OSNews

What is your definition of "open source"? Your post makes sense only if your definition of "open source" is "GPL or nothing!".

By the way ... care to provide some evidence as to Linux vs. Solaris 10 performance? I'm curious to see, seeing as how it's apparently common knowledge ...

Post Removed.

Thought you were replying to someone else. Sorry.

Edited 2005-11-16 03:42

> Sun releases Solaris under a restrictive, shared-source style license.

That's not true. CDDL is an OSI approved license.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

>> Sun releases Solaris under a restrictive, shared-source style license.

> That's not true. CDDL is an OSI approved license.
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

That's not true. Solaris is not licensed under CDDL, OpenSolaris is. And Oracle is not saying a word about OpenSolaris.

Here's Solaris license agreement, which is clearly non-free:
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/licensing/sla.xml

yes, opensolaris is under the CDDL, but solaris is not. read the end of the parent's post.

...restrictive, shared-source style license

Clearly you don't like the fact that OSI has given Sun's CDDL its imprimatur as a true Open Source license.

That's a shame, because you're missing out on the good stuff that's in (Open)Solaris. Like the performance enhancements right across the board (not just on x86 chips), the diagnostic and fault management innovations, ZFS, zones/containers....

And finally, Solaris is a distribution of OpenSolaris, so yes, Solaris is open source.

> And finally, Solaris is a distribution of OpenSolaris, so yes, Solaris is open source.

so StarOffice, as a distribution of OpenOffice, is open source?

And finally, Solaris is a distribution of OpenSolaris, so yes, Solaris is open source.

Ah, just like OS X is open source, as a distribution of Darwin. Oh, and don't forget, Windows contains BSD code, so it clearly is open source as well.

"Oracle moves to Solaris 10 even though Linux continues to outperform Solaris by a considerable margin"

Eh, not really. Solaris runs large-scale Oracle installations better than Linux. Sure, Linux (and BSD) outperforms Solaris on a lot of tasks but running large-scale Oracle isn't one of them.

Depending on how you look at history:

2002: Linux became more and more capable and the x86 were more compelling than those expensive SPARCs. By moving to Linux on x86, Oracle could save lots of money.

2005: Free Solaris with compelling productiviy features, free first class native C/C++/Java development environments, a promissing OS roadmap (OpenSolaris). All these running on standard x86/x64/SPARC. Oracle sees a real potential in increase of productivity but not cost.

See, in my view of history, it is never about which OS is faster, or which one is "real" open source, it's about productivity and business.

Tao

2002: Linux runs Oracle faster than Solaris by a wide margin. Oracle gets behind Linux and touts it as the best thing for Oracle.

2005: Open Source gets major database platforms in MySQL, Firebird and PostgreSQL. Sun releases Solaris under a restrictive, shared-source style license.

Oracle moves to Solaris 10 even though Linux continues to outperform Solaris by a considerable margin, and claims that it is supporting an Open Source operating system when in fact it is not using OpenSolaris.

Do you really have to post twelve anti-Solaris messages in every Solaris thread for the last six months?

I don't know where you get your performance numbers from, but from the numbers I have seen Linux and Solaris 10 are pretty evenly matched. e.g:
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2530&p=5

What's next... one wonders.
More trolling from Shaman?