Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek)Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek)Posted Sep 19, 2003 23:12 UTC (Fri) by captrb (subscriber, #2291)Parent article: Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek)
(Log in to post comments)
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2003 23:49 UTC (Fri) by tungub (subscriber, #4560) [Link] Oracle doesn't seem to share your opinion:http://www.oracle.com/linux/
Oracle's opinion Posted Sep 20, 2003 2:02 UTC (Sat) by dang (subscriber, #310) [Link] Oracle meeds to pick up the pace if they want folks hosting oracle on linux. Right now you have a choice between running a crap old linux kernel or running a recent kernel but losing official oracle support. If your company is mature and if the DB needs to do heavy lifting, then it will remain tricky to go linux as long as Oracle is so freaking slow to certify.
Oracle's opinion Posted Sep 20, 2003 5:16 UTC (Sat) by huaz (guest, #10168) [Link] But why do you need a fancy kernel for a database server?For database you need stability. The kernel should be as simple as possible. If Linux wants to get really deployed in five nine's environment, the above is crucial. Don't blame vendors for not "picking up quickly".
Oracle's opinion Posted Sep 20, 2003 17:12 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] Well, you wont need it now, but as soon as 2.6 is ready, it WILL be important (or, at least faster) because of the much better threading provided by NLPT, which database servers seem to like...But I guess you wouldn't want to use a .0-.10 for important data...
Oracle's opinion Posted Sep 20, 2003 18:09 UTC (Sat) by dang (subscriber, #310) [Link] Who said anything about fancy?? Take a hard look at what Oracle lists as certified for Oracle 8i. Would you run *anything* on that? C'mon.
Linux vs Solaris stability Posted Sep 20, 2003 0:11 UTC (Sat) by raph (guest, #326) [Link] This sounds like the kind of thing that can and should be measured quantitatively. It wouldn't be cheap to do, but should be relatively straightforward. Just put both OS's on identical hardware, put an insane application load on it (near out-of-memory conditions, saturated network, etc.), and see how many crashes you get.In the meantime, readers may find this survey from the sunmanagers mailing list interesting.
Linux vs Solaris stability Posted Sep 20, 2003 1:31 UTC (Sat) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] Wow. And that on a list likely to be inhabited by Sun Worshipers. Very fair and balanced look at the world as it existed two years ago. And most of the problems identified have been addressed.
Linux vs Solaris stability Posted Sep 22, 2003 8:19 UTC (Mon) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] put an insane application load on it (near out-of-memory conditions, saturated network, etc.At work I test x86 hardware with Linux. I have seen some load related bugs. We prefer the e100 driver to the epro100 for this reason. I've seen one or two SCSI driver problems that were related to load. But really load related bugs are rare. When you do find a software bug, you just fix it... For example last week, we hired a consultant to fix a kernel bug in handling large RAID arrays. Basically, I don't think it is possible to compare the two operating systems that way. If you could trigger bugs that easily the bugs would be noticed and fixed already.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 0:40 UTC (Sat) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] You know what? Solaris IS more stable.Well, maybe. Solaris does scale better, but the user space tools are old and crappy. To be fair, I haven't used Solaris for several years, but last time I did they shipped ancient versions of Unix tools like lex and yacc. I had to install a bunch of GNU software to get anything useful done. In fact, I don't know anyone who uses Solaris without installing a bunch of GNU software. They probably even ship it now, or they should.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 2:13 UTC (Sat) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] In fact, I don't know anyone who uses Solaris without installing a bunch of GNU software. They probably even ship it now, or they should.Yup, at least they shipped it with Solaris 8, which is the last one I glanced at.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 7:08 UTC (Sat) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] How do they get around the "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" exception-to-the-system-libs-exception in the GPL? Or do they just ignore that?
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 20, 2003 16:57 UTC (Sat) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] You mean this:For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. I don't see that the exception or the exception to the exception even come into play here. Look at the definition of "complete source code". The Solaris 8 free software CD has all the source code and build/install scripts, since it has the source tarballs that everyone distributes. I'm not clear on the "interface definition files", but I think that's also covered the same way, or else by the Solaris header files. And in case that's wrong, they distribute the free software somewhat separately. The Solaris 8 CDs are in a little plastic "Solaris 8" binder, and the free software CDs ("Software Companion" and "Star Office 5.1") are in a separate "Bonus Software" binder. Whether it qualifies as "accompanies" for those two things to be distributed in the same box is not for me to judge. I don't know what they did in Solaris 9.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 21, 2003 3:16 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Sun machines (at least the higher-end ones) are bulletproof, no question. But Solaris is a pig, on the same hardware Linux is _much_ faster (and runs on machines on which current Solaris doesn't work at all). Plus security patches are slow in comming, and much Sun software assumes everything else is _also_ Sun (I remember finding it much easier to just install sendmail, bind, and others from source than trying to get their stuff interoperating decently with our Ultrix (and later Linux) machines through the mid '90s).Linux on cheap clone PCs is awful, true. But that is because the machine is awful. Put it on a decent machine, and it works fine. Plus what I remember from Solaris on PCs (long time ago) was that it requiered very special (expensive) hardware.
Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO (eWeek) Posted Sep 21, 2003 5:59 UTC (Sun) by tmancill (subscriber, #14705) [Link] Well, that's the beauty of Debian. It wouldn't take more than a couple weeks to get Debian running on top of a Solaris kernel. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it's been done. The package management for Solaris is miserably simplistic and about a decade out of date. Sun would do itself a favor if it quit bleating about its server room superiority and realize that there is a great deal to be learned and shared with the rest of the world instead of always striking out on its own.
|
|||||||||||