Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Sep 2017 22:16 UTC
Oracle and SUN

Remember, back in December 2016, when there were rumours Oracle was killing Solaris? And how a month later, Solaris effectively switched to maintenance mode, and then to a "continuous deliver model"?

The news from the ex-Sun community jungle drums is that the January rumours were true and Oracle laid off the core talent of the Solaris and SPARC teams on Friday. That surely has to mean a maintenance-only future for the product range, especially with Solaris 12 cancelled. A classic Oracle "silent EOL", no matter what they claim.

With the hardware deprecated, my guess is that's the last of the Sun assets Oracle acquired written off. Just how good were Oracle's decisions on buying Sun?

Sun's Solaris is dead.

Bryan Cantrill on this news (this Bryan Cantrill):

As had been rumored for a while, Oracle effectively killed Solaris on Friday. When I first saw this, I had assumed that this was merely a deep cut, but in talking to Solaris engineers still at Oracle, it is clearly much more than that. It is a cut so deep as to be fatal: the core Solaris engineering organization lost on the order of 90% of its people, including essentially all management.

[...]

Judging merely by its tombstone, the life of Solaris can be viewed as tragic: born out of wedlock between Sun and AT&T and dying at the hands of a remorseless corporate sociopath a quarter century later. And even that may be overstating its longevity: Solaris may not have been truly born until it was made open source, and - certainly to me, anyway - it died the moment it was again made proprietary. But in that shorter life, Solaris achieved the singular: immortality for its revolutionary technologies. So while we can mourn the loss of the proprietary embodiment of Solaris (and we can certainly lament the coarse way in which its technologists were treated!), we can rejoice in the eternal life of its technologies - in illumos and beyond!

Thread beginning with comment 648576
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
elbing
Member since:
2016-05-27

ZFS is *NOT* OpenSource. It's not compatible with any GPL or BSD license. We had to remove it from www.harvey-os.org project due to issues about CDDL license when Harvey applied to sfconservancy.

Reply Parent Score: -2

cybergorf Member since:
2008-06-30

ZFS is *NOT* OpenSource. It's not compatible with any GPL or BSD license. We had to remove it from www.harvey-os.org project due to issues about CDDL license when Harvey applied to sfconservancy.


Nevertheless it is open source, because you can read the sources.
It is not free software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

Not quite certain how you think the CDDL isn't open source. It's FSF and OSI approved, as well as DFSG compatible, so by all industry standard measures, it's open source. Yes, it's a limited copyleft, and it's not GPL compatible, but that is not the same as not being open source.

Reply Parent Score: 7

laffer1 Member since:
2007-11-09

You're correct about GPL compatibility, although some Linux projects claim otherwise. However, several BSD operating systems ship ZFS (well now OpenZFS) with the OS.

Licensing is a tricky thing. Two developers reading the same license get a different feeling for what it means. We all really need lawyers for this and even then it would still be a mess.

Even Apple ships dtrace in Mac OS. I think that's an indicator the license isn't horrible.

Reply Parent Score: 2

rleigh Member since:
2014-11-15

What? This is quite wrong.

The CDDL is a recognised copyleft open source licence. It's compatible with any licence, including proprietary licences. The GPL is incompatible with the CDDL. That doesn't make it not open. The same could be said of the Apache licence...

Reply Parent Score: 2