×

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

432 comments

Solaris Vs Linux? (5, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245344)

Can anyone explain why someone might choose to use Solaris over Linux other than for legacy reasons?

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245355)

Perhaps if you needed support for 32-core chips [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (4, Interesting)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245407)

Won't many of the features that make Solaris great be ported to Linux before you can say "Holy GPL, Batman!" Or did I misunderstand Sun trying to model the Darwin/Fedora way?

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (3, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245466)

The article doesn't specify a license.

I suspect they're just going to let you see the code, but not necessarily copy IP from it.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (5, Insightful)

dunstan (97493) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245638)

There's more to implementing stuff in your kernel than just lifing a bit of source code from elsewhere.

The way the Solaris kernel is so scaleable across over 100 processors is not some clever hack, it's taken years of refinement of the kernel. I'm not a kernel hacker, but you won't just be able to lift bits of Solaris kernel code and drop them into a Linux kernel.

What I would expect to see fairly quickly is a "GNU/Solaris" distribution, where (as many of us have been doing for years) you get a Solaris kernel and basic libraries, and then put a GNU based set of tools on top of it. Couple this with the Niagara processors and you have an awesome edge appliance.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245518)

On the other hand, if you want real [linuxplanet.com] scalability, try Linux [computerworld.com]

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245380)

Major commercial programs like Oracle, DB2, WebSphere MQ are supported on Solaris/sparc, but not Linux/sparc.

If you've got sparc hardware, x86 stuff is a downgrade path you don't want to follow.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (0)

Just Another Perl Ha (7483) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245565)

Sorry to disappoint you but, Oracle's prefered platform (and the platform their developers use daily) is, in fact, Linux.

Historically... Oracle was developed on Solaris... but times have changed.

That said... Solaris is still the better choice if you need a big honkin' machine with 128 CPUs and a bagilion gig of storage.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (4, Insightful)

sneezinglion (771733) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245389)

Well let me see: 1. Familiarity. I have used solaris much much more often than linux in my work. 2. Maturity. Solaris is a very mature product with a long history and alot of tech support on the web. 3. It looks better on your resume if you say you know solaris, then it does if you say Linux....at least where I work it does. 4. Stability. Linux is stable yes, but stable like a wine glass, not stable like a plate.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (2)

rTough (316345) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245516)

4. Stability. Linux is stable yes, but stable like a wine glass, not stable like a plate.

I do not agree entirely, but I loved the way you expressed it =)

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (2, Interesting)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245540)

Well, Solaris is *that* stable, yes, but only on Sun Hardware so it won't cost them that much, except, of course, if they risk seeing their source code swallowed into the Linux kernel in which case :
  • they could play SCO-style (but I highly doubt they will)
  • they plan to sell support (nothing's free as in beer)
  • they were planning to discrd it after the Linux/Solaris merging is done...

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245408)

When you start a question with "Can anyone explain why someone", generally the answer is "no".

For instance:
Can anyone explain why someone would swallow pounds of change?
Can anyone explain why someone would throw their baby out of a car onto a highway while being chased by the police?

etc.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245487)

Can anyone explain why someone would throw their baby out of a car onto a highway while being chased by the police?

Thankfully the guy did it though. He died. The baby is fine.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245503)

well as for that baby thrown out remark, it was actually quite a sensible thing to do in retrospect. Considering the guy crashed and killed himself.

It both protected the baby and stopped the police following him. He did stop to put it on the road in a chair thing, and it was unharmed, which is a hell of a lot better than what would have happened if it was in the accident with the driver. Of course in doing so, he is assuming he will not get safely away, or if he does get away, will lose his child or get caught later trying to get it back - which means he probably should have given himself up instead.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (1)

GNAA Lysol (736129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245420)

Because Solaris is a professional Operating System while Linux is a hokey, unreliable, amateurish piece of garbage.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (2, Informative)

jsoderba (105512) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245437)

Scalability, stability are the main reasons. There are also some cool features like DTrace that aren't available in Linux.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245443)

Err, that's easy:

It's faster (approx. 30% : Sun to challenge Linux to a benchmarking duel shortly with Solaris 10)
It has N1 Grid Containers
At $99 It's cheaper than any enterprise Linux distro.
It scales better.
*Even* More secure than Linux
It's standard
Solaris 10 runs RH Linux apps efficiently
etc. etc. etc.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (1)

lintux (125434) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245559)

At $99 It's cheaper than any enterprise Linux distro.

And for that money you're allowed to run it on an 8-CPU monster machine with thousands of users?

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245604)

You are correct, sir. Or 64-CPU monster. or 128-CPU monster.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (4, Insightful)

d_force (249909) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245659)

*Even* More secure than Linux

*Whew*.. I'm glad you cleared that up. Because, for the life of me, I couldn't find any adequate metric that defines security using an agreed, quantitative metric within the Information Security industry.

Oh wait, that's right, there is none.

Shoo! Go back to marketing.

-- dforce

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (5, Insightful)

Allen Zadr (767458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245453)

For most of the world... It's not one or the other, it's both. Solaris is a strong OS, despite losing some market share in the last 8 years. Open Source projects benefit from being listed on the solarisfreeware web site. As an admin I've always had a tendancy to use and support whatever project has the largest cross-platform capability.

Well, how better to support a Solaris solution for your OSS project than to _run_ Solaris. More importantly, the issues in Solaris that have long dogged OSS projects (can only be compiled with gcc - must use OSS version of malloc, etc) can be found and fixed by debugging and recompiling now-open-sourced system libraries.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245462)

In addition to some other comments, I'll add "RAID" and "SMP".

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245572)

Huh? I'm posting this from a dual Athlon running Gentoo. At work I have a mail server on a machine with a RAID array.

Multiprocessing (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245479)

A huge amount of work was done on Solaris to make it run efficiently on multi-processor systems.

Because it's the kickassin'est OS on the planet (1)

krygny (473134) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245504)

That's why. I don't know what this all means, but it's all good and no bad.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (1)

guacamole (24270) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245537)

Solaris has some benefits for enterprise use. To begin, you're getting support for the OS and the hardware from the same company. The release schedule is very sane (about once in two years) and each OS release is supported for like 6 to 8 years. RedHat Enterprise Linux has a similar release and support policy but it costs more (as of right now you just need to make a one time payment for the Solaris OS which is still less than the price of one year RHEL subscription in most cases). On the technical side, Solaris scales really well on large hardware and it is very usable under a high load. If I see load avg. go over say 4 or 5 on a single CPU Linux system, it's often extremely unresponsive and nearly unusable while Solaris copes much better under such conditions.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (3, Insightful)

cyngus (753668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245552)

Solaris has the best threading model and threading support that I've seen in what I'll call a mainstream operating system. The entire system was designed really well, why? Because these guys built it to make a profit. Not to take a shot at Linux, but dinner is a much better incentive to make something that runs well (and thus sells well) than [kernel] hacker pride. At the end of the day Linux is built on surplus time and energy. Solaris was built by people whose job and living depended on making good software. Not to mention that Sun employed (and employs) some really smart and creative people that have helped make Solaris an impressively scalable OS.

If it has the applications I need, I'll pick Solaris over Linux in a hummingbird heartbeat. I was actually rather upset when I heard my old university moving the CS labs from Solaris to Linux.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245583)

You won't get sued by SCO!

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (2, Insightful)

jonathanduty (541508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245585)

Solaris is very mature and stable (I'm sure I'll get a bunch of posts on that one). And it maps very well to sun hardware. I'm not downing linux, but solaris is great if you need a server to be up and running all the time no matter what. Sure, it may be a little slower that other OS, but my experience is that it is as stable as a rock.

Re:Solaris Vs Linux? (3, Interesting)

Ch_Omega (532549) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245616)

Because I (probably) signed up for something at a conferance sometime in the ninethies, Sun sent me a Solaris 7 package, which i tried out just for fun, and ended up using almost as much as my Linux and Windows boxes, because I just liked the feel and consistency of the whole thing.

Market Pressure Cooker (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245348)

Because some portions of Solaris 10, such as device drivers, are the property of other companies, Sun will release source code as well as binaries, in which proprietary code is not accessible

When you make your source open then I'll be interested but until that, this is just a bone for the community to do work for Sun and not actually get a full fledge open source solution. If the market pushes Sun down another $1 (25%) I imagine that Sun will have to figure out how to get that proprietary crap out of the code huh?

Re:Market Pressure Cooker (3, Insightful)

Kiryat Malachi (177258) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245419)

*coughLinuxATINVIDIAalltheotherproprietaryhardware drivesinLinuxcough*

In other words, Linux is no better in this regard, get over it.

Now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245648)

You should definitaly see a doctor!

Re:Market Pressure Cooker (1)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245450)

This certainly makes money sense for Sun... and I can't believe they didn't do this long ago.

If you give away the software, you can sell the service (ie RedHat)

If you give away the software, you will sell more hardware (ie IBM)

Sun obviously can't release the protected software of other companies... however, I do bet that they transition over to non-proprietary in the future.

They can't do everything at once... but at least it's a start in the right direction.

Re:Market Pressure Cooker (3, Insightful)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245456)

When you make your source open then I'll be interested but until that, this is just a bone for the community to do work for Sun and not actually get a full fledge open source solution.

They are, that's what the article is about. They are not opening source they do not own. Your comment could also be directed at Linus for not opening up the Cisco VPN drivers for example...THEY ARE NOT HIS to do so. Also, I am sure that your market analysis is based on a lot of research but just one flaw. How would having less revenue force them to get rid of established drivers which work well and are mature and instead hope that the community will make them fast? Seems that would ultimately cost more and be counterproductive.

Seen this coming? (2, Funny)

Abreu (173023) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245351)

How many had seen this coming for a while?

It's logical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245532)

Err, Sun has been planning this for ages. There were rumblings about this a long time ago.

It isn't surprising since Sun has donated more lines of code to the open source community than any other commercial company.

Finally (0, Redundant)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245352)

Looks like some more bigs guns are finally catching the drift, seems like it nothing but great news to me.

Model Fedora? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245360)

As in, make a gargantuanly slow OS that requires 192M minimum RAM - and make Windows not look bloated?

Yeah, great plan. And Linux was supposed to get us off the 'upgrade treadmill'. Oh sorry, you want me to use Lynx and TWM just to have a faster computer than my XP box?

Re:Model Fedora? (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245387)

What is better is how can you Model Darwin and Fedora????

Darwin is the just the Basic OS, you can't run any OS X apps on it without Apple's software.

Fedora is pure Open Source, it just changes regularly, and has trademark restrictions on Red hat's images and such.

How are these the same??

Re:Model Fedora? (1)

Nemith (114402) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245511)

I belive they mean they are going to model it in the sense that both Darwin and Fedora are the scaled down, community driven OS that is the base for a commercial one.

Darwin -> OS X
Fedora -> RHES

I know, I know it is a long shot to group these two together. But I think that is what is meant.

Makes sense though. Most of Solaris couldn't be open source, due to UNIX/SCO, Motif, and CDE licencing problems. So if they have a base to build it off of then reintroduce these back into Solaris Enterprise Edition or something.

Re:Model Fedora? (1)

dJOEK (66178) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245650)

they will probably opensource SunOS 5.10 and pull a

SunOS -> Solaris

with all their proprietary cool things in Solaris

Not quite... (4, Interesting)

Allen Zadr (767458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245581)

Darwin and Fedora have something else deeply in common. Both are Open Source projects that are heralded by their mother-companies for the OSS/News worthiness. As an additional benefit, contributed source and bug fixes to both projects do end up having a positive effect on the parent company's "real" products (OSX and RedHat Enterprise Linux).

Just like Darwin, Sun will only open the parts that will ultimately benefit Sun. Just like Fedora, they hope to get a boost from loyal Solaris (RedHat desktop) users that have been using the "Solaris Free Binary License" (yes, I qualify here on both counts).

I hope this helps.

Too little too late? (3, Insightful)

jarich (733129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245363)

Is this a desparate move of a company trying to regain relevance or a brilliant shrewd move?

Re:Too little too late? (4, Interesting)

nbert (785663) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245440)

at least for the x86 version it could solve one of the bigest problems: lack of device drivers. If they go OS in a proper manner many gpl drivers can be ported and they don't even have to pay developers to do this.

Re:Too little too late? (1)

quench (187533) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245596)

yes, too late. I can remember how cool and revolutionary solaris used to be in 1998 or so, what many would have given to be able to see the source of ATM and TCP/IP networking stack, proc file system, kernel process interface etc. but somehow, not really of interest any longer.

Only good news, if it's really open (4, Interesting)

Chip Salzenberg (1124) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245368)

If it's truly an open source license, this is only good news--Linux and/or the BSDs will be able to use the best bits. If it's just a "shared source" head-fake like Microsoft has tried to pull with some of their stuff, well, then Sun will solidify their position as Grand Moff Tarkin to Microsoft's Vader.

Re:Only good news, if it's really open (0, Offtopic)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245400)

Dude, do you post every leap year or something? Such a low reg number of 1124 and this is your 50th comment. WOW, you must really have a life!;)

Re:Only good news, if it's really open (1, Offtopic)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245416)

But Vader was Tarkin's bitch.

Watch it again, and notice that Vader's character changes dramatically between ANH and Empire.

-Peter

Re:Only good news, if it's really open (1)

Chip Salzenberg (1124) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245505)

Hm, you're right. OK, s/Grand Moff Tarkin/Emperor Palpatine/. And don't give me any shit about Palpatine being a mild-mannered senator, OK? :-,

Re:Only good news, if it's really open (5, Interesting)

bonniot (633930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245649)

Given these quotes from the previous article [com.com] , there are reasons to doubt how much open the license will be:

Schwartz invoked the precedent set by Sun's popular Java programming language. [...] We need to now take the model with Java and bring it to Solaris.

A problem that Schwartz wants to avoid is having Solaris splintered into different distributions like Linux, which he said creates application incompatibilities. Going the way of Linux-type licensing, he suggested, creates open source but not open standards.

Open Source, AMD Processors...? (5, Interesting)

Nos. (179609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245371)

What does SUN do anymore? If they're open sourcing Solaris, obviously they're looking to get the community involved in developing it. They're also starting to ship some x86 servers (Opteron and Xeon), so are we eventually going to lose the Sparc processors as well? What does that leave Sun with? Java?

Re:Open Source, AMD Processors...? (1)

duslow (648755) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245428)

Sun will still continue to build enterprise class products and provide the corresponding support to those products. They will also be able to provide the same type of service and support similiar to what RedHat has done and what IBM is doing with linux support as well.

Re:Open Source, AMD Processors...? (1)

Reducer2001 (197985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245635)

You didn't answer the question. Sounds like you copied and pasted a marketing brochure.

Re:Open Source, AMD Processors...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245446)

What does SUN do anymore?

Yeah, well, gives us the light of the day and keeps the night demons away. Why you ask?

Re:Open Source, AMD Processors...? (4, Insightful)

cmaxx (7796) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245645)

They do everything they used to do.

Just cos they're taking advantage of what people want now (Linux, Opteron, Open Source) doesn't mean they're not also working on stuff that's cool that we don't know that we want yet, or even stuff that's not cool but is still worthy.

This is where Sun, IBM, SGI, even HP, do more for us than Dell and Microsoft. Though at least, and I hate myself for saying this, Microsoft are trying.

Cleary being first or having the best idea ever are no guarantees of esteem or profit - often the opposite, so kudos to Sun for slugging it out and continuing to bet on innovation. Ditto to IBM and AMD.

Re:Open Source, AMD Processors...? (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245658)

It leaves them with service contracts. Isn't that where everyone is moving anyway? Sun is beginning to understand (sorta like IBM in a way) that Software/Hardware are good... but consulting/support/service markets are where the future is---and the best way to get there is to be on their toes as far as open source is concerned.

Ie: There is no money in building software/hardware (now; there was plenty of money there a few years ago). But, there is plenty of money to be made using it---and supporting someone's use of it.

Except device Drivers... (5, Funny)

CaptRespect (586610) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245379)

"It seems to include eveything except some device drivers."

So like linux it will work great if you could only find the drivers for your printer.

Re:Except device Drivers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245563)

HA! It's funny because it's true. Take that, Linux-on-the-desktop apologists.

De ja vu (-1, Flamebait)

mixter (468793) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245383)

How progressive, going open source -- again. They really can't decide, what matters more, trying to look progressive or hiding bad code, can they?

Can they do this? (5, Insightful)

AnuradhaRatnaweera (757812) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245392)

Unlike Linux, Solaris is a derivative of UNIX. I am sure SCO will be keenly looking forward to the day when Solaris is open source. ;-)

Re:Can they do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245471)

Oh, they didn't say they'd go open source tomorrow but at the end of the year, did they? What ist the court schedule, is SCO to be pronounced dead in court before or after the end of this year?

Re:Can they do this? (5, Informative)

dankrabach (793426) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245484)

Exactly what I am wondering. Solaris is a descendent from the ATT/System V branch of the UNIX(tm) tree, not the BSD branch. They license the UNIX, not own the copyrights. Wouldn't they need permission from SCO (or Novell? ) and possibly a whole bunch of other people/corps/entities to really Open Source this stuff? Feels like heat, still looks dark.......

Re:Can they do this? (3, Informative)

obdulio (410122) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245618)

Sun bought an special license from SCO, that lets them do whatever they want.

3 Months (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245394)

WELCOME TO LIKE 3 Months ago when they announced this!

Where do I apply for commit bit? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245401)

I should have some patches ready soon after I see the source...

Don't get tainted (3, Insightful)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245402)

Remember, if you hack on Linux (or plan to), you best not review the code.

Re:Don't get tainted Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245652)

Well, isn't the whole point of open source software freedom of speach and ideas.
If both projects are truly open source, both project will be able to learn from each other, benefiting the open source community as a whole.

With your "don't look at the code" idea, you might as well be suggesting that Linux be made a closed source OS.

Unix(tm) code? (5, Interesting)

martin (1336) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245417)

I wonder how they'll handle the Unix(TM) code in there and all the various other contributed stuff from Samsung etc.

I guess it's easier if they forget about CDE/X11 etc but it will be interesting to see what open source licence they use and how they handle 'other peoples' code in SOlaris 10.

Of course they could have removed all the Sys V R5.4 code, but without doing this unsing clean room conditions SCO could have a wondrful time in court.

Just wondering??????

Re:Unix(tm) code? (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245463)

To me this is just more evidence of the true value of the old Unix Sys V (n) code. looks like everyone but SCO is moving on to greener pastures.

Re:Unix(tm) code? (1)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245497)

I wonder how they'll handle the Unix(TM) code in there and all the various other contributed stuff from Samsung etc.

Duh! They put in a lot of comments that say things like " Don't forget to fix this function I wrote for Sun in 1975" etc...

Re:Unix(tm) code? (0)

AnuradhaRatnaweera (757812) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245513)

The UNIX trademark [unix.org] is all upper case, even if it is not an acronym.

Re:Unix(tm) code? (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245614)

Actually, they set it in small capitals originally, 'cause they'd ``just gotten a laserprinter to support (some typesetting package, troff?) and were dizzy with the possibility of scaling type.'' or some such.

So in TeX it's \textsc{unix} --- apparently this distinction and giddiness has been lost to whoever's in charge of the trademark these days --- given what GE has done w/ their corporate identity, I'm not surprised.

William

Re:Unix(tm) code? (2, Informative)

martin (1336) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245654)

Accorinding to section 2.1 of the Unix trademark use document [unix.org] this is not the case.

I can use a initial capital letters if I wish. *Their* convention is wholely capital letters.

Why use Linux then? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245425)

If this is indeed true, I don't see any real need for linux anymore. If solaris is going to run all linux apps and it is going to have features like dtrace and a 128-bit file system and it runs on x86 AND it's free, I'm moving.

Open source != GPL (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245429)

Open source is one thing, but I'm wondering how useful to us Sun's move really is if the code will not be put out under a GPL-like or BSD-like license

... lately I sense that "open-sourcing" is more an attempt of big companies to get some work done for free and get some PR at the same time, BUT with little real use to the community as GPL'ing the code would provide. Am I right?

What kind of license? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245451)

Does someone know under what kind of license Solaris will be opensourced?

And great news by the way, I'm really looking forward to what might come of off this step.

Go Sun, Go! :) (1)

joelparker (586428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245452)

"We lost sight of being an innovative leader who
is active in the developer community," McClain said.
Yes, Sun did. Open source is a step forward--
now how does Sun plan to lead its newfound
open source developer community? - Cheers, Joel

License? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245457)

What license will Solaris be OSed with? Sun's view of "open source" is sometimes rather peculiar.

Not that I really care about Solaris though.

Java (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245461)

Great, now release Java. Seriously, they're killing it.

What does that mean? (3, Interesting)

jacoby (3149) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245472)

I predict that the main thing of interest in Solaris to most people is the thread model. The main thing about Irix, IIRC, was the graphics capabilities and XFS, and SGI's opened XFS up and it's now ported over.

On the other hand, isn't that part of why they call it Slowlaris?

The license is the key and it may not be "Free" (4, Insightful)

Tracy Reed (3563) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245491)

Just because it's "open source" (as opposed to "Open Source") as in "you can read the source" doesn't mean it's Free. And that may be all they do: let you read the source. If they don't use the GPL or BSD or some other well known FOSS license I doubt this will really help them all that much. If they come up with their own license (which a company as big as Sun is wont to do) it will probably be quite complicated and your average hacker won't understand it.

Credibility with PHB (2, Interesting)

Bimo_Dude (178966) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245507)

It seems to me that this is a good move, and will benefit the OSS community a great deal. After all, if SUN goes open source, then the PHB's of the world will finally recognize the cost savings, efficiency, and general intelligence of using OSS.

A legal open source SysV derivative? (2, Interesting)

nonmaskable (452595) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245520)

I wonder if Sun (who helped fund SCO's attack on Linux) has worked this out with SCO in some way that we'll only understand when the license comes out.

Otherwise, this is in violent conflict with the bizarre SCO derivative theory.

Vaporware wanring (5, Informative)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245521)

Last announcement about this was proven false by Sun's own CEO statments..

This will be the saem way with this announcement..

Interesting move... (1)

keiferb (267153) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245536)

It'll be interesting to see how this affects their bottom line. Although, most of their revenue probably comes from the ginormous walk-in-freezer-sized systems they sell rather then the OS, but still.

<tongue location="cheek">
Also, I wonder how long it'll take for SCO to find some of their beloved IP in the code...
</tongue>

So let's see here... (3, Interesting)

rincebrain (776480) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245549)

1) Open Source 2) ???? 3) Profit! First Microsoft, now Sun. I never thought I'd see the day I had to compare Sun to Microsoft, in terms of gimmick...but it seems that I was wrong. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, incidentally. Unfortunately, most companies are too pigheaded to realize that, while open sourcing a project costs little and can reap great benefits, there's a difference between, let's say, a proprietary crap license that doesn't allow integration with other OSS, and a BSD or GPL variant. Microsoft's stance on the GPL, for any who were unaware: "The GPL's viral nature poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization that derives its products from GPL source..." - Craig Mundie, "senior vice president of advanced strategies at Microsoft" Source [microsoft.com]

I can't beleive you ./'ers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245561)


WTF is this Linux fanboy crap comming from?

THIS IS ANOTHER OPEN SOURCE OPERATING SYSTEM.

Solaris is SOME MAJOR INCREADABLE realy realy realy cool stuff. It can do things now with SMP support and high-end servers that Linux can't come close to touching (yet).

Geez.

More choice > just linux.

We need FLEXIBILITY, not fanboy-ism. As nice as Linux is, it's not god's gift to computing.

Re:I can't beleive you ./'ers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10245600)

Here here!

How many times do I have to hear BS about how "Linux is the greatest" when we have had OSes like *BSD for years that has done everything Linux is now only starting to be able to do.

Linux can't touch OpenBSD's security record and FreeBSD is far more reliable than Linux on high-end servers. But don't tell it to the Linux zealots/

Contradiction of the Sun--Microsoft Agreement (2, Informative)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10245630)

Sun Microsystems' latest SEC 10Q filings [sec.gov] includes a copy of the April 1st ( I kid you not! ) technical agreement made with Microsoft [sec.gov] .

The Non-disclosure terms for any protocols that can interoperate with Microsoft's Client or Server software would seem to restrict a lot of functionality from being released under an open source license by Sun..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...