Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Thread beginning with comment 436633
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[8]: Not surprised...
by Kebabbert on Sat 14th Aug 2010 11:02
in reply to "RE[7]: Not surprised..."
I also gave other links than to lkml. For instance, The God Linus T explaining that Linux is bloated. And Intel studies showed that performance dropped for each new release. Something like 10% or so.
Correction: I meant of course that performance dropped 10% over the last releases. Not every release.
I do not want to state false things, would I?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloate...
"Citing an internal Intel study that tracked kernel releases, Bottomley said Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the last ten releases. "Is this a problem?" he asked."




Member since:
2007-07-27
Did I miss anything? I think I just proved you wrong about everything.
Yes man, you really proved me wrong on everything. I remember your earlier attacks on me, and you really "proved me wrong" back then too.
Solaris 10 if free to use for 90 days. Affter that, pay to Larry or loose it. You obviously missed the news. "
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=132608&tstart=15
The post by Edward Ned Harvey, Aug 1, 2010 3:15 PM
He says Solaris 10 is free for evaluation use, research and instructional use, etc.
And also, you can buy Solaris 10 for 20 USD.
https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/product?p1=OracleSolaris10MediaPa...
So where is this "huge price tag" you talk about? It seems it is you that missed the news?
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. "
I did not talk about OpenSolaris. I talked about Solaris 10.
You know, Solaris is not like Linux, where you have different incompatible package managers. You are just guessing or wishing here. Or FUDing.
As I showed you, no. You are free to run Solaris 10. But if you want to have support contract, then you pay.
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.
He is a developer, amongst many, that says the Linux code sucks big time. I gave other links including Linux kernel developers. Should we listen to them when they say Linux code is bad, but not to Theo?
Maybe you missed the Solaris problems posts, in the OpenSolaris forums? Why has not them been censored?
The code is open, I have not heard about ANY developers complaining on bad code in Solaris. But there are lots of developers including Linux devs, that complain about the bad Linux quality.
I also gave other links than to lkml. For instance, The God Linus T explaining that Linux is bloated. And Intel studies showed that performance dropped for each new release. Something like 10% or so.
Cool. I didnt knew this. Where is the link? Or is it just guesses or FUD again?
ZFS is not layering violation. It has only less layers, as chief architect explains. I also heard that BTRFS is violating the layers. I dont know if it is true, but I read it.
Regarding ZFS has lots of "kludges" etc, I didnt know that. Are you making this up, or do you have link? In other forums, there are lots of Linux fanboys that FUD and make up things and lie. And they _confess_ they FUD, and they _confess_ they lie, and I prove sometimes that they lie by supplying a link. What is the problem with you Linux guys? Can't you speak true things? I link to credible sources, such as Linux kernel developers. I do not make up things, nor Lie.
It sounds as you guess again. ZFS is very neat. It was 75k LoC some time ago. Which is extremely small. This can be achieved because ZFS has scrapped several unnecessary layers, that other filesystems have for legacy reasons.
What do you mean, smart layering? Is BTRFS also violating the layers, just as I read it does?
I am not saying that Oracle will kill BTRFS. I am only saying, from a business perspective, it is better to make sure BTRFS is lesser copy of ZFS and never surpass ZFS. If BTRFS is better than ZFS, then Oracle can not sell all those fancy ZFS storage servers.