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!

SCO Fiasco Over For Linux, Starting For Solaris?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the wheel-turns-turns-turns dept.

Sun Microsystems 264

kripkenstein writes "We have just heard that the SCO fiasco is finally going to end for Linux. But Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols at DesktopLinux.com points out that the favorable result for Linux may cause unpleasant consequences for rival open-source operating system OpenSolaris: 'At one time, Sun was an SCO supporter ... Sun's Jonathan Schwartz — then Sun VP of software and today Sun's president and CEO — said in 2003 that Sun had bought "rights equivalent to ownership" to Unix. SCO agreed. In 2005, SCO CEO Darl McBride said that SCO had no problem with Sun open-sourcing Unix code in what would become OpenSolaris. "We have seen what Sun plans to do with OpenSolaris and we have no problem with it," McBride said. "What they're doing protects our Unix intellectual property rights." Sun now has a little problem, which might become a giant one: SCO never had any Unix IP to sell. Therefore, it seems likely that Solaris and OpenSolaris contains Novell's Unix IP.'"

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

You're not getting off *that* easy. (5, Funny)

Novell$699FeeTroll (1141325) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197229)

Don't forget ...to pay US your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Re:You're not getting off *that* easy. (1)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197307)

Classic! I wondered where you were, if that's you s/SCO/Novell troll guy.

I don't see Novell clawing for its very survival using the legal system to extort F/OSS users. Well, I hope I'm right anyway.

Re:You're not getting off *that* easy. (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197581)

Well, if you believe the FSF fanatics, Novell is.

Fortunately, I don't believe them.

Re:You're not getting off *that* easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197867)

How is this not funny? I guess the mods are new to /.

Let me be the first to say... (-1, Flamebait)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197239)

HA HA HA HA!!!

Sorry, but that's beautiful poetic justice. While Sun have some nice technology, they've never really been too keen on Linux eating into their Unix marketshare.

The only problem is that if Sun did not exist, I think the open source community would be compelled to invent Sun.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (5, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197295)

Not to mention OpenOffice, Java, etc. Sun has brought a lot of good stuff into the Open Source world lately. I personally would hate to see them get spanked.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197349)

Not to mention ... Java ... Sun has brought a lot of good stuff into the Open Source world
Sorry, Java isn't Open Source.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (2, Informative)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197381)

Wasn't it released under GPL2 just recently? I think by most people's standards, that is both "Free" and "Open Source".

Re:Let me be the first to say... (4, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197385)

You are (depending on how you count) between about 3 and 9 months out of date [itworld.com] .

Re:Let me be the first to say... (5, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197395)

Sorry, Java isn't Open Source.
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Sun made the Java HotSpot virtual machine and compiler Free software under the GPL on November 13, 2006,[11] with a promise that the rest of the JDK (which includes the JRE) will be placed under the GPL by March 2007 ("except for a few components that Sun does not have the right to publish in source form under the GPL"). According to Richard Stallman, this means an end to the Java trap. Mark Shuttleworth called the initial press announcement, "A real milestone for the free software community".[12][13]

Following their promise, Sun released the complete source code of the Class library under GPL on May 8, 2007, except some limited parts that were licensed by Sun from 3rd parties who did not want their code to be released under an open-source license.[14][4] Sadly some of the encumbered parts turned out to be fairly key parts of the platform such as font rendering and 2D rasterisation. Sun's goal is to replace the parts that remain closed with alternative implementations and make the class library completely open.
If its good enough for Richard Stallman, its good enough for me.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (2, Funny)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198027)

Hurd is good enough for Richard Stallman. I'll pass.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (2, Interesting)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198461)

rms doesn't use Hurd, though. He uses Linux.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (3, Informative)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197397)

Exactly, in version 6 Java really matured as desktop, server and mobile holy grail open source platform. Only thing they did wrong was not open-sourcing it earlier (so they give traction to _now_ meaningless projects like Mono, classpath, gcj, kaffe, ...

Re:Let me be the first to say... (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197465)

so they give traction to _now_ meaningless projects like Mono, classpath, gcj, kaffe, ...

Mono will still allow some programs written for .NET to run on other platforms, or a free platform on Windows. That's not meaningless. It will also allow people to choose the .NET languages, like C#; that too is not meaningless. (I happen to think that the C# language is notably more fun and better to program in than Java, but that's just my opinion.)

GCJ provides a compiler for Java that goes to native machine code rather than bytecode. Open-source Java doesn't do this; this project too is not meaningless. (Though there was, I'm sure, a good bit of duplicated effort.)

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198419)

C# is the antithesis of a decent language. It's a wrapper for java-esque syntax and rules on top of C.

And let's not forget that if a library is written and a class has a method not declared with the "override" keyword, it's equivalent to a Java library with a method declared "final". I'm sure libraries have never been inadvertently made useless in C# because someone was too lazy to add override to all methods except those that needed to be final.

That's just one major flaw with C#.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (3, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197473)

This is just it. I find it fantastically funny that their bankrolling SCO may come around and bite them on the bum, and they've hardly been a friend to Linux, but overall it would be a shame for that to happen when they've given a fair bit up as open source.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (5, Interesting)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197729)

Yes, but this is why I don't think that would be funny:

I need Open Source. I make my living with Linux. I need Linux to be strong and healthy. I need Apache and PHP. I need Bluefish, Kate and Quanta Plus. I contribute financially to a couple of products, although I don't have much to give. I learned how to do what I do by following Open Source documentation, asking questions on web forums, and mostly by downloading and installing the software to learn to use it for free. I never could have afforded to buy Windows Server 2003 with IIS as ASP just to learn, but it took me one evening to install and start learning debian, apache, mysql and php, and now I make my living with those tools. Do you understand how liberating that is? I was a sand-pounding infantryman for god's sake, and now a year later I am a skilled worker in the IT industry, thanks to Open Source.

If different members of the development community (and Sun is and continues to be a huge member of that community) perpetually sue each other, it hurts the Open Source reputation (which equals fewer customers and fewer developers) and it prevents them from working together toward the common goal of a better set of software for everybody.

The prospect of that is horrifies me.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (0)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198373)

I need Open Source. I make my living with Linux. I need Linux to be strong and healthy. I need Apache and PHP. I need Bluefish, Kate and Quanta Plus

None of the software you mention depends on Sun. And that's fairly typical: a normal Linux install contains very little Sun software (except maybe OpenOffice).

If different members of the development community (and Sun is and continues to be a huge member of that community) perpetually sue each other, [...]

There are lots of ways in which people and companies hurt the open source community. I think that Sun's contributions have been overall negative; while they have released a lot of code, they have also badmouthed other open source projects, supported SCO, and picked licenses deliberately designed to be incompatible with other open source projects. So, if a lawsuit by Novell could shut Sun down, or at least shut them up, I'd be all for it.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (4, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198471)

and that's fairly typical: a normal Linux install contains very little Sun software (except maybe OpenOffice).
Gee, that's odd... why then does the European Commission [slashdot.org] say that Sun is the number one contributor to the entire Debian project? They made fewer actual kernel contributions than redhat, but still a lot.

So what if they have done bad things in the past? Right now, they support open source. As long as they keep supporting open source, I will support them.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (2, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198495)

Fixed URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/do c/2006-11-20-flossimpact.pdf

Not so fast! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197351)

Not so fast! Solaris' roots go back to before UnixWare. UnixWare wasn't released until 1992. The SVR4 code that went into Solaris split off before then, according to the UNIX History Timeline [levenez.com] . The sale of UnixWare to Novell took place later. And don't forget that a lot of the Solaris code was supposedly taken from BSD-based SunOS, plus there's no doubt that a lot of it was also written by Sun or for Sun.

Somehow, I don't see Sun and its top-notch legal team making a mistake on this matter. This isn't the sort of scenario that would have been overlooked.

- John

Re:Not so fast! (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197915)

FTFA
"Schwartz: We took a license from AT&T initially for $100 million as we didn't own the IP. The license we took also made clear that we had rights equivalent to ownership."

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197353)

they've never really been too keen on Linux eating into their Unix marketshare.
You probably mean Novell's Unix.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (2, Interesting)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197453)

If Sun didn't exist, open software would probably be way behind where it is today. Most open software of the 1980's and 1990's was developed on Sun's. Why? Because back then, Sun had the most open documentation and open architecture. Go look where Linux was distributed for the first 5 years or so, Sunsite's.

Sun also, through greed, vaulted GCC into the mainstream. When Sun decided to no longer include compilers with the base operating system, GCC really took off.

Now then, the community may have a legitimate beef with Sun today, but let us not forget how much Sun has helped the community.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197897)

Go look where Linux was distributed for the first 5 years or so, Sunsite's.
Not really, Linux was originally distributed from ftp.funet.fi. Ari Lemmke, who looked after that machine, actually even named Linux because he didn't like Torvald's chosen name, "Freax", so he went behind his back and changed the directory and tarball names to Linux. Sunsite mirrored Linux, but that's a long way from stating that "Linux was distributed for the first 5 years or so, Sunsite's". Dozens of other sites mirrored Linux, and Funet was most definitely the point of origin.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198367)

My wording was not very good, and you are quite correct. The point I was trying to make was that Sun provided many of the resources that many of us used to download Linux from. I would hazard to guess that more copies of Linux were downloaded from Sunsite's than from any other single source. I am not trying to suggest that Linux owes its success to Sun, but I am saying that Sun did make major contributions to the environment we have today. Also, they have been doing so far longer than almost anyone else. Although there are many thinks not to like about Sun, these contributions should be remembered and acknowledged before attacking them.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198579)

Early on, Sun had no complaints against LInux. It was no more a threat than Minix or even the small-player *nix clones like Coherent. Times changed in the mid and late 90s when Linux started showing up on more and more servers, and when some people began actively questioning why they should be sending large licensing fees to guys like Sun when they could port their software and infrastructure over to Linux. At that point, Sun was not pleased.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197835)

umm.. it did?

bill joy, etc.. see BSD UNIX

friggin ubuntard n00b..

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197891)

I always thought Solaris was a BSD unix where ad what Novel had bought was system V rights, any Unix historians know for sure? If Novel is system V and sun is BSD all should be well for them.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20198125)

Solaris is System V. SunOS 4.x and earlier were BSD based, but that all changed with the advent of Solaris 2.x in the early 90's.

McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (4, Insightful)

LinDVD (986467) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197267)

Now that the Novell ruling has been handed down, reaffirming that Novell owns the copyrights Caldera Systems claimed and wished to have had, most of McBride's public statements are now worth less than zero. Before the judgment, there was some intangible value in the FUD factor, especially for Microsoft (and maybe SUN Microsystems).

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (2, Informative)

Maserati (8679) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197303)

Nahh, Novell didn't get a ruling that says they owned it (they have some, UC Regents has some, some is public domain). This ruling just says that SCO got exactly none of what Novell had, however much that may have been - which probably isn't much, the UNIX copyrights are a horrible mess that no one in their right mind would dig into (or sue over).

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (1, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197423)

"the UNIX copyrights are a horrible mess that no one in their right mind would dig into (or sue over)"

Oh, great - the insanity defense ... :-)

... because the stupidity defense won't work, and the truth that they're a bunch of lying cheating swindling dickheads [trolltalk.com] (do NOT click!) will hang them.

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (4, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197403)

It's not really about the FUD, though. The real question is whether Novell will sue Sun or not for misappropriating their intellectual property by open sourcing OpenSolaris. My guess is probably not. I don't think Novell has anything to gain from it. They aren't making money off UNIX, really. They seem to have bet the farm on Linux and were willing to defend it against companies trying to bury it (because their livelihood depends on it), but I'm not convinced they'd stoop so low as to pull a SCO themselves and try to sue away the competition. That's just not how responsible businesses operate.

Besides, Novell isn't really making money off of Linux, either. They're making money off their higher level bits---bits that run on both Linux and Solaris. Thus, suing Sun would actually be hurting Novell. That would be pretty silly.

Of course, I'd love to see Novell drive a stake through SCO by releasing the UNIX copyrights into the public domain, but I don't see it happening. Would be fun to watch, though.

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (1)

AaronW (33736) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197541)

I could see Novell using this to the advantage of Linux. For example, they could require that Sun allow ZFS and some of the other Solaris technologies be made available under the GPL as well. (I personally would love to see Linux gain a filesystem with some of the features built into ZFS like snapshots).

-Aaron

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197627)

Yeah, but then you have the problem of Andrew Morton saying those bits will NEVER be in the Linux kernel.

Of course, "never" is a long time...and it may end up not being Andrew's call.

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (1)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197631)

ZFS is already available for BSD and there is a useland implementation for Linux. How much more open do you need?
 

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (1)

AaronW (33736) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197677)

Userland ZFS isn't all that interesting as a Linux file system due to the big performance hit. I would like to see it as a kernel module, though I think it would require some major changes to the LVM layer, which I think was one of the complaints about Reiser4.

A userland file system is really only useful if performance is not a requirement. I.e. NTFS-3G is great for those times where access to a NTFS partion is required.

I'm not saying that ZFS is perfect, far from it. Some key features are not fully implemented yet.

-Aaron

Misappropriating *what*?!?!?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197621)

Sun went to SCO for a SysV license because SCO WAS NOVELL'S AGENT. Want to bet Sun paid for that license for the express purpose of being able to open Solaris source up?

Sun probably just didn't want to get involved in the SCO/Novell/IBM war, so they paid the money for the license and just kept quiet. Anything else would have been misinterpreted in some way. Obviously.

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (1)

sloanster (213766) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197707)

> Of course, I'd love to see Novell drive a stake through SCO by releasing the UNIX copyrights into the public domain

Why abandon it to the public domain? What a waste. Better to put it under the protection of the GPL.

Re:McBride: "...we have no problem with it..." (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198531)

I'd settle for a BSD license. GPL is too restrictive. UNIX should be everywhere, and removing licensing burdens would be a good step towards that.

UNIX copyrights (1)

dhart (1261) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198161)

Better yet, Novell should assign the UNIX copyrights to the Free Software Foundation or the Linux Foundation. Perhaps then they could begin to earn back the trust of the FOSS community.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? (0)

reporter (666905) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197599)

The management of Sun Microsystems believed that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So, Sun proceeded to ally with SCO and put the screws to the entire Linux community.

The management of Novell should now deal aggressively with Sun's dirty triangulation. Novell should demand huge royalties on any UNIX code that Sun is using in Solaris. The royalties should be sufficiently large to ensure that any Sun server solution using Solaris is more expensive than any generic non-Sun x86 server solution using Linux.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197811)

The management of Sun Microsystems believed that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So, Sun proceeded to ally with SCO and put the screws to the entire Linux community.
Definitely. They were in it to kill Linux. The fact that they had an operating system that was based on the original UNIX code that they were planning on releasing as open source, and have spent the last few years auditing and systematically buying up any IP rights that they need for this process is completely irrelevant.

You made your bed, now lie down in it (1)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197287)

For some reason, I can't help but feel a little smug about that. If your going to choose a side, Make sure you know your side is going to win.

well, now that we know (0, Flamebait)

siddesu (698447) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197309)

novell officially owns the copyrights on Unix and whatnot, who's to stop somestar capital from offering to pay them to restart something similar against other linux vendors? it isn't like they aren't already in bed with microsoft blah blah blah (donning my triple-layered gold-plated tinfoil hat ... and let the conspiracy theories begin)

Re:well, now that we know (1)

budword (680846) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197941)

What's stopping them is that it's clear to everyone who has been paying attention that there is no UNIX code in Linux at all. Only M$ and their stooges would bother throwing money away on such a fruitless quest. There just isn't any money in it.

Re:well, now that we know (5, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198489)

There were three key elements to the defence, and success in any one of them would mean victory for linux.

These were:
1. Linux does not include any unix code.
2. SCO does not own the copyright to unix code.
3. SCO themselves published a linux kernel under the terms of the GPL, and hence granted permission for any SCO owned code it might contain.

The court judgement yesterday established point 2, and therefore linux wins.

In a court case taken by Novel, point 1 would still apply, and point 3 would apply as well in that Novel have also published a linux kernel under the terms of the GPL. Either of those two points would be sufficient for Linux to win.

Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardware? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197329)

Does anybody actually run OpenSolaris in production on non-Sun hardware? Open-sourcing Solaris seems more of an end-of-life abandonware move than a product line.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197389)

I am in the middle of building a X86 server that I intend to run OpenSolaris on. Trying to find a board that I know in advance is supported has been frustrating. However, I *think* the major problem is the lack of updates for documentation and not that new devices are not supported.

You'll know how it went if you see me trying to sell a server, cpu, RAM combo.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197425)

I'm just some grad school kid setting up a server in his apartment, but within a few months I'm gonna get a new desktop and move my current one to a server. I'm debating between FreeBSD and x86 Solaris for it.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

Mathiu (165818) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197531)

Yes, many people actually do run Sun Solaris 10 on non-Sun hardware in production. What would you rather be running for your production on your brand new HP Opteron or IBM Opteron server: Redhat Linux or Sun Solaris 10?

Please note that you can actually buy Sun support for non-Sun hardware and that vendors are certifying their hardware for Sun Solaris 10.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197663)

I would be gratified if you could direct me to evidence that a vendor has successfully certified their hardware.

Recently!!

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197831)

Not sure about the x86 world, but Fujitsu have been selling Solaris 10 on their SPARC64 machines for a while. Some of the high-end Sun machines contained Fujitsu SPARC64 chips for a while, but I'm not sure if they still do.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198033)

If Fujitsu runs a Solaris newer than 8 I'm not aware of it.

Besides that's regular Solaris and I'm looking for hardware that will run X86 OpenSolaris.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198433)

What would you rather be running for your production on your brand new HP Opteron or IBM Opteron server: Redhat Linux or Sun Solaris 10?
If those were my only two choices then I'd pick Red Hat. I've never used Solaris 10 for more than anything but messing around, but I've used Solaris 9 and below extensively and frankly, their package management system sucks ass. up2date/yum/apt-get blows away Sun's patch management system hands down. I know they were trying to assemble some god-awful Java tool that would make patches easier the last time I checked, but it was nowhere near as nice as the packaging tools on Linux. I'd like to see Sun just ditch their PKG format altogether and adopt Debian's DPKG format and use aptitude or synaptic for management.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (2, Insightful)

GPL Apostate (1138631) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197633)

Open-sourcing Solaris seems more of an end-of-life abandonware move than a product line.

That's the classic FUD statement that has been made with regard to many other formerly 'closed' projects which went Open Source. Several previous examples:

Mozilla (Netscape)
Open Office (Star Office)

Just because you think such a FUD campaign may now 'benefit the community' (whatever that happens to mean at any moment) doesn't make it less of a dirty FUD campaign than it has been in the past.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197789)

Whoa there... completely off target...

Solaris has had more innovation in the last 5 years than Linux I'd say.

D-Trace, ZFS, Containers - 3 HUGE items - all developed by Sun, then converted to opensource.

Trust me, Sun's got no plans of going anywhere. Solaris will not be abandoned any time soon.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197987)

yep. Runs great on my Dell desktop.

Re:Does anybody run OpenSolaris on non-Sun hardwar (1)

imdano (1124847) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198023)

The vast majority of Solaris downloads are actually for x86, not SPARC. To quote Jonathan Schwartz:

Over the past two years, since committing to build a broad community around OpenSolaris, we've distributed nearly 8 million Solaris licenses, with nearly 70% on HP, Dell and IBM hardware (yes, we were surprised)
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/what_we_did/ [sun.com]

Did anyone get their OpenSolaris DVD? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20198101)

"Does anybody actually run OpenSolaris in production on non-Sun hardware? "

I'd run it if they sent me the DVD I requested.

Troll Article (5, Informative)

turgid (580780) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197335)

Linux and Solaris come from different code bases. Linux is Linux and Solaris is UNIX System V R4.

Secondly, Sun didn't "license unix" from SCO. Sun bought some device drivers.

There, settled.

Re:Troll Article (1, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197433)

Linux and Solaris come from different code bases. Linux is Linux and Solaris is UNIX System V R4.
TFA didn't say otherwise, perhaps you miss the point here.

The point is that Solaris is Unix (not Linux), and it just turned out in court that Novell own Unix. Coincidentally, Novell also happen to own a Linux distro. So, in theory, they might want to assert their rights on Unix to prevent Unixes (Solaris) from competing with Linux (and therefore with Novell's Linux, SUSE).

But, this is just theory. For all we know, Sun has had a license from Novell for years to use whatever portions of Unix code are in Solaris. Or perhaps there is no such code in Solaris at present. We just don't know, DesktopLinux.com was just speculating I guess.

Jesus Fucking Christ! (5, Insightful)

kaiwai (765866) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197539)

Sun *NEVER* bought their rights off SCO - they bought drivers. Sun bought their rights off who ever owned SVR4 20+ years ago - IIRC Novell who bought UNIX Labs. Sun bought the most extensive rights to the code one could possibly have.

The issue in question *SHOULDN'T* be Sun but Microsoft who purchasing IP rights to UNIX for their Services for UNIX. Sun already bought them 20 years ago. The issue at play are sales of IP by SCO to third parties.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ! (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197569)

You might be right, I don't know the details of Sun's licensing of Unix rights. If you have a good link, I'd be very grateful.

Re:Troll Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197447)

If I remember correctly, when Sun moved from Sun/OS to Solaris (and from kind of mix of BSD and SysV to pure SysV), first they didn't want to get a SysV license, instead they have re-engineered the code. The result was much less than glamorous. I still remember all the problems I had with SOlaris 1, 2, 3 ... They have finally purchased the license (from Novell, who purchased it from AT&T), and that was a start of a stable Solaris (SOlaris 5?)

Re:Troll Article (5, Interesting)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198203)

If I remember correctly, when Sun moved from Sun/OS to Solaris (and from kind of mix of BSD and SysV to pure SysV), first they didn't want to get a SysV license

You do not remember correctly. Sun most definitely got an SV license at least as far back as SunOS 3.2, which picked up a large chunk of System V code (yes, even before SunOS 4.0). I don't remember what UNIX license they had earlier, but even in 3.0 there was, as I remember, some SV code (I think the SunOS 3.0 Bourne shell was an SVR2 Bourne shell tweaked to be more V7/BSD-compatible and the SunOS 3.0 Berkmail was SVR2 mailx - itself based on Berkmail - tweaked similarly).

The SVR4 project whence SunOS 5.x came was an AT&T/Sun joint project, and Sun hardly would have wanted to avoid getting an SVR4 license. It was most definitely based on AT&T code - although a lot of the "AT&T code" in SVR4 was, in turn, based on Sun code (e.g., SVR4's VM system was derived from SunOS 4.x's).

(Oh, and Solaris 1 was based on SunOS 4.1[.x]; Solaris 2 was the name for the Solaris that used the SVR4-based SunOS 5.x, and, until SunOS 5.7, Solaris 2.x had SunOS 5.x as its core OS - eventually, I guess Sun decided that "Solaris 3" in the sense of a complete rewrite with the OS becoming "SunOS 6.0" wasn't going to happen any time soon, so they got rid of the no-longer-very-interesting "2." and just went to "Solaris 7", followed by Solaris 8, 9, and 10.

In addition, the license purchase didn't have anything to do with the "start of a stable Solaris" - that was, from everything I know, the result of a lot of people at Sun doing a lot of work on the OS to beat it into shape.)

Re:Troll Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20198227)

There was no Solaris 1 or 3 for you to remember fuckwad.

Re:Troll Article (1)

grahamlee (522375) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198411)

There certainly was a Solaris 1, which was simply a re-branding of SunOS 4.1.x.

Re:From the Wiki on Sun (1)

slickwillie (34689) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197721)

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

Sun is most well known for its Unix systems, which have a reputation for system stability and a consistent design philosophy.

Sun's first workstation shipped with UniSoft V7 Unix. Later in 1982 Sun began providing SunOS, a customized 4.1BSD Unix, as the operating system for its workstations.

In the late 1980s, AT&T tapped Sun to help them develop the next release of their branded UNIX, and in 1988 announced they would purchase up to a 20% stake in Sun.[42] UNIX System V Release 4 (SVR4) was jointly developed by AT&T and Sun; this partnership triggered concern among Sun's competitors, many of whom banded together to form the Open Software Foundation (OSF). By the mid-1990s, the ensuing Unix wars had largely subsided, AT&T had sold off their Unix interests, and the relationship between the two companies was significantly reduced.

Sun used SVR4 as the foundation for Solaris 2, which became the successor to SunOS.

Just one question.... (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197347)

...can Microsoft buy Novell?

I mean like 'em or hate 'em thats one firm with awfully deep pockets and the ownership seems to be settled now. Please, please tell me that I have missed something and I am being naive.

Re:Just one question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197467)

You seem to be assuming Microsoft is willing to be an SCO directly.
The IBM copyright case did not exactly look to be going well.
Microsoft would have to be an idiot to get embroiled in that, especially when their current
strategies are doing just fine.

Re:Just one question.... (1)

marvinglenn (195135) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197469)

...can Microsoft buy Novell?

Based on M$'s arguments in the anti-trust/monopoly action against them years ago that they were not a monopoly because of Linux, it is quite likely that government regulatory agencies may block such a purchase based on monopoly issues.

This, though, does not preclude M$ from pulling Novell's strings behind the scenes to inhibit growth in the Linux market. And with their business relationship with Novell, it looks to me that they're setup to have a certain amount of control without having to go through the formality of actually owning Novell.

Re:Just one question.... (3, Interesting)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197669)

Ahem, I'd like to see some supporting evidence for the notion that Microsoft has ANY sort of "control" over Novell.

Making an interoperability deal - even if it includes "patent protection" and money changing hands - does not seem to me to indicate any sort of "control".

Last I heard, despite Novell's profitability problems with the Linux side of the business, Novell is still relatively cash rich and entirely a viable company at this point. They're not SCO, dying on the vine and desperately looking for a way out. They might be that way in another five years if they can't get Linux moving fast enough, but they're not there yet.

And obviously it would be ridiculous for Novell to "inhibit Linux growth" since they're betting the farm on Linux - unless you're one of the conspiracy theorists like Bruce Perens who think Novell only made the deal to tempt Microsoft into buying them out. I call tin-foil hat conspiracy theory on that notion.

Re:Just one question.... (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197975)

I think it's pretty obvious Novell has no real future. They haven't been able to make a go of netware which was a very good product. They can't make a go of linux either.

There has to be a reason why MS spent so much money on Novell, linspire, xandros and others. Nobody can figure out why they gave so much money to small dying companies in order to keep them afloat.

I think it's obvious they plan on using these companies as attack dogs just like they used SCO. They can have these companies attack IBM, HP, Oracle or anybody else they want. Remember the case doesn't have to have any merit.

We have to keep in mind that MS has no ethics and the people running it are immoral to the core. It's a safe bet to expect the worst from corrupt immoral people.

Re:Just one question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20198347)

More importantly, Novell is distributing Linux. Linux is licensed under the GPL. They can't take Linux back, not even if they were bought by Microsoft.

Re:Just one question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197673)

I hope MS does buy Novel.

Re:Just one question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197843)

I hope MS does buy Novel.
Well, I heard that Steve Ballmer enjoys flicking through something by Stephen King now and then.

Microsoft also has a problem ... (4, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197371)

Two, actually.

Remember, they also bought a license. I wonder what Novell IP made it into Microsoft products, and if that wasn't the REAL reason Microsoft wanted a deal with Novell - not because of Microsoft IP in linux, but Novell IP in Windows?

Plus, if Novell and/or IBM and/or Red Hat manage to piece the "corporate veil" surrounding the PIPE invenstment, there's another problem, which will be much worse for the convicted monopolist.

Re:Microsoft also has a problem ... (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198029)

and if that wasn't the REAL reason Microsoft wanted a deal with Novell - not because of Microsoft IP in linux, but Novell IP in Windows?

So maybe all that money they paid Novell was actually for real IP, they weren't just buying FUD.

Re:Microsoft also has a problem ... (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198527)

I'm sure that by getting into these deals, MS was trying to convince other companies that they would have an advantage by getting the rights to use MS's patents. The real gain was for MS, since now all their products are covered by everyone else's patents thanks to the agreements. MS gets to use everyone's patents, everyone gets to use MS's patents, but they don't enter into an agreement with each other to cross-license their patents (i.e. Novell and Xandros don't get to use each others' patents, but MS uses both of theirs, MS's advantage), so really MS just funnels all the rights to themselves, and everyone else is left to bicker amongst each other. MS just wants to be a superset of everything else. Of course even everyone pools their patents together, it just raises the bar for small companies that want to get into the game, or any independents.

SCO reminds me of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197399)

Every time I see that name, I think SCrOtum.

I honestly don't know why.

There's a huge difference (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197409)

If Sun has to deal with Novell, it's not the same as anybody having to deal with SCO. SCO didn't care if it existed or not at the end of its legal battle with the rest of the world. Their strategy was all about monetizing their precious IP. Sun and Novell, on the other hand, think of themselves as ongoing businesses. They have no desire to run up huge legal bills. If there is an issue between them, they will negotiate like adults, money will change hands and everyone will go about their business.

Bottom line: Novell isn't going to sue Sun.

Solaris is doomed to die slowly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197417)

Novel has a tool to destroy Sun. It looks like Solaris is doomed to die slowly.

IP ?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197515)

Whats this IP in every Unix they keep talking about ?? 127.0.0.1 ?
bah

certainly not. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197519)

True, SCO had no "IP" (as Darl would like to put it, frequently) to sell. However, they were Novell's authorized agent for handling licensing for UNIX. The deal was that ALL money from such deals would go to Novell, and a 5% administrative fee would be remitted back to SCO. Furthermore, SCO had no authority to initiate new deals with SYSV without Novell's authorization.

However, Sun bargained with the authorized agent. It was not Sun's job to make sure Darl was fufilling his contractual obligations.

Novell has asked for the money from this and the MS deal. THis means they are not trying to kill it.

frist p5ot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197527)

paper towel5

the sale to Sun looks valid (3, Informative)

hedrick (701605) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197567)

While SCO didn't own Unix, it did have a right to sell licenses. The recent court order seems to regard the sale to Sun as valid:

Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.

Microsofts legal sockpuppet? (5, Informative)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197589)

Sun spent a lot of time and cash with lawyers to establish the ownership of all the code that was opensourced. Some parts of Solaris are still not available because of the ownership problems. One of the characteristics of open source is, once released, the worms cannot be forced back into the can. The Solaris code is never going to disappear. What would Novell gain by fighting Sun over this? Novell have no grounds (the same that TSG) for objecting to Sun orginated code, and the old Unix code has been publicaly available from many sources for years.

It's possible that Novell could act as Microsofts legal sockpuppet, but as we have seen, those who act as Microsoft proxies are doomed to failure.

Re:Microsofts legal sockpuppet? (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197761)

And Novell really wouldn't gain anything from being Microsoft's agent in this. Even damaging openSolaris wouldn't make up for the PR problems such a thing would cause Novell. They're already in the dog house with a lot of people (if not me) for even doing an interoperability deal with Microsoft. Acting further in the interests of Microsoft would doom their Linux business and they know it.

Besides which, openSolaris is no immediate threat to Linux and likely won't be for years. Definitely not worth suing over.

I think Steven is correct that Sun needs to be nicer to Linux than they have been, given the (small) legal exposure, but it's not worth it for either side to make a big deal about it.

Microsoft, on the other hand, probably should, as Steven says, shut up about their IP claims - especially since nobody believes them. OTOH, Steven should remember that Microsoft has far deeper pockets than SCO has and could afford to run a legal battle for years if it really wanted to. Of course, IBM has deep pockets, too, but it could still be a mess.

Personally, I don't believe Microsoft will start a legal fight until they really are on the ropes with Linux - and by then, like SCO, it will be too late.

And it will be another ten years before Linux has Microsoft anywhere near on the ropes. Right now, it depends on how poorly Vista sells and how many companies switch based on the problems with Vista, and what Microsoft does to deal with that. It also depends on whether other suppliers like Dell and Lenovo start selling Linux on the desktop and providing drivers for it, and how well the Linux server distros compete with the next iteration of Windows Server. Without a corporate shift in attitude, Linux cannot overtake Windows.

Agency (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197667)

Sun now has a little problem, which might become a giant one: SCO never had any Unix IP to sell. Therefore, it seems likely that Solaris and OpenSolaris contains Novell's Unix IP.
SCO was Novell's agent in the sale of SysV licenses and it is likely that they were Novell's "ostensible agent" in the sale of this license to Sun. If so the license will stand even if they exceeded their authority in in selling it. Their failure to remit the receipts to Novell is entirely between Novell and SCO and has no effect on the validity of the license.

More trouble for SCO, actually (3, Interesting)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197717)

SCO possibly sold something to Microsoft and Sun that they didn't own, which is fraud. I'm not sure exactly what the agreements were (some vague unix licenses), but Sun and Microsoft might be able to sue them for that in addition to criminal charges.

Of course, I believe that Sun and Microsoft really didn't buy anything, they were just funneling money to SCO.

Novell's options regarding Sun (1)

stites (993570) | more than 7 years ago | (#20197865)

Novell is asking Judge Kimball to force SCO to give the money Sun paid to SCO to Novell. If Novell wins this point then they cannot accept the Sun money and not give Sun what they paid for. So in this case Sun should be OK. Another option for Novell would be to repudiate the SCO-Sun agreement. In this case Novell could not collect the Sun payment, Sun would have no rights to the Novell UNIX code, and Sun would have to sue SCO to get their money back. --------------- Steve Stites

This should fizzle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197961)

Just like the old 'threat' to BSD that SCO was spouting.

SCOX(e) loses - Humankind wins! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20197989)

Hooray for open source software - code that builds our cultural heritage! Hooray for justice.

I have evidence that it is SUN's (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20198109)


Man is but extension of the 9/11:11\6, four corners, four simultaneous 24 hour days. Cubeless god, jewish god, jews did 9/11:11\6. I have IRREFUTABLE PROOF. Ignorant dumb asses laugh at me, they do not know. 9/11 tragedy was caused by JEWISH LIE and CONSPIRACY.
ZOG means students are EDUCATED STUPID with CUBELESS LINEAR TIME LIE. I have uncovered the truth, the spirit guardians have alerted. 11:11. I DEMONSTRATE IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

* New York City has 11 letters.
* Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
* 'George W. Bush' has 11 letters
* New York is the State # 11
* The first plane crushing against the Twin Towers was flight #11
* Flight # 11 was carrying 92 passengers Adding this number gives us: 9+2=11
* Flight # 77 who also hit the towers, was carrying 65 passengers Adding this: 6+5=11
* The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11. Adding this: 9+1+1=11
* The date is equal to the emergency number 911. Adding this: 9+1+1=11
* The total number of victims inside the planes were 254: 2+5+4=11
* September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year: 2+5+4=11
* After September 11, there were 111 days more to the end of the year.
* The tragedy of 3/11/2004 in Madrid also adds up to: 3+1+1+2+4=11
* The tragedy in Madrid happened 911 days after the tragedy of the Twin Towers.

Re:I have evidence that it is SUN's (1)

hasbeard (982620) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198325)

Friend, you have entirely too much time on your hands.

Re:I have evidence that it is SUN's (0, Troll)

Shuntros (1059306) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198399)

Do you love the cock?

good (1)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 7 years ago | (#20198301)

I hope Novell will take advantage of this and threaten to sue Sun.

I think a good compromise settlement would be to force Sun to place Solaris under a Linux-compatible license so that Linux can reuse whichever bits and pieces of Solaris seem useful.

Re:good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20198583)

So, you think Linux is a superior operating system, but you're also demanding that Solaris give away all of its source code to improve Linux.

If Linux is superior, why would they need any Solaris code?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?