Oracle Has Yet To Clarify Solaris 11 Kernel Source

Interesting claims. Can you prove your claims? Do you have links? I have links, for instance, when the Systemtap team confesses they copied from DTrace. Do you have links that prove DTrace copied from Linux?


Regarding DTrace (do you want to see links that prove this?)
-FreeBSD has ported DTrace
-Mac OS X has ported DTrace
-QNX has ported DTrace
-VMware has copied DTrace, and call it vProbes
-IBM AIX has copied DTrace and call it ProbeVue
-Linux has copied DTrace and call it Systemtap


Regarding RCU, I have never heard about it. Everybody (including the Linux camp) has heard about DTrace and ZFS because they are new and innovative. But RCU? What is that? If it is innovative and cool, everybody should have talked about it? Can you explain what RCU is? Can you make a list of OSes, that have ported or copied RCU?

RCU is a scalable construct used in parallel programming. If a closed-source OS had copied it, we would have no way to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curaga

RCU is a scalable construct used in parallel programming.

---

IBM had RCU similar tech in their Mainframes, way back, in US Patent 4,809,168. Other OSes has used RCU similar techniques, it is an old idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-copy-update
Later, IBM created RCU for their commercial Unixes, and then donated RCU to Linux. I dont see how IBMs work is innovation from Linux? Maybe RCU was innovation from IBM, but RCU was not innovation not from Linux.

And because Solaris scales extremely well today, I dont see the need for RCU in Solaris. In 3 years from now, there will arrive a SPARC server with 16.384 threads. Solaris sees 16.384 cpus.

Thus, RCU is not innovative. It is just "good for Linux", but hardly innovative. It is not like Linux scales the crap out of every other OSes - if this was true, then every OS would have ported or copied RCU. And as we see, Linux has problems with scaling on SMP servers, so RCU can not be that good nor innovative.

So, can you provide a list of Linux tech that everybody just drools over, and wants? I do not consider an desktop as KDE as innovative. It is not something everybody ports or copies. KDE is just one desktop, among many. On the other hand, ZFS is something to drool over, everybody is copying or porting it. Or are you going to say that BTRFS is not a ZFS wannabe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kebabbert

Interesting claims. Can you prove your claims? Do you have links? I have links, for instance, when the Systemtap team confesses they copied from DTrace. Do you have links that prove DTrace copied from Linux?

---

Your logic is wrong. You didn't prove KDE copied from CDE and it didn't stop you from claiming that. It's obvious DTrace copied from Linux, because Linux tools existed before DTrace which is just a copycat from other tools. The same about CDE which is a copycat from another DE. You see, slowlaris devs just copy from others, add bloat and release. That's how things work in slowlaris camp.[/quote]

Quote:

---

Regarding DTrace (do you want to see links that prove this?)
-FreeBSD has ported DTrace
-Mac OS X has ported DTrace
-QNX has ported DTrace
-VMware has copied DTrace, and call it vProbes
-IBM AIX has copied DTrace and call it ProbeVue
-Linux has copied DTrace and call it Systemtap

---

Regarding DTrace it copied from other tools and slowlaris devs called it DTrace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kebabbert

IBM had RCU similar tech in their Mainframes, way back, in US Patent 4,809,168. Other OSes has used RCU similar techniques, it is an old idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-copy-update
Later, IBM created RCU for their commercial Unixes, and then donated RCU to Linux. I dont see how IBMs work is innovation from Linux? Maybe RCU was innovation from IBM, but RCU was not innovation not from Linux.

And because Solaris scales extremely well today, I dont see the need for RCU in Solaris. In 3 years from now, there will arrive a SPARC server with 16.384 threads. Solaris sees 16.384 cpus.

Thus, RCU is not innovative. It is just "good for Linux", but hardly innovative. It is not like Linux scales the crap out of every other OSes - if this was true, then every OS would have ported or copied RCU. And as we see, Linux has problems with scaling on SMP servers, so RCU can not be that good nor innovative.

So, can you provide a list of Linux tech that everybody just drools over, and wants? I do not consider an desktop as KDE as innovative. It is not something everybody ports or copies. KDE is just one desktop, among many. On the other hand, ZFS is something to drool over, everybody is copying or porting it. Or are you going to say that BTRFS is not a ZFS wannabe?

---

You are terribly mistaken as usual. Slowlaris scales completely bad compared to Linux. Linux had advanced scaling techniques first. Commercial systems copied some of them later. Linux scales crap out of slowlaris and nearly everyone knows this - that's one of the reasons why Oracle is abandoning slowlaris. Wow, slowlaris will see only 16.384 CPUs. It's very small number compared to Linux - RHEL can see 64.000. It seems slowlaris is even more legacy than I thought. When comes to RCU Linux implementation is innovative and things like DTrace and ZFS aren't. ZFS is just one file system among many and DTrace is just one tool among many. Are you aware how old is the idea of file system? Do you know when the first file system was created? I can provide you a list of Linux techs that everybody wants, but you have to provide list of innovative slowlaris techs first. btrfs is completely different file system than zfs, so no, it's not a zfs wannabe.

Solaris > Linux.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraftman

You are terribly mistaken as usual. Slowlaris scales completely bad compared to Linux. Linux had advanced scaling techniques first. Commercial systems copied some of them later. Linux scales crap out of slowlaris and nearly everyone knows this - that's one of the reasons why Oracle is abandoning slowlaris. Wow, slowlaris will see only 16.384 CPUs. It's very small number compared to Linux - RHEL can see 64.000. It seems slowlaris is even more legacy than I thought. When comes to RCU Linux implementation is innovative and things like DTrace and ZFS aren't. ZFS is just one file system among many and DTrace is just one tool among many. Are you aware how old is the idea of file system? Do you know when the first file system was created? I can provide you a list of Linux techs that everybody wants, but you have to provide list of innovative slowlaris techs first. btrfs is completely different file system than zfs, so no, it's not a zfs wannabe.

---

I hope you do realize that by calling it "Slowlaris" you lose any sort of credibility and any further argument in your block of text becomes pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraftman

I can provide you a list of Linux techs that everybody wants

---

By all means do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geearf

I hope you do realize that by calling it "Slowlaris" you lose any sort of credibility and any further argument in your block of text becomes pointless.

---

I was about to say the same. Thanks for writing it out for me.

There is little doubt in my mind that the linux kernel is currently the most advanced and mature kernel in existence. When compared to Solaris, linux features better hardware compatibility, scaling, memory management, scheduling, and stability on commodity enterprise hardware. It's growing fast, and will likely become the standard kernel for the remainder of this age of mankind.

The only argument against Solaris, or rather, the only argument that favors the end of Solaris, is that developers that contribute to Solaris 'could be' contributing to linux. It's not an especially cogent argument. Developers are free to do as they please, and as you said, a lot of the meaningful changes make their way into linux in an indirect manner.

All of the drama can simply be boiled down to linux devs/admins/users expressing their butt-hurttedness when they see developers doing something that doesn't suit their interests. Example:

Quote:

---

Hey, let's all play volleyball! Volleyball is great! Hey, Jake and Ashish are over there playing soccer. That hurts my feelings. I think soccer needs to die. Volleyball would be so much better if Jake and Ashish would come play with us.

---

All that we can do is try to compel people to come play our game. With volleyball, you can sex-it-up to make it more appealing to J&A. Volleyball becomes Beach-Volleyball. Red versus blue becomes shirts versus skins. Let J&A know that there are positions available to fill, and that you're willing to help them get settled in.

To some extent, negative propaganda can be used to coerce J&A. It isimmoral, and is typically only effective in reinforcing the beliefs of someone already playing volleyball.: Let J&A know that 'soccer' was recently purchased by FIFA, and that the future direction of the sport is not clear. Let J&A know that the rules to soccer are governed by FIFA, and that by playing, they 'might' need to pay money to FIFA for some nonsensical notion of property. FIFA has also trademarked the terms "Goalie, Goal, Wingman, and Halfback, so if they play some other sport in the future, they'll have to be a "goalie" with a lowercase G in order to avoid an infringement suit.

With all of the crystal clear computer/car/sports/etc analogies and metaphors out there, you would think we would all finally "get-it" and stop acting like wankers.

Make linux sexy. Make developers want to choose to develop for linux.

F