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!

Sun Joins the Free Software Foundation

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the putting-themselves-out-there dept.

Sun Microsystems 116

RLiegh writes "Ars Technica reports that Sun has joined the FSF Corporate Patron program. The article explains that the FSF corporate program allows companies to provide financial assistance to the FSF in return for license consulting services. The article goes on to observe that this move is doubtlessly motivated by Sun's interest in GPL3's direction. Now that Sun has opened up Java and become an FSF corporate sponsor...could the move to dual license OpenSolaris under the GPL3 be far behind?"

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

And this can mean only one thing (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199434)

Free Solaris for everyone!

Re:And this can mean only one thing (2, Interesting)

powerlord (28156) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199922)

Free Solaris for everyone!


Judging by the naming conventions that most companies who embrace Open Source use, I would sooner expect "Open Solaris" than "Free Solaris" :)

(see: Open Office, Open SuSe, et al.)

Re:And this can mean only one thing (2, Funny)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200224)

OMG! You're right! [opensolaris.org]

Re:And this can mean only one thing (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18203000)

Thats been there ever since Solaris was released under the CDDL Free Solaris has been avaliable for a long time, joining the FSF was just a long time comming Sun, what took you so long?

Re:And this can mean only one thing (2, Insightful)

Arcane_Rhino (769339) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199988)

Dude, that is an awesome sig.

(No response needed or wanted.)

Actually, Free Solaris was offered (1)

FoamingToad (904595) | more than 7 years ago | (#18204742)

a couple of weeks ago [slashdot.org] .

I'm still waiting for my install set though. Did anyone actually receive their discs?

F_T

Re:Actually, Free Solaris was offered (1)

sam0vi (985269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18205302)

I'm still waiting for my copy. Ten business days they said. I guess they are not that busy

What this means (5, Interesting)

pooh666 (624584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199480)

Is Linux has a new and very adept competitor. Solaris has some GNU pains, but they won't last long, and underneath the hood is some amazing work.. It is just just ZFS, and DTRACE either, just take a look at the main page for ifconfig on Solaris vs other systems. There is a lot of depth to Solaris that will start coming out, esp on SMP systems, but on any system really.. The great thing is, Linux will have Solaris to learn from now..

Re:What this means (1)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199602)

I have a license copy of Solaris for x86 that I got with my SUNw1100 that I haven't tried out yet. I might nuke some of my Linux partition and put it there for tooling around.

Re:What this means (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199606)

solaris is kludge on top of kludge on top of kludge. It's only "stable" because every solaris admin in his right mind never patches a working solaris install. In fact, sun's whitepapers specifically advise against patching and just firewalling the box.

While it will be nice to see some cross pollination, solaris in it's current form will give us nothing worth more than two squirts of piss.

Re:What this means (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18200084)

Ok, I can see why someone might of thought this is flamebait. Here's some proof.

http://docs-pdf.sun.com/817-0574/817-0574.pdf [sun.com]

Then, check this patch out:

http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetke y=urn:cds:docid:1-21-118833-36-1 [sun.com]

Then, check out which problems this patch solves, but obsoletes older patches that didn't solve the problem all the way. Next, check out which problems this patch fixes for other patches applied. Finally, check out which problems this patch causes (Note 74) !!!!!

Now tell me you'd rather use this shitfest then something like debian or RH.

Re:What this means (1)

wwwillem (253720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18203170)

Ok, I can see why someone might of thought this is flamebait. Here's some proof.


Who needs proof when GP is an Anonymous Coward and parent as well. Maybe they're just one and the same person, who knows.

Re:What this means (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199638)

"The great thing is, Linux will have Solaris to learn from now.."

Nope. Solaris is going GPLv3, so can't be dragged back to GPLv2, which is where Linux is expected to stay for now.

Re:What this means (1)

pooh666 (624584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199898)

Learn Copy

Re:What this means (3, Insightful)

pooh666 (624584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199930)

I meant Learn != Copy :)

Re:What this means (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18200030)

You can do that now since OpenSolaris (www.opensolaris.org) source is available just not under GPL3.

Re:What this means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199652)

Only if Linux changes it's license to GPL v3.

Re:What this means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199896)

The great thing is, Linux will have Solaris to learn from now..

The funny thing is, most of the stuff in Solaris has either been written up in publically-available research papers, or implemented from publically-available research papers.

There are many books in libraries comparing the various unix kernel implementations.

Now that AIX, Irix and HP/UX are all dead, Sun has no competitors, except Linux, which is still 5 years behind Solaris. (Suck that up IBM).

Re:What this means (1)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18201398)

Now that AIX,
News of AIX's demise has been premature.

Re:What this means (2, Interesting)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199964)

There's a lot of things to learn for Solaris too (not just drivers). So both can learn things. All this can only be a good thing - the two most powerful operative systems of the world are GPL (just because Linux is going to keep GPL2 doesn't means anything) and both should be able to exchange code. Linux and solaris should be friends, the enemy here are non-GPL operative systems.

Re:What this means (3, Interesting)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200762)

Linux and solaris should be friends, the enemy here are non-GPL operative systems.

Oh, so BSD is an enemy, because it doesn't kowtow to Richard Stallman?

You zealots make me purge.

Re:What this means (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18205494)

No. BSD is not the enemy.

In fact, it is friendly to everyone, including Microsoft ;-)

In a sense, it choses its friends very poorly.

ugh (1, Informative)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200156)

I've experienced Solaris and its predecessors from the early 80's. Their kernels used to crash from memory leaks, corrupt data, contain Trojans, use linear search in inappropriate places, crash on bad system call arguments, fold under load, and lots of other problems. It's good that after 20 years, they finally got most of the bugs out, but it's never going to be "amazing work". From a practical point of view, Linux has matured much faster, and I don't think Linux has anything to learn from Solaris.

In the end, the differences between the current crop of UNIX-like kernels won't matter much. All of them have roughly the same functionality, most of them are fairly mature and stable, and all of them give you performance close to machine. And under the hood, they're all ugly and messy.

So, personally, I'm sticking with Linux. Solaris might be slightly "better", but not in a way that matters, and far more people are contributing to Linux (in particular, drivers).

Re:ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18200574)

So why don't developers focus on Hurd? It's inherently non-messy, it follows the Unix mantra of "a program must do one thing and do it well," and the problem of breaking everything when patching/updating is lessened considerably. Hurd...I wonder what everyone is waiting for?

Re:ugh Linux (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18201412)

I've experienced Solaris and its predecessors from the early 80's. Their kernels used to crash

You have experience with Solaris but don't realize that Solaris is based on a different code base than predecessors from the early 80's? Solaris is built upon SVR4 while SunOS 4.x and before were based on BSD.

The reason why Solaris was the OS of the dot com era was because is was so reliable. At the Brokerage firms I've worked at you always see Linux crash or hang and Solaris just keeps on running. That's been my experience.

And remember Solaris was designed from the beginning to support SMP, threading, and soft real-time. Things that Linux only later had hacked on (and soft real-time is still not part of Linux).

Solaris 10 [sun.com] is so far ahead of Linux that it's not even worth comparing the two but if you must just look at these New features. [sun.com]

Re:ugh Linux (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18202064)

You have experience with Solaris but don't realize that Solaris is based on a different code base than predecessors from the early 80's?

You misread that. What I was saying was that I have experience with Solaris starting from the early 80's, until now.

Solaris is built upon SVR4 while SunOS 4.x and before were based on BSD.

Indeed. And while SVR4 was slightly less buggy, it was a worse OS than BSD. The BSD/SVR4 switch was when many people (myself included) started seriously exploring alternatives.

Solaris 10 is so far ahead of Linux that it's not even worth comparing the two but if you must just look at these New features.

Quite right: Solaris has even more useless crap in it than Linux. That's a good reason to stay away. See, more features is generally not a good thing in a kernel or OS.

Re:ugh Linux (1)

Bryan-10021 (223345) | more than 7 years ago | (#18203696)

What I love is you avoid even commenting on the below because you know Solaris is more reliable and a better engineered kernel than Linux. Not hard to believe when Sun spent 500 million on Solaris 10 and have the best kernel developers in the world working on it AS A REAL JOB not part time hackers.

If Linux is so great than why do companies like Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs have linux crashing or hanging while Solaris just keeps on running? The ONLY reason people run Linux in the Enterprise is because until recently it was the ONLY OS other than Windows than ran on x86. Not that it's so great. No that it's free (RedHat is anything but FREE). It's that it runs on cheap AMD/Intel hardware. Of course Sun now fully supports Solaris 10 x86 so yet another reason to ditch Linux. I'd take Linux on the desktop over Solaris as Solaris is clearly a server OS but then I'd take Mac OS X over Linux hands down on the desktop.

* The reason why Solaris was the OS of the dot com era was because is was so reliable. At the Brokerage firms I've worked at you always see Linux crash or hang and Solaris just keeps on running. That's been my experience.

* And remember Solaris was designed from the beginning to support SMP, threading, and soft real-time. Things that Linux only later had hacked on (and soft real-time is still not part of Linux).

If you really think Linux is so great maybe you could give some examples of what makes Linux better than Solaris or Mac OS X? I've been around UNIX for almost as long as you and was using Linux before the 1.0 days.

Re:ugh Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18203996)

"Sun ... have the best kernel developers in the world"

This is far from the truth.

Re:ugh Linux (2, Interesting)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18204434)

What I love is you avoid even commenting on the below because you know Solaris is more reliable and a better engineered kernel than Linux.

Because even if it were true, it wouldn't matter.

Not hard to believe when Sun spent 500 million on Solaris 10

Yeah, too much; it's basically an Edsel.

and have the best kernel developers in the world working on it

And what evidence is there for that, other than unfounded claims about Solaris quality? Your reasoning is circular.

AS A REAL JOB not part time hackers.

Most Linux development is done by people who do it as their job.

The reason why Solaris was the OS of the dot com era was because is was so reliable.

Don't try to rewrite history. I was there, and I was one of the people who picked Solaris for dot com companies. People picked it because they knew it, and they knew it because 5-10 years earlier they were using it at university. And they were using it at university because it was cheap. Other than that, it was merely "reliable enough". If reliability had been the primary consideration, people would have picked AIX or Irix, both of which were generally believed to be superior to Solaris (a lot of their technologies and code have made it into Linux, incidentally).

And that's why people pick Linux: it's widely used, its development is open, and it gets the job done; that's all that matters.

And remember Solaris was designed from the beginning to support SMP, threading, and soft real-time.

Bullshit. Solaris wasn't designed at all, it evolved out of SVR3, BSD, and SunOS, and each of those all evolved from the original V7 UNIX. Trying to portray Solaris as the herculean design and implementation effort of some elite group of kernel hackers at Sun simply has no basis in reality.

If you really think Linux is so great maybe you could give some examples of what makes Linux better than Solaris or Mac OS X?

It's "great" in the same sense that a Ford Escort is a better car compared to a Ford Edsel.

Re:ugh (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 7 years ago | (#18205294)

I've experienced Solaris and its predecessors from the early 80's.

Bullshit. Solaris didn't exist until the early 90's [wikipedia.org] .

Re:ugh (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18205444)

He said Solaris and its predecessors. [wikipedia.org] Solaris is just a marketing term though its often associated with the switch from BSD to System V. SunOS dates back to the early eighties.

I, personally, used SunOS for a few days back in 1988.

Re:What this means (4, Interesting)

aeoo (568706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200428)

I think this is indeed amazing. It blows my mind that perhaps Linux will stop being "it" for many people for whom it currently "is it" or "that's where it's at". To think that Solaris, from the point of view of software freedom, not only overcome FreeBSD, but also even Linux, it's pretty mind blowing to me.

What's next? Windows Vista GPL'ed? I doubt anyone cares about any technical achievements in Vista's kernel, but on a social plane, such an event would be very interesting.

Maybe or maybe not. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18200778)

Honestly, even if Sun puts Solaris under the GPL (2 OR 3), it's not automatically going to be a serious contender to Linux.

I've worked on the Solaris O.S.. I've worked on Linux (totally the latter these past 8 years). I've put code into GPL'd projects and have worked on projects that require not only GPL licensing but that you transfer the copyright to the FSF. Here's my view.

One of the single biggest reasons why Linux is so popular among kernel developers is that they get to keep their own copyrights. It doesn't have to be transferred to the FSF, Sun, or anyone else. This is also the single biggest reason why no one is interested in doing work for the FSF's Hurd. There's a real distinctive pleasure in saying that you own the copyright to a certain piece of code. Forcing someone to transfer that is like ripping something away.

I work for my own pleasure. I don't work for the FSF, nor Sun, and I'll be d*mned if they end up owning my own code without paying me first.

My bet is that Sun is going to absolutely botch this effort, and force people to transfer all copyrights to either Sun (like they do now) or to the FSF (as RMS has wanted for years).

If they do that, Solaris will never catch up to Linux in popularity. There will always be more developers for Linux than Solaris, just like there is now.

Which, frankly, is a real pity. Linus has screwed up in a number of critical ways, and although Linux has come far, Solaris is still better in many aspects (if not most). I'll spare you my biggest nits, which cause me solid grief; ones I wouldn't have if I went with Solaris.

The bottom line though, is if Sun doesn't insist on the copyright, I'll drop Linux immediately. And I'll work my hardest to promote Solaris (especially if they are GPLv3). But if Sun and the FSF think they can use my talent and then take my code away, they can go piss off.

I really, REALLY hope Sun makes the right decision here. But from past experience, I would be surprised if they did.

[captcha: "creating". How appropriate]

Re:Maybe or maybe not. (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18205490)

If it's licensed under the GPL, nothing stops anyone from producing a fork that will allow you to keep your copyrights.

Bear in mind, however, that if you do, you'll end up in the same situation as Linux has this time around should it become necessary for there to be a GPLv4. You will not even have the choice of upgrading your fork to GPLv4, even if Sun (or the FSF or whomever owns the copyright to the original branch) consents to such an upgrade.

It certainly wouldn't be a "botch" to ensure contributors assign copyrights to the official branch, it's more that it's now obvious it was a botch for the Linux people not to (which I believe is why Linus is doing his sour grapes act at the moment about GPLv3, the more he criticizes it, the less people take notice of the original screw up he did which makes it virtually impossible for a license upgrade to happen.)

Re:What this means (1)

Usagi_yo (648836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18201906)

Just be carefull and don't just cut and paste Solaris code into the Linux Distro's -- which I'm sure somebody is bound to do at some point -- Then try and plead ignorance at the license terms. And don't cry if Solaris cleans Linux's clock. OP is right, Solaris has amazing technology and Sun community still has amazing programmers.

I wonder how many people realize how much pressure Sun has put on Microsoft. The $125m purchase of staroffice, the transformation to open office is starting to put the screws to Microsoft. Look at all the advocates of ODF ... would that even exist today as it does if Sun hadn't made that move?

X86 OS is competition is getting stronger. Apple needs to do its part now and penatrate into the main stream home market and Sun needs to flank the OS subscription model Microsoft sees in the future.

Re:What this means (1)

Nevyn (5505) | more than 7 years ago | (#18203444)

junderneath [sic] the hood is some amazing work.. It is [n't] just just ZFS, and DTRACE either, ust [sic] take a look at the main [sic] page for ifconfig on Solaris vs other systems.

There is still no community (hell, they have a fraction of the downloads of a single Linux distros. updating users) and Sun haven't done anything that implies they can create anything like the Linux kernel community ... so my money is still on the long term death of Solaris the OS and kernel (if they relicense it, some of the later might be salvagable). As for ifconfig: that has been backwards compat. code in Linux for years, feel free to look at the "ip" command, in the iproute package.

Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199508)

...or is Solaris looking more and more like just another Linux distro every day?

What happened to diversity?!

It's just you. [n/t] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199548)

See subject.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199550)

I dont really understand what you'd be trying to say; Diversity isnt changing, the naming and licensing may though.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199806)

I dont really understand what you'd be trying to say; Diversity isnt changing, the naming and licensing may though.
Once the license on the kernel has been changed to a more GNU-friendly one, don't you think the clamour will go up to replace all the userland stuff with the GNU utilities? Pretty soon we'll be looking at a choice of either GNU/Solaris or GNU/Linux. I believe that even pre-opensourcing Sun already made some moves towards having Solaris conform with the LSB specification. Basically they want it to be interchangable with Linux, and while I can see the business case for that it also makes me sad because I don't like monoculture or near-monoculture.

Re:Is it just me... (3, Insightful)

bberens (965711) | more than 7 years ago | (#18202808)

Well, if the license becomes GPL3 then the userland stuff WILL BE gnu utiltities. If anything you'll have the choice, or the two will be combined together like some sort of inbred half-cousin. It'll be exciting. =)

best thing to happen to sun (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199524)

was to get rid of Mcnealy. I am betting that Sun will be back quite a bit stronger in about 2-3 years time. It sounds like the new CEO is not wanting to play games esp. with the OSS world.

Sun opened up Java? (1, Insightful)

defile (1059) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199554)

If this is true, how come I can't ``apt-get install java'' and get the SUn Java on Debian default install?

Re:Sun opened up Java? (4, Informative)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199586)

If this is true, how come I can't ``apt-get install java'' and get the SUn Java on Debian default install?

Because java doesn't insert itself magically into the apt repository the second Sun relicenses it. This takes work.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199704)

Why wasn't the work done before it was launched so that it was immediately usable?

I got the new JDK a few days afterwards from Gentoo, and I think it was ready a few days before I got it.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199912)

Why wasn't the work done before it was launched so that it was immediately usable?

Why do slashdorks have a pathological sense of entitlement? Haven't their mommies taught them to be patient and wait politely when someone is about to do them a huge freaking favor?

Re:Sun opened up Java? (2, Interesting)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200666)

Entitlement? Okay, sure. Yeah. I want Debian to do me the "huge freaking favor" of downloading the jdk and keeping track of what's in the file system.

How long does that take? I know it'd take me about five minutes (and it *shouldn't* take more for any reasonable package management system)...what is that amortized over all the users of Debian? I'm sure it comes to less than a second each. I think you may be exaggerating how much of a favor it would be for a Debian user - though I am not one.

This has nothing to do with what I want. I don't care one way or the other what Debian does.
If I did I'd probably be involved in it.

Well...that's not quite true. Because I know that I have to either use unstable packages or deal with not getting stable stuff until way later, I have decided not to have anything to do with Debian. Otherwise I might be using it now. If Debian was the only choice, of course, I'd use it and be thankful for it.

But it's not, is it?

Re:Sun opened up Java? (3, Insightful)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200098)

You obviously don't understand Debian.

It usually takes years for Debian stable to see the latest and greatest of today. This is why most normal people use unstable and people wanting a server use stable. Testing is right out.

If that still confuses you, then please switch to Ubuntu.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

zsau (266209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18205602)

Testing is right out.

I've been using Debian on my desktop for around two years now, and I've been using Debian Testing for all that time. Since I switched, I've heard that a few times, but have never understood why. Since 1998, I've used Gentoo, FreeBSD, Red Hat, Slackware, Ubuntu and Yellow Dog, and I've finally found a distro I'm happy to use; I've completely stopped looking.

Why is it that I should be scared of Testing? I've heard that a package can be unusable for a month, but I've never had that happen to me before. Why does Testing exist if it's so bad?

Thanks!

Re:Sun opened up Java? (4, Insightful)

Kidbro (80868) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200854)

Because you didn't do it. We were all expecting you to fix it, and only now you tell us that you were waiting for someone else!?

Bastard!

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

drix (4602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200958)

Because Debian maintainers are really busy people, and it takes more than armchair quarterbitching on Slashdot to make these things happen. WTF were you doing that whole time?

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18203208)

You could just use java-package to install [debian-adm...ration.org] Java.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18204284)

I got the new JDK a few days afterwards from Gentoo, and I think it was ready a few days before I got it.

Some Open Source project focuses on getting the bleeding edge, latest and greatest, for people to play around with. Some focuses on being stable and only including the stuff that has been proven with time. They have very different goals and target groups.

Picking one of the last ones and then throwing a tantrum about not getting the new stuff the same day it is released isn't the brightest thing to do in my opinion. Realize it is not the distro for you, and pick one more to your liking.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (3, Informative)

blindd0t (855876) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199834)

My understanding is that JSE6 is not GPL'd because they did not want to delay its release. This means that the old licensing concerns with distributing Java on GPL'd platforms are still a concern. Though much if not most of the JVM has already been "open source," they were not GPL'd. JSE7 will be GPL'd if all goes according to plan, however, and Sun is now aiming to go straight to the GPL3. Here is JSE6's current license [sun.com] .

Re:Sun opened up Java? (4, Funny)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199610)

These things take time.

Compounding the problem is that Debian is also notoriously slow to update packages. You might have better luck with apt-get Pascal or apt-get COBOL.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1, Flamebait)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199640)

I really, really dislike Java, but nevertheless: Debian unstable has Sun's Java in it's repositories; I know since I have to use that mess too often at work. Not sure what the "default" install is, but I'm sure it will hit Debian stable in 5 or 6 years ;)

Re:Sun opened up Java? (2, Informative)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199688)

Because they're not done yet. Supposedly, [java.net] that'll happen soon. When that happens I imagine Debian will be among the first to distribute the GPL source derived binaries. What they have thus far is the hotspot jvm and javac. There's a few parts left, before it's really useful without the closed source tools. You're of course welcome to be skecptical until they make good on that deadline.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (4, Informative)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199712)

It's not open-source yet. These things take time, be patient. I think they said they'll finish the process by the middle of 2007.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (3, Insightful)

Virgil Tibbs (999791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200004)

what would be an equally interesting question is when apt will be ported to solaris?
when that happens, i'm migrating.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (4, Informative)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200350)

Here. [gnusolaris.org]

Debian derivative. Uses Solaris as it's kernel.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18204684)

[Nexenta] Debian derivative. Uses Solaris as it's kernel.

A little more precisely, it bases itself on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian (like many Debian derivatives do these days, it seems).

Re:Sun opened up Java? (4, Informative)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200290)

Because the package name is sun-java6-jdk (and others in sun-java6-*), and it's in non-free (or multiverse on Ubuntu).

Java 7 will be released under GPL3, so expect to see that in main.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200870)

Java 7 will be released under GPL3

Not necessarily, but probably.

because it's not true... yet (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200334)

Sun has promised that they will open up Java in Java 7, but current versions are still not fully available under an open source license. For better or for worse, I expect that Java 7 will be incorporated into Debian and other distros.

I would recommend against making any plans that depend on Sun actually delivering a fully open source Java implementation: even assuming Sun is being completely honest, there are still things beyond their control that might jeopardize it.

Re:Sun opened up Java? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 7 years ago | (#18203070)

The javac compiler and Hotspot VM are available now [java.net] , under GPL2.

The truly useful stuff, the class libraries, will be available later this year.

Rome wasn't built in a day...

In the meantime, you can install java with apt, even if it isn't 'free' yet:

Installing Sun Java on Debian [java.net] . Note that this page may be a little out of date. I'm running JDK 6 under Ubuntu Feisty. The relevant Java packages are sun-java6-*

Brings a whole new meaning to... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199556)

Everything under the Sun must go!

Re:Brings a whole new meaning to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199784)

Don't joke, their OS has stellar performance.

Is it really doubtless? (-1, Troll)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199660)

"The article goes on to observe that this move is doubtlessly motivated by Sun's interest in GPL3's direction."

Or perhaps it was motivated by Sun's desire to buy their way into the "free" software community's good graces without fully embracing its approach. Remember how happy everyone is about IBM's contributions even though all their profitable software remains proprietary.

Re:Is it really doubtless? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199724)

Sun has contributed more free software than you or the rest of your complaining chorus will ever write in your lives. You don't have to like them, but Sun certainly doesn't have to listen to you.

That's setting the bar pretty low (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199980)

I haven't contributed any free software.

My point is that you should beware of large corporations bearing gifts.

Re:Is it really doubtless? (1)

chef_raekwon (411401) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199758)

Or perhaps it was motivated by Sun's desire to buy their way into the "free" software community's good graces without fully embracing its approach

possible. more likely because Sun has just opened up Solaris and Java, and are using the GPL. in being part of the corporate patron program, it is more likely their voice will be heard, so as to not be screwed by using the GPL.

Re:Is it really doubtless? (4, Funny)

CompMD (522020) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199808)

"all their profitable software remains proprietary."

So what you're saying is they make money off the software they charge you for, and they don't make money off the free software.

Shocking!

No. (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199832)

I'm saying that they didn't convert any of their profitable software to F/OSS.

Re:No. (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200110)

That's their right, it's still a good step. Most companies hold onto the source of their software far after it's making them any profits. Most companies don't even release their source even after they stop distributing it. I guess they think it's better for it to rot on a shelf somewhere than to give it away.

You mean like IBM? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200192)

"Most companies hold onto the source of their software far after it's making them any profits. Most companies don't even release their source even after they stop distributing it."

That's exactly what IBM did with Rational's Visual Test after they bought Rational. Not only won't they release the source, they won't even let you buy a EULA for it. Why? Because it competes with other testing tools they sell that are a lot more expensive.

Re:You mean like IBM? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18201098)

In your own words, holding onto Rational's "Visual Test" source is still making them profits, by preventing "Visual Test" from cannibalizing sales of their other products.

Why on earth would/should they release the source and effectively create competition for their own products?

Re:You mean like IBM? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18202178)

Absolutely no reason unless they believed in F/OSS. They don't - that's my point.

Re:You mean like IBM? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18202504)

They are also legally and ethically responsible to their shareholders.

Belief in F/OSS isn't enough to deliberately do something outright unprofitable.

Re:You mean like IBM? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18203066)

Your just making excuses for them now.

Couldn't Ballmer change his tune and say "We've seen the light and believe in F/OSS but alas our legal and ethical responsibilty to our shareholders prevent us from actually contributing to any projects"? Perhaps they could contribute the source for Microsoft Bob without getting into trouble.

Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18201934)

IBM is currently involved in hundreds of open source projects [ibm.com] , ranging from small stuff all the way up to stuff like Xen, Eclipse [wikipedia.org] , and a huge amount of code for the Linux kernel [lwn.net] . Claiming that IBM contributes nothing of value to open source is an outright lie.

Re:Wrong. (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18202216)

"Claiming that IBM contributes nothing of value to open source is an outright lie."

Which is why I made no such claim. I said they didn't contribute anything they were making a significant profit from. For example, eclipse has been very valuable to IBM for undermining Sun.

Re:Is it really doubtless? (5, Insightful)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199868)

Well, there're lot of companies who are "patrons" of FSF. Google, Intel, Nokia, Cisco, IBM. So I don't think they're trying to buy anything - but it doesn't means they're super-pro-FSF either (just look who are the other "patron" corporations). Sun has been using FSF products for a lot of time, it was already time for Sun to do this. Not that this is a bad thing, but it looks like people understood "Sun is becoming FSF's right hand", which is far from true.

Re:Is it really doubtless? (2, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18200058)

Sun were contributing to free software long before it became popular for pseudo-open-source enthusiasts to hate them, and even did so when they themselves weren't terribly sure how much they supported the concept. From OpenLook to OpenOffice, from Solaris to the recent Java announcement, I don't think there's much one can complain about in terms of their contributions to free software.

They're good people, the world is definitely better off for them, and the free software world especially.

Re:Is it really doubtless? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18205770)

Why do people hate Sun? I remember there is a reason, but I cna't really remember what it is...

Re:Is it really doubtless? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18205894)

Don't know for sure. While the SCO deal was a big upset (Sun bought large amounts of SCO Unix so it could incorporate it into Solaris to make it stop sucking on Intel, but this was interpreted as a cash infusion to help SCO fight IBM at the time), the dislike seems to have gone on for much longer than that. I think it's just been minor little things building up for the most part. Sun's initial refusal to free Java being one of them.

Re:Is it really doubtless? (1)

Trinn (523103) | more than 7 years ago | (#18201904)

From what I've heard from those actually at Sun, the biggest thing they want *is* the patent-poison clause in the gpl3 (and the anti-drm clause), those are the biggest reasons they have for not yet moving completely away from CDDL, so it seems a *good* thing for the free software enthusiast.

that's not the point (1, Interesting)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18202100)

Remember how happy everyone is about IBM's contributions even though all their profitable software remains proprietary.

People are happy with IBM's contributions because IBM actually makes contributions. That is, they contribute stuff to existing open source projects without demanding control over those projects.

Sun isn't doing that; both Solaris and Java are going to be dual licensed and controlled by Sun. That means that while the code happens to be released under a nominally open source license, the projects are not run as open source projects, and the exchange of code doesn't work for them as it would be in an open source project.

On balance, it's still good for Solaris and Java to be released under an open source license, but there are good reasons to be a whole lot happier with IBM than with Sun.

Re:that's not the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18203010)

"they contribute stuff to existing open source projects without demanding control over those projects"

Now if only Stallman and the FSF would do the same.

Re:that's not the point (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18204336)

Now if only Stallman and the FSF would do the same.

They are: every single software project run by the FSF is single-licensed. That is, the FSF has no special control over the project than anybody else.

The issue is not whether you like the project management or the direction of the project, the issue is whether the current project management has special rights that others don't have. Sun does, the FSF doesn't.

Re:Is it really doubtless? (4, Informative)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18204326)

Or perhaps it was motivated by Sun's desire to buy their way into the "free" software community's good graces without fully embracing its approach.

What the HELL are you talking about?? After Java was open sourced Stallman said: "I think that Sun with this contribution has contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software. And it shows leadership -- it's an example I hope others will follow." [linux.com] . What more do you want?

Disturbance in the Force (4, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18199828)

I just felt a tremendous disturbance in the Force. It was if millions of slashbots cried out in pain as their heads asploded.

With apologies to the late Sir Alec.

Fantastic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18199890)

Thank you Sun! Thank you RMS! Everyone is winning now.

It's GNU/Solaris time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18200180)

As soon as GPLv3 comes out, GNU/Solaris will have both kernel
and GNU userland licensed the same way.

This will make it more interesting than GNU/Linux from this point of view.
And Solaris is technically a great kernel btw.

Re:It's GNU/Solaris time - then Mac Aqua/Solaris? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18205046)

This is so true.

Solaris is outstanding technology.
What drove Linux's success was its x86 support, freeness, openness and the ability for anyone to innovate with it (thanks to GPL). These enabled Linux to grow.

However, Linux has its issues.
A big one that's not obvious to the casual user is backwards compatibility.
ABI backwards compatibility in Solaris is simply outstanding; take old Solaris 2.5 code and run it on Solaris 10 and it will most likely just work without rebuilding it.
They even have little tools to warn you what might not work *before* you trash your old OS image, and they work on any binary.
You come to expect that when you use Solaris a lot, and then you get a rude shock when you find Linux hasn't got the same level of "just works".

I think GNU/Solaris could shape up to be really stiff competition for GNU/Linux (GNU wins regardless).
Let's not forget just how gutsy and forward looking Sun are being yet again; they are the biggest corporate contributer to OSS by far. And it's good stuff.

IFF Solaris goes GPL it would really shake things up.

In fact, if they did, why would Apple need Darwin????? After all they just borrowed ZFS and DTrace... why not borrow the lot?
Why wouldn't mobile phones use Solaris (not Linux), especially because they ALREADY use Java -- combining the too would be a great way for Sun to drive adoption.

Interesting possibilities everywhere.

Beyond Solaris and Java... (1)

denttford (579202) | more than 7 years ago | (#18201418)

I hope this extends to their Sun Ray line. I've been looking a various thin client solutions for a company a couple of friends and I are planning. I really like their thin client platform, but the custom protocol and closed server app (though it runs on both linux and solaris) give me pause. For example, I would like the flexibility to boot a PC as a Sun Ray client - not that I'd want to on a permanent basis, but in a pinch - say until I could order more Sun Ray terminals - it would be nice. With more open standards out there, I'm stuck between choosing the solution I really want - and tying myself to one provider - and one that leaves me the freedom of choice and the ability to support the platform whether or not the company is in business.

Clash of the titans, or a useful alliance? (2, Insightful)

Skeith (931626) | more than 7 years ago | (#18201950)

I've heard some very strong opinions on Linus wanting Linux to remain gplv2. Some even suggest replacing Linux with Solaris. What I'm wondering is the same companies that helped Linux become what it is today make the transition? Open source is rarely run on kindness and love for humanity. Linux has reached critical mass, and I don't think GPL'ing even a product as good as solaris will derail it.

Both Solaris and Linux would benefit immensely from sharing with each other. But whos ever heard of two competing products helping each other.

YuO fail it! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18202190)

and- promo7es our

Sun Should Stick to Java. (-1, Offtopic)

czfqnr (306059) | more than 7 years ago | (#18203002)

I have worked with Sun products since 1994. When I first started using them they were
great, and the processing capabilities and hardware reliability were superb.

But since 2002, there has been a significant decline in their hardware offerings.

They're selling products like the V1280 to markets that have no place for them.
Why would I put my very large OLTP database with 20+ TB of data on a V1280 cluster
with just 5 PCI slots? Yeah the 12 CPUs is great, but I cannot even drive the I/O.
Yet Sun sales reps continued to push them at the time. I'm reminded of this when they tell me
to buy now the miracle T-2000 that will solve all my worldly problems.

Then, there's the mysterious cover-ups behind the fact that V1280s' system boards
are very faulty. The answers I get from Sun regarding hardware replacements are,
"Well our Parts Depots are fully stocked, so we probably don't have a problem"

Then there's the Fujitsu factor. They're supposed to be partners and sell each others
equipment, but do you ever hear a Sun sales rep say, "yeah you should probably get a Primepower
650 for that, instead of a V440", or you'll hear "Yeah T2000 is better than a Primepower 850,
you should get that"

Sun is using that relationship to get them to their next processor level. But I'm not holding
my breath for that. Because it will be another seemingly endless line of non-scalable "you should
buy 10 of these and cluster them" solutions.

As for me, I'm going Big Iron. And consolidating all of my stuff. I leave the name of the platform
out to protect the innocent. Hint: It doesn't use containers or zones, and it's been doing virtualization
long before Sun or VMWare.

I like Java, it's a good programming language full of possibilities. My advice, stick to software Sun.

GNU Open Source Java and Solaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18205066)

Let the birds out of the cage, and the Linux community will absorb the best parts into Linux.

Vista is proof that closed source is a bad idea, a big let down compared to Windows XP Pro.
(and that isn't saying much...)

I just pulled Java project because of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18205198)

I was going to convert a financial site from PHP5 to WebObjects (Java JBoss) because of the soon to be widely known bugs in PHP5 thanks to some jackass who wants his 15 minutes of fame; however, open source Java is not good enough if Sun is going to join a bunch of communists in New England who evolved out of a self-serving academic beuracracy and now cater to Fidel Castro and others. I'm going to look at some solution involving Mono or PERL-based SOAP responder until the self serving jackass' "hardened PHP" project gets airborne. Also going to trash the idea of buying a SunRay 2 this week and instead go with cheap PCs that boot off flash-drives. What a complete bunch of morons, adopting GPL3 and giving money to fuckhead RMS.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?