Solaris vs Linux Continues 361
raffe writes "Solaris Kernel Developer Eric Schrock is bloging more about the Solaris vs. Linux issue and linux kernel moneky Greg is answering on his blog.
Eric's first part is is also still up and Greg's answer " Another reader also submitted reviews of the Linux desktop vs. Solaris 9. User reviews are welcome; please note that ITMJ is part of OSTG like Slashdot.
Not much longer (Score:3, Interesting)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SUNW&
Cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
No contest (Score:0, Interesting)
Showdown: Solaris vs. Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Sun, Needs To Get A Clue (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:editors asleep at wheel... (Score:3, Interesting)
As guessed, it returned 1 search result
gugel [google.com] great link too, funny asian / english sign enclosed. (only offensive if you really passionately love vegetables.)
Only 1 Concern in Greg's Solid Reply (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell us why we really need to add this new feature to the kernel, and ensure us that you will stick around to maintain it over time.
There really is no way to "ensure" the support of the developer. She has not signed a legally binding contract and could jump ship to the evil empire: Micro$oft.
Therein lies the only potential risk with open source software without the backing of a stable commercial company. The software relies on the goodwill of the developers. How do you ensure "goodwill"?
Therein also lies the reason for Linux exploding in popularity after IBM publically backed it with $1 billion. If any developer were to jump ship and abandon a Linux feature that she developed, allowing it to flounder like a beached whale, IBM would step into the picture and "own" the feature. Under no circumstances would IBM allow its own customers to suffer anything "worse" than 6 sigma reliability.
Re:Kernel Recompile (Score:5, Interesting)
All of this is easier in 2.6 than in 2.4 and before, because the kernel developers decided that they really wanted the build process to be efficient and accurate (which they care more about than people who don't do it constantly) and they wanted the configuration system to be consistant and well-specified.
Re:GNU OpenSolaris (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not much longer (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:as bad as freddy vs jason (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of the argument comes down to "Sun hardware is more reliable and has really cool reliabilty features that PC hardware doesn't."
Nobody's going to argue with that.
The other big contender for bullet proof software, (IBM's big iron) runs Linux inside a VM. The VM has the neato bullet-proof stuff, so IBM didn't need to add it to Linux.
bryan
Re:as bad as freddy vs jason (Score:5, Interesting)
The only loophole in this screwed up logic is if Slashdotters feel that someone is playing defender for them in their favorite spectator sport: court proceedings.
"Wow, IBM is defending themselves against a baseless lawsuit! They're protecting Linux and all that is good, true, and just!"
Whatever.
Re:Not much longer (Score:3, Interesting)
Alex
Re:Not much longer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I thought we had gotten over this already (Score:2, Interesting)
Please explain
Re:as bad as freddy vs jason (Score:5, Interesting)
Google runs thousands of off the shelf servers in a way that makes failure a non issue, by having so damn many PCs that you can't tell if a few hundred fail. Its a different type of redundancy that is more cost effective in that particular application.
OpenFirmware may help in some ways, but it will not automatically allow you to hotswap memory, hard drives and even CPUs the way Sun servers can. These features will probably NEVER be included on any x86 type box because if you need those features, then x86 is the wrong architecture for the job. Instead, multiple PPC or Sparc would be the right tool.
I read the article and found nothing that I really didn't already know. Different tools, different jobs. I will continue to use Linux for my servers, but if we ever got to a point where we needed better than 99% uptime and availability then I would be looking at Sun or more likely, Big Iron. Interesting, probably will start a flamewar, but still obvious information. Even the comments on GPL were right on.
Re:I thought we had gotten over this already (Score:2, Interesting)
True of Solaris8, and Solaris9 on x86. Definitely NOT true of Solaris10 on x86.
Re:Kernel Recompile (Score:2, Interesting)
I've updated my kernel recently through YAST online update, I forgot I manually compiled my video driver(ATI Radeon) so when the machine restarted my X was done. Now i have to reinstall the driver all over again.
I know YAST would take care of this for you if you download their nvida driver but does anybody know how you can recompile a kernel and make your driver that you add stick without reinstalling if there is a way?
Because userland Solaris is dead? (Score:3, Interesting)
Say what you want about kernel functionality, but what other major UNIX distribution will give you the 1977 version of awk (granted that nawk is the '85 version)?
I haven't looked in some time, but would Sun please:
Adding gnome and ssh to this old cruft is like putting a bandaid on a corpse.
It is a real shame that Sun chose Linux for the Java Desktop System. Sun could have wrapped the Solaris kernel in a GNU userland, which would have been a much more interesting animal indeed.
Re:Kernel Recompile (Score:1, Interesting)
My solution to the configuration part is to use the distro configuration or just make absolutely everything as modules. I'm not sure how exactly, but I think that at least on Fedora the old configuration is picked up from
Re:Question for anyone... (Score:1, Interesting)
Nothing at all.
Re:Crash dumps a "feature" in Solaris?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:As Danny Devito said in Other People's Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Both are great! (Score:1, Interesting)
Solaris also is more tighly integrated with it's hardware. Maintenance wise I feel much more confident with dealing with a crisis when using Solaris. Linux again seems chaotic in it's hardware support.
And don't forget support. Linux does have great community support, but nothing beats a Sun box with a support contract. Nothing.
Now before you mod me as flamebait, I have to give props to Linux. If your on a tight budget, and you need lean and mean, a linux distro is where it's at. For example, Gentoo 2004.2 can really smoke a Sun in a low-end bang for the buck contest. You also have the ability to change every tiny aspect of the OS if you so choose.
So there you have it. Bottom line for me is, if my reputation is on the line I'm going to choose Solaris any day (on Sun hardware). Otherwise if things aren't so critical and there's a pinch for money, Linux is king.
Re:Two Points for Debate (Score:2, Interesting)
When Sun had their big new product conference last week, I tuned in -- and laughed out loud every time they touted their service. Sun service SUCKS, bad. I've only been dealing with them since May, and already I've got a three month outstanding service request, plus on two occasions I've been redirected to people with no connection to Sun. Once, they transfered my call to a company that used to be a Sun reseller (but hasn't been for several *years*, and from whom we never bought anything); later, they gave me a phone number to call, and it turned out to be some poor dude's home phone number. Totally unrelated to Sun.
We've got SunRay thin clients. There's a known issue with the power supply; it quite frequently burns out. Returning them should be simple, but it took me three separate service calls and finally a call to our vendor to have them flex their muscle to get these things exchanged.
Frankly, it seems to me that, unless you're running seriously big iron -- and we aren't; our biggest system is a four-way -- you buy Sun for the service. That purchasing point has gone right out the window for me. What's left? Reliability? On systems as small as we use, there's no advantage. Oh, I remember: buy-in. We've already blown thousands on Sun products, so it would be silly to go to Linux, right? Right? Hmm....
Re:as bad as freddy vs jason (Score:3, Interesting)
Both had sued Microsoft over antitrust issues and won huge settlements.
Both had distributed Linux distributions as a whole under relatively proprietary terms.
Neither one had any other history of pulling this sort of crap.
Finally although Sun showed a profit last quarter, I think, it wasn't much. They are still seemingly bleeding money and their business model is very much threatened by freely redistributable Linux. Same could have been said about Caldera without the profit.
I am not saying that SUN will become another SCO, but I do htink that the fear is justified.
Re:Kernel Recompile (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is no issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that is exactly the problem with what's happening with Solaris: putting in features like "dtrace" assumes that computers are expensive and have dedicated staff to "observe" and "tune" them. In a world with hundreds of millions or billions of computers, that attitude makes no sense anymore. That is why the Solaris approach is so outdated.
Re:Kernel Recompile (Score:2, Interesting)
its not about kernel recompiling vs not (Score:2, Interesting)
So realistically solaris is still king between linux and solaris. However FreeBSD is still more of a realistic competitor to solaris.. Where is the press on that?
But in the end any *nix flavor is better than none. Long live solaris and linux both have thier benefits and both have drawbacks. Realistically there is NO PERFECT OS!!. (and as long as humans make OS's there never will be).
Re:Kernel Recompile (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yes, the Hurd [gnu.org] way. Hurd is an interesting concept, but I doubt it will ever be significant - Linux is eating it's potential users.
Or it could be some rather critical problems in Hurd, such as the inability to support partitions over 2 GB in size (not really a Hurd problem, just really stupid driver design - Hurd's file system drivers memorymap the entire partition, and since the address space of a 32-bit processor is just 4 GB...).
In any case, I doubt Linux had any real design philosophy behind it at the beginning, and when it had become significant enough to deserve one, it was too late to make fundamental changes to basic architechture.
Some computers don't have hard disks either. And if they do, they could be IDE, SCSI or SATA drives (not to forget the old XT drives, still supported by the kernel :). As for what a sound card has to do with the kernel, it's simple: kernel's task is to control access to the hardware resources, and to provide a virtualization layer to hide the implementation details of that hardware from the applications. Kernel provides a virtual machine to the applications to run in.
Linux design principle seems to include every possible driver with the kernel. This makes sense, since the kernel-driver interface changes with almost every build, so you'd need to recompile any external drivers anyway.
And, ultimately, is there all that much difference between recompiling kernel and installing a driver ?
Re:Linux and World domination! (Score:1, Interesting)
Can this be said of Solaris? I didn't think so. Not even Windows comes close when embedded devices are considered too.
Remember, many of the innovations going into the Linux kernel benefit embedded systems and special purpose computers, not just servers and desktops, so these developers and users count too.