Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Permalink for comment 436367
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-16
Why are people critical of Oracle's move here. OpenSolaris has been around for a while and it garnered little interest. If most of the OpenSolaris contributors were already Sun employees then what is the point. There were those who wanted Solaris to be open sourced just so that they can add the good parts to Linux. Why would a company invest billions on a product to just give it away. How many people work for free.
I never liked the move to make Solaris open sourced in the first place. No one is banging on IBM's door (or HP) to make their UNIX open sourced so why did Sun have to get a bad reputation. Is it because Solaris was just a damm good OS and was popular? I love Solaris (and I also love Linux, and *BSDs), it was a clean OS with lots of developer tools and a great JumpStart system for enterprise deployment.
People are willing to pay good money for a 24x7 supported product.