Linux hacker compares Solaris kernel code:

[Sergio]

I can't agree more. In fact there are a lot of people who agree with Pawlerson the BSD and Solaris = Shit:

http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/20.../bsd-vs-linux/

BTW, this blog is really interesting and enlightening. I'd recommend it to everyone, especially those pro-BSD fools.

Take it easy, kraftman.

[Guest]

Personally, I can't imagine Linux without BFS anymore. I'm happy CK is still around and making my desktop better. I also find it amazing how people can be so hostile (as apposed to just criticize the work on technical merits) to someone who's providing something for free, in his spare time, on a "I hope this works for you too" basis. If you it doesn't work for you, don't use it. The world does not owe you anything.

I'm not blaming him, because of BFS or his work. I don't like his attitude.

[Guest]

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...767#post259767

That is what I will always think of whenever I see that handle.

Thanks for saving our time. I didn't even know such trolls exist.

[Guest]

You know, pride can be just as bad as envy. Not to say you shouldn't hold a certain amount of pride in your achievements, but you should keep it in check, along with your envy, lust, or whatever other of the seven you should choose to partake in.

"Pride before the fall," and all that.

Very well said. However, I think there's not, so much pride coming from the Linux developers, but it mainly comes from its users. In the past Linux users were pride, because they were using an "elite" and hard to configure system. Todays, there are different reasons for being pride.

[Guest]

Nope, it's not enough. If you say it's slow or bloated, then the market share is not enough. The market share weighs a lot other factors too, mostly related to price. Then, you could argue "but they're all free". Except, support is not, and IT's are not. And it's far easier to find Linux IT's and Linux support companies than FreeBSD's or Solaris' ones. And easier usually implies cheaper, too. AND, it happens Solaris is not free for production use. So, it could have nothing to do with speed or memory footprint, as long as none of them are stupidly slow or bloated. So, facts, please.
I use Linux, mostly because I'm comfortable with it.

I don't have comments on anything else, just found this to be nonsense and had to answer.

Yeah, right. HTC people care about OS price. It also a fact Solaris has higher memory footprint and introduces higher overhead in comparison to Linux. You don't have to believe me, but you can check this yourself and you can even find about this in google.

[Guest]

I can't agree more. In fact there are a lot of people who agree with Pawlerson the BSD and Solaris = Shit:

http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/20.../bsd-vs-linux/

BTW, this blog is really interesting and enlightening. I'd recommend it to everyone, especially those pro-BSD fools.

Quite funny to read, but there's a lot of truth in this article. However, I'd prefer it to be more serious, because some parts don't reflect the reality.

[znby]

Yeah, right. HTC people care about OS price. It also a fact Solaris has higher memory footprint and introduces higher overhead in comparison to Linux. You don't have to believe me, but you can check this yourself and you can even find about this in google.

This is true, but it's also true of mainstream Linux. This is why IBM and Cray have their own cut down operating systems that are run on the compute nodes of large scale HPC systems (AFAIK, the IBM one is not based on Linux, but the Cray one is).

The front end nodes often run Linux, but I believe in the case of some IBM systems, AIX is used instead. Probably depends on what the customer wants.

[RealNC]

I'm not blaming him, because of BFS or his work. I don't like his attitude.

You usually need to hear the accused's side of the story too before forming a final opinion:

http://apcmag.com/interview_with_con_kolivas_part_2_his_effort_to_improve_linux_performance_on_the_desktop.htm

[kebabbert]

So this is another point I don't get. Linux doesn't scale to 8 CPUs yet the supercomputer at my university with more than 100.000 cores (I believe 2 16 core CPUs per node) runs Linux. Sure, there may very well be other systems that scale better, but saying linux has a "hard time"? Come on!

You must differentiate between different types of scaling. Linux scales very well on clusters, large networks with embarassingly parallell workloads, just like supercomputers. For isntance, the SGI Altix Linux server with 2048 cores, is a cluster. These are called HPC servers (i.e. cluster). And these supercomputers do not run stock Linux, they run heavily modified Linux. For instance the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer, runs Linux to distribute the work load out to each node, and then each node use another OS to do the simple computing. No complex things going on here, just number crunching.

On the other hand, Linux scales very bad on SMP servers. That is, one big fat server with as many as 32 or even 64 cpus, for instance, IBM mainframes, Oracle M9000/M5, HP Integrity/Superdome. There are no Linux SMP servers for sale today, with more than 8 cpus. Linux has a very hard time scaling to 8 cpus. These big SMP servers, typically weigh 1000kg or more, and costs many millions. For instance, the huge IBM P595 server, with 32 cpus, used for the old TPC-C benchmark, costed $35 million list price. Not a typo. One single server costed $35 million.

So I say like I said in the other thread: show me a Linux SMP server for sale with more than 8 cpus. Last I checked, there was no vendor that sold large Linux SMP servers. The question is: why? These SMP servers costs millions and if Linux can offer a 32 cpu server for a fraction of the price, then everybody would buy. Clearly there is a market opportunity, but no Linux vendor is offering SMP servers. Why? Is it because no one wants to earn millions, or is it because Linux does not scale? Hint: see 8-socket benchmarks with Linux and discover yourself how bad results Linux gets.

[liam]

Don't forget about who you're talking to.

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?68134-Oracle-Has-Yet-To-Clarify-Solaris-11-Kernel-Source&p=259767#post259767