The individual owning this blog works for Oracle in Germany. The opinions expressed here are his own, are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author, and neither Oracle nor any other party necessarily agrees with them.
< Less known Solaris features: About crashes and cores - Appendix B: ::status | links for 2008-10-20 >
Sunday, October 19. 2008
Okay,okay ... i know the headline is a little bit provoking. But when you think about some comments from Linux proponents you could think so. In the last few weeks iīve heard one sentence quite often: "Why you you still develop Solaris? You should contribute to Linux!" from people administering Linux systems. And you could read at other places, that Solaris is irrelevant, that there is nothing worth of mentioning it or even for an integration to Linux. Just think about the Zemlin quotations! Or several other comments of proponents of Linux.
This is an interesting development. In the years before, there wasnīt such comments. Solaris was considered as a dead end. But then the game changed. We open-sourced Solaris. The full monty over the time. We open-sourced the cluster framework. And we wonīt stop to open source further code until there is no more code to open-source. BTW: I find "Sun should contribute more" really interesting. In the moment you start up your text processor on your favourite Linux distribution youīve gone through more code contributed by Sun than of anybody else. Youīve already traversed a large amount of code contributed by Sun when you just login into GNOME. This is a fact most people tend to ignore.
Itīs really interesting, that i find more and more articles that shows Solaris in a positive light. The reports on heise.de and especially the comments in forum are getting more positive for Sun and Solaris. In public forums you find more and more articles regarding Opensolaris. I would think about it as a good indicator for an increased uptake of Opensolaris in the market. Interestingly there are people who think about orchestration, when there is an increasing share of Solaris discussions on other forums, not believing that there is an increased interest in Opensolaris like this article.
And this is one of my important question: Why is there an increased amount of articles and comments disavowing the relevance of Solaris? Why are there no comments about BSD? Why are there no comments regarding AIX or HPUX? Whatīs so special about Solaris? Or to ask the provocative question from the headline: Is the Linux community afraid of Opensolaris? Why is the Linux community afraid of Opensolaris?
At first: There is an easy answer to the question asked in the mentioned article regarding Mysql and Opensolaris and this fear of some people regarding Mysql and Linux. Itīs a matter of fact, that most Mysql installations run on Linux. There is more money to make with Mysql on Linux with Mysql on Solaris. And Sun has to make money. Just tell me one reason, why we should limit our money making oportunities by limiting Mysql to Solaris. And when there is a large effort for Mysql on Opensolaris, itīs just because of leveling the playfield, as the development of Mysql was a linux centric one in the past (e.g. the scalability of Mysql is somewhat limited to the scalability of Linux respectively to the common sizes of systems used for Linux)
Of course ZFS is important for Solaris to stay relevant. Dtrace is important to stay relevant. An operating environment needs posterboy features to attract new users. An unix is an unix is an unix. Just doing another flavour of Unix isnīt an incentive for someone to change to another unix. Of course other features are interesting as well, but they wonīt attract users. I once coined the phrase in a customer presentation:"There are cool features, and there are important features. There are features to attact new users. And there are features to keep users on your plattform". Binary compatibility is a cool feature, but itīs a feature you learn to love at the next migration to a new mayor release of your operating system. This is a feature that keeps you at Solaris, but it wonīt really attract you to change the plattform.
By the way: Donīt underestimate the importance of Dtrace. Of course itīs not a feature for the every day user of Solaris. It doesnīt have to be one. I find the lack of fantasy in the Linux community in regard the role of Dtrace a little bit astounding. When a developer recognizes the usefulness of dtrace, she or he will use Solaris, when she or he uses Solaris, more software will optimized or developed at all for Solaris (it begins with decent makefiles, goes to support for compiles other than gcc and ends with the usage of nice features of Solaris making the developers life easier). And more software running well on Solaris leads to a bigger user community and bigger mind share.
So, why does Sun doesnīt contribute in large scale to the Linux kernel (we contribute a lot of code to Linux as an operating environment as i have stated before)? Iīm sure it would help Linux. The Solaris engineering is one of the best or the best in the world of operating systems. But such a move wouldnīt really help Sun. Linux and Solaris have pretty much different design principles. Linux and Solaris have pretty much different targets of systems. And the design prinicples of Solaris are imporant to Sun: Binary Compatibility. Scalability - a quadsocket Victoria Falls systems is essentially an 256-way SMP problem. Maintainablility. How to update a running system while retaining a running version of a system. You canīt sell high-end highavailable everything-redundant servers, without having an operating system that is capable of certain mechanisms that allow updates in the shortest possible time (and no, i donīt consider the in-situ updating process of Linux distributions as a good way to update packages. I really want Live Upgrade or Snap Upgrade before using it on a system in the M4000 and beyond range).
Even the development process is differently enough to justify the development of Solaris. Itīs the concept of the Architecture Review Comitees, the existence of a Solaris Sustaining Engineering. Itīs important to have such entities. Sun needs such entities to satisfy the needs of our customers. The customers expect patches for older releases, people just goaled to fix bugs and not to develop new features. Itīs one of the non-technical features people like. And we canīt simply discard it, just to start developing at Linux. And iīm sure Linus and Linux doesnīt want to take over the development concepts of Solaris.
You donīt think, thatīs such an big issue: Even top contributors to Linux like Andrew Morton thinks, that Linux has itīs own share of problems: (here(2005), here(2006),here(2007) and here(2008)). Itīs a reoccuring theme in every year. Problems that may lead to the need to restart the Linux franchise in the distant future. But thatīs a different story.
In my opinion, Linux is a good-enough Unix as x86 is a good-enough processor architecture. You can solve a good amount of problems. At some customers 100% (when you have hundred thousands of nodes, even good-enough is more than enough), at other the share-of-wallet for Linux is 0%. There is a reason, why we sell M9000/32 systems in good amounts despite of all sayings that you could solve all problems with a bunch of x86 servers ... harharhar. You shouldnīt discard this need of computing in the area of "better than good enough" as a small niche. You have to consider, that both environments have pretty much different customers at their respective extremes. There are people using Linux on WLAN routers and there are people running SAP central instances on a full-blown SPARC Enterprise M9000.
Albeit the desktop experience of Solaris got better in the last versions, but itīs a server operating system by itīs DNA. Linux is something between a desktop and a small server operating system. Okay ... iīm sure somebody will say "Mainframe Linux! SGI Altix!" but you should really look at the architecture of this systems before taking them as an example for scalability. Linux must decide in the near future, what it wants to be. Without focus to the desktop, it will not be a valid alternative to Mac OS X. Without an focus to server operations it will never really get out of the small server sector.
I tend to look at the increased comments that we should stop to develop Solaris and start to contribute at Linux as a sign of people being nervous. They donīt know, which role Solaris will play in the future. They assumed a waning relevance similar to other closed source operating systems like HPUX or AIX. But the opensourcing changed the rules of the game. When we announced Opensolaris, they said "Show us the code". We showed them the code. When we showed them the code, they said "Show us the community". We start to show them the community. Now they say "Is this community real?". There is a real community, there is real interest. And now we will see where this will end. Iīm sure that this end wont be irrelevance.
And you should consider: When there were sure of their dominance, the Linux community wouldnīt react in this way. They would ignore Solaris as they ignore *BSD. When did you heard the last comment like "The BSD community should give up itīs niche operating system and help us with Linux!" (Okay ... one reason for desisting from such a demand could be the consideration that one community is too small for two egos like Linus and Theo )
After all i find this comments "Hey, help us, donīt develop an own system. Help us." from some parts of the OSS community a little bit strange. Itīs not the first time: When we announced the availability of an in-kernel CIFS stack, the same words came from the Samba community. Having alternatives is a good thing, at the end itīs one of the reasons, why Linux got such an important building block of modern IT infrastructures. At which date "Having a choice" got a bad name ?
Iīm not ridiclious. I do not believe that we will the a market share of Opensolaris larger than the one of Linux anytime soon. But i strongly believe, that we will see a market share that enables a vivid community around it. We already see the first startups using Opensolaris as the foundation of their appliances.
More important: Linux needs Opensolaris. Do you really think, that there would be any development fo5 brtfs without ZFS? Iīm observing the development of Linux for quite a while (iīm using Linux longer than Solaris), but from my perspective the speed of the kernel development slowed down in the recent years. The Linux community would celebrate ext7 in 2015 (some new features per release, but essentially the same stuff). Linux needs a strong competitor for its further development as Solaris needed the wake-up call from the Linux community. The big step in functionality from Solaris 9 to Solaris 10 is in a part an answer to Linux.
And to comment the opening statement of this article at the end of my article: Not the purchase of Mysql will rescue the Solaris franchise, it was Solaris 10 and Opensolaris that already rescued it.
Posted by Joerg Moellenkamp in English, Solaris at 21:31 | Comments (40) | Trackback (1)
Related entries by tags:
Martin rettet meinen Tag
Jörg hat eine Wortwüste über Is the Linux community afraid of Opensolaris? geschrieben. Mein initialer Gedanke war ein schlichtes Nö, wie schön das Martin sich besser Ausdrücken kann und die richtigen Worte gefunden hat: ...
Weblog: EDV - Ende der Vernunft
Tracked: Oct 20, 21:13
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Please consider making a branded zone that looks and feels just like a Linux (LSB). This way I don't care about learning Solaris differences - I just get my nice GNU userland and it all works.
#1 Kevin Hutchinson on 2008-10-19 22:43
Hmm, the some of the differences are based on the technology. For example: SMF ... falling back to the init.d concept will hide the advantages from you.
The idea of a LSB-alike Solaris brand looks a little bit frankensteinian to me.
In the case, you just want the kernel features the lx or the lx64 (in development by the community) may be an solution.
Suns market is the top100-customers. Datacenters that are are not only listening to hypes do not deploy Linux for mission-critical applications, no one is doing that who wants to make money at the end.
In current economic situation, companies will understand that Linux is far more cost-intensive as Solaris.
Linux is a hype, like Windows was. Some had it on their home-pc and thought that could be deployed also in their datacenter. I can only tell: have fun and hope you all sleep well with such a decision.
the real problem with Solaris was never the technology behind it. It was just not available (or lacked mainstream hardware support) in the good enough processor everyone used. Today's sysadmins are used to linux because it was free for everyone to learn with, and it was available in the said processor.
If solaris wants to make a real come back it needs to be back in universities around the globe, Sun also needs to provide cheap, really cheap solaris certifications.
#3 nacho on 2008-10-20 02:53
@nacho: speaking of certifications for students at universities, schools, whatever.
Here's the holy grail for non profit customers:
It's the Sun Academic Initiative Program (http://www.sun.com/solutions/landing/industry/education/sai/index.xml)
... and certification is sponsored by Sun viz. 60US$ .
#3.1 other Frank on 2008-10-20 08:53
Am both a linux user and a (minimal)solaris user. The answer to your question is that the Linux community is not afraid of Solaris/open Solaris. The only problem that atleast I have is that since the community is mainly under the control of Sun(For eg. most members of ug-bosug are Sun employees) and since there are still "closed" parts in Solaris, there is a fear with in me that at some point Sun might "close" all its code, having gained enough from the community.
And on the sidelines,a suggestion. There is a definite need for improvement of the installer. I find the ncurses based installer of the old Debian Sarge simpler and easier to use than the OpenSolaris 2008.05 installer.
PS. I dont understand the language of the text of the command buttons in the "post comment" part
We will not close Opensolaris again. Period. The only reason, why there are closed parts in Opensolaris is the fact, that we are not allowed to distribute some code as open-source because of 3rd-party-licenses of technology weīve included into Solaris (for example: certain drivers).
You're fighting windmills, Jörg. There is no controversy, except the one perceived by those who write articles about it.
Actually, a good number of Linux sysadmins, developers, and enthusiasts whom I know regularly tell me "Linux has systemTap, wait till brtfs comes out, Linux has more drivers, etc". They forget that they know that I am their Linux sysadmin, and start talking about what Linux has (or will have).
Most people forget that they themselves don't really use the Linux kernel, they just use the GNU userland, perhaps the Gnu toolchain, and one of XFCE/Gnome/KDE - all of which are available on *BSD and opensolaris as well.
There are definitely somethings about opensolaris that need looking into without prejudice, and some of these thing will be of benefit to various people.
Correct. And the same can be said about countless Solaris, "Windows", FreeBSD, Tru64, AIX, VMS or z/OS users. The choice of operating system is commonly driven not only by facts and experience, but also by myths and prejudice.
>When did you heard the last comment like "The BSD community should give up itīs niche operating system and help us with Linux!"
They just say it a bit different: "*BSD is dead" - that's a running gag in the community for a decade now but never got true. At least FreeBSD is very active and already has integrated ZFS, DTrace and Xen is on the way so i really wouldn't call that dead.
Its fine for Solaris to be recognized. No Linux fan should fear Solaris, they should fear Windows 2008 Server, since this system will get a lot more press coverage.
What I have learnt: A system unknown to the customer cannot be sold !!
So Solaris is on the way to gain back strength, which is god to see.
For linux its good to look across the garden fence, since you get a bit funny, if you are alone in your front garden for a long time.
Thanks for a great article on solaris. I am a Linux Sysadmin by choice and Solaris sysadmin out of necessity.
Sriram Narayanan  said it pretty much just the way I would however, I prefer Linux. Why? The FHS (File Heirarchy Standard) makes things a bit more sane and normalized when you are looking for something. Why is there a need for /usr/ucb/bin when there is /usr/bin? Why /usr/gnu/bin when there is /usr/bin? Why in the heck are there binaries in /etc? Ok they are links, but still wtf? These things matter for a day to day sysadmin. Yes you can argue that HP-UX or AIX have binaries or links in /etc. That doesn't make it right.
Why are tools like truss and lsof not installed by default? Why does jumpstarting take AGES when a kickstart and full install takes ~5-6 minutes over a lan. Why does the package manager take ages to patch every single package? These are all very relevant questions and (frankly) areas that Solaris fails in comparison with a modern Linux distribution. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Ian Murdock and the rest of the sun engineers come up with for Project Indiana, but it isn't there yet.
DTrace is REALLY cool and one of the things that sets Solaris apart. ZFS is overkill for many situations and (scary as it may seem) I've seen XFS volumes of ~10TB or more used in production and the admins not minding it too much. Once btrfs comes out with it's inplace ext3 convertor moving over will be a no brainer.
So as a Linux admin or business owner, what real reasons are there to move from Linux to Solaris? It seems like a lot more of the younger generation know Linux vs Solaris so hiring new admins will certainly be a factor.
> Why is there a need for /usr/ucb/bin when there is /usr/bin?
because there was life prior Linux and still is beyond Linux
from days some may not even know, when UNIX was born
see filesystem(5) man page:
Berkeley compatibility package binaries.
Berkeley compatibility package headers.
Berkeley compatibility package libraries.
> Why /usr/gnu/bin when there is /usr/bin
because GNU is not UNIX, and a Solaris box by default out of
the box, with the default shell, path and binaries has to be
complient to various standards, in particular the SUS/SVID, see standards(5) man page for more in order to get the UNIX branding.
I'm not sure if there is a Linux distro that has the UNIX branding.
however it appears that the particular /usr/gnu part is going to
change as part of the indiana based opensolaris distros, e.g opensolaris 2008.05/.11
> Why are tools like truss and lsof not installed by default?
truss(1) ??? its there, has been there since ever
lsof ? because in the past it seemed thath the proc(1) utilities
do provide all of the same functionality but better integrated with Solaris.
yes, patching/package managment
will change with Opensolaris and IPS
in the future and will obsolete the old SYSV package system.
> there binaries in /etc? Ok they are links, but still wtf?
because instead of other operating systems, solaris is comitted
for compatibility with previous versions of solaris, and there was a time in the past those binaries lived in /etc. but wtf? about compatibility right ?
I was thinking a long time about submitting a reply or not to this, frankly
because opinions and discussions raised in that way can not be dealed with in a reasonable way and are most of the time a dead end...
e.g. if that statement:
>These things matter for a day to day sysadmin.
would have been true, you'd know about the UCB compat package...since
you don't you just don't need it and won't see it having any influence
in your work....
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I wasn't trying to troll you btw.
While not meaning to sound ignorant to Solaris, that post was more to point out how annoying it is sometimes when some of these things are MUCH easier on Linux. There are what, 4 or 5 different places to change the hostname in Solaris 10? To the beginning of time backwards compatibility is very cool, but is also a double edged sword.
Also, you didn't say anything about Jumpstarts. Are they going to be reasonable like say a Kickstart and take < 10 minutes? The technology in Solaris is really good and competition is always good in open source. It just seems like Jon Schwartz became CEO and started changing Sun after linux hit real mainstream (aka too late).
That being said, I'd rather run big oracle databases on Solaris over Linux. Solaris's threading implementation seems more solid.
> There are what, 4 or 5 different places to change the hostname in
> Solaris 10?
indeed, that and other sometimes minor but for an admin important
quirks and details are somewhat rotten....
> Also, you didn't say anything about Jumpstarts.
indeed - because like you I have yet to see what they come up with
with regard to IPS managed systems. I'm somewhat used to
jumpstart, I'd totally miss it.
as for todays jumpstart behavoir I doubt there will be much of a change in terms of speedup unless you change your network itself,
that is we just suck the entire OS and all the packages OTW from the
install server, there's not much room for improvement in the old aside
bumping up network bandwith.
> backwards compatibility is very cool, but is also a double edged
yes, and opensolaris 2008.05 started to relax on this front, ie.
it contains /usr/gnu/bin as the first item in the default path
afai remember from my laptop
Cool, a guy I know just got a job working for Sun specifically to improve the desktop and linux class hardware support. He is a kernel engineer in El Segundo, CA not far from here.
Great article, I simply wisely avoid discussing solaris with linux gurus.
The target is those who don't know much about solaris. and to keep the existing users. Also porting BSD or GPL software to solaris is a topic, which can be solved by running some kind of virtualisation. Virtual box, zones and containers are useful enhancements. Sun Studio is a very good compiler and the documentation plus blogs about solaris is another factor. Ideally Open Solaris should be able to also run on an IBM Cell processor. Portability and HCL hardware compatibility List cannot be neglected. Today the fastest supercomputer runs fedora Linux on AMD Opteron and IBM Cell. There I'd like to see opensolaris.
I'm a Linux sys-admin by day and I truly believe it's a fantastic operating system that is capable of great things but I also agree that it has it's limitations and I think that's what will hold it back from being a serious data center operating system.
If I was running a multi-million dollar corporation, with mission critical systems and the need for constant uptime and unbelievable response times - I would use Solaris. Sun Solaris is amazing at what it does. It's fast, slick and elegant.
#10 Stephen Knight on 2008-10-20 18:20
Although this article was probably as vague as the perception that the linux community is afraid of a percieved success of opensolaris, I'd like to comment:
Customers made us switch from SPARC-based platforms to x86 and x86_64 platforms in many areas. There are various reasons for that, which I don't want to discuss here. Except one: Sun is still not able - although opensolaris and project indiana are around for quite a long time now - to deliver a state-of-the-art installation experience.
This has long been an issue regarding Linux acceptance (which I have denied for a long time). An the same goes for opensolaris.
You just won't see Joe Developer setting up opensolaris in his VirtualBox- oder kvm-guest for a quick test. He obviously will install Debian- oder Ubuntu-Linux, because he will be testing whereas he would be installing when he used opensolaris (and even if he would punish himself and install opensolaris he would probably be left with a non-useable system - in the sense of useability - as he would have to add libraries, add-ons and so forth by hand, because they would be most probably missing from the repositories).
And this is how these decisions are made. It is very difficult to get opensolaris as the production system when it has to compete with Debian on the development system.
It's not Solaris-Kernel vs. Linux-Kernel - its opensolaris vs. very good maintained Linux-distributions. Regarding that, opensolaris is more like a *BSD (evolving slow and steady). Although everyone here want's to see it as a Linux distribution (evolving with new Kernel releases) and growing a big community (which probably won't happen for other reasons).
#11 Hein Bloed on 2008-10-20 19:46
Actually I think installation of solaris is much more elegant than on Linux. Besides that, an installation is typically only made once.
Agreed, if you want to manually tune the software packages some of the old weaknesses of the Solaris installer shows.
But then, if so much installation is needed, an admin would make an installation profile once and would then roll out this installation on as many servers he likes.
No need to bother the installer at all.
The installer of the Indiana aka Opensolaris distribution looked like an Ubuntu or SuSE installer, perhaps not that polished, but it will evolve (just a few years back, Linux installation wasn't for the faint at heart, either).
I won't comment on the idea that developers develop on self-installed operation systems that are a) beta and b)usually don't have anything to to with the production environment their software is supposed to run on.
#11.1 Joern K. on 2008-10-21 00:08
I call BS!
OK, ZFS and Dtrace = NICE.
But a modern Linux distro can do so many things OpenSolaris just can't it is not even funny anymore.
I won't even mention smaller or bigger machines.
Solaris on cell phones anyone? Or on Petaflop machines?
#12 Didi on 2008-10-20 22:01
Linux doesnīt run on Petaflop systems. It doesnīt even run on Teraflop systems. It runs on cluster of smaller systems with an aggregated computing power of those numbers.
And i donīt think that "reducing" is a technology breakthrough. Essentially an Linux on a MobilePhone is just a custom build kernel with some custom drivers in conjunction with busybox. There is nothing that makes Linux special here.
And donīt mix Linux and Linux Distributions. Given the existence of drivers, there is nothing you canīt do on Solaris as well.
And thatīs the basic point: If the existence ports is the important fact, look no further than NetBSD ... more ports than Linux. If you want drivers for any existent hardware on the planet ... well there is an operating environment from Redmond ... but you have to pay for it ...
>It doesnīt even run on Teraflop systems.
Columbia does 51.87 teraflops with SLES9.
At first itīs a cluster of Altixes "It is composed of twenty SGI Altix 3000 nodes each of which have 512 Intel Itanium 2 processors bringing the total number of processors to 10,240." and additionally the Altix is a special case. Without SGI ProPack you wonīt reach this number per node.
But the nice thing about the Altix is that you get a single image, not a cluster. At least every node does 2tf.
Well thatīs correct ... but you get this single image with the performance characteristics of a cluster ...
I don't want to start a flameware snicker but I'm happy to see some alternatives, *BSD, Linux, OpenSolaris etc. pp. There is no "one to rule them all", that's mere nonsense. Of course I do have some preferences, but I don't want to banish any of the other operating systems. The more people you have working with different methods, the more versatility you'll get.
It's true Linux lacks some very important enterprise features. But its false that Solaris has everything Linux wants to have.
We migrated to QFS/SAM-FS on Solaris 10 with more than 50 million files and we used Linux before with simple and cheap RAID. Now guess want stands in the corner, unusable at load level 1.17 and which oldies are still going to serve our needs at load level 10+ on "inferior" hardware?
Solaris was setup and hardened by "experts", the running Debian has a lot of misconfiguration form my precedessor and wasn't tuned in any way. It only needs nmap to tell you which of the boxes is safer -- its not the "hardened" Solaris.
I like Debian -- albeit it lacks a lot of enterprise features I really want in the future.
I wasn't afraid, but I'm afraid I have to say: Solaris doesn't rock!
Next time: no Solaris, no ZFS, no SAM-FS and I never cared about Dtrace anyway.
Solaris is about old men talking about Unix and myths. Nothing more.
#14 SummerSun on 2008-10-20 23:40
I know I should not reply to such an article but I'm in the mood today...
Your point is?
Are you complaining that you don't know Solaris or SAM-FS for that matter?
If you're more familiar with Linux then why don't you just install SAM-FS on Linux?
If a solution (be it SAM-FS on Solaris or MySQL on Linux, or MSSQL on Win2003) is badly setup and not maintained by the admins, then it will be insure.
If the environment is badly designed then it is perfecly possible that the users become frustrated -- perhaps the simple, cheap solutions would have been better.
But don't blame SUN or Solaris or SAM-FS if either the design or the maintenance is bad.
Blame yourself for not stating your needs, blame the project manager for not listening to you or your users or the purchasing department for hiring the cheapest solution provider they could find.
Regardless of the operating system used if you put important data on cheap (perhaps even sata) RAIDs (how is backup handled?) you should get your head examined.
#14.1 Joern K. on 2008-10-21 00:37
I understand and agree with your points, but your atrocious misuse of punctuation made it difficult to read.
Please read Eats, Shoots & Leaves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats_shoots_and_leaves to get a full appreciation for this.
Why is it that we, as engineers and computer scientists, somehow consider English grammar to be optional? Good grammar is certainly not a matter of choice in C++ and Java. We embarrass ourselves when we forget this.
Thank you for your article. It is certainly time that the more fundamentalist segments of the Linux community recognized the stupidity and self-destructiveness of attacking other compelling UNIX implementations.
To me it looks like Solaris is attacking Linux (and IBM) in this blog. Personally I only read about "Linux attacking Solaris" on Solaris sites... strange.
Suggestion: just all quit fingerpointing.
BTW: and skip the fingerpointin g on grammar and spelling as well, please
Sorry, but my native language is german, not english. But i do my very best to express my thoughts in a language readable throughout the world in IT (especially in a business, where every second word is english in any language)
> Why is it that we, as engineers and computer scientists,
> somehow consider English grammar to be optional? Good
> grammar is certainly not a matter of choice in C++ and Java.
> We embarrass ourselves when we forget this.
certainly correct and a nice candy ontop of it..
however if you had written this in perfect german grammar
that would have been really impressing !
c'mon, just give it a try....
#15.3 batschul on 2008-10-22 11:33
Nice book !
We have these language enthusiasts in germany too. I understand them, i like to read well written things and i try to evangelize some times too, but in a time where you get funny looks for not understanding "lol", "r" and "4" in written languages immediately, punctuation is "auf verlorenem Posten".
It's a little rude to be criticizing the author's grammar Alain when you can't take 5 seconds to notice all the (what I assume is) German on the site.
Perhaps English is not our author's native tongue?
#16 Sean on 2008-10-21 22:22
Thank you for a great article. While reading it the following phrase i read some where came to mind:
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
and then you win.
This is how I feel about OpenSolaris. I also greatly recognized the statement about Solaris having been designed, instead of simply evolving over time, like Linux does.
#17 Geert Schuring on 2008-10-24 15:41
So when will Sun support the OpenSSH developement? "In fact, no Commercial Unix or Linux vendor has ever given our project a cent."
I have a three disk Intel 64 system, on which I evaluate or maintain several operating systems. (linux and windows). I would install Open Solaris, except that from any one linux system, I have access to the files on all the others. I would want a linux driver so I can read zfs files. When that occurs, Solaris will be one that I take a serious look at.
#19 Leslie Satenstein on 2008-11-01 13:40
The author does not allow comments to this entry
The LKSF book
The book with the consolidated Less known Solaris Tutorials is available for download here
Martin about End of c0t0d0s0.org
Mon, 01.05.2017 11:21
Thank you for many interesting blog posts. Good luck with al l new endeavours!
Hosam about End of c0t0d0s0.org
Mon, 01.05.2017 08:58
Joerg Moellenkamp about tar -x and NFS - or: The devil in the details
Fri, 28.04.2017 13:47
At least with ZFS this isn't c orrect. A rmdir for example do esn't trigger a zil_commit, as long as you don't speci [...]
Thu, 27.04.2017 22:31
You say: "The following dat a modifying procedures are syn chronous: WRITE (with stable f lag set to FILE_SYNC), C [...]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany License