Oracle changed the Solaris license terms?
in [Solaris]
|
From: BluesRenegade on 23 Mar 2010 15:24 On Mar 22, 12:25 am, Silvester Man <silvester...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 12:07 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 03/22/10 05:04 PM, Silvester Man wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 4:28 am, Ian Collins<ian-n...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Um, the licensing information (fromhttp://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp) now says: > > > >> "Please remember, your right to use Solaris acquired as a download is > > >> limited to a trial of 90 days, unless you acquire a service contract for > > >> the downloaded Software." > > > > I have just checked, those lines seem to have disappeared now. > > > Nope, it's still there. > > Nevermind, I have found the lines. > > However I find the statements contradictory on the licensing > information page. These are all mentioned in the same page: > > "In order to use the Solaris operating system for perpetual commercial > use, each system running Solaris must be expressly licensed to do so. > An Entitlement Document comprises such license and is delivered to you > either with a new Sun system or from Sun Services as part of your > service agreement." > > "The registration process to receive an Entitlement Document is part > of the Solaris download process, with the Entitlement Document being > returned to you via e-mail." > > "Please remember, your right to use Solaris acquired as a download is > limited to a trial of 90 days, unless you acquire a service contract > for the downloaded Software." > > So do we need a "license" or a "service contract" to run Solaris for > "perpetual commercial use"? Is the entitlement document obtained > through download good enough or does it have to come with "new Sun > system or from Sun Services as part of your service agreement"? Are > we still free to use Solaris without a service contract for non- > commercial use? Without a service contract, I was unable to get updates for SOL 9. I assume SOL 10 is the same, or not??
From: Cydrome Leader on 23 Mar 2010 16:56 Julian Macassey <julian(a)tele.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:55:36 +1300, Ian Collins <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 03/21/10 09:54 AM, Canuck57 wrote: >>> >>> OpenSolaris, I am sure it hasn't made any headway into businesses or I >>> would see it. It too is going to wither as a hobbiest excercise as there >>> is no impelling reason to use it over a Linux distro. >> >> I guess the main organisation I work with is the counter example. We >> are consolidating legacy Linux boxes with zones on OpenSolaris hosts. >> >> For us, the compelling reasons are storage management, zones and CIFS. > > I work in a mixed Linux/OpenSolaris environent. > > Solaris excels with cifs They do have samba as does > Linux, but their cifs is better. > > zfs is the best file system bar none. It runs large file > systems well and flawlessly. You can manipulate disks on the fly > and goodbye fsck. ZFS is so awesome you can't even shrink it on the fly yet?
From: ITguy on 23 Mar 2010 22:57 > ZFS is so awesome you can't even shrink it on the fly yet? There are plenty of file systems in use that can't be shrunk. I'll gladly take all the benefits of ZFS and live with this limitation.
From: Sami Ketola on 24 Mar 2010 04:12 ITguy <southallc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> ZFS is so awesome you can't even shrink it on the fly yet? > > There are plenty of file systems in use that can't be shrunk. I'll > gladly take all the benefits of ZFS and live with this limitation. Also ZFS device removal is already on the pipeline. Sami
From: Michael Laajanen on 24 Mar 2010 05:59
Hi, Sami Ketola wrote: > ITguy <southallc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> ZFS is so awesome you can't even shrink it on the fly yet? >> There are plenty of file systems in use that can't be shrunk. I'll >> gladly take all the benefits of ZFS and live with this limitation. > > Also ZFS device removal is already on the pipeline. > > Sami > How about expaning it, adding disks to a pool is this also in the pipiline since I have experienced more problems with to a need to expand than to shrink the fs. /michael |