Sun Microsystems is set to license OpenSolaris under the upcoming GNU GPLv3 in addition to the existing Common Development and Distribution License, sources close to the company have told eWEEK. “The next version of Solaris will include things like GNU Userland, which is already being attempted with OpenSolaris, while open-source solutions from other communities for things like package management also look very promising. Dual-licensing OpenSolaris with GPLv3 could make this even easier,” said a source who declined to be named.
… upgrade is great. I know the reasoning/logic behind the crufty userland that exists now, but this is a welcome update for me. Maybe a reasonable PATH will be default, as well.
Package management that makes sense? Whoa. Guess I hopped on the Solaris bandwagon at the right time. Can’t wait to see how all this turns out, here’s to Solaris 11!
PS – I could care less about the licensing issues as topic reads. It might make life easier for the linux-lovers when/if they decide to participate in OSOL, however, bringing more of a community into the fray. I just hope we don’t end up with the fragmented development that linux suffers from.
but the userland upgrade is great.
The most significant portions of the GNU userland were already available with Solaris 10. The next version just makes it easier to use them and brings new versions.
Edited 2007-01-17 00:53
If you meant the /usr/sfw outdated/incomplete collection, I’m going to chuckle. :p
I’m hoping they filled it out a bit more, and actually included relatively up to date versions of the GNU userland. /usr/sfw is a bit laughable at the moment. No offense intended! I do realize the “issues” behind a lot of the outdatedness, but there has been sufficient time to get that sorted (assuming it was a priority, which I somehow doubt it was. gcc 3.4 here I come!)
$ /usr/sfw/bin/gcc –version
gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 (csl-sol210-3_4-branch+sol_rpath)
$ /usr/sfw/bin/gmake –version
GNU Make 3.80
$ /usr/sfw/bin/wget –version
GNU Wget 1.9.1
Etc, etc.
Most of the userland is 2+ years old, if not older. A lot of useful utilities are missing, so on and so forth. I don’t mean to be harsh, I just look forward to the day it’s more complete and more “updated”. I know stability is paramount (I run servers, trust me – I understand) – but it can be hard to live without some of the “new” functionality, and with some of the tools being as old as they are – it’s not just stability considerations keeping them crufty, it’s lack of resources being applied to that area of the userland. There are arguments for both positions. 
Etc, etc.
Most of the userland is 2+ years old, if not older.
What’s wrong with that? It’s not much worse than Debian Stable! *ducks*
You know about sunfreeware.com?
That is the main download site for me when searching for solaris software.
Yes, and I also know about Blastwave, and I can’t stand either of them.
No offense to the creators/developers/maintaners, but it’s not what I’m looking for, at all. It doesn’t address the problem of package management in Solaris, either, as it’s not uniformly available across various installs by default.
i was hoping that solaris would go under the GPL2 so that linux and solaris could both be improved and abosrbed, i hope we dont have a foss war, between the old world of linux and the new world of solaris
SUN said that they prefered to license solaris under the GPL2
i was hoping that solaris would go under the GPL2 so that linux and solaris could both be improved and abosrbed, i hope we dont have a foss war, between the old world of linux and the new world of solaris
You mean so that Linux distributions can plunder every good thing about Solaris and kill the existing Solaris community?
As an OpenSolaris contributor, I would stop contributing if they chose the GPLv2. The CDDL was a *main* reason why I joined the OpenSolaris project.
At least Open Source zealots won’t be able to complaint about it being “fake” open source anymore, even though it never was.
Edited 2007-01-17 00:45
You mean so that Linux distributions can plunder every good thing about Solaris and kill the existing Solaris community?
Yet you don’t mind Apple and BSD “plundering” the good things from Solaris? How is it any different?
As an OpenSolaris contributor, I would stop contributing if they chose the GPLv2. The CDDL was a *main* reason why I joined the OpenSolaris project.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the way I read this is “I would stop contributing if those Linux bastards could use my stuff”. Such an attitude goes completely against the sprit of the open source/free software movement and is, frankly, rather childish.
If you like OpenSolaris best and want to contribute to it, then that’s great. But choosing to do so specifically so that another open source project can’t use your code just doesn’t seem right to me.
Yet you don’t mind Apple and BSD “plundering” the good things from Solaris? How is it any different?
Except they’re not “plundering” in my view. If the Solaris code was GPL’d, it would just be “absorbed” into the Linux world. Whereas with the Apple culture, it it *used* but not “absorbed”, same with BSD.
If all the functionality of Solaris were moved into Linux, key reasons to use Solaris would not exist. Hence, why I am against it. One project should not succeed at the expense of another.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the way I read this is “I would stop contributing if those Linux bastards could use my stuff”.
They can use OpenSolaris and whatever “stuff” I have contributed. Just not in a way that causes it to lose any identity and the licensing I want.
Edited 2007-01-17 01:51
pretty terrible conception about OSS. So your fear is that Linux could better Solaris. Preatty weak.
pretty terrible conception about OSS. So your fear is that Linux could better Solaris. Preatty weak.
Isn’t that the same sentiment behind ReactOS? To create a Windows clone–to take all the favorable things about Windows and use it in your own OS?
Anyways, that is a valid concern. If linux took most of the features of Solaris, the things people identify as being Solaris, what would be the point of it anymore? I don’t think it would be good for linux either. I’d like to see differentiation, diversity and fair competition.
For example, some of the kernel developers (including Linus’s) attitudes were quite different a while ago.. there was no push towards crash dumping, kernel debugger, or dynamic tracing. But now look at it–all for the better. In fact System Tap was inspired by Dtrace and defining experiences the RedHat & Intel folks had out in the field in troubleshooting customers’ systems who were also serviced by Sun engineers using dtrace.
And if it weren’t for the “Slowaris” reputation Sun had a while ago before S10 and linux coming along and lighting the fire on Sun’s asses, I doubt there would’ve been much improvement and nor would Sun care much for any performance comparisons
pretty terrible conception about OSS. So your fear is that Linux could better Solaris. Preatty weak.
Isn’t that the same sentiment behind ReactOS? To create a Windows clone–to take all the favorable things about Windows and use it in your own OS?
No, that’s different, see… ReactOS isn’t taking windows code to do it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the Linux folks from doing the exact same thing that ReactOS is doing… i.e. look at how things in Solaris are implemented, then writing their own implementation. Hell, you can even look at the code instead of trying to figure it out based on some programming API documentation… it should be all that much easier for them, right?
What hacks me off so much is that they are so damn unwilling to see this as an option. “But we want to use the code! WAH! WAH!”
How about you use the fact that it is, you know, open source, to see how they did it, then do it on your own?
Oh, that would be work, sorry…
Yet you don’t mind Apple and BSD “plundering” the good things from Solaris? How is it any different?
It’s different because they are not saying all the time that Solaris suck, that they are the best out there and that everybody not using their software are wrong.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the way I read this is “I would stop contributing if those Linux bastards could use my stuff”.
Such an attitude goes completely against the sprit of the open source/free software movement and is, frankly, rather childish.
If I have to choose a licence for some free code I will choose a licence that will avoid the linux community to use my code.
I though I was the only one with this point of view, but I am happy to see it is not the case. You only have what you deserve with comments like yours: people are tired of the linux user zealotery.
Moreover, I think that it is more childish to see linux users saying that Solaris is a piece of crap since many years, and after that complain because they can not take code from Solaris ….
And no, it is not against open source, it is against linux users.
Linux is not OSS, they are part of it. But you show us what people dislike about linux users: they are nombrilist.
But choosing to do so specifically so that another open source project can’t use your code just doesn’t seem right to me.
Sound perfectly good to me.
>Yet you don’t mind Apple and BSD “plundering” the good things from Solaris? How is it any different?
Solaris is just a BSD fork (look back at 1979)! Solaris is using OpenSSH too from OpenBSD .. so think about your words, there is some nonsense in it. Apple is “plundering” BSD but it supports BSD too. Solaris would be dead without projects like BSD and its really free license.
SunOS is the BSD fork
Solaris is based off SysV UNIX
O behave and it’s a really a new invention? Go way
Solaris 1 == SunOS 4.1.1 (1990)
If you have some time, you can certainly learn something.
http://www.levenez.com/unix/
>In the late 1980s, AT&T and Sun announced that they were collaborating on a project to merge the most popular UNIX flavors on the market at that time: BSD (including many of the features then unique to SunOS), System V, and Xenix. This would become UNIX System V Release 4 (SVR4).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunos
AT&T & Berkeley work together for two decades, so where is UNIX, where is BSD or where is SunOS/Solaris? It’s all mixed up. It’s UNIX with or without trademark. If you say Solaris, you have to mention *BSD too, if you say UNIX, you have to mention *BSD too and vice versa.
Solaris is just a BSD fork (look back at 1979)! Solaris is using OpenSSH too from OpenBSD .. so think about your words, there is some nonsense in it. Apple is “plundering” BSD but it supports BSD too. Solaris would be dead without projects like BSD and its really free license.
Depends if you are talking about Solaris 1.x (rebadged SunOS+features) or Solaris 2. Solaris 1.x is BSD based. Solaris 2.x onwards is very much AT&T SVR4 based.
– Wasn’t BSD originally a AT&T fork???
– Wasn’t one of the co-founders of Sun (Bill Joy) “largely responsible for the authorship of Berkeley UNIX” (Quoted from Wikipedia – SAD I know).
Real opensource is cool, and also bastardised (licence depending). It would be nicer if people (including me) spent more time coding than writing crap on slashdot/osnews etc. We would probably would care less who is plundering who….
>- Wasn’t BSD originally a AT&T fork???
No it was originally an addon and afterwards it was a huge development between AT&T and Berkeley.
>Solaris 2.x onwards is very much AT&T SVR4 based.
The point is, “very much” – but it cannot deny it’s origin. If you have AT&T Unix with huge parts of BSD and SunOS with parts of BSD, stick it together and what do you have afterwards? And you can use code with BSD license every time you want
>Wasn’t one of the co-founders of Sun (Bill Joy) “largely responsible for the authorship of Berkeley UNIX
Should prove my saying
q.e.d.
(Bill Joy in 77, BSD1 – addon to AT&T Unix)
>- Wasn’t BSD originally a AT&T fork???
No it was originally an addon and afterwards it was a huge development between AT&T and Berkeley.
And the difference being??? Still looks, smells, and quacks like a fork.
The point is, “very much” – but it cannot deny it’s origin. If you have AT&T Unix with huge parts of BSD and SunOS with parts of BSD, stick it together and what do you have afterwards? And you can use code with BSD license every time you want
Other than /usr/ucb, where are the HUGE parts of BSD in Solaris (That did not original come from Sun)???
> “Such an attitude goes completely against the sprit of the open source/free software movement and is, frankly, rather childish.”
and
> “But choosing to do so specifically so that another open source project can’t use your code just doesn’t seem right to me.”
This is exactly what GPL do with the licenses that are “compatible” with it.
actually while i myself like gpl3, in the spirit of stopping misuse, i too might have preferred solaris as gpl2, so solaris could major-rip linux’s drivers.
i think in the long run, ripping between solaris/linux would do most for solaris.
What’s so bad about sharing code between Solaris and Linux? Wouldn’t that make both systems better?
Sun has positioned OpenSolaris (under the GPLv3) so that it can plunder everything from the GNU/Linux userland (which mostly retains the “or later version” provision), yet the Linux kernel (which doesn’t) can’t plunder anything from OpenSolaris. Neither can OpenSolaris plunder from the Linux kernel, which contains lots of driver support unavailable under OpenSolaris, which doesn’t seem like the best way to serve its userbase.
As a contributor to an open source project, I find it odd that you are opposed to sharing your code with other open source projects. That’s why some people are sour on OpenSolaris and its licensing decisions. It wants to be an open source project, but it wants to make sure that its code doesn’t benefit other open source projects. Some find this arrangement selfish (keep your hands off our code) and arrogant (we don’t need your crappy code anyway).
Fine, set up your little wall and keep your precious community separate from the rest of the open source community. We’ve gotten this far by sharing. I’m confident that if we continue to share and share alike, the Linux community will continue to out-pace the growth of OpenSolaris.
Sweet system you’ve got over there, though, very impressed. You know, it might just be good enough so that you don’t have to worry about your community disappearing overnight…
What’s so bad about sharing code between Solaris and Linux? Wouldn’t that make both systems better?
Sun has positioned OpenSolaris (under the GPLv3) so that it can plunder everything from the GNU/Linux userland (which mostly retains the “or later version” provision), yet the Linux kernel (which doesn’t) can’t plunder anything from OpenSolaris.
Sun doesn’t need to plunder anything. It already has a functional userland. Whereas Linux lacks any equivalent filesystem to ZFS, any equivalent tracer to DTrace, etc.
Neither can OpenSolaris plunder from the Linux kernel, which contains lots of driver support unavailable under OpenSolaris, which doesn’t seem like the best way to serve its userbase.
Lots of drivers that would be useless. If you spent any time developer drivers for Solaris and Linux, you would know they are worlds apart. There is little to be cross-used.
It wants to be an open source project, but it wants to make sure that its code doesn’t benefit other open source projects.
That is a flat out lie. The OpenSolaris project wants to benefit the community. Part of those benefits is a license that is far friendlier to many individuals than the GPL. Even without the ability to directly incorporate the source code, the knowledge contained within can still be used.
As a contributor to an open source project, I find it odd that you are opposed to sharing your code with other open source projects.
Maybe I’m just bitter because I see all of the BSD projects that put out great code, and then can’t use *any* of the improvements because of the GPL “absorption” that constantly happens. GPL + BSD = GPL project takes everything and gives nothing back in return. Whether or not the license allows it doesn’t make it right in my eyes.
Edited 2007-01-17 01:49
Whereas Linux lacks any equivalent filesystem to ZFS, any equivalent tracer to DTrace, etc.
You’re right, those are great features. The Linux kernel devs are working on their own COW filesystem that eliminates the very few downsides to ZFS (mainly write latency). They have at least one former ZFS coder working on it. I don’t expect to see production code for at least 2-3 years, and Sun’s SVR4-inspired VFS is nicer than Linux VFS. So, Solaris has Linux squarely beat on storage technology. It’s a big problem for Linux right now.
Lots of drivers that would be useless. If you spent any time developer drivers for Solaris and Linux, you would know they are worlds apart. There is little to be cross-used.
Right, but the most annoying parts of writing a device driver, including figuring out the hardware registers, could go a lot quicker if they could rip the tables out of the Linux driver. Or just use the Linux driver for reference (which I believe would fail the “clean room” test). Sort of like you said here:
That is a flat out lie. The OpenSolaris project wants to benefit the community. Part of those benefits is a license that is far friendlier to many individuals than the GPL. Even without the ability to directly incorporate the source code, the knowledge contained within can still be used.
What parts of the CDDL and/or GPLv3 are friendlier than the GPLv2? Is it the explicit patent grant to the original author of the source file? Is it the more onerous distribution requirements? The prohibition of digital signatures? The permission to link to proprietary code? I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which is which.
I have banged my head against the wall trying to understand how the GPLv3 helps anyone but the FSF idealists, but at the end of the day, I actually prefer the CDDL, even despite the very weak file-based license propagation. But neither is any match for the GPLv2 in terms of the freedoms it grants to the recipient or the protection of free software within the bounds of copyright law.
The CDDL is a license that caters to developers, the GPLv3 caters to fascists, and the BSD caters to academics. The GPLv2 caters to users. There’s many more of them, and that’s why the GPLv2 has been so successful.
Right, but the most annoying parts of writing a device driver, including figuring out the hardware registers, could go a lot quicker if they could rip the tables out of the Linux driver. Or just use the Linux driver for reference (which I believe would fail the “clean room” test). Sort of like you said here:
Note that a lot of Linux *kernel* code indeed has the v2 or later option which implies that many people would have no problem with their code being used in OpenSolaris under v3.
I have banged my head against the wall trying to understand how the GPLv3 helps anyone but the FSF idealists, but at the end of the day, I actually prefer the CDDL, even despite the very weak file-based license propagation. But neither is any match for the GPLv2 in terms of the freedoms it grants to the recipient or the protection of free software within the bounds of copyright law.
The CDDL is a license that caters to developers, the GPLv3 caters to fascists, and the BSD caters to academics. The GPLv2 caters to users. There’s many more of them, and that’s why the GPLv2 has been so successful.
There are the four software freedoms, and indeed, the v3 does not match v2 here: v2 falls short now in what it used to protect. So you must mean other freedoms and how v3 is deficient enough so as to outweigh the protection lost by v2.
Can you explain the deficiency? Moreover, how does v2 cater more to users than does v3?
“the GPLv3 caters to fascists”
I am probably the only one who think you crossed the line
on that one …
I thought he crossed the line when he said GPLv2 caters to users.
Whereas Linux lacks any equivalent filesystem to ZFS, any equivalent tracer to DTrace, etc.
You’re wrong here, at least in regard to DTrace. Linux has system tap, which is more or less a clone of (and otherwise inspired by) DTrace.
http://sourceware.org/systemtap/
Edited 2007-01-17 07:05
Well I take a look at the comparison chart:
http://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/SystemtapDtraceComparison
They are saying that the target audience of Dtrace is not Developpers (!), that you can not use Dtrace for debugging (!).
Funnier, that the ongoing evolution of Dtrace is slow but their is fast that the number of probe is limited (!) on Dtrace but not on SystemTap.
Well, another unbiased, FUD free, linux project ….
They are saying that the target audience of Dtrace is not Developpers (!), that you can not use Dtrace for debugging (!).
I agree with you that the omission of debugging is a bit odd for the DTrace column. However, they don’t go so far as to say you _can not_ use DTrace for debugging, just listing the main usage. I don’t know enough about DTrace to say whether or not that’s a fair statement.
Funnier, that the ongoing evolution of Dtrace is slow but their is fast
DTrace may have slowed because it was more or less finished before SystemTap started ;o)
that the number of probe is limited (!) on Dtrace but not on SystemTap.
Based on my limited exposure to Dtrace, I think it “only” comes with a fixed number of probes (~31,000). Whereas, SystemTap uses kprobes to allow dynamic probes to be inserted anywhere (with a few restrictions) on the fly.
Well, another unbiased, FUD free, linux project ….
The table wasn’t too bad, and even gave the nod to DTrace on at least one point.
But the main reason for my post was just to point out that DTrace functionality _is_ available on Linux.
However, they don’t go so far as to say you _can not_ use DTrace for debugging, just listing the main usage. I don’t know enough about DTrace to say whether or not that’s a fair statement.
So Why Xray, the debugging tool of Mac OS X Leopard, is using Dtrace if you can not use it to debug ?
Why Sun have plenty of documentation about how to debug with Dtrace ?
Example:
“Using DTrace to Profile and Debug A C++ Program”
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/dtrace_cc.html
Based on my limited exposure to Dtrace, I think it “only” comes with a fixed number of probes (~31,000).
Far more
—-
# dtrace -l | wc -l
46581
—-
So Why Xray, the debugging tool of Mac OS X Leopard, is using Dtrace if you can not use it to debug ?
Why Sun have plenty of documentation about how to debug with Dtrace ?
Again, clearly you _can_ debug with DTrace. The comparison table did *NOT* say you couldn’t. What it said was that the “target usage” wasn’t specifically for developer debugging (note the row above in the table).
For most developers who have access to the source, a good source level debugger is going to be faster and more convenient than writing probes. But that’s equally true for SystemTap, they seem about equal in that regard.
Far more
—-
# dtrace -l | wc -l
46581
Sure, but the point is that it’s fixed, whereas with SystemTap you can insert essentially an unlimited number at arbitrary points at run time.
What it said was that the “target usage” wasn’t specifically for developer debugging
Debugging was a target since the beginning:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/dtrace/
DTrace is a comprehensive dynamic tracing framework for the Solaris™ Operating Environment. DTrace provides a powerful infrastructure to permit administrators, developers, and service personnel to concisely answer arbitrary questions about the behavior of the operating system and user programs.
Debugging was a target since the beginning:
Of course it was. But it was meant for a certain kind of debugging. Debugging where a source level debugger _wasn’t_ appropriate. The kind of debugging that doesn’t typically happen on a developer machine, rather it happens on a production machine on a customer site for instance.
DTrace wasn’t meant to replace source level debuggers that developers typically use. It was meant for a totally different situation where source level debuggers couldn’t be employed.
That’s what made DTrace interesting in the first place.
Now back to the comparison table. I believe the point they’re trying to make is that SystemTap has extra features that will make it more attractive for developers in situations where they would have used a source level debugger previously.
For instance, where DTrace would limit those developers to the ~47k probe points, SystemTap puts no such limitation on the developer. Plus it works very closely with the debug info produced by the compiler; just like a source level debugger works.
Perhaps they could have made that more clear in the comparison table. But I think a little research would show that something close to the above is what they’re trying to get across to the reader.
For the one or two points where DTrace still has the edge over SystemTap, the authors didn’t hide that fact in the comparison table.
On the whole, it was a pretty balanced comparison.
Anyway, it’s nice to see Linux get this feature, so that we don’t have to be envious any more when the Solaris guys are gloating about it ;o)
Based on my limited exposure to Dtrace, I think it “only” comes with a fixed number of probes (~31,000). Whereas, SystemTap uses kprobes to allow dynamic probes to be inserted anywhere (with a few restrictions) on the fly.
Just want to correct you on this: Dtrace does exactly the same as you mentioned for Systemtap, but for userland as well, which Systemtap does not have yet (but I haven’t kept up; maybe they started already). The “probes” mentioned just lists out all the possible places that you could insert your probes which fluctuates with every build or whatever code your system is using. For example if I wanted to trace when any 2 functions enters and returns, then that would be 4 probes total.
One of the main differences between Systemtap and Dtrace though is that Dtrace guarantees safety by design.
Just want to correct you on this: Dtrace does exactly the same as you mentioned for Systemtap, but for userland as well, which Systemtap does not have yet (but I haven’t kept up; maybe they started already). The “probes” mentioned just lists out all the possible places that you could insert your probes which fluctuates with every build or whatever code your system is using. For example if I wanted to trace when any 2 functions enters and returns, then that would be 4 probes total.
Actually it doesn’t do exactly the same. DTrace offers trace points at enter/exit of each function. SystemTap allows setting trace points deep in the bowels of a function, say inside 7 nested “if” statements so that you only ever get a trace point in that one condition.
One of the main differences between Systemtap and Dtrace though is that Dtrace guarantees safety by design.
Yes, but like everything there is a tradeoff, DTrace probes can’t use full flow control statements such as loops etc. SystemTap does offer some saftey guarantees as well; check out the saftey section in the comparison table:
http://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/SystemtapDtraceComparison
Yes, but like everything there is a tradeoff, DTrace probes can’t use full flow control statements such as loops etc. SystemTap does offer some saftey guarantees as well; check out the saftey section in the comparison table:
http://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/SystemtapDtraceComparison
sorry but that chart is not accurate, I made numerous attempts at correcting it but they chose to ignore it here is a corrected chart along with links to threads where this was discussed.
http://unixconsult.org/compare%20systemtap%20vs%20dtrac…
You seems to like charts comparison, just check the real one made by the Dtrace community.
http://unixconsult.org/compare%20systemtap%20vs%20dtrac…
Funny to see the difference between them.
SystemTap
Operating System Support: Linux
Ongoing Development: Rapid
Target audience: Development. Users, sysadmins
Number of possible probe points: Unlimited (currently limited to every line in the kernel, no userland probles or static probe points by default)
Maximum tested probing points: 50,000 active probe test fails
Tested in enterprise production enviroment: Extermely limited
Number of real world problems solved: few
Dtrace
Operating System Support: Solaris, FreeBSD, OSX, netBSD (is planned)
Ongoing Development: Mature, normal rate
Target audience: Kernel developers, userland developers, sysadmins, users
Number of possible probe points: Unlimited (50,000 kernel and static probe points, probe any line of userspace code)
Maximum tested probing points: 500,000 active probe test works as expected.
Tested in enterprise production enviroment: Fully tested and trusted
Number of real world problems solved: 1000’s
Get the real facts now.
The funnier thing is that the only ‘real’ open source technology (GPLv2) is used only by … linux while the ‘fake’ open source technology (CDDL) is used by everybody.
Another clue about how the GPLv2 help the OSS …
Duffman, I amended your last paragraph with the help of IDC marketshare information from late-2005. I’m sorry I couldn’t find anything more recent.
“Get the real facts now.
The funnier thing is that the only ‘real’ open source technology (GPLv2) is used only by … linux (31% marketshare) while the ‘fake’ open source technology (CDDL) is used by everybody (5.6% marketshare).
Another clue about how the GPLv2 help the OSS …”
Although, to be honest, that 5.6% includes *all* UNIX OS’s, not just the 4 listed. BTW, I’m not trying to say system-whatever-it-is is better than Dtrace; just saying that you use words like “only” and “everybody” in a misleading way.
They are saying that the target audience of Dtrace is not Developpers (!), that you can not use Dtrace for debugging (!).
sorry, to burst your bubble, Dtrace is very good at debugging as documented at http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-is-dtrace.html
Here is a small list of apps that have been debugged with DTrace, Network streams, Zones scaling problem,
Application Tuning, Gnome Load times, AutoMounter restarting, Finding Memory Leaks, NTP, Java Applet,
Libst, Timer, Mozilla, StarOffice, Zone monitoring,
Andrew Tridgell’s lock scaling problem, BONOBO, setlocale, links to the explanations of the related bugs are in the above link, note that DTrace has bugged userland applications that has helped Solaris and Linux as well.
I agree with you that the omission of debugging is a bit odd for the DTrace column. However, they don’t go so far as to say you _can not_ use DTrace for debugging, just listing the main usage. I don’t know enough about DTrace to say whether or not that’s a fair statement.
DTrace is an excellent tool, not only is it useful for the developer, the user can figure out details without knowing the code in question, and it doesn’t even require that the code be compiled with debugging enabled. For example if a user wants to know which code path kdeinit is spending all its time here is a simple script that can be modified for any userland app and I bet the average user can figure out how to modify it.
tick-1234hz /* fire a probe 1234 times a second */
/execname==’kdeinit’/
{ @[ustack()]= count(); } /* store a copy of userstack trace */
Based on my limited exposure to Dtrace, I think it “only” comes with a fixed number of probes (~31,000). Whereas, SystemTap uses kprobes to allow dynamic probes to be inserted anywhere (with a few restrictions) on the fly.
I love how Systemtap fans love to bring this up, but never never seem to mention that no one has managed to consistently create a script that works with more than a few 100 probes. A simple task like probing each kernel function 99 out of 100 times ends up with the system crashing. Systemtap fans also love pointing out that they can probe any point in the kernel, but what kind of programmer can’t figure out what is happening in a function if he knows what function was called with what values, and what functions are being called and a complete userland and kernel stack trace?
Now lets show the DTrace facts, DTrace comes with over 48,000 probes in the kernel alone.
enterprise:~# dtrace -l | wc -l
48790
enterprise:~#
but wait DTrace has userland probes as well what happens when we probe every function in say mozilla?
enterprise:~# dtrace -s max.d -c /usr/sfw/bin/mozilla | head
dtrace: script ‘max.d’ matched 531966 probes
Now lets go over the facts again, systemtap may be able to probe every line in the kernel in theory, but why does anyone need to do that? Of course when you actually try to probe even every function in the kernel (about 35,000 probes) its a recipe for crashing the system. There is no userland probes in systemtap, there isn’t even a userland stack trace function that works. DTrace on the other hand can activate concurrently 48,000 probe points in the kernel, and another 530,000 in userland and not crash the system, which one is more useful? By the way DTrace has had the ability to do this for over 2 years now so was more stable and useful even when it was at the same age in development as systemtap is now.
sorry, to burst your bubble, Dtrace is very good at debugging as documented at…
I did not write the section you quoted.
I love how Systemtap fans love to bring this up, but never never seem to mention that no one has managed to consistently create a script that works with more than a few 100 probes. A simple task like probing each kernel function 99 out of 100 times ends up with the system crashing. Systemtap fans also love pointing out that they can probe any point in the kernel, but what kind of programmer can’t figure out what is happening in a function if he knows what function was called with what values, and what functions are being called and a complete userland and kernel stack trace?
I am not a systemtap “fan”, just a new user and happy it worked for me. Guess we must have been very lucky to be that 1 in 100 that didn’t have a system crash; or maybe the odds aren’t that bad.
I’m sure Dtrace is great but SystemTap is already a useful tool which is sure to improve even more.
Cheers.
I’m combining my comments to numerous of your posts into one.
I am not a systemtap “fan”, just a new user and happy it worked for me. Guess we must have been very lucky to be that 1 in 100 that didn’t have a system crash; or maybe the odds aren’t that bad.
did you try and probe every function in the kernel? I bet you didn’t… go ahead and give it a try on a customers machine…. and watch it generate a nice oops report as it crashes.
For instance, where DTrace would limit those developers to the ~47k probe points, SystemTap puts no such limitation on the developer. Plus it works very closely with the debug info produced by the compiler; just like a source level debugger works.
Two problems here, number one systemtap can’t enable more than a few hundred probes at a time. Systemtap is so intergrated with the debugging information that it is almost completely useless without it. Systemtap can’t even get data out of a struct or class without debugging information. Want to use systemtap on a application that an ISV created but isn’t including the source? too bad, systemtap can’t help even when they do get userland probes they still require debugging information.
DTrace wasn’t meant to replace source level debuggers that developers typically use. It was meant for a totally different situation where source level debuggers couldn’t be employed.
DTrace can replace normal debuggers, because it has all the same functionality in userland, it can probe any line of a userland application, it can stop the program which is what the programmer is usually ends up doing when he finds the problem because he needs to go and fix the bug.
This seems a bit overly dramatic…
The amount of bugs that dtrace has found and helped fix is dramatic, Systemtap is limited to tracing kernel functions and syscalls… and there is no list of userland bugs that systemtap has fixed.
I think I can best sum up systemtap is a hammer, too bad there are a very limited number of nails for it, but a hell of a lot of broken windows and walls left in its wake.
did you try and probe every function in the kernel? I bet you didn’t… go ahead and give it a try on a customers machine…. and watch it generate a nice oops report as it crashes.
No. But I can’t imagine ever wanting to do that either. I’ve not yet run up against the limitations of SystemTap, although I’m sure they exist.
Two problems here, number one systemtap can’t enable more than a few hundred probes at a time. Systemtap is so intergrated with the debugging information that it is almost completely useless without it. Systemtap can’t even get data out of a struct or class without debugging information. Want to use systemtap on a application that an ISV created but isn’t including the source? too bad, systemtap can’t help even when they do get userland probes they still require debugging information.
Agreed, having access to the debugging data is part of the core design. Note that ISV don’t have to include the source to include the debugging information. This just doesn’t seem like an issue that will cause any practical problems.
The amount of bugs that dtrace has found and helped fix is dramatic, Systemtap is limited to tracing kernel functions and syscalls… and there is no list of userland bugs that systemtap has fixed.
Granted. Let’s revisit in a year or two and see if SystemTap has produced similar success stories.
I think I can best sum up systemtap is a hammer, too bad there are a very limited number of nails for it, but a hell of a lot of broken windows and walls left in its wake.
Nice visual ;o)
Well I take a look at the comparison chart:
http://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/SystemtapDtraceComparison
They are saying that the target audience of Dtrace is not Developpers (!), that you can not use Dtrace for debugging (!).
Funnier, that the ongoing evolution of Dtrace is slow but their is fast that the number of probe is limited (!) on Dtrace but not on SystemTap.
Dunno if anyone bothered to list this yet but there are a number of factual errors in that list (omissions, mis-statements, misleading statements, and flat out falsehoods)… check this out:
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/09/going-line-by-line.html
I can’t say whether they purposely painted it in an incredibly biased light, but it looks like one of those microsoft funded “independent research” findings to me… “ongoing evolution — rapid — slow”… yeah, way to twist the facts through the use of terms…
anyway, check out the list if you actually have any interest in these two things and how they differ, then check out the other link… can’t say he’s 100% spot on either, but he seems to know what he’s talking about.
“Systemtap has seemed to miss its target audience, its current audience is Kernel developers; I know of no users that use Systemtap on a daily basis, the same statement holds true for Sysadmins as well. There are hardly any pre-made Systemtap scripts, at the moment so your only users are kernel Coders. I’ve not heard of any userland developers using Systemtap to solve problems since userland probes are not included. Nor is support for any other application or scripting language probing.“
“Linux has system tap, which is more or less a clone of (and otherwise inspired by) DTrace.”
a clone that is unstable, harder to write scripts for, and lack the main features that users need to make use of it. If you monitor there mailing list you will see that new bug reports are added daily usually involving a system crashes.
Systemtap does not have userland probes yet, they have been promising them for 2 years now, but still no userland probes, you can’t even get a userland stacktrace currently.
Turns out that systemtap developers love devoping simple low level features that just add to bloat, and help only kernel coders, they are dragging their feet on the userland probes.
While Systemtap is generating bug reports, DTrace is generating bug fixes and statistics about running systems.
a clone that is unstable, harder to write scripts for, and lack the main features that users need to make use of it. If you monitor there mailing list you will see that new bug reports are added daily usually involving a system crashes.
Mr. Dickens i presume? ;o) Oh there are some teething pains, but also some success stories too. It’s not all as bad as that:
http://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/WarStories
Systemtap does not have userland probes yet, they have been promising them for 2 years now, but still no userland probes, you can’t even get a userland stacktrace currently.
I’ve only ever used it once to debug a kernel issue at a customer site, but it did work quite well. But the comparison table doesn’t try to hide the fact that “user side” probes aren’t yet implemented.
Turns out that systemtap developers love devoping simple low level features that just add to bloat, and help only kernel coders, they are dragging their feet on the userland probes.
One mans bloat…
While Systemtap is generating bug reports, DTrace is generating bug fixes and statistics about running systems.
This seems a bit overly dramatic…
As an OpenSolaris contributor, I would stop contributing if they chose the GPLv2. The CDDL was a *main* reason why I joined the OpenSolaris project.
It’s a particularly rare breed of open source developer that doesn’t want his code to be open source.
Yes, it’s purposely recursive, just to confuse the likes of binarycrusader.
It’s a particularly rare breed of open source developer that doesn’t want his code to be open source.
Except I do, and the CDDL *is* an Open Source license, even the Free Software Foundation recognizes it as such. Try again.
Try again what? you’re just saying that you don’t want Linux to benefit from another open source OS, and don’t explain why; “because the community would move to Linux” is no sensible explanation IMHO: if Linux would become even better thanks to Solaris, how would that be bad for the open source world? wouldn’t you move to the better OS, if you do it for a living? and what would you prevent from contributing to Solaris, if that’s just a hobby of yours?
rehdon
It’s a particularly rare breed of open source developer that doesn’t want his code to be open source.
You people seem to fail to see the many aspects of why some people do things they do.
The many different licenses fit in with many different mind sets.
One way of thinking says “I want people to have good code to use, I don’t really care if they tell anyone they used my code or let me know how they changed it just so long as the code they use is up to standards.” — these are people who care more about quality than fame, as long as things work and work well they are happy about it. You know, the guy that gives $5 to a homeless man when nobody can see it and never says a word about it for his entire life.
Then there are people who say “I don’t care what you do with my code so long as you let people know I wrote it. I deserve credit for the work, after all.” — These are people who fall more toward “quality” than fame, but still like the ego boost of seeing their names out there. Same as above, but happen to let slip “Did you see that guy out there? I gave him a couple bucks, I hope he’ll be alright.”
Another way of thinking is to say “I don’t mind if people use my code, but they sure as hell better tell everyone it was my code, and they sure as hell better give me any changes they made, because for some reason I am entitled to them!” — These are, well, people with an inflated sense of self importance… sort of like people who go out on missionary work because they think it will buy them salvation from [insert god here] and not because they actually want to help people (who was it that said the root of every action is greed?).
There is another way of thinking that says “I write good code, and I am helping a project I feel is worthwhile, but I do not want someone else benefiting from my hard work. If I wanted them to have the code, I would have written it for them, however, if they want to look at my code to see *how* I did something so they can work it out on their own they are more than welcome.” — these are people who enjoy sharing knowledge but don’t enjoy people thriving off of their hard work.
Then there are people who simply say “my work is mine, nobody else can use it, nobody can look at it, it’s all mine HAHAHAHAHA!!!!” and under certain circumstances I understand that as well…
But they are all valid reasons for contributing to a project (except, of course, that last one), and just because you happen to be of one persuasion or another does not invalidate the others and does not mean a license designed with one type of person in mind is not “open source.”
Open source just means you can look at it, it doesn’t in any way mean you have to be allowed to actually use it.
i was hoping that solaris would go under the GPL2 so that linux and solaris could both be improved and abosrbed, i hope we dont have a foss war, between the old world of linux and the new world of solaris
Actually, this isn’t a bad thing for either community. Sun’s adoption of GPL v3 will finally give the FSF community an alternative kernel to wrap their flag around, and end some of the ridiculous infighting that has been going on in the linux community.
It will inject some new energy into the opensolaris and FSF communities without drawing resources away from continued development and advancement of the linux kernel. Hell, maybe HP and IBM will feel the need to contribute some more code from their proprietary vaults.
The GNU projects, various desktops etc. will work with work fine with either, regardless of licensing.
People will have their choice of free platforms to match their philosophies and principles, real or imagined, without sacrificing the software that they are able to run.
I do believe that any time additional choices are added to OSS, everyone benefits overall whether directly or indirectly.
SUN said that they prefered to license solaris under the GPL2.
No, that was Java. Remains to be seen if they’ll relicense under v3 when it’s published.
In fact, Sun has always hinted that opensolaris would consider v3 licensing. This story is based on unnamed sources, so carries as much credibility as anyone’s opinion in this forum, but I see no reason to doubt it. While I applaud their endorsement of OSS, I’m not sure this is as big a strategic endorsement as it will be made out to be. Fact is Sun will retain and require copyright assignment for all contributions made, and it will remain CDDL/GPL licensed.
There’s little risk to Sun in such a move since they will be free in the future to do whatever they want with the code, and are likely gambling that the community on it’s own (including other well-heeled tech companies) would not be able to fork opensolaris sufficiently to pose a risk to Sun losing control.
Not to be overly cynical, but I see this as being more of a marketing move than a paradigm shift in open source strategy. There’s no doubt the incompatibility with linux is intentional, and I don’t blame them, unless they changed their rights management model to one where the developers retain ownership of the code as with the current linux model, they wouldn’t be able to utilize linux code anyways. Sun is a big iron company competing with HP and IBM, linux’s two biggest development backers, it would be a mistake to assume this is purely a warmhearted community group hug on their part.
But as I said, I don’t care about philosophies and dogma, so I still applaud the move and think that the OSS community as a whole will be stronger for it.
Exactly what could solaris improve from linux?
Every time I try Solaris I come away with the same opinion. It’s the Windows of the UNIX / Linux world. The documentation is heavily skewed towards running a GUI (great for workstations, not for servers) and any info I can find on the BigAdmin site is always referencing click this, run that with the mouse. It rarely tells you what it’s actually doing or modifying and makes you run blind with a GUI. Doing the installs from the CDs is slow and getting a basic working system is a pain. It’s not laid out with any clear thought and you have to know where something is to be able to use it. I think if I had the cash for their training programs and/or had a real knowledgeable person it’d be much better. As it is, I go scurrying back to my BSD’s every time. What does that have to do with OpenSolaris going GPL3? Nada.
Every time I try Solaris I come away with the same opinion. It’s the Windows of the UNIX / Linux world. The documentation is heavily skewed towards running a GUI (great for workstations, not for servers) and any info I can find on the BigAdmin site is always referencing click this, run that with the mouse
I fail to see how you can say this considering most people’s complaints about Solaris are its *lack* of GUI configuration tools. If anything, I’ve found just the opposite experience of what you have.
Uh. If you check any of the docs, they *always* offer command line methods for *all* tasks. I don’t know why you think it’s heavily GUI oriented, it’s not. Most of us run headless Solaris servers. I hope you’re not talking about smc!
As to CD installs – nobody does those either. JumpStart or some such all the way.
As to basic working system – it’s relatively easy. Now, as to configuring things to get them working how you want – it’s not BSD, it’s not Linux, it’s not OSX, and it’s not Windows. You’re going to need to read the docs. Some things are a bit archaic, but the docs are quite clear and concise. It took me a while to figure out things coming from BSD myself, but I’m glad I did.
“archaic” is the key word in your comment.
Try AIX some time, then talk about archaic.
somehow I get the feeling Sun is taking a shot at linux, which they know will stay at gpl2 (and rightfully so!). Sun isn’t that stupid so they still have cddl. But yes there are ways to play the opensource wars
Edited 2007-01-17 00:48
I’m not surprised! I always knew the developers wanted to make it GPL incompatible.
taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDL
In the words of Danese Cooper, who is no longer with Sun, one of the reasons for basing the CDDL on the Mozilla license was that the Mozilla license is GPL-incompatible. Cooper stated, at the 6th annual Debian conference, that the engineers who had written the Solaris kernel requested that the license of OpenSolaris be GPL-incompatible. “Mozilla was selected partially because it is GPL incompatible. That was part of the design when they released OpenSolaris. […] the engineers who wrote Solaris […] had some biases about how it should be released, and you have to respect that”
Times they are a changing. : )
I’m not surprised! I always knew the developers wanted to make it GPL incompatible.
Daneese Cooper’s claims are NOT authoritative and have already been refuted by people who are far more qualified.
Edited 2007-01-17 01:44
Actually, it’s my understanding that this recollection (of engineering wanting CDDL purposedly incompatible with GPL) is incorrect. For more details, see Simon Phipps’ comments here
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=55008#55008
Every time I try Solaris I come away with the same opinion. It’s the Windows of the UNIX / Linux world.
Wow. That’s catty! 😉
What if I want to help only a kernel that cannot be used to support TC/DRM? OpenSolaris will likely still have the CDDL option, so GPLv3 would not help here. A possible consolation is that OpenSolaris would likely have little relevance to markets most dependent upon TC/DRM.
Note that the interest in destroying general purpose computing and locking people down comes not only from Hollywood but also, increasingly, from the security establishment. In general, what should developers wanting to help preserve general purpose computing do?
…am glad that someone has the cojones to stick four fingers up at the people who want to restrict our digital freedom.
At least Open Source zealots won’t be able to complaint about it being “fake” open source anymore, even though it never was.
The problem is not that Solaris or the CDDL is “fake” open source; it’s that Open Source is fake free software.
Except they’re not “plundering” in my view. If the Solaris code was GPL’d, it would just be “absorbed” into the Linux world. Whereas with the Apple culture, it it *used* but not “absorbed”, same with BSD.
What an artificial distinction. “I like BSD or its poetentially proprietary nature, so they are ‘using’ Solaris, whereas I don’t like totally non-proprietary free software, so they are ‘absorbing’ it.”
Did you really think we were dumb enough not to see through that?
Except they’re not “plundering” in my view. If the Solaris code was GPL’d, it would just be “absorbed” into the Linux world. Whereas with the Apple culture, it it *used* but not “absorbed”, same with BSD.
What an artificial distinction. “I like BSD or its poetentially proprietary nature, so they are ‘using’ Solaris, whereas I don’t like totally non-proprietary free software, so they are ‘absorbing’ it.”
Did you really think we were dumb enough not to see through that?
Dumb enough to fall for that? No, nobody ever implied that… dumb enough to miss the point in it’s entirety… well, yeah, I think you’re that dumb.
See, here’s the thing Gomer…
Apple and *BSD can *use* the code in that they can sort of link to it but it stays CDDL, it doesn’t change license, it doesn’t become part of the core system, it becomes a patched in addon… the core system is worked around it, it isn’t worked around/into the system.
Whereas, if Linux took it, it would become GPL, would suddenly just be “linux” and not “a solaris-based addon” and nobody would even remember where it came from in two years… in fact, two years from now, we’d be hearing people babble about how Solaris stole ZFS and isn’t worth anything… not well informed people, by any means, but people are, as so many have been demonstrating, stupid.
Here’s the difference in “use” and “absorb.” If you ask someone to help you hammer a nail in by holding the nail tray, you are using their help. If you cut off their hand and sow it to your tool-belt as a tray holder, you have stopper “using” them. See how that works?
And if I sound bitter it’s because I’m tired of people making these stupid comments all the time. If you can’t be bothered to think for more than 4 seconds about what someone said then just close the browser. Seriously. You get nothing at all out of a conversation, whether it be with someone or on a comment board… nothing at all if you are incapable of thinking about what the other person is saying.
Part of those benefits is a license that is far friendlier to many individuals than the GPL.
Why have a licence that is “friendly to many individuals” (BSD) when you can have one that is friendly to all (GPL?
Why have a licence that is “friendly to many individuals” (BSD) when you can have one that is friendly to all (GPL?
Except the GPL is *NOT* friendly to all. It’s only friendly to its friends.
The CDDL is a developer friendly license while the GPL is a user friendly license. Both the users and the developers should be given a fair shake. The GPL gives neither (the v2 anyway, the v3 looks to be much better).
not friendly to me. I want to watch movies on my pc at the highest quality technologically available. I want to play cool games. I don’t want to play GPL games.
of course, solaris isn’t the OS for that kind of stuff anyway
not friendly to me. I want to watch movies on my pc at the highest quality technologically available. I want to play cool games. I don’t want to play GPL games.
At the risk of going off-topic, what have GPL games got to do with anything? Commercial, closed-source games work very nicely when ported to Linux (see Quake 4 or Unreal Tournament for example), it’s just that the market is too small to make it worthwhile for most games companies. Presumably the games would work just as nicely if ported to Solaris, but the market of course would be even smaller.
(Also, there are some very good GPL games. Look up NeverBall for example, it’s frighteningly addictive.)
Lastly, if you want to watch movies in the highest-quality technologically available, then I presume you’ll be staying away from Vista and its HDMI-infestation…
The CDDL is a developer friendly license while the GPL is a user friendly license. Both the users and the developers should be given a fair shake. The GPL gives neither
Let’s see:
a) developers are the ones that choose how they license their code.
b) the GPL is incredibly more popular than the CDDL.
Something tells me your statement is incorrect.
Let’s see:
a) developers are the ones that choose how they license their code.
Not true. Developers sometimes have to choose their license based on the audience or project they are targeting. For example, if I want to release a program under the CDDL (a *FREE* and *Open Source* software license as stated by the Free Software Foundation), but I want to link to a GPL library, I can’t and have my work remain under the CDDL (in most cases). Therefore the developer doesn’t always get to choose the license.
b) the GPL is incredibly more popular than the CDDL.
Something tells me your statement is incorrect.
b) is not a valid argument. The GPL has been around decades longer. A better comparison would be between the GPL and the BSD licenses. Or, the LGPL and GPL licenses, etc.
Also, just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s good. McDonald’s food is popular, but I doubt you would find many arguing that because of that it is good
Edited 2007-01-17 03:49
I am confused. What difference does it make to the user if the code is licensed under the CDDL, or the GPL? Could you please explain?
Unless the end-user happens to be a making modifications and distributing them I really don’t see any.
I suppose some could complain that features aren’t being cross-ported, but even that’s tenuous.
Except the GPL is *NOT* friendly to all. It’s only friendly to its friends.
OK, the GPL is not friendly to those who want to leech of others by giving back neither money nor code.
Nor should it be.
OK, the GPL is not friendly to those who want to leech of others by giving back neither money nor code
By its very definition, all licenses that qualify as Free Software as defined by the FSF should not ever meet the conditions you state.
It’s funny that you claim this considering how many GPL projects “leech” off BSD projects…
It’s funny that you claim this considering how many GPL projects “leech” off BSD projects…
Except that the BSD license allows this. And if anyone doesn’t like that “leeching”, then they should choose other licenses.
Except that the BSD license allows this. And if anyone doesn’t like that “leeching”, then they should choose other licenses.
Ok, so as the GPLv2 doesn’t allow you to use code from the CDDL and/or GPLv3, you should choose another licence (such as BSD/LGPL/CDDL) and stop complaining…
‘It’s funny that you claim this considering how many GPL projects “leech” off BSD projects…’
Yeah, but where would BSD projects like FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD be without GPL’d programs like GCC ?
Edited 2007-01-17 11:01
Yeah, but where would BSD projects like FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD be without GPL’d programs like GCC ?
They should have created their own gcc.
Where would be Linux without TCP or OpenSSH and so on? I think most of Linux developers would be happy to use an other compiler than this GCC beast – and this has nothing to do with the license.
>Yeah, but where would BSD projects like FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD be without GPL’d programs like GCC ?
There would be another compiler in the opensource world. You could ask too, where would be *BSD without GNU? Do you see the nonsense in this question? BSD was already there, but at some time they started using GCC instead of a own development.
Yeah, but where would BSD projects like FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD be without GPL’d programs like GCC ?
Most likely exactly where they are now… there is nothing that prevents them from making a BSD licensed compiler other than the convenience of GCC existing… there are BSD compilers in existence.
I don’t know if you realize this, but BSD is about 15 years older than the GCC compiler suite. They adopted GCC because they could, not because they had to…
I’m so tired of seeing people try to use this argument.
I want to watch movies on my pc at the highest quality technologically available.
At the expense of your freedom? Ben Franklin would consider that you deserve neither, and I consider that BF was very wise. Anyway, FYI, HDTV equipment isn’t selling very well. I can’t see many movie makers selling HDDDVVVDDD movies for long if the players bomb. I mean when was the last time you saw a BetaMax movie?
I don’t want to play GPL games.
I don’t remember a clause in the GPL to the effect that “thou shalt create only crap games”. If it’s the GPL itself you object to, why should it affect your enjoyment of playing the game?
Edited 2007-01-17 03:50
I’m sure Ben Franklin approved of this part of the US Constitution Article I Section 8:
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;”
Even most libertarians (which I am not) would agree except for the Misians who look at Somalia as a model for the whole world.
I don’t know how all this HD will play out. I do know that game consoles are very popular and I don’t really think you can say that the gpl games are comparable to the ones on a xbox360. I don’t think open source fonts are comparable. Maybe the Dirac video codec is comparable but it’s not even promoted by open source software.
I also don’t think there is *that* much that is better off closed source. For example, Firefox showed that OSS can be user friendly and better than its closed source rivals as acknowledged by many reviews and rising marketshare despite a saturated IE web.
I am, for the most part, an open source advocate. But for the small amount that is better being closed source, we should have flexibility and not artificially restrict ourselves.
Edited 2007-01-17 04:26
But what is the point you are making? That closed-source automatically results in better games and media formats? How exactly do you define this “small amount that is better being closed source”?
yes closed source results in better games because developers aren’t going to spend money, time and effort just to see 100 clones of their game.
Closed source usually wins when it comes to something of a more artistic nature where quality is important and ‘good enough’ looks like junk. I can’t give an exact definition because I myself would like to see just how far open source can go. But for now, highly polished apps and content are rare in the OSS world and common in the mac world and there must be a reason for that.
By its very definition, all licenses that qualify as Free Software as defined by the FSF should not ever meet the conditions you state.
What?
It’s funny that you claim this considering how many GPL projects “leech” off BSD projects…
Like what? I’m pretty sure most Linux distributors would contribute code back to BSD software they use.
Like what? I’m pretty sure most Linux distributors would contribute code back to BSD software they use.
Like almost all wifi drivers from the OpenBSD project.
It’s worth recalling some facts about GPL v2/v3 and the “or later” clause.
1. Not only is much of GPLed userland under “v2 or later”, but also much code in the kernel. Since some code is “v2 only”, the kernel itself will remain under v2 only for now, but certainly “v2 or later” drivers, for example, can go v3; hence improvements can flow from Linux to a v3 OpenSolaris but not vice versa.
2. Only *copyright holders* can fork projects under “v2 or later” to “v2 only”. When a “v2 or later” project goes v3, any fork by those other than the copyright holders would have to be from the previous “v2 or later” code, and this fork would have to remain under “v2 or later”. Improvements would flow one-way, from the “v2 or later” fork to the v3 one.
Edited 2007-01-17 04:50
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;”
As do I; but although the little icons that go into programs are art, documentation is “writings” – wait; since documentation contains information and not opinion (or purports to), it isn’t – and things like GUI’s could count as discoveries, code is neither art nor writings, and maximize buttons are not “discoveries” – especially not when patented by Apple after years of use in Windows (but not MacOS).
I don’t know how all this HD will play out. I do know that game consoles are very popular and I don’t really think you can say that the gpl games are comparable to the ones on a xbox360. I don’t think open source fonts are comparable. Maybe the Dirac video codec is comparable but it’s not even promoted by open source software.
For one thing I have no objection to closed source games (although I suppose if you really really love a game it can be frustrating when your game data becomes obsolete). For another your argument made it sound as if GPL games are inherently inferior to proprietary games for technological reasons; I would argue that they are not inherently inferior for technological reasons, and only inferior because the publishers of games (rightly or wrongly) insist on putting out the better games under closed-source licences.
I am, for the most part, an open source advocate. But for the small amount that is better being closed source, we should have flexibility and not artificially restrict ourselves.
I don’t believe there is any area where we are better of with closed-source software than FOSS. (Even games – in reference to them I just don’t see an overwhelming need to have FOSS games. Games on Linux would be nice, though, whether FOSS or not.)
Edited 2007-01-17 04:47
The question is if ZFS and Dtrace will be released under GPL v2 or v3 too.
This would be great, as currently ZFS nor Dtrace cannot be integrated in GPL OS projects (beside using user-land fuse…).
“If we just GPL it, we’ll get lots of “community” involvement, and the slashdot crowd will like us even more, and we don’t have any engineers left anyway so let’s hope the GPL will bring us a lot of top-notch, holy-roller kernel engineers.”
It’s so sad, it’s hilarious.
I’m very aware of your anti-GPL rantings.
I would like to know what is sad or hilarious about kernel engineers being attracted to a particular kernel because it has a license that enforces how they would like there code used. Whether it be Linux,BSD,Other.
Edited 2007-01-17 08:45
I’m very aware of your anti-GPL rantings.
Haha, a little paranoid aren’t you. Typical. It has nothing to do with the GPL, but Sun’s hilarious antics
I would like to know what is sad or hilarious about kernel engineers being attracted to a particular kernel because it has a license that enforces how they would like there code used. Whether it be Linux,BSD,Other.
What’s hilarious is that Sun thinks they’ll actually get decent engineers because of a dual-licensed GPL, which will require copyright-assignment, which will still be incompatible with the Linux kernel,….
.. even when those parts have the “or later” provision. How will Sun do that when they still need to license Opensolaris (and much of what will be Solaris 11) under the CDDL as well?
If they took those GPLv2 parts, I would assume that Sun would be required to have 2 seperate branches/forks of solaris which I seriously doubt Sun wants. (Of course someone else can do so)
Edited 2007-01-17 09:31
.. hmm.. unless those contributors or original authors/copyright holder of the GPLv2+ code from linux also agree to dual license their code as well, I guess
SUN gets it!
SUN gets it!
I really hope by gets it, you don’t mean they are embracing open source because they genuinely believe in it. They get it because they have found a strategic way to deploy Solaris against Linux. Don’t mistake action with motive.
Edited 2007-01-17 17:33
Ian,
You could be right, but since it is very hard to judge someone’s intent, let alone to presume that a company itself has “intent”, I can only go by SUN’s actions.
I never thought I would see the day when Sun would GPL both Solaris and Java. To me, this is an unprecedented move and whatever their motives, it expands the free software ecosystem in a very meaningful and real way.
I never thought I would see the day when Sun would GPL both Solaris and Java. To me, this is an unprecedented move and whatever their motives, it expands the free software ecosystem in a very meaningful and real way.
Either did I. I agree that it expands the free software ecosystem, and that’s a good thing. However, I don’t believe for a second that they “get it” and are motivated by the spirit of open source to do what they did. History is proof enough for me of that. What company, software or otherwise, has given up an asset without having a perceived return? None that I know of.
I haven’t heard much on OpenSolaris adoption lately. It was released with great fanfare, but I haven’t seen much penetration in terms of installations, although I haven’t really been looking beyond what I and my associates use. Anyone have any sites/stats/anecdotal evidence otherwise?
Edited 2007-01-18 03:33
I haven’t heard much on OpenSolaris adoption lately. It was released with great fanfare, but I haven’t seen much penetration in terms of installations, although I haven’t really been looking beyond what I and my associates use. Anyone have any sites/stats/anecdotal evidence otherwise?
Isn’t 6 million licensed (and growing) copies enough penetration. You could also look at the map http://sysnet.sunwarp.net/maps of Solaris 10 servers connected to Sun’s update site if you want evidence. You can find an explanation of the map on Jonathan’s blog – http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan
Those are Sun’s figures, and while I’m not disputing them, they are somewhat vested in making sure the numbers seem good.
I’m talking about companies/universities that are running it. I don’t see it more prolific than say, FreeBSD at this point, and I had expected somewhat better adoption rates.
I wonder how Stallman feels about this? He set out to promote Free software with his GPL license and, though he would surely like everyone to relicense all existing code, he was perfectly happy to gradually reimplement all useful software to secure people’s freedom.
Then along comes Linux and it steals some of his press, leading to the “GNU/Linux” terminology wars.
Then along come the Open Source people. They put forth an economic argument for programs whose source code is available and freely shared. They miss (or ignore) Stallman’s morality arguments and a quiet little ideology war erupts.
Skip forward a few years and Stallman’s annoying attention-getting competition, Linux, combined with hordes of business-driven Open Source pragmatists have begun making serious inroads into the existing Unix server market.
The inroads are to an extent that they present Sun, a company with a long history of proprietary development, an economic incentive to release the source code for their operating system. After a short time the source code is not only released but also relicensed under Stallman’s own GPL (v3) license.
What just happened? Did Stallman just win? Did Open Source economic pressure accomplish what reasoned moral arguments could not?
Is he happy or annoyed?
umm.. “open source” existed way before stallman came along..
I beg to differ. The Open Source Definition and OSI (http://www.opensource.org/) were from the late 90s, post Linux and definitely post Stallman. Wikipedia says the term “Open Source” was coined in its popular, modern usage in 1998.
The roots may go back a long time but Open Source as a movement attempting to drive business adoption of Free and source-available software for economic reasons is quite new.