Solaris Coming to IBM's Power Architecture? 419
johnm writes "Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's pony-tailed number two, dropped this little snippit in his blog where he talks extensively about what he thinks 'open' means: 'For example, as we continue porting Solaris onto IBM's Power architecture (demo coming soon!)...' Does this mean you'll soon be able to ditch OS X and stick on Solaris 10 onto Macs?" While coming off as an ad for Java, Schwartz also raises some valid points about Unix and migration.
I like his definition of open. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I like his definition of open. (Score:4, Insightful)
At work, I'm sure that many other Slashdotters are in communication with customers about open technologies.
For me, "open" may mean that it's totally hackable, modifiable and should include "fun".
For Joe, "open" may mean that it's possible to code to make it able to talk with his new XML based ERP system.
For Jane, "open" may mean that it's possible to save in an spreadsheet of office package X at home and embed it in the word processor of office package Y at work.
And so on..
We do have "our" preferences for the meaning of "open", but in the real world, we must achieve the fact that what we call "wide" open, may be restrictive for another person. This is what, at first, we should respect. Then we may have a peaceful settlement to all "open" wars around here or there.
Re:I like his definition of open. (Score:4, Informative)
And they are meaningless.
There are two application of the 'open' term in Informatics.
Open systems conform to open standards. Solaris is an open operating system.
Open source, well, you know, Solaris ain't an open source OS.
Re:I like his definition of open. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is - as long as you stick to the POSIX specification. As the article points out, as soon as you go past that, Solaris isn't open any more, and neither are any of the other UNIXes. It's not open by the parent's definition (which I like, BTW) because there isn't any open standard for the non-POSIX parts of Solaris.
Part of the point of the article is that there is a lot of stuff in the "non-POSIX" part of Solaris. And if you use it, you're stuck with Solaris, a
Re:I like his definition of open. (Score:3, Interesting)
That is not quite what the article said, nor the reality.
There are lots of other open or de facto standards besides POSIX that an OS can conform to, and Solaris does conform to several.
For example, LDAP is an open standard, SMTP and TCP/IP are de facto ones.
Even if you define the MS W16 API as once a 'pro
Re:I like his definition of open. (Score:3, Insightful)
So you are unaware that open systems (as in Unix) are what has driven down the (formerly expensive) prices of proprietary systems (then IBM)?
Take open systems from us (as in, let each current POSIX system diverge enough) and you will see MS, VMS and IBM prices hiking even higher than currently.
So try modifying and redistributing it to see how Sun likes it.
Why not? (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not really (Score:3, Insightful)
*
what he meant was that most of the drivers would be portable from other flavours of solaris were they not just for spesific hardware on ppc.
(like on linux & etc)
Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyhow, I don't think any of this has anything to do with Apple. It's clearly IBM that Sun is after. First they say they will 'buy Linux' (i.e. SuSe) which is IBM's Linux vendor of choice and now they are saying they will also invade IBM's hardware. Good luck to Sun. Competition is good for everyone, except the losers of course.
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:3, Interesting)
But there are some big differences between Solaris and other big time commercial Unices and *BSDs and Linux on the one side and Mac OS X on the other.
Solaris on Sun hardware has some failover and maintenance jazz that Apple hardware doesn't.
Solaris and the others can be stripped down to bare bones to co
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:3, Insightful)
a) compile a custom kernel with far fewer services available
b) Change program locations and links so that random calls by path wouldn't work (i.e. something like ls would be
c) remove dozens of commands entirely
etc...
You probably could do this with Darwin, you couldn't think of doing it with OSX
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, when all those companies start buying IBM hardware just to put Sun Linux or Solaris on it, IBM will be in a world of hurt..... I mean, big hardware sales and service without the cost and headaches of software support. Can it get any worse?
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:5, Informative)
Compatibility with 64-bit apps written 10 years ago.
A decent threading model that has been in place for years. Last time I checked there were 2 competing proposals for a new Linux threading system
CC-NUMA memory allocation.
Hot-swappable CPUs and consolidation. I can dynamically split single Solaris instance, running on 128 processors, to N instances each running on 128/N processors.
Mature user/kernel profiling tools.
Stable device driver model. Drivers from Solaris 2.6 will work fine in Solaris 10. Meanwhile any Linux kernel patch that changes task_struct will require rebuilds of certain Linux device drivers. Yes...not a problem with all open-source drivers, but the world isn't all open-source (ask nVidia)
The kernel is more modular. I can swap in a different scheduler.
Trusted Solaris is available if needed
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:5, Insightful)
> don't need some tricked out kernel build from
> the folks building special 512-processor Linux
> machines.
"Those people" are the same people that SOLD Sun it's current NUMA technology.
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bull. 64-bit Solaris started with Solaris 7 which must have been about 98/99; maximum age on a production 64-bit Solaris app is 6 years.
That said, Solaris has reasonably good binary compatibility with apps from SunOS 4 and any 32-bit app written to comply with the ABI specs of previous Solaris releases.
Hot-swappable if (a) you can find documentation to confirm that you can hot-swap system boards and (b) the sy
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't mean it's necessarily as capable as Solaris in the enterprise computing world, but it's probably more secure, and likely more stable.
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:3, Informative)
And Mac OS X is not FreeBSD. Similar? sure. Loosely based on? I'll buy that. But there are some major differences. Take a look at this usenet post (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF - 8&selm=3CF65A12.9020000%40coldmail.com.invalid ) or search out others.
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:2, Informative)
Solaris uses a monolothic kernel. Solaris' scalability has been proven for many years on hardware with many more than two processors.
For industrial grade iron, there is no reason to use MacOS-- it is too young and is not intended to be used on high-end server hardware.
For a desktop machine, there is no reason to use Solaris. The nicities that you get when y
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain why you'd want Solaris rather than OS X on a Macintosh . That was the debate. (I know there are reasons. I don't care about this idiotic debate. But you're talking stupid.)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:2)
They are both BSDs.
Not true. The Mac OS X is a monolithic, perverse mix of the BSD kernel and the Mach microkernel.
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:2)
That's not exactly true. In Mac OS X terms when one refers to hte Kernel one refers to the Mach Microkernel as well a the BSD, I/O Kit, File system, and Networking Components.
The actualy kernel is the Mach microkernel , but it is surrounded by all kinds of crazy crap
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:4, Informative)
Not.
When one talks a microkernel, that's not a complete kernel. It is the basics of a kernel, one needs to add servers to that in order to get an OS kernel.
In Mac OS X, there is only one server: BSD. And it is mixed in a monolithic kernel with Mach.
Contrast that with the Hurd which has Mach (or L4) plus several servers, or the other BSDs that have no microkernels.
There Is No 2200 CPU OSX Machine (Score:4, Informative)
"Haven't you heard of this one running OSX on 2200 processors"
The Virginia Tech cluster isn't a machine, it's a pile of PCs communicating via MPI, like any other Beowulf cluster. What the previous poster meant was OS support for SMP... CPUs in one box handled by one instance of the OS. I'd be more than happy to see a 4 or 16 CPU Apple, but there ain't one. Anyway, as others have said, I think this Solaris ploy is aimed at IBM RS/6000 boxes, not Macs.
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would suspect that Sun's intent is to impact AIX on IBM PowerPC's platform and not Mac's.
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, a port of solaris to the POWER architecture doesn't necessarily mean an immediate version for PowerPC machines, or Macs.
Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Power ? PPC (Score:2, Interesting)
Power != PowerPC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Power != PowerPC (Score:5, Informative)
POWER is a superset of PowerPC. See here [ibm.com].
Re:Power != PowerPC (Score:2, Informative)
Cain
Re:Power != PowerPC (Score:2, Informative)
Equality is commutative. (A = B) <=> (B=A). This is nonsense.
> > POWER is a superset of PowerPC.
Now that makes sense.
> Might it be more accurate to say that PowerPC is a subset of POWER?
That's the exact same statement as "POWER is a superset of PowerPC". Thanks for playing, though.
Re:Power != PowerPC (Score:2)
Is POWER >> PowerPC better?
Re:Power != PowerPC (Score:2)
Except in asymptotical notations (Big-O, Big-Theta, Big-Omega).
n^2+n=O(n^2)
n^2+1=O(n^2)
But not viceversa.
Otherwise you could say br n^2+n=n^2+1
Re:Power != PowerPC (Score:2)
Re:Power != PowerPC (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I assume they're porting to POWER IV and V, which are user-instruction compatible with PowerPC, though the supervisor instructions differ significantly. Thus, a POWER series port would be a good start towards making it work on random PowerMac hardware, but initially, such a port would only work on the G5 (and even then, wouldn't support altivec and would probably require additional code to recognize the CPU version...). Additional code in various assembly files (start.s stuff and various VM system changes) would be needed to make such an OS work on older PowerPC CPUs.
Re:Power != PowerPC (Score:3, Interesting)
Since this is Sun... (Score:2)
Again (Score:5, Interesting)
Even M$ had WinNT ported to PPC and IBM even had OS/2 ported too but those were the days.
Re:Again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Again (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Again (Score:4, Interesting)
Makes you wonder what they're up to. Could this be a prelude to Sun trying to sell themselves to IBM while they're still worth something? Surely they've seen what has happened to SGI, DEC, and DG. Of those previous Unix Workstation Vendor Flamouts (tm), only DEC could be said to have had a decent burial.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying Sun is going to die tommorow... the revenue off of DoD maintenance contracts alone will keep them on life support for another decade. But this would give them a chance to get out at better-than-firesale prices.
Could also mean I get to see Solaris on a "fast" machine one last time.
Re:Again (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't Sun+IBM be like wearing purple pants with a blue sport coat?
Re:Again (Score:4, Interesting)
As processor architecture and performance changes ofer time, it becomes more and more expensive to keep up. Many times before, we've seen companies switch processor and/or hardware because their old basis was not keeping up. Apple switched to PowerPC from 68k. DG switched from 88K (or something older?) to intel. NeXT switched was attempting to switch from 68K to 88K but jumped to intel at the last moment. HP is making the jump to Intel IA64.
Older processor families dissapeared because they couldn't keep up or were too expensive to keep up. Software moves on.
I bet Sun is seeing Sparc performance advantage fading away and a cost sink they can't keep up on. IBM is doing a lot of work to make POWER keep up, and they're doing a good job. Porting Solaris to POWER could be a precursor to Sun making POWER hardware themselves rather than just using IBM hardware. Or maybe they will cut back their hardware all together and go software only on IBM hardware. They still have enough software value to make a go of it.
In either case, it's not necessarily a dying gasp.
Re:Again (Score:2)
IBM talked about getting OS/2 on PPC but it never happened.
Open is open (Score:5, Insightful)
To me "open" simply means you can figure out what happens, "customer" has nothing to do with it. When I wrote mod_python I did not think of myself as a vendor and I don't think of mod_python users as "customers". You can't just think of everything in terms of "business", it's not like that at all.
Re:Open is open, but to who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember "vendor lock-in"? Used to happen with IBM mainframes, then Windows, and now, regrettably, with Unix variants.
The freedom to be able to chose a vendor is important to businesses and universities, and in principle to anyone who doesn't want to be locked to a particular vendor. Such as Sequent, who sorta doesn't exist any more...
I used to do a ton of porting for the purpose of unlocking stuff from vendor X or Y and making it run on "stock Unix", which is to say, pretty much anywhere. heck, I still do, on request (;-))
--dave
Re:Open is open (Score:4, Insightful)
Sun is in big trouble. They sell a bunch of decent servers that are not really unique from what the rest of the unix world is selling. They are obviously not able to keep ahead of the competition by making sparc the best processor around, so they have to come up with some other way sell something worth paying for. Solaris, for all its issues, is a reliable, scalable OS that runs a lot of applications. Solaris is a great asset to Sun; If they can leverage it on IBMs processor and make money doing so, it would really help the company.
Sun has moved beyond the "we can do everything in house" days, and is trying to figure out which battles are worth fighting. If they choose the wrong battles, they might go the way of dec, data general, and Sequent.
Hardware compatiblity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hardware compatiblity? (Score:2)
Sun == erratic (Score:5, Insightful)
However, after all these "sorta" announcements from different heads of the crew, i'm getting uneasy about Sun. Java open/closed/free/not-free/for-the-love-of-pete-wh
And i KNOW the roof will raise over the suggestion of dropping osX in favor of Solaris on mac....er, wow, my mind is blown that one might consider doing that for anything other than fun...for a few minutes. Wow, Sun is just makin me uneasy these days - glad i'm not in charge of any huge shops (i assure you that you are glad for that too
Re:Sun == erratic (Score:2)
Why they would do this on powerpc when they already have an opteron
Re:Sun == erratic (Score:4, Informative)
The RISC performance crown is POWER. The price-performance crown is x86. SPARC is stuck in a market slice between these two, and is getting squeezed. And SPARC is unlikely to be able to invade the x86-and-PPC-dominated desktop market, which means its development will always have fewer resources behind it than the squeezers. There's life left in the SPARC platform, but the way the wind is blowing is clear.
So what to do? Well, Sun's trying lots of things, hoping one sticks. If SPARC is in trouble, maybe Solaris can become the universal high-end Unix, running on any machine (that is, x86 and POWER). Maybe the Java Desktop System can secure Sun a slice of the Linux pie, even if Linux (backed by IBM) improves until leaves no room for Solaris. Maybe Java can save the company. Maybe if Sun open-sources key products, it can get the benefits of open development and still be the company people turn to for commercial support of them. Maybe . .
Who knows? Maybe something will work. It's worth a shot, at least.
Solaris and Gnome over OS X? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could be wrong, but Solaris and Gnome still have some rough edges which need smoothing out. My biggest critisms of of Solaris/Linux/Gnome is they move onto the never version and new features before the round out and polish the last version. That last 5% of effort to make the software shine is really what sets makes the average computer user feel it is 100% better.
Re:Solaris and Gnome over OS X? (Score:2)
Yet Gnome is rapidly approaching.
Re:Solaris and Gnome over OS X? (Score:3, Funny)
For suitable definitions [longnow.org] of "rapidly".
Easy decision (Score:4, Interesting)
when do we get Real Stuff and not Sound Bites? (Score:2, Informative)
You can consider that sentence flamebait or you can take it is my open letter to Sun to "Put up or Shut up". I, for one, would like to see some more follow-through on many of these announcements, like an open source Java and Solaris.
Re:when do we get Real Stuff and not Sound Bites? (Score:2)
It's almost as if their strategy is "ignore the man behind the curtain! Look at all the shiny things we might do!"
But: will any of those things keep them from losing $1B every quarter? Unless you can answer that question in the affirmative, and it'll ship soon, and not cost more to develop than it brings in, it's just looks like an attempt to distract from their failing core business.
Re:when do we get Real Stuff and not Sound Bites? (Score:2)
Forget Macs, P series! (Score:5, Informative)
From our standpoint, it's goes a bit like "ewww AIX"
I'm not sure I'd shove it into a production environment, and what if IBM starts to throw curveballs into the works to thwart the people running Solaris. Still totally funny if you ask my opinion. Talk about a comeback to IBM's marketing strategy, but at what cost to Sun's hardware sales.
Re:Forget Macs, P series! (Score:2, Insightful)
i don't think IBM would want to thwart people running Solaris on IBM hardware. IBM's software divisions make software for Solaris already. i don't think IBM makes money off the OS. they only need an OS like AIX to be able to provide a one-stop total solutions package. if people chose to run Solaris on IBM hardware that's fine, so long as IBM makes money on the hardware and software stacks.
i don't really think there's money to be made in Operating Systems unless you're planning to be like Microsoft, l
Re:Forget Macs, P series! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forget Macs, P series! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not an uncommon story. High Availability clusters are great in theory, but they introduce complexity. If you have a system 5 components, and a failure of any one of them would stop your system from working, is that worse then a system of 100 components, of which any two failures would have the same impact?
This is an extreme example, but quite often you will have more failures caused by t
This targets AIX, not OSX (Score:2)
This could also signal the end of large $ spending on R&D by Sun (why innovate when others are creating the computers that the OS can run on?).
Re:This targets AIX, not OSX (Score:2)
Or...This could also signal the end of large $ spending on R&D by IBM (why innovate when others are creating the OS that the computer runs?).
Open is... (Score:5, Funny)
Contradictory... (Score:2, Interesting)
Where do Microsoft come in? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nick...
Can we say behind the times??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun is trying every last ditch effort they can to stay afloat. The company that believed the world revolved around Solaris and SPARC is now supporting X86 and AMD64 and talking about PPC. They're offering Linux solutions. Everyone else sees the sinking ship that is Sun, but Sun themselves. Unfortunately, I can't help but think the old adage of "a day late and a dollar short" is going to apply to Sun very shortly, if not already.
You know (Score:2, Funny)
Open Standards vs. Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
What he fails to realize (or admit) is that Open Source has other advantages that build upon Open Standards. Even if an Open Source program doesn't conform to any well-recognized standard, the availability of the source can provide the same advantages. If you don't like the way Ximian is building their free Evolution mail reader, you can find another vendor who will take the existing mail reader and build you a custom version, fully compatible with the old. Also, Open Source programs typically embrace Open Standards with a passion. Look at Mozilla for a good example.
In addition, Open Source provides new advantages that Open Standards do not. The main advantage is control. If the company goes out of business, and you want to stick with their product, you can do that. If the vendor doesn't want to implement a feature that you want, you can do that. You get the advantages of commoditization, plus the ability to customize and modify things to fit your own needs.
Why Solaris on POWER? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Mac hardware thing is mostly a red herring, I'm guessing.
Here's my guess: Sun is considering the idea of dumping SPARC in favor of POWER. As things stand, they're way back in the raw performance game. Why continue investing R&D money into their own line of chips, if this is what it buys them?
Note that I'm not suggesting that they would become a pure software company -- my guess would be that they still design and build their own systems, just not their own chips.
Solaris does not excite me (Score:2)
Silly rabbit, Solaris is for Servers! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ugh, why would you want to?
Now, Solaris on an XServe [apple.com]... That makes sense... Server class hardware that doesn't suck [intel.com], yet doesn't cost an arm and a leg [sun.com], running perhaps the best multiprocessor Unix ever [sun.com]... Mmmmm.
The ironic thing in my view is that this is sort of what CHiRP [webopedia.com] was supposed to be - a happy universe where you could buy an RS6000 and run MacOS on it, or a Mac and run Solaris on it, or whatever. But then His Steveness decided that the clones had to go...
Only a customer can define the word "open."... (Score:2, Funny)
which defintion? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Only a customer can define the word 'open.' That's my view"
Conclusion:
"Open as in door, is different than open as in source. Unix, linux, Windows - none are open, I'd argue. There is no agreed upon specification, no neutral test to determine validity, and no guarantee made by vendors other than rhetoric."
Apparently, Schwartz wants a gatekeeper to insure that all libaries and ancillary programs are standard between Websphere, BEA, and JES. In short, he's complaining that IBM keeps adding features outside of the TCK/AVK "standard" (apparently defined by Sun), pushing Sun out of the market.
Geesh, here's a novel idea -- innovate! Out-feature IBM, open source the environment and libraries, package support with a linux distribution, and then sell, sell, sell!
Competition is Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Several years ago, Solaris ran on Sparc and x86. Of course, the solaris X86 was the bastard child.
Likewise, mainstream Windows ran on X86 compatable only (yeah, NT ran on alpha, but that was a decade ago; And yes I saw NT on PA-RISC, but it was never released).
In addition, Windows will have a a 3'rd world distro that will cost but a fraction of their current stuff, but have 99% of what they currently offer. Historically, Bill Gates encourages theft of Windows as a way to check growth in other areas. That happened to Borland, Sybase, etc. These days MS claims that linux growth in 3'rd world country is so that it can be replaced by Windows. If so, then why do they think that a low cost version will be bought by end customers, when they can have it for free?
Linux and BSD run on many arch. and the 2 of them are making huge inroads into older OSs. Suddenly Windows and Solaris want to port to everything. Solaris on multiple platforms and low-cost to free windows is simply an attempt to stop Linux from wiping out sales
What people fail to see... (Score:3, Interesting)
I abhor diversity when it comes to computers its just a pain in the ass. Any chance I can get to have all my equipment running the same software I'd jump at. Jon's arguments apply mostly to the business end, he isnt trying to pitch superior tech, just a superior business/IT plan.
Sun is moving away from hardware sales. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually its a smart move.
Hardware has been commiditized into oblivion...
Sun is wising up. This is a good thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Although it has been pointed out several times here that POWER!=PPC (or Apple), I think Sun would be well served to make certain that any port they do runs on at least the Power Macintosh G5 platform (and any later Apple hardware). This would give Sun access to the many, many existing Apple workstations out there so as to provide Solaris with exposure to the Mac community.
Let's face it, although Mac OS X is a great OS, Apple doesn't really seem to be doing much to chase after the enterprise market, even though they now have what could be an enterprise-class OS (with some better documentation, anyway). The XServe is a fine machine, but it's hardly what I would consider "enterprise", with the possible exception of high-density clustering apps.
Solaris is a very good OS with a huge amount of support in the community, and good installed base at the higher levels. If Sun could get Solaris running on Macs and IBM RS/6K (or whatever they're calling them these days???), it could open up many more doors for them, while still enabling them to possibly design their own brand workstations and desktops on the POWER/PPC platform to compete with both IBM and Apple. That could also mean Mac OS X support on a Sun box.
I can't help thinking that this may be a precursor to shopping Sun out to one of the aforementioned competitors. Apple could use Sun, and vice-versa. An IBM+Sun pairing would probably mean the death of Sun.
Is it a purchase ploy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that difficult at all, I assume. I'm not a coder, so I'm not all that certain. But, if Solaris is running on the Power architecture, the PPC is only a few steps away.
Could Sun be doing this to make itself an attractive acquisition for IBM or Apple (if Apple is truly serious about expanding its place in the enterprise?)?
Not Macintosh but IBM's Power5 stuff.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The meat of the article was that he feels that open means no vendor lock in. His point is that if you use Java and don't use any proprietary junk you could move your code with little effort. I agree in principle, but if I write the stuff in Java, then I am locked in to Java. Not that this is bad, but it would make sense for Sun to change the VM (perhaps open source it and go to the standards body and get it approved as a standard) and then get other languages to run on it. In a way it would be somewhat like
Re:Why Solaris ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IBM's POWER != PowerPC (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IBM's POWER != PowerPC (Score:2)
Re:by sun's "open" definition (Score:2)
Re:for Solaris to truely work on apple's product l (Score:4, Informative)