OpenSolaris 2008.11 – Year of the Laptop? 223
Ahmed Kamal writes "Is Linux getting too old for you? Are you interested to see what other systems such as OpenSolaris have to offer? OpenSolaris has some great features, such as ZFS and dtrace, which make it a great server OS — but how do you think it will fare on a laptop? Let's take an initial look at the most recent OpenSolaris 2008.11 pre-release on recentish laptop hardware."
Year of the sell out (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Year of the sell out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parse it ((Open Source) Software), in this case "Open Source" is an adjective describing a type of software.
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it is cool to try out different OSes from time to time, but is there really any solid technical reason why anyone would choose solaris on a laptop over linux?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not going to name names, because I do not wish to enter the distro jihad, but the distro that I use comes with MP3 codecs.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know some that do too. But, they're not supposed to ship with the MP3 codecs.
Why not? They're a pretty handy thing to have, after all...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The code is GPLed, what's the problem? If you don't like it, derive a clean-room implementation of your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
There aren't. It's supposedly patented, but since you cannot patent software in most of the world, no-one cares.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office are pretty handy things to have, too.
Maybe for you. I don't use any Office-type apps, and none of the software I use works in Windows. Also, they're both closed-source proprietary things, so I don't really see how that compares. MP3 is a well-documented open standard, with lots of different open-source and closed-source codecs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? they're only of dubious legality in the US and other countries with software patents, but there's plenty of countries that have saner legal systems, and no reason why distros can't cater to them instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Whyever not? They've paid for patent licenses, so it's perfectly legal, even in the USA.
Of course, we might be thinking of different distros.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really a troll. Jihad generally translates as 'the struggle'. There are several versions of it.
'Jihad as-sayf' specifically refers to 'the struggle of the sword', or the fight against non-muslims. This meaning is similar to the idea of defending the American Dream, or spreading democracy, except that some Islamic states have no seperation of state and religon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You would quickly learn the hard way that many people are inclined to follow Selfism, a convenient religion that encourages its devotees to attack you and steal all your property. And with no state, who is going to bother to protect you from them? You surely aren't going to pretend that you, alone, with whatever guns you may possess, can hold off an armed gang indefinitely. Sooner or later you will have to sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
why is this a troll?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Binary drivers.
I am, at the very moment, trying desparately to get EeePC to work with Ubuntu.
If Linux had binary drivers I would just copy them from the original distro. Now it is huge PITA.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
This [array.org] should fix most of your problems. It got Hardy working great for me on an Eee 1000.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it is cool to try out different OSes from time to time, but is there really any solid technical reason why anyone would choose solaris on a laptop over linux?
If you truly are a Linux fan - isn't your first phrase answer enough? I've asked this sort of question about Linux enough times (e.g. "Do we really need another distro?" or "Do we really need yet another window manager?"), and Linux fanboys all think that "because we can" is a good enough answer in and of itself. That's fine; but if it's true when we talk about Linux, it's also true when we're discussing other operating systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? All "true" Linux fans should use Solaris as their laptop O/S because trying things out can be fun? Bit of a non-sequiteur there, I can't help feeling. Besides which, if true it would also mean I had to have MinuetOS, Haiku, some flavour of BSD, ReactOS, and probably
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The availability of "yet another option" doesn't make any year "a year of that yet other option".
It's nice that Solaris x86 is finally not being treated like
an ugly redheaded stepchild. Although it's about 10 years too
late and that ship has sailed already.
I would imagine any OEM would have this nagging doubt in the
back of their mind about Sun and the future of Solaris and
what Sun might do in the future to screw things up again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Easy (Score:2)
Some people work with/on Solaris and wouldn't mind taking it with them on the road.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was thinking the same thing about MacOS. You get a full UNIX plus the benefits (zfs, dtrace) mentioned in the summary on top of an excellent platform with probably the best app support of any UNIX.
Re: (Score:2)
If I could install MacOS on any random hardware
including a $300 mini laptop, I would be doing
back flips for the rest of the month. As a desktop
OS, Apple actually has something interesting to
bring to the table. Besides, I already have 2 MacOS
licenses that I'm not otherwise using.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems. -- Linus Torvalds
With respect to Linus, I see this quote and now I have to mention
a few things.
Microsoft did everything in its power to kill Netscape.
Microsoft intentionally made other companies software run slow
to make theirs look better ( Lotus vs. Excel ).
The Dept. of Justice case against Microsoft clearly showed
that while their corporate charter might not be evil,
some of the ppl making the choices for the company
most certainly were ev
Re: (Score:2)
OS X has a nice kernel and a decent BSD-derived userland, but the GUI is not universally appreciated -- some of us find it restrictive, dumbed-down, inefficient, and poorly integrated with X11. Heck, you have to install a third-party utility just to get the mouse acceleration to work properly!
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
The Solaris kernel is very nice - good performance, good scalability, zones, ZFS, dtrace, an incredibly scalable TCP/IP stack, a stable driver ABI, and so on. It's fully supported by OSS (Sun paid 4Front to develop it) and I believe it now has a DRI implementation too. The userspace is a bit archaic - it's classic System V, which makes even a GNU userland look nice.
Or, to turn your question around, what is the compelling reason for choosing Linux over OpenSolaris or, say, PC-BSD, on a laptop?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
what is the compelling reason for choosing Linux over OpenSolaris or, say, PC-BSD, on a laptop?
Frequency scaling support for the processor to save power? Hardware support in general? I tried OpenSolaris 2008.5 on my laptop, and this was the main issue.
The userspace is a bit archaic - it's classic System V, which makes even a GNU userland look nice.
I was interested in trying OpenSolaris for this very reason, since I wanted to see e.g. if I could build Makefiles that worked with GNU make, Sun make and BSD make, and that type of stuff. But to my surprise the userland tools I tried were all GNU.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was interested in trying OpenSolaris for this very reason, since I wanted to see e.g. if I could build Makefiles that worked with GNU make, Sun make and BSD make, and that type of stuff. But to my surprise the userland tools I tried were all GNU.
This is one of the big areas where OpenSolaris differs from Solaris. There are many more GNU utilities installed by default and in your PATH, but I don't believe any of the versions from Solaris have disappeared, just moved elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
> what is the compelling reason for choosing Linux over OpenSolaris or, say, PC-BSD
VMware. Only thing stopping me from running FreeBSD on my work desktops
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Plus chicks really dig it.
"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never quite gotten what people mean by classifying operating systems in these two categories. Okay, it runs GNOME, office programs, and Firefox, isn't that enough to make it a desktop operating system? Hey look, it can run apache, sendmail, and bind, it's a server operating system too!
Seems to me it's just an operating system well-rounded for any task, and such vague categories don't really apply to it.
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with you but for one point: The desktop arena is the general purpose 'swiss army knife' area, while server software has specific issues of speed, security, and robustness. Sure, they have overlap, but there are different generalized criteria for both.
I like what Solaris is becomming, and there are definite advantages to running Solaris in certain environments on certain hardware, especially when speed and robustness are critical factors.
Now I'm not talking about running DukeNukem, I'm talking about when an extra 100 transactions per second makes meaningful differences to your bottom line. This is when server OS software is a critical thing. Typically, desktop software OS is not what you want running a server with such critical issues under the microscope.
Solaris has historically been an OS which can be trusted in the server environment. I look with hope that they will continue and build on such a reputation.
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Desktop OS and Server OS do not overlap. I know that Linux can and is BOTH but it is not really. A server OS is an OS built on stability and security. A desktop OS is one built on user experience and usability. There is sometimes a fine line, and a server can have a Desktop, but it is typically a trimmed version of a Desktop with many services not running that would be on the "desktop" release.
A desktop OS will have services and programs enabled that specifically disqualify it from being a server OS. Programs that listen on network ports, dont provide any kind of authentication to access devices or write to files, dont have a thorough firewall. A webserver should listen only on webserver specific ports and those necessary for remote admin. I can think of less than 10. (do a `netstat -a|grep LISTEN` and count the ports your desktop is listening on and then do the same on a server(http,ftp,ssh,rsync,and some specifics for server type like imaps or smb).
The analog here is a brand new Lincoln truck. Sure it looks like a truck, but its very nature says that it cannot be a worktruck without losing its status as a luxury vehicle. You could dis-acknowledge its luxury status and MAKE it a work truck, but then it is no longer a luxury vehicle because there has been consideration to the nice paint job, the chrome, the soft leather seats, etc.
So the point is:
Ubuntu 8.04 server is a server OS. If you add everything to make it a desktop OS, it is now Ubuntu 8.04 Desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not disagree. The kernel is where they overlap. UI is a matter of choice. Linux has shown that the same Kernel can be compiled to do the server job AND the desktop job. You can even compile the kernel and OS to do BOTH jobs.
The thing is that the 'idea' of server environment vs. desktop environment means that a successful OS for either area would have to meet the exacting criteria for that application. In this respect, server and desktop are the same underneath, yet different in operation. This gives th
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, clicked too soon. Server OS software has to meet those functions which are critical to servers, I.E. that extra 100 transactions per second. This same OS can have a desktop interface. There is one of several overlaps.
The point is that a generally good desktop OS might not be able to give you that extra transactions per second that you need, yet the OS that can, might also give you a nice desktop interface. This particularly is why I hope Solaris builds on their reputation. Server performance is not ne
Re: (Score:2)
In the various Unixes, Linux, and Windows, many of the distinctions between server OS and desktop OS are to some extent artificial. I mean, you said it yourself: Ubuntu 8.04 server is a server OS and Ubuntu 8.04 Desktop is a desktop OS, but they aren't different operating systems. Change the configuration and installed applications of either one, and you get the other.
So there generally is overlap between the server OS and desktop OS, and the overlap is the OS. Where they don't overlap is on things that
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
A desktop OS will have services and programs enabled that specifically disqualify it from being a server OS. Programs that listen on network ports, dont provide any kind of authentication to access devices or write to files, dont have a thorough firewall. A webserver should listen only on webserver specific ports and those necessary for remote admin. I can think of less than 10. (do a `netstat -a|grep LISTEN` and count the ports your desktop is listening on and then do the same on a server(http,ftp,ssh,rsync,and some specifics for server type like imaps or smb).
Huh? This sounds like a bad idea for both server and desktop alike.
Firstly, it's pretty well-worn knowledge by now that it's a darn good idea to run a firewall in any context, unless you positively, absolutely trust your local network.
Second, any extraneous services should either be disabled by default on a desktop machine, or be able to be disabled quite easily. As you mentioned, it's a trivial task to take a look at what ports are open, and is equally trivial to close those ports and/or kill the underlying processes if necessary.
Microsoft learned this lesson with Windows 2000. By stripping down their "Server" OS, they (possibly inadvertently) produced what was arguably the desktop best operating ever made by the company. Sure, it didn't come bundled with much, although that was a large part of the beauty of it. Most of the "value-added" features that came with XP were crap, and rarely used by anybody. For its time, it was fast, stable, secure, and quite easy to use. The architectural differences between the 'Server' and 'Workstation' versions were virtually nonexistent.
Unfortunately, they forgot whatever lessons they might have learned with Win2k, and came out with XP, which though a step up from 98/Me!, wasn't nearly as fast or secure as 2k, and eventually Vista, which predominantly added bloat, and none of the much touted architectural improvements that were supposed to have been in the pipeline.
Re: (Score:2)
Kernels compiled for a server oriented distribution typically support more cpus and/or more ram because they are more likely to need it...
Enabling that support on a desktop system where it won't be used will just decrease performance, so it's off by default. There's nothing stopping you turning it back on if you want it.
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between a server OS and a desktop OS is not necessarily what they're capable of...most operating systems these days can serve as a halfway decent server or desktop system. The difference is really what each of them are optimized for.
A distribution or release that's designated as a "desktop OS" will tend to include a lot more software for that purpose, such as multiple desktop environments, 3D video drivers, drivers for various sound cards, calendar apps, word processors, and the like. It may also have a kernel optimized for those components.
A server OS, on the other hand, will likely be missing a lot of the eye candy, may not have any 3D or advanced sound drivers, and may be missing a bunch of the applications you would expect on a desktop machine. It may also come pre-installed with various server apps that would be of little use on a desktop machine, like a web or DNS server. Likewise, its kernel may be optimized for these server tasks.
For example, if you're building a desktop system, you might want something that will automatically install several desktop managers, the full suite of KDE and Gnome apps, etc on it. If you're looking for a server OS, such things are just a waste of space, and the installer adding them to your machine automatically is not desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the point is what they are optimised for. For example, a desktop OS will have a scheduler optimised for latency while a server OS will have one optimised for throughput. Other aspects, such as the memory allocation policy, filesystem, networking stack, and so on are all differently optimised for server and desktop use.
Some operating systems try to do both, but they generally do one better than the other.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Linus Torvalds seems to disagree [lkml.org] with that notion:
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:4, Interesting)
With respect to Linus, he's wrong there. People running servers care about how many of their clients they can service without interruption. Scheduling latency often doesn't matter because it is dwarfed by network latency.
In any scheduler, throughput and latency are at odds. You get the best throughput from cooperative multitasking. Each context switch has a fixed cost, and the more context switches you do the lower your throughput, but you improve the responsiveness of each process. A UI process has much higher latency constraints than a server process. A desktop user cares more about dropped frames in their video than CPU utilisation. If the CPU is at 60% usage instead of 50% then the user won't care, but if the are getting stuttering in their audio playback then they will. In contrast, a server operator is less likely to care if requests take 60ms instead of 50ms, because the network latency is adding 100ms or 200ms to each one anyway.
Now, a good scheduler can be tuned to favour either throughput-sensitive or latency-sensitive workloads, and can run multiple tasks with both requirements (see HP-UX for some inspiration), but that doesn't mean that the requirements are the same.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Forget the eye candy, it should be the kernel that really should matter . Here are my suggestions -- not saying they are how they are, just that thats how it ought to be
On a server OS, the kernel should be optimised to run background applications faster. On a desktop the kernel should drop everything and respond to user requests.
Once you step away from the kernel, the userland services should be similarly different. A server should run services to avoid crashes and losses of data - A server can afford to i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are you a troll or woefully uninformed? VLC, Mplayer, etc run flawlessly on opensolaris (I'm using them on belenix).. and have had no issues whatsoever. look for the packages in the belenix or blastwave's repository.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't run on *BSD either (well, it does, but since it doesn't recognise FreeBSD 7's mmap system call it's pretty useless since every app crashes in the loader), which is a shame. VMWare might be another one, but I'm not sure - Sun are pushing Xen and VirtualBox for Solaris, so I'm not sure how important it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you could say the same about Linux, but Linux can be tuned heavily at kernel build time to suit your needs, it's possible to turn off desktop oriented features like sound, 3d graphics etc and enable server features like hotplug cpu/mem, support for large numbers of cpus and huge quantities of ram, serial consoles, scsi disks and raid controllers etc...
Senseless (Score:2, Interesting)
Year of the Bullshit (Score:2, Funny)
You're doing this on purpose now, it's never the year of anything.
Plus 2008.11 isn't really a year
Wow. OpenSolaris is a rough ride. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you thought the driver situation was bad for Linux, and worse for *BSD, it's even worser fro OpenSolaris. Yes, I said worser. It's worser enough for me to want to use a fake, worse word to describe it. :(
I mean, great idea guys, but in execution, any OS that locks up solid so you have to ssh in remotely and kill your login session so you can log in, or that makes compilation of something as simple as Quake practically impossible--installed GNU toolchain or not--is it really worth it on commodity hardware?
We have OpenSolaris desktop machines installed at work, and the amount of effort the OpenSolaris users go through.. my god, it's herculean. And I'm making this judgement call sitting atop a farm of NetBSD machines. So you fucking know--you KNOW--that when I say something's a rough ride, you better fucking listen.
Not that it's a complete dearth of utility. There's lots of stuff going for it. I'm just saying. Fair warning.
(P.S. Tinkering with it? Good luck.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
any OS that locks up solid so you have to ssh in remotely and kill your login session so you can log in
If you can log in via ssh and have enough process control to kill a session then your OS didn't "lock up solid".
that makes compilation of something as simple as Quake practically impossible--installed GNU toolchain or not
A compiler toolchain isn't even part of an Operating system, but even if it was... I would hardly say that your inability to compile a game on a given OS has much to say about the valid uses for that OS especially when you follow that sentiment with your experience using it as "desktop work machines" which I wouldn't suppose would gain much additional usability from being able to easily and clean
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any real desire to use solaris on any of my desktop machines until/if it supports full root ZFS on raw disk (not on parts/slices as it is currently implemented)
That's an interesting quibble. Why does this matter to you?
Re: (Score:2)
any OS that locks up solid so you have to ssh in remotely and kill your login session so you can log in
If you can log in via ssh and have enough process control to kill a session then your OS didn't "lock up solid".
True, but if you're describing how ready or otherwise the system is for a "typical user" (by which I mean someone who isn't familiar with Unix) to run on their own PC, there's not a lot of difference between "locked up solid login session" and "locked up solid OS".
(FWIW I think anyone who doesn't have a rough idea what they're doing needs their head examining if they really want to run Solaris, but it takes all sorts...)
Re: (Score:2)
I can only answer this part.
It is done this way because otherwise you won't be able to boot from the disk "fully" owned by ZFS. Disks fully owned by ZFS have EFI label. They do not have partition table and are fully managed as a block device by ZFS.
The BIOS and most boot loaders do not understand this scheme. They needs an MBR & part
Re: (Score:2)
Worser is an understatement. Its even worserer than that! Sun dont even support their own framebuffer cards properly. I use OpenBSD on my Sun servers, (I have 10 to manage) It doesnt supoport the fb's either. fortunately they are servers, and I ssh into them from Intel kit :-{ (or use the serial line for initial installation).
Sun hardware rocks, (We plan two years uptime, and I have not seen that fail in 15 years of Sun use) but their drivers suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, so your sun servers run a non sun OS and you complain that sun don't support the framebuffers?
I'm sure if you put Solaris on your sun servers it would support the framebuffers just fine. What type of framebuffers are you having issues with?
On the other hand, they are servers, why the hell would you want to use a framebuffer on them? Serial is the only way to manage a server since then you don't need to set foot inside the datacenter.
All of my servers run from serial console, and most don't have any kin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure if you put Solaris on your sun servers it would support the framebuffers just fine.
Also Windows and Linux. These are the OSs that Sun supports on x64 servers.
On the other hand, they are servers, why the hell would you want to use a framebuffer on them? Serial is the only way to manage a server since then you don't need to set foot inside the datacenter.
Actually, most current Sun servers support remote graphic console via ILOM [sun.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you fucking know--you KNOW--that when I say .........., you better fucking listen.
Your way of expressing yourself would suggest otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, i agree with the lack of drivers...
But on Sparc systems the opposite is true, Solaris supports everything out of the box with zero hassle. In that respect it's a bit like OSX, you *can* run it on commodity hardware, but don't expect the smooth experience you get on hardware designed to run it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Would be interested if you elaborated a bit on the problems you have experienced. From your perspective and from your users perspective. This is not a, I'm going to argue with you post, but rather a request for more detail - as what you have to say sounds interesting.
I used opensolaris 2008.05 for a month and stopped as it was too rough round the edges to use day to day. But it got most of my hardware just fine. Only sound was missing and OSS handled that just fine.
I just upgraded to 2008.11 RC1 - snv-10
Who needs other OS's? (Score:2)
Linux is just fine OS. You can build software systems what you want top of it. Now we have over 400 such systems. Some people say that over 400 distributions are too much and those should be limited for 3-5.
Those who like to play with other OS's than just Windows and Linux (Who says two is enought?), they can get then this OpenSolaris or one of three BSD's.
But question is, who would like to get OS from OpenSolaris, when it is not so different of Linux distributions what use Gnome desktop environment?
OpenSol
Re:Self-helpdesking BSD (Score:5, Funny)
I hear there's a company that sells laptops with a BSD OS and decent support... named after some kind of fruit or something.
Get yer torrents! (Score:4, Informative)
The server at http://www.genunix.org/ [genunix.org], where this OpenSolaris 2008.11 ISO is hosted, is responding rather slowly right now (indirect Slashdotting?). So I want to point out that if you'd like to download this build and try it for yourself, you can get it as a torrent here [sun.com].
WiFi support (Score:2)
I understand that the only problem with 2008.11 is that the WiFi support was written by a dyslexic :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox and Suspend makes not a year of the laptop (Score:4, Interesting)
So this guy tests the Install process, running Firefox and navigating to Youtube, to find out he has to manually install Flash.
He then puts the laptop into suspend, with a successful resume.
Then he declares OpenSolaris the year of the laptop.
Am I missing something? Any additional unit testing? Benchmarks? Usability? Application availability?
Nice Slashvertisement.
Warning: I use OpenSolaris a lot as well, love it for the sake of some serious faults, but it does its job well. That job is NOT running on a laptop however. Good luck to the poor souls who try to use it as a daily driver.
Re:Firefox and Suspend makes not a year of the lap (Score:2)
Year of Plan9 on the laptop? (Score:3, Funny)
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is Linux getting too old for you?
Oh right, if Linux is getting too old for you, then clearly what you need to do is pick up a direct genetic (source code) descendant of AT&T System V.
GPL3 or STFU (Score:2)
Dear Sun, license it under GPL3 and I'll give it a try. Otherwise, I don't see enough advantages over Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Commerical UNIX Gone Open - Most Missing The Point (Score:2, Insightful)
The significance of this achievement is that we're talking about the first major, major commerical UNIX having gone to an open source model. We're talking about Solaris running on a laptop of all things, with close to x86 desktop parallelism with Linux. I can't think of IBM (AIX), HP (HP-UX), SGI (Irix), or anyone else even thinking about doing this.
We're talking an operating system with decades of history, gigantic commerical lever
Survey of Solaris Installation Guides for Laptops (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Count me (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh is it a new SCO meme ? Are you done with enough of FUD already ?
Solaris (and previously SunOS) were Sun's implementation of UNIX. Right, just like Linux and FreeBSD. As such Sun owns the copyright to it. Sun got it UNIX 'certified'. Thats right, just like OSX, Tru64, HPUX and AIX. There is no UNIX. It is a trademark of the Open Group, and they certify various implementations of it. Ever heard of SUS ? SYS V ?
Now onto SCO fiasco. Sun licensed some x86 drivers from SCO for Solaris 8 (yeah that old... Its like 10 years now). SCO's SCO UNIX was x86 based. Those drivers have long since disappeared! They dont even matter!
Whats all this infighting among Open Source group ? What is that makes some fanbois do thing and spread FUD that is most anti-Open Source ?
Guess some people just can never live happily with others!
Re: (Score:2)
SCO's SCO UNIX was x86 based.
Not always - c.1987 I used to administer & do cross platform development on a PDP 11/34 system (w/ removable 14" disk packs - nothing smells less like "victory" than the smell of a disk crash in the morning) running SCO Unix.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The right to free the code is in doubt, since SCO didn't own all of what Sun opened, and, apparently, Novell owns much of it. Since SCO was ostensibly working for Novell at the time, there very well may be some legal debate about whether Sun had the right to rely on SCO's representations.
Anyway, from a practical matter, the idea that Novell would cause trouble for users of OpenSolaris is dubious at best.
IANAL, etc., so don't rely on my po
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a trap (Score:5, Interesting)
You know full well that no one is going to read through all of those documents unless they're getting paid for it. I'm pretty sure you didn't read them either, but base everything off of people's comments on the blog. Esp. given the fact that PJ never said that Solaris was illegally open sourced. In fact, I believe she said that Sun already had that right, regardless of whether or not SCO had the right to sign the contract with them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to dig down very far. The relevant Judge's ruling is currently on Groklaw's main page as the top article. In red for ease of locating.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you have answered the first part of lokedhs' post. Would you now please answer the second part? I will quote it again for your convenience:
Because if that is correct, then the red-highlighted ruling is completely irrelevant to the question of whether OpenSolaris is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the usual course when companies partner and grant rights that they trumpet the fact on both sides - even if the underlying contract is held in confidence for strategy reasons. Certainly SCO and Sun both announced loudly in the press at the time of the 2003 agreement that the agreement granted the right and Solaris would be open sourced. Novell has not endorsed this position yet.
From the ruling [groklaw.net]:
The 1994 Sun Agreement had a 20-year confidentiality restriction prohibiting Sun from publicly disclosing the licensed source code. These confidentiality restrictions prevented Sun from publicly releasing or "opensourcing" the Solaris source code.
...
After entering into the 2003 Sun Agreement, Sun released an opensource version of its UNIX-based Solaris product, called "OpenSolaris." As its name suggests, OpenSolaris is based on Sun's Solaris operating system, which is in turn based on Novell's SVRX intellectual property. Absent the removal of the 1994 Sun Agreement's confidentiality restrictions, Sun would not have been licensed to publicly release the OpenSolaris source code.
The evidence presented at trial established that the 2003 Sun Agreement conveyed substantial rights to the SVRX intellectual property retained by Novell because of Sun's ability to open source Solaris.
...
The 2003 Sun Agreement specifically states that it "amends and restates" Sun's 1994 SVRX buy-out agreement with Novell. SCO has no authority to enter such an agreement unless it is incidentally involved in the licensing of UnixWare.
The court concludes that the release of confidentiality requirements in Section 8.1 of the 2003 Sun Agreement is not merely incidental to a UnixWare license. The provision had significant independent value to Sun as it allowed Sun to opensource its Solaris UNIX-based product. While several of the provisions in the Agreement focus on UnixWare and specific device drivers, the amendment with respect to confidentiality relates to the same technology licensed in the 1994 Buy-out Agreement and had significant independent value to Sun apart from a license to the newest versions of UnixWare.
That said, final judgment has not yet been entered. The judge does not propose to "undo" the dea
Re: (Score:2)
When OP said 'implementation of UNIX' it is possible that he was referring to the Single Unix Specification, which
Mods, redeem yourselves (Score:2)
Parent. Read it. Moderate it. And then moderate this post redundant. I don't care for my Karma, but I don't want rational viewpoints to be silenced, nor the moderation system to be abused. And if this gets modded down then that's the way it is, but at least you had a choice.
Don't code for anything besides Linux!! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you code on anything besides Linux the evil proprietary companies will steal your code.
Seriously though - if you write something for OpenSolaris - how is the ownership of your code in doubt? Just like an app written for Linux does not have to be GPL'ed, or an app written for Windows is not owned by Microsoft.
Typical Linux zealotry in action.
Zealotry? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is zealotry [engineeringnews.co.za]:
The world is a bridge; pass over it; but build not your dwelling there.
Look. We live in a litigious world. Although it's good guidance to tell programmers to avoid getting involved in discussions of, or reading, patents and their applications, it's a different thing to choose to be ignorant of your field, its history and the decisions surrounding it. The law is the law and it's a waste of time to develop applications that have been obviated by lawyers.
God bless the lawyers. Gently may they swing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)