63 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Sun 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I 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....

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@GMorganHow 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Shall i now add all the Sun buildings to <a class="user" href="http://homecomputerhelp.org/&quot;&gt;http://homecomputerhelp.org/&lt;/a&gt; ? :-)

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Be honest, how many people thought "moron" at a glance?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Sun 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

OSX 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 microkernelsThe 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Perfect! I'm not impressed. Not even a bit. <a class="user" href="http://travelsphere.blogspot.com&quot;&gt;http://travelsphere.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

impressive. <a class="user" href="http://technorati.com/blogs/intop10.blogspot.com&quot;&gt;http://technorati.com/blogs/intop10.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply