Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 21:06 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Linux Systemtap 1.0 has been released. There are a few features for this release, like experimental support for unprivileged users, cross-compiling for foreign architectures, matching C++ class and namespace scopes, reduced runtime memory consumption, but more importantly, this release means that Systemtap is finally considered stable and ready for user adoption.
Thread beginning with comment 386426
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: DTrace copy cat
by Robert Escue on Sat 26th Sep 2009 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: DTrace copy cat"
Robert Escue
Member since:
2005-07-08

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine. I don't see the "innovation" in Linux and I have used it on and off for over 13 years. In many ways Linux either mimics or copies what the mainstream UNIX variants have done for years. And yes, I see Systemtap as a copy of DTrace.

This is wasting my time and getting very old. It is obvious I am not the only one who feels the way I do, otherwise Kebabbert's comment would not be modded up to where it is. The difference is I am willing to say something and not just mod a comment up.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: DTrace copy cat
by sbergman27 on Sun 27th Sep 2009 16:05 in reply to "RE[6]: DTrace copy cat"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I don't see the "innovation" in Linux

I'm really tired, having just finished driving 20 hours straight, or I'd post something eloquent, or dredge up a permalink. But you can probably google:

site:osnews.com sbergman "the i word"

or some such, to get my views on the relationship and relative value of selective incorporation of elsewhere developed features and the "i" word.

I'm not doubting Sun's ability to "i". But without agreeing with your claim than Linux doesn't "i"... once the idea is out and proven... does it matter that much? Unless they are willing to attack OSS projects with patents. (Of course, there is a time element you could bring up, here, if you were so inclined.)

At any rate, I think what I am hearing is that you need the features of ZFS more than the application and driver compatibility, and mind-share of Linux. And I know that I most certainly need the application and driver compatibility, and mindshare of Linux more than I need ZFS. Which is fine. And it is far more than a different opinion. It is a different area of application.

We all tend to see our areas of application as most important. And there is nothing particularly wrong with that. It's human nature. And face it. What is important to you is rightly more important to you the things which are equally important to me.

I think our common ground would be that both platforms benefit when one platform can fill an application area that the other might lose to a... well, let's just say to a platform that we both would rather not see fill it. ;-)

Edited 2009-09-27 16:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2