Whatever pleasantries once existed between Sun and Red Hat have vanished. This won’t come as a shock to many of you. The companies have been jawing in the press for some time. The extent, however, of Sun’s loathing for Red Hat is more profound than many imagine, with Sun’s CEO Scott McNealy largely confirming a shared attack with Microsoft against the Linux vendor.
McNealy: Microsoft needs Sun to beat IBM and Red Hat
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“*cough* OpenOffice? All the open source contributions that go into OOo are put into SOffice which Sun then sells.”
The vast majority of work on Open Office is done by Sun employees. Furthermore, how can you even suggest that this is leaching by Sun? The open source community wouldn’t have any remotely capable office software if it weren’t for Sun open sourcing Star Office in the first place.
If anything, open source leached off Sun here. Not the other way around.
<Beowulf is a specfic type of clustering technology though. And it is differnt from something like Mosix.>>>
You’ve been trying to spout off like an expert; I bet you’ve never touched any of this stuff! A beowulf cluster is simply a number of computer systems networked together to simultaneously solve problems. Mosix is a management package for networked systems that can do resource allocation and other things to make the cluster look like a single SMP system. They are *not* different, they are not even necessarily in the same definition space.
<<<“Name the components you can’t download source for.”
Please explain to me how Sun can charge a per server licensing fee if there are not proprietary components in Enterprise. They can’t. It’s that simple. Because I can install it on as many systems as I want if everything is GPL. I can even resell the damn thing if I want. >>>
This is an admission you’re full of it. You made a claim about non GPL components in RedHat products. BACK IT UP. List the names of components. I’ll give you a hint – look at the home page for White Box Linux.
I like Linux but I too dislike RedHat. SuSE at least give their distro voluntarily to the public. The way I see Fedora is that RedHat allows use to work freely as beta-testers for RedHat Enterprise. They aren’t giving anything out for free. How does this cut into their profits at all? It doesn’t. Everything they pay for ends going into their Enterprise product. Sun and SuSE let me download for free server-quality products. They *do* give something away since they realize they are cutting into their box sales. Also RedHat execs have bragged in the past about the difficulty switching from RedHat to others distros (some Reg article with quotes). I get nothing for free from RedHat but do with Sun and SuSE not to mention I’ve found SuSE the better Linux experience… frankly I’d only betoo happy for RedHat to die.
“I don’t like the fact that Red Hat makes money by leaching off of volunteer developers.”
They hardly leach, enless you consider taking part in the community, then making money from the business you built around that process, as leaching? Most of the 700+ devs RedHat hires today were members of that community, and are now being payed to do what they were doing already.
I will also point you at JDS just to utterly discredit this argument though….
“The vast majority of folks who make Red Hat what it is never see a dime for hundreds of hours of volunteer programming work they put in.”
But they are GIVEN the software that Red Hat and others have developed under the same terms they use to license software. They are also given oppertunities through that involvement, such as job oppertunities, and simply credit as a good hacker.
The GPL and LGPL doesn’t allow people to “leach” off of developers. This is the SOLE goal of Copyleft. This is the primary reason as to why it is prefered over BSD licenses.
Sun itself “leached” rather a lot of BSD code for its SunOS I seem to remember also…
“Actualy after posted most of the answers, you stated nothing, zip, zero. All you did was jusr trying to act smarter than you really are, and that is the reason why someone could be considered immature.”
Yet another ad-hoc argument on your part that you can’t back up.
>>Why is it that Sun is the arch enemy of open source lately, and IBM is the golden child?
Because IBM has quite dignity. Compare that to the flameboyant and repulsive/FUD comments that emanate from the deep recesses of Sun.
>> IBM has done more then their fair share of backstabbing even their own users.
Such as? I already commented that IBM is still providing OS/2 support.
>>They are one of the largest holders of software patents in the world…
And have already stated that they will not use their massive patent portfolio against Linux/OSS unless they are being attacked. Much more than Sun has done in this regard.
>>Sun has open sourced their flagship products
WHERE WHERE WHERE?!?!
“Sun itself “leached” rather a lot of BSD code for its SunOS I seem to remember also…”
Lets not forget that Sun was founded by Bill Joy, who happened to write a lot of the BSD code. He basically comercialized something he put a ton of work into while in college.
But anyway, as I said, I will not have this debate again so soon. I jsut had it a week ago.
Devils advocate?????
Just lost your case, next one please.
Why is it that Sun is the arch enemy of open source lately, and IBM is the golden child?
Because of their action in past few years maybe????
Ok, here we go again. A challenge. Name few backstabbing actions that IBM made. I’ll name at least twice more like that Suns actions or where IBM corrected mistakes.
“He basically comercialized something he put a ton of work into while in college.”
So basically, you are against Red Hat comercialization, but that Sun was built on the same basis is perfectly OK?
I think I finally realized how futile this is… One rule for Sun, one for Red Hat in your eyes I guess?
“Because IBM has quite dignity.”
And this why to this day IBM is under government restrictions due to monopoloistic practices right?
“Such as? I already commented that IBM is still providing OS/2 support.”
Sure. If you are one of their major business clients. But if you are one of the home users they suckered into buying OS/2 based on their “multimedia gaming platform” claims and Best Buy demonstrations, they won’t even give you time of day. You can’t even get patches if you are a home user.
“>>Sun has open sourced their flagship products
WHERE WHERE WHERE?!?!”
Um… Solaris? Java? And just because you don’t like Java’s open source license does not mean it isn’t open source.
Yet another ad-hoc argument on your part that you can’t back up.
heh, yet another topic avoided. Try to discredit my summary of your comments instead.
“Ok, here we go again. A challenge. Name few backstabbing actions that IBM made.”
OS/2. End of story. See previous comments about OS/2.
“Why is it that Sun is the arch enemy of open source lately, and IBM is the golden child?”
Sun is publically slamming a product they sell (They offer servers with Red Hat reinstalled), and are creating pure fud aimed at those without knowledge.
IBM is helping with developement of major products, they are praising Linux at every opertunity (as are HP, Dell etc). They are doing nothing wrong. Not to mention their little “Fighting the Linux fight” court case :/
“heh, yet another topic avoided. Try to discredit my summary of your comments instead”
I won’t waste my time doing that until you have made your summary credible by supporting it instead of just saying “you provided zero, zilch…” whatever.
“So basically, you are against Red Hat comercialization, but that Sun was built on the same basis is perfectly OK?”
You miss the point. Sun commercialized a product that its founter was largely responsible for writing!
Red Hat didn’t. Red Hat just leached off the work of thousands of volunteers!
>> And this why to this day IBM is under government restrictions due to monopoloistic practices right?
What?!? Dude why are you drawing straws? This has nothing to do with my comment.
“Quite dignity” meaning projecting professionalism and not resorting to childish name calling…like Sun.
>>You can’t even get patches if you are a home user.
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/support/
Its under download!
Hmmm wonder how people felt when Sun killed off Solaris X86 a few years ago?
>>Um… Solaris? Java? And just because you don’t like Java’s open source license does not mean it isn’t open source.
Lets see….
Still no opensource Solaris.
Even McNealy said Java wasent opensource!
McNealy:“Despite urging from competitors and open source advocates, Sun Microsystems Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif., will not open the source to its Java programming language anytime soon…”
http://news.osdir.com/article491.html
“You miss the point. Sun commercialized a product that its founter was largely responsible for writing!
Red Hat didn’t. Red Hat just leached off the work of thousands of volunteers!”
Umm, Red Hat devs are largely responsible for products they include also… and Red Hat provides server bandwidth for products such as GNOME :/
They give pleanty back, but I am through trying to make you see that, I have College to attend in an hour…
“It is futile because Simba is a know-nothing PHONY.”
Yet another immature zealot who can’t carry on a debate without resorting to personal attacks against someone who doesn’t agree with them.
“Umm, Red Hat devs are largely responsible for products they include also… and Red Hat provides server bandwidth for products such as GNOME”
Most of the open source bandwidth is provided by University servers. Not Red Hat.
OS/2. End of story. See previous comments about OS/2.
So, in basics. IBM screwed and backstabbed community for not giving their commercial product. But I promissed two back, didn’t I
1. Gosh, you’re a funny guy. How many times Sun backstabbed community for not giving the sources for their products. D
2. Since your view of backstabbing is a bit screwed I’ll try to look from your point of view. How many times Sun contributed (except at that time dying SOffice) anything that community could embrace-extent-or_whatever_they_wish like IBM does with its contributions
Must write that to Adobe:) I think something like that should work
Stop backstabbing community, give us the sources.
“”Quite dignity” meaning projecting professionalism and not resorting to childish name calling…like Sun.”
I already stated in an earlier post that I thought Scott McNealy was starting to go off his rocker and should probably get some counseling and maybe even step down as CEO. But apparently didn’t bother to read the thread.
“Hmmm wonder how people felt when Sun killed off Solaris X86 a few years ago?”
And what did Sun do when their users complained? They brought Solaris X86 back!
What did IBM do? “Too bad. Screw you. We don’t feel like spending the time necessary to make sure all of you can get patches. Only a few very high profile business clients.”
“Despite urging from competitors and open source advocates, Sun Microsystems Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif., will not open the source to its Java programming language anytime soon…””
Taken out of context as usual. Specifically he was refering to the GPL.
>>Red Hat just leached off the work of thousands of volunteers!
OK so what about Sun Java Desktop? Sun leeched off the Gnome community.
Most of Gnome was written by Volunteers and by using your logic in the OpenOffice comment, this is wrong. Yes?
“Most of the open source bandwidth is provided by University servers. Not Red Hat.”
Strange, then why would Red Hat get credit for it? Says “Hosted by Red Hat.” at the bottom of each page on GNOME’s site :/
Was posted at AC
Yet another immature zealot who can’t carry on a debate without resorting to personal attacks against someone who doesn’t agree with them.
I get a funny feeling that everybody here is immature or zealot. Just as fast as he takes you for a word. And at the same moment I think you’re the one pissing against the wind here.
>>And what did Sun do when their users complained? They brought Solaris X86 back!
Yes, after screwing them over, which is why you were complaining about IBM.
So its OK for Sun but not for IBM(even though IBM didnt) screw their customers?
>> What did IBM do? “Too bad. Screw you. We don’t feel like spending the time necessary to make sure all of you can get patches. Only a few very high profile business clients.”
IVE GOT YOU!!! I PLACED THE SUPPORT LINK 3 TIMES!!! and you continue to ignore it.
>> Taken out of context as usual. Specifically he was refering to the GPL.
Nope. IBM didn’t specify a license. Theres more than just GPL don’t you know.
“Strange, then why would Red Hat get credit for it? Says “Hosted by Red Hat.” at the bottom of each page on GNOME’s site :/”
The Web site is hosted by Red Hat. But go to download GTK for example, and chances are you will be redirected to a source forge mirror site.
“IVE GOT YOU!!! I PLACED THE SUPPORT LINK 3 TIMES!!! and you continue to ignore it.”
NO YOU DON’T HAVE ME!!!!
Go read the support link you posted. Then try to find a place where you can download OS/2 fix packs. YOU CAN’T DO IT!!! You can only get them if you are a high profile business customer, and then you can only get them on CD-ROM!
Never occured to me to download things from GNOME’s site… all the information they give you is hosted by Red Hat though…
Most people who use GTK based apps recieve them from the distro…
GNOME’s CVS is hosted by Red Hat, would make sense to get things from there :/
Latest OS/2 fix packs
http://www7.boulder.ibm.com/pspfixpk.nsf/e81ae41b5683323d8625662800…
Oops? Do you have a user ID and password? I didn’t think so. I don’t either. And neither does any other home user. Only IBM’s corporate clients who have commercial support contracts do.
LOL why not try the link I gave you 3 times already. Works fine.
THAT IS THE LINK YOU GAVE ME!
Go to “Latest” or whatever it is and then try to download an OS/2 fixpack! YOU CAN’T! You need a user id and password!
By the way, I see you are just as immature as your nickname would indicate. So make sure you attend your middle school classes tomorrow. Some day you might actually become an adult.
Seriously this is pathetic. Im done.
Good night.
Yes. It is pathetic. It’s pathetic that you didn’t even bother to check your sources and find out that you can’t download the latest fixpacks without a user ID and password.
Some critical patches are available to everyone. But actual updates like fixpacks are not. They are only available to corporate customers who have a support contract, hence you get asked to provide a user ID and password if you try to download one.
germany (sun) and russia (microsoft) attack poland with the aim of carving it up between themselves, and the rest of erope while they’re at it.
“btw. Fixes can easily be obtained from your local IBM provider or service support.”
So you have a vendor that is illegally distributing fixpacks basically.
“I and others stated numerous requests stated by quite a few people to stand behind your comments. Yet you failed every time”
Which I will do when you can come up with better refutations of my comments then personal attacks that have no other basis.
BTW,
Yes, I called him pathetic. It was in response to his stating how pathetic it was after I pointed out he was wrong. Also in response to his childish premature celebration cause he thought he had me. Turns out he didn’t even bother go follow the link past the first page, clearly indicating the only thing he knew about IBM’s OS/2 policy was what he found on Google in the last 20 seconds.
I came back to see if you came up with any substance, but instead I find…
<<<Which I will do when you can come up with better refutations of my comments then personal attacks that have no other basis.>>>
Lame. People were very polite asking you to back up your nonsense (e.g. your claim of RedHat’s non-GPL code in RHEL) until it became obvious you were making stuff up out of thin air.
Bah – I can’t believe I wasted time on you. Everybody else – good job debunking this troll and good night.
Here they are again
1. Sun rocks! RH, IBM sucks – Your explanation: you hate commercialization
How is Sun not commercialized?
2. Sun giving away flowers! RH and IBM are just common profit organizations – NFS/NIS and StarOffice were the only projects you named
Do you even know that IBM in last 2-3 years gave away almost 3bn$ worth to open source. Last time I checked that was 1/5 worth of Sun
3. Sun costs less than RH, and you talk about 64way system! Do you actually know how much even month support costs for that
How much does Sun costs and Sun support on a month, take equivalent from IBM, I did for 32-way system and IBM was a lot cheaper
4. RHEL License nonsense – answered here again
Which packages in RHEL aren’t GPLed???
5. Not reading comments fully and accusing people insulting you (:had to add this one:)
Just admiting is acceptable answer
6. Not being able to specify one non dying-dead-extinct-salvaged open source contribution, after all your talk about them – That’s bullshiting if you ask me
Name few of those projects you talk so much about them.
7. You talk about IBM having bad support, how when
I know a guy who had Solaris station for CAD drawing software. When it broke, he had to wait almost a month for repair
—
So you have a vendor that is illegally distributing fixpacks basically.
No, it was valid since OS/2 was bought and there was a receipt for it. Since customer was valid, fixes were provided without problem
p.s. I see you’re fast on pressing “Report abuse”, here is another one to press
“http://ianmurdock.com/archives/000225.html“
Specifically “Red Hat clearly maintains exclusive rights to distribute RHEL in binary form”.
If EVERYTHING in Red Hat is GPL, they Red Hat CANNOT maintain that exclusive right.
RHEL refers to a product, not the code in the product. What that basically means is that you cannot piggyback on thier brand and sell systems called RHEL, even if you make the binaries. You can call it something like WhiteBoxLinux. Oh, that already exists, but you get the picture.
So you can call it blackboxlinux, or anything else that is not trademarked. It is different from providing Gnome. Gnome is the name of a community project. Redhat is the name of a brand which Redhat spent money to build. You cannot leech off their good name and sell a product to compete with them.
Isn’t this about the fourth time you were supposed to be in bed?
“How is Sun not commercialized?”
I never said they weren’t, and I already responded to this. So go back and read the damn thread!
I guess you just can’t let it go can you?
“No, it was valid since OS/2 was bought and there was a receipt for it. Since customer was valid, fixes were provided without problem”
I would suggest you read IBM’s policy on fixpacks then. Because they are ONLY legally available to customers who have a support contract with IBM. Not customers who simply bought OS/2 at some point.
And I already addressed the Red Hat Enterprise question. How can Red Hat maintain exclusive rights to binary distribution of Red Hat Enterprise if everything in it is GPLd? They can’t. That violates the GPL.
hi,
been following this discussion with some glee =). Kinda funny, I must admit. Whilst I may not neccesarily think Sun is the divine hand of God, I must admit I don’t like RH that much better – and also, I’m not sure that I like this commercialisation of Linux so much either. Yeah, sure you can argue that RH provided exposure, but what happened to Linux being a hobby OS with a sense of *community*?
Also, attempting to be objective, I must say I think Simba won that argument rather convincingly (not that I neccesarily agree with his views). The whole thing with OS/2 – fairly obvious who won (and calling up some stupid IBM rep and having to go to all the hassle of getting them to provide fixes
bye,
victor
And I already addressed the Red Hat Enterprise question. How can Red Hat maintain exclusive rights to binary distribution of Red Hat Enterprise if everything in it is GPLd? They can’t. That violates the GPL.
Because Red Hat Enterprise Linux refers to a branded product. It is not different from Whitebox Linux except fro the branding. They are just making sure that even if you got the binaries from them, you are not able to distribute them using their brand. They invested in their brand, and you cannot piggyback on their investement like that. You just compile the distro again from the source which they provide in its entirety. They specifically say you must remove the branding files.
This is business. Redhat collaborates as far as development is concerned, but once you are selling products you are competing, and as a competitor, they pull out all the stops to make sure they can grab whatever advantage they can. One of those advantages is the brand. It is difficult to start to compete withthe established brands such as SUSE and Red Hat.
The only one trolling here is obviously you.
And by the way, you have racked up so many abuse complaints in this thread involving personal attacks and name calling, that I would not be at all surprised if your network address is banned from being able to post here anymore.
Gak – I couldn’t resist looking to see if you responded. And sure enough, you made up more garbage. In particular, you posted a quote from an article.
<<<Specifically “Red Hat clearly maintains exclusive rights to distribute RHEL in binary form”>>>
But neglected to post the key part of the article two paragraphs down where YOUR article says
<<<Red Hat’s subscription agreement is consistent with the letter of the licenses that cover the constituent technologies, as the GPL and most other FOSS licenses say nothing about binary distribution rights>>>
So, at the end of the day, you can’t back up your own false claims about RedHat’s non-GPL code in RHEL (we’re still waiting), and even the off-point article you come up with clearly states that you are completely full of it.
And by the way, you have racked up so many abuse complaints in this thread involving personal attacks and name calling, that I would not be at all surprised if your network address is banned from being able to post here anymore.
Wouldn’t be a problem. One link banned out of many. Even in here I have 3 different links. Server hosting requires me to have that. Not to be counting ADSL at home, analog modem account, GPRS. These were only my links:) Others are on servers that I support (about 40 of them).
If you go trough history you can see that I post from many locations (but mostly from 3 of them).
p.s. I see you were clicking a lot. “Report abuse” I mean
“Wouldn’t be a problem. One link banned out of many. Even in here I have 3 different links.”
Nice… You just revealed publically that you plan to intentionally evade a ban if you get one. That was smart.
And once again, go back and read the damn thread. I already stated why Sun and RH were different.
Went over. But…
Where was that? You were only saying that Sun is good and gives while RH is bad and it is leaching from community. Failed to state one real argument.
Could you at least point me to numbers of responses?
Nice… You just revealed publically that you plan to intentionally evade a ban if you get one. That was smart.
Don’t worry, I always post under the same nick. If they would ban my nick, then I would stop posting. So, where is the problem? Or do you expect me to run to the same location everytime I post on osnews???
BTW, yes, I looked, and yes I was wrong about the GPL when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise (not technically wrong, but practically wrong. There are images distributed with it that are not GPL, and simply deleting those images will cause certain parts of the system to break if you try to redistribute it. So you would have to replace the images.)
But yes, for the most part, there is nothing non-GPL in the distribution.
But as far as my Sun argument, once again, NFS and NIS are still important technologies in most large corporations. And I gurantee you that Linux would be a lot less prevalent in major corporations if it could not support NIS or NFS. As far as StarOffice dying, I don’t think it would have died anyway, since is ships on Java Desktop. And China has ordered approximately 2 million Java Desktop Systems. Sun is also open sourcing Solaris.
And as stated, when Sun heard that customers wanted Solaris x86 back, they brought it back. IBM didn’t do that with OS/2. And yes, if you check IBM’s fixpack license agreements, you will find that they are only legally available to customers who have support contracts with IBM.
So basically, IBM is sitting on a dead product for no good reason. They once talked about open sourcing it or selling it to Stardock. Then changed their mind with the lame excuse “We believe that an updated OS/2 is not in the best interest of our customers”.
If IBM wants to prove they are good citizens, I say they should open source OS/2, or at least make the fixpacks available to folks who aren’t buying a yearly support contract. Fixpacks used to be gree. Then IBM started only distributing them to those who were paying for support contracts.
“Don’t worry, I always post under the same nick. If they would ban my nick, then I would stop posting.”
I doubt it. Your nick would stop posting. But you wouldn’t You would just get a different one.
Images are, GPLed, but they are also part of RH trademark, and trademark is the thing that RH does not allow to distribute. If you look at package whole Blucurve theme is in one package and package is GPL.
Sun is also open sourcing Solaris. Yes, I agree, but community can look but not touch. This is not a gift. There’s a distinct line between how Sun opensources things and how do RH and IBM.
NIS/NFS maybe were important. But they are dying. Name non dying project.
StarOffice was dying until they have given it to OO.o and from way back then Sun does almost nothing but includes one non-OSS product with OO.o and leaches (your term not mine) on community (yes, I know that sun pays a lot of developers on OO.o, but so does RH, Novell, IBM. But since you said that RH leaches, don’t be discriminatory and admit your self that Sun would be no better in this case, for your reference most of Gnome developers are on RH or Novell payroll)
As for fixpacks I agree. I only stated that there’s no problem obtaining them, or at least not even nearly impossible. That was yours and spank_da_monkey theme.
Sun gave x86 Solaris (and free) back, because they hope they will get users from Linux not because they would listen to customers.
As I said, agree on fixpacks.
IBM maybe has reasons for that. And being as contributory as they are (as I said 1/5 value of Sun in last 2-3 years) I wouldn’t try to sqeeze them even more, sometimes plans do mean more than intentions, read when I was describing my contributions. There’s a distinct and preplanned line between bread and expendable
So either they drop the last blood or they’re no good.
I doubt it. Your nick would stop posting. But you wouldn’t You would just get a different one.
Nope, either “somebody” or nothing. I have one other that I use in case that this nick is already taken somewhere. Now for a few years. I always stand behind my words, and I would feel like cheating my self if I would post under some other nick
Speaking of linux scaling, can anyone else not access slashdot?
Yeah, I can. But they changed their page. Now featuring only one article, and that one says
503 Service Unavailable
The service is not available. Please try again later.
Lame joke, I know, I know
“Images are, GPLed, but they are also part of RH trademark, and trademark is the thing that RH does not allow to distribute.”
This I know for sure is wrong though. Because if the images are GPLed, then Red Hat cannot legally restrict distribution. There is a conflict here between the licenses. The GPL is quite clear that if something is GPLed, the person distributing it cannot restrict the person they are giving it to from doing the same thing.
So if the images are GPL, Red Hat is violting the GPL by saying that they cannot be distributed. So the images cannot be GPL.
Also speaking of Linux scalability.
http://www.redhat.com
redhat.com
is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later.
It’s been like that for about an hour. I was trying to look of the EULA but I found a cached copy on Google.
Wrong again.
Every package that RH distributes says Redhat inside. But since Redhat is registred trademark, it is not allowed for other distributors to use it in their packages
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/
Here’s a pretty good explanation, why it can be GPLed and why not used externally
Works fine for me though, I just browsed trough RH to get you that link
“Every package that RH distributes says Redhat inside. But since Redhat is registred trademark, it is not allowed for other distributors to use it in their packages”
True. But that means the images themselves cannot be GPLed. If they were, Red Hat cannot restrict distribution of the images. Per the GPL preamble:
“For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.”
Therefore, Red Hat cannot legally restrict copying and distribution of their images if the are GPL. All they can do is say that they maintain the copyright, and no one else can claim the images are theirs.
Also, the link you sent does not say the images are GPLed. Only that they are trademarks.
And as far as the Red Hat site, yes, it is not down anymore. But my browser didn’t recognize that on going back to the site until I emptied the cache.
Redhat has given us Cygwin, soon we will get Netscape Directory Server and Netscape Certificate Management System.
And at what point did Red Hat purchase Netscape Directory Server and Netscape Certificate Management? They don’t own it, they may possibly have an OEM contract with SUN, but SUN OWNS the old Netscape server IP.
Stop trying to spread pro-Linux garbage, it just makes Linux look worst that it does already.
“NFS and NIS”
Now both dying and not really suggested:)
I’ll give you that NIS is being replaced with OpenLDAP and other directory servers, however, NFS is still live and well; with NFS there will be greater integration between NFS and directory services.
As for NFS as a protocol, I have a number of machines networked, believe me, NFS is a walk the park compared to the crappy documentation and voodoo one needs to perform just to get SAMBA working properly.
Applixware Office (which was owned by Red Hat at one point. Not sure if they still are) was never open source either.
Red Hat NEVER owned Applixware Office. They *may* have licensed an OEM version to bundle with their distribution, but they never owned it. Applixware was developed by a company WAY before Linux was available, heck, I’m sure alot of people remember using it on IRIX, HPUX and IIRC, there was a version for Solaris as well.
<<< I disagree. I will still argue that Solaris is superior to Red Hat any day of the week. It is easier to maintain, and it scales better.>>>
Heh. You go right on believing that. We’ve replaced dozens of Sun boxes with racks of linux blades which cost less, are easier to manage, and provide vastly better overall performance. There was lots of opposition to that move as we started, but even the diehard Sun guys are ethusiastic now.
Why not purchase a rack of SUN x86-64 blades loaded with Solaris? or what that actually be admitting that the move was merely political and emotional rather than actually based on any business based logic.
And it would be nice if Sun also released
Light House app’s source to public especially
Quantrix so may be we (GNUstep people)
can try to rebuild any useful class.
Looks like SUN will get a load of EEE (Embrace, Extend, Estinguish) if they’re going to team up with M$. It’d be nice to see UNIX and Linux vendors grow by stealing market shares from Windows rather than eating the leftovers (i.e. eachother).
Anything that’s good for Microsoft, is bad for the industry in the long run.
I start tu believe that simba is an idiot.Nice to follow up this conversation.When more than one person tell you’re drunk , you go to sleep.
To be the first in IT industry that is needed to create alliance:
Fujitsu Siemens
Microsoft
Sun Microsystems
Infineon
In such way there is need to beat IT competitors!!!
<<<Why not purchase a rack of SUN x86-64 blades loaded with Solaris? or what that actually be admitting that the move was merely political and emotional rather than actually based on any business based logic.>>>
No. It would be stupid to trust Sun on x86 – they’ve changed their minds (twice!) and killed off Solaris x86 to protect SPARC hardware sales. Linux is faster on x86 at this point in any case.
Very true, and something that a lot of us have been trying to point out to many of the Linux zealots who defend Red Hat as if they were the holy vatican of the software world.
Depends on how you look at it. You know that when RedHat buys proprietary software, they’ll open source it (e.g. GFS, Netscape Directory Services) but with Sun Microsystems you just don’t know it (e.g. OpenOffice yes, StarOffice and Lighthouse no).
Once again, this is simply not true. There are component of Enterprise server that are NOT GPL. If Enterprise Server were entirely GPL, then Red Hat is violating the GPL by charging a per-server license for Red Hat Enterprise
FUD, FUD, FUD. Please name the software packages, including their RPM name, to proof your point. You can’t correctly do that cause you’re talking crap Simba
everything in RedHat’s Linux distributions is open source according to OSI’s definition. Some specific things, such as the trademarked RedHat name and some artwork may not be used by others however that is true for say IBM and SUN too. As a result, you can just download Whitebox Linux as alternative for RedHat’s Linux distribution. So what do you buy? Support contract.
It’s also true that Sun has contributed more open source then anyone else except Berkeley. IBM, on the other hand, has contributed very little, and is also one of the largest holder of software patents in the world. IBM is no friend of open source. It’s amazing that folks can’t see that.
Oh yes, is that truth? I keep hearing that from you Sun hippies, but its never backed up by hard facts. I keep hearing exactly the opposite on some other websites (Groklaw) without any facts either. I guess you are talking shit out of your neck, too — just like the rest.
The sources for the enterprise applications that ship with it are not available.
—-
exactly which product does redhat ship without source?. name it please
Stating that Sun contributed to open source software via open office is a bit of an overstatement. They acquired the german Staroffice a couple of years ago, and in order to avoid doing to much development/rewriting themselves they took Netscape/Mozilla as an example and opensourced the what they just bought. So, instead of contributing their own code to the community, they used the community to debug and improve their own product, and not the other way arround.
Stating that Sun contributed to open source software via open office is a bit of an overstatement. They acquired the german Staroffice a couple of years ago, and in order to avoid doing to much development/rewriting themselves they took Netscape/Mozilla as an example and opensourced the what they just bought. So, instead of contributing their own code to the community, they used the community to debug and improve their own product, and not the other way arround.
And this is EXACTLY what ALL other companies that opensource any of their products, want. They give to the community and get something in return.
I will not argue about Openoffice.org, but the fact is the relationship is symbiotic. Both parties are supposed to benefit. Truth be told, Linux is probably the place where Openoffice.org dominates, and consequently, Sun gets more value out of it that way. Without Linux, Openoffice would be seriously relegated to something less than second tier on windows. The reason that it may now actually be the second biggest office suite even on Windows is because it is open source, and Star Office benefits as a result. Staroffice was going nowhere without being free, or having a totally free version. Many other projects were put on the back burner because of making openoffice.org, although its advantage is diminshin slowly. For example, Gnumeric is arguably a better spreadsheet than oocalc, even better than Excel by some standards.
NIS/NFS maybe were important. But they are dying. Name non dying project.
Where did you get that idea? Are you saying that NAS boxes are slowly starting to remove support for NFS?
StarOffice was dying until they have given it to OO.o and from way back then Sun does almost nothing but includes one non-OSS product with OO.o and leaches (your term not mine) on community (yes, I know that sun pays a lot of developers on OO.o, but so does RH, Novell, IBM.
No, you are wrong. Sun paid money for StarOffice and bought it from StarDivision germany, and then open sourced it. Majority of the openoffice developers are Sun emplyees.
Sun also heavily contributes to Gnome. All the accessibilty support was Sun’s work and so were all the HID studies.
http://www.sunsource.net/projects.html is a list of all the projects Sun has contributed to the opensource community.
Just becuase you say some thing is dying doesn’t make it so. A lot of developers us NetBeans.
Got any proof for your statements claiming things are dying.
Oh go look at slab.c in the linux kernel sources. The entire slab layer is Sun’s design for SVR4 and Solaris.
That is what is going to happen to Sun. They will be
embraced and extended. And embarassed, too. Serves them right.
DG
OK, thanks for supporting my argument. It wasn’t really necessary, I think, but it’s nice when someone I don’t even know provides my point with more detailed, exhaustive explanations.
The register always glorifies Sun and makes Red Hat look like the bad guys.
What are you smoking!
<<<What I said was that I can’t GPL the app I write. Therefore, I can’t release the libraries that support that app under the GPL. I can release them under the LGPL however, because then I do not have to GPL my entire application.>>>
But if you actually wrote them, you’ll know that you own the copyrights which mean you can do as you damn well please. I’m not convinced that you know a tad about the GPL or coding, despite your verbose claims.
Simba, for the most part presented his case effectively with facts, and logic; not to mention that he conceded to counter points on the few subjects where he was wrong. All I have read from his detractors throughout this 180 comment thread is the rampant stupidity and name calling that unfairly produces the image of the Linux community being a group of self-important and at times disingenuous bunch of immature jerks.
Now that MS plans offering “role-based” servers, the final trick up their sleeve is porting IE to Linux.
Where marketing fuzz can’t go, ActiveX will do the job to kill the competition from the inside.
Does this affect the choice of highlevel language
for future Gnome development?