Woah, It Looks Like Oracle Will Stand Behind OpenSolaris

[RealNC]

Woah! Woah! Wow!

[kebabbert]

Btrfs is a zfs killer!

Cool. And why do you think that?

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

http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/technology/features/article.php/3704666/Keeping-Silent-About-Silent-Data-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/WeeklyUpdates/2007-10-15#Friends_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/2007/09/06/land-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-solaris-10-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/dtrace_meets_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.

[kebabbert]

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.

[smitty3268]

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.

[Ex-Cyber]

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.

[kraftman]

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/2007/09/06/land-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-solaris-10-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?

[kraftman]

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. :>

[jadrevenge]

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.

[kebabbert]

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.

[kebabbert]

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-systems/5002/microsoft-to-move-graphics-outside-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.