Oracle Scraps Plans For Solaris 12 (theregister.co.uk) 127
bobthesungeek76036 writes: According to The Register, Solaris 12 has been removed from Oracle roadmaps. This pretty much signals the demise of Solaris (as if we didn't already know that...) From the report: "The new blueprint -- dated January 13, 2017 -- omits any word of Solaris 12 that Oracle included in the same document's 2014 edition, instead mentioning 'Solaris 11.next' as due to debut during this year or the next complete with 'Cloud Deployment and Integration Enhancements.' At the time of writing, search engines produce no results for 'Solaris 11.next.' The Register has asked Oracle for more information. The roadmap also mentions a new generation of SPARC silicon in 2017, dubbed SPARC Next, and then in 2020 SPARC Next+. The speeds and capabilities mentioned in the 2017 document improve slightly on those mentioned in the 2014 roadmap.
Re: (Score:1)
And I will continue to use Version 11 of the X Window System.
I started with X11R5 back when I first ran Linux in 1993. I've upgraded to X11R6.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
=(
I'm convinced that Casper Dik was just a code-name for the entire SunOS/Solaris support team, and that there's no way any one individual can know and contribute so much.
Decades later, and I still aspire to have even a tenth of a clue as him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 4.1.3u1 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And then... (Score:5, Funny)
To complete the mashing of jargon, in 2024 - "Objective SPARC Next++" (appending "On Rails" for rack systems).
World domination right on schedule (Score:2)
Actually, Linux needs competition or it will start to run out of reasons to make it better. In future, it looks like the BSD family will be pretty much it.
Thanks, Sun/Oracle for erecting barriers around DTrace, thus motivating even better tracing in Linux. Thanks also for doing the same to ZFS, thus saving the rest of us from that sprawling abomination.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To some extent we're already seeing this happen, although it's not quite like you describe. Systemd, which is now present in pretty much every major Linux distribution, has caused a lot of problems for a lot of users. A lot of serious Linux users, who need systems that are reliable and robust, have had to switch to FreeBSD thanks to systemd.
Running a Linux distro t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I switched to NetBSD because of Red Hat 5.0. It was such a disappointment after Red Hat 4.3.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Rubbish - although I utterly despise that flaky piece of shit of a mismanaged moving target SystemD that's not what has happened.
We've just put up with using older versions of linux. When the experiment is over we'll upgrade.
The move to FreeBSD is just due to ZFS being a lot more mature on that platform at the moment. If you have a lot of disks it's a massive incentive to move. If y
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I'll stick with Centos 6 as long as I can.
By the time it gets to EOLd they might have knocked most of the bugs out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenBSD is the only OS apart from Solaris to support Sun/Oracle Logical Domains (LDOMs), and the OpenBSD support is extremely limited - for example I/O is restricted to the primary Domain - as there is no way to create an "I/O" domain in OpenBSD.
If there is going to be new silicon and no new Solaris, then presumably Oracle will have to release some of their hardware documentation - and possibly fund some OSS developers!
Cu
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, linux has both dtrace and zfs.
Indeed, but only after suitable alternatives were given the necessary window to emerge because of Sun/Oracle's antics. Arguably, the result is better all round.
Re: (Score:2)
sprawling abomination.
Let me guess... you hate Systemd too?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Linux needs competition or it will start to run out of reasons to make it better. In future, it looks like the BSD family will be pretty much it.
Thanks, Sun/Oracle for erecting barriers around DTrace, thus motivating even better tracing in Linux. Thanks also for doing the same to ZFS, thus saving the rest of us from that sprawling abomination.
Actually, Solaris was de facto a single platform OS - namely for SPARCs. Sun did have that experiment w/ OpenSolaris, but once Oracle sabotaged it, and even surviving forks like OpenIndiana were x86 only, it was a lost cause.
I would like to see SPARC survive, though, w/ either Linux or *BSD on it. It would however be nice if it weren't something available only from Oracle
Re:World domination right on schedule (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Linux needs competition or it will start to run out of reasons to make it better. In future, it looks like the BSD family will be pretty much it.
Thanks, Sun/Oracle for erecting barriers around DTrace, thus motivating even better tracing in Linux. Thanks also for doing the same to ZFS, thus saving the rest of us from that sprawling abomination.
Actually, Solaris was de facto a single platform OS - namely for SPARCs. Sun did have that experiment w/ OpenSolaris, but once Oracle sabotaged it, and even surviving forks like OpenIndiana were x86 only, it was a lost cause.
I would like to see SPARC survive, though, w/ either Linux or *BSD on it. It would however be nice if it weren't something available only from Oracle
You can still get SPARC systems from Fujitsu [fujitsu.com].
But frankly, the only thing SPARC ever had going for it was everything around it. SPARC succeeded despite SPARC, not because of it. Consider:
- SUN produced some awesome workstations and servers.
- Everything used to be open standards (covering SPARC, SBUS, OpenFirmware etc.)
- Solaris stabilized into a nice enough UNIX.
- Lots of Open Source implementations available (Linux, *BSD).
But consider the downsides:
- SUN was swallowed by Oracle.
- SPARC is a nasty RISC architecture. Register windows were really a mistake, and most architectures eschew them as a result. Ditto for delay slots.
- SPARC lagged behind all the other major RISC architectures save for perhaps ARM (which was aimed at low pwoer anyway) in performance.
While SPARC lacked in RISC firepower, it still beasted contemporary x86 CPUs until the Pentium II era (christ, that was 20 years ago!). Since then though, it's just sucked SUN resources as they struggled to keep up with other CPU vendors. They only stayed on top while they could scale up to 64 CPUs when other vendors could not. Once Windows and Linux had caught up with that scaling, and x86 could be reasonable scaled to 16 or more CPUs economically, the writing was on the wall.
What happens to ZFS? (Score:2)
Oracle only ships ZFS on Solaris. Until Ubuntu added it (in Xenial was it?) you had to get it from a third party if you wanted it for Linux.
Does this mean Oracle will add it to Oracle Linux and support it?
Re:What happens to ZFS? (Score:5, Informative)
ZFS for Linux and pretty much every other OS (OpenIndiana, Nexenta, ...) except Oracle Solaris is now being developed by OpenZFS, a fork of the Solaris ZFS code and the two are no longer compatible (version numbers and feature sets have diverged quite a bit).
Not sure what they will do with existing customers, probably bill them a heap load of money for future support, if you're lucky, your pool is old enough or you haven't activated Oracle's proprietary features so that it is still compatible.
Re: (Score:1)
linux and freebsd use the same zfs codebase. the only flaw it had on linux was slab fragmentation which was fixed in git head. 0.7.0 should contain the abd patches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only guessing, but I doubt Oracle will simply kill off Solaris - there is a lot of good stuff in there, and they do, among other things, sell a ZFS based disk appliance, as far as I remember. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that runs Solaris. But I think the market for proprietary UNIXes as general OSes is all but finished, since the open source ones are now so good.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's Oracle, they won't kill it off but you will pay through the nose for a support contract. Last I looked, it was like $60k/server/year for their quad core SPARC support contract.
Re: (Score:2)
FreeBSD would like a word.
FreeBSD10 allows you to install to root on ZFS with the default installer.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know. I'm a FreeBSD user myself. Since 386BSD 0.1.
But that isn't what I was asking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oracle drove away a lot of Sun's customers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll have a soft spot for Solaris, but the writing was on the wall long before this. Solaris was stagnating even before Oracle bought Sun. It was obvious that Sun lacked the resources to maintain their compiler suite and operating as well as actively research new technologies. It was sad to watch, but such is life. Solaris was probably the most usable desktop UNIX before OSX took that crown away. Solaris tried to add much-needed things to UNIX like role-based administration, light-weight virtualisation (zones/containers), non-intrusive profiling/caching (dtrace), advanced storage pools (ZFS), and heaps of other cool stuff. Sun SPARC hardware always had cool high-availability features like being able to disable bad RAM in a running system, really wide system buses for pushing around a lot of data, and was built to survive physical abuse.
The trouble is, they lost out to "good enough". Solaris on SPARCstation was better than WinNT on a whitebox PC, but WinNT on a whtebox PC got to the point where it was good enough, and the added expense of a Sun workstation couldn't be justified. On the server side, Linux became good enough, IBM and Dell x86 servers got to the point where they were good enough, and my 13th generation PowerEdges are definitely better build quality than the Sun V245 servers I still have sitting in a rack for nostalgia.
This took away a lot of their revenue so they couldn't throw resources at research and development. In particular, SPARC fell behind in price/performance/power consumption trade-off, first to AMD's 64-bit Athlons, and then to Intel's post-Netburst Xeon. The UltraSPARC T gave them a bit of a reprieve on highly parallel workloads, but cancelling the Rock was the right decision as it was painfully obvious it wasn't going to compete for single-core throughput/latency performance.
They also lost at the extreme high end to IBM who've managed to get insanely high throughput on POWER with a brute-force approach of throwing better and better cooling systems at a design that's arguably incredibly lazy compared to the E5 Xeon.
Yes, I miss Sun, and I'll shed a tear for Solaris. But I don't miss the Sun that Oracle bought - the Sun I miss had already faded half a decade before Oracle bought the dimly glowing remains.
Re: (Score:2)
Is OSX a Desktop Unix? I thought they deprecated X11.
Furthermore, if they had an open desktop environment like maybe KDE or even Gnome, it would be different. Opaque binary-only windowing environments don't qualify as modern Unix. That's like NeWS or any of the other old proprietary croft.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's a Mach kernel. That's a micro-kernel architecture. BSD is a monolithic kernel.
MacOS has a BSD userland, but that's not a lot different than the userland you get if you install Interix on Windows NT.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really.
Apple is doing their best to turn it into a walled garden, just like iOS. With the introduction of things like SIP (ensuring you can't write to any of the system directories, even as root- this includes /usr and a whole bunch of other locations) and their moronic sandbox tech that treats everything like a glorified word processor, it's becoming more and more difficult to use the "Unix" side of OS X. Not to mention the fact that their entire lineup of hardware is pretty much a complete joke, "pro"
Re: (Score:3)
SIP (ensuring you can't write to any of the system directories, even as root- this includes /usr and a whole bunch of other locations)
you can if you're an admin worth a damn. This is a very good idea in terms of malware protection and I wish Windows would do it.
it's becoming more and more difficult to use the "Unix" side of OS X.
It's actually exactly the same: open terminal.
Soon enough, they'll remove that utility, along with the one you need to disable SIP, and we'll start seeing people having to "jailbreak" their Mac to bring back any semblance of the freedom they once had under the earlier versions of Mac OS X.
yeah, the anti-mac argument has always been that it's just about to become a problem. It's like how we're always 50 years from fusion. Mac becoming a walled garden is always right around a corner that we never get to.
Re: (Score:1)
Not true: /usr/local is still writable just fine, and if you're installing custom libraries they're likely to go there. Same with /opt
Official apple docs: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204899
It's about time Apple came out with an alternative to seliux or apparmor.
Re: (Score:1)
Linux isn't posix-certified. Or has Red Hat or some other vendor paid for that in the last decade that I've not been paying that much attention to Linux in?
Re: (Score:2)
"Most developers" you took a survey?
Re: (Score:2)
The people that count say it is. [opengroup.org] All that other stuff is just junk thrown on top.
You'd be better off criticizing how crappy their implementation of some of the commands is in terms of performance, because it is. I just opened up top totally vanilla and it was consuming 3.8% of a core. On Solaris it would be something like 1%, even with much slower cores. (Apple used to use 10% on top and this was a better example.)
Re: (Score:2)
Opaque binary-only windowing environments don't qualify as modern Unix.
How does having a disagreeable front-end prevent the OS from qualifying as UNIX?
Surely the more relevant matter is that Darwin is so unremarkable.
Re: (Score:1)
A little education here... a Desktop unix system needs to have a Desktop to be a .... Desktop unix.
And X11 is not a window manager. X11 is a graphical subsystem on which you can run numerous Window Managers, like the Tab Window Manager (TWM) or FVWM or Motif's Window Manager or a lot of much newer alternatives. And even a Window Manager is not really a 'desktop environment.' Not that a 'desktop environment' is needed to run a Desktop Unix system. I prefer FVWM when I run a NetBSD desktop. My .fvwm2rc
Re: (Score:3)
I'll have a soft spot for Solaris
You must be a sadomasochist. How can you have a soft spot for anything who's default shell is still ksh? It felt like I was stuck in the 80s every time I had to administer Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a sadomasochist. How can you have a soft spot for anything who's default shell is still ksh? It felt like I was stuck in the 80s every time I had to administer Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX.
Default shell for SunOS was csh. Default shell for Solaris was sh. I don't know what silly sysadmins you've had in the past, but ksh has never been the default shell.
Re: (Score:2)
If you care what the default shell is, you're doing *nix wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad end to a great operating system (Score:1)
This sadly reminds me of the demise of DEC VAX/VMS. Great operating system that faded with a slowly dwindling paying community. In a taste of irony.. Digital Equipment Company which sold this OS.. tried to compete with SunOS/Solaris with the release of Digital Unix which sadly never received much praise or acceptance and all but sealed the end of DEC/Compaq/HP's involvement in this legacy set of platforms. Now the FOSS community and its 'nix variants have led to the demise of what Sun Microsystems worked
Re: (Score:2)
All the developers and funding for OpenSolaris went to OpenIndiana, if you're looking for the Solaris feature set and stability, use OpenIndiana. Hopefully one day Linux or BSD will catch up to the code stability (an OS that upgrades less than Debian Stable and kernel upgrades without rebooting), Fault Management Architecture, level of tracing, clustering and containers that Solaris has.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Open)Solaris latest incarnations are/were mainly x86 since the architecture was so expensive, development lagged severely to Intel and many SPARC programs could be transitioned to much cheaper x86. SPARC was already on life support for years by the time Sun died, Oracle made it even more expensive even though eventually delivering the T7, deployments of it are rare (who plunks down 300k for a single 1U server anymore) and it ain't the same comparison as the UltraSPARC competing with the Pentium.
Re: (Score:2)
OI has SPARC builds although few are maintained by the core project there are a number of derivatives that do have support. The problem is going to be finding hardware.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would you buy Unix when Multics already has everything you need? Why would you use C when ADA already has everything you need?
Re: (Score:2)
Curiously, it was easier to muck with punched cards on the IBM mainframe than it was to deal with the Selectric typewriters on Multics. In both cases, you were reliant on printed output, and a line printer could spew out paper much faster than an electric typewriter.
VMS was a well engineered OS, very robust, but exceedinglhy pedantic, making tasks that should have been simple (e.g., adding a new native command) excessively complicated. Its reliance on proprietary hardware that could not keep up with compe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sad end to a great operating system (Score:4, Informative)
IMO, the thing that killed VMS was DEC giving more importance to OSF/1 or Digital Unix. Unfortunately for them, NT on Alpha never caught on, and they tried to make up the difference w/ OSF/1. Instead, had they focused on OpenVMS/AXP, they'd have been a lot better off. That, plus had they complemented NT/AXP w/ Linux/AXP and *BSD/AXP, Alpha might have survived, and w/ it, OpenVMS.
Interestingly enough, Linux has killed off all corporate Unixes - AIX, HP/UX and now Solaris. Only ones left standing are the FOSS distros out there - OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD on the BSD side, and OpenIndiana, Schillix, Nexenta on the System V side. Ironically enough, it was x86 that enabled Linux to pull this off, even if Linux was cross-platform and supported on just about every CPU out there
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ken Olsen saying "Unix is snake oil" was not the best promotional message!
Re: (Score:2)
New SPARC? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can either run Linux (which still supports SPARC binaries, even if RedHat may have dropped support for it ages ago), or one of the BSDs - OpenBSD, FreeBSD or NetBSD
Re:New SPARC? (Score:4, Interesting)
or one of the BSDs - OpenBSD
FTFY. Only OpenBSD supports Sparc64 on modern Sparc64 - ie with T-series processors. And even that does not support the hardware crypto kit (cos Oracle wont let it).
Oracle need to think again FAST! OpenBSD on the new hardware could be a world beater for serving secure websites (something the world actually needs AND wants). However, they are currently engaged in supporting it in the Ellison traditional manner - with multiple stabs in the back!
illumos (Score:2)
So did BSD win the Unix wars? (Score:2)
So the last of the System V Unixes is dead? The only other one I can think of was SCO, but Xinuos has switched completely to a FreeBSD based Unix. So on the BSD side of things, you have NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and its derivatives, but is there anything left on the System V side? Just OpenIndiana, Schillix, Nexenta?
So in the System V vs BSD wars, has BSD finally emerged the victor? Not counting Linux in this, and not factoring in OS X within BSD, just considering the above distros in the picture
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. GRUB is not Linux
2. GRUB boots Solaris just fine
Your point being?
Not the end of Solaris at all... Just a move to po (Score:3, Informative)
Should really read the official line from Oracle for the reasons for the changes (taken from Register post)...
Here is what Oracle is communicating to customers:
The multi-decade record of SPARC and Solaris platform development and delivery continues with new innovations going forward. Engineering focus on SPARC and Solaris is being continuously applied to leadership in security, scalability, and enterprise reliability for mission critical computing for key customer adoption opportunities in the Cloud and on-premises.
Future features and functionality in Solaris will continue to be delivered through dot releases instead of more disruptive major releases. This addresses customer requirements for an agile and smooth transition path between versions, while providing incremental innovation with assured investment protection. We are amending the Support lifespan for Solaris 11, to extend it considerably beyond any reasonable expected lifetime of use, through at least 2031 and 2034 for Premier and Extended Support, respectively.
See page 37: http://www.oracle.com/us/support/library/lifetime-support-hardware-301321.pdf
Linked off of this page: http://www.oracle.com/us/support/lifetime-support/index.html
"Solaris 11 follows a Continuous Delivery model, where new functionality is delivered as updates to the existing release; upgrades are not required to gain access to new features and capabilities. As a result, Support dates are evaluated for update annually, and will be provided through at least the dates above."
If any of Oracle's customers require an email communication from an engineering executive in summary of the above, Oracle are happy to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see the end of Solaris at all , Oracle still sells all its high end supercluster machines with Solaris, they recently brought out a Sparc based Exadata too running Linux on Sparc. All Oracle's ZFS storage systems are running Solaris on X86. And ZFS is a strtegic storage platform for many of Oracle's curent initiatives including the Oracle Public Cloud machine.
Obi-Wans "great disturbance in the force" line... (Score:2)
Seems apropos. Though I doubt it'd be a million voices crying out these days.
As a unix sysadmin, I know some hard core Solaris bigots though.
What's in a name (Score:2)
So Oracle decides to name their next version of Solaris 11.next instead of 12. How does a random version numbering change spell demise for Solaris? Not that I think it has much of a future, but this is as silly as security ratings based on number of bugs. This tells us nothing about what features will ship with the next version.
Not surprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ding dong (Score:2)
I've been administering since Solaris was a we babe.
It used to be rock solid, but somewhere shortly after Java, it truly died and went in a direction of differentiating itself from the competition by layering trashpile over trashpile, over POSIX.
Every time I get asked to fix or deal with a Solaris 10/11 server these days, I cringe and immediately start avoiding it. Mainly because basic tasks still aren't efficient, or even make sense in approach. It's like Oracle is determined to be stable, but different
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct I meant 10. and 10 is old. Zoning is great, ZFS is only really good for one or two very expensive problems.
I still absolutely hate working in it.
Not a big loss (Score:2)
Solaris (a.k.a. Slowlaris) had its run. In particular, networking still sucks and some other things are not good at all. If Oracle hat kept the experts on and had kept investing, it could have been improved to be a real alternative, but that time is over. After years of neglect, the best is to have it die now and to push for whatever was superior be integrated into Linux instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)