What if Sun wrote the Solaris kernel as a drop-in replacement for the Linux kernel?

Frank Cusack wrote:
> floyd-at-apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> Frank Cusack wrote:
>>> floyd-at-apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>>>
..... snip ....
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cbfalconer at maineline dot net
>>>>
>>>> (Please do not put portions of the body of your article
>>>> into the signature!)
>>>
>>> That's not the signature. It's delimited with '--', whereas
>>> the signature delimiter is '-- '.
>>
>> In the original article it is indeed "-- ", and is indeed
>> delimited as being a signature.
>
> Ah. Someone's newsreader along the way sucks and strips trailing
> spaces.

Normally happends during quoting, when sigs should normally be
snipped anyhow.

--



cbfalconer at maineline dot net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

stan-at-worldbadminton.com wrote:
> Mr. Johan Andersson wrote:
>
>> I was more or less laughed at in January 1995 at my Sun New-Hire
>> Class when I answered the question...
>>
>> "Which five OS'es will be the big ones in ten years?"
>>
>> with Windows, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and Linux
>
> Care to prognosticate about the next 10 years?
>
> Only likely candidates I can see for 10 years from now are
> Windows and Linux. Anyone care to nominate a third?

Solaris and BSD.

--



cbfalconer at maineline dot net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 stan-at-worldbadminton.com wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Mr. Johan Andersson wrote:
> > I was more or less laughed at in January 1995 at my Sun New-Hire Class
> > when I answered the question...
> >
> > "Which five OS'es will be the big ones in ten years?"
> >
> > with Windows, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and Linux
> >
> Care to prognosticate about the next 10 years?
>
> Only likely candidates I can see for 10 years from now are
> Windows and Linux. Anyone care to nominate a third?

Sure...

Linux will be strong, will grab a bigger share of the serverside but
not grow anythign special on the consumer side unless some big directive
from big central goverments standardize of it AND drive it.

Windows (or rather Microsofts current OS at the time, I dont belive it
will be windows at that time though) will be strong by default because
of the same reasons as today. I believe they will split into two versions
of the OS for real this time, one for the serverside and one for the
consumerside.

Solaris will be around, whatever others may think, I wish they would
strike a deal with apple on the user environment so that they could get
into the consumer market for real, but oterwise they will hold what they
have on the serverside (on x86 and SPARC)

OSX Apple will probably still be market leader when it comes to
a great user environent, but will probably still being proprerity and not
getting a huge consumer market share due to that. On the serverside they
will not be a contender.

Summarized...

HW On the Serverside I belive that Sun/Fujitsu[-Siemens], IBM and HP will
continue to hold the fort, although the hardware will probably go in at
least two paths, x86 for the low-end medium and RISC in the high-end,
other Vendors will of course exist, but these will be the three major.

Softwareside on the servers Oracle, IBM and CA like companies will
continue to build MegaLarge softwares with huge licensecosts with
consultants needed for installation, configuration and maintainance...

OS'es Solaris, Linux (both will grow), Windows holds its current position
and HP-UX, AIX will be around but diminishing.

--
Consumerside, Apple and various PC vendors will continue to spam us with
hardware they think we need, OS wise, Windows++ and OSX++ primarily.
I also think we will see more consumerdevices in which we dont care what
OS they run, but that might be me just wishing :-) I belive companies liek
Sony and other japanese companies will be producing these since they do
have an eye/ear for making these kind of products.

>
Stan > --
> Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
> www.worldbadminton.com
>

These are of course just MY views and you are free to disagree and
probably will :-)

/Johan A

stan-at-worldbadminton.com writes:

>In comp.os.linux.misc Mr. Johan Andersson wrote:
>> I was more or less laughed at in January 1995 at my Sun New-Hire Class
>> when I answered the question...
>>
>> "Which five OS'es will be the big ones in ten years?"
>>
>> with Windows, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and Linux
>>
>Care to prognosticate about the next 10 years?

I supposed he missed Mac OS (as that is presumably relatively big)

>Only likely candidates I can see for 10 years from now are
>Windows and Linux. Anyone care to nominate a third?

Solaris, MacOS X.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, stan-at-worldbadminton.com
>
> wrote
> on 20 Jun 2007 21:13:46 GMT
> <46799889$0$14148$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
>>> stan-at-worldbadminton.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Only likely candidates I can see for 10 years from now are Windows
>>>> and Linux.
>>> Then you need better glasses.
>>>
>> could indeed be-- what would you add to this list as being
>> a major OS in 10 years?
>>
>> Stan
>
> OSX, of course, at least on the desktop. Server OSes
> might include Solaris, HP/UX, and z-OS, though the last
> is an IBM proprietary product (which Linux sits on top of),
> and I'm not sure whether HP/UX still exists, but I've used
> it in the past (on a desktop machine running CDE).
>
> HURD might also emerge, though I for one consider it unlikely,
> as Linux took most of the wind out of its sails.
>

However, I think we will see a great decline in the desktop
altogether..with bandwidth as cheap and good as it is, any platform that
runs TCP-IP/HTML/Java irrespective of whats 'under the hood' is likely
to be all the average cluelesss clown will buy.

Today the issue is 'does it run Mozilla, or Internet Explorer?'

I think the days of the home computer, and indeed the PC on desk in the
office, are numbered.

The day of the vast server farms running any application you are to pay
for, are coming, instead.

Its different for graphic artists and other people who use PCs to
manipulate huge files that can't be manipulated effectively remotely.
There will always be a place for the computer that is faster than the
bandwidth for the price..

As far as whats out there today, my wfefe is complaining because 'OS-X
is just like bloody Windows!'

And so it is. It is just more stable ..

Linux for me is best for servers, period. Or some other *nix. Or roll
your own OS if its just to e.g. power a small dedcated server on minimal
hardware..

The desktop at this point in time, is between windows blah blah -
unstable but with tons of software - or a *nix derived OS, stable, and
largely free, but with (more) limited software support.

I think apple will change all that. Once you port to OS-X its only a
minor tweak and your code is basically Linux compatible..ALL the
flavours of *nix are becoming more and more samey anyway..the
BSD-SystemV-Linux wars have just ended with everyone nicking the best
bits from everyone else, and developing them.

Microsoft is just stuck with a huge legacy that it can't get rid of. If
they had any sense they would team up with e.g. VMware, do their own
Linux, and make a 'classic' shell to run legacy windows apps in.

However signs are its all too late anwyay..they will move into other
ares and ditch operating systems.

The Natural Philosopher writes:

>The desktop at this point in time, is between windows blah blah -
>unstable but with tons of software - or a *nix derived OS, stable, and
>largely free, but with (more) limited software support.

I would not consider the "Unix Desktop" at this point in time "stable";
not only do the different desktops evolve at a rapid pace, the stability
leaves a lot to be desired. If the OS is stable, but the desktop is
less so, then the end-user experience still suffers.

What I do is running late 80's/early 90's software (tvtwm, to be exact)
which is extremely fast on current hardware and uses little or no screen
real estate.

When working at home, I now use a Sun RAY (now with sufficient
horsepower to run a VPN over broadband and running quite quickly over
the few hundred KM of virtual distance covered.) It doesn't make any
noise either. No fancy 3-day graphics, of course. If it breaks, I'll
just get another one and if it's stolen I've lost no data.

Applications still make the desktop, of course. Anything can do email,
browse the web or handle a calendar, it's the rest that is difficult.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Casper H.S. Dik wrote:

> I would not consider the "Unix Desktop" at this point in time "stable";
> not only do the different desktops evolve at a rapid pace, the stability
> leaves a lot to be desired. If the OS is stable, but the desktop is
> less so, then the end-user experience still suffers.

For things like KDE and Gnome this is true, which is why I use FVWM.
I've had a stable desktop for the last seven years. I have quite limited
requirements however. As long as I have web access, email and terminals
for ssh then I am pretty much covered.

> Casper

Frem.

____/ Guy Macon on Wednesday 20 June 2007 23:32 :
\____

>
>
> stan-at-worldbadminton.com wrote:
>
>>One objective differentiator is that Solaris has Posix conformance
>>while Linux does not.
>
> Which POSIX?
>
> POSIX.1-1990 / IEEE 1003.1-1990 part 1 / ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990?
>
> POSIX.2 / IEEE Std 1003.2-1992 / ISO-IEC 9945-2:1993?
>
> POSIX.1b / POSIX.4 / IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 ISO-IEC 9945-1:1996?
>
> POSIX.1c / IEEE Std 1003.1c-1995?
>
> POSIX.1-1996 (POSIX.1 + POSIX.1b + POSIX.1c)?
>
> POSIX.1d / IEEE Std 1003.1c-1999?
>
> POSIX.1g / IEEE Std 1003.1g-2000?
>
> POSIX.1j / IEEE Std 1003.1j-2000?
>
> POSIX.1-2001 / C99 (POSIX.1 + POSIX.2 + SUS)?
>
> POSIX.1-2001+XSI / UNIX 03 / SUSv3?
>
> POSIX.1-2003 / TC1?
>
> POSIX.1-2004 / TC2?

Open implementation that permits grafting as-is and modifying (/a la/ GPL)
resolves many of these issues.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.04 0.87 1.16 4/127 9169
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative

In article <1758093.38JA7eRlxP@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:

>> POSIX.1-2004 / TC2?
>
>Open implementation that permits grafting as-is and modifying (/a la/ GPL)
>resolves many of these issues.
>
>--
> ~~ Best of wishes

This may be a wish but not the reality.

GNU tar e.g. still by default creates archives that cannot be called
tar archives because they violate POSIX.1-1988.

--
EMail:joerg-at-schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js-at-cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling-at-fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:31:27 -0400, "Dr. Shlongwell" wrote:
>>> Days after Linus Torvalds discussed the possibilities of Linux
>>> and Solaris joining forces as open-source projects, Sun
>>> Microsystems Chief Executive Jonathan Schwartz has invited the
>>> Linux leader to dinner to allay his suspicions about Sun's
>>> motives."
>> Here's what would happen, lienux would no longer suck
>> eggs. Problem with lienux is that it's a damn hack compared to
>> a real nix OS like Solaris.
>>
>> "Linux, it's the Windows ME of the Unix world." - aint that the
>> truth.
>
> I don't see anything in your post in the form of supporting
> evidence, or even a reference to something with some sort of
> supporting evidence.
>
> Since throwing random opinions around seems to be the main topic
> of your post, let's just say that Linux is definitely not "the
> Windows ME of the Unix world", and that comes from a guy who
> likes Solaris at work, and uses exclusively FreeBSD on his own
> systems :-)
>
What always amazes me is how much more forgiving people are of hacked
together software that us wrapped in shrinkwrap and sold in a pretty
box, than what they download across the internet.