Linux Advocates Fear Solaris 10.
Mike Cox
Linux became popular was that they were not as conservative as BSD, and
would add features constantly. That meant if you wanted some enterprise
functionality for free, you'd have to go with linux (SMP, etc.).
The downside of that linux philosophy was that backwards compatiblitiy went
down the drain. glibc interfaces and kernel calls would change
significantly between versions. Sometimes the "enterprise" feature would
be botched, like the scheduler in the 2.4 kernel.
Now that Solaris 10 is going to be open sourced, Linux advocates rightly
fear that Linux will be abandoned in favor of Solaris 10. Similar to how
BSD was left in droves for Linux. That's right, SUN's brilliant strategy of
making Solaris open sourced is using the linux advocates' techniques
against them.
The reason people will move to Solaris in droves is the same that caused
BSD's user flight. It supports more enterprise features. But the
difference this time is that Solaris is cheaper than Redhat, is completely
backwards compatible, and scales much better on many more CPUs.
Now if only SUN would release its compiler under a BSD license....
John Bailo
> Now that Solaris 10 is going to be open sourced, Linux advocates rightly
> fear that Linux will be abandoned in favor of Solaris 10. Similar to how
> BSD was left in droves for Linux. That's right, SUN's brilliant strategy
> of making Solaris open sourced is using the linux advocates' techniques
> against them.
Having used Solaris.
I doubt it.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip typical M Cox idiocy >
Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
And for that same reason you wish it would replace linux. Then Win would not
stand out in sharp contrast as a buggy, slow POS
--
Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
a trail of destruction behind it.
Nathan Dietsch
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> begin Mike Cox wrote:
>
> < snip typical M Cox idiocy >
>
> Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
The OP is a troll, don't feed him. Don't belittle yourself by stooping
to his level.
>
> And for that same reason you wish it would replace linux. Then Win would not
> stand out in sharp contrast as a buggy, slow POS
This sentence makes no sense.
MfG,
Nathan Dietsch
Joerg Schilling
Nathan Dietsch <use...@ndietsch.com> wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> begin Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>> < snip typical M Cox idiocy >
>>
>> Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
>
>The OP is a troll, don't feed him. Don't belittle yourself by stooping
>to his level.
Peter Köhlmann also seems to be a troll (as he uses the word
"Slowlaris").
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schi...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Joerg Schilling
>> begin Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>> < snip typical M Cox idiocy >
>>
>> Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
>
>The OP is a troll, don't feed him. Don't belittle yourself by stooping
>to his level.
Peter Köhlmann uses the word "Slowaris" so he is a troll too :-(
Eltee
> That is why they post so much FUD on sites such as slashdot.org. The reason
> Linux became popular was that they were not as conservative as BSD, and
> would add features constantly. That meant if you wanted some enterprise
> functionality for free, you'd have to go with linux (SMP, etc.).
>
> The downside of that linux philosophy was that backwards compatiblitiy went
> down the drain. glibc interfaces and kernel calls would change
> significantly between versions. Sometimes the "enterprise" feature would
> be botched, like the scheduler in the 2.4 kernel.
>
> Now that Solaris 10 is going to be open sourced, Linux advocates rightly
> fear that Linux will be abandoned in favor of Solaris 10.
On the contrary. My guess is that Linux will adopt the best features of
Solaris and become an even better OS.
Rich Teer
> The reason people will move to Solaris in droves is the same that caused
> BSD's user flight. It supports more enterprise features. But the
> difference this time is that Solaris is cheaper than Redhat, is completely
> backwards compatible, and scales much better on many more CPUs.
I know that MIke Cox is a troll, but I think this is the first sensible
thing he's ever written!
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Edwin
If Solaris is better than Linux, and it really does become open source,
why would current Linux users have any problem switching to it?
What Eltee wrote is more likely, that Linux will adopt all the best
parts of Solaris, and become an even better OS.
Rich Teer
> Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
Only by people who are as out of touch as you are. As documented
on this page: http://www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature/ Apache 1.3.29
on Solaris 10 can handle substantially more connections per second
than RHEL 3.0.
Richard L. Hamilton
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> writes:
[...]
> If Solaris is better than Linux, and it really does become open source,
> why would current Linux users have any problem switching to it?
Because they believe in the following illogic:
M$ is evil
M$ is a corporation
corporations are evil (give or take a blind eye to Red Scat)
> What Eltee wrote is more likely, that Linux will adopt all the best
> parts of Solaris, and become an even better OS.
Yes, and I like my pork chops on the wing, too...
--
mailto:rlh...@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
Lasik/PRK theme music:
"In the Hall of the Mountain King", from "Peer Gynt"
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Peter [UTF-8] Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
>
> Only by people who are as out of touch as you are. As documented
> on this page: http://www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature/ Apache 1.3.29
> on Solaris 10 can handle substantially more connections per second
> than RHEL 3.0.
>
Oh yes. I see. An independent study from certainly very independent parties
Just like the very independent TCO studies from MS
It certainly serves to remind us that we never should trust statistics we
haven't fabricated ourselves out of whole cloth
--
We may not return the affection of those who like us,
but we always respect their good judgement.
Rich Teer
> On the contrary. My guess is that Linux will adopt the best features of
> Solaris and become an even better OS.
Linux will doubtless "borrow" some features from Solaris, but some
of the best features will be left out because Linus won't want them.
I mean, if he won't accept the ability to produce a core dump on
kernel panic, what chance has something like DTrace got?
Rich Teer
> If Solaris is better than Linux, and it really does become open source,
> why would current Linux users have any problem switching to it?
For many users, the choice of OS is a religeous issue. I mean,
look how many Windoze advocates there are, and I think we can all
agree that their OS of choice is underneath the bottom of the pile
when it comes to OS technology!
> What Eltee wrote is more likely, that Linux will adopt all the best
> parts of Solaris, and become an even better OS.
See my response to Eltee...
Joerg Schilling
Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>I know that MIke Cox is a troll, but I think this is the first sensible
>thing he's ever written!
As this is the first senseful reply on his posting, I need to
send you a ;-)
Joerg Schilling
Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Peter [UTF-8] Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
>
>Only by people who are as out of touch as you are. As documented
>on this page: http://www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature/ Apache 1.3.29
>on Solaris 10 can handle substantially more connections per second
>than RHEL 3.0.
This is something that is also proven by reallity.
After I did upgrade www.berlios.de from Linus to Solaris, I did
feel that there is a second CPU in the box.
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412130930180.8903@zaphod>,
> Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Peter [UTF-8] Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
>>
>>Only by people who are as out of touch as you are. As documented
>>on this page: http://www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature/ Apache 1.3.29
>>on Solaris 10 can handle substantially more connections per second
>>than RHEL 3.0.
>
> This is something that is also proven by reallity.
> After I did upgrade www.berlios.de from Linus to Solaris, I did
> feel that there is a second CPU in the box.
>
I am sure you did
Just as zhose windows guys in here who never ever received a virus
--
"I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."
-- Groucho Marx
Joerg Schilling
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> This is something that is also proven by reallity.
>> After I did upgrade www.berlios.de from Linus to Solaris, I did
>> feel that there is a second CPU in the box.
>>
>
>I am sure you did
>Just as zhose windows guys in here who never ever received a virus
Looks like it makes no sense to treat you like an honest person :-(
The speed difference of administrative scripts that run about one our
cannot be just sweeped away by a religion like the one you seem to be
stuck to.
General Protection Fault
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:42:37 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> begin Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412130930180.8903@zaphod>,
>> Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, you know, it is called "Slowaris" for a reason
>>>
>>>Only by people who are as out of touch as you are. As documented
>>>on this page: http://www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature/ Apache 1.3.29
>>>on Solaris 10 can handle substantially more connections per second
>>>than RHEL 3.0.
>>
>> This is something that is also proven by reallity.
>> After I did upgrade www.berlios.de from Linus to Solaris, I did
>> feel that there is a second CPU in the box.
>>
>
> I am sure you did
> Just as zhose windows guys in here who never ever received a virus
I've *received* plenty, I'm just not dumb enough to actually be infected.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
1:10PM up 20 days, 18:32, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Thomas Vincent
arena and such. Linux users will win more machines in places were
commodity matters, like server farms and the such.
Solaris 10 has a lot of great points like dtrace and ZFS that make it
the first version of Solaris in many years worth looking at.
Cheers,
Tom
all mail refused
>This is something that is also proven by reallity.
Say what you like, but there's only one 'l' in my version of "reality".
Got the guitar CD ?
--
Elvis Notargiacomo master AT barefaced DOT cheek
http://www.notatla.org.uk/goen/
7.031: OnACPower returned value( 0x1 ) which is Equal To 0x1
tha...@dexter.glaci.com
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> The reason people will move to Solaris in droves is the same that caused
>> BSD's user flight. It supports more enterprise features. But the
>> difference this time is that Solaris is cheaper than Redhat, is completely
>> backwards compatible, and scales much better on many more CPUs.
>
> I know that MIke Cox is a troll, but I think this is the first sensible
> thing he's ever written!
His point is valid, but I see it more as the reason Sun will stay
relevant on the high end rather than the reason Linux users will
switch. The fact is, most servers are four processors or less,
and Linux scales very nicely at that level. If Sun tries to 'take
back' the commodity server market with open source Solaris, they
have a hard struggle ahead of them. They might have gotten some
traction five years ago... but the market has changed a lot
since then.
Sun's best strategy is to differentiate themselves on hardware,
fold Solaris's high end features into Linux, and save themselves
a bucketload of development cost in the process. I just don't
expect open source Solaris to gain the developer following
that Linux already has, so Sun will likely continue to carry
most of the Solaris development burden. If they go Linux, donate
some Sun big iron to a few universities and prominent kernel
developers, they begin to reap immediate benefits.
--
Thad Phetteplace
http://www.AliensForBush.com - Geeky Political Humor
Chris Cox
>>I know that MIke Cox is a troll, but I think this is the first sensible
>>thing he's ever written!
>
>
> His point is valid, but I see it more as the reason Sun will stay
> relevant on the high end rather than the reason Linux users will
> switch. The fact is, most servers are four processors or less,
> and Linux scales very nicely at that level. If Sun tries to 'take
> back' the commodity server market with open source Solaris, they
> have a hard struggle ahead of them. They might have gotten some
> traction five years ago... but the market has changed a lot
> since then.
>
> Sun's best strategy is to differentiate themselves on hardware,
> fold Solaris's high end features into Linux, and save themselves
> a bucketload of development cost in the process. I just don't
> expect open source Solaris to gain the developer following
> that Linux already has, so Sun will likely continue to carry
> most of the Solaris development burden. If they go Linux, donate
> some Sun big iron to a few universities and prominent kernel
> developers, they begin to reap immediate benefits.
>
I'm not Sun's greatest advocate, but I do use Sun equipment.
I think Sun has a very agressive strategy. I like what I've seen
in their Opteron designs... I think Sun may well become the leader
in that space. I believe Sun has set an agressive goal to get
20% (?) or so of the x86 server market. To me the biggest
transition is moving from high-margin SPARC (with lower volumes)
to low-margin Opteron (with extremely high volumes). It is
a significant change for Sun... but IMHO, they have about the
best chance of pulling it off vs. any other company. Sun has a lot
of guts and teeth where it counts. Let's see what they can do.
With regards to differentiation, look for Sun to have the first
128-way Opteron (I used to say 64... but that's done now).
Sun is already flooding the market with VERY inexpensive dual
Opteron platforms (I own one, w2100z... easily had for <$2000 from them
now... WOW!). Shoot, just last year I bought a SunBlade 150
and the sucker cost us almost $3000. That $2000 Opteron runs circles
around even a SunBlade 2000 that costs $20000!
Sun obviously wants people to run Solaris... HOWEVER, they WILL
NOT miss a sale if you want to run Linux... or EVEN WINDOWS.
All of the new Opteron platforms are WHQL (sp?) certified to
run Windows. Sun wants to be THE supplier of your hardware
whether you choose Solaris, Linux or Windows.
At the price levels they are offering, I think they have the
best Opteron based platform out there right now.
Hope nobody is too in love with SPARC (please remember that
Sun is Sun.... NOT Sun is SPARC). I wish Sun the very
best on this new direction.
No comment on OpenSolaris.... in my opinion, it's actually
not necessary in Sun's overall new plan. Which actually
makes OpenSolaris more valuable in many respects.
Rich Teer
> switch. The fact is, most servers are four processors or less,
> and Linux scales very nicely at that level. If Sun tries to 'take
Perhaps, but Solaris has other enterprise features that are important
even on low end, 1-4 way systems.
> back' the commodity server market with open source Solaris, they
> have a hard struggle ahead of them. They might have gotten some
I agree that Sun has a challenge ahead of them. But I think their
future is rosy.
> Sun's best strategy is to differentiate themselves on hardware,
> fold Solaris's high end features into Linux, and save themselves
Completely disagree. Why would Sun waste R&D $$$ on Linux? They
already have an enterprise class (soon to be) open source OS, that
is free. If you want Solaris features, why not migrate to Solaris?
> a bucketload of development cost in the process. I just don't
> expect open source Solaris to gain the developer following
> that Linux already has, so Sun will likely continue to carry
Maybe, maybe not. You seem to forget that it's only relatively
recently that Linux was the prime open source platform. It wasn't
that long ago when stuff was first developed on Solaris/SunOS.
It could well be that those that aren't rabid Linux advocates
might see Open Solaris as a new and interesting intellectual
challenge, and tag along for the ride for the sheer hack value.
> most of the Solaris development burden. If they go Linux, donate
> some Sun big iron to a few universities and prominent kernel
> developers, they begin to reap immediate benefits.
What's to stop them from doing that for Open Solaris?
Will Hartung
<tha...@dexter.glaci.com> wrote in message
news:41bf289d$0$46427$4c5e...@news.dias.net...
> The fact is, most servers are four processors or less,
> and Linux scales very nicely at that level. If Sun tries to 'take
> back' the commodity server market with open source Solaris, they
> have a hard struggle ahead of them. They might have gotten some
> traction five years ago... but the market has changed a lot
> since then.
But if the transition to a more stable platform is "mostly" transparent,
then the there isn't that much of a struggle.
Granted, we have no facts yet but consider IF the following are true:
o Janus lets users move "legacy" (funny -- Linux as legacy, oh well) Linux
binaries to Solaris 10
o Solaris 10 has good hardware support for server components
o Solaris 10 support compiling of Linux source code (dunno if it will or
not)
o Solaris 10 has comparable pricing model to Linux
o Solaris 10 administration, while different from Linux, changing to Sol 10
from Linux is less painful than from Windows
So, IF Solaris 10 provides reasonable support for Linux applications, and a
stable platform for vendor binaries in the future, that makes adoption of
Solaris 10 less expensive, and less risky.
Simple case, say your vendor has App 2.0 of his application. But, the old
version runs on Red Hat XYZ vs the new one on Red Hat QED. In order to use
the new version you need to upgrade your Linux box. Now, if that vendor
supports App 2.0 on Solaris, or if they will support the App running in
Janus of Sol 10, then why not upgrade to Sol 10 rather than Red Hat QED? By
doing so you have a pretty darn good chance that when App 2.5 comes out, you
won't need to update your OS to support the application.
If for no other reason than simply being able to keep your OS stable (i.e.
not for any of the other improvements in Sol 10), that seems like a
compelling concern to think about. It's one thing having to update your
application, but updating the OS is a real pain.
And vendors will think about that as well. Janus gives vendors the ability
to migrate their Linux apps to Sol 10. First they can run and support it in
Janus, then they can try to port the source code over and support a native
version (assuming they may not already have a SPARC version). And once they
make that leap, they have a more stable platform to release binary x86
applications.
Now, obviously this is not all going to happen as soon as Sol 10 hits the
market. But I do think it will happen soon, within the year we'll be seeing
movement. I think if Sun manages to push the "port to Sol 10" meme, that as
folks approach the need for either a new system, or having to upgrade their
old system, they may well consider switching over.
While there are some organizations attracted to Red Hat because of its open
source roots, I think most are attracted to its (originally) low price and
functionality. But if I can run the same commodity software (like OSS Web
server tools, etc.), as well as vendor binaries, on a more stable platform,
with similar pricing chracteristics, then all of a sudden Red Hat loses its
luster. The one thing that Red Hat can not guarantee, simply, is the
stability of its underlying platform, because it's not in control of it. Sun
can, and does, control that, and now it's coming out on the same range of
commodity server hardware, with similar performance and pricing, but with
more long term stability (as demonstrated historically -- past performance
does not guarantee future results :-)).
That makes Sol 10 a compelling option in the future for new builds and
upgrades, IMHO, and all of this is regardless of what happens with
OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris can just be icing on the cake.
This is why I think that Sun can compete, and compete well, with Linux on
the low end, but it won't happen overnight.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(wi...@msoft.com)
tha...@dexter.glaci.com
>> some Sun big iron to a few universities and prominent kernel
>> developers, they begin to reap immediate benefits.
>
> What's to stop them from doing that for Open Solaris?
There is nothing to stop them doing it, and if they are serious
about open Solaris they will. My argument is that their return on
investment would be better in trying to tap into the existing Linux
developer pool rather than trying to build a new community around
Solaris. They seem to be clinging to the idea of using Solaris to
differentiate themselves from the other hardware vendors. That
made sense in the old days of the closed source unix wars, but is
much harder to pull off in today's fast paced open source world.
Of course I'm doing some major crystal ball gazing here. If Sun
plays it right and engages the community with the right kind of
challenges, they can certainly build a thriving developer pool
around Solaris. Given some of their past missteps, however, I'm
not so optimistic. Sun has actually done a lot of great stuff
for the open source community, yet their upper managment continues
to throw away goodwill by the truckloads with some of their
boneheaded statements and other ill-thought actions. I'm not
convinced they have the 'community building' knack. Time will
tell, and I wish them well. Sun has done some great things over
the years and continues to churn out some really great tech.
Later,
Jerry McBride
> That is why they post so much FUD on sites such as slashdot.org. The
> reason Linux became popular was that they were not as conservative as BSD,
> and
> would add features constantly. That meant if you wanted some enterprise
> functionality for free, you'd have to go with linux (SMP, etc.).
>
> The downside of that linux philosophy was that backwards compatiblitiy
> went
> down the drain. glibc interfaces and kernel calls would change
> significantly between versions. Sometimes the "enterprise" feature would
> be botched, like the scheduler in the 2.4 kernel.
>
> Now that Solaris 10 is going to be open sourced, Linux advocates rightly
> fear that Linux will be abandoned in favor of Solaris 10. Similar to how
> BSD was left in droves for Linux. That's right, SUN's brilliant strategy
> of making Solaris open sourced is using the linux advocates' techniques
> against them.
>
> The reason people will move to Solaris in droves is the same that caused
> BSD's user flight. It supports more enterprise features. But the
> difference this time is that Solaris is cheaper than Redhat, is completely
> backwards compatible, and scales much better on many more CPUs.
>
> Now if only SUN would release its compiler under a BSD license....
Solaris 10 was supposed to address the poor performance issues with previous
versions. After installing it, testing it I can say that "it doesn't"
address the performance issue at all... It may scale pretty well, but it
pokes around under light load as if it was carry the world...
It may be better than windows, but it pretty much looks like an ugly duck
when compared to Linux.
--
******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
5:08pm up 66 days, 54 min, 8 users, load average: 0.10, 0.14, 0.09
Freeride
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Eltee wrote:
>
>> On the contrary. My guess is that Linux will adopt the best features of
>> Solaris and become an even better OS.
>
> Linux will doubtless "borrow" some features from Solaris, but some
> of the best features will be left out because Linus won't want them.
> I mean, if he won't accept the ability to produce a core dump on
> kernel panic, what chance has something like DTrace got?
>
Bullshit! Sun's CDDL conflicts with the GPL and no Open Source developer is
going to touch it with a 20 foot stick. And I am sure that Sun would love
to have some of its code show up in Linux so it can throw a big giant
monkey wrench into the development and adoption of Linux.
Rich Teer
> Bullshit! Sun's CDDL conflicts with the GPL and no Open Source developer is
Who says Open Solaris will use CDDL?
> going to touch it with a 20 foot stick. And I am sure that Sun would love
That's kind of amusing. I can name three open source developers
who are actively involved with the Open Solaris pilot. So much
for your FUD. Repeat after me until it sinks in: Open Source != GPL.
> to have some of its code show up in Linux so it can throw a big giant
> monkey wrench into the development and adoption of Linux.
I suspect that some Sun code (legally) is already in Linux.
BTW, it's bad netiquette to change the newsgroup line without
notice, so I've re-established the original one.
Casper H.S. Dik
>Solaris 10 was supposed to address the poor performance issues with previous
>versions. After installing it, testing it I can say that "it doesn't"
>address the performance issue at all... It may scale pretty well, but it
>pokes around under light load as if it was carry the world...
What poor performance issues? I've always found that Solaris is
faster than Linux for the things I do. But that's perhaps a function
of the things I do; there's still some catching to do when it comes
to Xserver performace; (no apgart driver available yet).
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Casper H.S. Dik
>Bullshit! Sun's CDDL conflicts with the GPL and no Open Source developer is
>going to touch it with a 20 foot stick. And I am sure that Sun would love
>to have some of its code show up in Linux so it can throw a big giant
>monkey wrench into the development and adoption of Linux.
Any license other than the GPL conflicts with the GPL. There are a lot
of freeware developers who wouldn't touch the GPL with a 30 foot stick.
(And, as the original author, you can release code under several concurrent
licenses; there exists code which is both under the GPL and the BSD license
and where you as user can chose which license you use for redistribution)
Joerg Schilling
Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>> Sun's best strategy is to differentiate themselves on hardware,
>> fold Solaris's high end features into Linux, and save themselves
>
>Completely disagree. Why would Sun waste R&D $$$ on Linux? They
>already have an enterprise class (soon to be) open source OS, that
>is free. If you want Solaris features, why not migrate to Solaris?
I completly agree, it is easier to add the few extra features from Linux
than adding the missing features to Linux. Writing drivers is not that
hard and Sun did already start with massive driver development and a
new x86 driver group.
>> a bucketload of development cost in the process. I just don't
>> expect open source Solaris to gain the developer following
>> that Linux already has, so Sun will likely continue to carry
>
>Maybe, maybe not. You seem to forget that it's only relatively
>recently that Linux was the prime open source platform. It wasn't
>that long ago when stuff was first developed on Solaris/SunOS.
I also forsee that there are other reasons why a developer would switch
from Linux to Solaris.
One reason is that the Linux development is dominated by Linus.
It is even funny to see that Linus repeatdly publishes statements that
he cannot see how Sun may dominate the OSS market. From what I know
about Sun, I can tell that Sun does not seem to be interested in
dominating the OpenSolaris development. This may be an important factor
for OpenSolaris.
Joerg Schilling
Jerry McBride <mcbr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Solaris 10 was supposed to address the poor performance issues with previous
>versions. After installing it, testing it I can say that "it doesn't"
>address the performance issue at all... It may scale pretty well, but it
>pokes around under light load as if it was carry the world...
Looks like you never compared Solaris & Linux performance :-(
With my usage, Linux always has been slower or at most only as fast than
Solaris.
Linux has poor memory management and scheduling. How can such an OS
behave better than Solaris?
Joerg Schilling
Casper H.S. Dik <Caspe...@Sun.COM> wrote:
>Jerry McBride <mcbr...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>Solaris 10 was supposed to address the poor performance issues with previous
>>versions. After installing it, testing it I can say that "it doesn't"
>>address the performance issue at all... It may scale pretty well, but it
>>pokes around under light load as if it was carry the world...
>
>What poor performance issues? I've always found that Solaris is
>faster than Linux for the things I do. But that's perhaps a function
>of the things I do; there's still some catching to do when it comes
>to Xserver performace; (no apgart driver available yet).
I concur.
I don't compare Xserver performance, but for the typical work of a developer
and for Web Servers, Solaris is faster than Linux and already has been
faster than Linux in pre Solaris 10 times.
Joerg Schilling
Freeride <free...@maillinux.org> wrote:
I corrected your violation of the nettiquette (you did change
the Newsgroups: witout notice!)
>Bullshit! Sun's CDDL conflicts with the GPL and no Open Source developer is
>going to touch it with a 20 foot stick. And I am sure that Sun would love
>to have some of its code show up in Linux so it can throw a big giant
>monkey wrench into the development and adoption of Linux.
Well, with CDDL people like Linus have more problems with trying to dominate
a project..... but not all people behave this way.
Note that it is not the CDDL that conflichts with the GPL but it is the
GPL that conflicts with the CDDL.
The problem is that the GPL tries to reduce freedom in a way that is not
compatible with the CDDL.
The GPL does not conflict with only the BSD license because the BSD license
tolerates this freedom reduction.
The problem with the GPL is that it tries to enforce several restrictions
and that it does not allow a mix of "compatible" licenses. The fact that
it tries to impose GPL rules to any piece of software (if taken carefully)
only allows the original Author to add software to a GPL project. This is
all not true for the CDDL. So why should authors not like CDDL?
Peter C. Tribble
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> In article <oc5492x...@spinner.my.domain>,
> Jerry McBride <mcbr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Solaris 10 was supposed to address the poor performance issues with previous
>>versions. After installing it, testing it I can say that "it doesn't"
>>address the performance issue at all... It may scale pretty well, but it
>>pokes around under light load as if it was carry the world...
>
> Looks like you never compared Solaris & Linux performance :-(
>
> With my usage, Linux always has been slower or at most only as fast than
> Solaris.
>
> Linux has poor memory management and scheduling. How can such an OS
> behave better than Solaris?
Interesting question, but there are some not entirely uncommon
circumstances where it does. Particularly, process initialization -
startup, scripts, builds, configure scripts. You can get up to a factor
2 slowdown in Solaris compared to Linux.
I would agree with much of the sentiment above - push them, and Solaris
does behave much better. But under light or modest load, and there are
cases where Solaris performance really isn't quite up to par.
One problem is that it's that sort of behaviour that governs many
users' impressions of a system. It's something we need to work at.
(As part of OpenSolaris, I've tried looking at the scheduler, because I
know there are interactions there. But I don't have the familiarity
with the code or the skills yet to understand it.)
--
-Peter Tribble
MRC Rosalind Franklin Centre for Genomics Research
http://www.rfcgr.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/
Joerg Schilling
Peter C. Tribble <ptri...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>Solaris 10 was supposed to address the poor performance issues with previous
>>>versions. After installing it, testing it I can say that "it doesn't"
>>>address the performance issue at all... It may scale pretty well, but it
>>>pokes around under light load as if it was carry the world...
>>
>> Looks like you never compared Solaris & Linux performance :-(
>>
>> With my usage, Linux always has been slower or at most only as fast than
>> Solaris.
>>
>> Linux has poor memory management and scheduling. How can such an OS
>> behave better than Solaris?
>
>Interesting question, but there are some not entirely uncommon
>circumstances where it does. Particularly, process initialization -
>startup, scripts, builds, configure scripts. You can get up to a factor
>2 slowdown in Solaris compared to Linux.
For Solaris 2.6 and older I would definitely agree that startup of programs
was slower.
Solaris and Solaris apps if linked in a SVr4 compliant way need more dynamic
libs than Linux. This should have been reduced wwith never versions.
I don't believe that the Solaris schedular is related to this.
Dan Espen
> In article <cpq4pd$jjn$1...@helium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>,
> Peter C. Tribble <ptri...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>Solaris 10 was supposed to address the poor performance issues with previous
>>>>versions. After installing it, testing it I can say that "it doesn't"
>>>>address the performance issue at all... It may scale pretty well, but it
>>>>pokes around under light load as if it was carry the world...
>>>
>>> Looks like you never compared Solaris & Linux performance :-(
>>>
>>> With my usage, Linux always has been slower or at most only as fast than
>>> Solaris.
>>>
>>> Linux has poor memory management and scheduling. How can such an OS
>>> behave better than Solaris?
>>
>>Interesting question, but there are some not entirely uncommon
>>circumstances where it does. Particularly, process initialization -
>>startup, scripts, builds, configure scripts. You can get up to a factor
>>2 slowdown in Solaris compared to Linux.
>
> For Solaris 2.6 and older I would definitely agree that startup of programs
> was slower.
>
> Solaris and Solaris apps if linked in a SVr4 compliant way need more dynamic
> libs than Linux. This should have been reduced wwith never versions.
> I don't believe that the Solaris schedular is related to this.
I'd like more info.
Here's what I see, Mandrake 10.0 vs. Solaris 2.8:
linux> ldd /bin/ls
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/tls/librt.so.1 (0x40025000)
libtermcap.so.2 => /lib/libtermcap.so.2 (0x4003a000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x4003e000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x40186000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
linux> ldd /usr/bin/make
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x40025000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
linux> ldd /bin/cat
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x40025000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
solaris> ldd /bin/ls
libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
/usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-5_10/lib/libc_psr.so.1
solaris> ldd /usr/ccs/bin/make
libintl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libintl.so.1
libnsl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libnsl.so.1
libsocket.so.1 => /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1
libw.so.1 => /usr/lib/libw.so.1
libm.so.1 => /usr/lib/libm.so.1
libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
libmp.so.2 => /usr/lib/libmp.so.2
/usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-5_10/lib/libc_psr.so.1
solaris> ldd /bin/cat
libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
/usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-5_10/lib/libc_psr.so.1
Looks like a mixed bag, but I can see some flaws in
this test, Solaris make seems to be network aware,
gnu ls provides color.
Casper H.S. Dik
>(As part of OpenSolaris, I've tried looking at the scheduler, because I
>know there are interactions there. But I don't have the familiarity
>with the code or the skills yet to understand it.)
The Solaris scheduler is fairly complicated; however, it's been an
O(1) scheduler (a much touted Linux 2.something feature) since about
Solaris 2.4.
Peter C. Tribble
Casper H.S. Dik <Caspe...@Sun.COM> writes:
> ptri...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Peter C. Tribble) writes:
>
>>(As part of OpenSolaris, I've tried looking at the scheduler, because I
>>know there are interactions there. But I don't have the familiarity
>>with the code or the skills yet to understand it.)
>
> The Solaris scheduler is fairly complicated; however, it's been an
> O(1) scheduler (a much touted Linux 2.something feature) since about
> Solaris 2.4.
That it may be. The problem we saw was (as far as I recall - sorry Gary
if I mess up) due to a scheduling race in the following scenario:
Shell script runs through many short lived processes. When new process
is launched, parent sleeps. When child exits, two scheduling events are
generated - parent wakes up and tries to find a cpu to run on, and the
cpu the child was running on is now free.
Needless to say it didn't always get it right. Especially if this is a
multiprocessor system with something else happening. (The fix was to use
processor sets or even a simple pbind to stop processes wandering
around between cpus - in other words, to override some of the
scheduling decisions.)
We were seeing a slowdown of something like a factor 10 in some extreme
cases. I mean, you would think that if you had a multiprocessor machine
then you wouldn't be able to detect much of an impact on system
responsiveness provided there was at least one CPU free. The reality
was otherwise, unfortunately.
Must run some tests on build 72, to see how it's changed
recently. Things are getting much better in the last couple of Solaris
express releases.
Al Hopper
You're not comparing like with like. The biggest issue with this
comparison is that you're comparing an x86 (based) architecture with a
SPARC arch. That does not make sense.
On an older Solaris 9 box:
$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 9 8/03 s9x_u4wos_08b x86
Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 17 June 2003
$ ldd /bin/ls
libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
On a newer Solaris 9 box:
$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 9 9/04 s9x_u7wos_09 x86
Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 28 June 2004
$ ldd /bin/ls
libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
On a Sol 10 box running Beta 70 in 32-bit mode:
$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 10 s10_70 X86
Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 22 October 2004
$ ldd /bin/ls
libc.so.1 => /lib/libc.so.1
libm.so.2 => /lib/libm.so.2
Conclusion: Give a more recent version of Solaris a spin on an x86
server, ideally the latest available Solaris Express release (B72)
and I think you'll be impressed.
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. a...@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134
"It's a good thing that HP never acquired the rights to penicillin. If they had,
mankind would have perished from widespread disease while HP tried to figure out
how to integrate it with anthrax." TD (fullname unknown).
Al Hopper
You're not comparing like with like. The biggest issue with this
comparison is that you're comparing an x86 (based) architecture with a
SPARC arch. That does not make sense.
On an older Solaris 9 box:
$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 9 8/03 s9x_u4wos_08b x86
Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 17 June 2003
$ ldd /bin/ls
libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
On a newer Solaris 9 box:
$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 9 9/04 s9x_u7wos_09 x86
Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 28 June 2004
$ ldd /bin/ls
libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
On a Sol 10 box running Beta 70 in 32-bit mode:
Alan Coopersmith
|linux> ldd /usr/bin/make
| linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
| libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x40025000)
| /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
| libintl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libintl.so.1
| libnsl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libnsl.so.1
| libsocket.so.1 => /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1
| libw.so.1 => /usr/lib/libw.so.1
| libm.so.1 => /usr/lib/libm.so.1
| libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
| libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
| libmp.so.2 => /usr/lib/libmp.so.2
| /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-5_10/lib/libc_psr.so.1
Eh, not sure how useful a comparison that is - if you link with -z
lazyload, many of those will never get loaded at startup (and some,
never at all). The linker guys have done some amazing things to
speed up loads when the right options are used.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * al...@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coo...@Sun.COM
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/ * http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Dan Espen
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:24:20 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>>
>>> In article <cpq4pd$jjn$1...@helium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>,
>>> Peter C. Tribble <ptri...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
...
>>> Solaris and Solaris apps if linked in a SVr4 compliant way need more dynamic
>>> libs than Linux. This should have been reduced wwith never versions.
>>
>> I'd like more info.
>>
>> Here's what I see, Mandrake 10.0 vs. Solaris 2.8:
>>
>>
>> linux> ldd /bin/ls
>> linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
>> librt.so.1 => /lib/tls/librt.so.1 (0x40025000)
>> libtermcap.so.2 => /lib/libtermcap.so.2 (0x4003a000)
>> libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x4003e000)
>> libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x40186000)
>> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
>> solaris> ldd /bin/ls
>> libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
>> libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
>> /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-5_10/lib/libc_psr.so.1
>>
>> Looks like a mixed bag, but I can see some flaws in
>> this test, gnu ls provides color.
>
> You're not comparing like with like. The biggest issue with this
> comparison is that you're comparing an x86 (based) architecture with a
> SPARC arch. That does not make sense.
It looked to me like the biggest issue
was the lack of equivalent function.
> On an older Solaris 9 box:
>
> $ cat /etc/release
> Solaris 9 8/03 s9x_u4wos_08b x86
> Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> Use is subject to license terms.
> Assembled 17 June 2003
> $ ldd /bin/ls
> libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1
> libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
All your examples show 2 shared libs needed on a basic
Solaris x86 executables where the minimum for linux seemed to be 3.
Above it says Solaris needs more dynamic libs than linux,
but for the simple cases, the opposite seems to be true.
Hamilcar Barca
06:29:52 +0000), Rich Teer wrote:
> Who says Open Solaris will use CDDL?
What's the point, if any, of the CDDL? Is Sun just testing the waters
to see how much negative feedback is generated? Why do they go to the
expense of creating a new "open source" [sic] license if they don't intend
to use it?
Who says Open [sic] Solaris won't use the CDDL?
> Repeat after me until it sinks in: Open Source != GPL.
The proper relation is, and remains:
Open Source" < GPL
> I suspect that some Sun code (legally) is already in Linux.
There may be. However, there isn't a single Sun Microsystems copyright
notice in the 2.6.9 kernel, so Sun's contribution, if there is one, is
miniscule. (OTOH, so what?)
--
"I think [Microsoft] have a pretty good story, but I tell you, game's on.
We've got to prove ourselves, and some people are choosing Linux."
-- Steve Ballmer. http://news.com.com/2008-1082-998297.html. 25 Apr 2003
Hamilcar Barca
+0000), Joerg Schilling wrote:
> One reason is that the Linux development is dominated by Linus.
Your penis envy is becoming obvious.
Hamilcar Barca
+0000), Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Well, with CDDL people like Linus have more problems with trying to dominate
> a project.....
Do you then claim that all arguments in favor of the CDDL [sic] devolve to
ad hominem attacks?
> [...] but not all people behave this way.
But some do:
| Warning: you are not allowed to modify or to remove the
| Copyright and version printing code below!
| See also GPL <A7> 2 subclause c)
Have you failed to read the GPL? You cannot require, even though you so
desire, the retention of "version printing code". You seem to have made a
mistake in using the GPL at any time.
| I am sorry for the inconvenience but I am forced to do this because
| some people create inofficial branches. These branches create
| problems but the initiators do not give support and thus cause the
| development of the official cdrecord versions to slow down because
| I am loaded with unneeded work.
Your attempt to dominate cdrecord hasn't been completely successful?
| Please note that this is a memorandum on how I interpret the GPL.
| If you use/modify/redistribute cdrecord, you need to accept it
| this way.
You don't understand that your interpretation of a license is not binding
on anyone if it's a misinterpretation?
> Note that it is not the CDDL that conflichts with the GPL but it is the
> GPL that conflicts with the CDDL.
Note that Sun was under no obligation to create a new license that
conflicted with the GPL. They did so anyway. Could this have been
an accidental oversight?
> The problem is that the GPL tries to reduce freedom in a way that is not
> compatible with the CDDL.
The problem is that the CDDL [sic] tries to reduce the freedoms for all
granted by the GPL, such that Sun may maintain sufficient control over its
code to prevent it from being used in certain other products -- notably
the Linux kernel.
> The problem with the GPL [...]
What you've attempted to label as a problem [sic] with the GPL is its
main strength. Its license cannot be diluted by such marketing
press releases from companies like Sun Microsystems.
> So why should authors not like CDDL?
Some programmers do not want their work to be converted to a proprietary
status. (Some want to allow this, and have the right to do so. Some
probably don't care.)
--
"It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly,
so you should look into that."
-- Bill Gates. Chairman, Microsoft. FOCUS Magazine interview. 10/23/1995
Rich Teer
> What's the point, if any, of the CDDL? Is Sun just testing the waters
> to see how much negative feedback is generated? Why do they go to the
> expense of creating a new "open source" [sic] license if they don't intend
> to use it?
Sun intend to use CDDL. I'm just saying that they haven't commited to
using it for Open Solaris (nor have they publically said that they aren't).
Anyone outside Sun who states that Sun will use the CDDL for Open Solaris
is either speculating, or breaking the terms of an NDA.
> Who says Open [sic] Solaris won't use the CDDL?
Sun haven't publically commited to ANY license for Open Solaris yet. They've
only stated that it will be OSI approved.
Given that I'm a member of the Open Solaris pilot project I'm privvy
to more info than I can say here. And no, I'm not about to break
the terms of the NDA I signed!
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
. * * . * .* .
. * . .*
President, * . . /\ ( . . *
Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * .
.*. / * \ . .
. /* o \ .
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 * '''||''' .
URL: http://www.rite-online.net ******************
Alan Coopersmith
|What's the point, if any, of the CDDL?
To provide an update to the commonly accepted Mozilla Public License to
deal with some concerns people had about the MPL. If the OSI review
goes well (which it seems to be, providing useful feedback for improving
the license further), there are a variety of projects it may be used
for, but exactly which ones is not being announced yet, to allow the
discussion to focus on the license itself, not the projects that may use
it.
Alan Coopersmith
|conflicted with the GPL. They did so anyway. Could this have been
|an accidental oversight?
Or could it have simply been anticipating the compatibility issue being
resolved by the GPL version 3, given Richard Stallman's statements on
patent grants in licenses and plans to update the GPL soon? (I don't
know, I wasn't involved, but it seems just as reasonable a possibility
as any claims of trying to intentionally be GPL incompatible.)
Joerg Schilling
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
>In article <cppn6b$aoc$1...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> (Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:02:19
>+0000), Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Well, with CDDL people like Linus have more problems with trying to dominate
>> a project.....
>
>Do you then claim that all arguments in favor of the CDDL [sic] devolve to
>ad hominem attacks?
???
It seems that you do not follow the discussions about the CDDL on the net :-(
You repeatedly read quotes like this from Linus:
- From osnews:
-----
Linus' comments are better. Sun does face a huge problem in building
up a community. The CDDL also allows linking with proprietary stuff
- like the LGPL. He says that is bad. His stance on binary drivers
would seem to contradict that stance, but whatever. He also says that
this license helps Sun retain control of the code more than the GPL
does and that it doesn't make everyone an owner as much as the GPL
does. That's just not true. In fact, because of the patent grant, it
makes people greater owners. There is no way that Sun can keep control
of stuff licenced under the CDDL. I could very easily take all their
CDDL licenced code and start a project with a licence that was
GPL-like as long as that licence included a patent grant and stuff.
-----
This nicely gives the impression on domination on Linux you get when
reading what he writes on Linux. The problem with Linus control on
Linux is that he likes to control everything even things he does not
understand, and this is a lot.
Linus did even prove this inability recently when the Linux kernel
guys did start stating that they are unable to create a usable kernel.
Since a few months, the Linux kernel people tell you that it is not
their intention that Linux kernels from ftp.kernel.org are useful
anymore. They instead point you to Linux kernels from Linux
distributions. This looks like: "Hey, we are unable to create a useful
work (as we only like to play with kernel software). If you like to
use our software try to get a version from somebody who fixes our bugs
first"...
Let me give you an example: A few months ago, people discovered a
minor possible security bug in the Linux Generic SCSI code that has
been the result of a typical beginners mistake in the code. With
Linux-2.6.8.1 (something that has been declared "stable"), Linus did
introduce an incompatible interface change in the Generic SCSI
interface. I and many other people pointed him to a way to fix the
problem without introducing kernel incompatibilities. Linus did tell
all of us that we will never change his mind.
- From eweek:
-----
Torvalds said he does not expect developers clamoring to start playing
with that source code.
-----
This is looks like a result of the fact that Linus seems to be:
- unteachable (he does not react in a useful way if
you send him mail that proves that his
claims are wrong).
- unwilling to learn (he refuses to read background
information he is pointed to after he
asks for proves that he is wrong).
N.B. I did point him more than once to the Solaris 8 community source
and to the FreeBSD source when he did get exited with his strange SCSI
kernel driver ideas. I was in hope that a contact to the reallity would
help him, but it rather seems that he only likes to look at his Linux
belly button :-(
Note that I do not like to start a CDDL discussion but only to comment on the
concerns people from the Linux camp have with Sun.....so I have no problem with
my NDA :-)
What the people from the Linux camp need to learn is that it _is_ possible
to develop a big project without being dominated by a single person.
The Solaris development from the past shows that it has always been possible
for single persons to bring up and integrate good new ideas that are not
understood by the management and not wanted in the beginning. Just look
at Bryan Cantrill and dtrace....
>> [...] but not all people behave this way.
>
>But some do:
Are you really trying to compare a large project like the Linux kernel
with a medium sized project like cdrtools that is mostly run by a single
person?
>| Warning: you are not allowed to modify or to remove the
>| Copyright and version printing code below!
>| See also GPL <A7> 2 subclause c)
>
>Have you failed to read the GPL? You cannot require, even though you so
>desire, the retention of "version printing code". You seem to have made a
>mistake in using the GPL at any time.
Please read and understand the GPL first.....
This requirement is excatly what the GPL claims for programs like cdrecord:
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
The extra comments in my code just like to tell people who did not understand
the GPL what the GPL means. Note that this is a problem with nearly _all_ major
Linux distributions. They more or less do all break the GPL. The Debian
people seem to be the only exception (after some discussions I did have with
them).
Also note that I am _definitely_ not trying to avoid real forks of my
work. The problem with Linux based companies like RedHat & SuSE is that
they are proprietary software companies that just use other peoples
code and modify it _without_ even trying to give feedback to the original
authors. Their intention is not to deploy good and unique free software
but rather to have something that differs from their competitiors. This is
something from the stone age of software companies. Well one might argue that
these companies are young and still need to learn.....
The result of the changes on cdrtools made by e.g. SuSE has _not_ been
better software but rather _broken_ software that is no longer useful
for even the basic intention of this software :-(
If you _read_ the GPL, then you will see that the GPL does not allow you
to make changes that discredit the original Author. Fact is, that
companies like SuSE did break my software but did use my name for
advertising....
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.
This is exactly what SuSE did: they published a modified and obviously
defective version of cdrecord but let it look as it it was the original
cdrecord.
As a result, a lot of SuSE customers did send bug reports via mail to _me_
and have been angry because of the bugs introduced not my me but by SuSE.
At this point, it looks like a good idea in the current CDDL draft to
introduce paragraph 3.4 which would have allowed me to send an invoice to
SuSE to get a compensation for the work that SuSE did force me to do.
Thomas Dickey
> You repeatedly read quotes like this from Linus:
none of what JS is citing is attributed to Linus (who may very well agree
with this). Perhaps he's only citing his own anonymous posting.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
Juergen Keil
> In article <41c09e83$0$21106$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Casper H.S. Dik <Caspe...@Sun.COM> writes:
>> ptri...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Peter C. Tribble) writes:
>>
>>>(As part of OpenSolaris, I've tried looking at the scheduler, because I
>>>know there are interactions there. But I don't have the familiarity
>>>with the code or the skills yet to understand it.)
>>
>> The Solaris scheduler is fairly complicated; however, it's been an
>> O(1) scheduler (a much touted Linux 2.something feature) since about
>> Solaris 2.4.
>
> That it may be. The problem we saw was (as far as I recall - sorry Gary
> if I mess up) due to a scheduling race in the following scenario:
>
> Shell script runs through many short lived processes. When new process
> is launched, parent sleeps. When child exits, two scheduling events are
> generated - parent wakes up and tries to find a cpu to run on, and the
> cpu the child was running on is now free.
>
> Needless to say it didn't always get it right. Especially if this is a
> multiprocessor system with something else happening.
Yep, that refreshed my memory on the problem with "configure" style
scripts running *extremly* slow on Solaris when there is some low
priority background activity.
Here's a link to the old google archived usenet article; it includes a
simple test case:
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=wy4rjf3tn9.fsf%40tools.de
> (The fix was to use
> processor sets or even a simple pbind to stop processes wandering
> around between cpus - in other words, to override some of the
> scheduling decisions.)
>
> We were seeing a slowdown of something like a factor 10 in some extreme
> cases. I mean, you would think that if you had a multiprocessor machine
> then you wouldn't be able to detect much of an impact on system
> responsiveness provided there was at least one CPU free. The reality
> was otherwise, unfortunately.
>
> Must run some tests on build 72, to see how it's changed
> recently. Things are getting much better in the last couple of Solaris
> express releases.
Well, I just re-run the test included in my old usenet article and I
don't see any changes or improvements for this particular test case,
comparing between Solaris 8 x86 and Solaris 10 b69 x86...
vfork()ing short lived subprocesses is 10x faster than fork()ing them,
in case there is some background activity on the system.
Joerg Schilling
Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>In comp.unix.solaris Joerg Schilling <j...@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>> You repeatedly read quotes like this from Linus:
>
>none of what JS is citing is attributed to Linus (who may very well agree
>with this). Perhaps he's only citing his own anonymous posting.
The next time you are confused, try to avoid to post.....
But hey, getting a reply from you proves that my posting is correct and
important :-)
Thomas Dickey
> But hey, getting a reply from you proves that my posting is correct and
> important :-)
neither.
slightly amusing (will provide useful followups for your fellow trolls).
Drazen Kacar
> solaris> ldd /usr/ccs/bin/make
> libintl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libintl.so.1
This is a bug. There's no need to link against /usr/lib/libintl.so.1
(it's just a filter and the implementation is in libc).
--
.-. .-. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_ \ / _) ceremonial.
|
| da...@fly.srk.fer.hr
Drazen Kacar
> Eh, not sure how useful a comparison that is - if you link with -z
> lazyload, many of those will never get loaded at startup (and some,
> never at all). The linker guys have done some amazing things to
> speed up loads when the right options are used.
Whether lazy loading is useful depends on the way the application and the
libraries are written. If something calls foolib_init() and then never
uses anything from foolib, the library will be loaded anyway, symbol
resolution will be somewhat slower and the binary will be somewhat larger.
You get the same effect if something's referencing the library data
directly, eg. gtk_major_version.
Richard L. Hamilton
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
[...]
> The problem is that the CDDL [sic] tries to reduce the freedoms for all
> granted by the GPL, such that Sun may maintain sufficient control over its
> code to prevent it from being used in certain other products -- notably
> the Linux kernel.
>
The problem is that not everyone agrees that what GPL does and
{BSD,CDDL,...} doesn't do makes GPL freer.
The problem is also that GPL can be an obstacle to using free and
proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs. Or
have we forgotten about them altogether?
--
mailto:rlh...@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
Lasik/PRK theme music:
"In the Hall of the Mountain King", from "Peer Gynt"
Drazen Kacar
> The result of the changes on cdrtools made by e.g. SuSE has _not_ been
> better software but rather _broken_ software that is no longer useful
> for even the basic intention of this software :-(
You're in Germany, SuSE is based in Germany. I was under impression that
the German copyright law has integrity rights under the author's moral
rights. If that's the case you're perfectly capable of stopping the
distribution of such modifications.
> As a result, a lot of SuSE customers did send bug reports via mail to _me_
> and have been angry because of the bugs introduced not my me but by SuSE.
So you can even prove the damage to the reputation.
Ulf Volmer
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> The result of the changes on cdrtools made by e.g. SuSE has _not_ been
>> better software but rather _broken_ software that is no longer useful
>> for even the basic intention of this software :-(
>
> You're in Germany, SuSE is based in Germany. I was under impression that
> the German copyright law has integrity rights under the author's moral
> rights. If that's the case you're perfectly capable of stopping the
> distribution of such modifications.
Joerg is not the owner of all the code basing cdrtools.
So he can't change the current license of cdrtools.
cu
ulf
--
Ulf Volmer
u.vo...@u-v.de
Drazen Kacar
Moral rights are usually inalienable, ie. they don't depend on the license
or the contract or other legal business. They are granted by the copyright
law (usually not transferable) and in some jurisdictions can't even be
vaiwed off.
Joerg Schilling
Ulf Volmer <u.vo...@BMer.de> wrote:
>> You're in Germany, SuSE is based in Germany. I was under impression that
>> the German copyright law has integrity rights under the author's moral
>> rights. If that's the case you're perfectly capable of stopping the
>> distribution of such modifications.
This is not as easy as it may look...
>Joerg is not the owner of all the code basing cdrtools.
>
>So he can't change the current license of cdrtools.
I am not the owner of enough code from mkisofs and I am not the owner
of cdda2wav. I am however the owner of cdrecord. While I most likely would
get the permission for cdda2wav from Heiko, mkisofs is a problem...
Daeron
> The problem is that not everyone agrees that what GPL does and
> {BSD,CDDL,...} doesn't do makes GPL freer.
> The problem is also that GPL can be an obstacle to using free and
> proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs. Or have
> we forgotten about them altogether?
PalmSource to build Palm OS on Linux
Tony Smith Dec 08 2004
"PalmSource is to create a new version of the Palm OS with Linux at its
core, the company said today after announcing a plan to buy Chinese
phone software company China MobileSoft (CMS)."
"Like Apple with Mac OS X, PalmSource will keep all the top-layer code
proprietary, but it will release any changes it makes to the underlying
Linux code - for faster boot times and battery life preservation
systems, for example - available to the open source community."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/08/palmsource_linux/
IBM does Linux-only dance on Power
Ashlee Vance Sep 13 2004 Chicago
"IBM continues to refine its Linux server strategy, announcing today a
new set of kit that runs the open source OS only on its Power5 processor
.. IBM will offer both Red Hat and SuSE's enterprise Linux operating
systems on the new box."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/13/ibm_linuxonly_powerbox/
"SUSE Linux Desktop 1.0 was chosen by Sun to be part of the Java Desktop
System primarily to act as a platform for GNOME development which Sun is
working on. In addition, SUSE is a premier operating environment with
significant customer base and development efforts."
http://wwws.sun.com/software/javadesktopsystem/faq.html#4q3
"Xandros uses a hybrid open sourcecode with proprietary features that
provide significantly better security than other popular operating systems."
http://www.xandros.com/about/corporatebackground.html
"Xandros, the leading developer of easy-to-use Linux solutions, today
announced that Wal-Mart.com is carrying a fully loaded Linux desktop
computer with the pre-installed Xandros Desktop Operating System (OS)
for only $199.98."
"Built by Microtel and available at Wal-Mart's online store,* the new
desktop PC offers a complete suite of pre-installed software for home,
school, and small office desktop use"
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20041209213249573
"The combined Linux market - desktops, servers, and packaged software
running on Linux - will exceed $35 billion by 2008, with $10 billion of
that coming from Linux PC sales, says an IDC Linux market share and
forecast study announced yesterday by OSDL, the Open Source Development
Labs."
"HP first major PC maker to launch Linux-based notebook"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/03/financial1657EDT0259.DTL
See also ...
http://www.novell.com
http://www.redhat.com
http://www.xandros.com
http://www.hp.com
http://www.linspire.com
Hamilcar Barca
+0000), Joerg Schilling wrote:
> In article <20041215232949.209$Y...@news.newsreader.com>,
> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
>>
> It seems that you do not follow the discussions about the CDDL on the net :-(
It's certain you have no evidence for your claims
> You repeatedly read quotes like this from Linus:
>
> [snip 9 paragraphs without a single quotation from Linus Torvalds]
You imagine quotes where there are absolutely none.
>>But some do:
>
> Are you really trying to compare a large project like the Linux kernel
> with a medium sized project like cdrtools that is mostly run by a single
> person?
Are you really denying that you're guilty of the charges you leveled
against Linux, when your admission against interest is sufficient proof?
>>| Warning: you are not allowed to modify or to remove the
>>| Copyright and version printing code below!
>>| See also GPL <A7> 2 subclause c)
>>
>>Have you failed to read the GPL? You cannot require, even though you so
>>desire, the retention of "version printing code". You seem to have made a
>>mistake in using the GPL at any time.
>
> Please read and understand the GPL first.....
I have read and understood the GPL. Your quotation proves you wrong
beyond any doubt. No section, subsection, paragraph, and/or phrase denies
licensees from removing advertising clauses.
> This requirement is excatly what the GPL claims for programs like cdrecord:
>
> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
> when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
> interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
> announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
> a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
> these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
> License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
> does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
> the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
Which of these words requires GPL licensees to maintain your advertising
clause? Not a single one.
> The extra comments in my code just like to tell people who did not understand
> the GPL what the GPL means.
No, they don't. They attempt to misinform licensees about their rights
and obligations under the GPL.
> Note that this is a problem with nearly _all_ major
> Linux distributions.
Note that the misinterpretations of others do not excuse yours. Clearly,
you are able to see your advertising requirement is a violation of the GPL.
> The result of the changes on cdrtools made by e.g. SuSE has _not_ been
> better software but rather _broken_ software that is no longer useful
> for even the basic intention of this software :-(
That's unfortunate, but it's a risk when you use the GPL.
> If you _read_ the GPL, then you will see that the GPL does not allow you
> to make changes that discredit the original Author.
It certainly does not. It requires only the original author's copyright
notice be preserved. If I add a line to cdrecord that says
printf("Joerg Schilling produces inferior software\n") ;
I have violated no portion of the GPL. NOTE: I use cdrecord and it is not
inferior software.
> Fact is, that companies like SuSE did break my software [...]
This may be so. It in no way violates the GPL.
> [...] but did use my name for advertising....
This may be so. It in no way violates the GPL.
> Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
> that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
> software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
> want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
> that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
> authors' reputations.
>
> This is exactly what SuSE did: they published a modified and obviously
> defective version of cdrecord but let it look as it it was the original
> cdrecord.
This may be so. If it is, it's a violation of the GPL.
> At this point, it looks like a good idea in the current CDDL draft to
> introduce paragraph 3.4 which would have allowed me to send an invoice to
> SuSE to get a compensation for the work that SuSE did force me to do.
SuSE did not force you to do any work -- none at all. If you don't want
to support software you released under the GPL, you are free to do so.
Whether the defects are yours or SuSE's, you undertook the work on your
own initiative.
The CDDL is just a "red herring".
--
"It is unthinkable that the European Competition authority could fail to
deal with anti-competitive practices in the EU with such huge effects
simply because [Microsoft] has its headquarters in the U.S."
-- Mario Monti. EU Competition Commissioner.
Hamilcar Barca
+0000), Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> The problem is also that GPL can be an obstacle to using free and
> proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs.
It does not. It prohibits the mixing of proprietary and GPL code only if
they are "distributed". End users are free to mix, match, hack, break,
and/or innovate [sic] to their heart's content.
> Or have we forgotten about them altogether?
Who is "we"?
--
"As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you
steal your software."
-- William Henry Gates III. An Open Letter to Hobbyists. 3 Feb 1976.
Hamilcar Barca
04:43:39 +0000), Rich Teer wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>
>> What's the point, if any, of the CDDL? Is Sun just testing the waters
>> to see how much negative feedback is generated? Why do they go to the
>> expense of creating a new "open source" [sic] license if they don't intend
>> to use it?
>
> Sun intend to use CDDL. I'm just saying that they haven't commited to
> using it for Open Solaris (nor have they publically said that they aren't).
Let me rephrase a portion of my article:
* What's the point, if any, of the CDDL?
* Is Sun just testing the waters to see how much negative feedback is
generated?
>> Who says Open [sic] Solaris won't use the CDDL?
>
> Sun haven't publically commited to ANY license for Open Solaris yet. They've
> only stated that it will be OSI approved.
This claim from Sun seems to have no merit. Why yet another license?
What if Sun change their mind?
> Given that I'm a member of the Open Solaris pilot project I'm privvy
> to more info than I can say here. And no, I'm not about to break
> the terms of the NDA I signed!
You seem to be claiming to possess facts not in evidence. These are not
useful.
--
"I've hired quite a few people from the Linux open source world to run
a research and development center. Then we bring consultants from the
Linux open source space to help us build solutions."
-- Martin Taylor. Platform Strategy. Microsoft Corporation.
Hamilcar Barca
+0000), Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
> |What's the point, if any, of the CDDL?
>
> To provide an update to the commonly accepted Mozilla Public License to
> deal with some concerns people had about the MPL.
Why is this useful?
> If the OSI review goes well
This OSI?
http://www.opensource.org/docs/board.php
Eric S. Raymond (President) (PGP key)
Eric designed the language and marketing tactics around which the
OSI was formed. He and Bruce Perens co-founded the organization. Eric
lives in Malvern, Pennsylvania, USA.
> (which it seems to be, providing useful
> feedback for improving the license further), [...]
This kind of feedback?
"Sun can vapor on about voting and committees all it wants, but [...]
JCP is still a single point of control, [and] the Java reference imple-
mentation and class libraries are under a proprietary license [...]"
-- Eric S. Raymond
"Rather than blowing smoke about the bazaar model, I think [Sun's]
Mr. Schwartz's time would be better spent explaining why he thinks
those reasons don't apply to Java [...]"
-- Eric S. Raymond
"Any time [Sun Microsystems tries] to use my work to justify retaining
proprietary control or argue that Linux is somehow less open than Java,
that's either culpable stupidity or dishonesty [...]"
-- Eric S. Raymond
Sun's new CDDL seems to be nothing more than a marketing announcement.
--
"Ironically, Microsoft's efforts to deny interoperability of Windows with
legitimate non-Microsoft applications have created an environment in which
Microsoft's programs interoperate efficiently only with Internet viruses."
-- Daniel Geer.
Joerg Schilling
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
>In article <cproil$lvf$1...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> (Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:38:13
>+0000), Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> In article <20041215232949.209$Y...@news.newsreader.com>,
>> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>> It seems that you do not follow the discussions about the CDDL on the net :-(
>
>It's certain you have no evidence for your claims
Looks like a typical reply from an uninformed person :-(
If you would have a minimum amount of knowledge on how to use google,
it yould take you a few seconds to find the sources I did quote by just feeding
a few words from the qwuoted text into google....
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9074
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1739000,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
It may be intersting for you to see that the sources I quote are
from the same anti Sun league as you :-)
But people like you are not interested in a useful discussion if they find
themselves on the side of the loosers.
The rest of your useless posting has been disposed to save the environment....
Dragan Cvetkovic
>
> The rest of your useless posting has been disposed to save the environment....
I think the whole discussion should be disposed to save the environment...
I am kill-filling this subject. It's getting silly.
Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
Joerg Schilling
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
>> Sun intend to use CDDL. I'm just saying that they haven't commited to
>> using it for Open Solaris (nor have they publically said that they aren't).
>
>Let me rephrase a portion of my article:
>
>* What's the point, if any, of the CDDL?
>
>* Is Sun just testing the waters to see how much negative feedback is
> generated?
Sun is interested in constructive feedback, something that you seem to be
unable to give :-(
Joerg Schilling
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
>
>This kind of feedback?
>
> "Sun can vapor on about voting and committees all it wants, but [...]
> JCP is still a single point of control, [and] the Java reference imple-
> mentation and class libraries are under a proprietary license [...]"
> -- Eric S. Raymond
>
> "Rather than blowing smoke about the bazaar model, I think [Sun's]
> Mr. Schwartz's time would be better spent explaining why he thinks
> those reasons don't apply to Java [...]"
> -- Eric S. Raymond
Looks like the reply of a mugger that did just receive wristwatch
as a gift and then becomes angry for not receiving the tie as a throw in....
Joerg Schilling
Dragan Cvetkovic <dragan...@gmx.net> wrote:
>j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>
>>
>> The rest of your useless posting has been disposed to save the environment....
>
>I think the whole discussion should be disposed to save the environment...
Most people did write useful postings during the last days.
My impression is that the problems are caused by a few people from cola that
are just unable write useful things. Something similar as you see on LKML.
There are only about 3-5 people on LKML who repeatedly write offensive mails
but these people emboss the impresion that most people have from LKML.
Richard L. Hamilton
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
> In article <cprdt9$mln$1...@agate.berkeley.edu> (Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:36:09
> +0000), Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
>> |What's the point, if any, of the CDDL?
>>
>> To provide an update to the commonly accepted Mozilla Public License to
>> deal with some concerns people had about the MPL.
>
> Why is this useful?
>
>> If the OSI review goes well
>
> This OSI?
>
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/board.php
>
> Eric S. Raymond (President) (PGP key)
> Eric designed the language and marketing tactics around which the
> OSI was formed. He and Bruce Perens co-founded the organization. Eric
> lives in Malvern, Pennsylvania, USA.
>
No, the one with Oscar Goldman, Rudy Wells, Col. Steve Austen, Jaimie
Summers, ...
What a maroon!
>> (which it seems to be, providing useful
>> feedback for improving the license further), [...]
>
> This kind of feedback?
>
> "Sun can vapor on about voting and committees all it wants, but [...]
> JCP is still a single point of control, [and] the Java reference imple-
> mentation and class libraries are under a proprietary license [...]"
> -- Eric S. Raymond
>
> "Rather than blowing smoke about the bazaar model, I think [Sun's]
> Mr. Schwartz's time would be better spent explaining why he thinks
> those reasons don't apply to Java [...]"
> -- Eric S. Raymond
>
> "Any time [Sun Microsystems tries] to use my work to justify retaining
> proprietary control or argue that Linux is somehow less open than Java,
> that's either culpable stupidity or dishonesty [...]"
> -- Eric S. Raymond
>
> Sun's new CDDL seems to be nothing more than a marketing announcement.
>
So, you think Sun should simply surrender control of everything they create
or surrender any claim to being open?
Did you grow up commie, or is it something you went out of your way to
become? That's not a fair position, is it? And yours is?
Richard L. Hamilton
Daeron <dae...@demon.com> writes:
> Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> The problem is that not everyone agrees that what GPL does and
>> {BSD,CDDL,...} doesn't do makes GPL freer.
>
>> The problem is also that GPL can be an obstacle to using free and
>> proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs. Or have
>> we forgotten about them altogether?
[counter-examples snipped]
Good counter-examples. But I did say "can be", not "always is".
My impression is that one of the things Sun may not love about GPL is
that it could complicate some business relationships with other companies.
FWIW, I suppose Sun _could_ multi-license: say your choice of
GPL or {BSD, CDDL, whatever} for unsupported use, or a more typical
commercial license for supported use. Unless that would cause them
serious problems too, I suppose that would at least cut the ignorant
whiners off at the knees; and it sure would be fun to see them hobbling
around on stumps!
Richard L. Hamilton
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
> In article <10s33n9...@corp.supernews.com> (Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:34:33
> +0000), Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> The problem is also that GPL can be an obstacle to using free and
>> proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs.
>
> It does not. It prohibits the mixing of proprietary and GPL code only if
> they are "distributed". End users are free to mix, match, hack, break,
> and/or innovate [sic] to their heart's content.
And I thought that other discussion already established that most end users
don't _want_ to do anything more than install and forget.
>
>> Or have we forgotten about them altogether?
>
> Who is "we"?
That would be those who are wrapped up in ideology and keep ignoring
the strictly practical.
Even within the long-time open-source community, not everyone agrees on
GPL!
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <20041216155840.132$K...@news.newsreader.com>,
> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
>> In article <10s33n9...@corp.supernews.com> (Thu, 16 Dec 2004
>> 13:34:33 +0000), Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is also that GPL can be an obstacle to using free and
>>> proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs.
>>
>> It does not. It prohibits the mixing of proprietary and GPL code only if
>> they are "distributed". End users are free to mix, match, hack, break,
>> and/or innovate [sic] to their heart's content.
>
> And I thought that other discussion already established that most end
> users don't _want_ to do anything more than install and forget.
>
The discussion is not about what "most end users" want
Other discussions also established that Solaris trolls are braindead,
impotent and generally disliked. Just like wintrolls
>>
>>> Or have we forgotten about them altogether?
>>
>> Who is "we"?
>
>
> That would be those who are wrapped up in ideology and keep ignoring
> the strictly practical.
>
> Even within the long-time open-source community, not everyone agrees on
> GPL!
>
So what? Even GPL proponents (like me) see that it does not fit every
purpose. Same is true for other licenses.
--
Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous.
Hamilcar Barca
+0000), Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> In article <20041216160927.922$y...@news.newsreader.com>,
> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
>>
>> Sun's new CDDL seems to be nothing more than a marketing announcement.
>
> So, you think Sun should simply surrender control of everything they create
> or surrender any claim to being open?
No. I think Sun -- specifically including Jonathan Schwartz -- should
stop spewing their hypocritical marketing drivel. "Open standards are
better than open source", "Linux is Red Hat is Linux", "Java Community
[sic] Process", "Open [sic] Solaris", and "C[sic]DDL" represent the sort
of vacuous posturing for which Microsoft is noted.
> Did you grow up commie, or is it something you went out of your way to
> become?
"Commie" might have been a barbed insult in the 1950s but its use by a
C[sic]DDL advocate simply demonstrates its uselessness.
> That's not a fair position, is it?
Of course it isn't, but you took it anyway.
Hamilcar Barca
+0000), Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> In article <20041216155840.132$K...@news.newsreader.com>,
> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
>> In article <10s33n9...@corp.supernews.com> (Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:34:33
>> +0000), Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is also that GPL can be an obstacle to using free and
>>> proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs.
>>
>> It does not. It prohibits the mixing of proprietary and GPL code only if
>> they are "distributed". End users are free to mix, match, hack, break,
>> and/or innovate [sic] to their heart's content.
>
> And I thought that other discussion already established that most end users
> don't _want_ to do anything more than install and forget.
If this is the case, then "that other discussion already established"
that the GPL is absolutely no barrier to mixing GPL and proprietary
software, as "most end users don't _want_ to do anything more than install
and forget", and thus are not involved in (re-)distribution.
> Even within the long-time open-source community, not everyone agrees on
> GPL!
There's no need for everyone to agree that the GPL ends world hunger.
It's useful on the other hand to dispel misapprehensions such as "[the]
GPL can be an obstacle to using free and proprietary software together to
meet the end user's needs", misapprehensions unfounded in reality.
Rich Teer
> It's useful on the other hand to dispel misapprehensions such as "[the]
> GPL can be an obstacle to using free and proprietary software together to
> meet the end user's needs", misapprehensions unfounded in reality.
Hmm. I am an end user, and I would like Sun to distribute Donald Becker's
network device drivers with Solaris. But wait! Becker claims that the
GPL forbids the linking of his drivers with a closed-source kernel (in this
case, Solaris), and I don't want to rummage around trying to find his
drivers and get them to work. I want to install and forget.
Looks like in this scenario the GPL is indeed "an obstacle to using free and
proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs".
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
. * * . * .* .
. * . .*
President, * . . /\ ( . . *
Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * .
.*. / * \ . .
. /* o \ .
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 * '''||''' .
URL: http://www.rite-online.net ******************
Hamilcar Barca
00:56:46 +0000), Rich Teer wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>
>> No. I think Sun -- specifically including Jonathan Schwartz -- should
>> stop spewing their hypocritical marketing drivel. "Open standards are
>
> Open standards ARE better than open source. If the closed standard
> that an open source project implements changes, that project is screwed
> until they can reverse-engineer the new standard.
If the source code was freely available, it documents the actual protocol,
as implemented. The bigger problem is the closed source, compounded by
the closed protocol.
>> better than open source", "Linux is Red Hat is Linux", "Java Community
>
> You're repeating your Linux lover's diatribe.
I recall now, as you point out, that Schwartz never said Linux is Red Hat
(and vice versa). I do believe he meant to imply it, but that's
immaterial. He didn't say it.
Schwartz is still full of lies, which you accidentally failed to quote.
Here's another:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040818
Red Hat's managed to dupe the linux community with their proprietary
distro [...] Not exactly a pro-open stance to take.
I assume that when Mr. Schwartz writes "proprietary", he mean to write
"100% licensed under the GPL". How non-proprietary is Solaris? It's
been 100% closed since the day Sun (legally) combined BSD and System V.
How non-proprietary is Java? Pro-open means having to license Java
protocols, and having implementation requirements forced on the developer?
How does purveying a Java Community [sic] Process under the control of Sun
amount to "pro-open" [sic]?
Schwartz is a pure, unadulterated hypocrite -- as is Bill Gates. What's
the difference?
> Now, run along little boy. Your daddy wants his computer back,
> and don't forget to wipe your drool off the keyboard before you
> go.
That's even more juvenile as the "commie" insult. The Sun worshipers are
becoming as obsessed as the Steve Jobs personality cult.
--
"...SCO and Microsoft actually think that Linux customers are so dumb to
take [EV1.com] (with direct ties to Microsoft Corporation) as some kind
of suggestion that the SCO extortion money should be paid."
-- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. http://www.lamlaw.com/
Hamilcar Barca
01:01:44 +0000), Rich Teer wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>
> Hmm. I am an end user, and I would like Sun to distribute Donald Becker's
> network device drivers with Solaris.
Then do it.
> But wait!
No!
> Becker claims that the GPL forbids the linking of his drivers with a
> closed-source kernel (in this case, Solaris)
Do you have some evidence to support this claim? Even if you do, the
claim is irrelevant. When you stop ranting and actually read the GPL,
you'll find that it does not in any way prohibit linking GPL code with
proprietary code -- it prohibits only the distribution of such a merged
product.
> and I don't want to rummage around trying to find his
> drivers and get them to work. I want to install and forget.
I guess you're out of luck.
> Looks like in this scenario the GPL is indeed "an obstacle to using free and
> proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs".
It's clear only that your claims about the GPL are unfounded, and that
in any case your conclusions are entirely false.
Jerry McBride
> Rich Teer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Eltee wrote:
>>
>>> On the contrary. My guess is that Linux will adopt the best features of
>>> Solaris and become an even better OS.
>>
>> Linux will doubtless "borrow" some features from Solaris, but some
>> of the best features will be left out because Linus won't want them.
>> I mean, if he won't accept the ability to produce a core dump on
>> kernel panic, what chance has something like DTrace got?
>>
>
>
> Bullshit! Sun's CDDL conflicts with the GPL and no Open Source developer
> is going to touch it with a 20 foot stick. And I am sure that Sun would
> love to have some of its code show up in Linux so it can throw a big giant
> monkey wrench into the development and adoption of Linux.
In light of the way they've snuggled up to Microsoft... I'd say that's
probably what this is all about... Think about it... it fodder for the
canon...
-
******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
10:37pm up 68 days, 6:23, 8 users, load average: 0.10, 0.14, 0.09
Eric Enright
> 01:01:44 +0000), Rich Teer wrote:
>> Becker claims that the GPL forbids the linking of his drivers with a
>> closed-source kernel (in this case, Solaris)
>
> Do you have some evidence to support this claim? Even if you do, the
> claim is irrelevant. When you stop ranting and actually read the GPL,
> you'll find that it does not in any way prohibit linking GPL code with
> proprietary code -- it prohibits only the distribution of such a merged
> product.
http://beowulf.es.embnet.org/listarchives/linux-tulip/1999/04/0076.html
True, one can port all you want, but if no one else can benefit
from your work, how is that helpful? I make no assertions that
I 100% understand the GPL, or other issues involved here, but I
fail to see how this is a good thing.
--
Eric Enright /"\
ericAtiptsoftDcom \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML E-Mail
Public Key: 0xBEDF636F / \
Casper H.S. Dik
[ Quotes deleted ]
> -- Eric S. Raymond
>Sun's new CDDL seems to be nothing more than a marketing announcement.
Certainly you don't think that any European takes Eric Raymond seriously
as he completely fails to understand how cathedrals were build?
Casper
Peter Köhlmann
Well, perhaps he liked more than in the orient, since he seems to know
something about bazaars
--
It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
'Where am I allowed to go today?'
Casper H.S. Dik
>If the source code was freely available, it documents the actual protocol,
>as implemented. The bigger problem is the closed source, compounded by
>the closed protocol.
That way madness lies. We've seen that with many protocols where
the implementation was the definition.
It stifles protocol development (if the source is the documentation,
there's a limit to what you can change in the source)
>I assume that when Mr. Schwartz writes "proprietary", he mean to write
>"100% licensed under the GPL". How non-proprietary is Solaris? It's
>been 100% closed since the day Sun (legally) combined BSD and System V.
"proprietary" means "not based on open standards"; that's what it always
meant until it was hijacked by the open source crowd.
>How non-proprietary is Java? Pro-open means having to license Java
>protocols, and having implementation requirements forced on the developer?
>How does purveying a Java Community [sic] Process under the control of Sun
>amount to "pro-open" [sic]?
Sun believes in "Open" standards; and standards require conformance
and interoperability testing.
Standards are good; they allow for interoperability, forward portability
and binary compatibility.
Standards do impose restrictions; failing to understand that that is
the reason for the restrictions and that those restrictions are there
for *very* good reasons is what lies at the heart of the debate between
those who believe "openess" just means that your source needs to be
open and those of us who believe that openess is much more than that.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Casper H.S. Dik
>> closed-source kernel (in this case, Solaris)
>Do you have some evidence to support this claim? Even if you do, the
>claim is irrelevant. When you stop ranting and actually read the GPL,
>you'll find that it does not in any way prohibit linking GPL code with
>proprietary code -- it prohibits only the distribution of such a merged
>product.
Sun released code which allowed our customers to run Linux drivers
compiled from source under Solaris; Becker threatened to sue. End of
story.
Casper
Richard L. Hamilton
>> stop spewing their hypocritical marketing drivel. "Open standards are
>
> that an open source project implements changes, that project is screwed
> M$ decides to change the SMB protocol, so that it doesn't have the faintest
> resembalence to the protocol that Samba currently implements. Further
> suppose that they chose not to document or open that "standard". How long
> would it be before the Samba project could interact with the new SMB
> standard? Oh, and just to make it harder, M$ decides to encrypt all the
> protocol traffic, so reverse-engineering it by sniffing the network is
> made difficult. People like you would say "what's the problem? Samba is
> open source, so this problem will be easy to fix!"...
Well, to be fair, to be consistent he could also say that
Windows should be either open sourced or shouldn't be used. Not realistic,
but that's to be expected.
> When a standard is open, multiple implementations of it can compete, each
> on their own merits.
>
[...]
At least _somebody_ gets it!
Richard L. Hamilton
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0412161632510.15621@zaphod> (Fri, 17 Dec 2004
> 00:56:46 +0000), Rich Teer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>>
>>> No. I think Sun -- specifically including Jonathan Schwartz -- should
>>> stop spewing their hypocritical marketing drivel. "Open standards are
>>
>> Open standards ARE better than open source. If the closed standard
>> that an open source project implements changes, that project is screwed
>> until they can reverse-engineer the new standard.
>
> If the source code was freely available, it documents the actual protocol,
> as implemented. The bigger problem is the closed source, compounded by
> the closed protocol.
Counter-example: something that (except for one branch for awhile) was
open for a very long time: the X11 windowing system. There's a _sample_
implementation, but they're very clear that it's not a _reference_
implementation. Putting the standards first insures interoperability,
while putting the code (however open and under whatever license) first
doesn't.
[...]
>> Now, run along little boy. Your daddy wants his computer back,
>> and don't forget to wipe your drool off the keyboard before you
>> go.
>
> That's even more juvenile as the "commie" insult. The Sun worshipers are
> becoming as obsessed as the Steve Jobs personality cult.
>
Yeah, both like something that's better than Linux!
Richard L. Hamilton
Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
> In article <10s45mb...@corp.supernews.com> (Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:14:19
> +0000), Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> In article <20041216160927.922$y...@news.newsreader.com>,
>> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> Sun's new CDDL seems to be nothing more than a marketing announcement.
>>
>> So, you think Sun should simply surrender control of everything they create
>> or surrender any claim to being open?
>
> No. I think Sun -- specifically including Jonathan Schwartz -- should
> stop spewing their hypocritical marketing drivel. "Open standards are
> better than open source", "Linux is Red Hat is Linux", "Java Community
> [sic] Process", "Open [sic] Solaris", and "C[sic]DDL" represent the sort
> of vacuous posturing for which Microsoft is noted.
So "vacuous posturing" just means you don't agree. Got it.
I personally _do_ agree that open standards are more important than
open source; any damnfool can write code, but if interoperability
standards either don't exist or are proprietary, then they can only
use that code one place, without a whole lot more work. Using the
code as the reference is simply not as disciplined; when the standard
has to evolve, that needs to be a matter of design, not just a matter
of a marathon hacking session!
WTF with the Java Community Process? Just because they don't give
up control or give everything away doesn't mean they're not inviting
(and when it suits them, listening to) input and participation. Remember,
a business is about return on investment for the investors, _not_ about
making the world a better place according to any other agenda. With
that as a priority, I'd say they're not doing badly at all. When I look
at http://www.jcp.org/en/introduction/faq#2.5
I see plenty of room for folks to clone stuff, as long as they do it
in an interoperable and disciplined manner And I see other things that
mean that while Sun controls the process, they don't totally dominate
the agenda. That's plenty good enough for me, for now anyway.
And the CDDL doesn't look any worse than a number of other open source
licenses. To me, it looks way better than that ideolog's dream of a GPL!
>> Did you grow up commie, or is it something you went out of your way to
>> become?
>
> "Commie" might have been a barbed insult in the 1950s but its use by a
> C[sic]DDL advocate simply demonstrates its uselessness.
>
>> That's not a fair position, is it?
>
> Of course it isn't, but you took it anyway.
And you missed the point; that you're at least as unreasonable in
your allegedly reasoned arguments as mere name calling would be in
response.
Richard L. Hamilton
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <Peter.K...@t-online.de> writes:
> begin Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> In article <20041216155840.132$K...@news.newsreader.com>,
>> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
>>> In article <10s33n9...@corp.supernews.com> (Thu, 16 Dec 2004
>>> 13:34:33 +0000), Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is also that GPL can be an obstacle to using free and
>>>> proprietary software together to meet the end user's needs.
>>>
>>> It does not. It prohibits the mixing of proprietary and GPL code only if
>>> they are "distributed". End users are free to mix, match, hack, break,
>>> and/or innovate [sic] to their heart's content.
>>
>> And I thought that other discussion already established that most end
>> users don't _want_ to do anything more than install and forget.
>>
>
> The discussion is not about what "most end users" want
>
> Other discussions also established that Solaris trolls are braindead,
> impotent and generally disliked. Just like wintrolls
>
But of course nobody that worships on the Holy Altar of Linux could
possibly be a troll. Yeah, right.
>>>> Or have we forgotten about them altogether?
>>>
>>> Who is "we"?
>>
>>
>> That would be those who are wrapped up in ideology and keep ignoring
>> the strictly practical.
>>
>> Even within the long-time open-source community, not everyone agrees on
>> GPL!
>>
>
> So what? Even GPL proponents (like me) see that it does not fit every
> purpose. Same is true for other licenses.
Woohoo! So does that mean that you at least admit that other licenses
aren't necessarily Evil(tm)?
Richard L. Hamilton
Jerry McBride <mcbr...@comcast.net> writes:
> Freeride wrote:
>
>> Rich Teer wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Eltee wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the contrary. My guess is that Linux will adopt the best features of
>>>> Solaris and become an even better OS.
>>>
>>> Linux will doubtless "borrow" some features from Solaris, but some
>>> of the best features will be left out because Linus won't want them.
>>> I mean, if he won't accept the ability to produce a core dump on
>>> kernel panic, what chance has something like DTrace got?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bullshit! Sun's CDDL conflicts with the GPL and no Open Source developer
>> is going to touch it with a 20 foot stick. And I am sure that Sun would
>> love to have some of its code show up in Linux so it can throw a big giant
>> monkey wrench into the development and adoption of Linux.
>
> In light of the way they've snuggled up to Microsoft... I'd say that's
> probably what this is all about... Think about it... it fodder for the
> canon...
How is cooperating where there are mutual interests automatically a
conspiracy to crush Linux? Why would Sun really care one way or
the other about Linux, as long as people buy their hardware or support
services?
Daeron
> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
<snip>
> It stifles protocol development (if the source is the documentation,
> there's a limit to what you can change in the source)
How so ? You write up your modifications as a RFC document. Then produce
the code. Did TCP/IP being non-proprietary stifle its spread ?
>> I assume that when Mr. Schwartz writes "proprietary", he mean to
>> write "100% licensed under the GPL". How non-proprietary is
>> Solaris? It's been 100% closed since the day Sun (legally)
>> combined BSD and System V.
> "proprietary" means "not based on open standards"; that's what it
> always meant until it was hijacked by the open source crowd.
In the context of source code, non "proprietary" means that the
purchaser is free to use the source code as he sees fit as long as he
includes the source of any additions he makes to the code in subsequent
sales.
That is what it has always meant. At least until the closed source crowd
attempted to hijack the concept and pollute its meaning to the public.
By bending the argument into a 'open standards' rather than 'open
source' debate. A bit like you're doing here.
<snip>
> Standards do impose restrictions; failing to understand that that is
> the reason for the restrictions and that those restrictions are there
> for *very* good reasons is what lies at the heart of the debate
> between those who believe "openess" just means that your source needs
> to be open and those of us who believe that openess is much more than
> that.
I see arguments like this as an attempt by the 'closed source crowd' to
hijack the concept. See its got 'open' in the title. And what could be
more open than that. This reference to protocols is just distraction fud.
Daeron
Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
> Sun released code which allowed our customers to run Linux drivers
> compiled from source under Solaris; Becker threatened to sue. End of
> story.
So the problem is with Suns' restrictive license, is it not ?
According to this article Sun took GPL source and compiled it into
Solaris binaries. According to Bruce Perens Sun is within its legal
rights to do so. Becker argues that the GPL does not permit distribution
as part of non-GPL'd code for commercial use.
www.angelfire.com/blog/trollarchive/sun.finds.hole.in.gpl.html
Casper H.S. Dik
>> It stifles protocol development (if the source is the documentation,
>> there's a limit to what you can change in the source)
>How so ? You write up your modifications as a RFC document. Then produce
>the code. Did TCP/IP being non-proprietary stifle its spread ?
You forget to mention that the source wasn't the documentation to
begin with when it comes to TCP/IP.
And that for TCP/IP it was the *open*standards* RFC process which
made development possible; and it was the fact that multiple,
separate implementations existed that made the implementations
honest, caused the standards to be clarified.
If all we had was, say, BSD networking, then it would have been
very hard to write an interoperable TCP/IP stack for any OS.
>In the context of source code, non "proprietary" means that the
>purchaser is free to use the source code as he sees fit as long as he
>includes the source of any additions he makes to the code in subsequent
>sales.
Proprietary has one meaning only; it has nothing to do with source code.
Even "open source" can be owned by someone; in computing proprietary means
one thing (CIFS, not NFS)
>That is what it has always meant. At least until the closed source crowd
>attempted to hijack the concept and pollute its meaning to the public.
>By bending the argument into a 'open standards' rather than 'open
>source' debate. A bit like you're doing here.
Proprietary has *no* meaning in the context of source code and the
concept of proprietary (meaning one of a kind, vendor specific like
Windows, VMS, AOS/VS) was used to set apart the "Open Standard"
based (read: Unix) based implementations.
Proprietary was only recently hijacked by the open source proponents
*when they went commercial*.
>I see arguments like this as an attempt by the 'closed source crowd' to
>hijack the concept. See its got 'open' in the title. And what could be
>more open than that. This reference to protocols is just distraction fud.
Perhaps you should read up on computer history; you obviously weren't
there.
Casper H.S. Dik
> Linux Advocates Fear Solaris 10.
>Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>> Sun released code which allowed our customers to run Linux drivers
>> compiled from source under Solaris; Becker threatened to sue. End of
>> story.
>So the problem is with Suns' restrictive license, is it not ?
Ah, so when the GPL restricts something from being distributed with
it, it's never the GPL's fault? Right.
I guess we're now debating a religion rather than a license.
Rich Teer
> Proprietary has *no* meaning in the context of source code and the
> concept of proprietary (meaning one of a kind, vendor specific like
> Windows, VMS, AOS/VS) was used to set apart the "Open Standard"
> based (read: Unix) based implementations.
>
> Proprietary was only recently hijacked by the open source proponents
> *when they went commercial*.
What I find most amusing in these rants by GPL worhipers, who openly
despise anything they deem as "proprietory", is the fact that most of
them run Linux on proprietory x86-based machines yet don't give Sun
credit for their SPARC CPU, which is an open standard. Essentially,
they're hypocrites. (I hasten to add that those running Linux on SPARC
are NOT hypocrites, even though I personally don't see the point of doing
so.)
> Perhaps you should read up on computer history; you obviously weren't
> there.
Indeed.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>
>> Proprietary has *no* meaning in the context of source code and the
>> concept of proprietary (meaning one of a kind, vendor specific like
>> Windows, VMS, AOS/VS) was used to set apart the "Open Standard"
>> based (read: Unix) based implementations.
>>
>> Proprietary was only recently hijacked by the open source proponents
>> *when they went commercial*.
>
> What I find most amusing in these rants by GPL worhipers, who openly
> despise anything they deem as "proprietory", is the fact that most of
> them run Linux on proprietory x86-based machines yet don't give Sun
> credit for their SPARC CPU, which is an open standard.
Idiot
Or do <ou have even dumber "arguments" and aspire for "cretin"?
< snip >
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
Paul Floyd
> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes:
>
>>If the source code was freely available, it documents the actual protocol,
>>as implemented. The bigger problem is the closed source, compounded by
>>the closed protocol.
>
> That way madness lies. We've seen that with many protocols where
> the implementation was the definition.
>
> It stifles protocol development (if the source is the documentation,
> there's a limit to what you can change in the source)
Well designed protocols incorporate extensibility (I'm thinking of
ASN.1, with which you can write protocol version 1, and then version 2,
and it should be both forwards and backwards compatible). I have the
impression that most open source protocols are based on ASCII parsing,
and are either difficult to extend, or very verbose, or both.
A bientot
Paul
--
Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth)
Surgery: ennobled Gerald.
Alan Coopersmith
|In article <cprdt9$mln$1...@agate.berkeley.edu> (Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:36:09
|+0000), Alan Coopersmith wrote:
|
|> Hamilcar Barca <hami...@tld.always.invalid> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|> |What's the point, if any, of the CDDL?
|>
|> To provide an update to the commonly accepted Mozilla Public License to
|> deal with some concerns people had about the MPL.
|
|Why is this useful?
Because it fits better what the authors/owners of various code want/need
in order to release it to open source. No one license is ever likely to
satisfy everyone. If this satisfies some enough to release code to open
source that otherwise wouldn't be, or which would go out under a more
restrictive license, isn't that a good thing? (Yes, in the eyes of GPL
purists, it may not be the best outcome, but it's better than nothing.)
|> If the OSI review goes well
|
|This OSI?
|
| http://www.opensource.org/docs/board.php
Yes.
|> (which it seems to be, providing useful
|> feedback for improving the license further), [...]
|
|This kind of feedback?
No, the kind of rational discussion being found on their mailing lists,
not sound bites chosen by journalists to make their articles more
interesting by trying to show controversy whereever possible.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * al...@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coo...@Sun.COM
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/ * http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.