Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris Due to me not working for OSNews these past eight weeks, I've been a bit out of the loop, as I didn't really follow technology news. I did notice that a lot is going on in OpenSolaris land, and today, Oracle has outlined what it has planned for Solaris 11 - and according to some, the fears about OpenSolaris' future were justified.
Permalink for comment 436633
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Not surprised...
by Kebabbert on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not surprised..."
Member since:

You are wrong about everything, but I don't know if I have time to refute everything. thare is a lot of nonsense in your post.

Did I miss anything? I think I just proved you wrong about everything.

Yes man, you really proved me wrong on everything. I remember your earlier attacks on me, and you really "proved me wrong" back then too.

"Why do you say S11 will have a huge price tag? It seems that Solaris 10 is free to run for non commercial use.

Solaris 10 if free to use for 90 days. Affter that, pay to Larry or loose it. You obviously missed the news.

The post by Edward Ned Harvey, Aug 1, 2010 3:15 PM
He says Solaris 10 is free for evaluation use, research and instructional use, etc.

And also, you can buy Solaris 10 for 20 USD.

So where is this "huge price tag" you talk about? It seems it is you that missed the news?

"And the step to Solaris is quite small, too. There are several Linux companies that switch to Solaris because of limitations and bugs in Linux.

Again, yum missed the news. OpenSolaris is not a viable choice anymore. It is now updated for more than a year and it will never be updated. And only ILL LOONS would use ILLUNOS in production.
I did not talk about OpenSolaris. I talked about Solaris 10.

It will probably be incompatible with Solaris.

You know, Solaris is not like Linux, where you have different incompatible package managers. You are just guessing or wishing here. Or FUDing.

For Solaris, you have to pay up license and maintenance contract. Or reinstall every 90 days.

As I showed you, no. You are free to run Solaris 10. But if you want to have support contract, then you pay.

Wrt Theo Theo de Raadt: He is not, and never was, a FreeBSD developer. He is resident troll of OpenBSD mailing list and before that, he worked on NetBSD until they kicked him out because of his inappropriate behavior and trollish nature. Here is the announcement
If you listen to him, I fear you are no better than him. He is just buthurted because nobody cares about OpenBSD.

He is a developer, amongst many, that says the Linux code sucks big time. I gave other links including Linux kernel developers. Should we listen to them when they say Linux code is bad, but not to Theo?

Wrt kernel developers: That is called OPEN AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT. Something that Sun never had, so you don't know how it looks. Sun was always hushed their devs from talking about nasty flaws in Solaris.

Maybe you missed the Solaris problems posts, in the OpenSolaris forums? Why has not them been censored?

The code is open, I have not heard about ANY developers complaining on bad code in Solaris. But there are lots of developers including Linux devs, that complain about the bad Linux quality.

So lkml posts don't speak about quality about "production Linux"; it speaks about quality of development branch. Which was never high, but neither was OpenSolaris-dev.

I also gave other links than to lkml. For instance, The God Linus T explaining that Linux is bloated. And Intel studies showed that performance dropped for each new release. Something like 10% or so.

As for "BTRFS is prototype" Well,then is ZFS too. ZFS is developed by Jeff Bonwick and two other guys working full time on it. Later continued with little testing and input from couple of other Sun guys.

Cool. I didnt knew this. Where is the link? Or is it just guesses or FUD again?

Also note that ZFS is "rampant layering violation", meaning that puts everything and kitchen sink on top of VFS layer which is not elegant solution and require lots of work. It has lots cut-corners and kludges.

ZFS is not layering violation. It has only less layers, as chief architect explains. I also heard that BTRFS is violating the layers. I dont know if it is true, but I read it.

Regarding ZFS has lots of "kludges" etc, I didnt know that. Are you making this up, or do you have link? In other forums, there are lots of Linux fanboys that FUD and make up things and lie. And they _confess_ they FUD, and they _confess_ they lie, and I prove sometimes that they lie by supplying a link. What is the problem with you Linux guys? Can't you speak true things? I link to credible sources, such as Linux kernel developers. I do not make up things, nor Lie.

BTRFS is file system only. It is designed to be a file system and there is LVM for RAID and other stuff. That means that BTRFS is smaller and cleaner and needs less man-hours to get to production quality.

It sounds as you guess again. ZFS is very neat. It was 75k LoC some time ago. Which is extremely small. This can be achieved because ZFS has scrapped several unnecessary layers, that other filesystems have for legacy reasons.

And it gets all the features of ZFS (and then some!), thanks to smart layering and using user space utilities.

What do you mean, smart layering? Is BTRFS also violating the layers, just as I read it does?

Oracle can't kill BTRFS, Red Hat will simply hire the devs and do it themselves.

I am not saying that Oracle will kill BTRFS. I am only saying, from a business perspective, it is better to make sure BTRFS is lesser copy of ZFS and never surpass ZFS. If BTRFS is better than ZFS, then Oracle can not sell all those fancy ZFS storage servers.

Reply Parent Score: 2