Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Oracle Operating Systems Sun Microsystems

OpenSolaris Governing Board Dissolves Itself 198

Posted by Soulskill
from the never-should-have-given-them-that-acid dept.
mysidia writes "Last month, it was mentioned that the OpenSolaris governing board issued an ultimatum to Oracle. It turns out that Oracle continued to ignore requests to appoint a liaison after the governing board's demands. This morning, the board unanimously passed a resolution to dissolve itself. Source code changes are no longer available, and it would appear that OpenSolaris and community involvement in the development of Solaris have been killed as rumored. We recently discussed a 'Spork' of OpenSolaris called Illumos. Perhaps now, this will have a chance at becoming a true fork."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenSolaris Governing Board Dissolves Itself

Comments Filter:
  • by alfredos (1694270) on Monday August 23, 2010 @01:55PM (#33345394)
    With so much core OS work going to Linux and most of the remainder going to *BSD, which also has already ZFS well underway... What do theyhave to attract devs?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      A lot of core Solaris developers are already working on Illumos. This can become a great project, even better than Solaris itself. I expect to see many (Open) Solaris "users" move to support this project instead of supporting Oracle's one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mewsenews (251487)

      What do theyhave to attract devs?

      They can probably attract curiosity seekers wondering what the living hell a "spork" is in a development context

      • by jd (1658) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <kapimi>> on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:25PM (#33345840) Homepage Journal

        Why can't we have a knife! I wanna knife! >sniff<

        (One of the big benefits of OpenSolaris is that there's a hell of a lot of commercial software for Solaris that hasn't been - and may never be - ported to Linux. This would matter less if the ABI/IBCS module had been maintained, as Linux could then run Solaris binaries natively.)

        • iBCS was not maintained because there was no real need for it anymore. 15 years ago, you often needed to run stuff that just would not exist on Linux, and today that's just not going to happen, except for very specific, very propietary stuff. And if you want propietary stuff, you will most likely pay for it. And the OS it runs on, becomes basically an afterthought.

        • by sjames (1099)

          They don't allow knives, belts, or shoelaces when you're on suicide watch.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:05PM (#33345542)

      Sorry if you missed it but many of the OpenSolaris "devs" were either directly employed by Sun or companies with close ties to SUN. There was never any real grassroots development of OpenSolaris, and despite all the hype about what "may" happen post Oracle any further development is going exactly where it went before, nowhere.

      • by CAIMLAS (41445)

        I may be mistaken, but haven't many of those Sun/Solaris developers kicked off the Oracle train, moving to companies like Nexenta where they can continue working on The Next Big Thing?

        I'm not sure on the numbers but I know at least several of the important ones have.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Pieroxy (222434)

          The point is that they worked on OpenSolaris not because it was their passion, but because it was their job. They've moved on.

    • by bsdaemonaut (1482047) on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:06PM (#33345556)

      Nothing, but if we always did the sensible thing we'd miss out on much of the good software that we have today, such as Linux. There was a time that when it offered very little. It happened to be in the right place at the right time and today we get to enjoy what came about because of it. In regards to OpenSolaris, honestly the whole thing makes me a little sad. I realize commercial Solaris is still around, but it seems like every year we have less choices. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like that's a good thing.

      • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:21PM (#33345778) Homepage

        Nothing, but if we always did the sensible thing we'd miss out on much of the good software that we have today, such as Linux. There was a time that when it offered very little.

        Oh come on, that's revisionist history at best. When it was first released, it offered an alternative to Minix, and was one of the few protected-mode-capable Unix clones available for x86. As it progressed, it offered the first kernel (sorry Hurd) for a GNU-based OS.

        Linux *always* had a niche to fill. I can't see how the same is true of OpenSolaris.

        • by Kismet (13199)

          If the parent's view is wrong (and maybe it is--I don't know), this is almost certainly not because of "revisionist history."

          Revisionist history happens, legitimately, when historians review the best sources available and arrive at a conclusion about a story that does not entirely agree with how it has been told in the past. When history is "revised" in this way, it is because the old stories have been based on sources that are less reliable, incomplete, contradictory, or of lesser quality.

          Something similar

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            No, that's NOT what's commonly meant by "revisionist history". The commonly accepted meaning is to re-write the history books to tell something other than the true story. As such, it never happens legitimately.

            Technically, the phrase "revisionist history" could mean several different things. But as actually used, it doesn't.
            • by Kismet (13199) <pmccombs AT acm DOT org> on Monday August 23, 2010 @05:08PM (#33347988) Homepage

              Yes, I am quite aware of how the term is "commonly" used, which is precisely the precondition for my complaint. Otherwise, why complain at all? I'm not sure what your argument is.

              If we distinguish "junk science" from actual "science," why not "junk revisionism" or "negationism" from legitimate "revisionist history?"

              Since the vocabulary needed for talking about a worthwhile and valid way of reexamining history has been overloaded to mean the same thing as its false and invalid counterfeit, legitimate revisionism suffers.

              The problem is compounded every time someone pulls out the fallacy, "That's revisionist history!"

              Imagine if politically motivated rubbish and honest research required the equivocal term, "science". One of those disciplines, the one more difficult to justify to the layman, might suffer as a result. Whenever we wanted to debunk something, we'd just hurl the epithet, "science", at it.

              That's what I'm complaining about. It's just a crazy, petty Stallman-esque neurosis I have.

        • by rayvd (155635)

          Linux *always* had a niche to fill. I can't see how the same is true of OpenSolaris.

          ZFS.

          And don't say BSD... the BSD port of ZFS is way behind OpenSolaris' feature and performance-wise.

          • by Abcd1234 (188840)

            ZFS.

            That's not a niche, that's a technology, and one easily co-opted (the BSD port will improve eventually) or superceded (btrfs).

          • by c6gunner (950153)

            That's true for the moment - ZFS is the only reason I use OpenSolaris - but it won't last for long. As soon as the BTRFS folks develop a RAIDZ equivalent, I plan on switching back to linux.

            Also, as has already been pointed out, ZFS is available on BSD. With OpenSolaris development effectively stopped I've seriously considered switching, but figured I might as well wait a while and see where BTRFS is in a year or so. However, if I needed to build a new ZFS based file server today, I'd definitely go with B

      • by samkass (174571) on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:22PM (#33345782) Homepage Journal

        I realize commercial Solaris is still around, but it seems like every year we have less choices. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like that's a good thing.

        I kind of felt the same way in the late 90's when BeOS was dying and the MacOS's future looked bleak. Linux had extremely weak driver support, and OS/2 had finally given up the ghost. It looked like Windows might become the only survivor of the 90's. But today there is a new diaspora of OS distributions and platforms. These things ebb and flow. My advice is to not worry so much about choice in general and just try to find something you like and contribute to it.

        • by amorsen (7485) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:48PM (#33346144)

          There's basically Windows, traditional Unix with X11 (with only Linux, *BSD and AIX left), and Unix + different UI (Mac OS X). Plus some embedded systems and some mainframe-like systems, but Unix is eating both.

          We aren't exactly witnessing a Cambrian explosion.

          • by samkass (174571) on Monday August 23, 2010 @03:09PM (#33346410) Homepage Journal

            Unix + different UI (Mac OS X)

            and iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows Mobile 7, WebOS, ChromeOS, Playstation/XBox custom OSes, and a few others. And clumping all "Linux" into one (from Ubuntu to Red Hat's Enterprise) is a bit of over-generalization.

            In short, if you like playing around with new and interesting programmable systems, it may not be a Cambrian explosion, but we've certainly come out of the temporary bottleneck of the late 90's.

        • by cgenman (325138)

          Don't forget iOS and Android as real platforms, and Chrome as a potential one. The phone boom has given us a splattering of new platforms, reminiscent of the server OS boom during the dot-com days.

          • Symbian... Nokia are still (perhaps barely) alive and shipping.

            There's an effort, "Wild Ducks" to port it to 'generic' (ARM) hardware, i.e. Beagleboard. It might make a nice tablet OS alternative to Android, for those who prefer writing software in Qt, if someone would port it to the touchbook.

            • Nokia are still (perhaps barely) alive and shipping.

              LMAO. "Perhaps barely alive". Uhh, okay, if [nokia.com] Q2 2010 profits of US$870M on sales of US$12.7B is barely alive, sure, I guess.

              • yes i was being somewhat tongue in cheek, with the proviso that android and ios are flavors of the month. Still, i think the roadmap for symbian^4 looks promising as a complement to meego.

          • by jeremyp (130771)

            iOS is Mac OS X with another different UI. Chrome is a browser and Android is Linux with another different UI.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:14PM (#33345668) Homepage

      I'd say slim at this point. It doesn't help that all CDDL code is incompatiable with all GPL code so they got plenty wheels that need reinventing unless there's a BSD library for it. Yes, I know you can say the same about the GPL but there's not nearly as much that Linux would want. ZFS and DTrace would be two big ones though, but hopefully the concepts can be incorporated in Linux even if the code can not. Then again, if it'd been GPL then Linux would probably have scavenged all of it already, I guess that was the point of making it GPL-incompatible...

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by metamatic (202216)

        This is exactly why I never even bothered downloading OpenSolaris. If they had put it under GPL I'd have been all over it.

      • by lennier1 (264730)

        ... there's not nearly as much that Linux would want. ZFS and DTrace would be two big ones though, ...

        True. There's tons of Linux server admins who wouldn't mind having a proven ZFS implementation available to them.

    • by guruevi (827432)

      ZFS-stable? Seriously ZFS is one of the only points remaining besides the magnificent Fault Management Architecture, very good network stack, zones and dtrace.

      Nexenta is doing a good job keeping the current Solaris distro's going but whenever Linux or BSD comes with a decent implementation of the most recent ZFS branch, there is probably going to be a massive conversion.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by diegocg (1680514)

      A open and free version of solaris. Oracle is going to delay the release of the source code to make their propietary distro more attractive, but at some time they will release it. Illumos will offer a free version of that, and many people (including oracle customers) will want to use that. It bet it will be popular in the "solaris community". Also, there are companies like Nexenta which can try to develop new features. It won't be as nice as opensolaris was, but it's not the end of the world either. If I us

    • by Darinbob (1142669)
      It's a larger gene pool. That's important by itself.

      For open source operating systems, I found OpenSolaris codes that I looked at much easier to read and understand in many places that the terse and cryptic BSD and Linux ones.
  • Uses for Opensolaris (Score:3, Informative)

    by cc-rider-Texas (877967) on Monday August 23, 2010 @01:59PM (#33345456) Homepage
    I have to use opensolaris on my intel boxes because I have to use gcc-2.95.3 to compile some ancient software I use for research, and not because of some fancy file system or dtrace. I can't help but wonder if other people are in the same boat. Anybody?
    • by Hatta (162192)

      Why can't you use gcc-2.95.3 on Linux?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        For my 64 bit machine, both opensolaris and gcc-2.95.3 and the ancient software will install/compile seamlessly, including my T61 laptop. I have installed it on an older 32 bit ubuntu install, but the old software doesn't like linux very much, and will not compile under any other gcc either. Opensolaris works just fine for it though, especially considering that the old software was developed for unix in the early 90's anyway. I just really don't want to get into modifying the gcc configure files that would
    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      And you can not get it to compile under a more modern version?
      Nope but ewwwww.

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      why not just use the old RedHat 7 or similar that ran that moldy ol' 2.95.3? if you're behind firewall shouldn't be problem as long as you're not too intimate with internet

    • THe first time that SUN went OSS, I fully supported them. When they burned everybody, I KNEW that it was easy for Sun or any buyers to screw over OSS world. And I have spoken out against Sun's opening of the code, even though LOADS of Sun fanbois were pushing them. And in this case, Sun did not disappoint.
    • by NuShrike (561140)

      Can't you get that through FreeBSD and anything with a Pkgsrc derived system that doesn't peg binaries to OS releases? (aka RPM Hell).

      • Finding a compiler and build system ancient enough to deal with the no longer POSIX compliant unfrastructure for gcc 2.9x compilers is fraught with pain for inexperienced engineers. Rolling your build environments that far back is _awfully_ painful.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The Open Solaris council will no longer be of any concern to us! I've just received word that Emperor Ellison has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of Sun have been swept away.

    From now on, fear will keep potentially traitorous Solaris users in line. Fear of our software patents - and our new super death-ray powered ELAs!

  • bOrg (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mark72005 (1233572) on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:11PM (#33345638)
    When will we get an Ellison/Borg icon for /. ?
  • This move by Oracle reminds me yahoo in the .com era. Open Solaris was not a revenue source but it was important as the means to get developers interested in Solaris. I don't think there will be much development or support for solaris from the open source community from now on.

    • by khb (266593)

      Except that there is absolutely no evidence that it got any incremental developers "interested in Solaris". Thinking it would in the future is probably wishful thinking.

      Feel good ranting amongst ourselves isn't evidence. Yes, we like Open Source, otherwise we wouldn't be /. regulars.

      Developers could, and did, get interested in Solaris from Solaris Express before it was killed to make OpenSolaris the "one way forward".

      I haven't been with Sun for some years, and was never with Oracle. But the people there did

  • Only a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimble&hotmail,com> on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:21PM (#33345766)

    I think this is a good thing for everyone. Hear me out, I'm not an idiot, or at least I'm trying not to be!

    Solaris, unlike the other big two open source operating systems - Linux & BSD - has always had the problem of the double edged sword because it always had to serve Sun, which in turn supported it. Now with Oracle punting Solaris to the curb, the community can really see what it's made of. Whether Solaris is an also-ran or if the community can really go full tilt and go in directions that it couldn't because of it's omnipresent master is entirely up to the people who support it. The future is bright for smaller form factors, as well as servers (again) so now it's time to see if they are big time players or another name to the pile of failed OSes.

    I wish them well.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by bsdaemonaut (1482047)

      It's worth noting that Oracle is not kicking Solaris to the curb, they are kicking OpenSolaris to the curb.

    • "...has always had the problem of the double edged sword because it always had to serve Sun..."

      Not exactly sure what you mean by "serve", and even so, not sure how that was a problem. Of course OpenSolaris needed to compatible with Sun products, it was a SUN effort, why shouldn't it run the Sun library of products? How exactly was that a problem? OpenSol suffered from a slight lack of interest, really. And I mean slight. Lots of folks liked the idea of an OSS Solaris, I'm just exactly sure there was a real need for it. Of course some are going to disagree with me, but honestly, for all the wonder and

  • So what? OpenSolaris was a bad joke anyway.

    In the true spirit of OSS, they packed up their bags, stuck out their tongues and said 'fuck it, we're done dealing with you guys, we're going home' ... and thats perfectly within their rights.

    It should be noted however, since they were about the only ones using OpenSolaris, no one is really going to notice they are gone.

    Using OpenSolaris is roughly the same as running Darwin instead of OS X. Roughly, not really the same, but both are pretty much pathetic bases o

    • by SIGBUS (8236)

      Actually, OpenSolaris was way ahead of Solaris 10 (as it was originally conceived as the development version of the yet-to-be-released Solaris 11). It has a more advanced version of ZFS, the COMSTAR storage framework, a package management framework, and other goodies not in Solaris 10.

      Unfortunately, Oracle's corporate culture of radio silence was incompatible with Sun's open development model - and the very first thing they did when they took over was shut off the distro snapshots. I'm surprised it took the

  • I know that a portion of the Open Solaris code is closed source. Will this hamper any effort to actually fork it? I'm asking from a place of ignorance, as I just know that "some code" is closed, but I'm not sure if it's the code that would be essential to actually forking the project.
    • Re:Question here. (Score:4, Informative)

      by WebMink (258041) <slashdot@webmi[ ]net ['nk.' in gap]> on Monday August 23, 2010 @03:32PM (#33346700) Homepage
      Check out the Illumos announcement [illumos.org]. Slides 18 and 19 in the deck about that. The Illumos people have made a bootable system with closed bits of libc (including full locale support) replaced, replacements for the most critical closed source utilities and replacements for some drivers. Still to do:
      • NFS/CIFS lock manager
      • Full kcf module/daemon (crypto framework)
      • Trusted Extensions (labeld)
      • Many more drivers

      That's plenty of work but there are people willing and able to get it done and they have a bootable system to evolve. The real question is when someone will kick off a full distro around it (since Illumos is purely a kernel).

    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      Illumos is currently working on replacing the few parts of the kernel which are still "closed source"; I believe they're fairly trivial things, mainly, from what I recall reading. Trivial, at least, compared to the Important Parts, like dtrace and zfs.

  • by Fished (574624) <amphigory AT gmail DOT com> on Monday August 23, 2010 @02:34PM (#33345954)

    Oracle didn't care, because Oracle has said that they are no longer interested in having an open development model for Solaris. In fact, the fact that Oracle doesn't care is why they're dissolving in the first place. Solaris users don't care because, let's face it... does anybody actually use OpenSolaris? I work for a huge Solaris shop, and we use stock, Sun-supported Solaris. If we wanted an Open Source operating system, we'd use Linux. We use Solaris for huge database servers that are too big to run Linux (mostly Oracle DB.)

    So, that leaves OpenSolaris developers. Look, this is the risk you take when you work on a project dominated by one company, especially when you have a license like the CDDL. I feel bad that you're in this position, but it was kind of predictable, and I really think you're missing the boat with Illumos. You're unlikely to get enough interest to ever make a go of it with Oracle being disinterested. Go work on making Linux better instead!

    • Too big even for RHEL? Help me put this into perspective, what kinds of sizes are we talking here?

      Theoretically I understood RHEL Advanced Server was capable of an unlimited number of CPU's and memory ( http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ [redhat.com] ).

      Perhaps you're reaching some contention at high loads or with large numbers of CPU's / storage / etc?

      Thanks for any info you can provide.
      • 64-way DB Servers (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23, 2010 @03:20PM (#33346546)

        I'm retired now, but at my last job we had 20,000+ UNIX servers. My projects - I was a technical architect - had about 300 of those servers. Trying to compare the throughput for most x86 servers to a P590 or HP Superdome or Sun E25K just shows your ignorance of the larger UNIX system capabilities. From a compute standpoint, Intel CPUs are hard to beat, but when you need 10 fibre connections to storage and 20 10GigE connections and have 10,000 concurrent DB users, RH stuff ain't gonna cut it. Sorry, but those are the facts. These servers aren't for a website.

        Then you have the issue of getting a vendor that only certifies their program on HP systems to bother with RedHat. The $3M that the DB server HW costs is nothing compared to the software costs for another platform to be supported by some vendors. The software ran on HP-UX - that's all. The software cost $25M for 2 prod instances and 5 non-prod instances (DR, Test1, Test2, pre-prod ... ) This is software you run your business on AND not very well designed. Bigger hardware is always the answer over system design changes. It is cheaper. Our prod DB servers were 64-way with 108GB of RAM. We had 4 of them - 2 production locations with 2 DB srvs each. An active/failover cluster model. We had 4 DR servers that were almost as large located in another data center that got data updates nightly. There were about 20 app servers inside data centers, about 40 app/GIS servers located in the same building as the users who were spread all over the USA for this project. Another 20 servers were used for the dev, test, pre-prod, test2, test3 environments. It was not possible to run all the software on the say system, at least 3 systems were required for each environment. Crap, I know. Back when I worked on it, VPARS were specifically not supported by the vendor, so we didn't use them - anywhere.

        Just because RH claims to run on 20+ way systems, doesn't mean any of the software will. BTW, Oracle RAC was not supported by the sw vendor, so lots of small Oracle Nodes wasn't gonna work.

        Anyway, you wanted some background on why anyone uses non-RH machines. Oh - we were seeing about 4k TPS on each production system during business hours. Transactions came from client tools, app servers, reporting tools, and ad hoc queries from blackberries and other portable devices.

        We had an outage 1 day for about 6 hours around 2004 due to DB corruption - over 10,000 people couldn't do their jobs (half the users). It wasn't good. I'm glad only 1 production site was impacted.

        • by hibiki_r (649814)

          Against all odds, AC knows about the realities of life. When your production environment includes a dozen Superdomes, RH might not be the right solution for you. And on something like a bank or a big telco, you'll find said big systems all the time, not a very wide array if little machines.

        • RHEL Advanced server runs on mainframes (including IBM z systems) and POWER platforms, not just x86 platforms. I just assumed you'd have to use one of these to get massive scalability and we weren't going to try to compare x86 systems.
          • Re:64-way DB Servers (Score:5, Informative)

            by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday August 23, 2010 @05:13PM (#33348072) Journal
            Saying RHEL runs on mainframes is a bit misleading. RHEL runs in smallish partitions of a mainframe. You can run a few thousand RHEL instances on an IBM Z-series (or whatever they're called this week) mainframe, but you can't just run a single instance of RHEL as you can with z/VM. The RHEL support is there for people who have a mainframe and want to use some of the spare capacity to replace some x86 servers. It's not something you would buy a mainframe for.
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            AC here ... "vendor only certifies on HP-UX", so trying anything else was worthless. The server programs were written in C/C++, so we weren't gonna get binaries for any other platform anyway.

            Also, Z-Systems are great for IO, not so much for raw MIPS. Yes, I've watched the 1,000 linux servers running apache on a single mainframe reports. Interesting, but not really useful. BTW, I was a mainframe dev for 5+ years - MVS, JCL, clists, TSO. None of that rocks. Ruby - rocks. Perl - rocks.

            I LOVE IBM-POWER-systems

      • by Korin43 (881732)

        That page looks like licensing info, not technical info (certain licenses allow unlimited CPUs). The Linux kernel has a limit on memory and processors. I think the memory limit is insanely high, the CPU one is less so. I've been trying to find info but all anyone seems to talk about is PAE.

        • Same experience here. I'm interested in finding out more about how it scales for very large loads which if I understand correctly require z series or POWER. I only have one RHEL Advanced server and it's x86_64 so I don't really have a comparison point.
          • by Korin43 (881732)

            I was looking at kernel config options and here's what I found.

            Max CPUs [cateee.net]:

            - x86: 512
            - x86_64: 256 (not sure why this is smaller)
            - sparc64: 1024
            - ia64: 4096

            It also notes that these are the max, hardware limits may make it lower. These numbers seem much smaller than I expected.

            There's no citation but this Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] says Linux can support up to 64 TB of memory on x86_64.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by otis wildflower (4889)

      Folks who do opensource NAS care, as ZFS on OpenSolaris is currently superior to anything else in the open sphere, and most if not all of the closed.

      But as a Solaris admin, I would much prefer to see a more aggressive improvement of stock Solaris, particularly when it comes to package and patch management.. Nobody here ever did anything with OSol, but watched it to see what would be coming down the pike for Solaris 11..

      That said, I'm sure Nexenta and Illumos will fully fork, and presumably if there are eno

    • by codepunk (167897)

      Oracle DB to large to run on Linux? The days of going out and purchasing (big hardware) a 64 way box to run oracle or any application on for that matter is over and has been for some time.

      • Why do you think Oracle bought Sun in the first place? It was for their presence in the "enterprise server market." Yes, some people are using Oracle RAC and the like, but there are still plenty of applications for that 64-way box running Oracle.
  • Buy your competition and then kill their products. This seems familiar. Where have I heard this one before....
  • by mseeger (40923) on Monday August 23, 2010 @03:04PM (#33346340)
    If anyone asks for me, i am in my room with some candles, a Larry Ellison doll and tons of needles.....
  • by meerling (1487879) on Monday August 23, 2010 @03:36PM (#33346754)
    when you're down to your last piece of tableware, you just have to make do with what's left, unless it's a butter knife and the meal is soup...

    (if it was a real knife, you could at least carve a spoon out of something)
  • Thanks, i needed a good laugh after a day like today.

  • Dangerous. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by unity100 (970058) on Monday August 23, 2010 @05:39PM (#33348390) Homepage Journal
    It takes aeons to build up a reputation, but it takes a few days to totally destroy it. oracle should watch its standing with open source community.
  • this was kind of scary; and I think it was *my* last nail in the coffin for zfs. for me, that is (ymmv).

    I had a freebsd 8.0 system up for quite a long time (over 100 days). I often keep the /usr/src area current via cvsup but had no reason to reboot until the system hung under heavy load. when it rebooted, I found I was 'half 8.1' and half 8.0, still. this threw zfs out of sync and the pool would not be mounted! what a scare, let me tell you (I had all my valuable stuff on that 6TB pool).

    had to reboot

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mysidia (191772)

      As someone who has tested out ZFS on both BSD and Solaris, and is familiar with the subject, I can tell you quite plainly: The Solaris implementation is good and generally, the BSD / FreeBSD implementation sucks, is buggy, missing features (or key features are buggy).

      The OpenSolaris implementation is mature, well maintained, performs well, and is up to date. The FreeBSD implementation is immature, lags way behind OSol development, and seems to be unstable.

      If you want a mission critical system runn

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin

Working...