Beta
×

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!

The Future of OpenSolaris Revealed

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the long-live-illumos dept.

Oracle 342

ywlke writes "A few hours ago, an internal Oracle memo was leaked to the osol-discuss mailing list at opensolaris.org. It details Oracle's plans for Solaris and OpenSolaris; namely that OpenSolaris, the distribution, is dead. Solaris Express has come back from the grave, and source code will still be CDDL, but won't be released to the public until some time after it is incorporated into a binary release. What happens to the community now is anybody's guess." The full text of the memo is available on the mailing list, as well as apparent confirmation from an Oracle employee. That said, no official announcement has yet been made.

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Future of OpenSolaris Revealed (4, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244378)

I thought it was a new O'Reily title and this was a book review. Doesn't that sound like a title of a book? The Animal on the cover would be some old Gypsy looking into a crystal ball.

Never mind.

Re:The Future of OpenSolaris Revealed (1)

falzer (224563) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244406)

Only animal woodcuts from the 1800s, pal.
I got nothin'.

Re:The Future of OpenSolaris Revealed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33244606)

how about ye olde penis bird?

Re:The Future of OpenSolaris Revealed (2, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244930)

O'Reily uses the image of a gypsy looking into a crystal ball on the cover of an Oracle book? TACKY!

So much for that (3, Interesting)

gatzby3jr (809590) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244388)

Re:So much for that (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244420)

see, the Onion could write an article: "OpenSolaris Governance Board Ultimatum Swiftly Moves Oracle To Action!"

And... (0, Troll)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244392)

...was anything of value lost?

Re:And... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33244478)

A non-FUSE implementation of ZFS that isn't on BSD?

Re:And... (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244538)

correct. zfs was the only thing I cared about (for home use) on solaris.

its 'ok' on freebsd but not all that fast (in my experience, compared to linux md-raid, which I do realize is not at all the same exact thing).

but solaris was THE de-facto reference implementation of zfs.

kind of sorry to lose that. the rest: meh, no great loss to non-enterprise computing. and enterprise computing will still be buying solaris when they need this level of features and support (mostly the support side).

Re:And... (3, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245348)

its 'ok' on freebsd but not all that fast

That's an understatement. Some of the performance metrics on FreeBSD 8.1 ZFS are so poor that they're not even comparable to OSol. A 10th the performance, maybe?

Nevermind the FreeBSD implementation is shoddy, at best in terms of stability and hardware utilization in other areas: high CPU, high memory use, a couple versions behind 'official' ZFS, inexplicable instability (particularly when the filesystem is nearing capacity, but I had my test fbsd zfs system reboot itself - twice - during bonnie++ tests), and a handful of other matters.

And no, don't tell me "it'll be fixed in the next version via higher pool version support". Fix what you did before implementing something new.

Each new major version of FreeBSD since 6 seems to have taken a couple steps back where there shouldn't have been change until it worked (USB, I'm looking at you). FreeBSD is awesome for network devices and code projects, but it's kinda a wretched nightmare as a general purpose or storage OS.

ZFS in OpenSolaris is a huge loss. I just hope it's continued onward - albeit a little bit behind "official" solaris - in Nexenta and the other derivative projects. Is that even possible, legally speaking?

Re:And... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33244490)

There certainly wasn't a "community" for it. The vast majority were Sun employees doing their job. Linux trounced Solaris because everyone could play, Sun took way too long to realize this. No one is surprised Oracle is doing this, they make money from being an expensive closed shop. It'll be interesting to see what happens with InnoDB and MySQL in the coming months/years. Oracle are suing Google over JAVA, making people in that environment rather nervous too.

Re:And... (3, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244572)

It'll be interesting to see what happens with InnoDB and MySQL in the coming months/years.

IMHO? MySQL is in for a long, slow, drawn out slide into obscurity. Oracle isn't going to do much with it at the risk of making a free competitor to their flagship product even better.

It has been forked already, and I'm sure more will sprout up. MAYBE one of those will take off, but my guess is that without the brand recognition of MySQL to go behind them, PostgreSQL will slurp up a lot of those users.

That said, for better or for worse (worse IMHO, but that's just my opinion) "no-SQL" databases like CouchDB and MongoDB seem to be gaining a lot of traction. They won't likely take over completely as there are some things that just work better in a traditional relational database, but my guess is that a lot of smaller projects that once would have used MySQL will be looking at those instead.

Re:And... (2, Interesting)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244940)

IMHO? MySQL is in for a long, slow, drawn out slide into obscurity. Oracle isn't going to do much with it at the risk of making a free competitor to their flagship product even better.

It has been forked already, and I'm sure more will sprout up. MAYBE one of those will take off, but my guess is that without the brand recognition of MySQL to go behind them, PostgreSQL will slurp up a lot of those users.

I really do hope that MySQL is successfully forked. Postgre is ok, but it is too different from MySQL and that scares a lot of companies who may adopt it.

I am glad to see that Postgre now pays a bit more attention to replication as this is they key feature I will need in order to adopt it. I am very glad my predecessor where I work insisted on us using PDO as database abstraction layer as this will make my migration away from MySQL slightly easier.

Re:And... (3, Interesting)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245060)

I don't think "too different from MySQL" is necessarily a minus. There's very little worthwhile about MySQL, all it had was good marketing and a earlier move to being cross-platform (which is very very important, but as a difference it's gone).

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244968)

Augh! Posts like this make my BRAIN HURT!!

MySQL is in for a long, slow, drawn out slide into obscurity.

I agree, but not for the reasons you state. Brand recognition? Seriously? You think 30 seconds with a google search isn't going to turn up the forks?

It has been forked already, and I'm sure more will sprout up.

Except that *all* these forks have a consistent problem: there is no commercial license available. The owners of MySQL could dual-license their works, and people are free to fork the MySQL GPL edition, but they can't then turn around and offer commercial licenses to those who need them. The GPL is a bit "too free" (or too restrictive, depending on your definition of free) to be palatable.

In a strange sort of way, if Oracle doesn't develop MySQL enough, more projects will start with PostgreSQL and will never even consider Oracle. The fact that MySQL sucks as bad as it does works for Oracle, and if they actually kill it, they risk losing revenue!

That said, for better or for worse (worse IMHO, but that's just my opinion) "no-SQL" databases like CouchDB and MongoDB seem to be gaining a lot of traction.

No-SQL is not a database, it's a file store. Calling them a database is an insult to databasses the world over. Yes, there are times when a "no-sql" solution is better than SQL, and the vector is pretty much that point where you realize that storing files in databases makes sense like hauling bales of hay in sports cars does.

Re:And... (4, Funny)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245078)

Ahh, the databass, such a noble fish.

Re:And... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33245054)

Yeah, I'm done with anything Oracle related. They're a fucking massive mess that takes forever to make any meaningful decisions, which usually end in abandonment or screwing people over anyway.

To hell with Oracle. I hope Google kicks their ass on the Java front and then I don't have to hear about them anymore.

Derby (4, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245100)

Watch Derby. Small footprint, backed by IBM, some very nice features indeed (efficient backups and table compression can be called while running) and, although it is actually 100% java you do not need java to run it. It is a very nice way to run small, simple databases (like MySQL 3.2x was designed for), but with features like efficient complex joins and easy window selects. Oh yes, and there's a commercial version (Cloudscape). Oracle faffing with MySQL is a gift to IBM.

Re:And... (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244506)

ZFS seemed pretty interesting. Btrfs might catch up eventually, but for now it's a loss.

That said, I don't think ZFS was going anywhere anyways. It's incompatible license meant it wasn't ever going to get going in Linux, and Linux has far too much momentum for OpenSolaris to have dethroned it as the open source world's golden boy.

In short the good features of OpenSolaris aren't going to have to be reimplemented, but since we were going to have to do that anyways then it's less disheartening.

Re:And... (3, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244640)

That said, I don't think ZFS was going anywhere anyways. It's incompatible license meant it wasn't ever going to get going in Linux, and Linux has far too much momentum for OpenSolaris to have dethroned it as the open source world's golden boy.

Actually the ZFS storage layer was recently ported to Linux. You can use it with Lustre today, perhaps some databases. The POSIX layer is being worked on.

Due to the licensing conflict, distribution is an open problem. Probably end-users will need to install this themselves.

Re:And... (2, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244766)

That said, I don't think ZFS was going anywhere anyways. It's incompatible license meant it wasn't ever going to get going in Linux, and Linux has far too much momentum for OpenSolaris to have dethroned it as the open source world's golden boy.

And in the same vein, Btrfs isn't going anywhere, either. Its incompatible license means that it won't ever appear in any Open Source BSD or commercial operating system. Until we get a comparable filesystem under a BSD-style license, no new filesystem is can truly take off. That's the only license that everyone can accept without reservation.

Re:And... (3, Informative)

dotwaffle (610149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244894)

"commercial operating system" - you mean proprietary. There's a lot of "commerce" in the Linux/Free Software/Open Source world, you may have noticed it.

Re:And... (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245356)

Portability has never been critical to the success of a filesystem.

Re:And... (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244780)

ZFS seemed pretty interesting. Btrfs might catch up eventually, but for now it's a loss.

Maybe, maybe not. Given their proprietary nature, that Oracle was not going to put a huge amount of resources behind OpenSolaris was pretty much a given as soon as they bought Sun, I think. What we'll probably see next is an exodus of some of the Solaris people from Oracle to other *NIX organisations and elsewhere, which could turn out to be a very good thing depending on who walks. Since "other *NIX shops" includes Linux and the *BSDs, we might see a lot more activity going into work on the ports of the cooler parts of Solaris into Linux and BSD distros.

Re:And... (2, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244832)

It's incompatible license meant it wasn't ever going to get going in Linux, and Linux has far too much momentum for OpenSolaris to have dethroned it as the open source world's golden boy.

FreeBSD, OTOH, is plenty competitive with Linux, and has good ZFS support.

Not to mention that, while ZFS may not become a universal file system, it could well dominate in NAS appliances, and other proprietary closed-box products running OpenSolaris.

Re:And... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245094)

FreeBSD, OTOH, is plenty competitive with Linux, and has good ZFS support.

While I don't think FreeBSD is bad at all on technical merits, and it certainly has enough support that it can't be delcared dead (No matter what Netcraft says), it's still no comparison to Linux as a whole. Sure, it's on better footing in the server arena than on desktops, but when taken overall, Linux is still far more popular than any of the BSDs. Without some serious oddities happening, I don't see that changing. The Unix-variants are all just too close to each other for one to pull ahead at this point. If any open source OS takes the top spot away from Linux (which I don't think will happen, but if it did) I'd wager it will be a non-Unix system. HaikuOS, Syllable, AROS, or ReactOS. Not that I think any of them has a snowball's chance in hell of doing so, just saying that they're different enough that if the OSS world becomes disillusioned with *nix then they're different enough that they might could gain traction at that point.

Re:And... (1)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245336)

Sure, it's on better footing in the server arena than on desktops, but when taken overall, Linux is still far more popular than any of the BSDs.

Not quite - keep in mind OS X is also a FreeBSD derivative.

Re:And... (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245204)

FreeBSD, OTOH, is plenty competitive with Linux, and has good ZFS support.

Tell that to my laptop. FreeBSD's suspend/resume support is, amazingly, even worse than Linux's...

Re:And... (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245444)

FreeBSD has ZFS support, but I wouldn't say it's good ZFS support; it's nowhere near as stable or fast as on OpenSolaris, anyway.

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

TopSpin (753) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244980)

Btrfs might catch up eventually

Btrfs is a product of Oracle. Oracle now owns ZFS outright and controls the fate of Btrfs in terms of developer resources. One guess as to whether Oracle will remain motivated to complete Btrfs.

Oracle controls the fate of the best open source advanced file systems.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33244982)

was under the impression that Btrfs was a oracle supported project also, if they are the main contributor to it this days, I dont know. But given they now have Solaris under their roof, and they are pushing it to their customers, them developing another filesystem for linux that might or might not, bring the advances of zfs to linux, patches from their end might come to an end, if there is too much conflict of interesst.

Re:And... (2, Insightful)

Etherized (1038092) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245002)

Of course, Oracle controls btrfs as well, and its future doesn't exactly look so great at this point, either

Why exactly does Oracle need btrfs now, anyway? ZFS is more mature, and the CDDL is more restrictive than the GPL, so it seems like that would be Oracle's product of choice. I guess Oracle can still sue btrfs users for patent infringement, even though the code itself is under the GPL, but why bother at all? Making Linux a more attractive competitor to their own Solaris doesn't seem like it makes much sense.

Re:And... (2, Interesting)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245110)

Btrfs might catch up eventually, but for now it's a loss.

It's working quite nice here in my desktop. I miss the extra RAID modes (which have been available as patches for ages but for some reason haven't been merged), the ability to reconfigure chunks on fly, the possibility of setting different compression/size limits to each volume, the rewrite-corrupted-blocks feature and the fix for the hard link limit with backrefs enabled, but since I don't need them for everyday usage I can live without them.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33245208)

I always read 'btrfs' as 'bit rot file system'..

Re:And... (2, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244542)

Yes
Solaris actually is a very good OS. The lack of comunity really let it down but the code it's self and the OS is really good.

A very good kernel maybe (1)

Rhys (96510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244658)

but patch and package management are part of the OS, and on Solaris they stink.

Re:A very good kernel maybe (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245032)

But that is easy enough to fix.
just how many good FOSS package management systems do we have?

apt-get
yum
ports
I mean really that problem has been solved a number of times.
That would be an easy fix.

Re:A very good kernel maybe (1, Informative)

keeboo (724305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245430)

just how many good FOSS package management systems do we have?

yum

Sorry but... yum being a good package manager?
Yum is well thought in theory, but horribly slow in practice.

Re:A very good kernel maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33245454)

But in OpenSolaris, the SVR4 package/patch system is replaced by IPS, which is much more like what you'd expect from a modern OS.

Re:And... (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244772)

It's very good, on an UltraSparc. On an x86, it's a mixed bag depending on your hardware. On anything else, forget it.

Re:And... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245056)

Well are OSs on x86 is a mixed bad depending on your hardware.
Well except for Windows but even that can run into unsupported hardware.

I don't think OpenSolaris was intended to run on ARM , PPC, Power, Mips, or a toaster.

That is why we have NetBSD and Linux.

Re:And... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245192)

But OpenSolaris only supports a miniscule amount of the x86 hardware that Linux does, not even talking about laptops where things just get abysmal

to be fair, there was OpenSolaris for PowerPC project in the works

Re:And... (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245380)

But OpenSolaris only supports a miniscule amount of the x86 hardware that Linux does [...]

It has excellent hardware support where it matters - brand-name x86 servers (largely because they're all using the same components anyway).

Re:And... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244602)

I don't think that much has been lost at all. The situation could have been worse. Thanks to the Illumos project we will hopefully have a living OpenSolars project once again, however without any help from Oracle. I would day that we are still in a very early stage and it's hard to make any conclusions at this point. It will interesting to see what happens within the next year before, it will probably take at least that much time before we can say anything with good confidence.

Re:And... (1)

sprag (38460) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244838)

Opensolaris survived only because of Sun's benevolence. Once the source drops stop, that's the end of Illumos project: its either stuck permanently at whatever the last drop was (especially in light of the binary-only internationalization stuff) or becomes incompatible and then its no longer solaris.

Stick a fork in it.

Re:And... (1)

Renegade88 (874837) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244618)

yes.

And asking that question basically pegs you as a jerk.

Re:And... (1)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244620)

...was anything of value lost?

I'm not sure which angle you are trolling from, but I'll bite.

If you were referring to OpenSolaris, then yes, something of value was clearly lost.

But if you're referring to Oracle taking part in OpenSolaris, then you have a point. However, even though few really expected Oracle to do anything useful or significant with OS, think of all the expertise and potential person hours from former sun employees that is very unlikely to come back to opensolaris work. Even tho Oracle hadn't been contributing of late, it was remotely possible that they were holding their source for some other reason or would again some day. The fact that they never will is a major kick in the seat for the OpenSolaris ecosystem and, to a lesser extent, for the free software community as a whole.

Re:And... (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244760)

To be honesty, I was just looking for a quick summary of why OpenSolaris was still relevant, not trolling. I personally never used it, so I'm not sure of its strengths and weaknesses. Course, the "anything of value" phrase carries some pretty negative connotations, so I'm not surprised I came off as a troll.

Re:And... (1)

edmudama (155475) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245442)

OpenSolaris was a Solaris kernel with a modern (gnome?) desktop and a relatively-frequently updated package repository. It was actually quite nice to work with, since you could use old Solaris drivers for some hardware, but still get a "modern" system.

Oh Oracle (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244396)

Oh Oracle, what do you have up your sleeve next? Maybe you'll want to change the spelling of "MySQL" to "MY! SQL"?

Re:Oh Oracle (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244456)

I figured they'd just re-brand it MyOracle, and find a way to choke it out as soon as they could.

Re:Oh Oracle (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244492)

Just to piss off the Syfy channel, they'll rename it Mi-SQL.

Re:Oh Oracle (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244528)

Please, Open Solaris was on life-support BEFORE Oracle bought Sun.

NOBODY USED IT!

Maybe if Sun developed and supported it 10 years ago, it could have turned into something.

Re:Oh Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33244676)

I hope MariaDB is up to the task of being the fork/drop-in replacement for MySQL now that it has become Oracle's My!SQL...

http://montyprogram.com/mariadb/

what a waste! (1)

kiljoy001 (809756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244436)

They could have gone so may directions with an opensolaris platform, but now they are kicking it the curb because it does not generate revenue, or rather they don't see any real way to monetize it.

Re:what a waste! (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245340)

Isn't that sort of the way publicly traded businesses are supposed to work?

If it's not a critical piece of your business and the benefits gotten from maintaining it are not worth the costs of maintaining it, the business should stop spending resources on it.

The good news is, it's open source. Fork it.

Wait! (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244444)

What does Netcraft say?

Re:Wait! (0)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244494)

In Soviet Russia, Netcraft is dying!

implied future GPL violation? (1)

devoid42 (314847) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244472)

We will distribute updates to approved CDDL or other open source- licensed code following full releases of our enterprise Solaris operating system.

Would be hard to chastise them though as they should have released the code before any actions could be taken. Though it bothers me that the intent is to delay source release for a market edge.

Re:implied future GPL violation? (1)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244586)

Uhm... no. They own the copyright in the first place. They can relicense it on the fly under any terms they see fit, including binary-only-proprietary-release. They are not under any obligation to give you the source code, unless they have integrated GPL code in their codebase. And even then, they only have to give you the source to these.

Also, the CDDL != the GPL. I'm fairly sure you know this already but, Sun originally chose the CDDL exactly because it was incompatible with the GPL.

So, in short, no, not going to happen.

Re:implied future GPL violation? (1)

devoid42 (314847) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244686)

And that case is exactly what I was talking about. The GPL'ed sections that they are using, use of those parts mandates that any changes they make to them are released along with binary release.

And thanks for the compliment, yea I know the parts under CDDL we might not see for a long time. I'm just concerned with the community contributed GPL portions that exist. The memo indicated that a portion of the desktop environment uses these.

Re:implied future GPL violation? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244956)

that any changes they make to them are released along with binary release.

Only to those they distribute the binaries too, if they ask for it. It doesn't mean they have to put it on the open internet.

Re:implied future GPL violation? (1)

devoid42 (314847) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245254)

Only to those they distribute the binaries too, if they ask for it. It doesn't mean they have to put it on the open internet.

Actually it does (well putting it on the open internet would be the cheapest way to) as per section 3.b.

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

Essentially if they distribute binary code containing GPL derivative they must provide source to 3rd parties that request it.

He's Dead, Jim (2, Funny)

DougDot (966387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244480)

He didn't have a chance. The Oracle Beast disrupted him down to the cellular level.

Why would I even consider using OpenSolaris? (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244500)

So that Oracle can sue me into oblivion for copyright infringement? (See: Java / Android)

And don't tell me that they're different situations - that'll only stay true until Oracle sees an opportunity to 1) crush a perceived competitor in the marketplace, or 2) take huge sums of money from anybody using their technologies who isn't already paying huge sums of money for the privilege.

I can't wait until they get around to killing MySQL.

Re:Why would I even consider using OpenSolaris? (2, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244644)

I can't wait until they get around to killing MySQL.

Everyone is using Postgre SQL anyway.

Re:Why would I even consider using OpenSolaris? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245008)

If they were, more opensource tools would support it. Honestly, I'm hoping more will realize that it's in their best interests to support at least both MySQL and PostgreSQL.

Re:Why would I even consider using OpenSolaris? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33245186)

Everyone except most everyone.

Re:Why would I even consider using OpenSolaris? (2, Insightful)

Marsell (16980) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244790)

Most of OpenSolaris was under the CDDL, which provides protection from patent claims from Sun (now Oracle). So if you used OpenSolaris, they wouldn't have a case through copyright infringement -- it's an approved open-source license -- or through patents they hold. Reality is complicated, so it's always a good idea to read the license code is released under: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php [opensource.org]

In other words: your concern about OpenSolaris specifically is unfounded. DalvikVM wasn't make by Sun and released under the CDDL, so there was no patent protection. This will still have a chilling effect on the Java ecosystem, of course.

In practice I would use Solaris for databases and storing other critical data. Linux has a long way to go before it has something as mature as ZFS, and I wouldn't trust important data on anything less. DTrace adds introspection that is wonderful on a live database as well. Operating systems are tools, so use them for what they're good at.

Re:Why would I even consider using OpenSolaris? (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245022)

Linux has a long way to go before it has something as mature as ZFS, and I wouldn't trust important data on anything less.

If you like ZFS/Solaris then okay, but you can hardly call ZFS "mature" compared to ext

Re:Why would I even consider using OpenSolaris? (1)

Marsell (16980) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245080)

Except that Ext and ZFS are in different classes. Ext provides few of the protections that ZFS does.

I'm only aware of two filesystems in the same class: ZFS and Btrfs. I'm looking forward to the day I can use Btrfs on production, but until then there's just ZFS. Ext is a non-contender here.

I'm glad they're so good at math! (5, Insightful)

mattdm (1931) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244518)

From the memo:

As one example, Solaris is used by about 40% of Oracle’s enterprise customers, which means we have a 60% growth opportunity in our top customers alone.

That's wrong in so many ways it makes my brain hurt.

Maybe there's a secret footnote showing that 40% of the enterprise customers which are not currently running Solaris are willing to try it -- that'd work out nicely to 60% growth.

But somehow I doubt it.

Re:I'm glad they're so good at math! (3, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244654)

I'm a little suspicious of the apparent over-simplicity of the interpretation I'm about to lay out here, but I temper that with the understanding that this is marketing math.

"top customers" == "Oracle's enterprise customers".

40% of Oracle's enterprise customers are running Oracle (the RDBMS... remember that?) on Solaris. That means that 60% are running Oracle on some other OS. (Linux is prominent in that, I think. Can anyone find some statistics?)

Anyways, that 60% (Oracle on non-Oracle OS) is the "60% growth opportunity" the market-droid is spewing about.

Re:I'm glad they're so good at math! (3, Informative)

nothings (597917) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244798)

Unpacking the math:

If they have 40 customers and they grow by 60 customers, they'll have grown by 150%.

To grow by 60%, they need to grow by 0.6*40 customers. That would be the same as 0.4*60 customers; in other words, they need 40% of the 60 customers remaining, not 100% of the 60 customers remaining.

In other words, to grow by 60% they need only 40% of the market they're talking about. That's why the grandparent was critizing their math.

Re:I'm glad they're so good at math! (5, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244996)

And I'm point out that you're interpreting the marketing statement as someone versed and competent at arithmetic. I'm pointing out that it's marketing math, and therefore needs to be boiled down to 2nd-grade-level.

I stand by my interpretation: 100% (current Oracle RDBMS customers) - 40% (Oracle+Solaris customers) = 60%.

Remember: marketing math. Mathematics, Jim, but not as we know it.

Re:I'm glad they're so good at math! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33245264)

Isn't 60% 120% of 40%? That's 120% growth.

Question about Oracle's OpenOffice? (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244530)

I was just reading on wikipedia last night that OpenOffice.org is a "limited" version of the office suite, and that most Linux installs (like Ubuntu) actually come with Go O-O instead because it offers full *.docx functionality that OpenOffice.org does not. Is that true?

If so I've been recommending the wrong office suite to friends, coworkers.

Re:Question about Oracle's OpenOffice? (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244810)

Ubuntu doesn't ship with anything other than the OpenOffice.org stuff as best as I can tell. If wikipedia's listing things the way you're describing, it's in need of an edit as it's wrong.

Re: Question about Oracle's OpenOffice? (3, Informative)

xiando (770382) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244814)

I was just reading on wikipedia last night that OpenOffice.org is a "limited" version of the office suite, and that most Linux installs (like Ubuntu) actually come with Go O-O instead because it offers full *.docx functionality that OpenOffice.org does not. Is that true?

Go O-O really is a patched version of OpenOffice.org which has more features thanks to these patches. And yes, many GNU/Linux distributions give you Go O-o when you install "OpenOffice.org". The Gentoo ebuild for app-office/openoffice is, for example, the Go O-o version. OpenOffice.org is "limited" in the sense that you can get more features by applying patches who give more features, which is a result of it being very hard to get patches into this project.

Re:Question about Oracle's OpenOffice? (2, Interesting)

bazald (886779) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244828)

That's really interesting. Apparently OpenOffice.org + a useful patchset has been the norm for some distributions of Linux for some time, and there are builds for other platforms (Windows included) as well.

http://go-oo.org/discover/ [go-oo.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-oo [wikipedia.org]

"About OpenOffice.org" confirms an ooo-build in Lucid Lynx. I'll switch over in Windows later today I guess. Maybe Go-OO should advertise better?

Sounds good to me (4, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244592)

OpenSolaris distributions were a joke. They would have been fine back in the 90s when it was acceptable for a free UNIX to feel unpolished, incomplete and buggy because even the commercial ones were that way.

Now with other free (as in cost) clones feeling polished and professional, and OSX being user friendly and pretty, theres absolutely no execuse for a company to allow someething like OpenSolaris to exist.

All OpenSolaris ever did was make me feel like Solaris was going backwards rather than forwards, I'm pretty sure I never had an install that 'worked' properly, there was ALWAYS something wrong. Same hardware runs Linux and FreeBSD fine, so its not the hardwares fault. My fault ... maybe, but considering I used to admin solaris boxes a few years back its not like I was completely clueless.

If Solaris Express feels like it used to feel in relation to everything it had around it, then it'll be a great improvement.

The only reasons I would use Solaris at this point are:

I want to use high end Sun hardware, meh, probably unlikely at this point.

I want a UNIX that doesn't feel like it was thrown together by a bunch of people on the Internet, a coherent experience.

I would run Solaris for the same reason I run Mac OSX, I want a professional feeling polished OS. I want to get things done, not play UNIX admin to accomplish what should be trivial tasks. The only time I should see a commandline is when I need to do something completely out of the ordinary.

Sadly, it seems that Linux's popularity killed Solaris, not because one was better or worse than the other, but because Solaris tried to act like it was Linux and just failed completely because Linux's real advantage is the surprising number of people that treat it like a god, they are a useful resource as we all know. No one will probably ever feel that way about Solaris so its just never going to get the support Linux gets from people without it having SOMETHING Linux doesn't have.

Re:Sounds good to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33244822)

like zfs? zones and all the cool stuff solaris had that linux didn't? Comparing hardware support by saying "it worked on linux and freebsd" is just ignorant thats what HCL's are for read it, if your stuff isnt on it don't bitch if it doesn't work, the same statement could be made about freebsd vs linux, linux supports vastly more hardware? does that make freebsd or openbsd useless? your a moron opensolaris had its place, further more its used in production by a large number of people and organizations. Dropping it like this isn't acceptable because you want a fancy fucking gui like you get in OS X thousands of man hours will be pissed away converting away from opensolaris to *shudder* linux or some other OS oracle you killed a beautiful legacy shame on you

Re:Sounds good to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33245424)

"your a moron opensolaris had its place"
you're a douche.

Re:Sounds good to me (2, Insightful)

daveofnf (766994) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245088)

no execuse for a company to allow someething like OpenSolaris to exist

Be nice now... there's a community of programmers out there.

Illumos Fork (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244616)

There are some excellent technologies in OpenSolaris, and it appears The Illumos Project [illumos.org] is going to be the place to find them.

I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Oracle's played its hand, and as opposed to Sun's years of "oh, gosh, we don't know if we want to be open or not - how about almost-open?" Oracle said, "screw you guys, we're going to make money off this thing." I frankly don't care about them not releasing an OpenSolaris binary build - Linus doesn't post binary builds - but keeping the source changes secret until after the commercial release just doesn't deal with the realities of Internet Time.

But, because of Oracle's decisiveness, the ON stack, the libc, etc. are all being done right now. I've tried once or twice to contribute to Nexenta and got stuck in the complexity of rebuilding a kernel, despite having done so in linux forever (to be fair the Nexenta guys were awesomely responsive so I didn't really have to do the build myself). This should be fixed.

It might give the OpenSolaris^W Illumos community a chance to succeed, being actually open.

Re:Illumos Fork (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244724)

It might give the OpenSolaris^W Illumos community a chance to succeed, being actually open.

And that may be the sole bright spot in this sad saga. An opportunity to cleanly and distinctively fork, so there's clearly Oracle Solaris and Illumos Open Solaris. The weird, coy, half-open thing the community had before was a losing proposition.

Oh great. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33244672)

First OpenSolaris.

I hope they dont do anything like this with java.....oh wait [cnet.com]

Oracle seems real friendly with Open Source (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244726)

Yup, sure seems like MySQL is in real safe hands now.

Re:Oracle seems real friendly with Open Source (1)

maliqua (1316471) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245194)

am i the only one that thinks its time to switch to postgresql ?

Fuck you oracle (-1, Flamebait)

maliqua (1316471) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244762)

Fuck you

I abandoned Solaris for Y2K. (2, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244804)

I'd had high hopes for Sun's stuff back in '85. But even before being eaten by Oracle they always seemed to be roadblocking any attempt to work with the guts of their system, even for internal use only. Meanwhile, Linux made good on the GNU promise and the freeing of BSD provided an additional open alternative OS (at least three of 'em if you count the project splits as distinct).

I abandoned Solaris on the last of my own machines for Y2K, rather than shell out for upgrades. (Only Linux machines at home at the moment - except for one firewalled-off Windows machine for my wife to run student-Autocad and certain true Windows applications for classwork.)

Some Open Solaris fans tried to claim things were more open than I perceived them to be. But this development underscores the correctness of my choice.

Re:I abandoned Solaris for Y2K. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33245072)

I abandoned Solaris on the last of my own machines for Y2K, rather than shell out for upgrades.

What version of Solaris were you running? Sun gave free y2k patches for all current (and some old) versions of the OS.

Re:I abandoned Solaris for Y2K. (2, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245418)

Some Open Solaris fans tried to claim things were more open than I perceived them to be. But this development underscores the correctness of my choice.

They were never open. Sun came up with OpenSolaris because they were losing out big time to Linux suppliers and it was a feeble attempt to make Solaris look 'open source' when they were selling it without Sun giving up any control at all.

Frankly, I applaud Oracle for finally being open with everybody rather than continuing Sun's sham. Now it and SPARC can be Ellison's play-things that he can use to go up against IBM, Power and AIX, which is now a different story.

"OpenSolaris, the distribution, is dead." (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244816)

And thus the CDDL serves its purpose.

Fork Now or Still Spork? (1)

PineHall (206441) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244892)

So what does that mean for the OpenSolaris connumity? Will Illumos [slashdot.org] wait for the delayed source code updates and try to stay a "spork"? Or will they decide to go it on their own (fork) and try keep as much compatibility as they can? It is definitely not a good situation for the OpenSolaris community.

in the OpenSolaris Forum (2, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244912)

Open Source Curious Newbie: "I wish to make a complaint"

OpenSolaris Developer/Community Fanboi in the Forum: "Sorry, we're closing for lunch"

Newbie: "Never mind that, my man. I wish to complain about this OpenSolaris Distro, what I downloaded not half an hour ago from this very user's group website."

Fanboi : Oh yes, the, ah, the 2009.06... What's, ah... W-what's wrong with it?

Newbie: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my man. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it.

Fanboi: "No, no, it's ah... it's in code freeze"

Newbie : Look, matey, I know a dead OS distro when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Fanboi : No no, it-it's not dead, it's frozen!

Newb : Frozen?

Fanboi : Y-yeah, 'in freeze' Remarkable OS, the 2009.06, isn't it, eh? Beautiful features for the future!

Newb : The future features don't enter into it. It's stone dead!

Fanboi : Nononono, no, no! it's source tree commit is just turned off temporarily!

A CDDLy bear. (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 4 years ago | (#33244962)

As long as it remains CDDL it will go no where.

Summary: OpenSolaris relicensed under WIPL (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33244998)

WIPL = Want It? Pay Larry

This was so predicable... (4, Insightful)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245306)

Knowing Oracle it was obvious from the day the acquisition was announced that:
1) Oracle will cripple, keep on life support or close-source all open source projects. Larry believes anything users want to use is worth making them pay for. Any open source projects that survive will be strategically useful (like letting a 'free' MySQL contaminate Microsoft's low-midrange database business revenue)

2) Java is what Oracle really wanted in Sun acquisition (see announcement today of lawsuit against Google re Android Java use) and Solaris is useful only insofar as it is part of the value prop for selling Sun, now Oracle, hardware. Solaris will only be pushed by Oracle on non-Oracle hardware if they can make a good license business out of it. Expect that all use of Java in open source implementations will dry up and any commercial implementations will be expected to start pushing license dollars back to Oracle (Which is why somebody at IBM should have been shot for blowing the Sun acquisition over the few measly millions they were fighting over before Oracle pulled the rug out form under IBM -it could have been Oracle kneeling in front of IBM instead of IBM watching the underlying architecture of Websphere and everything else Java based owned by their biggest competitor)

3) Open Solaris was a way to enable a user community (not really a dev community like Linux has) but since it can't be licensed (for money) and there's no really support/services business and it certainly doesn't help sell any Sun/Oracle hardware (which generally always runs the commercial Solaris) it has no place in an Oracle world.

I'm amazed that anybody is surprised.

Illumos (2, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#33245354)

http://www.illumos.org/ [illumos.org] seems to be the closest thing to a community still left for the future of OpenSolaris.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>