The ponytail versus the penguin (Economist) [LWN.net]

The Economist talks with Sun's Jonathan Schwartz about the company's approach to Linux. "Some software users have started to realise that even Linux is not as free as it appears: for instance, it has to be maintained and upgraded. 'Linux is like a puppy - in the beginning it's great, but you also have to take care of it,' says Mr Schwartz. He hopes that firms will opt for Solaris, because it requires less care."

to post comments

The ponytail versus the penguin (Economist)

Posted May 26, 2003 16:10 UTC (Mon) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link] (2 responses)

Linux is like a puppy - in the beginning it's great, but you also have to take care of it,' says Mr Schwartz.

And like you don't have to maintain Solaris? I update with apt and a cron job. Just point apt at your own repository, add to it as needed and go back to sleep.. Now where was I ..zzz zzzzz zzzzzzz...zzz

The ponytail versus the penguin (Economist)

Posted May 27, 2003 17:47 UTC (Tue) by ruiner (guest, #11482) [Link] (1 responses)

He was comparing Solaris to Linux (probably Redhat), not Debian.

Updating Linux

Posted May 29, 2003 3:01 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

Like Red Hat has no up2date? Come on, (semi)automatic updates are in _all_ current versions of leading distributions

The ponytail versus the penguin (Economist)

Posted May 26, 2003 16:13 UTC (Mon) by pascal.martin (guest, #2995) [Link]

Having helped install Solaris not so long ago, I cannot see why Solaris would require less maintenance than Linux. The Solaris packaging seems much more complicated than Debian's, especially since it seems not everything has been packaged the way it should have been (not gnome, the gnu tools, or even Java 8-).

Unless, of course, Sun has given up releasing security patches or new versions of Solaris?

Sun prices

Posted May 26, 2003 16:33 UTC (Mon) by xose (subscriber, #535) [Link] (7 responses)

>"...He hopes that firms will opt for Solaris, because it requires less care."

SUN prices:
Sun FastEthernet 10/100BaseT PCI Adapter 2.0 costs about $695.00 !!!

Linux prices:
Intel Pro/100 S Server Adapter about 55$

that's the difference

Sun prices

Posted May 26, 2003 18:26 UTC (Mon) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (1 responses)

Also, the Sun adapter ships "within 8 business days". The Linux adapter can be bought in the nearest CompUSA or BestBuy. For that price to be competitive, I would expect the Sun's adapter to be teleported right to my desk.

Sun prices

Posted May 27, 2003 18:02 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

> The Linux adapter can be bought in the nearest CompUSA or BestBuy.

Not the good Intel adapter, only cheapo Netgears and such. I once spent all day driving around Cleveland looking for an Intel NIC, to no avail.

Sun prices

Posted May 26, 2003 19:57 UTC (Mon) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

And the extremely competitive market that companies are working in. For
example, there is a product on the shelves at Walmart that they are selling for
half of what we can buy them wholesale. Chinese manufacture, good quality. The
North american producers will not, can not look at a Sun machine, if they need
something, they will buy commodity hardware with a free os. There ain't no more
this spending 1/4 mil on something that may or may not work. The money ain't
there.

Derek

Sun prices

Posted May 27, 2003 13:37 UTC (Tue) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] (3 responses)

SUN prices:
Sun FastEthernet 10/100BaseT PCI Adapter 2.0 costs about $695.00 !!!

Linux prices:
Intel Pro/100 S Server Adapter about 55$

They might even be the same part. After all, the PCI bus is the PCI bus...

Sun, HP etc. must make a fortune out of ignorant purchasing departments who simply don't dare buy generic components whatever the price difference. If anything the ripoff on server memory is even worse.

Sun prices

Posted May 27, 2003 18:04 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] (1 responses)

> They might even be the same part. After all, the PCI bus is the PCI bus...

No, the Suns require an OpenFirmware-capable version. Ask a Mac geek about that. (Though a card for a Mac might work....)

Sun prices

Posted May 28, 2003 0:36 UTC (Wed) by xose (subscriber, #535) [Link]

and x86 a PXE capable version ;-)

Sun prices

Posted May 28, 2003 22:29 UTC (Wed) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

Sun, HP etc. must make a fortune out of ignorant purchasing departments who simply don't dare buy generic components whatever the price difference.

Sometimes they even play what I consider dirty tricks.

We had a bunch of RS/6000s around here and we wanted Fast Ethernet. IBM sells a PCI card for several hundred dollars, and it's a rebranded 3C905. But it's actually an OEM part, with its own PCI ID, and the IBM AIX driver does not recognise a generic 3C905 - you actually have to get the IBM version. I once tried to binary-edit the AIX driver to try and insert the 3Com PCI IDs into it, but to no avail.

And no, this isn't about Open Firmware or anything - we're not booting off the network, so that shouldn't be an issue. It's just the general lack of third-party driver support for commercial Unix that lets them get away with this stuff.

Then there was the time I was browsing the IBM parts catalog CD-ROM, and I came across a 2400-baud modem for like $700. In 1998. We all got a good laugh out of that one....

The ponytail versus the penguin (Economist)

Posted May 27, 2003 9:00 UTC (Tue) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link]

"He hopes that firms will opt for Solaris, because it requires less care."

Well, that's a good one. I'm responsible for a few Solaris systems as well as some linux systems. I must say that I patch the linux systems more often, but that's mostly because it's so effortless.

Patching a Sun system is _very_ hard work; having worked out what patches you need to download & downloading them, it's generally not safe to apply the patches without dropping down to single-user mode, whereas I've never had problems updating a live linux system. The Solaris patch process takes typically 5-10 minutes per patch, as opposed to 5-10 seconds for linux. With typically scores of patches to apply, that's a lot of Solaris downtime - and my time too ...

I reckon Mr Schwartz's argument should be turned on its head; dump Solaris, compared with linux it's a real pig to keep patched, and an expensive waste of sysadmin resource as well.