Linked by David Adams on Fri 16th Jul 2010 19:44 UTC, submitted by sjvn
A Computerworld blog speculates that the open-source Unix distribution may live on, but Oracle won't be supporting it. At this point, "OpenSolaris' only real future is as a fork, which would not be easy to pull off. Still, with enough interest from developers it could be done. OpenSolaris is licensed under the 
Thread beginning with comment 433964
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: solaris will be server only i think
by nt_jerkface on Mon 19th Jul 2010 05:38
in reply to "RE[6]: solaris will be server only i think"
Member since:2009-08-26
Hm? I didnt understand this one. OpenSolaris is like Fedora and Solaris 10 is like RedHat. OpenSolaris gets all new tech first, and then it is backported to Solaris. For instance, ZFS came first to OpenSolaris: just read wikipedia article on ZFS. So OpenSolaris code is the basis for Solaris 11. OpenSolaris contains all new tech. If it is scrapped, then all development on Solaris 11 has to start anew, from scratch. Highly unlikely.
ZFS was integrated into Solaris first but released publicly in OpenSolaris.
Solaris doesn't need OpenSolaris to progress, especially when all the work of OpenSolaris was performed by Sun employees. How ever did Solaris progress before the advent of OpenSolaris? Oh that's right, with paychecks to engineers.
OpenSolaris/Solaris on x86 is a dead end. Big iron is a shrinking market thanks to cpus like the Xeon 7500.
Sun waited too long to move against Linux. The technical advantages of Solaris aren't significant enough to counter the inertia behind Linux. Sun acted arrogantly by being dismissive of Linux during the late 90's and has paid for that arrogance with the Oracle takeover.
RE[8]: solaris will be server only i think
by Kebabbert on Mon 19th Jul 2010 09:04
in reply to "RE[7]: solaris will be server only i think"
Member since:2007-07-27
ZFS was integrated into Solaris first but released publicly in OpenSolaris.
Jesus. Not this one again. I have explained to you several times that ZFS came not to Solaris first. It is all written on wikipedia article, the same one you linked to. Yes, the same one.
Let us straighten this one out, so you stop spreading FUD and lies, ok? Read the wikipedia article and then come back and stop lie about ZFS and Solaris, ok? It is getting tiresome. You are just repeating the same old stuff all the time. Ok to repeat if you where true, but it is not. It is false. And I have told you are wrong, so either you are deliberately lying, or you just dont understand text. Or, just FUDing.
Solaris doesn't need OpenSolaris to progress,
Oh, no. Not this one also. Look. All new tech goes first into OpenSolaris, and then backported to Solaris. Solaris is the stable enterprise OS. You can not include new tech into a stable OS. First you introduce the tech into the beta OpenSolaris. And then backport it when most of the bugs are ironed out. Jesus.
OpenSolaris/Solaris on x86 is a dead end.
So, you say that Solaris on SPARC is the future? I dont agree with you again. x86 is developing faster than x86, so I think that x86 is the future. Not a dead end.
Big iron is a shrinking market thanks to cpus like the Xeon 7500.
This one, I agree with you. But x86 is far behind yet. But it is catching up. The question is if it ever will catch up? x86 is too buggy and bloated so will it ever be as reliable as SPARC or POWER? Some says no. x86 is broken by design. But truth is that x86 is developing faster than any other CPU.
Sun waited too long to move against Linux. The technical advantages of Solaris aren't significant enough to counter the inertia behind Linux. Sun acted arrogantly by being dismissive of Linux during the late 90's and has paid for that arrogance with the Oracle takeover.
You have lot of opinions. Anyone is free to have opinions. I would like it better if you backed up your opinions with somewhat credible links.
And please, stop lie. Ok?
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about why OSNews was no longer OSNews: the alternative operating system scene had died, and OSNews, too, had to go with the times and move towards reporting on a new wave of operating systems - mobile, and all the repercussions that the explosion of smartphones and tablets have caused. Still, I was wondering something today: why aren't we seeing alternative operating systems on mobile?More Features »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2007-07-27
Yes, but there are some companies where the business are more worth than a few million USD. For some companies, that handle billions of USD, reliablity and such are far more important. If the business go down, they loose millions each hour. Then you need the most stable OS out there and price is secondary. Solaris.
What do mean with "credible as other links"? Which of my links do you think are false or propaganda? Regarding, "Solaris achieves 99% cpu utilization on slower hardware and Linux achieves 87% cpu utilization", here are the official white papers from SAP:
http://download.sap.com/download.epd?context=40E2D9D5E00EEF7CCDB058...
http://download.sap.com/download.epd?context=B1FEF26EB0CC34664FC7E8...
Yes? I linked to HP advertising that confirms what I say: HP claims that Linux is for lowend and HP-UX for highend. Just read it yourself in the link. HP says so. I do not make it up. I am correct on this, too.
This one made me smile a bit, actually. Look. Enterprise means not that you must have much features. It means long term stability and support. No downtime. And HP-UX is regarded as a very stable OS, in the Enterprise server halls. Jesus, dont you know that? It is like you claim "Mainframes are mediocre because they dont have new features such as compiz, iTunes, etc". But you can not take your desktop preference into the Enterprise server halls. There are other rules there. For instance, you need hardware that have much redundancy and fail checks. Which what you call "crappy" hardware have. For instance, if a cpu instruction was errorneous, SPARC cpus and Mainframe CPUs can rollback and replay that instruction.
Yes, I know that desktop users focus on high cpu performance and many FPS in Crysis, but Enterprise is a different thing. Most of the time, you dont need extreme cpu performance, but you need reliability. If your server handle billions of USD, you need to do it reliable, not fast and unreliable. Most modern cpus are powerful enough to do all business work load, you dont need highly overclocked cpus at 7GHz which reaches many many FPS in crysis. Jesus. You have absolutely no clue about Enterprise server halls?
Hm? I didnt understand this one. OpenSolaris is like Fedora and Solaris 10 is like RedHat. OpenSolaris gets all new tech first, and then it is backported to Solaris. For instance, ZFS came first to OpenSolaris: just read wikipedia article on ZFS. So OpenSolaris code is the basis for Solaris 11. OpenSolaris contains all new tech. If it is scrapped, then all development on Solaris 11 has to start anew, from scratch. Highly unlikely.
Regarding OpenAIX, do you mean that IBM puts all new tech into OpenAIX first, and then backports it to AIX and even bases new AIX versions on OpenAIX? Or what do you mean?
Maybe you should read my link. On the link there is a photo of some text that Linux kernel devs have written. One of them writes that Systemtap is crap in comparison with DTrace. Do you mean the Sun employee have made up the photo of the text?
Wow! I didnt knew that. What things would that be? Tell us. Or are you just making this up?
Even IBM has copied DTrace, and it is called ProbeVue in AIX. Everyone copies Solaris tech.
Ehrm. No. Wrong again. ZFS has also lots of bugs and issues, havent you seen the ZFS mail lists? If you want, you can examine the ZFS code yourself, it is available. But there are no discussions of "broken design" as BTRFS is subject to. See below.
But the thing is, ZFS exists today, it is run in the Enterprise server halls. BTRFS is a prototype of a ZFS wannabe. A lesser copy. When a filesystem is released, it takes at least 5 years before you can start to trust it. When BTRFS is released as 1.0, it will take another five years before it is let into the server halls. But you know, ZFS development will not stop. When BTRFS is released, ZFS will have tons of new features that BTRFS does not have.
The another "Sunshiner" is actually a RedHat developer that was asked to evaluate BTRFS for Enterprise use by a RedHat customer. Here is his verdict: (do you also claim I made this link up, too? It is also false Sun propaganda?)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/18/144
"In the meanwhile I confirm that Btrfs design is completely broken: records stored in the B-tree differ greatly from each other (it is unacceptable!), and the balancing algorithms have been modified in insane manner. All these factors has led to loss of *all* boundaries holding internal fragmentation and to exhaustive waste of disk space (and memory!) in spite of the property "scaling in their ability to address large storage".
...
It seems that nobody have reviewed Btrfs before its inclusion to the mainline. I have only found a pair of recommendations with a common idea that Btrfs maintainer is "not a crazy man". Plus a number of papers which admire with the "Btrfs phenomena". Sigh.
...
The first obvious point here is that we *can not* put such file system to production."
Ok, if you say so, then it must be true. I will try to get over it. But apparently some Linux devs disagrees.