Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sun Microsystems Operating Systems Software IT

Sun Considers dual-sourcing Solaris Under GPL3 198

Posted by Hemos
from the what-would-the-impact-be dept.
foorilious writes "In his blog, Sun Microsystem's President and COO Jonathan Schwartz discusses the possibility of dual-licensing Solaris (and perhaps the rest of their software suite) under GPLv3, in addition to the CDDL, which is the OSI-approved license under which these products are already available, but generally considered to be incompatible with the GPL at some level. Though this could mean an opening of the floodgates to a lot of sharing between Linux and Solaris (among other things), it's worth mentioning that Schwartz has speculated on exciting things in the past (such as porting Solaris to IBM's Power) that we subsequently never heard another thing about."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun Considers dual-sourcing Solaris Under GPL3

Comments Filter:
  • by confusion (14388) on Monday January 30, 2006 @09:50AM (#14597770) Homepage
    I thought Linux wasn't going to go for GPL3, so how exactly would that sharing work?

    Jerry
    http://www.networkstrike.com/ [networkstrike.com]
    • by nurhussein (864532) on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:00AM (#14597832) Homepage
      I thought Linux wasn't going to go for GPL3, so how exactly would that sharing work?
      I suspect that's the reason for the sudden change of heart. They know Linux won't be able to get any Solaris tech due to Linux being stuck at GPL2, and get to score brownie points with GPL-lovers.
      • Well said. In my view, Sun's latest FOSS lovefest has been all about releasing red herrings to try and disperse some of the momentum around existing projects.
      • by justins (80659)
        Hah. You've got to love an anti-Sun sentiment so strong that GPLing software suddenly becomes a bad thing.
      • I suspect that's the reason for the sudden change of heart. They know Linux won't be able to get any Solaris tech due to Linux being stuck at GPL2, and get to score brownie points with GPL-lovers.

        So you really think that a large corporation would put time and effort into adding licenses to Solaris to snub Linux and to score brownie points?

        The reason for the current licensing of Solaris is nothing to do with preventing technology transfer. After all, Sun have transferred plenty of technology to competing op
    • by m50d (797211) on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:12AM (#14597893) Homepage Journal
      He meant GNU/Linux, most of which will be automatically available under GPL3 once it is published.
    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:15AM (#14597910) Homepage
      The thing is, you could still get a lot of interesting tech from the solaris OS without necessarily taking anything from the kernel. Remeber, that Linux is simply a kernel. It doesn't require that all software run on top of that kernel be run under the same license. If they simply release the Solaris kernel, it probably wouldn't have meant much to Linux, because Linux already has a pretty good kernel, and I'm pretty sure they'd be a little incompatible anyway. I think the main thing that will help is the applications that run on top of the kernel, that Sun may be releasing.
      • by salimma (115327)
        The interesting things in Solaris are kernel-related (DTrace, zones and ZFS), I believe.
    • by twitter (104583)
      I thought Linux wasn't going to go for GPL3, so how exactly would that sharing work?

      Probably as well or better than the kind of sharing that puts OpenSSH into every Linux distro.

      Imagine Debian on UltraSparc with a Solaris kernel.

      Imagine Sun Linux kernel modules. You don't really think a practical person like Torvalds would turn any of that down do you?

      User name, "confusion", is way too obvious. Try "silly" or "wrong" for greater stealth.

    • by Julian Morrison (5575) on Monday January 30, 2006 @11:00AM (#14598281)
      This is actually what i posted about before. Any project that licenses GPL2 is going to feel an increasing pressure to go GPL3. Some of them will just be assimilated by the "...or any later version" suggested language. Some, like Linux, which are GPL2 only, will start to look like isolated islands of ancient code, shut out from all the modern goodies.
      • In what way?

        My project is GPL2; yours is GPL2 "or any later version".

        My project can still use your code; your project can still use my code (under the terms of GPL2)
    • by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot@kadin.xoxy@net> on Monday January 30, 2006 @11:22AM (#14598451) Homepage Journal
      The Linux kernel probably won't ever be GPL3, because the license it uses doesn't contain the forward-compatibility clause that the FSF's software does; however, all the GNU utilities (including, I believe, GCC) will be GPL3 and/or GPL2, because they have the forward-looking clause.

      So really what it would allow a person to do, is produce a GNU/Solaris as opposed to GNU/Linux -- an OS that would have the Solaris kernel, wrapped in the GNU utilities, without the Linux kernel. I'm not sure if anyone would really want that, because I'm not sure that it would be compatibile with either existing Solaris or existing Linux software without rewriting, and it generally seems to be a solution looking for a problem (not unlike GNU/Hurd).
      • I would definitely prefer that Solaris have the GNU versions of most of the command-line utilities. I have a hard time going back to the "old" versions that Solaris has, which are often missing functionality that the GNU versions have. Just the ability to put options to commands after the filename arguments would make me happy.
      • Personally, I'd LOVE a GNU/Solaris distro.... the Solaris kernels are extremely robust. I've had very bad luck with Linux all through the 2.6 series. Even the stable versions have had constant security patches, requiring reboots and downtime. I hate downtime.

        FreeBSD with the GNU utilities is one possible replacement, but it'd be nice to have a kernel that's both extremely robust AND scalable at the center. FreeBSD is very solid, but it doesn't (yet) scale like Solaris does. Linux scales, but it's not
    • People contributing to Linux would be more likely to contribute to Solaris as well. Nothing prevents people to license their code under GPL2 or later no matter what most of Linux is licensed under.
  • Floodgates are shut (Score:5, Informative)

    by brunes69 (86786) <<gro.daetsriek> <ta> <todhsals>> on Monday January 30, 2006 @09:54AM (#14597793) Homepage

    Though this could mean an opening of the floodgates to a lot of sharing between Linux and Solaris

    Linus already said that Linux is not now, and will not in the near future, be released under GPLv3. And since GPLv3 is not reverse compatible with GPLv2 (it has more restrictions), this won't happen.

    • by Tim C (15259)
      I imagine that by "Linux", the submittor means "GNU/Linux" rather than "the Linux kernel".

      I know, I know - Linux is the kernel, yadda yadda. When anyone I speak to says "Linux", they mean the OS, not the kernel - just like when people talk about NT, they mean the OS, not the kernel.
  • Patents in GPL3 (Score:5, Informative)

    by SWroclawski (95770) <sergeNO@SPAMwroclawski.org> on Monday January 30, 2006 @09:59AM (#14597823) Homepage
    One of the least discussed but largest changes in GPL3 is the explicit mention of patents and how patents (if found to be violated) would effect the work as a whole. This is similar to the IBM Public License and is one of those things that I'd imagine would give a corporate lawyer warm fuzzies. Sun and others may find this change so compelling that they'd be willing to give more attention to the GPL3 than the GPL2, which strengthens it further (since these companies want the flow of information to go both).
  • Solaris on Power (Score:2, Informative)

    by lcs (61658)
  • by geoffspear (692508) on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:01AM (#14597837) Homepage
    Which will happen first:

    - Linux zealots abandon their "everything about Solaris sucks and I'll never use it" dogma, or
    - Mac zealots abandon their "Intel processors suck and I'll never use one" dogma?

    The Mac people are taking an early lead, but anything can happen.

    • If you look back in the thread, you'll see mac zealots are already getting elitist about their new processors.
    • I am a Linux Zealot that's already had the priveledge of using Solaris pretty intensively in a professional setting for about 10 years both on Sparc and on x86. My "dogma" is not the problem. My 10 years of experience using Solaris is the problem. It also doesn't help my "dogma" that I've also used other commercial Unixen and don't see Sun as the whole universe.

                  Between IBM and SGI, it's the Sun fanboys that have serious "dogma".
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:12AM (#14597894)
    ...it's worth mentioning that Schwartz has speculated on exciting things in the past (such as porting Solaris to IBM's Power) that we subsequently never heard another thing about.

    You can find out if you just use the Schwartz - trust your feelings, let go.
  • I read in a few /. posts that Solaris is likely the best 64bit OS available. On other sites I've read Solaris referred to as Slowiris when run on a single CPU, but the Sun site suggests Solaris is no slower than Linux on a single CPU machine.

    How much of a cachet does Solaris have and how will Sun attempt to capitalize on any cachet Solaris does have, especially on dual cores? Is going Open Source with GPL v3 an attempt to move into Linux territory and sell services while trying to maintain sales of their hi

    • Re:Will Sun Shine? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Zemplar (764598)
      You'll certainly love the speed of Solaris 10, with perhaps, only one exception for now. UFS filesystems don't [generally] perform as well as some other more recent filesystems supported by Linux, though you can be certain that will change when ZFS is considered production quality. ZFS is now available in OpenSolaris and [I believe] the latest Solaris Express builds. The "FireEngine" network stack on Solaris 10 is without a doubt the fastest I've ever seen. 64-bit multiprocessing is hands-down better on
    • On other sites I've read Solaris referred to as Slowiris when run on a single CPU, but the Sun site suggests Solaris is no slower than Linux on a single CPU machine.

      As far as I can tell, the "Slowaris" nickname came from having slow SPARC hardware back in the day, and having a crappy X server. The cool thing is that Solaris is using the Xorg X server for almost all hardware now. They've got an official Nvidia driver now and things are fairly snappy.

      One nice thing about Solaris is that successive versions of

    • Re:Will Sun Shine? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) <akaimbatman@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday January 30, 2006 @11:10AM (#14598357) Homepage Journal
      I read in a few /. posts that Solaris is likely the best 64bit OS available. On other sites I've read Solaris referred to as Slowiris when run on a single CPU, but the Sun site suggests Solaris is no slower than Linux on a single CPU machine.

      You have to be careful here. Solaris used to be called Slowaris when run on Intel machines, because it was designed for much more powerful hardware. A lot of features that are hardware supported on a SPARC machine had to be reimplemented in software on Intel machines.

      Another common vector for the "Slowaris" comments is the early days of the Sun framebuffers. Sun was one of the first vendors to do away with text mode all together, and emulate it entirely in software. The upshot is that Solaris SPARC machines have the best looking, smooth font, conole you will ever see. The downside is that the 100 MHz beasties that started this practice had a bit of trouble keeping up with the needs of the console rendering.

      Neither of these issues has been significant for a very long time. I haven't heard anyone call the OS "Slowaris" in almost a decade. The complaint I hear today is that Solaris is unwieldy and not at all designed with user-friendly setup. Sun keeps trying to fix this with new, prettier installers. I don't think they have a clue though, because the first thing I have to do every time I install the OS is go into the config files and setup the DNS server and default gateway. You'd think it would kill them to ask this info during an install. :-/
      • "I don't think they have a clue though, because the first thing I have to do every time I install the OS is go into the config files and setup the DNS server and default gateway. You'd think it would kill them to ask this info during an install. :-/"

        well... actually, they do.

        at least on x86 machines. both Sol 9 and Sol 10 asks during intall what kind of directory server you want to use (they offer NIX, NIS+, DNS, LDAP...). if you choose DNS, the installer asks the addresses.
        • both Sol 9 and Sol 10 asks during intall what kind of directory server you want to use (they offer NIX, NIS+, DNS, LDAP...). if you choose DNS, the installer asks the addresses.

          And still doesn't set them up. (Which peeved me off even more.) The last time I tried setting up Solaris 10, it asked me for the DNS and gateway info, but then failed to act upon it. Maybe it was a bug in the installer version, but it REALLY annoyed me. I had been hoping that Sun had finally taken care of the problem so that I wouldn
      • every time I install the OS is go into the config files and setup the DNS server and default gateway

        Hey, selection of the defaultrouter and dns servers is in the installer for several years.

        Solaris may have had several issues with other things, but their installation methods and processes were kicking ass when the rest of us were in the dark ages.
    • Re:Will Sun Shine? (Score:2, Informative)

      by htd2 (854946)
      Solaris hasn't been slow relative to Linux since Solaris 10 came out and before that Solaris outperformed Linux for most SMP workloads but lost out on single CPU systems.

      One of the design goals for Solaris 10 was for it to be not more than 5% slower than Linux for a range of single processor workloads where typically in the past Linux had been faster (on the same hardware). To that end Sun developed a benchmark called LibMicro which modeled the workloads which Solaris underperformed at and gave this to t
  • If Linux dont want do comply with openness there is always s.b. who will. This error from Linus is maybe the chance solaris needs to grab the initiative and mindshare of programmers.
    • If Linux dont want do comply with openness

      What the f*ck? GPLv2 was way more open that GPLv3 is looking to be (check it out for yourself: heres a draft analysis [newsforge.com]). Note the restrictions on (a) DRM (b) patent retaliation. While you may like what GPLv3 has to say about those things you do have to agree these are restrictions that DO NOT EXIST in GPLv2. Therefore, GPLv2 is more open and less restrictive.
      • Re:WTF?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:38AM (#14598106) Homepage
        But maybe we don't want the most open and least restrictive. Because if we did, we'd all be using BSD. Which is the least restrictive license I know of. I think what a lot of GPL users want is for their code to stay GPL, and for changes made to the code by others to be brought back upstream, so the whole community can take advantage of the changes. I think that's what GPL V3 is trying to accomplish.
        • Re:WTF?!? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Billly Gates (198444)
          The reason Linus turned down GPLv3 is that it required giving the copyright and permission available from all contributors. Linus wants to keep it trademarked under his name and the task is impossible to track everyone down for approval with GPLv3.

          • I think you're very confused about the difference between copyright & trademarks. And a bunch of other things.
        • If you wanted to be the least restrictive you'd put it in the public domain. I really don't see the point of the BSD license in most cases.
          • The difference between BSD and the public domain is that with BSD you still maintain copyright over whatever you release. Others can do whatever they want to with it, but you still have the copyright. If you release something into the public domain, I don't believe you retain any copyright to whatever you release.
            • No, but why would you want the copyright? So you can relicense it under another license? There's no point, since either BSD or public domain is liberal enough that you can do that anyway without holding the copyright. So you can stop others making derivative works? But the license lets them anyway. There's no point keeping your copyright if you're not going to exercise any of your rights under it - and BSD allows just about everything you have a right to prevent under copyright.
      • Depends if you consider the additional terms "restrictions" or granting/enforcing users "rights" and ensuring the software remains "free" and "open".
  • by Qbertino (265505) on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:25AM (#14597992)
    Please note people: This is a company. That means they make money. And they do it in the classic sense which means this type of company usually gets the creeps when hearing stuff like "go FOSS" or "rely on FOSS". CEOs freak out regularly when these terms come up.

    If SUN plans an OSS strategy they are certainly NOT going to GPL their powerhorse Java. Solaris is nearly just as impressive from a technical standpoint. It's probably that Solaris doesn't have the numbers attached to it SUN would like to see. So they probably guess it could prove itself as OSS, since Linux is winning in the custom Unix market at all fronts.

    If x86 Solaris would go GPL that would be really cool. I'd actually give it a try.
    • "If SUN plans an OSS strategy they are certainly NOT going to GPL their powerhorse Java. Solaris is nearly just as impressive from a technical standpoint. It's probably that Solaris doesn't have the numbers attached to it SUN would like to see."

      Solaris is a platform. Java is supposed to be multi-platform. I fail to see how GPL Java would work well.

      Imagine GPL Java under committeee control. Then one day, not to far distant, some member decides to fork the GPL Java because he/she has some other idea.
      • I've seen this argument before, but it doesn't make sense. Java is a Sun trademark. You can't call anything Java unless it passes a number of compliance tests. There is nothing wrong with extending Java - that's what the com.* namespace is for - as long as anything that runs on Java(TM) runs on your implementation. If Java were open source then people could take it, port it to a new platform, submit their changes back, and have the next official release support their favourite platform. At the moment,
        • While I whole-heartedly agree with you on several of your points (especially FreeBSD's short straw) I see GPL Java going the way of w3.org HTML specifications and Microsoft's HTML "standard". One effective & correct way of doing things, but a more widely distributed audience of crap that makes the entire idea quite muddy and less effective.

          Another large potential reason for keeping Java guarded is that it may really screw up Sun's enterprise stack if allowed to be GPL'd. Although I am in no way affi

      • Imagine GPL Java under committeee control. Then one day, not to far distant, some member decides to fork the GPL Java because he/she has some other idea. Before long, there are 18 types of Java than are not all multi-platform and can't run the same code. Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it

        You mean like how there are so many incompatible versions of the linux kernel and so many incompatible versions of the Mono .NET environment? I don't think you'd have to worry much. It is in the entire Java communit

    • I think the reason Sun wants to open up Solaris is because right now, adoption isn't moving very quickly because of the lack of hardware compatibility.

      Their HCL *sucks.* I've never been a huge booster of Linux hardware compatibility, but if you go over and look at your options when you have Solaris x86 installed, it's a vast range of options you have for Linux in comparison. I think there is ONE 801.11x wireless card listed on their HCL. I don't know if that means that there are more compatible ones that ju
      • Their HCL *sucks.* /me nods to PP. I didn't really consider printer support when I ordered an Ultra 20 to replace my ancient P-II/450. However, when I set it up and noticed it was "legacy free" (no PS2, parallel or serial ports), I wondered how I was going to set up my printer (an old Lexmark Optra 1650 with a parallel port). I browsed to the Sun web site and saw that basically *no* printers were supported on my hardware with Solaris 10. I picked up a network printer adapter, but I haven't had time to p
  • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:30AM (#14598041) Homepage Journal

    The GPLv3 is still in draft form. It doesn't actually exist yet. The version on the FSF webpage could be better classified as a "beta" release (I think that's what Stallman considers it).

    It's a little early to be saying "I'm going to be using the GPLv3!" Yes, they're working on it, but it's not actually out yet. The optimistic "release" date is November of this year, with the expected release date being early 2007... It's just not ready yet!

    However, thinking about the current draft and any problems you have with it is encouraged. They want comments still, there's still time to help change the final draft. Saying "I'm going to use the GPLv3!" is still premature. Wait until it's actually finished, then decide.

    • It's a little early to be saying "I'm going to be using the GPLv3!"

      Is anyone actually saying that?
      • Read the blog post [sun.com]. The author specifically specifies the GPLv3, and not just "the GPL." The blog title is "Thinking About GPL3..." and he links to a copy of the GPLv3 draft. (Which actually says "THIS IS A DRAFT" right on it, don't know why he linked a copy [tbray.org] and not the GPLv3 site [fsf.org], but...)

        So, yes - he's talking about using the GPLv3 as opposed to the current GPL.

        Which is silly, because the GPLv3 is still in draft form. It's not released. Speculation about how to apply the GPLv3 would make sense, ta

        • I think the GP was right. Schwartz is talking about possibly switching, not saying that Sun's actually doing it. Note in particular this paragraph:

          We also recognize that diversity and choice are important - which is why we've begun looking at the possibility of releasing Solaris (and potentially the entire Solaris Enterprise System), under dual open source licenses. CDDL (which allows customer IP to safely comingle with Solaris source code) and under the Free Software Foundation's GPL3. It's early days, b

        • You missed the point of my question. He isn't committing to anything, one way or the other.

          Unless he intentional means to say "we have no plans on releasing an open source version of Solaris until 2007."

          All versions of Solaris are already open source.
    • As reluctant as Sun has been to test the GPL waters, I can't imagine them diving right in to the GPLv3 unknown. If anything, perhaps, they might:

      1. use the "version 2 or later clause" (unlikely), or
      2. use version 2, and go FSF-style and make contributors assign copyright on new code back to Sun - leaving them the option to migrate en masse at a later date once version 3 gets a bit more polish.

      I think those are the only remotely possible options at this point.


  • Schwartz also said the only relevant OSes left today are Linux, Windows and Solaris.

    Anyway, they had a PPC port of Solaris.... 10 years ago when they had Solaris 2.5.1. Why would they want to start it up again?
    • Opensolaris already has backported it to powerpc. Its almost finished. So why not?

      I think he wants solaris to be the alternative to linux. As a former FreeBSD user its nice to see a stable operating system that is also enterprise ready in terms of scalability and performance. I like unix more than linux and I want to try out OpenSolaris soon when I have time. The way sun wants to do this is increase the platforms and peripherals solaris can run on. Solaris10 is a big improvement on x86 over 9 in terms of ha
  • GNU (Score:4, Funny)

    by Billly Gates (198444) on Monday January 30, 2006 @10:43AM (#14598153) Journal
    GNU = GNU is Now Unix
    • Re:GNU (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Aqws (932918)
      It should now be: GNU = "GNU NUG UGN", where NUG stands for "NUG UGN GNU", and UGN stands for "UGN GNU NUG".
  • 1 - Linux won't use Solaris code because there doesn't appear to be any intention of migrating to GPL3

    2 - Solaris can't use Linux code because Sun wants to keep their code under a second license (CDDL), which is at some level incompatible with the GPL (a.k.a incompatible with any imported Linux code)

    I applaud Sun's ideas, but I am looking forward to a Fully Open Source Java (granted, I do appreciate that alternatives from other vendors are available nevertheless).
  • Back in the Solaris 5 timeframe there was a PowerPC version available. The idea was that it was going to be available on the IBM/Apple/Motorolla 'Refrence Platform'. Solaris 2.5.1 came out and it was no longer available. This must have been around 1995-1996. Since they already have some base drivers available for PowerPC it should be pretty easy to reactivate that leg of the source tree, from what I know.
    • Back in the Solaris 5 timeframe there was a PowerPC version available. The idea was that it was going to be available on the IBM/Apple/Motorolla 'Refrence Platform'.

      Although there is no such thing as Solaris 5, I can confirm that a PowerPC port of Solaris existed. It was Solaris 2.5 that was available for SPARC, PowerPC, and x86. Here's some of Sun's documentation [sun.com] about it.

      I also remember seeing PowerPC versions of patches on the SunSolve contract support site for Solaris, so I can only assume bas

  • yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by penguin-collective (932038) on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:16PM (#14599506)
    Just like Sun was going to open source Java, and like Sun was going to make an ISO and ANSI Java standard.

    Sun management is a bunch of liars. At this point, you can't believe anything they say until they do it.
  • by Builder (103701) on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:42PM (#14599720)
    I'm losing more and more interest in Linux because of it's lack of enterprise features. Hell, a month and a bit ago, I could have been sound asleep in bed if I'd been using Solaris, instead of up at some ridiculous time of the morning:

    http://www.penguinpowered.org/wayne/blog/if_i_used _solaris_instead_of_linux-2005-12-14 [penguinpowered.org]
  • by jilles (20976) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:25PM (#14600054) Homepage
    I have to admit Sun seems to have some positive swing lately. They're selling some hardware again. Their open source policy finally seems to be bringing in new customers, after years of shooting themselves in the foot with weird licenses, inconsistent marketing and plain corporate stupidity affecting all their business units.

    Their strategy of the past years has been very ineffective. Java has become a multi billion industry, Sun has invested hugely in it but they have failed to cash in on it directly (I suspect they barely break even). Also it hasn't driven hardware sales that much. Their main competitor on the other hand seems to have a very succesful Java strategy. IBM is leading the way in application servers, IDEs (eclipse, rational rose) and middleware with basically the whole industry eating out of their hand, including most JCP specifications committees. On top of that they also sell the hardware & support to go with the software. IBM loves Java!

    Then the whole x86 solaris thing has come a long way too (from 'hey it's free now but we support it for a fee', 'oh wait we don't do that anymore' to 'oh well lets open source the whole thing and forget about it' to finally 'hey x86 solaris is really important to us'). I mean, what do they want?

    Sparc sales have been a disaster for the past years with people basically favoring IBM power and x86 with linux. They may be laughing at intel for itanium but they have one thing in common with intel: x86 is driving sales for both of them. Sun has a few next generation architectures on the shelves which no doubt they are going to try to sell. These chips had better be way better than the competition (and their mediocre current offerings) or otherwise whatever spin they put on it won't work. Personally I'm not convinced yet. Their two operating systems (solaris/linux) & two architectures (x86/sparc4 aka niagra) policy is going to continue to confuse people. Sun seems to think the combinations can coexist without affecting each others marketshare. I don't. Confused customers will look to IBM and others.

    To me Sun still is a company in trouble. Maybe a few of their business units are recovering (finally) but that still leaves large parts of the company not performing very well.
  • Dual-sourcing is when you get the same (or an equivalent) part from two different manufacturers.

    What Sun is doing would be more properly called "dual licensing".

God is real, unless declared integer.

Working...