Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris Due to me not working for OSNews these past eight weeks, I've been a bit out of the loop, as I didn't really follow technology news. I did notice that a lot is going on in OpenSolaris land, and today, Oracle has outlined what it has planned for Solaris 11 - and according to some, the fears about OpenSolaris' future were justified.
Thread beginning with comment 436575
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not surprised...
by gnufreex on Fri 13th Aug 2010 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not surprised..."
gnufreex
Member since:
2010-05-06

That is BS. Nobody wants to be locked in, but sometimes companies will reluctantly chose lock in due to lack of better choice.

The thing is, Solaris now doesn't lot of things better than GNU/Linux, and year from now, it will be behind.

Other thing, Soalris 11 will have huge price tag and only way to get expertise is Oracle university, which is not exactly cheap.

On the other side, there are free distros like Ubuntu, CentOS and Debian GNU/Linux, and every kid can learn that and grow up by using it. Then, getting RHCE is walk in the park.

Solaris is sliding at inevitable death by obscurity.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Not surprised...
by Kebabbert on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Not surprised..."
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

That is BS.

Agreed your post is BS.


The thing is, Solaris now doesn't lot of things better than GNU/Linux, and year from now, it will be behind.

Wrong. Solaris does a lot of stuff better than Linux. Have you heard about ZFS? DTrace? ABI stability? etc etc etc


Other thing, Soalris 11 will have huge price tag and only way to get expertise is Oracle university, which is not exactly cheap.

Why do you say S11 will have a huge price tag? It seems that Solaris 10 is free to run for non commercial use.


On the other side, there are free distros like Ubuntu, CentOS and Debian GNU/Linux, and every kid can learn that and grow up by using it. Then, getting RHCE is walk in the park.

And the step to Solaris is quite small, too. There are several Linux companies that switch to Solaris because of limitations and bugs in Linux.

http://blogs.digitar.com/jjww/2008/04/democratizing-storage/

http://lethargy.org/~jesus/writes/choosing-solaris-10-over-linux



And also, the Linux kernel devs say Linux has bad code. Didnt you know? I dont see how bad quality code will catch up technically with Solaris. Maybe market share, yes. But not technically. It will not happen. BTRFS is a prototype. According to blog from august 2010, it is only two full time paid Oracle developers working on BTRFS. Oracle seems to not be serious with BTRFS? Where is the large dedicated BTRFS team with lots of resources? There are none? There is instead an ZFS team, that sells machines today? Ok. Then maybe Oracle should kill off BTRFS?








Linux Kernel dev David Miller:
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!"





Andrew Morton:
http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/

Q: Is it your opinion that the quality of the kernel is in decline? Most developers seem to be pretty sanguine about the overall quality problem...

A: I used to think it was in decline, and I think that I might think that it still is. I see so many regressions which we never fix.




And Dave Jones
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
"Last year Dave Jones told everyone that the kernel was going to pieces, with loads of bugs being found and no end in sight."




Maybe you have missed the discussion where Alan Cox quits as a developer because Alan argues that the Linux regressions should be fixed correctly, which may break user applications? And Linus says that if user applications breaks, then you should not fix that Kernel issue correctly. Instead you should preserve the old behavior so user apps doesnt break. Alan complains on the Linux bugs, Linus says he shouldnt mind them.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/24/182

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/28/375

"Quite frankly, I don't understand why I should even have to bring these issues up. You should have tried to fix the problem immediately, without arguing against fixing the kernel. Without blaming user space. Without making idiotic excuses for bad kernel behavior.

The fact is, breaking regular user applications is simply not acceptable. Trying to blame kernel breakage on the app being "buggy" is not ok. And arguing for almost a week against fixing it - that's just crazy.
Linus"




And Linus T says something like "Linux is bloated", "The I/O foot print is scary". etc.




And of course, it is much easier to find non-linux users that talk about the bad code of Linux. For instance FreeBSD programmer Theo de Raadt

http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
"[Linux is] terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"


Another CEO for a software company:
"You know what I found? Right in the [Linux] kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."



So... "Solaris now doesn't lot of things better than GNU/Linux, and year from now, it will be behind"? You really believe it, yes? :o)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Not surprised...
by gnufreex on Fri 13th Aug 2010 13:03 in reply to "RE[5]: Not surprised..."
gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

You are wrong about everything, but I don't know if I have time to refute everything. thare is a lot of nonsense in your post.

Why do you say S11 will have a huge price tag? It seems that Solaris 10 is free to run for non commercial use.

Solaris 10 if free to use for 90 days. Affter that, pay to Larry or loose it. You obviously missed the news.

And the step to Solaris is quite small, too. There are several Linux companies that switch to Solaris because of limitations and bugs in Linux.

Again, yum missed the news. OpenSolaris is not a viable choice anymore. It is now updated for more than a year and it will never be updated. And only ILL LOONS would use ILLUNOS in production. It will probably be incompatible with Solaris. For Solaris, you have to pay up license and maintenance contract. Or reinstall every 90 days.

Wrt Theo Theo de Raadt: He is not, and never was, a FreeBSD developer. He is resident troll of OpenBSD mailing list and before that, he worked on NetBSD until they kicked him out because of his inappropriate behavior and trollish nature. Here is the announcement
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/1994/12/23/0000.html
If you listen to him, I fear you are no better than him. He is just buthurted because nobody cares about OpenBSD.

Wrt kernel developers: That is called OPEN AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT. Something that Sun never had, so you don't know how it looks. Sun was always hushed their devs from talking about nasty flaws in Solaris. But in Free Wold, it is natural that people argue about quality standards. Actual kernels that go into mission critical distros like RHEL are extensively hardened before released. Kernel.org Linux 2.6.xx was never release quality software, it was always beta. Release quality comes with 2.6.xx.yy minor releases (notice yy) and after that, distributor test it and patch it even more and it goes like 2.6.32-35el (el for enterprise linux by Red Hat and 35 for number of updare). So lkml posts don't speak about quality about "production Linux"; it speaks about quality of development branch. Which was never high, but neither was OpenSolaris-dev.


As for "BTRFS is prototype" Well,then is ZFS too. ZFS is developed by Jeff Bonwick and two other guys working full time on it. Later continued with little testing and input from couple of other Sun guys.

BTRFS has 3 full time engineers, two at Oracle and one at Red Hat. Of course, with help of rest of Linux community. Also note that ZFS is "rampant layering violation", meaning that puts everything and kitchen sink on top of VFS layer which is not elegant solution and require lots of work. It has lots cut-corners and kludges.

BTRFS is file system only. It is designed to be a file system and there is LVM for RAID and other stuff. That means that BTRFS is smaller and cleaner and needs less man-hours to get to production quality. And it gets all the features of ZFS (and then some!), thanks to smart layering and using user space utilities. Oracle can't kill BTRFS, Red Hat will simply hire the devs and do it themselves.

Did I miss anything? I think I just proved you wrong about everything.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Not surprised...
by Tuishimi on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:12 in reply to "RE[4]: Not surprised..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

That is BS. Nobody wants to be locked in, but sometimes companies will reluctantly chose lock in due to lack of better choice.


Maybe I worded my post poorly. Basically that is what I am saying. Companies CHOSE to be locked into specific hardware/software combinations because those products met their needs and did a good job of it... and STILL DO in many cases. VMS is still supported by HP because there is a sizable install base and people don't WANT to switch.

Reply Parent Score: 2