Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oracle Has Yet To Clarify Solaris 11 Kernel Source

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

  • Oracle Has Yet To Clarify Solaris 11 Kernel Source

    Phoronix: Oracle Has Yet To Clarify Solaris 11 Kernel Source

    It was one month ago that Phoronix was the first to note the Solaris 11 kernel source-code was leaked onto the Internet via Torrent sites. One month later, Oracle still hasn't officially commented on the situation...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAzOTc

  • #2
    With Oracle continuing to push harder on Oracle Enterprise Linux (their Red Hat Enterprise Linux based distribution), hopefully Solaris 11 will be the last and finally mark the end of the SunOS days.
    Why are you wishing for the end of Solaris?

    Comment


    • #3
      Can any one prove this?

      I'm not convinced this leak is a leak, really. Couple of ideas come to mind.

      1. Complete fake
      2. intentional publicity
      3. probing
      4. all of the above

      Comment


      • #4
        Maybe tracing all ip's who download it and offering them jobs? After all, who wants to read Solaris code

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by curaga View Post
          Maybe tracing all ip's who download it and offering them jobs? After all, who wants to read Solaris code
          "Maybe tracing all ip's who download it and offering them jobs?"

          LOL... now i know why i don't get a job as a kernel hacker LOL

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
            Why are you wishing for the end of Solaris?
            This is funny. How can Solaris be considered bad, when everybody wants Solaris tech? ZFS, DTrace, Crossbow, Zones, etc - all of them are copied in Linux. If Solaris is so bad as Linux guys says, why do everybody drool over Solaris tech? I dont get it? Who leads the OS development today? Which OS is most innovative today? Solaris. I dont see any OS wanting to port or copy Linux tech? There is no tech in Linux that any other OS wants. What would that be? Can anyone name Linux tech that every other OS drools over? No one?

            But Solaris leads the way, and without Solaris, there would be no BTRFS, Systemtap, OpenvSwitch, Linux Containers, etc - because Linux guys would not have the imagination to think them up. I dont get it. Sure, if Solaris was bad and had no new innovations, it would not matter if it died. But now, everybody is looking at Solaris to see how it is to be done. Without Solaris, no cool tech in Linux. Heck, the entire Linux is a copy of Unix. Everything is a copy, and a bad copy. Scales bad, unstable, badly coded, etc. If Unix died, there would be nothing to copy. And Linux devs would be forced to innovate themselves. And looking at history, nothing in Linux has been worthwile to copy. Is there any Linux tech that is worthwile to copy?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
              This is funny. How can Solaris be considered bad, when everybody wants Solaris tech? ZFS, DTrace, Crossbow, Zones, etc - all of them are copied in Linux. If Solaris is so bad as Linux guys says, why do everybody drool over Solaris tech? I dont get it? Who leads the OS development today? Which OS is most innovative today? Solaris. I dont see any OS wanting to port or copy Linux tech? There is no tech in Linux that any other OS wants. What would that be? Can anyone name Linux tech that every other OS drools over? No one?

              But Solaris leads the way, and without Solaris, there would be no BTRFS, Systemtap, OpenvSwitch, Linux Containers, etc - because Linux guys would not have the imagination to think them up. I dont get it. Sure, if Solaris was bad and had no new innovations, it would not matter if it died. But now, everybody is looking at Solaris to see how it is to be done. Without Solaris, no cool tech in Linux. Heck, the entire Linux is a copy of Unix. Everything is a copy, and a bad copy. Scales bad, unstable, badly coded, etc. If Unix died, there would be nothing to copy. And Linux devs would be forced to innovate themselves. And looking at history, nothing in Linux has been worthwile to copy. Is there any Linux tech that is worthwile to copy?
              Yup, now people just have to ACTUALLY USE those features... As for innovation, well, lets see Solaris run its graphics with KMS... Seriously, these little trinkets don't help the bottom line when your graphics card doesn't even work. Also, how about that new Gnome tech or KDE? Yeah right. Solaris is so outdated and crusty we might as well just throw it out with the trash. OpenSolaris was its one chance to at least get modernized, and guess what, Oracle KILLED it.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am talking about innovations. No one would hardly call KDE or Gnome an Innovation. I mean, most Enterprise Unix servers dont even use graphics. For instance, DTrace is a true innovation, nothing like it existed before. Everyone is copying or porting it. Graphics desktops? It has existed for a long time. Solaris had CDE for decades and does still suffice. DTrace is a must and new.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                  I am talking about innovations. No one would hardly call KDE or Gnome an Innovation. I mean, most Enterprise Unix servers dont even use graphics. For instance, DTrace is a true innovation, nothing like it existed before. Everyone is copying or porting it. Graphics desktops? It has existed for a long time. Solaris had CDE for decades and does still suffice. DTrace is a must and new.
                  The troll is back, but you have proven last time your more stupid than you look, so it will be easy to kick the trolls ass. KDE is innovative in many terms and it has unique features that others can only dream about. DTrace is a copy of tools that existed on Linux and other systems before - it's just a copy, because slowlaris guys always copy others except when they make crappy tools just for marketing purposes that make slowlaris bloated.. CDE was a copy of different DE and CDE is pure crap compared to Linux desktop environments. Linux has innovations like RCU, it has transcendent memory and many more features slowlaris can only dream about. It's not a secret Oracle is abandoning slowlaris and focuses on Linux. It's logical move since slowlaris was acknowledged a dead and legacy operating system. It's also terribly bloated which was said by its dev. It's a living dead. I said "living", because it's dead with new clothes.
                  Last edited by kraftman; 04-16-2012, 03:46 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                    But now, everybody is looking at Solaris to see how it is to be done. Without Solaris, no cool tech in Linux. Heck, the entire Linux is a copy of Unix. Everything is a copy, and a bad copy. Scales bad, unstable, badly coded, etc. If Unix died, there would be nothing to copy. And Linux devs would be forced to innovate themselves. And looking at history, nothing in Linux has been worthwile to copy. Is there any Linux tech that is worthwile to copy?
                    Nobody was ever looking at slowlaris, because it's an example of brokenness and bloathness. Everybody avoids slowlaris mistakes and Linux devs does the same. Slowlaris is just a copy cat of other unixes, but with bloatness added as a bonus - for marketing purposes. Linux is an operating system that's leading the way now. Thankfully such innovations like RCU are patented, so copycats from slowlaris cannot copy this wonderful, innovative and cool technology. What's left for slowlaris is just zfs, but even Oracle decided to use btrfs which isn't market stable by Linux standards. While slowlaris company decided to use it it seems they consider btrfs as stable as zfs or they prefer to run Linux with unstable btrfs rather than slow slowlaris with stable zfs. Nothing new, because they're going to kill slowlaris (which is by many considered dead already) and focus on Linux. That's also why their porting DTrace to Linux which is superior.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Interesting claims. Can you prove your claims? Do you have links? I have links, for instance, when the Systemtap team confesses they copied from DTrace. Do you have links that prove DTrace copied from Linux?


                      Regarding DTrace (do you want to see links that prove this?)
                      -FreeBSD has ported DTrace
                      -Mac OS X has ported DTrace
                      -QNX has ported DTrace
                      -VMware has copied DTrace, and call it vProbes
                      -IBM AIX has copied DTrace and call it ProbeVue
                      -Linux has copied DTrace and call it Systemtap


                      Regarding RCU, I have never heard about it. Everybody (including the Linux camp) has heard about DTrace and ZFS because they are new and innovative. But RCU? What is that? If it is innovative and cool, everybody should have talked about it? Can you explain what RCU is? Can you make a list of OSes, that have ported or copied RCU?
                      Last edited by kebabbert; 04-17-2012, 04:12 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        RCU is a scalable construct used in parallel programming. If a closed-source OS had copied it, we would have no way to know.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by curaga View Post
                          RCU is a scalable construct used in parallel programming.
                          IBM had RCU similar tech in their Mainframes, way back, in US Patent 4,809,168. Other OSes has used RCU similar techniques, it is an old idea:
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-copy-update
                          Later, IBM created RCU for their commercial Unixes, and then donated RCU to Linux. I dont see how IBMs work is innovation from Linux? Maybe RCU was innovation from IBM, but RCU was not innovation not from Linux.

                          And because Solaris scales extremely well today, I dont see the need for RCU in Solaris. In 3 years from now, there will arrive a SPARC server with 16.384 threads. Solaris sees 16.384 cpus.

                          Thus, RCU is not innovative. It is just "good for Linux", but hardly innovative. It is not like Linux scales the crap out of every other OSes - if this was true, then every OS would have ported or copied RCU. And as we see, Linux has problems with scaling on SMP servers, so RCU can not be that good nor innovative.

                          So, can you provide a list of Linux tech that everybody just drools over, and wants? I do not consider an desktop as KDE as innovative. It is not something everybody ports or copies. KDE is just one desktop, among many. On the other hand, ZFS is something to drool over, everybody is copying or porting it. Or are you going to say that BTRFS is not a ZFS wannabe?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                            Interesting claims. Can you prove your claims? Do you have links? I have links, for instance, when the Systemtap team confesses they copied from DTrace. Do you have links that prove DTrace copied from Linux?
                            Your logic is wrong. You didn't prove KDE copied from CDE and it didn't stop you from claiming that. It's obvious DTrace copied from Linux, because Linux tools existed before DTrace which is just a copycat from other tools. The same about CDE which is a copycat from another DE. You see, slowlaris devs just copy from others, add bloat and release. That's how things work in slowlaris camp.[/quote]

                            Regarding DTrace (do you want to see links that prove this?)
                            -FreeBSD has ported DTrace
                            -Mac OS X has ported DTrace
                            -QNX has ported DTrace
                            -VMware has copied DTrace, and call it vProbes
                            -IBM AIX has copied DTrace and call it ProbeVue
                            -Linux has copied DTrace and call it Systemtap
                            Regarding DTrace it copied from other tools and slowlaris devs called it DTrace.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                              IBM had RCU similar tech in their Mainframes, way back, in US Patent 4,809,168. Other OSes has used RCU similar techniques, it is an old idea:
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-copy-update
                              Later, IBM created RCU for their commercial Unixes, and then donated RCU to Linux. I dont see how IBMs work is innovation from Linux? Maybe RCU was innovation from IBM, but RCU was not innovation not from Linux.

                              And because Solaris scales extremely well today, I dont see the need for RCU in Solaris. In 3 years from now, there will arrive a SPARC server with 16.384 threads. Solaris sees 16.384 cpus.

                              Thus, RCU is not innovative. It is just "good for Linux", but hardly innovative. It is not like Linux scales the crap out of every other OSes - if this was true, then every OS would have ported or copied RCU. And as we see, Linux has problems with scaling on SMP servers, so RCU can not be that good nor innovative.

                              So, can you provide a list of Linux tech that everybody just drools over, and wants? I do not consider an desktop as KDE as innovative. It is not something everybody ports or copies. KDE is just one desktop, among many. On the other hand, ZFS is something to drool over, everybody is copying or porting it. Or are you going to say that BTRFS is not a ZFS wannabe?
                              You are terribly mistaken as usual. Slowlaris scales completely bad compared to Linux. Linux had advanced scaling techniques first. Commercial systems copied some of them later. Linux scales crap out of slowlaris and nearly everyone knows this - that's one of the reasons why Oracle is abandoning slowlaris. Wow, slowlaris will see only 16.384 CPUs. It's very small number compared to Linux - RHEL can see 64.000. It seems slowlaris is even more legacy than I thought. When comes to RCU Linux implementation is innovative and things like DTrace and ZFS aren't. ZFS is just one file system among many and DTrace is just one tool among many. Are you aware how old is the idea of file system? Do you know when the first file system was created? I can provide you a list of Linux techs that everybody wants, but you have to provide list of innovative slowlaris techs first. btrfs is completely different file system than zfs, so no, it's not a zfs wannabe.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X