Slashdot Mirror
Solaris vs Linux Continues
raffe writes "Solaris Kernel Developer Eric Schrock is bloging more about the Solaris vs. Linux issue and linux kernel moneky Greg is answering on his blog.
Eric's first part is is also still up and Greg's answer " Another reader also submitted reviews of the Linux desktop vs. Solaris 9. User reviews are welcome; please note that ITMJ is part of OSTG like Slashdot.
Solaris vs Linux Continues:t =5y
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SUNW&
Why are we not seeing Linux vs. Solaris X?
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
If linux can figure out a way to be built with NO Kernel Recompiling EVER, and have the kernel update as easy as swapping out 1 file, then linux will dominate the market for good.
Eric's first part is is also still up
What?
More emphasis on is is not going to make us RTFA!
Why do people feel compelled to do these things?
Two excellent tools - hammer, screwdriver.
Both can be used to install fasteners. (nail/screw)
Each tool has its place. And sometimes you can use one tool and its parts in place of the other with no adverse results.
It doesnt make them better than each other.
Just different.
comment directly in my journal
I'd like to hear from people what their experience is with camera and video drivers for Solaris.
The contest was over before it began, and any true bearded terminal hacker would tell you as such. Even with Solaris's stack protection and pipe extraction techniques to improve security, the Linux kernel tends to shine in performance comparisons. What I would like to see however, is a detailed analysis of how much the Sun filesystem drivers tendency to examine inodes twice per operation affects this. It could be an easy fix.
since last week, because I doubt much has changed since the last Solaris story.
Will we see GNU / OpenSolaris? Basically all the GNOME / KDE desktop stuff of Linux runing on solaris kernel.
raffe writes "Solaris Kernel Developer Eric Schrock is bloging more about the Solaris vs. Linux issue and linux kernel moneky Greg is answering on his blog. Eric's first part is is also still up and Greg's answer " Another reader also submitted reviews of the Linux desktop vs. Solaris 9. User reviews are welcome; please note that ITMJ is part of OSTG like Slashdot.
New words of the day:
moneky
bloging
Moneky bloging!
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
Solaris on x86 is a joke and nobody would use it unless they have a very special need. So, on x86 (and opteron) Linux and BSD are the way to go. Now, we all know that Solaris scales very well and you'd be crazy if you replaced Solaris with Linux on your shiny new E15k. And, really, that's it, run Solaris on your Sun-branded big iron. If you buy from SGI and IBM you might be running Linux on high end hardware. I don't see why people waste time discussing this. The $25,000 RISC workstation is dead, even more so since the AMD64 was announced, get over it.
Turbo Smorgreff
What do we all think of this? "Sun's primary focus continues to be on Unix -- the Unix product portfolio," says IDC research director Al Gillen. But that may be a risky strategy. "As Linux grows, if Sun's not riding that wave fully, they leave themselves open to losing part of the market." http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21637.html
It's tough for me to believe that people can argue on the internet without it turning into a flame war. Apparently, according to this article, it can happen.
Sun needs to seriously stop trying to piss people off and simply be a company. The hating Microsoft thing was fun and quite funny. This new Anti-linux thing is just dumb. Make your money off your freaking Hardware, if AMD, IBM and Intel are beating your procs, USE their's I'm sure they'd sell to you.
* "Reliability is more than just "we're more stable than Windows." - anybody else remember the eCache problems? At a former employer, we applied every patch and none of them fixed the issue. The machines were still spontaneously rebooting when I left six months ago. Sun's response was "upgrade to new hardware at full price."
* "we need to be able to solve the problem in as little time as possible with the lowest cost to the customer and Sun." - a co-worker spent a month corresponding with Sun to get them to admit there's a bug in SunOne AppServer (it compiles JSP pages even if they existed on the server in jar files).
Again, it took him a month to enter a bug into the system. They're not going to fix it, but they've admitted it's a bug.
What's SCO's point of View Of all This ?
What Sig
- Linux Versus NT
-
Linux versus FreeBSD
- Linux versus TwinView Nvidia GForce4 MX 4000 (ok, it's a bizarre one, but we are being thorough
:)
-
Linux versus MacOS X Server
- Linux Versus On Time RTOS-32 for Real-Time Embedded Systems
And, most importantly: Linux Versus Linux. (No you can't actually read it..)Ok, this was the first page.. I got bored copy'n'pasting afterward.
I mean seriously. We have a debate about the relative merits of Solaris and Linux, and you come out and say, "LOL no context haX0rs@!!~ OMFG linux is so wei faster than Slowaris lol!"
I mean, did you even read his blog entry? I know, I know, this is Slashdot. But come on. He isn't comparing Linux and Solaris as gaming platforms. Yeah, your FPS for Doom 3 is probably faster on Linux (LOL d00d don't you know Doom 3 doeznt run on Slowaris haha you fail it!) but what he's talking about is no downtime, ever.
He's talking about kernel debug utilities. About hardware hotswapping. About being up 24x7x365 doing 1000s of database transactions per minute. We aren't talking about your mom's basement here, with your little network, or even the nice little RAID setup you have going at work that saved your employer a pretty penny. We're talking about big iron. Speed is not the issue here; reliability is. One of the reasons Solaris is slower than Linux is because it checks everything. It is one extremely anal system, and it never ever goes down.
Now, I'm a big Linux fan (typing this on my Debian box), but no one who has seriously admined Solaris boxes can say that the two are even remotely equal on big servers. No contest indeed; Solaris kicks the shit out of Linux.
I don't think this will be the case forever. Unlike the anal blogger referenced in the writeup, I think Linux is catching up faster than Solaris is improving. While he makes good points about Linux's lack of sysadmin accessible kernel debugging tools, traceability, etc, people attempting to sell Linux to big vendors will provide those tools.
But Linux isn't ready for the big iron machines Solaris dominates yet. Don't say IBM, please. IBM runs multitudes of instances of the Linux kernel in parallel on their machines, so that if one fails, it doesn't take the whole system down. Those big iron Sun machines run one kernel, baby. Just one.
I tell you, if they open source Solaris (yeah right) we're going to be looking at some pretty amazing code. Some of the best hackers ever have hacked that thing.
I like Eric's blog. It's probably the first Sun person's blog I've read that isn't filled with debate-class drivel. He actually lays down the facts in a technical, but concise manner which significantly eases getting his point across. Many of the other Sun-sters should take note.
Tell us why we really need to add this new feature to the kernel, and ensure us that you will stick around to maintain it over time.
There really is no way to "ensure" the support of the developer. She has not signed a legally binding contract and could jump ship to the evil empire: Micro$oft.
Therein lies the only potential risk with open source software without the backing of a stable commercial company. The software relies on the goodwill of the developers. How do you ensure "goodwill"?
Therein also lies the reason for Linux exploding in popularity after IBM publically backed it with $1 billion. If any developer were to jump ship and abandon a Linux feature that she developed, allowing it to flounder like a beached whale, IBM would step into the picture and "own" the feature. Under no circumstances would IBM allow its own customers to suffer anything "worse" than 6 sigma reliability.
I was glad to see that Eric took the time to address my previous rebuttal to his previous comments. I welcome good technical discussions like this, in the open, without rude flames by anyone. It's fun, and lots of people get to understand things a bit better about the topic
That being said, I'd first like to address his closing comment, which was regarding my comment about Linux not going anywhere:
I agree completely. I wasn't trying to put up any "us vs. them" type attitude, I was merely trying to explain in my message the reasons why the Linux kernel has or does not have those different features that Eric was discussing. My comment at the end was a bit glib, I agree, I was merely trying to state that Linux isn't going anywhere, and will welcome all Sun users and developers if they decide that Linux will work for them.
Ok, on to the technical stuff:
First off, thanks for giving specifics about your points of reliability, serviceability, observability, and resource management. Let's address these points.
As for the comment about Solaris having these features "more polished" than Linux's, I will not disagree. But they are getting better over time, as companies realize they want these features in Linux, and address any shortcomings that these features may have.
Binary compatibility. You state:
You have customers paying that much money f
Can anyone cite a real life example where Solaris was used in place of linux on a new project for a valid reason? I'm sure such reasons exist.. but I can no longer think of one.
Note: Situations where the choice was made to remain on solaris rather than linux, because you had an E10k or something, I don't consider valid for this question... staying with what you already have and know is a little different.
So.. anyone got an example of some wonderful solaris feature than linux doesn't have?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why is this sectioned on Slashdot in 'Linux' and not 'Sun'?
bug.gd: error search engine. Humanity working together to solve all errors.
"They're already dead, they're just not broke yet..."
Sun is already dead, or at least their current product line is.
They'll still be able to sell extreme high end servers and mainframes to a relative handful of corporate and government clients, but everything below this level is already all but lost to them.
They're caught in quite a predicament. Their architecture is getting its clock cleaned by competitors and their OS is spartan and obtuse compared to Linux. They don't have an advantage anywhere that triple 9 availability isn't crucial, assuming of course that their stuff really is stable, robust and ages well. I can't say that it does. It may be stable, but lets see you get Veritas 3.4 running on Solaris 8 with ALL of the latest recommended patches. You can't because two of the patches BREAK Veritas and there is no fix other than backing out the patches, which leaves the system vulnerable. Sun's solution? Spend $15 to $25 thousand dollars to upgrade to the latest version of Veritas. That is just for software mind you. My solution? Replace the damned thing with a Linux server running BRU-Pro for $4 thousand that includes new hardware and software.
I work for the college of engineering at Arizona State University where I support Unix systems for the computer science department. The sun systems here are withering on the vine. Every time one is in need of replacement a Linux system is bought to take its place. I expect that within 5 or 6 years sun systems will be all but gone at ASU. Our central IT organization is going through a similar migration.
This isn't because of some edict from on high either. This is happening because every single time, Linux on commodity hardware makes more sense from multiple angles than Solaris on proprietary and extremely expensive hardware. This will not change, if anything it is going to become more and more true as time goes by.
This is why Sun is doomed if they don't find a new product to sell. Stick a fork in them, they're done.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
If people use it, and the company that used to maintain it stops, either users will maintain it, or they will find something else in its place. If no one cares enough to maintain it when orphaned, then it wasn't very good or very popular to start with. This has happened quite a few times with kernel features that lost maintainers and were eventuallt dropped.
Infuriate left and right
Sun recently declared war on Linux, especially Red Hat. Microsoft is re-focusing its "Get the FUD" campain, trying to hurt Red Hat, too. Coincidence, or Microsoft's Java money at work?
All in all no surprises here in principle. It is just sad that a tech guy feels the need to fire shots at Linux, too. I guess someone at Sun is hoping for a promotion.
That still bothers the FUCK out of me.
I mean, it's easier to set the terminal speed of the real serial port in the firmware to a decent speed, and use that over a minicom session to a nearby linux box. Set your consoles to ttya, boys; never mind that extra $500 Radeon 7000.
Christ on crutches!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
They just pick the features that least number of people use to drop support for. Pity the customers left in the cold.
The solution there will be the same no matter which OS you based it on; you hire a consulting firm to implement an emulation layer or stop-gap measure.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
These guys brag to eachother about how cool their kernals are and trashing ms.. meanwhile my XP box has been running for the better part of a year save for an occaional shutdown to cool off (i use no sides on my case and 2 fans). If these guys wanna agree that windows is a low bar to shoot for these days then their obviously in denial.
Today is Monday. Does that mean Sun loves Linux or hates Linux? I forget.
/usr/j2se ? /usr/jre1.4.1_05b1? /usr/java? /usr/java1.3? C:\jdk1.4.1_03? C:\Program Files\jdk1.4.1_03??? C:\Program Files\Java\j2re1.4.2_04 ? (The last three all exist on my Windows box).
More then anything, Sun's demise has to do with the fact that Sun can't figure out what they are doing, and won't stick to their decision for more then a year.
- Is Solaris supported on Intel86 architecture or not?
- Does Sun sell Cobalt appliances or not?
- Does Sun resell Linux or not? Today, is it RedHat or Suse?
- Is Java a programming language or is it a more General Product? What does "Sun Java Desktop" have to do with Java?
- Can I redistrute the JDK with my own applications or not? Wait, just javac?
- Is Java called 'Java', 'Java Two', 'Java one-point-two-and-above' or 'Java Five-point-oh'?
- Where is Java installed today?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
A few links here.
Audio interview here.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Eric: "The core Linux developers don't see the value of features X, Y and Z, so the Linux kernel won't get those features integrated to the main tree."
Greg: "Hey, Linux has X, Y and Z! You just need to get a third-party patch to the kernel!"
'Nuff said.
Are you adequate?
It all seems a little childish.
:)
I bet M$ are laughing at all the FUD.
Red Hat slags off Sun, Sun bitches about IBM, IBM laughs at HP (well dont we all
"Ohhh !! my e-penis is bigger than your e-penis"
At work we have a compute farm that includes both Solaris and Linux. How many of each we run is based on the software requiements to do our work, of course.
Overall, Linux does a great job. But we experience odd lockups we can't easily track down. The only alternatives seem to be pulling software developers from their real work to debug the kernel, or paying fat licensing fees to one of the Enterprise class Linux vendors. At that point, Linux is suddenly in the same arena as Sun, WRT price. Of course, there's always the option of simply replacing the hardware; it is fairly cheap compare to Sun hardware. Now there's a green thought. 8^/
And for the monkey's edification, some of us do care about library compatibility. I've certainly run into issues.
And for the record, I haven't been able to get my sound card at home to work on Linux ever since I moved into the 2.4 kernel space.
Linux is a good thing. But so is Solaris. And "Use the source, Luke" is the wrong answer for the average end user-- even the average technical end user. It reminds me of why I picked Linux over BSD almost a decade ago. ``Just write your own damned driver and quit whining.''
If I start hearing much more of that, I'll start looking for an alternative to Linux in a heartbeat-- and I'm referring to the compute farm at work as well as this system at home.
I have used Linux for years but I've also used Solaris. Solaris is simply more reliable and more fault tolerant hardware-wise. It's a fact and as Solaris is opened up and more people become aware of it, it will be obvious. Linux is a great OS and works wonders but it's not up to Solaris standards in many ways. Likewise, Solaris isn't as widely used as linux and doesn't support nearly as many peripherals and isn't as good on the desktop.
:)
That said, Sun's cash cow or former cash cow was its hardware not software. Solaris was a nice OS that was icing on the cake. Now that their cash cow is gone, their emphasis will be on Solaris but there's less revenue here. I hope they go bankrupt and GPL solaris personally.
The rebuttal wasn't a rebuttal either. It didn't mention kgdb which allows you to debug kernels using source code.. it can also work with UML kernels. Also the rebuttal didn't address the points raised:
Reliability - Reliability is more than just "we're more stable than Windows." We need to be reliable in the face of hardware failure and service failure. If I get an uncorrectable error on a user process page, predictive self healing can re-start the service without rebooting the machine and without risking memory corruption. Fault Management Architecture can offline CPUs in reponse to hardware errors and retire pages based on the frequency of correctable errors. ZFS provides complete end-to-end checksums, capable of detecting phantom writes and firmware bugs, and automatically repair bad data without affecting the application. The service management facility can ensure that transient application failures do not result in a loss of availability.
Serviceability - When things go wrong (and trust me, they will go wrong), we need to be able to solve the problem in as little time as possible with the lowest cost to the customer and Sun. If the kernel crashes, we get a concise file that customers can send to support without having to reproduce the problem on an instrumented kernel or instruct support how to recreate my production environment. With the fault management architecture, an administrator can walk up to any Solaris machine, type a single command, and see a history of all faulty components in the system, when and how they were repaired, and the severity of the problems. All hardware failures are linked to an online knowledge base with recommended repair procedures and best practices. With ZFS, disks exhibiting questionable data integrity can automatically be removed from storage pools without interruption of normal service to prevent outright failure. Dynamic reconfiguration allows entire CPU boards can be removed from the system without rebooting.
Observability - DTrace allows real-world administrators (not kernel developers) to see exactly what is happening on their system, tracing arbitrary data from user applications and the kernel, aggregating it and coordinating with disjoint events. With kmdb, developers can examine the static state of the kernel, step through kernel functions, and modify kernel memory. Commands like trapstat provide hardware trap statistics, and CPU event counters can be used to gather hardware-assisted profiling data via libcpc.
Resource management - With Solaris resource management, users can control memory and CPU shares, IPC tunables, and a variety of other constraints on a per-process basis. Processes can be grouped into tasks to allow easy management of a class of applications. Zones allow a system to be partitioned and administrated from a central location, dividing the same physical resources amongst OS-like instances. With process rights management, users can be given individual privileges to manage privileged resources without having to have full root access.
And of course windows is but a Play Thing.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Not only is Greg a kernel moneky, it is clear he is a Slashdot reader (from his blog):
and didn't want to loose those customers in large numbers
I found it interesting that almost all of the Solaris features that Eric used to back his arguement are new. It looks like Solaris 10 will probably kick ass, in part due to many of the features that Eric mentioned, such as dtrace, zones and zfs. That said, would those features even exist if Linux hadn't appeared on the scene? I think Sun was resting on its laurels in the mid to late 90s. They were in a position of pretty much dominating the data center UNIX market, and it wasn't until Linux scared the daylights out of them that this started to change.
I'm looking forward to working with Solaris 10, but I have no doubt that half the reason it's as good as it will be is because of linux.
Say what you want about kernel functionality, but what other major UNIX distribution will give you the 1977 version of awk (granted that nawk is the '85 version)?
I haven't looked in some time, but would Sun please:
Adding gnome and ssh to this old cruft is like putting a bandaid on a corpse.
It is a real shame that Sun chose Linux for the Java Desktop System. Sun could have wrapped the Solaris kernel in a GNU userland, which would have been a much more interesting animal indeed.
man those screenshots are HOT. Hello 1994.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I'm not a developer, but I deal with different types of systems, and appreciate both Linux and Solaris for their respective strengths. In the telecom space, for instance, Solaris is well respected for building embedded applications. While AT&T invented Unix, they never meant it for critcal "five nines" real-time telephone call processing. Yet the dial tone on my desk comes from a Solaris-driven central office switch. (Not Lucent!) While the switch vendor's own code has crashed, the Solaris layer beneath takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'.
I think the big fallacy in Linux is the driver ABI. Linus likes to change it, as a way of forcing hardware developers to have open-source drivers. Nice Stallmanesque politics, but impractical in the real world, for at least two different reasons.
1) Not all drivers can expose the source. This is often because complex devices hide proprietary details in the code. nVidia does that with its "compile in the stub" 3D drivers. Even more limiting are the wireless-card drivers, wherein regulatory approval is dependent on limiting user access to some of the chip registers which, in an open-source driver, could be used to create out-of-band or over-power emission. Life ain't all Ethernet cards nowadays. I had No Fun trying to make a PCI wireless card work with Linux, partially because of the (older) version dependency of the vendor's binary-only driver. Solaris and indeed most (not all) Microsoft OS versions have been better about that.
2) There's a lot of custom hardware out there. Sure, Linux users generally think about "computers" that are either "desktop" or "server" systems. But embedded systems are even more common. Solaris works in a lot of big ones, like aforementioned telephone switch. Some of those systems use different makers' boards; said phone switch, for instance, is made by a company that buys critical boards from other companies. Changes in the ABI would make a difficult revision process even harder. And even if you make your own peripherals, having to recompile or, gag, rewrite the drivers to meet Linux' latest idea of an ABI is, well, a serious pain in the kiester. Very unprofessional!
So while most mainstream dekstops do get better support in Linux, in part because of the better volume of applications, the Solaris approach still wins for those big systems where an hour of downtime is worth tens of thousands of dollars.
System managers want to observe what's going on inside their kernel about as much as they want to see what's going on inside their bowels. That stuff just has to work, and it has to work automatically and without being noticed. If people ever have to muck around with dtrace or tuning kernel parameters, there is something seriously wrong with Solaris.
As for reliability, even if (and that's a big if, given Sun's historically lousy record) the Solaris kernel actually manages to have a more reliable file system, so what? Those mechanisms still don't protect against many kinds of failures: you still need backups, hot standby servers, and other features if you want high reliability. Beyond a certain point, trying to push reliability of one part of a system is simply wasted effort or even harmful.
Overall, there is no "Solaris vs. Linux" issue. For a small number of applications, Solaris is still the best choice, and for the rest, Linux is the hands-down overall winner.
Sun's new Opteron servers are hot property.
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
Because the Sun guy actually makes coherent and valid points whereas this guy says a load of what is essentially meaningless cheer-leading? I think you'll find a lot of businesses like to have a reasonable degree of reliability in their servers. Telling people to get stuffed when ReiserFS decides to randomly shit the bed and completely annihilate your business data won't impress many people (it's done this several times for me on MAINLINE KERNELS, there is absolutely NO excuse for that. Don't tell me to send in dumps and patches, mainline means "this does not NEED debugging and is safe to use", period). I'm not talking running a major financial institution or a nuclear power plant here, I'm talking about being reasonably sure that today's data will still be here tomorrow.
That's just filesystems. Once upon a time Linux was really great because it was amazingly robust, small, fast and elegant. Today we have frequent kernel panics and X server flakiness, gigantic frameworks for desktop environments and gigabyte sized base installs. I suppose I can forgive flaky and sometimes limited support for exotic hardware because PCs are really complicated beasts these days, and a lot of hardware manufacturers are incredibly pig headed about these things but it would really be nice to have my two year old laptop actually wake up from ACPI sleep. No it's not a DSDT error. No I do not want to use Software Suspend because it is a hack. Nevermind the fact that it takes 5 minutes (as in around 300 seconds) to suspend on a 1GB swap with 256MB of RAM and several minutes to wake up again.
Linux sucks, get over it. Yes I use it, that's because everything else sucks more.
But one big factor is that the Solaris OS is based on hardware that is largely controlled by Sun, which gives them a big lead, potentially, on reliability and stability. It certainly helps to avoid over-complexity in the handling of hardware issues. Linux has to run on hardware that is often badly documented, if at all. Many of the reliability features of any OS need specific hardware provisions, which are simply not there in a PC.
So it is like comparing apples and oranges, or pears and bananas, or Saddam and Dubya. Actually on that last point I may be wrong, because neither was properly elected.....
I am sorry but you must still be living in the world of "25 years ago". I do not believe for one minute that new linux kernel code is always dropped into the source tree bug free. This is a fact of life. Having good observability and tracing enables bugs to be located quickly, understood quickly and fixed first time in the shortest time. Dtrace takes this a step further by enabling dynamic tracing points in the kernel AND in a userland applications (every instruction if you want). And yes I do know what I am talking about having used these tools to find and fix bugs and remembering what it was like before having them.
The only question is whether "scratch your itch" results, in the long term, in a more reliable (observable, etc) system than "design for reliability (observability, etc)". This is sort of a reprise of the "worse is better" argument, and I think it is by no means resolved.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Out of the box, Linux supports more hardware devices than any other operating system. [from the linux kernel monkey log piece]
Perhaps my varying experiences with Linux over the last decade or so have been unusual, but this just doesn't ring true to me. Does Linux really support more hardware, today, than any other OS? Is there any sort of independently verified comparison list? I guess I could compare the various hardware compatibility lists myself, but if this is unvarnished truth, I'd expect there to be something concrete to show it.
My experience has been that when I shop for hardware for my Linux boxes, I have to be somewhat careful about what I pick. On the other hand, when my dad shops for his Windows boxes, pretty much everything is guaranteed to work (provided it is physically compatible, of course -- not something that only fits in, say, a Macintosh Powerbook).
Perhaps it depends on what "out of the box" means, or what "more hardware" means.
If we are going to post Suns blogs shouldn't we post the Red Hat exec's Blog defending against Sun?
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Each OS has it's strengths and weaknesses. I generally prefer Solaris as it seems to be less chaotic than the linuxes with regards to the complete distribution. Solaris versions are more significant in feature improvement.
Solaris also is more tighly integrated with it's hardware. Maintenance wise I feel much more confident with dealing with a crisis when using Solaris. Linux again seems chaotic in it's hardware support.
And don't forget support. Linux does have great community support, but nothing beats a Sun box with a support contract. Nothing.
Now before you mod me as flamebait, I have to give props to Linux. If your on a tight budget, and you need lean and mean, a linux distro is where it's at. For example, Gentoo 2004.2 can really smoke a Sun in a low-end bang for the buck contest. You also have the ability to change every tiny aspect of the OS if you so choose.
So there you have it. Bottom line for me is, if my reputation is on the line I'm going to choose Solaris any day (on Sun hardware). Otherwise if things aren't so critical and there's a pinch for money, Linux is king.
How can you call on OS with weekly kernel bugs reliable?
I don't know. Mr. Ballmer still hasn't responded to the email I sent him earlier.
And you misspelled "daily" as "weekly".
Solaris may still be really reliable. All this Self-Healing & Hotswapping may be nice, but what me very much is making angry is this:
Nearly 50% of the needed patches need single-user mode to get installed and nearly 75% need a reconfigure reboot after applied.
I never need to reboot a Debian GNU/Linux production system that much to hold it up to date.
PS: And Solaris has to be realeased under the GNU GPL too be really cool!
If you really want HA maybe you shouldn't be getting Solaris (or Linux). You should be looking at offerings from HP or IBM. e.g. OpenVMS, Tandem NonStop, mainframes etc.
Despite what Sun/Solaris fanatics say, Sun systems aren't really that much more reliable or HA than decent x86 systems.
AFAIK if a SPARC CPU dies it still kills stuff that's running on it right? Whereas if a CPU running in lockstep goes belly up, the other CPU can still manage. In fact, Fujitsu SPARC has hardware instruction retry, whereas Sun SPARC doesn't. Sun really is behind in this HA stuff.
So what kind of HA does Sun really provide? Clustering? x86 does clustering.
It was just fortunate for Sun that the people who were so used to Windows availability+reliability found Sun to be such a vast improvement. However it is unfortunate for Sun that nearly the same people are now finding Linux/*BSD on x86 a vast improvement in availability+reliability compared to Windows as well. For a lower price too.
No one can guarantee or even predict what open source projects people will want to work on. So, it's true, there's no way you can have "certainty," except with the wherewithal to put a developer on the payroll yourself.
The difference is that, with closed source, you don't have that option. If the vendor refuses to fix a bug (happens constantly), or decides to change direction, discontinue your product, or go out of business, you're screwed.
With open source, you're alright. The worst case scenario is that nobody besides you cares about a particular project and you take care of yourself.
Obviously, in either case, the onus is on you, the "buyer," to select a healthy product (preferably with people behind it you know and respect) in the first place.
No closed-source project can ever "ensure" you anything. No open-source project can ever leave you truly stranded.
The market is gradually figuring this out.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Lots of products struggle out of their original "space". Mac out of art and school space, Windows out of "cheap desktop PC" space, Sun out of "big/expensive iron" space, and Linux out of "hobbiest space". No problem with this. But it is a struggle, none the less.
Ease of use is right, that and limited lack of commercial applications. I have my wife working on a Linux box, she's an artist and a health nut; like a barometer for Linux's usability for the non-technical. Lack of commercial applications is going to be the point that after 4 years of use is going to make me have to allow her to dual-boot. Dreamweaver, Office *with* Publisher working, she's trying to work from home and I can't get her to use some of the OSS replacements, these are programs her peers use (I did get her to be a fan of Gimp though). OSS replacements work, but you've generally got to *want* them to work for some reason.
Sun doesnt need to have its kernel recompiled all the time because it doesnt have as diverse a hardware support as linux does. YES linux could be built with support for just about anything and everything but then it would be called lin-bloatware. Solaris in my experience has performed better than linux for longer periods of time under higher load. I have seen this time and time again (in 2.2 and 2.4 kernel series). We are still running 8 Solaris servers on intel hardware and 8 linux 2.6 based systems on the same hardware. BOTH are configured identically as far as apache and used services are concerned. Generall the Solaris 9 systems are more reliable (even on x86) than the same linux boxes on 2.4. Yet to be determined for 2.6 although 2.6 does appear to outperform the solaris system at this stage (uptime yet to be determined).
So realistically solaris is still king between linux and solaris. However FreeBSD is still more of a realistic competitor to solaris.. Where is the press on that?
But in the end any *nix flavor is better than none. Long live solaris and linux both have thier benefits and both have drawbacks. Realistically there is NO PERFECT OS!!. (and as long as humans make OS's there never will be).
"...meanwhile my XP box has been running for the better part of a year save for an occaional shutdown to cool off"
It is kind of a biased sample whose number is 1 - and in addtion I think you are the exception to the 'rule'.
As for the three home computers with Windows XP i've used / use, they need to be rebooted about every 8-10 days because the slowdown starts to become *very* noticable.
First off, a short tale about Sun. I recently bought a V20z dual opteron rig from them. On two separate occasions, after logging HARDWARE support calls (faulty ram and faulty powersupply), they've phoned me within 2 days and asked why I'm running Linux on the machine, and have I considered running Solaris instead. On each occasion, I've told them that we have no interest in Solaris on x86, but they've gone on to give me a hard sell.
:)
They may well be a company that supports Linux, but they're pretty damn schizo about it
Sun, after years of vacillation, finally decided to commit to Solaris on x86. In order to bolster their woeful driver support, they had a choice: implement a bunch of x86 drivers (hardly a core competency) from scratch; or: buy hundreds of current, SVR4 compatible drivers from an x86 UNIX vendor, with said vendor waiving _all_ IP rights on the drivers. As business decisions go, it's as close to a no-brainer as you'll get. That it also indemnifies them from SCO's antics is just the gilt on the gingerbread.
Tony.
-- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
Every Anti-Linux argument I have ever had (and some of them I have also started
- Linux ist faster
- Linux is the only operating system that
will prevail
The first one is an argument, that many great people in computer science have found fundamentally broken for other types of software. The same guys, that state, that Microsoft has made a big design mistake by moving the graphics drivers from user space back into kernel space promote the exactly same design mistakes in the Linux kernel.
This is about the same argument, that people have made, that mono executes faster than
L4Hurd is predicted to about 10% slower than Linux for a typical workload. I do not think, that this is an unacceptable price to pay for subsystems that do not compromise the whole kernel if they contain a buffer overflow.
The other argument is more subtle. It says two things: Linux is the best (which is surely not true _right now_) and that everything else will at some time be obsolete, when Linux has finally caught up in features and gotten better that the competition.
That's a nice one. It means "We want freedom, but we want it our way", very similar the ubiquitous call of standards. When developing the new driver interface for the 2.6 kernel series, the linux kernel developers had the choice between using two very good, already existing oo-driver interfaces (freebsd kclasses and darwin IOKit). They rather choose to implement their own version, incompatible to everything else and to improve it over time on their own. And they believe, implementing an interface badly first and improving it over time is good.
In my opinion, this way of thinking is fundamentally broken. An interface is a defintion of the way modules interact with one another. If it needs to be changed, that is always a big problem. Everybody depending on that interface will need to change his code. The argument from the Linux developers than is "We do not care to change our code and we do not care about everybody else's". In other words: "If you took trust in our interfaces you are a fool, give us your source and we will (probably, if we are in the right mood) fix it for you".
This is not distributed development and it surely it not freedom for anybody else than the "core" developers.
So you never patch the kernel then?
is that its a least common denominator OS. All of the development effort goes in to the most commonly used hardware configurations.
This is great if you are running a uni-processor desktop machine, or 2 cpu web server, but if you are doing anything that's even remotely non-trivial, like a cluster with a shared SAN. The support is primitive, to say the least. For these sorts of tasks, Solaris (and other commercial OS's) tend to be a better choice, IMHO.
at least for solaris/x86, the souped-up 'lxrun' aka "project janus"
m l
http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/janus_faq.ht
appears to address this. of course, it's hard to
beat the state-of-the-art userland shipped by the
highest-volume unix producer -- apple.
Greg definitely didn't understand the binary compatibility question, which tends to show his age (younger). The issue with binary compatibility is not drivers, it's software! Yes, people do still buy software these days, and want to run the software they've purchased ten, twenty, thirty years ago. When you're talking Solaris, odds are you're dealing with a huge company like Caterpillar that has an enormous amount of money invested in software.
Mr. Schrock's argument can be responded to quite readily with a single quote: "Ask not what your country [operating system] can do for you but what you can do for your country [operating system]." Thanks Jack, I'll take over from here.
Mr. Schrock's confusion over Linux appears to be rooted in two points of ignorance: "What & Why is Linux" and "What's the difference between a Linux distribution and the Linux kernel".
Linux is a community operating system. Community in the sense of ownership and more importantly contribution. Complaining about Linux missing specific features is not a reflection of the operating system but a reflection of your contribution to it. If your concerns are truly important to you rally around them. That means if you can code do so but if you cannot, work to get others interested, be they other kernel developers or commercial entities. Grousing about how misguided the priorities of others is not constructive in the least and in fact may have the opposite effect, alienating those that would otherwise support your cause.
A Linux kernel 'release' is a snapshot, not truly intended for customer usage, of the current state of Linux kernel development. It is analogous to a private entity's internal development group creating milestone builds of its technology. The fact that the Linux effort is performed in public as opposed to Solaris' private development makes it no less valuable then Solaris' internal builds are for Sun. The similarities don't end there. The Linux operating system has multiple distributions. These are composed of a development snapshot of the Linux kernel plus many other packages necessary to round out what the general public considers necessary for an operating system. Solaris has only a single distribution, packaged by Sun, that contains code seeking a similar aim. Linux distributors, similar to Solaris' sole distributor, may package other code, kernel related or otherwise, to add functionality deemed critical. This is done regardless of the direction of the Linux kernel development effort and not necessarily in line with the Linux kernel contributors desires. This again reflects the public nature of Linux development and is a strong argument in favor of keeping Linux kernel and distribution development distinct.
Why could Sun not work with Linux to make its own distribution incorporating functionality of perhaps its own design? Mr. Schrock submits version tracking as the primary issue, regardless of multiple Linux distributors managing to do this with little complaint. Why even entertain this as an issue? Before complaining about tracking kernel version changes Mr. Schrock, with everyone else, should put forth the effort to work with the community before grousing about the potential negative results. Mr. Schrock's concern regarding the Linux kernel's development community's propensity for rejecting what he believes are important features is a red herring. Not only has Mr. Schrock not invested the time necessary to understand why specific Linux kernel code contributions were rejected but has also never submitted changes of his or Sun's own making to work through the process.
As Mr. Schrock's argument can be responded to quite readily with a single quote: "Ask not what your country [operating system] can do for you but what you can do for your country [operating system]." Thanks Jack, I'll take over from here.
Mr. Schrock's confusion over Linux appears to be rooted in two points of ignorance: "What & Why is Linux" and "What's the difference between a Linux distribution and the Linux kernel".
Linux is a community operating system. Community in the sense of ownership and more importantly contribution. Complaining about Linux missing specific features is not a reflection of the operating system but a reflection of your contribution to it. If your concerns are truly important to you rally around them. That means if you can code do so but if you cannot, work to get others interested, be they other ke
Ok, I'm a Sun employee... but an open mind one....
As a "GNU/Linux vs. any other OS" (I know it wasn't the article's point, but I really like hard direct attacks, is like instinc to me) I always though that GNU/Linux could have an umbeatable advantage as for the total number of kernel programmers compared to any other OS. To put it on an example:
- Back in 1991 Linux had only 1 kernel developper and 1 user (Linus Torvalds himself).
- In 1995 Linux had 100 kernel developers and 1000 users (Ok, those are numbers invented by me).
- In 2000 Linux had 1000 kernel developers and 100000 users (once more, numbers invented by me).
- Nowadays Linux have 10000 kernel developers and 2000000 users (last time, I promise, numbers invented by me).
The idea, is to try to make a geometrical prediction of when in time Linux will have more kernel developers than the biggest comercial OS has. After that point in time, the comunity can claim to have an unbeatable advantage, since, not only new technologies will be created first on GNU/Linux, but after any other creative comercial OS invent a new technology, it will take a really short period of time to be implemented in Linux.
From that time on, Linux should have the majority of the OS market, leaving niche space to any other OS (something like QNX nowadays).
I welcome any response to this post. Mainly if you think I'm insane, or even better, if you like my idea and have the correct number of kernel developers and users for all the years I listed, so I can do a Taylor aproximation and post a possible time of Linux supremacy, Pinky and Brain style
Regards!
This is really circular nonsense thinking.
1. Some people can't make binary drivers because there's no "binary api" (he meant ABI?), but...
2. We don't need a "binary api," we have the source to "all our drivers"
Well duh. You have the source to "all your drivers" because the vast majority of people who would like to distribute binary drivers have given up on Linux. Congratulations on that.
Incidentally, props to the Sun guy for having the balls to make his blog open to public comment. The Linux guy seems to have his setup as read-only. Loser.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
>>when they have ZERO history of pulling that sort of crap.
Maybe you aren't aware of sunw financially supporting the scox-scam? Do you remember how secretive sunw tried to be about it? How about when McNeally was parroting McBride? Or how about McNeally making his smug comments about having the only legal linux? Or how about sunw helping msft set things up so that msft can sue OpenOffice users?
As I understand it:
Tradition big-iron achieves redundancy at the component level, i.e.two stripes of mirrored drives. Also, hot-upgrading can be achieved at the component level: pull memory, put in a new card while the system is running.
With PCs, you get the same redundancy and ability to upgrade, but it's done at the system level. Cheap servers mirror each other, you have system level redundancy. Pull one server off the network, and the backup server takes over.
Just two different ways to accomplish the same thing. But the PC way is much cheaper. You can get a decent PC for under $500.
That is a good way of putting it. Another application is how distributed computing is accomplished. You can take ONE super computer, which is the most efficient method, to calculate something. Or you can do like Seti@home and get people to give up a tiny percentage of their cpu cycles to do a small portion of the whole, then calculate each small piece with three different people (or more if results are different) and the only overhead is the distribution.
This is theoretically the least efficient method to obtain a result because it takes so many redundant cycles to calculate the results of a small sample, plus distribution overhead, but it is the most cost effective AND fastest way. Same concept: different method for different tasks.
This redundancy is at the user level and triple checked for accuracy, which is even farther down the line than componant or system level. For these type of tasks (cracking encryption, searching for ET, etc.) this ugly, brute force method actually becomes rather elegant. Obviously, it can be the least expensive method as well.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
So as the Linux advocate pointed out, if Sun were to use their experience to add the features to Linux, with the requisite due diligence in making sure they don't break everything, t's likely Linus would integrate the features. This is precisely the point that's under debate, and baldly asserting it does not count as debating it.
Are you adequate?
You really ought to try FreeBSD. Though I doubt the laptop support will be any better than Linux, but, to tell you the truth, if you want a Unixy laptop, a Mac is the answer. (They're not flawless by any means, but they will give you far less trouble than a Linux one.)
Are you adequate?
Render what he said in a non-"trollish" way.
Are you adequate?
> So you never patch the kernel then?
Not every week.
As someone who has developed kernel modules for Solaris and Linux, I'll say without reservation that Solaris is the best platform to develop and debug on - even WITHOUT the source code.
Why? Because when the system crashes you can work out what went wrong. mdb, kdb, etc. They're magic. Linux is still living in the dark ages because Linus doesn't believe in using anything for kernel debugging except printf's. On top of that, if you're using Linux inside vmware for testing, a panic (oops or whatever) leaves you scrolling and scrolling...no useful information at all is recovered. BSD has ddb and gdb will work with crash dumps, but BSD crashes dump your entire physical memory whereas a crash on Solaris (2GB of RAM) may only need 120MB of disk space. This may not seem significant until you start collecting a number of crash dumps and keeping them compressed is not desirable.
Then there's the problem of which Linux you're developing for. Unless you're a 3rd party to the Linux source tree you really won't know the horror that is the Linux kernel source tree when it comes to building the same source on RH9 and Fedora2 and SUSE9.1 and...oh, none of those are "virgin" Linux kernels - that's different again.
Reading about Kprobes and Linux...I'll say this: beware patents. I would presume that Sun is patenting a lot of the new things it develops for Solaris. What's the upshot of this? If you're a Dell or similar trying to sell Linux (i.e. don't have a war chest full of patents you own) then you could find Sun (or IBM or HP) deciding that they should be getting a piece of your Linux pie. Blindly copying features from any proprietary OS into another OS (free or not) is something developers should be doing with great caution - now and in the future - especially for new technologies like Dtrace. Don't assume that Microsoft and IBM are the only ones that understand the importance of establishing a good IP portfolio.
> I've never recompiled my kernel.
omg teh fagot!!!!!! ROFLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
Its not the same thing at all. With Sun, IBM or HP enterprise hardware you can have a situation where a CPU goes down and no transactions are effected. You can't get that with a PC solution.