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.
It was from 5 years ago, that I stumbled across while half asleep in the middle of the night.
The performance is close/mixed between the two these days. Why not use American Unix instead of foreign products like Linux, like renuzit said you guys would in those situations? Your devotion to Stallman/GPL is my claim.
Your intense focus on Linux and lack of reading ability is amazing. Do you realize that in 120 he didn't even say it was available for Linux, and in 132 he effectively stated it wasn't avilable for Linux?
You make up words for him and then shoot them down. We're smart enough to realize you've shot yourself down, not him, since they are your words, not his.
It wasn't a forced upgrade, since we had long since let support lapse. The upgrade was to have parity with the other OS in the rest of the organization. We have never actually needed Redhat support, so it was not a big deal.
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.
Huh? It was a single-purpose box running an SGI build of the RH9 kernel, and bulletproof. The database was patched occasionally as needed, but even that was rock solid. We could have put it in a closet for another 5 years. What, exactly, were we supposed to be patching that wasn't patched?
Yeah, I know. That said, it was bulletproof for us. We actually swapped out the Redhat supplied kernel with an SGI patched RH9 kernel to get support for things like XFS. The intentional removal of XFS support even today is one of the stupidest things about Redhat. Fortunately, CentOS repositories provide a RHEL kernel with XFS put back in.
"We can both cherry pick from that article but the total result was a toss up. "
I'm not the one who posted it, and tried to pass off a few selected graphics as the whole story. And I didn't cherry-pick...my post contained a link to the whole article, where people could see the whole thing, instead of selected parts that might have made my case.
Why didn't you post a link to the whole article, as I did, instead of a few selected graphs?
"or you can keep up your childish rants..."
Childish rants! What a load of bull. I just exposed your dishonesty and took your already feeble credibility to the woodshed for the 1,000th time and you know it.
Quit your whining, now that you got caught.
I exposed his bs and you're sore about it LOL. He said what features does Solaris have that linux doesn't, I said dtrace and he said bsd has dtrace, which isn't linux, nor is it even true. deal with it!
http://www.fedoralegacy.org/updates/RH9/
Most recently
2006-04-04 FLSA:152896 Updated mod python package fixes a security issue. 2006-04-04 FLSA:156139 Updated tcpdump packages fix security issues. 2006-04-04 FLSA:170411 Updated imap packages fix security issue. 2006-04-04 FLSA:180159 Updated unzip package fixes security issue. 2006-04-04 FLSA:183571-1 Updated tar package fixes security issue. 2006-04-04 FLSA:184074 Updated pine package fixes security issue. 2006-04-04 FLSA:186277 [Updated] Updated sendmail packages fix security issue.
Red Hat 9 was discontinued, including all new patches for it, a few short months after it was released. So while you were trying to brag about 3 years uptime, it actually meant you ran the thing for at least a couple of years without any patches even being researched or available from the vendor.
LMAO that would be like me sitting here in a couple of years saying how awesome my NT 4 server was, haven't even had to reboot it in 3 years LOL!
I see the further background context and retract my statement.
However, that does not make his statement BS. DTrace isn't necessary on Linux as there are other utilities that do the job, so the absence of DTrace on Linux is not that big of a point against Linux.
I'm not down-and-dirty on Linux lately, but I believe the existing KProbes does the heavy lifting, and a project called SystemTap provides an easy interface for it. SystemTap is in development and available, but with the usual honesty of open source people they don't recommend it on production machines (where if this were a Microsoft product it would be sold as version 1.0 right now).
http://www.fedoralegacy.org
What is the Fedora Legacy Project?
The FLP is a community project. It is not a supported project of Red Hat...
You call this equivalent?
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/08/dtrace-equivalent-for-linux-only.html
Now you'll probably pull your usual stunt and say the link is broke LOL.
"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."
I demonstrated one can still get patches for RHEL 9..
The Fedora Legacy Project is a community-supported open source project. It is not a supported project of Red Hat, Inc. although Red Hat, Inc. does provide some support services for it.
Again, thank you for not cherrypicking.
And my original claim said not from the vendor. Your "community", likely including hackers from Russia and China, hardly qualifies.
Good catch FD...
Eagle a lie of omission is still a lie..
The only lie would be your inferrence those patches came from the vendor, and not some unidentified hacker community. Either way the turtle never installed any kernel patches since he didn't rebbot for years, so once again you're caught trying to change the subject and STILL being wrong LMAO.
"reboot", this is so boring arguing with hacker wannabees LOL.
Red Hat hasn't supported RH9 since 2004. Time for you to wake up and smell the coffee, or lack thereof.
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh9-errata.html
And redhat co sponcers a group that *does* provide patches for the operating system..
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.