[osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Given that Oracle's acquisition of Sun is now all, for all practical purposes, a done deal, does anybody know what's going to happen to OpenSolaris? Oracle is not exactly known as being friendly to open source software and given that the SPARC+Solaris+Oracle stack is likely to be at the core of Oracle's business model, I'm worried that OpenSolaris is going to go away. This seems especially likely given that Oracle PR folks didn't even mention OpenSolaris when they discussed the future of various Sun FOSS projects earlier today. I've never really used it in a serious context, but I have experimented with it and would be quite saddened if Oracle were to kill it off! Mike ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Michael Kerpan wrote: > Oracle is not exactly known as being friendly to open source software Oracle has bought a number of companies making open source before, have they killed any of those? BerkeleyDB and InnoDB still seem to be around. Oracle has been contributing to a number of open source projects as well for years - Linux, Eclipse, Xen, etc. See http://www.oracle.com/opensource/ and http://oss.oracle.com/ How has Oracle been unfriendly to open source? -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
I missed the webcast. What specifically were the operating systems and virtualization roadmaps? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Gary Bainbridge wrote: > I missed the webcast. > > What specifically were the operating systems and virtualization roadmaps? Specific topic webcasts appear to be available for on-demand viewing at: http://www.oracle.com/events/productstrategy/index.html I haven't had a chance to watch any yet. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> Oracle is not exactly known as being > friendly to open > source software This statement is not exactly fair. Oracle has been one of the major contributors to the Linux kernel. Also, Oracle was "the" first elite company to port its mainstream products to the Linux platform (this move gave Linux instant credibility, not unlike what Sun did for AMD's Opteron). Many of the Linux old farts like myself still remember this heroic move by Larry Ellison; however, I am not seeing AMD reciprocating Sun's favor (regarding providing enhanced ATI driver for Solaris). Oracle people often mentioned that one of the main reasons they like Linux is that it is easy to find Linux administrators. Based on this logic, it would be very unwise to eof OpenSolaris, as doing so will cut off the supply of new blood for Solaris adms (assuming that OpenSolaris is architectured to bring in new bloods). -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Though they never mentioned abt opensolaris. This OS webcast shows opensolaris.org site in there. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org<>___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? [i]Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java User Groups, OpenSolaris User Groups, and other Sun-related user group communities (including the Java Champions), just as Oracle actively supports hundreds of product-oriented user groups today. We will be reaching out to these groups soon. [/i] http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Well, I'm glad SUN decided to open source solaris years ago. Does anybody know if opensolaris will remain under the CDDL? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> does anybody know what's going to happen to OpenSolaris? OpenSolaris is listed here: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/solaris/index.html Though it says nothing about Oracle plans there. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
While OpenSolaris is already open source (mostly), there were some plans within Sun to open source more technologies, but Sun didn't get to it because of the merger. In particular - Sun Studio, C++ compiler etc. Interesting what are Oracle intentions in regards to keeping those plans? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> While OpenSolaris is already open source (mostly), > there were some plans within Sun to open source more > technologies, but Sun didn't get to it because of the > merger. In particular - Sun Studio, C++ compiler etc. > Interesting what are Oracle intentions in regards to > keeping those plans? I believe the main issue is not--in case the unthinkable happens--whether Oracle will open source more technologies, but, as another poster mentioned, will Oracle continue to license update/upgrade of the existing code under the CDDL license. All of Sun's open-sourced code is under dual license, meaning that Oracle can continue to develop Sun's technologies under a proprietary license, but freeze the CDDL'd code at its current state. Of course, anyone can fork the Solaris kernel under the CDDL scheme. But the possibility is zero. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:49 PM, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: >> While OpenSolaris is already open source (mostly), >> there were some plans within Sun to open source more >> technologies, but Sun didn't get to it because of the >> merger. In particular - Sun Studio, C++ compiler etc. >> Interesting what are Oracle intentions in regards to >> keeping those plans? > > I believe the main issue is not--in case the unthinkable happens--whether > Oracle will open source more technologies, but, as another poster mentioned, > will Oracle continue to license update/upgrade of the existing code under the > CDDL license. > > All of Sun's open-sourced code is under dual license, meaning that Oracle can > continue to develop Sun's technologies under a proprietary license, but > freeze the CDDL'd code at its current state. Of course, anyone can fork the > Solaris kernel under the CDDL scheme. But the possibility is zero. Sun has already been doing that. If you pay for support and use the support repository, you are using a closed fork. Since OpenSolaris-dev and OpenSolaris-support are pretty close together temporally, this isn't a big deal. You can look at a snapshot of the snv_111 code and the list of fixes applied to get a pretty good idea of what the code looks like. After several years and potentially thousands of fixes, a lot of the benefit of the open source roots is lost. While the typical customer doesn't have an interest in modifying the code, many have an interest in looking at it to understand observed behavior or to aid in writing dtrace scripts that journey into fbt probes. As the years have passed since the fork between what became Solaris 10 and what became OpenSolaris, I have increasingly less confidence that looking at any version of OpenSolaris code will allow me to really understand what is happening on a Solaris 10 system. That is, as the number of fixes and features included in Solaris 10 increases, the value of the open source roots decreases. I have always expected that the same will happen with Solaris 10+1 (11g?). I have consistently asked Sun to make the code for supported OS's available to customers, even if it is under a license other than the CDDL. I encourage others to make similar requests. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
I listened to the entire webcast yesterday and it leaves wondering about what is the OpenSolaris roadmap! I propose solutions for a living and Solaris has been/is a tough sell. I only wished Oracle would clarify more about OpenSolaris. Time will tell. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Ed, Well, I'm glad SUN decided to open source solaris years ago. Does anybody know if opensolaris will remain under the CDDL? I was part of when Sun made avopen bits of Solaris 8a decade ago (the only Solaris source availability thus far - outside OpenSolaris). I hope and trust that OpenSolaris will remain in its current state under Oracle. I have also just emailed the office of Larry E in a (futile?) attempt to elicit any more details on our behalf. I expect no response though ;-) Regards... Sean. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
All, Apols - new laptop keyboard causing trubs with my typing. "avopen" and "Solaris 8a" being gross examples. Regards... Sean. Ed, Well, I'm glad SUN decided to open source solaris years ago. Does anybody know if opensolaris will remain under the CDDL? I was part of when Sun made avopen bits of Solaris 8a decade ago (the only Solaris source availability thus far - outside OpenSolaris). I hope and trust that OpenSolaris will remain in its current state under Oracle. I have also just emailed the office of Larry E in a (futile?) attempt to elicit any more details on our behalf. I expect no response though ;-) Regards... Sean. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
I may be incorrect, but when I watched the webcast and they had the graphics displayed showing the hardware line and Oracle VM working with Logical Domains, etc., they had the x86 hardware. I'll have to look again, but they had three blocks for operating systems on top which were Solaris, Linux, and Windows. I know in another slide they listed OpenSolaris and had the website, but I honestly don't believe they will continue development of OpenSolaris which has mostly been developed on x86. For quite some time there wasn't a Sparc install and then you needed AI. Now a text installer for Sparc has been released, but it is late. Oracle isn't going to put tens or hundreds of millions into OpenSolaris when they announed they are going to spend more on Solaris development than Sun. And there are many things in OpenSolaris which are not enterprise ready and it would cost a lot of money and time to get OpenSolaris to the point of being ready for enterprise data centers. AI. Caiman. Zones. Network Auto Magic (default). Especially when Oracle spends millions on Linux, why spend more money for another x86 OS when Solaris isn't used much on x86? There are a lot of good innovations in OpenSolaris which can be used in the next Solaris release, but I just don't see OpenSolaris being able to survive. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Gary Bainbridge wrote: > Oracle isn't going to put tens or hundreds of millions into OpenSolaris when > they announed they are going to spend more on Solaris development than Sun. OpenSolaris isn't a separate OS from Solaris - it's the development branch of the next release of Solaris. Sun's plan was always that the next release of Solaris would be a stable version of the OpenSolaris base, not a completely different beast. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> I may be incorrect, but when I watched the webcast > and they had the graphics displayed showing the > hardware line and Oracle VM working with Logical > Domains, etc., they had the x86 hardware. I'll have > to look again, but they had three blocks for > operating systems on top which were Solaris, Linux, > and Windows. > > I know in another slide they listed OpenSolaris and > had the website, but I honestly don't believe they > will continue development of OpenSolaris which has > mostly been developed on x86. For quite some time > there wasn't a Sparc install and then you needed AI. > Now a text installer for Sparc has been released, > but it is late. > > Oracle isn't going to put tens or hundreds of > millions into OpenSolaris when they announed they are > going to spend more on Solaris development than Sun. > And there are many things in OpenSolaris which are > not enterprise ready and it would cost a lot of > money and time to get OpenSolaris to the point of > being ready for enterprise data centers. AI. > Caiman. Zones. Network Auto Magic (default). > Especially when Oracle spends millions on Linux, > why spend more money for another x86 OS when Solaris > isn't used much on x86? > > There are a lot of good innovations in OpenSolaris > which can be used in the next Solaris release, but > I just don't see OpenSolaris being able to survive. While a good chunk of this sounds realistic to me, I have to disagree with the comments abiout Zones and Solaris on x86. Zones are used widely in S10, in production on many sites in "enterprise" solutions, and from experince the use of zones out numbers the use of LDoms by a long way. Once people get used to the idea of zones, and apps companies get on board, they start to be used widely (on Sparc an x86). Oracle sits well in zones (IMO). The worst part about Solaris on x86 is having to deal with BIOS :-) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
I should have clarified. I was speaking about the way zones are implemented presently in OpenSolaris. They need to function like Solaris 10. I like zones and use them frequently. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
I realize that OpenSolaris isn't *entirely* separate from Solaris, but if Sun intended to have the next release of Solaris based on OpenSolaris, then millions will have to be spent to get it to that point, and many years. The better option would have been to have the next release built on SXCE. Now, I am aware that SXCE was built on OpenSolaris, but it was more ready for the enterprise because it had the installer, zones, packaging, etc., already there. The Sparc text installer for OpenSolaris was only released yesterday. There can't be any denial that OpenSolaris was targeted for a desktop user. Network Auto Magic? That doesn't yell enterprise, but rather joe schmoe sitting at home. OpenSolaris Sparc wasn't available for the longest time. AI isn't near ready for the enterprise so how many years before OpenSolaris can be ready. How is OpenSolaris going to run on M-Series servers? That I'd like to see. Sun spent $500 million on Solaris 10. Is Oracle going to spend that much on OpenSolaris to get it ready for the enterprise? I doubt it. Take the good parts from SXCE and merge them into Solaris 10 and create SolarisNextGen or something. BTW, I do run OpenSolaris and have since 2008.05 and will install dev preview 131 soon. But please, OpenSolaris isn't ready to be installed on T- and M-Series servers in a 2000 server data center. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
As much as I like OpenSolaris, I just migrated my FreeBSD (RockSolid) infrastructure to opensolaris with ease: Tomcat, CAS-SSO, OpenLdap, Bind, apache2, CIFS, Postgresql ... I think it is a mistake to design OpenSolaris as a desktop first, Sun always shine on the server side. I earned my living on Sun's, managing servers from SunOS3.x - Solaris10 now, I'm into architecture and project management. As far as low-end servers Sun has been tossed big time and MANY companies are getting away from Huge Architectures. ZFS is a technological advance, the new package system is awesome, CIFS integration, ACL and all ...more power to it however, it has to spread on X86 architecture too and the sooner, the more exposure, the better. There are tones of small and not so small companies willing to take the plunge into (low cost/no cost) Linux solutions and not willing to spend on support! It is as crazy as it sounds. In retrospect, yesterday's webcast reinforced a new fully and integrated stack (from disks to apps) for Sparc (Solaris) and Linux! I wish Oracle sees OpenSolaris as a server and not only a desktop where you develop apps for Solaris! Oracle is a big fan of Linux ... mentionned 2-3 times. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On 29/01/2010, at 1:41 PM, Roger Savard wrote: As much as I like OpenSolaris, I just migrated my FreeBSD (RockSolid) infrastructure to opensolaris with ease: Tomcat, CAS- SSO, OpenLdap, Bind, apache2, CIFS, Postgresql ... I think it is a mistake to design OpenSolaris as a desktop first, Sun always shine on the server side. Why do you think we're designing OpenSolaris as a desktop first? Because of the LiveCD? What about the Automated Install images, or the text based interactive installer? Lots of room for both, and over the last couple of releases, there's been a higher priority on getting some of the server/enterprise features in place. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Well then, if it's the case, OpenSolaris is on the right track. I downloaded the text-based installer yesterday but did not have the time to work with it yet, but I will. The closer opensolaris is to the enterprise, the more exposure and push it' ll have. Keep up the good work. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Surely a fundamental part of the premise here is that there has to be some incentives to get people to join the OpenSolaris community to build some of the user base necessary to bed in a new release, and part of that is that the OpenSolaris builds be easy to deploy and have an initial focus on cheap x86 desktops and servers, where those desktops are probably targeted at developers as much as anyone else. OpenSolaris is thus always going to be preparatory, an indication of what's coming over the horizon that's considerably more substantial than a demo but always ahead of release candidacy, so it'll never be "finished" or "ready" in the sense that you seem to expect. After all, Sun's problem doesn't appear to be getting Solaris to run well on high- end servers (they've got decades of experience in that discipline) so much as recruiting and retaining developer seats and allowing customers a more straight-forward way to try out things that are otherwise around the corner and to get behind that direction, while Sun presumably does some further work on the release once there's a stable code base implementing the new feature set before blessing it as a Solaris release. That's what makes OpenSolaris interesting: it occupies a space rather ahead of he usual production cycle for developer/customer and Sun, yet Sun's willing to provide full support for customers who are willing to be more aggressive in deploying it, including for production (and I'd think that there would be plenty of shops running open-source infrastructure for n-tier apps who'd find that the time to market for new features in OpenSolaris may be worth more on modest x86 SMP systems than waiting for all the release to be massaged and cut as a Solaris 10 update or Solaris 11 release that pulls every ounce out of the bigger Sun iron). As far as hardware support goes, the likely deployment profile for OpenSolaris, at least in its earlier days, wouldn't be SPARC boxes, big or small, but x86 kit in engineering labs that people wanted to get up and running quickly to see if Solaris could do things that weren't quite coming together in production ("this Linux cack isn't working, what you got Solaris?"), where SPARC kit and the kind of additional performance validation for big SPARC boxes could wait until the most recent releases. In addition to source code access to what's released in OpenSolaris, these days people have tools like DTrace to give them an idea of whether their workload runs as well or better with changes that may be six months or more ahead of release, and there's considerable advantage in using that to build excitement and confidence, not to mention analytics that customers can share with Sun where they have concerns. A decade ago this would have been access by invitation only, largely limited to large commercial ISVs (I'm largely following the account offered of the partnership with the major RDBMS vendors in the Configuring and Tuning Databases on Solaris book by Alan Packer), with source code licensed separately, but the last decade has shown that there are distinct advantages to more participatory and open early access, which is the space OpenSolaris targets. I may be wrong in that understanding, and I'm sure someone from Sun will correct me if I'm off-base. In the last decade Sun lost market share because shipping Solaris lost customer bake-offs to Linux, where Sun couldn't put the later and greater into the hands of customers to show that promised improvements were more than vapourware (not to put too fine a point on it, but if you were using Sun compilers ten years ago, you might be forgiven for raising an eyebrow to Sun claims and finding yourself reluctant to say "compilers bad, systems good" after being bitten by the e-cache rash). On the other hand, there's a foot-in-the-door element to delivering an OS that's rather less raw than what arrives on Solaris 10 install media, and you don't have to be a "shmoe at home" to want an OS that does a bit more out of the box than does vanilla Solaris if you're otherwise taking on the workload of sorting out a build with such an experimental bent. Developers wanting to look ahead don't necessarily want to have to deal with such initial configuration tasks, which doesn't make for a simple opposition to "enterprise" deployment (similar things should hold even for systems engineers). All of this seems to me a pretty sharp adaptation to the current market, so I'd struggle to imagine Oracle wanting to pull the legs out from under it. Am 28 Jan 2010 um 22:08 schrieb Gary Bainbridge: I realize that OpenSolaris isn't *entirely* separate from Solaris, but if Sun intended to have the next release of Solaris based on OpenSolaris, then millions will have to be spent to get it to that point, and many years. The better option would have been to have the next release
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> I realize that OpenSolaris isn't *entirely* separate > from Solaris, but if Sun intended to have the next > release of Solaris based on OpenSolaris, then > millions will have to be spent to get it to that > point, and many years. > > The better option would have been to have the next > release built on SXCE. Now, I am aware that SXCE was > built on OpenSolaris, but it was more ready for the > enterprise because it had the installer, zones, > packaging, etc., already there. > > The Sparc text installer for OpenSolaris was only > released yesterday. There can't be any denial that > OpenSolaris was targeted for a desktop user. Network > Auto Magic? That doesn't yell enterprise, but rather > joe schmoe sitting at home. OpenSolaris Sparc wasn't > available for the longest time. AI isn't near ready > for the enterprise so how many years before > OpenSolaris can be ready. How is OpenSolaris going > to run on M-Series servers? That I'd like to see. > Sun spent $500 million on Solaris 10. Is Oracle > going to spend that much on OpenSolaris to get it > ready for the enterprise? I doubt it. Take the > good parts from SXCE and merge them into Solaris 10 > and create SolarisNextGen or something. > > BTW, I do run OpenSolaris and have since 2008.05 and > will install dev preview 131 soon. > > But please, OpenSolaris isn't ready to be installed > on T- and M-Series servers in a 2000 server data > center. I agree. I can't see the IPS being anywhere close to Enterprise ready. It's OK on my laptop but I wouldn't advocate switching from Solaris 10 on our data servers. People have complained about the SVR4 patching system, and it creaks like hell, but it's one thing to say it's broke and quite another to 'fix' it with something less functional. I don't like the 'all or nothing' image-update principle, is this because patching doesn't work yet or is that how it always will be? I can't see that fitting well with data centre SysAdmins wanting to patch one critical bug with minimal collateral impact on other services. But this is all academic anyway now that Oracle has taken the reins. Judging by how the word OpenSolaris has yet to be uttered by any Oracle spokesperson, it's quite clear where their intentions are. They will continue to invest in ClosedSolaris. I don't even know if the successor to Solaris 10 will continue to be a free download or if Oracle will want to start making money again from licensing and compulsory support subscriptions. I hope not! Compare Screven's statements about OpenOffice, where the Oracle pledge is to: "Continue to develop, promote and support OpenOffice – Including the OpenOffice.org community edition" This contrasts with the rather bland operating system commitment: "Invest significantly in both Solaris and Linux" No inclusion of the opensolaris community edition here. Their website "community support" statements offer to support the java and opensolaris communities, but this is not a promise to continue Sun's plan to base the next release of Solaris on a public opensolaris build, nor is it a pledge to continue updating the opensolaris code base with any improvements they make to their commercial release of Solaris. If they're really going to spend more than Sun did on improving Solaris, they might choose to keep those improvements to the source code in-house. The 7000 series is here to stay, so OpenSolaris is still of use to Oracle, but even the 7000 machines were always closed appliances from Sun. We know they were built using the OpenSolaris kernel, but that's about it. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I think in this case given how much Oracle has already said about "Solaris", their lack of comment on "OpenSolaris" is worrying. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Glynn Foster wrote: > > On 29/01/2010, at 1:41 PM, Roger Savard wrote: > >> As much as I like OpenSolaris, I just migrated my FreeBSD (RockSolid) >> infrastructure to opensolaris with ease: Tomcat, CAS-SSO, OpenLdap, Bind, >> apache2, CIFS, Postgresql ... I think it is a mistake to design OpenSolaris >> as a desktop first, Sun always shine on the server side. > > Why do you think we're designing OpenSolaris as a desktop first? Because of > the LiveCD? What about the Automated Install images, or the text based > interactive installer? Lots of room for both, and over the last couple of > releases, there's been a higher priority on getting some of the > server/enterprise features in place. Because anytime anyone tries to offer any criticism or documents issues trying to use it as a server, the response is 'well we're concentrating on the desktop first'. I seem to recall the whole point of the project Indiana (now OpenSolaris the distribution) versus SXCE was to have a desktop oriented distribution (with the idea of trying to entice developers from other *nix variants). Hence the prioritization of the graphical installer before a text-based one (thus x86 before sparc), interactive installations before automated ones, nwam being the default, bash being the default shell, GNU utilities being the default, etc. If someone wants to argue those are appropriate for a server setting instead of a desktop, I'd like to know the name of their pharmacist =] This is generally not a bad thing (as you know I disagree with a couple of decisions, but I do try to do my talking with hg so to speak to address that) -- I suspect most people understand the constraints of limited resources and such, but it doesn't mean we get to have it both ways. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> Sun has already been doing that. If you pay for > support and use the > support repository, you are using a closed fork. > Since > penSolaris-dev and OpenSolaris-support are pretty > close together > temporally, this isn't a big deal. You can look at a > snapshot of the > snv_111 code and the list of fixes applied to get a > pretty good idea > of what the code looks like. After several years and > potentially > thousands of fixes, a lot of the benefit of the open > source roots is > lost. > > While the typical customer doesn't have an interest > in modifying the > code, many have an interest in looking at it to > understand observed > behavior or to aid in writing dtrace scripts that > journey into fbt > probes. As the years have passed since the fork > between what became > Solaris 10 and what became OpenSolaris, I have > increasingly less > confidence that looking at any version of OpenSolaris > code will allow > me to really understand what is happening on a > Solaris 10 system. > That is, as the number of fixes and features included > in Solaris 10 > increases, the value of the open source roots > decreases. > > I have always expected that the same will happen with > Solaris 10+1 > (11g?). I have consistently asked Sun to make the > code for supported > OS's available to customers, even if it is under a > license other than > the CDDL. I encourage others to make similar > requests. > > -- > Mike Gerdts > http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ With you 1000% on that. I'd always like nothing better than to have as much of the source as possible (i.e. not locked up in some agreement to keep it proprietary) _matching_ what I'm running there to look at. I'm most unlikely to have the time or patience to do a full build often, and as the code sits now, it's not pretty to try to build one thing without having first done a full build of everything. So even on a development system, I might never try _fixing_ something myself. But the better the code I can look at matches what I'm running (esp with tools like DTrace or (k)mdb), the better the chance I can at least understand whose problem something is (OS vendor, 3rd party, in-house) and do enough of the diagnosis that I can get a quick turnaround out of them. OpenGrok is pretty good for looking at the code, but it could be great if one could tell it what one was running and have it show just that version of the code. Too few people anywhere are good at troubleshooting, and the ones that are tend to be busy and shielded by layers of helpdesk types and the like; so whatever someone can do for themselves can really make a difference. And if there's an easy workaround, one might be able to find it oneself. And then there's sunsolve. Not terrible, but not great either. Not near as good at relevance of unfielded keyword searches as the major search engines, nor capable of good old fashioned Boolean queries (like AltaVista used to be way back when). -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On 01/28/10 09:07 PM, Jason King wrote: I seem to recall the whole point of the project Indiana (now OpenSolaris the distribution) versus SXCE was to have a desktop oriented distribution (with the idea of trying to entice developers from other *nix variants). Hence the prioritization of the graphical installer before a text-based one (thus x86 before sparc), interactive installations before automated ones, nwam being the default, bash being the default shell, GNU utilities being the default, etc. If someone wants to argue those are appropriate for a server setting instead of a desktop, I'd like to know the name of their pharmacist =] Given that almost all of the bits of functionality you mentioned above are often found in GNU/Linux server distributions too, I don't see the issue. Yes, some of the bits were prioritised before others, but I've used (and installed) numerous GNU/Linux distributions in the past that used graphical installers, automated network configuration, GNU utilities, and bash as the default shell :) Somehow, I don't think those are issues that are a large barrier to adoption. And yes, I remember installing operating systems from *tape* and floppy disk...you want to talk about barriers! -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> > In retrospect, yesterday's webcast reinforced a new > fully and integrated stack (from disks to apps) for > Sparc (Solaris) > and Linux! > > I wish Oracle sees OpenSolaris as a server and not > only a desktop where you develop apps for Solaris! > Oracle is a big fan of Linux ... mentionned 2-3 times. Oracle also mention that Solaris is more advanced then linux and it would take years for linux to catch up to Solaris. I think Oracle sees a huge opening to promote Solaris while linux is currently missing those advancements,like ZFS,etc and if Oracle leaves OpenSolaris/Solaris under the CDDL then it can create it's own community with Opensolaris/Solaris similar to redhat and fedora and take market share away from linux and when i say linux i really mean red hat and novell. only if Oracle promotes it correctly. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On 29/01/2010, at 4:07 PM, Jason King wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Glynn Foster wrote: On 29/01/2010, at 1:41 PM, Roger Savard wrote: As much as I like OpenSolaris, I just migrated my FreeBSD (RockSolid) infrastructure to opensolaris with ease: Tomcat, CAS-SSO, OpenLdap, Bind, apache2, CIFS, Postgresql ... I think it is a mistake to design OpenSolaris as a desktop first, Sun always shine on the server side. Why do you think we're designing OpenSolaris as a desktop first? Because of the LiveCD? What about the Automated Install images, or the text based interactive installer? Lots of room for both, and over the last couple of releases, there's been a higher priority on getting some of the server/enterprise features in place. Because anytime anyone tries to offer any criticism or documents issues trying to use it as a server, the response is 'well we're concentrating on the desktop first'. Certainly it made sense to focus on desktop and developer as ideal candidates to test out some of the technology we were building. The end game was always going to be enterprise and building something that would carry over into the next generation enterprise platform. The response was more likely to be acknowledgement that some things weren't quite ready yet for the larger scale. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
If I wanted to run a GNU/Linux distribution I would, but apparently the decision is being made for those who like Solaris, to be made to run another Linux-type server. Seriously, how long (how many years) and how much money is it going to take to make OpenSolaris a replacement for Solaris 10? Is Oracle going to spend that much money? To make a desktop OS work as a data center OS is not remotely the best engineering practice. Could you run Solaris 8 on a desktop? Sure. But why? It wasn't practical. Could you use Windows 95 as a server? Probably many did. But why? That wasn't its intended use. Now the OS is going to be retrofitted to make it an enterprise server? With Solaris you can choose what you want to install. Not so with OpenSolaris. You get what you're told. I'm probably old school, however, the barrier to adoption is probably right, but with those installers like RHEL and SuSE have, everything is going web-based and you need Java installed to open a console. Give me a Putty session and connect me via ALOM and I'm ready to go with my Jumpstart server! 'boot net - install' and off and running. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On 01/28/10 10:20 PM, Gary Bainbridge wrote: Now the OS is going to be retrofitted to make it an enterprise server? With Solaris you can choose what you want to install. Not so with OpenSolaris. You get what you're told. That's actually less true with Solaris 10. If you'll remember, with Solaris 10, the "OEM" or "OEM+" was usually the only supported configuration. If anything, the complaint about Solaris 10 was usually that it wasn't customisable enuogh. Because packages didn't always clearly (or correctly) express their dependencies, it made it very difficult to find a working configuration if you knew which packages you wanted. With the OpenSolaris distribution, you install a relatively small core (that is supported), and then you add pieces to that. The primary blocker for getting to choose what you want to install isn't really the installer itself so much as the package re-factoring work that is still in progress. -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
+-- | On 2010-01-28 20:20:08, Gary Bainbridge wrote: | | I'm probably old school, however, the barrier to adoption is probably right, but with those installers like RHEL and SuSE have, everything is going web-based and you need Java installed to open a console. Give me a Putty session and connect me via ALOM and I'm ready to go with my Jumpstart server! 'boot net - install' and off and running. So go look at the OpenSolaris Automated Installer. It's still very young and has some ... odd ... design decisions, but you can network install OpenSolaris with the packages you choose. -- bda cyberpunk is dead. long live cyberpunk. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> Why do you think we're designing OpenSolaris as a desktop first? OpenSolaris is designed as a destkop first because the GUI installer doesn't even let you assign a static IP address the way that Red Hat Enterprise Linux / Oracle Unbreakable Linux / CentOS installer does and it forces you to have a full on GNOME desktop installed on your server whether you want it to or not (compare this to a server OS like FreeBSD or Ubuntu Server which does not install x-windows and RHEL which lets you choose whether or not you want to install it). For OpenSolaris to even be considered as a server O.S. in most shops, it needs three things: (1) Assign a static IP address during the installation process (it's ok if it has to be installed from a live CD, that's fine, but the installer needs to have a static IP option and not just default to using DHCP, which is a huge pain for me because I never, never, NEVER, NEVER use DHCP in any of the several data centers I work in). (2) There needs to be an option to install it as a "headless" server on x86 or on a SPARC Netra with no GNOME, no X-windows, no GUI installed. All that should be installed is a command line with SSH and virtual terminals and the "screen" utility to switch between different CLI's. Just put the server related packages like Postfix and Apache and BIND / DNS etc. etc. ready to go in the "/var/pkg/download" cache folder so that they can be installed quickly into zones right after the install without even needing to talk to the IPS repository. (3) After the installation process is done, only SSH and mail should be running. Everything else (this includes GNOME and multicast DNS / avahi and CUPS) should be turned off! When the OpenSolaris Indiana developers get serious about competing with FreeBSD and Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the server market and are willing to implement the three items that I have mentioned above, give us in the community a call and we will buy it. Until then, we will just be waiting quietly in the wings. I've been waiting patiently for over a year now for a real minimalized JeOS OpenSolaris server distro that prospective clients can install from a CD to come out, but so far no dice, the only OpenSolaris minimal headless server type operating systems that are available so far are Nexenta and SXCE. Just go to any real professional Linux, *BSD or Solaris sysadmin's blog and you'll see that they all unanimously want the same thing for their servers. Take Ben Rockwood for example who said in several different posts in his blog here: http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1065 that Nexenta and Solaris Express worked great on servers but that Indiana wasn't ready this is coming from a lead sysadmin from a company that is the largest OpenSolaris (SXCE) customer that Sun has ever had. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> With the OpenSolaris distribution, you install a relatively small core > (that is supported), and then you add pieces to that. U, OpenSolaris might be an improvement over Solaris 10 in some ways (i.e. pkg image-update being better than live upgrade) but any OS that forces you to install a full on GNOME desktop (whether you want it or not) is certainly not a "relatively small core". If you want so see what a "small core" looks like, I recommend that you try installing FreeBSD or OpenBSD some time. FreeBSD is starting to look particularly interesting because it has a lot of the same great features that OpenSolaris does, but it gives you a much smaller minimal installation footprint (just SSH and a command line and man pages and a ports tree and nothing else) which makes FreeBSD look good for people who develop embedded devices while OpenSolaris looks bad (i.e. you don't want a full on GNOME desktop running in an embedded server appliance). -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Anon Y Mous wrote: > (2) There needs to be an option to install it as a "headless" server on x86 > or on a SPARC Netra with no GNOME, no X-windows, no GUI installed. All that > should be installed is a command line with SSH and virtual terminals and the > "screen" utility to switch between different CLI's. Just put the server > related packages like Postfix and Apache and BIND / DNS etc. etc. ready to go > in the "/var/pkg/download" cache folder so that they can be installed quickly > into zones right after the install without even needing to talk to the IPS > repository. Done. See the Automated Install or new Text Install CD's. > (3) After the installation process is done, only SSH and mail should be > running. Done since the Secure by Default project integrated a few years ago. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On 01/28/10 10:50 PM, Anon Y Mous wrote: With the OpenSolaris distribution, you install a relatively small core (that is supported), and then you add pieces to that. U, OpenSolaris might be an improvement over Solaris 10 in some ways (i.e. pkg image-update being better than live upgrade) but any OS that forces you to install a full on GNOME desktop (whether you want it or not) is certainly not a "relatively small core". If you want so see what a "small core" looks like, I recommend that you try installing FreeBSD or OpenBSD some time. FreeBSD is starting to look particularly interesting because it has a lot of the same great features that OpenSolaris does, but it gives you a much smaller minimal installation footprint (just SSH and a command line and man pages and a ports tree and nothing else) which makes FreeBSD look good for people who develop embedded devices while OpenSolaris looks bad (i.e. you don't want a full on GNOME desktop running in an embedded server appliance). Everyone's definition of a minimal OS is different since their definition reflects their own needs. For example, for a desktop user, their core OS includes GNOME, etc. -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> (3) After the installation process is done, only SSH and mail should be > running. alanc: > Done since the Secure by Default project integrated a few years ago. Yes, but I just had to do the following two commands on an OpenSolaris Indiana snv_129 server that a client was evaluating: #svcadm disable multicast:default #svcadm disable cups/scheduler:default so cups and multicast dns were running in the default install, which is fine and dandy on a desktop, such as the OpenSolaris desktop I do work on, but I was going to benchmark this server for a client to show them what OpenSolaris can (or can't) do as a minimalized headless server and I'm trying to squeeze out every last bit of performance here. It's not going to be a print server so there's no need for cups ;-) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Gary Bainbridge wrote: > If I wanted to run a GNU/Linux distribution I would, but apparently the > decision is being made for those who like Solaris, to be made to run another > Linux-type server. > > Seriously, how long (how many years) and how much money is it going to take > to make OpenSolaris a replacement for Solaris 10? Is Oracle going to spend > that much money? In my mind the key things that seem to be missing for it to be able to take the baton from Solaris 10 are: - Interactive text installer (apparently that came out in the last day or so) - Easy to configure automated installer. Some docs to go with the bootable AI iso would be a big help here. - The ability to host all of the media required on my own install servers - The ability to install software from a file - Speed improvements for pkg command, particularly on CMT - Package signing to ensure integrity of bits delivered. - Refactor package names - Integration with 800-USA-4SUN. Any OpenSolaris cases I have opened on a supported system have turned into redirects to mailing lists. Maybe this has improved in the past 6 months. - Stablization freeze and beta cycle Certainly, there may be other things that are missing from a Solaris 11 roadmap that no one has shared with me. However, those aren't necessarily things that keep it from being at least as good as Solaris 10. I suspect that if resources were increased to finish off the areas listed above that the beta cycle could begin with 3 - 6 months and a release could happen this year. By and large, I find that (after installation) OpenSolaris servers are nearly identical to Solaris 10 servers to administer, except when I need a feature that is unique to OpenSolaris. I generally find more value in the OpenSolaris feature set. Sure there are bleeding edge issues that crop up, but those are the things that get ironed out in stablization and beta. > To make a desktop OS work as a data center OS is not remotely the best > engineering practice. Could you run Solaris 8 on a desktop? Sure. But why? > It wasn't practical. Could you use Windows 95 as a server? Probably many > did. But why? That wasn't its intended use. > > Now the OS is going to be retrofitted to make it an enterprise server? With > Solaris you can choose what you want to install. Not so with OpenSolaris. > You get what you're told. I see it just the opposite. On Solaris 10 if you are trying to create an image to work across all hardware platforms, the most supported way of doing this is to install SUNWCXall. Then you can start trimming away big things like Staroffice and the bulk of the desktop tools until you become afraid that you are going to break some application's unknown dependencies. For example, the Oracle installer never says that it needs to have X libraries (but it does if running in GUI mode) and some annoying J2EE app never mentions that it needs X fonts but it does else it can't render some text in images. Go figure. If you decide not to do flash archives on Solaris 10 and install via pkgadd instead (not nearly as painful after Casper's work on turbo charging), you can start out a lot smaller (e.g SUNWCmreq or SUNWCreq), but creation of a custom profile to bring in those annoying bits that you've learned are needed is quite a pain. If you guess wrong at install time, you will go through lots of iterations of pkgadd + error messages to try to add the other packages you need - once you figure out which uninstalled package delivers the shared library or font files that you need. In contrast, with OpenSolaris I can use AI to start out with a pretty small installation. Lots smaller than slim_install (live CD contents) - look to the packages installed in a zone by default (plus kernel bits) as a rough guide of the base install. Then add the packages that deliver the shared library or font that you need. The dependencies should automatically add the rest of the packages. I know this isn't perfect yet, but I think a beta cycle would raise the bugs and fixes for missing dependencies. If you miss something at install time, it is just as easy after the system is installed to add the required packages with automatic dependency resolution. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> To make a desktop OS work as a data center OS is not > remotely the best engineering practice. Could you > run Solaris 8 on a desktop? Sure. But why? It > wasn't practical. Could you use Windows 95 as a > server? Probably many did. But why? That wasn't > its intended use. And where is that Solaris now? The most widespread server enterprise OS are Windows Server 2003/2008 and different Linux distributions. It's the worst policy: "we are cool server OS for REALLY BIG SPARC SERVERS". It made Solaris 10... not very popular. How many good Solaris admins can you find? How much do they want to earn? And every student can manage Windows 2003 after some months of training. It is like Win XP. (Yes, it may have in some type different architecture, it's not easy to administrate it correctly (as every other OS), but it looks familiar and simple). Linux was the most available Unix-like OS. And after people had tried it, they didn't want to study commercial Unix (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and other monsters). These OS looked unfamiliar and strange. RedHat appeared as mass spread desktop Linux. Ubuntu is the most wide spread desktop Linux - and now it goes to server market. I heard a lot some wishes for Oracle to officially support Ubuntu Server... And do you really say that Oracle will close OpenSolaris project? It is the most stupid step they can do. The popularity of OS is determined not only by its quality, but even more (do you remember Win 98 servers in SMB area ?) by its community -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Gary Bainbridge wrote: If I wanted to run a GNU/Linux distribution I would, but apparently the decision is being made for those who like Solaris, to be made to run another Linux-type server. As it has been said /repeatedly/ here, OpenSolaris is NOT a GNU OS clone - go over to Nexenta and take a good long look at the (rather severe) differences between it and OpenSolaris. Yes, there have been some features from the Linux world that have been adopted in OpenSolaris, but the old ways remain. And, progress moves on. I'm actually happy with abandoning SVR4 packaging, even though IPS needs some work. Dumping CDE has been a long-time coming. And, people have been bitching for YEARS about Solaris not having "standard" GNU tools available as part of the OS. Seriously, how long (how many years) and how much money is it going to take to make OpenSolaris a replacement for Solaris 10? Is Oracle going to spend that much money? Oh, how people [conveniently] forget OpenSolaris has been available for just over 2 years now. That's it. SXDE a little longer. So, in the grand scheme of things where a typical release has been on the order of 3-5 years total, we're about half-way. How many years between S8 and S9? Also, not to forget, that a fair number of the "interesting" features from OpenSolaris have been back-ported to Solaris 10, so it's not like there's been an enormous stagnation even in the current "enterprise" release of Solaris. How many other UNIX/Linux OSes do what Sun has been doing to S10? Oh, NONE, that's right. To make a desktop OS work as a data center OS is not remotely the best engineering practice. Could you run Solaris 8 on a desktop? Sure. But why? It wasn't practical. Could you use Windows 95 as a server? Probably many did. But why? That wasn't its intended use. That's a horrible argument. The foundations of OpenSolaris and SXDE are identical. Essentially, you're arguing that Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server couldn't possibly have come from the same codebase, and the effort to produce one from the other is doomed to failure. Now the OS is going to be retrofitted to make it an enterprise server? With Solaris you can choose what you want to install. Not so with OpenSolaris. You get what you're told. Oh, please. Go read Shawn's reply to this thread. I'm probably old school, however, the barrier to adoption is probably right, but with those installers like RHEL and SuSE have, everything is going web-based and you need Java installed to open a console. Give me a Putty session and connect me via ALOM and I'm ready to go with my Jumpstart server! 'boot net - install' and off and running. Interactive installers are almost inevitably going to be a GUI of some kind, given that the overriding desire when using a interactive installer is Flexibility. As the cost of maintaining 2 different interactive installers is non-trivial, it's a valid assumption that those normally interested in a text installer would be equally well served by some form of automated install (AI/Jumpstart/et al). After all, text installers are heavily (if not exclusively) used by Enterprise folks, and it's a valid assumption that an enterprise will have automated install servers set up.AI still definitely need some work, so I'm not going to stand here and claim OpenSolaris has a ready-for-prime-time text/enterprise install solution, but it's certainly on the radar and under active development. AI will provide the exact same experience of "boot net - install" you crave. In fact, it kinda (though not completely) already does. - I've always viewed the EOL of the SXDE stuff as the point-in-time where development for OpenSolaris/Solaris Next takes a turn from focusing on "early-adopter" focus (i.e. features which try to bring in new users), and moves towards stabilizing existing features and fixing enterprise-service functionality holes. Honestly, I'd assume there are about 2 years more work to go into OpenSolaris before Solaris Next emerges. Not that I have any extra-sensory powers here (or inside info). Also, people, please don't forget that Solaris Next != OpenSolaris. I like to think of the relationship as with Ubuntu's Desktop and Server flavors - built on the same foundation, but with different customizations, depending on their target audience. With the ending of SXDE, the dev tree for Solaris Next and OpenSolaris is currently the same, but at some point in the not-so-distant-future, they'll re-fork again. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Mike knows all of this I believe, so this is mainly for others: On 01/28/10 11:11 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote: In my mind the key things that seem to be missing for it to be able to take the baton from Solaris 10 are: ... - The ability to host all of the media required on my own install servers Planned; non-technical issues have made this difficult. It was provided for the 2009.06 release. - The ability to install software from a file Missed 2010.03; already in progress for the next. - Speed improvements for pkg command, particularly on CMT There have been significant performance improvements to the point where many operations can take less than a second (or 500ms even) now on x86 systems. However, significant optimisation work remains for SPARC/CMT. - Package signing to ensure integrity of bits delivered. Tentatively scheduled for the next release. - Refactor package names Coming in the next build or so I believe. Some of this has already been done. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
I just had to play some more whack-a-mole and kill yet another one of these unnecessary services: # svcadm disable avahi-bridge-dsd:default and what does: svc:/application/desktop-cache/mime-types-cache:default do? And why is it running right now on my minimalized headless server that has X-windows disabled? There should be an official minimal OpenSolaris Indiana distribution so that we aren't forced to use Milax or Nexenta Core to get that high performance, streamlined and minimalized headless server OS that many of us are looking for. Right now JeOS OpenSolaris only seems to work for VM images. A live CD distro that boots to a text prompt might with a static IP address might be nice to play around with in a lot of instances... >Yes, but I just had to do the following two commands on an OpenSolaris Indiana >>snv_129 server that a client was evaluating: >#svcadm disable multicast:default >#svcadm disable cups/scheduler:default >so cups and multicast dns were running in the default install, which is fine >and dandy >on a desktop, such as the OpenSolaris desktop I do work on, but I >was going to >benchmark this server for a client to show them what OpenSolaris >can (or can't) do >as a minimalized headless server and I'm trying to squeeze >out every last bit of >performance here. >It's not going to be a print server so there's no need for cups ;-) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
SMF is already filled up with so much stuff that at a certain point, it starts to become overwhelming from a sysadmin persective just to parse through the output of svcs -a and now the goal is to add even more stuff to it by getting rid of scripting during package installation and offloading all of that stuff to SMF as well! Jeepers creepers this is going to be tough to admin! SysV packages had shell scripts in them, or at least I think they did, but then again I'm no UNIX expert. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Shawn Walker wrote: On 01/28/10 10:50 PM, Anon Y Mous wrote: With the OpenSolaris distribution, you install a relatively small core (that is supported), and then you add pieces to that. U, OpenSolaris might be an improvement over Solaris 10 in some ways (i.e. pkg image-update being better than live upgrade) but any OS that forces you to install a full on GNOME desktop (whether you want it or not) is certainly not a "relatively small core". If you want so see what a "small core" looks like, I recommend that you try installing FreeBSD or OpenBSD some time. FreeBSD is starting to look particularly interesting because it has a lot of the same great features that OpenSolaris does, but it gives you a much smaller minimal installation footprint (just SSH and a command line and man pages and a ports tree and nothing else) which makes FreeBSD look good for people who develop embedded devices while OpenSolaris looks bad (i.e. you don't want a full on GNOME desktop running in an embedded server appliance). Everyone's definition of a minimal OS is different since their definition reflects their own needs. For example, for a desktop user, their core OS includes GNOME, etc. Shawn hits the problem right on the head. Minimal installs for me wouldn't include man pages, but X server apps. With the old Solaris method of packaging, the only pretty much usable install was everything. SUNWxallNow, with IPS, we at least have given everyone the option to create their own, well-understood install image, customized according to YOUR needs. More importantly, custom installs from a LiveCD (or, frankly, any interactive media) aren't a valid Enterprise method of handling things. Automated installs are the way to go, and efforts to allow for distro customization belong there, not in a interactive installer, which it intended (by definition) as a 1-off. Supporting N different "install flavors" for 1-offs is foolhardy, as we're always going to be making someone unhappy. The current LiveCD is a reasonable compromise for a single image for 1-offs, and AI and related technologies are available for wide customization. There's still some work to be done on AI, and we indeed should think about maybe tweeking the LiveCD, but efforts to support customization in the LiveCD install are (IMHO) misplaced. Frankly, the only thing I'd like the LiveCD to support in terms of customization is to have the ability of the LiveCD installer to point to an AI server, and have the AI server provide the install profile & software. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Shawn Walker wrote: >> - Refactor package names > > Coming in the next build or so I believe. Some of this has already been > done. Package renaming missed 132 and is trying for 133, but refactoring package contents won't be until after 2010.03. (Fortunately, it will be easier to do that once the consolidations are building IPS only - we won't have to worry about keeping in sync with the old SVR4 rules like separate root vs. usr or the old SVR4 cluster boundaries like "no docs in end user cluster".) -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Anon Y Mous wrote: SMF is already filled up with so much stuff that at a certain point, it starts to become overwhelming from a sysadmin persective just to parse through the output of svcs -a and now the goal is to add even more stuff to it by getting rid of scripting during package installation and offloading all of that stuff to SMF as well! Jeepers creepers this is going to be tough to admin! SysV packages had shell scripts in them, or at least I think they did, but then again I'm no UNIX expert. That's a valid complaint, and I don't think the answer is set in stone yet - that is, theres still room for ideas as to where to implement such functionality. SVR4 packages did indeed allow (arbitrary) shells scripts, both pre- and post-install (and pre- and post-remove). This is a useful function, and discussions on it and related topics belong over ininstall-disc...@opensolaris.org -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> It appears that this site was left behind on sun's > servers and was not added to oracle.com like the rest > of sun's products. I hope it's not a bad sign. Just think a second why it has always been opensolaris.org and not sun.com/opensolaris ... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 01/28/10 09:07 PM, Jason King wrote: >> >> I seem to recall the whole point of the project Indiana (now >> OpenSolaris the distribution) versus SXCE was to have a desktop >> oriented distribution (with the idea of trying to entice developers >> from other *nix variants). Hence the prioritization of the graphical >> installer before a text-based one (thus x86 before sparc), interactive >> installations before automated ones, nwam being the default, bash >> being the default shell, GNU utilities being the default, etc. If >> someone wants to argue those are appropriate for a server setting >> instead of a desktop, I'd like to know the name of their pharmacist =] > > Given that almost all of the bits of functionality you mentioned above are > often found in GNU/Linux server distributions too, I don't see the issue. > Yes, some of the bits were prioritised before others, but I've used (and > installed) numerous GNU/Linux distributions in the past that used graphical > installers, automated network configuration, GNU utilities, and bash as the > default shell :) The pieces prioritized were those most geared for the desktop -- as I said (but perhaps wasn't clear) I don't think that's necessarily wrong (I won't rehash the implications of a GNU userland in the context of Solaris, that's been beaten to death, and will hopefully become a moot point between the stuff I and Roland have been doing is complete), but it does mean that currently the lack of usability at the server level is a valid criticism (for now, I'm hopeful it will not continue to be one). My point was that to pretend that's not the case (even if the eventual goal is to make sure it's equally suitable for both desktop and the enterprise) when all the historical evidence suggests otherwise just looks bad. The desktop was prioritized first, but now more work is being done to make it more suitable for the enterprise (and I do actually see that btw). No matter what the choice is, in the world of finite resources, someone's going to be disappointed, so I don't know that any particular order is necessarily 'better'. It just is what is it is, but don't pretend it's not -- that's all I'm suggesting. > Somehow, I don't think those are issues that are a large barrier to > adoption. And yes, I remember installing operating systems from *tape* and > floppy disk...you want to talk about barriers! But there still are barriers (at the moment) for adoption in the enterprise. No I don't think they're insurmountable, nor that the won't get addressed (I do actually read pkg-discuss, so I do see the work that's going on, and see that it's being worked on), but the barriers are there for the moment. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> > To make a desktop OS work as a data center OS is > not > > remotely the best engineering practice. Could you > > run Solaris 8 on a desktop? Sure. But why? It > > wasn't practical. Could you use Windows 95 as a > > server? Probably many did. But why? That wasn't > > its intended use. > And where is that Solaris now? The most widespread > server enterprise OS are Windows Server 2003/2008 and > different Linux distributions. > It's the worst policy: "we are cool server OS for > REALLY BIG SPARC SERVERS". It made Solaris 10... not > very popular. How many good Solaris admins can you > find? How much do they want to earn? And every > student can manage Windows 2003 after some months of > training. It is like Win XP. (Yes, it may have in > some type different architecture, it's not easy to > administrate it correctly (as every other OS), but it > looks familiar and simple). > Linux was the most available Unix-like OS. And after > people had tried it, they didn't want to study > commercial Unix (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and other > monsters). These OS looked unfamiliar and strange. > RedHat appeared as mass spread desktop Linux. Ubuntu > is the most wide spread desktop Linux - and now it > goes to server market. I heard a lot some wishes for > Oracle to officially support Ubuntu Server... > And do you really say that Oracle will close > OpenSolaris project? It is the most stupid step they > can do. The popularity of OS is determined not only > by its quality, but even more (do you remember Win 98 > servers in SMB area ?) by its community Nice rant. There may even be some truth to it. The big iron only approach does tend to shut out newcomers. A few points though: * I don't think Ubuntu is the top desktop Unix-like OS, that would probably be Mac OS X. (in terms of actual desktops in use, not necessarily downloads, since a lot of downloads are just people playing around, e.g. I've got a VirtualBox VM with Ubuntu Studio in it, but I hardly ever _use_ it; and Mac OS X isn't (legitimately) available for download anyway). * if I'm dealing with lots of servers (small or large), I want automated installs and serial (or better, network access via an RSC or ALOM) console access. Non-graphical, no click-monkeys allowed. Probably the server won't need _any_ of X11 installed, although sometimes it might. _Obviously_ I don't want just a character console for my desktop, but desktops aren't really running much more than browsers and word processors, and occasionally website prototypes or the like. Now with some sort of distributed scheduler, unused desktop cycles might be doing more than that, but those things would require uniform (automated) installs, and probably OpenMPI (which a non-developer desktop not sharing cycles probably wouldn't need). So not only big servers, but even many little desktops, mean that enterprise features can't be neglected for the sake of eye candy. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> > Just think a second why it has always been > opensolaris.org and not sun.com/opensolaris ... now, i get it, only what was under sun.com was added. I thought once the sale was finale also SUN's opensource projects were going to to be added to oracle.com. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> SMF is already filled up with so much stuff that at a > certain point, it starts to become overwhelming from > a sysadmin persective just to parse through the > output of svcs -a and now the goal is to add even > more stuff to it by getting rid of scripting during > package installation and offloading all of that stuff > to SMF as well! Jeepers creepers this is going to be > tough to admin! > > SysV packages had shell scripts in them, or at least > I think they did, but then again I'm no UNIX expert. this may help http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-1985/hbrunlevels-25516?a=view -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
>> SMF is already filled up with so much stuff that at a >> certain point, it starts to become overwhelming from >> a sysadmin persective just to parse through the >> output of svcs -a and now the goal is to add even >> more stuff to it by getting rid of scripting during >> package installation and offloading all of that stuff >> to SMF as well! Jeepers creepers this is going to be >> tough to admin! >> >> SysV packages had shell scripts in them, or at least >> I think they did, but then again I'm no UNIX expert. > > this may help >http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-1985/hbrunlevels-25516?a=view For some reason, "package scripts" were apparently "very bad". Unfortunately, it seems that the cure is worse. There are two parts which I really detest: - all the additional scripts are run at boot; they do take time and much more than you realize because they are all run with a cold cache (i.e., all the files needed needed to be found and loaded; a few of the "startup-scripts-only-needed-after-a-package was-update" run find. - "svcs" is now nearly useless: you can't see the forest for the trees I think this clearly needs some architecture applied to it. There are some issues with IPS also; it takes a lot of memory (500 to 1500MBs) and it's a lot slower than SVr4 package install. (On an Ultra 40 with 5GB, it takes about 80 minutes to install "redistributable" from a local package server. That's more time needed to install SXCE and the latter installs more software [25 minutes]. (Yes, I do use "redistributable" having to continuously add extra packages cost more of my time than the local bandwidth: I believe this is a fair comparison; both were installed from a local server over a 100Mbit net and install a similar amount of software) While "memory is cheap" it makes IPS not scale to multiple concurrent zones and makes it impossible to fit on small memory systems (2GB seems to be the minimal if you want to install redistributable) Clearly, serious work needs to be done and I suppose it is good that everyone in the Solaris engineering community is now forced to use IPS. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
So show me win 2003/2008 for sparc... On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Alexander wrote: > > To make a desktop OS work as a data center OS is not > > remotely the best engineering practice. Could you > > run Solaris 8 on a desktop? Sure. But why? It > > wasn't practical. Could you use Windows 95 as a > > server? Probably many did. But why? That wasn't > > its intended use. > And where is that Solaris now? The most widespread server enterprise OS are > Windows Server 2003/2008 and different Linux distributions. > It's the worst policy: "we are cool server OS for REALLY BIG SPARC > SERVERS". It made Solaris 10... not very popular. How many good Solaris > admins can you find? How much do they want to earn? And every student can > manage Windows 2003 after some months of training. It is like Win XP. (Yes, > it may have in some type different architecture, it's not easy to > administrate it correctly (as every other OS), but it looks familiar and > simple). > Linux was the most available Unix-like OS. And after people had tried it, > they didn't want to study commercial Unix (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and other > monsters). These OS looked unfamiliar and strange. > RedHat appeared as mass spread desktop Linux. Ubuntu is the most wide > spread desktop Linux - and now it goes to server market. I heard a lot some > wishes for Oracle to officially support Ubuntu Server... > And do you really say that Oracle will close OpenSolaris project? It is the > most stupid step they can do. The popularity of OS is determined not only by > its quality, but even more (do you remember Win 98 servers in SMB area ?) by > its community > -- > 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] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> So show me win 2003/2008 for sparc... I think there is a version of Windows Server 2003 for those big HP-UX Itanium boxes: http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64bit/itanium/overview.mspx I think it's called "Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition" and Microsoft claims that it scales to 512 processors and 1,000 terrabytes of RAM or some B.S.? I heard that it's probably the second most expensive server operating system out there after maybe IBM's Mainframe stuff (i.e. z/OS and friends) which I think we can all agree is the most expensive platform to run a server on but HP-UX and Windows Server 2003 Datacenter for Itanium are way up there in terms of cost. Microsoft does not even publicly post the price for Windows Server 2003 Itanium, because if you have to ask how much it costs... you can't afford it. I personally can't see why anyone would use Windoze for anything else besides playing video games and collecting viruses anyway. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
john g4lt wrote: So show me win 2003/2008 for sparc... So show me SPARC :) It's another difficult question - the price and popularity (i.e. its absence) of this hardware, which caused Sun fault. IBM (or even Sun) x64 blade costs about 3.000$. And Sun SPARC blade costs 10.000$. They are comparable (and Intel/AMD blade nowadays may be faster). So how should I explain our manager, that SPARC hardware is so good? Is it really 3 times better? -- Best regards, Alexander Pyhalov, system administrator of Computer Center of South Federal University ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Honestly, you shouldn't. If the advantages of a given system aren't screamingly obvious, you're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. However, the fact that you'll never see a windows version for sparc is an extremely good plus in my book. Windows is for games, and if you can play games on it, it shouldn't be in the datacenter. Explain to your manager that he can have his nice game systems, and when he wants to grow up and do real computing, hope to god that someone out there has kept the last strictly Serious Computing platform alive and well. On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Alexander Pyhalov wrote: > john g4lt wrote: > >> So show me win 2003/2008 for sparc... >> > > So show me SPARC :) It's another difficult question - the price and > popularity (i.e. its absence) of this hardware, which caused Sun fault. > IBM (or even Sun) x64 blade costs about 3.000$. And Sun SPARC blade costs > 10.000$. They are comparable (and Intel/AMD blade nowadays may be faster). > So how should I explain our manager, that SPARC hardware is so good? Is it > really 3 times better? > > -- > Best regards, > Alexander Pyhalov, > system administrator of Computer Center of South Federal University > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Alexander Pyhalov wrote: john g4lt wrote: So show me win 2003/2008 for sparc... So show me SPARC :) It's another difficult question - the price and popularity (i.e. its absence) of this hardware, which caused Sun fault. IBM (or even Sun) x64 blade costs about 3.000$. And Sun SPARC blade costs 10.000$. They are comparable (and Intel/AMD blade nowadays may be faster). So how should I explain our manager, that SPARC hardware is so good? Is it really 3 times better? Not to be a pain, but nowdays, AMD/Intel x64 processors and SPARC hardware have different targets, and thus, different featuresets, and aren't really apples-to-apples comparisons. The various Niagara (and followon) processors kick the living crap out of even super-new Westmere/Nehalem or Istanbul CPUs in certain areas (compute/W, simultaneous threads, etc.), while not even the high-end Fijitsu SPARC64 chips can compete against AMD/Intel on limited-thread (e.g. single or dual-thread) apps.Overall system design is also critically important when determining performance for various workloads. As usual, the answer is more complex. To reply to your question: YES, in some cases, paying 3x for a SPARC is more than worth it. In other cases, you'd be an idiot to pay even equal amounts for a SPARC vs. x64. Take a look at AMD's new offerings coming this year - they're looking at splitting their targets up, going with higher thread count/lower frequency for some areas (Magny Cours) and low thread count/high frequency (Sao Paulo). It's all about market segmentation. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> I personally can't see why anyone would use Windoze > for anything else besides playing video games and > collecting viruses anyway. 1) AD Sever - there is no alternatives, samba 4 is regrettably in permanent alpha state... 2) You can use IIS or Apache, Windows DHCP Server, Terminal and file Server. They are quite functional and easy to start with. A SMB server may be constructed in one day by not very skilled and cheap staff. 3) Our several windows servers (VMWare server, Oracle 10 Server (old legacy staff :(. In fact we don't need it, but some old applications are not easy to rewrite) + several others) have never caught any viruses. (However, we would be happy to change them with FreeBSD or something more adequate, but it is quite hard and in AD case impossible:)). -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
IIS with Solaris boxes in the same subnet is Bad. ever hear of the sadmind worm? it infected via a IIS host and ran the sadmind exploit on all Solaris boxes in its subnet On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Alexander wrote: > > I personally can't see why anyone would use Windoze > > for anything else besides playing video games and > > collecting viruses anyway. > 1) AD Sever - there is no alternatives, samba 4 is regrettably in permanent > alpha state... > 2) You can use IIS or Apache, Windows DHCP Server, Terminal and file > Server. They are quite functional and easy to start with. A SMB server may > be constructed in one day by not very skilled and cheap staff. > 3) Our several windows servers (VMWare server, Oracle 10 Server (old legacy > staff :(. In fact we don't need it, but some old applications are not easy > to rewrite) + several others) have never caught any viruses. (However, we > would be happy to change them with FreeBSD or something more adequate, but > it is quite hard and in AD case impossible:)). > -- > 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] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> IIS with Solaris boxes in the same subnet is Bad. > ever hear of the sadmind worm? it infected via a IIS > host and ran the sadmind exploit on all Solaris boxes Cool. I always suspected that running IIS is bad. But I haven't expected that Solaris is also so vulnerable... It's good that we don't have a lot of Windows or Solaris servers... :) But seriously speaking every system may have vulnerabilities. There are no ideal software. There are no software without bugs. But bugs and some features of several systems I expect (because I work with this systems regularly, e.g. I have several dozens of FreeBSD servers). And other systems are much more mysterious for me (such as Win2008). If I worked with Windows (or any other OS) regularly I think it would be more secure for me to run it, and not other OS. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Running exploitable code with a wide-open listener is bad, so if you don't want chained attacks from one exploitable service to the other, you're going to need a better protection baseline than subnet segregation (which shouldn't be mistaken for a form of security domain, certainly not if you're running on the same switch domain without at least a packet filter, preferably stateful, between domains), to deal with older attack patterns. Better yet would be to disable or patch exploitable services or limit accessibility of the service via firewalling and secured port forwarding (e.g. ssh for protection against address spoofing and session hijacking). Am 29 Jan 2010 um 14:33 schrieb john g4lt: IIS with Solaris boxes in the same subnet is Bad. ever hear of the sadmind worm? it infected via a IIS host and ran the sadmind exploit on all Solaris boxes in its subnet ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Your best protection is knowledge of how things broke in the past to prevent future occurences, not in whiz-bang hardware On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Bayard Bell < buffer.g.overf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Running exploitable code with a wide-open listener is bad, so if you don't > want chained attacks from one exploitable service to the other, you're going > to need a better protection baseline than subnet segregation (which > shouldn't be mistaken for a form of security domain, certainly not if you're > running on the same switch domain without at least a packet filter, > preferably stateful, between domains), to deal with older attack patterns. > Better yet would be to disable or patch exploitable services or limit > accessibility of the service via firewalling and secured port forwarding > (e.g. ssh for protection against address spoofing and session hijacking). > > Am 29 Jan 2010 um 14:33 schrieb john g4lt: > > > IIS with Solaris boxes in the same subnet is Bad. ever hear of the >> sadmind worm? it infected via a IIS host and ran the sadmind exploit on all >> Solaris boxes in its subnet >> > > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On 01/29/10 04:14 AM, casper@sun.com wrote: There are some issues with IPS also; it takes a lot of memory (500 to 1500MBs) and it's a lot slower than SVr4 package install. As an in-development project, memory usage greatly fluctuates. Until recently, a install of redistributable took a lot less memory than that. The project is aware of this particular issue that recently recurred however, and is actively researching ways to further reduce memory footprint. (On an Ultra 40 with 5GB, it takes about 80 minutes to install "redistributable" from a local package server. That's more time needed to install SXCE and the latter installs more software [25 minutes]. (Yes, I do use "redistributable" having to continuously add extra packages cost more of my time than the local bandwidth: I believe this is a fair comparison; both were installed from a local server over a 100Mbit net and install a similar amount of software) The redistributable case is currently the "worst-case scenario". Significant performance work has been done and continues. While installs are not yet as fast as we'd like, image-updates are significantly faster than live upgrade which is something to keep in mind. While "memory is cheap" it makes IPS not scale to multiple concurrent zones and makes it impossible to fit on small memory systems (2GB seems to be the minimal if you want to install redistributable) The current memory usage footprint is definitely not the ultimate target, and as recently as a few days ago, further reductions have already been made. The pkg(5) project appreciates and encourages any constructive feedback either through pkg-discuss or via defect.opensolaris.org under 'development -> pkg'. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
What happens to JavaFX? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote: > What happens to JavaFX? Well, they talked about that. See, for example, a summary here: http://learnjavafx.typepad.com/weblog/2010/01/oracle-we-will-invest-heavily-in-javafx.html -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Why didn't Sun use the engineering path of FreeBSD and OpenBSD, namely the -release, -stable, -current branches instead of doing the OpenSolaris thing to pry it into the next Solaris 10 successor? For example, FreeBSD had the framework for virtual networking in the 7.2 release and it is available in 8.0, although it isn't ready for production, but should be in 8.1. Why couldn't Crossbow had been put in Solaris -current and then it makes its way into Solaris -release? When ready for production release it becomes Solaris 11. OpenSolaris is more like OpenBSD forking from NetBSD. OpenBSD is NOT NetBSD and vice versa. OpenSolaris may be a fork of Solaris, but it IS a different operating system. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> What happens to JavaFX? Larry Ellison rarely, if ever, commented on any specific product of the companies that he acquired. JavaFX is probably the only exception. The words he used were that he encouraged OpenOffice.org developers to "write OpenOffice.org libraries in JavaFX". Many commentators (including at least a couple of bloggers from the old Sun) interpreted his words as that the good ol' Larry wanting to rewrite OOo in JavaFX and immediately laughed at that thought. As a card carrying member of Chairman Larry's fan club, I really think his words meant something more focused and much simpler. Microsoft generated $20 billion in profit in 2008 from selling and servicing Microsoft Office. This a very significant numbe--considering Microsoft "only" made $22 billion profit for the whole year. In comparison, the old Sun probably took home no more than $20 dollars from OpenOffice (which includes StarOffice). Again, this comparison is very significant, considering that OpenOffice is the ONLY alternative to Microsoft Office. Strictly based on technical considerations, the main reason that OOo is not (or cannot be) used by corporations, from my own experience, is that the macro language in OOo (StarBasic) is no where near that of VirtualBasic. As heavy office suite users, we NEVER generate any document from scratch, but always start with a template or running a macro. The capabilities of OOo are, at least AFAIC, not much different from those of Microsoft Office. But the inferiority of StarBasic compared to VB is what stopped OOo from being considered by corporations (and from generating any profit). Thus, if the OOo developers could make JavaFX an easy-to-program macro language for OOo, allowing OOo to easily invoke the power of Java, the table, vis-a-vis Microsoft Office, could begin to turn (& the pony hair might still be able to keep his job). I believe this is what Ellison meant, but I seem to be the only crazy idiot with this thought. Chairman Larry also mentioned netbooks (I knew the netbooks are doing very well, but never in my wildest contemplation that its sales could reach $ 11.6B in only its second full year). Ellison never mentioned any specific OS, except only stated that Android may not be the right OS for netbooks. Well, if (and a very big IF) OpenSolaris can be made to be (much) lighter and boot (much) faster (e.g., making OpenSolaris primarily as a front end to run IPS and JavaFX, and run OOo cloud), this thought may not be as stupid as it seems. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Why didn't *BSD use the OpenSolaris versioning system, that is, naming releases after states? Its certainly more logical than aribitrary numbering systems, especially after the "towns" that the original Berkeley authors used. On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Gary wrote: > Why didn't Sun use the engineering path of FreeBSD and OpenBSD, namely the > -release, -stable, -current branches instead of doing the OpenSolaris thing > to pry it into the next Solaris 10 successor? > > For example, FreeBSD had the framework for virtual networking in the 7.2 > release and it is available in 8.0, although it isn't ready for production, > but should be in 8.1. > > Why couldn't Crossbow had been put in Solaris -current and then it makes > its way into Solaris -release? When ready for production release it becomes > Solaris 11. > > OpenSolaris is more like OpenBSD forking from NetBSD. OpenBSD is NOT > NetBSD and vice versa. OpenSolaris may be a fork of Solaris, but it IS a > different operating system. > -- > 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] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Gary wrote: Why didn't Sun use the engineering path of FreeBSD and OpenBSD, namely the -release, -stable, -current branches instead of doing the OpenSolaris thing to pry it into the next Solaris 10 successor? For example, FreeBSD had the framework for virtual networking in the 7.2 release and it is available in 8.0, although it isn't ready for production, but should be in 8.1. Why couldn't Crossbow had been put in Solaris -current and then it makes its way into Solaris -release? When ready for production release it becomes Solaris 11. OpenSolaris is more like OpenBSD forking from NetBSD. OpenBSD is NOT NetBSD and vice versa. OpenSolaris may be a fork of Solaris, but it IS a different operating system. /ALL/ operating systems are different across releases - that is, it's entirely valid to say that OpenSolaris is a significantly different operating system than Solaris 10, but again, the same can be said for FreeBSD 8 vs FreeBSD 9. It's very subjective (and artificial) where the line is drawn as to what constitutes "different OS", especially between those OSes which share a common codebase ancestor. Here's how you look at it (the analogy isn't perfect, but roughly equivalent): FreeBSD -release is the same as the latest Solaris 10 Update N (where N is the latest published one) FreeBSD -stable is the same as what is going into Solaris 10 Update N+1 FreeBSD -current is the OpenSolaris development tree FreeBSD -snapshots is equivalent to named releases of OpenSolaris (e.g. OpenSolaris 2009.06) In all cases, both in *Solaris and *BSD, it requires (often nontrivial) effort for code to be ported from one branch to another. You can't just magically merge the code between the branches (for either OS). Many features from OpenSolaris have been backported to Solaris 10, and made available in the next Update release. ZFS and Dtrace are prominent examples. However, Crossbow is currently not slated to be one of these projects backported, as the cost to do so has not been show to be worth it (it's a huge change to the existing codebase, and it was deemed too risky & costly to try to backport). Even in FreeBSD, you will note that there is a considerable amount of stuff in both -stable and -current that never makes it to the same -release branch (i.e. it waits until there is a whole new release, e.g. 9.0 in this case) Neither development model is better than the other, they're just different, and there is no use wishing they were the same (they're different for historical reasons, and changing brings no real benefit for the costs involved). -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On 30 Jan 2010, at 03:19, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: > Thus, if the OOo developers could make JavaFX an easy-to-program macro > language for OOo, allowing OOo to easily invoke the power of Java, the table, > vis-a-vis Microsoft Office, could begin to turn (& the pony hair might still > be able to keep his job). I believe this is what Ellison meant, but I seem > to be the only crazy idiot with this thought. Edward Screven also talked about "Oracle Cloud Office", which sounds like something along the lines of Google Docs, but based on OpenOffice.org. So perhaps he was thinking along the lines of a web-based GUI for that, written in JavaFX. Right now, we just don't know (or at least, I certainly don't). Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Interaction Designer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:calum.ben...@sun.comOpenSolaris Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Michael Kerpan wrote: > Given that Oracle's acquisition of Sun is now all, for all practical > purposes, a done deal, does anybody know what's going to happen to > OpenSolaris? Watch the webcasts, and try to guess the same way the rest of us have to. > Oracle is not exactly known as being friendly to open > source software and given that the SPARC+Solaris+Oracle stack is > likely to be at the core of Oracle's business model, I'm worried that > OpenSolaris is going to go away. Depends what you mean by OpenSolaris. Community? Website? Sun's distro? Code base? User groups? Brand? > This seems especially likely given > that Oracle PR folks didn't even mention OpenSolaris when they > discussed the future of various Sun FOSS projects earlier today. It's worrying, but they did spend a lot of time talking about Solaris. Given Sun's executive ability to interchange the words and inability to correctly differentiate, I would be surprised if Oracle suddenly got the Solaris/OpenSolaris distinction from day one. > I've > never really used it in a serious context, but I have experimented > with it and would be quite saddened if Oracle were to kill it off! Given the emphasis on investing in and developing Solaris, and the fact that OpenSolaris is the development mechanism for Solaris, then killing OpenSolaris seems an unlikely course of action. That said, I don't expect business as usual. I would imagine that Oracle have a different philosophy and different goals, and that the shape of OpenSolaris and the community around it will change and adapt to fit that world. So what I want to know is what shape will the overall OpenSolaris family take in this new world? (And no, the OGB aren't privy to any secrets here.) -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Gary Bainbridge wrote: Seriously, how long (how many years) and how much money is it going to take to make OpenSolaris a replacement for Solaris 10? Is Oracle going to spend that much money? For some applications, it already is, Open Storage anyone? To make a desktop OS work as a data center OS is not remotely the best engineering practice. Could you run Solaris 8 on a desktop? Sure. But why? It wasn't practical. Could you use Windows 95 as a server? Probably many did. But why? That wasn't its intended use. Um, how much profit did microsoft make last quarter? Now the OS is going to be retrofitted to make it an enterprise server? With Solaris you can choose what you want to install. Not so with OpenSolaris. You get what you're told. I think you are missing the fact that the desktop stuff is just a shell over the bits that make an enterprise OS. If you compare the *new* features (latest and greatest Gnome is not a new feature) in OpenSolaris they are heavily server focused. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Gary wrote: > Why didn't Sun use the engineering path of FreeBSD and OpenBSD, namely the > -release, -stable, -current branches instead of doing the OpenSolaris thing > to pry it into the next Solaris 10 successor? > As long as the motto "Every enginering release is a stable release" was valid, there was no problem with Solaris. We need to come back to this state again. If Oracle hires some new developers (or better: re-hires old ones ;-), this seems to be possible after some time needed for recovering. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Michael Kerpan > wrote: > > Given that Oracle's acquisition of Sun is now all, > for all practical > > purposes, a done deal, does anybody know what's > going to happen to > > OpenSolaris? > > Watch the webcasts, and try to guess the same way the > rest of us have to. > > > Oracle is not exactly known as being friendly to > open > > source software and given that the > SPARC+Solaris+Oracle stack is > > likely to be at the core of Oracle's business > model, I'm worried that > > OpenSolaris is going to go away. > > Depends what you mean by OpenSolaris. Community? > Website? > Sun's distro? Code base? User groups? Brand? > > > This seems especially likely given > > that Oracle PR folks didn't even mention > OpenSolaris when they > > discussed the future of various Sun FOSS projects > earlier today. > > It's worrying, but they did spend a lot of time > talking about Solaris. > Given Sun's executive ability to interchange the > words and inability > to correctly differentiate, I would be surprised if > Oracle suddenly got > the Solaris/OpenSolaris distinction from day one. > > > I've > > never really used it in a serious context, but I > have experimented > > with it and would be quite saddened if Oracle were > to kill it off! > > Given the emphasis on investing in and developing > Solaris, and the fact > that OpenSolaris is the development mechanism for > Solaris, then killing > OpenSolaris seems an unlikely course of action. > > That said, I don't expect business as usual. I would > imagine that Oracle > have a different philosophy and different goals, and > that the shape of > OpenSolaris and the community around it will change > and adapt to fit > that world. So what I want to know is what shape will > the overall > OpenSolaris family take in this new world? One clue could be that you can no longer buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions from Sun / Oracle. A quick call to our local Sun / Oracle sales team supports this. This effectively means that we no longer will be putting OpenSolaris in production. > (And no, the OGB aren't privy to any secrets here.) > > -- > -Peter Tribble > http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - > http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> One clue could be that you can no longer buy > OpenSolaris Support subscriptions > from Sun / Oracle. A quick call to our local Sun / > Oracle sales team supports this. > > This effectively means that we no longer will be > putting OpenSolaris in production. Indeed, the web page with OpenSolaris support subscription offers dissapeared and is replaced now with Solaris support page, we were planning to buy OpenSolaris support subscriptions because we already have some production systems running on X4540/OpenSolaris and our new shiny iSCSI/FC SAN is based on ZFS/COMSTAR, but now it's not clear how to proceed.. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Henrik, One clue could be that you can no longer buy OpenSolaris Support subscriptions from Sun / Oracle. A quick call to our local Sun / Oracle sales team supports this. Or doesn't support it ;-) This effectively means that we no longer will be putting OpenSolaris in production. Unless you run your Production systems on buy a preinstalled laptop/notebook such as at http://www.shopopensolaris.co.uk/suntoshiba/home.htm which comes with "1 year OpenSolaris Basic" operating system support. Linked from http://www.opensolaris.com/toshibanotebook/ Good luck support-hunting... Sean. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
> > Indeed, the web page with OpenSolaris support > subscription offers dissapeared and is replaced now > with Solaris support page, we were planning to buy > OpenSolaris support subscriptions because we already > have some production systems running on > X4540/OpenSolaris and our new shiny iSCSI/FC SAN is > based on ZFS/COMSTAR, but now it's not clear how to > proceed.. It appears Oracle is planning to follow a similar path like RedHat's. where Oracle will sale Solaris to businesses and leave Opensolaris to the community as development OS, where new open source software goes in first before it's added to Solaris, like RedHat is doing with Fedora. If this ends up being the case you might have to run Solaris if you want support from Oracle -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Meanwhile, Nexenta offers various support options for OpenSolaris-based NexentaStor: http://www.nexenta.com/support This is of course for storage appliances only. Edward Martinez wrote: Indeed, the web page with OpenSolaris support subscription offers dissapeared and is replaced now with Solaris support page, we were planning to buy OpenSolaris support subscriptions because we already have some production systems running on X4540/OpenSolaris and our new shiny iSCSI/FC SAN is based on ZFS/COMSTAR, but now it's not clear how to proceed.. It appears Oracle is planning to follow a similar path like RedHat's. where Oracle will sale Solaris to businesses and leave Opensolaris to the community as development OS, where new open source software goes in first before it's added to Solaris, like RedHat is doing with Fedora. If this ends up being the case you might have to run Solaris if you want support from Oracle ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Erast wrote: Meanwhile, Nexenta offers various support options for OpenSolaris-based NexentaStor: http://www.nexenta.com/support This is of course for storage appliances only. Naturally, the Sun Storage 7000-series stuff also runs a (modified) OpenSolaris version, and it's supported. Just not unbundle-able. -Erik -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
An article about OpenSolaris http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/18/opensolaris_under_oracle/ -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
I hope its all benign, but if not and Oracle closes OpenSolaris out of willful neglect then there's always FreeBSD or Ubuntu less all the nice features contained in OpenSolaris but they're very active, fully supported by the community, and evolving. It'll be Oracle's loss in the end, if they neglect OpenSolaris. It does seem odd that they're not responding to queries on OpenSolaris though given that some cut of said OS will be Solaris in the future. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
De Togni Giacomo wrote: > An article about OpenSolaris > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/18/opensolaris_under_oracle/ See also on Heise.de (from the day before yesterday): http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Oracle-irritiert-die-OpenSolaris-Entwickler-927385.html and yesterday in English: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/OpenSolaris-community-worried-by-Oracle-silence-933926.html Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Hi! As far as I'm concerned, if Oracle decides not to support OpenSolaris, or to use a Red Hat like policy having Solaris as the "commercialy supported" operating system, and OpenSolaris as the "developers" one, we will fall into something not as bad as mentioned in several mailing lists I'm reading. What's the problem? We will have a "Stallman like" support schema, where the customer will decide which support provider to contract, and then evaluate which has more knowledge. In the country I live, they are several GNU/Linux support providers, and they work a lot. Normally, when I talk with IT managers of big companies, and ask for the support provider, it's very often to receive "X local provider" for answer. Let's see this as a new opportunity to create, not to destroy. Best regards, HeCSa. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > De Togni Giacomo wrote: > > > An article about OpenSolaris > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/18/opensolaris_under_oracle/ > > See also on Heise.de (from the day before yesterday): > > > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Oracle-irritiert-die-OpenSolaris-Entwickler-927385.html > > and yesterday in English: > > > http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/OpenSolaris-community-worried-by-Oracle-silence-933926.html > > Jörg > > -- > > EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de(home) > Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin > j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) > joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: > http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > -- HeCSa ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
Hernan Saltiel wrote: > Hi! > As far as I'm concerned, if Oracle decides not to support OpenSolaris, > or to use a Red Hat like policy having Solaris as the "commercialy > supported" operating system, and OpenSolaris as the "developers" one, > we will fall into something not as bad as mentioned in several mailing > lists I'm reading. > What's the problem? We will have a "Stallman like" support schema, > where the customer will decide which support provider to contract, and > then evaluate which has more knowledge. > In the country I live, they are several GNU/Linux support providers, > and they work a lot. Normally, when I talk with IT managers of big > companies, and ask for the support provider, it's very often to > receive "X local provider" for answer. > Let's see this as a new opportunity to create, not to destroy. > Best regards, > > HeCSa. I think you are right and I very much like what you are saying. It could mean both opportunity for further wide spreading of Opensolaris with wider support and offers of Opensolaris on local levels. Sounds like win/win situation for all to me, for both Oracle and users. After this, there is definitely more room for OpenSolaris growing. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris?
I have to stress here some things. At the time when SUN supportedOpenSolaris there were room for other support providers as well.For example SUN had its OpenStorage line, while guys from Nexentamade their distribution with GNU added software especially dedicatedfor storage market. Only obstacle they had is that SUN had muchbetter distribution channels than start-up company like Nexenta,but they are succeeded and today going very well, too. To conclude, that business model is already "in charge". ORACLEprobably won't organize its product offer as SUN did where youwere able to buy commercial support for any OpenSolaris200{8.05, 8.11, 9.06}. From my point of view, of course thereare room for start-up companies to enter into that market, butobviously it is not so huge since ORACLE decided to give up. Personally, I'd be happy if they continue their bi-weekly buildrelease and normalize their stable release on each six months.Later wish is not as much important for me as first one, though. What has to be improved is porting of open source ecosystemto OpenSolaris. >From support of middleware depends its future. Uros > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:12:53 +0100 > From: minik...@gmail.com > To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] What's Going to Happen to OpenSolaris? > > Hernan Saltiel wrote: > > Hi! > > As far as I'm concerned, if Oracle decides not to support OpenSolaris, > > or to use a Red Hat like policy having Solaris as the "commercialy > > supported" operating system, and OpenSolaris as the "developers" one, > > we will fall into something not as bad as mentioned in several mailing > > lists I'm reading. > > What's the problem? We will have a "Stallman like" support schema, > > where the customer will decide which support provider to contract, and > > then evaluate which has more knowledge. > > In the country I live, they are several GNU/Linux support providers, > > and they work a lot. Normally, when I talk with IT managers of big > > companies, and ask for the support provider, it's very often to > > receive "X local provider" for answer. > > Let's see this as a new opportunity to create, not to destroy. > > Best regards, > > > > HeCSa. > I think you are right and I very much like what you are saying. > > It could mean both opportunity for further wide spreading of Opensolaris > with wider support and offers of Opensolaris on local levels. > Sounds like win/win situation for all to me, for both Oracle and users. > > After this, there is definitely more room for OpenSolaris growing. > > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org _ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org