OpenSolaris isn't a true open-source project, but rather a "facade," because Sun Microsystems doesn't share control of it with outsiders, executives from rival IBM say.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-04-30
Porting operating systems to other architectures is nontrivial, especially when the OS wasn't designed with portability in mind. Judging from the time it took for Sun to port Solaris to x86, it's probably not especially easy.
Actually it did not take the very long at all to port Solaris from Sparc to x86. Solaris on x86 has been around since atleast Solaris 2.4. There was eithen was a previous port to powerpc (which the community is now revisting). Any percieved lag probably showed at the time, Sun put only a small amount of resources into platforms other than Sparc. Today this is not the case.
There is very little of the Solaris kernel which is platform specific. The fact that the code is very well written and though out makes porting to other platform relatively easy.
Member since:2005-07-08
Well, x86 support for Solaris seemed to pass in and out of favor amongst the Sun executives a couple times, then it was dropped, and then it was revived. For Sun, the hardest part of the x86 port was deciding if they wanted to support it.
This reflects on the larger question of how "open" the OpenSolaris community really is. If the community proposed an effort to port OpenSolaris to PPC, would Sun be "open" to the idea? Such an effort might take more than 119 contributions, though...
Member since:2006-03-29
You know, I think I actually may have a problem with the CDDL/OSBL.
;)
I guess I'm not sure what (protections and benefits) I get from using Sun's version(s) of an OpenSource license vs the GPL (or BSD):
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005061422100471
This is a relatively old article (with links to even older articles), are things still like this?
Whatever your feeling for Groklaw the issues raised are worth thinking about..
I also have to agree that IBM statement about one proprietary and one opensource OS seems rather ridiculous if you really are committed to open-source.
Time will tell what licenses and OS's will prevail however. It's all a good thing..
E.
Member since:
2005-07-08
IBM supports Solaris (not OpenSolaris, though) on System X, which is IBM's line of x86-based servers. I'm sure you can understand why IBM doesn't sell SPARC servers, which is the only other architecture currently supported by Solaris.
Porting operating systems to other architectures is nontrivial, especially when the OS wasn't designed with portability in mind. Judging from the time it took for Sun to port Solaris to x86, it's probably not especially easy.
Solaris is a very well designed OS. When OpenSolaris was released, I read through the task management and scheduling code, which is generally a good litmus test for kernel design. The Solaris design clearly shows that the design came before the code. There's a sophistication of design that Linux lacks. It speaks of a handful of very smart people developing an elegant and robust system.
On the other hand, Linux 2.6, especially in the area of the kernel I'm comparing, has some implementation details that are just so simple that it's brilliant (and fast). The emphasis is on simplicity and efficiency--it strives for clean implementation rather than clean design. It speaks of the combined insight of dozens of developers, where the likelihood of moments of genius is higher.
You know, I don't really have a problem with the CDDL, and I think it's the most practical and applicable open source license given the prevailing interpretation of copyright and patent code. One fundamental difference from the GPL is that it distinguishes the original author from subsequent contributors. That's designed to directly address the question of who's granting the intellectual property rights to the user. The user receives a license for all covered software, but the license for all but the original software is granted by the distributor. When it comes to patent and other intellectual property provisions, I think the CDDL bests the GPLv3 drafts by a large margin.
The part that gets FSF people in a twist is the file-granular definition of modifications and covered software instead of the linking-based definition in the GPL. This is the fine line between copyleft and viral--whether it is enough that your code will always be free, or do you demand that all code that uses your code be free. The CDDL says "all code in this source file shall be free," whereas the GPL says "all code in this executable file shall be free." Draw your own conclusion.
I agree with the point that we don't need more than one open operating system, but I say, the more the merrier. Software development is as much art as it is science. As more interpretations of this art are shared with the world, we gain new insight that leads to new research and new innovations. Try as they might, they can't take away our right to combine our insight and ingenuity to create progress.
I'm going to have to give the thumbs down to IBMs comments on OpenSolaris. By any account, both the OpenSolaris and Linux development communities are producing great systems that will continue to thrive in the enterprise. The Linux community has its values and Sun has their's too. The market will judge them based on their products, not on the openness of their development model. If the OpenSolaris development community is (seemingly) more exclusive, then Sun will bear the burden, not their users.
It's usually smarter to ignore your competition than to publically attack them anyway...
Edited 2006-08-17 06:06