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!

OpenSolaris Governing Board Dissolves Itself

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the never-should-have-given-them-that-acid dept.

Oracle 198

mysidia writes "Last month, it was mentioned that the OpenSolaris governing board issued an ultimatum to Oracle. It turns out that Oracle continued to ignore requests to appoint a liaison after the governing board's demands. This morning, the board unanimously passed a resolution to dissolve itself. Source code changes are no longer available, and it would appear that OpenSolaris and community involvement in the development of Solaris have been killed as rumored. We recently discussed a 'Spork' of OpenSolaris called Illumos. Perhaps now, this will have a chance at becoming a true fork."

cancel ×

198 comments

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

What momentum may that fork have? (4, Insightful)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345394)

With so much core OS work going to Linux and most of the remainder going to *BSD, which also has already ZFS well underway... What do theyhave to attract devs?

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345476)

A lot of core Solaris developers are already working on Illumos. This can become a great project, even better than Solaris itself. I expect to see many (Open) Solaris "users" move to support this project instead of supporting Oracle's one.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (2, Funny)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345504)

What do theyhave to attract devs?

They can probably attract curiosity seekers wondering what the living hell a "spork" is in a development context

Honey, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345602)

Does this mean you won't spork me tonight?

Re:Honey, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345998)

Only if you forck me first...

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (5, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345840)

Why can't we have a knife! I wanna knife! >sniff<

(One of the big benefits of OpenSolaris is that there's a hell of a lot of commercial software for Solaris that hasn't been - and may never be - ported to Linux. This would matter less if the ABI/IBCS module had been maintained, as Linux could then run Solaris binaries natively.)

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345542)

Sorry if you missed it but many of the OpenSolaris "devs" were either directly employed by Sun or companies with close ties to SUN. There was never any real grassroots development of OpenSolaris, and despite all the hype about what "may" happen post Oracle any further development is going exactly where it went before, nowhere.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346774)

I may be mistaken, but haven't many of those Sun/Solaris developers kicked off the Oracle train, moving to companies like Nexenta where they can continue working on The Next Big Thing?

I'm not sure on the numbers but I know at least several of the important ones have.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (2, Informative)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347698)

The point is that they worked on OpenSolaris not because it was their passion, but because it was their job. They've moved on.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346896)

I'm the poster of the above. So stating the bleeding obvious while posting as AC gets modded +5 while doing similar posts for a couple years with an account got jack nothing? HAHAHA Slashdot sooooo sucks donkey balls.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (4, Insightful)

bsdaemonaut (1482047) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345556)

Nothing, but if we always did the sensible thing we'd miss out on much of the good software that we have today, such as Linux. There was a time that when it offered very little. It happened to be in the right place at the right time and today we get to enjoy what came about because of it. In regards to OpenSolaris, honestly the whole thing makes me a little sad. I realize commercial Solaris is still around, but it seems like every year we have less choices. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like that's a good thing.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (4, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345778)

Nothing, but if we always did the sensible thing we'd miss out on much of the good software that we have today, such as Linux. There was a time that when it offered very little.

Oh come on, that's revisionist history at best. When it was first released, it offered an alternative to Minix, and was one of the few protected-mode-capable Unix clones available for x86. As it progressed, it offered the first kernel (sorry Hurd) for a GNU-based OS.

Linux *always* had a niche to fill. I can't see how the same is true of OpenSolaris.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

Kismet (13199) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346454)

If the parent's view is wrong (and maybe it is--I don't know), this is almost certainly not because of "revisionist history."

Revisionist history happens, legitimately, when historians review the best sources available and arrive at a conclusion about a story that does not entirely agree with how it has been told in the past. When history is "revised" in this way, it is because the old stories have been based on sources that are less reliable, incomplete, contradictory, or of lesser quality.

Something similar happens in science, when new evidence or understanding comes to light and theories are changed or improved.

For some reason, when it comes to history, "revisionist" somehow always implies "wrong."

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347228)

No, that's NOT what's commonly meant by "revisionist history". The commonly accepted meaning is to re-write the history books to tell something other than the true story. As such, it never happens legitimately.

Technically, the phrase "revisionist history" could mean several different things. But as actually used, it doesn't.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

rayvd (155635) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346646)

Linux *always* had a niche to fill. I can't see how the same is true of OpenSolaris.

ZFS.

And don't say BSD... the BSD port of ZFS is way behind OpenSolaris' feature and performance-wise.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346738)

ZFS.

That's not a niche, that's a technology, and one easily co-opted (the BSD port will improve eventually) or superceded (btrfs).

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346968)

That's true for the moment - ZFS is the only reason I use OpenSolaris - but it won't last for long. As soon as the BTRFS folks develop a RAIDZ equivalent, I plan on switching back to linux.

Also, as has already been pointed out, ZFS is available on BSD. With OpenSolaris development effectively stopped I've seriously considered switching, but figured I might as well wait a while and see where BTRFS is in a year or so. However, if I needed to build a new ZFS based file server today, I'd definitely go with BSD.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (4, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345782)

I realize commercial Solaris is still around, but it seems like every year we have less choices. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like that's a good thing.

I kind of felt the same way in the late 90's when BeOS was dying and the MacOS's future looked bleak. Linux had extremely weak driver support, and OS/2 had finally given up the ghost. It looked like Windows might become the only survivor of the 90's. But today there is a new diaspora of OS distributions and platforms. These things ebb and flow. My advice is to not worry so much about choice in general and just try to find something you like and contribute to it.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (3, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346144)

There's basically Windows, traditional Unix with X11 (with only Linux, *BSD and AIX left), and Unix + different UI (Mac OS X). Plus some embedded systems and some mainframe-like systems, but Unix is eating both.

We aren't exactly witnessing a Cambrian explosion.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (3, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346410)

Unix + different UI (Mac OS X)

and iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows Mobile 7, WebOS, ChromeOS, Playstation/XBox custom OSes, and a few others. And clumping all "Linux" into one (from Ubuntu to Red Hat's Enterprise) is a bit of over-generalization.

In short, if you like playing around with new and interesting programmable systems, it may not be a Cambrian explosion, but we've certainly come out of the temporary bottleneck of the late 90's.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346304)

Don't forget iOS and Android as real platforms, and Chrome as a potential one. The phone boom has given us a splattering of new platforms, reminiscent of the server OS boom during the dot-com days.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346358)

Don't forget iOS and Android as real platforms

Minus Android, when Oracle is done chewing that one up with its patent suits, with pieces of Dalvik stuck to its greedy chin.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347090)

Symbian... Nokia are still (perhaps barely) alive and shipping.

There's an effort, "Wild Ducks" to port it to 'generic' (ARM) hardware, i.e. Beagleboard. It might make a nice tablet OS alternative to Android, for those who prefer writing software in Qt, if someone would port it to the touchbook.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

jeremyp (130771) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347544)

iOS is Mac OS X with another different UI. Chrome is a browser and Android is Linux with another different UI.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345668)

I'd say slim at this point. It doesn't help that all CDDL code is incompatiable with all GPL code so they got plenty wheels that need reinventing unless there's a BSD library for it. Yes, I know you can say the same about the GPL but there's not nearly as much that Linux would want. ZFS and DTrace would be two big ones though, but hopefully the concepts can be incorporated in Linux even if the code can not. Then again, if it'd been GPL then Linux would probably have scavenged all of it already, I guess that was the point of making it GPL-incompatible...

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1, Flamebait)

metamatic (202216) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346124)

This is exactly why I never even bothered downloading OpenSolaris. If they had put it under GPL I'd have been all over it.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346152)

... there's not nearly as much that Linux would want. ZFS and DTrace would be two big ones though, ...

True. There's tons of Linux server admins who wouldn't mind having a proven ZFS implementation available to them.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345686)

Sure freebsd might have zfs support, but opensolaris' zfs implementation is THE implementation all other implementations compare themselves against.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

bsdaemonaut (1482047) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346442)

FreeBSD is porting ZFS, not reimplementing it, so it is the very same version that is used in OpenSolaris. Admittedly FreeBSD is not current with the newest ZFS implementation, they are currently using v15 I believe, but they are working to get there.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345728)

ZFS-stable? Seriously ZFS is one of the only points remaining besides the magnificent Fault Management Architecture, very good network stack, zones and dtrace.

Nexenta is doing a good job keeping the current Solaris distro's going but whenever Linux or BSD comes with a decent implementation of the most recent ZFS branch, there is probably going to be a massive conversion.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345930)

whenever Linux or BSD comes with a decent implementation of the most recent ZFS branch, there is probably going to be a massive conversion.

If there is a decent implementation of ZFS in the Linux or the BSD kernel, Oracle will sue the hell out of them.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347734)

Maybe. They might also take it as a good thing and use it in their "Oracle Unbreakable Linux".

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (2, Interesting)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345780)

A open and free version of solaris. Oracle is going to delay the release of the source code to make their propietary distro more attractive, but at some time they will release it. Illumos will offer a free version of that, and many people (including oracle customers) will want to use that. It bet it will be popular in the "solaris community". Also, there are companies like Nexenta which can try to develop new features. It won't be as nice as opensolaris was, but it's not the end of the world either. If I use solaris some day, I'm pretty sure it will be illumos.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346420)

I'm not a big fan of Solaris or even OpenSolaris, but recently I've been involved in a project to implement a storage system for the medium-small size company I work for. The storage would hold virtual machine disks over a 1g dedicated switch connection to Xen virtual machines that would be available via iSCSI. Naturally, ZFS comes in mind with the hability to just snapshot the machine and keep multiple backups of it without having to turn off the virtual machine. We chosed FreeBSD-8.0 implementation of ZFS with istgt as the iscsi target software. FreeBSD ZFS seemed pretty ok, but the iscsi connection was deadly slow with 4mb/s write speeds. I thought the reason was the ZIL thingie with sync write operations. I did some research here, asked a question there and a guy from #zfs @ freenode told me to use OpenSolaris. I dont really know if I was doing something wrong with FreeBSD+istgt. All I know is that the OpenSolaris COMSTAR is really, really amazing. I got it working pretty fast with no hassle and no problems looking for documentation. It is also very fast and my tests with disk speed reach the maximum speed allowed by the network. I have 12 virtual machine disks there (both hvm and paravirt) with daily snapshots and live migration between dom0's. I love FreeBSD but I think OpenSolaris is still years ahead with this storage thingie.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346692)

It's a larger gene pool. That's important by itself.

For open source operating systems, I found OpenSolaris codes that I looked at much easier to read and understand in many places that the terse and cryptic BSD and Linux ones.

Re:What momentum may that fork have? (1, Informative)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346740)

Well, it's not so much any one thing, but a combination of things make it attractive to me as an administrator.

First, FreeBSD's ZFS may be "well underway", but it's showing no signs of being usable any time soon. Let it suffice to say that anyone paying attention or using FreeBSD ZFS for much more than one or two small servers is likely to agree that their implementation is not "enterprise ready" as they so arrogantly claim.

Second, I'm not so stupid as to fool myself into thinking ports on BSD is a sustainable administrative tool. Nexenta, and I believe Illuminos, use apt.

FreeBSD appears to be in decline as a project. I can't speak for developer activity, but I can say that their ability to actually ship code that works has become diminished since 7.1 or so. Entire subsystems have not worked for quite some time, yet they keep shipping it and saying "it'll be fixed in a couple years" (referring to USB and AHCI). Quite a few drivers have also had regressions.

In addition to ZFS, the Solaris kernel has dtrace, zones, and BrandZ.

Linux will NEVER get ZFS support in mainline.

ZFS on Solaris/OpenSolaris/Nexenta is usable today. Not only does it "have" it, but you're able to trivially export an iSCSI device, use deduplication, and (not 100% sure on this one, just read about it having been added to Solaris in April) do differential filesystem snapshots. FreeBSD's implementation has none of this, giving it little more appeal than current btrfs on mdraid (and in some ways, less).

Is it really dead? (1, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345402)

Has Netcraft confirmed it?

Re:Is it really dead? (5, Funny)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345582)

It's not dead, Oracle just told them to go fork themselves.

Re:Is it really dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346502)

It's not dead. It's sleeping.

Uses for Opensolaris (3, Informative)

cc-rider-Texas (877967) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345456)

I have to use opensolaris on my intel boxes because I have to use gcc-2.95.3 to compile some ancient software I use for research, and not because of some fancy file system or dtrace. I can't help but wonder if other people are in the same boat. Anybody?

Re:Uses for Opensolaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345574)

U mad bro?

Re:Uses for Opensolaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345616)

I MAD

Re:Uses for Opensolaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345642)

I have to use opensolaris on my intel boxes because I have to use gcc-2.95.3 to compile some ancient software I use for research, and not because of some fancy file system or dtrace. I can't help but wonder if other people are in the same boat. Anybody?

Thankfully, no.

Re:Uses for Opensolaris (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345684)

Why can't you use gcc-2.95.3 on Linux?

Re:Uses for Opensolaris (3, Informative)

cc-rider-Texas (877967) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345820)

For my 64 bit machine, both opensolaris and gcc-2.95.3 and the ancient software will install/compile seamlessly, including my T61 laptop. I have installed it on an older 32 bit ubuntu install, but the old software doesn't like linux very much, and will not compile under any other gcc either. Opensolaris works just fine for it though, especially considering that the old software was developed for unix in the early 90's anyway. I just really don't want to get into modifying the gcc configure files that would allow gcc 2.95.3 to be compiled on a newer 64 bit machine with linux on it.

Re:Uses for Opensolaris (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345698)

And you can not get it to compile under a more modern version?
Nope but ewwwww.

Re:Uses for Opensolaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345786)

If your app requires GCC extensions, since you didn't mention trying the Intel CC, and the compilation failure is the result of deprecated features, really your only viable option is to patch the software so it compiles with a modern GCC. You should do that anyway, for the sake of code portability and ongoing maintenance.

Re:Uses for Opensolaris (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346062)

why not just use the old RedHat 7 or similar that ran that moldy ol' 2.95.3? if you're behind firewall shouldn't be problem as long as you're not too intimate with internet

NOPE (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346576)

THe first time that SUN went OSS, I fully supported them. When they burned everybody, I KNEW that it was easy for Sun or any buyers to screw over OSS world. And I have spoken out against Sun's opening of the code, even though LOADS of Sun fanbois were pushing them. And in this case, Sun did not disappoint.

Meanwhile, in Redwood Shores... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345614)

The Open Solaris council will no longer be of any concern to us! I've just received word that Emperor Ellison has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of Sun have been swept away.

From now on, fear will keep potentially traitorous Solaris users in line. Fear of our software patents - and our new super death-ray powered ELAs!

bOrg (3, Interesting)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345638)

When will we get an Ellison/Borg icon for /. ?

Re:bOrg (-1, Troll)

clampolo (1159617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345770)

Don't know why anyone ever trusted Oracle or Ellison. Ill never trust anyone who is too much of a pussy to eat meat.

Re:bOrg (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345836)

I see, so Oracle, and Apple = BAD/EVIL
While MS = GOOD/TRUSTWORTHY

Arbitrary logic is arbitrary.

Re:bOrg (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345972)

GP:

Don't know why anyone ever trusted Oracle or Ellison. Ill never trust anyone who is too much of a pussy to eat meat.

I see, so Oracle, and Apple = BAD/EVIL While MS = GOOD/TRUSTWORTHY

Arbitrary logic is arbitrary.

Yes, indeed.

Re:bOrg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33347146)

have you never seen the Gates/Borg icon for /. ?

Re:bOrg (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345796)

Maybe it could be Ellison-as-Hitler instead. Just go ahead and pre-bust the Godwin cherry on all the Oracle stories.

Re:bOrg (1)

twoears (1514043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345948)

Considering that Ellison is Jewish, the Hitler thing could be poignant.

Re:bOrg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346252)

How about an Ellison icon with a gas mask on. Have a link to a comment: 'Oracle, taking care of Sun one department at a time.'

Captcha: Slander

Re:bOrg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346274)

There are no shortage of kapos these days, sadly. So his ancestry is irrelevant.

If Oracle starts losing money, maybe we'll see a Ellison/Downfall parody on You Tube.

Re:bOrg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346316)

When he allows it?

Re:bOrg (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346458)

After the Jobs one.

Rotten (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345736)

I think Oracle are jolly rotten. I wish the very best to the Illumos team the very best of luck, and the continuation of development.
This is pivotal, as ZFS is just spiffing although its license is less than optimal.
I'd join in if I could program in C.

Good day!

Oracle shooting his own foot. (2, Insightful)

mr exploiter (1452969) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345738)

This move by Oracle reminds me yahoo in the .com era. Open Solaris was not a revenue source but it was important as the means to get developers interested in Solaris. I don't think there will be much development or support for solaris from the open source community from now on.

Re:Oracle shooting his own foot. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346038)

This move by Oracle reminds me yahoo in the .com era. Open Solaris was not a revenue source but it was important as the means to get developers interested in Solaris. I don't think there will be much development or support for solaris from the open source community from now on.

Maybe, but OTOH Oracle was very profitable without much contribution from the open source community, while Sun despite having open sourced tens of millions of lines of code had a long sequence of black zeros and red zeros at the bottom of the balance sheet.

OpenSolaris Governing Board Dissolves Itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345756)

Wicked Witch was not available for comment.

Only a good thing (4, Insightful)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345766)

I think this is a good thing for everyone. Hear me out, I'm not an idiot, or at least I'm trying not to be!

Solaris, unlike the other big two open source operating systems - Linux & BSD - has always had the problem of the double edged sword because it always had to serve Sun, which in turn supported it. Now with Oracle punting Solaris to the curb, the community can really see what it's made of. Whether Solaris is an also-ran or if the community can really go full tilt and go in directions that it couldn't because of it's omnipresent master is entirely up to the people who support it. The future is bright for smaller form factors, as well as servers (again) so now it's time to see if they are big time players or another name to the pile of failed OSes.

I wish them well.

Re:Only a good thing (2, Informative)

bsdaemonaut (1482047) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346488)

It's worth noting that Oracle is not kicking Solaris to the curb, they are kicking OpenSolaris to the curb.

Re:Only a good thing (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346598)

"...has always had the problem of the double edged sword because it always had to serve Sun..."

Not exactly sure what you mean by "serve", and even so, not sure how that was a problem. Of course OpenSolaris needed to compatible with Sun products, it was a SUN effort, why shouldn't it run the Sun library of products? How exactly was that a problem? OpenSol suffered from a slight lack of interest, really. And I mean slight. Lots of folks liked the idea of an OSS Solaris, I'm just exactly sure there was a real need for it. Of course some are going to disagree with me, but honestly, for all the wonder and mystery of OpenSolaris; the universe will shed a single tear and move on. The world wasn't exactly beating Sun's door down for another flavor of Unix. But having some kind of problem? Not any more so than the problems the other Unoids have.

So they took their toys and went home (2, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345774)

So what? OpenSolaris was a bad joke anyway.

In the true spirit of OSS, they packed up their bags, stuck out their tongues and said 'fuck it, we're done dealing with you guys, we're going home' ... and thats perfectly within their rights.

It should be noted however, since they were about the only ones using OpenSolaris, no one is really going to notice they are gone.

Using OpenSolaris is roughly the same as running Darwin instead of OS X. Roughly, not really the same, but both are pretty much pathetic bases of the what the person actually WANTS to run, which is the full version. Anyone who would consider running OpenSolaris will just pay the tiny little fee and run the real deal which has slightly (not much mind you) more spit and polish on it.

Re:So they took their toys and went home (1)

bsdaemonaut (1482047) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346558)

I personally never noticed much difference between the two, though I'm not sure that I can claim the kind of familiarity to be 100% on that. OpenSolaris was a full and useable OS, OpenDarwin was barely more than a kernel. Since you used to be able to get single licenses of Solaris for free I'm not sure the comparison works well, but I get your point.

Re:So they took their toys and went home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33347614)

Until oracle got their grubby hands on it, even the full version was free for most use.

YOU FAIL IT (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33345858)

When I sttod for BSD style.' In the

Question here. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345942)

I know that a portion of the Open Solaris code is closed source. Will this hamper any effort to actually fork it? I'm asking from a place of ignorance, as I just know that "some code" is closed, but I'm not sure if it's the code that would be essential to actually forking the project.

Re:Question here. (3, Informative)

WebMink (258041) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346700)

Check out the Illumos announcement [illumos.org] . Slides 18 and 19 in the deck about that. The Illumos people have made a bootable system with closed bits of libc (including full locale support) replaced, replacements for the most critical closed source utilities and replacements for some drivers. Still to do:
  • NFS/CIFS lock manager
  • Full kcf module/daemon (crypto framework)
  • Trusted Extensions (labeld)
  • Many more drivers

That's plenty of work but there are people willing and able to get it done and they have a bootable system to evolve. The real question is when someone will kick off a full distro around it (since Illumos is purely a kernel).

Re:Question here. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347160)

Thanks.

Re:Question here. (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346846)

Illumos is currently working on replacing the few parts of the kernel which are still "closed source"; I believe they're fairly trivial things, mainly, from what I recall reading. Trivial, at least, compared to the Important Parts, like dtrace and zfs.

And nobody cared.... (4, Insightful)

Fished (574624) | more than 4 years ago | (#33345954)

Oracle didn't care, because Oracle has said that they are no longer interested in having an open development model for Solaris. In fact, the fact that Oracle doesn't care is why they're dissolving in the first place. Solaris users don't care because, let's face it... does anybody actually use OpenSolaris? I work for a huge Solaris shop, and we use stock, Sun-supported Solaris. If we wanted an Open Source operating system, we'd use Linux. We use Solaris for huge database servers that are too big to run Linux (mostly Oracle DB.)

So, that leaves OpenSolaris developers. Look, this is the risk you take when you work on a project dominated by one company, especially when you have a license like the CDDL. I feel bad that you're in this position, but it was kind of predictable, and I really think you're missing the boat with Illumos. You're unlikely to get enough interest to ever make a go of it with Oracle being disinterested. Go work on making Linux better instead!

Re:And nobody cared.... (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346132)

Too big even for RHEL? Help me put this into perspective, what kinds of sizes are we talking here?

Theoretically I understood RHEL Advanced Server was capable of an unlimited number of CPU's and memory ( http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ [redhat.com] ).

Perhaps you're reaching some contention at high loads or with large numbers of CPU's / storage / etc?

Thanks for any info you can provide.

64-way DB Servers (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346546)

I'm retired now, but at my last job we had 20,000+ UNIX servers. My projects - I was a technical architect - had about 300 of those servers. Trying to compare the throughput for most x86 servers to a P590 or HP Superdome or Sun E25K just shows your ignorance of the larger UNIX system capabilities. From a compute standpoint, Intel CPUs are hard to beat, but when you need 10 fibre connections to storage and 20 10GigE connections and have 10,000 concurrent DB users, RH stuff ain't gonna cut it. Sorry, but those are the facts. These servers aren't for a website.

Then you have the issue of getting a vendor that only certifies their program on HP systems to bother with RedHat. The $3M that the DB server HW costs is nothing compared to the software costs for another platform to be supported by some vendors. The software ran on HP-UX - that's all. The software cost $25M for 2 prod instances and 5 non-prod instances (DR, Test1, Test2, pre-prod ... ) This is software you run your business on AND not very well designed. Bigger hardware is always the answer over system design changes. It is cheaper. Our prod DB servers were 64-way with 108GB of RAM. We had 4 of them - 2 production locations with 2 DB srvs each. An active/failover cluster model. We had 4 DR servers that were almost as large located in another data center that got data updates nightly. There were about 20 app servers inside data centers, about 40 app/GIS servers located in the same building as the users who were spread all over the USA for this project. Another 20 servers were used for the dev, test, pre-prod, test2, test3 environments. It was not possible to run all the software on the say system, at least 3 systems were required for each environment. Crap, I know. Back when I worked on it, VPARS were specifically not supported by the vendor, so we didn't use them - anywhere.

Just because RH claims to run on 20+ way systems, doesn't mean any of the software will. BTW, Oracle RAC was not supported by the sw vendor, so lots of small Oracle Nodes wasn't gonna work.

Anyway, you wanted some background on why anyone uses non-RH machines. Oh - we were seeing about 4k TPS on each production system during business hours. Transactions came from client tools, app servers, reporting tools, and ad hoc queries from blackberries and other portable devices.

We had an outage 1 day for about 6 hours around 2004 due to DB corruption - over 10,000 people couldn't do their jobs (half the users). It wasn't good. I'm glad only 1 production site was impacted.

Re:64-way DB Servers (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346778)

Against all odds, AC knows about the realities of life. When your production environment includes a dozen Superdomes, RH might not be the right solution for you. And on something like a bank or a big telco, you'll find said big systems all the time, not a very wide array if little machines.

Re:64-way DB Servers (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347072)

RHEL Advanced server runs on mainframes (including IBM z systems) and POWER platforms, not just x86 platforms. I just assumed you'd have to use one of these to get massive scalability and we weren't going to try to compare x86 systems.

Re:And nobody cared.... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346572)

That page looks like licensing info, not technical info (certain licenses allow unlimited CPUs). The Linux kernel has a limit on memory and processors. I think the memory limit is insanely high, the CPU one is less so. I've been trying to find info but all anyone seems to talk about is PAE.

Re:And nobody cared.... (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347116)

Same experience here. I'm interested in finding out more about how it scales for very large loads which if I understand correctly require z series or POWER. I only have one RHEL Advanced server and it's x86_64 so I don't really have a comparison point.

Re:And nobody cared.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346176)

We use Solaris for huge database servers that are too big to run Linux (mostly Oracle DB.)

Yahoo have over 2PB, yes PetaBytes, in PostgreSQL on Linux. I doubt your extremely slow Oracle is anywhere near that.

Re:And nobody cared.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346412)

I don't know why you're getting modded down; a well tuned Linux or BSD install can do just as well if not better than a Solaris install.

Re:And nobody cared.... (2, Interesting)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346226)

Folks who do opensource NAS care, as ZFS on OpenSolaris is currently superior to anything else in the open sphere, and most if not all of the closed.

But as a Solaris admin, I would much prefer to see a more aggressive improvement of stock Solaris, particularly when it comes to package and patch management.. Nobody here ever did anything with OSol, but watched it to see what would be coming down the pike for Solaris 11..

That said, I'm sure Nexenta and Illumos will fully fork, and presumably if there are enough disgruntled-with-Sunacle devs who want to hack on it in their spare time, then they can make a go of it..

CDDL killed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346394)

The CDDL killed it as much as anything else. That license sucked. If Ellison really wanted to make some blood vessels burst in Redmond, he'd put all CDDL material out as GPLv3.

Re:And nobody cared.... (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347030)

Oracle DB to large to run on Linux? The days of going out and purchasing (big hardware) a 64 way box to run oracle or any application on for that matter is over and has been for some time.

It's happened before (2, Insightful)

KnightBlade (1074408) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346052)

Buy your competition and then kill their products. This seems familiar. Where have I heard this one before....

Re:It's happened before (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346468)

Oracle had its own operating system before this?

Another instance of BSD vs. GPL licensing... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33346142)

...and why the GPL is superior. With the GPL, it is prohibited to take work private that has been built by the community. The BSD license /* encourages */ it. I see on the website [blogspot.com] of an deeply involved OpenSolaris developer where he is complaining about Oracle not adhering to the spirit of the open source license. I suggest that there is only the /* letter */ of an agreement whenever "push comes to shove." Spirit goes out the window.

Re:Another instance of BSD vs. GPL licensing... (1, Troll)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346604)

...and why the GPL is superior. With the GPL, it is prohibited to take work private that has been built by the community. The BSD license /* encourages */ it. I see on the website of an deeply involved OpenSolaris develor where he is complaining about Oracle not adhering to the spirit of the open source license. I suggest that there is only the /* letter */ of an agreement whenever "push comes to shove." Spirit goes out the window.

This is slightly off topic, but there's a certain form of irony here.

Licensing issues is the reason that Linux has no ZFS support. But the GPL is the ultimate "can't re-license" license. No, seriously, you are forbidden by the license to re-license GPL code under non-GPL licenses, even if they are stricter... see sections 1, 2, 6, and 10 of the GPLv2.

One could argue that the GPL doesn't adhere to the spirit of the open source license.

The ZFS issues? The term for this is "hoist by your own petard."

Note: You can still bypass this by getting permission from the original author(s), but that has nothing to do with the GPL; it is a general statement about copyrights.

Re:Another instance of BSD vs. GPL licensing... (4, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347036)

This is slightly off topic, but there's a certain form of irony here.

Licensing issues is the reason that Linux has no ZFS support.

True. But what's the reason for that?

In the words of Danese Cooper, who is no longer with Sun, one of the reasons for basing the CDDL on the Mozilla license was that the Mozilla license is GPL-incompatible. Cooper stated, at the 6th annual Debian conference, that the engineers who had written the Solaris kernel requested that the license of OpenSolaris be GPL-incompatible. "Mozilla was selected partially because it is GPL incompatible. That was part of the design when they released OpenSolaris. [...] the engineers who wrote Solaris [...] had some biases about how it should be released, and you have to respect that".

Quoted from wikipedia, original source for the quote [debian.net] .

IMO it's most likely that there was an explicit intention of being Linux incompatible as well (meaning, not just because it happens to be GPL licensed). After all, why would Sun give such a gift to its greatest competitor? I think that it doesn't really matter what Linux was licensed under, the license for ZFS would be guaranteed to be incompatible with it anyway.

No, seriously, you are forbidden by the license to re-license GPL code under non-GPL licenses, even if they are stricter... see sections 1, 2, 6, and 10 of the GPLv2.

That's kind of the point of it, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "stricter" here though. Additional restrictions, like for instance non-commercial usage only would bring it closer to a proprietary license, which is entirely against the intent of it. If you mean things like the AGPL, it would be very difficult to figure out which additional restrictions would be allowable due to favouring what the GPL tries to accomplish, and which wouldn't due to going counter to it, and write some sort of rule that would allow the former but not the later.

The ZFS issues? The term for this is "hoist by your own petard."

Nope. The term for this is "hoist by Sun's very intentional decision to make it be that way".

After all, if Sun were all about complete freedom they would have went with a BSD license. It would have been very easy and they wouldn't have needed to spend time on making yet another license. There must be a reason why that wasn't suitable.

CDDL != BSD (1)

Fished (574624) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347092)

The CDDL is not a BSD license. It's more like an MPL or NPL style license, in that it privileges a particular company (in this case, Sun) to a special status with regard to derivative works.

They are toying with powerful forces here. (2, Funny)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346166)

If anyone asks for me ... (2, Funny)

mseeger (40923) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346340)

If anyone asks for me, i am in my room with some candles, a Larry Ellison doll and tons of needles.....

"...chance of becoming a true fork..." (2, Funny)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#33346754)

when you're down to your last piece of tableware, you just have to make do with what's left, unless it's a butter knife and the meal is soup...

(if it was a real knife, you could at least carve a spoon out of something)

Issued an ultimatum to Oracle. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347128)

Thanks, i needed a good laugh after a day like today.

Re:Issued an ultimatum to Oracle. (1)

lotho brandybuck (720697) | more than 4 years ago | (#33347254)

hahaha... yeah, me too, perhaps they didn't realize, in Corporate America, Oracle Issues Ultimatum to YOU!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?