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.
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.
apt-get install kernel-image-X.X.XX
This is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine...
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
I really don't think kernel recompiling is the biggest thing keeping Linux from dominating any market. Ease of use is a big thing. Another is simply the myth that OSS is unsupported and/or unreliable. You can point to a thousand studies showing Linux is as good as (or better) than alternatives, but that won't change some peoples minds.
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
i've used linux for exclusively for over 7 years at home and I've never recompiled my kernel.
properly packaged distros usually do not require a kernel compile.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
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.
You know, when I first encountered Linux back in 1997 (IIRC) I managed to successfully build/install my own kernel within an hour of first booting the CD. And I had no UNIX background back then. It's the _easier_ (and well documented) part of finding your way through the system. Setting up Samba, for example, IMHO is more complicated.
* "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.
- 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.
The actual compilation step is no big deal; it doesn't actually require any user interaction, and it's reasonably quick. Chances are that you'll spend longer downloading than compiling. The hard parts are configuring and installing the new kernel. Installing is a bit tricky because you want to be able to switch back if the new one doesn't work. Configuring is tricky because there isn't a non-expert tool for it. There really ought to be a configuration tool which would start with a distro-specific configuration, check the devices you have installed, ask you to plug in each USB device you use in turn, check the filesystems in your fstab and detected on your devices, and generate a configuration that supports everything.
All of this is easier in 2.6 than in 2.4 and before, because the kernel developers decided that they really wanted the build process to be efficient and accurate (which they care more about than people who don't do it constantly) and they wanted the configuration system to be consistant and well-specified.
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
Exactly! I know they've updated to more modern command-line tools (they've actually grabbed some of the gnu ones) in 10, but Solaris userspace feels so ancient compared to modern linux. Despite what Sun and other proprietary Unix vendors may have you believe, command line tools have been evolving over the last 10 years. (I would bitch about wanting bash or zsh, but I'm pretty sure bash made it into 9.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh Dude! :)
You're missing out. Why would you want to recompile your kernel? Because you can.
If nothing else you can watch all those cool compiler messages fly by enhancing your innner sense of 1337ness
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.
Can anyone cite a real life example where Solaris was used in place of linux on a new project for a valid reason?
Here's one.
The reasons? Linux couldn't handle emergencies, and wasn't always available.
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
I've not had to recompile a kernel for my desktop Linux systems in a long time - the one that comes with the distro is fine, and gets updated by the distro's tools just fine too.
The only kernel I have to recompile is the rather specialist one for one of my servers which runs a heap of virtual machines. That is expected on an experimental system. If you couldn't recompile the kernel it wouldn't be much good as an experimental system.
I've not had to compile a kernel for a 'production' system in years.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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
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?
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.
The thing linux needs now is better/easier driver support. And it should also try to make those drivers stick if you manually compile a kernel/driver.
I've updated my kernel recently through YAST online update, I forgot I manually compiled my video driver(ATI Radeon) so when the machine restarted my X was done. Now i have to reinstall the driver all over again.
I know YAST would take care of this for you if you download their nvida driver but does anybody know how you can recompile a kernel and make your driver that you add stick without reinstalling if there is a way?
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.
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.
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.
For FUCKS SAKE, I am soooo tired of these posts. GNU tools have been shipping with Solaris since Solaris 8 ( year 2000). If you want OSS then just go and get it the same as you would for a linux distro. Try out pkg-get from blastwave - it's very good. The reason why Sun seems archaic in some areas is backward compatability. You would be surprised how many people still rely on sh etc.
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
i've used linux for exclusively for over 7 years at home and I've never recompiled my kernel.
properly packaged distros usually do not require a kernel compile.
parent neglects to mention he's still using the 2.0.32 kernel.
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!
Agreed. The design philosophy of linux has always baffled me. The kernel is huge, and does much more than it should. It seems much more manageable if the kernel handles resource management, like allocating memory, disk operations, and scheduling. Everything else should be components built on top of the kernel. But with Linux I have to recompile the kernel to get sound card X to work, because my distro didn't have the right #define. It doesn't make sense. Many computers don't even have a sound card, so what does that have to do with the kernel?
I guess you still believe that there is only a need for 5 computers in the world?
Actually, that is exactly the problem with what's happening with Solaris: putting in features like "dtrace" assumes that computers are expensive and have dedicated staff to "observe" and "tune" them. In a world with hundreds of millions or billions of computers, that attitude makes no sense anymore. That is why the Solaris approach is so outdated.
I don't know, there are always the "studies" Slashdot links to, but when it comes right down to it, a lot of people try out Linux thinking it's this great alternative to Windows, and then they find out it's really an alternative to UNIX. Linux is a really great server operating system. I don't know why people are insistent on trying to fit a square peg through a round hole and hack on various desktop emulators to trick people into thinking otherwise via really snazzy screenshots. There is too much architecturally that holds Linux back from dominating the desktop market (you say "any market," but Linux pretty much does dominate a bit in the server arena...that's because it's a server UNIX clone).
Grandparent Can anyone cite a real life example where Solaris was used in place of linux on a new project for a valid reason?
l
parent The reasons? Linux couldn't handle emergencies, and wasn't always available.
After reading http://sartryck.idg.se/Art/Skistar_cs62003eng.htm
Personally, I believe that installing Linux and Oracle in May of 2001 for mission critical business operations is, well, pretty stupid. Oracle only certified installation on Linux with Suse 7.1 in June of 2001. Oracle is not cheap. I doubt they saved any significant amount of cash by running Oracle on Linux vs Solaris. Back then, anyone reputable would run Oracle on Solaris, period. If it were up to me, I would probably still run Oracle on Solaris.
Also, from the link, there is a significant difference in the whole design of the new Solaris/Oracle setup with clustering and whatnot. I would attribute this change as a learning experience with the sysadmins.
Oh, and the grandparent asked for a _new_ project that chose Solaris over Linux, the linked article is for a switch from Linux to Solaris and a switch in Oracle versions/configurations as well.
Although I don't know of any projects off the top of my head, I would say that there are a number of Solaris/Oracle new installs where Linux was either not considered at all, or not considered for very long. If I were to use Linux and a database I'd use MySQL or postgress. If my reputation was on the line and the people had money and cared about integrity, I would still to this day go with Solaris/Oracle over Linux/Oracle.
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).
i've never been rooted
;)
That you know of.
This space intentionally left blank
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
Oh yes, the Hurd way. Hurd is an interesting concept, but I doubt it will ever be significant - Linux is eating it's potential users.
Or it could be some rather critical problems in Hurd, such as the inability to support partitions over 2 GB in size (not really a Hurd problem, just really stupid driver design - Hurd's file system drivers memorymap the entire partition, and since the address space of a 32-bit processor is just 4 GB...).
In any case, I doubt Linux had any real design philosophy behind it at the beginning, and when it had become significant enough to deserve one, it was too late to make fundamental changes to basic architechture.
Some computers don't have hard disks either. And if they do, they could be IDE, SCSI or SATA drives (not to forget the old XT drives, still supported by the kernel :). As for what a sound card has to do with the kernel, it's simple: kernel's task is to control access to the hardware resources, and to provide a virtualization layer to hide the implementation details of that hardware from the applications. Kernel provides a virtual machine to the applications to run in.
Linux design principle seems to include every possible driver with the kernel. This makes sense, since the kernel-driver interface changes with almost every build, so you'd need to recompile any external drivers anyway.
And, ultimately, is there all that much difference between recompiling kernel and installing a driver ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
It's Clippy. That's why they won't change. If there was a Linux "Clippy" then we'd be beating back Windows users with a stick.
Someone needs to start an Open Source Clippy project and start recruiting developers. We should be able to close the "Clippy Gap" before the end of the decade.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
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!
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?