Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Oracle Businesses Databases Programming Software Sun Microsystems IT

Mass Speculation Suggests Oracle May Kill OpenSolaris 205

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the corporations-excel-at-killing-thiving-communities dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mass Speculation Suggests Oracle May Kill OpenSolaris

Comments Filter:
  • Already Open (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Major Blud (789630) on Monday July 13, 2009 @03:46PM (#28681451) Homepage
    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.
    • Re:Already Open (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gomek-ramek (1340625) on Monday July 13, 2009 @03:53PM (#28681547)
      The question, though, is whether a fork would be successful. Without the Sun-paid developers, would OpenSolaris keep its development momentum? My guess is that it would not.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian (840721)

        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)

          by mewrei (1206850)
          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.
          • by ajs (35943)

            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.

        • other than an enterprise situation where they are already running solaris, is there any reason for anybody to roll out new solaris installs? I am not trying to be a jerk, I really don't know the answer. Is there any essential function that solaris can do, but bsd or linux or whatever cannot do? Not only that, but is there anything that linux and or bsd can't do better, and with a larger community to support it? I could be wrong, but I know for my personal tinkerings I haven't heard anything exciting to me p
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ttldkns (737309)

            haven't heard anything exciting to me personally about solaris in 10 years.

            ZFS, Nuff Said

            • by Korin43 (881732)
              It seems incredibly likely that Oracle's fancy Linux will soon have full support for ZFS..
            • by rubycodez (864176)

              yes, but that's being ported to other open OS. ZFS may long outlive Solaris

            • by Fred_A (10934)

              haven't heard anything exciting to me personally about solaris in 10 years.

              ZFS, Nuff Said

              I don't recall nuff [slashdot.org] saying anything of the sort.
              Or anything else for that matter.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Bandman (86149)

        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)

          by tenco (773732)

          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)

        by diegocgteleline.es (653730) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:50PM (#28682373)

        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.

      • 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.

    • by reporter (666905) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:06PM (#28681773) Homepage
      Unless Oracle explicitly spends resources to develop OpenSolaris, it will fade away and die in the "open" space as Linux is the biggest fish there. The typical geek who builds a freeware application builds it for Linux first since Linux is the dominant freeware operating system.

      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.

    • by RLiegh (247921)

      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

      • by Korin43 (881732)
        It seems pointless to actively kill the project, it would just make the current Solaris users even more annoyed about it. Instead, it would make more sense for them to just stop supporting it and let it die on its own.
    • It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already "open" and out in the wild.

      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

    • by elgaard (81259)

      And why would Oracle want to prevent if from being forked?

      But maybe they could release it also under GPL.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695)

      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)

      by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Monday July 13, 2009 @05:58PM (#28683361) Homepage

      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)

        by jvillain (546827)

        Ask the dip shit behind proprietary ssh what happens when you open source and then try to take it back. It ain't pretty.

    • ...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)

    by saleenS281 (859657) on Monday July 13, 2009 @03:47PM (#28681469) Homepage
    Oracle aligned with the Linux project because they could have a say in the direction the OS went, and put back code to the project that they wanted/needed for the wares they were selling to be successful.

    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.
    • 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

    • by fm6 (162816)

      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

  • Don't believe it.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GuyverDH (232921) on Monday July 13, 2009 @03:51PM (#28681515)

    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)

      by GPLDAN (732269)
      I agree here. The exact opposite may be true. Unbreakable Linux will become Unbreakable UNIX - and it will be increasingly based on OpenSolaris. There are a lot of developments in Solaris - and I think Ellison is perhaps unhappy with his relationship with Linux.

      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)

        by afidel (530433)
        Man, them trying to cut Redhat off at the knees is so short sighted because
        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)

          by gmack (197796)

          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.

  • by bcrowell (177657) on Monday July 13, 2009 @03:54PM (#28681585) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.

    • by Tanktalus (794810)
      Really, I thought that anyone watching Larry go about his regular routine that the appropriate response might just be to abandon Larry-ville the same way /. seems to advocate abandoning Balmer-ville. But maybe that's just me (running IBM DB2 on Linux...)
    • See what happens (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bill_mcgonigle (4333) *

      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.

  • by javacowboy (222023) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:06PM (#28681769)

    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.

    • 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.

      • by jeffstar (134407)

        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.

      • 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.

        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.

    • 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.

      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.

    • by UID30 (176734) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:33PM (#28682153)
      What you talkin 'bout Willis? Oracle's primary development platform has been Linux for years now. I think the vague "runs better" test is pretty much a wash when you compare optimized code builds running on similarly powered hardware.

      I think Sun hardware is really more of a vanity thing in business nowdays ... so "company a" can look down their nose at "company b" and say "we dont use Dell servers, we're a Sun house"...

      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 ... but now I see the synergy plain as daylight. Its all about super large corporate businesses and absurdly high maintenance contracts.

      Wow. That is some kind of evil genius. I'm going out to buy some Oracle stock.
      • by bky1701 (979071)
        If that were true, Oracsun would be planning to merge with Apple, but that could never... OH SHI-
    • by jabuzz (182671)

      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)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:09PM (#28681805)
    OpenSolaris will not be completely dead. The community at large will pick it up and it will take on a life of its own much in the same way as BSD UNIX was when the Berkeley CSRG group disbanded. OpenSolaris is still important and used heavily throughout industry. It is not my intention to start a flame war, but Solaris is even more mature as a platform than Linux. I am a fan of all open source operating systems and software because it takes computing out of the power of the corporation and puts it in the hands of the users.
  • by UID30 (176734) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:11PM (#28681841)
    I had enough exposure to Solaris in the 90s ... I remember when a Sun install team put in the 1st e4500 16 processor high availability box at my employer ... they had powered it up and had a bunch of our company VPs standing around the cold room oogling it ... 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.

    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)

      by Bert64 (520050)

      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...

      • by UID30 (176734)
        Not entirely sure, no. Just like now, back then I was a lowly developer ... not fit to bathe in the glory of Sun reps or gawking VPs.

        I'm just glad I was close to the right number ... it was a mixed house of e250, e450, e4500 ... i think there were a few e6500s and one or two e10ks floating the data center also.

        ... and for some reason, with all that hardware, I seem to remember complaining about disk space on a daily basis.
      • by HogGeek (456673)

        Maybe they passed all of the I/O through the Two RS-232/423 ports on clock board...

    • by hoggoth (414195) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:38PM (#28682223) Journal

      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...

    • by Fred_A (10934)

      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.

  • by Wrath0fb0b (302444) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:16PM (#28681915)

    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]

    • 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]

      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

    • by Bert64 (520050)

      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...

    • by The-Pheon (65392) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:34PM (#28682175) Homepage

      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!

    • by diegocgteleline.es (653730) on Monday July 13, 2009 @05:14PM (#28682733)

      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.

    • RAAARGH!
      .
      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 /. discussion.
      .
      Let me underscore this point: GPL ONLY COVERS BINARY DISTRIBUTION! The goal is to prevent someone from taking

  • One word: Dtrace (Score:4, Informative)

    by seifried (12921) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:18PM (#28681931) Homepage
    One thing Linux is lacking (and will possibly never have due to politics) is Dtrace, which is sad because a) Dtrace kicks ass, b) it's mature and works well and c) system tap is... well.. one day when a vendor ships it I guess we'll find out how well it works. This is one spot OpenSolaris and Solaris (and Mac OS X which now has Dtrace) really shine, you can extract useful telemetry and performance data from the system easily.
  • by Bert64 (520050)

    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)

    by Temujin_12 (832986) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:57PM (#28682477)

    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.

  • 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....

  • by panic (86053) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:59PM (#28682517)

    I think most people underestimate how much solaris oracle uses internally...

    There is marketing hype.. then reality

  • by jregel (39009) on Monday July 13, 2009 @04:59PM (#28682523) Homepage

    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.

    • by Super_Z (756391)

      Code from OpenSolaris is also used by the Sun OpenStorage platform

      OpenStorage is basically OpenSolaris plus a kickass web-gui.

  • I have the latest version, which I've not tried yet, I can't decide which system is less of a hassle to back up and install a new OS on.

    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.
  • 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.)

  • 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:
    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.

  • by Catalina588 (1151475) on Monday July 13, 2009 @06:38PM (#28683743)
    About five years ago, Sun seriously considered killing Solaris on X86. What Sun customers said was "Do that and your SunFire servers will be out on the street as quickly as we can get them unplugged". These customers included the major NY city investment and merchant banks, and Sun was in no position to destroy relationships with key customers. Fast forward. Those same large financial institutions are still running Solaris, including Solaris on Sun-supplied X86. But the reason this rumor makes no sense is that Sun and Oracle grew on Wall Street together as less expensive alternatives to Big Iron IBM mainframes.

    Kill Sun Solaris and Oracle commits suicide. Makes no sense at all. Won't happen.

  • ... in the title we start out with "Mass speculation suggests...". In other words, "A bunch of bloggers are working hard to convince each other that Oracle wants to kill OpenSolaris". Why is this news again?
  • Blog response by Ben Rockwood - Quite a good read if you want some facts in your stories. http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1047 [cuddletech.com]

What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying. -- Nikita Khruschev

Working...