Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Dec 2005 19:29 UTC
General Unix A new study on the major players in the Unix server market has declared IBM the clear customer favorite and brought to light some serious issues with Sun Microsystems' product line. Most alarmingly for Sun, the company appears to have lost its cachet as the dominant Unix player and done so while alienating customers. Sun finished last in almost every one of the Gabriel Consulting Group survey's categories, spanning technology performance, customer satisfaction and software tools.
Thread beginning with comment 73719
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Open Solaris works fine
by AndrewZ on Thu 15th Dec 2005 22:07 UTC
AndrewZ
Member since:
2005-11-15

"There are a couple distributions of OpenSolaris, and they may be usable operating systems, but OpenSolaris(TM) is not. It is unusable sourcecode without a compiler, tools and preexisting operating system to build it on."

Open Solaris is in a pretty young and developing phase. It's great for getting early release stuff like XFS and Grub before the official Solaris release. I downloaded teh Schillix release a few weeks ago and it runs fine for what I want to do.

And you know, I think Solaris is a fine alternative to Linux. Who says Sun has to like Linux? Linux came along and almost cut Sun off at the knees. Now Sun is responding in a big way. I think over the next year we will see Sun making the case that Solaris does most of what Linux does but in a more reliable, more scalable, and more secure fashion. I look forward to the benchmarks.

Remember this, when there are alternatives to choose from, everybody wins. This is true even when there is an alternative to the alternative 8-)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Open Solaris works fine
by on Thu 15th Dec 2005 23:09 in reply to "Open Solaris works fine"
Member since:

Remember this, when there are alternatives to choose from, everybody wins.

But don't forget, once one business becomes a monopoly everbody loses.

Our goals should be to help the competing alternatives survive, not support the tired old monopolies.

Sun probably has more money than RedHat, Debian, Slackware, Mandriva, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Knoppix, Mepis, YellowDog, Gentoo, WhiteBox, Crux, Puppy, YellowTab, ReactOS, Syllable, Schillix, AmigaOS, Foresight, Xandros, and rPath combined.

Is there a reason y'all like supporting the monopoly over these little guys? Were they more stable, faster, cheaper, more open than their competition, or do they just have a name you can remember?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Open Solaris works fine
by Simba on Thu 15th Dec 2005 23:25 in reply to "RE: Open Solaris works fine"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Is there a reason y'all like supporting the monopoly over these little guys?"

Sun has more money yes. But having money does not a monopoly make.

If anything, Red Hat is the company that is on its way to becoming a *nix monopoly. They have the vast majority of the commercial sector. They are the only distro offered by the majority of hardware vendors that will preload Linux. And the vast majority of commercial applications that run on Linux will only give you support if you are running on Red Hat.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Open Solaris works fine
by chekr on Thu 15th Dec 2005 23:25 in reply to "RE: Open Solaris works fine"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

being a successful company with positive revenue's doesn't make them a monopoly, these are basic concepts which you obviously do not understand.

Of course Sun has more money than most of your little list, probably because most aren't even companies ;)

Yeah definitely, its the name, no actually it is because Solaris is stable, it is faster on many workloads, it is cheaper and as a company that can offer support, hardware, software that is coherant they are the most open.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Open Solaris works fine
by morgoth on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:48 in reply to "Open Solaris works fine"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "Open Solaris is in a pretty young and developing phase."

eh? It's nearly six months old now. It didn't take Fedora Core or OpenSuse six months to release iso images. OpenSolaris is nothing but a PR spin for Sun, to make it look like they're actually doing something that's "open". Since the GPL is the predominant "open source" license (by a LARGE margin I might add) for software, it would have made sense to release OpenSolaris under the GPL wouldn't it? The GPL has long been the true measure of openness. You basically have to be running Solaris to compile OpenSolaris, good one Sun!

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 0

Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

Are we ignoring the legal landmines that Sun (or any other major UNIX vendor (IBM or HP)) would have to go through to "open up" their OS? Since Fedora Core and OpenSuse are basically free of any legal issues, and are part of a long established OSS development model, of course they are going to be released faster. How about comparing apples to apples for a change instead of trolling?

If my memory serves me correctly, it took some time before Linux was "ready to roll".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Open Solaris works fine
by on Sat 17th Dec 2005 05:27 in reply to "RE: Open Solaris works fine"
Member since:

Ah well.
I can remember the times, when the first Linux kernel was released and just 3 month later, Fedora Core relaesed this wonderful stable first version called FC-10.
Man? *knock*
What are you talking about?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Open Solaris works fine
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 06:37 in reply to "RE: Open Solaris works fine"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> eh? It's nearly six months old now.

I'm going to ask you again. Please show me where it is a requirement of open source that the company providing the source make it available to you in a readily installable binary form. It's not. It never has been.

"OpenSolaris is nothing but a PR spin for Sun, to make it look like they're actually doing something that's "open""

False. Completely and totally false. Sun is open sourcing more and more of their software all the time. So stop spreading FUD.

"Since the GPL is the predominant "open source" license (by a LARGE margin I might add)"

You don't know what you are talking about. The predominant open source license is actually the Apache Software Foundation license. And it has spawned a lot of additional open source licenses.

"The GPL has long been the true measure of openness."

By your opinion. And that's all it is. your opinion. And no, it is not the true measure of openness. When it comes to open source licenses, the GPL is by far the most restrictive one there is because of its viral clauses.

"You basically have to be running Solaris to compile OpenSolaris, good one Sun!"

Again, you don't know what you are talking about it. If you did, you would have have heard of something called a cross-compiler. In simple terms, NO you DO NOT have to be running Solaris to compile OpenSolaris. And even if you did, what's the big deal? You can get Solaris for free... Oh... That's right... It's not licensed under your holy GPL, which is the one true open source license.

Again, stop spreading FUD. It makes the entire community look bad.

Edited 2005-12-17 06:50

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Open Solaris works fine
by on Sat 17th Dec 2005 14:51 in reply to "RE: Open Solaris works fine"
Member since:

because fedora was very usable in the first release right?
There are already distributions of opensolaris that you can download, and there is solaris express too (granted, not every part of solaris express is opensource) so no, you don't have to have solaris 10 installed
I will say it again because you seem to have problems understanding what you read, perhaps you should go back to school or something. Releasing solaris under the gpl would have meant releasing and unusable and unable to boot os, and that would be worthless to me, you and everyone else, so no it would not have made sense to release solaris under the gpl. The cddl is open enough and I fail to see what is it that you have against it.
You seem to overestimate the opensource, how many of the linux users do you think mess with it's code? to them the part of free as in "gratis" it's what's important.
Btw, the bsd license is more open than gpl and so is the cddl, i'm shocked by the fact that people dont seem to realize that

Reply Parent Score: 0