Woah, It Looks Like Oracle Will Stand Behind OpenSolaris

[kebabbert]

Kraftman,
As I said earlier, if you stop the insults, and stop FUDing, and stop making up things and instead post links - I may listen to you. Until then, I link to my earlier post to you:

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showpost.php?p=111678&postcount=64

[smitty3268]

I dont know if you read my link to the BTRFS mail list? Here it is again:

A RedHat developer writes

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/18/144

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.

It seems that Linux devs is amateurs? "Broken by design"? That is bad, dont you think?

Oh, so by amateur you don't actually mean volunteer, you simply mean stupid.

You tell me why Linux has so bad reputation in the Enterprise server halls, and why all Linux kernel devs say the code is bad.

Well, that's simple. It doesn't, except in your own mind.

And why Linus say the code is bloated.

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.

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.

[smitty3268]

Not even Windows have the graphics in the kernel anymore.

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.

But Solaris has been doing that since many years back. It is strange if you think Solaris virtual solutions are inferior to Linux.

Solaris has many different virtualization techniques appropriate for those large servers. It also has Xen, xVM, Ldoms, Zones, etc etc.

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.

It is? Why are Firefox developers praising DTrace then? Why are some switching to Solaris just to get DTrace?

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?

Ehrm. No. DTrace shows everything going on, in the computer. Everything. No tracer has ever done it before.

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.

Look, if it only was a polished tracer, then why the fuzz about DTrace? Why do all developers want it? Why do they port it to other OSes, if it sucks?

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.

Even Linus T considered to change license to get access to Solaris tech - why would he do that if Solaris tech is only slightly better? Linus said something like "if Solaris is released as GPL v3.0 then I may change license of Linux to GPL v3.0 too".

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.

Look, again, if Solaris tech is just slightly better, then why do everyone wants it?

Not everyone does. Seriously, lots of people don't. If they did, Sun never would have gone bankrupt, would they?

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.

Ha ha ha. Can you say, "circular argument"? That doesn't even make logical sense.

ZFS and DTrace has won several awards. DTrace has won award from Wall Street Journal - that says something about the DTrace unique features.

Do you really want to count up the number of awards Linux has gotten compared to Solaris? Really?

I bet they do. But Linux devs just copies others. Nothing new, nothing unique.

Again, false. We've already gone over this, though, and you've ignored all counter examples.

So if 99.9% of all bugs are in the drivers, why do devs say that the code is bad and buggy? (Including Linux kernel devs)

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.

Of course I cherry pick quotes, I can not post the entire interview, can I? I post only some parts - which you call cherry picking. And I do not twist their meaning, I just quote them. If Linus says "Linux is bloated" then I thought he meant that Linux is bloated. But he meant something else, you say. Maybe he talked about the weather?

Jesus. How much clearer can it get, when even Linus agrees?

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.


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.

[kraftman]

@Smitty3268

Kebbabert is a damn troll. He trolled at osnews.com a lot. When he came to Phoronix he sometimes copied his trolls bits from osnews and pasted them here. He never accepts arguments.

[kraftman]

Kraftman,
As I said earlier, if you stop the insults, and stop FUDing, and stop making up things and instead post links - I may listen to you. Until then, I link to my earlier post to you:
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...8&postcount=64

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[kebabbert]

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/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_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.

[kebabbert]

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.

[kraftman]

Btrfs is a zfs killer!

[kraftman]

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

"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.