Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Sep 2009 19:41 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Oracle and SUN There we are! It took them a while, but Oracle has finally said a few things about the future of Sun's SPARC and Solaris products. Oracle placed an ad in the European edition of The Wall Street Journal listing four plans the company has with SPARC and Solaris.
Permalink for comment 383820
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

It stems from his experience with Solaris 9 and his attempts to run Zope. According to segedunum Zope runs far better on Linux than Solaris.

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.

He does not articulate why, or what he did to come to this conclusion. I don't buy it.

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.

Where is the performance data to back it up, did segedunum run sar and system accounting to gather some data, more than likely not.

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...

Segedunum's so-called facts are nothing more than articles and blog posts that support his position, anybody can cherry pick pieces....

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?

If segedunum is still going on about ZFS and memory requirements...

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. ;-)

My personal belief is that segedunum has minimal to no experience with Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris, I can see discussing issues with someone who actually has experience......

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2