Woah, It Looks Like Oracle Will Stand Behind OpenSolaris

[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]

@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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[kebabbert]

The vast majority of Linux development comes from people employed by Intel, Red Hat, and other tech companies. I'm not sure why you think they're amateurs, while Sun employees are not. Truly independent developers don't commit very much to the Linux kernel anymore.

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

“In the meanwhile I confirm that Btrfs design is completely broken: records stored in the B-tree differ greatly from each other (it is
unacceptable!), and the balancing algorithms have been modified in insane manner. All these factors has led to loss of *all* boundaries holding internal fragmentation and to exhaustive waste of disk space
(and memory!) in spite of the property “scaling in their ability to address large storage”.
…
It seems that nobody have reviewed Btrfs before its inclusion to the mainline. I have only found a pair of recommendations with a common idea that Btrfs maintainer is “not a crazy man”. Plus a number of
papers which admire with the “Btrfs phenomena”. Sigh.

The first obvious point here is that we *can not* put such file system to production.”



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

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. And why Linus say the code is bloated.

On desktop, Linux is really good. I use Ubuntu and I like it. But I would prefer Solaris for Enterprise server usage.

[kebabbert]

I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is that Linux does not do any new hot cool tech from Enterprise server viewpoint. Only gamers are interested in what Linux invents. And I have heard that the graphic system has moved into the Kernel to allow faster graphics, is this true? Not even Windows have the graphics in the kernel anymore. The kernel should not contain graphics, if there is problem with the graphic driver, it can crash the whole kernel and the entire server goes down.

I'm really not that big of a gamer, although yes i am a desktop user. My point was just to point out some of the things that Linux developers are doing, after you claimed they couldn't do anything at all. I guess what you really meant was, they don't do anything at all "that you care about" while ignoring all the other stuff that you don't care about. I suppose that must have been what your point above was about as well.

When I say that Linux sucks, I mean from an Enterprise server view point. I said this above. From a desktop view point, Linux is good. The Enterprise world is different from the desktop world.

Ok, I really don't know what IBM and those mainframes did back in the day - i know they had a lot more hardware support that newer x86 chips are just beginning to get. But I'm pretty sure Solaris doesn't have a KVM like feature, or Sun wouldn't have invested in VirtualBox.

Oh, Solaris had Mainframe class machines long time ago. Large 1000kg Solaris servers. Costing a butt load of money. High End server OS have traditionally been very strong on virtualization. It is just now that Linux gets it. 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.

DTrace is much more helpful to system administrators than to developers.

It is? Why are Firefox developers praising DTrace then? Why are some switching to Solaris just to get DTrace? Why has DTrace been awarded a price/reward from Mozilla? This shows the importance of DTrace. One Firefox developer said "I don?t think I can work on Mozilla without DTrace ever again. Too useful." This is really high praise.

If you knew about development, you would immediately see how useful DTrace is for development.

http://blogs.sun.com/bmc/entry/dtrace_and_php_demonstrated

http://blogs.sun.com/bmc/entry/dtrace_on_rails

Many programmers wants DTrace for their language and there is lots of work to add probes for languages.

And I'll admit it's a useful tool, although i find it hard to believe no one had ever come up with a tracing/stats framework that could be used before that. DTrace just made it much more in-depth and useful.

Ehrm. No. DTrace shows everything going on, in the computer. Everything. No tracer has ever done it before. If you read links about DTrace, then you see why it has been awarded and why developers wants it. DTrace is just not a "polished tracer". It is unique. 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?

Look: You. Dont. Understand. DTrace.

Supposedly, sure. But i've seen plenty of stories online about people losing data on ZFS. It's not some magic bullet that automatically takes care of everything, like every other FS it had teething problems before it matured.

I agree ZFS has it's problems. But many says it is far better than everything else out there.

And I don't view adding checksums very revolutionary, honestly.

Again you dont understand. Every common filesystem has had checksums before. The point is, there where no end-to-end checksums earlier. And the checksums where not correctly done - filesystems can not even detect errors! But ZFS can. This is unique. Again you dont understand. If you believe that ZFS has checksums, but just more of them - then I understand why do think ZFS is nothing special. But that is not the case. ZFS is unique.

It's a fairly obvious evolutionary change that would have come about no matter who came up with it first.

This is a strange remark. The difficulties is in come up with it FIRST. There is the real difficulty. When someone has shown how to do it, then it is easy to copy.

Pretty much.

If you think Solaris has just ordinary tech, but slightly more polished, then I understand your view point: "why all the fuzz about ZFS, DTrace, etc?". But this is not the case. If it just where slightly more polished, then no one would go to great lengths to port or copy Solaris tech. 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".

Like what? As you said, Linux is providing (poor, in your mind) copies of DTrace/ZFS through SystemTap and Btrfs.

Ive told. Dont you read my posts? ZFS offers data protection. XFS does not. JFS does not. Neither ext3, reiserFS, etc. Isnt this the only reason to use ZFS? Your data is safe.

DTrace shows everything that is going on in the computer, look at the blog posts I linked - and DTrace allows probing a machine in production.

Look, again, if Solaris tech is just slightly better, then why do everyone wants it? 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. ZFS and DTrace has won several awards. DTrace has won award from Wall Street Journal - that says something about the DTrace unique features.

They've done some nice stuff. I just take exception to the way you claim that they're the only ones who have ever done that. Linux guys come out with nice stuff as well.

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

Of course not. Just 99.9% of them, as i said. Most.

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)

Which as i said is taken out of context and therefore FUD. This has been proven many times in previous FUD-wars, because it always comes up.

This is hilarious. Linus said so. Didnt he? Maybe you can explain the context? What did Linus mean, actually?

Yes, you are, as proven by the way you are using that Linus Torvalds bloated quote.

Jesus. If I quote Linus, have I made up that quote then? No. I am only telling the truth, dont I? Look, if Linus did not say so, if the devs did not claim Linux code is bad, then I would be trolling if there is no evidence. But Linus SAID so. It is not trolling, when I quote Linus. I did not make this up.

And i never said Solaris was bad either. In fact it does a lot of stuff well, and I'd probably agree that if you don't mind spending the money that Solaris is probably better for a high end server.

Good. At least we agree on something. Even Larry Ellison thinks this. From Enterprise Server view, Solaris is better. From desktop view, Linux is better.

I'm just saying some of the stuff you are posting is ridiculously biased.

The thing is, the "stuff I post" are from research papers, benchmarks, and interviews with Linux developers. I have not made this up. I quote others.

While conveniently leaving out all their quotes that Solaris is even worse, and that Linux doesn't have anything to learn from it. Seriously, you're cherry picking quotes and twisting their meaning more than the average politician does.

How is Solaris worse? Can you show links and backup your claim, or are you making this up?

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?

And when all Linux kernel devs says things like this below, I just lie, FUD and troll, yes? Jesus. If I quote someone else, then the other person is the troll, not me. I am not trolling, Linus is the troll. And the Linux kernel devs are the troll. Not me. Dont shoot the messenger. I am just a messenger.





Linux Kernel dev David Miller is a Troll, according to you:

http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Active_Merge_Windows

"The [linux source code] tree breaks every day, and it's becomming an extremely non-fun environment to work in.

We need to slow down the merging, we need to review things more, we need people to test their f--king changes!"





Andrew Morton is a troll

http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/

Q: Is it your opinion that the quality of the kernel is in decline? Most developers seem to be pretty sanguine about the overall quality problem...

A: I used to think it was in decline, and I think that I might think that it still is. I see so many regressions which we never fix.




And Dave Jones

http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html

"Last year Dave Jones told everyone that the kernel was going to pieces, with loads of bugs being found and no end in sight."




Maybe you have missed the discussion where Alan Cox quits as a developer because Alan argues that the Linux regressions should be fixed correctly, which may break user applications? And Linus says that if user applications breaks, then you should not fix that Kernel issue correctly. Instead you should preserve the old behavior so user apps doesnt break. Alan complains on the Linux bugs, Linus says he shouldnt mind them.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/24/182

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/28/375

"Quite frankly, I don't understand why I should even have to bring these issues up. You should have tried to fix the problem immediately, without arguing against fixing the kernel. Without blaming user space. Without making idiotic excuses for bad kernel behavior.

The fact is, breaking regular user applications is simply not acceptable. Trying to blame kernel breakage on the app being "buggy" is not ok. And arguing for almost a week against fixing it - that's just crazy.
Linus"




And Linus T is also a Troll when he says something like "Linux is bloated", "The I/O foot print is scary". etc.




And also Theo der Staadt said Linux code is really bad. You know what FreeBSD people think about Linux? They say something like "Linux is good, because it keeps amateur hackers out of real kernels"

There are probably lot more Trolls out there, to quote.

Again: to quote someone else is not Trolling. Especially if I quote Linus T.

[kebabbert]

And yet IBM chooses Linux over Solaris.

This is quite weird. Do you expect IBM to choose Solaris over any other OS? How do you reason? Solaris is a proprietary closed source OS and belongs to Oracle. How can IBM take another company's proprietary OS? This sentence does not even make sense. We ignore this objection.

Or, did you mean "IBM chooses Linux over AIX"? That sentence makes sense. But I dont know what you meant. IBM has officially said they will phase out AIX in favour of Linux.

And yet Google chooses Linux over Solaris.

I have explained this earlier. But a short recap:
Linux is easy to modify. Naive kernel. Solaris kernel is very complex and difficult to modify.

Google uses a large cluster of individual PCs and run Linux on it. Linux scales well horizontally: a large cluster of PCs in a network. Just add another PC and start up a small part of the work load. Just like SETI client/protein folding client/etc, you download it and run it on your PC. It is a large distributed network, similar to Google's use of Linux. This is quite easy to do. For instance, run a web site: just add another server and you have increased uptime. Easy.

Each node runs a highly specialized, well defined task. The kernel is stripped down to it's bare minium, does only one thing. It is not the general Linux kernel Google runs. It is a modified kernel.

To scale vertically, is another thing. This is very difficult to do. One big computer with many CPUs handle lots of different tasks. This is very tricky. Compare one large database table where lots of users update data simultaneously - how do you lock the data so two users dont update the same data at the same time? etc etc There are lots of tricky questions to answer.

Compare this to many small individual databases that dont have any connection among them, one user on one database. No problems. This is horizontal scaling.

Linux is very good at horizontal scaling, just add another PC to the network. Linux is very bad at vertical scaling, on one big machine handling many different general purpose tasks. So when people say Linux scales bad - they mean vertical scaling. Linux scales good horizontally. No doubt on this.

I dont find the article now, but in that article they claimed that Google runs Linux on low utilization. Very many PCs and low cpu usage. Linux crumble under high load, it gets unstable then. One IBM Mainframe guy wrote that Mainframe and Unix can run at 100% for very long time, but Windows and Linux becomes unstable under high load. There are many Unix sysadmins that confirm this, they must reboot Linux servers now and then. But Windows admins thinks Linux is the most stable in the world.

And yet almost any website your on runs on Linux not Solaris.

So? What does this prove? You know, one of the largest web sites in the world runs on 6000 servers that use Windows. Does this prove that Windows is best in the world? No. To run a web site is easy. Just add another node, and you have increased uptime.

http://highscalability.com/myspace-architecture

And yet game developers write server packages for Linux not Solaris.

There are several games written for Linux, not for Solaris. I dont see why the game developers should switch OS?

You know, if you are into games, then you dont need an Enterprise Unix, OpenVMS or Mainframe. I do not talk about desktops, I talk about High end server Enterprise. Where stability is the most important.

And yet every phone-maker out there who doesn't uses IOS or Symbian uses Linux.

Again. Solaris is an High end Enterprise Server OS. Such servers do have several GB RAM and cost lots of money. There is no point in running a Enterprise server OS on a mobile phone.

And yet almost every super-computer runs on Linux not Solaris.

Yes, and that is because super-computers are a bunch of PCs on a fast network. Each node doing a small part of the work. Actually, super computers are simpler than Big Iron. Super computers only do one thing, they are highly specialized. That is easy to do. It is much more difficult to handle many complex tasks from many different users.

And the list goes on...

Everyone admits that Linux scales well horizontally. Just add another node. But vertically, it sucks badly.

Your list was quite strange from an Enterprise server view point. Mobile phones? Games?

But maybe you talked about desktop view point.

Sure, I am completely wrong cause I don't give you sources.
Sure, no-one knows what's best for them but you do: Solaris!

I dont mind if you quote research papers or benchmarks, etc - as I have done. But if someone writes "Solaris is buggy and bloated" without any evidence, then it is just FUD. Especially if he admits he is FUDing.

Sure, no-one knows that these IQ tests have been abandoned years ago because it appears that intelligence isn't measurable in numbers and that there isn't a global kind of intelligence.

I do agree that IQ does not mean intelligence. Because Intelligence incorporates more than just IQ. IQ is only a small part of Intelligence. But, there is some correlation. It is unlikely that some one with 200 IQ is dumb, or vice versa.

The point is, I want to show that I am not as dumb as Kraftman say I am. But on the other hand, he confessed he FUDs. So probably he just FUDs about me.

[kraftman]

@Kebabbert

(maybe because of DTrace. Firefox developers have switched from Ubuntu to Solaris just because of DTrace:
http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/20...and-of-dtrace/

A lie. One dev who sound like a fanboy. Why Mozilla devs would like to use someting which is slower then Linux on PC and which doesn't even count on the desktops? And dtrace, zfs are just copies, nothing revolutionary. I don't know a single thing from sun which can be described as revolutionary one.

However, you don't understand what many people say. I think this is because you're stupid or something. At first you consider some stupid mensa tests as something which describes "amount of inteligence". It describes nothing more then some mensa's numbers. People who're interested in mensa resolve their tests and thus they have higher numbers. They're just have more experience in this. Even if someone takes such test for the first time and gets a good result it means only he's got a good mensa's result. I think you and every so called mensan who thinks he's more intelligent then others is a great example of stupidity. Let's take a look at one simple example:

1 3 5 11 x

Time matters in mensas tests and a natural way to resolve such problem is to try some combinations. If someone will use a proper method at first he gains some seconds and if someone else will use it as a last method he looses some time. Someone can argue more intelligent people will use a proper method sooner, but I don't think so. Some very intelligent people can start from using much more complicated methods at first and then start using simpler ones. I noticed in your claims you're using a very stupid way to 'prooF' your claims. You're adding one to one, but you're ignoring a fact if someone says something you can't take it as a truth or a false. There are many more different states like it's true in this case, it's unlikely true etc. You're method is a dumb one. A more intelligent people are thinking differently - they look at a whole picture (because life is not a limited, stupid and simple mensa' test) and then, they can figure out what's right or not. MaestroMaus and Smitty3268 showed they think in a different, much smarter way then you and they've got the right point much much sooner. And what matters the most their point is right. Conclusion is as simple as your mensa's test - you're the one stupid here. :>

[kraftman]

And one more thing. What can be more bloated then operating system were devs are writing its drivers in java?

http://developers.sun.com/solaris/learning/driver/index.jsp

Slowlaris is an operating system parody. An excellent example of being big, bloated cow.