| |||||||||||||
Lumsden: OpenSolaris canceledLumsden: OpenSolaris canceledPosted Aug 13, 2010 22:40 UTC (Fri) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876)In reply to: Lumsden: OpenSolaris canceled by evad Parent article: Lumsden: OpenSolaris canceled Well, IllumOS says that they will contribute any changes that they make back to Oracle. So, I guess another possibility is that IllumOS is actively developed in the open, Oracle integrates IllumOS contributions into their code behind the curtain, and when Oracle occasionally does a major release, and drops a bundle of code from the sky, it will contain those changes. Either it would be easy for IllumOS to incorporate the changes or they would simply take the Oracle release as the base for their new release and go from there. I think the best thing that could happen to IllumOS is if they forked forever and only worried about taking in major new features from Solaris. For example, if Oracle introduced something as useful and innovative as ZFS in the future then IllumOS would probably welcome the chance to integrate it even if there was a bit of pain. In a way, I think this could be an opportunity for IllumOS. I think the OS has real potential but tying themselves so closely to the Oracle code base was going to be a real anchor in my opinion. If they can take what they have and build a real community, it could become a real alternative.
(Log in to post comments)
Lumsden: OpenSolaris canceled Posted Aug 14, 2010 1:51 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Looks like the most pointless 'free' project of all time.
Most companies building business around OpenSolaris will, probably, migrate to Linux soon. Just give another couple of years for btrfs to stabilize :)
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 8:20 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Remember: btrfs is Oracle project. It can be switched to OpenSolaris mode (we do all the development inside, code drop happens when we release our new enterprise offering) any moment.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 8:31 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Btrfs is explicitly not driven by a single vendor anymore. Red Hat has Btrfs developers as well for example. So no, Oracle can't do with Btfs what it did with OpenSolaris and there isn't a business incentive to do so either.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 13:24 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
No, btrfs is too big for that. Intel, RedHat, SuSE and other players already have a stake in it.
It'll be quite ironic, though, if btfs is used to kill Oracle's Solaris offerings.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 15:45 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I don't think that Oracle cares.
In Oracle's eyes there is no Linux vs Solaris. They do not make money off of operating systems, they make money off of what runs on top of operating systems. They don't care if it's Linux or Solaris, just as long as it's competitive against Microsoft and other large corporate software vendors.
People always try to make everything out to a A vs B, but I don't think that Oracle really gives a crap one way or the other.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 20:10 UTC (Sat) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] I don't think that Oracle really gives a crap one way or the other.IMHO Oracle's only real goal is to make as much money out of Sun's IP as quickly as possible even if it ends up killing Solaris and/or Java.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 20:21 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Not Java.
Oracle cares deeply about Java and that is probably the #1 reason for purchasing Sun.
Oracle's business depends entirely on Java... it's their vertical application stacks and other big enterprise offerings that are core to their business.
If Java was to fail the next closest thing that would step into the arena would be .NET and that is Microsoft's baby and their direct competitor.
They are killing Java Posted Aug 15, 2010 6:37 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Well, it looks like they really care about Java. But it's obvious that they are ready to kill it in exchange for something. What can they want which is big enough to kill Java? It's hard for me to even imagine... Here is good article on subject.
They are killing Java Posted Aug 19, 2010 15:10 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] A succulent piece of the smart phone market (and others to follow)? I just heard that a fourth of new phones sold are Android-powered right now, ahead of Apple and others.
They are not that stupid... Posted Aug 21, 2010 17:35 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Well, any success on this front will be short-lived. Google can not just go and drop Java-based development tools, but it can switch Android to C++ or Go in two or three years. Even if Oracle wins in court, it loses: it gets paid for these two or three years quite handsomely but ultimately it loses both smart phone market (because Java tools are eradicated) and Java market (because it becomes irrelevant).
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 20:22 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]
Hmmm, these changes seems to indicate that they are hell-bent on making more money on Solaris.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 22:53 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Whoever was put in charge of the division in charge of Solaris wants to make money from it. That's his/her's job and they probably take it seriously.
But that's not the same as Oracle caring about Linux vs Solaris and having a pony in the race.
If they do care about A vs B then they are stupid. Linux is more popular then Solaris: it's used by more customers, supported by more vendors, better hardware support, better application support, etc etc. In about every category it's a much more competitive OS then Solaris is.
Oracle has to make Linux better at running their databases and they have to make it better at running Java. That is what helps them competitively in the long run. Anything beyond making Linux run their applications faster and more reliably... I don't think they care. (example: Android or KDE)
It's just self-interest.
I expect you'll find that the 'Solaris 11' being 1337 is more window dressing then anything else in order to keep their existing customers happy. They are not going to be able to manage making the difference between Solaris 10 and Solaris 11 bigger then the difference between Solaris 9 and Solaris 10 when the men/women largely responsible for the improvements in 10 are now gone...
Coming soon... Posted Aug 16, 2010 12:15 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] I expect you'll find that the 'Solaris 11' being 1337... Given the tendency of Sun and Oracle to invent new and bizarre names for existing products, sprinkling that unicorn dust all over for that extra sparkle, the odds are probably already quite short on the next release being known as "Solaris 1337".
Coming soon... Posted Aug 16, 2010 14:34 UTC (Mon) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]
But it can't be magical... That word is trademarked by Apple
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 15, 2010 8:51 UTC (Sun) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Oracle as a company does not care. Oracle has always consistently been about the money first. If Oracle ever makes mistakes is because they're too greedy, not because they paused to consider other motives.
However, I wonder if they took the precaution to firewall their Solaris and Linux teams. If they were to consolidate them in a single organisational unit, and put ex-SUN people at its head (because their new Solaris team is probably more numerous than the Linux one ever was), I can see relationships with Linux projects go south fast. SUN had a deeply-ingrained "UNIX is best", "we're open, but please sign here first, and we'll be back to you someday", and "everyone is equal, but we're more equal than others" attitude that completely soured their relations with other FLOSS actors.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 16:48 UTC (Sat) by niall.noigiallach (guest, #47469) [Link]
Well Oracle could stop contributing to Btrfs, then if they are feeling vindictive they could initiate a patent lawsuit against Redhat/Novell etc using patents they acquired from Sun (ZFS etc.)
All that matters to Oracle is their profit margin.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 15:57 UTC (Sat) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]
Note that what you described is *not* OpenSolaris mode. OpenSolaris did all development in the open. That mode has just been cancelled. What you describe is Solaris >= 11 mode.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 19:23 UTC (Sat) by HenrikH (guest, #31152) [Link]
Isn't btrfs a Chris Mason project and he happened to get funding from Oracle, i.e grants from Oracle that he could spend his working hours on the project. That is not the same as it beeing an Oracle project.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 14, 2010 21:28 UTC (Sat) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
Much depends on whether/what Mason signed while working for Oracle. Many American technology employers claim sole ownership of anything developed inside their walls. It behoves the employee to make sure he or she isn't giving away rights.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 15, 2010 1:23 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
It's generally assumed that when your working under contract that the work you create is owned by the person your working for.
If you want it to be otherwise you'll have to take extra steps.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 15, 2010 3:49 UTC (Sun) by tseaver (subscriber, #1544) [Link]
> It's generally assumed that when your working under contract that the
> work you create is owned by the person your working for.
Not so, at least in the U.S: unless you are an employee whose employment
> If you want it to be otherwise you'll have to take extra steps.
Exactly vice versa (under U.S. law).
IANALAIDPOOTV, of course.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 15, 2010 17:02 UTC (Sun) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
> Not so, at least in the U.S: unless you are an employee whose employment
> contract explicitly assigns such rights to your employer
In the U.S., a work "prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" is a "work for hire", the rights to which automatically go to the employer:
"In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright." (17 USC 201(b))
The default rules for contractors are different, i.e. the assignment (if any) must be made the other way.
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 15, 2010 15:05 UTC (Sun) by nicooo (guest, #69134) [Link]
% grep Oracle /usr/src/linux/fs/btrfs/* | wc
44 391 3835
% grep "Chris Mason" /usr/src/linux/fs/btrfs/* | wc
0 0 0
btrfs is doomed Posted Aug 15, 2010 21:59 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Fundamentally, Chris is the person who designed and wrote a lot of btrfs and who knows how it works. The fictional person called 'Oracle' knows none of that, so if Chris were to leave Oracle would have to scramble, but Chris could keep working on it (it is, after all, GPLv2) and the results would still benefit Oracle. I'm sure Oracle's management know this. Attacking btrfs is as stupid as attacking any other part of an OS critical for their databases. (Note: nobody is running Oracle DBs on Android phones.)
btrfs isn't doomed ;) Posted Aug 16, 2010 15:28 UTC (Mon) by masoncl (subscriber, #47138) [Link]
I think a good metric is to look at non-oracle copyrights in the btrfs sources. Basically btrfs was done from day one as a project derived from the kernel and with significant contributions from companies other than Oracle.
This was done for practical reasons, it's really the easiest way to make a Linux filesystem these days. Also, when you try to make something general purpose, you end up needing a lot of help...Linux has a lot of purposes.
The end result is that Btrfs is a community project where someone at Oracle is the maintainer. I try very hard to be inclusive and while I don't always succeed in keeping up with the contributions, Oracle definitely understands the importance of community in keeping the project alive and useful.
Btrfs isn't unique inside of Oracle, ocfs2 is a good example of a more established project quietly trying to do the right thing.
-chris
btrfs isn't doomed ;) Posted Aug 16, 2010 17:04 UTC (Mon) by nicooo (guest, #69134) [Link]
> Oracle definitely understands the importance of community in keeping the project alive and useful.
I think they should make a public statement if they want to put a stop to the conspiracy theories that are popping up.
Lumsden: OpenSolaris canceled Posted Aug 14, 2010 16:00 UTC (Sat) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]
> Well, IllumOS says that they will contribute any changes that they make back to Oracle.
They said that before this memo was leaked and I presume that they assumed that the OpenSolaris development mode would continue. Now, I wonder what they will do.
|
|||||||||||||