Posts by iOS6 user 71 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Sep 2014
> But there is a lot to be said for having something, anything, that prevents Linux from becoming an x86 monoculture. I guess that "thing" is now Atom.
What you mean preventing? by not donating some M7 HW for Debian Developers?
Despite throwing money n the wind It does not make sense because with such HW donation it would be necessary to "donate" almost all Solaris code ans software technologies on which Sun and Oracle spend billions of dollars.
Is not would would be better to add some parachutes to save more fuel on last few seconds of landing? Lets allow gravity and aerodynamics do more job on landing.
Some smaller last stage parachute should be able to stabilize vertical position of whole rocket during landing.
Maybe adding some small maneuvering rocket engines operating horizontally would allow hold more stable horizontal position?
> Also this is very unlikely to be OpenSolaris derived work and much more likely is ZFS on Linux, because you cannot run "KVM hypervisor" they seem to advertise outside of Linux kernel
KVM has been fully ported to OpenSolaris.
https://smartos.org/2011/08/15/kvm-on-illumos/
OpenSolaris now can run Linux binaries without hypervisor like KVM
http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos-lx
> Btrfs would be so much faster and reliable.
As long as btrfs still is using allocation structures insead free list forget about this.
Btrfs as well does not have anything like ZFS ARC.
So far each month is possible to spot many reports about different crashes of btrfs. In the same time it is really hard to find something about ZFS crashes.
> like Solaris. Although it never made the administrators job easy, that was mainly because it is so cutting edge. It torches pretty much every other OS.
So why systemd is trying in so many details simulate what Solaris SMF does? or btrfs is trying to be ZFS like? Why perf is attempt to be Linux DTrace? :)
SMF, ZFS and DTrace are on the marked ~decade and still so long time systemd, btrfs and perf are not even closer to what is available on Solaris :)
> We used to have over 200 Solaris servers in our (University) business environment. We now have zero.
As same as you can find many example when may years ago was none Solarises in some environments and now they are or number of Solarises is climbing when in the same time number of Linuxes is flat or is going down.
Fact is that Oracle earns from paid Solaris services now much more than at any time when Sun was around.
Solaris developers teams grow so much that inside Solaris department now is few kernel projects with more developers that in last days of the Sun been working on the whole Solaris.
Problem with estimation of Solaris market is that most of the Solarises are working in internal networks and all these systems are not countable by any public services like http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
> This magazine runs an annual article highlighting the world's top 500 supercomputers, many of which run Linux
An none of these systems are running single instance of the Linux.
Even kits with hundredths of CPUs are running multiple Linux instances (each one with own kernel etc) as partitioned environment.
> Btrfs is supported in Suse, and has been for several years. It's their default file system. I suggest that you really ought to read up on what Linux is like, you seem to be very unfamiliar with it.
You must distinguish between providing some technology and supporting it commercially.
All Linux distributions now allows you to use btrfs but it doesn't mean that SuSE will take responsibility fixing some issues if problem will be found under commercial support.
> 'Lock-in' is a very over-used term, and almost always when someone is trying to justify why someone should choose opensource or generic x86 rather than something else.
Exactly. I have many examples of Linux to Solaris migrations where Linux as free product was more expensive than Solaris with paid support. All of such cases had reason to do exact such migration in use ZFS with compression.
I saw may times kind of fear of such migration only by lack of knowledge that such migration may save a lot of money. From this point of view such cases been pure proofs of 'lock-in' state but on mental level.
"The reason why customers like Linux is that it gives them what they always wanted from Unix but never really had - market competition."
OK. Show me working the same stable equivalent of ZFS, DTrace or end2end consistency data checking on Linux.
Specially ZFS still has no working equivalent on Linux (btrfs still is not supported by any company .. even RH is not supporting it)
Core functionalities of ZFS comes from using free list instead allocation structures. Variable record size, COW with transactional semantics, RAID not on block devices level but on each block level, ARC, L2ARC .. and Solaris shadowfs (which can be used without zfs as well)
After more than decade when DTrace and ZFS are available in source code these technologies are still not even closer to gain on Linux mature form.
I bought my first iPhone 2 because it was only device DesignedForMe(tm). Literally all what I've changed in settings was wallpaper picture. Few years after the same was with iPad 2.
I've done upgrade to iOS 7 in first few hours just after release. When after upgrade I found that first time ever I must spend few hours tweaking base settings and still many things not been working enough good I've downgraded everything to iOS 6 and still today I'm using this version.
Two days after release iOS 7 Apple blocked downgrading to iOS 6.
iOS is more and more DesignedForEveryone(tm) which is not more DesignedForMe(tm).
If Apple will not understand that they cannot replace opinion someone with good taste and understanding of simplicity by sophisticated market research done by hundredths or thousands people they will be doomed. So far they are on good path to fail completely trashing all Jobs legacy.
I bought my first iPhone 2 because it was only device DesignedForMe(tm). Literally all what I've changed in settings was wallpaper picture. Few years after the same was with iPad 2.
I've done upgrade to iOS 7 in first few hours just after release. When after upgrade I found that first time ever I must spend few hours tweaking base settings and still many things not been working enough good I've downgraded everything to iOS 6 and still today I'm using this version.
Two days after release iOS 7 Apple blocked downgrading to iOS 6.
iOS is more and more DesignedForEveryone(tm) which is not more DesignedForMe(tm).
If Apple will not understand that they cannot replace opinion someone with good taste and understanding of simplicity by sophisticated market research done by hundredths or thousands people they will be doomed. So far they are on good path to fail completely trashing all Jobs legacy.
"If they put 10% of that into sponsoring open source projects I wonder how long before they have a royalty free suite that does what they need ? Run it on top of Linux using PostgreSQL, etc, and the bills would drop."
You are a dreamer. Oracle on some Solaris kernel space projects has more highly skilled developers than Sun had working on whole Solaris.
10% of 290mln it is about 29mln. It is maybe money necessary to hire maybe up to 30 highly skilled developers (each one must have few other less skilled people around + management + taxes + pensions).
Without licensing results of the work of these guys such business will not sustainable and will collapse on first cost cutting.
If you will look on what Oracle delivers from a little further distance you must agree that from technological point of view Oracle on background of Open Source and other companies still is doing extremely well.
With growing screen resolution in iOS7 was introduced major UI redesign prepared like for not the screen with quadruple bigger pixels numbers but way lower solution than before.
I have completely no Idea why Apple scraped so good looking UI. To mimic Android? Comon .. if I would simpler UI I would choose Android not iOS :>
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
