What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
58 Comments
- santu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+385 years ago, the same piece of news would have made me to fall of my chair. I wonder if the real question is if it means anything for Linux, but what does that really mean about Sun itself. The times, they are a-changing...
- drag, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36If OpenSolaris takes off, which it should, as result of this news then it'll just go to show that with the term "GNU/Linux" the "GNU" is, in reality, much more important then the "Linux".
Essentially more people will begin to realise what other people have known all along and that is that "Linux" is just a operating system _kernel_ and not a ecosystem or a operating system.
"GNU" itself is a bit bizzare. Most people don't realise it, but that project produces the software that is the most fundamental dependancy of every other peice of software used in Linux. Without the GNU userland you woulnd't be able to compile or run Apache, for instance. Or MySQL, or you wouldn't be able to compile or run any Mozilla stuff. Even with the Free/OpenBSD crowd they still need a great deal of GNU software present to run most the applications originally created for "Linux". OS X builds it's OS on GNU-supplied software.
The GNU project focuses on portability almost to a fault. It has the ability to run on almost _anything_. GCC is 'outclassed' by archetecturally-focused compilers like Intel's compiler.. but no compiler runs on more stuff and is more compatable with everything then GCC. All sorts of stuff like that, about every peice of software they do acts in this fasion.
From a very high level viewpoint you can look at GNU as a sort of API virtualization or compatability shim between the hardware/kernel and the rest of the software that runs on a OS. That is essentially GNU's function. It makes C code more portable then Java.
Remember that a Operating System's job is to make it easier for developers to write software and make it easier for users to use software. "Linux" does not exist by itself or within itself, without software it is more then useless. The fact that end users have to deal with "Linux" or drivers for "Linux" is shows a fundamental flaw in the "Linux" approach. The Linux kernel puts itself as center stage to the "Linux" operating system, when in reality nobody should realy ever have to _care_ or even _know_ anything about the Linux kernel itself unless your a a actual kernel or driver developer.
How many OS X users go around talking about 'XNU', can any OS X user tell me what version of XNU they are using?
How many Windows users have to worry about if their using 'NT 5.0' kernel vs 'NT 5.1' or a 'NT 5.2' kernel?
No, because it's utterly pointless from the view of the end user as long as the kernel and the OS does it's job. It's when the OS and the kernel _fails_ in it's job is when people have to start worrying about this or that kernel version.
(That's not to say that I don't like Linux though. It has major warts, but it's fast and it's a huge technological feat. I realy do like it.)
Sun, by catering to GNU folks are going to make Solaris a first-class operating system when it running "Linux" software. Essentially what is going to happen is that by getting major support by the GNU and FSF they are going to do 95%+ of the work for people that want to run all of open source software originally developed for Linux natively on Solaris. Most people would just have to recompile and, viola!, it's not 'Linux' software anymore it's 'Solaris' software!
You want to run all you favorite KDE desktop apps? KDE4 coming out will support Solaris at the same time as Linux. That sort of thing.
With the Solaris kernel vs Linux kernel you have
Solaris kernel has ZFS and Dtrace. It's more stable and has better security. ABI stability is regarded as desirable so that drivers from one version of Solaris works in another version of Solaris.
Linux kenrel has more features that makes it better suited for multiple nitch applications (super computers, embedded development, etc), and it has more features that makes it friendlier for the desktop. It's also probably a bit faster. But due to instability it's a pain in the ass to run sometimes.
By having GNU and taking into account Solaris' Linux binary compatability, this means that users get to choose what kernel they want to run based on the features of that kernel and not based on what software they want to run.
Say you write a PHP application, then it will run just as well and as easy on Solaris as it would on Linux...
Ultimately what this means to - volksport, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27open source is typically free ware, but free ware is not always open source.
Java has always been free to use, but not open source. - nevenmrgan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22You hit the nail on the head. What does this mean for Linux? Not much...
- blusteel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Perhaps, but the FSF would be happy to use any free code they could get their hands on, even if it wasn't "free" from the beginning. I get the impression that the FSF cares more about licensing then software, so if Solaris goes GPL version 3 while Linux stays at version 2, I think the majority of them would switch.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18It doesn't matter that much if Linus embraces GPL3 for the kernel; there are many copyright holders who would *all* have to embrace GPL3.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14lorductape: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- scosol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@drag (and for general info)
Ever heard of NexentaOS?
http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki
It is the OpenSolaris kernel, with a GNU base system and Debian/Ubuntu packaging.
In short, those three technologies are best-of-breed, and they are brought together.
(yes, the OpenSolaris kernel has MAJOR advantages over the Linux kernel)
Enjoy :) - manageMyRights, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7GPLv3 is only "not viable for people developing custom hardware devices" if you are specifically trying to circumvent the intent of the GPLv2. Just give users the freedom to actually run recompiled versions of your modified GPL'ed code on your hardware. What's are you afraid of? Don't introduce an artificial incompatibility. It's that simple.
- loconet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Not much? Think again. If OpenSolars goes GPLv3, it may cause enough pressure for Linus to embrace v3 for the linux kernel. Some of the unique tools from Solaris that can be brought to the Linux world (DTrace, ZFS, etc) would give Linux that much more of an edge. IBM etc, will like that.
- straxus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Free as in 'free speech' (libre). Not as in free beer (gratis).
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Now that Sun has liberated the source code of its two flagship products"
Three, actually. The UltraSPARC T1 (Niagra) CPU's verilog source is similarly GPL, plus OpenSolaris, plus Java = 3 - zecreven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think it will be "wow" when Microsoft joins the free software foundation :)
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm really looking forward to seeing mature OpenSolaris distros. I suspect a big factor in this potential decision (they have talked about this before) is support from Debian, Gentoo and other huge projects that have been careful with Solaris because of the CDDL.
I ran Solaris 10 on a machine of mine (you can download ISOs if you have a free Sun Connection account) and I managed to get the network running by installing a Solaris 8 driver.
Note that Solaris is no Ubuntu. It will take a long time to get to that level but is certainly an interesting option for the rest of us until then.
Also both sides tend to exaggerate in the GNU v Linux thing. Linux is the largest and most complex piece of software in GNU/Linux (GCC being the exception, not really part of the OS. Comes close between it and Linux though) though there are many GNU tools and only one Linux.
Zoning and DTrace are also rather cool. I installed Solaris first of all because DTrace can trace through Java. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Sun hasn't yet gone GPL v3, they're being cautious like a chess player keeping his hand on the piece before he releases it. The reason is they don't want to help linux in any way. Hence why they want to go with GPL v3 vs GPL v2. The possibility that Linux might one day move to GPL v3 scares sun hence their hesitation. If linux stays GPL v2 and Sun goes the GPL v3 route then sun can safely add features to Solaris under GPL v3 and this code cannot go into Linux since it's GPL v2. Also this will cut off Apple from using ZFS so no more ZFS Apple fanboys. In the end this will mean Solaris can be safely GPL'ed, attracking thousands of developers improving Solaris while Sun hopes all this translates into more Sparc hardware sales.
- blusteel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sun can't go GPL v3, because it officially doesn't exist yet.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's just the most plausible explanation. Currently ZFS code cannot go into linux due to sun's license not being compatiable with GPL v2. So linux has a hacked up version of ZFS. Let's say linux adopts GPL v3 and Sun does as well. Now we can copy ZFS code or port it to linux. Let's say the same is done for dtrace. Let's say the same is done for every nice feature Solaris has. Why use Solaris at that point? Sun isn't a charity organization, at the end of the day they make money when people by Sparc hardware. Sun has yet to use a license that allows linux to use solaris code because they want an OS which has features linux doesn't have in order to make Sparc compelling since Solaris runs well on Sparc. I don't doubt GPL v3 helps in regards to patents, but that's not the only benefit sun is considering.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The Hurd is a perfect example of how not to run a project. GNU have practically killed it on their own. They didn't need Linux and now Solaris to do it for them.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, we all know that the Linux people would love to have ZFS, and if Solaris is released under GPLv3, then they'd have a way to get it; they'd have to upgrade licenses though, which so far they've shown reluctance towards. This might be just the little nudge we need to get a GPLv3 Linux.
Not that it's a big deal, anyways. The FSF holds copyright on everything GNU, so we all know that the moment GPLv3 is finalized, it will ALL change license. So, while one piece of a functional GNU/Linux system will still be exploitable under the GPLv2 loopholes (namely hardware restrictions on changed code), the vast majority of it will be protected by a license that closes said loopholes, leaving manufacturers who want to continue to deprive their customers of freedom #2, or engage in thinly veiled patents licenses, stuck with outdated versions of software. - meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Bleh, I'm not a fan of Solaris. I really don't see a bunch of FSF devs switching anyways. Linux was born out of open source freedom. Sun was dragged kicking and screaming into opening its source code.
- gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think you're right that Sun is trying to revive Solaris. Their hardware is built around the product...
I don't think they're pushing things though. They just want Solaris to become popular, and be able to help direct its development. Going with GPLv3 would help hem do this, and keep them from pushing things down users throats.
It's a Win, Win scenario.... - KaserPro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does that mean zfs will be gpl'd?
after all thats the bit thats of use to most people - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4DTrace and Zoning is of course of no worth to users whatsoever. Trust me most techs would be far more interested in Zoning than ZFS. It's a far more elegant solution to sand boxing than standard on Linux at the moment (though there are some interesting developments in Linux on this front).
- gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sun might not be worried about Linux, but rather about Solaris development. I'm guessing they see an opportunity to take a mature OS, which is getting stale and harder to maintain and refreshen it.
By going with GPLv3, they know users will flock to it... (Especially if Linux is stuck at GPLv2) and that new development for hardware, etc will happen. They can also help steer this OS. Where as with Linux, they're just one of many voices. - MBro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sweet, I hope linux can add ZFS to the list of kernel supported file systems.
Not that I really need all of those features it has but I don't really need many of the cool things my computer does as it is. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OSX actually uses a microkernel in one sense. They do have a small kernel but all the work is done by one uber server so in practice it picks up none of the benefits or disadvantages of a microkernel in that the system is less stable (theoretically) but is more efficient because it avoids context switching. In reality it behaves like a monokernel so can't really be declared a victory for microkernels
The HURD team as mentioned are having a laugh rather than trying to produce a working system. They have made working systems but keep changing their micro kernel. They started with GNU Mach then moved to L4 and now are still pissing about over moving to L4.sec or Coyotos (they have been fiddling over this for 2 years now).
It's a project totally lacking direction because it has no need whatsoever. We already had 2 great OSS *nix kernels in Linux and BSD. Now we have Solaris as well. I'd really love to see the HURD reach a stable position and for them to declare it released but feel it would take a mad ninja waving a sword around or something.
Personally I feel that a micro kernel doesn't make sense until we are all running 64 thread procs (and most of the early arguments from the likes of Tanenbaum were based upon this idea everyone would be running multicore RISC procs by the late 90's). Context switches are pure overhead and a system that proliferates them is naturally going to struggle. - SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sun have a lot of very exciting technologies in Solaris. Many like ZFS and DTrace are under a Sun license but are still Open Source. Moving them to GPL means they get a wider audience to test against, possibility of more community contributions, and their technology benefits OSS users. It's taking a bit of time, but Sun are slowly opening their doors to the world. They currently have one of the few truly 'current' major corporation UNIX distros left. I am glad they are opening up the technology to perpetuate it's continuation.
- superzorn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Perfect! I'm not impressed. Not even a bit. http://travelsphere.blogspot.com
- gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@drag "It's a bad design that is just based around a very cool concept. It's usefull for somethings, but worthless for most. There is one commercial OS I know of that runs a Microkernel and that is QNX, and it's only for lowly embedded systems."
QNX is not only for "lowly" embedded systems... Microkernels are the way to go. They're not just a cool concept!
The big issue with Microkernels is the inter-process communication. When you're designing a new OS, especially in an open source group defining calls and protocol to use is a huge hurdle to cross. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Shall i now add all the Sun buildings to http://homecomputerhelp.org/ ? :-)
- giddytonk, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9I like Solaris and I like Linux too.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Dealing with patent trolling mostly. It is 99% the key feature that everyone (even Linus AFAIK) agrees with. The argument is over the far less important DRM clause. Yes DRM is an abomination but many don't think we should legislate against it as such.
- CaymanCarpediem, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"Linux has spent the last 15 years pounding Sun into the ground"
Momentum is certainly with Linux in this battle (if there really is to be one), but lets not completely rewrite history. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but it came across to me as Linux has been "better". I'd say until the last 5 years, Sun had a pretty clear advantage in quality and functionality. It was price where Linux killed Sun since it was "good enough".
The reason (at least to me) that this could be interesting to watch is because of GPL3. Since Linus has stated Linux will remain GPL2 and Stallman is so pro-GPL3 (obviously) it wouldn't completely shock me to see the FSF and others who side with Stallman look to switch to Sun if for no other reason than the GPL3. Or perhaps threaten to in an attempt to pressure Linus into trying to get Linux to GPL3. Don't see that really working with Linus, but who knows. Anyway the GPL3 side of this announcement "could" make things interesting. - StPadre, on 01/14/2008, -0/+0 impressive. http://technorati.com/blogs/intop10.blogspot.com
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Then why must sun wait for GPL v3, what is so important with GPL v3?
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I was considering openSolaris, but now I'm not so sure. I'm worried about v3, and I believe there's a good reason Linus is staying with v2. I feel the FSF is a little too...combative.
- drag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Technologically speaking it was a good one though."
Not realy. It's a good choice in computer science fantasy land with the moondust fairies and the in-kernel support for ReiserFSv3. It's a bad design that is just based around a very cool concept. It's usefull for somethings, but worthless for most. There is one commercial OS I know of that runs a Microkernel and that is QNX, and it's only for lowly embedded systems.
It's a idea that sounded very technologically wonderfull, but turned out to be just bad.
And, although you probably already know this, both NT and OS X use what people like to call a 'Hybrid Microkernel' which realy means: 'At one point we said that it was Microkernel, but that was mostly for advertisement"
Similar to how I can take a deisel motor out of a tow truck and put it in boat, but that doesn't make a boat a 'hybrid tow truck' although I could probably make wikipedia articles calling it that.
The real deal behind Hurd is that it wasn't even a Microkernel. It was a series of services around a already existing research Microkernel that allowed a POSIX-like environment. Even then it made development painfully slow.
When Linux came along all of a sudden they had a kernel for GNU that was open source so it was pointless to continue development on HURD, so development mostly stopped as the majority of people didn't care anymore. Only the very hardcore people stayed on for a while and nowadays it's just a toy for developers wanting to muck around with a cool concept.
For example they actually had a working kernel that booted up and ran Linux drivers and everything. Then they totally scraped it because, I guess, it wasn't cool enough and started on with a completely different Microkernel design. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Unless of course the current trend continues in that all those manufacturers put out thousands of times as much code as the FSF. Novell alone produce so much more code than GNU it's not even funny. GNU is a vital part of the system but also the most easily replaceable in terms of amount of needed code. OOo alone is more complex by some distance and lets not pretend otherwise.
The FSF realises this and knows they have to convince the person on the ground to switch, they can't do it on their own (they didn't to begin with, much of GNU is third party who surrendered their copyright to GNU as an act of good faith. Most of GCC was made by cygnus for example). - gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@GMorgan
How exactly did they kill HURD? You could say picking a Microkernel design was a bad choice because it slowed development. Technologically speaking it was a good one though. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Most of that software already works. GNU aren't as important in the here and now as they were in the past. Really Sun already have far more OSS code out there than GNU by quite some distance.
- nayr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1cut it off from ZFS? how? does that mean that an ntfs driver for linux means no ntfs for windows?
- loconet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8@evilTak
You do realize that if the kernel goes v3 it would only be a matter of time before it dominos to other parts of the system. Not to mention that gnu's 5,000+ applications are already in their way to v3 as well as Samba. I see it very unlikely that Linus will change his mind any time soon but if he does, it means a lot more than "not much". - dashham98, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I just answered my own question (it is snafu city.)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050907-5284.html
"The municipal government of Munich, Germany released a statement yesterday that the migration of its office PCs to Linux and OpenOffice.org, which was scheduled to be completed in 2005, has slipped to at least next year.
The original plan, which involved switching all 14,000 of the city's desktop PCs from Windows NT 4 and Microsoft Office to Linux and OpenOffice.org at a cost of €30 million (US$35 million) was proposed in May 2003." - dashham98, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Speaking of IBM, which someone here mentioned, does anybody know what happened to their attempt to set up the entire city of Munich using Linux? The attempt was announced quite a while ago, probably over a year. I never heard a follow-up, and I look at the Wall Street Journal practically every day. I have assumed that the project has not gone well, or we would have all heard about it.
- drag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"It was price where Linux killed Sun since it was "good enough". "
It was the price of Linux. the performance and price of the x86 hardware (lack of support from Sun) and the fact that Linux was much easier to use and develop for.
If Sun gets very good GNU support then that will mean that it will automaticly gain 95%+ source code compatability with all the software aviable currently for Linux. - JasonCox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Sun is just trying to revive their dead product suites.
We didnt want them when they made us pay.
We didnt want them when they became free.
We still wont want them even their open source. - grigory, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Be honest, how many people thought "moron" at a glance?
- scottevans, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8Never did get my Solaris 10 disk they offered a couple months ago. Went to their site, ordered it, got a confirm email from Sun...then, nada... :(
- mfhughes, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4It doesn't mean much for Linux. More of the same, really.
Linux has spent the last 15 years pounding Sun into the ground in a huge part of the UNIX marketplace - a decade and a half of headway isn't going to be affected by much of anything in short order.
Talk about squandering your good fortune, Sun. - tolerant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0What does this mean for Linux? Not much, but it will probably put a significant dent into the Hurd's marketshare.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is