Illumos Sporks OpenSolaris 161
suraj.sun sends in this news from The Register. "If you were hoping that someone would fork the OpenSolaris operating system, you are going to have to settle for a spork. You know, half spoon and half fork. That, in essence, is what the Illumos, an alternative open source project to continue development on the core bits of OpenSolaris, is all about. ... Development on OpenSolaris has all but stopped, so Garrett D'Amore, a former Sun and Oracle software engineer who worked on Solaris for many years, decided to do something about it. ... What Illumos is doing is taking the core OpenSolaris kernel and foundation, which is called OS/Net or ON inside of the former Sun, and creating a repository and development community around that. ON includes the kernel, C libraries, shell and shell utilities, file systems, and networking functions of OpenSolaris. 'We are not a distribution in a normal sense,' says D'Amore. 'It is more of a code base.' And one that Nexenta, Belenix, and SchilliX, who do create alternative distros for OpenSolaris, can in theory base their future releases upon if they don't like what is — or isn't — coming out of OpenSolaris."
Use the FreeBSD userland please! (Score:1, Insightful)
I hope they decide to use the FreeBSD userland on top of the OpenSolaris kernel. The FreeBSD userland is the premiere UNIX-like userland environment available today, and is also released under an extremely liberal license that maximizes everybody's freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
FreeBSD cp.c: view [freebsd.org]
Coreutils cp.c: view [gnu.org]
The latter is embarrassing and the person should be ashamed to call himself a programmer. And this is, by far, one of the better-written GNU parts. I have long felt that the FreeBSD tools are better suited to being paired with Linux than the GNU tools are, as they both (FreeBSD & Linux) maintain similar coding standards, and the FreeBSD tools are better docu
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, and the BSDs also like to ignore standards like POSIX, e.g. OpenBSD having an nm without the -P option, some other BSD deprecating od in favour of some other tool that is even less standardized and certainly not part of POSIX.
They also since years don't manage to get such simple things like includes in the system headers right, you usually need to sprinkle random #include into code that works on almost all other systems (almost since in that regard they are quite similar to Solaris).
Not that I doubt
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I hope they decide to use the FreeBSD userland on top of the OpenSolaris kernel. The FreeBSD userland is the premiere UNIX-like userland environment available today, and is also released under an extremely liberal license that maximizes everybody's freedom.
You're aware, of course, that Solaris is based on SysV...sorry, for a moment I overlooked the point that you're just a BSD troll.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Companies profit daily (or microsecond-ly) from the unconditional research published in academic journals. You don't see the scientists complaining. Probably because all they care about is advancing knowledge and technology.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"There just *ain't* too many pure Gandhis** on this planet,"
Just a thought here. Maybe you don't understand Ghandi as well as you think you do?
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Ghandi WANTED arms for India, but because arms were denied, he used alternative forms of resistance.
You should read Ghandi's biography. One possible starting point, http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/gandhi.html [cwo.com]
Gandhi, for the major part o
Is it worth the effort? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Linux will "never" have ZFS.
Unreasonable licensing in the way? (Score:2)
In spite of the licensing issues, has anyone tried to just port ZFS code directly to Linux?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here you go: http://wiki.github.com/behlendorf/zfs/ [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As the other poster hinted at, btrfs is considered the future zfs-like filesystem for linux. In many ways it is superior to zfs, except for the fact that it isn't really production-ready yet. Its potential feature list is very nice.
ZFS is clearly a superior solution RIGHT NOW. In a year, I'm not so sure.
Re:Is it worth the effort? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unless I am confused, "Zones" are virtual machines.
This is easy, you clearly are.
If you think there is no equivalent, I guess you are not familiar with Xen or KVM
Yah, we've heard of that too. http://prefetch.net/blog/index.php/category/solaris-xen/ [prefetch.net]
although perhaps not with "feature parity."
Exactly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth the effort? (Score:4, Informative)
one kernel shared amongst the zones, not VMs populated with independent OSes. The zones can "loopback" filesystems, so /usr is only created once . Each zone has independent configs for users and such, and is visible as files from the global OS. VMs dont have a global OS, they just sit on a hypervisor.
this is the first 5 seconds of differences. The biggest thing to note is they are nothing alike.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so how is this different from OpenVZ or FreeBSD jails?
Re:Is it worth the effort? (Score:5, Informative)
OpenVZ and FreeBSD Jails are equivalent conceptually to Solaris Containers. The difference is the extent to which they've been implemented. Sun went the whole hog and made Solaris Containers "first class citizens". All the user space tools were modified to understand zones. All the documentation was updated. All the application suites were updated. They're not a ill-supported second-rate tack-on so you can tick the "we've got that" feature box.
If you want the analogy, it's like Microsoft saying "don't use Apache, we've got a webserver too" and pointing to IIS. In theory, true. In practise, bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want the analogy, it's like Microsoft saying "don't use Apache, we've got a webserver too" and pointing to IIS. In theory, true. In practise, bullshit.
I am annoyed at how I have been 'defending' Microsoft lately -- but you might want to revist that analogy since IIS7 is actually a pretty decent web server now :)
On topic, I think it's worth mentioning that the current OpenSolaris codebase doesn't support sparse root zones, which makes me sad. IPS apparently doesn't account for them at this point. Last I checked, they were still discussing wether to implement them or just scrap them in favor of full root zones with ZFS deduplication.
OpenSolaris is still use
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Linux VServer is very similar (one kernel, multiple contexts, shared memory, optionally shared or dedicated filesystems, optionally shared or dedicated network interfaces, minimal overhead). Debian has vserver enabled kernels in the repository - not sure about other distributions, because I don't really care ;)
I am running a dozen of less important and/or discountinued and/or shitty services in these vservers and I just love them.
The funny thing is that you can run KVM and Vserver on the same server (and ma
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wikipedia has a decent article [wikipedia.org] on the subject.
[A] zone does not have its own separate kernel (in contrast to a hardware virtual machine)
Re:Is it worth the effort? (Score:5, Informative)
explain to me and people like me how "Zones" are different from "virtual machines?"
Zones share the same kernel. Much, much less overhead than full-blown VMs, both in setup and resource use. You can flavor your zones to be Linux or BSD compatible. You can give them their own (virtual or physical) network adapters. Think Apache Virtual Hosts, but at the OS layer. Or a midaway cross between a chroot and a VM. It's really nice stuff.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Zones share the same kernel. Much, much less overhead than full-blown VMs, both in setup and resource use.
This used to be true, but thanks to market pressure, VMs are competitive in the resource and overhead areas. For example, with kernel same-page merging it's possible to run multiple VMs and overcommit memory usage with relative transparency. Now that processors have virtualization extensions (and have for several years) the expensive operations (from a CPU standpoint) are now cheap. The benefit of VMs,
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Would you perhaps like to explain to me and people like me how "Zones" are different from "virtual machines?"
Zones have 1% overhead:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/virtually_no_overhead_solaris_zones
Virtual machines (specifically VMware) can have 36% overhead:
http://blogs.sun.com/BestPerf/entry/sun_x4270_virtualized_for_two
Zones are super-charged FreeBSD jails (they're explicitly mentioned as a source of inspiration). They add the ability to mount /usr and other file systems (and even raw disk device
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sorry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Zones are not VMs. FreeBSD jails are probably the closest thing to it. Virtualization technologies are eventually going to render both of those obselete, I think, but it hasn't gotten there yet. And if you think a FUSE driver is any kind of substitute for a full implementation, you have no business running a data center. Even FreeBSD's port of ZFS isn't always up to snuff, and it's leaps and bounds beyond the FUSE driver.
Look, you've obviously picked a "side" and you'll pull out any comparison you need
Re: (Score:1)
Right. FreeBSD jails, AIX LPARs, and Solaris Zones are all about the same thing, with perhaps AIX LPARs and Solaris Zones being the two most scalable.
And I don't think that full virtualization or even paravirtualization is going to replace these technologies anytime soon. They are far more scalable, far easier to setup, and have had high availability features for years that
Re:Is it worth the effort? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, you are confused, which probably indicates your lack of familiarity with Solaris Zones.
Xen, KVM, VMware, Sun Logical Domains, and Sun Virtualbox, are all examples of hardware virtualisation. They simulate a hardware platform; a virtual machine. Each VM has its own kernel and scheduler and memory space and device drivers and virtualised storage.
Solaris Zones is an example of operating system virtualisation. There is no direct equivalent on Linux. There is a single kernel for all the zones. A single set of device drivers. A single process tree. Potentially a single storage system. It's extremely lightweight compared to virtual machines.
Thinking of Zones as "virtual machines" is simply wrong. They are more like process groups, or process sets, and in fact on Solaris they are implemented in part by using resource groups. There is virtualisation but it's not at the machine layer; that's why they're not virtual machines.
To illustrate the significant differences, on the same hardware that Xen can run 10 VMs, Solaris can run 100s of zones. Xen can lose 10% or more CPU to overheads, Solaris Zones loses less than 1%. Xen can lose as much as 90% of I/O performance, Solaris Zones loses less than 1%. Xen places restrictions on the resources available to each VM, Solaris Zones can gain access to the full resources of the hardware. Xen requires each VM to be patched and maintained separately, Solaris Zones are patched and maintained through the "host" OS.
These benefits are only possible because Solaris Zones are not VMs.
Re: (Score:2)
> Solaris Zones is an example of operating system virtualisation. There is no direct equivalent on Linux.
You should check out VServers before you bet your house on that.
Not a direct equivalent. OpenSolaris has a FAQ on this:
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+zones/faq#HQArecontainerslikeLinuxvServers [opensolaris.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not much answer for a "in what ways it is better" question, I think.
The "in what ways it is better" question was answered 5 posts up. Your question was about direct equivalency. The fact that they have different implementations is all the proof you need that they are not direct equivalents.
Re: (Score:2)
You, Sir, are full of shit.
You weren't even mentioning VServers 5/6 posts up.
You were talking about hardware virtualization and stating that Linux has no operating system virtualization (like VServer).
I said Linux has no direct equivalent to Solaris Zones. That statement is true, your foul mouth non-withstanding.
And you are trying to pull a strawman on me.
You are a nice fit with Oracle, it seems.
You should re-read the definition of strawman. You aren't using the term correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
No I didn't. You are a crazy person. Go be crazy elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have said, you're clearly confused.
Zones ~= BSD jails or Linux jail environment, but better in many ways (security/compartmentalization, independence, implementation, configuration, adaptability). Security can be much more tightly defined as to what the zone can or can not do (more like a host level ACL) as can be in Linux.
Containers ~= virtual machines. It's a zone with the ability to do true VM type stuff. Except better, in that it's able to run pretty much anything (try vbox under a container,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
lxc exists in linux as a Zones alternative.
I don't know first hand, but some would say systemtap is on the level of DTrace.
btrfs may eventually provide zfs parity (but not today, even if considered stable the featureset lags in some ways).
Re: (Score:2)
a dtrace script will work when run against a solaris10 server regardless of patch levels. Systemtap has some similarity, but the scripts that work on one are not reliably portable between patch revisions or systems.
Re: (Score:2)
LXC will one day be a zones alternative. Right now it's a pre-1.0 alpha with severely reduced functionality. I consider it basically unusable in its current form.
Same deal for BTRFS. One day it will be a ZFS alternative. Right now it's only for BTRFS developers.
Re: (Score:2)
???
LXC now has network/PID/FS virtualization, and is even supported by SELinux. There's also support for live migration of containers.
Its userspace tools are indeed immature, but kernel-level features are OK.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Don't forget Crossbow.
For ZFS alone it's worth it (Score:2)
When I started trying out OpenSolaris early this year, ZFS actually saved me from losing files to a hard drive that was silently corrupting data. Needless to say, my file server now runs OpenSolaris, even though the rest of my network is a mix of Linux and Windows.
Yes, FreeBSD has ZFS now, but it lags behind the OpenSolaris version - and I don't have the time for the compile-the-world approach for updates that the FreeBSD world prefers.
Re: (Score:2)
FreeBSD 8.1 [freebsd.org] is now only a year behind OpenSolaris in terms of its ZFS support; it's compatible with pools created with OpenSolaris 2009.06. If you assume that freely available innovation from Oracle's side is going to stagnate, it shouldn't take long until they've caught up with the latest of the open-source ZFS releases. At that point it will be FreeBSD vs. paid Oracle Solaris as the presumed only way to get advancements. Since I don't actually care about the non-free crap that Oracle peddles, I expect
Re: (Score:2)
but none of those are required to do mission critical business computing, which is why Solaris and OpenSolaris have lost (too little too late in both cases) and GNU/Linux has won. Go ahead and flog your dead horse, but the Solari are toast.
Re: (Score:2)
but none of those are required to do mission critical business computing, which is why Solaris and OpenSolaris have lost (too little too late in both cases) and GNU/Linux has won. Go ahead and flog your dead horse, but the Solari are toast.
Secular, proprietary systems built from or borrowing from BSD projects have "won". Linux has "won" in its reality distortion bubble where the inhabitants are convinced if something free isn't available to them they don't need it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no, but FreeBSD jails are basically the same thing as Solaris Zones, and FreeBSD supports ZFS and DTrace, too. Plus, the added benefit of also not being Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad my Linux doesn't have the FreeBSD feature of seizing up under heavy IPC under SMP load because the locking model is too complex
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I can see where I'd be mad about that, too, if I'd ever encountered it using FreeBSD since 2.2.8 in both a hobbyist and professional environment. Luckily, it's never been an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
it started in 5.2 with the move to fine-grained smp, but bugs still being weeded out - like the UFS with QUOTA locking order fix that just was put out for 8.1
Re: (Score:2)
Zones = OpenVZ / Linux Containers (and they have some features that Solaris lacks)
DTrace = SystemTap (fairly mature)
ZFS = btrfs (not very mature yet)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Feature parity? THat's being generous. Linux has nothing that compares with those features (or containers) in and of itself. (And this coming from someone who loves linux and has used it for almost 15 years.) Particularly, (Open)Solaris ZFS is light years ahead of any other filesystem - and yes, I'm excluding the other ZFS implementations from being awesome, because they really aren't yet.
OpenSolaris has also done some work integrating VirtualBox into Containers; it supposedly works very well.
If nothing els
Re: (Score:2)
Zones, ZFS, and DTrace don't have equivalents in Linux with feature parity.
The ZFS storage layer for linux is done, you can use it now. The ZFS POSIX layer isn't done, the project needs help.
Re: (Score:2)
Zones, ZFS, and DTrace don't have equivalents in Linux with feature parity.
I am the Unix admin at work (mainly Solaris 10, with some REALLY old linux we haven't gotten around to migrating, FC1 and RH 7.2 for those morbidly curious), and I agree, I love those 3 features in Solaris 10. I just wish I had time to really dig in to the dtrace stuff.
One thing I don't recall anyone mentioning as specific to Solaris is services. Basically they are the init scripts with dependencies and self-restarting built in. I
Re:Is it worth the effort? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Zones, ZFS, SMF, dtrace, RBAC, and zero effort porting to Solaris on x86 or sparc. Linux has at best half-assed simulacrums for these features. The first three features alone are enough to justify OpenSolaris over Linux in many situations.
That said, Oracle's ham fisted approach to Solaris is effectively going to kill it. Lack of movement on OpenSolaris and new draconian licensing for Solaris means I'm going to be pushing for Linux to replace Solaris at my sites. I can deal with the reduced features if it means fewer licensing headaches.
Re: (Score:2)
I can deal with the reduced features if it means fewer licensing headaches.
Not to mention the fact that most of those features will likely have equivalents with GPL-compatible licensing within a year or two.
Whenever someone asks if Linux supports some cool feature that this niche project does, rather than "No.", a more appropriate answer will typically be "Not yet.".
Re: (Score:1)
Not to mention the fact that most of those features will likely have equivalents with GPL-compatible licensing within a year or two.
I've been hearing that since DTrace was announced. Before then, I was hearing it when Solaris 8 was new and Linux servers had to be rebooted to see new disk, or a reboot caused them to renumber the disks they had. It takes years to get these features implemented, tested, stable and bug-free. Pretending Linux will magically have something that's taken years for a major OS company to get right is delusional.
Re: (Score:1)
Dynamic (hardware) reconfiguration, projects, resource management and resource pools, processor sets and binding, investigative tools and fault management.
I like Linux. It has some definite advantages over Solaris. But Solaris is the best server OS I've used, and after 15 years of being a Unix admin I've used most of them - certainly everything currently Unix or Linux and supported today. It's going to be a real shame when Oracle kills it.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You mean other than API/ABI stability, less bugs and cleaner code base?
Re: (Score:2)
The same tired argument that Solaris does not support sound cards from 1995.
Nobody running high-end modern servers cares whether or not Solaris supports obsolete hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Sun (er, Oracle) took obsolete to mean "no longer commercially viable", with much regard to technological capability.
correction: without much regard (Score:2)
N/T
Re: (Score:2)
"lsof -o" and SIGINFO come to mind.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Supporting platforms beyond the commercial viability of them(e.g. sun4m machines and early sun4u machines)?
Oh, wait. That's OpenBSD and Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
ZFS if you want to run a storage server. You can probably get ZFS running in Linux using FUSE, but it won't be so good, or you could port it as a kernel module, but it won't be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
From the post it is not completely clear, but I guess this sporked OpenSolaris will still include the possibility of zones. Now I know Linux has similar features, but Containers/Zones have been a hit in the Solaris world from day one. And are widely used, including production environments where it does the segmentation / isolation of Oracle databases.
(I'm former Sun guy, been there, done that.)
Missing sources? (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't the OpenSolaris effort have problems because they were always waiting on Sun to compile certain libc binaries for them?
Is this resolved in Illumos or is there still a binary blob issue?
Re:Missing sources? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, it isn't. From TFA ...
So, no, the closed stuff still needs to be written and they don't have it.
Re: (Score:2)
the NFS lock manager
Linux has needed a proper NFS lock manager for many years. If Linux could duplicate its functionality, it would put a LOT of Solaris NFS servers out to pasture.
Re: (Score:2)
the NFS lock manager
Linux has needed a proper NFS lock manager for many years. If Linux could duplicate its functionality, it would put a LOT of Solaris NFS servers out to pasture.
Who in 2010 is still using a Solaris box as a NFS server? Netapp (and a thousand cheaper NAS clones) of it have put Solaris out of the "NFS server" market.
Re:Missing sources? (Score:5, Informative)
(I'm in the project leadership team of Illumos)
We've opened the closed bits of libc - specifically the i18n portion of it.
What's still closed (and soon to be opened) is some additional drivers (mpt, etc) that are almost prepared to be released. All of the closed bits would be open in a short timeframe (weeks).
What you've quoted Garrett saying is in reference to OpenSolaris's code. That is followed by the announcement that we've opened it.
~Anil
Re: (Score:3)
Well, then obviously I will defer to someone who actually knows about this. I only had TFA to go by. :-P
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
That was slowly getting resolved with the latest development bits of OpenSolaris. However since the Oracle takeover there haven't been any updates (whereas before the schedule was weekly or bi-weekly 'unstable' releases).
Is There A Sufficient Community/Demand? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I applaud this effort, I have to wonder if enough folks with the requisite skills to do kernel/driver development will be motivated to assist. It was an excellent product with some cool features (ZFS, Zones, Dtrace, Crossbow, etc.), but it was very clear that the vast majority of the development came from paid Sun engineers. The OpenSolaris community was never anywhere near the size of the Linux community, and even with Linux a significant portion comes from corporations (see "The Myth of the Isolated Kernel Hacker" from last year: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/08/20/1342223 [slashdot.org]). I really do hope OpenSolaris continues (or Oracle changes the license to be GPL compatible), but at this point I wouldn't be basing any new projects on the platform.
Re:Is There A Sufficient Community/Demand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and they half-ass open sourced it. A whole bunch essential components are still closed source.
Re:Is There A Sufficient Community/Demand? (Score:4, Informative)
The most important bit (libc_i18n) is opened. The rest is in the process, and will be pushed into the repo in very short time.
That may now be possible... (Score:2)
If there is a true fork/spork of the OpenSolaris, it may actually provide a better opportunity for community growth. Under Sun's management, the community never had the chance to thrive, since the vast part of control and development remained internal to Sun. If the community now has the opportunity to participate on equal footing, as with *BSD/Linux/etc., the project should have no trouble attracting people and companies.
That, and someone really needs to revamp the build process to make development more
OpenSolaris isn't dead till Oracle says so (Score:3, Interesting)
Development on OpenSolaris has all but stopped
Except it hasn't?
I mean biweekly, binary development builds haven't been released since 134 in March, but development clearly marches on.
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/ [opensolaris.org]
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=125446&tstart=0 [opensolaris.org]
http://cr.opensolaris.org/ [opensolaris.org]
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/RecentChanges [opensolaris.org]
Think for yourselves..
Community (outside Oracle) development may have been frozen, and it might be worthwhile to have a liberal, free spirited fork to try new things, but if Oracle wanted OpenSolaris dead, there's a very fast an efficient way of doing that, and they have not. Don't call something dead unless you're pretty darned sure it aint going to wake up the next morning.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's going to be dead as much as they're going to pick the good fruit and let the rest rot on the vine.
They just want to be able to pick the good parts out over time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The referenced OpenSolaris is not the code, but the distribution OpenSolaris (formerly project Indiana).
Half spoon and half fork (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I always thought a foon was more fork than spoon, and a spork more spoon than fork.
Re: (Score:2)
Foon sounds like it is sitting outside a bar in the parking lot with a bloody nose.
Debian GNU/Illumos? (Score:4, Funny)
So, we have Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/NetBSD, and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Does this mean we'll have Debian GNU/Illumos next?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm one of the NCP guys, and currently at Debconf. I'm hoping to engage the community about this. We'll have updates posted to the project on where NCP4 is headed soon.
R.I.P. Solaris (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a user of Solaris (formerly known as SunOS) for 20 years now. Most of the time, i have worked for a Sun partner. But now i have said my goodbyes to the company that once was Sun. While i still think that Solaris has the best kernel in respect of networking and multicore usage, i just cannot afford to let my attachment cloud business decisions. I should have cut my ties the moment Oracle anounced the takeover.
While it is well known that being a partner and being treated like a partner are quite different things, Oracle has taken this to new unexpected heights. That someone intentionally breaks the business model of partners (while not profiting oneself from that decision) is still something that puzzles me. I know what they intend, but they are really, really busy making enemies. If it were just me, but i have dozens of once loyal customers profanely swearing now, if the name Oracle/Sun is mentioned. I have seen IT managers, who controll several dozen million $ IT budget, vowing to never purchase a system from them again.
Solaris is dead, no fork or spork will change that. Even if they manage the code side, the well upon they sit is well poisoned. May Solaris rest in peace.
CU, Martin
P.S. Hate to post anonymously, but i don't dare other.
P.P.S. ... and it hurts like hell to write it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Same opinion here. 15 years as a Solaris admin. Solaris is an admirable OS, but Oracle has already started destroying it with their licensing. I've been a Linux admin for 15 years too and I'd rather have fewer features if it means simpler licensing. It's going to hurt to lose ZFS and Zones in particular. But what really scares me is the half assed ve
Re: (Score:1)
Use FreeBSD. Jails may not be quite to the functionality of Zones, but it's better than what Linux has got...and ZFS v.15 (and v. 25 IIRC in 9.0 when it goes -CURRENT) is better than no ZFS at all.
Re: (Score:2)
No thank you. I'd rather use Linux if I wasn't using Solaris. Too much ideological baggage with FreeBSD.
Isn't that kind of like a homeopath yelling "quacks" at a phrenology convention?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Believe me, despite some of the postings here, I'm sure there are a lot of Linux admins (and just *nix in general) that are standing with hat-in-hand, covering their heart, head bowed in remembrance... It's like loosing a cousin you meet with for twice a year. You didn't know them as well as you wanted to, but you know damn well it's not going to be the same once they're gone for good...and watching them die slowly is just fucking painful.
Now, a parting message for Oracle:
You have just fucked the pooch ro
Aw man. :( (Score:1)
When I read the title and started reading the article for a minute I thought someone had taken a spork and built an OpenSolaris system into it. Now I'm sad and disappointed. :(
What if IBM bought Sun instead of Oracle? (Score:2)
Spork = bork bork bork? (Score:3, Funny)
That's the million-dollar question tonight, here in Solaris-land tonight, ladies and gentlemen.
Coming up next-- Yet-Another-Patent-disputed, filed by... tune in at 10 O'Clock to find out who!
Re: (Score:2)
Sporks have never left, they still lurk among us if you know where to look.
Re: (Score:1)
And they are still useless for most purposes. It makes a lousy spoon, because liquids spill through the tines. It's like eating soup with a fork. It makes a lousy fork, as the tines are too short.
So, they're saying this OS is built by combining the useful parts together to build one that doesn't fit any real purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand I find they are great for eating chicken noodle soup as I like to leave the majority of the broth for last and eat it with bread.
Theres a niche-use field for almost everything :)
Re: (Score:2)
Joyent care very deeply about it.