Submitted by “Sun has purportedly gone out of its way to draw Linux developers to its hardware platform. Analysts even say that Sun has finally made peace with Linux. But if you look at their web site they appear to have a different story to tell as they attempt to build community support for Solaris10. Frankly, we believe Linux beats Sun in so many categories that we don’t even have a race. While Sun wants you to ‘get the facts’ we notice that they persist in comparing Solaris10 to Red Hat’s enterprise model. But that’s not the only Linux out there.”
Linux Is a Better Linux Than Sun Solaris 10
What the hell does that mean? Is Solaris a better Solaris than Linux then?
Edited 2006-02-28 18:31
Read The ‘Fine’ Article
That was a response to the statement by Marc Andresson:
Solaris is a better Linux than Linux
Exactly quite misleading. Besides Linux doesn’t really compete with Solaris is many areas.
Besides Linux doesn’t really compete with Solaris is many areas.
Such as?
Um Like 72 CPU 576GB RAM E25k’s not to mention PC hardware doesn’t compair to SUN hardware as far as reliability and robustness.
> Um Like 72 CPU 576GB RAM E25k’s not to mention PC hardware doesn’t compair to SUN hardware as far as reliability and robustness.
Which nicely demonstrates that:
(Linux + OpenSolaris) > Linux
(Linux + OpenSolaris) > Solaris
Linux would not be able to run that E25k as well as Solaris. (If at all. I don’t know.)
Conversely, I have tried to install various versions of Solaris on various (x86) hardware over the last several years, and the installation always aborts very early on. To be honest, the hardware, while fairly vanilla, was never bought specifically to run Solaris, but still…
Solaris can go places that Linux can’t at this time. Linux can go places that Solaris can’t at this time.
And that increases the strength of POSIX-like OSes, in general.
Throw in the BSD’s, some of which can go places that neither Linux nor Solaris can, and it is even better.
Linux would not be able to run that E25k as well as Solaris. (If at all. I don’t know.)
Linux can match that number of CPUs and it already runs much more. See SGI’s Altix, which can handle up to 512 Itanics and address several terabytes of RAM, thanks to their NUMA technology. It’s sad that SGI is passing through hard times right now, with such powerful product on their hands.
I believe that SGI is trying to sell their stuff to the same market that Sun’s pursuing, at least on the high-end front.
Um Like 72 CPU 576GB RAM E25k’s not to mention PC hardware doesn’t compair to SUN hardware as far as reliability and robustness.
Hmmm, let’s see… On Sun’s webpage it says that the E25k is designed for the following key applications:
– Business Processing
– Databases
– Data Warehouses
– IT Infrastructure
– Application Serving
– Compute-intensive Scientific Engineering
Again, where exactly does Linux not compete?
Hmmm, let’s see… On Sun’s webpage it says that the E25k is designed for the following key applications:
– Business Processing
– Databases
– Data Warehouses
– IT Infrastructure
– Application Serving
– Compute-intensive Scientific Engineering
Again, where exactly does Linux not compete?
Well, of course when any ix86 architecture server can’t handle the same high load and troughput that the e25k server.
Well SGI sells Altix with a huge number of x86 CPU with Linux too.
So OS-wise, Linux seems to be able to scale to a big number of CPU too.
“Besides Linux doesn’t really compete with Solaris is many areas.”
Such as?
..having support for filesystems with attributes.
Okok, I admit I don’t know how well this is supported in Solaris’ ZFS right now, but ZFS should have attributes and Solaris should support it. Meanwhile, to my slight annoyance, Linux still hasn’t implemented the imho most important innovation in filesystems design in the past decade, despite open source implementations being available.
> Linux still hasn’t implemented the imho most important innovation in filesystems design in the past decade, despite open source implementations being available.
Are you talking about attributes as in acl’s? i.e. what Samba needs on the backend to support Windows acl’s?
If so, they have been supported for some time. I believe XFS was first. But xattrs are also well supported on ext3. Probably reiserfs, and possibly others.
You do have to mount the fs with the “acl” and “xattr” options or something like that.
> Linux still hasn’t implemented the imho most important innovation in filesystems design in the past decade, despite open source implementations being available.
Are you talking about attributes as in acl’s? i.e. what Samba needs on the backend to support Windows acl’s?
No, I’m talking about attributes as in the meta-data sense. E.g. on an mp3: ‘Artist: …’, ‘Album: …’, ‘Release date: …’ and any other attribute you could think of that helps you organise your data without putting them in a hierarchical structure.
What the hell does that mean? Is Solaris a better Solaris than Linux then?
Linux distributors aren’t openly trying to court Solaris users in the same way as Sun are trying to openly court Linux users (in an extremely confused and haphazard manner), nor are they trying to copy the extensive and huge community Solaris has with their own Open*Insert OS where you don’t get everything here* project.
That’s the point he’s making.
Edited 2006-02-28 20:08
Of course Sun is competing with RHL. They are both prevalant in datacenters in the US. They can’t very well compete with free alternatives that nobody pays support for. That wouldn’t make sense.
If you ask me, it’s a valid comparison. Both have versions with paid support from established companies. This is important to certain companies. They also both have versions which can be used for free if you like. Both run on x86 and sparc hardware.
The real advantage I see for Solaris at the moment is that on the SPARC platform there are quite a few high profile software packages available that are not on RHL. Just about any OSS software, though, is already compiling for Solaris both on SPARC and RHL. People will have preferences for Linux or Solaris, for whatever reason, so I think both camps will always have valid reasons why they believe one OS is better than another *for them*.
Don’t mix up the hobbyist Linux distro with those that are made for datacenters where they concentrate on things other than the desktop look and feel…
The author wrote:
… “But if you look at their web site they appear to have a different story to tell as they attempt to build community support for Solaris10.” …
Is he referring to the http://opensolaris.org website?
Then, what’s he mean that the OpenSolaris community has “a different story to tell as they attempt to build community support for Solaris 10” ?
Wierd.
Eric
OpenSolaris
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eric_boutilier
… “But if you look at their web site they appear to have a different story to tell as they attempt to build community support for Solaris10.” …
Is he referring to the http://opensolaris.org website?
Then, what’s he mean that the OpenSolaris community has “a different story to tell as they attempt to build community support for Solaris 10” ?
No. If you read it, what he’s actually referring to are the comments by some analysts that Sun has made piece with Linux are a bit wide of the mark. Sun are just trying to copy what Linux, and Linux distributors, have with their own poor relation in OpenSolaris.
Quote and read the whole paragrpah next time.
Hi segedunum. As in our previous exchange, I think your comments are (at least in part) intended to incite hostility.
Please claim them. Who are you?
Eric Boutilier
Check your email for that information (public information available thanks to strong google-fu.) Don’t want him getting spammed to death or stoned so I won’t post it here.
Hi segedunum. As in our previous exchange, I think your comments are (at least in part) intended to incite hostility.
Nope. You think that because you don’t like them and you can’t answer them.
Please claim them. Who are you?
Ooooh. You want to know who I really am do you? As if there should be no anonymity on a forum site like OSNews……
> As if there should be no anonymity on a forum site like OSNews…
See the following for a post I wrote about that yesterday:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eric_boutilier?entry=what_we_need_…
How true!
It’s like saying “my job was Bangalored” is a way of saying outsourcing. We now say my software has become Linuxed
Edited 2006-02-28 18:45
>What the hell does that mean?
It means that Sun is ONCE AGAIN showing they are anti-Linux..
… can you post in an article before you should consider the not only the article, but also the author invalid?
While it is true that Linux is a better Linux, I don’t think that costs the validity of Solaris 10 x86 on commodity hardware any. Solaris on sparc is worlds better than any Linux in terms of integration, optimization and diagnostics. What is it about Solaris 10 that irks the author so much?
He does not go into any comparison about dTrace. Arguably the most sought after reason for upgrading to Solaris 10 over previous version.
He mentions UML in comparison to Solaris zones??? Solaris zones is ready for production, is UML? Also, I don’t recall an article from Sun documenting a change from zones to Xen.
I think they are feeling the pressure. They know the only reason suits moved to Linux was because of the low cost of hardware, otherwise they would have listened to their Engineers who support Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX because Engineers appreciate and see the benefits of having a nicely integrated platform.
”
He does not go into any comparison about dTrace. Arguably the most sought after reason for upgrading to Solaris 10 over previous version.”
RHEL 4 already provides SystemTap and Frysk which provides much more than just Dtrace.
http://sourceware.org/systemtap/
http://sourceware.org/frysk/
There isnt really any compelling features in solaris. Sun is just trying to copy the RH model.
http://bgcooper.com/2005/08/12/15/
http://news.com.com/Red+Hat+looks+under+Linuxs+hood/2163-7344_3-592…
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/09/dtrace-vs-systemtap-for-play.htm…
I could go on… really…
Not to mention, RH started work on systemtap/frysk BECAUSE of Sun’s dtrace. Not visa-versa. This was due to huge user demand. I’d like to see you refute that. “Sun is just trying to copy the RH model” ??? You’re either really funny, or really ignorant.
You think writing games in dtrace is more important? making claims without backups is what Sun is doing. Dont repeat the same mistake.
Check these for reports on Sun copying Red Hat
http://www.crn.com/sections/news/top_news.jhtml?articleId=174900064
You must not be capable of reading very well. Let me throw another link at you.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1774971,00.asp
Sun has a totally different business. Solaris is quite mature. Sun produces hardware. They make money from hardware sales. RH does not. Sun is looking to migrate into the low-end server market which RH/Linux dominates. They opened up Solaris so people/businesses who can’t afford (don’t want to purchase may be more correct) server-class/grade hardware, can give Solaris a whirl. They also opened it up so developers can start playing with the internals, and possibly based on this make improvements to Solaris (Sun certainly doesn’t mind this) or start using Solaris as their main environment, thus influencing decisions made in their jobs, which could lead to more sales for Solaris. This isn’t RH’s business model, this is a fundamental element of economics. I guess RH copied the entire service-industry’s model. They offer services/support for a product they sell. Guess what consultants have been doing for YEARS before RH or Linux even existed. Just because they are selling support, does not make them a RH clone. Not only that, but RH charges for RH’s enterprise version. Fedora is not RHEL. Solaris 10 is free to download for anyone, the PRODUCTION version. You can get the bleeding edge OpenSolaris too, or the middle-ground Solaris Express. The key is, all are free. You can’t say that about RHEL. This in itself differentiates the two companies business model.
Why does everone always put the feature in the center? Stability, scalability is so much more important.
Linux sucks compared to Solaris when it comes to stability and scalability.
And one reason for that is the limited hardware support, you don´t have that much problem related to hardware that should be supported and working. Yeah, i know, solaris 10 is catching up on hardware, but still, they are doing it in an better way than linux if looking at stability.
Not everything is about linux.
As much as I *feel* Solaris seems to be more stable and scalable, I can’t quantify that with data. I can speak about my personal experiences, but that is in no way backing up the idea/thought. Hence, I refrain from tossing the “it’s more scalable/stable” argument, because and argument is meaningless unless you can back it with data/information/fact.
That being said, I have seen a 17.74930374094% increase in mood stability when I switched from drinking 12$ bottles of wine to 14.
I think it would be nearly impossible to prove stability/scalability. (See my point?)
> http://sourceware.org/systemtap/
That site think that “SystemTap is still under rapid development, so it is not appropriate to use it on production systems.”
> http://sourceware.org/frysk/
Too much “there will be…” statements on that site.
Why do You compare real world and stable tool (dtrace) with things that somebody dreams on (systemtap, frysk)? If we will compare thing that we just dream on then Solaris in my dreams is a many ways better than Linux I can imagine.
I know which platform I would choose for observability.
Dtrace is guaranteed safe for use on a server in production. Systemtap is work in progress.
Dtrace does have limitations, but some of these are intentional (e.g. no loops) to prevent you taking your server out.
Oh please!
Sun trying to copy the RH model, yeah right.
At least try to get your facts straight.
Brian Stevens, RH’s own chief technology officer, stated that systemtap is a step into the right direction for RH.
He also stated that system tap is a newer alternative to Sun’s DTrace designed to work with linux (so DTrace was released before system tap).
Tony Iams (Ideas International) stated that system tap is not anywhere near as powerful as Sun’s DTrace when doing a head-to-head comparison.
You’ll find the statements in the following article:
http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/soa/Red_Hat_looks_under_Li…
http://sun.com/bigadmin/content/dtrace/
So RH is the one trying to copy the features of Sun’s Solaris 10 Operating System.
And another thing: DTrace is already being used to find bottlenecks in linux software so the software can be improved upon.
I haven’t found any info on system tap being able to debug software specifically for the Solaris OS.
While it is true that Linux is a better Linux, I don’t think that costs the validity of Solaris 10 x86 on commodity hardware any. Solaris on sparc is worlds better than any Linux in terms of integration, optimization and diagnostics.
Solaris on x86 is practicaly unusable if you don’t have THE right hardware, yes.
What is it about Solaris 10 that irks the author so much?
Probably the same thing as me. Sun likes/hates Linux. Read daily Schwartz BS on his blog and decide which one is correct today. Hate or Like? It changes
He mentions UML in comparison to Solaris zones??? Solaris zones is ready for production, is UML? Also, I don’t recall an article from Sun documenting a change from zones to Xen.
Solaris changing Zones for Xen is not valid. Starting using Xen is correct. Xen is way better solution than zones. Uses more RAM, but yes, it is way better.
He does not go into any comparison about dTrace.
Yeah, and 100% of users are developers? dTrace is not significant in server or user setup.
He mentions UML in comparison to Solaris zones??? Solaris zones is ready for production, is UML? Also, I don’t recall an article from Sun documenting a change from zones to Xen.
Wow, coming from company and users that were proclaiming ZFS is the best long before stable sounds funny. UML is stable 1.0.
I think they are feeling the pressure. They know the only reason suits moved to Linux was because of the low cost of hardware, otherwise they would have listened to their Engineers who support Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX because Engineers appreciate and see the benefits of having a nicely integrated platform.
No, low cost of software is significant. I was feeling depressed when one friend of mine told me Solaris Express users can’t update witout paying. I’m a commercial Solaris user, so I didn’t know and care about this fact. Yes, I do need Solaris too.
And as IRIX and HP/UX guy (now this is in past tense), I can tell you I started loving Linux for all the different reasons than costs. Mostly, because policy of siding is clean (not like suns hate/love daily masturbation with linux).
Solaris is better for some things, and Linux is better for some things. Both are good, but Solaris just isn’t so great as Sun would like to publicize.
p.s. Now, that I said Sun and Solaris is not the greatest thing since sliced bread, we can watch my comment being moded down to hell in a minute by Solaris fans
And just exactly how is Xen better than Zones? If I want to partition out my machines (talking SPARC here), I can load any version of Solaris I want in a Dynamic System Domain. Xen is only good if you want to run multiple operating systems on the same machine, if that was really important to me I would use VMware (at home I do).
If I want to segregate my applications from each other and improve overall security of the system, I create Zones to separate the applications from each other and use Containers to control resource utilization. And how much experience do you have with Zones to make the comment that Xen is “Xen is way better solution than zones. Uses more RAM, but yes, it is way better.”?
And just exactly how is Xen better than Zones? If I want to partition out my machines (talking SPARC here)
No SPARC for me. So, me biased, you biased. Where’s the point. Not one of us will step on others stair. Pointless.
As you might recall, I was asking about SPARC not so long ago, and after all my explanations I got no answers, just trolling and some answer I said about 20 times I couldn’t afford it. After my useless questions, I simply decided to go with Linux only app. Easier, less coding, and in the end thrird customer will be forced to go with the flow by other two anyway.
Forward answer is in the same tone as yours. But I’m not SPARC user. So, remember that I could go with cluster for the price of one SPARC, without need to partition.
I can load any version of Solaris
This part of your comment should tell you all you wanted to know. I only need virtualization when I need OTHER OS. There is almost no binary services on Linux, almost all OSS, meaning I could get them to work on my distro fairly easy.
[a_bit_of_sarcasm] but I can understand why avid Solaris crowd appreciates them [/a_bit_of_sarcasm]
If I want to segregate my applications from each other and improve overall security of the system, I create Zones to separate the applications from each other and use Containers to control resource utilization. And how much experience do you have with Zones to make the comment that Xen is “Xen is way better solution than zones. Uses more RAM, but yes, it is way better.”?
chroot, selinux, uml. Pick which suits you better for some case. Not restricted to one solution as on Solaris. Remember, there is no best hammer for every nail.
And how much experience do you have with Zones to make the comment that Xen is “Xen is way better solution than zones. Uses more RAM, but yes, it is way better.”?
“Far more usable” would be better expression than “way better”, yes. Thanks for correction (read first part for explanation and remember I don’t do closed source implementations, we’ve had this discussion already). Zones as they are same as useless to me.
I think I don’t have to back up my statement that Xen uses more RAM. Yes it does (his needs mostly are bigger than needs of the zones).
Now a bit harsh from me, as I already said. I too am a Solaris user (beside other OSes), but more or less dissapointed (and getting more with time) with the zealots presenting the Solaris crowd. If I stop using Solaris zealots will be the reason, not OS.
So, why do you avid Solaris users feel that everyone should explain everything to you, but on the other hand everyone should be happy with your “zones, zfs, dtrace…”? I don’t remember getting beside from you (two comments in whole) personaly one decent answer to any honest question.
Edited 2006-02-28 23:43
chroot, selinux, uml. Pick which suits you better for some case. Not restricted to one solution as on Solaris. Remember, there is no best hammer for every nail.
chroot is available on Solaris and most Unix/unix like OSes. You could setup chroot jails on Solaris too, even before Solaris 10.
Selinux aka security enchanced linux is not comparable to Zones/Containers. Solaris 10 has most of the features from trusted Solaris. That puts Soalris 10 on par if not at a better security feature set than SElinux.
UML is the only thing you mentioned that compares to Zones. So linux still only has one solution albiet an incomplete one at that.
“Far more usable” would be better expression than “way better”, yes. Thanks for correction (read first part for explanation and remember I don’t do closed source implementations, we’ve had this discussion already). Zones as they are same as useless to me.
Xen is “more stable”, really?
The rest of your “I am on my OpenSource high horse” attitude laden comments don’t deserve a response.
I merely wanted to point out that you don’t know anything of which you speak. Also that you are arguing for the sake of argument.
Selinux aka security enchanced linux is not comparable to Zones/Containers.
Really? You should look at Xen/SELinux combo.
Solaris 10 has most of the features from trusted Solaris. That puts Soalris 10 on par if not at a better security feature set than SElinux.
But not worster? Damn, Sun logic again, can’t be worster, only better or equal in your equation. Do you do some dick security measuring others don’t know about (aka. pissing contest) or what? Hell, Windows are better on some topics than others. OSX has some better points than others. Linux has them too, and so do all others. Each one has his strong/weak points. But, for a Solaris fan to acknowledge simple fact, that Solaris is “just really good”, but not “best everywhere” would probably be too much.
And if you haven’t noticed, author of the article was pissed about the same thing. And so are many others.
The rest of your “I am on my OpenSource high horse” attitude laden comments don’t deserve a response.
I could say the “I’m a Solaris die hard” for yours, but unfortunately I can’t because you’re not. You at least succed to be distantly Solaris-only centric.
Xen is “more stable”, really?
Now, be a good boy and show where did I say that. I said “usable” and specified my usage and personal preference.
I merely wanted to point out that you don’t know anything of which you speak. Also that you are arguing for the sake of argument.
[sarcasm]Yeah, that’s it.[/sarcasm] In truth, I’m just sick of “ZFS, zones, dtrace” comments. Solaris die hards are posting them everywhere, not even looking if it is relevant for that topic (like for example Nexenta). You (as in usual posts Solaris zealots post, can’t say that about your post) just sound like bad PR.
Not even one is prepared to aknowledge that runing trough brandz is like runing with wine. (although with better results, but still way from a real thing)
Not even one is prepared to aknowledge near 0% of non-Sun hardware support (drivers for those are mostly buggy, just try almost any adaptec raid card (even some non raid cards), reporting errors like crazy while everywhere else it is working perfectly. And list of buggy drivers goes on and on, adaptec just comes first on my mind since it ate too many of my nerves on Solaris).
ZFS can simply be replaced with few other solutions, although I have to admit ZFS provides simpler and more centralised way to do it. Or could you name one actualy usable feature that can’t be replaced. Hope you don’t plan to throw in raidz. There is a hardware raid, you know and some of us don’t use software raid solutions ( I’m throwing this in just as Robert Escue throw in that he uses SPARC and he doesn’t care about others, which pissed me off if you didn’t noticed. I could simply say “I don’t need Solaris since I don’t use SPARC, Solaris sucks on others anyway”, but I choose more painful way instead of just being trollish).
dtrace is only usable for developers (and few system tasks too). But it is not crossplatform and this is why it is unusable for me and alike. Crossplatform is the most important factor in my bussines. Why would I need dtrace, can you point it out for me after hearing my reason why not?
Zones I don’t need as I specified (and said why, and I think clearly enough), I use Xen which suits me better. But as soon as Solaris gets Xen support I plan to use it there too.
Java won’t change the face of earth. .Net is simply better (yes, I do .Net too, except that I’m constrained to Mono). This one “I am on my OpenSource high horse” sleeps with the devil too.
And I for one am prepared to acknowledge where Solaris, Linux, Windows or OSX is better. If you’d go trough my posts you’d notice that I don’t just blindly preffer my personal preference, bussines first (the worst thing in bussines you can do is banging your head against the wall to proove your thing and the only results you get after are complaints). And this is something I simply can’t expect from any Solaris diehard according to my current knowing of Solaris community (in fact in this term, only some Linux and MS devels were straightforward enough so far, but so far I’m still looking for one single Solaris or NetBSD person that would fit this description). Most of the the Solaris fans posts sound just like broken record “zfs rules…, brandz rocks…, zones are great…, opensolaris…, rbac rules…, zfs rules…”
Edited 2006-03-01 03:51
Obviously you have not spent a great deal of time with Solaris, because the accepted practice is to mirror the root disk with Solstice DiskSute or Solaris Volume Manager and mirror/RAID 5 other volumes with Veritas Volume Manager (now called Veritas Foundation Suite). SPARC machines do not come with hardware RAID controllers.
External storage (depending on what you purchase) usually does. A Sun A1000, 3310, T3, and 6020 has an internal RAID controller as part of the array. You configure it prior to mounting the disks using a serial console or create/modify/delete volumes using a GUI (depending on product). Then you can use SVM or Foundation Suite in addition to the hardware RAID controller to further modify your RAID setup. Unlike Linux and its LVM and md driver, these products are proven Enterprise grade solutions to storage problems. I am providing some links that might be useful:
http://www.veritas.com/Products/www?c=systemreq&refId=203
Notice that Linux is supported by Veritas.
http://www.cuddletech.com/veritas/index.shtml
Since I guess you use x86 machines you can use the hardware RAID controllers of a HP ProLiant DL360 to manage your volumes rather than using DiskSuite or SVM. I just started working with the DL360’s here at work, the only x86 boxes we use are V20z’s and HP DL380’s running RedHat Enterprise Linux. The vast majority of my work is on SPARC hardware, although at home I have used Solaris x86 since the late 90’s.
My advice to you is to actually learn something about Solaris and stop trolling.
Really? You should look at Xen/SELinux combo.
Really? Xen is ready for deployment in the production enivroment. Can you name one big corporation using Xen in their data center?
Now, be a good boy and show where did I say that. I said “usable” and specified my usage and personal preference.
I misread your post.
Not even one is prepared to aknowledge near 0% of non-Sun hardware support (drivers for those are mostly buggy, just try almost any adaptec raid card (even some non raid cards), reporting errors like crazy while everywhere else it is working perfectly. And list of buggy drivers goes on and on, adaptec just comes first on my mind since it ate too many of my nerves on Solaris).
Sun doesn’t market Solaris as a replacement for windows or your linux flavor du jour. Sun clearly gives you a HCL on what Solaris supports. If the Adaptec card is on the HCL file a bug with Sun.
ZFS can simply be replaced with few other solutions, although I have to admit ZFS provides simpler and more centralised way to do it. Or could you name one actualy usable feature that can’t be replaced.
Yes you can replace ZFS feartures with many components. Most of which will cost you an arm and a leg. But no one solution comes close to it’s feature set and that too for free. Not to mention the simplicity of it all.
dtrace is only usable for developers (and few system tasks too). But it is not crossplatform and this is why it is unusable for me and alike. Crossplatform is the most important factor in my bussines. Why would I need dtrace, can you point it out for me after hearing my reason why not?
Your statements clearly indicate that you don’t manage data centers for a living nor do you understand the mindset of those that do.
When I run a datacenter and something is not working well, I’d rather have the company’s support engineers have tools like dtrace than not. Imagine a call to IBM support and Sun support.
IBM: “We’ll have to bring the machine down, recompile to kernel with more debugging information and reproduce the problem”.
Customer: ” What about Systemtrap?”
IBM: “We have only gotten one or two probes working, not ready for deployment”
Customer: “kprobes, dprobes??”
IBM: “sorry not yet ready.”
On the Sun side:
Sun: “No problem, a DTrace script should do the trick no need to reboot or do anything special”.
Edited 2006-03-01 18:03
Great! The author claims that CDDL is more restricteve than GPL but even the GNU/FSF guys admit that basicly CDDL is more liberal and that the two licenses are incompatible thanks to GPL being more authorative.
Although somewhat biased, I tend to agree with the author. Sun sees that Linux is stealing mindshare and licenses from it. With heavyweights like IBM making it easier [1], it’s no wonder sun is scared. Sun is very agressively and loudly promoting Solaris… it’s in their best interests.
[1]http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/ondemand/migrate/linux.html#3
http://www-128.ibm.com/dveloperworks/linux/library/l-solar/
With an article coming from “Linuxfanboy”, is anyone trusting this article is neutral …
>It means that Sun is ONCE AGAIN showing they are anti-Linux..
Such as linux users as anti-solaris, but it doesn’t seems to disturb you in the other way …
lol, they are comparing reiserfs with ZFS. It seems they don’t know what they are talking about.
this article is only full of argument from a linux zealot. No proofs anywhere, just talking about what they assume …
>Maybe in 2004, that was true. But Linux has matched Solaris almost feature for feature.
Yeah, but we don’t get any clue of that. If linux has matched Solaris for almost feature for feature, give a list of equivalent for linux.
No list ? hummm.
Edited 2006-02-28 19:22
With an article coming from “Linuxfanboy”, is anyone trusting this article is neutral …
You’re just from the side you know, but no better.
lol, they are comparing reiserfs with ZFS. It seems they don’t know what they are talking about.
lol, ZFS is good since it provides features where you would normaly have to combine more solutions than one. But, it is not so great to be irreplaceable.
No list ? hummm.
Ok, you don’t expect every single package.
Name what you need replacement for and I’ll provide you with them (except dTrace, which I don’t use. I couldn’t on Linux and I don’t on Solaris).
Zones/Containers? There isn’t anything comparable. ZFS is a lot more than a combination of features, as well. If you use Solaris, and plan on moving to U2, you’d do well to try out ZFS in SX releases, it really is cool. It made me a believer before I even thought about touching dtrace. I should also mention, I could not stand Sun systems up until that point. Then they rolled out a bunch of really nifty/nice hardware, at good prices, and provided a version of Solaris that was pretty damn nice (if extremely user-unfriendly, but I digress..) The upcoming things in the pipeline are really nifty, and they work now. It’s not some pie in the sky claims. I’m just waiting until they make JES even remotely sane to setup/administrate. Right now, the documentation is a mess and even the installation is a 200 step process, where you have to constantly reconfigure things to get everything up and running, via strange commandline tools. Seems pretty nifty once you get it going though! I just hope Sun settles with it’s amazing technology and starts working on making it easier to use. That’d do wonders for their opensolaris community. Not everybody is a 10+ year Solaris veteran!
Zones/Containers?
I know why one needs them on Solaris. But, on linux I just can’t find the reason. Xen is working like a charm for me and RAM is cheap.
It made me a believer before I even thought about touching dtrace.
Now, how can I live from (or better by using) dtrace? It is not crossplatform, and crossplatform is 99% of my income.
JES
/*this part is my personal opinion and preference*/
I don’t install Tomcat. I don’t install JRE. I don’t install JDK. Now, why would I install JES?
Java has a long way to go to be usable and even more to persuade me after all the dissapointments so far. Although some people find it usable, they probably know why YES just as I know why NO. But, whenever I had a Tomcat setup I only had problems (or at least way more than anything else on this world), same as any other Java implementation (now I just avoid them by declining any job even remotely connected to Java).
I just hope Sun settles with it’s amazing technology and starts working on making it easier to use. That’d do wonders for their opensolaris community. Not everybody is a 10+ year Solaris veteran!
Amazing? Maybe, but others have their good points too. No it won’t, but what it would do the wonders is releasing OpenSolaris under GPL (at least in my case, I would definitely start supporting it by default and not by the need as I do it now). And I think a lot of people are thinking like me.
Edited 2006-03-01 04:10
That’s a rather funny response. Somebody already detailed why zones/containers are NOT xen. Why else do you think people are working on getting xen working with Solaris? It’s not to replace zones/containers, I’ll let you figure it out on your own (or remain ignorant and ignore the above mentioned differences as well as not bothering to even read the documentation about capabilities.)
Now you’re saying crossplatform is 99% of your business. Uh, last I checked systemtap/frysk weren’t cross platform either. I’m not really even sure what your point is here?
Say what you like about java, but “java has a long way to go to be usable” really isn’t true, I realize you said it’s opinion/preference, I can understand the preference part – but that opinion really can’t be true, considering a large amount of enterprise level apps are written in java. I would venture to say the majority of them now. It might not be the fastest thing on the planet for certain desktop apps (with 5 it got a LOT better, and 6 is supposed to be another major improvement). That being said, I’m not a java developer, and I still like JES. I use JES for mail, webserving (with php/etc), and so forth. Just because it’s called JES doesn’t mean it’s just another tomcat/app server. It’s a _lot_ more than that. That being said, I never had issues getting other people’s java apps running with JES.
Nobody is arguing other OSs do not have good points, of course they do.
Well, personally, I’m not really a fan of CDDL or GPL, I’m a BSD guy myself, but I prefer CDDL to GPLv2 (I don’t know what v3 will be like yet so can’t comment on that.) I really don’t think the GPL issue is the biggest hangup, I think it’s the lack of HW support (people are spoiled by the mish mash of linux drivers, they forget what it was like back in .99-pre 
) and rather large difference in administrating a Solaris box vs. a linux box. I’d say in general, linux is _easier_ to work with. This would be one of those “good points” vs. Solaris. I can’t wrap my head around the default path on install, it’s such an easy thing for them to change, yet for however long I can remember, I constantly have had to change it every tiime I would install Solaris. That’s just one of the (I percieve as) silly things causing usability issues with Solaris.
Every OS has it’s bad points just as it has it’s good points, but all of the zealots hung up on GPL vs. CDDL can stay out of the opensolaris project as far as I’m concerned. I suppose that’s why I’m a BSD fan.
I don’t believe you should have to share your work just because you used somebody else’s work. Their code should remain free but it’s your decision what you do with yours. Having somebody dictate to me what I do with my own code does not fly. 
However, that is merely my view. I can’t speak for “a lot of people”, only the ones I know, who don’t have enough time to get over the learning curve Solaris posses for new users, with it’s documentation more of a reference work, than a teaching work. 
Thank you for your tactful response btw, it’s quite nice to have somebody present ideas in a civilized fashion and actually give reason and logic for their views!
Somebody already detailed why zones/containers are NOT xen. Why else do you think people are working on getting xen working with Solaris? It’s not to replace zones/containers, I’ll let you figure it out on your own
I said they are not usable for me, as in “not a gods gift for everybody like Solaris zealots would like to believe”. I never said they are the same as Xen. There is a global diff that every child should know. But, then again in heads of Solaris zealots, I guess I should probably be crucified since I don’t find zones usable.
Xen fits me better. Suits me better. And does work I need from better.
Uh, last I checked systemtap/frysk weren’t cross platform either. I’m not really even sure what your point is here?
systemtap/frysk? Where did I mention them. I won’t use them either. Reason is the same as the reason for dtrace. If you check my posts in history you’ll find out that I often specify I use in-house built profiler, debugger and other tools.
Say what you like about java, but “java has a long way to go to be usable” really isn’t true, I realize you said it’s opinion/preference
And it should be treated this way. Sorry. If I would speak globaly your answer would be understandable. I think next part adresses thing even better.
Just because it’s called JES doesn’t mean it’s just another tomcat/app server
/*personaly speaking*/ Anything with the name Java inside gives me the creeps, but then again I often say that I probably rushed in Java too soon. Maybe now it is stable, maybe not. But, until my scars heal… I think you can understand that
/*again my personal bias*/
Second trouble is that I’m in coding HPC apps. And trying Java or .Net (I try every release, but lately more or less .Net only, C# is just so much nicer) to handle the load always just showed that in next 10 years maybe there will be either enough RAM or fast enough computers to handle the load I need handled now.
I’m a BSD guy myself, but I prefer CDDL to GPLv2
I can’t say that I could even use BSD. Being commercialy oriented double licencing GPL/MyCommercialLicense is the best option to restrict the worlds (aka. wall between the terms of usage). Double licensing BSD and mine I couldn’t get the wall of difference between them. What I want to do free only is automaticaly GPL, otherwise I would fsck with my self and other double licensed parts. Hope my reasoning is understandable.
But, I can understand why you as BSD guy preffer CDDL over GPL. They are much more similiar. If I would make commercial only, BSD would be my preffered OSS license too. It is the best license to legaly /*steal*/ from. But, somehow seeing all my freeloading commercial friends doing that, pisses me off and this is why I don’t want to touch BSD, not that idea behind BSD is bad.
Other look on the story here is that I should suspect few things (and please take a consideration that this is just my guessing)
1. like to share your code and don’t mind any usage
2. maybe your living dependancy is not connected to the work you code, for example coding on kernel. I did my time in that, so I did working on my XFree driver in ancient times. It was all for my own better experience
3. you work for a company that does OSS
(again response on my guessing) I on the other hand share what I’m living from. At least I would like to control who and how will use my work. I think I deserve that respect, otherwise there is no point in using my app for someone.
(people are spoiled by the mish mash of linux drivers, they forget what it was like back in .99-pre
)
mish-mash just works, sorry to burst your bubble.
Yeah, so I should be positive that in 2013 Solaris will get with HW support where Linux is now? I’m not jung anymore to wait again
Every OS has it’s bad points just as it has it’s good points, but all of the zealots hung up on GPL vs. CDDL can stay out of the opensolaris project as far as I’m concerned. I suppose that’s why I’m a BSD fan.
I don’t believe you should have to share your work just because you used somebody else’s work.
And if I can understand and respect your wishes? I don’t care about license. And I never zealot about it. I always specify /*MY…*/ entaged with comment. I don’t hide my commercial viewpoint. But, somehow, it still sounds like you say I’m hypocrite.
Their code should remain free but it’s your decision what you do with yours. Having somebody dictate to me what I do with my own code does not fly.
Yeah, those sentences contradict them self. One is saying you don’t care about GPL, other is saying GPL is BAD. But, it is understandable as you’re BSD guy (and I hope that you won’t take this the bad way, as I already said. If I can understand BSD and why people use BSD, I’m not forced to appreciate it).
Thank you for your tactful response btw, it’s quite nice to have somebody present ideas in a civilized fashion and actually give reason and logic for their views!
Based on the variance of your comment, I don’t know if I should entag this as sarcasm or not.
But,…
if your answer is no, yeah, that’s me and based on my mod points on any solaris topic that is a solaris community.
If your answer is yes, then I probably deserve all those moding down for speaking my bias.
Edited 2006-03-01 15:49
As a strong FL/OSS software advocate since 1995, and as a former reader of LXer, please accept whatever apology I can reasonably give for Mr. Aldestein’s fanaticism and ongoing vendetta against Sun Microsystems.
I often see it written in the comments on this forum that Linux advocates are a bunch of religious fanatics. Well, we certainly tend to be idealists, and we probably do have more than our fair share of fanatics. But there is much more to our community than that.
While I will concede that Linux may have the highest number of fanatics per capita, I suspect that the Mac community is not far behind. I suppose Windows probably has a lower per capita level of fanatics than either, but on an absolute scale, probably more flakes than the Linux and Mac communities combined.
The important thing to remember is that in all three of those communities, the fanatics are simply a vocal and irritating minority. (I suspect that no one is more irritated by the fanatics than the other, reasonable, members of their own community who are trying to practice “good” advocacy.)
I like this site because it is dedicated to the idea of operating system diversity. For all the fighting between factions, that attitude of acceptance towards diversity still shines through. (OS specific forums can tend to become rather insular and it’s good for members to go out for an occasional reality check, IMO.)
This is why it pains me to see members of the FL/OSS community, who ostensibly believe in diversity and open competition, attacking other members of the community who have put forth the effort to “walk the walk” by opening their code.
I did not believe that Sun would ever open Solaris but, to my amazement, they really did. McNeally and the gang may be an aggravating lot, but they really did what they said they would do this time, and I respect and acknowledge that.
I welcome them into the community. Solaris has some very definite advantages over Linux. (People have mentioned DTrace and ZFS, but I’m sure there’s more.) Linux has definite advantages in other areas. (It’s pretty clear that Solaris needs a lot of work on hardware support, for example.)
Linux is still my favorite OS, but I’m not afraid to see some more competition.
This post may or may not be completely on-topic in this thread. But it seems as good a place as any. Every time I see a FL/OSS advocate spout intolerance in these forums, I think “I should say something”.
Well. I’ve said something.
Thank you for your attention.
Edited 2006-02-28 19:26
Please take sbergman with a grain of salt. He has some beef with the guy and can’t even spell his name correctly. He accuses him of numerous things – mostly being a fanatic. But, it’s not true. Adelstein has 20 plus years as a writer, journalist and he had a reputation as an investigator. You can look up some of his titles on Amazon. But sbergman27 has a chip. I saw a recent post on LinuxToday where he asked that LT stop running Lxer articles. So whose the fanatic? Lxer has some decent writers and they just did a nice series on flame bait, how to analyze articles, and things sbergman says he’s again. Sberman is as big a troll as me. He hits all the sites and does nothing else. I’m the same. Who has time to programm when all you do is read osnews, digg, slashdot, lxer, run searches on Google news for Linux and watch RSS feeds? I need to go into therapy I guess. sbergman, care to join me?
Nice nickname. Regardless, and not defending anyone, I don’t care if the guy who wrote the article (I won’t even bother cut and pasting his name so it is spelled correctly..) has 800 years of journalism under his belt, that does NOT making him a good journalist. I don’t care what else he has written that I can look up on Amazon. There are plenty of both crappy and good books out there.
All I care about was this article, and based on this article and neither being a “Linuxfanboy” nor a Sun whatchamacallitfanboy, this article was absolute trash. It was written by somebody who openly admits to not having much (any??) experience, it discussed “issues” with Solaris that are absolutely and completely non-true (installation time? I hope he’s kidding – he must never have set foot into a data center. Hell, does he even know what a data center is?) Has he not heard of jumpstart, flash, etc as other posters mentioned?
The answer is, he probably hasn’t! THAT makes this a bad article, and in my eyes, makes him a bad journalist. That is basic research, those are fundamental things in the Solaris world, and he could have popped in #solaris on freenode and as dead as that channel tends to be, gotten an answer in 10 minutes about how to install Solaris. Not only that, he could have just read the INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION which CLEARLY outlines this.
I won’t even get into the other flaws of this article. Simply put, don’t throw #s of years of “experience” as a “journalist” into my face as a sign of validity. Enron had “years of experience” as a company, and you know the outcome of their fiasco.
“But, it’s not true. Adelstein has 20 plus years as a writer, journalist and he had a reputation as an investigator.”
Isn’t it wonderfull how one can remain totally clueless and unable to write coherently even after 20 years?
“I saw a recent post on LinuxToday where he asked that LT stop running Lxer articles.”
An entirely rational request since not a single lxer article ever has been worth anything.
This is not about being pro-Solaris and anti-Linux. tadelste, and lxer in general, dont have a fscking clue whatsoever. lxer is down there with cooltechzone when it comes to producing worhtless articles. end of story.
> can’t even spell his name correctly
Thank you for that correction. 🙂
I’ve noted the unusual spelling before, but for some reason I always think “Aldestein” when typing it.
I do think that Tom, although probably well meaning, is a bit overzealous in his activism, and a bit pompous, as well. i.e. I think he practices “bad” activism which only hurts our community in the big picture.
I should say, however, that this thread was of questionable “on-topicness” when I posted originally, and I will not be drawn into an ugly flame war here.
If you would like to continue the discussion, please feel free to email me privately at [email protected]
-Steve Bergman
Edited 2006-02-28 21:12
I don’t wish to have a flame war. I just don’t understand why you have to attack the guy. In your opinion he’s over zealous and pompous. In my opinion, he’s professional. He also does a good job running Lxer. Look at the Alexa stats.
Just for a correction, you couldn’t have been an advocate of FLOSS since 1995. OSI didn’t exist then.
I’ve got two disagreements with “Linuxfanboy”‘s posting:
(one)
In my opinion, he’s professional
In the minds of a lot of people (including myself), those who set themselves up as professionals, especially journalists, fall flat on their faces if they cannot research their topic. They also need to ensure that they display the results of their research. Otherwise they’re just opinionated people who have a platform to yell from. Mr Adelstein seems to forget that — especially when it comes to writing comments about Sun Microsystems.
(two)
you couldn’t have been been an advocate of FLOSS since 1995. OSI didn’t exist then.
Bzzzt. Just because a certifying or standards organisation did not exist for F/L/OSS prior to 1995 in no way means that a person could not have been an advocate for F/L/OSS. Did you ever happen to look at, fr’example, the date on GPL version 1? How about version 1 of NFS?
Bzzzt. Just because a certifying or standards organisation did not exist for F/L/OSS prior to 1995 in no way means that a person could not have been an advocate for F/L/OSS. Did you ever happen to look at, fr’example, the date on GPL version 1? How about version 1 of NFS?
You most certainly couldn’t have been an OSS advocate in 1995. The term Open Source wasn’t even coined until 1999. You could, however, have been a free software advocate back then.
You shouldn’t argue σημαντικός (semantics). He is using the correct moderm term to desribe his advocacy in the past. You don’t call say “andsaca” now, you say “adversary.” Andsaca is the Old English term, people back in that period would have used it. Now that there is a more modern term/accepted term, we use adversary. If he was advocating open source software (meaning source available freely), it doesn’t matter if the phrase “open source software” existed. You would use it now to describe his advocacy, which he did. I would too. So would you. Go to your corner.
Wow, I attempted humor, and OSNews ate my non-western character set. Let’s try again. Semantikós. The point was to show we don’t continue using old terminology even if people in the past did, when there is a modern equivilant which accurately describes the pre-dated usage.
Well, before we all go to semantic hell, let me say that I am perfectly happy to retract my original phrasing, and replace it with:
“As a strong Linux advocate since 1995…”
It makes no real difference to the meaning of the overall post, after all. 🙂
Edited 2006-02-28 23:59
He is using the correct moderm term to desribe his advocacy in the past.
No, that’s not what was said. What was said was:
Just because a certifying or standards organisation did not exist for F/L/OSS prior to 1995 in no way means that a person could not have been an advocate for F/L/OSS.
The poster was talking about what existed/what you could have advocated in 1995. In 1995 there was no Open Source, the term didn’t exist. He’s not using a modern term to describe a past action, he’s describing an advocating a term from before the term existed. Just like you couldn’t possibly have advocated Christianity in 500BC you couldn’t have advocated Open Source in 1995.
My apologies, due to a cruddy CRT and a tendancy to skip words (dyslexia I would say) I somehow misread “could not” as “could”. Just an honest mistake, my apologies once again.
The poster was talking about what existed/what you could have advocated in 1995. In 1995 there was no Open Source, the term didn’t exist. He’s not using a modern term to describe a past action, he’s describing an advocating a term from before the term existed. Just like you couldn’t possibly have advocated Christianity in 500BC you couldn’t have advocated Open Source in 1995.
What about philosophy of linux has changed since the coining of the term OpenSource? Absolutely nothing. So if one supported the cause of linux he inadvertantly supported OpenSource.
What you are saying is, humans couldn’t possible have liked a rose before the english langauge was developed because the term “rose” was not yet in common use.
Funny you bring christanity into the discussion. There were advocates of chirstianty well before the bible was written. The bible itself wasn’t penned until about a 100 years after the death of Christ. So I guess those that beleived in Chirst’s teachings for that period didn’t believe in Christianity then.
Edited 2006-03-01 02:54
This discussion is completely off topic, but I can’t help myself.
What about philosophy of linux has changed since the coining of the term OpenSource? Absolutely nothing. So if one supported the cause of linux he inadvertantly supported OpenSource.
Now you’re playing semantic games. Someone claimed that they specifically supported something which didn’t exist when they said they supported it. You can’t claim to have supported Linux in 1985. You can’t claim you supported OSS in 1995. You could claim you supported free software in 1995.
What you are saying is, humans couldn’t possible have liked a rose before the english langauge was developed because the term “rose” was not yet in common use.
I’m saying you can’t say you liked a rose before a rose existed.
Funny you bring christanity into the discussion. There were advocates of chirstianty well before the bible was written. The bible itself wasn’t penned until about a 100 years after the death of Christ. So I guess those that beleived in Chirst’s teachings for that period didn’t believe in Christianity then.
The Bible was not written 100 years after Christ’s death. People started writing the New Testament about 100 years after his death, but the New Testament is hardly the Bible. Either way, there were certainly no advocates of Christianity 500 years before Christ’s birth which is what I originally said. There certainly was not anyone using the term Open Source before 1999. There was certainly not anyone advocating Linux before 1991.
Now let the thread die.
Bullshit, only the term didn’t exist, there was plenty of software in 1995 we would now describe as “Open Source” (including Linux).
This Lxer guy consistently writes ill-informed articles. Plenty of folks on this board have already given him the red card so I wonder what the point in continuing to feature him is.
Just my 2 cents, but I hope that OpenSolaris does well and continues to add desktop functionality and hardware compatibility. If it does, in time it may provide a seriously capable and professional new alternative, one that will keep some of the Linux vendors well on their toes. We – users – will all benefit from that, surely. In the meantime, I doubt the teams behind the massively capable, full-up Solaris are going to lose much sleep over Lxer’s ramblings.
I really don’t understand why people even bother reading Tom’s drivel. He has “issues” with Sun and his articles at the best of times are noting more than inflammatory trolls.
First is the tired argument of limited hardware support, let’s get past this nonsense. There was a time where Linux didn’t have great hardware support either.
His comparisons of ZFS to other filesystems lacks any data (why doesn’t this surprise me). He also has his facts wrong, ZFS does not ship with Solaris 10, it ships with Solaris Express.
Linux has nothing to match Containers, and along with Zones provides fine grained resource controls and security.
His statement about the stability of Solaris 10 “Saying that Solaris 10 has more reliability than stable Linux distributions seems like speculation.” Where is the data to back up that statement?
Then there is the boring argument about the installation taking too long from a reader, complaining about the install taking over an hour! The reader then admits having no experience with Solaris “In all fairness, though, I do not have any Solaris experience or documentation to study, so I don’t know Sun’s way of doing things.” So because this guy doesn’t know squat about Solaris, it sucks! At least I spend some time using the OS before I start ripping it apart!
How about posting articles that aren’t so inflammatory and actually compare features rather than troll.
”
His statement about the stability of Solaris 10 “Saying that Solaris 10 has more reliability than stable Linux distributions seems like speculation.” Where is the data to back up that statement?
”
Where is the data to back up Sun’s statement?
The bigger question is where Tom got that statement from, because I didn’t find it on this page:
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/ning.jsp
I watched part of the video a few weeks ago and don’t remember specifically whether that was mentioned as part of the conversation. It still doesn’t prevent Tom from backing up his statement with something more than his speculation.
I don’t know if there has ever been a study of the long term reliability of various operating systems, or if there was one (or more) done, I don’t remember reading it.
He also has his facts wrong, ZFS does not ship with Solaris 10, it ships with Solaris Express.
Wow, really? Like the author I’ve almost come to believe that it does ship with Solaris 10 through Sun peoples’ constant marketing bullshit of technical enhancements which don’t amount to too much.
Maybe Sun can point that out when they talk about ZFS in future?
There is this little thing called journalistic integrity, obviously if you are a Linux troll you don’t have to check facts for correctness, just publish.
Sun has finally made peace with Linux. But if you look at their web site they appear to have a different story to tell as they attempt to build community support for Solaris10.
Large companies by nature of their many departments are schizophrenic – accept it and move on. Within Sun there will be:
– Linux only fans
– Solaris only fans
– Solaris and Linux fans
– People who like neither
– And those that just want sell hardware which is the core competancy of Sun
Linux and Solaris are both very fine operating systems, both have advantages/disadvantages against each other and the choice as to which is best** to deploy is entirely dependant on the environment/situation.
**Some times there is no “best” only what is more appropriate or convenient.
These endless articles and posts of “mine is better than yours” are so pointless and is generally perpetuated by those who you would least trust to make a decision or recommendation.
Edited 2006-02-28 19:47
The performance metric “His friend” requires are just comical…
“Who cares about kernel benchmarks when you can get a server into production faster with Linux compared to Solaris.”
As if anybody who needs to use a dependable OS in a production environment needs to get up and running in under twenty minutes….
BTW this only relates to fresh installs. If we’re talking system recovery or bare-metal restore then there’s nothing to compare apart from tape->disk speed.
If we then take into account stuff like flar and jumpstart then Solaris is a clear winner in the datacentre.
So this only really benefits the home user.
Great, linux installs faster than windows, is it a better windows then?
Solaris is a better Solaris because it has actually been “designed”.
There lies the problem, since the people he quotes have little practical experience with Solaris, they are not going to be aware of features like JumpStart and Solaris Flash. I’m using Flash right now to rebuild 9 machines and there is nothing like 10 minute installs (fully configured except for IP address)!
Granted that the author has a bone to pick with Marc Andereessen. But the article is pure hyperbole I am surprised it even got a mention on OSnews. There are so many flaws it’s not even worth addressing them.
He claims Marc’s statements ( the article he is talking about is a customer success story, nothing more) have no empirical basis and goes on to make speculation for the rest of the article.
Solaris on sun hardware may be extremely stable, and robust, but I think it’s good practise to factor in that it will fail at some point, be it in 10 minutes or 10 years… no current computer hardware lasts forever.
I always feel safer with a well designed distributed network of less powerful boxes than with one big powerful box. Obviously there are times when one or two big powerful boxes are better, but still, relying on them for “mission critical” things is probably a bad idea.
However, Solaris will be good for some things, Linux will be good for others, and dare I say, Windows may well be good for some things too.. but they should all work on ensuring that users/admins have a choice. Diversity is a good thing, provided it all works well together, and hopefully “Windows networks” and “Linux networks” will be a thing of the past… when people choose their kernel based on the work it will be doing or ideological purposes (support FLOSS or something), rather than raw fanboyism.
Maybe the kernel will end up just being a small module of the system like a webserver where you can just swap it for a completely different type (E.g. Linux for NT or something)
“Solaris on sun hardware may be extremely stable, and robust, but I think it’s good practise to factor in that it will fail at some point, be it in 10 minutes or 10 years… no current computer hardware lasts forever.”
but the point of Solaris is that its built to expect failures and work around them, Solaris 10 is the most avanced in handling Parts and subsystem failures.
If a dimm or a CPU goes bad, its disabled and the system runs on. Dynamic Reconfiguration is part of Solaris, so not only can parts be disabled, but they can be replaced and cleared for system use, or the system can be upgraded on the fly.
In the majority of even SMP linux boxes, a dead CPU, no matter if its the first or last CPU, the system will most likely reboot. And as all Sysadmin’s of production systems know, reboots are the scarriest moments of the sysadmins life.
Solaris also handles AP(alternate pathing) allowing io cards/boards to be replaced with 0 downtime.
I always feel safer with a well designed distributed network of less powerful boxes than with one big powerful box.
Well you may feel safer, but is it just job security, since more boxes require more sysadmins. With a higher level of profiency (clusters are not something you let jr. sysadmins touch).
Though Sun markets an awesome line of opteron and ultraT1 servers, if your work load is best suited to horizontal scaling. The T2000 (ultraT1) provides world class performance, and isn’t supported yet in Linux, and even when it is, will it have all the bells and whistles that Solaris has on the same hardware, Solaris you can group tasks and tie them to a group of CPUs, and change on the fly, while this is fairly complex in Solaris, its bleeding edge and 10 times more difficult in Linux.
Agreed with the comment on reboots
Very scary.
In general I agree with you, Solaris boxes may be very very stable and robust. Not entirely sure of the architectures used, but a mainboard crack due to the heating+cooling effect (if it has a variable load) or some other reason will probably happen eventually if nothing else. It happened on an old x86 box of mine but that’s no comparison to a Sun box.
Afaik there is work in Linux to make the hotswapping of CPUs and memory work well, and IO alternate pathing, but due to the general lack of resources available to the Linux kernel hackers, It’s probably never going to be as good as the kernel made by the manufacturer of the hardware. Most of the unstability in linux seems to arise from reverse engineered hardware that behaves illogically.
About the CPU grouping thing.. it’s probably a matter of time before cpuset (?) is integrated into the mainline kernel (If it isn’t already)
But anyway, people should be free to choose what they feel will work best in their situation.
You got this Lxer guy, Linuxfanboy, and a whole bunch of other Linux kiddies who write like they just stepped off the Linux short bus.
This is great because it just shows how insane these Linux zealots really are. Of course none of these morons are developers, nor do they do anything productive with Linux, except to circle-jerk with each other in forums, and proclaim how Linux is the greatest religion/cult ever.
it just shows how insane these Linux zealots really are. Of course none of these morons are developers, nor do they do anything productive with Linux, except to circle-jerk with each other in forums, and proclaim how Linux is the greatest religion/cult ever.
Linux zealots are a pain => Agreed.
The “Linux community” consists of Linux zealots => No.
Please keep in mind that a huge number of people in the “Linux community” are actually intelligent and pleasant folks. They’re the ones who actually get work done instead of giving the “Linux community” a bad name in forums
.
Solaris runs on all those different platforms and you see so many embedded solaris devices too.
And that makes Linux better than Solaris how? I suppose if Sun wanted to take the time to port Solaris to embedded devices they could, and what would be the point of that? And platform support in some ways is so overrated, it comes down to people dedicating the time port and maintain it.
Solaris works just fine on the hardware I use everyday, both SPARC and x86. I do not see the ability of Linux running on a number of devices as an advantage over any other operating system.
And that makes Linux better than Solaris how?
It runs on a lot more specialized devices better suited for more tasks.
I suppose if Sun wanted to take the time to port Solaris to embedded devices they could, and what would be the point of that?
Probably not much, they would have to compete against better suited products in a narrow market. By saying they could you are assuming a lot about something you’ve never seen unless you also happen to be working for Sun with code access.
Solaris works just fine on the hardware I use everyday, both SPARC and x86. I do not see the ability of Linux running on a number of devices as an advantage over any other operating system.
That answers itself. I can have servers, web pads, shopping carts, scales, TV/multimedia players, car, workstation, stove, mp3 and pda all completely homogenous. Still don’t see it? MS does.
No I don’t have significant access to Solaris’ source code, that was supposition on my part. I still do not see the advantage of Linux running on a number of devices and how that would make it beter than Solaris. It just means that the Linux crowd can have any number of devices running Linux, big deal. I would much rather have Sun spend their development time making Solaris a better OS on SPARC and x86 platforms.
If Linux distro companies want to slug it out with Microsoft over the embedded market, let them.
I do not see the ability of Linux running on a number of devices as an advantage over any other operating system.
Time to fast forward, we are no longer in the 1990s. =)
Seroiusly, you need to update yourself about GNU/Linux before making broad assumption: http://www.linuxdevices.com/
Yeah, so? And I didn’t make any assumptions. The site still doesn’t explain why this makes Linux better than Solaris or any other operating system for that matter. So how about answering the question I posed?
Lower cost, scalability of Linux kernel are one of them. Note that Linux is an alternative thus companies like DLink, Nokia, Motorola already adopted it for their devices as long term solution. Your should question them.
And like sphinx, you managed to evade answering my question. I don’t care about mobile phones, answer the question how is this an advantage over Solaris. Is this going to help me run my Oracle databases faster or provide more fault tolerance, NO! So what’s the point?
Perhaps it would help if you all clearly defined your use of the term “better” and then analyzed how well each OS lends itself to each definition?
Just a suggestion. 😉
Now why would anybody want to do that? 🙂
Actaully, this has gotten me to thinking about the possibility of using Solaris on Sun hardware at one of my client sites.
I have a client that is currently running a CentOS 4.2 (RHEL 4) server. The server runs character based point of sale and accounting software under Microfocus Cobol. It also acts as a server for about 30 desktops running XDMCP. Actually, about 20 are local and 10 are remote using Nomachine NX. The desktop users do all the usual desktop things. They have web sites that they need to go to, some of which are, unfortunately, macromedia flash based. They have email, and receive the usual mix of attachments, .doc files, .xls files, etc. And they use OO.o for their own office uses.
They also have a VB app which is critical and cannot be replaced which I have to run under VMWare.
I am planning to upgrade both the hardware and OS (to CentOS 5) next fall.
They are very interested in hardware reliability.
So I figured I’d ask, how well would Solaris handle this challenge?
Send me some e-mail and we can discuss specifics.
Is this going to help me run my Oracle databases faster or provide more fault tolerance
… using your SPARC system as reference or x86/x86_64? Did you use trigger inside your Oracle database? Note that my knowledge on Oracle is limited so I apologize if I made mistake.
Well, when it comes to scalability and robustness, there is nothing better to Solaris.
Sure, you can go and buy some intel box and install lnx on it, but it doesn’t compare in anyway to a Solaris/sparc server….
> Sure, you can go and buy some intel box and install lnx on it, but it doesn’t compare in anyway to a Solaris/sparc server….
And that is absolutely no slight against Linux.
The various POSIX based OSes are complementary. Yes, they compete, too. But they also complement each other.
Linux does not have to be the be all and end all. Nor does Solaris. Why can’t POSIX advocates be happy with the achievements of POSIX based OSes which don’t happen to be their own favorite?
Sparc/Solaris is going to be a very good fit for some people. It would be a terrible fit for my customers; Linux works much better for our needs.
The whole “mine is better than yours” attitude is just so counter-productive.
Why can’t POSIX advocates be happy with the achievements of POSIX based OSes which don’t happen to be their own favorite?
Much of the Linux/Solaris rivalry comes from Sun’s schizophrenic attitudes towards Linux. One day it considers it an enemy, the next day Scott McNealy dons a penguin suit.
This on-off attitude from Sun, as well as its uneasy dealings with Microsoft, have made most Linux enthusiasts wary of the company.
Personally I have nothing against Solaris, like I don’t have anything against Windows. It’s usually the management and the corporate cultures of the companies behind the OSes that irk me…
Well lots of Linux fans want to beleve that Linux matches all the features of Solaris, or it will, but I looked at all the offerings, most of them are not ready for production, and even if you can some how convince your self that they are. Try and merge them into one conhesive package, and It won’t go smoothly at all, Solaris does it all with ease.
Here are some links to Solaris features and the corresponding Linux’s attempts.
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/09/systemtap-links.html
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/03/zones-links.html
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-dtrace-can-do-that-systemta…
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/02/im-too-old-for-puzzles.html
Below I have copied a previous comment of mine that was quite popular and highly rated and on topic.
As I will show below you can’t just look at each technology on its own, its how they work together that really makes Solaris/OpenSolaris so powerful.
While I preffer Xen over zones (Xen does work on Solaris too), ZFS rocks, but features of ZFS are the least important to desktop user.
as you say Solaris gives you a choice of both, each has there own place. Solaris zones are much lighter than Xen, with Xen you deploy the whole OS, using over a GB for an average install of each OS, a Solaris zone can be as small as 50MB when you store them on a ZFS filesystem (compression enabled). ZFS also gives you to ability to deploy a new zone in 5 seconds or less. Using its snapshot ability. http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jclingan?entry=zone_creation_with_…..
With Xen have you the headaches of patching each one as patches and software upgrades happen Solaris makes it apply once used everywhere. But if you need it Xen is there.
ZFS does have a place on the desktop, its snapshot features give it the ability to take a static picture of the data before you make a large change. If you don’t like the new version revert to an old image. want to tryout new software package, take a snapshot of your data, install new package, you don’t like it? its buggy? simply revert to the previous version.
Personally, I don’t find dtrace really special.
currently dtrace isn’t that interesting for a normal desktop user, but as a developer or sysadmin it is a powerful tool to have availible. It has allready solved problems in numerous opensource packages, even those that run on linux.
Linux has far better coverage of hardware. While I can plug things in Solaris up to infinity with no result sometimes, Linux just works.
Yes linux has better hardware support currently. but that is slowly changing. Hardware makers are seeing the stability in Solaris ABI and love how they can do a driver once, and have it remain working even as it progresses towards the next release. How many people have been bitten by install a driver for hardware in linux then 3 to 6 months later you upgrade your kernel, and the driver is broken. This doesn’t happen in Solaris and hardware makers really appreciate that fact.
SMF and init comparission? Not relevant for desktop user, but relevant for server admin. SMF is indeed better, but administration of services is not really hard anywhere.
SMF is totally relavent to the desktop, especially when you have many desktops. Ever tried debugging a desktop where the user says my machine can’t reach google. In linux this can be multiple steps. In solaris 10 its a single step gets you info you need to solve the problem. Because its not just about services, its interlinked with Predictive self healing.
svcs -x tells you what hardware and/or software services are not availible. If you have a bad nic or a unplugged network cable, or any of the other services that may be running.
Well, I don’t really get enthusiasm about brandz. Which software? It is almost all OSS. Better to port things, than run trough the “should work solution”. Your “everything should work” can be tested fairly good. Run Domino in brandz, then talk. You can’t port Domino, can’t you?
brandz by it self is pretty boring, untill you are in a corprate setting and your boss requires you to run a commercial software package that is only availible on Linux.
When you mix brandz with other special features of Solaris 10 it becomes more interesting as well. You can use dtrace to debug a problem in a linux executable no recompile, no grabbing pre-alpha solutions recompiling the kernel its ready to go. Or add brandz on top of ZFS, and you can take instant snapshots of your data for backups.
I have to agree with the statement that Solaris is a better Linux than Linux — Solaris trounces Linux all over the place. And I’m not even talking about absolutely obvious technical aspects of Solaris that have undisputed lead over Linux (scalability, performance, observability, stability, and pretty groundbreaking things like Dtrace, Zones, and ZFS). What really matters is that Solaris can do absolutely everything Linux can do, only Solaris can do it cheaper. Solaris is cheaper to license and support than any commerical Linux distribution. OpenSolaris also provides more liberal approach to the source than Linux. Linux became so popular because of two factors — price or lack of thereof and openness. It looks like Solaris trounced Linux on both, so the statement is quite valid.
Nice troll.
> I believe that SGI is trying to sell their stuff to the same market that Sun’s pursuing, at least on the high-end front.
Hah? NumaFlex machines from SGI are pretty useless on database workloads, so there is no threat to Sun from SGI. The only place where Altix can be useful is a tiny little niche in HPC/HPTC computing that requires single large memory image and can tolerate large and eneven latencies in the interconnect.
“Jonathan Schwartz has said that Red Hat requires a binary license per CPU. Schwartz thinking in this matter looks patently false. Red would violate the GPL if they required a binary license fee from end users. Red Hat charges for its products of course, but has neither the right nor the motivation to stop people from using it for free.”
RH indeed requires a license per CPU/system and they demand permission to access your site for possible checking. What people always seem to miss is that there is the source code under GPL and the whole distribution and branding is under copyright laws. Of yourse you can install and redistribute all source code as long as you strip it from any copyrighted RH references.
so let’s do that. 😀