×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

307 comments

FUD (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257356)

Nothing about this says OpenSolaris is going away. Just support for older versions

Re:FUD (5, Insightful)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257414)

to some decision makers, that is the same thing...

Re:FUD (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257804)

s/decision makers/sensationalists/

Re:FUD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258014)

After that you need to s/sensationalists/Slashdot/

Re:FUD (1)

Spit (23158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258422)

If long-term usage was that important, you'd be using Solaris in the first place.

Re:FUD (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258532)

Nonsenese.... if you install (a Supportable) version of OpenSolaris and buy support. Make sure your contract includes support for your version for a long enough duration.

You know, Microsoft doesn't support ancient EOL OSes like Windows NT or Windows XP, either.

Re:FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258022)

So you are saying you are able to get support for the current OpenSolaris version? It seems to me that is impossible.

Re:FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258066)

OpenSolaris? It's dead, Jim.

Deal with it--suck it up and be a man. Then get on with your life. After all, it's only an operating system for God's sake. And not a very good one at that.

Re:FUD (1)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258508)

On the contrary... if you want zfs, and stability under load, there's nothing wrong with it.

What is the reason for abandon fashion lately? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258288)

When will open source folks understand that older version support, especially for server oriented things is a big deal?

There is a company who makes living with OS upgrades/sales and they still release updates for Windows XP you know. An OS from 2003 or something.

Right, they don't release directx 11 for XP but at least their consumers (and IT guys) don't feel abandoned in sense of security updates.

Same mistake is being done almost monthly in open source scene and they wonder why companies choose a $2K price instead of their "free" product.

Re:What is the reason for abandon fashion lately? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258402)

> Windows XP you know. An OS from 2003 or something.

From 2001 (oct 2001 retail release).

OpenSolaris is "dead man walking".

Re:What is the reason for abandon fashion lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258516)

> When will open source folks understand that older version support, especially for server oriented things is a big deal?

LOL
Debian gets it perfectly. So "open source folks" is too broad a definition.

Bugger. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257362)

Can somebody show me something good to come from the Oracle-Sun deal? Anything?

Re:Bugger. (2, Funny)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257390)

"Can somebody show me something good to come from the Oracle-Sun deal? Anything?"

Cutlery related anecdotes for the next 10 billion years

Re:Bugger. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257418)

"Synergy"?

Re:Bugger. (2, Insightful)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257622)

postgres?

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257880)

The MySQL fiasco(s) combined with getting absorbed in to the giant Oracle collective will hopefully put more spotlight on the more deserving open source SQL platform, PostgreSQL.

Re:Bugger. (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257764)

Can somebody show me something good to come from the Oracle-Sun deal? Anything?

Errrrrr, survival and preventing Sun from going bust, just off the top of my head?

Re:Bugger. (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257866)

Can somebody show me something good to come from the Oracle-Sun deal? Anything?

Errrrrr, survival and preventing Sun from going bust, just off the top of my head?

Is that really good? I just met someone who now works for Oracle; they worked for a company acquired by Sun prior to the merger. Sun fired all their best SEs because they made good salaries, while there are people all over Sun (or at least, were) making big bucks for doing nothing. UltraSPARC has its uses, but mostly it is an also-ran. Solaris' claim to fame is ZFS. Under Oracle, Solaris is doomed to either fail (as it was heading towards anyway, due to Linux's increasing dominance) or to become an Oracle RDBMS engine, which is much the same thing.

Re:Bugger. (3, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257970)

Well, Oracle offered about 3x the prevailing Sun stock price, so the Sun shareholders have done well. At least, well in relative terms--- some probably still lost money, but there was really not much else on the horizon that was looking likely to triple Sun's stock price. Before Oracle came along, the just-over-$3.00 stock was almost mocking its owners with its stock ticker of JAVA, an anachronism from the days that Sun management thought Java would somehow make them rich.

Coincidentally, for public companies, if you make a really good offer to stockholders (something >2x the current stock price usually qualifies), it's usually an offer the buyout target will find hard to refuse. That's the tradeoff you make when you IPO a company and put its ownership in the hands of the stockowning public.

OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1)

Darkon (206829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257366)

To be honest I didn't even know they provided "contractual support" for OpenSolaris, but surely the fact that they won't support you in using it doesn't nesessarily imply that it's being canned. Maybe it'll just be an unsupported "unstable" version that you can play with before getting "real" Solaris.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257424)

"Hi boss, yeah I'd like to use OpenSolaris. .. No, we specifically can't get support for it from Sun, I mean Oracle. .. Yeah if it breaks we are totally on our own. ... Ok so I guess we're not using OpenSolaris then."

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (5, Insightful)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257578)

As you probably are aware of, there are TONS of mission critical servers out there running Debian, CentOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and other "there is no company you can blame and/or sue" operating systems, just as well as they run PostgreSQL or MySQL without support contracts for their mission critical databases.

For many companies that's not a problem because they have competent server admin staff and the community support is often way better than what you'd get for money.

An unsupported "debian-testing-style" OpenSolaris would make a lot of sense for both Sun/Oracle and many users. If you want support and someone to blame, just pay for Solaris instead. This model is already proven to work great: Fedora vs RHEL (vs CentOS), openSUSE vs SUSE Linux Enterprise, PostgreSQL vs EnterpriseDB, and so on.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257630)

For many companies that's not a problem because they have competent server admin staff and the community support is often way better than what you'd get for money.

That latter part is debatable. Community support often yields conflicting (and incorrect) answers in my experience.

Mind you, I've been waiting for Microsoft to fix Windows Search's ability to find matches in Unicode text files since NT 4.0 days (find and findstr work from the command line, why not the GUI?) so the level of support is probably no worse.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257828)

FOSS is FREE only if you don't value your time.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (5, Insightful)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257902)

FOSS is FREE only if you don't value your time.

*gasp* I value my time but I also value flexibility and independence from vendor whims.

I have an equally naive cliche for you right here: Proprietary software is only cheaper if you are incompetent.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (5, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258152)

Proprietary software is only cheaper if you are incompetent.

And then only if your vendor is competent.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257898)

there are TONS of mission critical servers out there running Debian, CentOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and other "there is no company you can blame and/or sue" operating systems

Absolutely false inaccurate information, at least for Debian.

As per

http://www.debian.org/consultants/ [debian.org]

"811 Debian consultants listed in 64 countries worldwide."

Now, you can hire a consultant whom might actually moonlight as a debian developer, perhaps even the maintainer of something that is critical to you. And, as a private citizen or at least small consulting company, you could sue them when/if they screw up.

On the other hand, if you think you you can sue microsoft, and win, next time exchange falls over, you are in for a BIG surprise.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257934)

You're right of course and similar setups are available for most other Linux and BSD distributions also. I was talking about running them unsupported as in download-ISO-and-install, I should had been more clear about that.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258124)

I was talking about running them unsupported as in download-ISO-and-install, I should had been more clear about that.

I'm still not seeing that. There are plenty of folks whom will gladly contract to do that.

Oddly enough, my one and only brush with consulting/contracting with Debian was doing exactly what you say can't be done. Over half a decade ago, at my day job, I downloaded a Debian ISO and installed it on a Compaq DL/360 (back when those were new). It was a very special and unusual idea for co-located hosting. I set up and supported their box, helping them use frontpage and SCP or whatever until it was working perfectly and in production, at which point I turned it over to them like any other co-locate (where we only officially supported connectivity, electrical power, cooling, physical security, etc). My support work was an appendix to the usual colocation contract.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258534)

Have you read the GPL? No you can't sue them for stuff under the GPL.

However, there are plenty of mission critical systems running debian, etc...

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1, Informative)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257584)

"Hi boss, yeah I'd like to use OpenSolaris. .. No, we specifically can't get support for it from Sun, I mean Oracle. .. Yeah if it breaks we are totally on our own. ... Ok so I guess we're not using OpenSolaris then."

That's not really any different from Fedora, yet businesses still use Redhat.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257812)

"Hi boss, yeah I'd like to use OpenSolaris. .. No, we specifically can't get support for it from Sun, I mean Oracle. .. Yeah if it breaks we are totally on our own. ... Ok so I guess we're not using OpenSolaris then."

That's not really any different from Fedora, yet businesses still use Redhat.

Uh, what? Redhat is RHEL, for which support is available. Fedora is RHEL beta, and is unsupported. Solaris is supported, OpenSolaris is unsupported. So in fact, it is entirely different.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258016)

That's not really any different from Fedora, yet businesses still use Redhat.

Uh, what? Redhat is RHEL, for which support is available. Fedora is RHEL beta, and is unsupported. Solaris is supported, OpenSolaris is unsupported. So in fact, it is entirely different.

Why are you trolling Martin?

The Sun page linked to in the article summary (http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/lifecycle.xml [sun.com]) has a section titled "Life Cycle Model for the OpenSolaris Operating System".

The page linked by the Phoronix article lists support dates for OpenSolaris 2009.06 (the last regular release) out to 2014.

One big difference between the regular Solaris ten-years-for-every-version support and OpenSolaris support is that if a new OpenSolaris release already exists, Sun may choose to make fixes in the current version only and ask you to upgrade if you want-- i.e. backport requests are not automatically approved.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (2, Insightful)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258154)

Uh, what? Redhat is RHEL, for which support is available. Fedora is RHEL beta, and is unsupported. Solaris is supported, OpenSolaris is unsupported. So in fact, it is entirely different.

My interpretation of part of the point of OpenSolaris - Sun were using it as a testing ground for concepts that would make it over to Solaris, e.g. ZFS. AFAIK it's not exactly Solaris beta, but it is at least somewhat analogous. Both Fedora and OpenSolaris are unsupported, RHEL and Solaris are supported. I don't think you'd use either Fedora or OpenSolaris if you fear cutting edge stuff breaking on you, and if you fear that sort of thing enough to want something more stable, you might also buy support contracts, which would be less costly to provide because less stuff would break (hence RHEL and Solaris and their support contracts). But the utility of OpenSolaris/Fedora in business - someone in IT could get their feet wet for free with either Fedora or OpenSolaris and then make a case to management that they want to go with RHEL or Solaris after they have done proof of concept.

I could be wrong though.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1)

jacobsm (661831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257838)

My management would first ask whether it costs anything to use. If the answer is no then their answer is yes. Support, just ask the ether.

Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"? (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258608)

OpenSolaris is far too big to fail. It has a large user base.

You know even FreeBSD is still supported, OpenSolaris will be, too.

Unlike Linux OpenSolaris stands for real quality and maturity.

Fork? (3, Interesting)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257406)

Even if Oracle ditches Opensolaris all together, shouldn't the community keep going and shouldn't third party companies fill the hole left in the market with regards to support?

Or is this a question of reality not working out as the theory? Does that mean that, in a similar vein, Monty was right (and Eben was wrong) ranting and going to the EU about the fate of MySQL in the hands of Oracle?

(I don't know. I don't mean to imply anything. Just asking, sincerely.)

Re:Fork? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257460)

There is no doubt that the acquisition of Sun by Oracle has an impact on the MySql product. Sun financed the development of the product for financial benefits and it is not in Oracles interests to do so. That means while MySql will not die and it will be forked it may or may not survive or thrive as well as it had Sun remained independent and in control of it under a different path. Obviously Sun had financial issues it needed to work out and being bought by Oracle was probably not the best route for anybody involved except the executives involved.

Re:Fork? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257462)

The OpenSolaris community is awfully small. It really can't do very well to be honest. Couple dozen active people are not enough to keep an entire operating system afloat and meaningful.

Re:Fork? (2, Interesting)

DennisZeMenace (131127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257466)

How big is that community really ? And what percentage of that community is actually made out of Sun employees ?

Re:Fork? (2, Interesting)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257514)

Even if Oracle ditches Opensolaris all together, shouldn't the community keep going

I doubt that OpenSolaris has enough of a following. If businesses ditch it due to a lack of support, it's unlikely that there will be enough of a "community" left to prop it up.

Personally, while I use OpenSolaris myself, I'd be more than happy to ditch it if the BTRFS project lives up to the hype. As far as I can see, ZFS is the only reason to prefer OpenSolaris over Linux for personal use, and I know that a significant percentage of the non-business users feel the same way.

and shouldn't third party companies fill the hole left in the market with regards to support?

I believe some already do. NexentaOS is built on OpenSolaris, and they at least provide support for their own products. I'm pretty sure they offer support contracts for OpenSolaris in general.

Obligatory Netcraft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257408)

Breaking: Netcraft now confirms OpenSolaris is dying.

Another "dead unix" for the collection. (3, Informative)

psergiu (67614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257452)

A/UX
IRIX
Unicos
Xenix
Ultrix
OSF/1

soon: OpenSolaris
and if Larry Ellison has a bad dream: Solaris

:-(

We still use OSF/1 (4, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257522)

A bloody good version of Unix it is too. 64 bit from the start back in the early 90s when PC manufacturers and Microsoft were still wetting their trousers about moving to proper 32 bit.

The alpha CPU - what a missed opportunity. Perhaps in some ideal world in an alternate reality people woke up to what a dogs dinner x86 is and the alpha chip had as much development effort put into it. I wonder what apps would be possible on a 2010 alpha chip that is still pie in the sky for x86?

Re:We still use OSF/1 (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257672)

I wonder what apps would be possible on a 2010 alpha chip

Alphlash? AlFlash? Flash for Alpha? Meh! They probably wouldn't support it

Re:We still use OSF/1 (4, Interesting)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257684)

Actually most of what was very good in the alpha chip went to AMD and their Athlon64 chip. For a while they were even pin-compatible. Now Intel has the upper hand again, with no up and coming competitor on the horizon, except maybe IBM/POWER one day.

Re:Another "dead unix" for the collection. (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257780)

When IBM decices to cut maintenance and development costs on AIX, which they're already showing signs of doing, you can add that to your list.

I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257500)

... I tried installing the latest version (as of november) on my year old laptop (ok , not its natural enviroment but if they want to compete with linux...) and it looked nice.

However, it didn't detect:

the wifi adaptor
the ethernet adaptor
the sound ship

wifi and sound I can just about live without , but no ethernet is a show stopper. If I can't access any networks then its little use for any real work. On the same laptop even years old opensuse 10.2 which I installed as a temporary OS when I first bought it saw the ethernet adaptor so we're not talking some brand new chip fresh out the design foundry.

So while I wish opensolaris all the best I think its going to remain a niche OS even if it doesn't get the chop.

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (4, Informative)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257546)

However, it didn't detect ...

Of course it didn't. It's not a desktop OS, even if it does have a purdy interface. Go check the hardware compatibility list - it's pretty friggin' small.

When I put together my home file-server, I made damn sure to check the HCL before purchasing any hardware. Even after doing that, I still had an issue with the on-board LAN chipset - had to compile a different set of drivers in order to stop it from dropping the connection every 5 minutes. OpenSolaris is a great server OS, but it's just silly to expect it to be compatible with some random laptop.

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257640)

Even after doing that, I still had an issue with the on-board LAN chipset - had to compile a different set of drivers in order to stop it from dropping the connection every 5 minutes. OpenSolaris is a great server OS, but it's just silly to expect it to be compatible with some random laptop.

Comparable driver support with Linux, whether for laptops or for servers, is one of the things that has put Solaris on the slide over the past ten years.

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (2, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257662)

"but it's just silly to expect it to be compatible with some random laptop"

I don't think so. Server farms will go with proper supported Solaris and yes they will check the HCL first. The freebie option is for other people who want to try out solaris and who will have all sorts of random desktop and laptop configurations. If opensolaris doesn't support much hardware then who exactly is it aimed at?

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (3, Informative)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257722)

If opensolaris doesn't support much hardware then who exactly is it aimed at?

Small business users, companies like Nexenta which produce their own server hardware/software products, and tech-savvy individuals looking for a home-server solution.

It's not exactly a huge market, but it is a niche (niches?) that needs to be filled. OpenSolaris is currently the best solution for projects such as mine. The ability to build a redundant array with automatic data corruption detection and a simple yet powerful snapshot functionality is what sold me on it. Nothing else on the market can do that, and the solutions which come close would have cost a lot more.

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257870)

The kernel is fairly compatible with the BSDs and OpenBSD at least has superb 100% free support for most documented and many undocumented devices. Especially for laptops. When I looked into OpenSolaris it seemed that they were trying to follow BSD driver development.

However, let's face it. Nobody cares about Solaris enough to spend time porting drivers.

It has a horrible base system, and the alternative is using GNU tools. If it had been more consistent and attractive to Unix fans, like BSD derivatives are, it would still have a decent following. As it is, even Linux beats it in elegance and internal consistency.

A pair of features are coveted by some people, but as vocal as they are, they just want to transplant them to their favorite system. They don't care if the donor dies. Especially if he has an incompatible blood type.

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (2, Interesting)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258578)

Opensolaris works *just fine* in a vmware virtual machine. Which includes workstation (testing, playtime), ESX clusters, etc.

And virtualisation is a big deal. Who cares what hardware the OS supports, so long as it can run under a hypervisor, which supports your actual hardware?

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (0, Flamebait)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257712)

Of course it didn't. It's not a desktop OS (...) I made damn sure to check the HCL

Sorry, but this has nothing with being a desktop OS and everything about that in 2010 people expect to drop in an OS and have it work on any reasonable hardware. Maybe not the supported, recommended configuration but they still expect it to work. Windows and Linux runs on almost any server, Solaris/AIX/OS X Server etc. only come on their supported hardware and everything else is fail. You see exactly the same on desktops except there Windwos runs on almost any desktop, OS X only comes on its supported hardware and Linux is fail. It's just as unfair when people expect to plug in any USB printer or gadget in Linux and have it work, but the world isn't fair.

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (2, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257822)

You see exactly the same on desktops except there Windwos runs on almost any desktop, OS X only comes on its supported hardware and Linux is fail.

Linux is fail?

I have an 8 gig USB stick that boots into a fully-installed version of Ubuntu. I have used it on at least 6 completely different desktop computers, 4 laptops, and 2 netbooks. Each time I plug it into a different computer it boots and detects the new hardware without a problem. Out of all of those systems, the only exception has been an Asus EEPC on which the wireless card wasn't detected.

I'm not sure how you can consider that "fail". I've yet to see anyone do something comparable with windows.

That's not to say that linux isn't without it's problems - I still use windows as my primary OS - but it certainly does run on just about anything you can throw at it. The only thing keeping me from switching to it permanently is a problem with ATI graphics cards - mine works great ... but causes a memory leak which forces me to reboot every few days (annoying, but not an issue for users who actually like to turn off their computers).

It's just as unfair when people expect to plug in any USB printer or gadget in Linux and have it work, but the world isn't fair.

All of my USB gadgets work just fine on Linux. It even detects my old wifi usb dongle, which windows doesn't.

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (0, Redundant)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258592)

My win7 netboot/install image works on all the hardware i throw it at. Customising it was a piece of piss, too.

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (2, Informative)

crispi (131688) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258028)

Yeah - same problem - of about nine or ten systems that I've tried it on (up to snv_133), all of them have at least one hardware problem.

eg from my memory

NIC drivers (Broadcom, Even Intel)
W/LAN drivers (Atheros for instance)
Display driver support (not just VESA!)
HW RAID drivers (Compaq, Promise)
AHCI drivers (including NCQ and hot plug support (slated to fix in snv 135)
AMD PhenomII support (fixed now since snv 126)

and I've had issues with the install (eg installation from USB CDROM)

However, saying all this, the journey is worthwhile - some features really are fantastic - especially together:

ZFS + snapshots + dedupe + Virtualbox VMs.

YMMV

Re:I wanted to like OpenSolaris but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258500)

I still had an issue with the on-board LAN chipset - had to compile a different set of drivers

You Linux people have been made soft by the likes of Ubuntu. Compiling a driver to fix a problem? Just another day for a slackware admin, or someone equally competent.

computer industry needs more standards... (3, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257890)

However, it didn't detect: the wifi adaptor the ethernet adaptor the sound

If there's one thing that would make the computer industry move ahead faster, it would be more standards. Why on earth can't simple mundane things like ethernet, sound, etc interfaces come with some sort of descriptors or standards which allow at least basic functionalities to be found more easily by an OS? Couldn't chipmakers, driver and OS writers try to save some work for themselves and talk? Every new OS version has to re-create, re-test, etc every driver for every device on the planet. The mere discussion of standards seems to have been killed by the whole 'de facto' notion, which is basically quitting. Even if we exclude MS, there enough active people now to have some debate over some driver and chip detection standards. VMware, linux, xbsd, the livecd scene, motherboard, device, and chipmakers, etc.

Re:computer industry needs more standards... (2, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258006)

Well, soundblaster used to be a de-factor standard for sound boards but that seems to have gone by the wayside and now there are a load of different varieties again. Same with VGA graphics - but then the 3D revolution brought along a slew of different boards that all required different drivers. Its also a mystery to me why at least a common base standard can't be thrashed out for common components but I guess it would be like herding cats with all the vested interests out there.

Re:computer industry needs more standards... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258216)

Probably would also get users plugging in their devices and never installing the proper drivers. But open interface standards for basic sound, graphics, networking etc would be truly fexcellent.

Re:computer industry needs more standards... (1)

Rysc (136391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258218)

This problem was solved--correctly--years ago, and by Sun no less! You want OpenFirmware [wikipedia.org], though sadly that Intel went all NIH and is pushing EFI for x86 instead, which is similar but not nearly as good.

It is a culture problem (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258418)

Interestingly, all the issues you have exists on a typical Desktop/Laptop. Especially sound card and Wi-Fi. I guess the issue with OpenSolaris is the company and its culture. Sun is a company who makes gigantic servers having insane amounts of uptime and most of their products (except couple of workstations) doesn't even have the parts like sound card or wifi.

A good example is Java, for a decade, people using Java plugin had to deal with their hard disk going nuts right after running a basic applet. What did they (finally!) do? A simple, 1 MB application running in low priority that caches most used classes. Problem instantly got fixed. Same guys, while fixing that issue, had the marvelous idea of adding something to startup to check for java updates, running 24/7. That is PR suicide on Windows land, that is one thing users hate more than a virus. Of course, they are disconnected from average desktop user so they thought it won't bother. It didn't change the mind of thousands to flame them. They could, use Apple's method of using system's own scheduler on Windows (for software update) and get away with it.

I really think it is a culture problem for Sun, they should really get rid of "lets go big on desktop" mad idea and fix their already problematic products like Desktop Java, Open Office. They could start with taking over OS X Java development from Apple, Apple clearly doesn't care and doesn't bother at all. Open Office? They managed to copy MS Office with all its problems in open source. I remember what a great thing it was while it was Star Office. It is like, they code it in a way that everyone has a Solaris Workstation with 4GB of RAM.

Blatant Troll (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257568)

Only mild flamage? You see this is why I prefer Linux!

Hardware/apps (2, Insightful)

cbuosi (1492959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257604)

I, like others, tested OpenSolaris and the 2 main problems that i saw where, 1) lack of support for fancy/new hardware. 2) not so many native programs as Linux/BSD. I think that OpenSolaris will live forever, but not as a OS, its bests features (ZFS, others) will be incorporated in linux/free bsd/ others)

Re:Hardware/apps (2, Insightful)

hedrick (701605) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257670)

Again, Solaris and Opensolaris are not currently desktop/laptop OS's. For a server you buy appropriate hardware.

Actually hardware support for desktops is acceptable. It's laptops that are weakest. You really have to choose your laptop carefully. But I can understand that this wouldn't be a priority for developers.

At any rate, the original posting is FUD. It's true that there is concern in some of the Opensolaris forums, because Oracle hasn't said anything about Opensolaris. But there's no particular reason to believe there will be trouble. The article that the posting points to says nothing that would imply problems for Opensolaris. To avoid developing Opensolaris, Oracle would have to come up with some other way to develop and test new Solaris features. The approach that would cause problems for the Opensolaris community would be to close the process. I wouldn't think having less testing of new features would in their interest, but we'll see. Oracle has a number of current opportunities to shoot themselves in the foot with Sun-related issues. This is one of them.

Re:Hardware/apps (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257694)

ZFS will probably have to be reimplemented somehow to go on Linux. We'll have to wait for ext5 or 6 to get a reasonable subset of ZFS feature list.

Re:Hardware/apps (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257842)

I think that OpenSolaris will live forever, but not as a OS, its bests features (ZFS, others) will be incorporated in linux/free bsd/ others)

They won't be incorporated into Linux unless Oracle changes the license. Sun chose the license for OpenSolaris specifically to make it incompatible with Linux's license, in order to prevent Linux from gaining a further competitive advantage over Solaris, mostly in the form of ZFS. The best features might be replicated in Linux. Of course, BSD already has ZFS, because their license is compatible... Which of course has stolen some users from Linux.

Article Doesn't Quite Say it, But Not Suprised (4, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257626)

The article doesn't quite say it, and it doesn't have the smoking gun of "We're canning OpenSolaris", but that end of life page for OpenSolaris looks pretty damn final to me and there is little room for interpretation.

I wouldn't be surprised if Open Solaris went the journey. The whole point of it was to arrest the slide of Solaris in the face of Linux, in particular, and so that Sun could tell everyone that Solaris was open and just like Linux. Unfortunately, OpenSolaris has contributed little, if anything, to Solaris. There's no community of developers apart from those Sun sanctioned and things like Solaris's driver support is still a long way behind where Linux is. Development still hasn't been opened and there is no public repository development model. Sun, or Oracle now, is bankrolling it with none of the cost savings you would expect from such a project.

One can only hope that Oracle won't follow the same 'strategy' that Sun have followed for the past ten years, because it got Sun into trouble and it'll cost Oracle rather a lot of money if they get it wrong. However, they look as if they're doing swift about-turns on that and a statement of their future intent is clear when you go to www.sun.com - it redirects straight to www.oracle.com.

Re:Article Doesn't Quite Say it, But Not Suprised (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258090)

The article doesn't quite say it, and it doesn't have the smoking gun of "We're canning OpenSolaris", but that end of life page for OpenSolaris looks pretty damn final to me and there is little room for interpretation.

The Oracle page lays out a software support policy for OpenSolaris releases and, following the policy, specifies end-of-support dates for existing releases. Oracle generally does not talk about specific release or support dates for future versions of software.

Given those facts, what on the page makes you think that there won't be another OpenSolaris version? What on the page is different from the end-of-support date pages for the Oracle RDBMS?

I detect a whiff of speculative FUD coming from both articles.

Well this sucks... (1)

jedirock (1453977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257680)

I was planning to build a file server using OpenSolaris in the coming weeks, but I may have to rethink that now.

Anyone know a good place to get access to ZFS in another place? Would BSD or FUSE on Linux be better?

Re:Well this sucks... (2, Informative)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257728)

So long as it's FreeBSD 8 and not 7, a properly tuned and setup ZFS install is a breeze to put together. It took me maybe 20 minutes to kernel tune mine (i386 chipset and less than the recommended RAM in it at the time) and it's got good stability on a 1.7TB raidz unit. YMMV, but I wouldn't stick 7 back on another box again. I've no comment on FUSE.

Re:Well this sucks... (4, Interesting)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257912)

Anyone know a good place to get access to ZFS in another place? Would BSD or FUSE on Linux be better?

FreeBSD - ZFS is no longer in experimental status as of version 8.0. I haven't heard anyone recommend FUSE on Linux. As far as other BSDs go, I know that at least OpenBSD has no plans to include it at this stage.

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2009/1/17/4750954 [kerneltrap.org] - But that was over a year ago.

At the moment I'm learning FreeBSD over OpenSolaris because I want ZFS, FreeBSD is fully free and open source, FreeBSD looks to have a wider array of ports, which should be easy to install, even though with the LiveCD of OpenSolaris it boots up straight to X. On a production server or maybe even workstation, I think the choice would be down to FreeBSD versus Solaris, rather than OpenSolaris. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Solaris does have a lot of nice features though, FMA (fault management architecture - lets you know when something has gone kaput and what to do about it.) And FreeBSD will lag in terms of the version of ZFS it supports. Deduplication looks to be a pretty cool feature - if you copy some data to another part of the HDD, and then you leave it a bit and your hoarding nature kicks in and you don't know whether you can delete it or not - no fear, ZFS will recognize the data as the same, only store it in one place (unless modified of course) and so there is no benefit to deleting the copy other than being a neat freak.

I'm presently wrestling with setting up FreeBSD on wireless. After that I have to get X set up. It would be nice if FreeBSD had version specific handbooks ala PostgreSQL, but they don't. So it's a combination of man pages, handbook, googling, etc to get me where I want to go. It's a bit of a contrast to Ubuntu which I set up on another box in the space of about an hour, including updates. Unmetered FOSS mirrors on ISPs kick ass!

Anyway, I suspect that the user base of FreeBSD will grow by leaps and bounds when people realize the advantages of ZFS and don't want to wait for BTRFS or whatever the results of this meeting might be: http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/casablanca [sun.com]

Re:Well this sucks... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257978)

FUSE involves overhead. You don't want to use it when you're trying to achieve maximum performance.

Re:Well this sucks... (1)

jedirock (1453977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258166)

Not too worried about performance right now. It'll essentially be a NAS over 1Gbit/s, so as long as it's faster than that.

Re:Well this sucks... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257996)

ZFS has been ported to FreeBSD 2 years ago. It's quite stable there by now and there are people using FreeBSD with ZFS on mission critical servers. Big ones too.

Just, a few features are missing, since FreeBSD does not have bits for it in kernel(sharesmb and shareiscsi properties do nothing in FreeBSD since the kernel does not have native suport for serving those protocols, you'll have to installa samba and create widnows shares the old way).

while we're here, what about linux zfs (3, Interesting)

drfireman (101623) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257698)

So far as I can tell, zfs is the only piece of opensolaris that's exciting enough to make anyone want to install if if they'd otherwise want to install a linux distribution. With that in mind, could someone post an authoritative update on the supposedly intractable licensing issues that prevent ZFS from being incorporated into the linux kernel? Is it still hopeless?

Re:while we're here, what about linux zfs (3, Informative)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257946)

Well it's fairly simple. OpenSolaris is licenced under the CDDL [wikipedia.org], which is incompatible with the GPL, which is the license the Linux kernel is released under. Nothing "supposed" there, it's a fact.

It is, however, compatible with the BSD license, which is why FreeBSD has ZFS support now.

Re:while we're here, what about linux zfs (1)

Jahava (946858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258010)

It would be nice if, should it intend to pull the plug on OpenSolaris support, Oracle would do a GPL release of ZFS ... or maybe the entire OpenSolaris operating system (kernel, userspace, etc.).

It seems like a huge waste to lose a huge resilient code base like that to obscurity. Plus, Linux is definitely one of Oracle's strategic technologies.

Re:while we're here, what about linux zfs (1)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258106)

You've got the direction wrong. The CDDL is compatible with both those licences. I.e. you won't violate the CDDL by porting it to BSD or GPL works and distributing it. The GPL and BSD licences are not compatible with the CDDL though, in the sense that the CDDL is more restrictive than those licences. Note that FreeBSD ZFS is *not* in FreeBSD core (and never will be?) precisely because of it this, last I checked. Also, Linux could easily have the *same* level of support, if someone wished. Nothing in the CDDL would prevent it.

A lot of people see Sun as having deliberately chosen this licensing situation. Whether that's really true or not, who knows - however it does seem to be the general perception.

Re:while we're here, what about linux zfs (3, Informative)

Alcoholic Synonymous (990318) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258450)

Note that FreeBSD ZFS is *not* in FreeBSD core (and never will be?) precisely because of it this, last I checked.

It's not in the core... but it is in base. FreeBSD ships with full support for ZFS (since 7.0) and only requires zfs_enable="YES" in /etc/rc.conf.

If you are using FreeBSD in a device and don't want or cannot use ZFS, there are several settings (WITHOUT_ZFS, WITHOUT_CDDL, WITHOUT_OPENSOLARIS) and such that can be dropped into /etc/src.conf to omit these bits completely from your build.

Sources for ZFS and other bits of non-BSD licensed software (that may be redistributed) are found under src/contrib and src/sys/contrib, where they can be easily segregated from the "pure" BSD bits.

Re:while we're here, what about linux zfs (1, Insightful)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257986)

Well according to the wikipedia info [wikipedia.org] (not sure how up to date it is) - the problem is that Sun chose (on purpose) an open license (CDDL) that makes distributing a derivative work of it and GPL software illegal.

Even a clean room implementation may have issues due to patents.

You can apparently try to run it in userspace (that's the FUSE stuff the other posters are talking about) but that's a messy solution for sure.

Chances are we'll have a production btrfs [kernel.org] before we get an in-kernel ZFS implementation.

Not likely (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258000)

Even if ZFS was GPL'ed I very much doubt it could displace Btrfs in the Linux land. Not only because the COW-friendly B-trees of Btrfs look more clean, but because ZFS is not just a filesystem and would require a lot of work. ZFS is a complete reimplementation of everything between the VFS layer and the disk driver, including cache management. Solaris has two IO stacks living together, the old one (UFS, FAT, etc) and the ZFS one. I doubt the Linux hackers would accept something like that in Linux, they would probably require to drop everthing that it's not the filesystem (if Sun wasn't able to make UFS work with the ZFS block subsystem I doubt you can adapt it to work well with the myriad of filesystems that Linux supports). Btrfs in the other hand it's designed to fit in Linux perfectly, and it's already being used by early adopters anyway (I've been using it for 4 months on my desktop with no problems at all)

Re:while we're here, what about linux zfs (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258044)

I believe this Wikipedia summary [wikipedia.org] is as good as an update as anyone has of the progress and likelihood of future progress. An alternative is FreeBSD 8 [freebsd.org] (released Nov. 2009), which includes ZFS as an officially supported feature for the first time.

Re:while we're here, what about linux zfs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258144)

isn't it funny that there are bits of freeBSD that are not BSD licenced. So if you though you could take freeBSD and use it for whatever you want, you have to check the licence of every component.

Re:while we're here, what about linux zfs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258108)

almost exactly the same as the license issues that stop FAT32 being in the kernel. microsofts implementation of FAT32 was not GPL compatable, so the code could not be copy'n'pasted into Linux. Some one had to sit down and write a GPL implementation of FAT32. of course there is no promise that MS wont say you infringed their patents.

Anonymous Coward (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257778)

Who cares.

Opensolaris != Solaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31257894)

Note that Opensolaris and Solaris are two different things...Opensolaris is to Solaris what Fedora is to Red Hat. Oracle is going to support and invest in Solaris, it's opensolaris what may change.

Does Oracle own Sun yet? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31257920)

With all the legal wrangling , especially in europe , I've rather lost the thread of this ongoing buyout.

Anyone actually read the article at Oracle yet? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31258150)

Those, who are crying here "OpenSolaris gone", read the fucking article CAREFULLY (never happens on Slashdot, though):

So use letter-by-letter approach if you're unable to see word-by-word or sentence-by-sentence:"Future releases of the Solaris OS will also be based on the OpenSolaris community codebase."

That means RedHat/Fedora model. Clear now?

http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/lifecycle.xml

Wonder if someone can help me here (1, Insightful)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258344)

Is there a way I can filter all KDawson articles out? Rather than endlessly whine about it, I'm looking for a way to return slashdot to the way it used to be. That is, with some integrity. I think I've read three piece of shit, antagonistically misleading articles posted by this bastion of all that is wrong with journalism today alone.

IBM & AIX - the last man standing (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31258374)

Nobody cares about open solaris. Nobody in their right mind would have chosen it as a platform.

I'm not surprised that IBM is the last company, AIX the last proprietary unix platform. Power the last proprietary hardware platform...

HP & Itanium? Laughable... And Linux on x86 has eaten the rest.

IBM 'get' services in the way the rest never have. They get that it's the bloody hardware which matters. This is why power is hitting 5GHz. The OS is just there to make it work. You want the fastest, lowest latency, highest throughput. You use IBM. You just want it to work and are on a budget? Linux.

The 'executives' of the rest of the companies clearly didn't know or care what their customers want, or what their business really is.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...