Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 65

Thread: Woah, It Looks Like Oracle Will Stand Behind OpenSolaris

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    ...
    And yet IBM chooses Linux over Solaris.
    And yet Google chooses Linux over Solaris.
    And yet almost any website your on runs on Linux not Solaris.
    And yet game developers write server packages for Linux not Solaris.
    And yet every phone-maker out there who doesn't uses IOS or Symbian uses Linux.
    And yet almost every super-computer runs on Linux not Solaris.
    And the list goes on...

    Sure, I am completely wrong cause I don't give you sources.
    Sure, no-one knows what's best for them but you do: Solaris!
    Sure, no-one knows that these IQ tests have been abandoned years ago because it appears that intelligence isn't measurable in numbers and that there isn't a global kind of intelligence.

    You know what? I am going to stop now, I can never ever win a debate from such a clever and clearly superior creature such as you. Please forgive me for doubting you. I am very sure I will never ever try to criticize you again.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    The other Unixes are not interested in desktop things. They are Enterprise Server OSes. Designed for mission critical things. Not high FPS in Crysis. Look, Linux is a desktop OS trying to get into the server halls. Solaris is a server os, trying to get to desktops.
    I'm not sure what your point is.

    I bet you think the best OS is the one who gets highest FPS in Crysis? Desktop user.
    I'm really not that big of a gamer, although yes i am a desktop user. My point was just to point out some of the things that Linux developers are doing, after you claimed they couldn't do anything at all. I guess what you really meant was, they don't do anything at all "that you care about" while ignoring all the other stuff that you don't care about. I suppose that must have been what your point above was about as well.

    Maybe if you talk about Linux kernel. But other Unix have had similar functionality for a long time.
    Ok, I really don't know what IBM and those mainframes did back in the day - i know they had a lot more hardware support that newer x86 chips are just beginning to get. But I'm pretty sure Solaris doesn't have a KVM like feature, or Sun wouldn't have invested in VirtualBox.

    DTrace is totally unique. Nothing comes close. DTrace is revolutionizing unique. It is just not "more polished" - which shows you are not a developer.
    DTrace is much more helpful to system administrators than to developers. And I'll admit it's a useful tool, although i find it hard to believe no one had ever come up with a tracing/stats framework that could be used before that. DTrace just made it much more in-depth and useful.

    ZFS offers data safety, which no other common filesystem has ever offered before. Read my long post above.
    Supposedly, sure. But i've seen plenty of stories online about people losing data on ZFS. It's not some magic bullet that automatically takes care of everything, like every other FS it had teething problems before it matured. And I don't view adding checksums very revolutionary, honestly. It's a fairly obvious evolutionary change that would have come about no matter who came up with it first.

    Look, if you think Solaris tech is just slightly more polished than the Linux copies - then I understand your view point.
    Pretty much.

    But that is not the case. Solaris offers completely new unique stuff no one has ever offered before.
    Like what? As you said, Linux is providing (poor, in your mind) copies of DTrace/ZFS through SystemTap and Btrfs.

    They revolutionize everything.
    They've done some nice stuff. I just take exception to the way you claim that they're the only ones who have ever done that. Linux guys come out with nice stuff as well.

    So all Linux bugs that Linux kernel devs talk about, are in the drivers? Jesus. You have not heard about, for instance, when Linux overcommits RAM by default?
    Of course not. Just 99.9% of them, as i said. Most.

    I am refering to when Linus T said that "Linux is bloated". That is proof enough.
    Which as i said is taken out of context and therefore FUD. This has been proven many times in previous FUD-wars, because it always comes up.

    I am not trolling.
    Yes, you are, as proven by the way you are using that Linus Torvalds bloated quote.

    Look, I am not saying Linux is bad per se, it is actually a good OS. But in comparison with Mainframes, OpenVMS, high end Enterprise Unix, it is bad. But it is catching up. In the future, maybe Linux will catch up.
    And i never said Solaris was bad either. In fact it does a lot of stuff well, and I'd probably agree that if you don't mind spending the money that Solaris is probably better for a high end server. I'm just saying some of the stuff you are posting is ridiculously biased.

    Then I will stop quoting Linux kernel devs that say that Linux code quality is bad, is bloated, etc. I just quote them. I do not make things up. I can show links if you wish.
    While conveniently leaving out all their quotes that Solaris is even worse, and that Linux doesn't have anything to learn from it. Seriously, you're cherry picking quotes and twisting their meaning more than the average politician does.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Maybe, but they are amateurs. Solaris few developers always create new cool tech. Such as ZFS and DTrace, etc. What does Linux devs do? Nothing interesting (except for gamers which shows Linux is more tailored to desktops than Enterprise Server Halls). And they write buggy code.
    The vast majority of Linux development comes from people employed by Intel, Red Hat, and other tech companies. I'm not sure why you think they're amateurs, while Sun employees are not. Truly independent developers don't commit very much to the Linux kernel anymore.

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaestroMaus View Post
    And yet every phone-maker out there who doesn't uses IOS or Symbian uses Linux.
    Solaris is too bloated to run on embeded devices. The same about Freebsd:

    http://www.freebsd.org/projects/idea...ed-size-kernel

    So, Linux is less bloated then Slowlaris, Freebsd. It's less bloated then Windowses too.

    @Kebabbert

    Ignoring some of your humongous amount of bull and propaganda. I don't see were Ellison pays more to slowlaris development then for Linux. Can you quote a sentence?

  5. #35

    Default

    Oh, and some link about Linux not being bloated:

    http://www.internetnews.com/software...nt-Bloated.htm

  6. #36

    Default

    And one more thing. What can be more bloated then operating system were devs are writing its drivers in java?

    http://developers.sun.com/solaris/le...iver/index.jsp

    Slowlaris is an operating system parody. An excellent example of being big, bloated cow.

  7. #37

    Default

    @Kebabbert

    (maybe because of DTrace. Firefox developers have switched from Ubuntu to Solaris just because of DTrace:
    http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/20...and-of-dtrace/
    A lie. One dev who sound like a fanboy. Why Mozilla devs would like to use someting which is slower then Linux on PC and which doesn't even count on the desktops? And dtrace, zfs are just copies, nothing revolutionary. I don't know a single thing from sun which can be described as revolutionary one.

    However, you don't understand what many people say. I think this is because you're stupid or something. At first you consider some stupid mensa tests as something which describes "amount of inteligence". It describes nothing more then some mensa's numbers. People who're interested in mensa resolve their tests and thus they have higher numbers. They're just have more experience in this. Even if someone takes such test for the first time and gets a good result it means only he's got a good mensa's result. I think you and every so called mensan who thinks he's more intelligent then others is a great example of stupidity. Let's take a look at one simple example:

    1 3 5 11 x

    Time matters in mensas tests and a natural way to resolve such problem is to try some combinations. If someone will use a proper method at first he gains some seconds and if someone else will use it as a last method he looses some time. Someone can argue more intelligent people will use a proper method sooner, but I don't think so. Some very intelligent people can start from using much more complicated methods at first and then start using simpler ones. I noticed in your claims you're using a very stupid way to 'prooF' your claims. You're adding one to one, but you're ignoring a fact if someone says something you can't take it as a truth or a false. There are many more different states like it's true in this case, it's unlikely true etc. You're method is a dumb one. A more intelligent people are thinking differently - they look at a whole picture (because life is not a limited, stupid and simple mensa' test) and then, they can figure out what's right or not. MaestroMaus and Smitty3268 showed they think in a different, much smarter way then you and they've got the right point much much sooner. And what matters the most their point is right. Conclusion is as simple as your mensa's test - you're the one stupid here. :>

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaestroMaus View Post
    And yet IBM chooses Linux over Solaris.
    This is quite weird. Do you expect IBM to choose Solaris over any other OS? How do you reason? Solaris is a proprietary closed source OS and belongs to Oracle. How can IBM take another company's proprietary OS? This sentence does not even make sense. We ignore this objection.

    Or, did you mean "IBM chooses Linux over AIX"? That sentence makes sense. But I dont know what you meant. IBM has officially said they will phase out AIX in favour of Linux.


    And yet Google chooses Linux over Solaris.
    I have explained this earlier. But a short recap:
    Linux is easy to modify. Naive kernel. Solaris kernel is very complex and difficult to modify.

    Google uses a large cluster of individual PCs and run Linux on it. Linux scales well horizontally: a large cluster of PCs in a network. Just add another PC and start up a small part of the work load. Just like SETI client/protein folding client/etc, you download it and run it on your PC. It is a large distributed network, similar to Google's use of Linux. This is quite easy to do. For instance, run a web site: just add another server and you have increased uptime. Easy.

    Each node runs a highly specialized, well defined task. The kernel is stripped down to it's bare minium, does only one thing. It is not the general Linux kernel Google runs. It is a modified kernel.

    To scale vertically, is another thing. This is very difficult to do. One big computer with many CPUs handle lots of different tasks. This is very tricky. Compare one large database table where lots of users update data simultaneously - how do you lock the data so two users dont update the same data at the same time? etc etc There are lots of tricky questions to answer.

    Compare this to many small individual databases that dont have any connection among them, one user on one database. No problems. This is horizontal scaling.

    Linux is very good at horizontal scaling, just add another PC to the network. Linux is very bad at vertical scaling, on one big machine handling many different general purpose tasks. So when people say Linux scales bad - they mean vertical scaling. Linux scales good horizontally. No doubt on this.

    I dont find the article now, but in that article they claimed that Google runs Linux on low utilization. Very many PCs and low cpu usage. Linux crumble under high load, it gets unstable then. One IBM Mainframe guy wrote that Mainframe and Unix can run at 100% for very long time, but Windows and Linux becomes unstable under high load. There are many Unix sysadmins that confirm this, they must reboot Linux servers now and then. But Windows admins thinks Linux is the most stable in the world.


    And yet almost any website your on runs on Linux not Solaris.
    So? What does this prove? You know, one of the largest web sites in the world runs on 6000 servers that use Windows. Does this prove that Windows is best in the world? No. To run a web site is easy. Just add another node, and you have increased uptime.
    http://highscalability.com/myspace-architecture


    And yet game developers write server packages for Linux not Solaris.
    There are several games written for Linux, not for Solaris. I dont see why the game developers should switch OS?

    You know, if you are into games, then you dont need an Enterprise Unix, OpenVMS or Mainframe. I do not talk about desktops, I talk about High end server Enterprise. Where stability is the most important.


    And yet every phone-maker out there who doesn't uses IOS or Symbian uses Linux.
    Again. Solaris is an High end Enterprise Server OS. Such servers do have several GB RAM and cost lots of money. There is no point in running a Enterprise server OS on a mobile phone.


    And yet almost every super-computer runs on Linux not Solaris.
    Yes, and that is because super-computers are a bunch of PCs on a fast network. Each node doing a small part of the work. Actually, super computers are simpler than Big Iron. Super computers only do one thing, they are highly specialized. That is easy to do. It is much more difficult to handle many complex tasks from many different users.


    And the list goes on...
    Everyone admits that Linux scales well horizontally. Just add another node. But vertically, it sucks badly.

    Your list was quite strange from an Enterprise server view point. Mobile phones? Games?

    But maybe you talked about desktop view point.


    Sure, I am completely wrong cause I don't give you sources.
    Sure, no-one knows what's best for them but you do: Solaris!
    I dont mind if you quote research papers or benchmarks, etc - as I have done. But if someone writes "Solaris is buggy and bloated" without any evidence, then it is just FUD. Especially if he admits he is FUDing.


    Sure, no-one knows that these IQ tests have been abandoned years ago because it appears that intelligence isn't measurable in numbers and that there isn't a global kind of intelligence.
    I do agree that IQ does not mean intelligence. Because Intelligence incorporates more than just IQ. IQ is only a small part of Intelligence. But, there is some correlation. It is unlikely that some one with 200 IQ is dumb, or vice versa.

    The point is, I want to show that I am not as dumb as Kraftman say I am. But on the other hand, he confessed he FUDs. So probably he just FUDs about me.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I'm not sure what your point is.
    The point is that Linux does not do any new hot cool tech from Enterprise server viewpoint. Only gamers are interested in what Linux invents. And I have heard that the graphic system has moved into the Kernel to allow faster graphics, is this true? Not even Windows have the graphics in the kernel anymore. The kernel should not contain graphics, if there is problem with the graphic driver, it can crash the whole kernel and the entire server goes down.


    I'm really not that big of a gamer, although yes i am a desktop user. My point was just to point out some of the things that Linux developers are doing, after you claimed they couldn't do anything at all. I guess what you really meant was, they don't do anything at all "that you care about" while ignoring all the other stuff that you don't care about. I suppose that must have been what your point above was about as well.
    When I say that Linux sucks, I mean from an Enterprise server view point. I said this above. From a desktop view point, Linux is good. The Enterprise world is different from the desktop world.


    Ok, I really don't know what IBM and those mainframes did back in the day - i know they had a lot more hardware support that newer x86 chips are just beginning to get. But I'm pretty sure Solaris doesn't have a KVM like feature, or Sun wouldn't have invested in VirtualBox.
    Oh, Solaris had Mainframe class machines long time ago. Large 1000kg Solaris servers. Costing a butt load of money. High End server OS have traditionally been very strong on virtualization. It is just now that Linux gets it. But Solaris has been doing that since many years back. It is strange if you think Solaris virtual solutions are inferior to Linux.

    Solaris has many different virtualization techniques appropriate for those large servers. It also has Xen, xVM, Ldoms, Zones, etc etc.


    DTrace is much more helpful to system administrators than to developers.
    It is? Why are Firefox developers praising DTrace then? Why are some switching to Solaris just to get DTrace? Why has DTrace been awarded a price/reward from Mozilla? This shows the importance of DTrace. One Firefox developer said "I donít think I can work on Mozilla without DTrace ever again. Too useful." This is really high praise.

    If you knew about development, you would immediately see how useful DTrace is for development.
    http://blogs.sun.com/bmc/entry/dtrac...p_demonstrated
    http://blogs.sun.com/bmc/entry/dtrace_on_rails
    Many programmers wants DTrace for their language and there is lots of work to add probes for languages.


    And I'll admit it's a useful tool, although i find it hard to believe no one had ever come up with a tracing/stats framework that could be used before that. DTrace just made it much more in-depth and useful.
    Ehrm. No. DTrace shows everything going on, in the computer. Everything. No tracer has ever done it before. If you read links about DTrace, then you see why it has been awarded and why developers wants it. DTrace is just not a "polished tracer". It is unique. Look, if it only was a polished tracer, then why the fuzz about DTrace? Why do all developers want it? Why do they port it to other OSes, if it sucks?

    Look: You. Dont. Understand. DTrace.


    Supposedly, sure. But i've seen plenty of stories online about people losing data on ZFS. It's not some magic bullet that automatically takes care of everything, like every other FS it had teething problems before it matured.
    I agree ZFS has it's problems. But many says it is far better than everything else out there.


    And I don't view adding checksums very revolutionary, honestly.
    Again you dont understand. Every common filesystem has had checksums before. The point is, there where no end-to-end checksums earlier. And the checksums where not correctly done - filesystems can not even detect errors! But ZFS can. This is unique. Again you dont understand. If you believe that ZFS has checksums, but just more of them - then I understand why do think ZFS is nothing special. But that is not the case. ZFS is unique.


    It's a fairly obvious evolutionary change that would have come about no matter who came up with it first.
    This is a strange remark. The difficulties is in come up with it FIRST. There is the real difficulty. When someone has shown how to do it, then it is easy to copy.


    Pretty much.
    If you think Solaris has just ordinary tech, but slightly more polished, then I understand your view point: "why all the fuzz about ZFS, DTrace, etc?". But this is not the case. If it just where slightly more polished, then no one would go to great lengths to port or copy Solaris tech. Even Linus T considered to change license to get access to Solaris tech - why would he do that if Solaris tech is only slightly better? Linus said something like "if Solaris is released as GPL v3.0 then I may change license of Linux to GPL v3.0 too".


    Like what? As you said, Linux is providing (poor, in your mind) copies of DTrace/ZFS through SystemTap and Btrfs.
    Ive told. Dont you read my posts? ZFS offers data protection. XFS does not. JFS does not. Neither ext3, reiserFS, etc. Isnt this the only reason to use ZFS? Your data is safe.

    DTrace shows everything that is going on in the computer, look at the blog posts I linked - and DTrace allows probing a machine in production.

    Look, again, if Solaris tech is just slightly better, then why do everyone wants it? Let us play with the thought that Solaris tech is VASTLY superior, it is far better than anything else on the market. If this where true, then would everyone want it? Yes. The conclusion is, Solaris tech is not slightly better. It is super duper unique and revolutiozing. ZFS and DTrace has won several awards. DTrace has won award from Wall Street Journal - that says something about the DTrace unique features.


    They've done some nice stuff. I just take exception to the way you claim that they're the only ones who have ever done that. Linux guys come out with nice stuff as well.
    I bet they do. But Linux devs just copies others. Nothing new, nothing unique.


    Of course not. Just 99.9% of them, as i said. Most.
    So if 99.9% of all bugs are in the drivers, why do devs say that the code is bad and buggy? (Including Linux kernel devs)


    Which as i said is taken out of context and therefore FUD. This has been proven many times in previous FUD-wars, because it always comes up.
    This is hilarious. Linus said so. Didnt he? Maybe you can explain the context? What did Linus mean, actually?


    Yes, you are, as proven by the way you are using that Linus Torvalds bloated quote.
    Jesus. If I quote Linus, have I made up that quote then? No. I am only telling the truth, dont I? Look, if Linus did not say so, if the devs did not claim Linux code is bad, then I would be trolling if there is no evidence. But Linus SAID so. It is not trolling, when I quote Linus. I did not make this up.


    And i never said Solaris was bad either. In fact it does a lot of stuff well, and I'd probably agree that if you don't mind spending the money that Solaris is probably better for a high end server.
    Good. At least we agree on something. Even Larry Ellison thinks this. From Enterprise Server view, Solaris is better. From desktop view, Linux is better.


    I'm just saying some of the stuff you are posting is ridiculously biased.
    The thing is, the "stuff I post" are from research papers, benchmarks, and interviews with Linux developers. I have not made this up. I quote others.


    While conveniently leaving out all their quotes that Solaris is even worse, and that Linux doesn't have anything to learn from it. Seriously, you're cherry picking quotes and twisting their meaning more than the average politician does.
    How is Solaris worse? Can you show links and backup your claim, or are you making this up?

    Of course I cherry pick quotes, I can not post the entire interview, can I? I post only some parts - which you call cherry picking. And I do not twist their meaning, I just quote them. If Linus says "Linux is bloated" then I thought he meant that Linux is bloated. But he meant something else, you say. Maybe he talked about the weather?

    Jesus. How much clearer can it get, when even Linus agrees?

    And when all Linux kernel devs says things like this below, I just lie, FUD and troll, yes? Jesus. If I quote someone else, then the other person is the troll, not me. I am not trolling, Linus is the troll. And the Linux kernel devs are the troll. Not me. Dont shoot the messenger. I am just a messenger.





    Linux Kernel dev David Miller is a Troll, according to you:
    http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Active_Merge_Windows
    "The [linux source code] tree breaks every day, and it's becomming an extremely non-fun environment to work in.

    We need to slow down the merging, we need to review things more, we need people to test their f--king changes!"





    Andrew Morton is a troll
    http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/

    Q: Is it your opinion that the quality of the kernel is in decline? Most developers seem to be pretty sanguine about the overall quality problem...

    A: I used to think it was in decline, and I think that I might think that it still is. I see so many regressions which we never fix.




    And Dave Jones
    http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
    "Last year Dave Jones told everyone that the kernel was going to pieces, with loads of bugs being found and no end in sight."




    Maybe you have missed the discussion where Alan Cox quits as a developer because Alan argues that the Linux regressions should be fixed correctly, which may break user applications? And Linus says that if user applications breaks, then you should not fix that Kernel issue correctly. Instead you should preserve the old behavior so user apps doesnt break. Alan complains on the Linux bugs, Linus says he shouldnt mind them.
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/24/182

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/28/375

    "Quite frankly, I don't understand why I should even have to bring these issues up. You should have tried to fix the problem immediately, without arguing against fixing the kernel. Without blaming user space. Without making idiotic excuses for bad kernel behavior.

    The fact is, breaking regular user applications is simply not acceptable. Trying to blame kernel breakage on the app being "buggy" is not ok. And arguing for almost a week against fixing it - that's just crazy.
    Linus"




    And Linus T is also a Troll when he says something like "Linux is bloated", "The I/O foot print is scary". etc.




    And also Theo der Staadt said Linux code is really bad. You know what FreeBSD people think about Linux? They say something like "Linux is good, because it keeps amateur hackers out of real kernels"

    There are probably lot more Trolls out there, to quote.

    Again: to quote someone else is not Trolling. Especially if I quote Linus T.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    The vast majority of Linux development comes from people employed by Intel, Red Hat, and other tech companies. I'm not sure why you think they're amateurs, while Sun employees are not. Truly independent developers don't commit very much to the Linux kernel anymore.
    I dont know if you read my link to the BTRFS mail list? Here it is again:

    A RedHat developer writes
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/18/144

    “In the meanwhile I confirm that Btrfs design is completely broken: records stored in the B-tree differ greatly from each other (it is
    unacceptable!), and the balancing algorithms have been modified in insane manner. All these factors has led to loss of *all* boundaries holding internal fragmentation and to exhaustive waste of disk space
    (and memory!) in spite of the property “scaling in their ability to address large storage”.

    It seems that nobody have reviewed Btrfs before its inclusion to the mainline. I have only found a pair of recommendations with a common idea that Btrfs maintainer is “not a crazy man”. Plus a number of
    papers which admire with the “Btrfs phenomena”. Sigh.

    The first obvious point here is that we *can not* put such file system to production.”



    It seems that Linux devs is amateurs? "Broken by design"? That is bad, dont you think?

    You tell me why Linux has so bad reputation in the Enterprise server halls, and why all Linux kernel devs say the code is bad. And why Linus say the code is bloated.

    On desktop, Linux is really good. I use Ubuntu and I like it. But I would prefer Solaris for Enterprise server usage.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •