IBM Derides OpenSolaris as Not-So-Open

MaverickFire writes "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. "Sun holds it all behind the firewall. The community sees nothing," Dan Frye, the IBM vice president who runs the company's Linux Technology Center, said. Sun could do "simple things" to build a real OpenSolaris community if it were serious about doing so, Frye said. "They would push their design discussions out into the forums, so people can see what's going on," he suggested." I talked to one of the OpenSolaris developers at the project's LWCE booth in the "dot-org ghetto," and though it wasn't in response to this article, he pointed out that OpenSolaris takes contributions from all comers, has active public mailing lists, open IRC channels, and several online communities, so Frye's description seems at least overblown.

Not Open?

[lewp (95638)]

It's more open than AIX, that's for sure.

Welll...yes

[by Anonymous Coward]

This is true. It is more open the AIX. IBM does not, however, claim that AIX is open. OpenSolaris is also more open than Windows, whatever software the NSA uses to crack codes, and a closed door, but of these things, only OpenSolaris claims to be open, and it is these claims Mr. Frye is addressing.

First post

[by Anonymous Coward]

I think this has more to do with IBM feeling the heat over not doing *anything* to open-source AIX. Sure OpenSolaris isn't quite as open as some would like, but it's more than what IBM has done with AIX. C'mon IBM, open up AIX!

Re:

[ettlz (639203)]

Open AIX?

Isn't the whole idea to improve the Open Source gene pool?

Re:

[Doctor Memory (6336)]

I was going to say... Although they had the first good LVM I ever saw, working with AIX has always made me feel I was in a foreign country or something. Things were always just a little bit different, and when I say "things" I mean everything.

It's just too bad IBM makes such kick-ass hardware, otherwise AIX would have died a natural death long ago.

You mean, as in, Linux?

[Moraelin (679338)]

I suggest looking through the Linux kernel change histories sometime. There are a _lot_ of IBM email addresses in there.

And not just there. Have a look at most Apache projects too, for that matter.

There's a reason why SCO went after IBM. Well, ok, a second reason, beside the obvious "because SCO is on a pump and dump scheme." Like most lies, SCO's "IBM took our IP they had used in AIX and put it into making Linux enterprise-ready" is based on a small grain of truth, although in this case one irrelevant to t

Re:You mean, as in, Linux?

[htd2 (854946)]

Your posting gives the impression that IBM is a huge donator to OpenSource projects and Sun with the exception of OpenSolaris which you are unsure about isn't.

Let me soothe your concerns, in fact Sun without OpenSolaris dwarfs IBM in terms of OpenSource contributions, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions more code in RedHat was donated by Sun than any other commercial company IBM and RedHat included. This excludes Sun's donations such as OpenOffice and it also excludes a huge amount of IP donated by Sun in the form of properly documented standards Patents and interfaces that most of the other commercial donators to OpenSource had to be dragged kicking and screaming to.

Re:You mean, as in, Linux?

[gdamore (933478)]

But even OpenSolaris is a very new development. What I'm getting at is: IBM was putting its money where its mouth was, _long_ before Sun.

Ever hear of, oh, NFS. No? How about RPC? These Sun contributions to open source predate IBM's involvement with FOSS by a long time. Heck, they even predate the whole FOSS movement. Except for the University of California, Berkeley, I doubt any institution has ever given as much or as freely to open source as Sun has, as early as it did, or technologly that has done more to contribute to the developments that ultimately led to the Internet. And they have continued to support open source (and open standards) throughout their history.

Get your facts straight next time.

You also said:

I don't know exactly how "open" OpenSolaris is. Maybe it's really open, maybe it's one of Sun's usual smoke screens. No idea. I couldn't be bothered to care about it at that point.

Then WTF are you doing posting here? You obviously haven't looked into it. Yes, OpenSolaris is mostly OpenSource (there are a few closed bits, but they are not necessarily critical bits anyway). And guess what? Just because Sun has control of OpenSolaris, doesn't mean you can't download the whole source tree and fork it and start your own project. (Some folks have already done this, check out the PPC port of Solaris, or the port of Debian userland to the Solaris kernel, for example.) That is what Open Source means.

Somebody mod the parent down, please!

The key paragraph

[Silver Sloth (770927)]

For me the key paragraph is

IBM's business agenda, though, doesn't include lavishing praise on a rival operating system. It prefers Linux and its own proprietary version of Unix, called AIX. Solaris now runs on x86 computers such as IBM's System x servers as well as on Sun's own Sparc-based computers. OpenSolaris is designed to appeal to developers, who have the power to sneak software into companies the same way Linux snuck in during the 1990s.

Hey guys (and gals), they're trying to get our vote!

Re:

[argoff (142580)]

Hey guys (and gals), they're trying to get our vote!

Maybe they are, but IBM is still on our side for this battle anyhow. IBM's big money comes from services, Sun's big money comes from expensive hardware. Even though Solaris runs on x86, Sun is basically trying to make Solaris a value proposition for it's hardware. If Sun doesn't have a distinct Solaris value, people will then start to switch to Linux on x86 much quicker. Sun is attacking this on two fronts. 1) Free solaris just enough so that tho

Re:The key paragraph

[Score Whore (32328)]

Maybe they are, but IBM is still on our side for this battle anyhow. IBM's big money comes from services, Sun's big money comes from expensive hardware.

Apparently you've never priced Sun and IBM hardware. Sun's bottom end x86 server is $745, or $945 for a dual core Opteron. They're lowest end SPARC is $3145. IBM's bottom end x86 server is $1129. They're lowest end p-series is $2995 for a PPC970, for an actual POWER5 system it's $3399 and then you have to license the software on top of that.

Claiming that Sun is selling overpriced hardware just indicates that you really aren't in touch with the market.

Re:

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

I don't think that the GP ever claimed that all of Sun's hardware was overpriced, or for that matter that IBM's hardware wasn't equally overpriced. Frankly I think they're both damned expensive, although I think as you scale into the high end, that it becomes very hard to compare one two the other.

At any rate, your price comparison doesn't really address the GP's point, namely that Sun is a hardware company, and IBM is a services and consulting company. Sun's products are always going to be, like Apple, des

Typical IBM FUD

[cpuh0g (839926)]

What else would you expect from IBM? Their entire Linux strategy is based on the idea of luring people in with Linux and then signing them up for ridiculously overpriced "consulting services' that usually results in a recommendation to purchase their own proprietary hardware running AIX and ever more extensive service contracts and recurring revenue for IBM. They are now seeing customers running Solaris 10 on IBM hardware and more and more requests for Solaris 10 instead of their own stuff and its not a

Just like Sun's other "open" products?

[bigbigbison (104532)]

So this is just like OpenOffice.org then? I've read a lot of complains that OO.o is tightly controlled by Sun.
Sun should just do as AOL did and spin off their open source projects as a seperate company.

IBM is wrong

[pinky0x51 (951042)]

Whether IBM is right or not that OpenSolaris has a development community, OpenSolaris is true Free Software.
Free Software is not about a development method but about a way of licensing software. Free Software can build in a community process and in a in-house process as proprietary software can be developed in a community or in-house. It's not the development method which makes something Free Software it's the license.

Sad to see that even such a big company with such a big "linux-centre" like IBM doesn't really understand Free Software.

Re:

[mwvdlee (775178)]

The key question is; if Sun tries to kill OpenSolaris development, can they do it?

Re:

[pinky0x51 (951042)]

>The key question is; if Sun tries to kill OpenSolaris development, can they do it?

No, because OpenSolaris is Free Software, so everyone can use it, study it, adapt it and (re-)distribute it.

Re:

[ahl_at_sun (853337)]

The key question is; if Sun tries to kill OpenSolaris development, can they do it?

Ignoring the question of why Sun would try to do that (some sort of exotic open source poison pill?), I suppose they could turn off the juice on OpenSolaris.org, but even that wouldn't shut down development. The code is in the open and it's under a license that explicitly allows people to use it and modify it. No one -- not even Sun -- could keep people from building their own distros, doing their own development, and bu

Many Open Solaris options

[andrewzx1 (832134)]

There are a variety of very good Open Solaris distros now:

Belenix: http://belenix.sarovar.org/belenix_download.html/ [sarovar.org]

Polaris, Solaris for PowerPC: http://www.blastware.org/ [blastware.org]

Nexenta, the Solaris/Ubuntu mix: http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/Nexenta_OS/ [gnusolaris.org]

And of course you can go straight to the official Open Solaris Communities page here: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/communities/;jsessio nid=6E46815A1C5CC33AC6470A9439DABAA6#all/ [opensolaris.org]

Fight IBM FUD with Open Solaris Fact.

I call BS

[mihalis (28146)]

IBM is just full of it. If OpenSolaris were not for real do you think they would have gone to the trouble of changing their source code control system from the in-house Teamware stuff to Mercurial (see this [selenic.com]).

No, that is the kind of wrenching and disruptive change that you do if you're really serious about pulling in developers outside the corporate WAN. If it were a facade they could have built a more impressive facade much more quickly.

Progress is slow on OpenSolaris because unlike Linux in 1991, Solaris is already a mission-critical operating system in many enterprises, and because they are trying to pull in non-employee contributions whilst maintaining quality. This is actually difficult.

Disclaimer: I was on the invite-only OpenSolaris pilot program and got some free t-shirts (none of which fit).

I am an outside contributor

[gdamore (933478)]

I am an outside contributor to OpenSolaris. I have several projects which are currently in the process of getting integrated into Solaris.

It is true that the development model at Sun is a bit more "Cathedral" than "Bazaar", and there are still some technical and administrative challenges to solve (for example they haven't figured out how to get folks to directly commit to OpenSolaris yet -- you have to hand off code to folks at Sun who integrate your code and walk it thru the process.)

Development of Solaris has always been a tricky thing, and historically has had huge amounts of "process" to get changes. This is because there are numerous quality safeguards, and committees that have been involved. There are famous questions that every project integrating has historically had to answer: (is it i18n safe, what interfaces does it expose? does it conform to various standards already established? is it portable to both intel and sparc? etc. etc.)

Part of the review process also has to uphold things like Sun's binary compatibility guarantee. In any respects, the _quality_ of Sun's Solaris product is much higher, I think, than what you find in say Linux, where churn is a lot higher and quality and oversight controls a bit less.

Anyway, it is possible to contribute to OpenSolaris now, though its a bit of a rough road right now. But they are making it better, and I expect it will be a lot easier in the next year or so.

IBM's problem

[ChrisRijk (1818)]

The way I see it, the reason IBM is acting like this is because they refuse to open source their own major programs (like DB2 and AIX).

So they can't say "Sun is doing a good job at open-sourcing their own software" because then they'd be asked "so why aren't you doing the same?" - and because nobody likes to admit a competitor is doing a good job.

So we get these mealy-mouthed attacks instead.

Given that DTrace has been integrated into MacOS X into Leopard:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bmc?entry=dtrace_ on [sun.com]

FUD-tastic

[ahl_at_sun (853337)]

How this blatant FUD could be confused with actual newsworthy content is a credit to IBM. The assertions put forth in the article seem to have only a casual relationship with reality. For example:

Sun could do "simple things" to build a real OpenSolaris community if it were serious about doing so, Frye said. "They would push their design discussions out into the forums, so people can see what's going on," he suggested.

Take a look at the discussions page [opensolaris.org] at OpenSolaris.org and that's exactly what you'll see. Not only are there discussion forums for established components (ZFS, DTrace, Zones, etc.), but for projects which are still in their early stages (e.g. BrandZ, Xen, clearview) that are encouraging community involvement for testing and development.

Components of OpenSolaris are also showing up in other operating systems: DTrace [opensolaris.org] will be in the next release of Mac OS X [sun.com] and FreeBSD [sun.com]. Speaking personally as one of the DTrace engineers at Sun, it's been quite a pleasure working with both the Apple and FreeBSD kernel engineers -- pretty decent community for a "facade".

Not for nothing, but...

[DoofusOfDeath (636671)]

It beats the hell out of OpenAIX. On acount of being somewhat more... existant.

What's the problem

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

It's at least as Open as OpenVMS!

Firewall??

[ader (1402)]

> "Sun holds it all behind the firewall."

Trans.: "I know a techie word and I'm going to use it."

Ade_
    /

Only 1 open source os needed?

[jm91509 (161085)]

One open-source operating system is plenty, though, so there would be no point to making AIX open-source, IBM's Handy said. "There's room for a proprietary one and an open one. Once one is open, you don't need any more," he said.

So bugger off *BSD. Very open-minded of him

I'm somewhat of a Blue Fanboy BUT

[tweek (18111)]

I don't see openAIX floating around.
Sure they've ported some of the technologies and added the opensource toolbox to AIX (imagine an RPM that can be installed on AIX and interfaces with the existing AIX package system).

Why is there no JFS2 for Linux? Why can't I mount a JFS2 filesystem on the SAN on my Linux machine? Why has the AIX lvm not been ported to Linux or why has IBM not contributed to the Linux LVM2 the ability to import AIX volume groups along with the requiste filesystem support on Linux? Why the hell don't I have lsdev, lscfg, lsattr for Linux? That alone would save me alot of effort.

Look the ODM is not the greatest thing since sliced bread but AIX has other good ideas that IBM should contribute instead of bitching about OpenSolaris. Shit they just want to sell more pSeries boxes anyway ;)

Lock customers into Linux?

[dpbsmith (263124)]

...I like some of the things IBM is doing now, but never forget they are a very, very big company whose agenda always directed at making money for their shareholders. They have a business motive behind everything they do.

IBM is a big champion of Linux now, but it wasn't all that long ago that they were issuing stern warnings to those who foresake the safety of proprietary software about the dangers of getting "locked into open source."

IBM would probably happily lock people into Linux... whatever, exactly, that would mean... if they can figure out how to do it and can see an advantage to IBM in doing it.

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

I don't know... IBM hasn't been out and about announcing how open-source AIX and OS/2 are (going to be) (any day now). The problem here is that Sun seems to want all the PR that a "leader of the FOSS community" deserves without actually dipping more than their big toe in the water.

Re:

[debilo (612116)]

I wasn't trying to defend Sun, I find their actions quite ugly too. I just think it isn't IBM's place to point their finger at others and whine about their competitors while their own offerings suck such as bad or even worse.

Re:Hypocrites...

[chabotc (22496)]

But IBM never claimed to opensource their OS's.. so i don't see what their 'offence' is, sun however does tout the 'we are all about open source' horn, but in practise is not so much

Also IBM isn't such an offender, they've contributed a lot to the kernel, apache, and many many many oss projects; Which is something i personally value a lot more then opensourcing OS/2 forinstance ;-)

Re:

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Also IBM isn't such an offender, they've contributed a lot to the kernel, apache, and many many many oss projects

Like Eclipse, for instance!

Re:Hypocrites...

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

The problem here is that Sun seems to want all the PR that a "leader of the FOSS community" deserves without actually dipping more than their big toe in the water.

I'd say that OSSing OpenSolars + JDS (the parts above and beyond GNome) + Looking Glass 3D + SPARC T1 is quite a step above "dipping their big toe". IBM acts as if they have the moral high ground simply because they've contributed to and promoted Linux. While their contributions are appreciated, I hardly see them as equalling that of releasing a complete OS.

As you said, consumers have been clammering for IBM to OSS OS/2. (Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock) We're still waiting.

IBM hasn't been out and about announcing how open-source AIX and OS/2 are (going to be) (any day now).

What would be interesting to keep an eye on is if OpenAIX or OpenOS/2 show up anytime soon. If they do, it could be indicitive that this FUD is all part of IBM's plan to promote their own OSS projects. Another thing to consider if this happens, is if they would have been released without Sun taking action first?

Re:Hypocrites...

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

The problem is some of the OS/2 code is still owned by Microsoft.

Generally, I agree with this being a huge issue. However, Sun had similar problems with much of the Solaris code. Differently from IBM, however, they invested massive resources in cleaning out the codebase to make it suitable for an OSS release. IBM won't lift a finger to do the same unless they see massive consulting dollars behind it.

Re:Hypocrites...

[lewp (95638)]

I wasn't so much saying the IBM guy is wrong, than I'm saying he's the wrong person to be pointing it out.

Between OpenOffice, OpenSolaris, and their work with GNOME, Sun has made plenty of solid contributions to OSS. Now they're supposedly opening the source for Java, which is the one thing everyone's been screaming about for the past five years and -- IMHO -- the only thing that keeps Sun relevant anymore.

I don't give a rat's ass about Sun, but they seem to be trying. Some douche from IBM doesn't need to be getting in their face because their OS code isn't open enough when IBM won't put AIX or OS/2 out there at all.

And the comment about there only being room for one open source OS is total bullshit. I hope his opinion doesn't represent the majority of IBM's staff.

Re:

[stinerman (812158)]

OS/2 will never be open sourced. AFAIK, Microsoft holds copyrights to some of that code.

Re:

[Andy Dodd (701)]

Most likely, AIX may also have some code in it that prevents them from open-sourcing it due to licensing.

Keep in mind they're already in enough legal battles over intellectual property licensing. While SCO's claims regarding IBM and Linux may be trollish, the impression I get is that SCO WOULD actually have significant legitimate claims against an "open source" AIX.

The end result is that rather than opensourcing AIX (which would be a rather pointless endeavor as the impression I get is that IBM is "sunsett

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I can't imagine how many licenses, agreements, contracts, and who knows what else would prevent IBM from sharing AIX or OS/2 code. Besides, what does "if IBM really cared about openness" mean? Of course IBM cares about open source. For the love of Pete, they have a vice president in charge of linux and open source. More importantly, can you think of any company ANYWHERE, for-profit or not, that's done more than IBM has for open source? How much of the modern linux kernel was written entirely or with si

Re:

[cpuh0g (839926)]

More importantly, can you think of any company ANYWHERE, for-profit or not, that's done more than IBM has for open source?

Sun.

Re:

[gstoddart (321705)]

More importantly, can you think of any company ANYWHERE, for-profit or not, that's done more than IBM has for open source?

Sun.

But, maybe not in the way you mean.

Sun's own tools have driven more people to install GNU software on a Solaris machine than any other thing has caused people to migrate to Open Source.

Back in the day, a Sun which didn't have GNU tools was not very useful. :-P

Cheers

Back in the day?

[mrcparker (469158)]

I think that statement is relevant to this very day.

Re:Hypocrites...

[debilo (612116)]

I can't imagine how many licenses, agreements, contracts, and who knows what else would prevent IBM from sharing AIX or OS/2 code.

So their own business decisions prevent them from delivering what customers and the opern source community would like to see. IBM's fault.

For the love of Pete, they have a vice president in charge of linux and open source.

That doesn't really prove their commitment to open source in general beyond their commitment to making profit. Which is not a bad thing.

More importantly, can you think of any company ANYWHERE, for-profit or not, that's done more than IBM has for open source?

Yes, quite a few. Red Hat, SuSE, Novell, and even Sun, to name just a few.

How much of the modern linux kernel was written entirely or with significant help from IBM?

How does IBM's contributing to the Linux kernel compare to Sun open sourcing an entire OS?

Re:Hypocrites...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

If IBM really cared about openness, they should open source AIX or OS/2 and shut up about Solaris.

IBMs donated some AIX features to linux and MS has some say in what happens to OS/2.

While I warmly thank Sun for their massive donations to free software, I wish they'd just STFU until they actually Open Source something. Most of the criticism they get is for flip-flopping on open source.

Re:

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

While I warmly thank Sun for their massive donations to free software,

Like OpenOffice (LGPL), OpenSolaris (CDDL - OSI Approved), and Project Looking Glass (GPL) just to name a few? You're quite right, they contribute heavily to Free, OSS software.

I wish they'd just STFU until they actually Open Source something.

This statement does not jive with your previous statement. Either Sun releases Free, OSS software (in which case they have a right to be heralded) or they don't (in which case they should STFU). Sinc

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

You misunderstood me (understandably, because my original post was not clear).

I should have said:

I wish they'd just STFU about a product's forthcoming license opening until it actually happens.

I wasn't disputing Sun's contributions to Open Source, just saying perhaps they should hold off announcements until they're actually ready to like, you know open source something.

Re:

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

just saying perhaps they should hold off announcements until they're actually ready to like, you know open source something.

Now THAT I can get behind. :)

Unfortunately, it has little to do with the issue at hand. OpenSolaris is fully released, and has several distros based on it. So this rant of one IBM executive is completely baseless and probably intended to promote IBM at Sun's expense.

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

So this rant of one IBM executive is completely baseless and probably intended to promote IBM at Sun's expense.

Agreed - and of course it's intended to promote IBM at Sun's expense.

Isn't it crazy that IBM, who's contributions to F/OSS (whilst large & also warmly thanked for) are dwarfed by Sun's contributions are able to get away with this?

The reason I suspect is Sun's flip-floppiness & skittishness when it comes to F/OSS - they contribute much, but also help spread a litlle anti-F/OSS FUD, etc. IBM'

Re:Hypocrites...

[Aim Here (765712)]

You do realise that IBM are in court right now, for the heinous crime of taking large gobs of its own AIX code and putting it in Linux, aren't you?

Re:Still not open source

[Score Whore (32328)]

So, out of curiousity, what exactly is "open source" in your world?

You can take Solaris get the complete source. Make whatever changes you want, build your own distro and release it. Sun could decide it was all a complete screwup and shutdown opensolaris tomorrow and you'd still be able to continue to develop and release your derivative code. Sounds like open source to me.

Contrast this to Linux. You can contribute patcehs to Linus. You can discuss it on IRC. You can subscribe to email lists. You can take the source and build your own. And Linus undeniably has private discussions with developers whom he has established working relationships with about the development of Linus' kernel. Additionally you cannot directly check your code into the mainline Linux kernel. Sounds about the same as the OpenSolaris development process to me.