Posted on 01/22/2007 11:02:02 AM PST by zeugma
Sun is still around?
You have a point, but I'd like to think there is a place for both OSes. Solaris 10 has some excellent features not really available in Linux.
Sun is going to have a real problem though as their low-end boxes are having their lunch eaten by Dell, HP and others. The problem with that, is that while the migration from Linux to Sun isn't huge, it's still something that places a roadblock in the way of using the bigger iron available in the larger Sun servers.
Our shop is moving towards moving a lot of our web applications to Linux VMware containers running on HP blades from Solaris servers.
Random PC question - I just figured I'd post in on a IT themed thread.
I just removed a instance of keylogging spyware from my computer this weekend and this question occured to me. Would it make any difference to save passwords in some obscure file tucked away somewhere and then cut & paste log ins and PWs, instead of typing them, when using my financial sites?
I just removed a instance of keylogging spyware from my computer this weekend and this question occured to me. Would it make any difference to save passwords in some obscure file tucked away somewhere and then cut & paste log ins and PWs, instead of typing them, when using my financial sites?
I just removed a instance of keylogging spyware from my computer this weekend and this question occured to me. Would it make any difference to save passwords in some obscure file tucked away somewhere and then cut & paste log ins and PWs, instead of typing them, when using my financial sites?
I doubt it would help much. I'd be extra-careful on that PC with spyware unless you wiped the disk and reloaded the OS. The only sure way to clean a trojaned PC is to load from trusted media from scratch.
There is no such thing as a "Linux system".
Almost any x86 server can run most standard Linux distributions. Similarly, almost any x86 server can run Microsoft Windows.
So any of these Sun Intel Xeon systems can run Linux, Windows, BSD, Solaris, VMware, and other operating systems.
Just like Sun's AMD Opteron based systems can run Linux, Windows, BSD, Solaris, VMware, and other operating systems.
Just like Sun's Intel Xeon servers from four years ago (V60 and V65) could run Linux, Windows, BSD, Solaris, and other operating systems.
Just like Sun's Intel server from five years ago (LX50) could run Linux, Solaris, and other operating systems.
And Sun sells SPARC servers which can run Linux and Solaris.
And IBM sells POWER5 systems which can run Linux and AIX.
And HP sells Intel Itanium systems which can run Linux, HP-UX, OpenVMS, and Windows.
Mark
Similar to my previous comment, there is no such thing as a "Solaris server".
There are 815 systems (740 x86/x64 systems, and 75 SPARC systems) which can run Solaris.
The vast majority of these 815 systems are not built by Sun.
To run Windows or Linux? We have a few of these - we have all HP servers, but these were our first that were AMD based. Previously all were Intel.
We ran into some problems related to the AMD PowerNow!/Cool'n'Quiet technology (which slows the cores independently of each other based on need, to save power).
Check out the AMD web site for the latest dual core "drivers". A change that the AMD installer makes (adding /usepmtimer to boot.ini for Windows 2003/XP) solved our problem.
When the AMD slows one of the cores, you basically have two (or more) CPUs running at different clock rates and that can screw up things that depend on the CPU clock for timing. It's mostly a problem for gaming, but we had problems with software that kept performance counters for statistics.
Excuse me but I know what I am talking about. I'm a digital signal process developer writing parallel software to run on 1000s of nodes. Our clusters are Linux systems. That is how they are referred to. When we run on Solaris, we call that Solaris systems.
We deal in more than just a "server."
...
out of curiousity, which distribution(s) of linux do you use?
If Sun dropped Solaris to concentrate on Linux there would be nothing to differentiate them from RedHat.
As their hardware transitions more towards the generic, Solaris is really the only thing that keeps them from becoming one of the crowd.
No one is interested in Solaris anymore. Look at Sun's stock price... it's in the toliet. Sun should have jumped on Linux a long time ago.
Sun committed Apple hari-kiri: they demanded a premium for their hardware and software while the rest of the market raced by them.
Becoming a Linux only dealer is not the way to profitability.
Personally I think all the big players are going to consolidate on Intel/AMD eventually. As the multi-core market takes-off the proprietary chips that continue to be made, and sold at a premium, won't be in demand.
I know you asked avacado this question, but I'd like to jump into the fray! :-)
I'm a Unix sysadmin and our shop was almost exclusively Solaris, but has branched out to linux as well. We're using Redhat Linux Enterprise. I've used it for DNS servers that I migrated from Solaris... it was easy and pretty seemless! I like Redhat!
They certainly did. And I never understood why they just let it happen. I still don't understand. We process massive amounts of seismic data and need 1000s upon 1000s of nodes and there is no way that Sun (hardware/OS) is cost effective.
Sun's business model is a mystery to me.
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.