Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Mar 2009 11:48 UTC, submitted by PLan
In the News In a move that would certainly shake up the computer industry quite a bit, IBM is reportedly in talks with Sun Microsystems about the possibility of IBM acquiring Sun. Sun is going through hard times at the moment, and has been actively looking for someone to be acquired by.
Thread beginning with comment 353698
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Solaris is dead.
by kaiwai on Wed 18th Mar 2009 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Solaris is dead. "
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

What makes the Linux kernel flexible is how easy it is to port it. As you know its been ported to almost every hardware configuration you can think of. From Phones, to set top boxes to PC's to Super Computers.

Solaris has been ported to what? X86 sparc and maybe one or two other platforms.


What has that go to to do with the price of fish? The problem with Solaris isn't the lack of technology, it is the lack of leadership within Sun to bring all the products together in a cohensive offering to customers so that a solution can work out of the box rather than having to spend thousands on assembling the individual componens oneself.

There is a reason why Windows has made a jump in marketshare on the server - people want turnkey solutions and Sun is still stuck in the day when the likes of SCO were charging extra on their products for the TCP/IP stack, UFS support and individual components. Customers don't want that, they want an out of the box turn key solution.

Yes Open Solaris has a much bigger HAL then Solaris proper, Linux can be ported quickly to almost anything you throw at it.


Who uses HAL? neither Linux nor OpenSolaris uses HAL; OpenSolaris have good separation between platform specific code and agnostic code but you could hardly qualify a smart programming decision as equating to the implementation and use of a HAL akin to that of Windows NT line.

The other flexibility is that no one company controls it so there are no restraints to what you can do to it. So for the customer or random developer you can do whatever you want with it. It doesn't fall under some restrictive Sun (IBM) license. Notice that there are tons of versions of linux and even the linux kernel. When open solaris was first talked about people acted like Slow Laris was so much better then Linux and when it went open source that would be the death of Linux. LOL! Not.

No one serious has given Open Solaris a good look. Meaning that hosting companies still push Linux, companies that sell virtual servers still push Linux, companies doing cloud computing still push Linux.

Open Solaris has not taken off and Solaris proper is dieing.


Just because something is popular or well marketed doesn't mean that the product is inherently superior.

I wish people would spend a bit of time to ask themselves why Linux originally took off in the first place - based on its early beginnings 12 years ago instead of listening to rabid fanboys like yourself who jumped on the Linux bandwagon in the last 3-4 years. If you understand why Linux took off then you'd realise why dimissing OpenSolaris or any other opensource alternative is a stupid precept at best.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Solaris is dead.
by rajj on Wed 18th Mar 2009 21:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Solaris is dead. "
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

Except that everyone should have learned by now that turn key solutions are a really bad joke.

The Oracle PeopleSoft HR/Academic Records product was supposed to be a system wide turn key solution for the California State University system. Billions of dollars, a decade and a multitude of consultant firms later, it still doesn't work.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Solaris is dead.
by kaiwai on Thu 19th Mar 2009 01:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Solaris is dead. "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Except that everyone should have learned by now that turn key solutions are a really bad joke.

The Oracle PeopleSoft HR/Academic Records product was supposed to be a system wide turn key solution for the California State University system. Billions of dollars, a decade and a multitude of consultant firms later, it still doesn't work.


So you blame crap project management for the failure of a product to work; you do realise that HUMANS have to implement things and thus HUMANS can make monumentally stupid decisions? Also, to use a public service fiasco as an example? good lord, that would be as bad as me blaming IBM for the INCIS project in New Zealand that turned into a $200million white elephant.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Solaris is dead.
by Moulinneuf on Thu 19th Mar 2009 00:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Solaris is dead. "
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

I wish people would spend a bit of time to ask themselves why Linux originally took off in the first place


It's Free Software , that's why it took off , you got real community and commercial involvment witch you don't get in so called **Open Source**.

MIT ... Open Source.
BSD ... Open Source
Open Solaris ... Open Source.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Solaris is dead.
by kaiwai on Thu 19th Mar 2009 01:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Solaris is dead. "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

" I wish people would spend a bit of time to ask themselves why Linux originally took off in the first place


It's Free Software , that's why it took off , you got real community and commercial involvment witch you don't get in so called **Open Source**.

MIT ... Open Source.
BSD ... Open Source
Open Solaris ... Open Source.
"

No, it was first used commercially in the ISP arena by people who wanted a cheap, good enough UNIX like operating system to run their servers with. FreeBSD was being tied up with legal wrangles and thus Linux pulled ahead. If FreeBSD never had the legal wrangles I am sure that FreeBSD would have pulled ahead.

It had nothing to do with opensource and everything to do with a a cheap GET solution whilst the UNIX world was charging $20,000 for workstations and thousands ontop of that for their operating system and charging for individual components of the operating system.

Edited 2009-03-19 01:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Solaris is dead.
by Windows Sucks on Thu 19th Mar 2009 00:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Solaris is dead. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

[q]What has that go to to do with the price of fish? The problem with Solaris isn't the lack of technology, it is the lack of leadership within Sun to bring all the products together in a cohensive offering to customers so that a solution can work out of the box rather than having to spend thousands on assembling the individual componens oneself.

There is a reason why Windows has made a jump in marketshare on the server - people want turnkey solutions and Sun is still stuck in the day when the likes of SCO were charging extra on their products for the TCP/IP stack, UFS support and individual components. Customers don't want that, they want an out of the box turn key solution.


Windows marketshare on the server is only large for workgroup serving. They took out Novell and Banyan for that market. Not any Unix or Linux products. Super computing is Linux, Webhosting is Linux, Email hosting is Linux, a lot of home and office networking is Linux.

Yes Open Solaris has a much bigger HAL then Solaris proper, Linux can be ported quickly to almost anything you throw at it.


I didn't mean HAL, I meant HCL That was a typo.

Also I didn't say that Solaris was not good. What I said was the Linux was more flexible.. Meaning you can do more with it, you can use it on more hardware, the license is more flexible etc. Companies want that, companies like that, which is why Red Hat is killing Sun. Oh and lets talk about some other stuff that actually does suck with Solaris! The compiler!!! Sucks. The way you patch and install software in Solaris sucks!! (Which is why they had to get Linux guys to come on and show them how to try and make solaris more Linux like) the OS install process SUCKS!

Oh and lets look at BSD. Why did BSD not take off like Linux? It was around before Linux (Like Solaris) Because still BSD is just not as flexible nor is the license. People always say "The BSD is better, the license is better" Yeah the license is better for companies like MS to come along and steal code and ideas and not give 1 line of code back! (Which happened)

Oh and I am not a Johnny come lately Linux or other OS fan boy. I am a a LONG time Linux user that was using Linux when Metro X was the config tool. When Caldera was cool and Banyan was the number one workgroup server environment. So I was around when Linux got popular, I helped it get there by replacing Windows servers, Unix servers and Novell servers for my customers with Linux. And I said months ago that Sun was done, Solaris was done. When a company like Red Hat makes less then half the money you do but has close to the market cap, there is a MAJOR problem.

Any way if IBM buys Sun, Solaris will be dead. Might want to get on the Linux bandwagon while we are still accepting members. LOL!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Solaris is dead.
by kaiwai on Thu 19th Mar 2009 01:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Solaris is dead. "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows marketshare on the server is only large for workgroup serving. They took out Novell and Banyan for that market. Not any Unix or Linux products. Super computing is Linux, Webhosting is Linux, Email hosting is Linux, a lot of home and office networking is Linux.


Pardon? you obviously haven't seen the numerous deployments of Exchange, Sharepoint (as part of the Office System). I shudder when I see these things deployed but at the same time I realise that is what customers want.

For example, there are replacements for the whole Microsoft stack already out there - why isn't there an organisation who can pull all these projects together, integrate them into an operating system, put a nice easy to use front end on it - and sell it.

Again, out of the box turn key solution that works with minimum fuss and bother.

I didn't mean HAL, I meant HCL That was a typo.


A big list of hardware doesn't mean that the hardware is fully supported or the quality of the support is up to standard, able to be supported on alternative architectures or just a matter of recompiling given that drivers have platform specific code.

Reply Parent Score: 2