Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/13/10 11:40 AM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote:

We will have a Solaris 11 binary distribution, called Solaris 11
Express, that will have a free developer RTU license, and an optional
support plan. Solaris 11 Express will debut by the end of this
calendar year, and we will issue updates to it, leading to the full
release of Solaris 11 in 2011.

All of Oracle's efforts on binary distributions of Solaris technology
will be focused on Solaris 11. We will not release any other binary
distributions, such as nightly or bi-weekly builds of Solaris
binaries, or an OpenSolaris 2010.05 or later distribution. We will
determine a simple, cost-effective means of getting enterprise users
of prior OpenSolaris binary releases to migrate to S11 Express.

We will have a Solaris 11 Platinum Customer Program, including direct
engineering involvement and feedback, for customers using our Solaris
11 technology. We will be asking all of you to participate in this
endeavor, bringing with us the benefit of previous Sun Platinum
programs, while utilizing the much larger megaphone that is available
to us now as a combined company.

We look forward to everyone's continued work on Solaris 11. Our goal
is simply to make it the best and most important release of Solaris
ever.

   


OK, so these statements look promising.  They finally stated no 
Opensolaris 2010.05 or later.  I like the fact they will try to have a 
migration path from Opensolaris to Solaris 11 Express.  Hopefully there 
will be at least monthly updates.




Also, if I read in between the lines here:


We will continue to grow a vibrant developer and system administrator
community for Solaris. Delivery of binary releases, delivery of APIs
in source or binary form, delivery of open source code, delivery of
technical documentation, and engineering of upstream contributions to
common industry technologies (such as Apache, Perl, OFED, and many,
many others) will be part of that activity. But we will also make
specific decisions about why and when we do those things, following
two core principles: (1) We can't do everything. The limiting factor
is our engineering bandwidth measured in people and time. So we have
to ensure our top priority is driving delivery of the #1 Enterprise
Operating System, Solaris 11, to grow our systems business; and (2) We
want the adoption of our technology and intellectual property to
accelerate our overall goals, yet not permit competitors to derive
business advantage (or FUD) from our innovations before we do.
   



They will continue to develop Desktop and Laptop but not as a priority.  
Good news indeed.



Now I need to see how people will be able to sign up the the Solaris 11 
Express releases.  Have to wait 4 months for an announcement.


Paul



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Xavier Beaudouin]

Hi

Friday 13th August 2010 is really a sad day for Open Source community... :(

Xavier
Le 13 août 2010 à 17:40, Alasdair Lumsden a écrit :

> Hi All,
> 
> This memo was circulated internally within Oracle (and subsequently
> leaked). Basically, the open source development model has now been
> axed and OpenSolaris is officially now dead. A very sad day indeed.
> 
> 
> Solaris Engineering,
> 
> Today we are announcing a set of decisions regarding the path to
> Solaris 11, and answering key pending questions on open source, open
> development, software and binary licenses, and how developers and
> early adopters will be able to use Solaris 11 technology before its
> release in 2011.
> 
> As you all know, the term “OpenSolaris” has been used colloquially to
> refer to any or all of a collection of source code, a development
> model, a web site, a logo, a binary release, a source license, a
> community, and many other related things. So it’s taken a while to go
> over each issue from an organizational and business perspective, and
> align on the correct next step. Therefore, please take the time to
> read all of the detail here carefully. We’ll discuss our strategy
> first, and then the decisions and changes to our policies and
> processes that implement that strategy.
> 
> Solaris Strategy
> ———-
> 
> Solaris is the #1 Enterprise Operating System. We have the leading
> share of business applications on Solaris today, including both SPARC
> and x64. We have more than twice the application base of AIX and HP-UX
> combined. We have a brand that stands for innovation, quality,
> security, and trust, built on our 20-year investment in Solaris
> operating system engineering.
> 
> From a business perspective, the purpose of our investment in Solaris
> engineering is to drive our overall server business, including both
> SPARC and x64, and to drive business advantages resulting from
> integration of multiple components in the Oracle portfolio. This
> includes combining our servers with our storage, our servers with our
> switches, Oracle applications with Solaris, and the effectiveness of
> the service experience resulting from these combinations. All
> together, Solaris drives aggregate business measured in many billions
> of dollars, with significant growth potential.
> 
> We are increasing investment in Solaris, including hiring operating
> system expertise from throughout the industry, as a sign of our
> commitment to these goals. Solaris is not something we outsource to
> others, it is not the assembly of someone else’s technology, and it is
> not a sustaining-only product. We expect the top operating systems
> engineers in the industry, i.e. all of you, to be creating and
> delivering innovations that continue to make Solaris unique,
> differentiated, and valuable to our customers, and a unique asset of
> our business.
> 
> Solaris must stand alone as a best-of-breed technology for Oracle’s
> enterprise customers. We want all of them to think “If this has to
> work, then it runs on Solaris.” That’s the Solaris brand. That is
> where our scalability to more than a few sockets of CPU and gigabytes
> of DRAM matters. That is why we reliably deliver millions of IOPS of
> storage, networking, and Infiniband. That is why we have unique
> properties around file and data management, security and namespace
> isolation, fault management, and observability. And we also want our
> customers to know that Solaris is and continues to be a source of new
> ideas and new technologies– ones that simplify their business and
> optimize their applications. That’s what made Solaris 10 the most
> innovative operating system release ever. And that is the same focus
> that will drive a new set of innovations in Solaris 11.
> 
> For Solaris to stand alone as the best-of-breed operating system in
> Oracle’s complete and open portfolio, it must run well on other server
> hardware and execute everyone’s applications, while delivering unique
> optimizations for our hardware and our applications. That is the
> central value proposition of Oracle’s complete, open, and integrated
> strategy. And these are complementary and not contradictory goals that
> we will achieve through proper design and engineering.
> 
> The growth opportunity for Solaris has never been greater. As one
> example, Solaris is used by about 40% of Oracle’s enterprise
> customers, which means we have a 60% growth opportunity in our top
> customers alone. In absolute numbers, there are 130,000 Oracle
> customers in North America alone who don’t use our servers and storage
> yet, and a global customer base of 350,000 (the prior Sun base was
> ~35,000). That’s a huge opportunity we can go attack as a combined
> company that will increase Solaris adoption and the overall Hardware
> server revenue. Our success will also increase the amount of effort
> ISVs exert optimizing their applications for Solaris.
> 
> We will continue to grow a vibrant developer and system administra

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Richard L. Hamilton]

Presuming this is authentic, and not a hoax...hmm.

* Arrogance level: high
* Business justification: yes, if one neglects the negative response
* Practical impact: unclear

Most new projects already got pretty far along behind the firewall
before the rest of us could see them.  This sounds as if it would
delay that further.  How much further, I'm not sure.
The key seems to be the sentence "We will distribute updates...following
full releases...", and the possibility of exceptions as desirable noted later.

That would be a narrow tightrope to walk on some of the licenses, IMO,
if it meant that less than "full release" binary updates could be released
without making the corresponding updates to open source available at the
same time.

And even where it _could_ be done, it might be counterproductive in
a strictly practical sense, insofar as troubleshooting (esp. with DTrace)
is greatly facilitated by having as much as possible of the matching source
as available as the corresponding binaries.  Not to mention that outside
early feedback on open ARC cases sometimes has contributed useful
ideas that were incorporated.

Other than that...the same level (but _not_ current-ness) of source
availability is implied.  Some sort of reasonably open early access to
pre-beta binaries for familiarization and application or 3rd party driver
developers would apparently still be there, if not as timely.

Arrogance (and the complementarity of source access and DTrace) aside,
I think this makes one other fundamental mistake: FUD does not exist
primarily because competitors have the lead time to polish their FUD.
It exists because of the _absence_ of authoritative information creates
a vacuum, which will inevitably be filled with pessimistic speculation.
Provocateurs are cheap negative advertising, and they thrive in the
absence of facts.

So again...assuming this to be accurate, I'm quite disappointed, but
not appalled.  Aside from causing independent distros to play catch-up in
bigger chunks, it seems to me that this does more harm to Solaris (and
thus ultimately to Oracle) than it does to those that seek to profit from it 
independent of Oracle.

Reasonable use of discretion in the direction of flexibility, where it does
not give away major competitive advantage, would do much to mitigate
the adverse impacts...
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Elaine Ashton]

> Presuming this is authentic, and not a hoax...hmm.

It's not a hoax. Not even given the date and the other news of the day.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Michael Kerpan]

So, OpenSolaris is officially dead... They're no longer providing even
read-only access to the "live" source code (only rare dumps of release
products), no longer have any interest in community contribution and
also reserve the right to maintain complete radio silence, as it were,
on any new features that they might be working on. This sounds to me
like they're planning on following the Apple/Darwin model here, rather
than the Sun model. This really is a sad day.

Mike
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Anonymous User]

Well considering prior statements from Oracle, the company has now lied to 
developers, customers, shareholders, & the general public. Word != Bond.

This material fact extends to statements & agreements prior to the sale of Sun 
to Oracle, as well as to statements made post-purchase.

Not exactly the sort of behavior that will get the company rated as a "buy" 
from any interested parties.

This also shows that Oracle values customers, not community of customers. Much 
less contributors. The only upside I can find is that it becomes pointless to 
waste any time caring about the future of the product since Oracle will do 
whatever Oracle wants. Since prior agreements do not matter, all that does 
matter is whatever they release whenever they bother to release it, under 
whatever new terms they choose at that time. It makes 5 year lifecyle planning 
rather awkward, but that's not Oracle's problem.

I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source, this 
proves that. There is no good will in this plan to say the very least about it. 
In fact this seems to facilitate a culture of predation that Oracle is fairly 
infamous for.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Erast]

Nexenta Systems initiated, Illumos Project continues its effort...

http://www.illumos.org

"""A community maintained derivative of the OpenSolaris ON source, 
including open source replacements for closed bits, and additional 
changes."""


All companies who were working with OpenSolaris/Solaris are invited to 
join this movement and liberate OpenSolaris.


On 08/13/2010 08:40 AM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote:

Hi All,

This memo was circulated internally within Oracle (and subsequently
leaked). Basically, the open source development model has now been
axed and OpenSolaris is officially now dead. A very sad day indeed.


Solaris Engineering,

Today we are announcing a set of decisions regarding the path to
Solaris 11, and answering key pending questions on open source, open
development, software and binary licenses, and how developers and
early adopters will be able to use Solaris 11 technology before its
release in 2011.

As you all know, the term “OpenSolaris” has been used colloquially to
refer to any or all of a collection of source code, a development
model, a web site, a logo, a binary release, a source license, a
community, and many other related things. So it’s taken a while to go
over each issue from an organizational and business perspective, and
align on the correct next step. Therefore, please take the time to
read all of the detail here carefully. We’ll discuss our strategy
first, and then the decisions and changes to our policies and
processes that implement that strategy.

Solaris Strategy
———-

Solaris is the #1 Enterprise Operating System. We have the leading
share of business applications on Solaris today, including both SPARC
and x64. We have more than twice the application base of AIX and HP-UX
combined. We have a brand that stands for innovation, quality,
security, and trust, built on our 20-year investment in Solaris
operating system engineering.


From a business perspective, the purpose of our investment in Solaris

engineering is to drive our overall server business, including both
SPARC and x64, and to drive business advantages resulting from
integration of multiple components in the Oracle portfolio. This
includes combining our servers with our storage, our servers with our
switches, Oracle applications with Solaris, and the effectiveness of
the service experience resulting from these combinations. All
together, Solaris drives aggregate business measured in many billions
of dollars, with significant growth potential.

We are increasing investment in Solaris, including hiring operating
system expertise from throughout the industry, as a sign of our
commitment to these goals. Solaris is not something we outsource to
others, it is not the assembly of someone else’s technology, and it is
not a sustaining-only product. We expect the top operating systems
engineers in the industry, i.e. all of you, to be creating and
delivering innovations that continue to make Solaris unique,
differentiated, and valuable to our customers, and a unique asset of
our business.

Solaris must stand alone as a best-of-breed technology for Oracle’s
enterprise customers. We want all of them to think “If this has to
work, then it runs on Solaris.” That’s the Solaris brand. That is
where our scalability to more than a few sockets of CPU and gigabytes
of DRAM matters. That is why we reliably deliver millions of IOPS of
storage, networking, and Infiniband. That is why we have unique
properties around file and data management, security and namespace
isolation, fault management, and observability. And we also want our
customers to know that Solaris is and continues to be a source of new
ideas and new technologies– ones that simplify their business and
optimize their applications. That’s what made Solaris 10 the most
innovative operating system release ever. And that is the same focus
that will drive a new set of innovations in Solaris 11.

For Solaris to stand alone as the best-of-breed operating system in
Oracle’s complete and open portfolio, it must run well on other server
hardware and execute everyone’s applications, while delivering unique
optimizations for our hardware and our applications. That is the
central value proposition of Oracle’s complete, open, and integrated
strategy. And these are complementary and not contradictory goals that
we will achieve through proper design and engineering.

The growth opportunity for Solaris has never been greater. As one
example, Solaris is used by about 40% of Oracle’s enterprise
customers, which means we have a 60% growth opportunity in our top
customers alone. In absolute numbers, there are 130,000 Oracle
customers in North America alone who don’t use our servers and storage
yet, and a global customer base of 350,000 (the prior Sun base was
~35,000). That’s a huge opportunity we can go attack as a combined
company that will increase Solaris adoption and the overall Hardware
server revenue. Our success will also increase the amount of effort
ISVs exert optimizing their

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Petros Koutoupis]

>>I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source, this 
>>proves that.

As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole OpenSolaris 
drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the above excerpt. Oracle works 
heavily with Linux. In fact they are sponsoring Chris Mason's development of 
the GPL'd Btrfs file system. They also developed and GPL'd the OCFS. This is on 
top of other lesser known management tools which all are focused toward their 
Red Hat based Unbreakable Linux distribution (and in some cases outside of 
that).

While all of this never defined them as an open source company, they seem to 
spend a lot of time and money contributing back to the community. What the real 
reason(s) for not wanting to work with OpenSolaris arethis answer we may 
never figure out.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ray Van Dolson]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:10PM -0700, Petros Koutoupis wrote:
> >>I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source, 
> >>this proves that.
> 
> As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole
> OpenSolaris drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the above
> excerpt. Oracle works heavily with Linux. In fact they are sponsoring
> Chris Mason's development of the GPL'd Btrfs file system. They also
> developed and GPL'd the OCFS. This is on top of other lesser known
> management tools which all are focused toward their Red Hat based
> Unbreakable Linux distribution (and in some cases outside of that).
> 
> While all of this never defined them as an open source company, they
> seem to spend a lot of time and money contributing back to the
> community. What the real reason(s) for not wanting to work with
> OpenSolaris arethis answer we may never figure out.

Oracle is a big company... what one group does or is able to do may not
be the same as what another group.

Oracle has essentially full control of Solaris, whereas with Linux
being out of their control (yet widely used by their customers) they
need to play within the rules set up there -- which means upstream
contribution and open development...

Ray
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/13/10 03:45 PM, Petros Koutoupis wrote:

I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source, this 
proves that.
   

As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole OpenSolaris 
drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the above excerpt. Oracle works 
heavily with Linux. In fact they are sponsoring Chris Mason's development of 
the GPL'd Btrfs file system. They also developed and GPL'd the OCFS. This is on 
top of other lesser known management tools which all are focused toward their 
Red Hat based Unbreakable Linux distribution (and in some cases outside of 
that).

While all of this never defined them as an open source company, they seem to 
spend a lot of time and money contributing back to the community. What the real 
reason(s) for not wanting to work with OpenSolaris arethis answer we may 
never figure out.
   


I also agree with Petros.  Oracle was only looking to gain control of 
Opensolaris.  It looks to me, they tried balancing their goals with 
somewhat of the Opensolaris community goals in that they said they will 
release development binary snapshots called Solaris 11 Express and 
source, at an unspecified interval.  Lets hope that they do what they 
say.  On a good side, they did state they are investing money by hiring 
more developers, that they want to advance Solaris to the point there is 
no other Unix choice you would want, this I like.


Paul
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ian Collins]

On 08/14/10 08:45 AM, Paul Gress wrote:

On 08/13/10 03:45 PM, Petros Koutoupis wrote:

As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole OpenSolaris 
drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the above excerpt. Oracle works 
heavily with Linux. In fact they are sponsoring Chris Mason's development of 
the GPL'd Btrfs file system. They also developed and GPL'd the OCFS. This is on 
top of other lesser known management tools which all are focused toward their 
Red Hat based Unbreakable Linux distribution (and in some cases outside of 
that).

While all of this never defined them as an open source company, they seem to 
spend a lot of time and money contributing back to the community. What the real 
reason(s) for not wanting to work with OpenSolaris arethis answer we may 
never figure out.
   


I also agree with Petros.  Oracle was only looking to gain control of 
Opensolaris.  It looks to me, they tried balancing their goals with 
somewhat of the Opensolaris community goals in that they said they 
will release development binary snapshots called Solaris 11 Express 
and source, at an unspecified interval. 


If the memo is to be believed, the source will follow "full releases of 
our enterprise Solaris operating system" how ever far apart they are.


--
Ian.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Erik Trimble]

On 8/13/2010 12:50 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:10PM -0700, Petros Koutoupis wrote:

I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be about open source, this 
proves that.


As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole
OpenSolaris drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the above
excerpt. Oracle works heavily with Linux. In fact they are sponsoring
Chris Mason's development of the GPL'd Btrfs file system. They also
developed and GPL'd the OCFS. This is on top of other lesser known
management tools which all are focused toward their Red Hat based
Unbreakable Linux distribution (and in some cases outside of that).

While all of this never defined them as an open source company, they
seem to spend a lot of time and money contributing back to the
community. What the real reason(s) for not wanting to work with
OpenSolaris arethis answer we may never figure out.


Oracle is a big company... what one group does or is able to do may not
be the same as what another group.

Oracle has essentially full control of Solaris, whereas with Linux
being out of their control (yet widely used by their customers) they
need to play within the rules set up there -- which means upstream
contribution and open development...

Ray


OK, let me preface this post with the up-front disclaimer that I in 
*absolutely* no way speak for Oracle, nor do I know anything that hasn't 
been made public, and that the opinions expressed herein are solely my own.




Ray has pretty much hit things on the head. With the various Linux 
projects, Oracle was pretty much *required* to share back, so they 
played nicely.  With Solaris, the mindset seems to be that "We own this, 
so let's make fat bank on a cool technology, and not let others steal 
our business".




The unfortunate thing here is that most of the value in an Operating 
System is attributable to ADOPTION RATES.  That is, the wider the OS is 
used, the more revenue potential there is.  Now, the per-instance 
revenue potential tends to drop off, but the overall revenue ramps up 
very noticably.


(note, this post, "OS" = Operating System, not OpenSolaris)

I think someone really, really, really needs to explain to upper 
management these things:


(1)Having an open source base / development process is pretty 
much a no-lose situation, with only an up side. The likelihood that 
other OSes will be able to take advantage of your technology is quite 
low (either due to incompatible license, or high barrier to port the 
code), and, at best, such other OSes will lag significantly in uptake. 
For instance, ZFS is about the only major technology from OpenSolaris 
that I can name which has any reasonable adoption in other OSes. The 
FreeBSD port of ZFS is *at* *least* 6 months behind that of 
OpenSolaris.  The Upside of a open development model is that you can get 
outside contributions (if you actually want them, and design the 
development model appropriately), outside testing, and a radically 
higher adoption rate than a closed model.


(2)As a corollary to #1, yes, you might have some competitors 
use your source base to build their own produce (cf. Nexenta).  
*However*, those competitors actually *help* you, in that they will:
(a)  most likely contribute work back to the open development 
base that you (Oracle) would not have done
(b)  increase the userbase of the OS itself  (even if only in 
appliances, this increases familiarity with the OS, increasing the sales 
recognition, so selling other products based on this OS is simpler)
(c)  provide new and innovative products, which enables Oracle 
to "test the waters" in various market niches without committing any 
Oracle resources (i.e. let someone else do your market testing for you)
(d)  be small companies which aren't a serious threat to any 
Oracle revenue, relative to their benefit
(e)  they are a very big potential source of revenue 
themselves, if you want to sell something like a "premium 
developer-access support" contract.


(3)Giving away for free BOTH Solaris and OpenSolaris distros 
doesn't hurt the bottom line. Period. No lost revenue at all. It 
*absolutely* will drive additional revenue to you, particularly from 
ISVs and app developers, who will use your product to create their own, 
and drive more revenue back to Oracle, in the form of more server and 
support contract sales.


(4)As a corollary to #3, making a cheap support option 
consisting of security updates & Knowledge Base access only is FREE 
MONEY.  It costs you virtually nothing (ok, perhaps pennies per 
contract), and gives you not only increased userbase (with the attendant 
better ISV/appdev attention), but also a reporting base to monitor for 
problems (i.e. free QA), and significant incentive for businesses to use 
the OS vs other options.


(5)High-cost (and high per-copy profit) niche closed OSes are a 
good way to die.

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/13/10 05:08 PM, Ian Collins wrote:

On 08/14/10 08:45 AM, Paul Gress wrote:

On 08/13/10 03:45 PM, Petros Koutoupis wrote:
As much as I am disappointed with the end result of this whole 
OpenSolaris drama, I still cannot find myself to agree with the 
above excerpt. Oracle works heavily with Linux. In fact they are 
sponsoring Chris Mason's development of the GPL'd Btrfs file system. 
They also developed and GPL'd the OCFS. This is on top of other 
lesser known management tools which all are focused toward their Red 
Hat based Unbreakable Linux distribution (and in some cases outside 
of that).


While all of this never defined them as an open source company, they 
seem to spend a lot of time and money contributing back to the 
community. What the real reason(s) for not wanting to work with 
OpenSolaris arethis answer we may never figure out.


I also agree with Petros.  Oracle was only looking to gain control of 
Opensolaris.  It looks to me, they tried balancing their goals with 
somewhat of the Opensolaris community goals in that they said they 
will release development binary snapshots called Solaris 11 Express 
and source, at an unspecified interval. 


If the memo is to be believed, the source will follow "full releases 
of our enterprise Solaris operating system" how ever far apart they are.




Or probably after each major update release.

Paul
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Graham McArdle]

Erik, looks like you've already said everything I was thinking of posting and 
said it better.
Oracle is being a blinkered dinosaur, trying to hark back to the good old days 
when the Unix mainframe was king. It's actually a risky business model, trying 
to focus entirely on rich investment banks as the only customers, without 
realising that they're only your customers because they are the last ones to 
move into the 21st century and adopt anything new. Then try to grow that market 
by offering Solaris 11 as something new, innovative and different.

This sentence made me laugh:
"We will continue to grow a vibrant developer and system administrator 
community for Solaris."
Totally contradicted by everything else in that memo! How vibrant does this 
community feel right now? How does killing OpenSolaris help grow a new 
community of Solaris system administrators?
They also expect more ISVs to put more effort into targeting Solaris, but I 
really can't see many ISVs caring about it any more. Most of the software we 
use has either already EOF'd support for Solaris or will do in the next release 
cycle, because it's just too low-volume to be worth supporting. Oracle is 
forgetting that ISVs had been benefiting from when Solaris 10 was free, as a 
platform on which to sell their software to the masses. Why should they now 
care about selling just a handful of licenses to a few companies that happen to 
be paying Oracle a shed load of money for a premium platform? ISVs only get 
money per license sold, for which the only thing that matters is the number of 
Solaris installations, not how expensive they were or how much money Oracle 
made from selling "software, hardware complete".
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ian Collins]

On 08/14/10 09:25 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:


Frankly, at this point, I'd be all for Oracle spinning out the Solaris 
group as a fully-owned subsidiary, responsible for paying its own way. 
You'd see Solaris make lots of interesting product/marketing decisions 
and far more cash than I think Oracle is going to make with what 
they're doing now.


That's an interesting thought Eric.  It would make collaboration much 
easier.


I think the root cause of this debacle was Sun allowing OpenSolaris to 
get too far ahead of Solaris 10.  I can just imagine a conversation 
between an Oracle exec and a Sun one;


"So you have all this world beating OS technology, how are you 
monetising it?"


"Er, we're not, we're giving it away"

"Ho mum...  We need this in the market now!"

If I were the Oracle exec I'd want to focus my resources on getting some 
return for all that wonderful technology.


While I agree getting Solaris 11 out should be the priority, I still 
think cutting off the OpenSolaris community is incredibly short sighted, 
probably driven by the US corporate obsession with the next quarter's 
results.


--
Ian.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Dave Koelmeyer]

Erik, may I please publish your post in full on my public blog (not that it's 
private here to begin with)?

Cheers, 
Dave
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Alasdair Lumsden
> 
> This memo was circulated internally within Oracle (and subsequently
> leaked). 

Leaked where?

Googling around, the only links say "Leaked to the opensolaris-discuss
mailing list."

Maybe true, maybe not, certainly believable.  Certainly unverified and
lacking credibility too.

Where is there anything more authoritative than just the rumors spread on
this mailing list?

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ian Collins]

On 08/14/10 02:19 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Alasdair Lumsden

This memo was circulated internally within Oracle (and subsequently
leaked).
 

Leaked where?

   

http://pastebin.com/YtuvZkUJ

--
Ian.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Kölle]

Am 13.08.2010 23:25, schrieb Erik Trimble:


I think someone really, really, really needs to explain to upper
management these things:

(1) Having an open source base / development process is pretty much a
no-lose situation, with only an up side. The likelihood that other OSes
will be able to take advantage of your technology is quite low (either
due to incompatible license, or high barrier to port the code), and, at
best, such other OSes will lag significantly in uptake. For instance,
ZFS is about the only major technology from OpenSolaris that I can name
which has any reasonable adoption in other OSes. The FreeBSD port of ZFS
is *at* *least* 6 months behind that of OpenSolaris. The Upside of a
open development model is that you can get outside contributions (if you
actually want them, and design the development model appropriately),
outside testing, and a radically higher adoption rate than a closed model.
If that is true, Illumos will be ahead of the pack in no time. Bright 
future I'd say.


cheers
 Paul

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Sean M. Brannon]

> I didn't think Oracle had what it takes to really be
> about open source, this proves that. There is no good
> will in this plan to say the very least about it. In
> fact this seems to facilitate a culture of predation
> that Oracle is fairly infamous for.

Oh, they are about open source. About exploiting it where they can profit from 
it. Xen, Red Hat, Linux kernel, just to name a few major projects they profit 
from.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Anonymous User]

I agreed with a lot of what Erik said. I also think that I was hasty in my 
comment about open source & Oracle. They have done it, they just haven't bitten 
off something quite as large as Sun. That alone makes it different. There's no 
way to create easy comparisons because of that too.

There was not much movement for awhile from Oracle about the OS. Now they're 
changing how they're going to do releases & that sort of thing and are putting 
more people into OS development? That's not a bad thing. Something else to 
consider is that even if this were Sun doing the same sort of things all on 
it's own, it wouldn't be the first time it happened. This is the first time 
post-purchase that it's happened, but not the first time it's happened even 
with Solaris. In fact, if you look at the marketing history even Oracle is 
still reacting to Sun's ostrich play with x86. The other thing is that the memo 
is focused inward, and it doesn't really offer complete information looking 
outward at customers. Just because they are changing what they're doing with 
releases doesn't mean that it will work out worse.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Anonymous User]

Hey it's not like they announced they are getting rid of Sparc & x86 support 
for an 'Itanium centric" CPU strategy along with renaming it "TruSol64" for 
"exclusive use" inside their upcoming line of NEBS-only hardware...
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kölle
> 
> If that is true, Illumos will be ahead of the pack in no time. Bright
> future I'd say.

This mostly depends on what Sol11Express will look like.  If they make
future dtrace & zfs development closed-source, illumos will have nothing to
pull from, and without corporate sponsorship, illumos will slowly wither.
And if s11e is actually suitably licensed and featured, it might just become
"the new name" for a less-open opensolaris.  I wouldn't get my hopes too
high, but it's still unknown.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Dave Koelmeyer]

Maybe on another planet it will be suitably licensed and featured. 

Also, doesn't look like the Illumos project lead agrees with your asessment:

http://gdamore.blogspot.com/2010/08/hand-may-be-forced.html

"So, by their actions here, Oracle may be forcing Illumos to "fork", which was 
always a prospect, even if not one I cherished. But with the backing of the 
innovators I know who are with us, I think we have a chance to actually be the 
premiere foundation for SunOS derived technology. Oracle may be investing more 
into Solaris, but if the best and brightest have left for greener pastures and 
are contributing to Illumos, then I think we'll have the "best" investments in 
the base. Following Oracle's lead when the brightest minds have already left 
looks less and less desirable by the moment. (And to be fair, there are still 
many bright folks within the Solaris organization at Oracle. But the balance is 
changing, and changing in favor of Illumos and the open development community.)"
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[me]

Give it up Ned!!
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Orvar Korvar]

All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11 Express 
have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch up and 
synchronize. As FreeBSD.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[W. Wayne Liauh]

I don't think anyone will like me for saying this, but for those handful of us 
"outside of Sun" who have been following OpenSolaris since day one, do we 
really expect a different outcome?
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Erast]

On 08/14/2010 05:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kölle

If that is true, Illumos will be ahead of the pack in no time. Bright
future I'd say.


This mostly depends on what Sol11Express will look like.  If they make
future dtrace&  zfs development closed-source, illumos will have nothing to
pull from, and without corporate sponsorship, illumos will slowly wither.


There are at least 2 companies that I know who are committed to 
contribute money and equipment on periodic basis. Stay tuned.. much more 
is coming to Illumos.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[alan pae]

> I don't think anyone will like me for saying this,
> but for those handful of us "outside of Sun" who have
> been following OpenSolaris since day one, do we
> really expect a different outcome?

Not really.  Solaris Next was to come from the OpenSolaris code base.  I like 
the reply where the whole email was quoted and the replier only added a couple 
of lines to it.  :(

Nexenta has already commented that they aren't changing anything.

http://www.nexenta.com/corp/blog/2010/08/13/opensolaris-no-more-and-nexenta/

alan
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Alasdair Lumsden]

On 14 Aug 2010, at 20:30, Erast wrote:
> 
> There are at least 2 companies that I know who are committed to contribute 
> money and equipment on periodic basis. Stay tuned.. much more is coming to 
> Illumos.

Indeed, Illumos has a bright future ahead of it.

To quote Garrett's blog post:

"Illumos has garnered the support of some of the top minds in the industry; 
already the list of names of Solaris contributors and potential contributors 
that have already publicly committed to supporting this project is extensive. 
Many of the names are famous, people like Bryan Cantrill. Oracle's actions and 
inaction have actually made this possible.

I can also say, the list goes even further -- considerably so. I have had 
private conversations with quite a few other people who have quietly committed 
to involvement. Some of the names are very surprising, and I hope that they 
will soon be in a position to announce their involvement for themselves. These 
are people that are big name contributors; folks who have made very large 
numbers of code commits to Solaris -- some of the deepest and most 
"challenging" parts of Solaris, too.

The upshot of this is that the future for Illumos is surprisingly bright. 
Rather than a dependency on the good will of one corporate sponsor with dubious 
intentions, the project will have the diverse backing of some of the most 
well-known innovators (and their employers) from the OpenSolaris -- nay, Open 
Source -- community."

http://gdamore.blogspot.com/2010/08/hand-may-be-forced.html

I can confirm that EveryCity in the UK are more than happy to commit hardware 
and bandwidth to the Illumos project. I'm sure Illumos will have no problem 
getting resources from other organisations too.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Joshua Rowe]

Case in point:  

At my previous company, I recommended that we purchase Sun-related products and 
services.  I am now looking at how to replace a number of OpenSolaris boxes 
with something else.  So far Oracle's actions do not inspire trust in me; I see 
only risk in continuing to associate with their products.

It's too bad; I had really jumped on the OpenSolaris bandwagon, too.  I was 
pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to do ordinarily very complicated 
system administration functions.  When people asked what we were using for an 
OS and I replied, "OpenSolaris", they were stunned.  They didn't know Solaris 
even still [i]existed[/i], never mind was gaining adoption.  The fact that I 
rarely had to even perform system administration tasks made it all that more 
palatable.  I was truly proud of what I put together; now I am dismantling it 
in sadness.  

Employees will make recommendations based on what their they know.  The freedom 
to examine ARC cases, source code, etc., as upcoming releases were taking shape 
educated me about the platform.  As I've lost that source of education, I can 
no longer make recommendations about the platform, nor will I invest any more 
of my personal time in examining this project now dead to the needs of its 
consumers.

Farewell, OpenSolaris!  Long Live OpenSolaris!
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Edward Martinez]

>I am now looking at how to replace a number of OpenSolaris boxes with 
>something else


well...I wanted to continue using opensolaris kernel for my units. i decided  
nexenta Core would be my best choice, becuase they are sponsering illumos and a 
number of Solaris kenel devs  have joined them. the only major diference with 
nexenta is it uses debian/ubuntu userland, i don't mind the deb userland as 
long it's opensource and it's runnig the opensolaris kernel.  you may also like 
nexenta core?
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Alasdair Lumsden
> 
> There are at least 2 companies that I know who are committed to
> contribute money and equipment on periodic basis. Stay tuned.. much
> more is coming to Illumos.

So these companies are going to fork & develop ZFS separately from the main
ZFS thread that Oracle is going to develop?  Where have they been all these
years?

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of me
> 
> Give it up Ned!!

Give what up?  

A one-line messsage without any context ...  in a high volume mailing
list...  I don't know what you're talking about...

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Jonathan Edwards]

erik wrote:
> The unfortunate thing here is that most of the value in an Operating
> System is attributable to ADOPTION RATES. That is, the wider the OS is
> used, the more revenue potential there is. Now, the per-instance
> revenue potential tends to drop off, but the overall revenue ramps up
> very noticably.

amen brother .. but keep in mind you've got 2 completely different operating 
system strategies colliding .. Sun used software as means to sell hardware, 
Oracle has traditionally used software functionality as a means to sell 
licenses - hence the OS is now just a means to offer some degree of 
functionality in order to gain licenseable revenue

now i find that adoption of a particular technology is typically focused on 
either (a) differentiation for growth or (b) sustaining an existing base .. 
oracle's license model has grown to primarily function as (b) sustaining after 
eliminating most of the competition and creating a huge market dependence on 
their databases and associated technologies.  The OS adoption rate is secondary 
to the degree that the OS is being used to sustain their license revenue .. 
that's it.  You're right about the platform bit, but I think the OS now just a 
strut to prop up the Oracle DB platform.

after i left .. one of the big wakeup calls was on the grand schemes of things 
- Solaris isn't important to most customers as a standalone OS or as we might 
have been led to believe.  Don't get me wrong - there's a lot of great 
innovation that's gone into Solaris over the years that leads in many areas the 
rest of the OS market, but after a year+ of an uncertain future - most places 
have moved on and are looking at alternatives that are already pretty well 
established.  Adoption rate of Solaris on it's own isn't going to rival that of 
Linux (and don't get me started on the Centos inspired ripoff that is 
[un]breakable linux), so I'm guessing their best bet is to try and strongarm 
existing customers through database FUD and extend the ecosystem there .. now 
given that oracle db isn't open (nor am i guessing that it ever will be), it's 
only natural that the surrounding ecosystem would follow suit so that it's 
essentially shrouded in this mystery of a veiled engineering factory t
 hat produces the most wonderful and delightful products that mankind has ever 
experienced .. personally i've found there's far more interesting problems 
abounding than supporting large query based hash lookups of pointless customer 
information .. for many of the other problems, linux is good enough and what 
doesn't exist can easily be extended or built with some custom hardware and a 
bit of low level code.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/14/10 08:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kölle

If that is true, Illumos will be ahead of the pack in no time. Bright
future I'd say.
 

This mostly depends on what Sol11Express will look like.  If they make
future dtrace&  zfs development closed-source, illumos will have nothing to
pull from, and without corporate sponsorship, illumos will slowly wither.
And if s11e is actually suitably licensed and featured, it might just become
"the new name" for a less-open opensolaris.  I wouldn't get my hopes too
high, but it's still unknown.
   


Illumos has support from prior Sun engineers, including Brian Cantrill 
who was Suns major ZFS software Engineer.  They may be able to inovate 
and Oracle may be following the lead.


Paul
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Richard L. Hamilton]

> ostrich play with x86. The other thing is that the
> memo is focused inward, and it doesn't really offer
> complete information looking outward at customers.
> Just because they are changing what they're doing
> with releases doesn't mean that it will work out
> worse.

I'd really like to be an optimist like that.  But for all that
Sun had problems figuring out how to make enough money
off of what they offered (or we wouldn't be having this
discussion), it sure looks to me like Oracle doesn't understand
that what they're doing now is alienating what would otherwise
have been their next generation of customers.

Why should .edu's teach something where the development is
done behind closed doors?  Why should those with little startup
money but big ideas adopt something that's all about making the
quick buck for the vendor?  No, DeadRat will get their money,
when their budget gets as big as their ideas, because DeadRat
will be the premier support for something that's evolved in the open
and was cheap (free) to start with.

Nothing is _really_ free (as in beer), since you either spend your own
time supporting it, or pay someone else.  But when you're starting out,
you can't afford to pay someone else.  That's when for example the
construction contractor that might freely offer honest advice (and even
leftover materials) will be remembered for later, when you can afford
to pay them.

As long as there's at least _one_ free Unix-like OS that's somewhere
remotely near as functional, Oracle does not lose money by letting
people run their OS for free, since they could always run something
else instead.  Rather, it's very cheap advertising and good will.
Even having 95%+ of the current code out in the open doesn't lose
them much, since whenever someone has money to spend (or
money to lose, risking on anything less), they'll go for the premier
supported version.  Not to mention that even having people that
independently have some understanding of the OS and its internals
is a far cry from independent mastery of best practices for enterprise
deployment and maintenance.

But there's very little evidence that they understand that their
present course is not to their investors' advantage...
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Joerg Schilling]

"Edward Ned Harvey"  wrote:

> > There are at least 2 companies that I know who are committed to
> > contribute money and equipment on periodic basis. Stay tuned.. much
> > more is coming to Illumos.
>
> So these companies are going to fork & develop ZFS separately from the main
> ZFS thread that Oracle is going to develop?  Where have they been all these
> years?

One could also ask the other way round: Does Oracle still have enough good 
programmers to continue ZFS development the way they did before?

The situation is not as simple as some pople may believe.


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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Graham McArdle]

> One could also ask the other way round: Does Oracle
> still have enough good 
> programmers to continue ZFS development the way they
> did before?

apparently not, since they're still supposedly hiring more. Maybe they're 
thinking: "gosh, it's hard to find programmers on the market with previous 
experience of Solaris code. If only we could do something about that..." ;-)

On the other hand, they have Chris Mason. Maybe they'll look to cross-fertilise 
ideas (or talent) between Btrfs or CRFS and ZFS.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Jonathan Edwards]

> Nexenta Systems initiated, Illumos Project continues
> its effort...
> 
> http://www.illumos.org
> 
> """A community maintained derivative of the
> OpenSolaris ON source, 
> including open source replacements for closed bits,
> and additional 
> changes."""
> 
> All companies who were working with
> OpenSolaris/Solaris are invited to 
> join this movement and liberate OpenSolaris.

but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL? 
that still seems like it could be a bit of a problem 
if the original license steward (Sun => Oracle) decides 
to change the terms of the license, and/or if the 
larger community does not trust or approve of the 
actions taken by the license steward ..
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Simon Phipps]

On Aug 16, 2010, at 00:13, Jonathan Edwards wrote:

>> All companies who were working with
>> OpenSolaris/Solaris are invited to 
>> join this movement and liberate OpenSolaris.
> 
> but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL? 
> that still seems like it could be a bit of a problem 
> if the original license steward (Sun => Oracle) decides 
> to change the terms of the license, and/or if the 
> larger community does not trust or approve of the 
> actions taken by the license steward

While you are correct that the license for future releases can be changed, 
there's no way to retrospectively change the terms for code already released. 
In the (in my view unlikely) event Oracle changed the CDDL, or (more likely) 
released future code under a different licence that was incompatible with the 
existing terms, Illumos would simply have to carry on as an independent project 
without the benefit of being able to downstream changes when the code is thrown 
over the wall each release.

S.



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Erik Trimble]

On 8/15/2010 4:13 PM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:

Nexenta Systems initiated, Illumos Project continues
its effort...

http://www.illumos.org

"""A community maintained derivative of the
OpenSolaris ON source,
including open source replacements for closed bits,
and additional
changes."""

All companies who were working with
OpenSolaris/Solaris are invited to
join this movement and liberate OpenSolaris.
 

but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL?
that still seems like it could be a bit of a problem
if the original license steward (Sun =>  Oracle) decides
to change the terms of the license, and/or if the
larger community does not trust or approve of the
actions taken by the license steward ..
   


IIRC, (and, IANAL), it doesn't matter.  Files under the CDDL stay under 
the CDDL - there's no ability to go back and "retroactively" change the 
license.  In that respect, it's like other OpenSource licenses.  The 
"liberated" code that's over on the IllumOS project can stay and be 
developed under the current CDDL, with no change in license required (or 
mandated). Oracle can't "yank back" or relicense the existing code.  Of 
course, like the vanilla GPL, should you make code available under CDDL 
version X, then it can also be distributed under CDDL version X+N.


That said, it is of course possible for Oracle to change the license on 
the code *they* make available. Remember, they own the original 
copyright on practically all the Solaris code, so they can make it 
available under any license they want.  So, it is possible that Oracle 
would change the license to be one incompatible with the CDDL of the 
IllumOS project, in which case *new* code coming from Oracle would not 
be put into IllumOS.




Oh, and a side remark - I think it would make a bit more of a 
pronounceable name if we used "IlluminOS"  (note the extra "in").   
Also, the word is cool and appropriate.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=illuminos

--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Mike Gerdts]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Erik Trimble  wrote:
> Oh, and a side remark - I think it would make a bit more of a pronounceable
> name if we used "IlluminOS"  (note the extra "in").   Also, the word is cool
> and appropriate.
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=illuminos
>

Maybe "illuminos" describes a person contributing to Illumos, just as
a Joyeur is a person working for for Joyent.

-- 
Mike Gerdts
http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ray Arachelian]

On 08/15/2010 07:13 PM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL?

Why would you need to?  The kernel can remain CDDL.  Anything that can
be replaced with sources from *BSD or Linux directly, can be, if needed,
but why would a non-Oracle distribution of a fork of OpenSolaris need to
be non-CDDL?

> that still seems like it could be a bit of a problem 
> if the original license steward (Sun => Oracle) decides 
> to change the terms of the license, and/or if the 
> larger community does not trust or approve of the 
> actions taken by the license steward ..
>   

If Oracle changes the terms of the license, there still would exist man
pages and include files in Solaris proper.  There's nothing to stop
anyone from implementing *similar* interfaces.  Sure, the binaries would
then no longer run, but the source code would compile just fine.  The
back end implementation would no longer work exactly in the same way,
and if you were to run things under a profiler, some code would run
slower, other code would run faster than on Solaris proper.  But it
would run.  So in a sense, it would be source compatible, at least.

Anything patented would become problematic, so one would need to watch
what patents are registered and work around them, or do the exact
opposite and avoid looking, whatever the best strategy is.

But if Oracle does go belligerent in that manner, there's not much to
stop it anyway, CDDL or not.  Does the existing CDDL'ed open source code
in osol provide a "will not sure for patents covered by this source
code" clause?

Key is, Oracle cannot retroactively change the license for already
released source code.  If there are no possible patent issues to the
already released CDDL code, then all will be fine, except that binaries
from Solaris 11 and future releases might not run properly on future
IllumOS or Nexenta if the ABI changes.

Would it be so bad if IllumOS was forked off Solaris?  IMHO it would be
more similar to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc. forking off
NetBSD.  Oracle did claim they'd release sources for Solaris, maybe they
will, maybe they won't, but if they do, there'll be something like a six
to twelve month gap between release and incorporation into IllumOS (to
account for code reviews, and non-Oracle code changes, as well as bug
fixes and such.)

As IllumOS grows and gains more participants, bug fixes (I'm thinking
security fixes mostly) can be provided independently of Oracle.

A lot of the Solaris distro itself does come from outside.  Things like
OpenSSH, OpenSSL, sendmail, apache, gcc, etc.  These are already open
source and widely available, so maintaining these will be easy.  The
hard parts would be proprietary libraries, kernel, and kernel modules
and device drivers.

As long as Oracle doesn't become evil (for highly large values of evil -
i.e. suing for patents), things will work out just fine.  Ideas for
features as well as drivers can be mixed in and incorporated from the
BSDs and Linux. 

Perhaps some sort of side project can be started to look at a generic
way of making device driver sources from Linux and the BSDs work with
the OpenSolaris kernel (as separate Solaris modules so there are no
clashes between the CDDL and GPL/BSD licenses.)  Most of the devices are
block or character mode, so perhaps some sort of compatibility framework
could be built?  Linux certainly has a lot more supported drivers for
hardware than opensolaris, if there was a way to port a majority of
those drivers, we wouldn't have to rely on Oracle for them, nor would we
have to rewrite them all from scratch if there was some compatibility
layer.  Granted not everything would work immediately out of the box,
but for stuff like USB and PCI devices, as long as it doesn't depend on
too many things inside the Linux or BSD kernel, it might work.  (And
those callbacks could be implemented in another layer.)  I recall about
5-10 years ago the idea of a captive driver on Linux where you could use
windows NT drivers under Linux, for example.

If Oracle doesn't open source certain aspects of Solaris, perhaps the
IllumOS project can provide similar projects written from scratch with
identical commands and similar or identical arguments for them.  For
example, flash archives aren't provided, but new independently written
installer that supported them, along with a clean room written flar
command set could be written as well, etc. 
Or hell, grab kickstart and tweak it and work from there until a
comparable installer that does as well as or better than jumpstart is
produced.

And it could also have a flar restore command that could be executed
from a live CD against a hard drive.   It doesn't have to follow it
exactly as long as the wanted features and support are there.
Published information such as this:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5174/flash-archive-4?l=en&a=view
could be used to make a new implementation, even if incompatible.

I'd suggest, whatever Oracle releases, we use

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Jason]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Ray Arachelian  wrote:
> On 08/15/2010 07:13 PM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
>> but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL?
>
> Why would you need to?  The kernel can remain CDDL.  Anything that can
> be replaced with sources from *BSD or Linux directly, can be, if needed,
> but why would a non-Oracle distribution of a fork of OpenSolaris need to
> be non-CDDL?
>
>> that still seems like it could be a bit of a problem
>> if the original license steward (Sun => Oracle) decides
>> to change the terms of the license, and/or if the
>> larger community does not trust or approve of the
>> actions taken by the license steward ..
>>
>
> If Oracle changes the terms of the license, there still would exist man
> pages and include files in Solaris proper.  There's nothing to stop
> anyone from implementing *similar* interfaces.  Sure, the binaries would
> then no longer run, but the source code would compile just fine.  The
> back end implementation would no longer work exactly in the same way,
> and if you were to run things under a profiler, some code would run
> slower, other code would run faster than on Solaris proper.  But it
> would run.  So in a sense, it would be source compatible, at least.
>
> Anything patented would become problematic, so one would need to watch
> what patents are registered and work around them, or do the exact
> opposite and avoid looking, whatever the best strategy is.
>
> But if Oracle does go belligerent in that manner, there's not much to
> stop it anyway, CDDL or not.  Does the existing CDDL'ed open source code
> in osol provide a "will not sure for patents covered by this source
> code" clause?
>
> Key is, Oracle cannot retroactively change the license for already
> released source code.  If there are no possible patent issues to the
> already released CDDL code, then all will be fine, except that binaries
> from Solaris 11 and future releases might not run properly on future
> IllumOS or Nexenta if the ABI changes.
>
> Would it be so bad if IllumOS was forked off Solaris?  IMHO it would be
> more similar to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc. forking off
> NetBSD.  Oracle did claim they'd release sources for Solaris, maybe they
> will, maybe they won't, but if they do, there'll be something like a six
> to twelve month gap between release and incorporation into IllumOS (to
> account for code reviews, and non-Oracle code changes, as well as bug
> fixes and such.)
>
> As IllumOS grows and gains more participants, bug fixes (I'm thinking
> security fixes mostly) can be provided independently of Oracle.
>
> A lot of the Solaris distro itself does come from outside.  Things like
> OpenSSH, OpenSSL, sendmail, apache, gcc, etc.  These are already open
> source and widely available, so maintaining these will be easy.  The
> hard parts would be proprietary libraries, kernel, and kernel modules
> and device drivers.
>
> As long as Oracle doesn't become evil (for highly large values of evil -
> i.e. suing for patents), things will work out just fine.  Ideas for
> features as well as drivers can be mixed in and incorporated from the
> BSDs and Linux.
>
> Perhaps some sort of side project can be started to look at a generic
> way of making device driver sources from Linux and the BSDs work with
> the OpenSolaris kernel (as separate Solaris modules so there are no
> clashes between the CDDL and GPL/BSD licenses.)  Most of the devices are
> block or character mode, so perhaps some sort of compatibility framework
> could be built?  Linux certainly has a lot more supported drivers for
> hardware than opensolaris, if there was a way to port a majority of
> those drivers, we wouldn't have to rely on Oracle for them, nor would we
> have to rewrite them all from scratch if there was some compatibility
> layer.  Granted not everything would work immediately out of the box,
> but for stuff like USB and PCI devices, as long as it doesn't depend on
> too many things inside the Linux or BSD kernel, it might work.  (And
> those callbacks could be implemented in another layer.)  I recall about
> 5-10 years ago the idea of a captive driver on Linux where you could use
> windows NT drivers under Linux, for example.
>
> If Oracle doesn't open source certain aspects of Solaris, perhaps the
> IllumOS project can provide similar projects written from scratch with
> identical commands and similar or identical arguments for them.  For
> example, flash archives aren't provided, but new independently written
> installer that supported them, along with a clean room written flar
> command set could be written as well, etc.
> Or hell, grab kickstart and tweak it and work from there until a
> comparable installer that does as well as or better than jumpstart is
> produced.
>
> And it could also have a flar restore command that could be executed
> from a live CD against a hard drive.   It doesn't have to follow it
> exactly as long as the wanted features and support are there.
> Published

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Gabriele Bulfon]

...so it seems this site won't be my reference support point anymore?...how 
long will we be writing here?...it's a very sad moment...

And even in case I decide to AGAIN (another 3-4 months?!?!?!) wait for Oracle's 
S11 Express, they did not mention "where" I can install it.
AFAIK, Solaris 11 will be supported on Sun/HP/Dell hardware.
What about S11 Express???
If this want to be what OpenSolaris was, Oracle should support S11 Express 
installation on ANY hardware.

Or I will go Illumos (...even though the name is not a great choice...not easy 
to go to marketing people and say "Ok, Illumos is the next big 
thing"..."Illu-what???"Solaris and OpenSolaris sounded so much brighter)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Nikola M.]

On 08/14/10 03:41 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:

All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11 Express 
have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch up and 
synchronize. As FreeBSD.
   

I would like it to be that way, but..
..they clearly indicate that code releases will happen Only after "full 
releases of our enterprise Solaris " that means Solaris 11, NOT Solaris 
Express, that is only in binary form.
If releases will follow Solaris Express releases, that would be 
preferable and allow of open source user and developer community to 
spread (and contribute), beside closed Solaris users crowd.



We will distribute updates to approved CDDL or other open source-
licensed code following full releases of our enterprise Solaris
operating system. In this manner, new technology innovations will
show up in our releases before anywhere else. We will no longer
distribute source code for the entirety of the Solaris operating
system in real-time while it is developed, on a nightly basis.
Anyway, anyone who will continue to use Solaris Express after migrating 
from Opensolaris, should not be fooled to use open source OS and will 
get proprietary system in binary form instead.


And Solaris 11 as full proprietary will, MAYBE, have CDDL source 
releases for already-licensed and changed source code, but only what 
they want to release and with no obligation to do so.


**Internal memo that is leaked is hardly an official statement, neither 
willing obligation to release code indefinitely).


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Johnston]

This makes me think where are you going to get people who really know this 
stuff and can take it forward without massive training? Ex Sun people seem to 
be jumping ship. Also outside Oracle/Sun who are the people who have even seen 
and played with zfs and dtrace? Could it be people using OpenSolaris? If I was 
thinking of killing off the Open side of things I would keep it going long 
enough to see who really understood the stuff then make them an offer they 
could not refuse ;-)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ray Arachelian]

On 08/15/2010 09:23 PM, Jason wrote:
>
> My understanding is anything released under the CDDL by someone that
> isn't Oracle (and not contributed under any SCA), would mean Oracle
> would have to release any changes to those files as well.  They only
> get the right to withhold stuff they own the copyright to.
>   
...
> What would be more interesting would be if all the cool stuff was
> happening in Illumos, which forced Oracle to follow it (instead of the
> other way around) :)
>   
Exactly why I suggested that any new bits added to IllumOS should be
GPL'ed.   This could probably be done as kernel modules in some cases,
so they'd be self contained.  This also has the benefit of possibly
allowing them to be back ported to Solaris 11 proper, which allows end
users to use them, and thus build more exposure for IllumOS.  If for
whatever reason GPL would be appropriate, then perhaps a derivative of
CDDL could be hammered out that gives the rights back to IllumOS in the
same way that CDDL does for Oracle?  Perhaps this could be called the
IllumOS CDDL vs the Oracle CDDL?

Of course the existing Oracle CDDL source files could only be updated
and kept as CDDL.  Perhaps updates to these could also be distributed as
diffs against the original Oracle released files, so as to allow back
porting back to Solaris 11 by its end users.  (As a suggestion maybe
something on the IllumOS web site could auto produce a set of diffs, tar
and bzip2'em along with a make file to patch those diffs and compile the
patched code.)


> Just as a side note, Solaris _8_ had k-splice like functionality (so
> really Linux is years behind in this sense), however my understanding
> was it was a support nightmare (as now the bits in memory and on disk
> might not match, plus the number of possible running configurations
> exploded into an extremely large number), etc. All of which tended to
> negate any benefits one might get (especially now with beadm + fast
> boot support), so it was abandoned.
>
>   

I wasn't aware of that, but here's the chance to add it back in. :) 
Keeping track of what's on disk vs what's on memory could be handled by
something that spits out the revision via the /proc file system.  Sure,
you couldn't compare the kernel binary in memory at all since it would
be a bunch of patched code caves, but something could report back the
version of the kernel at least.

Ok, obviously this isn't a critical, or even important feature.  I was
just throwing out ideas to raise morale by pointing out what can now be
done and all that.   K-splice like features would be nice, but there's a
lot to do way before that can even be considered.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Gabriele Bulfon]

Why should one consider that source trustable?
What if another FUDding writer had fun putting this online?
Again, nothing have been said directly by Oracle.
And, afterall, we're all still posting at opensolaris.org
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Alasdair Lumsden]

On 16 Aug 2010, at 12:54, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:

> Why should one consider that source trustable?
> What if another FUDding writer had fun putting this online?
> Again, nothing have been said directly by Oracle.
> And, afterall, we're all still posting at opensolaris.org


1. The source it was obtained from has no reason to lie
2. The statement is in line with Oracle's behaviour/announcements to date.
3. To manufacture a statement of that length and quality would require 
considerable effort. It's highly unlikely it's a fake.
4. Not a single Oracle staff member has denied the memo, quite the contrary:

http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2010-August/059316.html

However you're correct, it's not an official statement by Oracle. So if you 
wish to pretend you haven't seen it, go right ahead ;-)

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Elaine Ashton]

> On 16 Aug 2010, at 12:54, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> 4. Not a single Oracle staff member has denied the
> memo, quite the contrary:
> 
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-disc
> uss/2010-August/059316.html

Well, I've been 'former' staff for about two weeks now though just too lazy to 
change my account profile, but as the former sysadmin for opensolaris.org I was 
privy to certain plans and details that I could confirm that it is not a hoax. 

As for the fate of the site itself, it's not going to go away though access to 
certain parts will be restricted - at least that was the prevailing plan last I 
knew and may change. Nothing is certain but uncertainty. :)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Joerg Schilling]

Jonathan Edwards  wrote:

> but how do we liberate the source from the CDDL? 

Did you ever read that the Linux folks plan to liberate their sources from the 
restrictive GPL?

If you compare OSS licenses, you will find that the Apache-2.0 license is the 
best choice for an academic license and that the CDDL is the best choice for a 
Copyleft license. So what?

> that still seems like it could be a bit of a problem 
> if the original license steward (Sun => Oracle) decides 
> to change the terms of the license, and/or if the 
> larger community does not trust or approve of the 
> actions taken by the license steward ..

Oracle cannot withdraw the license for already published code.
I am not sure whether you did just read some missinformation from bad sources.

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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Arachelian
> 
> > My understanding is anything released under the CDDL by someone that
> > isn't Oracle (and not contributed under any SCA), would mean Oracle
> > would have to release any changes to those files as well.  They only
> > get the right to withhold stuff they own the copyright to.
> >
> ...
> > What would be more interesting would be if all the cool stuff was
> > happening in Illumos, which forced Oracle to follow it (instead of
> the
> > other way around) :)
> >
> Exactly why I suggested that any new bits added to IllumOS should be
> GPL'ed.   

#1  You're in the wrong place to promote GPL.  GPL is an extremist
anti-corporate free software license, which is not as permissive as CDDL.
This is the reason why CDDL is incompatible with GPL:  Because CDDL is more
permissive than GPL can allow.

#2  You're also wrong about code being released under GPL vs CDDL.  The
truth is:  In both licenses, once the code is published to the public, it
can never be "yanked back."  In both cases, the whole world is permitted to
use and develop upon what was released, perpetually, without any involvement
or influence of the copyright holder.  In both cases, the copyright holder
can begin future developments under a different license, but in *neither*
case can the copyright holder revoke the license of what they've already
released, or restrict the additions or changes that people in the world are
able to develop upon it.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Joerg Schilling]

Erik Trimble  wrote:

> mandated). Oracle can't "yank back" or relicense the existing code.  Of 
> course, like the vanilla GPL, should you make code available under CDDL 
> version X, then it can also be distributed under CDDL version X+N.

This is true in case that the licensor did add an explicit permission to the 
source and in case that the legal system does not prevent this. In Germany you
e.g. are not allowed to sign a contract where you don't know the rules 
already. So a German author cannot give such an OK in advance.

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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Joerg Schilling]

Ray Arachelian  wrote:

> Exactly why I suggested that any new bits added to IllumOS should be
> GPL'ed.   This could probably be done as kernel modules in some cases,
> so they'd be self contained.  This also has the benefit of possibly
> allowing them to be back ported to Solaris 11 proper, which allows end
> users to use them, and thus build more exposure for IllumOS.  If for
> whatever reason GPL would be appropriate, then perhaps a derivative of
> CDDL could be hammered out that gives the rights back to IllumOS in the
> same way that CDDL does for Oracle?  Perhaps this could be called the
> IllumOS CDDL vs the Oracle CDDL?

The GPL is a anti-collaboration license. 

The CDDL is a _license_ (text/name) owned by Oracle. Even if somebody likes to 
do what you propose, it would not be possible.

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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Gabriele Bulfon]

Today, I remembered about the 2008 1st April Fool Mr. Schwartz posted on his 
blog...I remember my smile when reading it...
It's still there, but 2 years later, the same words sound so different:

http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/a_new_strategy

also read the comments...

I start to feel betrayed by Mr. Schwartz & Mr. McNealy...
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/16/10 03:36 AM, Nikola M. wrote:

On 08/14/10 03:41 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11 
Express have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch 
up and synchronize. As FreeBSD.

I would like it to be that way, but..
..they clearly indicate that code releases will happen Only after 
"full releases of our enterprise Solaris " that means Solaris 11, NOT 
Solaris Express, that is only in binary form.
If releases will follow Solaris Express releases, that would be 
preferable and allow of open source user and developer community to 
spread (and contribute), beside closed Solaris users crowd.





I see it they will release source after a binary release.  They cannot 
release a binary without releasing the source per CDDL.  They would have 
to fork the code to a new license to do that.







We will distribute updates to approved CDDL or other open source-
licensed code following full releases of our enterprise Solaris
operating system. In this manner, new technology innovations will
show up in our releases before anywhere else. We will no longer
distribute source code for the entirety of the Solaris operating
system in real-time while it is developed, on a nightly basis.
Anyway, anyone who will continue to use Solaris Express after 
migrating from Opensolaris, should not be fooled to use open source OS 
and will get proprietary system in binary form instead.


And Solaris 11 as full proprietary will, MAYBE, have CDDL source 
releases for already-licensed and changed source code, but only what 
they want to release and with no obligation to do so.


**Internal memo that is leaked is hardly an official statement, 
neither willing obligation to release code indefinitely).


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org



___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/16/10 07:54 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:

Why should one consider that source trustable?
What if another FUDding writer had fun putting this online?
Again, nothing have been said directly by Oracle.
And, afterall, we're all still posting at opensolaris.org
   


I haven't seen Oracle do anything different then what they say they will 
do.  If they say they will release source at specified intervals, they 
will.  What I seen Oracle is remain radio silent.  This is not 
untrustworthy.


Paul

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ignacio Marambio Catán]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 8/16/2010 10:34 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
> On 08/16/10 03:36 AM, Nikola M. wrote:
>> On 08/14/10 03:41 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
>>> All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11
>>> Express have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch
>>> up and synchronize. As FreeBSD.
>> I would like it to be that way, but..
>> ..they clearly indicate that code releases will happen Only after
>> "full releases of our enterprise Solaris " that means Solaris 11, NOT
>> Solaris Express, that is only in binary form.
>> If releases will follow Solaris Express releases, that would be
>> preferable and allow of open source user and developer community to
>> spread (and contribute), beside closed Solaris users crowd.
>>
> 
> 

they own the code, they are not bound by CDDL

> I see it they will release source after a binary release.  They cannot
> release a binary without releasing the source per CDDL.  They would have
> to fork the code to a new license to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> We will distribute updates to approved CDDL or other open source-
>>> licensed code following full releases of our enterprise Solaris
>>> operating system. In this manner, new technology innovations will
>>> show up in our releases before anywhere else. We will no longer
>>> distribute source code for the entirety of the Solaris operating
>>> system in real-time while it is developed, on a nightly basis.
>> Anyway, anyone who will continue to use Solaris Express after
>> migrating from Opensolaris, should not be fooled to use open source OS
>> and will get proprietary system in binary form instead.
>>
>> And Solaris 11 as full proprietary will, MAYBE, have CDDL source
>> releases for already-licensed and changed source code, but only what
>> they want to release and with no obligation to do so.
>>
>> **Internal memo that is leaked is hardly an official statement,
>> neither willing obligation to release code indefinitely).
>>
>> ___
>> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAkxpQ0wACgkQyH1sakKOL4wkYwEAjWPQj3OMyrCfXjHLcjiPn14U
5ZYLZeUoqXvwNB+Cq5cA/ilmQNBptZk61jhuFuHvrfWKv97SxgTiD2SonB+lytfb
=pwA0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/16/10 09:55 AM, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 8/16/2010 10:34 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
   

On 08/16/10 03:36 AM, Nikola M. wrote:
 

On 08/14/10 03:41 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
   

All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11
Express have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch
up and synchronize. As FreeBSD.
 

I would like it to be that way, but..
..they clearly indicate that code releases will happen Only after
"full releases of our enterprise Solaris " that means Solaris 11, NOT
Solaris Express, that is only in binary form.
If releases will follow Solaris Express releases, that would be
preferable and allow of open source user and developer community to
spread (and contribute), beside closed Solaris users crowd.

   


 

they own the code, they are not bound by CDDL

   



Not unless they fork the code and change the license.  They are bound by 
CDDL until that happens.


Paul
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Alan Coopersmith]

Ray Arachelian wrote:
> then perhaps a derivative of
> CDDL could be hammered out that gives the rights back to IllumOS in the
> same way that CDDL does for Oracle?  Perhaps this could be called the
> IllumOS CDDL vs the Oracle CDDL?

You seem to be confusing CDDL with the SCA - it's the SCA that gives
rights back to Sun/Oracle, not the CDDL.

-- 
-Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
 Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Simon Phipps]

On Aug 16, 2010, at 15:00, Paul Gress wrote:

> On 08/16/10 09:55 AM, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
>> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> On 8/16/2010 10:34 AM, Paul Gress wrote:
>>   
>>> On 08/16/10 03:36 AM, Nikola M. wrote:
>>> 
 I would like it to be that way, but..
 ..they clearly indicate that code releases will happen Only after
 "full releases of our enterprise Solaris " that means Solaris 11, NOT
 Solaris Express, that is only in binary form.
 If releases will follow Solaris Express releases, that would be
 preferable and allow of open source user and developer community to
 spread (and contribute), beside closed Solaris users crowd.
 
   
>>> 
>>> 
>> they own the code, they are not bound by CDDL
>> 
>>   
>> 
> 
> Not unless they fork the code and change the license.  They are bound by CDDL 
> until that happens.

You're wrong. Oracle owns all the copyright and they do not have to comply with 
the terms of the CDDL.

S.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
> 
> >> they own the code, they are not bound by CDDL
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Not unless they fork the code and change the license.  They are bound
> by CDDL until that happens.
> 
> You're wrong. Oracle owns all the copyright and they do not have to
> comply with the terms of the CDDL.

I think this is simply mis-worded.

The code already released under CDDL is bound by CDDL, and oracle cannot
undo that or revoke your rights that were granted to you by CDDL.  However,
oracle is the copyright holder, so for future releases, they do not have to
use CDDL if they don't want to.

The same is true for GPL.  If you want to pay for a non-GPL license of some
GPL code, you can negotiate with the copyright holder to possibly obtain a
special license.

Because the copyright holder has granted you a license to use and modify and
redistribute code, you can.  Because the license terms explicitly state they
are permanent or perpetual, it is.  They can never revoke what they've
granted you under those terms.  But they can also grant other licenses to
other people in other situations, as they see fit.

And unless the license says something about patents ... there's a possible
issue about patents...

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/16/10 10:39 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:


You're wrong. Oracle owns all the copyright and they do not have to comply with 
the terms of the CDDL.

S.


   



I thought a written document had to be complied with until they change 
the terms.  In other words, their bound by their own rules until they 
change it.


But I guess I'm mistaken and corrected.


Thanks

Paul
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Florian Ermisch]

which fits pretty good into the "exploiting FOSS"-image oracle is
going for: they can incorporate fixes from illumos while 'giving away'
their improvements _after_ the release of the money-making product.
regards, Florian

2010/8/14, Orvar Korvar :
> All source code will be available after binary update of Solaris 11 Express
> have been released. Then Illumos will have a chance to catch up and
> synchronize. As FreeBSD.
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> ___
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>


-- 
Do YOU trust google?
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Jonathan Edwards]

Jörg the Börg wrote:

> 
> The GPL is a anti-collaboration license. 
> 
> The CDDL is a _license_ (text/name) owned by Oracle.

not so sure that i agree on the GPL FUD being anti-collaboration (particularly 
if you follow the amount of collaboration happening on a daily basis LKML)

as for the CDDL - to my untrained eye there seem to be far more rights granted 
to the Initial Developer (Sun => Oracle in this case) than to any contributor 
even when the amount of contribution might outweigh the initial code .. however 
section 3.6 appears to promising about the possibility of creating a larger 
work .. 

gauging from how ugly it seems to be to get code into the base (find an 
sponsor, sign an agreement, ARC approvals, CRs, approvals, 
submit/deny/submit/etc) .. Illuminos might be a nice place to potentially 
contribute if that process could be made easier (particularly if the ARC 
process is now going to be hidden for interface changes or additions) - but it 
my mind .. it almost seems worth it to take the lessons learned here and begin 
to focus some effort on fixing Linux (not that the 2 efforts need to be made 
mutually exclusive) - Sun always seemed a bit scared about fixing, porting, or 
improving Linux kernel interfaces (which is much easier to fork btw) - 
presumably due to the lack of control they thought they'd have in the process
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Brian Utterback]

On 08/16/10 11:32, Paul Gress wrote:

On 08/16/10 10:39 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:


You're wrong. Oracle owns all the copyright and they do not have to comply with 
the terms of the CDDL.

S.






I thought a written document had to be complied with until they change
the terms. In other words, their bound by their own rules until they
change it.

But I guess I'm mistaken and corrected.


A license is a contract between you and the copyright owner. It spells 
out the terms under which the owner is allowing you to use the 
copyrighted work. It makes no sense to say that there is a contract 
between the owner and him self. If I own a toll bridge and charge $1 
to cross it, do I have to pay a dollar to myself each time I cross it 
as well?


--
blu

It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be
used to facilitate a police state. - Bruce Schneier
---|
Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Oracle Corporation.
Ph:603-262-3916, Em:brian.utterb...@oracle.com
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Joerg Schilling]

Jonathan Edwards  wrote:

> Jörg the Börg wrote:
>
> > 
> > The GPL is a anti-collaboration license. 
> > 
> > The CDDL is a _license_ (text/name) owned by Oracle.
>
> not so sure that i agree on the GPL FUD being anti-collaboration 
> (particularly if you follow the amount of collaboration happening on a daily 
> basis LKML)

You could answer your question yourself by trying to find out whether the Linux 
developers would allow the FreeBSD project to include drivers from Linux.
At the same time Linux takes code from *BSD.


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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/16/10 02:56 PM, Brian Utterback wrote:

On 08/16/10 11:32, Paul Gress wrote:

On 08/16/10 10:39 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:


You're wrong. Oracle owns all the copyright and they do not have to 
comply with the terms of the CDDL.


S.






I thought a written document had to be complied with until they change
the terms. In other words, their bound by their own rules until they
change it.

But I guess I'm mistaken and corrected.


A license is a contract between you and the copyright owner. It spells 
out the terms under which the owner is allowing you to use the 
copyrighted work. It makes no sense to say that there is a contract 
between the owner and him self. If I own a toll bridge and charge $1 
to cross it, do I have to pay a dollar to myself each time I cross it 
as well?




I guess I was getting confused with ISO 9001-2008 where the saying is 
"Say what you do and do what you say".


Thanks for the clarification.

Paul
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ray Arachelian]

On 08/16/2010 08:50 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> Exactly why I suggested that any new bits added to IllumOS should be
>> GPL'ed.   
>> 
> #1  You're in the wrong place to promote GPL.  GPL is an extremist
> anti-corporate free software license, which is not as permissive as CDDL.
> This is the reason why CDDL is incompatible with GPL:  Because CDDL is more
> permissive than GPL can allow.
>   

Sorry, I wasn't aware that a specific specie of open source license was
tied to a forum, although understandably, CDDL might be preferred by
some members of this specific one. :)

Point was that new _additions_ to IllumOS (not originating from the osol
sources) should not be just handed on a silver platter back to Oracle,
or another entity.
Rather, it would keep it open sourced for all to use, and should Oracle,
or another corporation wish to use it, they could, but they could not
make it proprietary, and would be required to release the sources, along
with any modifications they had made.  In other words, protecting
"improvements" to the _additions_.  That isn't anti-corporate, rather it
is pro-originator.  The original developers, and the community around
them, not just corporations that choose to benefit from them, would also
benefit by upstream improvements to the additions.

> #2  You're also wrong about code being released under GPL vs CDDL.  The
> truth is:  In both licenses, once the code is published to the public, it
> can never be "yanked back."  

Yes, yes, yes.  The same is true of BSD, or almost any other open
source, source code.  Yes, the copyright owner can re-release their code
under whatever license terms they wish, but they can never revoke the
original released code.  The point wasn't that.  The point was that
_additions_ to IllumOS should not necessarily be licensed under a
license that allows them to be improved and then closed by third
parties.  So that, IF they make their way into Solaris proper, Oracle
(or hell, Microsoft) would be required to provide source code for said
improvements.  Nothing more than that.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: Ray Arachelian [mailto:r...@arachelian.com]
> 
> The point was that
> _additions_ to IllumOS should not necessarily be licensed under a
> license that allows them to be improved and then closed by third
> parties.  So that, IF they make their way into Solaris proper, Oracle
> (or hell, Microsoft) would be required to provide source code for said
> improvements.  Nothing more than that.

I think you're saying, you believe, that since Oracle is the copyright
holder on some code, and then somebody contributes to it, you think Oracle
is then the copyright holder of the contributions too.  I'd like to know if
I misunderstand what you're saying, or why you believe that?

When something open-source has contributions, it becomes portions copyright
the original copyright holder, and portions copyright the contributor.  In
CDDL, this is spelled out as:
(pasted from CDDL to here):
"Original Software" means the Source Code and Executable form of computer
software code that is originally released under this License.
"Contributor Version" means the combination of the Original Software, prior
Modifications used by a Contributor (if any), and the Modifications made by
that particular Contributor.

I don't see any reason at all to believe contributions are in any way
assigned to oracle, or able to become closed by oracle.  
 

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Erik Trimble]

 On 8/16/2010 3:20 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

From: Ray Arachelian [mailto:r...@arachelian.com]

The point was that
_additions_ to IllumOS should not necessarily be licensed under a
license that allows them to be improved and then closed by third
parties.  So that, IF they make their way into Solaris proper, Oracle
(or hell, Microsoft) would be required to provide source code for said
improvements.  Nothing more than that.

I think you're saying, you believe, that since Oracle is the copyright
holder on some code, and then somebody contributes to it, you think Oracle
is then the copyright holder of the contributions too.  I'd like to know if
I misunderstand what you're saying, or why you believe that?

When something open-source has contributions, it becomes portions copyright
the original copyright holder, and portions copyright the contributor.  In
CDDL, this is spelled out as:
(pasted from CDDL to here):
"Original Software" means the Source Code and Executable form of computer
software code that is originally released under this License.
"Contributor Version" means the combination of the Original Software, prior
Modifications used by a Contributor (if any), and the Modifications made by
that particular Contributor.

I don't see any reason at all to believe contributions are in any way
assigned to oracle, or able to become closed by oracle.


that is correct, Ned.

Both the Solaris and Java development processes here at Oracle use 
something called the "Sun Contributor Agreement" (SCA), if you want your 
code to be pushed into the main Java or Solaris repositories that Oracle 
maintains.


The SCA doesn't assign your copyright to Oracle, but it does grant 
Oracle a perpetual, unrevokable, worldwide, 
do-whatever-I-want-with-your-code-and-you-can't-stop-me license to that 
code.  Call it a price Sun/Oracle charges to insert your code into the 
main JDK/Solaris tree.


This is very similar to what the FSF does with much of the GNU tools, 
with the exception that the FSF actually wants you to assign your 
copyright to them, so that your code contribution to the project 
actually becomes copyright-owned by the FSF.



In either case, you certainly were free to create your own code, and 
distribute it separately from the Oracle or FSF codebase, without having 
to agree to a separate SCA or copyright assignment.  You only had to 
agree to the basic license that the code came with (CDDL or GPL).


Given that the IllumOS project is starting with CDDL code that they can 
never relicense in any meaningful way (except by subsequent CDDL 
versioning), this kind of trick can't work for IllumOS.  In this manner, 
IllumOS will end up very much like the Linux kernel - it's only ever 
going to be available under a single license (there can't be 
multi-licensed types).  It's too bad, but it's also not by any means a 
serious roadblock.



--
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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Gabriele Bulfon]

...Apple should pickup OpenSolaris and make it the new base system for OSX.
I would switch immediatly.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Erik Trimble]

 On 8/17/2010 3:49 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:

...Apple should pickup OpenSolaris and make it the new base system for OSX.
I would switch immediatly.


That's a  stunning suggestion.




In other news today, Toyota announced a deal with the US Army to use the 
M1 Abrams tank chassis as the new foundation for their next Tundra 
pickup truck.  A Toyota spokesman said:  "With a proven track record of 
being able to haul the largest loads on practically any terrain on the 
planet, the Abrams is an ideal basis for next year's completely 
redesigned Tundra.  We're happy to announce that we now offer the 
highest horsepower engine available in the full-size pickup category."


Oil company stocks rose on the announcement.

--
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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Calum Benson]

On 17 Aug 2010, at 11:49, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:

> ...Apple should pickup OpenSolaris and make it the new base system for OSX.
> I would switch immediatly.

If Apple had wanted to do that, they'd probably have been better just buying 
Sun before Oracle stepped in.  Can't really see what great benefit they or 
their users would get for the huge amount of work involved, though... they 
already have a pretty solid, certified Unix kernel, they've already got dtrace, 
and they've already decided they don't want ZFS.

Cheeri,
Calum.

-- 
CALUM BENSON, Interaction Designer Oracle Corporation Ireland Ltd.
mailto:calum.ben...@oracle.com Solaris Desktop Team
http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771

Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Oracle Corp.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Francois Laagel]

ARC approvals and the underlying transparency of the whole thing were, to me at 
least, one of the very best part of the process. Of course, I never had to go 
through this myself but the whole point of the architectural review committee 
was to make sure that a project and all its ramifications were well though out.

There certainly is nothing wrong with conceptual integrity and a sound design.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Farid Hajji]

> If anything I'd strongly suggest that whatever new features are to
> be added, as long as they can be, should be outside of the CDDL, and
> rather under GPL licenses than BSD or other licenses.  This would
> prevent Oracle from taking back source code, tweaking it and closing
> it.

Please don't! If you suggest a cooperation between the BSDs
and IllumOS, anything GPLed from IllumOS couldn't be added
to the BSDs... and there'll be therefore a lot less interest from
BSD developers to help.

IllumOS' intention to release their *new* code under a BSD
license makes perfect sense w.r.t. collaboration. Going the
GPL-way may be a stab at evil-Oracle, and gives a kind
of Schadenfreude for their current anti-community behavior,
but in the long run, it will do more harm than good.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Gabriele Bulfon]

We should not forget that Larry & Steve are said to be old time friends.
Apple showed great interest on ZFS (as any other OS vendor, be it interest or 
envy). Who knows what caused the decision to drop it? Maybe Steve was aware of 
next Solaris happenings?

I see no other reason why any OS vendor would drop such an amazing technology.

Darwin may even be solid, but moving OSX to an OpenSolaris base would let Apple 
enter a much more solid server market, and finally we would also have an 
amazing desktop for Solaris as a client.
Just think about a bright future with companies running:
- iDesktops with OSX on iSolaris (instead of Windows)
- iDesktops running OpenOffice (iOffice?) on OSX (instead of M$Office)
- iServers running iSolaris with all the server stuff you can run on (instead 
of Windows servers).
- iStorage based on iSolaris+ZFS etc. etc. (in this case you may have many 
other compatible choices)

Would you still need to run Windows networks?

Let's make a petition to Mr. Jobs. ;)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Joerg Schilling]

Gabriele Bulfon  wrote:

> We should not forget that Larry & Steve are said to be old time friends.
> Apple showed great interest on ZFS (as any other OS vendor, be it interest or 
> envy). Who knows what caused the decision to drop it? Maybe Steve was aware 
> of next Solaris happenings?
>
> I see no other reason why any OS vendor would drop such an amazing technology.

I've talked to a person who was invited by Apple to the private ZFS 
demonstration some time ago. At that time, Mac OS X would immediately panic 
once ZFS was mounted R/W. It is not a simple task, to include filesystem code 
that was designed for a single-context kernel into a multi-context kernel OS
like Mac OS X.

The other problem was that Apple wantet ZFS for free plus a legal 
indemnification on patent lawsuits.

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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Orvar Korvar]

What is the difference between single-context kernel and multi-context?
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[usafverteran]

That's classic!
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[usafverteran]

"Where is there anything more authoritative than just the rumors spread on
this mailing list?"

I would say that you need to give up your disbelief that OpenSolaris is no 
more, gone, caput, aidios, ciao, goodbye, bye bye, dead, and has been for some 
time.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Richard L. Hamilton]

> We should not forget that Larry & Steve are said to
> be old time friends.
> Apple showed great interest on ZFS (as any other OS
> vendor, be it interest or envy). Who knows what
> caused the decision to drop it? Maybe Steve was aware
> of next Solaris happenings?

http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html

So no, I don't think it was the good old boy network that killed ZFS
(at least for now) on Apple.

> I see no other reason why any OS vendor would drop
> such an amazing technology.
> 
> Darwin may even be solid, but moving OSX to an
> OpenSolaris base would let Apple enter a much more
> solid server market, and finally we would also have
> an amazing desktop for Solaris as a client.
> Just think about a bright future with companies
> running:
> - iDesktops with OSX on iSolaris (instead of
> Windows)
> - iDesktops running OpenOffice (iOffice?) on OSX
> (instead of M$Office)
> - iServers running iSolaris with all the server stuff
> you can run on (instead of Windows servers).
> - iStorage based on iSolaris+ZFS etc. etc. (in this
> case you may have many other compatible choices)
> 
> Would you still need to run Windows networks?
> 
> Let's make a petition to Mr. Jobs. ;)

I'd love it.  But there would be some stiff problems:
* OS X apps don't just use POSIX interfaces, they also use at least
some Mach interfaces.  Simulating those under (not so Open)Solaris
might be tough.
* even BSD drivers are different from Solaris drivers, although probably
closer than anything else.  But Mac OS X, although borrowing a lot from
BSD, has a driver interface like nothing else: IOkit, an object oriented
device driver environment, allowing (with limitations) drivers to be
implemented in C++.  So, not only would all drivers have to be massively
rewritten, but each interface can probably do some things that the other
can't (without a lot of work).
* different object file format (although actually, Solaris is pretty extensible
in that regard...would still take some work to be compatible, though)
* radically different approach to graphics and audio; I don't even begin
to know enough about the deep levels of how that works on a Mac, but
again, it would take a lot to adapt that to a Solaris kernel

Given the existing apps base for OS X, binary compatibility as well as
comparable graphics and audio performance, would be critical, IMO.
And those would be difficult indeed.

I certainly understand the temptation, though.  The Mac GUI apps and
userland frameworks are generally pretty impressive.  The XNU kernel
though, isn't (IMO) anywhere near as robust as Solaris, and OS X doesn't
have anything close to zfs (DTrace is also a bit lame there 'cause you
have to be root to use it, last I checked); I've crashed my Mac a good
deal more than I've crashed Solaris boxes (give or take messing around
with my own kernel code), although both are better than Windows.
And while the developer IDE is impressive, other tools to examine
processes aren't so good; nothing quite like pmap, for instance (although
I did stumble across something that gave some limited description
of process address spaces, but not to the point of spelling out what
was mapped where, stack, heap, etc); or like /proc (discounting
the MacFUSE /proc, which I've never gotten to continue working).
(On the plus side, OS X does actually include a supported port of
lsof.)  Another example: on Solaris, one can delete swap (assuming sufficient
RAM to page in whatever is out there); there's no obvious way to
do that on a Mac.  OS X is generally good enough for a desktop (and
the GUI goes a long way to making one want to forgive the weaknesses
of the kernel), but I don't think it's really up for being a robust general
purpose server...not beyond moderate loads of OS X specific services
provided to OS X clients.  Even for file service to Macs, I think I'd rather
run recent netatalk on a zfs-based NAS (Nexenta or FreeBSD, maybe).
(I'd like it even better if netatalk knew how to stick extra metadata
and resource forks into named attributes (where available), rather than
scattering ._* files around.)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Frank Lahm]

2010/8/18 Richard L. Hamilton :
> Even for file service to Macs, I think I'd rather
> run recent netatalk on a zfs-based NAS (Nexenta or FreeBSD, maybe).
> (I'd like it even better if netatalk knew how to stick extra metadata
> and resource forks into named attributes (where available), rather than
> scattering ._* files around.)

Netatalk 2.1.x actually does support and use EAs:


Cheers, F.!
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Gabriele Bulfon]

Well, yes...I understand, but...
...what Apple did with OSX is something nobody ever did on any unix: bring an 
amazing and totally usable desktop to a unix system!
Also, switching from OS9 to OSX was a total change, both of the underlying 
system AND of the underlying hardware & processor. Still, bringing portability 
of older code with some kind of emulation.
No OS did this, AFAIK.

If they could do this, maybe they could even move to Solaris :) I believe it 
would be a far easier path than the one they did from OS9 to OSX.

At lastthey may just pick up OpenSolaris and continue it as an OSX 
server.it's servers that we care of, when we talk about Solaris, afterall...
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Hugh McIntyre]

Gabriele Bulfon wrote:

Well, yes...I understand, but...
...what Apple did with OSX is something nobody ever did on any unix: bring an 
amazing and totally usable desktop to a unix system!
Also, switching from OS9 to OSX was a total change, both of the underlying system 
AND of the underlying hardware & processor. Still, bringing portability of 
older code with some kind of emulation.
No OS did this, AFAIK.

If they could do this, maybe they could even move to Solaris :) I believe it 
would be a far easier path than the one they did from OS9 to OSX.


As Richard pointed out, porting would be a ton of work with very little 
visible benefit for most MacOS desktop users, to say nothing of the ISVs 
who would need to port their apps.  Some of the ISVs would drop OS X.


There's also the question of iOS users (iPhone/iPad) which Apple needs 
to support and for whom the benefit is even less obvious.


And even if this was an easy change for Apple (it's not) it's unlikely 
Apple would want to do this because they would then not have control of 
the kernel in the OS they are using.  I.e. if Oracle makes changes that 
benefit large servers but hurt desktops, Apple does not want to be in 
the position of having to accept Oracle's changes even if they don't 
match Apple's roadmap.


For example, what if Apple wants some kernel changes for iOS 
(handhelds)?  Right now Apple controls this, but if they were using 
Solaris they would lose control.


Summary: you can be pretty sure this is not going to happen.

Hugh.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[David Brodbeck]

On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:43 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> Gabriele Bulfon  wrote:
> 
>> We should not forget that Larry & Steve are said to be old time friends.
>> Apple showed great interest on ZFS (as any other OS vendor, be it interest 
>> or envy). Who knows what caused the decision to drop it? Maybe Steve was 
>> aware of next Solaris happenings?
>> 
>> I see no other reason why any OS vendor would drop such an amazing 
>> technology.
> 
> I've talked to a person who was invited by Apple to the private ZFS 
> demonstration some time ago. At that time, Mac OS X would immediately panic 
> once ZFS was mounted R/W. It is not a simple task, to include filesystem code 
> that was designed for a single-context kernel into a multi-context kernel OS
> like Mac OS X.
> 
> The other problem was that Apple wantet ZFS for free plus a legal 
> indemnification on patent lawsuits.

I'm also not so sure ZFS made that much sense for Apple.  They sell some 
servers, but their target market is desktops and laptops.  ZFS is great on a 
server, where you have multiple disks for redundancy and lots of RAM to satisfy 
ZFS's vast hunger for memory.  On a single-disk laptop?  Not so much.  
Remember, Apple still sells base systems with 2 GB of RAM.  Even 4 GB is 
sometimes not sufficient to make ZFS happy, in my experience.  (On one of my 4 
GB fileservers ZFS would sometimes consume so much RAM that the ethernet driver 
couldn't allocate buffers.)  I don't think ZFS was going to be a good end user 
experience on a typical Apple machine.

-- 

David Brodbeck
System Administrator, Linguistics
University of Washington




___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Dmitry G. Kozhinov]

Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:

The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU 
cores.

Hope that it will be free (at least for non-commercial use) for unlimited 
period of time. Hope it will be sufficient to power up a small university 
server.

Dmitry.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/18/10 03:47 PM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:

Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:

The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU 
cores.

Hope that it will be free (at least for non-commercial use) for unlimited 
period of time. Hope it will be sufficient to power up a small university 
server.

   


I actually think it will be just like Opensolaris Express (SXCE), but 
with fewer updates with binaries, and Source at an unspecific time, 
meaning the leaked memo stated major milestones, I hope it means after 
every Express release.


Paul
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Hernan Saltiel]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Paul Gress  wrote:

>  On 08/18/10 03:47 PM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:
>
> Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
>
> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU 
> cores.
>
> Hope that it will be free (at least for non-commercial use) for unlimited 
> period of time. Hope it will be sufficient to power up a small university 
> server.
>
>
>
>
> I actually think it will be just like Opensolaris Express (SXCE), but with
> fewer updates with binaries, and Source at an unspecific time, meaning the
> leaked memo stated major milestones, I hope it means after every Express
> release.
>

This is not what I (and many of us) dreamed about an open source distro.
Best regards,

HeCSa.


>
> Paul
>
> ___
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>



-- 
HeCSa
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ian Collins]

On 08/18/10 11:51 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

* even BSD drivers are different from Solaris drivers, although probably
closer than anything else.  But Mac OS X, although borrowing a lot from
BSD, has a driver interface like nothing else: IOkit, an object oriented
device driver environment, allowing (with limitations) drivers to be
implemented in C++.  So, not only would all drivers have to be massively
rewritten, but each interface can probably do some things that the other
can't (without a lot of work).
   


With limitations, Solaris drivers can also be implemented in C++.  I 
know because I've done it!


--
Ian.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ian Collins]

On 08/19/10 07:47 AM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:

Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:

The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU 
cores.

   
Unlikely; too much effort would be required to maintain two streams and 
the feedback would be pretty useless.


Most companies use express or beta releases as free QA.  The benefits 
from customer testing outweigh any losses from license abuse.


--
Ian.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Paul Gress]

On 08/18/10 04:00 PM, Hernan Saltiel wrote:
I actually think it will be just like Opensolaris Express (SXCE), but 
with fewer updates with binaries, and Source at an unspecific time, 
meaning the leaked memo stated major milestones, I hope it means after 
every Express release.


This is not what I (and many of us) dreamed about an open source distro.


Well, what have you dreamed of for an open source distro?

Paul
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Ivan Wang]

> 
> 
> On 08/18/10 03:47 PM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:
>   cite="mid:344232755.361282160879701.JavaMail.Twebapp@
> f-app1"
>  type="cite">
> Let me guess what the Solaris 11
>  Express will be:
> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and
> limited number of CPU cores.
> 
> Hope that it will be free (at least for
> non-commercial use) for unlimited period of time.
> Hope it will be sufficient to power up a small
> university server.
> 
>   
> blockquote>
> 
> I actually think it will be just like Opensolaris
> Express (SXCE), but
> with fewer updates with binaries, and Source at an
> unspecific time,
> meaning the leaked memo stated major milestones, I
> hope it means after
> every Express release.

It is probably more like Solaris Express before SXCE, but the question still 
remains, still no official announcement of "Express" program from Oracle, and 
still open in the air whether so-called Express program is a continual 
commitment, or a one-shot stop gap. 

will oracle make announcement after imminent OGB decommision?

truly disturbing. 
Ivan.

> 
> Paul
> 
> ___
> 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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Jason]

My guess is that if announcement is going to be made, it'll be made at
their big conference that's happening soon (Oracleworld? something
like that)

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Ivan Wang  wrote:
>> 
>>
>> On 08/18/10 03:47 PM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote:
>> >  cite="mid:344232755.361282160879701.JavaMail.Twebapp@
>> f-app1"
>>  type="cite">
>> Let me guess what the Solaris 11
>>  Express will be:
>> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
>> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and
>> limited number of CPU cores.
>>
>> Hope that it will be free (at least for
>> non-commercial use) for unlimited period of time.
>> Hope it will be sufficient to power up a small
>> university server.
>>
>>   
>> blockquote>
>> 
>> I actually think it will be just like Opensolaris
>> Express (SXCE), but
>> with fewer updates with binaries, and Source at an
>> unspecific time,
>> meaning the leaked memo stated major milestones, I
>> hope it means after
>> every Express release.
>
> It is probably more like Solaris Express before SXCE, but the question still 
> remains, still no official announcement of "Express" program from Oracle, and 
> still open in the air whether so-called Express program is a continual 
> commitment, or a one-shot stop gap.
>
> will oracle make announcement after imminent OGB decommision?
>
> truly disturbing.
> Ivan.
>
>> 
>> Paul
>>
>> ___
>> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> --
> 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] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Richard L. Hamilton]

> Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
> 
> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and
> limited number of CPU cores.

I've never heard of any version of Solaris, commercial or otherwise,
that was purposely crippled to use only limited RAM, disk space,
and CPU cores.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Casper . Dik]

>Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
>
>The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
>Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and limited number of CPU 
>cores.

Name one downloadable Oracle product which is limited in some way.
(Other than the license)

Casper

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Casper . Dik]

>> Let me guess what the Solaris 11 Express will be:
>> 
>> The demo version of commercial Solaris 11.
>> Utilizing only limited amount of RAM, disk space, and
>> limited number of CPU cores.
>
>I've never heard of any version of Solaris, commercial or otherwise,
>that was purposely crippled to use only limited RAM, disk space,
>and CPU cores.


Nexenta?  Or is that using the honor system, again?

Casper

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express

[Orvar Korvar]

Actually, Oracle is opening up Solaris 11. Solaris 10 was closed source. This 
is important and no one complained on S10 being closed? 

When/if Oracle incorporates fixes from Illumos, those fixes will be available 
later, when Oracle releases the binary distro and the source code.

This does not disturb me. This announcement may be bad for the OpenSolaris 
distro, but Solaris 11 Express distro is just a few months away. This 
announcement is great for Solaris. 

What disturbs me, is the brain drain. Bryan Cantrill and Adam Leventhal has 
left now - they will both help out with Illumos I think. I hope Oracle treats 
the talented engineers that are left, better.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org