I said it
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| rijelkentaurus Jun 13, 2007 1:16 PM EDT |
I've said this before, and I think ego would push Linus as much as anything to get the kernel as GPL3. Sun could scoop up a bunch of open source talent and loyalty with a GPL Solaris, which is more stable than Linux and a pain in the butt for usage. I think that bringing in more developers would help it immensely. I think it's likely that they'll eventually compete for the high end of the *nix crowd on the consumer level, against Apple. Apple has a small market share and lots of profit because they don't sell their machines at $199. Sun wants some of that, I think. Just a feeling really, but no one else is really in a position to compete with Apple on Apple-like terms. That is, most companies sell either hardware or software, not both. Apple has an advantage in terms of the harmony between the two on their products, and I think Sun could nurse along that on their platform with a GPL Solaris. Or it could be pie in the sky. |
| dinotrac Jun 13, 2007 1:33 PM EDT |
Time will tell. Solaris certainly is a nice solid server platform. I hated working on it, though. It never felt as "nice" as Linux. That's just subjective, though. I may be in the minority. |
| tuxchick Jun 13, 2007 1:45 PM EDT |
Both of you are right- Solaris is pain itself to administer, and it's as solid an OS as there is. All the big commercial Unixes are horrid for the sysadmin. Linux users are quite spoiled by the GNU tools and all the other wonderful utilities; nothing in the Unix world comes close. If Solaris were released under a license that allowed porting all those great GNU and other Linux utilities I think it would become the #1 Unix, and a serious Linux rival. |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 13, 2007 2:57 PM EDT |
Quoting: and a serious Linux rival Which would be wonderful for Linux, Solaris and the end user. Right now the only "competitor" to Linux is BSD, and it's not really all that close, IMO. Quoting: That's just subjective, though. I may be in the minority. Yes, it is, and no, you're not. I've hated it the few times I've touched it, although Nexenta is working to make things a little less painful. |
| azerthoth Jun 13, 2007 3:43 PM EDT |
Stop and think for a minute about switching the kernel to GPL3 and just what a nightmare that stirs up. Supposing that the next kernel is released GPL3. Out of those millions of lines of code 99% or greater of it is unchanged from the previous kernel. Which means 99+% of the kernel is still GPL2. 10 kernels down the road and 85+% of the kernel is still unchanged. If you look at what has changed in the kernel as far as code you'll see that stuff gets added and some gets changed, but a lions share is never touched ... EVER. There is no burning reason for the kernel to change to GPL3 and even if it it would take nigh on to forever for the entire thing to transition. Some of the stuff in there can not be changed as the developer who wrote it is dead. IMO its a pipe dream. |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 13, 2007 7:06 PM EDT |
Quoting: IMO its a pipe dream. Torvalds doesn't appear to share that opinion, although I do understand the reasoning of your post. |
| dcparris Jun 13, 2007 9:41 PM EDT |
I think if Linus pushes for migrating the license, more than a few will follow suit. We may end up with some kernel code still under v2, but I'm fairly certain it won't be the 99%. |
| azerthoth Jun 14, 2007 12:09 AM EDT |
dunno, in 2004 the kernel was in excess of 6 million lines of code. That translates to 60000+ lines of additions or changes for a 1% change. As for my not seeing it in that article, I also see him saying that he still believes GPL3 is a lesser license and that for him to contemplate the move would require first that Sun release 100%, not just the parts it doesnt want totally under its thumb. Like its new fs to use his example. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 14, 2007 2:55 AM EDT |
I think that in the end the kernel will get moved to v3, its just a matter of when. I agree that if Sun goes with v3 he will have to or face losing developers to Sun which would severely stunt work on the kernel and Linux as well. I also think that Linus is just plain comfortable with v2 after so many years, any change in the license takes away from that comfort level for him. |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 4:42 AM EDT |
>he will have to or face losing developers to Sun I'll believe that when I see it. So far, Sun doesn't seem much of a destination for free software developers. |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 14, 2007 5:26 AM EDT |
Quoting: So far, Sun doesn't seem much of a destination for free software developers. Agreed, but I think a GPLv3 Solaris could start to change that, or at least prove enough of a threat that Linus would be forced to consider the possibility. |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 6:08 AM EDT |
>or at least prove enough of a threat A GPLv3 Solaris is not a threat of any kind. It would represent another option in the FOSS world. If it is a better option than Linux, it will succeed. If Linux fades away because people have moved on to something better, that's good for everybody, not threatening. |
| Abe Jun 14, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:...that's good for everybody, not threatening Wouldn't it be considered a threat when Linus says he would re-consider GPL3 for Linux if Soloris was released under GPL 3? With all the deals MS is making with some distros, I believe Linus is going to release Linux under GPL3. He already starting to warm up to it and he might be trying to get Sun to release some of their excellent technology under GPL3 first. |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 9:35 AM EDT |
>Wouldn't it be considered a threat Why a threat? There are many things something be -- a practicality, a reason, a convincing reason,etc. Why a threat? |
| jdixon Jun 14, 2007 9:46 AM EDT |
> Wouldn't it be considered a threat when Linus says he would re-consider GPL3 for Linux if Soloris was released under GPL 3? I don't think so, no. It sounds to me like Linus is saying that if Solaris is compatible with the GPLv3, then access to and compatibility with the Solaris code may be a good enough reason to go to the GPLv3. |
| Abe Jun 14, 2007 10:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:a practicality, a reason, a convincing reason,etc. Why a threat? I believe because if Soloris is v3 GPLed and Linux wasn't, some would replace v2 GPLed Linux with Soloris. Makes sense? Other than the reason of enticing Sun and not a threat, why would Linus have to tie GPL3 adoption with Soloris? |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 10:50 AM EDT |
Abe - What I object to is this notion of a threat. Who cares if Linux disappears tomorrow if the reason it disappears is that a better alternative arrived? That's not a threat. It's progress. |
| Abe Jun 14, 2007 11:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:That's not a threat. It's progress. I see your point and I agree it is progress. I think the way Linus put it makes me sort of see it as a threat. I also see his clever point in giving Sun incentive to GPL Soloris. I haven't used Soloris for a long time now, but I don't see either one being better than the other, both have great things and both have issues. Cross pollinating under the GPL would be ideal. |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 11:35 AM EDT |
>Cross pollinating under the GPL would be ideal. Y'know -- I am starting to see a threat in that arrangement: To non-free software! |
| Abe Jun 14, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:I am starting to see a threat in that arrangement: To non-free software!I am not sure I understand, how so? You mean taking Soloris code and adding it to Linux? I believe it was discussed before and they were talking about FOSS developers writing code to implements ZFS on Linux. Not merely copying. |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2007 11:51 AM EDT |
I mean that, if we are able to get the best that Linux and Solaris have to offer, share talent and share knowledge, it don't matter if we end up with solinux or linaris, non-free vendors are in trouble! |
| Abe Jun 15, 2007 5:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:To non-free software! I've done it again, doing multiple things simultaneously made me missed the NON-. I thought you meant FREE. Sorry. You are right, and who needs non-free software if that is all it takes to make a living by charging for services!. No one needs to get filthy rich like MS and others and it is better spreading the wealth among more people instead of having one rich guy to dominate and monopolate. Some people might think this is not the American way and in my opinion it is. it perfectly agrees with "Freedom, Liberty & pursuit of happiness" |
| dinotrac Jun 15, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
>No one needs to get filthy rich like MS I would love to get filthy rich and have no problem with anybody else getting filthy rich. I have a problem with people getting filthy rich by unethical/immoral/illegal means that diminish the overall good. |
| Abe Jun 15, 2007 7:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:I would love to get filthy rich and have no problem with anybody else getting filthy rich... Now why would you need that Dino! isn't happiness enough? For everyone to become rich is ideal, but the problem is, there isn't enough for everyone to be filthy rich. An old saying I remember, "No one became filthy rich without taking away the chances from the poor". In other words, "filthy rich makes filthy poor" |
| dinotrac Jun 15, 2007 7:36 AM EDT |
>there isn't enough for everyone to be filthy rich. You are free to believe as you wish. A lot of it depends on your definition of rich. Back in the early 80s, you had to be rich to carry an ugly clunky heavy old cell phone. Now everybody has a sleek little number that does much more than make and receive calls. >An old saying I remember, "No one became filthy rich without taking away the chances from the poor". Saying it doesn't make it true. It does betray some envy. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!