Oracle Buys Sun Microsystems
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Apr 2009 11:53 UTC, submitted by tsedlmeyer
Oracle and SUN We've been debating the merits of a possible IBM-Sun deal for a while now, and even Sun itself seemed to be in the dark as to if it would be a good idea to be bought by IBM. These debates are now all moot: in a surprise move (at least, I didn't see any speculation about it) Oracle has bought Sun Microsystems, at USD 9.50 a share, which equates to a total of 7.4 billion USD. The news got out through a press release.
E-mail Print r 11   · Read More · 122 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ggq
Thread beginning with comment 359530
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: good for solaris
by Kebabbert on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: good for solaris "
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

SEGEDUNUM
You know, Solaris code is out there for me to see if I want to. On the mail list there are discussions about Solaris bugs. The bugs are not hidden to the public. Why do you imply that?

And for Linux having lots bugs in the drivers, but not in the kernel. Why do YOU ask me to back my statements up? Tell me, when did you back any statement up? You never did. Ive asked you numerous times.

You just state stupid things, such as a supercomputer and an server are used identically. Ive tried to explain to you that a supercomputer is differently constructed than a server, but you dont listen. Instead you keep reiterate it. Can you back that up, that Supercomputers are used just as an ordinary server? (Ive showed you wikipedia that says that supercomputers behave very differently from an ordinary server, but you ignored my links). So please, back any of your stupid links up. You can not blame me for not backing anything up, while never backing anything up yourself. Ive always provide links in my posts, you know that.




http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Active_Merge_Windows
"The [linux source code] tree breaks every day, and it's becomming an extremely non-fun environment to work in.

We need to slow down the merging, we need to review things more, we need people to test their f--king changes!"

And hackers below agree on this, whereas Linus Torvalds says in the discussion there will always be bugs in Linux. There is no testing. (In Solaris there are lots of testing).

Have you heard about the Linux shit list? The quality detoriated so much, drastic steps had to be taken. There is a shit-list for Linux kernel developers contributing bad code. Rafael Wysocki maintains the shit list.

The Linux code is really buggy and not tested. It is over 10 million lines of code. ONE KERNEL. You know, entire Windows NT was 10 million lines. You have seen my links, proving Linux scales bad, sucks as a file server, has bad uptime, buggy code, etc. Ive provided links for every claim. And still you ignore them, while you have never even once provided one link, despite me asking you many many many many many many times.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: good for solaris
by akrosdbay on Mon 20th Apr 2009 17:05 in reply to "RE[6]: good for solaris "
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

SEGEDUNUM
You know, Solaris code is out there for me to see if I want to. On the mail list there are discussions about Solaris bugs. The bugs are not hidden to the public. Why do you imply that?


Linux zealot with blinders on... what do you expect? A well reasoned balanced argument..

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: good for solaris
by dizzey on Mon 20th Apr 2009 18:51 in reply to "RE[6]: good for solaris "
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

You are right that he should provide links to backup his examples.

and that you have provided links to each one of your statements in the past.

the only problem is that i have yet to find one link of those you posted that actually are backing up your statements.

you make the statement Linux is bad for file servers.
And the article that you link to is "linux is bad for file servers if you wish to have a single volume larger than 100tb"

which are to completely different statements.
since you know not that many file servers run single volume file systems of 100tb+.

yes linux is not the best solution for everything, but guess what neither is solaris aix or anything else there is no golden ticket for achieving everything.

please read though the articles that you use to backup your statments since i have yet to find a article that you have linked to that have made the same statment that you have.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: good for solaris
by Kebabbert on Mon 20th Apr 2009 19:32 in reply to "RE[7]: good for solaris "
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

I dont agree with you. I think I have backed up my claims with relevant links.

If I state that Linux is unstable, what do I mean then? Do I mean that Linux is unstable for my desktop usage? Of course not. For desktop usage Linux is fine, Ive never seen Linux crash. I am talking about big installations.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

If I say Linux does not scale vertically, do I mean it does not scale on my quad core CPU? Of course not. Linux utilizes my 4 cores very well (I believe). I am talking about many hundreds of cpus.

If I say Linux sucks as a file server, do I mean for serving 1-2 client computers then? Of course not.

If you say Windows does not scale, does it not scale on your desktop? Of course it scales on your desktop PC. You talk about large computers.

Even Windows suffices for personal use. In fact, with SP3 Windows XP is quite stable. But I would lie if I said WinXP is good for large computers, because I myself has not crashed WinXP for a long time.

So if I provide links of WinXP crashes a lot on large computers, are those links not relevant then? Am I lying then??

I do not agree with you. I have provided relevant links. For personal desktop use, any OS will do including Windows. But that is not interesting, the large demanding installations are the interesting ones.

Edited 2009-04-20 19:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >
RE[7]: good for solaris
by segedunum on Tue 21st Apr 2009 00:18 in reply to "RE[6]: good for solaris "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You know, Solaris code is out there for me to see if I want to. On the mail list there are discussions about Solaris bugs. The bugs are not hidden to the public. Why do you imply that?

That's not what I said, but then, you can't read. I get that. I want to know where the central repository is for OpenSolaris that will form Sun's next release and how people external to Sun can commit to it and how people can bootstrap an alternative. After all these years there is no such thing.

You just state stupid things, such as a supercomputer and an server are used identically

No I didn't.

You made that statement yourself about 'supercomputers' because you were show up to be be a stupid twit. Apparently, Linux couldn't scale beyond 32 or 64 CPU systems, you were shown to be totally and utterly wrong and then you made a 'supercomputer' distinction because you realised how wrong you were. Somehow, all of the Linux systems running 32, 64, 512 or 1024 CPUs were all supercomputers and didn't count. Bollocks. The issue was scalability and you were wrong on all counts. Did I say the word 'wrong' enough?

You have some serious issues mate. Mind you, I've seen many people have the love-in that you do with Sun and it's impossible for them to accept.

Ive tried to explain to you that a supercomputer is differently constructed than a server, but you dont listen.

Meanwhile Linux still scales beyond Solaris.

http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Active_Merge_Windows
"The [linux source code] tree breaks every day, and it's becomming an extremely non-fun environment to work in.

Newsflash: Open source, bleeding edge development breaks every day! Come back and tell me when Solaris does development in the open like that.

And hackers below agree on this, whereas Linus Torvalds says in the discussion there will always be bugs in Linux.

There will be bugs in everything. I can tell you this much, there are bugs in Solaris and there is stuff that hasn't been maintained for years. Tell us something we don't know.

There is no testing. (In Solaris there are lots of testing).

There is testing. It's called iterative improvement and it's why Linux has far wider hardware support than Solaris and it has equivalent device drivers that actually work, as opposed to learning that your IDE drivers are shit because ZFS detected some corruption.

Have you heard about the Linux shit list? The quality detoriated so much, drastic steps had to be taken.

Yep, that's iterative development. It would be nice if we knew that Sun had something internal like that for Solaris because a lot of stuff hasn't been touched since the nineties.

You have seen my links, proving Linux scales bad, sucks as a file server, has bad uptime, buggy code, etc. Ive provided links for every claim.

You mean the ones where you have been shown to be wrong and where you have mental issues where you are shown to be wrong?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: good for solaris
by akrosdbay on Tue 21st Apr 2009 00:23 in reply to "RE[7]: good for solaris "
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09


That's not what I said, but then, you can't read. I get that. I want to know where the central repository is for OpenSolaris that will form Sun's next release and how people external to Sun can commit to it and how people can bootstrap an alternative. After all these years there is no such thing.


If you pulled your head out of where ever it is right now, the answer is simple. I posted it below.

Of course being a linux zealot it is far easier for you to harp on about something that is entirely in your wrapped sense of reality. Instead of looking at the real world.

Belenix and Nexenta are already making alternative distributions.. I wonder how they are doing that... must be magic.

Edited 2009-04-21 00:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[8]: good for solaris
by Kebabbert on Tue 21st Apr 2009 10:51 in reply to "RE[7]: good for solaris "
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"You just state stupid things, such as a supercomputer and an server are used identically

No I didn't.

You made that statement yourself about 'supercomputers' because you were show up to be be a stupid twit. "




In thread http://www.osnews.com/thread?354450 you wrote:

"A server and supercomputer are two very diferent things.

No they're not. You wanted to try and throw a blanket statement over Linux's scalability and you've been shown to be wrong. "
Here you state that there is no difference between a supercomputer and a server.

And then I quoted wikipedia, to show you that a Supercomputer and a server are very different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer
"They [supercomputers] tend to be specialized for certain types of computation, usually numerical calculations, and perform poorly at more general computing tasks.
...
Their I/O systems tend to be designed to support high bandwidth, with latency less of an issue, because supercomputers are not used for transaction processing.
...
most modern supercomputers are now highly-tuned computer clusters using commodity processors combined with custom interconnects."


To that you said:

He then proceeded to cover his backside by trying to imply that the issues involved in scaling SMP in a 'supercomputer' and an 'ordinary computer' were somehow different. They're not, and you've offered no evidence as to where they are different.


Again you state that there is no difference between a supercomputer and a server. Why are you denying you said there is not difference between a supercomputer and a server? You stated it twice.





Regarding Linux scalability, you wrote
"Besides, there are plenty of 'ordinary servers' doing menial tasks on 32 or 64 way hardware running Linux. Either way, you're talking crap.


Could you show me some links on this? "
And you have not showed me the links yet. Why do you state things without being able to back them up? Are you deliberately lying or are you uneducated? Dont you know that if you state things you have prove your claims. Havent you been in academia?

To your claims I only say; LIAR. You should back up your claims, Ive requested this many many many many many times, and you have never done that. It must mean you are lying, yes?

So Mr LIAR, do us a favor and stop post here as you lie so much - otherwise why have you never backed up any claim? Ive always done that as Ive been in academia as a mathematician.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: good for solaris
by segedunum on Tue 21st Apr 2009 17:17 in reply to "RE[7]: good for solaris "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

"http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Active_Merge_Windows
"The [linux source code] tree breaks every day, and it's becomming an extremely non-fun environment to work in.

Newsflash: Open source, bleeding edge development breaks every day! Come back and tell me when Solaris does development in the open like that. "
In addition, I should also point out that this is unstable development within the kernel between releases. There is yet another layer of testing and fixing beyond that that distributors do, so the chances of this rant affecting users is pretty small - unless they want to go on the bleeding edge.

Reply Parent Score: 2