Actually, they are saying that Solaris 10 and what will be Trusted Solaris 10 will share the same code base. They will be the same operating system except the trusted version gets additional features for the military/government who need them. Basically, if you run Solaris 10, you are pretty much getting the same system run by Top Secret spooky types.
Trolls like you are very frustrating. You conveniently ignore all the software like OpenOffice.org that Sun _gave_ to you, while still finding things to complain about.
Here's some food for thought: DTrace and ZFS are INTEGRATED INTO THE SOLARIS KERNEL. You have as much chance of getting Dtrace into the Linux kernel as you have of getting Linux' threading subsystem into Solaris, for example. This stuff is not a matter of./configure;make;make install. It just isn't that simple.
There really are a lot of people excited about OpenSolaris, but, like Linux and other OSS, most people won't take advantage of access to the source code. They just want the free OS that's better than Windows.
The OpenSolaris community doesn't have to be as big or bigger than Linux' to be considered a success. The BSDs thrive quite well on a smaller base of developers, for example. Also, don't forget that the BSDs, Linux, and OpenSolaris still will share the much larger body of OSS applications, like GNOME, OpenOffice.org, Gimp, etc.
People should be less concerned with the competition between Linux and OpenSolaris than they are about the general competition with Microsoft. Sun is not the enemy, here, not by a long shot.
Everything comes back to Lisp. Imagine how much time we would have saved if we just used Lisp instead of re-inventing the wheel a dozen times over. All this over those poor poor parenthesis. Did anyone ask how they felt about all this conflict?
Microsoft is just trying to one-up the Mac OS X desktop and GNOME. But in six years, when Longhorn finally ships, Mac OS and GNOME/KDE will have advanced as much as they have since six years ago.
In the year 2006: hey boss, I finally figured out why the car explodes whenever the owner hits a speedbump...we forgot to install Microsoft Finite Element Analysis Update 53 Subpatch 4, which corrected the material properties for our chassis...and why does this software keep popping up advertisements for erection pills?
Microsoft doesn't care about lowering prices for virtual PC. They're probably just waiting out the PowerPC vs. x86 deal over the next few years, and want a "classic" migration environment if they need it. Microsoft is just CYA.
This is probably because StarOffice only really started to get good with 6 and 7. 6 was okay, but I'm pretty happy with 7. Of course, there's always OpenOffice.org ($0), so saying that the price went up is somewhat disingenuous.
Smartsuite was better. Sadly, it seems IBM/Lotus couldn't market themselves from under a rock to make it popular. After a while, the only places I ever saw it was bundled on IBM laptops. A shame, too, as their organizer was superior to Outlook, their word processor was better than Word, etc.
Now, with OpenOffice.org, the reasons for WordPerfect and Smartsuite to exist are much fewer.
Like with Firefox/Mozilla undercutting IE, Sun releasing OpenOffice.org is the only long-term solution to Word. With Microsoft jerking Sun around so much with Java, this is actually Sun's way of screwing them back. Ah, sweet justice.
"Trusted" Computing has been talked about for a few years, now, and there's still nothing. Sure, there are a few computers out there with chipsets for it, but in the grand scheme, no one is using it. There just isn't any demand for it from anyone except the media industries. Besides, the thought of a hard drive being specific to one computer or the thought of third-party identity servers kinda creeps me out.
Microsoft's options for continuing their current level of revenue are basically nil. As competing desktops and office suites get better and better, Microsoft's relative value gets less and less. What other industries do they get significant revenue from? Like many companies, Microsoft has peaked and will continue as a smaller company appealing to some customers while providing legacy support for others.
You know, one product that Microsoft could do really well at is to fork WINE and provide the remaining touches so all Windows software will run. They could charge money for it, and people would buy it to run Windows games and other apps. Microsoft could still survive without Windows--again, they'll just be a much smaller company.
UNIX was never a player in Microsoft's core markets, ever.
Really? What about CAD/CAM? A lot of engineers got sucked into Windows in the late 1990s. What about scientific research? A lot of scientists dropped UNIX workstations in favor of Windows and Excel. What about publishing? I don't see Interleaf around much, anymore. What about education? A lot of college labs got Windows replacing Mac OS and Solaris. What about image processing? Photoshop was dropped for UNIX a long time ago.
You don't quite realize just how intertwined UNIX and Windows are. What about the cliche "Windows NT is the UNIX killer"? The next few years will make people who said that feel a little silly.
Microsoft is just a transitionary force from UNIX back to UNIX. UNIX used to be expensive, with software licenses in the thousands of dollars per seat, etc. Microsoft was a reaction to that, certainly, but Microsoft just doesn't do it well. They replaced an expensive predatory software business with a less expensive predatory software business. It's just a fact that people really don't like Microsoft, even if only indirectly through bad software design leading to worms, viruses, and crashes. Now, enter the FOSS systems. It's freer and cheaper than anything Microsoft can turn out. It's getting as usable. It rivals Mac OS in market share. Game producers are taking notice. It's more secure. Even the big bad old UNIX vendors are coming around with OpenSolaris and IBM's Linux. Think of Microsoft as a transitional phenomenon, nothing more.
Microsoft is the only one that actually has it right, since if you think back to the old typewriter, you have to have a Carriage Return, and a Line Feed to get to the start of the next line when typing.
I'd say everyone is right, but for different--and unimportant--reasons.
I think you oversimplify things a bit with that "three of something" theory.
I didn't intend to be US-centric, that is just the most popular example. Perhaps it would be better to state "three, plus or minus one, in any major market". The automakers tend to be grouped in threes, by nationality or continent, I think, and there is extensive cross-investment from the biggest players. Threre are really fewer automakers than meets the eye, IMO.
ARM is mainly an embedded CPU. In the embedded space, I guess you could say it's ARM, PowerPC, and... MIPS or 68k? I really don't know that much about embedded. My comment above was mainly geared towards mainstream desktop computer type things, like non-power-constrained CPUs, office suites, etc. The things everyone is aware of the marketing and branding for.
Just looking around it seems there are only a few of each type of product. There are three or four major breakfast cereal manufacturers, three or four brands of paint at the hardware store, etc. Marketing people must find this is an optimal amount of "choice" to capture the broadest base of customers.
iWork is mainstream simply by Apple announcing it. Three major vendors (Sun, Apple, and Microsoft) all now have actively-hyped office suites going for market share. The other suites, such as Smartsuite and Wordperfect, are barely even advertised.
I don't think it does. Microsoft will be around for a while, unfortunately. In my sig, I expect Solaris, Mac OS, and Linux to be the top three of the UNIX side (not necessarily in that order). The BSDs are there for completeness, as they are good systems but are niche players. The main point behind my sig is that all the options listed are either cheaper/freer than Microsoft's options or just flat out better than Microsoft's options (or both). Microsoft really is in a precarious situation, where they have only inertia carrying them at the moment (granted, it's a lot of inertia but it's definitely finite).
It's been said before, but mature industries tend towards three of something, such as GM-Ford-Chrysler. For CPUs, it has to be AMD64/ia32e, PowerPC, and SPARC. They're the only ones with any high-volume prospects. SPARC will certainly be in third place, with AMD64/ia32e and PowerPC duking it out for one and two. The fact of the matter is that Itanium won't be a mainstream processor, and PA-RISC, Alpha, and MIPS are all more-or-less EOL.
For operating systems it will still be Windows, Linux, and UNIX (predominately Mac OS and Solaris). Okay, that's four, but the other historical major players are all becoming niche legacy platforms.
For office suites, it'll be MS Office, StarOffice/OpenOffice.org, and iWork. The others are all niche players.
For browsers it'll be IE, Firefox, and Safari.
At least this will tend to simplify some things, because the non-Microsoft platforms will be fewer making supporting them easier. This is a good thing, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
ZFS is a core feature of the Solaris 10 kernel. This isn't
And since when has UFS been common across UNIX, BSD, and Linux...never! So why are you complaining, now?!?
Actually, they are saying that Solaris 10 and what will be Trusted Solaris 10 will share the same code base. They will be the same operating system except the trusted version gets additional features for the military/government who need them. Basically, if you run Solaris 10, you are pretty much getting the same system run by Top Secret spooky types.
There is a post above somewhere with someone claiming to run Sun Java on AIX. Go ask that person if he/she is telling the truth.
Trolls like you are very frustrating. You conveniently ignore all the software like OpenOffice.org that Sun _gave_ to you, while still finding things to complain about.
Here's some food for thought: DTrace and ZFS are INTEGRATED INTO THE SOLARIS KERNEL. You have as much chance of getting Dtrace into the Linux kernel as you have of getting Linux' threading subsystem into Solaris, for example. This stuff is not a matter of
There really are a lot of people excited about OpenSolaris, but, like Linux and other OSS, most people won't take advantage of access to the source code. They just want the free OS that's better than Windows.
The OpenSolaris community doesn't have to be as big or bigger than Linux' to be considered a success. The BSDs thrive quite well on a smaller base of developers, for example. Also, don't forget that the BSDs, Linux, and OpenSolaris still will share the much larger body of OSS applications, like GNOME, OpenOffice.org, Gimp, etc.
People should be less concerned with the competition between Linux and OpenSolaris than they are about the general competition with Microsoft. Sun is not the enemy, here, not by a long shot.
I could have sworn it was October, 2004, but my calender says it ain't so!
Everything comes back to Lisp. Imagine how much time we would have saved if we just used Lisp instead of re-inventing the wheel a dozen times over. All this over those poor poor parenthesis. Did anyone ask how they felt about all this conflict?
Microsoft is just trying to one-up the Mac OS X desktop and GNOME. But in six years, when Longhorn finally ships, Mac OS and GNOME/KDE will have advanced as much as they have since six years ago.
Yeah! Microsoft Finite Element Analysis 2005!!
In the year 2006: hey boss, I finally figured out why the car explodes whenever the owner hits a speedbump...we forgot to install Microsoft Finite Element Analysis Update 53 Subpatch 4, which corrected the material properties for our chassis...and why does this software keep popping up advertisements for erection pills?
The problem is that OSS will always be catching up. I have yet to see popular OSS software show real innovation.
When have you ever seen Microsoft do real innovation?
Microsoft doesn't care about lowering prices for virtual PC. They're probably just waiting out the PowerPC vs. x86 deal over the next few years, and want a "classic" migration environment if they need it. Microsoft is just CYA.
This is probably because StarOffice only really started to get good with 6 and 7. 6 was okay, but I'm pretty happy with 7. Of course, there's always OpenOffice.org ($0), so saying that the price went up is somewhat disingenuous.
Smartsuite was better. Sadly, it seems IBM/Lotus couldn't market themselves from under a rock to make it popular. After a while, the only places I ever saw it was bundled on IBM laptops. A shame, too, as their organizer was superior to Outlook, their word processor was better than Word, etc.
Now, with OpenOffice.org, the reasons for WordPerfect and Smartsuite to exist are much fewer.
Like with Firefox/Mozilla undercutting IE, Sun releasing OpenOffice.org is the only long-term solution to Word. With Microsoft jerking Sun around so much with Java, this is actually Sun's way of screwing them back. Ah, sweet justice.
"Trusted Computing, here we come!"
"Trusted" Computing has been talked about for a few years, now, and there's still nothing. Sure, there are a few computers out there with chipsets for it, but in the grand scheme, no one is using it. There just isn't any demand for it from anyone except the media industries. Besides, the thought of a hard drive being specific to one computer or the thought of third-party identity servers kinda creeps me out.
Microsoft's options for continuing their current level of revenue are basically nil. As competing desktops and office suites get better and better, Microsoft's relative value gets less and less. What other industries do they get significant revenue from? Like many companies, Microsoft has peaked and will continue as a smaller company appealing to some customers while providing legacy support for others.
You know, one product that Microsoft could do really well at is to fork WINE and provide the remaining touches so all Windows software will run. They could charge money for it, and people would buy it to run Windows games and other apps. Microsoft could still survive without Windows--again, they'll just be a much smaller company.
"When an 800 lb gorilla like Microsoft tells vendors to only sell their products or they'll stop selling through them the vendor must comply."
If I am stuck in a cage with an 800lb gorilla and the gorilla throws a bar of soap on the floor and points to it, what should I do?
In Yahoo! Mail, I toggled that all sent e-mail gets put into a "Sent" folder. This was somewhat useful in tracking who I didn't follow up with, etc.
UNIX was never a player in Microsoft's core markets, ever.
Really? What about CAD/CAM? A lot of engineers got sucked into Windows in the late 1990s. What about scientific research? A lot of scientists dropped UNIX workstations in favor of Windows and Excel. What about publishing? I don't see Interleaf around much, anymore. What about education? A lot of college labs got Windows replacing Mac OS and Solaris. What about image processing? Photoshop was dropped for UNIX a long time ago.
You don't quite realize just how intertwined UNIX and Windows are. What about the cliche "Windows NT is the UNIX killer"? The next few years will make people who said that feel a little silly.
Microsoft is just a transitionary force from UNIX back to UNIX. UNIX used to be expensive, with software licenses in the thousands of dollars per seat, etc. Microsoft was a reaction to that, certainly, but Microsoft just doesn't do it well. They replaced an expensive predatory software business with a less expensive predatory software business. It's just a fact that people really don't like Microsoft, even if only indirectly through bad software design leading to worms, viruses, and crashes. Now, enter the FOSS systems. It's freer and cheaper than anything Microsoft can turn out. It's getting as usable. It rivals Mac OS in market share. Game producers are taking notice. It's more secure. Even the big bad old UNIX vendors are coming around with OpenSolaris and IBM's Linux. Think of Microsoft as a transitional phenomenon, nothing more.
Microsoft is the only one that actually has it right, since if you think back to the old typewriter, you have to have a Carriage Return, and a Line Feed to get to the start of the next line when typing.
I'd say everyone is right, but for different--and unimportant--reasons.
OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org
Did I mention OpenOffice.org? It runs on Windows, too.
I think you oversimplify things a bit with that "three of something" theory.
... MIPS or 68k? I really don't know that much about embedded. My comment above was mainly geared towards mainstream desktop computer type things, like non-power-constrained CPUs, office suites, etc. The things everyone is aware of the marketing and branding for.
I didn't intend to be US-centric, that is just the most popular example. Perhaps it would be better to state "three, plus or minus one, in any major market". The automakers tend to be grouped in threes, by nationality or continent, I think, and there is extensive cross-investment from the biggest players. Threre are really fewer automakers than meets the eye, IMO.
ARM is mainly an embedded CPU. In the embedded space, I guess you could say it's ARM, PowerPC, and
Just looking around it seems there are only a few of each type of product. There are three or four major breakfast cereal manufacturers, three or four brands of paint at the hardware store, etc. Marketing people must find this is an optimal amount of "choice" to capture the broadest base of customers.
So which are the three car makers now?
American: GM, Ford, Chrysler
Japanese: Toyota, Honda, Nissan
German: BMW, Mercedes, VW.
The rest are fighting for scraps or are part of one of the above.
iWork is mainstream simply by Apple announcing it. Three major vendors (Sun, Apple, and Microsoft) all now have actively-hyped office suites going for market share. The other suites, such as Smartsuite and Wordperfect, are barely even advertised.
I don't think it does. Microsoft will be around for a while, unfortunately. In my sig, I expect Solaris, Mac OS, and Linux to be the top three of the UNIX side (not necessarily in that order). The BSDs are there for completeness, as they are good systems but are niche players. The main point behind my sig is that all the options listed are either cheaper/freer than Microsoft's options or just flat out better than Microsoft's options (or both). Microsoft really is in a precarious situation, where they have only inertia carrying them at the moment (granted, it's a lot of inertia but it's definitely finite).
It's been said before, but mature industries tend towards three of something, such as GM-Ford-Chrysler. For CPUs, it has to be AMD64/ia32e, PowerPC, and SPARC. They're the only ones with any high-volume prospects. SPARC will certainly be in third place, with AMD64/ia32e and PowerPC duking it out for one and two. The fact of the matter is that Itanium won't be a mainstream processor, and PA-RISC, Alpha, and MIPS are all more-or-less EOL.
For operating systems it will still be Windows, Linux, and UNIX (predominately Mac OS and Solaris). Okay, that's four, but the other historical major players are all becoming niche legacy platforms.
For office suites, it'll be MS Office, StarOffice/OpenOffice.org, and iWork. The others are all niche players.
For browsers it'll be IE, Firefox, and Safari.
At least this will tend to simplify some things, because the non-Microsoft platforms will be fewer making supporting them easier. This is a good thing, IMO.