Farewell To OpenSolaris. Oracle Just Killed It Off.

[kraftman]

You are advocating staying with a kernel having just bashed a class of licences. Whilst I'm certainly not happy about OpenSolaris being killed off, please don't make the mistake of assuming that FOSS equates solely to linux/the GPL. Whatever your opinion of the BSDs and other systems, do you not agree that a monoculture is bad?

It's not a mistake. It can be said Open Source equates to Linux and GPL. Sun "open sourced" (using crap license) Solaris just because there was GPL Linux. Also, without GNU and Linux BSD itself would mean nothing (except some market which Linux has stolen from it). Without Linux, you say BSD on desktops I say Windows and OS X, you say BSD on HPC, enterprise I say closed source Solaris and other Unixes. It's the Linux and GPL which are the essence of Open Source. Btw. the license is one of the most important things, so "just" is not a proper word.

[kraftman]

I just don't get how on the one hand, btrfs is as open as any other Free Desktop technology; whereas Solaris has to be hoarded like the king's crown jewels. And these both coming from the same company. I guess in such a large organization you get managers with different opinions doing different things.

Oh, btrfs is under GPL, so if someone want to kill it nothing stops other companies, developers to take the code and resurrect it.

[KAMiKAZOW]

closed source Solaris

Before spreading FUD, you should read the actual announcement linked.
Solaris source code will still be released!

All their axing is the community development model. Quote:
“We will continue to use the CDDL license statement in nearly all
Solaris source code files. We will not remove the CDDL from any files
in Solaris to which it already applies, and new source code files that
are created will follow the current policy regarding applying the CDDL
(simply, that usr/src files will have the CDDL, and the very small
minority of files in usr/closed might not have it). Use of other open
licenses in non-ON consolidations (e.g. GPL in the Desktop area) will
also continue. As before, requests to change the license associated
with source code are case-by-case decisions.”

[smitty3268]

I just don't get how on the one hand, btrfs is as open as any other Free Desktop technology; whereas Solaris has to be hoarded like the king's crown jewels. And these both coming from the same company. I guess in such a large organization you get managers with different opinions doing different things.

Someone on another site boiled things down quite simply. With Linux, Oracle was forced to either play by the rules or else go home. They're merely another contributor to linux and if they hadn't tried to fit into the community no one would have taken them seriously. With Solaris, they control the whole ball of wax and are free to do whatever they want. Which clearly is not the same thing the Linux community appreciates.

[archibald]

It's not a mistake. It can be said Open Source equates to Linux and GPL.

It can be said, but since neither X nor OpenSSH (nor many other things) are either linux-based or GPL, it appears to be exaggerating to the point of inaccuracy.

Also, without GNU and Linux BSD itself would mean nothing (except some market which Linux has stolen from it). Without Linux, you say BSD on desktops I say Windows and OS X, you say BSD on HPC, enterprise I say closed source Solaris and other Unixes. It's the Linux and GPL which are the essence of Open Source. Btw. the license is one of the most important things, so "just" is not a proper word.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that if nobody used Linux then nobody would use BSD? I don't understand your premise: why would nobody use BSD if it wasn't for Linux?

[thefirstm]

Screw you, Oracle! Screw you! First suing Google for Android java, and now this? I might just have to switch my web server over to pg-sql...

[MaestroMaus]

Screw you, Oracle! Screw you! First suing Google for Android java, and now this? I might just have to switch my web server over to pg-sql...

Ghehe, yeah funny heh? It almost looks like they try to get there reputation even more on the cliffs. Good to take lessons from this.

Maybe this should also invoke some thought about mono? I'm not up to speed with info on that so I don't know how much similarities there are.

[bug77]

No surprise here. The moment Oracle bought Sun, and I'm still not sure why...

It was all about MySQL and the threat it posed to OracleDB. I have seen speculation about Oracle being behind Sun's acquisition of MySQL long before Oracle offered to buy Sun. And when that happen, it stopped looking like just speculation.
I mean, MySQL was making tens of millions a year, yet Sun, a company with less than stellar finances at the time, all of a sudden decides to pay $1B+ for MySQL?
Plus, look at what came out of the acquisition till now: Glassfish relegated to "academic" status, just when it actually caught up with the other big contender: JBoss; Netbeans starts loosing important features, like UML modelling - probably going the way of the dodo asap; no more free support for Solaris; and now this and that Android lawsuit. There's just too much overlapping between Sun's and Oracle's portfolio and up until now, none of the better products has the upper hand

[korpenkraxar]

Hah seems like Sun technology really is poisonous. Most likely, Oracle will slowly succumb and die from it in five years as well. I wish Microsoft buys Oracle.

[deanjo]

Hah seems like Sun technology really is poisonous. Most likely, Oracle will slowly succumb and die from it in five years as well. I wish Microsoft buys Oracle.

lol being a just a tad optimistic aren't you? Oracle databases still dwarf all other dbases combined in use. If anything I can see MySQL getting the same treatment as openSolaris. What will happen with Java will be interesting too.