![Sun Microsystems Sun Microsystems](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsun.gif)
![GNU is Not Unix GNU is Not Unix](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/gnu_64.png)
![Patents Patents](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/patents_64.png)
Sun's Patent and Licensing Practices Examined 265
RMX writes "Groklaw has an excellent analysis of some Patent Questions About the CDDL. For /.ers who don't like reading a lot, the most important point is that 'it would be possible for developers co-developing Open Solaris to someday find themselves blocked from distributing code by a Microsoft patent infringement claim, while leaving Sun, because of their cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, free to continue to distribute the contributed code.'
The article also notes that 'The short answer why [some particular clause] is needed in the CDDL and not the GPL is that Linus Torvalds has not just entered into a cross-licensing arrangement with Microsoft, the relevant details of which are not public'. Makes you wonder what those relevant details are?" And reader rudy_wayne writes "David Berlind's column Will Sun's 1600 patents suck the life out of Linux? talks about Sun's open sourcing of Solaris 10 and the problems that occur due to the fact that so many open source licenses are incompatible with each other. One of his most important points is 'when a large company -- IBM, Sun, or anyone else-- donates code to the open source community with a one-off license, like the Eclipse Public License (IBM) or the CDDL (Sun) it gives those companies a way to donate their code to the open source community, which in turn can enhance it to the benefactor's advantage, without that code leaking into a competitor's product (with a non-reciprocating license) in such a way that it can be used against the benefactor.'"
RTFA (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RTFA (Score:2, Funny)
To read the article, you simply need to point your cursor (The white arrow shaped thing on your screen) on top of the link.
If you have done this correctly, the cursor arrow should change into a hand. If it is not a hand, try moving the cursor closer to the link.
Once you have successfully moved over the link, press your left mouse button once. The article should come up for you to begin loading.
If you have any further questions please email us at sup
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
The complexity of the issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The complexity of the issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The complexity of the issue.... (Score:2)
I vote for nine or ten years. Figure two to three years pre-release for development and a seven year run in the marketplace.
The even shorter answer (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL and ties prospective users to Sun products exclusively, or the fact that the Sun - Microsoft cross-licensing agreements will remain undisclosed to prospective developers?
Caveat emptor!
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't be serious.
Everything we've heard about Sun's strategy so far seems to be geared to act as a "spoiler" rather than a partner in the Open Source community. The most egregious part is the implicit threat: we've got 1600 patents held over your head, Linux users, and we've got an agreement with Microsoft about them...
I care a whole lot.
Bruce
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but what we should care about is wether the consumer benefits, not its impact on Linux or any other OS.
If consumers get a better product for less, they they win. If Linux suffers, then it is beacuse it hasn't convinced consumers that it is better, and deserves its fate.
OSS is a good, but not only, model for software development. In a free market, a company has a right to decide how to go to market and whether to share its work.
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Your sentiment would be correct if this were an open market and a level playing field for all competitors. When software patents are brought into the picture, they are first used to intimidate the customer away from what otherwise might be a technically superior product, and then later on actual lawsuits can be brought to remove that competitor from the market. When a product and competitor are removed for non-technical reasons, quality in general declines due to the decreased need for the remaining products to compete. Prices increase for the same reason. And the consumer loses.
Bruce
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's the need to encourage innovation. Protection is the means, to encourage innovation is the end. And there are deep and serious questions regarding whether software patenting promotes or retards innovation in general.
Bruce
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
I'm suprised by your reply. It seems you have become a linux fanboy of the most extreme kind. How is Sun's actions a "spoiler"? Seriously, your only possible complaint is that you can't cherry pick Sun's kernel technology for yourself if you write code under a different license. It is this selfishness that is causing a distasteful reek from the anti-Sun crowd.
At first, I was impressed that this whole discussion was starting off fairly maturely, but it appears it all fell apart this morning.
Even worse,
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
I don't want to cherry-pick the Solaris software. That might have been useful 5 years ago, but no longer. But I am ve
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
Bruce has invested his career in "Linux", was one of the original Debian people and was previously employed by HP, whi fired him when he was too public in his support of Linux and Free and Open Source Software, as was reported here.
What he did was to expose HP's pro-Linux propaganda for what it was.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, Solaris is a much more mature and high-quality kernel than Linux, in many ways. Linux was "open source" first, and so has the bi
uncalled for (Score:3, Interesting)
What a petty and misguided attack on Bruce.
Bruce's analysis and instincts about this issue are right on target.
Something very bad is going on at Sun... management is consistently posturing and conniving, rather than focusing on producing value. As a reluctant stockholder of Sun, I'm concern
Re:uncalled for (Score:2)
No, it wasn't a petty attack at all. Bruce has an agenda against Sun, evidenced by his comments today and by his prior employment with HP (a Sun foe). Slashdot needs to start putting less weight on his opinions in any thread concerning Sun.
Re:uncalled for (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
Come on Scott McNealy, we know it's you.
If you are going to astroturf, you shouldn't do it with a username of "Sun Fan" -- we all know who Sun's number one fan is after all...
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
I don't work for Sun. I don't even play hockey.
A good astroturfer studies the trolls, the ones who can incite a response without the reader realizing it. My bias is clear, take it or leave it, I don't care.
Bruce Perens, on the other hand, he is a master astroturfer for the people who make money off of Linux. The people who don't make money off of linux, they don't care. But watch out for Red Hat, HP, and IBM. They do care; they care very much.
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
Only a prick, or someone whole heartedly against FOSS development and community would say anything even remotely close to this.
If a company makes sources available only to allow others to freely improve it then the company profiting from the free work of others, but not allowing them to use either the original or the improved version in any ways even close to FOSS, then that is something that we should damn well care about.
If the further developed sources w
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
No, only a prick, or someone with money to make bashing Sun, would say anything other than I said. What are the core values of OSS? Freedom--from both the developers' and the users' perspective. Sun chose their path, the BSDs chose theirs, Apache chose theirs, and Linux has its own. The are communities unto themselves, and share in other ways with eachother (e.g., sharing appl
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
Why should I wish Sun or any company luck.
Because everyone is an underdog in this Microsoft world of ours.
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:5, Insightful)
And the story keeps getting worse: They can sue Linux developers over those patents. They can sue their own Open Source partners. Now we hear it's part of a new IP licensing arrangement with Microsoft.
I am having very much trouble getting a warm fuzzy feeling of trust like the one I would want to have about a company before contributing to their software.
Bruce
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2, Interesting)
You do realise you are spreading anti-Sun FUD. It might be true - though I personally doubt that - but it's most definitely FUD. You're saying "if you partner with Sun they can sue you over these patents". FUD. FUD. FUD.
I hate this "new wave" political arm of OSS. I much prefer the reliable ranting of
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:4, Informative)
When someone threatens you, and tells the rest of the world that they are committing a philanthropic act, it is not FUD to set the story straight. Sun's "grant to the Open Source programmers" is written to threaten the Linux programmers, and indeed anyone who isn't working on Solaris. And yet they promote it as deserving greater recognition than IBM's grant, which was for all Open Source licenses that existed when IBM made the grant.
Sun's conduct is deceptive, and setting the deception straight is hardly FUD.
Bruce
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you even read the liscence? It says SUN will not protect even their 'trusted parters' for 3rd party patent infringement that might be in the code SUN itself is relasing. Thats part of the problem.
In other words, Sun could release code that is Patented by Microsoft, have you improve on it, and then let Microsoft sue you for using it. At that point, they would be free to use your code (because of the cross-licensing agreement), but you'd have to pay a million dollars to (chose at le
Re:The even shorter answer (Score:2)
Solaris 10 has some major changes that I can't audit. That means its not going on my production systems ever.
I've been recommending top of the line sun gear from the days of the 4/110 (1987) up to a e10k.
Their current junk (services and zones) is way past the line. I could cope with pipes in
What I can't deal with is binary file that change with every boot like
This is natural. (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course corps are going to use licenses as weapons. They've been doing it for-fucking-ever, why would they stop in open source? Open source companies (like mine) compete hard. Companies that do have legal advantages and the resources to use them, will.
The cool thing is that we've shifted the landscape, and now these battles are about "how open are you" questions.
This isn't to say that everyone should fawn on closed source companies opening, on the contrary- ride
They can try.... (Score:2)
Without that, I don't think they stand much of a chance.
OpenSolaris IS VIRAL ... (Score:2)
GrokLaw's take on the CDDL, and the warning
(blog) about Sun's 1600 patents, there have
been enough issues exposed (IANAL) to stay
away from ANY Sun CDDL code (so I am waste-
binning the DTrace code I D/Led UNOPENED).
Sun, after wrestling with MSFT for more than
5 years (over Java, etcetera), has joined the
Bill-Borg collective (IMHO). Their secret
cross-licensing deal with MSFT regarding
software patents SHOULD raise alarm bells
with ALL F/OSS developers. Especially when
y
Re:Ob. grammar nazi post (Score:2)
What would... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What would... (Score:2)
Re:What would... (Score:2)
The CDDL behaves just as the GPL does, so RMS really wouldn't have a solid basis to argue against it. If RMS doesn't express that OpenSolaris is a step in the right direction, then that would be disappointing.
Re:What would... (Score:2)
Re:What would... (Score:3, Interesting)
My analysis of the EPL helped me to see what is so good about the GPL and the LGPL. They do exactly what they appear to do on the surface, no surprises.
Re:What would... (Score:2)
Too much Law (Score:4, Insightful)
This licensing/contract cr*p has become has gone too far.
Re:Too much Law (Score:4, Informative)
We are approaching a point beyond which the art of engineering will be so seriously hindered that only very large companies will be able to approach the creation of software products. Legislative action will be necessary. But will the big companies win that legislative battle? They are winning it so far.Bruce
Re:Too much Law (Score:3, Interesting)
What we probably need is a massive grassroots movement aimed at tearing down software patents in the US. (Similar to the one aimed at preventing them in the EU). We don't have to stand around and accept
Woah (Score:4, Funny)
Where is the ironic tag when you need it.
I knew it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just yesterday, I was thinking about what Sun has in mind with this OpenSolaris thing and CDDL.
I remembered the Microsoft/Sun settlement [slashdot.org] deal [slashdot.org], and the stream of Sun's conflicting messages [slashdot.org] on open source, Java, ...etc.
I am not a tinfoil guy at all, but could not help thinking about Microsoft 's deal influencing/directing/shaping Sun's decision to have its own sub-world of Open Source that would not allow innovations outside this sub-universe.
Bruce Perens has confirmed with Sun that this is the case [slashdot.org].
Now, the question is, did Microsoft influence it/order it? I hope it is not the case. Why Sun? Why?
Sun is an example of a fall from grace: from being the darling of the open source community (Java, ...etc.) to sleeping with the enemy. IBM is the contrary, it has redeemed itself from being a monopolistic, arrogant behemoth to a major player in open source now.
P.S. I am under no illusion of simplistic "IBM is bad" and "Sun/Redhat are bad". These assessments change and morph over time, and companies, like people, and nations have their ups and downs.
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Yeah, right. IBM is now the cute cuddly teddy bear. People complain about Sun being inconsistent, yet find no fault in IBM selling every OS and architecture ever invented, most of which have overlapping purposes and competing sales teams. Sometimes, the IBM fanboys' blinders are on so tight that they double as a pin-hole camera during eclipses.
Re:I knew it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Lets look at this realistically. Solaris / OpenSolaris does not have the industry-wide momentum that Linux does. Even if Sun chose GPL and the community rallied around it, it would take several years for OpenSolaris to become a viable product for the mainstream. For example, Linux has an enormous head-start in the area of hardware and architecture support. As a counterexample, look at *BSD. It is very much t
Re:I knew it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:I knew it! (Score:4, Insightful)
The mozilla license has a paragraph that says: you can convert this license to the GPL and mix it with GPL software legally. Sun deleted that paragraph, and made sure that its patent grant wouldn't cover GPL software.
In contrast, when IBM, Eclipse founder, made its own patent grant, it covered GPL software and software under all OSI accepted licenses at that time.
There appears to be a certain difference in intent.
Bruce
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:No such paragraph? (Score:2)
Bruce
David Berlind is a buffoon (Score:2, Interesting)
That's right. This guy placed himself voluntarily on the same side of the spam wars as the spammers who committed massive DoS attacks against major DNSBLs, leading to the loss of some of the most useful ones. On the same side as
RMS was right, it's about freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
For all his rough edges, the simple truth is RMS is right about the GPL and technology. Freedom matters, and it is an end in itself unlike technology and wealth which are a means.
Re:RMS was right, it's about freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely. It's funny, I see cycles of RMS bashing, followed by swings towards recognition of his vision, followed by more bashing... lather rinse repeat. When OSS has a good day people love to nitpick about RMS's beard, his social awkwardness, what have you. When OSS is on the ropes, people realize that the only f'ing thing holding it together is the GPL and RMS's refusal to "find a middle ground".
Re:RMS was right, it's about freedom (Score:2)
That's because generally what he says is true but he says it in a way that make him and everyone else on his side look like morons. If he would shut up he would be more productive despite the fact that what he says is true. It's a paradox that surfaces any time you have a brilliant and unlikeable person.
TWW
Re:RMS was right, it's about freedom (Score:2)
Technical superiority is not nearly as essential as freedom. Having technical superiority without freedom is somewhat like having sex with a fabulous gal... by forcing yourself on her.
Re:RMS was right, it's about freedom (Score:2)
No. It's more like having a really gorgeous girlfriend with a locked vanity belt and 7 nasty Venereal diseases. You can look, and even touch a little bit, but you can't get into the really interesting stuff without a lot of work -- and even then, you'll be worried about how messed up you'll be in the aftermath.
Actually, t
Premature flaming (Score:3, Insightful)
It is immature for GPL advocates to get all up-in-arms about the CDDL. Be happy that their is yet another big OSS project in the mix, rather than bitch about "wah, we can't cherry pick Sun's technology for ourselves." OpenSolaris, Linux, *BSD, etc. will all exist in parallel quite naturally. They compete only as brothers, with the common foe being Microsoft.
Re:Premature flaming (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems you don't understand the issues. The CDDL is a copyright license. We can live with other people having any copyright license they want for their own software. We simply won't touch that software if the license is unacceptable, and we will make sure everybody knows if the license is unacceptable.
In contrast, patents can be used to prevent us from making our own software. And at $3 Million per defense (per the 2003 economic survey of the American Intellectual Property Law Association), we can not even afford to fight a patent that should not have been granted in the first place.
In other words, your friends are holding a gun to our heads and you want us to appreciate them.
Bruce
Re:Premature flaming (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Bruce,
We can live with other people having any copyright license they want for their own software. We simply won't touch that software if the license is unacceptable, and we will make sure everybody knows if the license is unacceptable.
By your same argument, you can leave Sun and Microsoft alone and stick to using the software you like best. If you want the software patent system to be abolished, knocking Sun is not the right way to do it. Them releasing the patents to be used for CDDL (which I g
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
My arguments are not premature. There is an implicit patent threat written in the terms of the so-called grant, coupled with publicity that is intended to make the grant look like a great philanthropic act toward the very Open Source developers who are threatened. What other method do we have to counter deceptive publicity than what I am doing?
The way one argues for abolishment of a bad law is to cite concrete examples of abuse of the law when they are at hand.
This is not like the social welfare argu
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
I wouldn't compare Sun to a thug. That'd be calling FUD. I haven't read of a single case where they have litigated offensively on software patents. And after their experiences with issues such as the Kodak case recently, I don't think they'd not have a strong opinion towards software patents. They do some good stuff such as OpenOffice, their work on GNOME and portions of Apache's software. They have released several more projects and contributed to others under open source and non-free licenses.
Unlike you
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
Well, you compared them to poor people on public assistance, which is even more absurd.
They are threatening me, and my friends. That's generally going to get them called thugs.IBM presents patent problems too, and if you look back in a press archive, you can see I've been very vocal about the IBM problem too.
Bruce
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
Bruce,
If this's something you want to argue personally against me ("you said", "I said", "so you're absurd"), then I'll stop discussing this here. I did not compare Sun or IBM to the welfare system. Please read my initial post properly.
I merely said that the software patent system is legal, just like the welfare system, even though I don't think highly of it.
Mukund
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
You're the one to pick the welfare system as a metaphor of another legal thing you don't approve of. If I were out to criticize you personally, I'd use the ad-hominem fallacy, etc. Instead, I criticized your argument. And I used the word "you" because you're responsible for your argument.
Bruce
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
If you don't like the CDDL, don't bitch so much and be happy with what you already have. Patents are a ball of wax unto themselves. I bet every big company out there has a thousand patents that they can pull out at any time against Linux, right now, next week, while we sleep. Just be happy they aren't so foolish.
Your agenda against Sun is wearing thin.
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
I do what I can to fight software patents. I logged 50,000 air miles last year because the battle is on both sides of the Atlantic. Th
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
If you are so bent out of shape over this, why not approach Sun about it? That would go further towards satisfying you than posting on Slashdot...but, then, you wouldn't be working to just turn people against OpenSolaris. I guess the latter provides a bigger benefit to you, personally.
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
And when I say "approach Sun about it" I mean, go straight past the PR know-nothings and talk to a Sun lawyer--someone who can talk to you in complete sentences.
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
In my experience, Sun listens best when you write and publish things about them.Bruce
Re:Premature flaming (Score:2)
OpenSolaris cannot be made proprietary again. The cat will be out of the bag. HP, IBM, and Dell can take it and sell it without paying Sun for it. There's already talk about OpenSolaris distributions, like Gentoo.
ping (Score:2)
I worry about this (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I trust Sun the way they hope that the community trusts them. Even though IBM's 500 patent donation (just looking at quantity, not quality) is smaller, I think it's more significant to the open source movement. Only when Sun legally bind themselves for our trust like IBM has will I start trusting them.
The EPL doesn't stop IBM's donation from "leaking" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The EPL doesn't stop IBM's donation from "leaki (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
Overall Good Move for Sun (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially if one compares the Solaris system to the GNU system, technically superior might not be as good as flexible and usefull. I admit that I am a command line commando and I like lots of command line switches and options. In my experience, the GNU operating system utilities are the best to be had. Perhaps they don't run fully optimized, but doing exactly what you need at any speed is better than not doing what you need at high performance levels.
Sun's obvious plan here is to use the Solaris Unix kernel and bolster Solaris with more feature-rich GNU-derived utilities. Their open source initiative is their "right" to justly use and incorporate the bulk of GNU into the arms of their Solaris operating system.
It's a good idea for them, and they are acting on it while the iron is hot. Solaris can benefit from all the great GNU software as first-class packages rather than /usr/local slipshod type upgrades.
I would presume that the Solaris UNIX kernel is indeed technically superior to the Linux kernel when running on Sun hardware, but I think that I will continue to run the Linux kernel on my non-Sun machines. I know that if the license is compatible enough, Debian will soon make a Debian GNU/Solaris which boots the Solaris kernel into a Debian userland (on Sun hardware). That seems to be the way of it.
Re:Overall Good Move for Sun (Score:2)
The only fellow who tried to establish technical superiority of Solaris that I've heard of so far was not personally up to the task.
I am sure they have some stuff that's better in Solaris, for now, and Linux has some stuff that's better. Two years from now, if Sun and its buddies do not mount a patent attack, that will not be true. Linux will have completely overtaken Solaris. And that's why I fear the attack will happen.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The end for Sun is near (Score:2)
^^^^^^^^
Uh, I think misspelled whining.
~X~
Convenient... very convenient (Score:2)
Everyone! Look the other way! It's really Microsoft's fault that we're doing all this to you really - don't blame us. We've got nothing to do with it.
Open Source Exclusion (Score:4, Interesting)
Wacky Idea... (Score:2)
Re:Translation please (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Translation please (Score:2)
Translation please?
Re:support free developmen (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect they would prefer to release under the GPL. The only additional freedom of BSD is not to reciprocate!
But admittedly as a user (that is, when looking for others' code to use) I look for the BSD or other nonrestrictive license. Allow people to leech and they certainly will!
Re:support free developmen (Score:2)
Without this clause, the code can be co-opted by a competitor and used against them, with this clause, it cannot be relicensed under the GPL as it has a restriction on distribution.
Re:support free developmen (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe that's what's wrong with the BSD license. Sun took BSD code, added stuff to it and now makes it impossible for BSD to gain any benefit.
Re:support free developmen (Score:4, Informative)
There is nothing wrong with BSD license. It's quite simply a free license. Perhaps copycenter [watson-net.com] describes BSDL best :
Re:support free developmen (Score:2)
A flaw in your logic (Score:2)
A similar doctorine, logic wise - not humanity wise, woud be "you have the freedom to own slaves, or not to" - obviously this does not do anything to promote freedoms wether it's the norm, a property
Re:Jealosy (Score:3, Interesting)
A few comments on the valid points:
+ Linux took off mainly because of shitty x86 platform support and pricing from Sun and other UNIX vendors
This is very much true, the status of the UNIX:es for so long was what gave space for Linux to grow to what it is now.
+ Solaris is a technically superior Unix kernel to Linux and always has been
Traditionally been, very true, technically superior now is more depatable, but in any case today the differences are
Uhh, it is Sun that is Jealous (Score:2)
Otherwise, why would they be trying to muscle into the Linux space. However speaking of jealousy, how about a nice look at the history Scott McNealy and Bill gates.
Microsoft? What about SCO? (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft's Secret Weapon? (Score:3, Interesting)
> operating system
What makes you say this? do you have actual examples of how solaris is superior to linux ?
as far as i can tell, the main advantage of solaris was that it ran on sun's big-ass servers. Now that we can get the same performance out of a 2-way AMD64 machine as out of 64-way e10k this doesn't matter anymore.
You work for suns marketing dept, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
To be honest, I came from the opposite side of the spectrum where I begged upper managment to listen to me when I told them that a few of these cheap linux x86 servers can do more than that big expensive sun server. Of course, I often just got the blow off while they went out and wined and dined with their Sun rep.
Well, a few years later, the dot.com crashed - and they decided that it was better to try Linux than to be gung ho on Sun till the point of bankruptcy. Well guess what. Those cheap linux boxes
Re:OSS Develeopers should abandon Linux for Solari (Score:2)
How is Linux more free than OpenSolaris? You cannot argue that it is; you can argue only that Linux came first in the OSI sense. This ordering is irrelevant, and it is undenyable that both Linux and OpenSolaris are free systems.
BZZZT! ERROR! (Score:3, Informative)
OpenSolaris has a license incompatible with the FSF (Free Software License). While TONS of other licenses are indeed compatible with FSF and the GPL: Check it out.. [fsf.org]
Seeing your nick, you're a troll. This is not for you, but for those you
Re:BZZZT! ERROR! (Score:2)
Seeing your nick, you're a troll. This is not for you, but for those you might mislead.
Appreciate that my bias isn't hidden. Are you so aware of people posting here who are HP fans or IBM fans or Microsoft fans? You really need to think about this, because there is a FUD storm surrounding OpenSolaris, right now.