> > For that matter, the userlands aren't that > different. Solaris has a little less comfort in that > it doesn't imply parameters or helps you with > everything (e.g. useradd on Solaris vs. Linux). > Anything that runs under X11 is virtually the same > between the operating systems. > > > > Also, I do hope that Solaris will not be GPL'd. > Everything would be ported to Linux and Solaris would > be left sitting in the moonlight. > > Like what? The system V commands? ZFS, Dtrace? ZFS > has something like > 52 patents, Sun would specifically have to bake in > patent release into > their license. Dtrace? The Linux kernel team would > completely have to > rewrite the kernel to support this. They would be > better off snagging > the Solaris kernel. > > Basically I'm note sure what the downside is, if > GPLing Solaris makes > both Solaris and Linux better, I say go for it. (I > would think about > dual licensing though).
OTOH, licensing aside, Linux could adopt zfs (although not dtrace) a lot more easily than Solaris could adopt a bunch of WiFi and other networking drivers from them, I think. Some of the USB stuff, maybe not quite so bad; and I'd like to think that the graphics wouldn't be too bad either. But their reverse-engineered stuff might not cut it; even if legally it wasn't a problem, it's not really supportable if you don't have sufficient specs from the hardware vendor. And a GPL'd kernel runs into all the problems with proprietary drivers, which so far, haven't gone away. So it's not quite cut-and-dried. Given what each most needs from the other, I suspect that Linux would probably stand to gain more to gain if Solaris were GPLed than Solaris would, though. And probably neither would gain as much as one might think, since both kernel architecture and fundamental design choices are too different. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
