In Linux, you're most likely to use printk, which (I would guess) would not be in Unix Sys V source. Then the kernel data structures are going to be different between the two OSes. Getting 15 lines as an *exact* match seems reasonably unlikely in the first place... finding 15 lines of SCO source which *could* be pasted into Linux without breaking the compile would be a real achievement, I am sure.
Re:opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
What's the sig supposed to mean? You don't terminate the `
Not just the bloatware... My work laptop has a Winmodem, so I need Win2k to use it... with only OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, and Winzip installed, the thing crashes at the drop of a hat.
Often just booting up is too much stress for it; on the other hand, it has occasionally lasted an hour or so:)
It's not just the crap people install; if Win2k is their most stable OS yet, as I am lead to believe, I'm staying in my Linux / Solaris world, thank you very much.
anyone who actually says "GNU/Linux" is doing it out of respect for GNU and not because it's a useful way to describe a Linux system.
I'm currently (for very strange reasons) using Win2k. I'm not calling it Win2k out of respect, only to differentiate it technically from Win98, WinXP, etc.
From a technical perspective, Win2k seems to me, as a once-in-a-blue-moon user, identical to Win98 (actually somewhat less stable, contrary to everything I had read).
I don't refer to GNU/Linux out of "respect" to GNU, I call it GNU/Linux because that is what it is. Just because Glibc is basically the option for booting Linux doesn't obviate the need to mention it; your "GNU/SunOS" acknowledgement and your "XFree86/GNOME" comments are also relevant; I use GNOME under Solaris x86, with X11R6 as distributed by Sun, not XFree86. That is, in some circumstances, irrelevant, but in others, very relevant, especially when you start adding XFree86 drivers to X11R6, when it really starts getting fun!
At the end of the day, facts are facts, and GNU/Linux is an OS; Linux is just a bunch of text files without GNU.
If you got all the philosophical stuff out of The Matrix in the first viewing, you obviously know your Judeo-Christian history and Buddhist philosophy intimately. I'd guess it'd put you in the top 2-5% of such knowledge.
Hang on though, such experts would either ignore it as not their problem, or investigate it further as such.
I suspect you're more the "Philosophy 101" type who says "Trinity - I've heard that word; Zion - I've heard that word, too" without any actual understanding.
The Matrix is a strange, and inconsistent film (not least - why, in a simulated world, do simulated telephones have such significance?!) but to dismiss the entire thing in a single viewing is a sign either of an incredible life experience, or of an incredible ignorance.
It's only a film, that is true, but there is more to it than Independance Day, which, to be fair, a Media Studies student could hopefully be able to get/something/ out of after a 3rd viewing.
Ahem. Having read a bit more of that RaidersNews one, some of their stuff is rather strange - like "Jesus was resurrected by the power of the Trinity." - Jesus *is* a part of the Trinity; many of these things they get their doctrine wrong; having said that, from reading some other articles on the site, they seem a fair way out of balance with the many doctrines of Christianity, so, when all's said and done, let's just ignore them....
Last time I google'd, which was a year or two ago, many more (and, might I say, better) articles were found by Google on the first few pages.
The obvious stuff: Zion, Trinity, NeoOne, even more at Raiders News. It may be news to some at/., but "Oracle" isn't only a database, too...
Basically, the film (great as it is) has borrowed from just about everything it can find. Its great achievement is combining all these things into a single, reasonably coherent film. Let's hope the next are as good, and not just "But what if a computer-created bus had no breaks" and "What about a cruise ship?"
Pah! I took this philosophy tonight, trying to view the Matrix preview with sound - "It must work under Windows" (I have Win2k Pro installed because the laptop work gave me has a WinModem, not that I've had cause to use it yet). I spent an hour trying to get it to even install a QuickTime player, as Administrator, and failed.
You do bring up an interesting point, though - the proper way of procuring systems should be:
Software -> OS -> Hardware.
That was the rule 10 years ago, and it still is the rule. Of course, there are exceptions, now that Windows software is so prevalent, and so x86-dependant. In that case, when SW->OS->HW leads to a WinTel solution, it is well worth looking at the *nix solutions, which may suggest slightly different but *equally performing* software with superior hardware - x86 is bound to fail; real HW companies (IBM, Sun, HP) can supply real hardware, where Dell can provide cheap HW.
So when I run GNU/Linux on one machine, and GNU/HURD on another, I should call one "Linux" and the other "HURD"?
What do I call a default Solaris install? The kernel is SunOS, the UE is Solaris... Since you can't have Solaris without SunOS, it's fair enough to call the whole thing Solaris.
What if I install SunOS + Solaris, remove everything but the kernel, and somehow manage to get the thing to boot with only GNU tools? Is it still SunOS? Or is is GNU/SunOS?
Of course, you contradict yourself; as if the kernel were the most important part vs. The kernel really is the most important part
Make your mind up... but of course, you can't. The two are interdependant, and intertwined. A kernel is useless without a UI, and a UI is useless without a kernel.
For those who say "why doesn't GNU get on with HURD?", Debian GNU/HURD is available now for download as an ISO; where is an entire Linux OS available? Linux is a kernel, that's all; boot with init=/bin/bash is the closest you'll get to an OS, and you've already used GNU tools, just to build the thing.
To take another comparison; in the days when I had to use Windows (I believe this is still true) you effectively had to download WinZip to do a lot of stuff; that doesn't make it WinZip/MS/Windows, so the "GNU/Linux must mean X/KDE/GNU/Linux" twats can shut up. But "MS Windows" encompasses the kernel and all the tools required to boot and start using it, just as GNU/Linux encompasses the same objectives.
It's partially a political thing, but really a technical one; just as a server is useless without storage, Linux is useless without GNU.
Not only should this be marked +5, it should be automatically prepeneded to any/. article with the potential to drudge up the GNU/Linux vs. Linux debate.
Feel free to strip the GNU part of your "Linux" OS if feel so strongly.
Good luck.... Personally, I tend to interact with the GNU part more than with the Linux part... I dual-boot GNU/Linux with Solaris_x86, which has (on my box, at least) a ton of GNU tools from the Solaris Companion CD.
I use GNU far more than I use Linux. I wouldn't go so far as to say I use GNU/Solaris, because SunOS isn't as dependent upon GNU tools as Linux is.
See again the difference? SunOS Linux. Solaris GNU/Linux. Solaris is the UE, though I prefer to use, say, GNU's version of tar above Solaris' version of tar. That gives me a more GNU envionment than a kernel-specific environment.
How many Solaris users here insist on calling themselves SunOS users? None, I'm sure (unless they're using
Now, SunOS is the Kernel, Solaris is the UI. Linux is the Kernel, GNU/Linux is the UI.
The best technology does not make the best business (eg, GNU/Linux generally beats the crap out of MS Windows on x86, but Windows is installed on more x86 hardware than Linux).
Sun aren't as strong financially as they were, but the products are stronger than ever. The E10k (the cutting edge when Sun were at their peak) was passed betweeen Cray, SGI and Sun, and as a result, the administration was a nightmare. The SF15k, its predecessor, is Sun born-and-bred, and a much nicer machine to administrate.
Dynamic Reconfiguration works so much more easily; I've no space here to list the benefits.
Sun technology is fantastic, and the stuff coming in the next few years is awesome.
That is, when reliability is taken into the equation. That's why businesses deal with SAR (Servicability, Reliability, Availability).
60*24*365=525600 minutes/year.
90% = 52 minutes downtime per year.
95% = 25 minutes downtime per year.
99.999% = 5 minutes downtime per year.
You have the option of buying cheap kit, and hoping that a Linux/x86 box will run with less than 1h downtime each year, which will get you nearly 90%. Of course, you've got to get your hardware support contract to give you that, and the 24/7 software support to tie in with that.
For 5 nine's, that is, 5 minutes downtime per year, which is a very significant cost for big firms (think Amazon.com, or your local telco or supermarket - they could lose millions in five years). The difference between 52 minutes and 50 minutes if very significant.
What will it cost me if my mission-critical machine gets axed by a sledgehammer? What will it cost if a sysadmin trashes it (either deliberately or accidentally)?
Also, there are times (even in a 24/7 shop) when you do need downtime - the best offer 99.999% uptime, which is 5 min/year downtime. You want to plan that downtime, and test it to perfection. (Imagine it's amazon.com).
The investment is worth the outlay.
Many places run their own home-written software - in that case, you've nobody to sue if your business goes down because the software doesn't work, so you spend anything from a day to 3+ years testing it on the "test box" before shifting it to the production system.
For example, some parts of Sun, I believe, are using Solaris 11 as their live system, when Solaris 9 is only just released (just about everything within Sun is running Solaris 9, or the dev-builds of Sol 10).
It's surely not a difficult concept - test things before you use them.
This is what sets Linux apart from the commercial Unices - the Linux die-hards want the bleeding-edge; the commercial Unices want *guaranteed* (with somebody to sue) availability.
Linux is great for DNS or part of an Apache farm; for my business-critical database, give me a clustered SF15k, please.
The hardware *and* software give me the stability to run a business. Neither Linux nor x86 offer that stability. Price/performance is meaningless.
Just a thought... maybe you ought to get some training?
Sun provide x_Recommended patch sets for each release of the OS, eg 8_Recommended.zip for Solaris 8. (eg, ftp://sunsolve.sun.com/pub/patches/8_Recommended.z ip). Install these first; this is likely to include a kernel patch (check by comparing "uname -a" to the patches included in the.zip file).
Then, look at any specific hardware you have, and find patches for these. That should get your OS up to date, to most reasonable standards.
Sun also provide patches for firmware, both the server and disks (yes, SCSI disks have firmware.... did you take any training for your job? Your employer paid big bucks for the machine; presumably they got the best from that investment by employing somebody competent, who knew how to deal with the servers s/he would be dealing with... No? They got an MCSE). Hmm.
So you then read the READMEs for the OBP and disk firmware updates. Do what they say (they're very detailed).
Oops - I almost implied that you could install an x_Recommended patchset without reading the individual README's, but congrats for doing so - you really should know (you really should *care*) what is going on to your machine. Apparently you don't. Hmm.
Why should I need to run a test box for every Sun sever I have? Why should I need to run a test box for every mission-critical server I have?
Hmm; if you can't afford downtime, you have test boxes. What part of "mission-critical" don't you understand? Let the CEO explain it to you. Ask him to write it on the back of your P45*.
Then you ask support, again, how to do your job. Do you think that 1st-line support is there to do your job for you? What are you being paid for?!!
* (for non-UK readers: The P45 is the paperwork you get when you leave).
Here's one... about 4 years ago, we powered down a Sun server to upgrade the memory (amongs other things); unfortunately, the local SysAdmin re-connected the power without checking that the power switch on the server itself was set to "off". The surge killed the PSU - it had been running happily for so many years with a steady input, no reboots, and the sudden surge killed it. Just plain physics.
Of course, there was a standby PSU, so the machine could still be brought up, but it highlights the stability of these boxes (and that box was probably 3 years old 4 years ago - lessons like have been learned, and things have been improved since then.)
Just the shock of being rebooted gave the server a kick up the backside. Of course, the PSU was replaced within hours by the support contract.
That was, IIRC, a 4-CPU box. Give me an example of a 4-CPU x86 box which was:
a) In existance 7 years ago
b) Only rebooted once
c) Running a business-critical app for a major UK insurance firm
Sun offer 106 CPUs *NOW*. The OS supports 128 CPUs, with (effectively) NUMA topography. The 106 CPU box fills a 72" rack already, though, so we'll have to wait for the 2xCPU/die and 4xCPU/die to come out to beat that.
The question, of course, is not how many CPUs the OS can address, but how much you gain from adding a CPU.
In an Oracle RAC Cluster with Gigabit interconnect, you start to saturate the interconnect bandwidth with over 4 machines, so the "128xDell+Linux" solution Oracle are pushing is bogus. Also bear in mind that 1xGB connection will fill a single CPU in itself, so with a 4-CPU box, you now only have 3 CPUs per box in a 4-box cluster.
It's not just a numbers game, it's a scalability game. Linux isn't scalable beyond 4-8 CPUs, Win2k beyond 4, Win2k3, according to you, can support 32 CPUs (ooh!), and beat Solaris 8 on non-Sun hardware. Thanks for the URL, by the way;) Who did the survey? How did they set it up? Why did they not use Sun hardware? Oh, just insignificantly, what was the app? Samba?!
I have Win2k Pro on my laptop; I've used it about 5 times (max 3h per session), of which it has crashed within 5 minutes of booting twice. With no non-MS software, on a Dell C640 laptop.
Oh yeah, I'll trust some geek on/. with no URLs saying "32-CPU Win2k3 beats Sol8 with 128 CPUs"!
In the current financial climate, a lot of people are getting interested in cheap x86 hardware (cheap in all senses, unfortunately). For real hardware, look at the SF15k, or even a "humble" 3800, or a V880.
Even if you ignore clustering software (very good from Sun), the hardware itself has incredibile resilience. How many x86 boxes can you buy in which you can replace a faulty NIC without even bringing down the OS?
You are forgetting, of course, that Sun make Damn' fine products.
The share price is, of course, lower than in the dot-com heyday when everybody's price was upped beyond any rationalism.
For one thing, I contract out to Sun, but from a purely technical PoV, the world would be a poorer place without Sun. Replace a 4xSF15k RAC Cluster with 128 Dell boxes running Linux? Please, not when I've got a business to run.
I love Linux, but above all, I love Unix. Sun do Unix very well, but build Unix boxes par excellence.
Slashdot Mirror
In Linux, you're most likely to use printk, which (I would guess) would not be in Unix Sys V source. Then the kernel data structures are going to be different between the two OSes. Getting 15 lines as an *exact* match seems reasonably unlikely in the first place... finding 15 lines of SCO source which *could* be pasted into Linux without breaking the compile would be a real achievement, I am sure.
What's the sig supposed to mean? You don't terminate the `
Often just booting up is too much stress for it; on the other hand, it has occasionally lasted an hour or so :)
It's not just the crap people install; if Win2k is their most stable OS yet, as I am lead to believe, I'm staying in my Linux / Solaris world, thank you very much.
True on my ATI Radeon. Solaris X exhibits it better than XFree86 does though...
I'm currently (for very strange reasons) using Win2k. I'm not calling it Win2k out of respect, only to differentiate it technically from Win98, WinXP, etc.
From a technical perspective, Win2k seems to me, as a once-in-a-blue-moon user, identical to Win98 (actually somewhat less stable, contrary to everything I had read).
I don't refer to GNU/Linux out of "respect" to GNU, I call it GNU/Linux because that is what it is. Just because Glibc is basically the option for booting Linux doesn't obviate the need to mention it; your "GNU/SunOS" acknowledgement and your "XFree86/GNOME" comments are also relevant; I use GNOME under Solaris x86, with X11R6 as distributed by Sun, not XFree86. That is, in some circumstances, irrelevant, but in others, very relevant, especially when you start adding XFree86 drivers to X11R6, when it really starts getting fun!
At the end of the day, facts are facts, and GNU/Linux is an OS; Linux is just a bunch of text files without GNU.
Hang on though, such experts would either ignore it as not their problem, or investigate it further as such.
I suspect you're more the "Philosophy 101" type who says "Trinity - I've heard that word; Zion - I've heard that word, too" without any actual understanding.
The Matrix is a strange, and inconsistent film (not least - why, in a simulated world, do simulated telephones have such significance?!) but to dismiss the entire thing in a single viewing is a sign either of an incredible life experience, or of an incredible ignorance.
It's only a film, that is true, but there is more to it than Independance Day, which, to be fair, a Media Studies student could hopefully be able to get /something/ out of after a 3rd viewing.
Ahem. Having read a bit more of that RaidersNews one, some of their stuff is rather strange - like "Jesus was resurrected by the power of the Trinity." - Jesus *is* a part of the Trinity; many of these things they get their doctrine wrong; having said that, from reading some other articles on the site, they seem a fair way out of balance with the many doctrines of Christianity, so, when all's said and done, let's just ignore them....
You can find Buddhism, Christianity, both Buddhism and Christianity, and tons more.
Last time I google'd, which was a year or two ago, many more (and, might I say, better) articles were found by Google on the first few pages.
The obvious stuff: Zion, Trinity, NeoOne, even more at Raiders News. It may be news to some at /., but "Oracle" isn't only a database, too...
Basically, the film (great as it is) has borrowed from just about everything it can find. Its great achievement is combining all these things into a single, reasonably coherent film. Let's hope the next are as good, and not just "But what if a computer-created bus had no breaks" and "What about a cruise ship?"
You do bring up an interesting point, though - the proper way of procuring systems should be:
Software -> OS -> Hardware.
That was the rule 10 years ago, and it still is the rule. Of course, there are exceptions, now that Windows software is so prevalent, and so x86-dependant. In that case, when SW->OS->HW leads to a WinTel solution, it is well worth looking at the *nix solutions, which may suggest slightly different but *equally performing* software with superior hardware - x86 is bound to fail; real HW companies (IBM, Sun, HP) can supply real hardware, where Dell can provide cheap HW.
What do I call a default Solaris install? The kernel is SunOS, the UE is Solaris... Since you can't have Solaris without SunOS, it's fair enough to call the whole thing Solaris.
What if I install SunOS + Solaris, remove everything but the kernel, and somehow manage to get the thing to boot with only GNU tools? Is it still SunOS? Or is is GNU/SunOS?
Of course, you contradict yourself; as if the kernel were the most important part vs. The kernel really is the most important part
Make your mind up... but of course, you can't. The two are interdependant, and intertwined. A kernel is useless without a UI, and a UI is useless without a kernel.
For those who say "why doesn't GNU get on with HURD?", Debian GNU/HURD is available now for download as an ISO; where is an entire Linux OS available? Linux is a kernel, that's all; boot with init=/bin/bash is the closest you'll get to an OS, and you've already used GNU tools, just to build the thing.
To take another comparison; in the days when I had to use Windows (I believe this is still true) you effectively had to download WinZip to do a lot of stuff; that doesn't make it WinZip/MS/Windows, so the "GNU/Linux must mean X/KDE/GNU/Linux" twats can shut up. But "MS Windows" encompasses the kernel and all the tools required to boot and start using it, just as GNU/Linux encompasses the same objectives.
It's partially a political thing, but really a technical one; just as a server is useless without storage, Linux is useless without GNU.
Yes, I know I've posted this twice; it's just as valid as the first time I posted it.
rpm -e glibc, then see how far Linux gets you.
Not only should this be marked +5, it should be automatically prepeneded to any /. article with the potential to drudge up the GNU/Linux vs. Linux debate.
Good luck.... Personally, I tend to interact with the GNU part more than with the Linux part... I dual-boot GNU/Linux with Solaris_x86, which has (on my box, at least) a ton of GNU tools from the Solaris Companion CD.
I use GNU far more than I use Linux. I wouldn't go so far as to say I use GNU/Solaris, because SunOS isn't as dependent upon GNU tools as Linux is.
See again the difference? SunOS Linux. Solaris GNU/Linux. Solaris is the UE, though I prefer to use, say, GNU's version of tar above Solaris' version of tar. That gives me a more GNU envionment than a kernel-specific environment.
How many Solaris users here insist on calling themselves SunOS users? None, I'm sure (unless they're using Now, SunOS is the Kernel, Solaris is the UI. Linux is the Kernel, GNU/Linux is the UI.
It's not rocket science.
GNU predates Linux by 6+ years!
Care to give an example? Preferably over the past decade, but really, any time.
Labour -> New Labour came overnight, and basically meant Labour -> Tory, so that doesn't count.
The best technology does not make the best business (eg, GNU/Linux generally beats the crap out of MS Windows on x86, but Windows is installed on more x86 hardware than Linux).
Sun aren't as strong financially as they were, but the products are stronger than ever. The E10k (the cutting edge when Sun were at their peak) was passed betweeen Cray, SGI and Sun, and as a result, the administration was a nightmare. The SF15k, its predecessor, is Sun born-and-bred, and a much nicer machine to administrate.
Dynamic Reconfiguration works so much more easily; I've no space here to list the benefits.
Sun technology is fantastic, and the stuff coming in the next few years is awesome.
That is, when reliability is taken into the equation. That's why businesses deal with SAR (Servicability, Reliability, Availability).
60*24*365=525600 minutes/year.
90% = 52 minutes downtime per year.
95% = 25 minutes downtime per year.
99.999% = 5 minutes downtime per year.
You have the option of buying cheap kit, and hoping that a Linux/x86 box will run with less than 1h downtime each year, which will get you nearly 90%. Of course, you've got to get your hardware support contract to give you that, and the 24/7 software support to tie in with that.
For 5 nine's, that is, 5 minutes downtime per year, which is a very significant cost for big firms (think Amazon.com, or your local telco or supermarket - they could lose millions in five years). The difference between 52 minutes and 50 minutes if very significant.
What will it cost me if my mission-critical machine gets axed by a sledgehammer? What will it cost if a sysadmin trashes it (either deliberately or accidentally)?
Also, there are times (even in a 24/7 shop) when you do need downtime - the best offer 99.999% uptime, which is 5 min/year downtime. You want to plan that downtime, and test it to perfection. (Imagine it's amazon.com).
The investment is worth the outlay.
Many places run their own home-written software - in that case, you've nobody to sue if your business goes down because the software doesn't work, so you spend anything from a day to 3+ years testing it on the "test box" before shifting it to the production system.
For example, some parts of Sun, I believe, are using Solaris 11 as their live system, when Solaris 9 is only just released (just about everything within Sun is running Solaris 9, or the dev-builds of Sol 10).
It's surely not a difficult concept - test things before you use them.
This is what sets Linux apart from the commercial Unices - the Linux die-hards want the bleeding-edge; the commercial Unices want *guaranteed* (with somebody to sue) availability.
Linux is great for DNS or part of an Apache farm; for my business-critical database, give me a clustered SF15k, please.
The hardware *and* software give me the stability to run a business. Neither Linux nor x86 offer that stability. Price/performance is meaningless.
Sun provide x_Recommended patch sets for each release of the OS, eg 8_Recommended.zip for Solaris 8. (eg, ftp://sunsolve.sun.com/pub/patches/8_Recommended.z ip). Install these first; this is likely to include a kernel patch (check by comparing "uname -a" to the patches included in the .zip file).
Then, look at any specific hardware you have, and find patches for these. That should get your OS up to date, to most reasonable standards.
Sun also provide patches for firmware, both the server and disks (yes, SCSI disks have firmware.... did you take any training for your job? Your employer paid big bucks for the machine; presumably they got the best from that investment by employing somebody competent, who knew how to deal with the servers s/he would be dealing with... No? They got an MCSE). Hmm.
So you then read the READMEs for the OBP and disk firmware updates. Do what they say (they're very detailed).
Oops - I almost implied that you could install an x_Recommended patchset without reading the individual README's, but congrats for doing so - you really should know (you really should *care*) what is going on to your machine. Apparently you don't. Hmm.
Why should I need to run a test box for every Sun sever I have?
Why should I need to run a test box for every mission-critical server I have?
Hmm; if you can't afford downtime, you have test boxes. What part of "mission-critical" don't you understand? Let the CEO explain it to you. Ask him to write it on the back of your P45*.
Then you ask support, again, how to do your job. Do you think that 1st-line support is there to do your job for you? What are you being paid for?!!
* (for non-UK readers: The P45 is the paperwork you get when you leave).
Stuff like Java helps to sell servers.
Of course, there was a standby PSU, so the machine could still be brought up, but it highlights the stability of these boxes (and that box was probably 3 years old 4 years ago - lessons like have been learned, and things have been improved since then.)
Just the shock of being rebooted gave the server a kick up the backside. Of course, the PSU was replaced within hours by the support contract.
That was, IIRC, a 4-CPU box. Give me an example of a 4-CPU x86 box which was:
a) In existance 7 years ago
b) Only rebooted once
c) Running a business-critical app for a major UK insurance firm
Bonus points if it runs Windows!
The question, of course, is not how many CPUs the OS can address, but how much you gain from adding a CPU.
In an Oracle RAC Cluster with Gigabit interconnect, you start to saturate the interconnect bandwidth with over 4 machines, so the "128xDell+Linux" solution Oracle are pushing is bogus. Also bear in mind that 1xGB connection will fill a single CPU in itself, so with a 4-CPU box, you now only have 3 CPUs per box in a 4-box cluster.
It's not just a numbers game, it's a scalability game. Linux isn't scalable beyond 4-8 CPUs, Win2k beyond 4, Win2k3, according to you, can support 32 CPUs (ooh!), and beat Solaris 8 on non-Sun hardware. Thanks for the URL, by the way ;) Who did the survey? How did they set it up? Why did they not use Sun hardware? Oh, just insignificantly, what was the app? Samba?!
I have Win2k Pro on my laptop; I've used it about 5 times (max 3h per session), of which it has crashed within 5 minutes of booting twice. With no non-MS software, on a Dell C640 laptop.
Oh yeah, I'll trust some geek on /. with no URLs saying "32-CPU Win2k3 beats Sol8 with 128 CPUs"!
Even if you ignore clustering software (very good from Sun), the hardware itself has incredibile resilience. How many x86 boxes can you buy in which you can replace a faulty NIC without even bringing down the OS?
The share price is, of course, lower than in the dot-com heyday when everybody's price was upped beyond any rationalism.
For one thing, I contract out to Sun, but from a purely technical PoV, the world would be a poorer place without Sun. Replace a 4xSF15k RAC Cluster with 128 Dell boxes running Linux? Please, not when I've got a business to run.
I love Linux, but above all, I love Unix. Sun do Unix very well, but build Unix boxes par excellence.