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 331367
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Offensive
by sultanqasim on Thu 25th Sep 2008 00:59 UTC 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[4]: Offensive
by Kebabbert on Fri 26th Sep 2008 07:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Offensive"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"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?"

I used to run a ZFS raid on a P4@2.4GHz and 1GB RAM. It worked fine during a year. The problem was that I got like 20-30MB/sec transfer speed. But that is due to 32bit CPU. ZFS is 128 bit and likes 64 bit CPU. On 64bit with many drives, you can reach 5-600MB/sec at best. On a typical home server you can reach 120MB/sec:

http://blogs.sun.com/barts/entry/new_home_server#comments





ZFS likes to cache things up, that is the reason it uses all avaiable RAM for cache. ZFS gives back the RAM when asked for, but if no one is using the RAM, ZFS will use all RAM it can grab. Remember, ZFS is an ENTERPRISE server file system. RAM is of concern there. But ZFS works great with 1 GB RAM, as I can testify.


Now, why would anyone use ZFS on the desktop? Well, because of one thing: data integrity. All filesystems relies on the underlying hardware for error detection and correction. But what if the hardware is faulty (a short current spike, cosmic radiation, faulty power supply, over clocked RAM, etc)? Then you are smoked. The bits in RAM will flip on their way to the hard disc. But ZFS detects the flipped bits (in RAM or on the hard drive) and _guarantees_ that the RAM or hard drive is intact with no changes. ZFS ASSUMES that the hardware is unreliable and can deal with all these problems and correct them too. There are problems that ZFS can solve, which no hardware raid can solve. I trust more in ZFS than in hardware raid. My friend which is CIO told me about several occasions where their hardware raid got broke, because the card's BIOS was buggy!

Conclusion; if you value your data, you use ZFS. If not, you dont have to use ZFS.

Here is a long article of a Linux guy who tries out ZFS for home use and loves it. Very informative:

http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/




Here is a discussion of future file systems and the directions. And what problems they have to solve in future. And how ZFS have solved the problems.

http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=50...

Edited 2008-09-26 08:07 UTC

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