Sun Works to Converge Linux and Solaris 291
Jucius Maximus writes "A new change has appeared in Sun's strategy as reported by CNET. Instead of dismissing Linux as inferior, it is now trying to integrate elements of Linux into Solaris for easier porting of applications. This looks like a step in the right direction for Linux acceptance in the professional server market."
GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
They are doing this so that Linux applications will port trivially to Solaris. This isn't an admission that Linux is as good as Solaris, but just that it's more popular for developers.
Re:GPL (Score:2)
Re:GPL (Score:1)
Re:GPL (Score:1)
Reverse Strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
if they integrate GPL code fron Linux into their OS
Instead of integrating Linux code into Solaris, what Sun needs to do, rather, is to implement some of the nicer features and interfaces of Solaris into the Linux kernel, making Linux look more like Solaris.
I mean, it already does in a lot of ways and, to be sure, they'll have to contend with differences of opinion from the benevolent dictators that control the Linux kernel (eg, POSIX threads debate), glibc, etc.
But it's in Sun's best interest to pave a smooth superhighway upgrade path from Linux to Solaris for users that grow beyond their x86 hardware.
Also, with their ownership of Cobalt, they could really make a pressing low end solution of Java on Linux/x86 to build flavored servers using open source interfaces without tying clients into a OurOneSizeFitsAllYourNeeds scheme. Then, customers wanting more complex business logic could opt for slicker building environment that Sun could sell.
The other hardware route that Sun could take is to build an x86 system with the hardware reliability that has been lacking, especially compared to SPARC systems. Linux gives you a UNIX OS with plenty of nines, there's no excuse for the hardware to crap out as much as it does, especially for servers.
Re:Reverse Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said, I think this is the reasoning behind the move. Let "newbies" migrate their servers from Windows to Linux (hey, it's cheap), then once they outgrow their x86 box it will be easy to move to Sun hardware without porting their business application or whatever it is their running. Brilliant idea! I guess Sun realises it is better to have people using Linux than Windows, since they are more likely to move to Sun from Linux than they are from Windows. Linux makes a good intermediate step.
Re:Reverse Strategy (Score:2)
How would adding cool Solaris features to Linux help Sun:
Re:Reverse Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
How would adding cool Solaris features to Linux help Sun:
Good questions, and I'm not sure the answers are as comforting as you would like. But here goes.
It wouldn't actively cause migration from Linux to Solaris, but when the time comes to upgrade from a low cost Linux solution to something bigger and better, will it be Sun, HPaq, IBM, SGI? If Solaris is most compatible, then that choice will be Sun. Of course users will drink free milk as long as they can, but someday they'll need more milk than the free cows can give. The key is to insure that low end cheap server market goes into the UNIX world on a upgrade path that leads to you rather than your competitors.
Low end SPARC hardware sales are a losing proposition at this point in time. Sun has reasonably good high end offerings, but in the low end they're offering Solaris/SPARC vs either Wintel or Lintel. Lintel is the ultimate lowest cost option and, while it eats the lunch of low- end SPARC, that lunch was going to be eaten anyway by either Wintel or Lintel. At least the Linux box keeps users in the UNIX world where Sun has a lot of software experience to offer. Logically, you want the cost of rewriting business application logic transitioning from Linux to Solaris to be small. Also, 64-way Solaris/SPARC machines give those UNIX users at the low end a scalable upgrade path that is missing from the Wintel world.
Granted, it's harder to make money where much of what was previously offered is becoming commoditized, but it's an irresistable force that the market is demanding.
Ride that wave and anticipate where it's going instead of trying to stop it.
Re:Reverse Strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Why maintain all that SysV cruft? (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly is it about SysV cp, mv, tar, awk, ls et al that makes them so much more valuable than their GNU equivalents?
Sun has no idea how to address Linux. However, if Sun were to replace all possible SysV components in Solaris with their GNU equivalents, they would be much farther down the road towards a free OS than the Sun Community Source License ever got them. This would at least give them some short-term PR, plus cutting development costs.
I really don't understand why every UNIX distribution isn't making these moves. If I were to say that 90% of the GNU UNIX utilities could replace the proprietary components with no visible effect to the OS, would that be a conservtative estimate?
Sun could go even further by wrapping Red Hat Linux around the Solaris kernel, and scaling Red Hat onto an e15k.
And, if Sun were to take the step of open-sourcing the Solaris kernel, Sun could put an end to the question of enterprise UNIX on any Intel platform - Sun takes all.
Come on, guys, wake up! You're asleep at the wheel!
Re:Why maintain all that SysV cruft? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would cause chaos. Come on, they just can't ship Solaris 9 and replace the Sun tar with the GNU tar. I'll give you that GNU tar is way better than the one Sun ships (the GNU tar comes first in my $PATH), but people have written software (Solaris package install scripts, for example) expecting the Sun tar to be there and take a certain set of arguments. Maybe tar is a bad example, but you get the idea.
Sun is doing the smart thing by gradually switching things over. They have some GNU stuff available in the core install, and some GNU stuff available on a second CD [sun.com]. I now can write software for Solaris assuming Perl is installed, for example.
This will improve slowly, over time.
Re:Why maintain all that SysV cruft? (Score:2)
Because the GNU utilities also come with Richard Stallman hounding you and everyone connected with you to rename your OS and prefix a GNU/ in front of it...
More seriously, they come with the GPL: while 'cp' isn't exactly primo intellectual property, it makes even the developers (not just the lawyers) happy to have a base system that's all owned -- coders would rather think about technical compatibility when they copy or link in a routine from another subsystem
Re:if all things were posix compliant... (Score:2)
If Sun went to the maintainer of GNU tar and said "integrate these patches and we will use your app as the primary Solaris TAR," how quickly do you think the GNU people would wet themselves? They'd leap at the chance.
Re:if all things were posix compliant... (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:2)
Read the article. They're improving compatibility for native compilation, so the source code needs less work. While binary compatibility is not a bad thing, it's much more limited. Linux hasn't had much use for ELF lately, for example. Binary translation ages. Source code doesn't.
Too little, too late? (Score:3, Funny)
What I would like is for FreeBSD to include Sun binary compatibility in 5.0, so I can run my Linux apps inside a Solaris VM under FreeBSD! ;^)
Re:Too little, too late? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should I phase out old sun hardware for cheap intel based hard ware? Linux runns pretty well on SPARCs.
(Not to mention that most SPARCs I work on run SUN OS 4.3 and not Solaris)
angel'o'sphere
Re:Too little, too late? (Score:1)
Fair enough -- but Sun support contracts can really hit the ol' austerity budget hard, and the cost of renewal may not be worth it for some...depends on the situation of course.
Re:Too little, too late? (Score:3, Interesting)
But in the end, Solaris is still better than Linux on big iron, and there's more margin in big iron. While SPARC is on the way out for the workstation market, I think it'll be around for a long time for $20k+ servers, and so will solaris.
Picture link? (Score:2)
Putting features into linux (Score:3, Interesting)
This strikes me as a very bad move. Why would you improve "competing" products. Now addmitedly it will help them sell more solaris machines but given the open source nature of linux wouldnt this mean the improvements could be relatively ported to intel...effectively shooting themselves in the foot.
Re:Putting features into linux (Score:1)
Re:Putting features into linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Not really, in my opinion. What Sun hopes to gain is two systems which are more or less completely compatible. So, if you want Sun's expertise and someone to stand behind your hardware and software (big IT houses), you call Sun and buy their big iron running Solaris. And then, with all the Solaris compat in the linux kernel, it is just as easy to add cheaper boxes doing all sorts of other work using Linux complementing the expesive big iron. Since they now (in the future, maybe...) both have transparent application compatibility, and both kernel's do things in a similar way, then the impetus to buy M$ is greatly reduced. Less IT training, more people who can administer both sytems. You haven't really boosted a competitor, but rather given yourself a new market.
What confuses me about this strategy is that Sun has never been known as a company that would do what's right for the consumer, as much as it would say what's right for the consumer. For a while they could get away with it with little problem. Maybe now, given M$'s predicament, and that Linux isn't going away, they have to rethink their own borg strategy, even if it wasn't as blatant or heavy handed as the devil...oops, Bills.
Anyway, as long as they don't have visions of forking or tuning the kernel in a very sun branded way, then this is probably a good thing. If they have visions of steering linux with Scott at the helm, then we may have problems. Hope for the best, so the disappointment can make you stronger.
Re:Putting features into linux (Score:2)
That is the necessary paradigm shift. More and more computer systems will be interconnected and the various suppliers had better play nice or the customers will be looking elsewhere.
The "Linux Death Spasm" Again (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The "Linux Death Spasm" Again (Score:3, Informative)
Puh-leeze. IBM has wholeheartedly embraced Linux and is stronger than ever.
Re:The "Linux Death Spasm" Again (Score:3, Interesting)
They realize Linux is popular and are building a bridge between their own high end stuff and more low end linux stuff. They are also improving their chances of being able to bail on Solaris and switch to Linux if that need arises in the next five or ten years. They also want to bring things like SunONE to Linux so SunONE will gain share over
Flamebait alert... (Score:3, Funny)
1. Scan for news items that has the keyword Linux
2. Cut and paste a few lines from the story
Add lines lis (*) is in the right direction for acceptance of Linux.
Anybody thinking about writing a perl script for this purpose? Lets call it postbot.
I'm waiting for the second release (Score:1)
Duplication of effort (Score:1, Flamebait)
While it is better than nothing, it sounds like duplication of effort — why keeping improving a proprietary piece of software if eventually GNU/Linux and the Hurd are bound to overcome whatever advantage it currently has?
OTOH, this could be trying to give Solaris a lease of life while they prepare a real migration plan to GNU software.
Cool; are they going to give it a name (Score:1)
Re:Cool; are they going to give it a name (Score:2)
There's also my coworker's hilarious comment beneath it : "WINOLARIS ???"
I think the reason's are different (Score:5, Insightful)
So they did the logical step. Looked in what is Linux better and try to incorporate these things in Solaris. I say, way to go. But its not to increase Linux's acceptance, really :)
Re:I think the reason's are different (Score:2, Interesting)
What makes you say that?
You're using CDE, aren't you?
You're aware that OpenWindows will happily run any window manager, right? And that any utilities you want to install will almost definitely build straight out of the box? And that you can use NetBSD's Zoularis if you want package management?
At least, you must know about http://www.sunfreeware.com/ [sunfreeware.com], I hope?
Solaris is actually a very good OS for a workstation. Its X implementation is really fast. Granted, the window manger they ship completely blows, but nobody in their right mind would ever user CDE anyhow.
Give it a chance before you just presume it's crap because it looks like crap on the surface.
Re:I think the reason's are different (Score:4, Interesting)
The problems are more in the utilities that are missing some of the more useful switches, man pages that lack behind the linux ones usually, problems with handling symlinks and hardlinks until 2.8 and other minor things that just get on your nerves with time.
Of course, I can use the GNU utilities, but I cannot write a script using them, because I cannot rely on customer having them installed so I just have to deal with the solaris's crappy ones anyway... do you get the point?
Re:I think the reason's are different (Score:2)
On the other hand, Sun's AnswerBook far outstrips all Linux documentation for ease of use and completeness. Linux needs to take a leaf from Sun and Microsoft's books of usability when it comes to providing documentation (both for developers and end users).
Re:I think the reason's are different (Score:2)
Absent the GNU tools, you need perl or select awks to accomplish the first thing; the second requires non-standard Perl modules or painful ksh handsprings.
cheers,
mike
Re:I think the reason's are different (Score:2)
Actually, what I really like about Solaris is that most of the utilities aren't GNU, and thus don't have that asinine "the real documentation is in the info pages" excuse for a manpage that plagues most linux distros (I understand some distros run info2man to correct that
No, the all-in-one-giant-page format of manpages is not ideal for complex apps (it got really ridiculous for perl before they split it up) but it is handy for most utilities.
NFS that works out of the box with all the wizzy features like failovered mounts is also nice...
Re:I think the reasons are different (Score:2)
Me too! (Score:3, Informative)
The "L" stands for Linux Affinity.
Competition with HP and IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Competition with HP and IBM (Score:2)
Re:Competition with HP and IBM (Score:2)
Of course, OTOH, a lot of Linux apps are already written, with the help of the magic of GNU autoconf, so that they can compile on a commercial UNIXes using vendor-supplied ANSI C compilers.
could it have anything to do with GNOME? (Score:1)
Hm... (Score:5, Interesting)
- A.P.
Re:Hm... (Score:2)
- A.P.
Re:Hm... (Score:2)
Do you run beta software in a production environment?
- A.P.
Wrong!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Solaris and Linux (Score:1)
Re:Solaris and Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Solaris already has most of BSD's API's if you know where to look so its not too much of a leap to add Linux versions as well.
Solaris is well ahead of BSD and Linux in most kernel technologys, its main drawback is ooey, chooey GUI stuff and thats probably what they are actually going to try and make "compatable".
Look at most major open source packages older than 3 years and you'll see Solaris already is supported, its only in the more recent packages that Solaris isn't fully supported and usually because the people developing the packages don't know where to look in Solaris' API's; i.e. which header files and librarys to use.
sunux? (Score:3, Funny)
Sunux? Solarux? Linaris?
Re:sunux? (Score:2)
Eh, I prefer the much shorter 'SUX'.
I don't think their marketing people would like it however...
Sun not trying to help Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, if you have installed OpenSSH on Solaris, you will have been forced to look into the various methods for getting /dev/urandom or a suitable replacement. After I brought this issue up and reminded Sun that they were trying to get to a Linux-compatible API, they backported their Solaris 9 /dev/urandom to Solaris 8 with patch 112438-01 [sun.com]. Imagine my shock that Sun actually implemented one of my RFE's.
Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:4, Interesting)
HOSTNAME: grande, OS: SOLARIS 5.8, MACHINE TYPE: E6500 , USER: Server
MEMORY: 28GB, SWAP: 9GB, PROCESSORS: 28 400MHZ, DISK: Fibre Channel Raid 136GB
Linux can't come close to this kind of setup, and I doubt it will anywhere in the near future. Now admittedly, Linux is hurting Sun in a big way. Sun hardware is damn expensive. But we need that kind of hardware here in our shop, and Linux simply won't cut it.
Sun is doing this because Linux is hurting them on low end hardware, not because Linux is in any way better than Solaris for anything other than skinning your desktop.
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yeah?? Well look at *my* setup:
HOSTNAME: mofo, OS: SOLARIS 9.2, MACHINE TYPE: Z69000 , USER: bofh
MEMORY: 64326GB, SWAP: 52376GB, PROCESSORS: 5800 2.5GHZ, DISK: Fibre Channel Raid 593271GB
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2, Funny)
HOSTNAME: mofo, OS: SOLARIS 9.2, MACHINE TYPE: Z69000 , USER: bofh
MEMORY: 64326GB, SWAP: 52376GB, PROCESSORS: 5800 2.5GHZ, DISK: Fibre Channel Raid 593271GB
Yeah we've had one of these for a few years now. They make great routers/firewalls to keep our REAL machines free for the serious work...
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the configuration for our largest server:
HOSTNAME: grande, OS: SOLARIS 5.8, MACHINE TYPE: E6500 , USER: Server
MEMORY: 28GB, SWAP: 9GB, PROCESSORS: 28 400MHZ, DISK: Fibre Channel Raid 136GB
Nothing, in comparison to 2 E10K's I've played with last week. And you know what? That is nothing to GS320 with 256GB RAM and 32 CPUs, which had Linux running on it (check linux-kernel mailing lists).
Bottom line is - Linux runs on big hardware. It's just that you never tried it.
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2)
Download my DNS server, MaraDNS. Compile and run it on Solaris. Fins the problems that MaraDNS has on Solaris and fix them. I have ported or seen my application ported to various OSes, including FreeBSD (it's in their ports tree), MacOS/X, and Windows (with cygwin). The only port that was less than trivial was the Solaris port.
It took me about a day to get it to compile; then it wouldn't run at all. Running truss revealed that any network application needs /dev/udp and /dev/tcp in the chroot() environment; any multithreaded application needs /dev/zero in the chroot() jail. Things no other OS I ported MaraDNS to needed.
Even after getting it to run, it would crash when doing even a very simple strees test that the Linux (and MacOS, and FreeBSD, and Windows) version can run without problem.
This was on Solaris 7 (x86).
If you want to impress me with how great Solaris is, I would deeply appreciate any help you could provide making this application as stable on Solaris as it is on all of the free *NIXes.
Then, and only then, would I feel that Solaris was a useable OS with a helpful community; right now I see Solaris as a buggy OS with an arrogant community that I don't want to be around.
Thank you.
- Sam
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2)
How about this configuration:
OS: Linux, MEMORY: 1.8TB, PROCESSORS: 1400 Itanium, DISK: 170TB
Wondering if you'd seen this before? Here's your friendly reminder [slashdot.org]...
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2)
Perhaps, by incorporating some of the more 'desktop friendly' aspects of Linux into Solaris, Solaris will become less of a sucky proposition on the desktop - which is where most of the world's computer users live.
Murphy knows trying to put Linux on an E65k would be nuts. Sun's Heavy Iron runs best on Solaris and usually isn't saddled with desktop apps. But for the Light Iron (eg: old Ultra5's, modern SunBlade 100's) - which are cheap by Workstation standards - a lot of the more friendly Linux features make sense.
I'm not sure what you do... but... (Score:2)
Actually, I'm quite curious -- what do you guys need that monster machine for. You don't have to give away everything, but I can't really imagine too many uses for something that heavy. (esp. that couldn't be done with a more distributed architecture)
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2)
I use Linux for the freedom. I've had a taste of what the free software world offers, and am slowly migrating away from the proprietary world. I know that as time goes on, more people will follow, and the software will only get better. Ironically, I use Linux on non-Intel hardware, too: I use Debian-macppc.
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2)
Look, I'm not gratuitously bashing Linux - I'm typing this on a Linux machine. I run Linux at home and at work. But I would suggest that you go out and get a few years of experience using both of them in "enterprise" environments. You will quickly discover what Linux's shortcomings are.
Re:Sorry, but Linux *IS* inferior... (Score:2)
I think you're out of line. You make points for which you provide no evidence, and you seem to be arguing for your right to do so. Maybe I wouldn't talk to you like that in person, but I'm a pretty blunt person, and I call a spade a spade - I've told off my bosses to their faces - and maybe you would punch me in the nose. :-) If I think you're talking shit, I'm going to call you on it. If you think I'm talking shit, I want you to call me on it! I'm sorry you think I'm a prick. I apologize for speaking so rudely. You seem like a pretty clued individual, and maybe you do have a good reason for saying what you do. Truce?
x86? (Score:1)
UML (Score:2)
Is this actually feasible, or am I on crack?
Re:UML (Score:3, Informative)
In theory it should be feasible (Wine proves it can be done even for two completely different systems).
In practice I wonder how much overhead you are going to pay (I keep hearing that system calls on Solaris are much more expensive - and consider that each system call in UML in turn would be implemented as several system calls to the hosting system).
GUI shouldn't be a problem: interactive applicatione are usually 99% idle anyways, and using them should be as simple as an "export DISPLAY=..."
OTOH, I/O bound processes probably would be penalized too much, and it would be a good idea to execute then directly on the hosting system.
In the end, if the ability to be root in your very own "partition" is worth the (hypotetic) additional overhead, I'd say "why not?" Of course, some numbers are needed here...
already happening (at the GNU level, at least) (Score:2, Interesting)
For anything remotely shellish, they will likely need the GNU file-utils and text-utils. This would, IMHO, greatly improve Solaris anyway. They already include bash, gcc, and emacs (though they do ship their own shell and compiler as default) and are already planning to include GNOME.
In short, Solaris already includes massive parts of GNU.
Now Linux is a somewhat different issue. Duplicating kernel APIs is pretty new (by Sun of Linux, that is). It shouldn't be that big a deal, though -- there is still POSIX underlying everything.
Maybe this needs to be qualified? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Linux is where Solaris was five or 10 years ago."
You make your own cynical comment : )
Re:Maybe this needs to be qualified? (Score:2)
Okay, I will. How about, "That's pretty accurate, and most anyone who uses both Linux and Solaris on a daily basis will agree."
Possibly not the cynical comment you were looking for :-) but the design and stability of Linux has a long way to go to catch up with Solaris 8. As far as cool'n'nifty user features go, I can just compile the occasional GNU utilities on my Solaris box.
Re:Maybe this needs to be qualified? (Score:2)
Re:Maybe this needs to be qualified? (Score:2, Interesting)
VxVM and VxFS have been ported to Linux, though who knows when it will ever be publicly released. RedHat has been bankrolling the port and the release should be available for their Advanced Server product. I have an early beta version that only compiles against a 2.4.0-pre kernel but it works. I think the many changes that have occured as 2.4 has only recently stabilized have probably held things up. Veritas is doing a lot of kernel work and I'm unsure how widely it would be accepted by the community if/when it's released since it won't be entirely open or cheap.
I think the real areas where Solaris far outshines Linux include scalability beyond 8-procs and things like hotswap CPU support. But all these areas are being actively addressed. The new scheduler in 2.5 should go far towards addressing scalability and pretty much everything else is being actively worked on. Given the fast pace of Linux development, the real gap is probably only a year or two. If the big iron issues don't affect you and you don't need anything >4 procs, I don't think there even is a meaningful gap. Just massive $$$ savings and easier administration (at least w/Debian).
Re:Maybe this needs to be qualified? (Score:2)
Re:Maybe this needs to be qualified? (Score:2)
Ahem. I assume you mean VxVM (which is what does the partitioning). And since you ask, there are three things that do that on Linux: LVM [sistina.com], EVMS [ibm.com], and yes, genuine Veritas VxVM [veritas.com] (and also VxFS thrown in, to boot). Solaris may be better at some things than Linux, but the number of things that fall in that category is shrinking rapidly. Volume management no longer qualifies.
Re:proc - process information pseudo-filesystem (Score:2)
Absolutely. In professional technical circles, Linux's procfs has a well-earned and well-deserved reputation as a random dumping ground for anything which strikes the LKML folks as k3w1. There's a very clearly-written article on the subject buried somewhere in Usenet; I thought I'd saved a copy but cannot find it at the moment.
Re:proc - process information pseudo-filesystem (Score:2)
Mind you, it's a lot better now that it used to be. Early Solaris, all you could get was a handle to the memory image of the process, useful for gcore and nothing else.
Re:proc - process information pseudo-filesystem (Score:2)
Re:Maybe this needs to be qualified? (Score:3, Funny)
You make your own cynical comment : )
Thank you, I will:
Ya mean Linux is the runaway growth leader in the production server OS market? OK, I'll buy that.
:-)
Re:Maybe this needs to be qualified? (Score:2)
Solaris/Sparc allows automatic system recovery - if your machine crashes with a hardware fault, it will find the fault at POST time, and boot the kernel around the faulty hardware. Not such a good thing when thieves broke into XXXX organisation, nicked a load of system boards leaving one in each machine, and the machines recovered and restarted the applications running on what hardware was left.
Solaris/Sparc allows you to add and remove CPU/memory boards to and from a *running* domain.
And Solaris/Sparc has a SMP kernel which will scale linearly to over 100 processors - this isn't just a particular design choice about the kernel architecture, it's a lot of choices about the hardware, firmware and kernel details.
So while the Linux kernel has proved itself massively capable for horizontally scalable systems, the Solaris kernel has been designed for vertical scaling. There's actually no need for the Linux kernel to head in this direction - it's a good solution where you can have multiple boxen scaled out, or where you are using a HA/clustering solution, but for large installations with (for example) massive database instances and requiring the RAS features which Solaris/Sparc offers, the Linux kernel doesn't fit.
Dunstanb
Sun change isn't that new (Score:2)
Steven
Suns agenda (for real) (Score:2)
Only somebody with zero Unix, and hardly any linux would say such a stament. The fact is that SUN doesn't give a damn about Linux, it jsut wants the exposer... Suns strategy is to Maintain Solaris 9 for the server environment, and deligate a Linux kernel for the desktop space. And don't let the word "Linux" fool you either... Linux is a kernel program, not an Operating Environment. So yes, Sun plans to sell Solaris 9 in the server space, and sell solaris with a linux kernel (possibly) for the Intel x86 systems on the network. It is possible SUn may make a distro of Sol9+linux for Sparc too, but who really cares. Most of the stuff that would make me want to use Linux on a Sparc box is now a default feature in Sol9.
The big mess Sun got into when they anounced they were dropping Solaris 9 for x86 ARCH wasn't such a suprise to me, considerign they have for a year now been say they are going to develop their own Linux distro to handle that segment of users. I wish people would wake up and pay attention. This is such old news!
It all makes sense, read Danese Cooper (Score:3, Interesting)
Open-Sourcing Solaris is non-trivial, she explain it in her answers. But working on already open-sourced coded is not. It benefit both Sun AND the Linux community because Sun's change will get back to the community and it benefit sun because they have a very solid base to work on.
Sun's position on Linux has long been friendly, since we see it as a commodity unix variant which has been very successful at growing the community of Unix users.
I wonder how much "has long been" really is, but it's not the point. I found it is rather honest on their part to say it that way. The first 8nix variant I saw was Mandrake 6.0 or somehing like that. I felt in love with it and since I had the chance to deploy aaplication on Solaris a couple of time. So the comment makes sense, Linux has a lot of visibility and it happens sometimes that it is what brings users to the realm of Unixes. So, even from a marketing point of view, it all make sense to adopt it. It gives them free publicity because of their implication with Linux. And afterward, it benefits them because they can either sell more Solaris or just more server, even with Linux on it instead of Solaris, they make te buck with thehardware.
All that being said, they had to previously (well, they have to) "support" both Linux AND Solaris and port appliation to both platform. By trying to standardise both, they keep the previous;y stated benefits, and they do a cut in the devellopment budget.
And in the end, it benefits us to. That's is the way I would like all business to work. Make your own business, cleanly, and work WITH the community. It can only do good, both for the business and to the consumer/user/geek/etc etc...
Playing nice to hurt Microsoft. (Score:4, Interesting)
Consumers get the benefit because there are more and cheaper programs available for their Platform. And they can choos the type of *X platform they want to use.
The UNIX companies get extra insurence that there is a chance that they can get repeat business form there Customers. And have the advantage of more software for their platform.
Smaller Developers and Support personal get the advantage of easy comunication between the different Unix systems.
But it will hurt the following people.
Microsoft. Becuase they are being "more" seporated from the curent standards. And being shunned my more third party developers.
Windows only programers. But it is there fault for not following the real standards. And opening there mind into more cross platform development.
Re:Playing nice to hurt Microsoft. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Parlez-vous Anglais?
Linux is not accepted in pro server market??? (Score:2)
Huh? Every couple of weeks, there is another story in the news of some big company dumping their Suns for x86 servers running Linux. Where did you get the idea that Linux is not already accepted in the "professional" server market?
Sun still playing catchup (Score:2, Informative)
Sun is about 5 years ahead (Score:3, Insightful)
A few things I like from Solaris that Linux doesn't really have yet... Scalability, I know its not an issue for most of you guys, but Suns 106-way boxes are really quite neat. Technologies such as JumpStart, which make rolling out a new web cluster a breeze. Stable IPv6/IPSEC support. Comprehensive support, from *one* source. A top class architecture to run the damn thing on.
I like Linux, don't get me wrong, I personally have 2 Debs boxes and manage a Slack box in Slovenia, but I also have a FreeBSD box, Sparc running Solaris 8 and a HPUX powered PA-RISC machine.
My attitude is that if it has
Maybe RMS will leave us Linux alone now... (Score:2)
Re:"linux is where solaris was 5 or 10 years ago" (Score:1, Informative)
Re:"linux is where solaris was 5 or 10 years ago" (Score:2, Informative)
There have been serious problems with almost every kernel in the 2.4 series, and the 2.2 series kernels were slow as hell.
Really, what do you think you're accomplishing by lying about Linux's shortcomings?
Re:"linux is where solaris was 5 or 10 years ago" (Score:2, Informative)
One of our Sun servers here has *28* UltraSparcs and 28 GB of RAM. How many CPUs can Linux support, 4? How much RAM, 4 GB? Not to mention that Solaris has NFS support that actually works well. And what do you mean "filesystem support"? Are you saying that being able to read/write FAT32 is something to crow about?
Linux is not in the same league as Solaris for anything other that ease of use.
Re:"linux is where solaris was 5 or 10 years ago" (Score:2)
In all honesty I'm not sure that Linux needs to get into data centers. At the E10k and Superdome scalability levels the OS is very much an afterthought. The only thing those companies care about are guarantees of less than 5 minutes downtime a year, and millions to Tpm. I think it is sufficient if Linux is on the network boundary between the backend systems and the Internet, doing what it does well (like giving killer network bandwidth.)
Re:"linux is where solaris was 5 or 10 years ago" (Score:2, Funny)
Yep. It's on everyones servers
Re:"linux is where solaris was 5 or 10 years ago" (Score:2)
Solaris provides the ability to scale, and has some pretty sweet reliability features. Scaling is one of those things Sun really cares about and that's why it's one of those criteria that it uses to measure itself against Linux. In the world of big servers, it's not so much about being 5% faster. It's about not crashing and being able to add more power with minimal or 0 downtime. Even look at IBM. Where it's using Linux, it frequently has a layer of mainframe or midframe proprietary OS hiding underneath to manage the nasties that Linux just isn't ready to handle yet.
Re:Sun (Score:4, Informative)
Well then dont use CDE (Score:2, Interesting)
I know I will also take my lumps for this, but for big data centers solaris is ALOT better under the hood. It expodentially scales in perforamce up to 72 processors and then linerally up to 108. Sure you can make linux clusters and the like, but for rock solid stability on big iron you go with solaris.
Having said that having the linux apis available for solaris is a good thing. Hopefully this is better than the Linux Port kit sun released, that thing failed HARD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Solaris is worse than linux in some ways (Score:2, Insightful)
more like linux.
Spend a couple of hours setting up and customizing a Jumpstart server instead. It's a simple matter to have a script automatically install the packages you want from sunfreeware (or from your own repository).