Sun CEO to Torvalds: Let's work together, Torvalds: Solaris could nudge Linux to GPL 3

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:11:27 +0200, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
>Giorgos Keramidas writes:
>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:11:06 -0000, Andre van Eyssen
>> wrote:
>>> I migrated from FreeBSD to Solaris for a number of services some
>>> years ago, and the only thing I really miss is the ports tree. That
>>> ports tree was pretty handy though.
>>
>> Indeed. The `Ports Collection', as it is officially called, is
>> still one of the major selling points of FreeBSD
>
> Still, for me it was one of the issues that made me change to
> solaris. I caught myself (re)compiling stuff much too often.
>
> OK, installing some piece of new software is a breeze (most of the
> time) with this ports collection, but if you see how much work is
> involved for fbsd people because the change to Xorg-7.2 I'm still very
> glad I got rid of that. Hundreds of ports needs recompling. Brrr.
>
> Software installation will be much easier in the future on solaris
> too. The CBE is a very handy way right now already.

I don't know what "CBE" stands for, but I agree that rebuilding hundreds
of ports may be a nuisance. This is why the FreeBSD Project provides
pre-built snapshots of many packages. This way portupgrade with -PP can
upgrade a system with pre-built packages.

Having written that, this thread is definitely not about the relative
merits of Ports vs. other package managers, so let's not diverge too
much on a tangent :-)

On Jun 16, 1:26 pm, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2007-06-14, Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rich Teer" wrote in message
> >news:Pine.SOL.4.64.0706140922500.21332-at-marrakesh.. .
> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Kier wrote:
>
> >>> Of a lot of hard work by Linus Torvalds and others. You prefer Solaris,
> >>> that's fine, but don't slag off Linux just because it doesn't suit you.
>
> >> Agreed so far.
>
> >>> There's a reason more people use Linux. It's better.
>
> >> I'm curious; please tell us how Linux is better than Solaris (stick to
> >> technical arguments).
>
> > To these clowns "better" means cheaper. Since lienux is free it's infinitely
> > better than anything that costs more than a dollar.
>
> > Technically Solaris blows the doors off of lienux. The only drawbacks are
>
> ...the screech of someone with absolutely no experience.
>
> You are such an obvious fake.
>
> > limited device support and Solaris requires decent hardware to run well.
>
> Sparc has a performance disadvantage over any other Unix platform
> and always has. Also, if you had any real clue you would acknowledge the
> real cost of Unix systems.
>
> It isn't the server hardware.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
> who has pirated their music / | \
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com



Strict comparison of performance:
Intel 3.0ghz quad core Xeon 1024mb cache RedHat Linux

On Jun 16, 1:26 pm, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2007-06-14, Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rich Teer" wrote in message
> >news:Pine.SOL.4.64.0706140922500.21332-at-marrakesh.. .
> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Kier wrote:
>
> >>> Of a lot of hard work by Linus Torvalds and others. You prefer Solaris,
> >>> that's fine, but don't slag off Linux just because it doesn't suit you.
>
> >> Agreed so far.
>
> >>> There's a reason more people use Linux. It's better.
>
> >> I'm curious; please tell us how Linux is better than Solaris (stick to
> >> technical arguments).
>
> > To these clowns "better" means cheaper. Since lienux is free it's infinitely
> > better than anything that costs more than a dollar.
>
> > Technically Solaris blows the doors off of lienux. The only drawbacks are
>
> ...the screech of someone with absolutely no experience.
>
> You are such an obvious fake.
>
> > limited device support and Solaris requires decent hardware to run well.
>
> Sparc has a performance disadvantage over any other Unix platform
> and always has. Also, if you had any real clue you would acknowledge the
> real cost of Unix systems.
>
> It isn't the server hardware.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
> who has pirated their music / | \
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com



Let's try this again:

Apple to Apple Comparison

Solaris 10/U3 X4200 two dual core Opteron's 16mb memory 64bit mode
SUSE 9 x4200 two dual core Opteron' 16mb memory 64bit mode
Both use Sun Compilers 4 core used

Benchmark program MM5 V3-4D Var 3 domains 100x100 outer domain with
9km grid innermorst grid 49x49 with 1 km grid 24 hour forecast..
Output every
10 minuted forecast time

SUSE 9 16 hours 39 minutes
Solaris 10 15 hours 1 minute

Were I to use a Sparc IV+ instead of the opteron I would shave a few
minutes from the Solaris 10 time