Announcement

**nasyt** · 14 October 2014, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

Furthermore, if such scaling is easy then I don't understand why Linux has no competition in this market? Costs don't matter here.

Convenience, to use already existing programs. Its the same reason, why windows holds 90% of the desktop market (as now).

**nasyt** · 23 October 2014, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

He's not a Kraftman, I assume you. However, you sound exactly the same: clueless and like a troll. However, thanks God slowlaris is nearly dead and nearly nobody is using it. Even Oracle wants to kill it, so they're investing a lot in Linux.

...to make sure, that more Internet Servers run on shaky TCP/IP implementations.

Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

I explained in another thread there are no antiBSD and antiSolaris trolls. It's impossible! It's like trolling against shit. Do you know any troll that trolls against shit? Furthermore, you're an antiIntelligence troll, is that ok? Why do you troll against intelligence?

You are trolling and flaming against everything that is not linux. BUT: Most people agree, that linux is NOT the best Operating System.

For example: The TCP/IP implementation is embarrassingly shaky.

**MartinN** · 23 October 2014, 01:05 PM

if anything matches the definition of kernel porn.... it has to be this guy's onanistic description of Solaris. Where is Solaris today? And where is Linux? I'll stick with the duct tape.

Originally posted by kebabbert View Post

Here is Con Kolivas, who wrote some popular Linux schedulers.

Con Kolivas is a Mad Man [Dave Reisner]

http://blog.falconindy.com/articles/con-kolivas-is-a-mad-man.html

He reviewed the Solaris scheduler and it seems he like it:

Other schedulers? Illumos?

http://ck-hack.blogspot.be/2010/10/other-schedulers-illumos.html

I've been asked in past interviews what I've thought about schedulers from other operating system kernels that I may have studied, and if I ...

"...The summary of my impression was that I was... surprised. Now I don't claim to be any kind of expert on code per-se. I most certainly have ideas, but I just hack together my ideas however I can dream up that they work, and I have basically zero traditional teaching, so you should really take whatever I say about someone else's code with a grain of salt. Well, anyway, the [Solaris] code, as I saw it, was neat. Real neat. Extremely neat. In fact, I found it painful to read after a while. It was so neatly laid out that I found myself admiring it. It seems to have been built like an aircraft. It has everything that opens and shuts, has code for just about everything I've ever seen considered on a scheduler, and it's all neatly laid out in clean code and even comments. It also appears to have been coded with an awful lot of effort to ensure it's robust and measurable, with checking and tracing elements at every corner. I started to feel a little embarrassed by what we have as our own kernel. The more I looked at the code, the more it felt like it pretty much did everything the Linux kernel has been trying to do for ages. Not only that, but it's built like an aircraft, whereas ours looks like a garage job with duct tape by comparison.

As an aside, I did google a few terms they used which I hadn't seen before, and I was more than a little disappointed to find patents regarding the names... Sigh.

Now this would be a great time to take my comments out of context without reading on. The problem is that here was a scheduler that did exactly what I hate about what the Linux kernel scheduler is becoming. It's a monstrosity of epic proportions, and as far as an aircraft goes, it's like taking an Airbus A380 on a short joyride if you're running it on a desktop. It looks like a good, nay, great design for a massive airliner. By looking at it alone, I haven't got the foggiest what it might run like on a desktop. Now since I'm full of opinion and rhetoric and don't ever come through with any substance (maybe writing my own scheduler invalidates that?), I'm going to also say I can't even be bothered trying it, for you to confirm your suspicions about me.

...the Linux kernel (scheduler) suddenly looks like the Millennium Falcon. Real fast, but held together with duct tape, and ready to explode at any minute...."

So, he feels embarrassed over the Linux code, after studying Solaris? Hmmm....

**a user** · 24 October 2014, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by nasyt View Post

.BUT: Most people agree, that linux is NOT the best Operating System.

most people? aha...

For example: The TCP/IP implementation is embarrassingly shaky.

a specific problem of an os does not prove that an os is not the best one. beside of that do you wan't me to tell you about all flaws of the others os's?

what exactly is the point of this post? showing your incompetence regarding logic of argumentation and knowledge?

**TheBlackCat** · 24 October 2014, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by nasyt View Post

You are trolling and flaming against everything that is not linux. BUT: Most people agree, that linux is NOT the best Operating System.

For example: The TCP/IP implementation is embarrassingly shaky.

Saying individual operating systems are better at specific things is not the same as saying individual operating systems are better overall. If the absolutely only thing you care about is TCP/IP performance, then yes you have shown solaris is better. But most people, even people running servers, care about more than that.

**nasyt** · 31 July 2015, 04:40 AM

It's enough to check server and HPC market share.

Lets check the server market share:

33% Windows, 33% Linux, 33% Unknown

Unknown: That is UNIX and OpenVMS.

They were dominated by UNIX, but Linux has wiped them out. It's such simple.

AT&T UNIX has a much more marture code base, same with OpenVMS.

The same when comes to stock exchanges which are one of the most demanding and critical workloads.

They had good luck that Linux didn't crashed their business yet.

To see what is better.

People use Windows and Linux on Servers and HPC because they use it on their desktops. They simply ported their Desktops to Servers and HPC. It's that simple.

It's simple: slowlaris folks and fanboys like Kebabbert can't accept an obvious fact that Linux wiped this OS out from nearly every market.

It's simple: linsux folks and fanboys like Pawlerson can't accept, that they introduced a Square wheel of the internet.

**endman** · 01 August 2015, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by nasyt View Post

Lets check the server market share:

33% Windows, 33% Linux, 33% Unknown

According to W3Cook, it's 1.7% Windows, 96.6% Linux and 1.7% Unknown

AT&T UNIX has a much more marture code base, same with OpenVMS.

No, it has a mmuch more obsolete code base. In terms of maturity, Linux has surpassed it due to the superior volume of developers perfecting it in such a short time.

They had good luck that Linux didn't crashed their business yet.

Not good luck. It's Linux that prevented them from crashing.

People use Windows and Linux on Servers and HPC because they use it on their desktops. They simply ported their Desktops to Servers and HPC. It's that simple.

Correct for Linux poeple. But most Windows desktop using server people find that their OS is so insecure that they end up using Linux instead.

It's simple: linsux folks and fanboys like Pawlerson can't accept, that they introduced a Square wheel of the internet.

Wrong, it's old dogs like nasty and Luke_Wolf, have bigots mindsets against new and freedom loving technology that they can't accept that Linux has fucked their pathetic OSes and left them in the dirt crying.

**nasyt** · 02 August 2015, 05:28 AM