Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Ch
Charles Hedrick wrote: > I admit that I'm little fuzzy about the organizational structure of > Opensolaris. Is enough control in the community that at least Opensolaris > will have security updates? Security updates have always been freely available to those who follow the /dev repository to get biweekly updates - you just get all the changes, including new features and other bug fixes that have not gone through as much testing yet, and not only security & other critical fixes. And since the source is open for almost all of it, anyone in the community who chose to do so could backport security updates to a stable branch in their copy of the source gate and offer binaries built from that to other community members - but in the almost two years since 2008.05 released, no community member or members have stepped forward to do so - most just followed /dev or bought Sun support for production machines they didn't want to follow /dev. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Chou.
If Oracle charges for security patches on Solaris then we won't be able to have massive success stories like this one in Serbia: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=123103&tstart=0 Giving the O.S. and the patches for free or maybe giving the O.S. for free and the security patches for a small fee that someone in a third world country could afford (~ $25 yearly fee) would allow Oracle to get more market penetration with Solaris than they have ever had before. If Oracle sold a $50 or $75 version of OpenSolaris that came with video and music players and all the multimedia codecs, they could compete directly head to head against Microsoft in a way that Linux probably never will be able to do (due to the fact that there are so many thousands of different Linux distributions that are all incompatible with eachother wherease different OpenSolaris distros like Belenix and Nexenta can all use the same SysV packages to install software). -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] How to install OpenSolaris ?
(2010/02/15 15:10), Mukesh wrote: Hi I am completely new to this OS. Can anyone pls help me install OpenSolaris 2009.06 from the live CD ? Also, does this version of OpenSolaris has a GUI ? thanks and regards Mukesh Sorry I cant check youtube from my office but I've uploaded my youtube channel about OpenSolaris installation. http://www.youtube.com/masafumi0515 if any question please let me know about. -masafumi of TSUG (Tokyo OpenSolaris User Group) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] How to install OpenSolaris ?
And yes there is a GUI, there is even a graphical interface for ZFS called time slider that allows you to use ZFS snapshots to rewind your computer's file system back in time: http://blogs.sun.com/erwann/entry/zfs_on_the_desktop_zfs -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] How to install OpenSolaris ?
Hi Mukesh, if you click on this URL link that I have copied and pasted below: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22installing+opensolaris+2009.06+from+the+live+cd%22 you will find a special video that I have created just for you that points you to the appropriate instructions (click on the first link that appears at the top of the screen after the automated goodle search is done for you). I created the video using this web site: http://lifehacker.com/5093525/let-me-google-that-for-you-passive+aggressively-helps-your-friends Hope it helps! -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] How to install OpenSolaris ?
Mukesh, On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:10:01PM -0800, Mukesh wrote: > Hi > I am completely new to this OS. Can anyone pls help me install OpenSolaris > 2009.06 from the live CD ? Also, does this version of OpenSolaris has a GUI ? Yes, Opensolaris does have a GUI. You could google for "OpenSolaris screenshots" and you should find plenty of hits. Since, it is a livecd you should be able to boot it up without installing and try it (to make sure all the hardware works well with it). And if you are satisfied you can click on the Installer icon on your desktop and from there it is fairly simple. NOTE : You would need a spare primary partition on your hard disk to install Opensolaris. Thanks and regards, Sanjeev > thanks and regards > Mukesh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Failsafe boot for Opensolaris 2009.06 ?
Never mind. The immediate problem is fixed. Although it would be useful to know if failsafe boot is possible in future. Hugh. Hugh McIntyre wrote: So I have a system which crashed last night, and then fails to boot afterwards because of boot archive problems. The fact that the Happy Face boot screen sits there forever is a bug in and of itself (is there a bug on this already?), since if you disable the splash screen the reason for the bug is a bad boot archive followed by an error message and prompt for single user mode. Instead, whenever there's an error the user is going to need to do something about, the splash screen should really go away and get replaced by the error. Or it should at least get to a point and say "the system is stuck; please reboot with console messages to see why". Anyway, the second and more pressing problem is that the system wants me to boot into failsafe mode, but there's no failsafe GRUB option in OpenSolaris. So is there documentation on the correct grub menu edits to do a failsafe boot, or is this just not available at all? Or, given that the reason for the error is that I installed the SMB packages and did not cleanly update the archive because of the crash (shame on me, I guess), is the failsafe actually the wrong thing to do, given that I want the bootarchive to include the smb drivers? Is it likely to be better to accept the single user boot with mismatched archive, and just say "bootadm update-archive" and then reboot? Hugh. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] How to install OpenSolaris ?
Hi I am completely new to this OS. Can anyone pls help me install OpenSolaris 2009.06 from the live CD ? Also, does this version of OpenSolaris has a GUI ? thanks and regards Mukesh -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Can 32 bit device driver run on 64 bit machine?
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: there is not a separate solaris for 32 bit machines. just boot a 32 bit kernel http://blogs.sun.com/alta/entry/boot_into_32_bit_kernel On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Tom Chen wrote: Hello, I need to test my 32 bit GLDv3 network driver. I have already tested the 64 bit one. But I only have 64 bit servers. Is it possible to run 32 bit driver on 64 servers? Should I install a 32 bit Solaris OS on these servers first? but when I install Solaris10 or OpenSolris, I do not have the option to select 64 bit or 32 bit OS, isn't it? Tom - As Ignacio pointed out, there is no separate "32-bit" distro of Solaris/OpenSolaris. It's an integrated package (which, frankly, is a /huge/ win over the *BSDs and Linuxes). All the 32-bit support stuff is there, including the 32-bit kernel. You /will/ need to boot using the 32-bit kernel to test your 32-bit driver - you can't use a 32-bit driver in a 64-bit kernel. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Chou.
Ken Gunderson wrote: On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 13:27 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: Preferentially, I think a reasonable thing for Oracle to do with Solaris is the following: (1) Quit giving away Solaris 10. Instead, provide several different Support Contract levels for Solaris 10, with a very basic one providing /solely/ security patches for some nominal fee (<$100/yr/server). Other gradiations as desired, of course. Sun.COM types just don't get it - Sun _had_ to start giving away Solaris 10 because outside of Suna and old silver back Unix geeks in the financial service sector datacenters Solaris was becoming increasingly irrelevant. Those who didn't grow up on Unix in the 80's grew up on MS in the 90's and they're the ones running the show in much of the business world now. Some of this latter group discovered Linux and the *BSD's when they were in college. A subset of those started up what became the largest sites on the Internet; Yahoo (FreeBSD) and Google (Linux) using stacks of white box pc grade hardware. Later some big iron did find it's way into those shops but those aren't the stories you hear about. And, from a software-vendor standpoint, does anyone make money on Yahoo/Google/Hotmail/etc. using Linux or *BSD? Oops. Nope. They're a huge boon to the end-user, but neither of them helped any outside vendor to any extent. At best, you get a "reference customer" to say that X is using a product of yours, but I hardly think that's Solaris' (or AIX, or HPUX) problem at this point. In order to regain much lost traction Solaris NEEDS mindshare. Where there are LOTS of other *nices available for free you'd better make your's away for free as well if you want to have a chance in hell in the competition for that mind share. It's like when Bill Gates tried to ignore the reality of the Internet and write it off as a "passing fad" because it was competing with internal proprietary network protocols that he was hoping would sway the day. Well.. that didn't work so he was smart enough to read the hand writing on the wall. I agree - giving away Solaris 10 was a great way to gain market traction again. That said, and seeing how Oracle seems to have a more product/revenue-stream focus, I think the "try-it-to-get-hooked" version is now OpenSolaris, NOT Solaris 10. I like to run the analogy between RedHat Enterprise Linux and the Fedora project, as far as support goes. You can't get support for Fedora from RedHat, but it's a fabulous way to get intro'd to the "RedHat"-way of doing things. For commercial use, you go buy RHEL. What I'm saying is that I think the most likely scenario is that Solaris 10 remains a commercially-supported and distributed product with likely no unpaid/free support or distribution, while a freely-available but unsupported OpenSolaris provides the introductory hook for the whole set. Because, let's face it, introductory stuff had better have the nicest, newest, neatest things in it to get people to try it. And that's OpenSolaris, NOT Solaris 10. Here I agree. The Sparc systems can have an RTU on the hostid again. Just like the old days. I have no idea how you would track x86 systems given that the iso images are in the wild and you just can not stop people from passing torrents. The old days are gone. We can't return. Solaris needs to move forward or die. x86 is here to stay. Embrace that and use it as a pathway to big iron SPARC machines for businesses that grow to need them. There is no indication that x64 is being abandoned, or even slighted. I think his comment was solely about the inability to hardware-tie an RTU to a x64 system, as is possible in a SPARC system. I don't see this as a big issue - support contract numbers have always had a bit of "fudge" and "honor-system" leeway in them, and I'd really not like to see this try to be eliminated. (2) Continue to do (most) development work out in the open in OpenSolaris, and provide FREE access to everything in the OpenSolaris repos. Use this as the "first-one's-free" hook to get people introduced to Solaris as an OS. And, of course, get all of us to do beta-testing for it. :-) Honestly, I think it's entirely reasonable for Oracle to declare that There Shall Be No Support Contract for OpenSolaris - it's a development platform, and I think efforts are better spent in moving along the development effort as a whole than having to dedicate some folks to support services. I have a problem with software where there is no support contract of any kind. There are too many IT environments that will simply not accept software which does not have a paper trial and a support contract. That is still firm policy in some places regardless of the noises made by the masses with their hands out. Uhm... apparently big corporate marketing types didn't notice but we're in the midst of the worst depression we've seen since the BIG Depression? Moreover, I don't se
Re: [osol-discuss] Building ON on opensolaris
Using notes from this thread and the referenced pages, I image-updated build 111b to 132, installed osnet, redistributable, and sunstudio from the 2009Sep tarball to set up for later builds. The image-update yielded SUNWonbld at ..0.132, and I secured the core tarballs and crypto bits from the osol/on download page for b132. On the first boot after all this, the system (after a gratuitous bootadm update-archive), came up and ran just fine, thank you =] I did hit a few of the expected bugs that David Comay pointed out in the indiana-discuss list at 2010-February/017516, but these were either easy to work around or were trivial. FWIW, I suspect (guess?) that bug 13534 may have been responsible also for the 'StaticSeat1' directory being placed in /, owned by root:gdm, which I think would otherwise have been put in /var/lib/gdm, had I done the workaround for the bug before booting. Also, I hit bug 14135 (which I don't think David called out), a trivial bug involving the xdt driver not being applicable to the i86pc platform. Workaround == ignore. Now at b132, the system runs fine. My only problem is that attempts to build the pristine b132 ON tree fail, and fail in a way that suggests I may have a toolchain mismatch of some sort. All relevant packages that I know of are at 132, the patched sunstudio product is 2009Sep, and everything else is from the b132 download page. I'm using nightly(1) in the "normal" way (a la the README that unwraps into the workspace). Since around Flag Day 2005 I have never had a problem building the pristine ON tree, but those were all Nevada builds against itself at the same level that was shipped. If anyone sees an obvious omission I made here, I'd appreciate some input! --Jim -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle is creepy
> My basic concern is that I really like Solaris and OpenSolaris and what Sun > has brought to the table. If you like Solaris and OpenSolaris so much, then how come you only have two posts in this forum? Some of the other people here have hundreds if not thousands of posts and that comes usually from reading the "OpenSolaris > help" part of the forum over the years and replying in a way that helps other OpenSolaris noobs work around some problem that they are having with their system you know, giving back to the community and helping people out. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] ZFS performance benchmarks in various configurations
> Never mind. I have no interest in performance tests for Solaris 10. > The code is so old, that it does not represent current ZFS at all. Whatever. Regardless of what you say, it does show: . Which is faster, raidz, or a stripe of mirrors? . How much does raidz2 hurt performance compared to raidz? . Which is faster, raidz, or hardware raid 5? . Is a mirror twice as fast as a single disk for reading? Is a 3-way mirror 3x faster? And so on? I've seen and heard many people stating answers to these questions, and my results (not yet complete) already answer these questions, and demonstrate that all the previous assertions were partial truths. It's true, I am demonstrating no interest to compare performance of ZFS 3 versus ZFS 4. If you want that, test it yourself and don't complain about my tests. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Can 32 bit device driver run on 64 bit machine?
there is not a separate solaris for 32 bit machines. just boot a 32 bit kernel http://blogs.sun.com/alta/entry/boot_into_32_bit_kernel On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Tom Chen wrote: > Hello, > > I need to test my 32 bit GLDv3 network driver. I have already tested the 64 > bit one. But I only have 64 bit servers. Is it possible to run 32 bit driver > on 64 servers? > > Should I install a 32 bit Solaris OS on these servers first? but when I > install Solaris10 or OpenSolris, I do not have the option to select 64 bit or > 32 bit OS, isn't it? > > Tom > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle is creepy
> I'm just going to say it: Oracle really creeps me out. I don't find > blah blah blah troll ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Can 32 bit device driver run on 64 bit machine?
Hello, I need to test my 32 bit GLDv3 network driver. I have already tested the 64 bit one. But I only have 64 bit servers. Is it possible to run 32 bit driver on 64 servers? Should I install a 32 bit Solaris OS on these servers first? but when I install Solaris10 or OpenSolris, I do not have the option to select 64 bit or 32 bit OS, isn't it? Tom -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Chou.
I can agree in general that software needs a support contract for IT departments but what does that have do with not being able to get security patches for free. You're right this isn't 1994 and the software world is much different. An OS is mostly commodity--and it is so because there are free alternatives out there now. OpenBSD in particular has security in sharp focus and has a very good track record in this regard. There are plenty of services that Sun/Oracle can sell on top of the OS because, as you've said, it's unacceptable for IT environments to not have support contracts for software. Think of it as good corporate citizenship for small shops who run Solaris or want to try it as a viable alternative to Linux and Windows because at least there will be free support for security patches and updates. Sun in the 80s and early 90s had a policy of virtually giving away computers to universities, i.e., hook them while they're young and when the go out into the corporate world, they may recommend what they know best, Sun's OS and hardware. At that time, Sun's hardware and OS was light years ahead of any PC running anything from Microsoft--OK, too obvious to mention. Offering free carrots may be good way to entice customers to sit at Oracle's table for paid services. In any case, Oracle like the unimaginative company they are will probably mess this up and we'll see Solaris/OpenSolaris slowly or quickly be irrelevant. Perhaps, it's already so and all this is rather moot anyways. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Failsafe boot for Opensolaris 2009.06 ?
So I have a system which crashed last night, and then fails to boot afterwards because of boot archive problems. The fact that the Happy Face boot screen sits there forever is a bug in and of itself (is there a bug on this already?), since if you disable the splash screen the reason for the bug is a bad boot archive followed by an error message and prompt for single user mode. Instead, whenever there's an error the user is going to need to do something about, the splash screen should really go away and get replaced by the error. Or it should at least get to a point and say "the system is stuck; please reboot with console messages to see why". Anyway, the second and more pressing problem is that the system wants me to boot into failsafe mode, but there's no failsafe GRUB option in OpenSolaris. So is there documentation on the correct grub menu edits to do a failsafe boot, or is this just not available at all? Or, given that the reason for the error is that I installed the SMB packages and did not cleanly update the archive because of the crash (shame on me, I guess), is the failsafe actually the wrong thing to do, given that I want the bootarchive to include the smb drivers? Is it likely to be better to accept the single user boot with mismatched archive, and just say "bootadm update-archive" and then reboot? Hugh. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Ch
I admit that I'm little fuzzy about the organizational structure of Opensolaris. Is enough control in the community that at least Opensolaris will have security updates? I think the community can live with having people without software budgets limited to Opensolaris, although I think it will have some impact. But if even Opensolaris can't be used by home users, etc, then I'm concerned about the future of Solaris. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Oracle is creepy
I'm just going to say it: Oracle really creeps me out. I don't find anything that they've done very innovative. They're basically an extremely bland corporate entity that sells overpriced DBs and services. I know that I'm not alone on this sentiment. My basic concern is that I really like Solaris and OpenSolaris and what Sun has brought to the table. Also the fact they've open sourced their OS because--well let's face it--Linux was taking them to the cleaners. At least, they've, i.e. Sun, tried to (and did) make Unix interesting again with real innovation (no need to mention them here). What's the point in all this? Sun had no choice because besides selling servers they're advantage was Solaris. It was their wheelhouse above the hardware. Oracle's is overpriced DBs and services. Given who bought whom, obviously the OS is less of a priority than the DB. p.s. As for Oracle's Linux distribution, who honestly cares. Does the world need another Linux distro? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Thoughts on SATA vs SCSI Hard Drives
If performance is the only goal then, SSDs aside, spindle speed is king. 15K SAS drives will absolutely destroy 7.2K SATA. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Chou.
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 13:27 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > [Note: I have no particular extra "inside" information about this topic > > - this is solely my opinion as a sysadmin, and I speak for no one but > > myself] > > > > > > In all honestly, if an entity makes an Operating System available for > > free, then security fixes should be provided as Good Citizenship. > > Naturally, I'm assuming that the entity has a development organization > > behind that OS, and that it is actively working on all sorts of patches, > > for both paying and non-paying customers. But to offer an insecure > > product (or one which rapidly becomes insecure, which, let's face it, is > > /all/ software) and fail to provide basic security patches is Bad Faith, > > in my opinion. > > I agree with this completely. I had to stop and think about the rather > ugly retrograde hole in telnet that shipping on the actual hard media for > Solaris 10 at some point. To not offer security patches, freely, is a > major weakness. > > However there must be a sustaining revenue base for engineers to work. > > > Preferentially, I think a reasonable thing for Oracle to do with Solaris > > is the following: > > > > (1) Quit giving away Solaris 10. Instead, provide several different > > Support Contract levels for Solaris 10, with a very basic one providing > > /solely/ security patches for some nominal fee (<$100/yr/server). Other > > gradiations as desired, of course. Sun.COM types just don't get it - Sun _had_ to start giving away Solaris 10 because outside of Suna and old silver back Unix geeks in the financial service sector datacenters Solaris was becoming increasingly irrelevant. Those who didn't grow up on Unix in the 80's grew up on MS in the 90's and they're the ones running the show in much of the business world now. Some of this latter group discovered Linux and the *BSD's when they were in college. A subset of those started up what became the largest sites on the Internet; Yahoo (FreeBSD) and Google (Linux) using stacks of white box pc grade hardware. Later some big iron did find it's way into those shops but those aren't the stories you hear about. In order to regain much lost traction Solaris NEEDS mindshare. Where there are LOTS of other *nices available for free you'd better make your's away for free as well if you want to have a chance in hell in the competition for that mind share. It's like when Bill Gates tried to ignore the reality of the Internet and write it off as a "passing fad" because it was competing with internal proprietary network protocols that he was hoping would sway the day. Well.. that didn't work so he was smart enough to read the hand writing on the wall. > Here I agree. The Sparc systems can have an RTU on the hostid again. Just > like the old days. I have no idea how you would track x86 systems given > that the iso images are in the wild and you just can not stop people from > passing torrents. The old days are gone. We can't return. Solaris needs to move forward or die. x86 is here to stay. Embrace that and use it as a pathway to big iron SPARC machines for businesses that grow to need them. > > (2) Continue to do (most) development work out in the open in > > OpenSolaris, and provide FREE access to everything in the OpenSolaris > > repos. Use this as the "first-one's-free" hook to get people > > introduced to Solaris as an OS. And, of course, get all of us to do > > beta-testing for it. :-) Honestly, I think it's entirely reasonable > > for Oracle to declare that There Shall Be No Support Contract for > > OpenSolaris - it's a development platform, and I think efforts are > > better spent in moving along the development effort as a whole than > > having to dedicate some folks to support services. > > I have a problem with software where there is no support contract of any > kind. There are too many IT environments that will simply not accept > software which does not have a paper trial and a support contract. That is > still firm policy in some places regardless of the noises made by the > masses with their hands out. Uhm... apparently big corporate marketing types didn't notice but we're in the midst of the worst depression we've seen since the BIG Depression? Moreover, I don't see it as a matter of standing with my hand out. I see it as objectively evaluating the options. On one side we have a LOT of freely available *nix like offerings, a subset of which offers commercial support. So I can hone expertise in one such OS and opt for commercial support as suits individual client needs. In my opinion Sun was on the right path towards regaining lost mindshare with 1) porting Solaris to x86, 2) making it free to use, and 3) providing security patches. If they'd only done it 5 years sooner then I suspect they'd still be Sun and not Oracle. Give Solaris 10, 11, etc. away for free. Provide free security patches. The important thing is to get Solaris back out there. Make your mo
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Chou.
> [Note: I have no particular extra "inside" information about this topic > - this is solely my opinion as a sysadmin, and I speak for no one but > myself] > > > In all honestly, if an entity makes an Operating System available for > free, then security fixes should be provided as Good Citizenship. > Naturally, I'm assuming that the entity has a development organization > behind that OS, and that it is actively working on all sorts of patches, > for both paying and non-paying customers. But to offer an insecure > product (or one which rapidly becomes insecure, which, let's face it, is > /all/ software) and fail to provide basic security patches is Bad Faith, > in my opinion. I agree with this completely. I had to stop and think about the rather ugly retrograde hole in telnet that shipping on the actual hard media for Solaris 10 at some point. To not offer security patches, freely, is a major weakness. However there must be a sustaining revenue base for engineers to work. > Preferentially, I think a reasonable thing for Oracle to do with Solaris > is the following: > > (1) Quit giving away Solaris 10. Instead, provide several different > Support Contract levels for Solaris 10, with a very basic one providing > /solely/ security patches for some nominal fee (<$100/yr/server). Other > gradiations as desired, of course. Here I agree. The Sparc systems can have an RTU on the hostid again. Just like the old days. I have no idea how you would track x86 systems given that the iso images are in the wild and you just can not stop people from passing torrents. > (2) Continue to do (most) development work out in the open in > OpenSolaris, and provide FREE access to everything in the OpenSolaris > repos. Use this as the "first-one's-free" hook to get people > introduced to Solaris as an OS. And, of course, get all of us to do > beta-testing for it. :-) Honestly, I think it's entirely reasonable > for Oracle to declare that There Shall Be No Support Contract for > OpenSolaris - it's a development platform, and I think efforts are > better spent in moving along the development effort as a whole than > having to dedicate some folks to support services. I have a problem with software where there is no support contract of any kind. There are too many IT environments that will simply not accept software which does not have a paper trial and a support contract. That is still firm policy in some places regardless of the noises made by the masses with their hands out. We really do need to realize that this is 2010. Not 1994. There are vast talented organizations that have a business objective to crack and hack and attack networks and information access points. Internally also. All operating systems today and forever in the future must give serious thought to security and quality engineering. That can not be done without an established revenue stream. Simply put, any business minded individual in a customer IT division would ( and should ) look away from software which does not have a support contract. The absence of that support and revenue stream is a clear indication of lack of quality. Right or wrong, true or false, people make decisions on purchases and IT policy with arguments like this. I am sure you have experienced the "real world" and it is very far from the ivory tower. It it simply full of politics, baseless opinion and fighting middle management attempting to establish their own world view within some corporation somewhere. Its amazing to me that some places ( half of Fortune 100 and ALL of government agencies ) create a product or service and can function at all. Sorry for the digression but the point I am trying to make is that software without a support contract is simply unacceptable and the RFP gets pushed onto the floor before you get past the table of contents. That is the "real world". Want a good product with a future? Ensure it makes money as its first feature and everything else is secondary. -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Chou.
[Note: I have no particular extra "inside" information about this topic - this is solely my opinion as a sysadmin, and I speak for no one but myself] In all honestly, if an entity makes an Operating System available for free, then security fixes should be provided as Good Citizenship. Naturally, I'm assuming that the entity has a development organization behind that OS, and that it is actively working on all sorts of patches, for both paying and non-paying customers. But to offer an insecure product (or one which rapidly becomes insecure, which, let's face it, is /all/ software) and fail to provide basic security patches is Bad Faith, in my opinion. Preferentially, I think a reasonable thing for Oracle to do with Solaris is the following: (1) Quit giving away Solaris 10. Instead, provide several different Support Contract levels for Solaris 10, with a very basic one providing /solely/ security patches for some nominal fee (<$100/yr/server). Other gradiations as desired, of course. (2) Continue to do (most) development work out in the open in OpenSolaris, and provide FREE access to everything in the OpenSolaris repos. Use this as the "first-one's-free" hook to get people introduced to Solaris as an OS. And, of course, get all of us to do beta-testing for it. :-) Honestly, I think it's entirely reasonable for Oracle to declare that There Shall Be No Support Contract for OpenSolaris - it's a development platform, and I think efforts are better spent in moving along the development effort as a whole than having to dedicate some folks to support services. Who knows. It's a suggestion. We're still waiting for Oracle Mgmt to really just (publicly) speak it's mind completely, then we can get down to the business of changing it. :-) -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Chou.
Please don't degrade the conversation with offensive name calling, I understand your perspective but calling people "bastards" is an immature way of discussing an issue. IMHO Solaris 10 is not competing with generic linux but with commercial Linuxes like Suse or Red Hat...they do not offer free patches to my knowledge either. I believe it is fair that they expect some sort of payment for these updates but I fear they will lock out private users with the huge expense of support contracts (aka I wont pay ~$500 a year for patches to my home laptop). On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 03:00, Ken Gunderson wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 10:05 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > OpenSolaris/Solaris friends : > > > > This ( see below ) is from a thread on the PCA patch tool maillist this > > morning. I made a few replies to Martin and there may be some upset by > > Sun/Oracle customers over this silent change. > > > > I'm fine with a fee. It would be nice if paying customers had known that > > their new contracts were about to be terminated. Certainly people such as > > myself that purchase support in January of each year. > > > > You can see the text below and hopefully this is a transition phase > issue. > > > > If anyone knows, it would be nice if some light were shed on the topic. > > > > Dennis > > > > Original Message > > > Subject: Re: [pca] No more free patches > > From:"Dennis Clarke" > > Date:Fri, February 12, 2010 10:01 > > To: "PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion" > > > > -- > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Get ready for some bad news: According to my sources there will be no > > > more free access to any Solaris patch, be it security or not. A support > > > contract will be required for every patch download, no matter whether > > > it's done interactively through the website or hands-off with wget/pca. > > > I've been told that this policy change won't by publically announced by > > > Oracle, but it's described in this SunSolve document: > > > > > >#203648: Software Update Entitlement Policy for Solaris > > >http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-61-203648-1 > > > > > > It already seems to be in effect. I tried to download various recent > > > security patches and access is denied to any of them. > > > > > > Sooner or later access to patchdiag.xref and all other content > currently > > > on SunSolve will be limited to paying customers as well. > > > > > > No opinion, but a few thoughts: > > > > > > Using an operating system where the only way to fix security problems > is > > > waiting for the next version is a no-go, so the minimum cost for > running > > > Solaris on a real-world system is now that of a basic service plan > (324$ > > > and up per year). > > > > I am fine with a support contract fee on my servers. That is just > business > > and everyone would expect a small fee for service. > > > > Software is free. Service is not. > > > > "Software is Free, Service is Not: The Dawn of Service Networks" written > > by ex-Oracle executives and co-founders of OpenWater - Mike Rocha and Tim > > Chou. > > > > See > > > http://www.anshublog.com/2007/05/new-meme-software-is-free-service-is.html > > > > I have that book and I agree with its basic premise. Simply put, no > > organization can support an operating system, application stack or any > > software product for free. Period. > > > > > Sun didn't make enough money, so it's obvious that Oracle handles > things > > > differently. Whether this is a wise decision is left to the future. The > > > fact that there's no public announcement reveals a lot. > > > > That bothers me. Given that I bought new contracts within the last 30 > days. > > > > > There should be a much simpler way to get basic patch support (think > > > about a PayPal button at the end of the OS installation to get the > > > idea). And it definitely should cost less than the service plans. > > > Personally, I'd prefer a one-time fee for the OS (which should be > > > included in the price of a server when bought from Sun). > > > > That would be retrograde motion back to the days of the RTU license fee > on > > the Sparc servers. I doubt you can do such a thing with x86 servers or > > machines based on a free download. > > This will be the undoing of Solaris. One reason Sun got into such bad > shape was because they were far, far to late in accepting the reality of > the _competition_ from the FOSS world. CompSCI majors were using either > MS because of it's ubiquity or Linux because of it's technical > superiority and free availability. Hence, Solaris slipped slowly but > surely into irrelevance in all but the financial services sector. I > know CompSCI grads from the local U, for example, that had never even > _heard_ of Sun Microsystems, before I pointed them to Open/Solaris. > > Open sourcing Solaris and making Solaris 10 fr
Re: [osol-discuss] Software is free. Service is not. Mike Rocha and Tim Chou.
All that said: Use does not imply ownership. Oracle can do whatever they want. Does this mean it might be disqualified to be running like sxce_snv_130 once 2010.03 comes out ? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
