|
Home > Archive > Unix Programming > November 2004 > Solaris 10 for Free! - Comments, Reactions and Opinions
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Solaris 10 for Free! - Comments, Reactions and Opinions
|
|
| Isma'il Adeniran 2004-11-15, 5:52 pm |
| Hi
I'm sure you're all aware that Sun's offering Solaris 10 for free except
for support.
I must say, it's very compelling to (consider a) switch from Linux
[blasphemy !?!].
Just wanted to get people's reactions, opinions, etc.
Ish
---
What you can or feel you can, begin it! Boldness has genius, power and
magic in it.
Goethe.
----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
| |
| Dragan Cvetkovic 2004-11-15, 5:52 pm |
| Isma'il Adeniran <ismail@tamarindseed.com> writes:
> I'm sure you're all aware that Sun's offering Solaris 10 for free except
> for support.
>
> I must say, it's very compelling to (consider a) switch from Linux
> [blasphemy !?!].
Why do you care? You are using windows anyway.
>
> Just wanted to get people's reactions, opinions, etc.
How about using _both_ ?
Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
| |
| Chris Barts 2004-11-15, 5:52 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Isma'il Adeniran wrote:
| Hi
|
| I'm sure you're all aware that Sun's offering Solaris 10 for free except
| for support.
And given that they can compete with Red Hat in this area, it might be
interesting to watch the fight play out.
On another note, how long until SCO claims that Solaris includes code
stolen from them? ;)
|
| I must say, it's very compelling to (consider a) switch from Linux
| [blasphemy !?!].
I won't unless and until Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware, the
market MS-Windows now owns. Since I don't think a serious Enterprise OS
will do that for at least five more years, this whole announcement is a
no-op as far as direct relevance to me (and a great many others) is
concerned.
|
| Just wanted to get people's reactions, opinions, etc.
It's neat, it's keen, it has absolutely nothing to do with me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBmPbeKxatjOtX+j0RAlmSAJ0Yk0v3rOgE
tWJZZdatPPRra4vAuwCbBDHO
w91v+Gq7yawgJ1qMMtgyevE=
=WgRw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Casper H.S. Dik 2004-11-15, 5:52 pm |
| Chris Barts <chbarts+usenet@gmail.com> writes:
>I won't unless and until Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware, the
>market MS-Windows now owns. Since I don't think a serious Enterprise OS
>will do that for at least five more years, this whole announcement is a
>no-op as far as direct relevance to me (and a great many others) is
>concerned.
Uhm, but Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware?
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
| |
| Erik de Castro Lopo 2004-11-15, 5:52 pm |
| Isma'il Adeniran wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I'm sure you're all aware that Sun's offering Solaris 10 for free except
> for support.
At the momemnt, this release is still free as in beer, not free as in
speech. Its also a binary only release. The source may or may not be
released at some later stage.
> I must say, it's very compelling to (consider a) switch from Linux
> [blasphemy !?!].
Why? What do you think Solaris offers that Linux doesn't?
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"It's not that PERL programmers are idiots, it's that the
language rewards idiotic behavior in a way that no other
language or tool has ever done." -- Erik Naggum
| |
| Måns Rullgård 2004-11-15, 5:52 pm |
| Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:
> Chris Barts <chbarts+usenet@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> Uhm, but Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware?
Why should I use generic PC-clone hardware as long as my Alphas still
work?
One reason I use Linux is that I can modify the source code to my own
liking.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
| |
| Victor Wagner 2004-11-15, 5:52 pm |
| Chris Barts <chbarts+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> |
> | I must say, it's very compelling to (consider a) switch from Linux
> | [blasphemy !?!].
> I won't unless and until Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware, the
It does this for years, for reasonable definition of "generic".
For more than three years I have Solaris X86 machine on my desk.
I've used it as X terminal to log in to nearby Linux machine and as test
platform for our products. Now I have Linux machine on my desk, which
runs Solaris inside in the vmware.
--
Save yourself from the 'Gates' of hell, use Linux." -- like that one.
-- The_Kind @ LinuxNet
| |
| Jim Cochrane 2004-11-15, 8:47 pm |
| In article <KZWdnSanLYvdagXcRVn-2Q@onewest.net>, Chris Barts wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Isma'il Adeniran wrote:
>| Hi
>|
>| I'm sure you're all aware that Sun's offering Solaris 10 for free except
>| for support.
>
> And given that they can compete with Red Hat in this area, it might be
> interesting to watch the fight play out.
>
> On another note, how long until SCO claims that Solaris includes code
> stolen from them? ;)
If I remember right, Sun paid SCO off so that the above wouldn't happen.
--
Jim Cochrane; jtc@dimensional.com
[When responding by email, include the term non-spam in the subject line to
get through my spam filter.]
| |
| Sean Burke 2004-11-16, 2:48 am |
|
Erik de Castro Lopo <nospam@mega-nerd.com> writes:
> Isma'il Adeniran wrote:
>
> At the momemnt, this release is still free as in beer, not free as in
> speech. Its also a binary only release. The source may or may not be
> released at some later stage.
>
>
> Why? What do you think Solaris offers that Linux doesn't?
A working Posix thread implementation? ;->
-SEan
| |
| Chris Barts 2004-11-16, 2:48 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
| Chris Barts <chbarts+usenet@gmail.com> writes:
|
|
|>I won't unless and until Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware, the
|>market MS-Windows now owns. Since I don't think a serious Enterprise OS
|>will do that for at least five more years, this whole announcement is a
|>no-op as far as direct relevance to me (and a great many others) is
|>concerned.
|
|
| Uhm, but Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware?
Obviously, I did not know that. I thought Sun only ported its OSes to
its own hardware.
So I might download and build the sources and install Solaris on a spare
box I've got lying around. It could be interesting to see how it
compares to an OS I know reasonably well (Linux, that is).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBmaPhKxatjOtX+j0RAvaTAJ4oSdGRgKmG
YrpfjGZ9qewUKquMHgCdGXHZ
v0xW9LMgoiOdJmQ1b37t7zs=
=EtOo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Paul Pluzhnikov 2004-11-16, 2:48 am |
| Chris Barts <chbarts+usenet@gmail.com> writes:
> | Uhm, but Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware?
Solaris for x86, that is.
> So I might download and build the sources and install Solaris on a spare
You don't download sources (at least not yet; there is a rumor that
source will be opened some time in the future).
You download a {SPARC,x86} binary CD images and install that.
Cheers,
--
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.
| |
| Frank Cusack 2004-11-16, 2:48 am |
| On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:52:41 +0000 Isma'il Adeniran <ismail@tamarindseed.com> wrote:
> I'm sure you're all aware that Sun's offering Solaris 10 for free
> except for support.
How's that? Please give a pointer to Sun documentation to this effect.
Solaris 10 isn't even available AFAICT. The only thing I can find
is "Solaris Express".
/fc
| |
| Måns Rullgård 2004-11-16, 2:48 am |
| Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> writes:
>
> A working Posix thread implementation? ;->
The NPTL threads in Linux 2.6 and recent glibc seem to be working
here. Maybe we have different definitions of "work".
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
| |
| Måns Rullgård 2004-11-16, 2:48 am |
| Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> writes:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:52:41 +0000 Isma'il Adeniran <ismail@tamarindseed.com> wrote:
>
> How's that? Please give a pointer to Sun documentation to this effect.
> Solaris 10 isn't even available AFAICT. The only thing I can find
> is "Solaris Express".
Solaris 9 is free for non-commercial use, and Solaris 10 seems to be
following the same model. There are also some hints that the source
might be opened. If it will, and under what license, remains to be
seen.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
| |
| Dragan Cvetkovic 2004-11-16, 7:48 am |
| Chris Barts <chbarts+usenet@gmail.com> writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
|
> | Uhm, but Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware?
>
> Obviously, I did not know that. I thought Sun only ported its OSes to
> its own hardware.
>
> So I might download and build the sources and install Solaris on a spare
> box I've got lying around. It could be interesting to see how it
> compares to an OS I know reasonably well (Linux, that is).
You always build your own Linux distro? I am impressed.
Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
| |
| Brian Utterback 2004-11-16, 2:37 pm |
|
Jim Cochrane wrote:
> In article <KZWdnSanLYvdagXcRVn-2Q@onewest.net>, Chris Barts wrote:
>
>
>
> If I remember right, Sun paid SCO off so that the above wouldn't happen.
>
From June InfoWorld:
SYDNEY - Less than one week after Sun Microsystems Inc.'s chief operating officer Jonathan Schwartz
pledged to Open Source its Solaris operating system, The SCO Group Inc. has stated that license
restrictions prevent Sun from contributing its work to the GPL (General Public License).
--
blu
I voted electronically...I think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Utterback - OP/N1 Revenue Product Engineering, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ph/VM: 877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
| |
| Brian Utterback 2004-11-16, 2:37 pm |
|
Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> Solaris 9 is free for non-commercial use, and Solaris 10 seems to be
> following the same model. There are also some hints that the source
> might be opened. If it will, and under what license, remains to be
> seen.
>
Note that this is incorrect. Solaris 10 is free for commercial use as well,
as was announced yesterday.
See: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-new...cle.php/3435621
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...L&type=business
Also, to answer a previous poster, "What does Solaris 10 have that Linux doesn't?",
there are many new features in Solaris 10 that are not in Linux, but to me the
most compelling one is Dtrace. My prediction is that virtually every Enterprise
shop in the world will run at least one Solaris system, just to get access
to Dtrace for optimization and testing of applications. It remains to be seen
if Dtrace and the other new features will be compelling enough to get these
same enterprises to run more than one or even only.
--
blu
I voted electronically...I think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Utterback - OP/N1 Revenue Product Engineering, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ph/VM: 877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
| |
| Casper H.S. Dik 2004-11-16, 2:37 pm |
| Chris Barts <chbarts+usenet@gmail.com> writes:
>| Uhm, but Solaris runs on generic PC-clone hardware?
>Obviously, I did not know that. I thought Sun only ported its OSes to
>its own hardware.
>So I might download and build the sources and install Solaris on a spare
>box I've got lying around. It could be interesting to see how it
>compares to an OS I know reasonably well (Linux, that is).
Perhaps you could first download the binary and install that rather
than wait for the source release, get cross compilers, build and
install it :-)
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
| |
| Casper H.S. Dik 2004-11-16, 2:37 pm |
| Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> writes:
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:52:41 +0000 Isma'il Adeniran <ismail@tamarindseed.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>How's that? Please give a pointer to Sun documentation to this effect.
>Solaris 10 isn't even available AFAICT. The only thing I can find
>is "Solaris Express".
Free RTU, see:
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunfla...20041115.4.html
For now, you can still only download Solaris Express but as of
Solaris 10 FCS you can register and then download and use it for free.
Supports costs.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
| |
| Casper H.S. Dik 2004-11-16, 2:37 pm |
| =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mru@inprovide.com> writes:
>Solaris 9 is free for non-commercial use, and Solaris 10 seems to be
>following the same model. There are also some hints that the source
>might be opened. If it will, and under what license, remains to be
>seen.
It's more free than that.
"Free right to use (RTU): Includes a RTU license for the Solaris 10 OS
for end-user commercial use; security fixes; and update releases via
web download. Pricing is $0 USD per central processing unit (CPU) per
year with registration."
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
| |
| Alan Balmer 2004-11-16, 2:37 pm |
| On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:37:38 -0500, Brian Utterback
<Brian.Utterback@Sun.removeme.COM> wrote:
>
>Jim Cochrane wrote:
>
> From June InfoWorld:
>
>SYDNEY - Less than one week after Sun Microsystems Inc.'s chief operating officer Jonathan Schwartz
>pledged to Open Source its Solaris operating system, The SCO Group Inc. has stated that license
>restrictions prevent Sun from contributing its work to the GPL (General Public License).
Hardly surprising. Fortunately, there are other Open Source licenses.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
| |
| John Doherty 2004-11-16, 5:49 pm |
| In article <4198FFD5.6D007305@mega-nerd.com>, Erik de Castro Lopo
<nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>
> Why? What do you think Solaris offers that Linux doesn't?
Solaris is a terrific, industrial-strength operating system with a
lot of nice features. The new thing I'm looking forward to most is
the ZFS file system, which is really frickin' spiffy. :-)
This is not to slam linux, which is a fine OS in it's own right, but
Solaris is worth knowing about, too.
--
| |
| Jim Cochrane 2004-11-16, 8:48 pm |
| In article <cnd6s2$di7$1@news1brm.Central.Sun.COM>, Brian Utterback wrote:
>
> Jim Cochrane wrote:
>
> From June InfoWorld:
>
> SYDNEY - Less than one week after Sun Microsystems Inc.'s chief operating officer Jonathan Schwartz
> pledged to Open Source its Solaris operating system, The SCO Group Inc. has stated that license
> restrictions prevent Sun from contributing its work to the GPL (General Public License).
>
Hmm - just the GPL? Does that mean they are free to choose the, e.g., BSD
license?
--
Jim Cochrane; jtc@dimensional.com
[When responding by email, include the term non-spam in the subject line to
get through my spam filter.]
| |
| Sean Burke 2004-11-17, 2:48 am |
|
Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> writes:
> Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> writes:
>
>
> The NPTL threads in Linux 2.6 and recent glibc seem to be working
> here. Maybe we have different definitions of "work".
No, you're correct, 2.6 with NPTL works.
I was just teasing.
-SEan
| |
| Frank Cusack 2004-11-17, 7:48 am |
| On 16 Nov 2004 16:49:48 GMT Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mru@inprovide.com> writes:
>
>
> It's more free than that.
>
> "Free right to use (RTU): Includes a RTU license for the Solaris 10 OS
> for end-user commercial use; security fixes; and update releases via
> web download. Pricing is $0 USD per central processing unit (CPU) per
> year with registration."
That's awesome!
But I'd like to correct the previous poster, S9 is *not* free for
non-commercial use. Free use of S9 is under very restricted terms
and for almost all parties, even then it is only for 60 days.
So the S10 terms are much much better -- it makes official the [apparent]
policy of non-enforcement of S9 licensing. Probably Sun realized that
the number of folks paying for S9 w/o support (ie, the number of folks
honoring the license or even reading it closely enough to know they need
to pay) is about as large as the number of folks who voluntarily pay
sales tax to their home state for goods bought out-of-state. (Sorry
for the US-ism.) And so, better to use this for marketing advantage
than to have a ridiculous RTU when free downloads are available and
OS competition is fierce.
Finally! I think Sun is starting to "get it".
/fc
| |
| Casper H.S. Dik 2004-11-17, 7:48 am |
| Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> writes:
>On 16 Nov 2004 16:49:48 GMT Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>That's awesome!
>But I'd like to correct the previous poster, S9 is *not* free for
>non-commercial use. Free use of S9 is under very restricted terms
>and for almost all parties, even then it is only for 60 days.
Yes, sorry, this paragraph only applies to S10. So please read
"Solaris 10 is more free than that".
>Finally! I think Sun is starting to "get it".
Thanks, I think. By growing the installed base with a free OS license,
we hope to attract more application developers, hopefully creating
an upward spiral of Solaris 10 installations and applications for
Solaris 10.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
| |
| Markus Gyger 2004-11-17, 7:48 am |
| Casper H.S. Dik writes:
> For now, you can still only download Solaris Express but as of
> Solaris 10 FCS you can register and then download and use it for free.
Any idea if there will be fees for registration and download?
Markus
| |
| Stefaan A Eeckels 2004-11-17, 5:51 pm |
| On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:47:54 -0800
Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> wrote:
> So the S10 terms are much much better -- it makes official the
> [apparent] policy of non-enforcement of S9 licensing.
Well, they don't even follow up on quote requests for
S9 licenses - I'm prepared to buy a license for my
Blade2000, and sent a quote request via Sun's local
Website. I get the automated acknowledgement, but no
reaction at all from a sales droid (suits me fine :-).
This is similar to the lack of follow-up I got when I
wanted to buy a Blade 1500 recently (forcing me to get
a second-hand B2K), and a Blade 100 a while ago (which
made me buy a second-hand U60).
> Probably Sun
> realized that the number of folks paying for S9 w/o support (ie, the
> number of folks honoring the license or even reading it closely enough
> to know they need to pay) is about as large as the number of folks who
> voluntarily pay sales tax to their home state for goods bought
> out-of-state. (Sorry for the US-ism.)
How many people even know that they should do so?
When I lived in NJ(*) in the early 1980ies, ordering
computer parts from NY suppliers was a favourite
way to save a buck. As far as I remember, no-one
knew we were supposed to send money to Trenton (at
least I didn't know it ;-).
(*) Ah!, New Jersey, where you park on the driveway,
and drive on the parkway (when not congested :-)
Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid
| |
| Erik de Castro Lopo 2004-11-17, 5:51 pm |
| John Doherty wrote:
>
> Solaris is a terrific, industrial-strength operating system with a
> lot of nice features.
Thats marketing.
> The new thing I'm looking forward to most is
> the ZFS file system, which is really frickin' spiffy. :-)
ZFS is probably overkill for 99% of applications where one
has the choice of Linux and Solaris on x86.
> This is not to slam linux, which is a fine OS in it's own right, but
> Solaris is worth knowing about, too.
I spent 3.5 years working at SUN doing senior level support
on their storage systems. I know enough Solaris to know that
for what I need to do with an x86 box, Linux is a better
option.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"Some people don't want genitalia shoved down their throats."
-- Rex Mossop, Australian football commentator and morals crusader
| |
| John Doherty 2004-11-18, 5:52 pm |
| In article <419BBA0E.BAE78BEE@mega-nerd.com>, Erik de Castro Lopo
<nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> ZFS is probably overkill for 99% of applications where one
> has the choice of Linux and Solaris on x86.
Even assuming that's true now, things probably aren't going to stay
that way forever. And even if you don't need huge amounts of storage,
the flexibility has value, I think. And I don't care about your 99%,
I care about me. :-)
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I spent 3.5 years working at SUN doing senior level support
> on their storage systems. I know enough Solaris to know that
> for what I need to do with an x86 box, Linux is a better
> option.
OK, fine. Use what you like.
--
| |
| M. B. Trausch 2004-11-19, 2:48 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chris Barts wrote:
|
| Obviously, I did not know that. I thought Sun only ported its OSes to
| its own hardware.
|
| So I might download and build the sources and install Solaris on a spare
| box I've got lying around. It could be interesting to see how it
| compares to an OS I know reasonably well (Linux, that is).
|
I've had horrible luck getting Solaris to run on x86 hardware.
Mind you, I tried several times, but only with Solaris 8. YMMV.
~ MT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBnYj/cNB5yDSBR3oRAqitAJ4pwM/QpBzBSnGYGvUYnAVeNrDbWwCeLoyt
uAoDBX9biBvljwwFee8yfjE=
=QaTT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
|