Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:28 UTC, submitted by vondur
Linux "Don't expect to see key features of OpenSolaris showing up in the Linux kernel," said a top Linux maintainer. At his LinuxWorld opening keynote, Andrew Morton made it very clear that the appointment of former OSDL CTO and Debian co-founder Ian Murdock to Sun's OS platforms organization will not translate into a merging between the open source version of Solaris Unix with Linux. He didn't mince words. "It's a great shame that OpenSolaris still exists. They should have killed it," said Morton, addressing one attendee's question about the possibility of Solaris' most notable features being integrated into the kernel. "It's a disappointment and a mistake by Sun." Morton said none of those features - Zones, ZFS, DTrace - will end up in the Linux kernel because Sun refuses to adopt the GPL.
Order by: Score:
Pathetic
by binarycrusader on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:41 UTC
binarycrusader
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry Mr. Morton, but your reasoning seems flawed at best.

By Morton's reasoning:

* Opera shouldn't exist, we have Mozilla, kill it!

* Safari shouldn't exist, we have Mozilla, kill it!

* Konqueror shouldn't exist, we have Mozilla, kill it!

* FreeBSD shouldn't exist, we have Linux, kill it!

* OpenBSD shouldn't exist, we have Linux, kill it!

* Code from the Apache project can't be integrated into Linux because the Apache developers refuse to adopt the GPL, kill it!

People need to wake up and realise that every license meets different needs. The Apache, BSD and other projects have all existed without using the GPL, sometimes even though they are incompatible (see original 4-clause BSD, Apache 2.1 license, etc.).

It isn't Sun's decision to adopt the GPL, it is the community's decision, and we don't want the GPL right now.

I'm convinced that even if all of Solaris was GPL, the Linux developers still wouldn't adopt any of the technologies because of their NIH syndrome.

Edited 2007-08-09 17:41

Reply Score: 37

RE: Pathetic
by Luminair on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:50 UTC in reply to "Pathetic"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

I was just about to say the same thing.

"It's a great shame that OpenSolaris still exists. They should have killed it," said Morton

What! Isn't that like the exact opposite of the whole free software movement?! The competition should kill themselves and join the rest of us??

I'd love to hear what Morton has to say about KDE and Gnome!!!

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Pathetic
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Pathetic"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

What! Isn't that like the exact opposite of the whole free software movement?! The competition should kill themselves and join the rest of us??


The trouble seems to be related to the number of people in the free software/OSS/whatever movement who take a decidely-fundamentalist stance. Not in any sort of religious sense, before anyone goes into "rrrawr, seeing red!" mode - but in the sense of an unwavering conviction that a particular ideology is the only possible "right" one, and the world would be a wonderful paradise *if only* everyone else would just accept the inherent "rightness" of their way of thinking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pathetic
by butters on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Pathetic"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

The issue at bar is ultimately license fragmentation. Copyleft is a good idea, but it stops being practical when everybody and their dog creates their own copyleft license. The GPL came first, and Linux is, for better or worse, licensed under the GPL.

OpenSolaris is the first kernel to use a non-GPL copyleft license. We've never had competing copylefts at the kernel level until Sun made it so. Developing under copyleft is like blowing a bubble. Everybody developing under the GPL is blowing into the same bubble.

Now Sun has started blowing their own bubble. Developers have to choose which bubble to blow on. There's no way that their breath can inflate both bubble simultaneously. The bubbles have to grow independently, even if everybody would like to see them merge.

Competition is good. Fragmentation is bad. If Sun had decided to license OpenSolaris as GPLv2 or later, that would have been a great day for free software. Competition within the bubble, where developers can compile the best work from either project, would be outstanding. That's the great shame to which Andrew refers.

Now, it's not really Sun's fault. Copyleft licenses are unabashedly egocentric. They're a model of universal gravitation for software. Code falls into orbit around its copyleft license. Following the analogy, each copyleft license is a distinct solar system. Before we had the GPL solar system plus some comets of the BSD persuasion. Now we have two solar systems.

So while it's easy to see the Linux developers as close-minded or fundamentalists, they're really just slaves to the license. Copylefts don't coexist. They're isolationist and protectionist. Like it or not, this is an implication of copyleft. Again, it's a great shame.

As much as I admire Solaris on its technical merits, it's existence is unfortunate for Linux. Likewise, the existence of Linux has been unfortunate for Solaris for years. Copyleft is a join-em or fight-em proposition. Whether or not this is good for users is highly debatable.

Microsoft isn't splitting the Linux community with patent covenants nearly as much as Sun is splitting the free software community with the CDDL.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Pathetic
by Moochman on Fri 10th Aug 2007 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pathetic"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

but but but... i thought they were going to make solaris gpl v3?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Pathetic
by butters on Fri 10th Aug 2007 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pathetic"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

That would still be incompatible with the GPLv2 as used in the Linux kernel. Unfortunately, even if Sun and the Linux kernel community sit down and talk about license compatibility, there's no practical way for Linux to meet Sun halfway. Linux is pretty much trapped by its v2-only license and distributed copyright ownership.

The least invasive way to mitigate this license dilemma is to have an arrangement where Sun will consider relicensing specific portions of the OpenSolaris under GPLv2 or later upon the request of the Linux community. As it stands there is nothing preventing Sun from integrating Linux code under the GPLv2 with OpenSolaris under the CDDL.

That would change if OpenSolaris goes GPLv3. Then Sun would have to (at least) request that the copyright owners of portions of the Linux kernel relicense their code as GPLv2 or later.

I find it hard to believe that Sun will add a GPLv3 option for OpenSolaris. Its existence imposes restrictions on Sun integrating code from non-GPL projects. Furthermore, as used in a dual-license setup with the CDDL, there is no practical reason for recipients to elect to abide by the more restrictive GPLv3.

However, there's a distinct possibility that Sun could drop CDDL in favor of LGPLv3. They're very similar licenses, but the LGPLv3 would cut down on license proliferation and give Sun a boost in street cred. The primary reason why Sun did not use the LGPLv2 (or to a lesser extent the MPL) is because it lacks strong patent grant and non-aggression clauses.

Heck, Sun could choose to kick CDDL in favor of Ms-CL. That would be an interesting turn of events.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Pathetic
by Arun on Fri 10th Aug 2007 05:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pathetic"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07


OpenSolaris is the first kernel to use a non-GPL copyleft license. We've never had competing copylefts at the kernel level until Sun made it so. Developing under copyleft is like blowing a bubble. Everybody developing under the GPL is blowing into the same bubble.


I think you should stop drinking FSF's koolaid. There have been other kernels that were released with non GPL licenses. BSD comes to mind.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Pathetic
by elsewhere on Fri 10th Aug 2007 05:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pathetic"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13


I think you should stop drinking FSF's koolaid. There have been other kernels that were released with non GPL licenses. BSD comes to mind.


When did BSD become copyleft ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Pathetic
by Arun on Fri 10th Aug 2007 05:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pathetic"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Ah I missed the copyleft in the post I responded to.

In any case CDDL is not strong copyleft either because Apple could use DTrace and ZFS in OS X if it was.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pathetic
by flanque on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Pathetic"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Regarding...

"It's a great shame that OpenSolaris still exists. They should have killed it," said Morton


I agree with you. What an absurd thing to say. These projects foster creativity, competition and different minds to solve problems in different ways.

"It's a disappointment and a mistake by Sun." Morton said none of those features - Zones, ZFS, DTrace - will end up in the Linux kernel because Sun refuses to adopt the GPL.


Don't be so sure Mr Morton. The past few years have seen Sun slowly evolve into a more open and transparent provider of solid, well known and supported platforms.

Just because Sun hasn't done it yet, doesn't mean it will not happen. Most recently some of their hardware specs have been made available under GPL, so your argument that they refuse to adopt the GPL is inaccurate at best.

There seems to be a change of attitude at Sun which is exciting and valuable to the community and to business.

Maybe the air was a little too thin up there on stage.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Pathetic
by Joe User on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:17 UTC in reply to "Pathetic"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

It reminds me of Linus Torvalds who asked every Linux user to move to KDE. Some GPL zealots are really stupid, they forget too fast the core philosophy of free software and having an open-minded vision to improve and to share software without any restriction.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pathetic
by siride on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Pathetic"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

It's not really the same. Torvalds said that because he thought GNOME was going down the wrong path *on technical merits* with respect to interface design (as it were, the dumbing down of the interface). It was hardly ideological, although the flamewar ended up going that way.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Pathetic
by happycamper on Fri 10th Aug 2007 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Pathetic"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

Some GPL zealots are really stupid, they forget too fast the core philosophy of free software and having an open-minded vision to improve and to share software without any restriction.

Sun is really the one forget the core philosophy of free software and having an open-minded vision to improve and to share software without any restriction, by creating an
license that is incompatible with the most widely use license the GPL.Sun wants everything for themselves. If Sun really wanted to share code with linux,they would not of created the license that opensolaris is released under and had adopted the GPL,etc. I do hope Sun does release opensolaris under the GPLv3.

Edited 2007-08-10 00:38

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Pathetic
by dylansmrjones on Fri 10th Aug 2007 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Pathetic"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It had nothing to do with licenses. Linus Torvalds argued against using Gnome because of what he (correctly IMHO) saw as "dumbing down the interface" and because of (his words) the "interface nazis" controlling development.

It was a technical issue and never ideological.

Reply Score: 3

v binarycrusader ...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "Pathetic"
RE: Pathetic
by dbolgheroni on Fri 10th Aug 2007 02:03 UTC in reply to "Pathetic"
dbolgheroni Member since:
2007-01-18

Hmmm, specifically to OpenBSD, since its base system (4.4 BSD) exists before Linux, Linux itself shouldn't exist, at least in Morton's view.

Reply Score: 4

Wrong
by zizban on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:43 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sun refuses to adopt the GPL.

No, Sun said they will consider moving OpenSolaris to GPL v.3 when its done. GPL V.3 was just finished. Give Sun a chance.

Reply Score: 12

I'm surprised
by Matt Giacomini on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:45 UTC
Matt Giacomini
Member since:
2005-07-06

to hear such a totally retarded set of comments from someone as smart and generally thoughtful as Andrew.

Reply Score: 18

RE: I'm surprised
by GhePeU on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:51 UTC in reply to "I'm surprised"
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm surprised too. Are we sure we can trust the report? Could this be a bad recapitulation of a more complex reasoning?

Edited 2007-08-09 17:52

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: I'm surprised
by maxjen on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm surprised"
maxjen Member since:
2007-07-15

I think he's right. The sun-license is stupid. They allow closed-source software to adapt their code (Apple) but not GPL software. It should rather be the other way.
Sure, competition is good, but they would still compete if they were both GPL, and they'd both be better.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I'm surprised
by Arun on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm surprised"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

I think he's right. The sun-license is stupid. They allow closed-source software to adapt their code (Apple) but not GPL software.

Let's think for a second. Sun's license is compatible with most licenses and many projects now use Sun's code. It only won't work with GPL and suddenly it's Sun's fault. Why doesn't Linux change it's license so that everyone can use its code not just GPL projects? Which is truly open?

Edited 2007-08-09 19:33

Reply Score: 21

RE[4]: I'm surprised
by Marcellus on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm surprised"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Because GPL is more about free than open maybe?

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: I'm surprised
by renox on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm surprised"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>Sun's license is compatible with most licenses

But given that the GPL has a majority of the projects now, it is incompatible with most of the projects.

I've not heard many people claiming that CDDL is better than GPL so they'll switch, it's just different and incompatible.

>It only won't work with GPL and suddenly it's Sun's fault.

Yes, CDDL was conceived when the GPL was already widely used, if GPL had been made after the CDDL was widely used then it'd be the FSF fault, this is not the case.

> Which is truly open?
The one who is compatible with the *existing projects*?
As you see, it's a stupid question: everyone is free to define what 'truly open' means.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: I'm surprised
by Matt Giacomini on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I'm surprised"
Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

"But given that the GPL has a majority of the projects now, it is incompatible with most of the projects."

This comment is misleading. It is incompatible with the linux kernel itself, or linux drivers. But there is no problem with runing gpl application or utilities on Solaris.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: I'm surprised
by Arun on Fri 10th Aug 2007 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I'm surprised"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

> Which is truly open?
The one who is compatible with the *existing projects*?
As you see, it's a stupid question: everyone is free to define what 'truly open' means.



http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License
The GPL isn't compatible with many existing licenses. In fact, there seem to be more licenses incompatible with the GPL than not.

I wonder why there is so much animosity that Sun released Solaris with a different license. All this complaining and Andrew's comments seems to indicate that Linux folks would love to be able to get Solaris features into the Linux kernel.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." Mahatma Ghandi

So linux guys are now at the attack phase....

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: I'm surprised
by Carewolf on Fri 10th Aug 2007 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm surprised"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

It only won't work with GPL and suddenly it's Sun's fault. Why doesn't Linux change it's license so that everyone can use its code not just GPL projects?
GPLv3 have been designed work with the Sun License and many other (APL notably). So at least parts of "linux" is trying to open up and fix the problem from our side.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I'm surprised
by kaiwai on Thu 9th Aug 2007 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm surprised"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I think he's right. The sun-license is stupid. They allow closed-source software to adapt their code (Apple) but not GPL software. It should rather be the other way.
Sure, competition is good, but they would still compete if they were both GPL, and they'd both be better.


But its perfectly alright for GPL to suck in code without giving anything back. Look at how many bits of code have been sucked in and relicenced under GPL to stop sharing back to the original author.

You're attacking 'proprietary vendors' and yet the GPL is the equivalence of a proprietary licence which prohibits code sharing.

btw, CDDL code can be shared with BSD projects - *BSD and Solaris are sharing code; it seems to me that the GPL world are the odd ones out.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: I'm surprised
by Moulinneuf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm surprised"
RE[5]: I'm surprised
by hamster on Fri 10th Aug 2007 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I'm surprised"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"The GPL does not suck in code."

No the licens it self doesnt but when it turns gpl it usually stays that way. Wanna get improvements back on your code turn all your code into gpl'ed code or otherwise forget it.

"GNU/Linux and GPL contribute funds , developer , contributor , translator to project used by all ... "

More of your BS which has been proven wrong so many times by now... Or are you still on about how linux funds all other os' because a linux consulting firm give some money?

"None ..."

Another of your "homegrown facts"?


"The GPL does not prevent code sharing or multi-licensing. "

Well atleast you have finely begun to understand that multi-licensing can be done even if you use the gpl. But you are right the gpl doesnt prevent code sharing if you wanna bend over and take it in your behind.

"That's where CDDL code originated from ..."

and if we were to follow your logic here all improvements to openssh and the likes should be bsd licensed even if it was a linux distro that made those improvements.

"Yes , we try to be free and legal. Something you don't want and attack and oppose."

You really do believe your own bs don't you..?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: I'm surprised
by Moulinneuf on Fri 10th Aug 2007 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I'm surprised"
RE[7]: I'm surprised
by hamster on Fri 10th Aug 2007 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I'm surprised"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"Not the fault of the license that you cant/don't want to pay for the privilege of using another license on someone else code. You have to work within the requirement of a license. Freedom is protected against those who want to remove it.. "

Did'nt i write just that..? I'm pretty sure i wrote that the licens did not do anything. It's the careless use of a licens that has to be blamed. The licens it self can do much if it isnt used.

"I don't give BS , and I was right then as I am now , not my fault you don't accept the reality of things. "

I do not have a problem with accepting the real world reality your problem is that you don't bring the real world reality to the table... You only bring your own twisted view on reality.

"That was one example , I never said it fund all other project that exist either , that's your miss-representation of what I said. That comment proved that the BIGGEST contributor for BSD was GNU/Linux "

And then as now it's just complete bs. But do take a look at this.

"GNU/Linux and GPL contribute funds , developer , contributor , translator to project used by all ... "

Looks like something you seen before..?


"now if you go down the line of other contributor the majority are GNU/Linux vendor. I also talked about KDE , GNOME , Xfree , X.org , Mozilla , Apache , ETC ... who receive the most funding , man power and contribution of code from GNU/Linux commercial and community projects. "

And what do any linux vendor offer apache? And where did the bsd's go or did you finely figure out that noone would believe your bs?

"Let's go further then your usual miss-representation of what I said , for a change, BSD ( by this I mean Other project as well ) should be paying more as they are older By 3 decade (thats 30 years for you ), and the project should be contributed more by BSD developer who should be paid to do so and should be funded more by them and the BSD community. The problem is that they don't contribute at all to the project they took code from and closed for profit. "

So you don't think the bsd's have provided enough to linux..?

"The problem is that BSD are still amateur where it come to making project that go forward , they do the fun stuff and discard things that are hard work but needed , like getting hardware support and hardware , funding from it's user's to support infrastructures , those that are Pro move to the corporation who prey on BSD aka Apple , Microsoft SUN. "

Funny how you say that the bsd's are amateurish... But then again you proberly believe that apple used freebsd for the licens only. You must with that sad attitude... can't have anything being better then your beloved ubuntu right?

"I don't offer homegrown fact. Feel free to provide an example of that"

What do you call it then? Reality? But little man you have been proven wrong on more then one thing and yet you claim it's the truth.


"No , that's your miss-representation of how your falsely perceive and interpret logic. I don't delude myself into thinking I invented logic. "

Now i don't think anyone here would believe you invented anything usefull.


"More like contributed back to the main project to be included as BSD. The BSD protection clause don't give the permission to re-license it's code or close it. "

Same thing...

"I don't make BS ... I don't need to believe either it exist in reality and is tangible , I observe the result , and that's what I report on , you object to fact and reality , mostly because it show other's as inferior and lacking , in your own view , when they should be working on COOPERATION and trying to make there project progress and grow , instead of trying to destroy somebody who help them. "

You don't much else then bs... You try to manipulate posts you answer but your very bad at it. You only answer things that you think you can get way with by using your usual bs...

Sadly it's hard to get to answer all your posts because get the moded down so fast.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm surprised
by Soulbender on Fri 10th Aug 2007 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm surprised"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"The sun-license is stupid."

So what? Their software, their rules. If you dont wanna play by them don't use it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I'm surprised
by dpatch on Sat 11th Aug 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm surprised"
dpatch Member since:
2007-08-11

Sun's license doesn't disallow integration with GPL software. The GPL does. (That's irony, isn't it? So much for freedom.)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I'm surprised
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm surprised"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm surprised too. Are we sure we can trust the report? Could this be a bad recapitulation of a more complex reasoning?


I think this will be one of those classic "I-didn't-mean-it-like-this(-even-though-in-reality-I-do)" tales.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: I'm surprised
by Moulinneuf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm surprised"
RE: I'm surprised
by renox on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "I'm surprised"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, there's always the not so small possibility that zdnet reporter took his word out of context..

That said, Sun is really being quite nasty when they say that they hope that DTrace will be integrated in the Linux kernel *and* using at the same time a GPL incompatible license.

If they 'genuinely wanted to have it integrated into Linux kernel'(their word not mine), they would have chosen a compatible license, so I can understand A. Morton being annoyed by Sun's double talk.

Just to be clear: I think that Sun has every right to choose a GPL-incompatible license if they wish to keep a competitive advantage over Linux, but in this case they should just admit it, not the "we hope that Linux will integrate our code" knowing full well that this is impossible (unless they change their license of course).

Oh, there is also a debate in FreeBSD over DTrace: some of the dev believe that the CDDL license apply also to the headers and prevent them to link to DTrace so they have chosen to not integrate DTrace in FreeBSDv7.
It's not sure that the concern is really valid or not, it's still debated AFAIK.

Reply Score: 7

Too bad
by Flatline on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:48 UTC
Flatline
Member since:
2006-03-06

I wouldn't mind seeing zones, dtrace, and zfs showing up in the linux world. I am surprised to see Andrew say that they should kill OpenSolaris...isn't competition a good thing?

Reply Score: 11

RE: Too bad
by SlackerJack on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:57 UTC in reply to "Too bad"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

What competition, it's not like linux doesn't have any. To me OpenSolaris is a stab in the dark from Sun at opensource, just like Novell did with SUSE.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Too bad
by superman on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:00 UTC in reply to "Too bad"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

Linux killed Irix.
Linux killed SCO.
Linux killed Dec-Unix.

Well... (Open)Solaris is not yet killed.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Too bad
by jwwf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Too bad"
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

Linux killed Irix.
Linux killed SCO.
Linux killed Dec-Unix.

Well... (Open)Solaris is not yet killed.


I disagree. Itanium killed Irix, the HP merger killed Tru64, and plain market forces killed SCO*. I think that all three were killed by the general movement of comoditization of platforms, which they resisted much harder than some competitors. All three were ailing long before Linux was taken seriously in enterprise IT, and all three were backed by bad business plans.

* Actually, SCO is not EOL'd as far as I know. But I doubt they sell to any new accounts.

Anyway, this Morton thing, if it is true, sounds like a classic case of throwing his toys out of the pram on account of someone having the temerity to compete with him.

Reply Score: 14

RE[3]: Too bad
by zizban on Thu 9th Aug 2007 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too bad"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

tually, SCO is not EOL'd as far as I know. But I doubt they sell to any new accounts.

Just FYI, have you ever used UnixWare? I believe it is unsellable. $699 for one CPU. Uses X11R5 (no X11R6 or even X.org). It has almost zero hardware support on hardware newer than 5 years, outdated tools and so on.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Too bad
by s_groening on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:10 UTC in reply to "Too bad"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

Not when the competition sports features that Linux doesn't have and won't have for foreseeable time, apparently ....

This is sad since both projects have their own objectives... Morgan might as well start dumping on the idea of different distos since that might lead to confusion which in turn might make people choose something 'not Linux' for their particular use....

Andrew - grow up, will you?

Reply Score: 4

Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux has these things already.

Zones... Linux has had UML for a LONG time which does the same thing (run multiple copies of the same system image), plus XEN, and KVM virtualization capabilites built in. Solaris is the one lacking here.

DTrace.. Linux has SystemTap, which is 90% of what DTrace is and very young and getting better fast

ZFS - big deal a filesystem plus a volume manager built in... welcome to the 90's solaris. Most of us have had REAL LVM's for a while now, while sun has made us suffer with the peice of junk SDM for a long time or forced us to purchase the expensive vxvm product for something that should have been built in from the start. ZFS still has many stability issues, cant be used for boot...Linux already has high quality filesystems, and a more than production/enterprise ready LVM built in....Again, its solaris that is playing catch up.

Reply Score: 1

jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

Linux has these things already.

(snip)

ZFS - big deal a filesystem plus a volume manager built in... welcome to the 90's solaris. Most of us have had REAL LVM's for a while now, while sun has made us suffer with the peice of junk SDM for a long time or forced us to purchase the expensive vxvm product for something that should have been built in from the start. ZFS still has many stability issues, cant be used for boot...Linux already has high quality filesystems, and a more than production/enterprise ready LVM built in....Again, its solaris that is playing catch up.


What don't you like about SVM? There is nothing particularly special about it, but I have always found that it does the job. Actually, I have always liked that Sun did not bundle Veritas FS or VM, because it provided choice. Most other UNIXs of the era (HP-UX for sure, IRIX and Tru64 I think) licensed expensive third party VM code which you had to pay for whether you needed it or not.

Anyway, as long as the Linux folks keep sticking to "We already have feature X, so shut up about it" while paying no attention when the competition is actually innovating, I think Sun has a chance of turning the tide. It's almost too late, but not quite.

Reply Score: 3

drdoug Member since:
2006-04-30

> plus XEN, and KVM virtualization capabilites built in. Solaris is the one lacking here.

I think you are a little behind the times. A visit to www.opensolaris.org will help you bring yourself up to date ;)

Reply Score: 2

bgregg Member since:
2007-08-04

Linux has these things already.

No it doesn't.

DTrace.. Linux has SystemTap, which is 90% of what DTrace is and very young and getting better fast

SystemTap is not 90% of what DTrace is. DTrace can dynamically instrument the entire software stack, which includes languages such as Java. SystemTap can't. DTrace can trace during bootup - great for debugging drivers. SystemTap can't. DTrace is also safe for production use and has been used in production for over two years... For other details for comparison, google DTrace.

Where did your value of 90% come from?

SystemTap ... and very young and getting better fast

Firstly, "getting better fast" - I could comment, but it may be best to let the SystemTap engineers to speak for themselves (and please post some release dates while you are at it :-).

As for "very young"... Is this some romantic Linux fantasy, where the courageous Linux developer defeats the Mighty Evil Corporate by trumping their product in a shorter time frame? Well, SystemTap has already missed the boat for that one.

The real story goes like this,

DTrace began work in October 2001, and was integrated into Solaris in September 2003, with the first customer access a couple of months later. That's 24 months. As far as we know, SystemTap began work in January 2005. It is now August 2007, 32 months later, and it still under development.

DTrace was written by 3 kernel engineers. I don't know how many engineers work on SystemTap, but when Mike Mason (SystemTap developer) was asked this question at LinuxWorld yesterday - his answer was unclear, mentioning 4 or 5 at one company, 4 at another, and trailing off. It sounds like there are about 10.

Team DTrace delivered a product with fewer engineers in a shorter timeframe, and they invented it.

If you want to point out other cool things about SystemTap, that are actually factual, then great.

Reply Score: 8

Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Zones... Linux has had UML for a LONG time which does the same thing (run multiple copies of the same system image), plus XEN, and KVM virtualization capabilites built in. Solaris is the one lacking here.

Sun has virtualization that supports advanced RAS features on thier smallest 2U systems the T2000 that Xen and Linux don't support.

http://blogs.sun.com/narayan/entry/ldoms_virtual_io_failover

Linux KVM and Xen's Dom0 have a single point of failure which brings all the virtual machines down. With LDoms the primary domain or I/O service domain can crash and the guest VMs will pause till the service comes back up or like the demo in the blog shows with IPMP and fail over you can have uinterrupted service.

Reply Score: 3

lol
by Duffman on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:23 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

I like open minded people ...

Reply Score: 2

RE: lol
by rx182 on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "lol"
rx182 Member since:
2005-07-08

That's the problem of some people in the FOSS world. Everything should be open according to them but they can't "open" their mind.

The same people are against Mono for example. They systematically refuse everything that didn't originate in the FOSS world. That's sad because there are many good things that come from the outside.

Anyway, I think it's all politics and business again. Andrew is paid by Google and Ian by Sun. And Google is all the way in the Linux camp.

I'm sure there are people at Google that are waiting for the right time to invest much more money into Linux to make it profitable for them.

Reply Score: 5

What Andrew is really afraid of...
by Marcellus on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:42 UTC
Marcellus
Member since:
2005-08-26

What Andrew is really afraid of is that Sun will GPLv3 OpenSolaris and take marketshare from the Linux kernel.

You'd see GNU/OpenSolaris distributions crop up instead of GNU/Linux.
It would be a step towards a completely GPLv3 OS and it would no longer have Linux tagged on to it.

Modifying a recent Linus quote somewhat:
We've replaced the kernel before, I'm 100% sure we'll replace it again. Kernels are actually not at all that important in the end: they are a very very small detail in the operating system.

Reply Score: 6

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

You talk as if we all are demanding for a full GPLv3 kernel, and certaintly most of us are pretty happy with Linux and the GPLv2. Only the FSF is screaming for someting like that and the FSF != us or mayority.

Reply Score: 1

diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

GPLv3 zealots like to talk like GPLv2 licensed software were now "inmoral"......I'm sorry, GPLv2 licensed software is free software, In fact for many people (like linus) the GPLv2 is a better free software license than the less free GPLv3. Do you really think free software developers care about a 100% GPLv3 distro....?

Opensolaris taking the linux market share? Just because they change the license? Don't make me laugh. In the last years it has been pretty much the contrary - linux has stolen thousands of solaris installs (and not only because of the license)

Opensolaris can and will take a lot of market share from the remaining old, propietary UNIX users, BSD users, windows users....but linux? I don't think it'll steal more than a few of them. Seriously.

Reply Score: 0

Heh..
by Jondice on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:48 UTC
Jondice
Member since:
2006-09-20

Someone was complaining on Adam Leventhal's blog about Solaris Engineers being arrogant, heh...

I've always liked Linus, but I think it is pretty clear that he (and many of the Linux kernel hackers) are fairly full of themselves. I'm not saying they shouldn't be, but it appears that in this case it is causing some clouded judgement.

Reply Score: 11

A personal reaction
by bcantrill on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:54 UTC
bcantrill
Member since:
2005-09-16

A word of warning: this is going to get a bit personal and philosophical...

I -- and presumably every other OpenSolaris engineer, admin, user, advocate, etc. -- was absolutely floored when I originally saw Morton's comments. I mean, one can slag one's competitors, but to say it's a shame that we exist? Since reading the comment, I've gone through several emotions oscillations: I was initially irked to see the comment, but glad that we in OpenSolaris are offering sufficiently competitive technology to merit such invective -- and in a keynote no less. But I confess that in the days since the keynote, the comment has weighed on me: denying someone's right to exist is just about the most extreme position one can take -- it is the hallmark of hate groups and terrorist organizations. I have never been so directly the target of such profoundly nihilist sentiment, and I was surprised at the depth of anger that it stirred within me. I view software as my life's work; I have spent eleven years of my life -- virtually my entire career -- working on OpenSolaris, having, like so many others, poured tremendous intellectual energy into it. Indeed, there was a deeply personal reason that I (among many others) advocated open sourcing Solaris in the first place: I wanted my contributions to Solaris to transcend Sun to become contributions to humanity. I have no doubt that my work in OpenSolaris will survive me; I view the software that I have written as my most meaningful contribution other than my kids. In short, the existence of the software that I've written is a very important part of my existence.

I explain all of this in part to explain it to myself -- to rationalize why Morton's comments were able to induce such feeling within me. And I have, as one might imagine, walked through countless potential responses to Morton -- some rational, many emotional, maybe even one or two physical. ;) The response I have settled on is simply this: we in OpenSolaris have an inalienable right to exist, and the fact that we are open source means that we will exist as long as a single one of our multitude believes that. And there is as little sense in denying that reality as there would be in trying to explain that reality to those who would deny it...

Reply Score: 47

RE: A personal reaction
by rx182 on Thu 9th Aug 2007 18:59 UTC in reply to "A personal reaction"
rx182 Member since:
2005-07-08

That's the most brillant comment I've ever read on OSNews.

I'm glad OpenSolaris exists.

Reply Score: 7

v Bullshit ...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:11 UTC in reply to "A personal reaction"
RE: A personal reaction
by butters on Thu 9th Aug 2007 20:18 UTC in reply to "A personal reaction"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Think about these feelings the next time you and your colleagues suggest that the Linux community just give up on SystemTap and port DTrace instead. There is undeniable pride on both sides of aisle. Nobody likes to read in the press that somebody wants their project to die.

Linux's rapidly-maturing tracing framework has just as much right to exist as Sun's rapidly-maturing free software community. I think that Andrew's comments are regrettable, but can you honestly argue that Sun doesn't have just as much NIH syndrome as Linux?

Let's agree to disagree. It doesn't appear like either side is willing to consider each other's work. So you guys go do your thing, and the Linux folks will do their's. We'll have competing solutions in several areas, and customers will be forced to decide which platform offers the better overall value for their needs.

Unfortunately, they won't get to mix and match. It would have been nice if Sun decided to throw their weight behind Linux. I think that together we could have developed a *nix platform of unprecedented strength. But in the end, Sun decided that they could do better on their own. So we can't be friends anymore, it seems. Please stop calling...

NOTE: I have nothing against OpenSolaris. I simply got into Linux while Solaris couldn't run on any of my hardware. I've grown fond of it. I don't think that the existence of OpenSolaris will detract from Linux development. So in the interest of furthering free software in general, I wish you guys the best of luck.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: A personal reaction
by bcantrill on Thu 9th Aug 2007 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE: A personal reaction"
bcantrill Member since:
2005-09-16

Think about these feelings the next time you and your colleagues suggest that the Linux community just give up on SystemTap and port DTrace instead. There is undeniable pride on both sides of aisle. Nobody likes to read in the press that somebody wants their project to die.

I think you're missing the difference between competition and, for lack of a better diagnosis, psychotic monomania. It's true that DTrace and SystemTap compete, just as OpenSolaris and Linux compete, but I have never said and would never say that it's a "shame" that either SystemTap or Linux exists, because it plainly isn't: I believe to my marrow that choice -- and therefore competition -- is fundamentally a Good Thing. I believe this in part because I've seen the work that it forces out of me personally: I did much better work when Linux was clobbering us than I did when we were gorging ourselves on the spoils of the Dot Com boom. So I welcome competition, even if its specific manifestations are at times grating...

As for some of the recent heat between DTrace and SystemTap recently: I would like to point out that we on Team DTrace were largely silent about SystemTap for nearly three years; it was only what we saw to be dishonesty in the way they presented and used our work that spurned us to comment on their effort. And no, I don't view us calling on others to consider porting DTrace to Linux to be equivalent to us denying SystemTap's right to exist, just as I don't view those who call on Sun to GPLv2 OpenSolaris as denying our right to exist...

Reply Score: 14

RE[3]: A personal reaction
by butters on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A personal reaction"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I have never said and would never say that it's a "shame" that either SystemTap or Linux exists

Yes, but it is a shame that Linux and OpenSolaris can't share code. License fragmentation is the bane of free software, and it's not in the best interest of the users of either platform. I had hoped that Sun and the Linux community would have had more serious conversations about license compatibility. I had hoped that the parties would have had a mutual appreciation for the value of sharing code.

It's a shame we're not working together. That's all that Andrew really meant.

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: A personal reaction
by binarycrusader on Fri 10th Aug 2007 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A personal reaction"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Funny, the Linux idea of "working together" is to take code under a GPL-compatible license, absorb it, and then not give anything back under the original license. Sounds more like free software cannibalism than "working together."

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: A personal reaction
by butters on Fri 10th Aug 2007 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: A personal reaction"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

There's nasty implications of the GPL, and there's nasty implications of the BSD and friends. BSD allows relicensing and doesn't so much as require corresponding source code, let alone reciprocity.

The BSD community strongly supports the idea that anyone can take their code and do with it as they wish. They don't ask for anything in return. I guess that's the BSD idea of "working together."

The world would be a better place if all software was BSD, all projects distributed the source code, and nobody ever relicensed anything. But that's not the way things work, and that's not how the BSD works.

A step up from BSD is Apache or Ms-PL, which prevent relicensing on a per-file basis. However, downstream developers can modify existing source files and distribute only the binaries. They can also add proprietary code.

Then comes LGPL, MPL, CDDL, and Ms-CL, which additionally require corresponding source code on a per-file basis. I consider this to be the baseline for a collaborative free software license. Free software functions and classes stay free.

At the top is the GPL, which extends the granularity of the source and licensing requirements to the executable as linked at runtime. Maybe this is too broad in certain situations. It certainly poses some restrictions when combining code from different projects.

Imagine a hypothetical Free Software License (FSL). It would stipulate that all code in the executable as linked at runtime will be under a free software license as defined by the FSF. So BSD, Apache, CDDL, and any of the other FSF-approved licenses could be combined on a per-file basis, but proprietary code is not allowed.

The only exception would be the GPL, whose terms would be violated by such an arrangement. However, the existence of the FSL might persuade many copyright owners to relicense their GPL projects under a less restrictive license (LGPL perhaps) with the FSL governing the executable.

The question is, how would FSL operate under copyright law? How can it attach itself to all source files within the project when some or all of them are under licenses that prevent relicensing? Perhaps it is impossible to bring together all free software licenses without inviting proprietary software to the party.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: A personal reaction
by Steven on Sun 12th Aug 2007 07:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A personal reaction"
Steven Member since:
2005-07-20

Yes, but it is a shame that Linux and OpenSolaris can't share code. License fragmentation is the bane of free software, and it's not in the best interest of the users of either platform. I had hoped that Sun and the Linux community would have had more serious conversations about license compatibility. I had hoped that the parties would have had a mutual appreciation for the value of sharing code.

It's a shame we're not working together. That's all that Andrew really meant.


Why should he blame Sun for that, though? They are fully compatible with FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MacOS X, and easily a great many more. Likely you could use their code with just about any non-GPL operating system.

Meanwhile, had they already gone with GPL, 2 or 3, whichever, they would now be compatible with... erm... Linux? How is that better? Just because you could use it in that case?

Why isn't he up in arms to make Linux switch to a license compatible with the rest of the world?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: A personal reaction
by hamster on Sun 12th Aug 2007 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: A personal reaction"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

Don't you know the world evolve around linux..? It's all that matters. Everything else must just apply it self to the wishes from the linux camp.

And yes it would be posible to find sarcasm in my posting.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: A personal reaction
by Moulinneuf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A personal reaction"
RE[3]: A personal reaction
by Algol on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A personal reaction"
Algol Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe the difference is not between competition and psychotic monomania as much as between competition and the ability to cooperate. What is the better carrot for development?

OpenSolaris chose competition, and obviously that was a Good Thing(tm) for You. Now that DTrace could benefit from more users all that is available is, still, competition (with SystemTap). I can understand both sides being frustrated with this, and some people are hoping for an obscure middle ground (as in Ahläs post). Others, not believing in the middle ground, are wishing that the original choice of competition before cooperation was reversed (i.e. discontinued OpenSolaris).

I don't think You should take it as something negative, but rather be proud that Your work (and others' like You) trigger such strong emotions. (As long as You didn't have anything to do with the choice of CDDL rather than GPL. ;) That said, I'm still hoping it was a bad quote or at least not meant the way you interpreted it.

As a Linux user, I'd like Team DTrace in "my" boat, but since that's not happening I guess competition will have to be a Good Thing (tm) for SystemTap. Hopefully they will also behave better in the future.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A personal reaction
by jwwf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 22:47 UTC in reply to "A personal reaction"
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

Bryan, as nasty and plain weird as those statements were (again, assuming the story is true), I think that you can interpret them as a compliment. If a kernel guy is saying these kind of things, it means he is scared that Solaris is beating Linux on merits. In Linux Camelot, that is just not supposed to happen.

Regardless, I remain thankful that Sun has opened up such a wonderful OS.

Reply Score: 6

Has Linux forgotten that it has users?
by bgregg on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:03 UTC
bgregg
Member since:
2007-08-04

Morton said none of those features - Zones, ZFS, DTrace - will end up in the Linux kernel because Sun refuses to adopt the GPL.

How does that help Linux users?

You might say that it doesn't matter, that eventually Linux will catch up. Well, it cleary hasn't caught up with DTrace and ZFS, and they have been opensource for over 2 years.

Not only that, but Linux users will miss out on all other attractive kernel features that future companies release as non-GPL opensource.

There have been many discussions recently (including here on osnews) about ways that non-GPL code can indeed appear in Linux. eg, http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/what_if_machine_dtrace_port

The GPL-or-die mentality has already cost Linux users 2 years without DTrace and ZFS, and the list will only grow. I know Sun sales people who are delighted as they have (even more) significant leverage over Linux as a server OS. Morton might need to think more carefully about this position, and consider what is best for Linux users.

As for my background: I'm a community DTrace guy - and would love to swap scripts and expertise with Linux DTrace users, and port the DTraceToolkit to Linux.

Reply Score: 6

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"GNU/Linux is ahead , not behind , including those tools are just an addition to an already more robust and complete set of offer. "

How so?

"The problem is that your word are empty and hollow , it's just bullshit , if the GPL is the blocking point for GNU/Linux what is it for all the other OS ? "

Also a blocking point? I'm sure i'm understanding you correctly here. And for someone who talks all bs all the time you shouldn't be one to point that part out on others.


"People who really want Zones, ZFS, DTrace use Solaris based product , the rest have other priority that Solaris and Solaris base don't meet. "

And you know this from your many years in the business?

"It's just a fun bashing session , because then you have the people like me that will ask the killer question :

HOW much to acquire Zones, ZFS, DTrace ? Witch the answer to that is usually not for sale. "

What are you on about here..?

"What's bets for GNU/Linux ? and GNU/Linux user ? "

Whats best for linux i cant answer... Nor can i or you answer on whats best for alle linux users.

"People who contribute software to the platform under the GPL or GPL compatible license , to make it better."

What makes you think all people who release code under a gpl compabible licens does so to enhance linux..?

Reply Score: 3

renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>the GPL-or-die mentality has already cost Linux users 2 years without DTrace and ZFS,

Do you know that there is a debate in FreeBSD to see if they can use DTrace headers or not? And that they chose to not integrate it into FreeBSDv7 for this reason? The 'legal' debate is not settled, maybe this will turn out to be a mistake, I don't know, but you cannot say that only the GPL community has issue with the CDDL!

Plus, it's most likely that even if the Linux kernel had used a different license X which happened to be compatible with CDDL as it exist now (they would have needed a cristall ball to guess), Sun would have used another license again incompatible with X.

Remember while Sun released a lot of open-source software:
-they opensourced OpenOffice to hurt Microsoft, not just out of 'good will'
-they opensourced Java only when there was an opensource reimplementation of Java which was becoming on the verge of being a real threat to their implementation.

So is-it really surprising that OpenSolaris, DTrace, ZFS are using GPL-incompatible license?

If SystemTap becomes one day as useful as DTrace is, it's quite possible that Sun will dual license DTrace, until them I don't expect them to do so..

Reply Score: 4

bgregg Member since:
2007-08-04

you cannot say that only the GPL community has issue with the CDDL!

No, I'm saying that while Linux has the GPL-or-nothing attitude, there is always the possibility that companies in the future might release non-GPL kernel features. Today, Linux users have missed out on DTrace and ZFS for 2 years and counting; what future features will they also miss out on?

Plus, it's most likely that even if the Linux kernel had used a different license X which happened to be compatible with CDDL as it exist now (they would have needed a cristall ball to guess), Sun would have used another license again incompatible with X.

Really? I find that somewhat suprising, having worked at Sun now for several months I've only heard positive discussions about encouraging DTrace to appear on Linux, not plans to stop that from happening.

But then, maybe you know more about Sun's politics than I do, and maybe you work at Sun too. Who are you "renox"? What is your real name and identity please?

So is-it really surprising that OpenSolaris, DTrace, ZFS are using GPL-incompatible license?

Oh, are you saying that Sun is delibrately trying to prevent these technologies from appearing in Linux? Quoting Sun's CEO:

"And for the record... as Adam states so eloquently, we're thrilled to see ports of DTrace running everywhere. ZFS and DTrace's availability beyond OpenSolaris/Solaris, on Apple's Mac OS (and BSD) prove the point - joining communities is a good thing."

Reply Score: 4

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

So is-it really surprising that OpenSolaris, DTrace, ZFS are using GPL-incompatible license?

No, it isn't. But it also has nothing to do with this "we want to screw the GPL users" mentality you seem to be implying. The simple fact is, the GPL wasn't suitable for what Sun needed to do, and probably would've delayed the whole thing by years if they'd been insistent on using it.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"How does that help Linux users? "

It's a policy decision, much like Sun's decision to not use the GPL.
The kernel devs really has no obligation towards the users (although distro's may) and it's etirely up to them what policies to implement.
Some of the other things Morton said struck me as, well, not so well thought out but this I have no problem with. It's no different than the BSD policy of not having GPL'd code in the kernel (a policy I also support).

Reply Score: 2

open source gods
by drkwolf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:20 UTC
drkwolf
Member since:
2007-05-18

it seems that kernel's maintainers become some kind of sect, full & closed on themselves, they thing that everything they made are just clean, perfect & if someone contest/suggest he's idiot, stupid ....
they are what they are now because of the support of the community & if someone have to speak it's the community not them.

Reply Score: 0

Wow
by nevali on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:23 UTC
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12

If OpenSolaris were a stagnant undeveloped system that people just hung around waiting forever for the next release of, the comments make much sense.

As it stands, it all comes across as straightforward Linux zealotry.

I rather hope it isn't quite what he meant.

Reply Score: 4

Linux/Solaris/GNU or what?
by klimg on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:38 UTC
klimg
Member since:
2007-08-03

"merging between the open source version of Solaris Unix with Linux"

Just that sentence makes me think either somebody misquoted here or this whole thing got taken out of context (or he wants to piss off RMS).

I wasn't aware that there is anything in the works to merge Solaris with Linux since Linux is only the kernel as a kernel dev knows for sure.
Project Indiana is from the the sketchy info that is available about package management,ease of installation and possibly getting more GNU and open source software integrated.
The statement just doesn't make sense.

Now if he said merging of parts of the Solaris kernel with Linux that would be another story and leaves me thinking that I'd rather have a transcript than that article to look at.

Linux seems to have a serious case of the not-invented-here disease.They didn't and don't want any reiser4,sd scheduler,zfs,zones or dtrace in there no matter what.If there is something trendy they invent their own - see kvm.

If he really made that comments Solaris must have the Linux kernel devs scared shitless.

Reply Score: 4

I may agree with him....
by leech on Thu 9th Aug 2007 19:47 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Not sure if this is what he meant by it, but I can agree to an extent.

We now have OpenSolaris, Solaris, Solaris Indiana, and who knows what else. For anyone who is not in the know, it gets confusing.

I'm impressed with Sun, and still waiting to see how all of their open sourcing is going. Now that GPLv3 is out, they should just go for it. I'd use OpenSolaris myself if there were better driver support. That's where Linux actually shines in right now over most of the other *nix systems. I'm also waiting for the day that there is a Debian GNU/OpenSolaris (I still need to play with their FreeBSD release.) I know Nexenta is based off of Debian, but it doesn't look like it's going anywhere fast.

Of course I will say I haven't really been paying TOO close of attention to Solaris. I never have had the opportunity to try it out yet. Maybe I'll install it over Vista on my laptop one of these days ;)

Reply Score: 3

OpenSolaris, not a shame
by asdx24 on Thu 9th Aug 2007 20:45 UTC
asdx24
Member since:
2007-05-17

OpenSolaris is not a shame because it exist, is quite the contrary,

but what Andrew Morton said is indeed a shame for the Linux community.

Reply Score: 12

Wait there's more
by ThanhLy on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:09 UTC
ThanhLy
Member since:
2006-03-14

Someone should really post the keynote in its entirety. I went hunting for more of his speech and other sites have more quotes from it. I found one:

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3693071

Regarding Sun's Dtrace, Morton said he suspected that Linux's SystemTap was a similar function.


The quote that started this mess, plus the bit that ZDNet DID NOT publish in the link above:

"I think it's a great shame that OpenSolaris still exists," he continued. "I wish they had killed it. They've fragmented the non-windows OS world and for no reason. There is no reason why they couldn't have gone to Linux."


What surprised me is he said "they've fragmented a non-windows OS world and for no reason." By that logic I guess I can say Linus should have just stuck with Minix huh?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Wait there's more
by renox on Thu 9th Aug 2007 22:05 UTC in reply to "Wait there's more"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

[[What surprised me is he said "they've fragmented a non-windows OS world and for no reason." By that logic I guess I can say Linus should have just stuck with Minix huh?]]

Bah, the implicit assumption is the 'Free' OS world as after all he is talking about the open-sourcing of Solaris, and Minix wasn't Free.

Your remark would have been correct if you have said BSD instead of Minix though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wait there's more
by ThanhLy on Thu 9th Aug 2007 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Wait there's more"
ThanhLy Member since:
2006-03-14

Bah, the implicit assumption is the 'Free' OS world as after all he is talking about the open-sourcing of Solaris, and Minix wasn't Free.

Your remark would have been correct if you have said BSD instead of Minix though.


I stand by my remark. Morton's implication was that OpenSolaris shouldn't have forked from Solaris. Linux was derived from Minix. So what I'm getting at is, why does Morton think the OpenSolaris fork is wrong, but Link forking from Minix is ok? Granted, Linux today looks nothing like what it did when Linus first parted it from Minix. Who's to say OpenSolaris won't be radically different from Solaris years from now?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wait there's more
by Moulinneuf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wait there's more"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"Linux was derived from Minix"

Nope ...

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/

Andy Tanenbaum, 20 May 2004 :

"Of course it is always true in science that people build upon the work of their predecessors. Even Ken Thompson wasn't the first. Before writing UNIX, Ken had worked on the MIT MULTICS (MULTiplexed Information and Computing Service) system. In fact, the original name of UNIX was UNICS, a joke made by Brian Kernighan standing for the UNIplexed Information and Computing Service, since the PDP-7 version could support only one user--Ken. After too many bad puns about EUNUCHS being a castrated MULTICS, the name was changed to UNIX. But even MULTICS wasn't first. Before it was the above-mentioned CTSS, designed by the same team at MIT.

Thus, of course, Linus didn't sit down in a vacuum and suddenly type in the Linux source code. He had my book, was running MINIX, and undoubtedly knew the history (since it is in my book). But the code was his. The proof of this is that he messed the design up. "

Reply Score: 1

Possible interpretations
by Mark Williamson on Thu 9th Aug 2007 21:42 UTC
Mark Williamson
Member since:
2005-07-06

OK, what if Andrew is speaking from the following perspective:

My understanding is that older versions of Solaris were slow and didn't offer that much in terms of killer features over Linux. Sun has for quite some time been working on Linux for their products anyhow. Without devaluing the great tech that is in Solaris 10, it arguably wasn't the best move to keep their own Unix alive rather than invest more heavily in the Linux strategy they already had.

Sun sells hardware, Sun sells Java, but they're not (as far as I'm aware) making lots of money out of selling operating systems. So why invest lots of money in maintaining an OS when they could use Linux and have some of the burden taken by other companies and individuals also working on Linux?

The quote in the headline could certainly be taken as a "It's a shame Sun did that rather than working on a common solution and investing more in their core businesses of Java and Hardware - the businesses that they make their money from".

Just my $0.02.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Possible interpretations
by renox on Thu 9th Aug 2007 22:14 UTC in reply to "Possible interpretations"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>>My understanding is that older versions of Solaris were slow and didn't offer that much in terms of killer features over Linux.<<

Slow is hard to quantify, but for they has killer feature over Linux:
-stability (the Sun workstation I maintained were much more stable than the Linux station are)
-documentation

>>Sun sells Java, but they're not (as far as I'm aware) making lots of money out of selling operating systems<<
Well, I bet that most of Sun hardware is running Solaris not Linux, so I'd say that Sun is making money selling Solaris (after all they're selling Solaris with the hardware).
Ask Apple, sometimes the hardware+software combination is better than hardware alone: SGI has been to the hardware+Linux path, and it's not sure yet that they'll make it.

Reply Score: 2

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

Basically, I agree with you on all counts!

Although for the hardware / software combination, one might argue that what matters most is the presentation , rather than the kernel code, in ensuring that the "whole package" is good for the user. Also, they could have worked to bring Linux up to the level of Solaris in areas where it lacked. I'm not saying they should help Linux because it's Linux, just that there is a business argument for their doing that (they can spend more on hardware development and get part of their OS development "for free").

And really, my take on what Andrew Morton was saying is that it's a shame for both Linux and Sun that they chose to keep pushing Solaris and try to bring it up to date.

That said, there are other sides to this: Linux hasn't traditionally had a reputation for being good on SPARC (AFAIK) whereas Solaris is tried and trusted there. SPARC boxes are Sun's bigger expensive products, so presumably they make decent profits from them. They need a decent OS, so they have to keep Solaris for them. And if they're having to work on Solaris/SPARC anyhow, they might as well keep Solaris for x86 too. Looking at things that way it does make sense from Sun's PoV that they kept Solaris, even if for the x86 market it's a shame they didn't invest more in Linux.

Sun's a funny company really, because they have a large collection of random different products that don't seem to share a common thread. But it's perhaps easy to imagine that the needs of these products could interact in strange ways and produce decisions in one line that don't make sense without looking at the big picture.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Possible interpretations
by kaiwai on Thu 9th Aug 2007 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Possible interpretations"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Sun's a funny company really, because they have a large collection of random different products that don't seem to share a common thread. But it's perhaps easy to imagine that the needs of these products could interact in strange ways and produce decisions in one line that don't make sense without looking at the big picture.


Care to back that up with evidence?

Is it so absolutely terrible that Sun offers choice to customers and gears their products to target certain niches - such as the new T2 for webserver/db loads.

If you're going to talk about 'lots of different things' then what about IBM - what are they? linux? AIX? Solaris? Itanium? POWER? AMD64? are they thin client or web apps? java or dot net?

Reply Score: 2

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

Care to back that up with evidence?


I'm not exactly sure what you want me to back up, but I'll try to clarify. I wasn't actually criticising Sun, just noting that they offer a funny collection of products. A company whose major products are: servers, a programming language and an office suite (Star Office) is a pretty strange combination. Is that a hardware company? A software company? A services company?

Don't get me wrong; Java is good tech, Solaris 10 is good tech, the new Sparc chips are really cool, and I use OpenOffice fairly frequently. They're all interesting products, solving real problems.

Is it so absolutely terrible that Sun offers choice to customers and gears their products to target certain niches - such as the new T2 for webserver/db loads.


No, that's fine. My point was that they're in a number of what appear to be separate loosely-connected (if at all) niches.

My point about decisions in one product line not looking sane in isolation was merely that Sun will want their projects to complement each other as far as possible. So for instance, it might not have made sense to keep pushing Solaris if they were just x86, but they have a SPARC line too, so they need to have Solaris. Given they have to bring it up to date anyhow, they might as well use it on all their servers, not just the SPARCs. And that's why talking about Solaris vs Linux on platforms they both support well (i.e. x86) is missing the big picture.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Possible interpretations
by kaiwai on Fri 10th Aug 2007 01:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Possible interpretations"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not exactly sure what you want me to back up, but I'll try to clarify. I wasn't actually criticising Sun, just noting that they offer a funny collection of products. A company whose major products are: servers, a programming language and an office suite (Star Office) is a pretty strange combination. Is that a hardware company? A software company? A services company?

Don't get me wrong; Java is good tech, Solaris 10 is good tech, the new Sparc chips are really cool, and I use OpenOffice fairly frequently. They're all interesting products, solving real problems.


They sell Sun Rays which are marketed as a replacement for desktops, so there fore you need a competitor/replacement for Microsoft Office - StarOffice is the Sun backed version of OpenOffice.org.

This always plays well for those companies who have standalone machines - Solaris is an awesome desktop - heck, I'm using it right now on my laptop. Being able to offer an 'end to end' solution to their customers is key to winning them over. The only real hole missing are low cost pizza box sized desktops at a low price - and you'd have the whole thing covered.

About the only other thing I see as rather divorced is server and the desktop; they need to start pumping out turnkey solutions based on their glassfish java application server which can compete with the collaboration software Microsoft has under the banner of 'Microsoft Office System'.

Sun when I see it is like a child who has all the talents that could make the awesomely successful individual, its getting those talents working together and marketed that truly show Sun's full potential.

ps. If I sounded defensive with my last post, its because there seems to be alot of clueless people around here who haven't realised that OpenSolaris is opensourced, it is a real and working product, and most of the developers at Sun are actually working on x86 laptops, workstations and desktops.

Reply Score: 2

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

They sell Sun Rays which are marketed as a replacement for desktops, so there fore you need a competitor/replacement for Microsoft Office - StarOffice is the Sun backed version of OpenOffice.org.


I'd forgotten about the Sun Ray - that's a cute little piece of hardware. I didn't really realise they still sold them; the original revision was already quite cool so I assume the latest ones are pretty nifty!

I guess they kind of do need StarOffice in order to sell those (although I guess the "software to sell hardware" argument doesn't necessarily require them to have a separate proprietary version of OO.org - still there are decent arguments for doing that).

Sun when I see it is like a child who has all the talents that could make the awesomely successful individual, its getting those talents working together and marketed that truly show Sun's full potential.


*nod* they do have some nice tech out there. I really like the direction they're taking with the T series SPARCs. There haven't been (to my knowledge) many or perhaps any business-oriented CPUs for a while i.e. ones that are optimised for transaction processing at the expense of single-threaded / scientific processing. Even if they can't match the fabrication technologies of the other big CPU vendors, I hope to see them outperform them by exploiting an underserved niche.


Sun when I see it is like a child who has all the talents that could make the awesomely successful individual, its getting those talents working together and marketed that truly show Sun's full potential.


Yes. The "whole package" thing the IBM has going always impresses me a lot. They basically sell / rent every single part of a large company's IT setup from the mainframes, to the desktop, to the support staff. Some of the stuff they sell is extremely random (like Itanium boxes, a competitor to POWER) but they seem to have determined that it doesn't matter much what hardware / software they supply so long as people like the overall package. A very clever way of working, I think.

Sun's not quite at IBM's level of bulk (which isn't a bad thing!) and it would be quite cool to see a more agile, focused end-to-end setup based entirely on Sun-designed h/w and s/w - it could be like an Apple Mac ... but for your company's entire IT infrastructure :-)

ps. If I sounded defensive with my last post, its because there seems to be alot of clueless people around here who haven't realised that OpenSolaris is opensourced, it is a real and working product, and most of the developers at Sun are actually working on x86 laptops, workstations and desktops.


Understood. OpenSolaris is a nice piece of technology. I've not used it myself, but I do very much envy some of the features already available (Zones and ZFS in particular).

Sun have done an amazing job of taking what I understood to be a so-so UNIX and making it rather awesome. They've also taken what was becoming an "also ran" processor architecture and found a niche where it can really rock. If they can just bring all these individual awesome projects together in a strong combined strategy, they deserve to be very successful.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Possible interpretations
by kaiwai on Fri 10th Aug 2007 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Possible interpretations"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd forgotten about the Sun Ray - that's a cute little piece of hardware. I didn't really realise they still sold them; the original revision was already quite cool so I assume the latest ones are pretty nifty!

I guess they kind of do need StarOffice in order to sell those (although I guess the "software to sell hardware" argument doesn't necessarily require them to have a separate proprietary version of OO.org - still there are decent arguments for doing that).


I'm running StarOffice 8 - the difference is this; support, you get updates long after the 'latest and greatest' has been released from OpenOffice.org, fonts, templates and clipart are also included in the bundle.

*nod* they do have some nice tech out there. I really like the direction they're taking with the T series SPARCs. There haven't been (to my knowledge) many or perhaps any business-oriented CPUs for a while i.e. ones that are optimised for transaction processing at the expense of single-threaded / scientific processing. Even if they can't match the fabrication technologies of the other big CPU vendors, I hope to see them outperform them by exploiting an underserved niche.


They've also had to adjust to much lower margins; I remember around 10 years ago their margins were like Apples are today, but eventually the crunch occurs.

Their new 'traditional' SPARC's are being jointly developed with Fujitsu, SPARC64 which as awesome performance. Sun should thank itself that Fujitsu focused mainly on Japan because Sun would have gone long ago had Fujitsu taken their products global and outside the niche of ultra high end servers.

Understood. OpenSolaris is a nice piece of technology. I've not used it myself, but I do very much envy some of the features already available (Zones and ZFS in particular).


For me I used Linux for a few months, them moved to FreeBSD, where I remained until 2002, then moved to Mac, then back Solaris. Its sad to say bit it is Linux vocal 'fanboys' which put me off, along with the arrogance of the developers who refuse to acknowledge when design mistakes are made, when development methods need to be taken up a level in terms of professionalism.

Sun have done an amazing job of taking what I understood to be a so-so UNIX and making it rather awesome. They've also taken what was becoming an "also ran" processor architecture and found a niche where it can really rock. If they can just bring all these individual awesome projects together in a strong combined strategy, they deserve to be very successful.


Solaris to me like a mamuska dolls they have in Russia, you look in and seen there are more and more; from the outside it looks like 'another UNIX' but it isn't until you really use it then you realise just how truly unique it actually is.

I mean, I hear uneducated twitts here compare zones to UML - ignoring the giant overhead that comes with UML, or KernelTap when compared to Dtrace - what it tells me, these fanboys are scared and worried. They're these new 'ubuntu boys' who grabbed onto Linux in the last 2 years thinking that because they can pipe a few commands and use vi, it makes them a UNIX expert. You can now see why I'm happy to have left the Linux community long ago before the riffraf arrived.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Possible interpretations
by Arun on Fri 10th Aug 2007 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Possible interpretations"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not exactly sure what you want me to back up, but I'll try to clarify. I wasn't actually criticising Sun, just noting that they offer a funny collection of products. A company whose major products are: servers, a programming language and an office suite (Star Office) is a pretty strange combination. Is that a hardware company? A software company? A services company?

All of the above. Sun makes, Storage, servers, desktops and thin clients. Has an OS, Software and middle ware. A lot of the Middleware and Appservers are java based. Sun makes those too. Sun sells stuff to run datacenters and companies, from startups to data warehouses.

Microsoft sells software, peripherals and game consoles. Apple computers, music and music players and now Mobile phones. Dell and gateway sell Tvs and cameras now too.

No, that's fine. My point was that they're in a number of what appear to be separate loosely-connected (if at all) niches.

Sun sells almost everything you need to get a IT department started or keep one running smoothly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Possible interpretations
by jwwf on Thu 9th Aug 2007 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Possible interpretations"
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

If you're going to talk about 'lots of different things' then what about IBM - what are they? linux? AIX? Solaris? Itanium? POWER? AMD64? are they thin client or web apps? java or dot net?

Or OS/400, or S/390, or Linux on S/390 (yeah, I know all the new marketing names, and yeah, I don't like them), or maybe Linux on POWER, running Informix, or Windows running DB/2. But AIX is what interests me.

I hesitate to bring this up, because outrage is so cheap and everyone loves to shout 'Hypocracy!!!' and consider the case closed, as if hypocracy had a bearing on the merit of an idea. But:

What about AIX? I find it truly weird that IBM (the vendor that did throw its weight behind Linux) drinks the open source kool aid, yet also decides that it can do better on its own. What I find even stranger is that no one seems to care at all; where are the complaints about keeping all that cool tech closed? Can a couple of big checks muffle those complaints? Why is having CDDL code released worse than releasing nothing at all?

Truth is, IBM loves Linux in part because it is an easy way to beat up on competitors while looking fashionable. If they can sell you the world's most proprietary hardware (S/390) to run it on, all the better. It's kind of like a coal mining executive driving a Prius to an clean air press event.

It's a marriage of convenience, for both sides. For the Linux folks, I just hope IBM doesn't find a prettier girl ;)

Reply Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Anyone who has been around long enough will remember when IBM was one of the Great Satans. ;-) I don't think I have ever seen that kind of shift from evil to good in the eyes of the tech world before. MS should really start contributing to linux too, for the pure street cred it would buy them.

Edited 2007-08-09 23:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Torvals, Morton and Mingo
by jang on Thu 9th Aug 2007 22:05 UTC
jang
Member since:
2007-02-03

All three of them can act like real pricks, with a seriously inflated ego.
Hey guys, maybe you missed the fact that the last three kernels you put out were bug riddled horrible pieces of crap, totally unusable on a desktop system? (.20, .21, .22)
And you turn your back on one of the few persons who has some really good ideas to improve interactivity and performance on the desktop! (ck).
I would like to be able to extract a .tbz2 without my entire system grinding to a halt, if that isn't too much to ask, thank you!

Edited 2007-08-09 22:07

Reply Score: 4

RE: Torvals, Morton and Mingo
by Soulbender on Fri 10th Aug 2007 09:14 UTC in reply to "Torvals, Morton and Mingo"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Good job not getting the names right.

Reply Score: 1

WTF?
by Lazarus on Fri 10th Aug 2007 00:25 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

I really don't know what to say about this.

It's not Sun's fault that Linux developers decided to release their work under one of the few licenses that really doesn't play well with the vast majority of the others in the world... and then bitch and moan because some wonderful things that pop up in other systems can't just be cut and pasted into Linux.

And then there is also the fact that not everyone is happy about the directions that Linux itself is being taken in a purely technical sense... competition is good right? Like in Life, evolution takes many different paths, and we all know how bad mono-cultures are...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that its a great shame that people as closed minded as Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton are at the helm of what is supposedly the flagship of openness and freedom.

Freedom is good, but only if you do things Our Way (TM)

Edited 2007-08-10 00:37

Reply Score: 10

GPL Fundamentalism
by pseudocode on Fri 10th Aug 2007 09:48 UTC
pseudocode
Member since:
2007-05-30

It seems that GPL is becoming a brutal religion. "You are either with us or against us". And, in the second case, you have to die...

In code I trust, but I prefer to stay license agnostic (gpl-atheist ?).

Reply Score: 1

Nothing new to see
by Kebabbert on Fri 10th Aug 2007 10:25 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

It reminds me of when Linus said about Sun and Solaris: "But I am in active competition with them, so I hope it dies".

Nothing new under the Sun.


I dont get it, Sun is the only large company that has given away all it's crown jewels; Solaris, Java, Dtrace, ZFS, Zones, etc. Would MICROS~1 do that? Or IBM? Oracle? I mean, why is every Linux guys against Sun? Why not the other large companies? I bet IBM is smiling and let Sun take the fight - but Sun is unwilling to fight. See when Sun's CEO invited Linus for dinner. What happened? Did Linus reject it? (Oh, why would he? He only hope Sun dies)

Reply Score: 2

Deja Vu?
by vext01 on Fri 10th Aug 2007 11:10 UTC
vext01
Member since:
2007-05-01

This sounds familiar. Sound like a discussion about thread OSS for OpenBSD a few months back. Many projects just won't take CDDL(or GPL in the above metioned case) code back into their systems.

I thinks sun's latest innovations are really great, but they are not making it easy for BSD or Linux projects to embrace.

Let's see some BSD/GPL'd dtrace, zfs, zones eh Sun?

Reply Score: 1

Here's the bottom line
by richardstevenhack on Fri 10th Aug 2007 20:11 UTC
richardstevenhack
Member since:
2006-12-30

ALL of the proprietary UNIX companies - IBM, HP, Sun - should have killed their proprietary UNIXes ten years ago and donated their entire source code to Linux.

Had they done that, Linux would be MILES ahead of Windows today and those companies - and Linux - would be competing much better with Microsoft today.

Instead they all - including Sun - wanted to keep their "differentiation" strategies, resulting in Windows Server taking over a big chunk of the server market and continuing to advanced at the cost of those proprietary UNIXes and, to a lesser degree since Linux is also advancing well, Linux.

That is undoubtedly why Morton said what he said - if not, it should be his reason.

Sun has been too little, too late, all along with regards to open sourcing Java and their OS. HP and IBM still don't get it at all. NO one company can successfully compete with Microsoft. Only OSS can IF they get the support of Microsoft's competitors.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Here's the bottom line
by jwwf on Fri 10th Aug 2007 22:04 UTC in reply to "Here's the bottom line"
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

ALL of the proprietary UNIX companies - IBM, HP, Sun - should have killed their proprietary UNIXes ten years ago and donated their entire source code to Linux.

Had they done that, Linux would be MILES ahead of Windows today and those companies - and Linux - would be competing much better with Microsoft today.


Ridiculous. First of all, Linux in 1997 was barely a blip on the radar. We are talking kernel 2.0 days. It was nothing like it is now, and it had no enterprise mindshare.

Secondly, you can't donate code you don't own, and most (all?) proprietary UNIXes contain third party code that the vendor paid a lot to license.

Thirdly, Windows is where it is today because Windows admins are cheap, because Windows is familiar, and because it works ok most of the time. I don't think that a different UNIX would have changed any of this. With Microsoft's money and ambitions, there was no chance that they wouldn't eventually produce a decent OS, and thus offer your average IT buyer an acceptable path of least resistance.

Fourthly, how do you think that the proprietary UNIX vendors' customers would have reacted to their whole infrastructure being EOL'd for some new, unproven thing? Forced migrations generate lots of bad will. They're almost enough to push you away from UNIX and on to Windows. Hmm...

Edited 2007-08-10 22:05

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Here's the bottom line
by richardstevenhack on Fri 10th Aug 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Here's the bottom line"
richardstevenhack Member since:
2006-12-30

Of course, you miss the whole point.

Back in Linux 2.0 days, it was still apparent that this was going to matter. The open source concept may not have had the popularity it has today, but clearly the concept was valid even then. And even if the three - at that time, four with Digital - proprietary UNIXes had chosen not to donate to Linux, but merely to merge their UNIX systems into one, it would have been better for Linux eventually. Because eventually, the advantage of doing the first merge would have made it apparent that there was an advantage of merging with Linux - allowing the Linux community to expand the development of the merged systems would have guaranteed a superior product.

It's even possible that Linux itself would never have become as popular as it is now. But the merged UNIX system, if open sourced, would still have likely been more well received than Windows on the server side.

But the Linux development probably would still have mattered because it stimulated the desktop side of UNIX, which a merged group of server editions would likely not have done, unless open sourced early.

As for the licensing issues, they could have been worked out. There's no a priori proof that isn't true. Merging three UNIX systems would on the one hand have compounded the problem, but on the other hands perhaps one technology that could not be re-licensed could have been replaced by an equivalent technology from one of the other UNIX systems that could be re-licensed.

In any event, merging the three or four develop teams would have made it likely that the licensing issues could be avoided by re-engineering.

Linux doesn't have that problem because it is re-engineering everything in the kernel space anyway. It still would have benefited from having things like the XSF file system donated by Silicon Image (who "got it" early on, unlike the other UNIX companies).

As for Windows, a merged UNIX/Linux would have been cheaper than Windows, had it been open sourced early enough. Had that been done early enough in the UNIX/Linux life cycle, Windows would not have been nearly as good as it was by Windows XP. I'm not saying Windows wouldn't have still had the bulk of the market share due to their near-monopoly contractual methods - but the market share of UNIX/Linux would have been much better than it is now by this time.

As for the reaction of the UNIX companies customers, that is another red herring. While some people might have disliked being forced to migrate, the advantage of having all the advantages of each UNIX system in one would have assuaged a great deal of that. Keep in mind that such a merger would NOT have been toward a "new, unproven thing", but rather the marshalling of three or four proven UNIX systems into one.

Nothing about that scenario is "ridiculous".

Finally, the statement that "Windows is where it is today because Windows admins are cheap, because Windows is familiar, and because it works ok most of the time" is only partly true. Microsoft got convicted of being a monopoly not because of those reasons, but because of its behavior in the marketplace. More importantly, Windows got where it is because most of the people charged with paying for it - corporate management - are idiots who didn't look ahead to the hidden costs of the Windows monoculture.

The bottom line: as I've said many times -

Windows is CRAP.
Linux is ALSO CRAP.
BUT Linux is FREE crap.

Reply Score: 1