Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Woah, It Looks Like Oracle Will Stand Behind OpenSolaris

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Oh, and why should I give you some 'link' while you're misinterpratating them in your 'mensan' stupidity? I said you're to stupid, so I wouldn't bother disscusing with you, but I can occasionaly past some link or write some thing etc. Just to show how stupid your interpretation and logic is.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      You didn't read the whole discussion, did you. If you had, you'd see that the Red Hat developer found a simple balancing bug, and that the conclusion was that it was a simple bug and not anything fundamentally wrong with the design at all.
      Ok, I missed this one. Ive read the posts a bit, but I didnt see this you are refering to. I saw complaints that he implemented Trees in a non standard way and that is a bad thing.

      Can you quote this, or are you just making this up? Just like you did before?


      Oh, so by amateur you don't actually mean volunteer, you simply mean stupid.
      No, I dont think Linux devs are stupid. Maybe Linux is the amateur.

      As I said before: Linux development model is bad. Linus said that Linux will evolve like in biology. All code gets rewritten all the time. This is bad, new code is always buggy. To get stable code you need the code to be mature. But as soon the code is mature, it gets rewritten again. It is said that Windows need service pack 1, at least, before Windows gets mature. Linux has that problem, everything is new code all the time. New code is always buggy.


      Well, that's simple. It doesn't, except in your own mind.
      Well, you talk with real sysadmins, Enterprise sysadmins, many say that Linux has a very bad reputation in Enterprise halls. Of course, if you talk to Windows sysadmins, they think Linux is very stable. Stop talking to Windows sysadmins. There are many quotes from sysadmins that say that Linux is unstable.


      Sweet Jesus, you won't let that go will you? All right, fine, let's talk about that since you insist on continuing this FUD.

      Read the context that quote was taken from. He's saying it's bloated compared to what he originally envisioned for the Linux kernel, like 15 years ago. He then goes on to say that all the bloat was added for good reasons, that different use cases required it, and that it was pretty essential to being a good modern kernel.

      Bloat is impossible to define, anyway, since everyone thinks it means something else. In this case, Linus was using it to describe features. Features which he didn't originally think would be needed, but people wanted and use. They could take out those features, of course, but then fewer people would use Linux and it would be a worse, not better kernel.[/QUOTE]
      Well, I have read this article and Linus does not say those things you talk about
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09..._bloated_huge/

      Linus says:
      "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds.
      ...
      The kernel is huge and bloated, and our icache footprint is scary. I mean, there is no question about that. And whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse."
      ...
      Bottomley took this to mean that Torvalds views that the current level of integration is acceptable under those terms. But Mr. Linux corrected him. "No. I'm not saying that," Torvalds answered. "Acceptable and avoidable are two different things. It's unacceptable but it's also probably unavoidable."



      So basically Linus says it is getting worse, it is bloated and huge, and also, studies from Intel shows that Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the last ten releases.





      Are you an american? Have you seen the whole thing about Shirley Sherrod, Fox News, and Andrew Breitbart? They took an hour-long video of one of Sherrod's speeches, cut it into a couple minutes (of quotes!) to make her look like a racist when in fact the whole speech was about the exact opposite. You are now doing the exact same thing to Linus Torvalds. Quotes are like statistics, there are lies, damn lies, and then quotes taken out of context.
      Ok, so you mean it is impossible to quote anyone, because you most post the entire interview? Do you never quote anyone? "Mom said yesterday that she liked..." - you have never done this? Of course you have! You too, quote people without giving the whole context. How can you do attack me for doing what you are doing? That is not a reasonable objection you have. We disregard it.





      I think it is very strange that you dismiss all the kernel developers that I quoted on Linux having bad code. That is just sick. First, people said Linux was buggy and bad coded. "not true", you Linux fanboys said. Then, even Linux kernel devs said the same thing. "not true", you said. Then, even Linus T confirmed there are problems, and even then you reject that. I mean, that is just weird.

      Let me ask you: what would it take for you to accept that linux has bad code? What does it require? A written statement from Linus does not suffice. Not even all the other programmer gurus saying so, does not suffice. Just what does it take? Can you answer this question? Or can you not answer this question, no matter what happens, you will never accept Linux being buggy. No matter how many sysadmins say they hate how they have to recompile kernels, drivers, etc - how buggy Linux is - you will not believe them.

      That is fanatic. Everyone says Linux is buggy. But you do not accept it.





      Regarding DTrace, please show me any other tracer that can do the same thing. No, you can not? Thought so. It is weird when you can not even program, and makes things up regarding DTrace even without knowing anything.

      And regarding my "circular argument" below, no it is not circular. First of all, I have studies lots of math and logic, you have apparentely not. I not what a circular proof is, and you do not. I do not use circular reasoning. If you really think so, I suggest you read again, but slowly.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        Nope, because you're FUDing and trolling all the time. Where's the quote I wanted? I don't care if such moron like you will listen or not.
        Please, Kraftman, please, can you be a bit clearer when you write posts? You make it very hard to follow you. It may be clear to you, but it is not clear to others. Have I said this... like 15-20 times before to you? Is it 25 times earlier?

        So, what "quote" do you want? Tell me and I will post them. But please, be clear this time ok? Dont say something like this (which you normally do): "you know what quotes!". No, I dont know.

        Kraftman, again, if you have something decent to say, I will answer. But most of the time you claim things without any links or quotes. You just make things up. And you have confessed you FUD. If you stop make things up, stop FUD, and post reasonable things with links - then I will answer. But most of the time, I have tried to make you post links and so, but you never do.

        You claim weird things, such as "Solaris is buggy" and I want to see links, so I can disprove your claim. But you never show links. You say Solaris is slow, and when I show links that Solaris is much faster than Linux, on for instance SAP, you just reject my benchmarks. You say things as "SAP has partnership with Sun, therefore you can not trust the links". But SAP also has partnership with Linux companies - if you had checked you would see.

        So it is hard to discuss with you.

        Comment


        • #49
          Btrfs is a zfs killer!

          Comment


          • #50
            Oh, it seems Oracle didn't care too much about slowlaris when it wasn't their product:

            http://www.enterprisestorageforum.co...Corruption.htm

            "Our initial efforts are in the Linux domain because of its strategic nature to Oracle," said Williams. "Its open nature also allows Oracle to innovate in this area in ways that would not be as easy with another operating system."
            Kebbabert lied another time saying only zfs guarantees your data to be safe.

            And now, Btfts is a zfs killer, so bloated solaris is supposed to die when the Btrfs will be mature enough.

            Kebabbert has missed a very important thing. He's usually fudding, because the links he provides aren't PAPERS (according to wiki, if I'm correct people aren't fuding when papers exist). Troll lied many times too, like about firefox devs who switched to slowlaris (it was only one dev) etc. He's also repeating same things all the time ignoring other people, so he's a troll. A person would just stop repeating things when he's not able to understand others.

            Comment


            • #51
              Woah! Woah! Wow!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                Btrfs is a zfs killer!
                Cool. And why do you think that?



                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                Oh, it seems Oracle didn't care too much about slowlaris when it wasn't their product:

                http://www.enterprisestorageforum.co...Corruption.htm
                Oracle has said earlier, long before they bought Sun, that Solaris is the reference platform to run the Oracle database on. And also, Ive read that Oracle DB is developed on Solaris, maybe becuase of DTrace. And then ported to other OSes. And as Oracle has bought Solaris, it will continue be developed on Solaris first. Oracle want Solaris runs will with Oracle Database.


                Kebbabert lied another time saying only zfs guarantees your data to be safe.
                I did? Prove it then. Show that I lied. Quote my lies. If you can not, you are just FUDing again. You FUD about me, implying I lie. I do not lie. I can always show links. I dont make anything up. If I say "Linux is bloated" - then I can quote a Linus developer on this. I have not made this up.


                And now, Btfts is a zfs killer, so bloated solaris is supposed to die when the Btrfs will be mature enough.
                Cool. Maybe Oracle will kill off BTRFS, now that Oracle has access to ZFS?


                Kebabbert has missed a very important thing. He's usually fudding, because the links he provides aren't PAPERS (according to wiki, if I'm correct people aren't fuding when papers exist). Troll lied many times too, like about firefox devs who switched to slowlaris (it was only one dev) etc. He's also repeating same things all the time ignoring other people, so he's a troll. A person would just stop repeating things when he's not able to understand others.
                So I lie, huh? It was only one Firefox developer that switched from Linux to Solaris eh?


                Then why did this happen? A Firefox developer
                https://wiki.mozilla.org/WeeklyUpdat...ds_of_the_Tree
                "Mike Shaver nominated the dtrace team at Sun "for giving us the first good tool we've ever had for understanding front-end performance." It seems that the Firefox developer team really thinks DTrace is invaluable? "gives us the first good tool we've ever had" - how can he say so if Systemtap is as good? No, systemtap is not as good. Period. Systemtap is a piece of shit in comparison.


                Another Firefox developer:
                https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388564#c33
                "No problem -- dtrace has been a huge help for us, from what I can see. Sayrer has been helping front-end hackers identify JS performance problems with it, which would be hard to find otherwise."

                And also
                http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/20...and-of-dtrace/
                Firefox Robert also praises DTrace.

                So why do you lie about me? I do not FUD. I do not make things up about Firefox developers prefering to use DTrace when developing. You make up things.


                And another Linux developer considers switching to Solaris, just because of DTrace.
                http://xblog.xman.org/2006/11/29/is-...-the-new-linux
                "Most importantly though, Solaris has DTrace. DTrace is one of those developers tools that just makes you drool the first time you have it explained to you."


                There are lots of similar stories. For instance, look at the comments here belov, they have never seen anything like it. Here are DTrace on Javascript:
                http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/d...ets_javascript
                But unless you are a developer, you will never understand the greatness of DTrace. "slightly more polished"???? Try to do that on Linux! Good luck.

                Ignorant people that knows nothing about Solaris tech. Sigh.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  False, false, false. Both Windows and Linux have migrated to a hybrid system, with parts in the kernel and other parts in userspace. Actually, the current breakdown of both is remarkably similar when you consider how different they used to be.
                  Ok, I didnt knew this. Could you please post some links on this, so I stop saying errorneous things? I want to be correct, and never lie. (Or are you just making this up? As you confessed you do?)


                  Inferior, no. But you said linux devs never did anything original. KVM is a counter-example proving you wrong. Xen is not original, it's just another implementation of ideas that have been out there for a long time. KVM is different - not necessarily even as good as other solutions yet, but easily as "revolutionary and unique" as you seem to think ZFS was for filesystems.
                  So where is KVM unique and do revolutionize the entire virtualization market? ZFS does it with filesystems. DTrace does also it. (Or are you just making this up?)


                  You realize that it was just 1 or 2 developers out of hundreds, right? Heck, most of their development takes place on Windows, so does that mean that Windows is better than Solaris? There are lots of quotes about how developers can't live without Valgrind - does that make it 'revolutionary' like DTrace? Or is it just a very useful development tool, like many others?
                  Jesus. You know nothing about development. Read my links above. The Firefox devs praise DTrace!


                  Sure. Which is what makes it better than the tools that had come before. I'm not sure I'd call that revolutionary, though. Incredibly useful, yes. But so are lots of different debugging tools.
                  No. Not useful. That is wrong word. Revolutionizing is the correct word. Read the example above with DTrace and javascript.


                  Because it's damn useful. It's just not the be-all end-all that you seem to think it is. There's a reason those developers are trying to port it to other OSes rather than just switching to one where it already exists - because lots of other stuff is even more important.
                  Wrong again. It is revolutinizing.


                  More misleading quotes. What a surprise, coming from you. /sarcasm

                  Linus was thinking of possible reasons he might move on to GPLv3, and the only thing he could possibly think of was getting access to Solaris code. He then went on to conclude that it wasn't worth it and that Linux really had nothing to learn from Solaris.
                  So where did I mislead? You and I say basically the same thing.


                  Not everyone does. Seriously, lots of people don't. If they did, Sun never would have gone bankrupt, would they?
                  There was a huge uproar when the Linux devs realized they never get hands on ZFS and DTrace. They where mad with anger. Why, if Linux devs dont care about ZFS? ZFS the hottest thing right now, everyone talks about it and want to copy it.


                  Ha ha ha. Can you say, "circular argument"? That doesn't even make logical sense.
                  Wrong again. I have studied logic, you have not. It is not circular. Read more math.


                  Do you really want to count up the number of awards Linux has gotten compared to Solaris? Really?
                  The award I was talking about, was a technological award. Sure, Linux has got awards, but I doubt anyone was about creating new unique revolutionzing technique. The Wall street award was that.


                  Again, false. We've already gone over this, though, and you've ignored all counter examples.
                  No we have not. You mentioned graphics and KVM. So how are they new and revolutionzing? In what way have no one ever been able to do something similar before?

                  You are just making it up. Again.


                  Because all managers say this when their underlings check in bad code. This is the difference between a proprietary and open model - Solaris managers say this stuff during closed meetings, while Linux managers say it on message boards that everyone can read.
                  Wrong again. The OpenSolaris mail lists are full of bug discussions. But no OpenSolaris developer complains that the code is broken, bad design, etc. That is the difference.


                  Context is everything. You are misrepresenting people and their positions, which is the same as bald faced lying in my book. See my post above for more insight if you really need it.
                  And see my post above. You do the same. Why can you attack me, when you do the same thing? Hipocrisy?


                  This is going to be my last reply to you, I've decided to stop feeding the troll and put you on my ignore list. It's clear you aren't going to stop misrepresenting people and making outrageous claims.
                  Ok, seriously. If you really prove me wrong on anything, I will immediately stop saying so. I promise. Mathematicians only wants to say true things. They hate lies and wrong facts. If you point out any errors, then I stop say so immediately. That is a fact.

                  But the problem is, you have not pointed out any error!

                  Lots of Enterprise sysadmins say Linux is unstable. You have not proved otherwise.

                  Lots of Linux kernel devs says the code is bad. You have not proved the opposite.

                  Lots of devs (including Linux kernel devs) praise DTrace and ZFs. You have not proved otherwise.

                  etc

                  etc.

                  You have not proved me wrong on anything. But IF you do, I will stop at once. I have a track record on this. When someone proves me wrong, I immediately stop say so. So go ahead, prove me wrong, instead of making up things. Which you have confessed you do. It is you, that is Trolling and FUDing. You and Kraftman. You both confessed things. I do not. I dont lie or make up things, I can always back up with links and quotes. Always.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                    And regarding my "circular argument" below, no it is not circular. First of all, I have studies lots of math and logic, you have apparentely not. I not what a circular proof is, and you do not. I do not use circular reasoning. If you really think so, I suggest you read again, but slowly.
                    Yes, Kebabbert, I remember MENSA says you're very special.

                    Let us play with the thought that Solaris tech is VASTLY superior, it is far better than anything else on the market. If this where true, then would everyone want it? Yes. The conclusion is, Solaris tech is not slightly better. It is super duper unique and revolutiozing.
                    Let us play with the thought that Solaris tech is VASTLY inferior, it is far worse than anything else on the market. If this where true, then would anyone want it? No. Would Sun then go bankrupt and get bought up by another company? Yes. The conclusion is, Solaris tech is not slightly worse. It is super duper unique and terrible.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                      Ok, I didnt knew this. Could you please post some links on this, so I stop saying errorneous things? I want to be correct, and never lie. (Or are you just making this up? As you confessed you do?)
                      He's not making it up. In Linux the current graphics drivers are split between "DRM" (Direct Rendering Manager) modules in the kernel and various userland libraries. Timing-critical, security-critical, and other privileged operations (e.g. memory allocation, DMA) happen in the kernel, while basically everything else is pushed out to userland (libdrm/libGL). An overview of the Direct Rendering Infrastructure (of which the Direct Rendering Manager is a component) is here. There is an overview of the Windows Vista Display Driver Model here, which outlines a roughly similar architecture and contrasts it with the model of Windows XP/2000. Of course, MS won't say it's similar to Linux, and the Linux doc won't say it's similar to Windows since it was written ~6 years before Windows moved to the current model, but if you pay attention the similarity is pretty obvious.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Btrfs is a zfs killer, because it's a much faster then zfs, has a feature parity with it and what's the most important it's the Linux file system. Kebbabert, you have lied about Firefox devs switching to slowlaris. Now, you showed few "devs" more links, but not related to what you were claiming.

                        Another Firefox developer:
                        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388564#c33
                        "No problem -- dtrace has been a huge help for us, from what I can see. Sayrer has been helping front-end hackers identify JS performance problems with it, which would be hard to find otherwise."
                        I see nothing here, about switching to slowlaris.

                        And also
                        http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/20...and-of-dtrace/
                        Firefox Robert also praises DTrace.
                        It seems it's an only dev who switched (and you gave this link before, so he's counted only once). Where are the others? You do lie and FUD.

                        So why do you lie about me? I do not FUD. I do not make things up about Firefox developers prefering to use DTrace when developing. You make up things.
                        Three or four maybe prefer to use it, but as far I can see an only one is claiming he has switched. You do lie and FUD.

                        And another Linux developer considers switching to Solaris, just because of DTrace.
                        http://xblog.xman.org/2006/11/29/is-...-the-new-linux
                        "Most importantly though, Solaris has DTrace. DTrace is one of those developers tools that just makes you drool the first time you have it explained to you."
                        An another meaningless example. Does he switch? Nothing about this.

                        There are lots of similar stories.
                        There are many stories. Many of them are good for children.

                        Ignorant people that knows nothing about Solaris tech. Sigh.
                        Afaik, Solaris is a living ocean, so I bet such lame devs from the Sun know nothing about it.

                        So, Keb, "Firefox developers have switched from Ubuntu to Solaris just because of DTrace" it's a lie, isn't it?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                          But the problem is, you have not pointed out any error!

                          Lots of Enterprise sysadmins say Linux is unstable. You have not proved otherwise.

                          Lots of Linux kernel devs says the code is bad. You have not proved the opposite.

                          Lots of devs (including Linux kernel devs) praise DTrace and ZFs. You have not proved otherwise.
                          The error is simple - this what they say just means they said this. I'm saying slowlaris is slow, buggy, has broken design, it's messed up, bloated and insecure. I'm also saying dtrace and zfs are just copies. You have not proven otherwise (and you won't, because of some simple reason :>). The kernel devs including Linus say the code is getting better and better and Linux is in a good shape. Lots of sysadmins say Linux is rock stable. You have not proven otherwise and you won't. :>

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I know this is obviously a stupid question ...

                            But if you don't _Like_ Solaris, why are you bothering to have a flame war in the Solaris section of a site, wouldn't it be easier just to let this drop.

                            Having said that ...

                            I use Linux (Ubuntu) at home on the Desktop/Laptop.

                            I use OpenSolaris on my laptop at work (unless you can tell me how to do an "ifconfig nge0 addif 192.168.1.20 netmask 255.255.255.0 up" on Linux this is never going to change)

                            We run Solaris 10 on the main file and backup servers.

                            We have however installed some Ubuntu Server edition machine for various tasks.

                            We have a Linux server running PSQL Server, which does not run on Solaris, which was a non-windows alternative to run the Accounts server on, this allows for rsync to the ZFS backed up Solaris servers.

                            We have about 5 Linux OpenVPN servers dotted around in various companies ... We could do this in OpenSolaris, but it's easier in Ubuntu Server.

                            We have a couple of Linux Print servers, allowing Samba to talk to CUPS ... seperate from our file servers which require Authentication ...

                            Our Linux machines don't do redundant OpenLDAP servers in their server lists, they don't have access to ufsdump/restore for tape access or direct access to ZFS for accessing our internal and external backups/snapshots, but they have their uses.

                            On the other hand someone st*pid has decided that OpenSolaris should have 1 cut and past buffer so if I select something in a terminal it is automatically copied into the clipboard as well as the primary buffer (middle mouse click to paste), I am also aware that build 137 will fix both the keyboard buzz (remembering sound settings between boots) and the intel graphics (registers being over optimised and hanging for 12 seconds at a time every so often) but it's not available in a way that mere mortals can access.

                            Boot times on Ubuntu Server compared to OpenSolaris are just not in the same league, Memory use is higher in OpenSolaris and access to external FAT formatted USB devices are slow.

                            However I'm still keeping it as an essential tool in my arsenal, the networking is just better, ZFS is awesome and almost all Apps that are available as Code for Linux run with little problem on it.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                              Let us play with the thought that Solaris tech is VASTLY inferior, it is far worse than anything else on the market. If this where true, then would anyone want it? No. Would Sun then go bankrupt and get bought up by another company? Yes. The conclusion is, Solaris tech is not slightly worse. It is super duper unique and terrible.
                              HAHAHAHA! That was a good one! Good point.

                              But, you know, the market does not decide which tech is best. There are numerous examples. For instance, VHS vs Betamax. Or, Windows vs Linux. Windows have a bigger market share than Linux, but of course Linux is much much better than Windows ever will be. So, good point, but not valid.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
                                He's not making it up. In Linux the current graphics drivers are split between "DRM" (Direct Rendering Manager) modules in the kernel and various userland libraries. Timing-critical, security-critical, and other privileged operations (e.g. memory allocation, DMA) happen in the kernel, while basically everything else is pushed out to userland (libdrm/libGL). An overview of the Direct Rendering Infrastructure (of which the Direct Rendering Manager is a component) is here. There is an overview of the Windows Vista Display Driver Model here, which outlines a roughly similar architecture and contrasts it with the model of Windows XP/2000. Of course, MS won't say it's similar to Linux, and the Linux doc won't say it's similar to Windows since it was written ~6 years before Windows moved to the current model, but if you pay attention the similarity is pretty obvious.
                                Ok, I believe you. I have not read your links, but you would not lie while giving links. No one does that.

                                But I do not lie either. I have read an article which said that Graphics is moving into the Linux kernel. The article is in swedish
                                http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.108792
                                It turns out that the article is based on this email from linux kernel list:
                                http://kerneltrap.org/node/8242
                                And that the article is not correct (which is evident if you read the entire mail).

                                Here is another english article that talks about moving graphics into Linux kernel:
                                http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4825



                                On the other hand, here is an article that says that Windows is moving all graphics out of the kernel:
                                http://news.techworld.com/operating-...ide-os-kernel/


                                I claim only things I have read. I do not make up things. But I accept your post as credible, so from now on, I stop say that Linux has moved the graphics into kernel. Only some parts have moved into the kernel, apparently (as you have explained to me).

                                Thanx for correcting me. If you see any other error I make, please point them out. I HATE false facts, I only want to say true things.

                                You see that if you disprove me, then I stop at once. Immediately. I do not lie about this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X