Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solaris 11 source code leaked?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Solaris 11 source code leaked?

    I was googling for some information about Solaris 11 when I stumbled upon a file which, according to the uploader, is the source code for Solaris 11 kernel. (Try a google search for "solaris11.tar.bz2" and you'll find it). Now I am no Solaris kernel expert, but the file does contain some interesting things. Like, TRUNKID is set to 175 and the zpool command seem to have support for version 33. Most files still seem to be CDDL-licensed. What do you think? Is this the real thing or just fake?

  • #2
    Oracle released GPLed and parts beside OS/Net(kernel) even before this.

    Even if it is saying it is CDDL - do not believe it until Oracle confirms it.

    Only Truly Open source and CDDL code there is was Opensolaris OS/Net is Illumos project
    - one can use and contribute to (and it is all legal - see Openindiana distribution).

    Also it is not true that Oracle closed development of all Solaris11.
    Os/Net consolidation (kernel and base OS - SunOS) they stopped releasing (That is where Illumos stepped up)
    but rest of userland/software and consolidations is under open/free software licenses (GPL and others)
    and that code IS open by Oracle after Solaris 11 release.

    OpenIndiana is now Illumos (Open free OS/Net) + Packages of userland apps from Oracle + Openindiana own packages (+SFE package repository for newer programs)

    So it is not true Oracle did not release anything in open after S11 release.
    Just in present state this "leaked" release is unusable, unless Oracle say it is truly CDDL.

    Comment


    • #3
      OpenIndiana/IllumOS is more of a hallucination than anything practical.

      As long as they depend on SCOracle making scheduled code drops for their own project to advance, they will:

      Always be far behind.

      Lacking whatever code that SCOracle doesn't feel like open sourcing.

      SCOracle is pretty hostile to open source and any kind of competition and will stoop to things like malicious patent abuse if they think it will get them an inch on their competition through the court system. WHO in their right minds would trust SCOracle to keep making ANY code drops under ANY license? They could very well stop completely at any time, release whatever they feel like releasing, and maybe that's under the CDDL and maybe it's under some nonfree source license that you can't combine with CDDL code.


      As for the source code leak.... Who cares? OpenIndiana/IllumOS/the BSDs/Linux aren't exactly in a position to steal code and get away with it. I'd worry more about what Microsoft and Apple would do with stolen source code since they can just bury it in their non-public source code pile never to see the light of day again.

      Comment


      • #4
        Is that bad?

        Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
        OpenIndiana/IllumOS is more of a hallucination than anything practical.

        As long as they depend on SCOracle making scheduled code drops for their own project to advance, they will:

        Always be far behind.

        Lacking whatever code that SCOracle doesn't feel like open sourcing.

        SCOracle is pretty hostile to open source and any kind of competition and will stoop to things like malicious patent abuse if they think it will get them an inch on their competition through the court system. WHO in their right minds would trust SCOracle to keep making ANY code drops under ANY license? They could very well stop completely at any time, release whatever they feel like releasing, and maybe that's under the CDDL and maybe it's under some nonfree source license that you can't combine with CDDL code.


        As for the source code leak.... Who cares? OpenIndiana/IllumOS/the BSDs/Linux aren't exactly in a position to steal code and get away with it. I'd worry more about what Microsoft and Apple would do with stolen source code since they can just bury it in their non-public source code pile never to see the light of day again.
        I don't see why it should be a bad thing for the commercial development to be at the bleeding edge, while the open source volunteer developers work with solid code. I know it's the opposite to Red Hat/Fedora, but most people (including all Windows users) don't feel the need to be running newborn code all the time. I admit that doesn't include some geeks like myself and others on this forum.
        You make a good point about other commercial entities potentially abusing this code. Unless Oracle confirms the CDDL, that part could hypothetically be a forged addition, but then Oracle wouldn't have the same legal power to defend its IP if others use it. After all, a basic part of copyleft is defending the existence and freedom of information as in IP, which also means defending it from being kidnapped by third parties.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by feydun View Post
          I don't see why it should be a bad thing for the commercial development to be at the bleeding edge, while the open source volunteer developers work with solid code. I know it's the opposite to Red Hat/Fedora, but most people (including all Windows users) don't feel the need to be running newborn code all the time. I admit that doesn't include some geeks like myself and others on this forum.
          You make a good point about other commercial entities potentially abusing this code. Unless Oracle confirms the CDDL, that part could hypothetically be a forged addition, but then Oracle wouldn't have the same legal power to defend its IP if others use it. After all, a basic part of copyleft is defending the existence and freedom of information as in IP, which also means defending it from being kidnapped by third parties.
          I just don't think it's a good idea to depend on open source code drops that Oracle could change their mind about at any time and leave you holding the bag. Oracle is not an open source company. Their entire history of open source acquisitions shows that they will either make whatever they get wholly proprietary or at best, open core.

          The only time I trust code from Oracle is when they're forced to cooperate because of the copyleft terms of the upstream's license. Example being BtrFS under the GPL version 2, because they wanted to upstream it into the Linux kernel. I think that OpenIndiana/IllumOS are just wasting their time and waiting for Oracle to bend them over and screw them by not releasing something that's vital to their project. They have an unhealthy dependency on a known patent troll and proprietary software company. I'd be taking bets against them.

          Comment


          • #6
            Reality of better technology

            DaemonFC: I think your reasoning is false. Just educate yourself on topic and you will be fine. (In doubt ask Linus for advise) Just because you do not use at the moment one operating system, does not qualify you to bash it as you like.
            Simply SunOS and Illumos distribution in Openindiana case have strong usage cases and tons of technological advances over GNU/Linux.
            Being myself user of both GNU/Linux and Openindiana, I can say it for myself.

            And please leave your own hallucinations to yourself!
            No one at Illumos is depending AT ALL to anything from Oracle. There is numerous companies that have joined forces and develop it further due to their own commercial needs (just like any other open source project, same like Linux).

            If Oracle CDDL released code is genuine, then Oracle have ability to use contributed code now in illumos (KVM implementation from Joyent/SmartOS etc).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Markore View Post
              If Oracle CDDL released code is genuine, then Oracle have ability to use contributed code now in illumos (KVM implementation from Joyent/SmartOS etc).
              but they won't ... they have the ability, but they won't own the copyright, which means that they cannot close the source again.

              pretty much all ZFS coders, and many other important new technology coders, from Sun have moved into a company that is working on the Illumos code, although there are some innovations in Solaris 11, there are new and differing innovations in Illumos.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Markore View Post
                DaemonFC: I think your reasoning is false. Just educate yourself on topic and you will be fine. (In doubt ask Linus for advise) Just because you do not use at the moment one operating system, does not qualify you to bash it as you like.
                Simply SunOS and Illumos distribution in Openindiana case have strong usage cases and tons of technological advances over GNU/Linux.
                Being myself user of both GNU/Linux and Openindiana, I can say it for myself.

                And please leave your own hallucinations to yourself!
                No one at Illumos is depending AT ALL to anything from Oracle. There is numerous companies that have joined forces and develop it further due to their own commercial needs (just like any other open source project, same like Linux).

                If Oracle CDDL released code is genuine, then Oracle have ability to use contributed code now in illumos (KVM implementation from Joyent/SmartOS etc).
                So it's another semi-compatible fork that just uses Solaris as a base like all the BSDs are in relation to BSD/OS. (Which accuse linux of being fragmented...)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Illumos Openindiana and Solaris are here to stay.

                  DaemonFC: So it's another semi-compatible fork that just uses Solaris as a base like all the BSDs are in relation to BSD/OS. (Which accuse linux of being fragmented...)
                  It is Oracle who did do the fork from the community perspective.
                  Illumos is OS/Net code consolidation including kernel and base OS.

                  Solaris is Oracle's brand name and Solaris 11 is actually newest version of Opensolaris binary distribution,
                  that Oracle stopped making available, and therefore, Openindiana is here as community distribution based on Illumos.

                  Not sure who accuse who, (and for what actually?) but I am very much sure there are usage cases where one can say it is better to use Solaris, Illumos/Openindiana, *BSD or Linux, based on what your hopes needs and available hardware are.

                  And I am pretty much sure that Solaris Zones/Crossbow/Multipath/KVM/Dtrace/ZFS(With Boot environments) combination is strong actor in server area especially on storage server, cloud server and providing that Solarises have strong BINARY backward compatibility and stable API, things that some other open source OS'es lack, It is there to stay for a very long time...
                  Feel free to install from latest Openindiana.org dev release with illumos (or from Latest Opensolaris 134 from genunix.org if wanting to have also Oracle Solaris on same disk) and see for yourself, where you can contribute to improve it.

                  These days FreeBSD and ZFSonLinux and Opensolaris based distros and companies like Joyent and Nexenta use ZFS as stable file system who's abilities and production use are here and now, without waiting for rest of the open source (or closed) projects to catch-up technologically. It is distributed project but main code base is in Illumos.
                  Last edited by Markore; 12-22-2011, 12:11 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Markore View Post
                    And I am pretty much sure that Solaris Zones/Crossbow/Multipath/KVM/Dtrace/ZFS(With Boot environments) combination is strong actor in server area especially on storage server, cloud server and providing that Solarises have strong BINARY backward compatibility and stable API, things that some other open source OS'es lack, It is there to stay for a very long time...
                    When comes to zones, multipath, KVM, backward compatibility it's nothing unique. I hope you got server market share numbers.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "Open" Solaris was never very open. The signoff process for code contributions was so onerous and involved so many Sun/Oracle employees signing off on any little commit, that there were actually more commits landing in the Linux kernel alone in most given weeks than during an entire year of "Open" Solaris.

                      As for stable kernel module ABI, it just means more security problems and bugs that can't be reliably fixed and you have to use several different compilers to compile your kernel. It's why the attack area on Windows is massive. Every time they make a Windows release, there's another driver model that is frozen in time from the last version of Windows that can't be reliably fixed and requires Microsoft to keep around ancient compilers for just those sections of the kernel.

                      Binary kernel module compatibility only matters when you have very few drivers available as source code which can simply be recompiled along with the rest of the kernel. Since the Solaris and BSD people don't actually give a shit about proprietary kernel modules, and in fact encourage this, I can see why having binary kernel module ABI compatibility is a goal for them. Since Linux is done more openly and has the vast majority of device drivers available as source, it would just be an undue maintenance nightmare and encourage bad behavior of device makers.

                      Solaris is traditionally proprietary. The x86 version is crap. The problems it brings are from being closed source and tied heavily with Sun hardware for many years. It's unusable on most PC hardware because it was never a major concern with the developers.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X