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.
Funny a "tortoise" seems so worried about speed LOL. Speed is never your #1 decision maker, it's definitely not as important as having a proven vendor who can deal with most any circumstance you may face, and not leave you searching message boards overseas for your answers. You act like "Linux" is bulletproof but won't even name a specific version, it's just some big cloud in the sky with Zeus piloting it I guess. Wait until this Ubuntu (LOL that name kills me) is released for Niagra. No way those clowns get it running as fast as Solaris.
Ah, Paul Murphy, a mainframe hater. He also embarrassed himself with his ignorance in a recent posting about the SCO v. IBM case.
He blows it in the first sentence about the initial simplicity of the case, writes a factual lie in the second sentence, and then goes downhill from there.
I was wondering why you posted a chart showing Linux hammering Solaris on file ops.
Graph two compares solaris nine to solaris ten, no linux anywhere (useless)
The final one compares most recent solaris to an older RedHat useful for comparisons a year ago..
Two Points:
1) Same architecture, link?
2) All you have proven is sometimes (compiling) Solaris might be better and sometimes (IO) Linux might be better..
Like RedHat?
I notice you post selected graphics, cherry picked for your convenience. Did you happen to read this, from the article where you got those graphics?
"That said, I can make a few conclusions. Performance was overall similar for most of the metrics tested, perhaps with Linux in a very slight lead. However, with the web operations test (arguably the most important and relevant), Linux is a clear winner."
"On the subject of hardware support, Linux wins. Virtually any common device (such as IDE RAID controllers, server motherboards, Fast/Gig Ethernet cards) has a production-quality open source driver, usually distributed with the Linux distribution (and works out of the box) or the vendor has compiled and made a driver available as a module."
"For this evaluation, I am inclined to declare Linux the clear winner over Solaris x86. Linux is simply better supported, shows double the web performance, enjoys wider internal development in terms of hardware and kernel, vastly wider application development, and is a better value (since it's, you know, free)."
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4867&page=1
How interesting!
Ah, I looked it up. That's from mid-2003, no later than October 2003 if someone cares about the bugs 3.3.2 fixed. I don't trust someone who would use an old compiler for a compiler test. The alternative is that the test is almost three years old, thus it was using at best the Linux 2.4 kernel, maybe 2.4.22.
Wow, good catch on a lie! GE was intentionally trying to decieve.
You really are a clueless idiot. DTrace has been ported to FreeBSD and others. Look it up. While people have discussed porting it to Linux, there are technical reasons that make that less of a good idea (it has different facilities for doing similar things).
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?
Prove it. Which previous statements are these? I paid for all the OSes on my workstations (OSX and the occasion Windows XP), and I paid unfathomable amounts of money for Oracle on Linux servers, which themselves are running expensive supported versions of Linux. Where is the "cheap" part? It is true that for smaller network servers or even workstations it makes relatively little sense to pay for Linux, but the money saved is negligible in the big picture and that is not a driving factor in choosing Linux.
Thanks for the link BTW. Turns out my "no later than October 2003" statement based on the GCC version was correct.
We can both cherry pick from that article but the total result was a toss up.
Solaris is free now too, something you obviously can't fathom the thought of, but you'll just have to learn to cope one day, or you can keep up your childish rants, which is of course what we expect.
There's graphs above showing Solaris smoking Red Hat on the same Opteron.
Speed is the reason many people choose it, not necessarily a priority for me. I prefer reliability and features over speed myself (unless speed *is* the feature needed). Solaris is fine on reliability, but a bit weak on features I care about (like Infinipath support).
As for proven vendors, Redhat is perfectly adequate and I've never seen a RHEL 4.x box crash. Many RHEL servers have uptimes of years. Heck, we had a mid-sized database server that ran for almost 3 years under 24x7 load on Redhat 9(!) before finally taking it down to upgrade to RHEL 4.x. This kind of reliability is the norm.
BSD isn't linux, or didn't you know LOL? Nor is that even working yet from what I heard. Are you even capable of posting a link, or are you actually aware you can't since all you're doing is lying, changing the discussion to BSD etc.
And the one that shows Linux smoking solaris with IO?
Funny you would leave out the monsterous detail that was a forced upgrade, after RH dumped all support for RH9 completely out of the blue and left their customers like you completely stranded. Apparently you ran for a long while without paches too which tells me all I need to know about your admin ability, or lack thereof.
Wow! 9 was not their best work.. 7.2, and 8 where the most stable pre rehel releases..
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.