5 ms·
Having worked in a Solaris shop for a while, I still wonder what could have been if Solaris made the decision to open-source about 5-10 years earlier than they
by int0x2e 4y ago
Having worked in a Solaris shop for a while, I still wonder what could have been if Solaris made the decision to open-source about 5-10 years earlier than they did.
I think Solaris would have been such a better base for the Linux ecosystem than Linux ever was. Though the licensing issues had to have been resolved for this to work out, and knowing Sun/Oracle - that would never have really worked out...
- oblio 4y agoWhat's-his-name, the Sun CEO, hated both Microsoft and Open Source. Even when they open sourced Solaris, after he left, they did it as a half-measure with an anti-GPL license and then I think Oracle pulled the plug and doomed Solaris to the dustbin of history.
- ghaff 4y agoMcNealy was "just" chairman of the board when OpenSolaris was released. Also, I'm not sure it's fair to describe CDDL as anti-GPL unless you think the Mozilla Public License is as well. That said, it is reasonable to ask whether Solaris should have simply been placed under the GPL or a permissive license.
- oblio 4y agoOk, to rephrase that. They licensed Open Solaris in a certain way to make it explicitly incompatible with Linux' GPL2, or at least to sow enough doubt that the licenses are incompatible. That didn't scream confidence in their ability to migrate to Open Source or their overall technical superiority, despite some very nice features.
- jzb 4y agoI think it’s fair. They went out of their way to make the license incompatible so it couldn’t be mixed with GPL’ed code. Had they moved sooner to open source, and embraced it instead of trying to create a moat around their stuff, they probably could’ve stayed relevant.
- nix23 4y ago>such a better base for the Linux ecosystem than Linux ever was. That's so true. But OmniOS and OpenIndiana still work excellent.