James
Dickens discusses another story on OpenSolaris that came out a few
days ago. This is really good. More and more tech writers and industry
analysts are noticing OpenSolaris and trying to figure out all the
ramifications that an open source Solaris platform means to the market.
No one really knows, to be honest, since a project of this size and
complexity has never been attempted before. Should be great fun.
So, the story Dickens is pointing to is in
SecurityFocus and
it's by Daniel Hanson. The article is a little confusing to me.
Sorry if I missed the analogies, but the story mixes industries (high
tech and medicine), and it mixes enterprise technology customers and
producers and
consumers. I don't want to spend time picking apart that section of the
article because I think it's largely
meaningless to the substance of Daniel's conclusion -- which is
basically that he doesn't know why Sun is open sourcing Solaris and
that when we
actually open source Solaris it will not mean anything to our
customers. Ok. That I get.
First, Hanson implies that Sun is just getting into open source now:
Sun is
getting into the open-source business with Solaris, but will
this automatically translate into better sales?
Actually, we've been in the open source business in one way or another
for
a couple of decades. Many of our products have been based on open
source and
community source code.
Then Hanson asks (again, apparently):
Again
we must ask, why is Sun contemplating open-source for Solaris?
Actually, we're not contemplating it. We're doing it. It's a
distinction with a
pretty big difference, too. We have engineers working on the code. We
have
engineers working on the web site. We have engineers working on the
co-development methodology and the infrastructure needed to implement
it. We have engineers working on the source code
management system and development tools and documentation. We have
engineers and executives and lawyers working on the license. We have
program managers (me) working on organizing the community. We have
marketing executives building out new business plans. And probably much
more that I don't even see. We are far past contemplation, I can assure
you.
Then Hanson attempts to answer his own question:
I
don't know the answer to this, and like others, I've read the reasons
given by Sun.
So, if Hanson has read the reasons we've given, why hasn't he simply
stated them in his article instead of asking -- rhetorically, of course
-- about the reasons? And who are these "others" he's talking about?
I'd love a link or two to substantiate them. Wouldn't you? I'd much
rather Hanson said that he didn't agree with our reasons. That's fine.
However, we've stated our reasons publically in executive keynotes, in
about a dozen Solaris engineering blogs (
lead engineer here with links to
others), in Solaris BOFs at industry conferences (
OSCON,
LISA),
in a
gallon
of press articles, and even in a FAQ with
Glenn
Weinberg, the VP running the project.
More Hanson:
But I
just don't see a critical mass of consumers demanding access to
the source code.
This is a common rhetorical technique here. Attempt to disprove an
obviously extreme or
incorrect view and then attach that view to the person your are trying
to undermine. Sorry. It's not going to work. We are not saying we see
"a
critical mass of consumers demanding access to the source code." We are
not open sourcing Solaris for consumers. Instead, we are open souring
Solaris for developers and system administrators -- highly skilled
professionals who work with code and who are, in fact, looking forward
to
getting into the internals of Solaris and contributing to the
platform's
development. I talk to them every day to populate the OpenSolaris Pilot
Program. Think of the entire global Solaris market as the potential
OpenSolaris community. That's where we are starting.
And then there's this:
Certainly
there are niche markets where source access is
important, but are they so locked out of those markets by Linux or BSD
that they need to open-source Solaris? I doubt it.
Niche? I hardly think open source is niche anymore. And finally:
Sun
may be able to turn their fortunes around, and indeed some of their
technology for safer and high performance computing certainly looks
very intriguing, but I don't believe that open-sourcing Solaris will
make much of an impact for their customers one way or the other.
Finally, there's our conclusion. So, we have a proclamation of
ignorance regarding OpenSolaris, yet we are offered absolutely no
reason whatsoever why the project will fail. And from that we are to
conclude that OpenSolaris "will not make much of an impact."
Really? We'll see.
Good luck
with that Solaris thing ... I've been
a loyal user since Solaris 2.0. I'll hate to see it go.
