I'm not so sure. It seems to me operating systems are something you can't even charge money for, now. I only paid for Red Hat and OpenBSD in the past by choice for warm fuzzies, but, really, I never had to lay out a dime for them. I've paid for Solaris in the past, but I recently downloaded 5 CDs for Solaris 10 for no cost. The only widely-used operating systems people pay money for are Windows and Mac OS X (sure there are others, but can I download a mainframe OS onto my PC). They pay for Windows for a lack of any choice, and they pay for Mac OS because it is an entry into a lot of cool stuff.
So, I guess Google would either have to offer people no choice (unlikely with no monopoly status), or be so damn cool that people take notice (did that work for Be?).
Nothing, it's just that in the most recent kernels, they are being versioned as "stable" when some people find they are not. It's a matter of what the label says and what's actually in the can.
Actually, the jobs of IBM, Sun, and CA are complex, they need to satisfy stockholders, and they need to keep moving forward in the markets. I really don't think they could ever be malicious against Linux, because it would literally be suicide for them. The bad PR would be ruinous, Slashdot would be lethal, and the stockholders would pull the rope on the guillitine.
Even the CDDL is not malicous, as people want to believe. If you read the information for OpenSolaris and at Sun executives's blog, there is a pretty good rebuttal of the accusations here at Slashdot and at Groklaw.
The people really digging for dirt trying to pin Linux as the victim really come off sounding like conspiracy theorists of the worst kind. Like with the government, the information you really need to make a case is trade secrets, so you just have to wait and see what happens.
One thing hurting Linux' credibility is that it is hard to predict volatility in it. If it works out that I would know to avoid odd 2.6.x releases, that would be very helpful.
People want everything, so obviously it's difficult to balance development against stability. This is one area where Solaris has an edge, where even though it takes longer from something to get into the commercial release, at least someone took a look at it before putting it there. Only now has GNOME made it officially into Solaris 10, but there are few issues with it, which is nice.
"...that some robots are more emphatic and caring than some people that walk the earth."
IIRC, robot brains following the three laws of robotics eventually came to control the world's economies in I, Robot (by Issac Asimov). The three laws bound them to always work for the common good.
Apparently China is on board with Linux. And the vendor is big evil Linux-hating Sun Microsystems! (thousands of trolls' heads explode over this paradox)
I'm sorry if there was any confusion. Any time someone accuses me of being a Sun employee, I always make it clear that I'm not.
The reason I linked to your blog is that it's the best discussion of the reasoning behind the CDDL I've seen so far. It even beats the OpenSolaris.org FAQ. Unfortunately, Slashdot's signature length limit prevents me from adding a good disclaimer that you're not me, so I'll remove the link for the time being.
The problem is that those people are starting to become extinct.
It's fine that you or your company don't like Solaris, but the fact that well over a half-million people downloaded Solaris 10 in three weeks says that it really isn't becoming extinct. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Actually, if you read their FAQs, it's because they need to be able to release the code under different licenses for source and binaries, for example, something not allowed under the GPL. There also appears to be the ability in the CDDL to combine CDDL'd files with other files under different licenses, which is restricted under the GPL.
Sun does have their reasons. They are pretty much pragmatic in nature and not mean spirited, IMO.
For more information on what the CDDL offers, there's the FAQ at www.opensolaris.org and the link in my sig.
Also, OpenSolaris isn't just about freeloading off of OSS developers. Think about large Sun customers who would love to have access to the code for troubleshooting, for example, or about ISVs who develop software for Solaris.
And Solaris 10 isn't ancient at all. In fact, no other vendor really offers anything close for the price, even IBM.
Store-bought sugar is just purified sucrose, composed of glucose and fructose. It is natural, but is stripped of other trace nutrients during refinement. It's basically harmless in moderation, and, you have to admit, good cookies cannot be made without it.
I don't work for Sun. I wouldn't mind it, but it's unlikely to ever happen (geography, family, etc.).
The people who think that everything be under the GPL just need to look around at all the code they use that is not under the GPL. X.org is not under the GPL. Mozilla/Firefox are not under the GPL. Apache is not under the GPL. OpenBSD actively seeks ways to remove GPL'd code from their system (they have a special directory in their source tree just for GPL'd code).
Also, the one-size-fits-all philosophy doesn't work well in a world where software patents are still a threat, for example. Sun's lawyers spent years on this problem to come up with a workable solution, and part of that solution happens to be the CDDL. Take it or leave it, that is part of what freedom entails.
Open sourcing UNIX is a tad more difficult than what Adobe is doing. Sun had to untangle 30 years of UNIX copyright and patents, for starters. Solaris 10 is now free of charge (UNIX was really really expensive, once), and Open Solaris will be open source, and people still complain.
Or is it that everyone on Slashdot is still living on daddy's penny and doesn't know the value in all this?
Solaris can scale bigger than 106CPUs or even 144CPUs (E25K), it's just that Sun doesn't sell bigger computers. It's target markets are different than SGIs. Seriously, how many 256+ CPU machines does SGI really expect to sell? Sun is a volume dealer, SGI is not.
Is this a cleverly worded troll? Where does.NET really incorporate aspect-oriented programming? How is it truly rapid development? (hint: compiled programs are not RAD)
The people I'm referring to used antidepressants to get through a semester at school or think they are a band-aid for them being fat and lazy (it doesn't fix either, btw). How much of depression is really depression and how much is people feeling they don't fit other people's abitrary ideals and blame themselves? The latter doesn't need medication, it needs an attitude adjustment.
The key to LaTeX is that once you are part-way up the learning curve, you have sample files that become the starting points for everything else you do. You really only need to figure out a certain style of LaTeX document once, then it's just copy the template and fill in the content.
There are a couple really good books out there. The one I have is A Guide to LaTeX 2e by Kopka and Daly.
One thing about something like LaTeX is that it gets better and better and better the bigger your document gets. At a certain threshold, having a text-based system is really nice when Make and CVS can help manage everything.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure. It seems to me operating systems are something you can't even charge money for, now. I only paid for Red Hat and OpenBSD in the past by choice for warm fuzzies, but, really, I never had to lay out a dime for them. I've paid for Solaris in the past, but I recently downloaded 5 CDs for Solaris 10 for no cost. The only widely-used operating systems people pay money for are Windows and Mac OS X (sure there are others, but can I download a mainframe OS onto my PC). They pay for Windows for a lack of any choice, and they pay for Mac OS because it is an entry into a lot of cool stuff.
So, I guess Google would either have to offer people no choice (unlikely with no monopoly status), or be so damn cool that people take notice (did that work for Be?).
What's wrong with 2.4?
Nothing, it's just that in the most recent kernels, they are being versioned as "stable" when some people find they are not. It's a matter of what the label says and what's actually in the can.
Actually, the jobs of IBM, Sun, and CA are complex, they need to satisfy stockholders, and they need to keep moving forward in the markets. I really don't think they could ever be malicious against Linux, because it would literally be suicide for them. The bad PR would be ruinous, Slashdot would be lethal, and the stockholders would pull the rope on the guillitine.
Even the CDDL is not malicous, as people want to believe. If you read the information for OpenSolaris and at Sun executives's blog, there is a pretty good rebuttal of the accusations here at Slashdot and at Groklaw.
The people really digging for dirt trying to pin Linux as the victim really come off sounding like conspiracy theorists of the worst kind. Like with the government, the information you really need to make a case is trade secrets, so you just have to wait and see what happens.
Well, perhaps Linux is maturing enough where it could be 2.6 forever. Solaris has had the SunOS 5.X kernels for a decade or so, now.
This would be a good thing, IMO. A mature base is necessary to really tackle Windows in the years ahead.
One thing hurting Linux' credibility is that it is hard to predict volatility in it. If it works out that I would know to avoid odd 2.6.x releases, that would be very helpful.
People want everything, so obviously it's difficult to balance development against stability. This is one area where Solaris has an edge, where even though it takes longer from something to get into the commercial release, at least someone took a look at it before putting it there. Only now has GNOME made it officially into Solaris 10, but there are few issues with it, which is nice.
The article just says Microsoft is showing a prototype, not that your own house will be filled with Microsoft robots this evening, so calm down.
Actually, Microsoft's track record is that version on store shelves _is_ the prototype.
"...that some robots are more emphatic and caring than some people that walk the earth."
IIRC, robot brains following the three laws of robotics eventually came to control the world's economies in I, Robot (by Issac Asimov). The three laws bound them to always work for the common good.
Future Microsoft ad: "Clippy, the helpful motivational robot. Help your little boy potty train...or he gets it cut off!!! Results guaranteed."
Actually, the robot sounds like a creepy teddy bear that probably won't want to go outside.
And what was that blurb about letting the plumber into the house? Is this the "lonely housewife" feature?
Robots can be useful, but we shouldn't be pushing too many things that allow parents to further de-commit themselves from their children.
There have been concerted effort with Linux...
Apparently China is on board with Linux. And the vendor is big evil Linux-hating Sun Microsystems! (thousands of trolls' heads explode over this paradox)
I'm sorry if there was any confusion. Any time someone accuses me of being a Sun employee, I always make it clear that I'm not.
The reason I linked to your blog is that it's the best discussion of the reasoning behind the CDDL I've seen so far. It even beats the OpenSolaris.org FAQ. Unfortunately, Slashdot's signature length limit prevents me from adding a good disclaimer that you're not me, so I'll remove the link for the time being.
Thanks for letting me know of the problem.
The problem is that those people are starting to become extinct.
It's fine that you or your company don't like Solaris, but the fact that well over a half-million people downloaded Solaris 10 in three weeks says that it really isn't becoming extinct. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
It is a mean-spirited restriction.
Actually, if you read their FAQs, it's because they need to be able to release the code under different licenses for source and binaries, for example, something not allowed under the GPL. There also appears to be the ability in the CDDL to combine CDDL'd files with other files under different licenses, which is restricted under the GPL.
Sun does have their reasons. They are pretty much pragmatic in nature and not mean spirited, IMO.
Yours were clear at the moment we read "by SunFan (845761)".
Well, at least I'm not hiding behind some sort of pseudo-credible front trying to spin everything.
the scumbags at Sun
Well, at least your feelings are clear.
For more information on what the CDDL offers, there's the FAQ at www.opensolaris.org and the link in my sig.
Also, OpenSolaris isn't just about freeloading off of OSS developers. Think about large Sun customers who would love to have access to the code for troubleshooting, for example, or about ISVs who develop software for Solaris.
And Solaris 10 isn't ancient at all. In fact, no other vendor really offers anything close for the price, even IBM.
Store-bought sugar is just purified sucrose, composed of glucose and fructose. It is natural, but is stripped of other trace nutrients during refinement. It's basically harmless in moderation, and, you have to admit, good cookies cannot be made without it.
I don't work for Sun. I wouldn't mind it, but it's unlikely to ever happen (geography, family, etc.).
The people who think that everything be under the GPL just need to look around at all the code they use that is not under the GPL. X.org is not under the GPL. Mozilla/Firefox are not under the GPL. Apache is not under the GPL. OpenBSD actively seeks ways to remove GPL'd code from their system (they have a special directory in their source tree just for GPL'd code).
Also, the one-size-fits-all philosophy doesn't work well in a world where software patents are still a threat, for example. Sun's lawyers spent years on this problem to come up with a workable solution, and part of that solution happens to be the CDDL. Take it or leave it, that is part of what freedom entails.
Open sourcing UNIX is a tad more difficult than what Adobe is doing. Sun had to untangle 30 years of UNIX copyright and patents, for starters. Solaris 10 is now free of charge (UNIX was really really expensive, once), and Open Solaris will be open source, and people still complain.
Or is it that everyone on Slashdot is still living on daddy's penny and doesn't know the value in all this?
Or is this for our friends in the bottom half of this planet?
Solaris can scale bigger than 106CPUs or even 144CPUs (E25K), it's just that Sun doesn't sell bigger computers. It's target markets are different than SGIs. Seriously, how many 256+ CPU machines does SGI really expect to sell? Sun is a volume dealer, SGI is not.
Is this a cleverly worded troll? Where does
The people I'm referring to used antidepressants to get through a semester at school or think they are a band-aid for them being fat and lazy (it doesn't fix either, btw). How much of depression is really depression and how much is people feeling they don't fit other people's abitrary ideals and blame themselves? The latter doesn't need medication, it needs an attitude adjustment.
While certain features of Bash are annoying (syntactic sugar really isn't all that helpful), the vi-emulation mode is a killer feature.
The key to LaTeX is that once you are part-way up the learning curve, you have sample files that become the starting points for everything else you do. You really only need to figure out a certain style of LaTeX document once, then it's just copy the template and fill in the content.
There are a couple really good books out there. The one I have is A Guide to LaTeX 2e by Kopka and Daly.
One thing about something like LaTeX is that it gets better and better and better the bigger your document gets. At a certain threshold, having a text-based system is really nice when Make and CVS can help manage everything.
Sun and SGI are dead so I don't see unix jumping ahead in the near future.
Sun is the #1 UNIX company on the planet (edging out even IBM and HP in this market). They also sell Linux on Opteron (quite a few of them, I hear).