Linked by David Adams on Wed 24th Sep 2008 22:44 UTC, submitted by snydeq
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin has said it is time for Solaris to simply move out of the way and yield the future to Linux. 'The future is Linux and Microsoft Windows. It is not Unix or Solaris,' he claims, contending that Sun's strength in long-lifecycle apps is giving way to Linux, as evidenced by the rise of Web apps, where Linux holds a decided advantage, Zemlin claims. With capabilities such as ZFS and DTrace, Sun is trying to compete based on minor features, he says. 'That's literally like noticing the view from a third-story building as it burns to the ground.'
Thread beginning with comment 331336
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Offensive
by sultanqasim on Wed 24th Sep 2008 22:55 UTC
sultanqasim
Member since:
2006-10-28

I find Zemlin's statements to be offensive and untrue. It is true that Linux is gaining popularity but that doesn't mean that Solaris is dead. Dismissing ZFS and DTrace as "minor features" just points to his lack of understanding - they are huge. ZFS is far superior to ext3 in almost any way thinkable and features futuristic technology while ext3 is very outdated and basic in comparison. DTrace is a huge help to developers who actually use it. Solaris is also incredibly reliable.

Linux has it's adantages (larger user base, easier to install & set up, slightly larger base of software available) but Solaris, BSD and other open-source UNIX-like OSes still have their places.

Reply Score: 36

RE: Offensive
by flanque on Thu 25th Sep 2008 00:03 in reply to "Offensive"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Yeah well it's his job to upsell and promote Linux. This is just a case of FUD, nothing more.

Perhaps he feels threatened to a degree and needs to reaffirm himself. Who knows.

You'll be hard pressed to convince highly skilled and professional Solaris admins that they should dump their infrastructure and knowledge base for Linux.

Also, his comments about long lifecycles is crudely inaccurate.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Offensive
by Peter Besenbruch on Thu 25th Sep 2008 00:32 in reply to "Offensive"
Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

I find Zemlin's statements to be offensive and untrue.

He's bragging a bit, but if that's offensive, I think you are too thin skinned.

It is true that Linux is gaining popularity but that doesn't mean that Solaris is dead.

I look at things differently. I fear Zemlin might be right. That would be too bad. The good news is that OS2 has been "dead" for years, over a decade, even, but it's still for sale and being used. And moving to the opposite extreme from Solaris, BeOS is another "dead" OS, but you'ld never know it from reading this site. ;)

Dismissing ZFS and DTrace as "minor features" just points to his lack of understanding - they are huge. ZFS is far superior to ext3 in almost any way thinkable and features futuristic technology while ext3 is very outdated and basic in comparison. DTrace is a huge help to developers who actually use it. Solaris is also incredibly reliable.

I'll pick ZFS as an example to challenge. It's a memory hog. It's a CPU hog. It has no place on any of the machines in my house, which all run ext3 reliably and nicely. Where might it be useful? On really big iron, where absolute reliability is a must. And that is where the future of Solaris lies, on specialty equipment. Unfortunately, that's not a big market.

Linux has it's adantages (larger user base, easier to install & set up, slightly larger base of software available) but Solaris, BSD and other open-source UNIX-like OSes still have their places.

If I wanted to set up a web server, or a workstation, Solaris would not be my first choice. I have installed Open and Free BSD, as well as various flavors of Linux. I have tried Solaris several times, and failed. One might say Linux is "easier" to install, but that doesn't quite capture the user hostile environment that is Solaris. ;)

As always, to those who are comfortable with Solaris, have at it. If you can get work done with it, more power to you. The steady, downward trend in Solaris deployments (from the article) is not a good sign. Version 10 did nothing to reverse it, and so far the attempts to build an open source community around it haven't either. There isn't much time left to turn things around.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Offensive
by sultanqasim on Thu 25th Sep 2008 00:59 in reply to "RE: Offensive"
sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

You have some points but IMHO, the biggest problem facing Solaris is simply that it's user base is too small and it's users are too dull to push it. I must admit, Solaris is not the easiest to manage (I must admit it can be very frustrating at times) but things are improving thanks to initiatives like project indiana. It's hardly what you'd call a "dead" OS.

Also, I didn't find ZFS to be a resource hog and it's reliability & speed are unmatched and if only it was better understood, it'll be the next must-have for many desktop users.*

*Must-haves are things where you were living fine without it for the past x years but as soon as something new comes out, you can't survive without it (or at least think you can't)

P.S. - The reason I was offended was because one of the world's most advanced operating systems was called dead and it's world class features were dismissed as minor. If you developed Solaris (I don't but suppose you did), how would you feel if someone said that about the project that you have put so much hard work into?

Edited 2008-09-25 01:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: Offensive
by rhavenn on Thu 25th Sep 2008 05:37 in reply to "RE: Offensive"
rhavenn Member since:
2006-05-12


I'll pick ZFS as an example to challenge. It's a memory hog. It's a CPU hog. It has no place on any of the machines in my house, which all run ext3 reliably and nicely. Where might it be useful?


You don't happen to be running ZFS with FUSE so it runs in user land are you? Perhaps if Linux wasn't so antagonistic to anything none-GPL then perhaps they could include it in the kernel. Performance would increase dramatically.

ZFS is awesome for data centers, file repositories and server farms. It provides redundancy and load balancing with absolute ease.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Offensive
by jptros on Thu 25th Sep 2008 12:54 in reply to "RE: Offensive"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

Version 10 did nothing to reverse it, and so far the attempts to build an open source community around it haven't either.

Well following the discussion lists for project indiana would lead you to believe something different. There are quite a few people interested in it and there is a lot of activity in the development of indiana. It's still new and it has a ways to go, that's a given. Linux didn't develop the massive community it has in 5 months (the first official release of indiana was in may this year).

There isn't much time left to turn things around.

I disagree, there is nothing but time and indiana already has a group of strong willed individuals dedicated to investing theirs in the project.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Offensive
by tyrione on Mon 29th Sep 2008 07:03 in reply to "RE: Offensive"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Keep saying ZFS is a memory/resource hog when OS X 10.6 is released. Then you'll bitch about something else.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Offensive
by segedunum on Thu 25th Sep 2008 10:35 in reply to "Offensive"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I find Zemlin's statements to be offensive and untrue. It is true that Linux is gaining popularity but that doesn't mean that Solaris is dead.

Why? This has been on the cards for years, and it has even been obvious to some of us since the mid-nineties. Sun absolutely steadfastly refused, along with other Unix vendors, to put Solaris on to x86 and commodity hardware, get economies of scale from open source development and allow its usage to sky rocket. Nothing will change that now, and it is too little ten years too late. IBM pushed AIX into a reasonable niche, but even that will get squeezed as the years roll by.

Dismissing ZFS and DTrace as "minor features" just points to his lack of understanding - they are huge.

Lots of people want to think that's true, but it's not. What you need are applications, as Microsoft well knows, and all the open source applications and lots of proprietary ones now are written for Linux and the toolchain used there first.

Application availability is still a major complaint of Linux versus Windows, so I really don't know how Sun will improve that situation for Solaris.

ZFS is far superior to ext3 in almost any way thinkable and features futuristic technology while ext3 is very outdated and basic in comparison.

People do not use operating system because of a filesystem sadly, but Sun has had that attitude for quite a long time now, and it's a bit sad. "How can you not use a real Unix like Solaris! It has [insert new technology here]"

DTrace is a huge help to developers who actually use it. Solaris is also incredibly reliable.

DTrace is moderately nice, but again, I want applications when I choose a system to use. I'm not going to use Solaris because it has something I can use to probe the system when something goes wrong.

Telling us that Solaris is incredibly reliable is the same sad refrain that Sun's consultants have been telling people ever since Linux came on the scene. By what metric? Linux systems have proven themselves to be exceptionally reliable themselves over the years, and saying that to someone now means zilch.

Solaris, BSD and other open-source UNIX-like OSes still have their places.

Well, yes they do, but BSD usage is higher in the open source world than Solaris. Sun has OpenSolaris competing for attention on many fronts, and they have just started. Additionally, an open source community for Solaris is quite essential for Sun now if they want to keep Solaris commercially viable for themselves, but it should have happened ten years ago.

Edited 2008-09-25 10:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Offensive
by fithisux on Thu 25th Sep 2008 10:58 in reply to "Offensive"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

The future is Linux/Unix and Syllable/Haiku. no place for MS or Apple. P.E.R.I.O.D.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Offensive - as an avid Linux based OS user
by jabbotts on Thu 25th Sep 2008 16:20 in reply to "Offensive"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I wasn't outright offended. I just simply don't agree that any competing OS should simply give up. If other OS simply stop development, the only motivation for Linux based OS to continue evolving is competition between various distributions. Besides, we've already seen what happens when a single OS dictates the futures of other platforms in ways not related to it's own competitive product quality.

What I want is for Solaris to remain in development. OpenVMS, OpenSolaris, The BSDs.. bring 'em all on.. heck.. if I can have my copy of OpenWindows waiting for me when I get back from my ski vacation in Club Haides, I'll cut a VM and install it too. If any of them prove to fit my needs better than my current platform, I'll change host OS and continue on with my humble VM'd OS client collection.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Offensive
by deb2006 on Sat 27th Sep 2008 18:56 in reply to "Offensive"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

I find Zemlin's statements to be offensive and untrue. It is true that Linux is gaining popularity but that doesn't mean that Solaris is dead. Dismissing ZFS and DTrace as "minor features" just points to his lack of understanding - they are huge. ZFS is far superior to ext3 in almost any way thinkable and features futuristic technology while ext3 is very outdated and basic in comparison. DTrace is a huge help to developers who actually use it. Solaris is also incredibly reliable.

Linux has it's adantages (larger user base, easier to install & set up, slightly larger base of software available) but Solaris, BSD and other open-source UNIX-like OSes still have their places.


Nope. It's neither untrue nor offensive. It's simply the world as it is. ext3 is _one_ file system for Linux - which you'd certainly not compare to zfs. But comparing xfs and lvm with zfs is a completely different thing. See.

"Solaris is incredible reliable". Yes, sir. My Debian installation is also incredible reliable ...

What is the place for OpenSolaris then? I fail to see it. Please explain. (Don't get me wrong: zfs and dtrace are great - but simply not enough. It's the whole picture thar counts. And in that matter there is a crystal clear advantage for Linux ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Offensive
by Kebabbert on Sun 28th Sep 2008 08:51 in reply to "RE: Offensive"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Yes, you should not compare LVM + XFS to ZFS indeed. Ive heard horrendous stories. To create a raid with LVM takes like 20-30 commands with complex syntax. In ZFS you write one command, and you are off. No formatting that takes hours. Just start to use ZFS right away. Unless you have tried ZFS, you wouldnt know why the hype.




Linux beeing stable, yes it is easy to get it stable when we are talking about small installations and home use. Heck, even Windows will do for small installations. When you have complex things, then Linux will not cut it. As proved by some of the links Ive provided above. It is like "why mainframe? My Windows installation hasnt crashed once!" - Well, for large complex setups, Windows will not scale nor perform well. Nor Linux.
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,s...






Also, I dont see why you Linux people are always _attacking_ others? Why so offensive? Why is it right to flame and humiliate others? Is it because of Linus Torvalds is leading the way? Linus said something like "Ive scared away all normal developers, and now the only developers that are left also thinks it is ok to insult other people. :o)". If you can not get people to do what you want, without insulting or fighting, then you are hardly empathic. But Linus has never been famous for being empathic and nice, he is often involved in flame wars, with Tanenbaum, OpenBSD, Solaris, etc.

Also, I dont get why Linus with his big ego ("I am your God" - speach on a linux conference) states that someone else called HIS creation for "Linux"? You know, If I had hacked on a project for a long time and were in charge, I would never allow someone else to name that project. That project is mine. Conclusion: Linus would not let someone randomly name his project. Stallman said: "well, I am not the one who is calling GNU for Stallmanix" - implying that Linux has big ego. Linus is calling it Linux. Not someone else. Linus would never allow someone to name his project. But that is in line with someone opens a Linux conference with "I am you God". Arrogant to some. Others who like to follow, might like it.

So, the Linux camp: why attack Solaris all the time? If you are threatened by Solaris (but want it's technology), you really dont have to attack. It is not the right way to get it's hot technology. Why not let Solaris be? Why are you being such a great pr*cks all the time? Why is it ok to bully others? Can someone explain the Linux culture of attacking people and companies and OS? Is it because of Linus Torvalds?






Stating that Linux scales badly above 4-8 cpu was not really correct maybe. It is better to state that Linux doesnt scale well above 16 cores:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8769
Unless you do scientic number crunching, then there is a special Linux kernel tailored to that, allowing massively many CPUs, but it can do nothing else than that.


I dont know if you have seen what Andrew Morton says about Linux kernel? It is really buggy (beyond repair?)
http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/


Of course, there are links that showing to migrate from Solaris to Linux is better. But for instance this link, I think doesnt tell the whole picture:
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,s...
If you migrated old Solaris 8 Sparc machines to new Solaris 10 machines then you would also see a big performance boost. Possibly even more a boost than going to RHEL as this link shows (Solaris on T1 Niagara CPU being 50 times faster than Linux on AMD opteron):

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,s...

Edited 2008-09-28 09:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1