Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Sep 2009 19:41 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Permalink for comment 383820
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
It's one of the reasons, but not the only one and it's far bigger than that. A lot of organisations have ditched Solaris and SPARC over the years because of not only poor performance but a complete inability to get popular open source software running properly. Apparently, we're all supposed use some supported and expensive J2EE solution or recompile in Forte or whatever it's called now.
Only now has a response to that been created in OpenSolaris, and it is just under ten years too late and completely inadequate - with two or three years of vapourware press releases that Shamen was right about. Even now, the only definable reference implementation you can call OpenSolaris is Nevada.
It was to do with Python, threading and SMP systems as I recall, and basically the Python developers effectively said that they weren't interested in troubleshooting problems on a proprietary system on expensive hardware they couldn't run locally and didn't care about. I can't say I blame them. That was 2000. I believe I explained this umpteen times elsewhere.
It is coming up to about ten years ago now but as it was, we ran a comparison test system on x86, BSD and Linux (the perfectly sensible thing to do by the way, rather than fannying about as you suggest) to see if it was something else unrelated, and it ran without problems on both and was about three times as fast. Solaris on x86 wasn't an option at the time. Rather than troubleshoot a complex problem on a system Sun wouldn't help out with, guess what was decided? Why the hell should I or anyone else help Sun keep a customer, and why should you be arrogant enough to think that anyone will?
My performance data would be useless anyway because it's a drop in the ocean. What we want to know is if other people feel the same way. If you want some brutal performance data as to whether that is the case, look at Sun's last two quarters in particular:
http://blog.internetnews.com/apatrizio/2009/07/suns-q4-outlook-clou...
Where are your 'cherry picked' pieces to support your 'position' by the way, and what relevance do they have to the subject of the article?
When you see ZFS on a 128MB NAS box, where it should be an ideal fit, give me a call. I'll say no more because we're getting off-topic and having the issues at hand clouded by technical bullshit - as many Sun consultants do before they wave NDAs at you over a non-existant ECC memory problem. ;-)
Alas, we're miles off-topic now and we are going off down an avenue that has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. Like most Sun consultants they fight bottom-line thinking and problems with technical bullshit in an apparent masking attempt, even to the last. When the brown stuff hits the fan and the fan finally burns completely to a crisp I just don't know what you'll do.