Except when using the "Free Binary License" or a Hardware WITH OS discount. Free Binary License has cost everywhere from zero to $120 depending on the year (I've been using Solaris for 10 years) currently, registration is free - a media kit with physical DVD is $95.
To put Solaris on a piece of hardware with more than two (2) CPUs - you can't use the "Free Binary License" - thus you have to hope you can get the Solaris license along with that used Sun hardware you got off Ebay.
This is what has stopped me from fully populating the 8 CPU max on my SparcSERVER 1000 (7 years old, but still going strong). Hopefully with the OSS version of Solaris, I'll be able to hit Ebay up for some SPARC hardware upgrades.
Darwin and Fedora have something else deeply in common. Both are Open Source projects that are heralded by their mother-companies for the OSS/News worthiness. As an additional benefit, contributed source and bug fixes to both projects do end up having a positive effect on the parent company's "real" products (OSX and RedHat Enterprise Linux).
Just like Darwin, Sun will only open the parts that will ultimately benefit Sun. Just like Fedora, they hope to get a boost from loyal Solaris (RedHat desktop) users that have been using the "Solaris Free Binary License" (yes, I qualify here on both counts).
For most of the world... It's not one or the other, it's both. Solaris is a strong OS, despite losing some market share in the last 8 years. Open Source projects benefit from being listed on the solarisfreeware web site. As an admin I've always had a tendancy to use and support whatever project has the largest cross-platform capability.
Well, how better to support a Solaris solution for your OSS project than to _run_ Solaris. More importantly, the issues in Solaris that have long dogged OSS projects (can only be compiled with gcc - must use OSS version of malloc, etc) can be found and fixed by debugging and recompiling now-open-sourced system libraries.
This depends on the room - actually. In a sunlit room, most people will not be able to notice the flicker of a CRT at equal to or above 60Hz.
In a room with incandecent bulbs noticing 60Hz to 75Hz is pretty common.
When the only light is from a flourescent bulb (the electric service timing is shot by the slow response of the gas) it is possible to percieve a blinking at much higher frequencies (although this is usually due to a timing issue between the flourecent bulb's "blink" rate and the screen's refresh timing [phosphor decay]).
Why not just pay for Lo-Jack installation? Or what about On Star?
Balmer: Research it yourselves.
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I like that last line of the article.
"I just think people should go out and research this for themselves".
Good idea, coming from a company that regularly commissions
independant researchers to prove their point of the day.
My assessment (not that you asked)?...
Well, my research showed that patent infringement issues in Linux will
more than likely get the same treatment as GIF files. If something
does come up that really is an infringement, it'll stink for a few years,
and then it will fizzle away as developers agree that there's a better
solution than the patented one anyway.
Then again, I've already got my company running on Linux servers, so
perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part. *shrugs*.
Yes, 1994 was a good year for the Internet. It's when AOL finally realized that if they don't plan for the number of connections that they are selling that they won't stay in business long.
It's one year after "the web" and "THE Net" became words in our popular culture. It's the beginning of the age of the Geek!
Bwa-haha-ha-ha. Non-techies, bow before my vast salary! Bwa-haha-ha-ha. But 2001 destroyed all we have worked for, and now (once again) many of us are living pay-check to pay-check.
Wow, usually I stay much more on topic than this....But I'm not bitter.
It's four clicks down from the home page before you reach the SELinux link. Of course, the home page itself is 1 click down, meaning that most information is at least 3 clicks down.
Splash->Home->Information Assurance->Research->Security Enhanced Linux
No, no entity - save a government Press Secretary - speaks for a government organization. If this talented group within the NSA were not speaking with their agencies approval (although, they have not said much), they would be quelched very quickly.
I really don't think that this is a 'marginal' project. I think this project does get high priority, that's what I'm saying. "High enough level" simply means that it hasn't been approved for un-firewalled use with sensitive data. That doesn't mean that they are not watching the Linux code very carefully.
If you feel that I was trying to say that this is a conspiracy... I'm sorry. I certainly didn't mean to leave that impression.
I mean to say that the NSA is watching Linux for the same reason that most of us watch the sidewalk while walking on it. The Security Enhanced Linux project is alive and well. I would hardly call it a mere proof of concept, as they've been keeping up with new kernel releases very actively.
Somebody in the government is using SELinux. The NSA is enhancing it, and auditing it. If you read the NSA Information Assurance mission statement, they are actively involved in internet security - including Linux. It's not a conspiracy if the government is watching the stuff that they are using!
However, I think you are right. So long as they don't distribute outside of thier organization, they are probably under no obligation to share back thier changes.
Just as parent post suggested. Except, the govenment is already auditing open source, and customizing the Linux kernel to it's own needs... Does nobody remember NSA Secure Linux?
Isn't that exactly what the NSA has been working on... Secure Linux?
I'd say somebody in the government is keeping a very close eye on what happens in the Linux kernel. So much so, that they are submitting patches and code to the kernel themselves.
If you build me a wheelchair ramp, and tell me that it's a gift, then I will be greatful. If it doesn't have the "non-slip" flooring feature, I'll still be grateful. If you know that you built in with pressboard sides, and you've installed this outside - should you tell me that I might be in danger? Should you offer to replace the pressboard with plywood? If you said nothing... if the edge falls off, and the ramp dumps me out of my chair, I might be very, very pissed off.
You gave me a something that I didn't pay for. However, all appreciation for the gift disappears when it dumps me on my lawn. After I've been dumped, I'll surely buy a ramp from a reputable manufacturer (even if my next door neighbor offers to build me one at half the price)...
My neighbor's work is probably better, and will probably last longer than the one from the reputable company. Yet, I will still pay more. Why? Because you dumped me on my lawn.
So, if the Apache Group has a major security issue that they decide to not fix, and fix immediately, they are deciding to dump me across my lawn. Hmm, perhaps - some things require a little bit of alarm. Perhaps I should shut-up and drag myself up the front steps?
Interesting point! As a piano player (and MIDI enthusiast) I'm ashamed that I have never really considered the ABC programs that I've seen to be End-User applications.
I'll concede your point that my use of the words 'End-User' would have to include 'General Purpose', because -- just as vertical market software (specific to RFID, specific to Medical Data aquisitionm, specific to ICBM Guidance or specific to Musicians) - there will probably always be room for Niche market profits in software. (How else can 12Tone charge $750 for the "Pro" version of Cakewalk.)
Even here, the possibility that the OSS projects that support ABC have taken quite a toll on the Shareware programmers that may have better functionality.
That is why both the article and my post specifically note 'Not-Server' and 'Not-Developer-Tools'. Programmers have a tendancy of spending a lot of time on things that will specifically make their own lives easier. This spans from building a better, VI to the Apache Web and Servlet Container projects down to the graphics processing libraries behind The GIMP.
However, the OSS End User Apps like AbiWord (that are not corporate backed) are perpetually trying to catch up with the proprietary vendors.
Yes, I could probably make a pretty good living patching and enhancing open source projects for indivdual companies... Compiere (as one example) has a lot of room for such improvements, but that's not the point. It's not about making a living, it's about launching a successful project. I am certainly not saying that the proliferation of OSS developers alone will stop me. It's that the threat of OSS developers reworking my idea into a free application is equally as high as the threat of Microsoft reworking the idea, and making it a core part of the next Windows.
The two; "big proprietary" vs. "small but numerous OSS" balance eachother out. Between these two major market forces, there's little room left for the "small but still propietary".
Again, I don't see this as a complaint as much as a simple statement of fact.
You've a good point about the difference, and in practice it's difficult to get from A to B.
The point is that, once upon a time, if I came out with a good idea, and was the first to 'market' with some sort of solution, I'd have a better chance of "making" it... Once upon a time.
I would also say that, now, the chances of Microsoft re-working my idea are just as good (if not better) than an OSS developer group getting together to re-work my idea. So, really - they are two sides to the same result. (In this single, limited scenario).
I didn't get the idea that he is complaining. I think there is a valid point there. Why is it that every successful Open Source project, that is also targeted to the End-User market (and not the server/developer market) is backed directly by a company with money to spare?
OpenOffice (Sun), Mozilla (Netscape/AOL). As the author pointed out... The Gnu Image Manipulation Project doesn't have the end-user market share (yet I would also point out that this "End-User" project is the result of 'developer', not end-user, tools).
Programmers are a commodity, good developers are not. For every 100 programmers, you'll find 1 developer that has a good idea. After hearing the idea, 95 of those programmers will say, oh, yeah - that sounds obvious (yet, they had not thought of it). That's the crux. You have 95 commodity programmers who are willing to give away 1 developers good idea, because - in hind sight - it seems obvious. Maybe a general or interesting application is actually a new idea. I'll admit that this isn't always the case, but this does happen. THAT is why copyright exists, the idea has value....There are underlying social reasons for this as well that I'll be happy to get into.
Further, I don't think it's bemoaning to point out that in the 80s (and much of the early 90s) the software industry was still open to the single developer, and also not hobbled by open source efforts. This was also before massive consolidation of the software industry. Seems to me, just a simple statement of fact.
Re:Journalistic credentials
on
Black Hat
·
· Score: 1
Well, actually journalists are usually quite tired of CEOs and Press Relations idiots who do nothing but regurgitate press releases. I find it extremely plausible that a PR person would regurgitate a press release in a conversation with a reporter.
That's not a bad reflection on the Journalist, only on me for feeding a Troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun License Info
To put Solaris on a piece of hardware with more than two (2) CPUs - you can't use the "Free Binary License" - thus you have to hope you can get the Solaris license along with that used Sun hardware you got off Ebay.
This is what has stopped me from fully populating the 8 CPU max on my SparcSERVER 1000 (7 years old, but still going strong). Hopefully with the OSS version of Solaris, I'll be able to hit Ebay up for some SPARC hardware upgrades.
Uh, NOT Linux on SPARC hardware.
Just like Darwin, Sun will only open the parts that will ultimately benefit Sun. Just like Fedora, they hope to get a boost from loyal Solaris (RedHat desktop) users that have been using the "Solaris Free Binary License" (yes, I qualify here on both counts).
I hope this helps.
Well, how better to support a Solaris solution for your OSS project than to _run_ Solaris. More importantly, the issues in Solaris that have long dogged OSS projects (can only be compiled with gcc - must use OSS version of malloc, etc) can be found and fixed by debugging and recompiling now-open-sourced system libraries.
Either way - I hadn't heard it, and I think it's pretty cool.
Basically, he was admitting that he was looking for a big thanks while not thanking those who's open-source he-himself used.
So basically, you either didn't read, didn't get it, or you're trolling on purpose. I hope that it was one of the former choices.
I use it on Windows, Linux, Solaris and HP/UX ubiquitously.
In a room with incandecent bulbs noticing 60Hz to 75Hz is pretty common.
When the only light is from a flourescent bulb (the electric service timing is shot by the slow response of the gas) it is possible to percieve a blinking at much higher frequencies (although this is usually due to a timing issue between the flourecent bulb's "blink" rate and the screen's refresh timing [phosphor decay]).
Why not just pay for Lo-Jack installation? Or what about On Star?
I like that last line of the article.
"I just think people should go out and research this for themselves".
Good idea, coming from a company that regularly commissions independant researchers to prove their point of the day.
My assessment (not that you asked)?...
Well, my research showed that patent infringement issues in Linux will more than likely get the same treatment as GIF files. If something does come up that really is an infringement, it'll stink for a few years, and then it will fizzle away as developers agree that there's a better solution than the patented one anyway.
Then again, I've already got my company running on Linux servers, so perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part. *shrugs*.
It's one year after "the web" and "THE Net" became words in our popular culture. It's the beginning of the age of the Geek!
Bwa-haha-ha-ha. Non-techies, bow before my vast salary! Bwa-haha-ha-ha. But 2001 destroyed all we have worked for, and now (once again) many of us are living pay-check to pay-check.
Wow, usually I stay much more on topic than this. ... But I'm not bitter.
My take. Nasa has more bandwidth than God. If any domain can take the hit... Nasa's can.
I'd hate to end up with the right chip-set on an otherwise buggy or crap card.
Thanks.
No, no entity - save a government Press Secretary - speaks for a government organization. If this talented group within the NSA were not speaking with their agencies approval (although, they have not said much), they would be quelched very quickly.
I really don't think that this is a 'marginal' project. I think this project does get high priority, that's what I'm saying. "High enough level" simply means that it hasn't been approved for un-firewalled use with sensitive data. That doesn't mean that they are not watching the Linux code very carefully.
I mean to say that the NSA is watching Linux for the same reason that most of us watch the sidewalk while walking on it. The Security Enhanced Linux project is alive and well. I would hardly call it a mere proof of concept, as they've been keeping up with new kernel releases very actively.
Somebody in the government is using SELinux. The NSA is enhancing it, and auditing it. If you read the NSA Information Assurance mission statement, they are actively involved in internet security - including Linux. It's not a conspiracy if the government is watching the stuff that they are using!
I think geeks have been DoJ targets for some time.
However, I think you are right. So long as they don't distribute outside of thier organization, they are probably under no obligation to share back thier changes.
Just as parent post suggested. Except, the govenment is already auditing open source, and customizing the Linux kernel to it's own needs... Does nobody remember NSA Secure Linux?
I'd say somebody in the government is keeping a very close eye on what happens in the Linux kernel. So much so, that they are submitting patches and code to the kernel themselves.
If you build me a wheelchair ramp, and tell me that it's a gift, then I will be greatful. If it doesn't have the "non-slip" flooring feature, I'll still be grateful. If you know that you built in with pressboard sides, and you've installed this outside - should you tell me that I might be in danger? Should you offer to replace the pressboard with plywood? If you said nothing... if the edge falls off, and the ramp dumps me out of my chair, I might be very, very pissed off.
You gave me a something that I didn't pay for. However, all appreciation for the gift disappears when it dumps me on my lawn. After I've been dumped, I'll surely buy a ramp from a reputable manufacturer (even if my next door neighbor offers to build me one at half the price)... My neighbor's work is probably better, and will probably last longer than the one from the reputable company. Yet, I will still pay more. Why? Because you dumped me on my lawn.
So, if the Apache Group has a major security issue that they decide to not fix, and fix immediately, they are deciding to dump me across my lawn. Hmm, perhaps - some things require a little bit of alarm. Perhaps I should shut-up and drag myself up the front steps?
I'll concede your point that my use of the words 'End-User' would have to include 'General Purpose', because -- just as vertical market software (specific to RFID, specific to Medical Data aquisitionm, specific to ICBM Guidance or specific to Musicians) - there will probably always be room for Niche market profits in software. (How else can 12Tone charge $750 for the "Pro" version of Cakewalk.)
Even here, the possibility that the OSS projects that support ABC have taken quite a toll on the Shareware programmers that may have better functionality.
However, the OSS End User Apps like AbiWord (that are not corporate backed) are perpetually trying to catch up with the proprietary vendors.
Yes, I could probably make a pretty good living patching and enhancing open source projects for indivdual companies... Compiere (as one example) has a lot of room for such improvements, but that's not the point. It's not about making a living, it's about launching a successful project. I am certainly not saying that the proliferation of OSS developers alone will stop me. It's that the threat of OSS developers reworking my idea into a free application is equally as high as the threat of Microsoft reworking the idea, and making it a core part of the next Windows.
The two; "big proprietary" vs. "small but numerous OSS" balance eachother out. Between these two major market forces, there's little room left for the "small but still propietary".
Again, I don't see this as a complaint as much as a simple statement of fact.
The point is that, once upon a time, if I came out with a good idea, and was the first to 'market' with some sort of solution, I'd have a better chance of "making" it... Once upon a time.
I would also say that, now, the chances of Microsoft re-working my idea are just as good (if not better) than an OSS developer group getting together to re-work my idea. So, really - they are two sides to the same result. (In this single, limited scenario).
OpenOffice (Sun), Mozilla (Netscape/AOL). As the author pointed out... The Gnu Image Manipulation Project doesn't have the end-user market share (yet I would also point out that this "End-User" project is the result of 'developer', not end-user, tools).
Programmers are a commodity, good developers are not. For every 100 programmers, you'll find 1 developer that has a good idea. After hearing the idea, 95 of those programmers will say, oh, yeah - that sounds obvious (yet, they had not thought of it). That's the crux. You have 95 commodity programmers who are willing to give away 1 developers good idea, because - in hind sight - it seems obvious. Maybe a general or interesting application is actually a new idea. I'll admit that this isn't always the case, but this does happen. THAT is why copyright exists, the idea has value. ...There are underlying social reasons for this as well that I'll be happy to get into.
Further, I don't think it's bemoaning to point out that in the 80s (and much of the early 90s) the software industry was still open to the single developer, and also not hobbled by open source efforts. This was also before massive consolidation of the software industry. Seems to me, just a simple statement of fact.
That's not a bad reflection on the Journalist, only on me for feeding a Troll.