Linked by David Adams on Fri 16th Jul 2010 19:44 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris A Computerworld blog speculates that the open-source Unix distribution may live on, but Oracle won't be supporting it. At this point, "OpenSolaris' only real future is as a fork, which would not be easy to pull off. Still, with enough interest from developers it could be done. OpenSolaris is licensed under the GPLv3 CDDL and various other OSS licenses, so the base code is available."
Permalink for comment 433964
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

You fail to grasp that Oracle is only one investing in Solaris, while entire industry invests in Linux. No matter how much money Larry puts into Solaris, Linux will get more investment. Also Linux will get more users and more testing because it's free while Solaris is now trial-ware with huge pricetag.

Yes, but there are some companies where the business are more worth than a few million USD. For some companies, that handle billions of USD, reliablity and such are far more important. If the business go down, they loose millions each hour. Then you need the most stable OS out there and price is secondary. Solaris.

I wanna to see that test. I bet it is as credible as other links you posted.

What do mean with "credible as other links"? Which of my links do you think are false or propaganda? Regarding, "Solaris achieves 99% cpu utilization on slower hardware and Linux achieves 87% cpu utilization", here are the official white papers from SAP:

You just linked HP advertising and you're acting like its credible source.

Yes? I linked to HP advertising that confirms what I say: HP claims that Linux is for lowend and HP-UX for highend. Just read it yourself in the link. HP says so. I do not make it up. I am correct on this, too.

Also, you obviously don't know what "High End" means to those companies. It means very expensive product. It doesn't mean the best in the world. HP is normally advertising their stuff as high end, but PHUX is medioce OS at best, in terms of features. And it runs on crappy hardware.

This one made me smile a bit, actually. Look. Enterprise means not that you must have much features. It means long term stability and support. No downtime. And HP-UX is regarded as a very stable OS, in the Enterprise server halls. Jesus, dont you know that? It is like you claim "Mainframes are mediocre because they dont have new features such as compiz, iTunes, etc". But you can not take your desktop preference into the Enterprise server halls. There are other rules there. For instance, you need hardware that have much redundancy and fail checks. Which what you call "crappy" hardware have. For instance, if a cpu instruction was errorneous, SPARC cpus and Mainframe CPUs can rollback and replay that instruction.

Yes, I know that desktop users focus on high cpu performance and many FPS in Crysis, but Enterprise is a different thing. Most of the time, you dont need extreme cpu performance, but you need reliability. If your server handle billions of USD, you need to do it reliable, not fast and unreliable. Most modern cpus are powerful enough to do all business work load, you dont need highly overclocked cpus at 7GHz which reaches many many FPS in crysis. Jesus. You have absolutely no clue about Enterprise server halls?

Without OpenAIX, there will be no AIX 7... oh wait... LMAO...

Hm? I didnt understand this one. OpenSolaris is like Fedora and Solaris 10 is like RedHat. OpenSolaris gets all new tech first, and then it is backported to Solaris. For instance, ZFS came first to OpenSolaris: just read wikipedia article on ZFS. So OpenSolaris code is the basis for Solaris 11. OpenSolaris contains all new tech. If it is scrapped, then all development on Solaris 11 has to start anew, from scratch. Highly unlikely.

Regarding OpenAIX, do you mean that IBM puts all new tech into OpenAIX first, and then backports it to AIX and even bases new AIX versions on OpenAIX? Or what do you mean?

You linked Sun employee blog, where Sunshiner is bashing SystemTap. How's that helping your argument?

Maybe you should read my link. On the link there is a photo of some text that Linux kernel devs have written. One of them writes that Systemtap is crap in comparison with DTrace. Do you mean the Sun employee have made up the photo of the text?

Truth is that SystemTap has some things which Sunshiners are envious about.

Wow! I didnt knew that. What things would that be? Tell us. Or are you just making this up?

Even IBM has copied DTrace, and it is called ProbeVue in AIX. Everyone copies Solaris tech.

You know, in open source world people talk about software they are developing. They talk about it's flaws freely. Reason why you don't hear about that in ZFS is because ZFS is developed in proprietary manner. Behind closed doors. They just dump the code when it's done, and tell you it's perfect. So you repeat that here in attempt to get everyone drink your kool-aid. If you really think Solaris is so perfect, then I overestimated your IQ.

Ehrm. No. Wrong again. ZFS has also lots of bugs and issues, havent you seen the ZFS mail lists? If you want, you can examine the ZFS code yourself, it is available. But there are no discussions of "broken design" as BTRFS is subject to. See below.

But the thing is, ZFS exists today, it is run in the Enterprise server halls. BTRFS is a prototype of a ZFS wannabe. A lesser copy. When a filesystem is released, it takes at least 5 years before you can start to trust it. When BTRFS is released as 1.0, it will take another five years before it is let into the server halls. But you know, ZFS development will not stop. When BTRFS is released, ZFS will have tons of new features that BTRFS does not have.

But just for fun, I would see the link where "BTRFS has bad code". It is probably another Sunshiner.

The another "Sunshiner" is actually a RedHat developer that was asked to evaluate BTRFS for Enterprise use by a RedHat customer. Here is his verdict: (do you also claim I made this link up, too? It is also false Sun propaganda?)
"In the meanwhile I confirm that Btrfs design is completely broken: records stored in the B-tree differ greatly from each other (it is unacceptable!), and the balancing algorithms have been modified in insane manner. All these factors has led to loss of *all* boundaries holding internal fragmentation and to exhaustive waste of disk space (and memory!) in spite of the property "scaling in their ability to address large storage".
It seems that nobody have reviewed Btrfs before its inclusion to the mainline. I have only found a pair of recommendations with a common idea that Btrfs maintainer is "not a crazy man". Plus a number of papers which admire with the "Btrfs phenomena". Sigh.
The first obvious point here is that we *can not* put such file system to production."

BTRFS blows the doors of ZFS. Get over it.

Ok, if you say so, then it must be true. I will try to get over it. But apparently some Linux devs disagrees.

Reply Parent Score: 3