Linux runs on this
Posted on 05/17/2006 9:19:50 PM PDT by AllmanBrosFan
Sun Microsystems plans to offer support for the Ubuntu server Linux distribution on its T1 server line, the company said at the JavaOne industry conference in San Francisco.
"We will be aggressively supporting the fork that Ubuntu has been doing," Sun chief executive Jonathan Schwartz said at the conference. "The ideals of that community are relatively familiar to us."
The Ubuntu Linux distribution is based on Debian. The operating system currently provides only a desktop version that has a strong following among software developers. A first server system is scheduled for release on 1 June.
The distribution is sponsored by Canonical, which offers commercial support for the application.
Sun's T1 servers use the company's Niagara multi-core processor. The systems were launched last December and are currently certified for Solaris only.
Sun's support is a major win for Ubuntu as it aspires to become one of the world's main Linux distributions.
Its creators seek to differentiate the offering from Red Hat and SuSE by providing support as an optional service for a limited number of systems, rather than bundling support automatically with the software.
Sun hopes that supporting the operating system will expose its hardware to a new group of users. A company spokesman denied that the support was aimed as a move against Red Hat and SuSE.
This has what to do with anything? Solaris is a good server OS, but it is a pain to use in many ways and one of its traditional selling points -- scalability -- is no longer a differentiator with current versions of Linux. I notice you are ignoring OSX now, which anyone with a clue could tell you is not a particularly good server OS.
I worked on very big Sun boxes running Oracle for many years. These days, most of those have been replaced with Linux on Opterons and I cannot say that I miss the Sun Enterprise gear very much.
Obviously, it means Solaris is a more mature operating system. So you run a bunch of cheap pc's with Linux now instead, I'm suposed to be impressed? I'd still run Solaris on those boxes anyway, especially if I was doing Java. And I don't expect Sun to sell much "ubuntu" except overseas either.
How do you define more mature? Linux is as old as Solaris, they both scale similarily (though Solaris did it earlier), the Linux userland is more mature than the Solaris userland, etc.
So you run a bunch of cheap pc's with Linux now instead, I'm suposed to be impressed?
Linux runs on very high-end server hardware too, and everything in between. Solaris is quickly being relegated to legacy status, for organizations that still rely in it. Most new installations are Linux. Solaris is mature, but then so is IRIX and BSD and a bunch of others.
Honestly though, from your comments it sounds like you are a dabbler who has never used serious Unix server environments. Linux is a very common server environment for low- to mid-range servers, and it works very well in that role. It is also has one of the nicest server environments out of the box, which has a lot to do with its popularity as a server.
It does not matter if you like Linux on the server, it is still undeniably scalable, fast, stable, and easy to use. That is why it is ubiquitous in the data center on big and small machines alike. For better or worse, Solaris will have a hard time competing with that.
I've used Vector. Blazingly fast. Ran it on a 466 with (get this) 64 megs of RAM and it was very usable. Running a full KDE desktop didn't slow it down any.
He doesn't care about anything except Microsoft.
Well, truthfully, I still maintain he has a crush on Stallman. I mean, he links to him more than anyone, even we so-called "leftists".
Of course he doesn't--it's plainly obvious he shills for MS. I just hope the company's paying him good to waste our time here...
Imitation and projection are indded the sincerest forms of flattery. As much as he denies it, he's probably more of Stallman disciple than any of us.
But it's also equally interesting that he paints us as copyleftists and cybercommunists...
"But it's also equally interesting that he paints us as copyleftists and cybercommunists... "
Projection is a bitch.
Linux has lost most of its momentum, after Sun announced the Open Solaris development environment and lowered their cost to match it.
Oracle taps Solaris 10 as 'preferred development platform'
http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid41_gci1145312,00.html
eBay to buy hundreds of Sun x86 servers
http://news.com.com/eBay+to+buy+hundreds+of+Sun+x86+servers/2110-1010_3-5973926.html
Even IBM and HP are supporting Solaris now.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1832554,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
http://h10018.www1.hp.com/wwsolutions/solaris/index-all.html
Windows is more mature than Linux, and look at what a mess it is. It's taken Microsoft five years to try to build in some stability and security over the last version.
Linux runs on this
That it is...
I'll grant you I've never had the opportunity to try Solaris yet.
However, I've run OSX, Windows, and Linux.
They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
If I was involved in the arts, I'd probably go with OSX.
If I wanted something simple and easy to use, I'd probably run Windows XP.
And if I want something stable, fairly secure, and yet provides high flexibility customize to my needs, I'd probably pick Linux.
This last one is what I want my primary OS to be. So that's why I run Linux.
It seems that no one in Silicon Valley got your memo. Sun's liberalization of Solaris is staunching the hemorrhaging of their market share, but they are not regaining any ground. I have no antipathy toward Solaris (except for its retarded userland), but I am under no illusions about its relative merits. The fact is that it has few redeeming features relative to enterprise Linux, which has its own redeeming features.
Why, precisely, should people choose Solaris over Linux for their servers? Do not make weak ass subjective excuses about "commies" or "maturity", make a strict technical argument because that is the only argument reality cares about. The fact remains that there are a huge number of Linux servers out there running Oracle and every network service under the sun with uptimes measured in years and performance that Solaris cannot touch (certainly not for the money). You have yet to provide a compelling argument for Solaris over Linux that means diddly squat to most of the server buying universe. I mean, Linux on Opteron using SGI's XFS will generally run rings around Solaris boxes of any stripe in terms of performance, and no one is complaining about its stability on the server either.
There are arguments that can be made against Linux, but the ones you are providing are kneejerk imbecile fodder. No intelligent person would buy your excuses. How about providing some substantive technical reasons that might give someone reason to listen to you.
BS, I just gave you a link showing eBay is now running Solaris instead of Linux, along with now having both IBM and HP support the product on their hardware.
Do not make weak ass subjective excuses about "commies" or "maturity"
Maybe only immature commies consider them weak. FYI when you come to a political site you better be prepared to discuss politics.
there are a huge number of Linux servers out there running Oracle and every network service under the sun with uptimes measured in years and performance that Solaris cannot touch
More BS. You actually expect anyone to believe tripe like that?
How about providing some substantive technical reasons that might give someone reason to listen to you.
DTrace, Containers (that can run Linux), ZFS, OEM Java, full enterprise suite, world class support etc. Not to mention the countless performance charts like this out there from unbiased sources. Grow up and get real, you already admitted whatever's cheapest wins your vote, don't make us laugh trying to now claim the cheapest = best. Those "Nikes" you buy down in Tijauanna are usually only good for a couple of months.
Which does not support your point. Tangentially, Ebay was always running Oracle on Solaris AFAIK. When Ebay started their business, Linux did not scale well enough.
More BS. You actually expect anyone to believe tripe like that?
Sorry bud, that's reality. I have migrated more than one Fortune 500 companies from Oracle Solaris to Oracle Linux, primarily for the markedly improved performance. Which once again demonstrates that you have no appreciable real-world experience. Stick with the mom-and-pop stuff, that is clearly your league.
DTrace,
Which is available for other open source OSes...
Containers (that can run Linux), ZFS, OEM Java, full enterprise suite, world class support etc.
ZFS is nice, but incremental (and it sucks out of the box). Sun OEM Java is a turd -- IBM's is better. The rest is "blah, blah, blah" MBA stuff. I can get the same Linux support from IBM, or even Sun. I am still waiting for the obviously superior features of Solaris. Again, Solaris has a very hard time differentiating itself from Linux+XFS except at the detail level, and at that level it goes both ways.
[idiotic filesystem graph elided]
You might want to compare Linux using XFS rather than ext3, particularly since most people that are at all concerned with filesystem performance use XFS. Everyone knows ext3 is slow, in large part to the default configuration being ultra fault tolerant. There have been a number of benchmarks done of ZFS on Solaris versus XFS on Linux on the same hardware for database servers and similar. ZFS offers no real performance improvements, though it does have some nice features. Just to throw you a bone, XFS was a pieces of very nice SGI filesystem rather than originating in open source, not that the average Linux user cares.
Grow up and get real, you already admitted whatever's cheapest wins your vote, don't make us laugh trying to now claim the cheapest = best.
Cheapest is irrelevant to me, and the cost of the operating system is pissing in the ocean in terms of the overall cost. The main reasons that many (but not all -- there is Solaris and a few others mixed in) servers are Linux is that they have a superior userland and because they generally are faster on the same hardware. Stability/maturity is a non-issue, since I have not had a Linux server die because of a software bug in many, many years.
I am still waiting for that compelling reason to use Solaris. Why, exactly, if I can serve multi-terabyte databases on fancy mid-range iron using Linux with bulletproof reliability should I use the slightly slower Solaris to do the same? I've never said Solaris is a bad server operating system -- quite the contrary -- but it has a really hard time differentiating itself now. Sun should have been pursuing this market back when Linux really was inferior to Solaris for this market.
Are you always this big of a tool, or are you going to plead ignorance? What next, comparing WindowsNT 4.0 to Linux 2.6 to "prove" the superiority of Linux to Microsoft?
So, according to this chart, Linux is fastest?
Thought so.
Ebay used to heavily use Linux, here's an article on Linux Insider talking about their database crashing. Here's another link stating eBay runs their web site on Linux. Not any more they don't. Neither does Tommy Hilfiger, and others who tried Linux then ditched it.
DTrace is available for other open source OSes...
LOL where do you get this crap?
Cheapest is irrelevant to me
Not according to your first several posts, when you clearly inferred it was your primary reason for using Linux. Can you even open your mouth without lying or even denying your previous statements?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.