Mass Speculation Suggests Oracle May Kill OpenSolaris 205
CWmike writes to point out that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is one of many people questioning where Oracle may land once the acquisition of Sun is complete. One concern that I have heard many people express is that there may be a good chance of OpenSolaris getting the axe for not fitting in with the overall corporate vision. "People outside of IT seldom think of Oracle as a Linux company, but it is. Not only does Oracle encourage its customers to use its own house-brand clone of RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux), Oracle Unbreakable Linux, Oracle has long used Linux internally both on its servers and on some of its desktops. So, what does a Linux company like Oracle wants to do with its newly purchased Sun's open-source operating system, OpenSolaris? The answer appears to be: 'Nothing.' Sun, Oracle and third-party sources are telling me that OpenSolaris developers are afraid that they'll be either moved over to working on Linux or let go once the Sun/Oracle merger is completed."
Already Open (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already Open (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. There isn't enough to set it apart from its competitors for it to survive without Sun's active support. I think OpenSolaris is dead dead dead.
I'm wagering it isn't the only Sun offering that's going to be given the boot either. I have a real suspicion that they'll cut OO.org loose too.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we'll all get lucky and Oracle will just GPL the OpenSolaris code and merge some of the more useful stuff like DTrace and (dare I say it) ZFS into the Linux kernel.
That's almost certainly the way they'll go. They already have their own Linux distribution, so there'd be no reason not to do this unless they felt that they were going to derive some value from these technologies being proprietary... again, can't see why.
Re:Already Open (Score:5, Funny)
I would, but it keeps dying. Don't believe me? Ask Netcraft.
Re: (Score:2)
I would, but it keeps dying. Don't believe me? Ask Netcraft.
Hmm, surely by the time you reach undead status, you have reached a kind of immortality? So if that is the case, maybe it is the only operating system we should use?
Okay, I will stop trying to over think this.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, according to them FreeBSD always seems to run about 30 - 40% of their top 10 uptime list month after month.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be a great slogan? Now with UN*X becoming 40 and everything:
BSD - dying since 1969
or
BSD - 40 years and still dying
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that some kind of justice that BSD in one form reached 10% Desktop use share as OS X?
If we listened to what people said, iPod would never take off, Apple would release 5-10 tablets and go out of business like 5 times, it would be year of Linux on desktop, Microsoft would be dead like 10 times etc.
Oracle is a OS company and produces Linux? I have gave up reading after it. Yes, I didn't read submission even and proud of it. Just like I just laughed at ''Java is doomed'' junk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ZFS, Nuff Said
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but that's being ported to other open OS. ZFS may long outlive Solaris
Re: (Score:2)
ZFS, Nuff Said
I don't recall nuff [slashdot.org] saying anything of the sort.
Or anything else for that matter.
Re:Already Open (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll throw in project-based resource controls, zones/containers, trusted Solaris, consistent public kernel API for drivers that won't automatically GPL your code, and a few other things.
Other OSes may offer something similar, but Solaris offers the whole set and largely does it right.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
At the very least, it would diverge far enough from Solaris to be an almost entirely different product.
OpenSolaris....OpenBSD...
Maybe the next version could be called NetSolaris. We could install it on very large toasters.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe the next version could be called NetSolaris. We could install it on very large toasters.
I always wondered if they [wikipedia.org] would run Linux. But you cleared it all up now. It's just so obvious.
Re:Already Open (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the Sun-paid developers, would OpenSolaris keep its development momentum?
Another similar question is: Even with the Sun-paid developers, can OpenSolaris keep its development momentum? I very much doubt it, in fact if you look at the trends, you could say that solaris lost that momentum years ago. The only thing that keeps the interest in opensolaris today is ZFS (which is great, but it doesn't make the traditional filesystems irrelevant - LVM and traditional raid suck, but it works and it can do almost everything that ZFS does, even if its a bit slower and crappier), and it's impossible to release big innovative features like ZFS every few years, things like zfs only happen one time every n-decades.
My take: Ellison is not going to follow the anti-Linux competitive attitude that the old Sun had. Its clear that Linux is here to stay, and Oracle couldn't win a fight against Linux, because pretty much everyone except Microsoft and Apple back it. I can't guess what they will do with opensolaris, but it's clear that they aren't going to start a war against Linux, because that would mean starting a war against the huge and increasing share of their Oracle Linux customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you can't ignore the issue of where the workers are going to go. When companies restructure, many employees end up getting the axe.
Linux is the biggest fish in the "open" space. (Score:4, Interesting)
So, what is the chance that Oracle will spend resources on OpenSolaris? The probability is exactly 0.
Oracle -- along with Intel and Cisco -- is notorious for viewing engineers as dots on a graph and rating them on a bell curve, firing the bottom 10% annually. These companies do not waste any money or time on "underperformance" by either engineers or products. If a product does not produce any revenue, then it is abandoned.
This shark-like mentality has gained popularity in recent years among American companies.
fuck you (Score:4, Informative)
you're probably right. As much as I wanted to find fault and prove you wrong, I can't and now I'm just bitter.
Re: (Score:2)
They can cut off the project's oxygen pretty easily, actually. Most of the project's ecosystem consists of sun-sponsored resources (websites, source code repositories, they also host the mailing lists) and since Oracle will be purchasing Sun's rights they can easily revoke the rights to the binary-only blobs that are required to build a complete and bootable copy of the source tree (if you can't build it, you can't run it -can you?).
Oracle is in a great posistion to kill off Solaris. Considerting that there
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That makes it hard for them to stop anyone who has the resources and desire from starting their own product based on the OpenSolaris code, but it doesn't make it that hard for them to kill OpenSolaris as an actively developed Sun project.
Not, I should hasten to add, that I think they will do that, just that they can. And if they did, I doubt there'd be a big community keeping OpenSolaris alive after they did. It might survi
Re: (Score:2)
And why would Oracle want to prevent if from being forked?
But maybe they could release it also under GPL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but unless you have the powerhouse ( with a vested interest ) like sun working on it, it might as well be dead as it will stagnate.
Re:Already Open (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already "open" and out in the wild. Oracle can't prevent the current code base from being forked
The notion that once you make something open source, you can't revoke that, is interesting. It's widely believed, but I've seen very little legal analysis to support that belief. What little I've seen from open source lawyers has said that it might NOT be true. I'd love to see a test case.
Some of the factors that would affect a particular case are whether or not the open source license involved is a contract or a bare license. Bare licenses ARE revokable at will by the licensor. In Rosen's book on open source licensing, that is one of the reasons he recommends against using them, in favor of making sure your license is a contract. This is interesting, because one rather prominent open source license, GPL, is not a contract, according to its authors. They are quite insistent about that.
If a particular open source license IS a contract, then whether it is revocable or not will depend on the terms of the contract. Even then, it may be possible to revoke it, if the licensor is willing to suffer a penalty for breach of contract. Contract penalties are almost always just monetary damages, not an order of specific performance. I'll leave it to others to speculate how that would work out.
Another issue is sublicensing. With some open source licenses, if you give me your software, I get my license from you. If I then give the software to a third person, they get their license from me. With other open source licenses, the third person gets their license from you, rather than getting a sublicense from me. GPLv3 is one of the latter kinds of license--it has a specific statement in the license that you cannot sublicense it.
For licenses that are not sublicensible, what happens if the original licensor simply announces that they are giving out no new licenses? People who have the software could still distribute it, free of risk of copyright suit, since they have a license to distribute. But the recipients would not have a license, so they could not redistribute. It might take a way to kill off some open code this way, because it could take a while for all the current owners of copies to stop distributing, but those would probably eventually go away.
Note that I am NOT saying that open source licenses ARE revokable. Just that no one has given a convincing reason that they are not, and that almost nothing else in contract/licensing law is irrevocable, so the notion that open source licenses are irrevocable should be treated with skepticism at this point.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ask the dip shit behind proprietary ssh what happens when you open source and then try to take it back. It ain't pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, some valid points here, but let us all remember that for the GPL/LGPL none of the above concerns are legitimate. The author is talking about open source licensing in general
Why would they not be concerns for GPL? It's authors intend it to NOT be a contract, making it a bare copyright license, which is inherently revocable, and GPLv3 explicitly forbids sublicensing. I doubt that FSF would ever try to revoke the GPL on code they own, but there are a lot of projects that have been distributed under GPL where the FSF does not own the copyright.
Always wondered about this (Score:2)
...ever since Nullsoft's WASTE was released and AOL (or whoever) pulled it and revoked the license. From http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/ [nullsoft.com] :
If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software, you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer. Any license that you may believe you acquired with the Software is void, revoked and terminated.
It was released under a GPL license (IIRC). So they have effectively revoked the license. They haven't tried (actively) to stop redistribution - indeed, there's forks on Sourceforge. I think Asus or someone even made a derivative product from it?
Complete rubbish (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that they own an entire OS stack, they have no need. If nothing else, I expect unbreakable Linux to fade away rather quickly once the acquisition is complete, as well as Oracle shifting the focus of all future DB enhancements to have a Solaris focus with Linux as a secondary, as was the case historically.
Perhaps FUD - Complete rubbish (Score:3, Interesting)
If I wanted to capture business from Sun, I'd start a rumor that Oracle was going to get rid of big parts of Sun.
And, just to add insult to injury, the rumor would have them laying off the people Oracle most wants to retain!
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice to own your own OS stack. It's nicer to offer what you customers want. Sun owned the same stack and they still had to offer Linux support, because it would have hurt their x64 sales big time if they hadn't. Management will have changed, but not the needs of customers. If anything, there will be a stronger emphasis on Linux, because management will lose a lot of its Solaris-uber-alles bigotry.
All these prognostications about Sun under Oracle are ridiculous. They're all made by people who don't know
Re:Complete rubbish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Complete rubbish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, they could quite easily adapt Linux to support those processors, it already runs on Sparc and supports the T1 at the very least, i wouldn't be surprised if it already supported the T2+... And the SPARC64 processors these days are made by Fujitsu anyway..
Re:Complete rubbish (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a good proof of concept Linux that's run on a T2000, but how many years, how many staff and how many debates on LKML would it take to get from a POC to something you could bet your company on?
Honorable bird in hand beats however many in the South Atlantic (;-))
--dave
No years - Canonical are betting their company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know they did the port, and it clearly works, but I'd suggest it is the kind of low-priority thing one does to make sure they have a presence in the machine room, and predominantly on the Sun x86 machines they mentioned in the cited page.
It would be somewhat weird to bet the success of Ubuntu, the user-friendly desktop and laptop Linux, on the success of a port to rack-mount machine-room SPARC server hardware.
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, though, I think the article is mostly FUD, and that Oracle won't risk their company on throwing away a working OS.
In fact, if they want to save money, they would encourage more Open Solaris efforts (;-))
--dave
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Solaris needs to exist to support the Sun SPARC64 and UltraSPARC T2+ processors, the latter of which is a multithreading whiz. It is used extensively where I work, and I hope they keep making it, as 128 simultaneous hardware threads in a 1U can be some powerful stuff when programmed for appropriately.
Which is why it's such a niche application. Even on a random consumer multi core CPU it's depressing how many processes seem to spawn everything on the same core (more so on an i7 shown with more cores than it really has by Linux).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Solaris is not need for UltraSPARC. That's a myth.
UltraSPARC needs Solaris to live on is the more likely scenario.
In the next 12-18 months the we are going to see a fair amount of cheap x86/x64 multicore come on line. I mean more than 8 cores.
For the most part this is going to obsolete the SPARC. Since SPARC development has slowed to a narcoleptic snails pace.
I personally love working with Solaris. It's consistent and strong. Linux is still not up to the Enterprise levels that Solaris is. But man Linu
Don't believe it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
opensolaris - the regular SXCE builds are Sun's testbed for new updates, patches, fixes and technology updates...
It's noted as 5.11 for the version, codenamed Nevada.
It's very similar to the way the unix kernel builds happened at one time (to be honest I haven't looked lately to know if they still do this or not) - in that the even number release is production and the odd numbered release is development...
Unless Oracle intends to kill off Solaris altogether, I don't see them killing OpenSolaris.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can tell you as a IT Director in finance that they have come pushing Unbreakable into big accounts, and want to cut Redhat off at the knees as much as possible. So the opening salvos have already been sent, and sinking Redhat and getting all Ora
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A) their support organization sucks (maybe this will get better if they use the Sun side of the house to answer non-DB questions)
B) Redhat employs a bunch of people that work on linux without costing Oracle a dime.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually Oracle also employs some high level kernel developers. A lot of the FS work that has been done lately has been done by people with Oracle email addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no mis-interpretation.
If you would care to read, and get an understanding, please try the following link..
http://whacked.net/2005/06/21/confused-so-was-i/ [whacked.net]
Solaris 11, will continue to be the development cycle, Solaris 10 is (as put by one of the developers) *THE LAST VERSION of SOLARIS EVER*... They may achieve Solaris 10, Update 535 in time, but as of this moment, Solaris 10 is the highest production version we'll see.
So Nevada 5.11 build xxx are all development releases.
time to steal features (Score:4, Interesting)
For anyone already committed to OpenSolaris, there are some obvious things to do: (1) Celebrate the fact that it's open-source, which limits how badly you can be screwed. (2) Write a plan to start transitioning to Linux or FreeBSD or whatever. (3) Help to organize a community operating outside of Oracle that will coordinate on maintaining the OS with security patches for the rest of its lifetime.
For anyone else, now would be a good time to think about stealing features. I know a lot of people really like DTrace. Well, it's already been ported to FreeBSD, and the Linux port seems to be nearing completion.
Re: (Score:2)
How much penetration did OpenSolaris ever achieve? I know a few guys that through it up just to take a peak, but I doubt very much that there are that many production machines out there. It always struck me as more of a curiosity. But I dunno, maybe it's all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
See what happens (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right, and Oracle could hasten this: re-license OpenSolaris under GPLv3 (patents) and see what happens. Worst case, nothing.
Likely case: the community ports everything great to Linux and they don't have to worry about what to do.
I have to say, my one Nexenta box is very impressive and Linux does have some work cut out for it. Other parts are, eh, somewhat annoying.
I do hope Sun's documentation team stays on - they do such a great job.
Makes absolutely no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Oracle kill Solaris? Their first public pronouncement on the Sun takeover specifically mentioned Solaris next to Java as the reasons they want to acquire Sun. Killing Solaris would be almost as much of an about face as killing Java.
Solaris represents one of Oracle's differentiators. It has features that Linux can't due to licensing concerns, namely ZFS and DTrace. It gives them the opportunity to add value to their offerings, as opposed to being simply a reseller, which is what they'd be if they'd favour Linux.
What's more, Oracle's database is well-known to run better on Solaris than on any other operating system. Killing Solaris would remove that competitive advantage.
The only reason Oracle supported Linux so strong is that they didn't have an OS of their own. When they acquire Sun, they will.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone doubts that Solaris will go on. But I see little advantage in Oracle's case for continuing to dedicate resources to OpenSolaris.
Re: (Score:2)
What was the advantage to Sun to have OpenSolaris? Whatever it was, Oracle will likely have the same reason to continue dedicating reasources to OpenSolaris as Sun did.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenSolaris serves to help promote Solaris, which is why Sun introduced it. There would be little sense in Oracle killing OpenSolaris if they intended to try to continue Solaris as an OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also, support for Solaris will be a revenue stream for Oracle as well. Solaris on big-boy hardware in the data-center isn't going anywhere any time soon. However, OpenSolaris only attracts people trying to do it on the cheap. Oracle can move those people to Unbreakable and plug up the money drain that is OpenSolaris.
Re:Makes absolutely no sense (Score:4, Funny)
I think Sun hardware is really more of a vanity thing in business nowdays
OMG! THANK you for making me post this! I NOW understand the Oracle-Sun merger! They're both "vanity" business models! Its been bothering me since the merger was announced
Wow. That is some kind of evil genius. I'm going out to buy some Oracle stock.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment there is only one company I can goto and by a database with support and not have the vendor be able to pass the buck. That company is IBM with the DB2 on AIX on Power stack. It is IBM end to end. If Oracle take over Sun, then there will be another stack in the mix, Oracle on Solaris on Sparc. That has to be some selling point.
That said if I where Larry, I would do away with OpenSolaris, but only because I would make no distinction between Solaris and OpenSolaris. I would push it for all it is
Dead?? (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my favorite quotes... (Score:5, Interesting)
If operating systems are weapons, Solaris is a World War II German railway gun with a cracked breech block.
- Charlie Stross
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You sure you had 16 cpus?
The E4500 has 8 slots, 2 cpus per slot, but you need to use at least one of those slots for an IO board otherwise you have no scsi and no networking, so the practical limit is 14 cpus...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just glad I was close to the right number
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they passed all of the I/O through the Two RS-232/423 ports on clock board...
Re:One of my favorite quotes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a similar experience when I was at N.E.C. We were showing off one of our fully redundant servers to some execs from a Wall St. firm (I won't name them, but they are still in business, but with a merger). While my manager was talking about how fail-safe the server is one of the execs walked around behind the rack and just jammed his pen through the fan in the back to see what would happen.
Luckily back-up fans spun up and everything was fine, but there were a lot of sweaty foreheads in the room...
Re: (Score:2)
the Sun rep was giving an executive overview of its HA features, full hot swap of processor boards, power supplies, yadda yadda yadda. My (then) boss, a lowly manager in the VP crowd, walks up to the e4500 and pops a processor card out ... the whole system seg faults an UGLY death. Ahhh ... good times.
Nothing kills a demo like a manager. The rep should have remembered to tie them to their chairs.
Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux! (Score:3, Interesting)
I've long been immensely frustrated that you can't get kernel-space ZFS (sorry FUSE) compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues*. Someone should write a patch for those of us that want to compile it ourselves on the theory that the FSF would be insane to sue a personal user of open-source software for daring to compile it with other open source software of a different flavor.
* Porting ZFS to Linux is complicated by the fact that the GNU General Public License, which governs the Linux kernel, prohibits linking with code under certain licenses, such as CDDL, the license ZFS is released under. [Wikipedia]
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in the GPL prohibits linking with code under any other licenses, per se, however, many other licenses do not give one the rights one would need to relicense the code under the terms in the GPL (either instead of the terms in the other license, which is required under the GP
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, someone should port it and only provide it as source or a diff, there shouldn't be any licensing issues there since it isn't linked yet, and the GPL does not apply to anyone who just compiles it for their own use and doesn't distribute the binaries...
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, provide sources & patches like Minix did before it was open sourced.
Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux! (Score:5, Informative)
I've long been immensely frustrated that you can't get kernel-space ZFS (sorry FUSE) compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues*....
Well it is a good thing FreeBSD does not have a restrictive license like that. FreeBSD 8.0 will have ZFS with zpool 13, and here is how to use it.
http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSQuickStartGuide [freebsd.org]
Cheers!
Dtrace on FreeBSD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux! (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with that is that ZFS is not just a filesystem, it's a complete "IO stack". It's everything that does from the VFS to the device drivers. Sun didn't improve their old stack, they wrote a new brand system and they left the old system there.
Such thing would not be tollerated on the Linux main tree, it would be considered a very ugly design mistake. For them, the IO stack would need to work for ZFS and for FAT, and they would never buy the logic of "ZFS is special and needs special treatment to be better than the rest". If ZFS was released, Linus & co wouldn't accept it until ZFS is modified to fit the Linux IO stack, and/or they modify the Linux I/O layer to fit what ZFS needs.
Re: (Score:2)
People who suggest 'just write a patch' to put ZFS in Linux don't realize how much work it would be. Even after all that work you'd end up with a legally-questionable, difficult to distribute, suitable for personal use only version of ZFS which would probably be less reliable than the FUSE version. I can't imagine why nobody has stepped up to do it yet!
(1) I stand corrected as to the technical difficulties in the task.
(2) Distribution and legality would be easy -- just distribute it as source code + patches to the normal linux build system, which cannot possibly illegal. Let the end-user decide whether he feels that his actions violate the spirit of the GPL (violating the words is conceded, but it's ridiculous on its face that the wording is not flexible enough to allow the end user to basically compile both separately and link them together.)
GPL Is A Distribution License! (Score:2)
RAAARGH! /. discussion.
.
Legally, there is no reason in the world that you (or I, or my dog) can not port ZFS to Linux and run it ourselves. The licensing issues only come into effect when you want to DISTRIBUTE your work as binaries. The idea that the FSF would sue someone for linking ZFS and Linux together in their basement is so fundamentally misguided that I would be shocked if this weren't a
.
Let me underscore this point: GPL ONLY COVERS BINARY DISTRIBUTION! The goal is to prevent someone from taking
One word: Dtrace (Score:4, Informative)
GPL... (Score:2)
If Oracle don't want to commit resources to developing solaris, they should triple license (including GPL) it... Solaris is too widely used to die, so third parties will continue developing it and having it GPL licensed will allow drivers to flow from linux (which linux has a lot more of and solaris is very much lacking) and zfs/dtrace to flow back.
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
This just in: "Mass Speculation" also suggests:
1) The world will end in 2012
2) Man never landed on the moon
3) Vaccines cause autism
4) Technology = magic
5) Science is infallible
6) Religion is infallible
7) Windows is better than Mac
8) Mac is better than Windows
9) Mac is better than *nix
10) *nix is better than Mac
11) Windows is better than *nix
12) *nix is better than Windows
I really need to meet this "Mass Speculation" guy. He seems to be all over the board on things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no, Not that!!! (Score:2)
Quote: "OpenSolaris developers are afraid that they'll be either moved over to working on Linux or let go"
Let see, Job and Paycheck working on something with a future, or sulking at home working on a dead end?
Decisions....
Solaris internal to Oracle (Score:4, Interesting)
I think most people underestimate how much solaris oracle uses internally...
There is marketing hype.. then reality
OpenSolaris == Fedora (Score:5, Interesting)
The value of OpenSolaris to Sun is the same as Fedora is to Red Hat Enterprise Linux; it's the cutting edge release that allows the new features to be added without compromising the stable release. It's improving as a desktop operating system, but that's not the real point of OpenSolaris. Solaris is primarily a server operating system and that's where it excels. It manages to include things today such as ZFS and Dtrace that will one-day have equivalents in Linux. These technologies are already mature on Solaris. Code from OpenSolaris is also used by the Sun OpenStorage platform and presumably will be the basis of the Sun OpenNetwork platform.
Before I'm modded down as a Linux-hating, Solaris fan-boi, I'm posting this from my home Linux workstation, sat next to my OpenSolaris server. Sometimes it's about the technology itself and not technology religion.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenStorage is basically OpenSolaris plus a kickass web-gui.
Personally I like Open Solaris (Score:2)
It had a few issues upon it's release but it's very nice. Most stuff works I need works with it and it has some nice thins not found elsewhere (ZFS, DTrace). Personally I think it'd be dumb to get rid of it. They should promote it more and hopefully get it to grow and then control what they can't through Linux.
Unlikely -- Oracle optimizes for Solaris 10/SPARC (Score:2)
Their highest capacity versions and licenses are all for Solaris 10 and SPARC. And, as someone else noted, it would be hard to kill OpenSolaris, because it's already Open. Like MySQL, if they tried to close it, it would just branch (as MySQL already is.)
First of many (Score:2)
I see most of Sun's work going away the same way. No real business reason for Oracle to keep it. ( and they are just bastards anyway )
"Nothing" would be a fine choice if (Score:2)
"Nothing" would be a fine choice if:
1. They GPL2d ZFS, DTrace and other core technologies that make Solaris attractive
2. Allocated the dev resources to port them over (or in the case of ZFS adapt them to the existing kernel better).
If they just rm -rf it, it'll be a very sad decision indeed.
Let's ask the customers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Kill Sun Solaris and Oracle commits suicide. Makes no sense at all. Won't happen.
So in the title... (Score:2)
"Is Oracle getting ready to kill OpenSolaris?" FUD (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean AIX is still somewhat in support!!!
It is still in development, with new versions coming along and IBM are still producing new hardware for it. Admittedly none of it is cheap, an entry level p520 express is still eye wateringly expensive if you are used to x86 hardware, but it is just as much an alive platform as it ever was.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)