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


That's fine (4, Insightful)

Darkk (1296127) | about 4 years ago | (#31683490)

We still have choices of free OS to choose from.

They don't scare me.

They scare me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684036)

We still have choices of free OS to choose from.

We still have choices of free OS...a choice for a free OS...to choose a choice....free choices...from choices of free...AT H0

Re:That's fine (5, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#31684452)

Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development. Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.

Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct.

Re:That's fine (1)

Korin43 (881732) | about 4 years ago | (#31684508)

I was under the impression that licensing couldn't be changed retroactively, so couldn't someone still take Open Solaris's current version and make their own OS with it? I'm guessing it's just not worth the effort though since its fairly similar to the other Unix-like systems.

Re:That's fine (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684668)

Some "open licences" don't allow you to make changes and redistribute them (i.e. fork the code base) but instead require you to submit all changes to the copyright owner which has final say over what gets accepted. So if the owner decides to take their ball home and start charging for a new version, you're stuck with the last open version and unable to exchange any changes you make with like-minded folks. In the long run that freezes any improvements and will kill most projects unless such a project is a mature limited implementation of a straightforward and unchanging standard.

I feel sorry (5, Funny)

SigNuZX728 (635311) | about 4 years ago | (#31683496)

For the person that this affects.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683758)

Garbage. It will go the way of the dusty shelf. Who needs it anyway. Just like the AS400. It will take a while to die, Oracle just has not figured it out yet.

Re:I feel sorry (2, Insightful)

masshuu (1260516) | about 4 years ago | (#31683780)

i might feel stupid, but what runs on Solaris that won't run on any other posix based OS.
When i look around at software, eveything with a Solaris build/source also usually has a windows/linux/bsd/etc build/source

Re:I feel sorry (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 4 years ago | (#31683830)

There's probably a few commercial applications knocking around that still haven't been ported to Linux - but they'll almost certainly be the sort of application where if you were to run it on anything other than a fully-supported, paid-up platform (which OpenSolaris never was), you'd need mental help.

Re:I feel sorry (3, Interesting)

Venik (915777) | about 4 years ago | (#31684488)

Clearly, very few people here have any enterprise-level Solaris experience. In terms of stability and performance I compare Linux to Solaris like you compare Windows to Linux. Well, this may be too harsh but this is mostly addresses to the fat dorks on Slashdot screaming "death to Solaris". The biggest file server guys like that had to support is the one sitting under their desk with all the porn on it.

When I transitioned from Solaris and AIX to supporting RH and SuSE several years ago, I experienced somewhat of a shock: servers hanging on shutdown, lousy NFS performance, Samba slowing down to a crawl under moderately heavy load and a crapload of other issues I never thought a unixoid OS can suffer from. All these problems coupled with consumer-grade hardware and what you get is one big, never-ending downtime. Something is always down or barely limping along.

There were times when all our servers were running Solaris, AIX or HP-UX. I could come to work, drink my coffee, read the news, space out for a couple hours, then break for lunch, work a couple hours on some project and go home. As more and more real servers are being replaced by cheap HPs and Dells running the blasted RHEL or, worse yet, SLES, all this free time I used to have is a distant memory.

Re:I feel sorry (4, Insightful)

rodgerd (402) | about 4 years ago | (#31684530)

YMMV. We have more problems with our Sun hardware than we ever do with our HP Lintel boxes. Hell, we had an M5K dead within a week of delivery due to a single point of failure with a fan stopping and frying a backplane. And let us not speak of the 4xx series machines, whose memory controllers appear to be made from components eMachines rejected as too crappy.

Re:I feel sorry (2, Interesting)

mzs (595629) | about 4 years ago | (#31684042)

mdb, the solaris modular debugger, that's what I will miss the most, it's not a product (comes with solaris) but there just is no open source equivalent. People that tell you otherwise have never run into a problem that was too much for truss or dtrace but one where gdb simply did not work or got in the way.

ZFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684532)

I literally just finished an unexpectedly painful migration of my home ZFS file server from a Linux/FUSE solution to OpenSolaris. I was hoping for greater stability and better support.


I've tried really hard to be a ZFS fan, I really have. This pisses me off even more than Apple's ZFS bullshit behavior. Fuck it. I give up. Goodbye, ZFS.

Re:I feel sorry (1)

religious freak (1005821) | about 4 years ago | (#31684540)

I work for a major company and we're a Solaris shop, we run close to one hundred large Solaris boxes production and test. Hmm, I wonder how we're going to deal with it... oh well, guess that's why I'm not an admin :)

Re:I feel sorry (1)

Celarnor (835542) | about 4 years ago | (#31684542)

That would be RIT's Computer Science system administrator. All our non-Windows, non-mac labs run Solaris, on Solaris workstations.

And we learn database concepts on Oracle.

Is this awesome? (y/n)

They certainly like to send people away. (4, Interesting)

sethstorm (512897) | about 4 years ago | (#31683504)

For trying to get people to want to use the OS, Sun and Oracle sure like to piss people off.

Oracle just seems to make it more pronounced.

Re:They certainly like to send people away. (4, Insightful)

Third Position (1725934) | about 4 years ago | (#31683630)

Well, if Sun's strategy was making them any money, Oracle wouldn't own them now.

This isn't really a surprise. Somehow, I have the feeling Oracle will just unload the server business on someone else within a few years. I expect they'll milk it to the max while they can, and just dump it at a bargain basement price when it's no longer profitable.

Re:They certainly like to send people away. (1)

tsotha (720379) | about 4 years ago | (#31684478)

This is true. Sun never did figure out how to monetize their most popular product - the java language. Maybe Oracle is going to have another go at "database appliances". They've only tried and failed about five times now.

So fork it. (5, Informative)

doishmere (1587181) | about 4 years ago | (#31683512)

There's nothing stopping anyone from forking the existing distribution and maintaining it separately from Oracle; if Oracle does release any code back into the public, it can be incorporated too. FTA, "The good news is that those of us who have worked so hard to bring this project to life still wholeheartedly believe in it. A core group of the Wonderland team intends to keep the project going."

Re:So fork it. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684232)

It's bizarre how the article carelessly switches from talking about Solaris (well, OpenSolaris FUD) to four or five paragraphs about "Project Wonderland", implying that Wonderland has something to do with OpenSolaris. I had to do a web search to remind myself what in the world this project was:

Project Wonderland is a 100% Java open source toolkit for creating collaborative 3D virtual worlds. Within those worlds, users can communicate with high-fidelity, immersive audio, share live desktop applications and documents and conduct real business. Project Wonderland is completely extensible; developers and graphic artists can extend its functionality to create entirely new worlds and add new features to existing worlds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Wonderland [wikipedia.org]

Re:So fork it. (1, Informative)

rodgerd (402) | about 4 years ago | (#31684504)

If you read more closely, you'll see OpenSolaris is poisoned by dependencies on key closed components (including libc) that Sun never released, only providing binary builds for. That fork's a non-trivial task.

How different does it have to be? (2, Interesting)

DeadPixels (1391907) | about 4 years ago | (#31683518)

An honest question from someone who has never been involved in OSS development: how 'different' does a Linux distribution have to be in order to count as a separate branch? Is someone allowed, for example, to take the current release of Solaris, remove anything Oracle may own the rights to (does that include code? just graphics?) and redistribute it?
Where is the line drawn, legally, in the OSS community?

Re:How different does it have to be? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683532)

This is the closed source version of Solaris, you can't redistribute it period.

Re:How different does it have to be? (1, Redundant)

DeadPixels (1391907) | about 4 years ago | (#31683536)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize "Oracle Solaris" and "OpenSolaris" were referring to two separate products. Mod parent informative. :)

Re:How different does it have to be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684360)

Solaris -> OpenSolaris -> Solaris Express Community Edition is very approximately equivalent to:
Red Hat Enterprise -> Fedora Core -> Rawhide

Re:How different does it have to be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684240)

Ha! There goes your period. Feeling so smart and pedantic now? Nyah nyah.

Re:How different does it have to be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683538)

It has to have at least a single different pixel in the logo and a new group of sunless basement cases who endlessly drone on about how free is better, but can never answer the question as to why nobody wants it.

Re:How different does it have to be? (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 years ago | (#31683580)

For GPL works you take a distro, file off the serial numbers somebody else was using (usually this is just trademark logos and such), stamp your name on it, and it's DeadPixelOS. Of course, DeadPixelOS isn't going to get much of a following unless you're continuously developing some value-add as well as keeping up with the patch management of 1000+ packages. It's some work. For your first clone distro I'd start with a low-maintenance one like Pentoo.

The line is drawn in the license. For OpenSolaris, that would be here [opensolaris.org] . If the license says you can do what you want with the code, then you can. If it says you can't, then you can't. And if it doesn't say, then it's all about how good your lawyer is and how much you want it.

May? (4, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 years ago | (#31683520)

Will. Oracle is not in the business of giving stuff away for free.

Have you heard? They license their database software not by the servers it runs on, nor by the processor, but by the core. How absurd is that? Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores, or to support it? Believe it or not, they also charge extra for installed memory, as if that had anything to do with their production or support costs. Failover? Now you're into serious money. And don't you dare run it on stuff that's not on the secret list, or your support contract is invalid.

If Cisco's motto is "that feature is enabled through the purchase of an optional license", Oracle's is more so.

I guess Oracle doesn't get that we have options, and the pace of hardware technology will quickly erase any software advantage they think they have.

Re:May? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683618)

I guess Oracle doesn't get that we have options, and the pace of hardware technology will quickly erase any software advantage they think they have.

People have been saying this for a long time, but we are still around (and quite healthy as well). Because the fact is, we understand the market better than geeks. To make money, you don't need to persuade geeks that our stuff is better (even when this is the case, especially now after all the acquisitions -- between stuff like Weblogic, Essbase, dbxml, ocfs, virtualbox, zfs and dtrace I'm sure we can find something you'll like); you only need to persuade managers that our "solution" (including support etc) will cover their ass should anything go wrong.

(anon because I work there)

Fuck the market (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683682)

fuck capitalism.
completely unrelated to this, but just wanted to say it.

Re:Fuck the market (-1, Troll)

gangien (151940) | about 4 years ago | (#31684266)

lol and your alternative is? socialism? fascism? capitalism isn't always pretty, but it works better than anything else.

Re:Fuck the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684336)

Not really. Capitalism is just the dominant system and it aggressively opposes alternatives by force - that is the standard you use to say that other systems don't work.

Re:Fuck the market (3, Insightful)

Ramze (640788) | about 4 years ago | (#31684568)

Capitalism works, in theory, by survival of the fittest and is subject directly to consumers' support providing for their self-interests. It is the perfect solution for creating the fittest organizations to provide the goods and services people want at a price they want. It is fueled by people's selfish needs to grow and prosper by working hard as well as their selfish needs for goods, services, and the perception of wealth. It's really the only system that allows for a certain level of greed. Socialism is perfect in a perfect world with a benevolent, wise dictator where everyone agrees that we should all do equal work for equal pay and equal outcome... and the dictator tells us all what we should make, how much, and of what kind, shape, color, etc. etc.

The standards I use to say other systems do not work is that there hasn't been one yet that worked. The USSR tried and failed. Do you know that there was once a glass company that told its workers they would be paid by the hour, so they worked long hours and produced almost nothing? Then they were told they would be paid by the square inch produced, so they produced thin sheets of glass that would easily snap. Then they were told they'd be paid by the weight of the glass, so they added lead and other heavy metals to the glass and made it too thick to fit into standard window sizes. Eventually, they had to state every specification for the product and how much to be produced. It would've been so much easier if the company's income were based on the demand. Command Production and Quotas implemented by the USSR had detrimental consequences USSR [ucla.edu]

All systems have flaws -- they just take time to surface. Even capitalism requires government interference to provide laws to prevent monopolies, price-fixing, fraud, etc... but I have yet to hear of a system that works better to allow the masses to prosper.

Re:Fuck the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684658)

why do we have to wait for robber barons to come back before people remember then? capitalism works great as long as the government butts it's head in to bust up anti-competitive behavior. the current generation of IT mergers is about as bad as the last generation of finance mergers.

Re:Fuck the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684466)

I think parent was just expressing frustration at how "the market" is so often put above "people" by decision-makers (both in enterprises as in govs).

Capitalism does _not_ "work as advertised" because it assumes the existence of a free market of non-colluding rational agents where access to information is symmetric.

protip: the world is not binary; there IS a possibility of a middle ground, you know, despite all the "ZOMG SOCIALISM" rants you hear these days?

Re:Fuck the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684554)

Ah yeah, another well-informed argument from the local high schooler.

Re:May? (5, Interesting)

Builder (103701) | about 4 years ago | (#31683804)

You need to persuade ME that you can support your products. Every chance I get, I replace Oracle products with non-Oracle products because I'm pretty much sick and tired of having to rely on some random guy at Veritas who has happened to see the same RAC problem as I am having when your tech monkeys force me to raise a ticket with my storage vendor because theyr'e too clueless to work out the problem.

About the only things I'm likely to keep (for now) are coherence and Java, just because there's nothing else out there that competes with it. But for most of my other needs, other products exist. MSSQL, JBoss, etc.

We don't get the support we pay for, not even on a level 1 outage, so I'll be damned if I ever spend another cent with Oracle that I don't have to.

Re:May? (5, Interesting)

swilver (617741) | about 4 years ago | (#31683996)

If you treat any of those products the way you bungle your main Oracle product, then I'm sure they'll soon be as despised as your 1970's Database that needs constant supervision and doesn't even know the difference between NULL and a known empty value.

Eventually I think having the programmers, architects and designers against you is gonna cost you -- I sure as hell will not use your Database product as more than a glorified storage system (and a picky one at that), I will not touch JHeadStart or Oracle Developer with a 10ft pole, and I will actively try and replace anything Oracle with a free solution. It will no doubt please you that Oracle has been above Microsoft on my "evil" list for quite a few years now.

Re:May? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683622)

Because of this, I'm seeing Oracle installations be replaced by Microsoft SQL server installs. Technically it sucks, but there are a lot of things the Microsoft rep can tell the PHB to sway them to phase out the Oracle/Solaris stack:

1: Decent license deals with Windows/Exchange/SQL Server/etc. Catch 'em all and save.
2: MS experience is a lot easier to come by than Solaris admins. Same with an Oracle DBA versus a MS SQL DBA. Supply and demand.
3: Almost all hardware is tested with Windows Server. Not that much is tested with Solaris x86 except Sun's.
4: Easy control of servers -- stick them all on AD.

Oracle won't see the results of this footshooting now, but as Oracle installations hit the bitbucket when companies upgrade, they will start to feel the hurt.

Huh? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 years ago | (#31683654)

Talk about fleeing the cat to find the tiger. Wee todd you might be making this post, and id lacks something.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683794)

As long as Microsoft is flanked by cheaper alternatives and more expensive alternatives, they'll maintain their position of having a decent, perhaps even good product at a decent price.

I would start to worry when Oracle begins to retreat from the DB sector, and I don't think I'll ever need to worry about MySQL or PostgreSQL disappearing.

Re:May? (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | about 4 years ago | (#31683688)

Perhaps their advantage is not technical, but in the skill of social engineering in large organizations (governments and corporations) to create cycles of dependency where it becomes too risky to the careers of senior or middle management to attempt a switch to an alternative product?

Re:May? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683690)

Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores?

Well, judging by Mysql's lack of scaling beyond this limit. I'd say they have a decent argument on this one.

Re:May? (4, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | about 4 years ago | (#31683708)

It's not absurd at all, perfectly valid economics. That you're incapable of understanding the economics involved is your failure not Oracles.

Essentially different people are willing and able to pay different amounts for the same product. As a result if you could charge people individual amounts you could not only meet the needs of more consumers (ie: sell more software) but also make more money in the process. That is, if you couldn't price differentiate than you'd need to (ie: while maximizing profit) charge everyone an amount that certain customers just couldn't afford. If you could somehow charge just those customers less than everyone would be better of. Since you don't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy. Oracle uses features, the number of cores and ram as their proxy.

Re:May? (1, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 years ago | (#31683764)

Heh. It's my lack of understanding. I just don't "get it". Yeah, that's my problem. If only I understood the ROI proposition properly presented then I would grasp the essential nature of Oracle's value-add.

Bite me. It's tables and joins, SQL and IOPs. Oracle has no magic bits.

Re:May? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683954)

To rephrase, take one product and sell it to each customer for as much as they can afford, using the number of cores and amount of RAM in their server(s) to judge.

Re:May? (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 years ago | (#31684436)

Uhhhh...you DO realize you just described exactly why there are multiple versions of Windows, which most geeks here at Slashdot have a royal shitfit about, right? While I don't have a problem with different SKUs charging per core and per RAM amount is getting a little anal about it. Hell even MSFT as far as I know doesn't charge per core but per socket.

As for Solaris my guess is old Larry is gonna be cracking the whip on the developers to make it THE platform for Oracle DB, which means he can pretty much charge whatever he wants as those addicted to Oracle DB will buy whatever platform Oracle tells them to. So I wouldn't be surprised if old Larry is doing this so the next version of Oracle/Solaris will be a tightly integrated unit that will kick ass on SPARC and give him a top to bottom solution he can make big piles 'o cash from, followed by him killing unbreakable Linux which he can't control like he can Solaris. Remember old Larry didn't get all that money by being a dumbass, I'm sure he has a plan to make some serious cash out of it one way or another.

Re:May? (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about 4 years ago | (#31684624)

Uhhhh...you DO realize you just described exactly why there are multiple versions of Windows, which most geeks here at Slashdot have a royal shitfit about, right? While I don't have a problem with different SKUs charging per core and per RAM amount is getting a little anal about it. Hell even MSFT as far as I know doesn't charge per core but per socket.

And if you asked any of those geeks why microsoft had different reasons, how many do you think could answer? Of course, if some congressman dares to not know the exact details of some technological issue they all suddenly rise in outrage at his ignorance and stupidity.

I dislike ignorance. Claiming the practice is absurd shows an utter lack of understanding of the issue which was my only point. I'm pretty sure most people even on slashdot would very much dislike having pay more for basic windows since they'd never use enterprise features (which is what'd happen if there was but one version). As a note, just because I happen to agree with someone's overall views doesn't mean I won't call them an utter moron if they start spouting stupidities.

Re:May? (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | about 4 years ago | (#31683902)

Nothing is hard set with Oracle. If your company is big enough, Oracle can be bargained down quite a bit. My last employer wound up with an unlimited license deal, but I presume it cost millions for multi-year support contracts.

Re:May? (1, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 4 years ago | (#31683930)

Here is an idea. Wouldn't it be nice if the companies looked at Oracle's product and only bought it if it happens to give them a good value for money compared to the competitors products? That way, if the price is too high, nobody will buy it and Oracle will either have to lower the prices or go out of business. Oh wait, that's how it works already.

Re:May? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684014)

That's how a number of economists might try to convince you it works, but really, it doesn't. A convincing salesman isn't the same as value for money.

Re:May? (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 4 years ago | (#31684490)

They license their database software not by the servers it runs on, nor by the processor, but by the core... Believe it or not, they also charge extra for installed memory

I've not spoken to Oracle sales, but this page [oracle.com] disagrees with your assertion. The only pricing options I see are per named user, and per processor. Nothing about cores or installed RAM. Furthermore while I'm not a DBA my company works with Oracle's DB a lot, and this is the first I've heard of such an insane pricing scheme. Do you have anything to back your claims up? (I'm more than happy to be proved wrong)

Re:May? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684562)

Not necessarily disputing what you're saying, but Oracle will cut any crazy license deal to get you in. I worked close to a project that were licensing Oracle based on the number of INSERT statements executed. Per core / per memory isn't that unbelievable and it's possible that the GPP is extrapolating on a 'special' deal he's seen to be the norm.

Oracle's short term memory (5, Insightful)

Korgan (101803) | about 4 years ago | (#31683624)

The whole reason Sun opened up Solaris in the first place was to try and get it a wider audience and more of a community around it. Linux was encroaching on Solaris as much as it was on any other Unix, if not faster.

Oracle will probably find that the only way they can sell Solaris is to bundle it as a database appliance OS or something stupid like that. Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it.

Solaris wasn't the healthiest until the OpenSolaris project gave it a significantly greater audience that allowed anyone to use it and get familiar with it. OpenSolaris sold Sun hardware and the proprietary Solaris. It is what kept Solaris from dead ending and stagnating.

Oracle will either realise this soon, or wait till its too late. This is essentially the first nail in the Solaris coffin after Sun managed to get it off life support.

Fare thee well, old friend.

Re:Oracle's short term memory (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684028)

Oracle will either realise this soon, or wait till its too late. This is essentially the first nail in the Solaris coffin after Sun managed to get it off life support.

What makes you think that Solaris's death by neglect is not part of Oracle's plan? Milk those who are locked-in to Solaris for as long as possible and for as much money as possible, while putting the least possible resources into it. Classic corporate-raider tactic for medium term (3-5 yr) returns. Strip the assets for as much as you can squeeze them for, then sell the trademark name of the carcass off to the highest bidder.

Re:Oracle's short term memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684078)

(see also death rattle of: SGI, Caldera, ...)

Re:Oracle's short term memory (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 4 years ago | (#31684582)

"Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it." I think a big point of this article is that Oracle won't be 'including' anything for free. They're some money grubbers. I really liked Sun Microsystems. I thought they were very non-evil and supportive of the software community as a whole. They came up with some great tech, and they did well with Java. Oracle has always been an evil corporation to me. Every time I've encountered anyone from their company it was a hassle. On the phone, on-site, email, always a hassle. Ordering, service, updates, maintenance, always a bunch of hoops. They sure don't strike me as the people who will keep Sun's product lines in the public favor, and I sure won't deal with them - even for a Sun product.

That Article's Title Should Be... (1)

lloy0076 (624338) | about 4 years ago | (#31683648)

"Oracle kills OpenSolaris" - what next? MySQL?

Re:That Article's Title Should Be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683772)

isn't that the reason they purchased Sun?

Re:That Article's Title Should Be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684284)

My bet is on Netbeans, now that they removed UML and SOA support.

LOLz - Oracle can't afford to give away free stuff (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683658)

the thing people should realize is that Oracle must try very hard to make a profit out of Sun, and the only way to do that quickly, albeit very annoyingly, is to CHARGE FOR STUFF.

I love that Sun gives away so much, but if they can't seem to turn a reasonable enough profit from doing support, sales, agreements etc... then they must adapt. Oracle is smart enough to realize that CHARGING for SERVICES accross the board will give them either the excuse to wind things down at Sun because they are not making enough profit, or they might actually turn a profit eventually.

Oracle cannot lose in the short or the long run by getting Sun to charge for more stuff than it ever has.

i wouldn't be surprised to see more of this kind of behaviour from Oracle.

then again, a positive spin off might be that since Java is a pretty good idea, Oracle might be able to invest enough money in it so that it actually continues to grow nicely in terms of ability and applications.

i just sure as heck hope that Oracle will not start charging developer fees for people to develop in Java etc...

My point is that Sun WILL weigh Oracle down, if Oracle doesn't controlably wind Sun down, or if Oracle does not make a profit from CHARGING FOR MORE SERVICES Sun always liked to give away for free.

Sun is probably going to start disappearing over the next 1-6 years if Oracle can't make a decent profit from it.

Re:LOLz - Oracle can't afford to give away free st (2, Insightful)

Darfeld (1147131) | about 4 years ago | (#31684334)

Sun is probably going to start disappearing over the next 1-6 years if Oracle can't make a decent profit from it.

Correction : Sun will desappear over the next 1-6 years, becauce it's Oracle business plan.

start to die? (2, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | about 4 years ago | (#31683668)

that thing has been dead for years. Which is a huge pity because solaris and sun's hardware was some sweet gear.

Re:start to die? (3, Interesting)

paganizer (566360) | about 4 years ago | (#31684464)

I picked up a bunch of solaris hardware during the dot-bomb for scrap metal prices; none of it was top-end even then, but gods I love their stuff. I loved their software ca solaris 7, but as linux got better...well, I would still take Solaris 10 over most Linux distro's. And I grabbed the free distro of Solaris 10 as soon as I heard about it.
IIRC, in storage I have a SPARCstation 5, a ZX, a ELC, 2 or 3 Sun Ultra 5's, a Ultra Enterprise 3000 (which, BTW, rocks) and some other stuff that I have to think must have been one-offs, like a Solaris laptop and a really very pretty workstation that does not seem to exist; it's Dark orange and blue.

I used to have most up and running, in my little mini-datacenter, but I moved to some place without decent internet and had to move my servers to hosting services (which, by the way, after having everything in my basement from 1994 to 2003, was a convoluted mess from hell to get sorted out).
I might be helping to start up an ISP soon, which means I get my datacenter back up...yay!

Well then (1, Troll)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#31683738)

To quote Johnny Ringo form Tombstone "Well... Bye."

Seriously, if Oracle thinks they've got a money maker with Solaris, they are in for some sore disappointment. We use Solaris quite a bit at work, since we have a long UNIX legacy and still run SPARC systems. The thing is a bitch. All kinds of reasons not to like it. We only use it on our SPARC systems, and then only because that is pretty much what you have to use. Our x86 stuff is all Windows or Linux.

So I don't see what they think they are going to gain here. If they think they'll start making big in roads to the x86 market, good luck. They had enough trouble when it was free, charging isn't going to do them any favors. If they are charging on SPARC hardware, well that seems kinda dumb. SPARC is expensive as hell and generally only purchased these days by companies that either need high end systems (mainframes and the like) or by those with legacy SPARC apps they don't want to port.

I just can't see how they figure this will work. If they want to push their hardware, the software needs to be free since the hardware is already expensive and they are fighting an uphill battle against x86, which I might note is gaining more high end capabilities each generation. If they want to instead because a software firm, fine, but first Solaris has got to get a whole hell of a lot better. It can't compete with Windows as it doesn't have the app base, nor good desktop support so it has to compete with Linux. Well if you are going up against a free OS, you've got to find something (probably more than one thing) you do better than they do. With Solaris, I don't see it at least on normal x86 servers.

Re:Well then (5, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | about 4 years ago | (#31683846)

Technologies. Solaris and OpenSolaris are full of things that geeks, Windows and *nix, would love to see in their OS of choice but Sun invented first. ZFS, Dtrace, and dozens of other features languished in Solaris covered by patents or from a just plain lack of ability and motivation to recreate those features in other OSes.

Even now the comparable features in other OSes are just now starting to approach a release candidate quality, and Sun has already started building new technologies and completely unique solutions based on stuff only Solaris has. Look at Oracle/Sun's new hybrid storage SAN for example. It uses a bunch of spinning disks (which everyone knows are so passé now) in a huge ZFS pool combined with 100-200GB of very fast SSD storage as an active logging and cache system. The result is that even very nearly random writes, when done to a small enough area on disk, can be done almost linearly once fully cached by the SSDs. You thought your RAID card was clever being able to cache 256MB-1GB. These things cache ten or a hundred times as much.

Really clever stuff which is hard to duplicate on other platforms. You certainly can't get a supported solution for something like that from anyone but Sun/Oracle.

Re:Well then (1)

Slashcrap (869349) | about 4 years ago | (#31684344)

Solaris and OpenSolaris are full of things that geeks, Windows and *nix, would love to see in their OS of choice but Sun invented first. ZFS, Dtrace, and dozens of other features

Can you name just five more of these things? Two real examples followed by some handwaving about dozens of others doesn't really convince, especially when everyone knows those are the only two interesting things about Solaris.

Re:Well then (1)

Spit (23158) | about 4 years ago | (#31684352)

As a long time Sun admin, I find a lot of Sun's whiz-bang stuff to be of questionable trustworthiness, especially the storage solutions. As for Solaris, the only thing of real value in the past decade has been the excellent zone VM system, other than that I don't go too far past how I used to configure Solaris 2.6.

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684634)

I second this, I have no choice for my E250's, it's too old for open solaris and non of the linux distros support it activly.

No surprise - Larry Ellison, remember? (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 4 years ago | (#31683768)

In war you don't give away anything. Just most people don't know that Larry Ellison is at war; his weapon, technology; his battleground, the reachable universe; his goal, ruthless conquest and absolute domination.

End of New Solaris Customers (5, Insightful)

CranberryKing (776846) | about 4 years ago | (#31683786)

If I were the head of any IT/company/initiative trying to decide on a platform for a new system.. Nobody in their right mind would now invest in a Solaris system anymore than they would start developing PowerBuilder or SQLWindows applications.

It's been a fun ride Solaris.

Re:End of New Solaris Customers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684096)

Oracle has a client base in the hundreds of thousands.

A good percentage of those:
- buy the hardware that oracle tells them to
- runs the software that oracle tells them to

Do you think Oracle is now going to recommend a Dell or HP or IBM server ? Or a Sun one?

If you're buying Oracle, are you going to care about a $10k server or $7k server when the database is so much more expensive?
If the Oracle Solaris RTU is priced the same as Solaris was (~$1000 in 1990s), is that going to make any impact on a quote that lists their database, servers, etc?

What hasn't been said is if the open storage products will now cost more because they need to be sold with an Oracle Solaris RTU - or maybe that'll just be factored into the existing price.

The typical slashdot community member IS NOT the typical target for Oracle products. Well, maybe about as much as a Rolls Royce or Bugatti Veyron. So whilst the comments here are amusing to read, I'm not convinced their accurate.

There's a fair chance that the pairing of sales will increase the presence of Solaris in the marketplace. Maybe not in front-end web servers, but it isn't clear if that's Larry's target.

And yes, it all now comes down to what Larry wants to do, not anyone else. Don't like this move? Write a letter to Larry Ellison (your email will just end up in his spam folder and never get read.)

Re:End of New Solaris Customers (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#31684270)

Really? Solaris was forever a closed source OS until it became Open, but look at other proprietary OS software. Windows is doing well in corporate environments, of-course it is mostly desktop systems, but they are a closed source OS that is not being really replaced by anything much.

Solaris, if bundled with Oracle DB, will sell just as well as Oracle DB all by itself, would it not?

mod 3own (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683848)

impleme8ta7ion to simple solution

Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683910)

Wait... I thought it was already dead?

not worth the extra effort any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31683916)

I'm afraid it's time to say goodbye to Solaris. I was putting extra effort trying to get Open Solaris working with my 3G USB modem, but now the struggle to get something to work on Open Solaris just doesn't seem worthwhile any more.

With the cloud of uncertainty surrounding Solaris and Open Solaris it has become time to say good bye to Solaris and Open Solaris. Rest in peace. Nothing is and will never be like it was before. Solaris is and was an advanced operating system, but it's time to let go.

Bye, bye.

And Java?... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684054)

from TFA : "OpenSolaris wasn't even mentioned.If you look carefully, it's on a slide, but that's about it." So was Java...

I'm glad I moved to Python...

You can still download it so....? (1)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | about 4 years ago | (#31684142)

You can still download the DVD ISO's of Solaris 10u8, so it still works, so is it just patch cluster access (as reported last week) that's no longer free (hasn't been for years has it?) or are they saying that the next version of Solaris (11 I guess, based on OpenSolaris) will have some type of 90 day timeout upon which we get WGA-esque warning popups?

Not really sure I understand this move, with hoards of people moving to x86_64 from SPARC, the obvious move would be to use that x86_64 hardware to run Linux instead.

Solaris? (2, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | about 4 years ago | (#31684188)

What's that?

Re:Solaris? (5, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 4 years ago | (#31684592)

Solaris? What's that?

It's a science fiction novel by Polish author Stanislaw Lem, famously adapted to film in 1972 by Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky. Its main theme is the impossibility of communication between humans and a completely non-humanoid alien life form.

Re:Solaris? (1)

frinkacheese (790787) | about 4 years ago | (#31684636)

The OS that just took 5 hours to install on a new box and then needed to grab a LOAD of patches to fix stuff, but it seems that patches are no longer available so I'll be selling a few V480s on Ebay in the next week or so and buying some more DELLs.

Though it was quite handy to be able to break into my old SS10 with the 'telnet -l "-fbin"' exploit when I forgot the passwords..


What? (1)

Youngbull (1569599) | about 4 years ago | (#31684442)

what kind of business move is this? OpenSolaris doesn't really have a lot of users! They might get a couple of bucks from someone acquiring a non gratis license. But is really a good Idea to squeeze out what's left of it, and ruin the brand name?

Exactly same business model as RedHat (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 4 years ago | (#31684544)

And clearly, it didn't hurt RedHat. You can't blame Oracle for the attempt, it does make some sense.

To note: RHEL :: Oracle Solaris - OpenSolaris :: Fedora

Sad (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 4 years ago | (#31684586)

Having been an enthusiastic user of Solaris-on-Intel from the very beginnings on, this is sad news to me and many of my colleagues. Now get off my lawn, darn corporate capitalists and patent-wielding punks !

Solaris/Open Solaris/SPARC are dead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31684608)

They are the walking dead... Solaris needed less restrictions and more support to stay alive. Not more restrictions.

Solaris was a standard in our company but two years ago we made the switch. IBM, Linux, virtualization: there are too many easy, cost effective ways to wean off of Solaris. In two years we went from a fairly predictable expenditure of over $60 million annually to Sun down to less than $1 million. ....and that is never coming back. Vendors that only supported Solaris are now offering Linux and AIX support.

Bye bye. We had fun.

Awesome, I'm all for it. (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 4 years ago | (#31684632)

I support oracle entirely in this. I just think they should re-license Open Solaris under the GPLv3 so the code that was previously opened can be used somewhere useful instead of being locked in an ever more stagnant academic experiment for bored geeks.

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