You don't know what you are talking about when discussing Solaris Zones. You are specualting.
It is not a complete OS; only the necessities to make a zone work. Where directories can be read only they are simply linked to the original OS's directory. So, if you share/opt from the Global Zone to a zone you then can install something once and it will be there for the zone to use, as well. Or, similar to BSD Jails, if the zone must maitain it or change it, you copy it to the zone's file structure, for example,/export/rootzones/myzone1/usr/lib. However, Solaris Zones are more secure and take less overhead.
And, if you looked up Live Upgrade or lucreate instead of LiveUpdate you might find some docs at http://docs.sun.com.
Has any one seen this? Why was there no question or mention of the ability for Solaris 10 to run LSB compliant linux applications without modification.
http://www.sun.com/2004-0803/feature/
Creating a zone that runs a linux app under a single Solaris OS image has advantages for management and security.
And, with little overhead performance won't be an obstacle.
As time passes, older proprietary formats get used less and less, until the s/w they need to open these documents is no longer available or the s/w is progressed into supporting newer formats leaving the older formats unuseable without conversion.
This sounds like it may be important for historical and archival uses, too, where you want to keep your older documents over time and not have to worry about them becoming useless bits.
hmmmmm?
Sun Solaris partition defined as Linux swap. Why would Sun embrace Linux with painful jabs like that? It is clear that Linux was attacking first.
Why its Sunday, of course.
Sun is going no where any time soon. Not sorry to disappoint.
They have too much Intellectural assests and cash on hand for anyone to be so naive.
I for one would much rather have an Open strategy than and Open Source one. The difference is that an Open strategy will interoperate with most everything with standards. The open source may not necessarily mean interoperable. In fact, with Red Hat's approach they are trying extremely hard to lock you into Red Hat -- making interoperating with other operating systems, including non-RH Linux, a very manual process.
That would be a real achievement worth noting.
Will AIX ever be LSB compliant? Or, will IBM just switch to Linux completely?
For now, its just another check off for governmental procurement requirements. So, it is more of an asthetic label than something with substance.
switch what, OS? And, h/w, too?
Its hard enough maintaining Windows on x86. PPC would dillute the quality of windows further beyond recognition.
Oh, wait! That's the idea, here. Make windows even worse than it is, so, it dies a quicker death.
If this wasn't a flame bait post, I have never seen one.
Please!
Mac OS X on x86 does not equal Mac OS X on PowerPC.
Am I missing something here? Any of the applications that runs on top of Mac OS X PowerPC would have to be ported, too. This may not be a substantial effort, however, all of the apps would still need to be recompiled at a minimum. How many would be available at availability? For those thinking that MS Office would be available -- doubt it. You would have to switch office products.
So, unless there is a plan to have all of the great apps that help make an Apple an Apple, there's not much incentive to switch.
I, for one, would love to replace my windows apps that I do use, which are the only ones that keep me using Windows: home movie editing and DVD creation s/w, and, Truepoker.
I still would use Linux, still. But, Windows is a pain because even though I seldom use it, I still have to keep it maintained. So, yes, I would switch MS for Apple, but, not to bare OS for the sake of switching.
I was skeptical that I would get anything out of this so called antitrust negotiated scam.
I sent in the paper work when it was first announced. And, I'm still waiting for the check.
It must be "in the mail."
It must be going through the same clearing house that takes care of all those mail-in rebates that I never get.
I thought that this new technology has great promise because it really is cool stuff--A massive server on a sinlge CPU die, with the throughput to back it up. I wish I did not have to sift through all the "Sun is Dead" troll BS that obviously comes from folks that just don't know what they are talking about. There should be plenty of techncical discussion befitting the topic.
How will Intel address saturating a 10 Gb Ethernet? Sun has done it. And, is available today.
There are many technical gems that Sun did invent and OWNS. Sun is continuing inventing these gems, as presented in this news post.
It is always darkest before the dawn. Betta buy some shades!
How would that change spam?
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
In my real mail box I get more junk mail than I do bills and letters, although, some may consider bills in the junk category.
The junk mailers have to pay postage. So, it might reduce my spam mail, but, it is not the correct solution to the problem because it doesn't fix it entirely.
And, furthermore, they would just find some way to subvert the postage scheme, somehow. Maybe sticking other people with the bill when their PC catches a virus.
If Gates thinks it is such a good idea, lets see him implement it on MSN and Hotmail, first. At least with Hotmail the technology would somewhat prove to work on other non-MS platforms since Hotmail is run by UNIX and Apache.
Not only can zones allow you to consolidate the dev, test, training, and staging environments that usually needed to be on several boxes, but, now you can have additional uptime with your s/w application on the production server. If the app crashes or locks up another zone can take over. Its not HA because you are still relying on a single box, but, it is a way to provide more uptime for an app.
BTW, don't consolidate production with those other non-production functions. It really is never a good practice to place too many variables and potentials for OE onto the production server.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not a complete OS; only the necessities to make a zone work. Where directories can be read only they are simply linked to the original OS's directory. So, if you share /opt from the Global Zone to a zone you then can install something once and it will be there for the zone to use, as well. Or, similar to BSD Jails, if the zone must maitain it or change it, you copy it to the zone's file structure, for example, /export/rootzones/myzone1/usr/lib. However, Solaris Zones are more secure and take less overhead.
And, if you looked up Live Upgrade or lucreate instead of LiveUpdate you might find some docs at http://docs.sun.com.
http://www.sun.com/2004-0803/feature/
Creating a zone that runs a linux app under a single Solaris OS image has advantages for management and security. And, with little overhead performance won't be an obstacle.
This sounds like it may be important for historical and archival uses, too, where you want to keep your older documents over time and not have to worry about them becoming useless bits.
hmmmmm? Sun Solaris partition defined as Linux swap. Why would Sun embrace Linux with painful jabs like that? It is clear that Linux was attacking first.
Why its Sunday, of course. Sun is going no where any time soon. Not sorry to disappoint. They have too much Intellectural assests and cash on hand for anyone to be so naive. I for one would much rather have an Open strategy than and Open Source one. The difference is that an Open strategy will interoperate with most everything with standards. The open source may not necessarily mean interoperable. In fact, with Red Hat's approach they are trying extremely hard to lock you into Red Hat -- making interoperating with other operating systems, including non-RH Linux, a very manual process.
That would be a real achievement worth noting. Will AIX ever be LSB compliant? Or, will IBM just switch to Linux completely? For now, its just another check off for governmental procurement requirements. So, it is more of an asthetic label than something with substance.
switch what, OS? And, h/w, too? Its hard enough maintaining Windows on x86. PPC would dillute the quality of windows further beyond recognition. Oh, wait! That's the idea, here. Make windows even worse than it is, so, it dies a quicker death. If this wasn't a flame bait post, I have never seen one. Please!
Mac OS X on x86 does not equal Mac OS X on PowerPC.
Am I missing something here? Any of the applications that runs on top of Mac OS X PowerPC would have to be ported, too. This may not be a substantial effort, however, all of the apps would still need to be recompiled at a minimum. How many would be available at availability? For those thinking that MS Office would be available -- doubt it. You would have to switch office products.
So, unless there is a plan to have all of the great apps that help make an Apple an Apple, there's not much incentive to switch.
I, for one, would love to replace my windows apps that I do use, which are the only ones that keep me using Windows: home movie editing and DVD creation s/w, and, Truepoker.
I still would use Linux, still. But, Windows is a pain because even though I seldom use it, I still have to keep it maintained. So, yes, I would switch MS for Apple, but, not to bare OS for the sake of switching.
Isn't that heresay? Groklaw should know better!
Troll, troll, troll.
No, but, Microsoft = Convicted Felon! To me that is evil.
I was skeptical that I would get anything out of this so called antitrust negotiated scam. I sent in the paper work when it was first announced. And, I'm still waiting for the check. It must be "in the mail." It must be going through the same clearing house that takes care of all those mail-in rebates that I never get.
I thought that this new technology has great promise because it really is cool stuff--A massive server on a sinlge CPU die, with the throughput to back it up. I wish I did not have to sift through all the "Sun is Dead" troll BS that obviously comes from folks that just don't know what they are talking about. There should be plenty of techncical discussion befitting the topic. How will Intel address saturating a 10 Gb Ethernet? Sun has done it. And, is available today. There are many technical gems that Sun did invent and OWNS. Sun is continuing inventing these gems, as presented in this news post. It is always darkest before the dawn. Betta buy some shades!
In my real mail box I get more junk mail than I do bills and letters, although, some may consider bills in the junk category. The junk mailers have to pay postage. So, it might reduce my spam mail, but, it is not the correct solution to the problem because it doesn't fix it entirely. And, furthermore, they would just find some way to subvert the postage scheme, somehow. Maybe sticking other people with the bill when their PC catches a virus. If Gates thinks it is such a good idea, lets see him implement it on MSN and Hotmail, first. At least with Hotmail the technology would somewhat prove to work on other non-MS platforms since Hotmail is run by UNIX and Apache.
Not only can zones allow you to consolidate the dev, test, training, and staging environments that usually needed to be on several boxes, but, now you can have additional uptime with your s/w application on the production server. If the app crashes or locks up another zone can take over. Its not HA because you are still relying on a single box, but, it is a way to provide more uptime for an app. BTW, don't consolidate production with those other non-production functions. It really is never a good practice to place too many variables and potentials for OE onto the production server.
You can only add existing CPU's to the LPAR. You have to take the system down to add the h/w.