Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Dec 2006 00:18 UTC, submitted by Rob Shepherd
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris "Sun has released Solaris 10 11/06 today. Internally, we called this 'Update 3'. The biggie features for this update are Trusted Extensions and Secure by Default. Yes, all of the security features you loved back in Trusted Solaris, are now standard as part of Solaris 10. This isn't just for the feds either. Banks love it. Wall St. loves it. Corporations that need to follow Sarbanes-Oxley love it." Get it here, a what's new guide is also available.
Order by: Score:
Apparently
by twenex on Tue 12th Dec 2006 00:37 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

Apparently Solaris isn't going to be GPL'ed then. At least not this version.

Ah well, a man can dream.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apparently
by Matt Giacomini on Tue 12th Dec 2006 01:05 UTC in reply to "Apparently"
Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

Sun has not decided weather to make Trusted Extensions open source or not, but that does not change weather the OS will GPL or not.

Edited 2006-12-12 01:07

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Apparently
by twenex on Tue 12th Dec 2006 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Apparently"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I stand corrected.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Apparently
by Darren Moffat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Apparently"
Darren Moffat Member since:
2005-07-13

Trusted Extensions *is* open source - as part of OpenSolaris. Trusted CDE is not but that is for the same reasons as the base CDE. There are even modifications to GNOME to have a multilevel desktop and modifications donated back to Xorg for multilevel Xserver.

Note that Solaris 10 is NOT an OpenSolaris distribution - it predates the opening of the OpenSolaris project. Trusted Extensions is also available in OpenSolaris.

For more info go here: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/security/projects/tx/

Reply Score: 4

RE: Apparently
by zizban on Tue 12th Dec 2006 01:17 UTC in reply to "Apparently"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

Making Solaris GPL wont happen overnight; I wouldn't surprised if they waited until Solaris 11. Look, Solaris has just been opened under CDDL, Sun and its partners would have to see what going GPL would do the code they want to keep secret. Have patience. java was GPL'ed, Solaris will be too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apparently
by Bobe on Tue 12th Dec 2006 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Apparently"
Bobe Member since:
2006-12-12

I sincerely hope so. Solaris has some great technology in it that would be of benefit to the Open Source community. On the other hand, the Open Source community has a lot to offer Solaris in the form of utilities and polish (Solaris is pretty ugly by default).

I think the result of a merge of the technologies, utilities, and polish would result in an excellent OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apparently
by atomicplayboy on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apparently"
atomicplayboy Member since:
2006-04-28

What do you mean by 'ugly'? Aesthetics? CDE, which was the default desktop is pretty ugly, but with this release, Java Desktop System is the default, and JDS has a very nice look to it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Apparently
by Bobe on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apparently"
Bobe Member since:
2006-12-12

CDE is part of what I mean, but some of the standard userland tools Linux users take for granted are not on Solaris, not installed or set up by default, or Solaris versions don't work right.

Perhaps this is fixed it later versions. The last time I used Solaris was 8.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Apparently
by ctl_alt_del on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apparently"
ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

"Perhaps this is fixed it later versions. The last time I used Solaris was 8."

That explains alot....Solaris 8 came out in 2000 (last update in 2004 AFAIK). Solaris 10 is much improved over 8 IMO. You should give it a try. BTW, some of the usrland tools you're looking for will probably be found in /usr/sfw (at least on Solaris 10).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Apparently
by Bobe on Wed 13th Dec 2006 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apparently"
Bobe Member since:
2006-12-12

Thanks. If I ever have the opportunity to work on a Solaris box again, I look forward to giving 10 + a try (I never liked Solaris much on non-Sun hardware).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Apparently
by aliquis on Thu 14th Dec 2006 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apparently"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

JDS looks like shit for beeing Gnome, thought I know some Sun users like the looks of it.

Reply Score: 1

Wall St. loves it?
by Unbeliever on Tue 12th Dec 2006 00:47 UTC
Unbeliever
Member since:
2005-07-09

...that must be the lamest advertising ever. So what if Wall St. loves it? That tells us nothing about its viability as an OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wall St. loves it?
by @@__@@ on Tue 12th Dec 2006 00:59 UTC in reply to "Wall St. loves it?"
@@__@@ Member since:
2005-07-29

You obviously don't know what WallSt. represents. They rely A LOT on system security. It's a must for them. Just check the Wikipedia article on Wall Street IT Infastructure if you don't believe me.

Cheers

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Wall St. loves it?
by jwwf on Tue 12th Dec 2006 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Wall St. loves it?"
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

You obviously don't know what WallSt. represents. They rely A LOT on system security. It's a must for them. Just check the Wikipedia article on Wall Street IT Infastructure if you don't believe me.

Would you link this? Thanks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wall St. loves it?
by Unbeliever on Tue 12th Dec 2006 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Wall St. loves it?"
Unbeliever Member since:
2005-07-09

Again, that means nothing. An OS can be the most secure OS out there, but that doesn't mean anything when it comes to its liability as a normal OS, because normal OSs, such as the ones Sun is trying to tout Solaris 10 as, have to offer a lot more than just security. Ease of use is one, a stable package manager is another, a healthy third-party market, etc., etc.

I don't see Solaris 10 offering any of these. It may be secure, and it may impress Wall St., but that is not the end all be all of an OSs duty.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Wall St. loves it?
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 12th Dec 2006 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wall St. loves it?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

This is a server OS. You don't care if it has a healthy third-party market except in the few applications that you must use. Especially if it's mostly running in-house applications.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Wall St. loves it?
by WarpKat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Wall St. loves it?"
Logical domains
by ormandj on Tue 12th Dec 2006 01:14 UTC
ormandj
Member since:
2005-10-09

Wow, just went through the PDF, how did logical domains get left out from the little blurb here? Awesome!

Double parity ZFS now, too. Hot spare support! Woohoo. It's XMAS already!

Edited 2006-12-12 01:17

Reply Score: 3

RE: Logical domains
by spotter on Tue 12th Dec 2006 04:26 UTC in reply to "Logical domains"
spotter Member since:
2005-07-06

Logical domains are more than just U3. It also requires a new firmware revision and some additional management software. Neither of the last two are yet available.

Reply Score: 1

Solaris
by ebasconp on Tue 12th Dec 2006 01:19 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

Solaris is turning to life again... The new features and improvements of this update are great!

Reply Score: 5

Facinating
by flanque on Tue 12th Dec 2006 01:47 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

I've only recently moved into a Solaris role and so I don't know a great deal about it (I've done a few years Linux admin for LAMPs and other services), but just by these slides I can see there are some really neat features available in this release.

Fingers crossed I get to play with them soon enough!

Reply Score: 4

GPL Solaris
by Xaero_Vincent on Tue 12th Dec 2006 03:16 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

It would be in Sun's best interest not to change the OpenSolaris license to the GPL.

Such a move would merely enhance Linux and stagnant the OpenSolaris project.

Reply Score: 4

RE: GPL Solaris
by deanlinkous on Tue 12th Dec 2006 04:40 UTC in reply to "GPL Solaris"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

maybe not! I know at least one user it would gain and one user that linux would lose. I think the best thing that would happen is there would finally be a (good) choice of free operating systems and of course competition is good. I think solaris may find itself as the center of attention if it was to be licensed under the GPL.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL Solaris
by twenex on Tue 12th Dec 2006 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL Solaris"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I wouldn't switch, but I would add it to my list of alternatives, hardware support permitting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GPL Solaris
by DoctorPepper on Wed 13th Dec 2006 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL Solaris"
DoctorPepper Member since:
2005-07-12

Hardware support has always been the reason I haven't done anything with Solaris. I've tried many times, but it is either my network card not supported or video card.

Not that it was totally Sun's fault, I was just too cheap to go out and find supported hardware, just to run Solaris. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: GPL Solaris
by twenex on Wed 13th Dec 2006 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL Solaris"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: GPL Solaris
by aliquis on Thu 14th Dec 2006 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL Solaris"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

I don't know about your NIC, but the few I have on my motherboards have worked, as long as Xorg or the nvidia driver supports the gfx card it should work I suppose. So I think it was mostly a user error.

Reply Score: 1

RE: GPL Solaris
by WarpKat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 06:24 UTC in reply to "GPL Solaris"
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

Exactly. Besides, opening the source doesn't always mean that this is the best option to expand and enhance an OS - most want it open just because they feel everything should be open.

Some things NEED to be left untouched. If we opened up the source code to everything on the face of this mudball, where would we put it? China only has so many compromised PC's to be turned into networked RAID storage volumes... =:(

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: GPL Solaris
by deanlinkous on Tue 12th Dec 2006 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL Solaris"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Exactly. Besides, opening the source doesn't always mean that this is the best option to expand and enhance an OS - most want it open just because they feel everything should be open.

Some things NEED to be left untouched. If we opened up the source code to everything on the face of this mudball, where would we put it? China only has so many compromised PC's to be turned into networked RAID storage volumes...


First, solaris is already open source. Second, I do feel that everything should be free software (not just open) and I certainly think solaris could gain more "mindshare" from this which would benefit SUN as well as giving me a OS to use.

Edited 2006-12-12 06:32

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GPL Solaris
by oxygene on Tue 12th Dec 2006 08:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL Solaris"
oxygene Member since:
2005-07-07

the CDDL _is_ a free software license, even the fsf says so ("weak copyleft" project-wide, but "strong copyleft" per file. the latter is what the fsf ignores).
just because the GPL is incompatible doesn't make the CDDL non-free.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL Solaris
by trinitrotolueen on Tue 12th Dec 2006 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL Solaris"
trinitrotolueen Member since:
2006-10-03

Some things NEED to be left untouched. If we opened up the source code to everything on the face of this mudball, where would we put it? China only has so many compromised PC's to be turned into networked RAID storage volumes... =:(

MS just recently gave china insight into the source code.

Reply Score: 2

RE: GPL Solaris
by what on Tue 12th Dec 2006 11:10 UTC in reply to "GPL Solaris"
what Member since:
2006-01-04

Except if sun chooses GPLv3.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: GPL Solaris
by eMagius on Tue 12th Dec 2006 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL Solaris"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Except if sun chooses GPLv3.

I don't see how that would affect matters substantially one way or the other, except with regards to drivers.

Please clarify.

Edited 2006-12-12 14:55

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GPL Solaris
by what on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL Solaris"
what Member since:
2006-01-04

Well you can't mix GPLv2 and GPLv3 code, so if sun chooses to licence Opensolaris under the GPLv3 only, linux wouldn't benefit from it.
Plus they can convince linux driver devs to (re)release their code using the GPLv2 or later, which would enable them to use it on opensolaris.

Reply Score: 2

RE: GPL Solaris
by s_groening on Tue 12th Dec 2006 17:16 UTC in reply to "GPL Solaris"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

Actually it might be interesting to see what features might move to the Linux kernel from OpenSolaris if the latter was GPL'd, since a lot of Linux users' 'problem' with *BSD seems to be the fact that so much is being ported to this family of OSs and not 'invented' for use with it as these people seem to claim being the reality on Linux' behalf...

I'd like to see these people's reactions to ZFS, Zones, DTrace etc. being ported to Linux.... Will they moan about it being Sun code ported to the OS or will they cheer out loud for what it brings that is currently available for Linux?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wall St. loves it?
by Aronek on Tue 12th Dec 2006 03:20 UTC
Aronek
Member since:
2006-12-12

I have to disagree with Unbeliever. Solaris doesn't have a healthy third-party market? How many commercial Unix apps don't run on Solaris? How many new enterprise apps are targetting AIX, Tru64 or HP-UX first and leaving Solaris support until last?

You're right that Solaris takes awhile to learn, and some parts could be easier to use. But that's why admins are paid to maintain them. And a stable package manager? Enterprise customers are moving to flash archives and hopefully will jump on the ZFS and Zone cloning features in this new release. It's not like banks are fiddling with package dependencies all the time trying incremental upgrades every week and praying it all hangs together. If they want to upgrade a box they can do it in 15 minutes from bare-iron using a flar file, and lay their apps back on from the provisioning server in a few more minutes (if the apps weren't already baked into the flar).

I can't wait to try out Update 3 and the Zone/ZFS clones. If I totally pooch a Zone in development it would be great if I can roll the whole thing back in a few minutes! ZFS + Virtualization = disposable servers ;)

Edited 2006-12-12 03:21

Reply Score: 5

secure by default
by netpython on Tue 12th Dec 2006 06:01 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Good to see they give you an option to choose wether you want to enable remote services or not.

Is trusted extensions not avalable for x86_64?

Reply Score: 2

RE: secure by default
by Darren Moffat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 10:55 UTC in reply to "secure by default"
Darren Moffat Member since:
2005-07-13

Yes it is available for all hardware platforms that the Solaris 10 11/06 release runs on. We generally don't use the x86_64 terminology but instead say AMD64 or just generically x86.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: secure by default
by grfgguvf on Tue 12th Dec 2006 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: secure by default"
grfgguvf Member since:
2006-09-25

Hmm Last time I checked it was called x64

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: secure by default
by eMagius on Tue 12th Dec 2006 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: secure by default"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

I prefer the x86-64 designation myself, but Sun does use the "x64" moniker in its marketing materials and press releases.

Reply Score: 3

package system
by vermaden on Tue 12th Dec 2006 08:32 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

You can always deploy pkgsrc [http://pkgsrc.org] there and benefit from about 5500 ports ready to install and run.

About licence they will propably go for BSD license.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: package system
by trinitrotolueen on Tue 12th Dec 2006 08:50 UTC in reply to "package system"
RE[2]: package system
by dagw on Tue 12th Dec 2006 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE: package system"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

And we all know that the measure of an OS is total number of packages available, with no focus on how many of those packages actually work and do something useful

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: package system
by danieldk on Tue 12th Dec 2006 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE: package system"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

5500? Ubuntu has 20000+

You can't just compare those absolute numbers. Ubuntu and Debian split up a lot of software in multiple packages. E.g. most libraries are split up in normal and -dev packages, and sometimes there are also -doc packages. pkgsrc seldomly splits up software in different packages.

Besides that pkgsrc supports far more platforms and operating systems (e.g. Net/Free/OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, Solaris, Interix, Darwin, IRIX, AIX, and DragonFly). Even if it has a smaller number of packages, it is nice to have one package system across so many platforms.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: package system
by aliquis on Wed 13th Dec 2006 07:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: package system"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Yeah just to bad not all packages from pkgsrc EXIST for Solaris, and most/many are probably very outdated, there are no kde port and so on. Also to bad Sun can't just get an official package manager and servers which everyone could use instead of Blastwave, Sunfreeware and pkgsrc where the first one doesn't have (atleast had) the source code available for all the packages in some easy to use way, the second one isn't easy to use and the later one lacks packages which the other two has.

Over all it's way to few packages, to little people involved, a crappy experience to use, outdated versions and just pure shit.

This, the not working ekiga, no recent KDE port and the fact that the UI just feels slow when my system uses the HDD a little and that Sun Audio sucks and no applications are built with OSS support is major show stoppers for me. To bad since much of the OS seems and is awesome, good for servers but make a very crappy desktop.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: package system
by vermaden on Tue 12th Dec 2006 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: package system"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

5500? Ubuntu has 20000+

You stand for quantity not quality?

can You deploy ubuntu package system on Solaris to be fully functional?

Reply Score: 3

RE: package system
by andrewg on Tue 12th Dec 2006 10:41 UTC in reply to "package system"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

BSD License? The chances of Solaris being released under the BSD license are zero.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: package system
by Darren Moffat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: package system"
Darren Moffat Member since:
2005-07-13

Except of course for the bits of Solaris that already are under the BSD license ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: package system
by atomicplayboy on Tue 12th Dec 2006 18:56 UTC in reply to "package system"
atomicplayboy Member since:
2006-04-28

A package system isn't entirely neccessary in an enterprise environment, but if your plan is to use this in a desktop environment, http://www.blastwave.org/ is a pretty nice package system for those open source applications.

Reply Score: 2

I was more interested to see..
by fithisux on Tue 12th Dec 2006 09:34 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

an AHCI driver. There are different sata chipsets, but AHCI provides a uniform interface and gains momentum. I wish SUN included such a driver. I acknowledge previous problems, but now it is necessary and it is generic.

Reply Score: 1

What's New in the Solaris 10 11/06
by flick on Tue 12th Dec 2006 09:35 UTC
flick
Member since:
2006-09-03

The official doc can be viewed at:

http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-0547/6mgbdbsmb?a=view

Reply Score: 3

ZFSboot
by grfgguvf on Tue 12th Dec 2006 13:35 UTC
grfgguvf
Member since:
2006-09-25

Here's an other Linux user who would switch to Solaris if ZFS install/boot were finally complete. I guess that's another 6 months of wait then...

Though Linux might still integrate some snapshotting FS in that time.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ZFSboot
by diegocg on Tue 12th Dec 2006 14:40 UTC in reply to "ZFSboot"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Linux already supports snapshotting at the LVM layer

No, it's not so powerful as ZFS, but you can do it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ZFSboot
by grfgguvf on Wed 13th Dec 2006 08:06 UTC in reply to "RE: ZFSboot"
grfgguvf Member since:
2006-09-25

Ok LVM snapshotting has nothing to do with this

I should have used some clearer term but I have no idea what would it be.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ZFSboot
by MattPie on Tue 12th Dec 2006 17:05 UTC in reply to "ZFSboot"
MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

Here's an other Linux user who would switch to Solaris if ZFS install/boot were finally complete. I guess that's another 6 months of wait then...

Though Linux might still integrate some snapshotting FS in that time.


Why is that? ZFS is pretty slick, granted, but not necessary for a small root partition. You can use fssnap to make UFS snapshots anyways (although only one snap per fs at a time).

http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1824/sam0201j/0201j.htm

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFSboot
by grfgguvf on Wed 13th Dec 2006 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE: ZFSboot"
grfgguvf Member since:
2006-09-25

thanks for that link !

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: package system
by helf on Tue 12th Dec 2006 18:13 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

ooo! let me chime in!

"my car has 550HP! haha! also, my dad can beatup your dad!!!1111"

*rolls eyes*

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 95; PalmSource; Blazer 3.0) 16;160x160

Reply Score: 3

license
by techlush on Tue 12th Dec 2006 18:15 UTC
techlush
Member since:
2006-03-30

Its interesting to notice how Sun using the GPL for java is good for everyone sun seems to think it will help java break into a new market essentially.

But yet with Open Solaris you see them using a more restrictive licensing to prevent stuff from being easily ported (sun would probably think stolen) to another OS.

I realize Sun is a business and this is probably in their best interest all things considered. Just interesting to note i thought.

Reply Score: 1

RE: license
by comay on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "license "
comay Member since:
2005-09-16

You're assumption that the reason OpenSolaris wasn't licensed under the GPL is incorrect. It had more to do with timing and it had nothinbg to do with trying to prevent things from being ported. For more details, see this response from Simon Phipps

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=55008#55008

Reply Score: 3

RE: license
by Dubhthach on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:24 UTC in reply to "license "
Dubhthach Member since:
2006-01-12

Sun do not own all of the code that is in Solaris, after all parts of codebase is up to 30years old. The CDDL is a decent effort at an openlicense if you ask me. And it is a perfect fit for current situation of Solaris codebase. As it a per-file license thus allowing CDDL licensed files to be mixed with files under propietry licenses in the finished product (Solaris). Something that GPL wouldn't allow. As all new code going into Solaris appears to be CDDL given time it would be possible to see a dual license approach, but tbh why are people so obsessed that there be a GPL version? It's only a license people not a religion.

Reply Score: 4

RE: license
by aliquis on Thu 14th Dec 2006 02:02 UTC in reply to "license "
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Uhm, isn't it GPL which is the restrictive license?

Reply Score: 1

Boot loader?
by AndrewZ on Tue 12th Dec 2006 18:53 UTC
AndrewZ
Member since:
2005-11-15

Can anyone recommend the optimal boot loader for Solaris and Vista? is Grub the only game in town?

Reply Score: 1

free solaris
by jango on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:37 UTC
jango
Member since:
2006-11-22

i wish they'd hurry up and gpl solaris so that all foss can benefit

Reply Score: 1

RE: free solaris
by ormandj on Wed 13th Dec 2006 01:53 UTC in reply to "free solaris"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

They are a company. They do things to benefit themselves. If it benefits others in the process, wonderful - but that is not the primary intent of a company. They exist to make their stakeholders happy.

I don't think they can "hurry" GPLization anymore than they already are, it's a huge undertaking. Just be happy they are doing it, at all. Most companies wouldn't. ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: free solaris
by elsewhere on Wed 13th Dec 2006 05:33 UTC in reply to "free solaris"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

i wish they'd hurry up and gpl solaris so that all foss can benefit

Why does it have to be gpl specifically for foss to benefit?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: free solaris
by atomicplayboy on Wed 13th Dec 2006 06:10 UTC in reply to "RE: free solaris"
atomicplayboy Member since:
2006-04-28

I think what he means is that it would benefit Linux. Actually, making it GPL would cause problems for a lot of other open source software. GPL code can't be directly ported to BSD licensed code. I like the idea of dtrace and ZFS in FreeBSD, so I'm really in no hurry to see Solaris switch to the GPL license.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: free solaris
by hamster on Wed 13th Dec 2006 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE: free solaris"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

But linux is the only Foss alternativ there is.. did'nt know you that? Or atleast thats what it seems like when ever some company or the like talks about moving a way from windows they just have to move to linux.

Another thing is why even bother to change the licens to gpl when gpl v3 is said to be compatible with the cddl. So it will all be ported or copied to linux anyways.

Reply Score: 1

The PDF seems to be gone
by aliquis on Wed 13th Dec 2006 06:56 UTC
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

Can anyone find it again / give me correct URL?

Reply Score: 1

Maybe it's this?
by aliquis on Wed 13th Dec 2006 06:58 UTC
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23