11 ms·

OpenSolaris is dead

129 points by mstevens 16y ago

martinp 16y ago
Since the slogan "don't be evil" is already in use, I'm guessing Oracle is going for "be evil" instead?
- dpapathanasiou 16y ago
  Sometimes, I admire Oracle more than the supposed do-gooders at Google. Oracle is a for-profit entity, they will take any legal or tactical advantage they can get (e.g., lawsuit over Java in Android), and they make no bones about it. I don't like everything they do, but you know what you get with them. Google says "don't be evil", yet they back off that principle when it's inconvenient (e.g., caving in to Chinese censorship demands, deal with Verizon over net neutrality, etc.).
  - bad_user 16y ago
    So I should take away from this post that Oracle has given you more than Google did? Because that's what it sounds like to me. Personally I admire companies that are giving me value. > yet they back off that principle when it's inconvenient Regarding both net neutrality and Chinese censorship, Google did what nobody else did. So I really don't get this line of reasoning. Personally I take away from this that my company shouldn't give a crap about anything other than money, because all you're achievements don't mean squat in the end apparently.
    - dpapathanasiou 16y ago
      So I should take away from this post that Oracle has given you more than Google did? Neither has given me anything that I didn't pay for, either directly or indirectly. Regarding both net neutrality and Chinese censorship, Google did what nobody else did. Which is what, exactly? When push came to shove, they acted no differently than any other large corporation. Personally I take away from this that my company shouldn't give a crap about anything other than money, because all you're [sic] achievements don't mean squat in the end apparently. I don't understand your emotional attachment to Google. mechanical_fish said it better than I could, so I'll just quote part of his reply here: It would be refreshing if people stopped pretending that these inter-corporate battles had anything to do with either morality or the public good.
      - TheWilduck 16y ago
        Neither has given me anything that I didn't pay for, either directly or indirectly. That's not strictly true. I would argue that Google provides a greater amount of consumer surplus than Oracle. Consumer surplus pretty much amounts to value you obtain from a product or service that the producer can't capture in the price.
  - mechanical_fish 16y ago
    I think what you're saying is "Google, Just Cut The BS And Give the Gordon Gekko Speech Already": http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/google-net-neutrality/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/google-net-neutrality/ I am not exactly a starry-eyed admirer of the Gordon Gekkos of the world, but I tend to agree. It would be refreshing if people stopped pretending that these inter-corporate battles had anything to do with either morality or the public good.
    - barrkel 16y ago
      I think that's a very shortsighted and dimwitted way of looking at things. The nebulous things like ideals are what guide people to their longer-term self-interest, their enlightened self-interest, rather than short-termism which hurts them in the longer term.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
  - martinp 16y ago
    Google isn't always non-evil, but they're consistently less evil than all of the other large companies in technology. Also, Oracle has never created anything really significant (in my opinion) other than their overpriced "enterprise" databases. Now it seems that they're hell bent on taking everything good that came out of Sun and destroying it.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    The problem with "Don't be evil" is that it's subjective. Google isn't a hardcore idealist because people that refuse to cooperate unless all of their demands are met never really get anywhere (see RMS). Compromise is a fact of life for everyone. Principles shouldn't be compromised, and you have to draw the line, but you also have to cooperate with people who have a different perspective than yourself. I don't see either censorship in China or the net neutrality proposal (which I don't know much about) as bonafide "evil". You may disagree, but it's hard to say that they are evil or done with evil intent. Oracle, on the other hand, is pretty easy to call evil because they act out of cruel self-interest practically exclusively. Oracle is always taking cheap shots.
    - bokchoi 16y ago
      Being evil is also subjective. For Oracle stockholders and quarterly statements, acting out of self-interest is a good thing.
      - nailer 16y ago
        Most of Oracle's moves are short term plays. Growing the Java and Unix industries would allow them to sell boxes. These do the opposite, in favor of making cash now.
        bokchoi 16y ago
        Sure. Individual investors might care, but Wall St. is incentivized to only care about quarterly profits.
        jimbokun 16y ago
        "Growing the Java and Unix industries would allow them to sell boxes." I am highly skeptical of this. I believe this was the stated strategy of many of Sun's decisions, and it did not work out well for them.
        cookiecaper 16y ago
  - cturner 16y ago
    Lack of shame is not a valid defence for evil. We all have a responsibility to be good citizens.
  - DannoHung 16y ago
    So, if we make a Corporate entity as person analogy, you like someone who is unabashedly horrible and perfectly honest about it, rather than someone who tries to be good and is a dick sometimes. If I were you, I think I would die from cynicism toxicity shock. Well, either that or you think that all industry should be destroyed because all corporations should invariably end up being perfectly evil.
    - dpapathanasiou 16y ago
      You are describing a false dichotomy. My comment was less an expression of admiration for Oracle than disdain for Google.
    - BMeph 16y ago
      Let's test the theory: do you watch the TV show "House"? If not, ask someone who does. It's selling points are that 1) House is not quite, but almost always a total dickhead. Everyone else on the show are more normal doctors (which is to say, they're dicks, but they aren't as dedicated to being so). 2) House almost always figures out what's happening (but of course never right away, 'cause it's a TV show) because as much of a dedicated dickhead he is, he's also dedicated to being right - he's a caricature of the "I'd rather be right than liked" adage. House is far and away the most popular character on the show, because, while he is an unpleasant, malicious, manipulative sod, he wants to figure out the cure to the disease, and make the patient feel good by being well. Well, he's also popular because he's Hugh FREAKING Laurie, but that's another story...
  - ergo98 16y ago
    >Oracle is a for-profit entity, they will take any legal or tactical advantage they can get (e.g., lawsuit over Java in Android), and they make no bones about it. This has become a bit of a meme lately, and it's pretty tenuous. Google makes lots of money by not being evil. People have given Google tremendous data that no other could get because they have a general trust that it will be used responsibly. In all of the fawning over the just released voice recognition in Android, almost no one noted that it means that much more of your interactions with your device will be sent to Google, which is something that few companies could get away with. So seriously, people need to shitcan the "they're a public company" or "they're out to make money therefore they are evil" noise. It's dumb. Oracle is essentially pissing on all of the Sun assets that they acquired for a short term game because there is no long game in it -- Solaris is on the way outs, and even Java is almost dead in the mobile space (not counting Android...), and in the Enterprise space despite all of the rhetoric on here, it's dying and is largely the domain of legacy projects. Oracle is cashing in while they can like a standard troll. Google, however, is in for the long haul, and their entire strategy depends upon a lot of trust by consumers. In other words they MAKE MONEY, fulfilling their public mandate, by not being evil. Strange, isn't that? This argument would be just as ridiculous saying "Sometimes I admire [some shitty brand] more than the supposed high quality Apple. [Some shitty brand] is a for-profit entity, they will take any cost cutting measure they can get (flimsy materials, shoddy electronics), and they make no bones about it. Apple is just faking making a good product because, you know, they're out to make a buck"
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - kelnos 16y ago
    So wait, you're saying that you admire Oracle because they're evil and greedy and admit it, and that you admire Google much less because they have a "don't be evil" slogan but sometimes make missteps? That sounds a bit shortsighted to me. I suppose it's ok to find Oracle's forthright greed refreshing, but... admirable? I find it awful. I never thought of "don't be evil" as an end-all be-all promise to always do the right thing, no matter what. It's a guiding principle, one that has to take the back seat in the face of more practical considerations sometimes. We may not agree with all of those "sometimes," but that doesn't make those decisions automatically wrong. Google isn't perfect, but at least it seems like they try to have a social conscience. Or maybe they've just done a good job of brainwashing me into thinking they do.
- protomyth 16y ago
  "You can trust we will always be honest about our profit motives"
tptacek 16y ago
One thing you have to say for Oracle that you couldn't really automatically say for Sun: they're not chickenshit.
- mhd 16y ago
  No, they definitely leave out the chicken part.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    Because they don't want to spend/waste money maintaining certain features of a product that are less profitable? Or …?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - sprout 16y ago
      Because they prefer spending money on sales, marketing, and lawsuits than maintaining / improving their products, even their most profitable ones.
      - houseabsolute 16y ago
        Surely if that is true, which I seriously doubt, this is partially on the buyer for not choosing products based on which is the best, and therefore not giving Oracle any incentive to spend on improving their products.
scaleordie 16y ago
If at least ZFS can be salvaged from the wreck...
- ww520 16y ago
  Why is that? Isn't ZFS part of Solaris? Or at least has the same licensing restriction as OpenSolaris?
  - nroach 16y ago
    ZFS is licensed separately and apart from Solaris, but it's still under the CDDL
- nailer 16y ago
  It won't be. Oracle will keep the CDDL, and use ZFS to market Solaris as a USP over Linux, until (and probably after) btrfs becomes mainstream on Linux.
  - strlen 16y ago
    The btfs developer works at Oracle (and also works on OCFS).
    - nailer 16y ago
      Good point - that's one thing I wonder about - although nothing's been said, it wouldn't surprise me if Chris Mason left Oracle for IBM or Red Hat.
    - wmf 16y ago
      It is a bit hard for me to reconcile Oracle's contributions to Linux with their seemingly mercenary attitudes towards Solaris and Java.
      - protomyth 16y ago
        It really isn't. They liked Linux because they could sell their database on white box hardware and not pay Microsoft (more money for Oracle less for a competitor). This move is designed to bring Solaris in line with their other enterprise software products. They have an OS and Server combination that can help them make more money. Their Java move with Google is simple. IBM paid for Java, Google didn't. Oracle wants the cash.
moondowner 16y ago
OpenSolaris was dead long ago, this only opened the eyes to the people optimistic that things will change and there will be a future OpenSolaris release. "We will determine a simple, cost-effective means of getting enterprise users of prior OpenSolaris binary releases to migrate to S11 Express." -- Says enough. "We will continue to grow a vibrant developer and system administrator community for Solaris." -- I really wonder how.
- spudlyo 16y ago
  "We will continue to grow a vibrant developer and system administrator community for Solaris." -- I really wonder how. They really killed the wrong Solaris. If they embraced the GNU userland (as OpenSolaris did) they would have had a much better shot at getting more raised-on-Linux admins and developers to embrace their OS. As it is, the current BSD flavored Solaris tools are so crufty and incompatible it leaves many Linux users with a distinct loathing for the OS.
  - wipt 16y ago
    Did OpenSolaris use GNU userland? Or are you confusing the official branch with on of the forks? BSD isn't dead, and is different but not in bad ways. Don't bad mouth something (BSD) because you don't use it. Companies are much less likely to embrace GNU anything, GNU just doesn't fly that way. BSD license is much more permissive, and therefore much more attractive to companies.
    - azakus 16y ago
      OpenSolaris had a GNU userland. The BSD ancestry of the Solaris userland isn't the problem. The problem was the senseless defaults and cryptic command structures ("shutdown -g0 -i5 -y" instead of "shutdown")
      - spudlyo 16y ago
        Here is a barbaric and senseless default. Do a crontab -e without $EDITOR set and you'll be dropped into ed. I realize that it's the "standard editor" but the joke stopped being funny when I needed to edit a file with it.
motters 16y ago
Having never used OpenSolaris this is no hardship for me. However, it's looking like Oracle is a company that is quite hostile to open source, so this also raises concerns for what will happen to the likes of OpenOffice and VirtualBox. In general it also raises questions about the wisdom of open source developers assigning their copyrights over to a particular company, who may subsequently choose to betray their generosity. If I'd made significant contributions to OpenSolaris I'd probably be feeling as sick as a parrot right now.
- moondowner 16y ago
  Don't forget NetBeans, the Rich Client Platform. Lots of applications are built on it (Light Analysis, Energy Consumption Management, Petroleum Engineering App, Swedish Trading Client & Swedish Defense Research App, Open Source Stock Trading Platform, Jewelry Customer Manager -- these are news only from the last 3-4 months), even NASA uses it. It's crucial for Oracle to sustain NetBeans development and not to favour their JDeveloper IDE (cause the latter isn't a platform).
  - barlo 16y ago
    Oracle uses NetBeans internally for the development of several applications (mostly from acquisitions), I don't believe you'll see that phased out anytime soon.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  I can assure you the GPL parts of NetBeans will survive. I cannot say the same about the CDDL parts. I assume people will still contribute to it, but I guess it's a question of time before Oracle decides to turn a quick buck out of NB and close down the CDDL stuff.
alec 16y ago
I thought it was interesting that Linux was completely absent from all of the market position talk.
- nailer 16y ago
  I think everyone who read 'Solaris is the #1 Enterprise Operating System', raised an eyebrow, then read 'We have more than twice the application base of AIX and HP-UX combined' and chuckled.
  - rikthevik 16y ago
    I read that to say 'Solaris is the #1 (SysV-based) Enterprise Operating System'
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - wipt 16y ago
      Linux IS SysV-based, though
      - NonIdentifiable 16y ago
        Eh, what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_V No, Linux is not SysV based.
        nailer 16y ago
        Depends on whether you mean: - Based on SysV standards - which GNU does for most commands, and which most Linux OSs did for initscripts. - Based on Sys V code, which it obviously isn't.
        wipt 16y ago
        I didn't mean that it was based off of the original UNIX code base, I know my UNIX history better than that. As nailer said, this can be taken two ways and I meant it in the latter. Linux has elements of SysV - it has run levels and the like, unlike BSD's.
neild 16y ago
Note that this is not the end of source code releases of Solaris: We will continue to use the CDDL license statement in nearly all Solaris source code files. We will not remove the CDDL from any files in Solaris to which it already applies, and new source code files that are created will follow the current policy regarding applying the CDDL (simply, that usr/src files will have the CDDL, and the very small minority of files in usr/closed might not have it). Use of other open licenses in non-ON consolidations (e.g. GPL in the Desktop area) will also continue. As before, requests to change the license associated with source code are case-by-case decisions. 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. In other words, the Solaris development process is becoming more closed, but you'll still be able to see the source code for any given release. Or at least, that's how I interpret the above. I'm not in touch enough with Solaris development to know how much of a practical impact this will have--how many non-Sun/Oracle people work on OpenSolaris?
- NonIdentifiable 16y ago
  It was the nightly basis that allowed a lot of other products (Nexenta) to work well, and get updates faster. It was out of these nightly code drops that OpenSolaris was created ...
- caf 16y ago
  Note though that there won't be any more binary releases of OpenSolaris - so you'll have to build the whole ball of wax from the code drop yourself. And of course you won't be able to build the /usr/closed components.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
pclark 16y ago
Everyone seems to have missed - or be ignoring - the fundamentals of Oracle. They aren't in this game to change the world (ala Sun), or improve the lives of developers, they're in this to make bucket loads of cash if products they acquire will not make them money - they will ruthlessly cut it. They aren't hackers. They aren't designers. They aren't entrepreneurs. They're business men. Similarly if you dare compete with Oracle, you're going up against a company similar to Microsoft 10 years ago: rich and mean. Look at someone like Google, you think they're evil? Oracle could literally wipe them off the planet if they were inclined. The fact people hate upon Apple or Google, or even Microsoft when Oracle is the towering nemesis is hilarious. At least Oracle doesn't bullshit you. Google? Do no evil? You're a public company. Vision, for the greater good, wanting to change the world are all well and great, but when the chips are down, you know what counts? Revenues. As Larry Ellison once said about Sun: "Lots and lots of blogs does not replace lots and lots of sales" and you know what? I admire them for that. I respect that they walk that line. They're a public company, and god dammit, they're going to win. I would rather spend a year working with Larry than Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or the Google guys.
- volida 16y ago
  The last time I said a business man is not always an entrepreneur I got downvoted to the abyss.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  If money matters and innovation doesn't the oil industry is likely a better place to be than tech.
  - pclark 16y ago
    It depends how you get said money - by being innovative perhaps.
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      Is Oracle innovative compared to Google or Apple?
dstein 16y ago
<sarcasm> Hi, I'm a beginner programmer. I'm interested in learning to program Java and MySQL on Solaris, where should I begin to learn this free and open platform? </sarcasm>
Kilimanjaro 16y ago
Oracle will become the most hated company in the world (after mircosoft) when they kill java (because of ineptitude), kill mysql (because they can) and kill opensolaris (oops, they just did it)
- pclark 16y ago
  and oracle will not care, and will continue to make billions of dollars. (does Oracle have any fans presently?)
- Keyframe 16y ago
  IMO, Microsoft hate died out long time ago.
grandalf 16y ago
Uh, opensolaris has been dead ever since linux 1.4.x
mvalle 16y ago
Isn't the good part of being open-source, that you can fork it at any point? If there is any interest in OpenSolaris, someone will fork it and continue the development.
- mvalle 16y ago
  the fork: http://www.illumos.org/ http://www.illumos.org/
BenoitEssiambre 16y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZFHTa6TfA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZFHTa6TfA
tszming 16y ago
Honestly, it was the SUN who killed themselves, not ORACLE. ORACLE is just the catalyst.
chegra 16y ago
hmm... The world is moving to be a more open society. It's not the place where evil can survive. Previously, dictatorship[corp] were allow to live peacefully because they control the media, and pretty much had control of their images. The landscape has changed and everybody is the media. I think it's to google's competitive advantage to be seen as good. I don't think a lot of companies have notice the landscape has changed, so they conduct business as normal. The game still is survival of the fittest, but for this landscape, the fittest are good. Without a doubt Google has the popular vote. I constantly hear people compare SUN to Google. Sun died, when? lol Conceive a scenario where Google died tomorrow; now compare that to when Sun passed[it really did?]. It's not the same thing. "Google" is the most frequently used noun on HN, with almost 3 times the frequency of "Apple" [http://chegra.posterous.com/word-frequencies-in-front-page-hn-titles http://chegra.posterous.com/word-frequencies-in-front-page-h...] Sun might be good for hackers, but Google takes it to a further extent and brought it to everybody. Certain companies, besides their shareholders nobody cares if they live or die; nobody is super excited about their product. Nobody is saying they want to go work for them. The only reason why they exist is because they were best of the first movers. It's common practice when a company gets big in order to innovate it purchases smaller companies. You don't innovate you die. All the big companies employ this strategy(really, when last Apple bought somebody-NeXT?). As an entrepreneur or a Hacker and being aware of the current situation, I think if you were going to sell your company you will stay away from Oracle; they will kill your culture. Also, given their business nature, they might even undercut you; it's more to your advantage to do business with someone who is good. And this is where I think Oracle has lost its advantage, it wouldn't be able to innovate.

OpenSolaris is dead

129 points by mstevens 16y ago

martinp 16y ago

Since the slogan "don't be evil" is already in use, I'm guessing Oracle is going for "be evil" instead?

dpapathanasiou 16y ago
Sometimes, I admire Oracle more than the supposed do-gooders at Google. Oracle is a for-profit entity, they will take any legal or tactical advantage they can get (e.g., lawsuit over Java in Android), and they make no bones about it. I don't like everything they do, but you know what you get with them. Google says "don't be evil", yet they back off that principle when it's inconvenient (e.g., caving in to Chinese censorship demands, deal with Verizon over net neutrality, etc.).
- bad_user 16y ago
  So I should take away from this post that Oracle has given you more than Google did? Because that's what it sounds like to me. Personally I admire companies that are giving me value. > yet they back off that principle when it's inconvenient Regarding both net neutrality and Chinese censorship, Google did what nobody else did. So I really don't get this line of reasoning. Personally I take away from this that my company shouldn't give a crap about anything other than money, because all you're achievements don't mean squat in the end apparently.
  - dpapathanasiou 16y ago
    So I should take away from this post that Oracle has given you more than Google did? Neither has given me anything that I didn't pay for, either directly or indirectly. Regarding both net neutrality and Chinese censorship, Google did what nobody else did. Which is what, exactly? When push came to shove, they acted no differently than any other large corporation. Personally I take away from this that my company shouldn't give a crap about anything other than money, because all you're [sic] achievements don't mean squat in the end apparently. I don't understand your emotional attachment to Google. mechanical_fish said it better than I could, so I'll just quote part of his reply here: It would be refreshing if people stopped pretending that these inter-corporate battles had anything to do with either morality or the public good.
    - TheWilduck 16y ago
      Neither has given me anything that I didn't pay for, either directly or indirectly. That's not strictly true. I would argue that Google provides a greater amount of consumer surplus than Oracle. Consumer surplus pretty much amounts to value you obtain from a product or service that the producer can't capture in the price.
- mechanical_fish 16y ago
  I think what you're saying is "Google, Just Cut The BS And Give the Gordon Gekko Speech Already": http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/google-net-neutrality/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/google-net-neutrality/ I am not exactly a starry-eyed admirer of the Gordon Gekkos of the world, but I tend to agree. It would be refreshing if people stopped pretending that these inter-corporate battles had anything to do with either morality or the public good.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    I think that's a very shortsighted and dimwitted way of looking at things. The nebulous things like ideals are what guide people to their longer-term self-interest, their enlightened self-interest, rather than short-termism which hurts them in the longer term.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- martinp 16y ago
  Google isn't always non-evil, but they're consistently less evil than all of the other large companies in technology. Also, Oracle has never created anything really significant (in my opinion) other than their overpriced "enterprise" databases. Now it seems that they're hell bent on taking everything good that came out of Sun and destroying it.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  The problem with "Don't be evil" is that it's subjective. Google isn't a hardcore idealist because people that refuse to cooperate unless all of their demands are met never really get anywhere (see RMS). Compromise is a fact of life for everyone. Principles shouldn't be compromised, and you have to draw the line, but you also have to cooperate with people who have a different perspective than yourself. I don't see either censorship in China or the net neutrality proposal (which I don't know much about) as bonafide "evil". You may disagree, but it's hard to say that they are evil or done with evil intent. Oracle, on the other hand, is pretty easy to call evil because they act out of cruel self-interest practically exclusively. Oracle is always taking cheap shots.
  - bokchoi 16y ago
    Being evil is also subjective. For Oracle stockholders and quarterly statements, acting out of self-interest is a good thing.
    - nailer 16y ago
      Most of Oracle's moves are short term plays. Growing the Java and Unix industries would allow them to sell boxes. These do the opposite, in favor of making cash now.
      - bokchoi 16y ago
        Sure. Individual investors might care, but Wall St. is incentivized to only care about quarterly profits.
      - jimbokun 16y ago
        "Growing the Java and Unix industries would allow them to sell boxes." I am highly skeptical of this. I believe this was the stated strategy of many of Sun's decisions, and it did not work out well for them.
        cookiecaper 16y ago
- cturner 16y ago
  Lack of shame is not a valid defence for evil. We all have a responsibility to be good citizens.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  So, if we make a Corporate entity as person analogy, you like someone who is unabashedly horrible and perfectly honest about it, rather than someone who tries to be good and is a dick sometimes. If I were you, I think I would die from cynicism toxicity shock. Well, either that or you think that all industry should be destroyed because all corporations should invariably end up being perfectly evil.
  - dpapathanasiou 16y ago
    You are describing a false dichotomy. My comment was less an expression of admiration for Oracle than disdain for Google.
  - BMeph 16y ago
    Let's test the theory: do you watch the TV show "House"? If not, ask someone who does. It's selling points are that 1) House is not quite, but almost always a total dickhead. Everyone else on the show are more normal doctors (which is to say, they're dicks, but they aren't as dedicated to being so). 2) House almost always figures out what's happening (but of course never right away, 'cause it's a TV show) because as much of a dedicated dickhead he is, he's also dedicated to being right - he's a caricature of the "I'd rather be right than liked" adage. House is far and away the most popular character on the show, because, while he is an unpleasant, malicious, manipulative sod, he wants to figure out the cure to the disease, and make the patient feel good by being well. Well, he's also popular because he's Hugh FREAKING Laurie, but that's another story...
- ergo98 16y ago
  >Oracle is a for-profit entity, they will take any legal or tactical advantage they can get (e.g., lawsuit over Java in Android), and they make no bones about it. This has become a bit of a meme lately, and it's pretty tenuous. Google makes lots of money by not being evil. People have given Google tremendous data that no other could get because they have a general trust that it will be used responsibly. In all of the fawning over the just released voice recognition in Android, almost no one noted that it means that much more of your interactions with your device will be sent to Google, which is something that few companies could get away with. So seriously, people need to shitcan the "they're a public company" or "they're out to make money therefore they are evil" noise. It's dumb. Oracle is essentially pissing on all of the Sun assets that they acquired for a short term game because there is no long game in it -- Solaris is on the way outs, and even Java is almost dead in the mobile space (not counting Android...), and in the Enterprise space despite all of the rhetoric on here, it's dying and is largely the domain of legacy projects. Oracle is cashing in while they can like a standard troll. Google, however, is in for the long haul, and their entire strategy depends upon a lot of trust by consumers. In other words they MAKE MONEY, fulfilling their public mandate, by not being evil. Strange, isn't that? This argument would be just as ridiculous saying "Sometimes I admire [some shitty brand] more than the supposed high quality Apple. [Some shitty brand] is a for-profit entity, they will take any cost cutting measure they can get (flimsy materials, shoddy electronics), and they make no bones about it. Apple is just faking making a good product because, you know, they're out to make a buck"
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- kelnos 16y ago
  So wait, you're saying that you admire Oracle because they're evil and greedy and admit it, and that you admire Google much less because they have a "don't be evil" slogan but sometimes make missteps? That sounds a bit shortsighted to me. I suppose it's ok to find Oracle's forthright greed refreshing, but... admirable? I find it awful. I never thought of "don't be evil" as an end-all be-all promise to always do the right thing, no matter what. It's a guiding principle, one that has to take the back seat in the face of more practical considerations sometimes. We may not agree with all of those "sometimes," but that doesn't make those decisions automatically wrong. Google isn't perfect, but at least it seems like they try to have a social conscience. Or maybe they've just done a good job of brainwashing me into thinking they do.
protomyth 16y ago
"You can trust we will always be honest about our profit motives"

tptacek 16y ago

One thing you have to say for Oracle that you couldn't really automatically say for Sun: they're not chickenshit.

mhd 16y ago
No, they definitely leave out the chicken part.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  Because they don't want to spend/waste money maintaining certain features of a product that are less profitable? Or …?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - sprout 16y ago
    Because they prefer spending money on sales, marketing, and lawsuits than maintaining / improving their products, even their most profitable ones.
    - houseabsolute 16y ago
      Surely if that is true, which I seriously doubt, this is partially on the buyer for not choosing products based on which is the best, and therefore not giving Oracle any incentive to spend on improving their products.

scaleordie 16y ago

If at least ZFS can be salvaged from the wreck...

ww520 16y ago
Why is that? Isn't ZFS part of Solaris? Or at least has the same licensing restriction as OpenSolaris?
- nroach 16y ago
  ZFS is licensed separately and apart from Solaris, but it's still under the CDDL
nailer 16y ago
It won't be. Oracle will keep the CDDL, and use ZFS to market Solaris as a USP over Linux, until (and probably after) btrfs becomes mainstream on Linux.
- strlen 16y ago
  The btfs developer works at Oracle (and also works on OCFS).
  - nailer 16y ago
    Good point - that's one thing I wonder about - although nothing's been said, it wouldn't surprise me if Chris Mason left Oracle for IBM or Red Hat.
  - wmf 16y ago
    It is a bit hard for me to reconcile Oracle's contributions to Linux with their seemingly mercenary attitudes towards Solaris and Java.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      It really isn't. They liked Linux because they could sell their database on white box hardware and not pay Microsoft (more money for Oracle less for a competitor). This move is designed to bring Solaris in line with their other enterprise software products. They have an OS and Server combination that can help them make more money. Their Java move with Google is simple. IBM paid for Java, Google didn't. Oracle wants the cash.

moondowner 16y ago

OpenSolaris was dead long ago, this only opened the eyes to the people optimistic that things will change and there will be a future OpenSolaris release. "We will determine a simple, cost-effective means of getting enterprise users of prior OpenSolaris binary releases to migrate to S11 Express." -- Says enough. "We will continue to grow a vibrant developer and system administrator community for Solaris." -- I really wonder how.

spudlyo 16y ago
"We will continue to grow a vibrant developer and system administrator community for Solaris." -- I really wonder how. They really killed the wrong Solaris. If they embraced the GNU userland (as OpenSolaris did) they would have had a much better shot at getting more raised-on-Linux admins and developers to embrace their OS. As it is, the current BSD flavored Solaris tools are so crufty and incompatible it leaves many Linux users with a distinct loathing for the OS.
- wipt 16y ago
  Did OpenSolaris use GNU userland? Or are you confusing the official branch with on of the forks? BSD isn't dead, and is different but not in bad ways. Don't bad mouth something (BSD) because you don't use it. Companies are much less likely to embrace GNU anything, GNU just doesn't fly that way. BSD license is much more permissive, and therefore much more attractive to companies.
  - azakus 16y ago
    OpenSolaris had a GNU userland. The BSD ancestry of the Solaris userland isn't the problem. The problem was the senseless defaults and cryptic command structures ("shutdown -g0 -i5 -y" instead of "shutdown")
    - spudlyo 16y ago
      Here is a barbaric and senseless default. Do a crontab -e without $EDITOR set and you'll be dropped into ed. I realize that it's the "standard editor" but the joke stopped being funny when I needed to edit a file with it.

motters 16y ago

Having never used OpenSolaris this is no hardship for me. However, it's looking like Oracle is a company that is quite hostile to open source, so this also raises concerns for what will happen to the likes of OpenOffice and VirtualBox. In general it also raises questions about the wisdom of open source developers assigning their copyrights over to a particular company, who may subsequently choose to betray their generosity. If I'd made significant contributions to OpenSolaris I'd probably be feeling as sick as a parrot right now.

moondowner 16y ago
Don't forget NetBeans, the Rich Client Platform. Lots of applications are built on it (Light Analysis, Energy Consumption Management, Petroleum Engineering App, Swedish Trading Client & Swedish Defense Research App, Open Source Stock Trading Platform, Jewelry Customer Manager -- these are news only from the last 3-4 months), even NASA uses it. It's crucial for Oracle to sustain NetBeans development and not to favour their JDeveloper IDE (cause the latter isn't a platform).
- barlo 16y ago
  Oracle uses NetBeans internally for the development of several applications (mostly from acquisitions), I don't believe you'll see that phased out anytime soon.
rbanffy 16y ago
I can assure you the GPL parts of NetBeans will survive. I cannot say the same about the CDDL parts. I assume people will still contribute to it, but I guess it's a question of time before Oracle decides to turn a quick buck out of NB and close down the CDDL stuff.

alec 16y ago

I thought it was interesting that Linux was completely absent from all of the market position talk.

nailer 16y ago
I think everyone who read 'Solaris is the #1 Enterprise Operating System', raised an eyebrow, then read 'We have more than twice the application base of AIX and HP-UX combined' and chuckled.
- rikthevik 16y ago
  I read that to say 'Solaris is the #1 (SysV-based) Enterprise Operating System'
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - wipt 16y ago
    Linux IS SysV-based, though
    - NonIdentifiable 16y ago
      Eh, what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_V No, Linux is not SysV based.
      - nailer 16y ago
        Depends on whether you mean: - Based on SysV standards - which GNU does for most commands, and which most Linux OSs did for initscripts. - Based on Sys V code, which it obviously isn't.
      - wipt 16y ago
        I didn't mean that it was based off of the original UNIX code base, I know my UNIX history better than that. As nailer said, this can be taken two ways and I meant it in the latter. Linux has elements of SysV - it has run levels and the like, unlike BSD's.

neild 16y ago

Note that this is not the end of source code releases of Solaris: We will continue to use the CDDL license statement in nearly all Solaris source code files. We will not remove the CDDL from any files in Solaris to which it already applies, and new source code files that are created will follow the current policy regarding applying the CDDL (simply, that usr/src files will have the CDDL, and the very small minority of files in usr/closed might not have it). Use of other open licenses in non-ON consolidations (e.g. GPL in the Desktop area) will also continue. As before, requests to change the license associated with source code are case-by-case decisions. 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. In other words, the Solaris development process is becoming more closed, but you'll still be able to see the source code for any given release. Or at least, that's how I interpret the above. I'm not in touch enough with Solaris development to know how much of a practical impact this will have--how many non-Sun/Oracle people work on OpenSolaris?

NonIdentifiable 16y ago
It was the nightly basis that allowed a lot of other products (Nexenta) to work well, and get updates faster. It was out of these nightly code drops that OpenSolaris was created ...
caf 16y ago
Note though that there won't be any more binary releases of OpenSolaris - so you'll have to build the whole ball of wax from the code drop yourself. And of course you won't be able to build the /usr/closed components.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

pclark 16y ago

Everyone seems to have missed - or be ignoring - the fundamentals of Oracle. They aren't in this game to change the world (ala Sun), or improve the lives of developers, they're in this to make bucket loads of cash if products they acquire will not make them money - they will ruthlessly cut it. They aren't hackers. They aren't designers. They aren't entrepreneurs. They're business men. Similarly if you dare compete with Oracle, you're going up against a company similar to Microsoft 10 years ago: rich and mean. Look at someone like Google, you think they're evil? Oracle could literally wipe them off the planet if they were inclined. The fact people hate upon Apple or Google, or even Microsoft when Oracle is the towering nemesis is hilarious. At least Oracle doesn't bullshit you. Google? Do no evil? You're a public company. Vision, for the greater good, wanting to change the world are all well and great, but when the chips are down, you know what counts? Revenues. As Larry Ellison once said about Sun: "Lots and lots of blogs does not replace lots and lots of sales" and you know what? I admire them for that. I respect that they walk that line. They're a public company, and god dammit, they're going to win. I would rather spend a year working with Larry than Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or the Google guys.

volida 16y ago
The last time I said a business man is not always an entrepreneur I got downvoted to the abyss.
mcantelon 16y ago
If money matters and innovation doesn't the oil industry is likely a better place to be than tech.
- pclark 16y ago
  It depends how you get said money - by being innovative perhaps.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    Is Oracle innovative compared to Google or Apple?

dstein 16y ago

<sarcasm> Hi, I'm a beginner programmer. I'm interested in learning to program Java and MySQL on Solaris, where should I begin to learn this free and open platform? </sarcasm>

Kilimanjaro 16y ago

Oracle will become the most hated company in the world (after mircosoft) when they kill java (because of ineptitude), kill mysql (because they can) and kill opensolaris (oops, they just did it)

pclark 16y ago
and oracle will not care, and will continue to make billions of dollars. (does Oracle have any fans presently?)
Keyframe 16y ago
IMO, Microsoft hate died out long time ago.

grandalf 16y ago

Uh, opensolaris has been dead ever since linux 1.4.x

mvalle 16y ago

Isn't the good part of being open-source, that you can fork it at any point? If there is any interest in OpenSolaris, someone will fork it and continue the development.

mvalle 16y ago
the fork: http://www.illumos.org/ http://www.illumos.org/

BenoitEssiambre 16y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZFHTa6TfA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZFHTa6TfA

tszming 16y ago

Honestly, it was the SUN who killed themselves, not ORACLE. ORACLE is just the catalyst.

chegra 16y ago

hmm... The world is moving to be a more open society. It's not the place where evil can survive. Previously, dictatorship[corp] were allow to live peacefully because they control the media, and pretty much had control of their images. The landscape has changed and everybody is the media. I think it's to google's competitive advantage to be seen as good. I don't think a lot of companies have notice the landscape has changed, so they conduct business as normal. The game still is survival of the fittest, but for this landscape, the fittest are good. Without a doubt Google has the popular vote. I constantly hear people compare SUN to Google. Sun died, when? lol Conceive a scenario where Google died tomorrow; now compare that to when Sun passed[it really did?]. It's not the same thing. "Google" is the most frequently used noun on HN, with almost 3 times the frequency of "Apple" [http://chegra.posterous.com/word-frequencies-in-front-page-hn-titles http://chegra.posterous.com/word-frequencies-in-front-page-h...] Sun might be good for hackers, but Google takes it to a further extent and brought it to everybody. Certain companies, besides their shareholders nobody cares if they live or die; nobody is super excited about their product. Nobody is saying they want to go work for them. The only reason why they exist is because they were best of the first movers. It's common practice when a company gets big in order to innovate it purchases smaller companies. You don't innovate you die. All the big companies employ this strategy(really, when last Apple bought somebody-NeXT?). As an entrepreneur or a Hacker and being aware of the current situation, I think if you were going to sell your company you will stay away from Oracle; they will kill your culture. Also, given their business nature, they might even undercut you; it's more to your advantage to do business with someone who is good. And this is where I think Oracle has lost its advantage, it wouldn't be able to innovate.