In my opinion naive approach is what you call complex and mature. It's so stupid to keep with old crap then to make new, better design. Some day there will be nothing left then to rewrite some parts of your favorite system (maybe it's just happening, who knows?). You can say that DOS is mature, so why not just polish it then make something better? And simple is better. As you said Linux kernel is more simple.
As I said earlier, Linux kernel is simple and uses an naive approach. It is easy to modify, whereas the Solaris kernel is complex and mature. You know that an complex construction is more difficult to modify, dont you? And as I said, Linux is found on large clusters because they only do one thing: number crunching and nothing else. It is easy to rip the Linux kernel apart to do that, due to it's naive approach.
It depends on who is testing. As I mentioned before some idiots don't know how to properly setup Linux system for such benchmarks and that's why those links exist (other ...people are basing on them).
...there are lots of links on the internet saying that they have problems with Linux bad scaling, and bad code in it's buggy kernel. Or do you disagree with Linux kernel developer Andrew Morton? No matter what you say, these links on bad Linux scaling will be there. They will not disappear. So if Linux scales so well, surely those links about bad scaling would not exist. On the other hand, I have found NO links about Solaris scaling bad. None. The question is if Linux scales badly (according some companies), not if Solaris scales badly, because it does not.
Stop reading bullshit. I saw great test some time before. Bsd user (that's why it's great benchmark, because it wasn't made by Linux fanboy etc.) benchmarked Linux and FreeBSD performance in MySQL. First time Linux scaled badly, but guy replaced one library and everything was ok. I'll give you link if I find.
Of course you could rip the Solaris kernel apart to do number crunching, if you only knew it's elaborate and complicated structure. But that is not easy. Linux is good enough for that. But for ordinary OS usage, lots of links says that Linux scales bad.
Nope. I said that bullshit is what you said in previous post. On Linux works much more people then on Solaris, so they can easily find potential bugs. Btw. you just use some part of Linux kernel don't you? Devs pay great attention to core Linux kernel parts. You don't use many drivers and features which are in the kernel and can be potentially buggy.
And, "the less the code the better" - is Bull shit??? Erhm. Well, maybe you dont know that, but if you have much code, then there will be lots of potential bugs. It is easier to find bugs in less code than lots of code. And as Andrew Morton says, the Linux kernel is riddled with bugs.
I said you before about scaling? Must I repeat? :>
I dont really get it guys. I am trying to say that because Linux is available for large clusters, doesnt mean that Linux scales well. It only means that Linux is simple to tailor to that specific purpose. Those large clusters do not run ordinary Linux kernels. For instance, Ive read that Google are using heavily modified Linux. Do you really think that drivers for web cams are included in Googles Linux cluster, do you think it is commodity Linux? Google has lots of good Kernel developers, and theyve also developed their file system. If you think that those large clusters do ordinary OS usage, then you are wrong. They do specific task. Must I say this again?
Energy man already answered you. Everybody knows that Solaris is loosing it's market share. Only ZFS and DTrace keep it still alive.
Solaris has done that since v2.5.1 on E10k server. Now Solaris is v5.10. Seriously guys, Linux is a young kernel and it can in no way get the maturity as Solaris kernel has. It takes several tries and decades. SunOS was the first try, but SUN redesigned it and renamed it as Solaris later, only when they had the experience to come up with Solaris. A teenager couldnt do this. Dont you understand? Linus is always redesigning everything, a sign of bad design. Everybody knows that SUN has excellent engineers; unique ZFS, unique DTrace, unique Niagara CPU, etc. If they can not match a teenager kernel, then SUN deserves to die. Really.
You said that redesigning is bad.
SunOS was the first try, but SUN redesigned it and renamed it as Solaris later, only when they had the experience to come up with Solaris.
There are companies which gave you support for years. Linux is not compatible with what?
And also, Linux is not compatible from release to release because of changing ABIs. Bad DESIGN. On some major Linux distros, they live 6 months, and then you have to upgrade or you loose support, and compatibility. That is NOT enterprise. SUN guarantees binary backward compatibility way back to Solaris v2.6. That is Enterprise.
What gurus? Don't base your suggestions on such idiotic opinions. Find out yourself. And Adrew was talking about -mm tree. I'd love to hear objective opinions other system devs.
Maybe you missed what the gurus Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie etc said about the Linux code? That is was naive and flawed. Also, Andrew Morton concurs that the Linux kernel deteriotes:
Solaris is buggy, every system is buggy and Linux is stable. Guess what system has highest uptime? :>
Linux is buggy but Solaris is stable (same hardware)
I just suggest you to find some more objective benchmarks and to replace that slow crap to Linux. I never saw Solaris faster then Linux. You can even feel it yourself. Try them on desktop. Look for DNS, MySQL tests etc.
As long as I see links similar to these everywhere on the internet, I will continue to be a Solaris fanboy. But when I see links that Linux is better than Solaris I will switch back to Linux. I never see such links though. They always talk about cost, and no vendor Lock in. That is the reason they switch to Linux. Not because of Solaris didnt perform. Ah yes, I remember an article where a company switched to Linux and got higher performance. But, when you study that article, they threw out 800 old solaris 8 servers for 2400 modern x86 Linux servers. I would be seriously surprised if they didnt got higher performance. If they had switched to Solaris, they maybe would have got 36% higher performance than Linux.
I always support the best technology. For me it doesnt matter who wins, both are Unix. I dont have to relearn. My learning time is not wasted. They are similar.
Actually I am becoming interested in Plan9. Seems awesome tech. I am a technology geek. Doesnt matter which OS wins. Us all will reap the fruits!
And you're just attacking Linux. What it gives you? Psychical comfort?