original SYSVR4 was developed jointly by Sun and AT&T. Parts of BSD were also included in SYSVR4. And as you probably know, Sun and Bill Joy (a founder of Sun) had a lot to do with the writing of BSD. So I think it's safe to assume that Sun probably wrote more of than Novell.
AT&T and Sun transferred the Unix code to Unix Laboratories to license, so that other companies could benefit from their open standards. Eventually Novell bought Unix Labs for around $300mil so they could try and save NetWare which was dieing now that Windows had some server capabilities. That never really worked out for them. Then they sold SCO the licensing rights for $120-150mil in stock.
Imagine Linus moves all the rights for the Linux Kernel to some separate entity, then years later that entity gets bought and sold a few times. Then that company sues Linus for using the kernel.
I get it, you don't manage a lot of servers, you're not a developer, you say a lot of stuff with out backing it up, you don't make much sense, you're an MBA. Fun game. Thanks for letting me play.
SCO was the licensing agent for Unix according to the APA. All SYSVR4 licensing had to go through SCO. This is not in dispute.
Novell is currently suing SCO to get their 95% of the fees paid by MS, Sun and some other smaller fish. How is it that Novell can say SCO didn't have the rights under the APA to license what they did, and then on top of it claim SCO owes them 95% of what Sun paid because it was under the APA? That doesn't make any sense.
If Sun gets sued by Novell over this it would be very funny. Firstly, Novell has had plenty of time to contest the matter with Sun since OpenSolaris had been announced such a long time ago. Secondly, Novell claimed that they will not be pursing any claims against Unix. "We're no longer in the Unix business" I think was the direct quote.
If you understood the history of SYSVR4 it would paint Novell in a very bad light to squabble over this with Sun. If Novell does take action against Novell it would be similar to what SCO did. A last desperate attempt by a once profitable company with a good product trying to keep themselves afloat. Sun is no SCO.
SCO's UnixWare had probably the best i386 support of any Unix out there at the time. Part of what Sun bought was related to that since they needed to add better support for Solaris on x86 after fumbling around with x86.
To say Unix has languished for over a decade is wrong. UnixWare and the base of SYSVR4 may have but others like Solaris and AIX have not. Solaris has been making many improvements over the years. Some major ones at that.
Personally, I have my doubts about how this whole thing was started, McBride used to work at Novell, Raymond Noorda was also the CEO/founder of Novell and he has strong ties to Caldera and the group that bought SCO I can't remember the name of.
Every time I can remember that Noorda bought a significant IP from Novell he wound up using it to file lawsuits. Primarily MS. He hated them. So that one of his companies suing over Novell's IP is nothing new.
I've been monitoring the stats for this one website since we did a redesign and some changes to the application to get more search engine traffic. And I noticed something different.
Google has always been the search engine that brought by far most traffic to this site. Not that it's a very popular site or anything. But lately, while the number of hits from Google are roughly the same (a decent increase because of the changes), the hits from www.live.com have been big. The combined hits from MSN Search and Windows Live are greater than the hits from Google. These used to be hardly noticable before.
Yahoo was always a very distant second behind Google's traffic to the site. Something like 8x more traffic from google than Yahoo. I never even noticed Windows live before.
Has anyone else seen anything similar? I doubt it's just the changes that were made to the site.
Also, how can Novell claim they're owed money from the Sun agreement and claim that SCO didn't have authority to execute that agreement at the same time? That doesn't make any sense.
Can you be more specific because and include any links because I don't plan on reading all the transcripts. It is also contrary to what Novell has openly said before, which makes it kind of a dickish move in my book.
I do know that SYSVR4 was jointly developed by Sun and AT&T before Novell bought any rights to it and that Sun had certain rights even before purchasing anything from Novell.
Nothing against KDE, just my rationale for why I think Sun went with Gnome.
And CentOS is not RHEL in that you can't go using CentOS for free until you decide you want support and then buy a RHEL license and expect them to support it.
Novell taking on SCO is one thing, Novell taking on Sun is quite another. Sun is a much bigger company than Novell and a lot more money. It's not worth the fight.
It seems like SCO stiffed Novell by not giving them their cut of the licenses, but that doesn't mean the licenses they gave were invalid. If that was the case, the issue would have come up already.
Novell gets some good publicity in their fight against SCO, but in reality, they're not much of a player in anything. SuSE isn't that popular, at some point their revenues for their legacy products will dry up, and then what's left? There revenue has been declining for years and their profits have been iffy. All they're going to get out of the SCO trial is some pats on the back since SCO doesn't have any more money.
While there's no arguing that what SCO did was messed up, I don't really see Novell in a good light either. Novell purchased the rights to Unix for $300mil. The transaction between Novell and SCO was for about $120-150Mill. So SCO paid about half of what Novell paid and only gets 5% in licensing fees and no patent or copyrights according to Novell.
This just doesn't seem right to me. Either Novell seriously screwed over SCO and they were too stupid to know it, or something else is going on. Ray Noorda, who was CEO of Novell, left to start Caldera. Noorda is undeniably the reason Novell was who they were. From what I could gather they did have a good relationship.
Bottom line, I don't understand how Novell can claim they pretty much just sold a 5% commission deal for 50% of what they paid and act like their shit doesn't stink either.
According the wikipedia Up to his death, Noorda owned the Canopy Group. One of its holdings, Caldera Systems, purchased the Unix assets in 1995 from the Santa Cruz Operation, which had acquired them from Novell. In 1996 it also acquired the Digital Research assets from Novell and immediately brought a lawsuit against Microsoft that largely duplicated the claims that the FTC and Department of Justice had pursued in the early 1990s. The lawsuit was ultimately settled in 2000 with a $275 million payment to Caldera. Every time one of Norda's companies purchases something that used to belong to Novell, they sue. Usually Microsoft (Noorda hated MS).
Sorry but it just seems fishy to me. How would Novell not expect that SCO/Caldera would ultimately sue. Maybe Novell was aware of a possible lawsuit to attack RedHat while they were making moves with SuSE?
Is it just me, but it seems that stories related to Sun, at least the ones that aren't bashing it in some way, always seem to come late in the day. Even when the submission was a lot earlier than that.
GNOME is also the default for most mainstream linux distributions that Sun would want to position OpenSolaris against. RHEL, SuSE, CentOS, Ubuntu, Fedora.
You should be able to compile KDE, or you can get a precompiled package on blastwave.org.
Get over your fanaticism and use the tool that works for what you need. You 5 digit ID freak!
More on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexenta_OS What you said relates to Nexenta which is a distribution of OpenSolaris. Indiana is the distribution from OpenSolaris.
I'm not sure if this is the case, but I got the impression that RAID-Z isn't the way they'd like you to use ZFS because you'd get better reliability and performance from just adding multiple mirrored sets to the pool. You can add multiple RAID-Z sets to a pool and that will give you better performance than adding one big RAID-Z. I can't find the link but there was a blog posting comparing IOPS in different setups and the recommendation was to use a max of 4-5 drives per RAID-Z vdev.
I haven't played around with ZFS so I'm surprised to hear that it can't grow like you described. Hopefully that changes soon.
Do you know if you can add a mirrored vdev to a pool that contains a RAID-Z vdev?
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/Jan/15/joyent_backup_services_down_for_three_days.html
read these comments From that same article you linked to: UPDATE: See our follow-up story for more. Joyent was using an older version of ZFS, and the bug in question was fixed nearly a year ago. From that article it seems that patching/updating OpenSolaris isn't the same as patching/updating Solaris. I have no personal experience in updating OpenSolaris though. OpenSolaris does seem to have the smpatch utility.
There's more to free unix then Linux you know.. I was referencing the original poster's Linux reference.
I knew that ZFS and DTrace ports were in the works, though I haven't really followed up to see if they were finished. I didn't think Zones were being ported, rather that FreeBSD were focusing their efforts on improving Jails.
Yep, I knew someone would come in and fill in the gaps. It's also worth mentioning, Solaris Express, OpenSolaris and Sun's Solaris releases all use the same codebase.
From the article: Beauty is not only skin-deep. OpenSolaris employs the very same enterprise-proven high-performance Solaris 10 kernel that powers the biggest and baddest Sun boxes, and has the stability and monolithic scalability to match, something that commodity Linux desktops and servers â" while far more stable and sprightly than Windows OSes â" lack in comparison. In addition to the Solaris 10 kernel, OpenSolaris makes use of Sunâ(TM)s advanced 128-bit Zetabyte File System or ZFS, which permits âoepoolingâ of storage on networked Solaris-based systems, as well as Solaris 10â(TM)s native âoecontainersâ for OS-based high performance virtualization. Like its Linux cousins, OpenSolaris and Solaris 10 is also Xen-hypervisor enabled as both a virtualization domain and guest. a bunch of second-rate command line utilities Open Solaris comes with the same GNU utilities I commonly use in CentOS and Debian in the
It seems to me they adopted some of the stuff from blastwave's pkg-get.
Blastwave provided tools like Debian's apt tools. They also hosted a large number of precompiled solaris packages. You could use pkg-get install some-package and it would fetch and install dependant packages as well. For people used to linux packaging systems, this is no big deal but Solaris' pkgadd tools kinda sucked in comparison.
I have a feeling that somehow Blastwave was involved in this project but I haven't really seen much, though I admittedly haven't really searched a lot.
I know that in the past Blastwave didn't get a lot of Sun's attention or support like Sunfreeware used to, and there were at least a couple of times where Blastwave was about to go offline because it didn't have the financing to pay the bandwidth.
It seems now that IPS can get packages from blastwave.network.com (network.com being Sun's grid engine). So has Sun embraced Blastwave now?