On Jun 13, 8:37 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Torvalds Rips Sun In Linux Dustup, Sun CEO Responds
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz is defending his company's actions
> | in the Linux community, hours after Linux creator Linus Torvalds
> | ripped Sun for taking but not giving back to the open source universe.
> `----
Linus should know better than to say that. Sun was one of the
ORIGINAL contributors to OSS. Bill Joy, cofounder of Sun, was a
personal contributor to BSD. He contributed to ex, vi, csh, and
sockets. He was instrumental in the adoption of TCP/IP for UNIX.
Sun's OpenLook Virtual Window manager was one of the first high
quality Window managers, and was available on SLS, Slackware,
FreeBSSD. Even today, several distributions offer OLVWM as an option,
though most users prefer GNOME or KDE (free-market competition rules
out).
> http://www.crn.com/software/199903630
>
> Schwartz invites Linus for dinner...
>
> An OpenSolaris/Linux Mashup
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
>
> Context:
>
> Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "So they want to use Linux resources (especially drivers), but
> | they do not want to give anything back especially ZFS, which
> | seems to be one of their very very few bright spots)."
> `----
Sun has already given so much back. They have a few strategic product
that they hope to commercialize. Keep in mind that in addition to the
items listed above, Sun purchased StarOffice and released the Open
Source version - OpenOffice. The main difference between the two is
that StarOffice has additional templates, wizards, stationary, and
conversion import/export filters. Many people buy Star Office just
for those aids, and use them with Open Office.
Sun also released source code to the JVM, not just recently, but also
to the Blackstone group, who wrote the first Java compiler and JVM for
Linux. Later, IBM introduced JIKEs, and a GNU java compiler is also
available. Even in the face of all of that, Sun supported Java for
Linux, and has made Linux one of the first platforms to be tested
(after Solaris and Windows).
Sun doesn't release under the GNU Public license, but that may not be
such a bad thing. The licenses Sun does use allows them to offer OSS
versions, but also allows them to offer commercially supported
versions as well. For the most part, Sun is pretty good about
compensating contributors whose work is good enough for commercial
products. If the contributor is an employee of a corporation, the
contribution is treated as "work for hire" and Sun often offers
compensation in the form of licenses, code, other Sun software
products, even servers, as consideration.
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118166350928468&w=2
>
> Is Solaris truly open source?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | ...if you dig into the idea of open source, there still is an
> | ideological connotation to its definition, for better or worse.
> | It's the idea of community development. Source that is freely
> | available is valuable because it allows others to modify and
> | improve that software. No one gets paid for their effort, but
> | everyone enjoys the fruits of their collective labors. It's not
> | that Linus Torvalds is promoting socialism with his Linux kernel,
> | but he is not thinking about returns on investment either. He just
> | wants a good operating system, just as the Apache developers just
> | want rock-solid Web server software.
> `----
One of the biggest advantages of having Linux under the GPL, is that
it eliminates the need to "fork" new distributions. When UNIX was
OSS, especially BSD, there were dozens of forks. There was Xenix,
Venix, VRTX, Lynx, BSD 2.x, BSD 4.x, SunOS, and about 50 others. It
got to be a bit of a circus. Even if you had the source code, it was
often necessary to add in a bunch of #DEFINE and #IFDEF flags to hand
the different variants.
Even today, the BSD license has spawned numerous variants. FreeBSD,
NetBSD, and OpenBSD, for example. This doesn't include the numerous
flavors of BSD code that are embedded in Solaris, AIX, HPUX, AT&T
SysVr4, and the SCO flavors of UNIX.
The GNU License assures that the core kernel stays uniform. There are
compile options for the kernel that provide optimization for various
chipsets, but there aren't huge changes in API, core library
functionality, or resource management.
And yes, because of this, many people who might have refused to
contribute to BSD for fear of having their code perloined by Sun, IBM,
HP, Apple, or even Microsoft (yes, Microsoft uses some BSD code in
Windows XP), were quite happy to contribute enhancements, bug fixes,
security enhancements, and performance upgrades - to Linux.
The net result has been that Linux has evolved into a system which, in
many ways, is BETTER than the original UNIX.
Fortunately, there are pragmatic solutions which have made it possible
for these more tradititional forms of UNIX to run Linux software, and
vice versa. The LGPL and GLIBC libraries make it possible for Linux
source to be compiled with a GNU C or C++ compiler, and run on
Solaris, AIX, OS/X, HP_UX, and most other flavors of UNIX, without
modifications to the application level source code.
Linus was also more pragmatic about drivers as well. Instead of
having the entire driver for every device known compiled into the
kernel, or attempting to compile in only the most needed drivers, the
Linux kernel allows the use of "modules" which are shared libraries
called by the kernel, to directly access known hardware ports and
memory mapped locations. Interrupt handlers queue interrupt events to
their appropriate drivers. All of this makes for a simple, elegant,
reliable operating system which performs remarkably well, even on
relatively "primative" hardware such as 80386 and 80486 processors, as
well as advanced multicore processors and SMP or NUMA machines.
IBM even contributed some of it's "golden eggs" to Linux. Many of the
kernel enhancements contributed by IBM were from their MAINFRAME
technology, not their UNIX technology. Use of vectors, deques, and
queues to replace traditional spinlocks, from CICS and MVS.
Virtualization technology used in User Mode Linux - from VM/CMS.
Using queues and stacks to pass messages between processes - from
REXX.
The irony is that SCO is now attempting to claim that they owned this
technology, because IBM gave them versions for the Monterrey project.
Unix and Linux vendors should stop trying to slap each other around
and focus on Microsoft. A united front dedicated to breaking up the
Microsoft control of the OEM distribution channel would benefit Linux
and UNIX vendors alike.
It's disgusting to see Sun, SCO, Apple, and Linus sqabbling over
Microsoft's table scraps. 70% of all the servers used in corporate
enterprises, including the strategic web servers, are running Linux or
Unix. Microsoft has, at best, about 25% of the market by dollar
volume, about 15% of the market by unit volume, and does less than 7%
of the work.
However, because the logo on the desktop says Microsoft Windows, even
today, most end users think that it is Microsoft that is doing all the
work, and Microsoft who deserves all the money.
Sun needs to get it's sh*t together and put Solaris on a desktop!
They might want to consider using Linux as the host, to handle the
hardware deviations, then run Solaris 10 as a VM Client.
HP needs to stop prancing around the bushes with Microsoft and let the
hammer down. HP merged with Compaq to take that market power away
from Microsoft, yet every time Billy "cracks the whip" HP whimpers off
into a corner like a whipped dog, selling whetever Billy wants.
If Microsoft won't give them a version of Windows that will run under
Linux, then HP should put a Proliant with Linux on the retail display
floor of every Staples, Circuit City, Wal-Mart, and Fry's in the USA,
and the sales floors of every major HP authorised reseller. HP might
even want to make it a condition of their continued status as HP
authorized resellers.
IBM got so disgusted with the whole mess, that they sold off their PC
division. This was probably a smart move, since most of the PC
vendors are losing their shirts on Longhorn/Steer/Vista - (mirage?).
Microsoft doesn't have anything waiting in the wings. If PC vendors
want to get back to high-profit sales, they need to start
preinstalling Linux and putting the machines on the display floor.
Who knows, maybe if they put their Linux offerings on the retail
shelves, people will get tired of waiting an hour or more to test
drive a Mac, and test drive Linux at the local Circuit City or Best
Buy instead, and buy a Linux machine on the spot.
They might like it so much, that they will put Linux on their machine
at the Office - become more productive, get promoted, and purchase PCs
with Linux preinstalled for all of his coworkers. Sam Palmisano, when
he was running IBM Global Services, encouraged his practitioners to
install and use Linux as well as Windows. Many practitioners had dual-
boot systems, and some even carried 2 computers to engagements, one
for Linux and one for Windows. Today, the new T60 computers can run
Linux and Windows at the same time. Sam did pretty well for himself
too - CEO of the company.
> http://www.gcn.com/blogs/tech/44436.html
|
|
