Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 27th Sep 2004 21:04 UTC
Oracle and SUN Solaris Kernel Developer Eric Schrock is bloging more about the Solaris vs. Linux issue and linux kernel moneky Greg is answering on his blog. More here. Elsewhere, Sun is looking into making OOo's XML format an ISO standard and at license options toward opening the Java source code; here are more thoughts on those, by engineer JBQ.
Order by: Score:
v sol vs nx
by Cheapskate on Mon 27th Sep 2004 21:17 UTC
OOs's XML format an ISO standard ...
by Paul on Mon 27th Sep 2004 21:50 UTC

JBQ writes:
I have the feeling that this is another "feel-good" attempt by Sun, but that in that case there's a very definite risk of a negative impact. I would very much rather have Sun distribute the source under a "no redistribution" license, along with a program that allows people or organizations to create custom versions for internal use and to submit changes back to Sun which would then consider them for inclusion in the official version of Java.


But, the article states:
The next step happened in mid-July when the EC wrote a formal letter to the participants in the March meeting (Sun and Microsoft), informing them of the outcome and highlighting a couple of key points. Jonathan, made two specific requests:

That we consider taking the Open Office XML Format, currently under construction at OASIS, to ISO for consideration as an International Standard.
....



Is it me, or doesn't it seem like JBQ jumped the gun? Seems to me, and I read this elsewhere, that Sun was ASKED to do this, not that they went out and did it as a PR stunt.

Re: @Paul
by JBQ on Mon 27th Sep 2004 22:03 UTC

Paul: I believe that you're mixing a comment of mine which applies to the Java story with a quote coming from the OO article.

I don't claim that my opinions are well structured, far from it actually.

Sun was asked to do this by the EC, and the "feel good" effect of the OO decision is definitely for the EC, not for Sun themselves. I could be even more sarcastic and say that Sun is guilty of being part of a group off people who pat each other in the back while ignoring the reality of things.

Standardizing on an office format is great. Believing that it's going to solve all the problems right away is not. Taking the example from C, I predict that there could still be some interoperability issues 20 years from now.

lol
by tim h on Mon 27th Sep 2004 22:51 UTC

"solaris is becoming obselete..." - what a stupid and untrue statement of someone who probably has never used solaris.

OpenSolaris and Linux are both open source (or in process) so why cant we just leave the bashing alone and learn from one another and collaborate more? It's pointless to bash one another like this, lets only bash the FEATURES and design of the system (the architectural design of solaris beats linux(very true-ask linus.. but HURD beats solaris..) but linux is more supported, blah blah blah) alot of true arguements that make one seem better than the other...... The bottom line is what's supported and works well enough to lower TCO.. That's really the bottom line. Not political reasons.

Blog Wars summary
by Andrew on Mon 27th Sep 2004 23:08 UTC

Solaris developer - "Linux sucks".
Linux developer - "No it doesn't".
Solaris developer - "Linux kernel developers don't care about reliability".
Linux developer - "Yes we do".
etc...

Solaris desktop market share: 0.05%
Linux desktop market share: 3~4%
Windows desktop market share: 94%

Webservers: check Netcraft's survey
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/08/31/september_2004_web_ser...

ummmm
by poundsmack on Mon 27th Sep 2004 23:12 UTC

@Andrew
u do know solaris is primarly a server os right?

Schrock's blog posting reeks of FUD against Linux...
by Andrew on Mon 27th Sep 2004 23:16 UTC

which seems to be the latest tactics from Sun to try and counter Linux.

Why not just post about the good work they are doing at Sun?

Nooo, let's post some empty criticism of Linux...

@ poundsmack
by Andrew on Mon 27th Sep 2004 23:22 UTC

"u do know solaris is primarly a server os right?"

u did read my entir post right?

deja vu all over again
by bonkeroo buzzeye on Mon 27th Sep 2004 23:55 UTC

bloging more about the Solaris vs. Linux issue and linux kernel moneky

Same typos as in the Slashdot story posted earlier. My kindgom for a profreader! ;)

As far as the significance, I dunno if it's kosher or not - copy'n'paste; dual submission? But typos whichever way you slice it.

Sorry for the OT, but felt it was worth mentioning.

thats what i call objectivity
by Anonymous on Tue 28th Sep 2004 00:12 UTC

Wow, thats what I call objectivity...

"Solaris Kernel Developer" Eric Schrock
vs
"linux kernel moneky" Greg (no last name i guess)

way to go Eugenia!

Good comparisons
by Someone on Tue 28th Sep 2004 00:50 UTC

I think the points raised by both sides of this discussion were great. Its not like we see many constructive articles or comments comparing the two OSs.

I should think it is obvious to those who read the article that Linux and Solaris aren't really targetted at the same market. Solaris is very much a commercial OS with all the certification, reliability etc benefits. As such its aimed at the mid-range to high end. It has a target market that it services more than adequately. Linux is pretty much for all comers. High end, low end, midrange, embedded, clustered and even obsolete.

At least they were civil and on topic as they agreed to disagree.

Thanks Eugenia. I'm glad you linked to this. I wish we could similar discussions of Java vs .Net.

RE: sol vs nx
by Ronald on Tue 28th Sep 2004 01:08 UTC

@Cheapskate

Solaris is Sun Microsystems most valued asset. Too bad Sun don't see it that way.

RE: thats what i call objectivity
by Eugenia on Tue 28th Sep 2004 02:40 UTC

That part is copy/paste from Slashdot you, smart... It ain't my text.

@ Andrew
by dpi on Tue 28th Sep 2004 06:43 UTC

(Webserver and desktop) market share is NOT an indication of quality. It is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

tribal wars
by Jophn Deo on Tue 28th Sep 2004 06:54 UTC

Sun's initiative to make a testsuit that should assure the
interoperability of all JAVA extensions is doomed to fail.
They should fully open the source or leave everything as it
is today.This test suit will make things even more complicated than they already are.They can never fully assure that for example Microsoft or yet another conpany passes the test suit while implementing some extensions (aka MSJVM) that contradicts with the goals initially in mind.

sorry for my poor English.

tribal wars
by Jophn Deo on Tue 28th Sep 2004 06:54 UTC

Sun's initiative to make a testsuit that should assure the
interoperability of all JAVA extensions is doomed to fail.
They should fully open the source or leave everything as it
is today.This test suit will make things even more complicated than they already are.They can never fully assure that for example Microsoft or yet another conpany passes the test suit while implementing some extensions (aka MSJVM) that contradicts with the goals initially in mind.

sorry for my poor English.

RE: tribal wars
by murphee on Tue 28th Sep 2004 10:53 UTC

>This test suit will make things even more complicated than
>they already are.They can never fully assure that for example
>Microsoft or yet another conpany passes the test suit while
>implementing some extensions (aka MSJVM) that contradicts
>with the goals initially in mind.

You seem to be missing the point of a test suite... it's supposed to define what the Java Platform is supposed to behave like. If a JVM+JavaLibraries implementation passes the test, it is compatible. No one cares whether anyone ships additional extensions (BTW: MS got sued by Sun because they *left out* significant parts (JNI, RMI), not because of adding some).

>Why not just post about the good work they are doing at Sun?

http://planetsun.org/
This is a collection blogs by Sun employees, where many kernel developers and other engineers talk in detail about their work. Is that enough?

> Nooo, let's post some empty criticism of Linux...

I don't know if you've read Schrocks and Gregs postings, or if you have, you might have forgotten to take of your Linux hat...
I put up my opinions of this dispute here:
http://jroller.com/page/murphee/20040922
And a followup on Gregs posting:
http://jroller.com/page/murphee/20040925

In short: Linux has made great strides in becoming a great Server OS... but Solaris 10 has some features that Linux just doesn't offer yet (or if they are available, they're either in their infancy or only useable by using Kernel patches, where development hinges on 1-2 developers who might get different interests tomorrow...).

Mind you: I'm *not* a Sun employee, and I've never used Solaris, but have been using Linux for the past 7 years.

RE:murphy
by Jophn Deo on Tue 28th Sep 2004 15:49 UTC


"If a JVM+JavaLibraries implementation passes the test, it is compatible"


Well according to the article:

http://www.queru.com/articles/SunOpen.html

"The Case for Open Source/Closed Standards"

"And that's only the beginning. A test suite won't prevent extensions. Nothing in the license (at I read its sketch) would prevent Microsoft or anybody else from implementing MSJVM extensions again. It could be done in a way such that the entire test suite passes, even such that Microsoft's implementation runs all or almost all Java applications (probably more than what some other careless engineers would do), and yet have some extensions that would make applications developed with Microsoft's environment totally incompatible with other Java environments. Microsoft could be sneaky and introduce gratuitous incompatibilities"

One could come to the conclusion that even if an "JVM+JavaLibraries implementation" passes the tessuite it still could be incompatible with other JAVA environments.

"No one cares whether anyone ships additional extensions (BTW: MS got sued by Sun because they *left out* significant parts (JNI, RMI), not because of adding some)."

That's perhaps the case: they didn't add but omitted some, with the result that all other JVM where incompatible with
the JVM 's in windows, which SUN didn't liked because JAVA would become to fragmented.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/5651

"For a good example, just look back a few years ago at the mess caused by Microsoft delivering an incompatible version of Java. Microsoft took advantage of their Java license and created a JVM (the MSJVM) that implemented what they called 'improvements' to Java (can you say 'embrace and extend'?)."

"This caused a huge lawsuit between Sun and Microsoft. Sun claimed it was anti-competitive behavior and that it fragmented the Java standard (and they were right on both counts). It was to no one's advantage (except Microsoft's) to include a version of Java in every instance of Windows that was incompatible with all the other JVM's that were available."



RE:murphy
by murphee on Tue 28th Sep 2004 18:19 UTC

>One could come to the conclusion that even if an
>"JVM+JavaLibraries implementation" passes the tessuite it
>still could be incompatible with other JAVA environments.

The point is this: Sun + JCP (Java Community Process) define what the Java Platform is. This is, among the Java Language Spec and JVM Spec, defined in the TCK (the test suite for the standard library).
If a Java Platform implementation of some provider passes all the tests of this TCK... then it is compatible to Java.
In short, this just means that Java apps written for the Java Platform, run the same way as on Suns implementation.

This is what is desired: Say I develop my Java app on Linux with IBMs JDK, and I then execute it on, for instance, Windows with some Microsoft Java implementation; If the app works the same way on both systems, then everything is OK.
This is what the TCK tests.

Now: If the MS implementation comes with... for instance, APIs to easily integrate a Java app with COM (or whatever), then that's fine by me. I *don't* have to use it. And if someone uses it, they need to be aware that they create something MS specific.
BUT: if my Java app uses the RMI API, but the MS Java implementation doesn't ship RMI... then there's trouble, because Sun + JCP defined RMI to be part of the Java Platform.

@murphy
by Jophn Deo on Tue 28th Sep 2004 21:32 UTC

Thank you

This means that you can't have any sort of open release until the software is totally finished and passes the test suite 100%. That just isn't compatible with how Free Software development works at all. You need to have frequent releases early and often to get feedback and fix bugs.