Woah, It Looks Like Oracle Will Stand Behind OpenSolaris

Phoronix: Woah, It Looks Like Oracle Will Stand Behind OpenSolaris

Since Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems last year, the future of the Solaris and OpenSolaris operating systems have been called into question especially as the OpenSolaris 2010.1H release was missing and has been that way for months now with no official communication from Oracle. A new OpenSolaris release hasn't come in more than a year and we still are left wondering if or when it will arrive. Even the OpenSolaris Governing Board is out of the loop and they may abandon the cause in August if Oracle doesn't make their OpenSolaris intentions clear and appoint a liaison. This evening though is one of the first signs that Oracle may let the OpenSolaris operating system live on with their support...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODQyOQ

Woah, it looks like more inappropriate words in Phoronix articles that makes them look ridiculous. Woah, woah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealNC

Woah, it looks like more inappropriate words in Phoronix articles that makes them look ridiculous. Woah, woah!

---

Woah, Bill and Ted have traveled forward in time!

Solaris is alive, no news here. OpenSolaris, as the base of Solaris, is alive, no news here too. But OpenSolaris as a packaged distribution, no clue: overall, no news.

I don't know a lot about this subject but isn't Solaris still a significant player in the business world? OpenSolaris is one of the first things that come to mind if I had to look in to some Unixy system other than Linux. There's probably quite a lot of infrastructure out there relying upon it and I'd imagine if it because unsupported by Oracle then others would step in.

Oracle does so much database stuff one would think it would be in their interests to have their name attached to a platform like Solaris.

I've sent those messages every two weeks for a couple years, and haven't taken a break lately (well, except for missing build 143, oops!) - you can see the ones two weeks ago for build 144, in June for build 142, in May for build 141, etc.

The "Just when you thought you'd never see another one of these biweekly mails...." was a reference to the conversion of the X packages in build 144 to directly generate IPS packages, so they no longer go through the distro-import process to translate the old SVR4 format packages to IPS, and thus I only need to have them make changes now when I do something like this that affects the packages they're still translating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanc

I've sent those messages every two weeks for a couple years, and haven't taken a break lately (well, except for missing build 143, oops!) - you can see the ones two weeks ago for build 144, in June for build 142, in May for build 141, etc.

The "Just when you thought you'd never see another one of these biweekly mails...." was a reference to the conversion of the X packages in build 144 to directly generate IPS packages, so they no longer go through the distro-import process to translate the old SVR4 format packages to IPS, and thus I only need to have them make changes now when I do something like this that affects the packages they're still translating.

---

Heh heh... in other words... WTF you chumps yapping about? :D

This is not news at all. There are development builds of OpenSolaris going on. But since snv_134 they are not available to the public because of some weird Oracle policies. That's the main problem.

Given that OpenSolaris and Linux can't cross-pollinate due to Sun/Oracle's choice of an incompatible license, FOSS developer resources put into OpenSolaris are to the detriment of Linux. Linux right now is the closest thing to a replacement for Windows, and anything detracting/distracting developers from it (ie. OpenSolaris) is bad. Just let OpenSolaris die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stan

Given that OpenSolaris and Linux can't cross-pollinate due to Sun/Oracle's choice of an incompatible license, FOSS developer resources put into OpenSolaris are to the detriment of Linux.

---

While CDDL was probably a bad choice in the long run, there are still projects like FreeBSD which are compatible with it without trouble. And even Linux is not completely incompatible with CDDL components (though differences between GPL and CDDL make compatibility a headache). There is a port of DTrace to Linux ( ftp://crisp.dynalias.com/pub/release/website/dtrace/ ) as well as efforts to port ZFS in a compatible way ( http://wiki.github.com/behlendorf/zfs/ ).