If Sun gets very serious about Solaris 10 on x86 and the Open Solaris project that it hopes will nourish it, Linux vendors had better get very worried. That’s because, in the many areas where Linux is miles ahead of Solaris, Sun stands a good chance of catching up quickly if it has the will, whereas in the many areas where Solaris is miles ahead, the Linux community will be hard pressed to narrow the gap.
I tried Solaris 10. It is good only as a server OS, with still very limited hardware support and everything needs to be done from the CL.
What is the point? If I need a server OS I’ll run CentOS. If I want a desktop OS there is a vast choice in linuxland: Kanotix, SUSE, name your favorite…
“I tried Solaris 10. It is good only as a server OS, with still very limited hardware support and everything needs to be done from the CL. What is the point?”
Sounds familiar 3=)
It is good only as a server OS, with still very limited hardware support
Linux runs on every cheap device you cant think of.
In the realm od Solaris, you first get the OS, then look in the HCL, to pick the right hardware. Or, while buying a machine, you already buy an appriopriate machine for solaris.
It’s jst in not a OS, to put on an 15-year old 80486 stanting under your deas and make it route your packets.
and everything needs to be done from the CL.
Do you suggest, that it’s a drawback for a server?
“Do you suggest, that it’s a drawback for a server?”
In a sense…
Why give up the comfort of the tools you get if you use RHEL or SLES (OK, $$$$)
Solaris is probably (with the exception of mainframe, OS/400 os’s etc) the best server operating system on the market.
Personally I’d trust my systems (and do!) to Solaris on Sparc.
Linux is fine on the desktop and as a general purpose workstation O/S and non-mission critical serving.
…and everything needs to be done from the CL.
It would be incorrect to state that “everything” needs to be done from the commandline.
1) webmin is included with Solaris 10 so you can do quite a few administration tasks from a browser
2) Sun Management Console is included and is a graphical desktop application for doing many system management tasks.
3) updatemanager is included and is a graphical desktop application for installing / managing system updates.
So, your assertion that “everything” has to be done from the command line is grossly incorrect.
1) webmin is included with Solaris 10 so you can do quite a few administration tasks from a browser
Webmin is a horror at times. It is good if you know what you are admining works with Webmin and if you have some jr. admins that you can’t train immediately. Otherwise, I avoid it unless I’ve checked it completely.
Once Sun releases their code under an acceptable license such as the GPL I will look into their Open Solaris. Until then I stick with Linux.
Once Sun releases their code under an acceptable license such as the GPL I will look into their Open Solaris. Until then I stick with Linux.
You mean, untill they release Solaris 10 under a license that’s compatible with the GPL.
The CDDL and GPL are almost carbon-copies of one another.
> The CDDL and GPL are almost carbon-copies of one another.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicens…
“This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term ‘intellectual property’.”
Not to say that it is wrong to be in-compatible with GPL. But just to state the fact that it is in-compatible and some people do take in that fact when deciding what OS or software to use.
Not to say that it is wrong to be in-compatible with GPL. But just to state the fact that it is in-compatible and some people do take in that fact when deciding what OS or software to use.
I guess these same “people” must also refuse to use anything under a Mozilla or Apache Licence because these are alos incompatible.
So they will refuse to use Firefox and Apache. Wonder what they have left to use?
There is only one true license, and RMS is its prophet.
In time all shall bow to the OSS fida’i, RMS ackbar.
Yes, because which Open Source license Solaris is released under really affects the users of the software.
I suppose you don’t use Mozilla either?
Honestly, grow up.
If you were planning on helping develop the software, then I could see the concern. But as a user, it really does not affect you.
Mod this man up! He has a point.
Choosing software based on philosophies/licenses, as opposed to which is the best tool for the job, is moronic.
I never understood why people who have no principles need to make fun of people who do. You don’t have to agree with them, but calling them moronic is, well, moronic. And no, using the best tool for the job is not a principle.
Let’s see if your employer agrees. Oh, wait … do you GPL hippies even have jobs?
Boss: I want you to procure a CAD application that will allow us to design this part as efficiently as possible. We’ll pay for any licensing costs.
You: *finds a half-baked, GPL CAD application still in beta, because it’s Free as in Freedom, not necessarily the best*
You: *spends a week forcing the app into submission as you work, and come out with a poor design because of limited capabilities*
Boss: What the hell is this? What did you use to design this?
You: I used FreeCAD! It’s a free alternative to AutoCAD, and it is Open Source! Proprietary software is evil, and I refuse to use it.
Boss: That’s tough. You’re fired. Get the hell out of my office.
I STILL don’t understand why people who have no principles need to make fun of people who do.
I STILL don’t understand why people who have no principles need to make fun of people who do.
By principles I think you mean using only GPL and GPL compatible software.
The list of GPL compatible licenses is very short, while the list of incompatible licenses is very long.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
According to this list everything from Apache and PHP to Firefox/Mozilla are not compatible with GPL.
We make fun of people who have no problems using Firefox, Apache and PHP, but suddenly have a huge “moral” problem using Solaris because it is “incompatible with GPL”.
The real reason you are rejecting Solaris is that it is not Linux. Licensing principles have nothing to do with it.
Let’s see if your employer agrees. Oh, wait … do you GPL hippies even have jobs?
Boss: I want you to procure a CAD application that will allow us to design this part as efficiently as possible. We’ll pay for any licensing costs.
You: *finds a half-baked, GPL CAD application still in beta, because it’s Free as in Freedom, not necessarily the best*
You: *spends a week forcing the app into submission as you work, and come out with a poor design because of limited capabilities*
Boss: What the hell is this? What did you use to design this?
You: I used FreeCAD! It’s a free alternative to AutoCAD, and it is Open Source! Proprietary software is evil, and I refuse to use it.
Boss: That’s tough. You’re fired. Get the hell out of my office.
HAHAHAHA you made my day
I see that kind of bullshit going on everyday. Too many times I heard it’s Open Source! as the only argument for using something 5 millions times worst than the real thing.
“Choosing software based on philosophies/licenses, as opposed to which is the best tool for the job, is moronic.”
Is it moronic to choose not to eat meat based on philosophies and not because it’s the best diet for me?
Pretending politics don’t affect the future of your decision is naive.
Right, that’s why everyone is using M$ windows, because it’s t he best tool for the job: for those who don’t install squate, who just want to write some papers and use the internet, guess what??? oh yeah, linux is way better, don’t know about other systems since I haven’t used them. The reason I switch to linux is because of it’s license, and it’s its licence that will keep it alive: the gpl allows a natural growing of software, sometimes doing double work, but that’s no problem, there’s no such thing as one solution.
Besides, there is nothing moronic about choosing software based on philosophies/licences. After using such software, you might never go back, cause it might fulfill the needs as well. There is nothing more moronic than using overkill, how many people use more than 1% of the feautures ms word can? (and they even pay for lots of stuff they don’t NEED).
Yes, yes it does. Try reading, it’ll do ya some good.
If you can’t understand why a good license is important….
Yes, yes it does. Try reading, it’ll do ya some good.
If you can’t understand why a good license is important….
OK, what is so bad about the CDDL?
lol moron
You need to get real.
Neither Apache nor Firefox are GPL compatible. Do you refuse to use these too because they are “unnaceptable”.
CDDL is based on the mozilla license anyway, don’t see anyone rejecting Firefox because of it’s license do you?
Firefox is lisenced under MPL/LGPL/GPL. So your theory sucks.
You are just silly, have you even read the license? Why can’t you agree to it more than the GPL? I have more trouble agreeing to GPL than the BSD license, i still use GPL-products. GPL isn’t the finest there is and never has been.
I disagree with the sentiments of Solaris being only for servers. I tried it recently and their JDS desktop is by far the cleanest most integrated GNOME desktop I have seen on any platform.
If the OpenSolaris community continues to grow and stay on the path they are now, then the driver availability issues will dwindle.
The OpenSolaris project is looking a lot like what I had hoped the FreeBSD project would have shaped into.
“Linux killer”? Oh please. The guy’s network card didn’t work without compiling a driver and he had to manually set everything up.
Then there was this little gem…
KDE is certainly more popular than Gnome among Linux users, and most would agree that it’s by far the better of the two desktops. It has more tools, it has better tools, and it’s almost infinitely customizable.
I seriously can’t take this guy’s article seriously when he’s off making gargantuan claims about something totally irrelevant.
I’d certainly like to see his study he performed claiming KDE is “more popular” and “far better” than GNOME.
What a tool.
“Linux killer”? Oh please. The guy’s network card didn’t work without compiling a driver and he had to manually set everything up.
I distinctly remember having to do this very thing on linux maybe 4-5 years ago. Linux was touted as a windows killer then!
Also, linux killer means in the x86 server space where the number of no name nics are fairly small and contained. No one in thier right mind is claiming Solaris will kill linux on the desktop. There are other OSes already doing that, like Windows and MacOS X.
Also, linux killer means in the x86 server space where the number of no name nics are fairly small and contained. No one in thier right mind is claiming Solaris will kill linux on the desktop. There are other OSes already doing that, like Windows and MacOS X.
Linux came from 0% 10 years ago to 2 or 3% on the desktop, and is still growing, and somehow being killed at the same time?
Growing slowly != Losing market share/being killed.
It’s funny isn’t it? I think Solaris will have a bit of an app shortage though…
I rather liked how they talked about Wine crashing Linux in the article as if that related over to Solaris? Did they try Wine on Solaris? I don’t see that as being very fair.
The virtual kernel stuff looked very cool. Sounds quite a bit like user-mode linux though, I didn’t see that mentioned. I understand that user-mode linux eats a lot more resources.
It also seems a bit off to compare Solaris to kernel 2.4. I mean, if they were using a 2 year old version of Solaris that’d be fine; but seriously 2.6 was released about 18 months ago! Everyone but Slack is using it! Even RedHat switched from their barely 2.4 kernel.. But of course, Windows sucks because of 9x you know. And Macintosh is awful because of pre-OS X problems (like the lack of memory protection).
Most of the numbers that I have seen that are not blatently doctored have shown KDE at about 60% of the total OSS desktop market
In any event, I don’t think this is a KDE/Gnome thing.
Solaris’s problem is hardware support, it is horriable, I have 4 systems, I could only get it to install on one of them and on that system my network did not work properly without some major troubleshooting.
Solaris cannot kill linux simply because you cannot kill and idea
Solaris cannot kill linux simply because you cannot kill and idea
Nope, but, of course, when articles refer to Linux and the Market, they’re not talking “Linux” in the big view bubbling petri dish that Linux is, that will never go away. They’re talking RedHat and Novell.
So, while Solaris may have little impact on Linux as a social meme, Sun and Solaris/OpenSolaris CAN have a great impact on RedHat, which is where Linux meets with Money.
Damage RedHat, and you damage Linux, even immortal Linux.
did i read the article wrong?
” That’s because, in the many areas where Linux is miles ahead of Solaris, Sun stands a good chance of catching up quickly if it has the will, whereas in the many areas where Solaris is miles ahead, the Linux community will be hard pressed to narrow the gap.”
where were the mentions of where solaris is miles ahead of linux? dtrace, zones, and not crashing in a month of experimenting? was that it? cause other than the zones i fail to see why linux would be hard press to catch up, or why linux should be scared.
course it’s pretty irrelevent, linux hit critical mass years ago, its got enough hobbyists and hackers that development will happen regardless of popularity in the market.
I don’t believe Solaris lets me sync my iPod and my mobile phone. And I’m not sure about 3D acceleration and power management either. On the desktop Sun has a long way to go.
I’m not trying to be rude. This is mainly the same critisism I have on the BSD’s.
I do not know about the iPod and power management, but nVidia has a nice 3D accelerated driver for FreeBSD.
Nvidia 3d acceleration works, and i can synch my iPod just fine…
Linux has failed on the desktop because of the myriad of distributions. And since Solaris has a much better license than the GPL there’s no problems with binary drivers.
Linux has failed on the desktop because of the myriad of distributions. And since Solaris has a much better license than the GPL there’s no problems with binary drivers.
You do realize licensing is not the main problem with binary drivers, right?
Each distro using a different GCC cannot have the same binary drivers. If Intel releases a driver compiled with GCC 3.2, and you are running a GCC 3.4 compiled kernel, the module is going to have problems functioning correctly. This is why the Nvidia driver installer compiles the kernel module right on the desktop, and only the OpenGL libraries are closed source.
Also, what in the CDDL is stopping different distros of Solaris from popping up, using different versions of GCC, and causing the same problems? Ever heard of Schillix?
Once Open Solaris has different distros, which is bound to happen, and can be compiled fully using GCC, the same problems will no doubt pop up.
(If you don’t believe me about the GCC problem, take a look at the Nvidia driver read me, it discusses the problems I speak of).
Oh, and Nvidia/ATI have binary drivers. I haven’t noticed any lawsuits, have you?
With the HURD, however, the FSF would sue companies left right and center for binary drivers since they own the copyrights, which is one reason HURD will never be big on the desktop.
You do realize licensing is not the main problem with binary drivers, right?
Wrong. If you take the time to read half the discussions about licensing issues and binary drivers on the Kernel mailing lists you’d know that statement is incorrect. Many of the interfaces that used to be available to all kernel driver developers have been made “GPL only” in recent years.
Each distro using a different GCC cannot have the same binary drivers. If Intel releases a driver compiled with GCC 3.2, and you are running a GCC 3.4 compiled kernel, the module is going to have problems functioning correctly. This is why the Nvidia driver installer compiles the kernel module right on the desktop, and only the OpenGL libraries are closed source.
Also wrong. The main reason there are problems is because Linux doesn’t have a stable driver API. Different GCC versions rarely if ever have an effect on the C binary ABI, only on the C++ ABI. So, yet again what you say is incorrect.
Additionally, since the Sun Studio compilers are available now and provide a much more stable ABI. In fact, the ABI for Solaris is so stable that drivers compiled and built for Solaris 9 work years later without change on Solaris 10!
Once Open Solaris has different distros, which is bound to happen, and can be compiled fully using GCC, the same problems will no doubt pop up.
Only if they diverge from the Solaris ABI.
(If you don’t believe me about the GCC problem, take a look at the Nvidia driver read me, it discusses the problems I speak of).
You’re right, I don’t believe you. You don’t sound like someone that has actually helped develop drivers for multiple operating systems. I have.
“With the HURD, however, the FSF would sue companies left right and center for binary drivers since they own the copyrights, which is one reason HURD will never be big on the desktop.”
I’m not sure what binary drivers has to do with copyright ownership. The GPL states you can do whatever you want, and the driver development model is not fully established. It’s not illegal to make a binary driver. It’s what you do with it that can be a problem.
You do realise that Solaris isn’t built with gcc, surely.
Solaris is built with the SunStudio compiler.
Sun have this thing called backwards-compatability, which is unheard of in the GNU/Linux world. Not just API, but ABI also.
A Solaris 2.6 binary runs fine on Solaris 10, and vice-versa. Regardless of the compiler, OS, libc version. That’s the difference with Solaris.
Not the only difference, I’ll grant you – Linux could mimic IPMP without too much difficulty, and the relative ease of SVM within a year or two. MPxIO (STMS) could take a while, and the Dynamic Reconfig features of Solaris are unnecessary on typical x86 systems which don’t support hotplug, so they’re almost guaranteed not to make it into Linux for lack of users.
Solaris is a different world from Linux. I use both every day; Linux on my laptop, Solaris on servers. Linux is a great desktop, and a perfectly adequate small server (DNS, File/Print, small Database, etc). Truth be told, we recently replaced an (old) Sun Solaris DB server with an Apple XServe, with great performance improvements. That’s largely because the old server was an ancient single-CPU 360MHz Netra!
Steve
You do realise that Solaris isn’t built with gcc, surely.
Not quite true. All AMD64 libs/binaries were built with gcc, due to the Sun Compiler not being ready before Solaris 10 GA went FCS. You can read more about this on opensolaris.org…
If you look at the code and doco available at http://www.opensolaris.org you’ll see that the amd64 stuff was in fact built with gcc. Sun has committed to getting their required changes back into the mainstream of gcc, so you need not worry about that. The latest I’ve seen from the SunStudio10 compiler is that it is much better for amd64 than gcc.
I’m surprised you replaced a single-cpu netra with an XServe, if only because I would have expected you to see at least comparable performance numbers from an equivalent Sun box, and have the added benefit of keeping your investment in Solaris.
Peculiar how the whole paragraph about DTrace never gets around to saying what the darn thing actually does.
That’s because it doesn’t actually offer anything new or interesting over what has already been available for years under Windows and Linux, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last 10 years.
I’ve been using Solaris 10 for a few months on an old Sun workstation I have, and it’s really a giant step forward from Solaris 8 and 9. Their GNOME is a tidy desktop, with useful apps like GIMP 2 integrated into the default menus. There’s an automated patching system (smpatch). There’s good documentation (docs.sun.com). The boot time is substantially faster than before. These are all good things for regular desktop users.
Solaris is becoming the “Mac” of the traditional UNIX/Linux world, while Apple, of course, is the “Mac” of the desktop world…I just don’t see a reason beyond legacy support why Windows should continue to keep its share. People in my family _still_ struggle with Windows XP, with spyware, wierd behavior, etc.
Microsoft just keeps slipping, while Linux and Solaris 10 jump forward by leaps and bounds and Apple is better than ever before. Everything I’ve read about Longhorn so far seems like it has turned into a white elephant of trying to compete with Linux and Mac OS on every front but just failing to reach a satisfying step forward.
I rather enjoyed reading this article. While I don’t fully believe that Solaris is a “linux killer”, I do believe that it serves a different purpose. I use a mix of Unix/Linux machines on my network (and until a few months ago was using Solaris 9… I got rid of it because the box it was running on couldn’t support Solaris 10… besides, it was a test box). Each has its merits/uses.
I’m curious to see how OpenSolaris does, though somehow I think it’ll take quite a while for a community the size of the Linux community to build around it. But then again, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The BSD’s have a much smaller developer community than Linux does, and they do very well for themselves.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Why do people demand GPL software?
Let’s compare BSD and GPL licenses for end users:
1. Free (as in beer).
BSD: yes. If you can get the source you can compile and run it. If you can get the source you can redistribute it as well (for free or a fee). The result is that basically everything is $0.
GPL: yes. If you can get the source you can compile and run it. If you can get the source you can redistribute it as well (for free or a fee). The result is that basically everything is $0.
2. Free (as in speech).
BSD: yes. You can get the source and modify it to your heart’s content. You can redistribute the source with or without modifications, without needing consent.
GPL: yes (and no). You can get the source and modify it to your heart’s content. You can redistribute the source with or without modifications, without needing consent. BUT, you cannot redistribute a modified binary without giving the source (upon request).
So what is the difference to YOU as a user? Well, when you demand GPL software, you are basically demanding that it be provided to you and everyone else on the terms that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WHO MIGHT MODIFY IT must give up their changes.
Let’s see, that one person who might modify it (presumably to improve it), if you require them to release the changes, they may simply decide not to modify it! And, ultimately, you do not benefit. Worse, they do not benefit either (by their own choice of course, but as a result of the license).
That is indistinguishable from the BSD case where those people who would modify the software (again, presumably to improve it) but would not release the source changes to you–except that that person benefits while you do not. The result for you is essentially the same; those people who are likely to modify the software and not release the changes will do so, but you will not benefit.
So, if you are one of those altruistic souls who believes in the “most freedom for the most people”, then you would do the calculation and find that the GPL vs BSD makes no difference to you, but to the one guy who wants to modify it for his own purposes, BSD is preferrable. Therefore BSD is preferrable since it benefits the most people.
Stallman has tried to throw dust in your eyes with this “maximizing freedom” tangle of logic but his logic glosses over a couple of nasty areas and makes appeals to fuzzy terms such as “freedom” without pinning him down. But make no mistake, the GPL is not better than BSD.
BSD is more freedom than the GPL. Only someone that is braindamaged thinks otherwise; communists, socialist.
Linux cannot touch Solaris YET on rock solid stability. Big iron mission critical stuff still uses Solaris and UNIX because it has a history of uptime in years and some amazing hot capabilities.
Tne thing is, they can both benefit from each other with open code.
Linux is far from immortal, and while it may always exist, it may not always be the all powerful force it is today. Remember, the biggest competitors non-Microsoft OS’s have is each other.
Don’t me to be a threadcrasher, and off topic, but it doesn’t seem “fair” that OSN staff comments can not be modded (up or down), whereas every else can. I understand that for administrative messages and what not you would want to keep the messages up, but for “casual comments”, I think they should be modded to the whims of the population just like everyone else.
(Note, I’m not judging this particular comment either way, just something I noticed as I watched the GPL topics get slammed into oblivion.)
The parent seems to be a personal opinion, and not posted as part of an “official” OSN staff function. I agree with the previous respondant to your post, that comments such as that should not be exempt from the mod system. It was a valid criticism. I found it interesting that he ended up getting moded all the way down.
For the record, I did not touch his comment. But it was completely off topic, which other admins frequently mod down.
Anyway, it has been explained many times why all admin comments are exempt from moderation. I really don’t mean to be mean, but I will be blunt: deal with it. It’s a necessary evil. If the administrative staff posted moderatable comments, they WOULD be modded down by trolls. We are reviewing the moderation system, but it is extremely unlikely that admin comments will ever be publically votable.
I think it’s for the best that they cannot be moderated. There should largely be no useful purpose in moderating admin accounts. If an admin is engaging in inappropriate behavior, it’s fairly easy for you guys to deal with.
My point is that if the admin is posting as simply a poster, contributing to the conversation, rather than as an Admin, then not only can their posts not be modded down, they can’t be modded up as “interesting” etc. either, that’s all.
If they’re posting in an “official” capacity, then, by all means.
But if they’re participating as part of the community, then why not let the community participate back.
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Why do people demand GPL software?
Let’s compare BSD and GPL licenses for end users:
1. Free (as in beer).
BSD: yes. If you can get the source you can compile and run it. If you can get the source you can redistribute it as well (for free or a fee). The result is that basically everything is $0.
GPL: yes. If you can get the source you can compile and run it. If you can get the source you can redistribute it as well (for free or a fee). The result is that basically everything is $0.
2. Free (as in speech).
BSD: yes. You can get the source and modify it to your heart’s content. You can redistribute the source with or without modifications, without needing consent.
GPL: yes (and no). You can get the source and modify it to your heart’s content. You can redistribute the source with or without modifications, without needing consent. BUT, you cannot redistribute a modified binary without giving the source (upon request).
So what is the difference to YOU as a user? Well, when you demand GPL software, you are basically demanding that it be provided to you and everyone else on the terms that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WHO MIGHT MODIFY IT must give up their changes.
Let’s see, that one person who might modify it (presumably to improve it), if you require them to release the changes, they may simply decide not to modify it! And, ultimately, you do not benefit. Worse, they do not benefit either (by their own choice of course, but as a result of the license).
That is indistinguishable from the BSD case where those people who would modify the software (again, presumably to improve it) but would not release the source changes to you–except that that person benefits while you do not. The result for you is essentially the same; those people who are likely to modify the software and not release the changes will do so, but you will not benefit.
So, if you are one of those altruistic souls who believes in the “most freedom for the most people”, then you would do the calculation and find that the GPL vs BSD makes no difference to you, but to the one guy who wants to modify it for his own purposes, BSD is preferrable. Therefore BSD is preferrable since it benefits the most people.
Stallman has tried to throw dust in your eyes with this “maximizing freedom” tangle of logic but his logic glosses over a couple of nasty areas and makes appeals to fuzzy terms such as “freedom” without pinning him down. But make no mistake, the GPL is not better than BSD.
Some of the previous posters wondered about the point of using Solaris. Here’s a good answer: http://my.execpc.com/~keithp/bdlogsol.htm#point
Everyone has a debate about licenses. “BSD is better!” “No! GPL or bust!” It gets rather tiring.
The license has no effect really on the end user (nobody even reads the licenses for software they install anyways). When was the last time you were installing something, and were presented with the license (this usually happens on Windows), and actually sat there and read it? Never is probably your answer. So does it really matter whether it says “I am BSD code” or “I am GPL code”? As far as the hardware drivers, a few drivers for Linux (nvidia comes to mind) are provided in binary form, so license in this case doesn’t matter, as nvidia isn’t giving you the code, but a binary file.
As far as stability when it comes to Solaris, I’ve seen it. Solaris regularly stays up for years if you want it to. It’s as rock solid as can be. From what I’ve seen, Linux is very stable too. I have, however, had a Linux server lock up (can’t remember what was taking place but the whole thing locked up, couldn’t even ping the box, had to hard reboot). But in all fairness, I locked my Solaris box up once while logging in to GNOME.
Now, getting back to this issue of licenses. The developer chooses what license he wants to use. S/He has that freedom. What I can’t seem to understand is most of the people I talk to that are vocal supporters of the GPL aren’t even developers. So what difference does it make if I choose to license a program I write under the GPL? It’s not as if they are planning to do anything with the code… they just want to see “GPL” stamped on it I guess. Has anyone else encountered this issue?
One area that Solaris beats Linux is in backwards compatibility.
On linux with a minor upgrade of the same distribution, there is a good chance your application will break. Linux likes to re-write stuff every version and leave old propgrams in the dust. Linux does not believe in backwards compatibility.
Whereas an application written for Solaris 7 will still run on Solaris 10.
Depends.. if you compile your app staticly it can run on any version of linux on the same architecture. If you use system libraries, like glibc, then you have to use functions that maintain backward compatibility between glibc versions or risk a compatibility problem.
Recently I updated glibc on my Mepis system, using a Debian glibc package. If what you say is true all the apps on my system should have stopped working. They didn’t.
Depends.. if you compile your app staticly it can run on any version of linux on the same architecture.
Sadly, that isn’t always true either. For example, if a developer foolishly decides to statically link libc, and a particular libc does kernel calls or makes assumptions about /dev or /proc that are no longer true in later versions, then the application may no longer function.
Static linking isn’t a solid guarantee of the binary compatability or usability.
If you use system libraries, like glibc, then you have to use functions that maintain backward compatibility between glibc versions or risk a compatibility problem.
Recently I updated glibc on my Mepis system, using a Debian glibc package. If what you say is true all the apps on my system should have stopped working. They didn’t.
You got lucky. For example, Oracle 8 and 9 required relinking when installing on different Linux distributions or different versions. The reason being symbol differences between versions. Additionally, most of the time you’ll see ABI differences with Linux applications with C++. This happens especially when GCC versions change. The C++ ABI for GCC has changed three times as far as I know in recent years.
Bullshit, Linux break things.
Take my case: I need to use the proprietary software package for mathematics called Maple. There are no free software alternatives (they’re buggy and behind the curve – you just don’t have that many math Phds in the free software community…)
I ditched my old Debian (it was getting very old) to Ubuntu, and now can’t install Maple. I would not have this problem if I was using Windows. I suspect this problem can be avoided on FreeBSD too, because, according to this ( http://www.cons.org/cracauer/freebsd.html ) page, you can have incompatible C libraries throught the ports system, and the problem is the library broke with the upgrade. Better yet, I suspect PC-BSD with the PBI installer might turn up to be very cool (I don’t know, because my Linux won’t burn the image – and my machine is somewhat old – buggy, buggy cd writer software).
So Linux is kind of amateurish by comparison. In fact, I only installed Ubuntu because my wife needs some Flash stuff, and I wanted to run Maple, but I ordered a FreeBSD cd (I ran OpenBSD once and it worked like a charm, but had little software).
The same problems exist on most platforms; if Solaris makes the situation better then that’s great. Usually people get around it by either statically compiling or just shipping multiple binaries.
You act like it changes monthly, it’s not nearly that often
.
Umm… I don’t have an nvidia card in my laptop (I’d almost say: unfortunately). My laptop runs on a Intel i855GM chipset, which is pretty damn old. That is why BSD in not a contender in *my* desktop arena.
I admit: my rhetorics are very pragmatic and somewhat self-centered. But hey, I am the one who has to sit behind my laptop right?
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Why do people demand GPL software?
Let’s compare BSD and GPL licenses for end users:
1. Free (as in beer).
BSD: yes. If you can get the source you can compile and run it. If you can get the source you can redistribute it as well (for free or a fee). The result is that basically everything is $0.
GPL: yes. If you can get the source you can compile and run it. If you can get the source you can redistribute it as well (for free or a fee). The result is that basically everything is $0.
2. Free (as in speech).
BSD: yes. You can get the source and modify it to your heart’s content. You can redistribute the source with or without modifications, without needing consent.
GPL: yes (and no). You can get the source and modify it to your heart’s content. You can redistribute the source with or without modifications, without needing consent. BUT, you cannot redistribute a modified binary without giving the source (upon request).
So what is the difference to YOU as a user? Well, when you demand GPL software, you are basically demanding that it be provided to you and everyone else on the terms that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WHO MIGHT MODIFY IT must give up their changes.
Let’s see, that one person who might modify it (presumably to improve it), if you require them to release the changes, they may simply decide not to modify it! And, ultimately, you do not benefit. Worse, they do not benefit either (by their own choice of course, but as a result of the license).
That is indistinguishable from the BSD case where those people who would modify the software (again, presumably to improve it) but would not release the source changes to you–except that that person benefits while you do not. The result for you is essentially the same; those people who are likely to modify the software and not release the changes will do so, but you will not benefit.
So, if you are one of those altruistic souls who believes in the “most freedom for the most people”, then you would do the calculation and find that the GPL vs BSD makes no difference to you, but to the one guy who wants to modify it for his own purposes, BSD is preferrable. Therefore BSD is preferrable since it benefits the most people.
Stallman has tried to throw dust in your eyes with this “maximizing freedom” tangle of logic but his logic glosses over a couple of nasty areas and makes appeals to fuzzy terms such as “freedom” without pinning him down. But make no mistake, the GPL is not better than BSD.
Why do you keep posting the same thing over and over? It doesn’t help anyone’s cause.
OK so wait, the final word here is that the BSD license is better than the GPL?
Is that the final word? You know how many notebook pages I’ve gone through already crossing out both BSD and GPL next to “most r0x0r license”, alternately? It’s ridiculous. I’m killing trees here, people.
I just want to establish for sure now that the BSD license is better than the GPL, because I’m getting writer’s cramp and there’s nothing more pathetic than a computer geek with writer’s cramp.
So going once, going twice, BSD license rules, GPL drools…right?
Right.
Solaris does not even have a good installer, It’s like the worst Linux Distribution.
I’m not attempting to flame you or anything, but how does Solaris not have a good installer? I found it to be quite pleasing in fact (because it worked). I’m not sure what the worst Linux distro installer is… does anyone have any thoughts on this? I heard Debian was a pain to install, but I didn’t think so. I breezed through the Gentoo install. I’ve read that many people are chased away from FreeBSD because of the installer. Took me a few minutes. So I don’t get it, what makes an installer bad and/or hard to use? I could understand if it dropped you into a shell and expected you to magically know what to do (similar to Gentoo, except Gentoo comes with extensive documentation), but the Solaris install is very easy and straight-forward. So what makes it “not good”?
I’m not attempting to flame you or anything, but how does Solaris not have a good installer?
I believe that was sarcasm.
I believe that was sarcasm.
You say it’s sarcasm, I say it’s a valid question. I’m not a Solaris zealot, lambasting someone for saying it doesn’t have a good installer. I was attempting to ask the poster why he felt the installer wasn’t good. Nobody gets anywhere by saying “program x’s installer sucks, but program y’s is good”… you need to find out why it’s not good. That’s all I was attempting to find out. There was no sarcasm (nor none intended) in my post.
Solaris is incredible… once you have it installed. The install process is horrible. It takes hours, it is incredibly error prone, and the documentation is quite poor if you stray off the beaten path.
A few weeks ago I installed Solaris 10 on an Opteron machine. I mistakenly select the “GUI” version of the installer. Unable to back out of my decision, I elected to continue and save time.
During the install process I HAD to use a floppy to install a patch that, without, Solaris would only recognize 18g of my 73g hard drive. There were no options other than the floppy, I could not use the CDROM, as it was in use by the installer. USB floppy drives, cd drives, hard drives, and network patch installations are not supported. Later in the installation, the process froze and I had to restart the machine.
During the second installation attempt, accidentally selecting the GUI again (my bad), the installer froze at the same point. There were no messages in the existing console window, but I finally found that if I manually opened a different console terminal, there was a text prompt asking me to re-insert the floppy (which was still inserted). The installer would not continue without my correspondance in the terminal. It was almost luck that I opened up this window, given the existance of the other window named “Console” already on the desktop.
This is one sad tale, but I have several from various installs of various Solaris version of various hardware. I feel that being anything less than an entry-level Solaris Guru requires time and frustration.
I sincerely hope that the Open Solaris folks take a page from Debian’s book and provide a powerful but easy to use installer that given a decent net connection, can be installed with only a few hundred megs of download, rather than four CD’s worth.
Thankfully, once installed, Solaris can run for years without problems. Before last September, before a two day power outage, I had solaris machines that had uptimes of over two years but had never required any maintenance beyond simple security patches.
Linux, xBSD, Solaris. I’m fairly certain I could live with any one of them either on the desktop or for basic server duties (I don’t work much with databases; maybe I’d have a different opinion if I did).
I have an internet-exposed Debian box at work with around 400 days uptime right now (Since the final production kernel was compiled during the installation process, it’s booted exactly once). No one is going to convince me that Linux isn’t stable. All I ever do is check the logs daily, and the thing just cranks away. This is just an Apache server with some scripts, admittedly, but I’ll just bet the next time that goes down is when I dist-upgrade from Woody.
And we have several HP-UX and Solaris machines which haven’t been rebooted literally in years, running internally. 770+ days uptime on one that I can remember.
I’ve not ever put a BSD machine into production but I’ll trust people who swear by its stability.
As for the desktop, I still like my Gentoo box the best but FreeBSD installed quite simply as well. I don’t like the comments about drivers and the like in this article (re: Solaris), but now that Solaris is easily available to everyone, I suspect those gaps will be filled.
I gave up listening to peoples opinions on just about everything. Every OS has its critics. Just as it was quite trendy and tedious to have people foaming at the mouth about how great Linux is a few years back, now people are posturing similarly as Linux critics.
(I ran into some guy yesterday telling me he ran ReiserFS because ext3 was “too unstable”. That’s a first.)
Likewise Solaris is probably going to have all the hear around it for the next 2 years, with people praising it left and right, and then, eventually, it will have its critics, posturing just as Linux critics do now. (The BSDs seem to have less critics than the other OSes, maybe because it never really had a lot of hype around them. If people don’t use a BSD, they typically don’t have emotional reasons for it).
Assuming the SCO case ends in an impressive CG fireball as most of us hope it will, that is likely to give Linux quite a boost midway through this, both in industry and just in tech website hype.
In the end though, should any one of these UNIX-like systems dominate, from my perspective as a user, I’ll adapt, and probably find things to like about it, and things to hate about it, but probably everything will even out in the end.
I find it hard to believe that Linux’s momentum can be stopped, for the same reason Christianity cannot be stopped, scandals and all.
As long as I have a robust command line, the financial cost is zero, and the thing is stable, I’ll probably happy.
For now, all of these UNIX-like OSes fit the bill. One nice thing the GPL did is give people the impression that no one was going to corner the project, monopolize it, and make all the cash.
It’s not what the GPL technically says, or technically does (vs. the BSD license or whatever), but the impression it gives. You can argue from now until the end of time what its limitations and virtues are; people seem to like it for…spiritual…reasons or something. Love it or hate it, this is what ultimately drives the popularity of the GPL, and at least some of Linux’s momentum.
I will say that containers/zones sure sound cool. I bet even home hobbyists could think of some fun experiments with those.
And we have several HP-UX and Solaris machines which haven’t been rebooted literally in years, running internally. 770+ days uptime on one that I can remember.
It always amazes me when people post statistics such as these. They are not impressive at all but admittance to being a sloppy System Administrator.
I do not administer those systems, number one.
Number two, these are internal systems.
Three…if the systems are properly secured/isolated, rebooting is very very rarely required. Shutting down and restarting upgraded services should be enough in nearly all cases.
To suggest otherwise implies that kernel level patches are required for security or stability. If they are, there are more fundimential problems either with the supplier (regaurdless of type; commercial or not) or with the admin’s abilities.
That said, if the admin is just lazy they likely have not properly secured either the system(s) or the network.
Well this machine is on an isolated LAN even within my organization. I presume the fact it has not been patched is a matter of priority, number one, given its extreme isolation and two, the system is fairly stripped down to the bone as it is.
That being said, yeah, if you run a networked system with remotely exploitable kernel flaws, you’d better patch and reboot. And then of course there are the issues (not an issue here) of local compromises as well – people walking by.
Nevertheless, it is a rough, if imperfect indicator of its stability that it continues to do massive data crunching on a daily basis, and has not had to be touched in quite some time. I mean, I rely on it.
What it does not do is have dozens and dozens of simultaneous users nor have to deal with overwhelming network load, so that has to be taken into account.
The CPU and memory are however pushed hard by local processes.
My point in even mentioning this was that the machine has not wedged in over 2 years of 24/7 use; no more than that. No one’s trying to win some kind of uptime contest, but as an indicator of reliability, you can glean something from an uptime. It just doesn’t say that a machine that has been rebooted regularly is necessarily less stable.
On this subject as per Linux, I have wedged it a few times, but all of these problems were tied to video. Eventually I turned off render acceleration in the X configuration file and it’s not wedged once since.
Overall then I’ve just not noticed any big stability issues with any of these UNIX-like OSes; it would not be a factor – for me – in choosing which to run based on what I know.
What would matter to me is timeliness of security updates (How is this for Solaris? I ran a Cobalt RaQ for awhile – a whole different product line, running Linux – and the timeliness was dismal). Debian had its problems recently…
Then, ease of being alerted of them and applying them would be fairly important. I’d prefer not to have to dick around too much to get them applied quickly.
All of this is of course trumped by what applications you need to run, if it is not a standard cross-platform application like Apache.
And then there’s cost. I mean, look, some businesses will spend whatever is asked for in IT, but others will not. Sometimes it’s organizational. Sometimes it’s a matter of, “We can do this, but not as well, for a lot less money.” and sometimes that wins.
There is never a hard and fast rule in business regarding the up-front costs of hardware and software. Sometimes you can say, “Hey I can do this without vendor support for a fraction of the cost on hardware we already have with a free OS” (not so much an issue now with Solaris I guess), in which case sometimes the answer will be yes, and sometimes the answer will be no – no meaning, we require vendor support, and will not deploy a system without it.
My company suggests and recommends Solaris hardware and OS, but tolerates, say, Linux, in certain instances. In two instances we deployed remarkably useful resources because we could do it for (virtually) free. We could not have done it otherwise.
Now with Solaris being free, this consideration changes some.
Three…if the systems are properly secured/isolated, rebooting is very very rarely required. Shutting down and restarting upgraded services should be enough in nearly all cases.
To suggest otherwise implies that kernel level patches are required for security or stability. If they are, there are more fundimential problems either with the supplier (regaurdless of type; commercial or not) or with the admin’s abilities.
That said, if the admin is just lazy they likely have not properly secured either the system(s) or the network.
I have had this argument time and time again fact is best practice in well maintained environments is regular quarterly reboots if possible. Truth is you don’t have to reboot Unix but you may work in an environment that is not architected for proper maintenance and/or you user base is unreasonable with their expectations of uptime and availability.
“It always amazes me when people post statistics such as these. They are not impressive at all but admittance to being a sloppy System Administrator.”
What, reboots are necessary? The only people that consider rebooting these machines “normal” are those that grew up using Windows. Nuff said.
So you’re telling me that you can update the Linux kernel without having to reboot?
Get a clue, fanboy.
*cough*kexec()*cough*
That said exactly how often do you think a production system gets a kernel upgrade?
I think you should always that everything is in working order after you updated that includes checking if the system will reboot if for example the power fails. Or in case that it does crash that the disruption is limited to the time it takes to restart.
Always check if your update works or you are a sloppy admin
jerven
Sloppy? Could you elaborate?
We had a Unisys 2200 mainframe when I worked at Northwest airlines that handled all of our type B message traffic. Lots of text messages send in real time to/from other airlines and facilities mainly via dedicated comm lines.
A critical OS patch came out just before Y2K that had to be applied, and they took the system down to apply it, but that was the first time that the machine had been down for any reason in almost three years.
Why? Because the continued up time of this particular system was a lot more important to the airline than the application of patches that weren’t considered critical (taking the system down for even a few minutes would result in a backlog of hundreds of messages that could take an hour or five to work off the queues, and many of those messages were time-critical for flights).
Moral of the story: not all systems are administered using the same criteria; mapping your own local admin experience or procedures to all systems will sometimes result in serious failures.
You may laught, you may not, but I think it’s the case. Everyday I see people in front of me talking about the GPL and they always have a big smile and seem like more excited than I am when having sex (and trust me I have very good sex).
Like the other guys said, most of them are just non-developers and even worst, complete n00bs. You ask em what’s the GPL really and they almost yell in public: everything is FREE! And then they start bullshitting on Microsoft with weak arguments. Just like most slashdotters
To me, the GPL is just like MTV. It’s a stupid trend. The BSD license is much better when it comes to real stuff. And I don’t get why so much people like kissing Stallman’s ass, it’s dirty. He’s some unshowered hippy after all.
Anyway, that’s my opinion and have fun voting me down heh. I know I have offended most of you but I don’t care. And you Solaris I don’t know… in my world there’s Windows and BSD.
Amen. I listen to blubbering fools like Moullineuf and the Slashbots, and I wonder where they’re getting their drugs from. It’s just a fscking license, people, not a way of life or religion — and it’s not a particularily good one at that.
So you have one-sided flamewars when you’re bored?
Outstanding post, Quag7. Everything you said there is very sensible, and accurate, and without religious zeal or trolling. That was one of the best posts I’ve seen here at OSAlert in a long time. I will more people would take that attitude.
Tried Solaris 10, zones make building lightweight servers on one hardware platform a snap. I am switching customers over from RH AS slowly. The cost is the big seller.
dtrace, don’t leave home without it. dtrace is being ported to BSD.
As far as the desktop, the latest OpenSolaris community build #20 is very nice and hardware support is increasing rapidly.
Stay tuned…
Solaris wont even install on my PC which does run Windows, BSD, Linux, BEOS etc.. So I doubt if Linux needs to worry much yet.
It is good though to be able to learn Solaris on inexpensive hardware, as I am sure it is a great server and not having to buy a very heavy slow overpriced box will help…
People who bash Solaris have only used a low end box with 10 simultaneous users running and then claimed their vanilla box at home running Linux was faster. Try Solaris on real server hardware and you’ll being to appreciate how powerful it is, even more so now that there are tools like dtrace available. To the person that suggested CentOS as a server OS. CentOS is a joke. I installed it on a Fujitsu Primergy server at work and had to nuke it out because the system freezes during the hardware startup section. FreeBSD had no problem running on that system.
Maybe folks should stop putting obvious troll phrases like “Linux Killer” in the headlines…?
As lot as that typemof crap continues, you’ll continue to see flamage.
This is a posting about Solaris, you open up the comments and what do you find? A bunch of dickless BSD-fags with nothing better to do than turning this into the club for mutual admiration, throwing crap on everything not to their liking and modding each other up… Pathetic. Manages to beat even slashdot in stupidity and bigotry. This place stinks.
A bunch of dickless BSD-fags
If you’re going to mention BSD, you might as well mention GPL. Someone started out by pointing out the CDDL and GPL aren’t compatible. Then all the licensing squabble began.
Yes, all things told at the Subject.
The Linux and BSD and the other Unix users/admins etc should not fight against another.
As you are fighting here which of Solaris or Linux should get the desktop M$ is getting it.
So combine, and attack the real enemy.
Nuff said.
Amen to that. There is too much sqabble between BSD/Linux/Commercial UNIX. We should work together to achieve our somewhat common goal.
Debaiting if Solaris is superior to Linux or bisa-versa is silly.
Both are flavors of unix just as chocolate icecream comes in a variety of combinations.
While it is true that Solaris and Linux emphasise different things and neither is perfect for all situations, any admin who knows one should be able to adapt to the other with little or no fuss.
For example: In general, Solaris demands a higher end I/O subsystem not because it is slow but because it does not cache writes as Linux does. This data integrity feature makes Solaris a poor choice for interactive and dynamic desktop use when compaired to Linux but quite handy when you have properly speced the server for the specific tasks you want it to perform. Tasks will be performed consistantly and on time even under load.
Keep in mind that we are still talking chocolate icecream and the differences are mainly in the style, texture, and a very limited number of bits and pieces with substance. All arguments about ‘best’ tend to focus on the differences and treat them as the final reason why one is ‘superior’. Hogwash.
That said, because I primarily have learned unix using Linux, one of the first things I do when admining a Solaris (or HPUX) is put the GNU tool chain on. I like the extra bits and pieces and it makes Solaris more ‘Linux like’ though there’s nothing specific that binds the GNU tools and Linux at all.
An admin who prefers Solaris would likely cringe when using Linux for reasons I often don’t consider or do not even care about.
I have the same basic opinions about the BSDs and most other forms of *nix.
Solaris demands a higher end I/O subsystem not because it is slow but because it does not cache writes as Linux does.
Care to expand on this claim?
Writing to disk is generally a driver issue, not a kernel issue. Of course, drivers are linked to the kernel, but it’s not a policy decision.
I have worked with Linux for 8 years and Solaris for 6 years, and I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
At the application level, you write to disk (I assume you are talking about disk), and consider it done. The kernel passes that down to the driver, which deals with the write as appropriate.
A typical Solaris system would hand that down to the volume manager (SVM/VxVM), which would pass it to the qlc driver (via MPxIO/DMP to send the request down the optimal path) to write the data to disk (or disks, if RAID’d). Those disks themselves may be LUNs on a (possibly SAN) array, with their own RAID configuration.
I don’t understand at what level you claim that cacheing comes into this, for either OS, the method is pretty similar.
I don’t know about Solaris demand[ing] a higher end I/O subsystem but I do know that Solaris turns off the write cache on scsi disks. This is one of those data integrity thingies that Sun folk seem so keen to harp on about. I’m pretty sure you can’t turn off the write cache on IDE disks. Of course if you equate cost with “higher end” then the OP’s statement is true.
Personally, if I’m gonna worry about data integrity then I’ll invest in more reliable hardware. And yes, for me, scsi is more reliable hardware.
solaris is much more stable than linux according to my experience with them.
http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=255
part 1:
http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=252
part 2:
http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=255
Pretty please, Register, right a nice article about Solaris!
So minor shame on Sun for making the installer so large, and major shame on Intel for its “OS independent” software, which really offers only a choice of Microsoft OSes to work with.
I bet you can install any Linux distro on it.
Of course, there would be no excuse for failing to detect such a popular card, so this is hardly remarkable. But that was about it. Pretty much everything else had to be configured manually.
And Linux vendors should be worried? Errr, right…..
because a live internet connection is crucial to getting your Solaris box in order.
Really?! No s**t.
Our experience with a Linksys TX-100 NIC was not encouraging. Admittedly, this isn’t the most popular NIC in use, but it’s hardly exotic. The system had no clue that it was installed. The recommended driver at Masayuki Murayama’s Web site built funny…..
Linux has been through this many, many, many years ago. In fact, for stuff like network cards it was solved around the time of kernel 2.2, and 2.4 and 2.6 have added to that hardware support in spades and distributors are pushing for more.
For those who have money to burn on Sun engineers and support, fine, but for everyone else….
There are a number of configuration files in /etc that you will have to edit, and even create, to get your NIC to work…
Hang on. This isn’t a manual install like Gentoo we’re talking about here (and you don’t even need to do that). We’re comparing Solaris to other Linux distributions like Red Hat, Suse or Mandrake. Do I need to edit or (create?! – bloody hell) any files? No.
Once we got Solaris 10 running, we discovered that we had no audio device.
Again, a Linux problem solved years ago and certainly not a problem on a modern distro.
and immediately found that we had an audio device after all. We still had no sound
Well, it’s a start.
then we have a level of user friendliness here reminiscent of Linux about six or so years ago.
Yes, we know that and could have told you before you started this ridiculous article. Why should Linux distributors be worried? It will take Sun years, if ever, to get to the level of hardware support Linux has.
There is a GUI admin interface called the Solaris Management Console (launch it from the command prompt with the command smc). It does about one fifth of what YaST-2 can do, but it is useful nevertheless.
So, refresh my memory. What are Linux distributors worried about again?
And because networking needs to be set up manually, users will become intimately familiar with the contents of their /etc directory in short order.
Well yer, but you don’t need to be that familiar.
KDE is certainly more popular than Gnome among Linux users, and most would agree that it’s by far the better of the two desktops. It has more tools, it has better tools, and it’s almost infinitely customizable.
Well yer, but you have to remember that Sun consistently chooses crap and develops with it. Just look at CDE over the years.
Solaris (and certainly x86) is years away from being useful to anyone who currently uses a Linux system. The people who wrote that article obviously don’t know what an average Linux distribution looks like at all.
It’s got virtues that we definitely admire. What it needs to compete with Linux will be easier to bring about than what it’s already got.
Yes, and you’ve just spent four pages describing what it needs to compete. At the end they even admit that Solaris is nowhere near a comparable Linux distribution like Suse.
It could become a Linux killer, or at least a serious competitor on Linux’s turf.
Nuff said.
Rule of thumb – if you get modded down into minus figures and no one replies to your post then you’re right ;-).
As far as I can see I’m the only one here who actually read the article, itemised it and replied to it. The rest of you are just arguing about absolutely nothing, as usual.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Why do people demand GPL software?
Let’s compare BSD and GPL licenses for end users:
1. Free (as in beer).
BSD: yes. If you can get the source you can compile and run it. If you can get the source you can redistribute it as well (for free or a fee). The result is that basically everything is $0.
GPL: yes. If you can get the source you can compile and run it. If you can get the source you can redistribute it as well (for free or a fee). The result is that basically everything is $0.
2. Free (as in speech).
BSD: yes. You can get the source and modify it to your heart’s content. You can redistribute the source with or without modifications, without needing consent.
GPL: yes (and no). You can get the source and modify it to your heart’s content. You can redistribute the source with or without modifications, without needing consent. BUT, you cannot redistribute a modified binary without giving the source (upon request).
So what is the difference to YOU as a user? Well, when you demand GPL software, you are basically demanding that it be provided to you and everyone else on the terms that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WHO MIGHT MODIFY IT must give up their changes.
Let’s see, that one person who might modify it (presumably to improve it), if you require them to release the changes, they may simply decide not to modify it! And, ultimately, you do not benefit. Worse, they do not benefit either (by their own choice of course, but as a result of the license).
That is indistinguishable from the BSD case where those people who would modify the software (again, presumably to improve it) but would not release the source changes to you–except that that person benefits while you do not. The result for you is essentially the same; those people who are likely to modify the software and not release the changes will do so, but you will not benefit.
So, if you are one of those altruistic souls who believes in the “most freedom for the most people”, then you would do the calculation and find that the GPL vs BSD makes no difference to you, but to the one guy who wants to modify it for his own purposes, BSD is preferrable. Therefore BSD is preferrable since it benefits the most people.
Stallman has tried to throw dust in your eyes with this “maximizing freedom” tangle of logic but his logic glosses over a couple of nasty areas and makes appeals to fuzzy terms such as “freedom” without pinning him down. But make no mistake, the GPL is not better than BSD.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Why do people demand GPL software?
What does not make any sense to me, is why people have to try and disparage Linux (like in the “article”) and the GPL (like in your post). Actually I know for Solaris, that’s because Linux is the thing to kill for nearly every player now.
Saying you are better than Linux won’t work, you have to show it. I don’t even understand how someone can say Solaris will kill any Linux, when it’s not even Open Source (an benefit Solaris will never catch on). OpenSolaris could, Solaris surely can not.
And your comparison of BSD and GPL licences is wrong on several counts.
For example, binaries have NOTHING to do with the source which is carrying the GPL licence.
So what is the difference to YOU as a user ? Well, when you demand GPL software, you are basically demanding that it be provided to you and everyone else on the terms that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WHO MIGHT MODIFY IT must share their changes if they want to distribute their changes.
Let’s see, that one person who might modify it (presumably to improve it), if you require them to release the changes, they may simply decide not to modify it and so they can’t release anything ! And, ultimately, you do not benefit. But they benefit as a result of the license.
That is indistinguishable from the BSD case where those people who would modify the software (again, presumably to improve it) but would not release the source changes to you except that that person benefits while you do not. The result for you is radically different; those people who are likely to modify the software and not release the changes will do so, but you will not benefit. Worse, with the BSD licence, they can release a NON FREE binary to you with the changes. So you end up with non free changes with BSD licence, against free changes for GPL licence.
The BSD licence was made with this purpose in mind actually.
But there is worse to your stupid analysis :
So, if you are one of those altruistic souls who believes in the “most freedom for the most people”, then you would do the calculation and find that the GPL vs BSD makes no difference to you, but to the one guy who wants to modify it for his own purposes, BSD is preferrable. Therefore BSD is preferrable since it benefits the most people.
You just forgot the most important people in the equation : the one that produced the first code, the one that provided the primary functionality, the main developer !! And the BSD licence DOES NOT benefit this pillar guy. And worse, that is THIS guy that chose the BSD licence to begin with. So by your own admission, he gave his work, to see another guy benefit, but not him !! So no, it does not benefit most people, and worse, it does not benefit the most important guy. So to the one guy that developed the original software, GPL is preferable. That’s why there are so much GPL softwares rather than BSD ones. Because then, everyone has most freedom, and sure enough the lead developer benefit from improvements to his own initial work.
Stealing the work of others to your own benefit is NOT a freedom, it infringes on freedom of others, and as you should know, freedom stops where it infringes on others’ freedom. What you described (the stealing) is a dangerous power, not a freedom. I’m sorry to say that your logic seems a lot more flawed than RMS one.
I generaly do not participate in discussions about licenses, but I’ll make an exception. For the sake of the argument, you should re-read your post and think about what you wrote : your reasoning is extremely flawed, especially at the end where you’re making a common mistake.
“Stealing the work of others to your own benefit is NOT a freedom, it infringes on freedom of others, and as you should know, freedom stops where it infringes on others’ freedom. What you described (the stealing) is a dangerous power, not a freedom. I’m sorry to say that your logic seems a lot more flawed than RMS one.”
using source code under the BSD license for you’re own closed source app isn’t stealing its both completely legal and completely ethical for things under BSD. nor is it infringing on anyone else’s freedom to use the original source code.
Very true. To go around blathering about how a perfectly acceptable use of the code under the copyright holder’s chosen license is “stealing” is farcical. The copyright holder knew the terms and implications of the license when they elected to use it.
You just forgot the most important people in the equation : the one that produced the first code, the one that provided the primary functionality, the main developer !!
Imagine this scenario: you need to develop some real-time software for this company. You’re a hired developer. They work with embedded systems for medical devices and, consequently, they have IP issues and have proprietary software, and won’t touch GPL. You convince them to put stuff under BSD code. This being your area of expertise, the next time you work for such company, you can simply suggest to use the same code.
Imagine you work with for an internet company. They need you to develop some C++ socket library. You convince them to use the BSD license. This being your area of expertise, under your next job, you can still use your library.
Imagine you participate in a project that’s under current development under the GPL, but that you didn’t start. You submit patches, they get accepted. This software is primarily being developed by a company. The choose to dual-license the software. They make money, you don’t.
Imagine a scenario like the above. The original developer says “thank you very much” and decides to stop OSS development and releases under a proprietary license. You have worked for free.
Imagine you’re a 20 something with no real expertise, and a no-good job. You scream and scream about the GPL. You use a lot of your mom and dad’s money, but then you release stuff under the GPL. When you finally learn something, you come to realize you’ve worked for free. It was fun, but it was dumb. Unless…you get a job a Linux company, like RedHat. Oh, but you couldn’t, you really don’t grok UNIX that much. If you did, you’d think it sucks when you $man hier in Debian, and you learn that the man page has nothing to do with the reality.
Why don’t Linux people understand that the true beneficiaries of the GPL are big corporations? They’re so greedy, they needed the GPL; but you know what? The BSDs do just fine. Now, if only some people would stop refusing to be brain washed by the GPL, and accept the fact the IBM, HP, etc are only commoditizing their complements?
But, on a bright note if it’s UNIX, it’s all good !
“I’d certainly like to see his study he performed claiming KDE is “more popular” and “far better” than GNOME.”
Possibly this one:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/survey/survey.cgi?view=archive&…
Keeping up with Linux will be an uphill battle because there won’t be a reason switch from Linux to Solaris. Now because of hardware support, and soon because Linux systems will clone the features that the community wants. How long before Novell starts marketing an enhanced (thinner, container-style) Usermode Linux and making it easy to configure application partitions within a host, possibly a virtual host amongst others running on XEN? Virtualization is the future, and Solaris won’t be the key player in x86 virtualization.
Solaris will have one effect on Linux development: it will provide a whole new set of ideas to clone from. The free software community, rallying primarily around Linux, is putting the finishing touches on all the feature clones that were inspired by Windows. There are some key MacOSX features that the we would also like to have on Linux systems, and these are in development. Now, with the push towards migrating traditional mainframe applications to UNIX systems via virtualization and clustering, Linux will look to Solaris for cues.
Do you know what you are talking about? Have you actually used Solaris? Solaris x86 is already a “player” in virtualization with Zones and Containers, which is vastly superior to anything Linux has to offer when used together. Sun is also contributing to the development of Xen, see the discussions on http://www.opensolaris.org.
I think you misundertood the original poster. That post was pro Solaris. But I admit that it was a little difficult to understand what was really meant.
Then again rereading the post I think. You were right, Robert. The first half is anti but the second half is pro.
Anyway, Virtualization has many forms, some like VMware are already supporting Solaris (note the recent deal). Xen is actively being worked on from the Soalris guys. So yes Robert was right in pointing out an obviously ignorant post.
Been a long day ;(
Or this:
http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000007/results
If you don’t know what an easy installer is then simply count how many clicks you have to go through till you finish the installtion.
Why does everything have to be killed. The nintendo is being killed the Mac is being killed the ipod is being killed linux is being killed windows is being killed IE is being killed. STFU! Why do you need to write article after article after article bashing product after product. If it dies it dies, and at that point you can write your article of XYZ is dead. Until then, STFU because you don’t know the difference between your dick and a vagina.
Linux is unstable?
If it’s unstable, then you aren’t a competent administrator. I have had dozens of Linux servers going for years without problems (beyond hardware, that is) and also Solaris systems with the same. Right now I have more Sun hardware laying around broken than Intel clones… go figure.
Linux is generally superior to Solaris. Plain and simple. If you don’t know why and can’t make use of it in that fashion, then you need to become a better administrator/professional. Seriously, there is no grey here, there are only minor grey spots when it comes to comparing some of the OS features that are similar. Overall, Linux is superior in any number of ways.
On the other hand, Solaris isn’t a bad choice if you know why it is that you want it. Stability isn’t the right answer, it’s just a reason on par.
solaris is much more stable than linux according to my experience with them.
At least I can unplug the keyboard on Linux without taking down the server.
Stability is often a subjective experience. Someone might say linux is unstable because it crashes when they unplug the root drive or an app locks up X or steals their keyboard.
I’ve seen the Linux kernel dump core. I’ve see the IRIX kernel dump core. I’ve seen the Solaris kernel dump core. I worked with a Linux, IRIX and Solaris kernel engineers who love solving those problems.
A kernel is just an app, like everything else, only its not allowed to crash. So it must be bug free. If you add new features you introduce bugs. If Solaris is going to catch up to Linux its going to get less stable. But Linux isn’t slowing down and it seems to be fixing these bugs faster than anyone else, from my perspective. So its hard to say which will be more stable in the future and its not like anyone is complaining about stability for either OS for general use.
For servers, yeah, stability is important, if you live in the 80’s. See, here in modern times we’ve learned that all hardware, all OSs, all apps are unstable. So we do something called fault tolerance, often coupled with load balancing and redundancy. The cheapest way to do this is by using PCs and some tricks in DNS or an intelligent router/switch.
When you’re managing a datacenter of 1000 load balanced PCs it becomes more of a logistics than a real sys admin problem. You try to replace nodes as fast as they fail and keep track of failure rates to make smarter purchasing decisions in the future while cutting costs. Since both Linux and Solaris have nice easy PXE/bootp network install systems it doesn’t really matter what you run, only how much it costs.
If we’re talking about a desktop system a Sparc workstation will cost you a lot more in support and initial hardware than a PC and be slower for most tasks. If we’re talking large database systems a Sparc will cost a lot in support, but so will a Linux system, but the Sparc will offer more stability and scalability. Though a Linux cluster might be significantly cheaper if the software can handle it. It all depends on what you need.
If you don’t want to think about it or compare or whatever, then just go with Sun and fork over the extra cash to the tech industry. At least you’ll pay for making the wrong decision, it makes me happy when you have to pay more than me for the same services because of ignorance, laziness, you think you’re right, or whatever.
So go spend your money and prove me wrong. Go on.. do it.. you know you wanna.
You said “and its not like anyone is complaining about stability for either OS for general use. ”
I care about stability alot; that’s why I use linux not windows even for general purpose desktops.
Solaris or linux do not crash on me with a bad CD-ROM; or If a drive fails it will not take the whole OS with it.
And let’s just remember, if an OS like Solaris is a little bit more stable than linux then this is not because of its design but lake of hardware support.
At least I can unplug the keyboard on Linux without taking down the server.
I know you meant that in jest but removing the keyboard traditionaly on SPARC workstations does a break and drops the system to the ok prompt. This was done to enable one to drop to the debugger and break out of deadlocks because the break caused a high priority interrupt. This was meant as a debugging feature. Which is no longer true on systems with USB keyboards.
Like doing the 3 finger salute on a linux box. You can happily do a Ctrl+Alt+Del on a sparc box with out bringing it down but can’t on a linux box.:)
Like doing the 3 finger salute on a linux box. You can happily do a Ctrl+Alt+Del on a sparc box with out bringing it down but can’t on a linux box.:)
Comment out one line in /etc/inittab and Ctrl-Alt-Delete does nothing but wear out those keys.
it sucks unless it has the great security of linux and easy to install apps like windows xp or os x and easy to install hardware like windows or os x
> Linux vendors had better get very worried
It wouldn’t require all that much effort to port a Linux distribution to the OpenSolaris kernel.
> whereas in the many areas where Solaris is miles ahead, the Linux community will be hard pressed to narrow the gap.
What evidence is there for that assertion?
“It’s funny isn’t it? I think Solaris will have a bit of an app shortage though…”
I suggest you check: http://www.blastwave.org/
This article should be marked as editorial. I just want the facts about OpenSolaris, not the authors personal views and remarks. Can we stick to journalistic standards please.
hahaha like the GPL is better than everything else. They’re BOTH free and you can modify both of them and make money with both of em (actually with CDDL you can make more money)….
seriously grow up and stop playing politics.
i dont think unix has good enough desktops yet anyway. KDE and GNOME are to complicated and bloaded for windows users. they’re improving though..
Seriously, you need to learn command line. It’s a hell of a lot faster to use than some stupid desktop. It’s also easier if you actually learn it.
So, get out a book and learn the ins and outs of all the commands you can use on it and how to operate programs in a nondesktop environment.
It will make your life easier in the long run.
but i would not use unix/linux for any desktop until they improve. Now, if i were running a bank or a corporation that has programs set to run on every single machine, or a thinclient system… I’d use unix/Linux, but my choice would be solaris becase there is nifty supported tools for it.. especially with those sunrays.
ta-ta
That statement in the FAQ is factually incorrect.
There is absolutely nothing in the GPL or CDDL that prevents you linking CDDL code with GPL code.
However, if you do not then license the whole work under the GPL, you are prevented from distributing it, under section 2b of the GPL.
Alan.
Why everyone claims OS X, Solaris 10 “Linux killer”? It is that important to kill it? Or it is more like Microsoft astrosurfing to cause war between OS X/Solaris/Linux fanboys?
Or it’s just some people love flaming?
Get a grip. I don’t care that Solaris is Linux killer. I don’t care that OS X is Linux killer. APPLICATIONS and FORMATS are what’s matter. As long all these platforms can run Firefox/Mozilla and OpenOffice.org/NeoOffice/J, I DON’T CARE.
Just calm down and get with your own lifes.
See subject ^^
Does Solaris support CPU frequency scaling on x86? I’d really like to install it on my Laptop, but I fear that frequency scaling will be impossible since it’s not that important for a full blown server normally
solaris ahead:
*AIO
*threads
*testing
*guaranteed APIs(impl. & iface)
*deterministic performance scaling (up&downside)
*regression testing
*/dev/poll
*good docs @ docs.sun.com (wirtten by devs and technical staff, not end user tutorials like TLDP)
*POSIX compliance (single unix spec 3)
=> real unix
*sun compiler suite (gcc is teh crap!)
*dtrace (the best thing since sliced bread/unix)
*scalable (not only by the factsheet, your telco runs its billing/call processing/network monitoring/… system on it)
*tree letter acronym agencies use it
*zones/partitions hw resources are nice to manage
– a linux users since 96
>solaris ahead:
>*AIO
Linux has it.
>*threads
Solaris went to 1:1 threads after they saw how good Linux’s were.
>*testing
Err, yeah Linux is tested.
You have companies like IBM, Intel, SGI, HP, OSDL, Novell, RedHat, etc continually running regression tests and performance tests on the kernel. Along with all the regular users who test beta kernels.
>*guaranteed APIs(impl. & iface)
Yeah Linux implements POSIX too.
>*deterministic performance scaling (up&downside)
Linux can run on systems without MMUs and 1MB of memory. It can run on a MMU based system with a full TCP/IP stack and busybox in 2MB with a few hundred K left over.
Linux can run on systems with 512 CPUs and 6TB RAM.
Intel regularly runs TPC performance tests on systems with over 10 000 disks.
>*regression testing
See: testing.
>*/dev/poll
epoll
>*good docs @ docs.sun.com (wirtten by devs and
>technical staff, not end user tutorials like TLDP)
Plenty of good Linux docs.
>*POSIX compliance (single unix spec 3)
See: APIs
>=> real unix
>*sun compiler suite (gcc is teh crap!)
It cannot support nearly so many architectures as gcc can, nor can it give the performance of icc.
>*dtrace (the best thing since sliced bread/unix)
IBM’s kprobes do something similar. They need a decent user interface however.
>*scalable (not only by the factsheet, your telco runs
>its billing/call processing/network monitoring/…
>system on it)
Err, that’s worse than a factsheet. It is simply anecdotal rubbish. How do you know what my telco runs?
>*tree letter acronym agencies use it
Wow, they probably use Sun’s SPARC CPUs too, which are crap. Too bad about your tax dollars.
>*zones/partitions hw resources are nice to manage
So are lpars and VM guests. IBM’s been doing that with Linux before places like Sun caught on. In fact, IBMs been doing that stuff since the 70s I think.
> – a linux users since 96
– a solaris user until it got overtaken by linux.
Solaris went to 1:1 threads after they saw how good Linux’s were.
WRONG. Solaris has had a 1:1 thread library (secondary) since Solaris 8. The switched to it as the primary library in Soalris 9. Years before the linux guys could even decide which 1:1 library to pick.
>WRONG. Solaris has had a 1:1 thread library (secondary)
>since Solaris 8. The switched to it as the primary
>library in Soalris 9. Years before the linux guys could
>even decide which 1:1 library to pick.
Doesn’t matter. They still had the libraries there, and the concept was proved. This is why Sun went to 1:1.
Doesn’t matter. They still had the libraries there, and the concept was proved. This is why Sun went to 1:1.
It does matter. The point is that SUN had 1:1 threading long before Linux ever did. Linux had nothing to do with SUN having 1:1 threads.
Doesn’t matter. They still had the libraries there, and the concept was proved. This is why Sun went to 1:1.
My point was Solaris had a 1:1 library ages before the linux guys even dreamed of having one.
Solaris 9 with the 1:1 thread library was released in May 2002. The linux guys were still doing benchmarks isn september 2002. What you claim not only didn’t happen it was near impossible to have happened.
Look at the Solaris development cycle, it takes a couple of years to develop or release a major Solaris release. Solaris 8 was released in 2000 and had a 1;1 threading library. The linux guys didn’t do squat to influence Solaris. It was the other way round.
>My point was Solaris had a 1:1 library ages before the
>linux guys even dreamed of having one.
Do you even know what 1:1 threading is? Linux has had support for 1:1 threading basically since it first became available (at least since version 1).
When was Solaris first released? 1993? Gee, Linux may have had 1:1 thread support before Solaris even existed.
Anyway, the point is not who had what first, the point is that the Linux community first proved that high performance 1:1 thread libraries (matching M:N ones) could be done.
Anyway, the point is not who had what first, the point is that the Linux community first proved that high performance 1:1 thread libraries (matching M:N ones) could be done.
No, the UNIX world proved it could be done and Linux followed. Solaris had M:N threading before Linux did as well. Heck, a lot of operating systems had M:N threading before Linux did.
You wrote:
>It does matter. The point is that SUN had 1:1 threading
>long before Linux ever did. Linux had nothing to do with
>SUN having 1:1 threads.
You, like the other guy, either don’t seem to know what 1:1 threading is or don’t know much about Linux.
So I bid you good day, you may remain in fairy land.
Do you even know what 1:1 threading is? Linux has had support for 1:1 threading basically since it first became available (at least since version 1).
Obviously you don’t. Linux never really had threads they had processed which were done using clone(). Since Torvalds contention was that linux’s context switch was as quick and lightweight as threads in other OSes linux didn’t need threads. However the user level pthread library was bound to one process and scheduled by the library. Now with 1:1 threading each user thread becomes a linux process consuming different PIDs.
Solaris always had the lowest schedulable quantum as a thread bound to an lwp. each user process can have one or more lwps allowing for M:N threading using soalris’ own thread library, pthreads were scehduled by the library. In Solaris 8 an alternate pthreads was introduced to do what the linux guys eventually did.
You really shouldn’t talk if you don’t understand how stuff works.
Obviously you don’t. Linux never really had threads they had processed which were done using clone(). Since Torvalds contention was that linux’s context switch was as quick and lightweight as threads in other OSes linux didn’t need threads. However the user level pthread library was bound to one process and scheduled by the library. Now with 1:1 threading each user thread becomes a linux process consuming different PIDs.
I think you should go relearn your Linux history. Torvalds did think that the Linux context switch was fast enough to not require a dedicated threading system. This is why LinuxThreads (which has been around forever) and NPTL both use the clone system call. clone() creates “threads” and “processes” (as defined by other OSes) because it lets you specify whether you want a shared address space between the new and old process or not. So both LinuxThreads and NPTL are 1:1 threading systems. They both create new “threads” with new PIDs. The difference is that NPTL brought along kernel changes which made NPTL follow the POSIX standards closer, particularly regarding signals and it provided a significant speed increase. There was (is?) a user land pth library which follows the pthreads standard, but it is cross platform, not Linux specific. And to the best of my knowledge, no large application ever really used pth.
So, to repeat myself, Linux has used a 1:1 threading model pretty much since the day the LinuxThreads library was written.
In Solaris 8 an alternate pthreads was introduced to do what the linux guys eventually did.
If by “eventually” what you mean is “in the mid 90s” then yes, you are correct.
You really shouldn’t talk if you don’t understand how stuff works.
That has to be my absolute favorite comment when someone posts something which is completely inaccurate. Now, if you’d like to go learn how Linux threading worked historically, go read up about LinuxThreads. And as a little helper, here is the first sentence from FAQ entry K1 (at http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/linuxthreads/faq.html):
“LinuxThreads follows the so-called “one-to-one” model: each thread is actually a separate process in the kernel.”
Now, I have no idea whether or not the Solaris kernel guys even thought about Linux when they went to a 1:1 threading model. Either way, Linux’s “native” thread system has been 1:1 for a long, long time.
There was (is?) a user land pth library which follows the pthreads standard, but it is cross platform, not Linux specific. And to the best of my knowledge, no large application ever really used pth.
What do you think LinuxThreads was? It was a badly implemented pthread library.
That has to be my absolute favorite comment when someone posts something which is completely inaccurate. Now, if you’d like to go learn how Linux threading worked historically, go read up about LinuxThreads. And as a little helper, here is the first sentence from FAQ entry K1 (at http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/linuxthreads/faq.html):
People living in glass houses….
Accroding to you FAQ. :
At thread creation time, the newly created thread inherits the signal mask of the thread calling pthread_create(). But afterwards, the new thread can modify its signal mask independently of its creator thread.
In all OSes the pthread library uses the pthread_create naming symantics. the LinuxThread library was a badly implemented POSIX thread (pthread) library, hence pthread_create.
Solaris always had a seperate thread library(thr_create) along with a pthread library. The Solaris thread library always supported a 1:1 (bound threads) or M:N behavior.
In Solaris 1:1 threads don’t take up new PIDs in the hacky linux sort of way.
What do you think LinuxThreads was? It was a badly implemented pthread library.
LinuxThreads is still the old Linux thread system and it was 1:1. Which was the point of my original post.
People living in glass houses….
Accroding to you FAQ. :
At thread creation time, the newly created thread inherits the signal mask of the thread calling pthread_create(). But afterwards, the new thread can modify its signal mask independently of its creator thread.
Which has nothing to do with LinuxThreads being 1:1 or not. And I specifically mentioned NPTL fixing the problem with LinuxThreads not following POSIX correctly.
In all OSes the pthread library uses the pthread_create naming symantics. the LinuxThread library was a badly implemented POSIX thread (pthread) library, hence pthread_create.
LinuxThreads was a well implemented POSIX thread library that didn’t follow the signal semantics correctly. And they freely admitted it. Linux threads have still been 1:1 for quite a long time.
Solaris always had a seperate thread library(thr_create) along with a pthread library. The Solaris thread library always supported a 1:1 (bound threads) or M:N behavior.
In Solaris 1:1 threads don’t take up new PIDs in the hacky linux sort of way.
You can call it hacky or not, it’s a 1:1 threading model. It’s been that way for a long time.
Like the other guy said, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
You obviously are not even an application programmer, let alone a kernel programmer.
It amazes me why people like you take it upon themselves to get on their high horses and spout drivel like this and try to pass it off as fact.
Do you really believe you know what you’re talking about? Are you just a troll? Have you just picked up half a dozen random terms from the internet and throwing them around and hoping that I’m as clueless as you are and will be impressed by your drivel?
>Look at the Solaris development cycle, it takes a couple
>of years to develop or release a major Solaris release.
>Solaris 8 was released in 2000 and had a 1;1 threading
>library. The linux guys didn’t do squat to influence
>Solaris. It was the other way round.
By the way, it is painfully obvious that you either don’t know what a “1:1 threading library” is, or that you have no idea about Linux development.
Either way, I think it is fairly pointless to continue to bother to “argue” with you about it, wouldn’t you agree?
GPL *is* the finest license for a community.
I am Solaris user for 11 years and i think it would be better, if SUN hasn’t releasd Open Solaris and for x86 arch. It’s wrong, as PC users just don’t get it…
Yes, i like HCL (only good hardware is supported, not every crap), we need more memory (anyway systems always should have more memory) and i like to read long deep documentation.
Solaris is not a TOY for HOME users. Go away, we don’t need you, and yes i am arrogant & stubborn.
Solaris is not a TOY for HOME users. Go away, we don’t need you, and yes i am arrogant & stubborn.
Given this attitude, I’m uncertain how you intend to see the Solaris user base expanded?
If I can’t pay with the OS on my own time for evaluation purposes, it’s going to be a lot harder for me to learn about the platform, and I’m not going to recommend anything to my employer w/o at least some general experience with it.
One man’s “hobbyist” is another man’s employee who is simply interested in learning more about other technologies during off hours…
I have an X86 based Digtal 3000 Server with an EISA bus (no cards inserted) and Solaris 10 won’t install.. says no EISA support. nice… Solaris 9 installed in the past, what’s up with Solaris 10? Ended up going with FreeBSD 5.4 as it more modern than Solaris 9, and it installs just fine and works with the Mylex Raid Controller. As a result of no EISA bus support (even though no EISA bus cards are installed) Solaris 10 lost out just like that in this case. In any case.. even Solaris 9 took almost two hours to install and FreeBSD was on in about 15 minutes. Again what is up with the slow install here as well?
Read this:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-0552/6mgbi4fh7?a=view
You can’t expect Sun to support EISA forever, the last EISA machine I used was junked 5 years ago.
The Digital Server 3000 does have a PCI bus which is used. My point is that it could have ignored the EISA bus.. and still loaded, instead of giving up as soon as it saw the EISA bus.
And how old are those machines exactly? The kernel still has to have support for EISA whether the machine has PCI slots or not, so I can easily see the installer choking on that. This is one time where I think Sun has it right in removing overhead for things that are not widely used, like EISA.
>So you’re telling me that you can update the Linux
>kernel without having to reboot?
Most of the time, you can’t with Solaris, either.
Only sloppy admins, lazy people, retards and the truly deluded let any running computer system stay running on a single code base for more than six months at a time. Unless, I suppose, there ARE no updates for the system (at which point you should panic and look for the escape route).
And your qualifications for making that bold blanket statement are?
i dont think unix has good enough desktops yet anyway. KDE and GNOME are to complicated and bloaded for windows users.
I think THAT’S bullshit. KDE can do 10x what windows XP can dream off. so it is bloathed? yeah. better use windows 2000, it is less bloathed than XP, because XP can do more. or even better, use windows NT. even less bloathed. maybe DOS 1.0 would be the best OS ever…
and Gnome might be able to do on some points more on others less than XP, but generally speaking it is at least as capable as DE as XP’s, and much much cleaner.
a nice example: check the “find file” dialogue in windows XP. is it easy to use? ahem… compare it to gnome’s or KDE’s.
You should check the licence of PostgreSQL (BSD) and mySQL (GPL : the free version at least). When a company developes a product (like a management tool for a library or bookshop) which is based on a database, they will be more likely to choose the PostgreSQL database. Otherwise they have to opensource their whole product without having anything left to sell. Even more, they will actively help the PostgreSQL community because it’s in their own interest.
Same thing for the Apache licence. They want to provide a good standard library that may be used by closed software. The result is that when companies find improvements, they will contribute it to the community because everyone -including them- gains advantage.
So SUN allows companies to build and distribute a product based on OpenSolaris and most likely those companies will help them in return to create a better OS because -guess what- it’s also in their own interest.
Conclusion: don’t be paranoid, companies don’t want to steal a product that can be downloaded for free, they just want a decent product to sell.
Don’t miss the latest Solaris subtelty. It now has the stuff of Trusted Solaris in it. Linux has a ways to go before it will catch up with that. While Solaris has its security problems (all do, you know), there is wisdom in using a trusted (term of art) OS for some applications. Truly being able to keep the apps out of the OS’s hair is not something that you merely add on. Buffer overflow? Let ‘er rip. Makes little difference if it can’t get out of the app’s own little compartment. And, yes, you do give up some things in usability. It is the old question: Do you want to trust it or do you want it to run everything under the sun (no pun intended)…
FUD. B.S. Misdirection. Perhaps disengenuity?
If a company releases under GPL but dual-licenses, there is NOTHING TO STOP YOU from taking the GPL code and forking it. Most of the time (as with QT, for example) there is no value in doing this… it is best to let the company do its thing. But should that company ever change the license and drop the GPL licensed product, the GPL licensed product that was previously released can be used, forked, continued as GPL. GPL puts the end user in a position of potential control – most importantly, it puts the end user in some control of their future.
In the example of Maple, Maple dropped the product support on Linux (if I understand you) and it will not run on new-ish distributions. Those old distributions still exist, BTW, but what is important to note here is that the proprietary software company left you high and dry in terms of future proofing for its customers – this is *not* the fault of Linux.
In the example of Maple, Maple dropped the product support on Linux (if I understand you) and it will not run on new-ish distributions. Those old distributions still exist, BTW, but what is important to note here is that the proprietary software company left you high and dry in terms of future proofing for its customers – this is *not* the fault of Linux.
I think the point he’s making is that Linux doesn’t have a stable ABI. Solaris can still run unmodified Solaris binaries that were built properly all the way back to 10 or more years ago! Linux can’t do the same thing…
I have Linux games released by Loki that will no longer run on newer Linux distributions because of ABI differences. It isn’t the application’s fault. It’s because the Linux platform doesn’t even have the concept of a stable ABI.
>It’s because the Linux platform doesn’t even have
>the concept of a stable ABI.
You’re confused. If you are talking about a user-land application, you almost certainly mean GLIBC which changed twice in big ways since the first release of Linux back nearly 15 years ago.
Not Linux’ fault at all, though most distributions ship GLIBC. If you were talking about drivers, I’d partially agree with you, but you’re not.
But… the days when a piece of software can be created and then run unmaintained without updates for 10 years are long over, with the advent of the Internet and a computing environment that is rapidly changing. SPARC boxen running Solaris are one of the last bastions of that old, hobbling way of computing, as is closed source itself.
Things like GTK+ are more likely to break things now.
That’s why I can’t run Firefox at all under Mandrake 8.2, for example.
You’re confused. If you are talking about a user-land application, you almost certainly mean GLIBC which changed twice in big ways since the first release of Linux back nearly 15 years ago.
No, I’m not confused. I’m talking about the Linux platform in general. From the Kernel Driver API to the ABI used for C++ programs, to the ABI for commonly used libraries such as glibc, etc. the general lack of release engeineering principles or proper ABI stability is daunting. I’ve been using Linux since 1994. I think I know a thing or two about it
Not Linux’ fault at all, though most distributions ship GLIBC. If you were talking about drivers, I’d partially agree with you, but you’re not.
It is the fault of Linux. The fault of Linux distributions, library authors, architects, engineers, and designers. Incomplete design gives incomplete results.
As a developer of Linux, BSD, and Solaris applications over the years I have learned more than I ever wanted to know about the darkside of various operating system platforms. The ABI issue on Linux has stung me more than once. Driver, glibc, and in many other ways.
>No, I’m not confused.
I think you are. If you aren’t, then you must be a troll.
>I’m talking about the Linux
>platform in general. From the Kernel Driver API to the
The kernel driver API is normally pretty stable during stable release series, however this is one place where it is _good_ not to be stuck with backward compatibility cruft that pain closed source kernels.
I’ll take my kernel clean and free of backward compatibility cruft thank you.
>ABI used for C++ programs, to the ABI for commonly used
>libraries such as glibc, etc. the general lack of
>release engeineering principles or proper ABI stability
>is daunting. I’ve been using Linux since 1994. I think I
>know a thing or two about it
When libc changes have broken the ABI, there is a version number change, and old programs continue to work fine.
In fact, I can install an old a.out libc on my 2.6 kernel glibc based system and run 10 year old binaries no problem. You must be exceptionally thick if you have been using Linux that long and are still unable to work it out.
RE: C++ changes, you know that they usually have to change their ABI when the C++ standard gets revised, which it last was in 2003, and 1998 before that.
You can still use your old libraries with old ABI versions to run your old binaries.
What, did you expect this was a Microsoft run shop, and no ABI changes are ever allowed to be made to anything? No son, this is unix, and this has been going on since you were wetting your bed.
Now pack your bags and go home.
> No, I’m not confused. I’m talking about the Linux
> platform in general
Well then if you’re such a genius, you’d know that you can stay with the old software as long as you want. There’s nobody forcing you to move to a newer version of the platform. The 2.2 kernel is still maintained, and I think the 2.0 kernel might still be as well. Old versions of GLIBC are a Google away.
> It is the fault of Linux. The fault of Linux
> distributions, library authors, architects,
> engineers, and designers. Incomplete design gives
> incomplete results.
You’re really not grokking the spirit of linux, here. The word “binary” is a dirty word in the spirit that the platform was conceived to fulfill. If you are releasing closed-source binaries for Linux (or BSD, etc. etc.), then you had best be prepared for the problems you describe – because you are a stranger in a strange land.
i rather smell ringworm than use Solaris 10
During the install process I HAD to use a floppy to install a patch that, without, Solaris would only recognize 18g of my 73g hard drive
<BR>
Strange, I encountered exactly the same issue installing Windows Server 2003 on a Fujitsu-Siemens server on Thursday. Fu-Si are, of course, a MS Partner, so you’d expect the kit to work out-of-the-box with the OS.
No, you need a floppy disk (again, nothing else will do).
However, I’ve never seen this issue on Solaris, and I’ve installed countless servers for countless customers over the past six years.
The simplest (and fastest) install of solaris is “boot -install -w”
Depends on the app. If FreeCAD really is shit, then fair enough.
Does it matter about licensing costs? What about support costs? Maintenance matters.
If FreeCAD offers 90% of CostCAD’s features, and you don’t need the other 10%, that sounds pretty good.
A decent techie will then impress his Boss, because the Boss can go back to the Board with “I’ve not just upgraded the software, I’ve done it at zero cost”.
The Board like the Boss, and if the techie plays it right, that flows downwards to his future credibility. Far from being sacked, it’s a positive career move.