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 331363
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Offensive
by Peter Besenbruch on Thu 25th Sep 2008 00:32 UTC 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 ZFS is far superior to ext3 in almost any way thinkable and features futuristic technology while ext3 is very outdated and basic in comparison.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[3]: Offensive
by Peter Besenbruch on Thu 25th Sep 2008 20:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Offensive"
Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

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.

I keep reading that ZFS requires at least another gig to function, as compared to a non-ZFS system. Add to that the extra CPU cycles to manage the thing, and yes, it is a resource hog.

I wonder what use ZFS would have for a desktop? I realize it has some cool features, but what advantage are they on a desktop?

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.

I know that's why you were offended, but there are two things to remember:

1) Such statements pale before the truly offensive, such as white supremacy rantings, or even the dirty tricks that go on in political campaigns. This stuff is penny ante.

2) Welcome to computers, where superior technology loses all the time to inferior technology. There are all sorts of reasons for why this happens, but in the end it's a fact of life.

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?

No, I haven't developed for Solaris, but my advice for those who have mirrors that for its users: Use it and enjoy. If the OS comes back, great. If it fades away, at least some people will have gotten some use out of it.

I'll give this to Sun: They may have fought Windows, Linux, and the x86 architecture for longer than was prudent, but they ended up making use of all three. It's that flexibility that may save them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Offensive
by bnolsen on Sun 28th Sep 2008 04:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Offensive"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

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?


Because any developer who isn't an egotistical idiot knows that code in general sucks, especially his own code.

As stated before, solaris has 2 major strikes against it: smaller user base and control by a single company who is likely being generous only as long as it has a smaller user base.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[3]: Offensive
by lord-storm on Thu 25th Sep 2008 06:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Offensive"
lord-storm Member since:
2005-07-12

"
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.
"

No he is running solaris maybe on a old system maybe 32bit? Oh thats right SUN has had 64bit for the last ten years... So maybe old code isnt that great ZFS shouldnt work in 32bit in my opinion it should probably be run on 128bit procs that haven't been developed yet (since its a 128bit filesystem)

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE[3]: Offensive
by Windows Sucks on Thu 25th Sep 2008 07:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Offensive"
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