- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open Source Leader Takes Sun's Schwartz to Task
|
|
|
Comments (12)
This summarizes my problems with Sun
It's my biggest problem with Sun is that they are completely wishy-washy. My bet is that when Open Solaris comes out, the license doesn't get aproved by the OSI. They end up with something akin to MSFT shared Source, in which all changes and improvements you might make HAVE to be given to Sun. You might be able to keep your name on it, but you lose control of that piece of software.
Though I do agree with Taldeste that IBM has a major profit motive, and hasn't shown us all what it plans on doing, I trust Sun even less.
Though I do agree with Taldeste that IBM has a major profit motive, and hasn't shown us all what it plans on doing, I trust Sun even less.
peragrin:
I agree with you about them appearing wishy washy. Certainly, Novell has its message tight and simple. Some people believe that in the last Presidential race the clearer and simple message got the job done.
I know the OpenSolaris team wants either a GPL or BSD license. These guys now have the code. That's what they have - the source code. Now, they have to build Solaris and implement projects in a similar way as OpenOffice.org.
I know this for a fact - 100% fact.
But, the jury is still out on the license and it's due to external factors.
You know that I am on that team as well as the Sun Linux Community team. So, I can at least report to you that these are not bad people.
Now, my job is to help get everybody on the same page and working together. My ability to do that depends on a cease fire.
Welcome to the bargaining table.
I agree with you about them appearing wishy washy. Certainly, Novell has its message tight and simple. Some people believe that in the last Presidential race the clearer and simple message got the job done.
I know the OpenSolaris team wants either a GPL or BSD license. These guys now have the code. That's what they have - the source code. Now, they have to build Solaris and implement projects in a similar way as OpenOffice.org.
I know this for a fact - 100% fact.
But, the jury is still out on the license and it's due to external factors.
You know that I am on that team as well as the Sun Linux Community team. So, I can at least report to you that these are not bad people.
Now, my job is to help get everybody on the same page and working together. My ability to do that depends on a cease fire.
Welcome to the bargaining table.
tadeleste:
If I have ever spoken bad about Sun's engineer's than i apologize. It's Sun's management that i have major probelms with. Even Microsoft have good smart employees that do some very good hacks to hold windows together. That doesn't mean i like or condone the actions of MSFT management.
Sun's management have already said that Open Solaris won't be GPL'd because they want a more free License. The GPL only has one limit, if you take and change you must give those changes back. It does limit the old style software ideas though.
Good luck with your position. i can only guess on hard it will be for the next few months. I hope you get enough time to relax for the Holidays.
If I have ever spoken bad about Sun's engineer's than i apologize. It's Sun's management that i have major probelms with. Even Microsoft have good smart employees that do some very good hacks to hold windows together. That doesn't mean i like or condone the actions of MSFT management.
Sun's management have already said that Open Solaris won't be GPL'd because they want a more free License. The GPL only has one limit, if you take and change you must give those changes back. It does limit the old style software ideas though.
Good luck with your position. i can only guess on hard it will be for the next few months. I hope you get enough time to relax for the Holidays.
tadelste: I think Sun had the right to have kept Solaris closed source. Moreover, I am skeptical of their perceived gain by open sourcing their unencumbered portion of the code.
If they go the direction of either of the free options: GPL or BSD there may be significant, unanticipated consequences. I hope that the form offered is not what I expect: Sun in control where code changes are gladly accepted with the contribution of code and rights to that entity - with a "... your contribution is appreciated". I rather just ignore that possibility for this discussion due to its almost certainly being met with near universal scorn.
I had my doubts about the wisdom of Sun so blightly proclaiming their intent (McNeally and S[ch]wartz) to free Solaris. I wish they had reflected first and then perhaps dropped the whole idea!
Now they have a problem. If they do release it in a free form as mentioned above, they may do grievous long term harm to their company. By their history, being the source of BSD the release of Solaris under such terms could give MS a quality UNIX without the need for either major investment or need to return anything for the gain obtained or even the need to acknowledge is source.
Ironically, the best protection for Solaris [and Sun] would be a strong GPL license. They may lose absolute control, but played with restraint their lead role would be retained. Moreover, their estimation in the eyes of the so called free and open source community would rise. These are intangible gains that may be easily lost by simply shooting their mouths off again before a bit of reflection what the consequences might be.
In my opinion, the premature proclamation of opening Solaris was a mistake. It should have been approached more carefully weighing the perceived advantages and the myriad of possible negative factors. Then if it seemed to be a reasonable risk they could have proceeded in a more orderly fashion.
As an option, they could do what they did with Star Office: their proprietary version built on the basis of a free OpenOffice. There would be disparaging comments initially, but as did OO.o it would grow to be a respected option. [My daughter is running my copy of StarOffice 7, while I probably will stay with OO.o I like both.]
If they go the direction of either of the free options: GPL or BSD there may be significant, unanticipated consequences. I hope that the form offered is not what I expect: Sun in control where code changes are gladly accepted with the contribution of code and rights to that entity - with a "... your contribution is appreciated". I rather just ignore that possibility for this discussion due to its almost certainly being met with near universal scorn.
I had my doubts about the wisdom of Sun so blightly proclaiming their intent (McNeally and S[ch]wartz) to free Solaris. I wish they had reflected first and then perhaps dropped the whole idea!
Now they have a problem. If they do release it in a free form as mentioned above, they may do grievous long term harm to their company. By their history, being the source of BSD the release of Solaris under such terms could give MS a quality UNIX without the need for either major investment or need to return anything for the gain obtained or even the need to acknowledge is source.
Ironically, the best protection for Solaris [and Sun] would be a strong GPL license. They may lose absolute control, but played with restraint their lead role would be retained. Moreover, their estimation in the eyes of the so called free and open source community would rise. These are intangible gains that may be easily lost by simply shooting their mouths off again before a bit of reflection what the consequences might be.
In my opinion, the premature proclamation of opening Solaris was a mistake. It should have been approached more carefully weighing the perceived advantages and the myriad of possible negative factors. Then if it seemed to be a reasonable risk they could have proceeded in a more orderly fashion.
As an option, they could do what they did with Star Office: their proprietary version built on the basis of a free OpenOffice. There would be disparaging comments initially, but as did OO.o it would grow to be a respected option. [My daughter is running my copy of StarOffice 7, while I probably will stay with OO.o I like both.]
TxtEdMacs, are you aware that Eric Raymond for some time has voiced the idea that next windows (Longhorn?) might be based on the Solaris kernel?
The argument is that the security model of the current NT kernel is such that is can't be fixed and they will go the Apple Darwin / Aqua route. The recent "settlement" with Sun is supposedly part of this Cabal
ESR claims it's not his idea but stems from someone who's name I can't remember.
The argument is that the security model of the current NT kernel is such that is can't be fixed and they will go the Apple Darwin / Aqua route. The recent "settlement" with Sun is supposedly part of this Cabal
ESR claims it's not his idea but stems from someone who's name I can't remember.
bstadil :
that is nothing more than a rumour, started on all places the Linux shoow. it makes sense when Sun was keeping the kernel closed, with an open Source Solaris would MSFT really change to accept Open source even while continuing to hate the GPL?
that is nothing more than a rumour, started on all places the Linux shoow. it makes sense when Sun was keeping the kernel closed, with an open Source Solaris would MSFT really change to accept Open source even while continuing to hate the GPL?
bstadil: news to me!
peragrin: MS has used BSD licensed code. Moreover, they have a history of extending it too. My spelling may be incorrect, search on Kerberos and Microsoft security. BSD could really hurt Sun, I just wished they had thought this through first.
Got to run.
peragrin: MS has used BSD licensed code. Moreover, they have a history of extending it too. My spelling may be incorrect, search on Kerberos and Microsoft security. BSD could really hurt Sun, I just wished they had thought this through first.
Got to run.
Leader?!
Who made esr a leader? He is an ideologist of Open Source and self-approinted spokesman but surely no leader.
Alex, I disagree. He wrote the seminal Paper The Cathedral and the Bazaar and is looked upon by many inside (whatever that means) and notably outside the community as a leader and vocal spokes person.
He maintains a few projects and the Hacker Jargon file among other.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...
Head on over to Thelinuxshow Tuesday at 8pm Central where he is almost always participating. You might not agree with all he says but he is very articulate and refreshingly intelligent. http://www.thelinuxshow.com/
Head on over to Thelinuxshow Tuesday at 8pm Central where he is almost always participating. You might not agree with all he says but he is very articulate and refreshingly intelligent. http://www.thelinuxshow.com/
fetchmail is pretty neat as well...
The issue was an interpretation of Cathedral and Bazaar ... terms used by esr in that seminal paper.
The issue was an interpretation of Cathedral and Bazaar ... terms used by esr in that seminal paper.
I should weigh in here. I like Eric personally - as a friend. I don't agree with every single thing he says, but he's 90% . I also consider his contribution to open-source as huge. He's a remarkable man.
But Alex is right - Eric is self-appointed. That's not a problem. He said "follow me" and has added a lot of sanity to some very radical points of view from the community. I don't think open-source would be where it is today if the only spokesperson was Richard Stallman. And Richard is a critically important figure here also.
Eric had a lot to do with Apple going open-source with OS X - even though it's not 100% open-source. So, he does work hard at his job.
You don't have to defend Eric, his work speaks for itself.
But he is self-proclaimed and OSI had no official standing other than he says so. Like money, it's all about the agreement. Fortunately, a vast number of people agree with him.
But Alex is right - Eric is self-appointed. That's not a problem. He said "follow me" and has added a lot of sanity to some very radical points of view from the community. I don't think open-source would be where it is today if the only spokesperson was Richard Stallman. And Richard is a critically important figure here also.
Eric had a lot to do with Apple going open-source with OS X - even though it's not 100% open-source. So, he does work hard at his job.
You don't have to defend Eric, his work speaks for itself.
But he is self-proclaimed and OSI had no official standing other than he says so. Like money, it's all about the agreement. Fortunately, a vast number of people agree with him.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
The few times they have been I have been impressed with the top two at Sun when they have been forced to be really candid about their aims and actions. Other times they have been spewing FUD.