If you won't pay for an OS, why would you pay for music?
Troll, flamebait, ignorant moron. Why pay for an over-priced, under-powered, flakey and largely useless OS when you can get a proper one that works legitimately for free and Free.
Some of us have principles despite the cynicism, ignorance and self-serving attitudes that prevail in this world.
Believe it or not, I have a Free operating system for personal use and a commercial UNIX for business use. I also like to support good hardware manufacturers by buying slightly more expensive, higher quality components. I also buy CDs of my favourite bands from independent record shops, I don't "file share" illegitimate copies of their music and I pay good money to go to their concerts. If I have spare money after filling myself to the ears with beer, I sometimes buy a T shirt from them.
Now, please buzz right off back to Redmond, Washington where you belong.
Oh, and I have been known to write small, but interesting, pieces of software that I distribute for Free as well.
In what way? You can usually loopback mount CD filesystem images from modern OSs such that you don't have to burn to CD to use the data on them. Similarly with mkisofs or something, you can wirte a CD image and loopback mount it without burning it. I think you should also be able to do the same thind with hard disk file systems (you can with floppies).
Now it can die with super SMP efficiency and at double the speed!
Depending on the implementation, it could only be 1.5 times the original speed. In certain special cases, a good implementation might be able to make it die at 2.1 times the speed or greater.
But he, Roy and George and everyone else in Kosmic Karma land continue on this worthy and noble journey. Jesus will bring the new Amiga when He Returns for the Second Coming.
I agree with some of what you say. However, Linux is not the "best choice" on IBM mainframes. The performace figures clearly show that it isn't.
All the other things Linux can do, Solaris can do, already. One of the problems with running Linux in a business is the cost. Yes, the cost. If you want to run certified apps, you have to have a certified distro and that usually means Red Hat. Red Hat is expensive. If you try to run on Fedora or Debian or anything else, you have no garanteed support from the vendor.
Of course, this only applies to commercial software. Most Linux deployments are at the low end on PeeCee hardware running Free and Open Source software, which is cool. It's what I do and enjoy.
SMP scalability on Linux is quite good, and as multi CPU processors from IBM, intel, AMD, Sun etc. get more popular over the next few years I'm sure people will be running Linux on boxes with > 1024 CPUs. We live in interesting times.
Also the "shims" aren't for GPL reasons, they are to allow their binary only driver to interface with at least a handful of different kernel versions, otherwise they would REALLY be busy updating their driver. With the current method, they only have to periodically release refreshes when something directly related to their driver or something major in the kernel changes.
If only Linux would provide a stable binary interface for device drivers, a lot of problems would be solved (and a lot more manufacturers would be more enthusiastic about providing those drivers).
"Vertical scaling" i.e. single system image on large NUMA boxes. Clusters are a whole different ball game. Clusters are OK if you don't really need a single system image or can put up with long latency for communication between nodes. Accessing memory over a network is very slow compared to having it locally in an SMP system or semi-locally in a NUMA system. You can read all sorts of stuff about this sort of thing.
That's true. It might happen over time. There may be code that makes its way into Linux that would make it outperform Solaris on high-end boxes, and without Sun's willingness to provide hardware drivers, it would loose sales to e.g. IBM, HP and SGI. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Huh? Sun owns nothing. SCO owns all code written in, on, for, next to, or in the same county with any version of Unix since the beginning of time. Haven't you been reading their press releases?
I choose only to waste my time on things which might have a foundation in reality:-)
Are you sure that everyone plays by the rules though? I've heard stories that certain companies provide their extensions to the Linux kernel as binary-only modules with "GPL" shim layers into them.... I don't have any links to hand. Can anyone here confirm or deny this?
SGI is already bolting 200+ cpu NUMA support onto Linux, so any "help" they might get from Sun would be irrelevant.
Yes, some SGI folks have told me about scalbility on their hardware. It started of in Irix and made its way into Linux. Irix scalability on very large NUMA boxes is impressive, and probably the best in the industry, or at least it was not that long ago.
Other vendors such as Veritas are also already contributing to the (Linux) stew. Before too long, "all those years" of Sun "superiority" may be moot.
Indeed they might. Regarding NUMA kit, Opteron is NUMA, and doesn't Linux already use this feature?
It's cool that Linux is making progress, but many large companies like IBM and SGI are using it mainly as a PR tool to promote themselves "in the community." They are still working away on their own in-house stuff.
Windows has Telnet too, dear. Remote desktop too. It's your own ignorance for not knowing that.
If M$ has made DOS/Windows multi-user, multi-tasking, network centric and secure back in 1992, they could have killed UNIX stone dead. Luckily they didn't get the message until about 2000. Once again. Microsoft brings up the rear with shoddy, kludgy, expensive and inferior products.
Sun also provides pre-packaged freeware itself for Solaris. It comes on a CD in the Solaris 9 Media Kit and you can download it from that site as well.
While bolting on Solaris functionality to Linux would be a formidable task, it would also put Sun squarely in the middle of Linux development as a strong Linux consulting and implementation partner. Pretty cool way to beef up your Linux "street cred" if you ask me...
And give Dell, RedHat, IBM and SGI all those Solaris features they didn't have before?
Agreed, but how much of that "high-end Solaris" is under SCO license restrictions?
Like you say, it is probably none. Plain System V is ancient, and there has been a lot of development at all the big vendors since those days. It's probably a safe bet that Sun owns all of these high-end features in Solaris, since they're not in any other UNIX.
Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux.
Why bother, when it's already in Solaris? People seem to assume that because various *nixes are similar on the outside that it must be fairly straight forward to grab code from one and put it in another. Code bases have diverged so much in the last 15 years, that this is not the case. The POSIX interface to the kernels may be similar enough, but what's going on inside is radically different. Don't forget that internally Linux is nothing like a Syatem V or derivative, so any serious porting takes a lot of effort. It's a whole very large and interesting subject in itself, and one I have barely scratched the surface of...
That said... what the heck do they run nuclear reactors on, anyway?
Well, in the UK they all have analogue multiply-redundant and diverse saftey ciruits that resond in miliseconds or less.
For routine temperature monitoring and data display they use everything from archaic 1970s minicomputers to RISC workstations and even the dreaded Windows NT.
Many of our reactors are designed such that they can be run safely (albeit in steady sate i.e. constant temperature and power output) on a few passive analogue guages.
Re:You don't have the slightest idea...
on
QNX 6.3 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Nuclear sites, in the UK, do not rely on manufacturers warranties or pledges to maintain nuclear safety. Rather, they have in place their own systems of design, resting, certification and legal regulation. You can bet they use products whose manufacturers disclaim liability. What manufacturer wouldn't? However, in the UK, the government underwrites nuclear liabilities. In other words, it takes on the responsibility itself. It does not leave it to others i.e. to chance.
For example, a friend of mine once worked at a UK nuclear power station wher all the machines in the control room ran Solaris on SPARC hardware. It has a similar license clause to QNX. At my old powerstation we used all kids of stuff, from QNX to DOS, Windows 3.11, NT4, Solaris on SPARC, VMS on Microvax... you name it. Once again, it was horses for courses, and the liability was all underwritten by HM Government.
Slashdot Mirror
Troll, flamebait, ignorant moron. Why pay for an over-priced, under-powered, flakey and largely useless OS when you can get a proper one that works legitimately for free and Free.
Some of us have principles despite the cynicism, ignorance and self-serving attitudes that prevail in this world.
Believe it or not, I have a Free operating system for personal use and a commercial UNIX for business use. I also like to support good hardware manufacturers by buying slightly more expensive, higher quality components. I also buy CDs of my favourite bands from independent record shops, I don't "file share" illegitimate copies of their music and I pay good money to go to their concerts. If I have spare money after filling myself to the ears with beer, I sometimes buy a T shirt from them.
Now, please buzz right off back to Redmond, Washington where you belong.
Oh, and I have been known to write small, but interesting, pieces of software that I distribute for Free as well.
In what way? You can usually loopback mount CD filesystem images from modern OSs such that you don't have to burn to CD to use the data on them. Similarly with mkisofs or something, you can wirte a CD image and loopback mount it without burning it. I think you should also be able to do the same thind with hard disk file systems (you can with floppies).
Depending on the implementation, it could only be 1.5 times the original speed. In certain special cases, a good implementation might be able to make it die at 2.1 times the speed or greater.
But he, Roy and George and everyone else in Kosmic Karma land continue on this worthy and noble journey. Jesus will bring the new Amiga when He Returns for the Second Coming.
Yes, it's catching up.
All the other things Linux can do, Solaris can do, already. One of the problems with running Linux in a business is the cost. Yes, the cost. If you want to run certified apps, you have to have a certified distro and that usually means Red Hat. Red Hat is expensive. If you try to run on Fedora or Debian or anything else, you have no garanteed support from the vendor.
Of course, this only applies to commercial software. Most Linux deployments are at the low end on PeeCee hardware running Free and Open Source software, which is cool. It's what I do and enjoy.
SMP scalability on Linux is quite good, and as multi CPU processors from IBM, intel, AMD, Sun etc. get more popular over the next few years I'm sure people will be running Linux on boxes with > 1024 CPUs. We live in interesting times.
If only Linux would provide a stable binary interface for device drivers, a lot of problems would be solved (and a lot more manufacturers would be more enthusiastic about providing those drivers).
Maybe it is. We'll see in the fullness of time I'm sure.
"Vertical scaling" i.e. single system image on large NUMA boxes. Clusters are a whole different ball game. Clusters are OK if you don't really need a single system image or can put up with long latency for communication between nodes. Accessing memory over a network is very slow compared to having it locally in an SMP system or semi-locally in a NUMA system. You can read all sorts of stuff about this sort of thing.
That's true. It might happen over time. There may be code that makes its way into Linux that would make it outperform Solaris on high-end boxes, and without Sun's willingness to provide hardware drivers, it would loose sales to e.g. IBM, HP and SGI. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I choose only to waste my time on things which might have a foundation in reality :-)
Like I said, it was only a rumour. I just wondered whether there was any truth to it without incriminating anyone, or myself.
Are you sure that everyone plays by the rules though? I've heard stories that certain companies provide their extensions to the Linux kernel as binary-only modules with "GPL" shim layers into them.... I don't have any links to hand. Can anyone here confirm or deny this?
Doesn't Sun have a way of reporting bugs?
Yes, some SGI folks have told me about scalbility on their hardware. It started of in Irix and made its way into Linux. Irix scalability on very large NUMA boxes is impressive, and probably the best in the industry, or at least it was not that long ago.
Other vendors such as Veritas are also already contributing to the (Linux) stew. Before too long, "all those years" of Sun "superiority" may be moot.
Indeed they might. Regarding NUMA kit, Opteron is NUMA, and doesn't Linux already use this feature?
It's cool that Linux is making progress, but many large companies like IBM and SGI are using it mainly as a PR tool to promote themselves "in the community." They are still working away on their own in-house stuff.
And there was me thinking of the YMCA...
If M$ has made DOS/Windows multi-user, multi-tasking, network centric and secure back in 1992, they could have killed UNIX stone dead. Luckily they didn't get the message until about 2000. Once again. Microsoft brings up the rear with shoddy, kludgy, expensive and inferior products.
Sun also provides pre-packaged freeware itself for Solaris. It comes on a CD in the Solaris 9 Media Kit and you can download it from that site as well.
And give Dell, RedHat, IBM and SGI all those Solaris features they didn't have before?
Like you say, it is probably none. Plain System V is ancient, and there has been a lot of development at all the big vendors since those days. It's probably a safe bet that Sun owns all of these high-end features in Solaris, since they're not in any other UNIX.
Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux.
Why bother, when it's already in Solaris? People seem to assume that because various *nixes are similar on the outside that it must be fairly straight forward to grab code from one and put it in another. Code bases have diverged so much in the last 15 years, that this is not the case. The POSIX interface to the kernels may be similar enough, but what's going on inside is radically different. Don't forget that internally Linux is nothing like a Syatem V or derivative, so any serious porting takes a lot of effort. It's a whole very large and interesting subject in itself, and one I have barely scratched the surface of...
Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, or something.
Have you any clue as to how many years more advanced than Linux Solaris is at the high end?
Sun is already using Linux at the low end, where it has it's niche. It's called the Java Desktop System.
Well, in the UK they all have analogue multiply-redundant and diverse saftey ciruits that resond in miliseconds or less.
For routine temperature monitoring and data display they use everything from archaic 1970s minicomputers to RISC workstations and even the dreaded Windows NT.
Many of our reactors are designed such that they can be run safely (albeit in steady sate i.e. constant temperature and power output) on a few passive analogue guages.
For example, a friend of mine once worked at a UK nuclear power station wher all the machines in the control room ran Solaris on SPARC hardware. It has a similar license clause to QNX. At my old powerstation we used all kids of stuff, from QNX to DOS, Windows 3.11, NT4, Solaris on SPARC, VMS on Microvax... you name it. Once again, it was horses for courses, and the liability was all underwritten by HM Government.
George. May he rest in peace.
Dude, it's one light second to the moon, and about a light minute to Mars.