Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
Thanks to BUoD (Bad User on Device - is that an acronym only my kids use when referring to me?) this appears not to have made it out. Henry - Only a few historical rants to add: Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote: And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. ummm, that was way more than a retro naming. SunOS was based on the BSD kernel and the BSD code, modified a long time under Sun. Solaris was based on System V.4, with Sun ripping it apart and basically re-writing it. Wasn't there a windowing system change about this time as well? /me recalls McNealy's rant about Sun will never run X Windows just a couple of years before his next rant about Sun will never run Motif. As a side note we never really released a V1.0 of Digital's OSF/1 system. We started with V1.2, I believewe figured no one would use a V1.0 :-) As someone who was way too familiar with that release, I believe I received an ice cream from the base system product mgr. when the 3000th copy of that system (the first unix-ish release from DEC with both Motif and *shared libraries* - not to mention X11r5 (just released) functionality) was sold. So now you know where all of DEC's profits went from that release. :-/ Henry ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 18:33 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: On 6/25/07, Henry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks to BUoD ... this appears not to have made it out. I always liked PICNIC (Problem In Chair, Not In Computer). *laugh* I've always heard PEBCAK (Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard). -- Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] Code Energy (http://www.code-energy.com) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/25/07, Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 18:33 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: On 6/25/07, Henry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks to BUoD ... this appears not to have made it out. I always liked PICNIC (Problem In Chair, Not In Computer). *laugh* I've always heard PEBCAK (Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard). Best one, is ID10T error. Sounds great on the phone, till they write it down... -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I truly cannot believe, after all of the off-topic conversations we've had, how anal retentive the list has become recently. That should be hyphenated as anal-retentive. ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. ummm, that was way more than a retro naming. SunOS was based on the BSD kernel and the BSD code, modified a long time under Sun. Solaris was based on System V.4, with Sun ripping it apart and basically re-writing it. I'm talking about the naming, not the actual OS. The original SunOS had always been called SunOS. When they came out with Solaris 2.x, (or SunOS 5.x) they started calling the original BSD based SunOS 4.x Solaris 1.x. The documentation in those days said SunOS + Openwindows == Solaris. Without Openwindows, it's just SunOS. Customers just called 4.x SunOS and 5.x/2.x Solaris. Even worse IMO, uname -s says SunOS on both. I had to rewrite a few shell scripts to look at uname -r to get 4.x or 5.x. When SunOS (BSD) was still in use, there was alot of confusion with the names, etc. It's been a long time since I used a SunOS system thank goodness. I'm sure it would feel archaic. SunOS was related to Solaris much the same way that Ultrix (BSD based) was related to Digital Unix (OSF/1 ripped apart and re-written by Digital). Digital changed the name too which broke fewer scripts. I liked the way it mixed BSDisms and SysVisms. I ran into an issue porting csh scripts from Ultrix to SunOS, Solaris, OSF/1 (not Digital Unix yet), HP/UX and Irix. I ended up converting it to ksh (a good idea anyways) because *csh* in SunOS and Solaris didn't work the same way. I used ksh because we had a version on all the systems (we added it to SunOS) and /bin/sh on Ultrix didn't do functions. As a side note we never really released a V1.0 of Digital's OSF/1 system. We started with V1.2, I believewe figured no one would use a V1.0 :-) Unfortunately not enough people used Digital Unix either :-( We went from a Dec shop running Ultrix to a Sun shop running SunOS because the apps were not getting ported to Digital Unix. I liked my Dec 3000 better then the Sparc 5s but our users needed the apps. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 09:33 -0400, Tom Buskey wrote: On 6/21/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. ummm, that was way more than a retro naming. SunOS was based on the BSD kernel and the BSD code, modified a long time under Sun. Solaris was based on System V.4, with Sun ripping it apart and basically re-writing it. I'm talking about the naming, not the actual OS. The original SunOS had always been called SunOS. When they came out with Solaris 2.x, (or SunOS 5.x) they started calling the original BSD based SunOS 4.x Solaris 1.x. The documentation in those days said SunOS + Openwindows == Solaris. Without Openwindows, it's just SunOS. Customers just called 4.x SunOS and 5.x/2.x Solaris. Even worse IMO, uname -s says SunOS on both. I had to rewrite a few shell scripts to look at uname -r to get 4.x or 5.x. When SunOS (BSD) was still in use, there was alot of confusion with the names, etc. It's been a long time since I used a SunOS system thank goodness. I'm sure it would feel archaic. I had forgotten that they had done that. I do remember thinking at the time how boneheaded it was. SunOS was related to Solaris much the same way that Ultrix (BSD based) was related to Digital Unix (OSF/1 ripped apart and re-written by Digital). Digital changed the name too which broke fewer scripts. I liked the way it mixed BSDisms and SysVisms. We wanted to use the name Unix, but could not do that until we had passed the test suites from X/Open. I ran into an issue porting csh scripts from Ultrix to SunOS, Solaris, OSF/1 (not Digital Unix yet), HP/UX and Irix. I ended up converting it to ksh (a good idea anyways) because *csh* in SunOS and Solaris didn't work the same way. I used ksh because we had a version on all the systems (we added it to SunOS) and /bin/sh on Ultrix didn't do functions. As a side note we never really released a V1.0 of Digital's OSF/1 system. We started with V1.2, I believewe figured no one would use a V1.0 :-) Unfortunately not enough people used Digital Unix either :-( We went from a Dec shop running Ultrix to a Sun shop running SunOS because the apps were not getting ported to Digital Unix. I liked my Dec 3000 better then the Sparc 5s but our users needed the apps. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ -- Jon maddog Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association Board Member Emeritus: USENIX Association (2000-2006) (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ... Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related discussion lately. What's your typical rant? :-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ... Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related discussion lately. What's your typical rant? :-) An easy one to target is the fact that every few years, Sun decides to phase out Solaris x86, then rekindle it once again. Additionally, one of the 'features' is Linux binary compatibility, so Solaris x86 can use Linux drivers, as it's own support of x86 hardware is limited. So in the end, you have questionable backing of the product in general, but to make up for lack of support, it can use Linux drivers, and even run Linux apps. So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS? :) -- Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.code-energy.com/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/21/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ... Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related discussion lately. What's your typical rant? :-) An easy one to target is the fact that every few years, Sun decides to phase out Solaris x86, then rekindle it once again. They tried to phase out Solaris 9. Solaris 10 was actively developed on AMD chips. Solaris 11 is being actively developed on AMD and Intel. Sun now sells servers based on AMD (and Intel recently). Solaris x86 isn't going to go away. I could see the Sparcs going away at the low end. Additionally, one of the 'features' is Linux binary compatibility, so Solaris x86 can use Linux drivers, as it's own support of x86 hardware is limited. I'm not sure the binary compatibility helps with drivers. I know they're working on Zones that will allow linux to run inside (BrandZ). So in the end, you have questionable backing of the product in general, but to make up for lack of support, it can use Linux drivers, I don't think this is true nowadays. and even run Linux apps. So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS! Dtrace. Zones (though Linux has solutions here too). A stable API with backward compatibility (Solaris 2.6 Sparc apps will run on Solaris 10. Will Redhat 6.0 apps run on RHEL 5.0?). Stability and scaling under load. Multiple SMP (I think x86 goes to 32 CPUs. Sparc goes to hundreds or thousands) As a desktop, I think Linux has it all over Solaris though not as much as in the past. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And Linux has many advantages too. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS? :) http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
Thomas Charron wrote: So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS! http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.gnhlug/9813 -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS? :) ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to justify a shift to an entirely different operating system? Someone give me a reason BESIDES ZFS, which is relatively new, one would want to run Solaris x86 over Linux or BSD? -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A stable API with backward compatibility A better point to make is the stable ABI. The Linux API does pretty well with getting old code to compile under newer stuff. But getting old binaries working is often less easy. There's a definite trade-off in terms of pace of improvement vs stability of interface over time. One of the reasons Linux improves and adapts so quickly is that the community is not afraid to throw out the old stuff. That does tend to increase the programming and sysadmin effort, though. And it's a nightmare for closed-source providers (too bad for them). (Solaris 2.6 Sparc apps will run on Solaris 10. To those who are not aware, Solaris 2.6 would be Solaris 6 under the current nomenclature. Will Redhat 6.0 apps run on RHEL 5.0? When was Solaris (2.)6 released? I suspect a better comparison would be RHEL 2.1 on RHEL 5.0. Of course, I don't know the answer there, either. :-) Maybe one of the Red Hat'ers on the list can respond... Multiple SMP (I think x86 goes to 32 CPUs. Sparc goes to hundreds or thousands) Have they ever built one? If not, that's just vaporware. The E15K only went to, what, 64 processors? Still way more than x86, but let's be real, too. To go sideways: The wave of the future is distributing computing (clusters) anyway, so it's mostly academic. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And Linux has many advantages too. What?!? One size doesn't fit all??? ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/21/07, Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS? :) ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to justify a shift to an entirely different operating system? For a file server, I think so. ZFS will detect errors due to a bad bad cable, controller, controller/disk firmware. No other filesystem will. Someone give me a reason BESIDES ZFS, which is relatively new, one would want to run Solaris x86 over Linux or BSD? Dtrace. You can run your linux binary or java application under Solaris for debugging and optimizing. Both of these are coming in MacOSX 10.5 and in FreeBSD. Linux is working on Systemtap and I've seen BTFS. Sun's CDDL isn't compatible with the GPL in the kernel so clones are being developed. If the clones are good enough, there shouldn't be a reason to switch. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An easy one to target is the fact that every few years, Sun decides to phase out Solaris x86, then rekindle it once again. They tried to phase out Solaris 9. Solaris 10 was actively developed on AMD chips. Solaris 11 is being actively developed on AMD and Intel. Sun now sells servers based on AMD (and Intel recently). But my point is, historically over the last 10 years, Solaris x86 development cycle has ebbed and flowed back and forth. I understand that current versions are being actively developed, but if Sun where to, say, release a 'new ubah chip', I would not be suprised to see the x86 version fall to the side once again. Solaris x86 isn't going to go away. I could see the Sparcs going away at the low end. It already went away at least 2 times. Additionally, one of the 'features' is Linux binary compatibility, so Solaris x86 can use Linux drivers, as it's own support of x86 hardware is limited. I'm not sure the binary compatibility helps with drivers. I know they're working on Zones that will allow linux to run inside (BrandZ). I know, I appologized to Ben offlist about confusing the two, but Solaris x86 tends to rely on both binary AND Kernel module compatibility. So in the end, you have questionable backing of the product in general, but to make up for lack of support, it can use Linux drivers, I don't think this is true nowadays. True. But what about 5 years from now? and even run Linux apps. So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS! Dtrace. Zones (though Linux has solutions here too). A stable API with backward compatibility (Solaris 2.6 Sparc apps will run on Solaris 10. Will Redhat 6.0 apps run on RHEL 5.0?). Stability and scaling under load. Multiple SMP (I think x86 goes to 32 CPUs. Sparc goes to hundreds or thousands) ... That's based on Distro, *NOT* on Linux in general. As far as x86 comparisons, I was not making comparisons of Solaris vs Linux, I was comparisong Solaris *x86*. As a desktop, I think Linux has it all over Solaris though not as much as in the past. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And Linux has many advantages too. Solaris isn't a server. A physical MACHINE is a server. :-) -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A stable API with backward compatibility A better point to make is the stable ABI. The Linux API does pretty well with getting old code to compile under newer stuff. But getting old binaries working is often less easy. There's a definite trade-off in terms of pace of improvement vs stability of interface over time. One of the reasons Linux improves and adapts so quickly is that the community is not afraid to throw out the old stuff. That does tend to increase the programming and sysadmin effort, though. And it's a nightmare for closed-source providers (too bad for them). (Solaris 2.6 Sparc apps will run on Solaris 10. To those who are not aware, Solaris 2.6 would be Solaris 6 under the current nomenclature. Actually, Solaris 2.6 is 2.6. Solaris 2.7 became just Solaris 7. And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. Will Redhat 6.0 apps run on RHEL 5.0? When was Solaris (2.)6 released? 1998ish? Certainly before 2000. I switched from RH to Mandrake 6.1 around this time. I suspect a better comparison would be RHEL 2.1 on RHEL 5.0. Of course, I don't know the answer there, either. :-) Maybe one of the Red Hat'ers on the list can respond... Heck, RedHat 6.0 to RedHat 9. Multiple SMP (I think x86 goes to 32 CPUs. Sparc goes to hundreds or thousands) Have they ever built one? If not, that's just vaporware. The E15K only went to, what, 64 processors? Still way more than x86, but let's be real, too. You're right. Only 106 CPUs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Fire_15K To go sideways: The wave of the future is distributing computing (clusters) anyway, so it's mostly academic. SMP has an advantage with I/O bandwidth and latency. And Intel has been demonstrating an 80 core CPU. I think SMP will continue to be important for general computing and scientific computer where clustering doesn't fit. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And Linux has many advantages too. What?!? One size doesn't fit all??? ;-) Heck, you can see where Windows might have advantages. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:14 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote: On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS? :) http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/ Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris. On top of which (at least, from my meager understanding of it) you're still going to have to go through the Linux's VFS layer which is going to reduce the usefulness of ZFS significantly wrt data integrity. -- Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.code-energy.com/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:14 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote: On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS? :) http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/ Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris. On top of which (at least, from my meager understanding of it) you're still going to have to go through the Linux's VFS layer which is going to reduce the usefulness of ZFS significantly wrt data integrity. Actually, the FUSE overhead is extremely low. I've actually measured it using tools like bonnie++ using a home-made FUSE filesystem that effectively mirrors the underlying filesystem (i.e., just a passthrough), and the overhead was only like 5% compared to direct EXT2/3 access. -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP key available ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To those who are not aware, Solaris 2.6 would be Solaris 6 under the current nomenclature. Actually, Solaris 2.6 is 2.6. Solaris 2.7 became just Solaris 7. Lame response. Obviously, if 2.7 = 7, 2.8 = 8, 2.9 = 9, and 2.10 = 10, then 2.6 = 6. Point being that 2.6 to 10 is four major releases, not eight. And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. Right. 1.x = classic SunOS and 2.x = present-day Solaris. Which is why they dropped the 2. prefix in the first place; they realized it was a lame idea. Solaris was stuck on 2.x forever. So why bother with the 2.x? (Same problem Linux kernel has, incidentally.) I suspect a better comparison would be RHEL 2.1 on RHEL 5.0. Heck, RedHat 6.0 to RedHat 9. Not apples to apples. RHL was not advertised as a long lifecycle OS. RHEL is. I still suspect Solaris does a lot better in this area (for the appropriate definitions of better), I'm just curious how well (or poorly) RHEL does. Or Debian Stable, for that matter. Heck, you can see where Windows might have advantages. I kinda like the Pinball game that comes with Win XP... ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris. Actually, the FUSE overhead is extremely low. Performance almost always depends on implementation details. So comparing a pass-through filesystem in FUSE to ZFS in FUSE probably isn't apples to apples. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On Jun 21, 2007, at 10:29, Thomas Charron wrote: ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to justify a shift to an entirely different operating system? I think the answer is 'yes', if your needs are a match for ZFS. Now, without sparking a 60-message thread of what is an OS? I'll just say the next file server I build is going to be based on Nexenta: http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/Nexenta_OS which is for all intents and purposes Ubuntu on the OpenSolaris kernel. So you don't have to learn anything new outside of the kernel space. I haven't been a Solaris sysadmin since 2.6, so I'm happier just having my machine look mostly like Linux. It will be interesting to see what Debian does when OpenSolaris goes GPL3 and Linux doesn't. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:42:47 -0400 From: Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Disposition: inline Cc: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org As a desktop, I think Linux has it all over Solaris though not as much as in the past. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And Linux has many advantages too. Solaris isn't a server. A physical MACHINE is a server. :-) Actually, a server is a software application which provides services to other applications (called clients). Calling a box a server is like calling the checkout lane a cashier. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. ummm, that was way more than a retro naming. SunOS was based on the BSD kernel and the BSD code, modified a long time under Sun. Solaris was based on System V.4, with Sun ripping it apart and basically re-writing it. SunOS was related to Solaris much the same way that Ultrix (BSD based) was related to Digital Unix (OSF/1 ripped apart and re-written by Digital). As a side note we never really released a V1.0 of Digital's OSF/1 system. We started with V1.2, I believewe figured no one would use a V1.0 :-) md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
