Scott McNealy's thoughts on Linux 105
profesor writes "Scott McNealy had some interesting comments on Linux at the dedication of Sun's new campus in Massachusetts.
" Well interesting, assuming the comment "a great way to get to the wrong answer" is interesting. Scott's keeping his cool on this one, and doesn't want to be seen like a certain someone else.
"The wrong answer" (Score:1)
Having a big old computer on your desk is not particularly efficient if all you need to do is browse the web. There is plenty of room for devices more specifically designed for your needs. It's not that he doesn't want to see Linux on the desktop instead of Microsoft; he'd rather see the desktop market go away.
Solaris Vs. Linux (Score:1)
But this whole deal with Linux being a threat to Solaris is B.S . Solaris scales up to 64 processors and 64 GB of memory. Linux smp is still not up to the mark . Linus "the father of Linux" Stated that linux may never scale upto 64 processors. Linux was designed for single processor systems where it is at times better than Solaris.
As far as intel hard ware goes they can hardly be compared to high performance RISC hardware. And the price you pay is for quality, scalability and mission critical stability.
Linux on Intel is a good solution for clients but when the going gets tough its time to roll out
HPCs.
if (Solaris == Linux == Unix !=NT)
printf ("Hooray!!!!!");
Sun Microsystems: A friend, but not an ally? (Score:4)
My request was forwarded, and they seemed a little surprised at my request, but recommended finding a course at a local college. Doesn't seem like a coordinated response to Linux, positive or negative.
It looks like that, at the current time, Sun is sitting on the sidelines with Linux. It isn't going to be any real revenue earner for them. And, it isn't going eat a sizeable chunk of their revenues either. Most people who are into Linux aren't going to be the type to spring for an Ultra 10 workstation, not to mention a Ultra Enterprise 4000 server. Linux will never have a home on the E10000 "Starfire" machine. (Companies just aren't spending $1+ million on hardware to run an operating system that won't exploit it.)
But Sun seems to have more reason to weakly embrace Linux than to repulse it. (Especially because of the Microsoft factor.) Keep in mind that you can't judge the actions of Sun by what comes out of McNealy's mouth. Also be aware that he's more focused on the big servers and tiny java devices. Middle-of-the-road-devices don't interest him. (Somewhat odd for a company that started with workstations.)
Sun is a friend of Linux, but not a strong ally. They have no reason to be.
If SMP is the criteria... Solaris wins. (Score:2)
Example: If you want a small workgroup server, Linux can give you a solid system at minimal cost.
Example: If you want a workstation, Linux can offer a very competitive environment complete with SMP, Networking, 3D Graphics, Standards Compliance, and Portability.
Example: If you want to perform calculations, a Beowulf cluster of Linux boxes can give wonderful results for a modest investment. I believe a Beowulf could be constructed that could beat an E10000 in raw calculating power for a fraction of the cost. For that matter... I believe that it is possible to build a cluster of E10000's using Beowulf technology that could beat just about anything on the planet - it'd be expensive though...
Like I've said before, Solaris and all the other commercial Unix's are a wonderful thing! They are very mature and stable but they by no means provide the greatest value to the greatest number of customers.
If I was going to run a bank or a hospital server that attended to mission critical services, I'd choose a commercial UNIX (not that Linux wouldn't do the job but because of current high-end scalablitiy issues). But, for the subsidiary systems like workstations, terminals, and research tools, I'd use Linux.
The point here is... with enough money, you can build the fastest computer in the world. Linux just brings the power of UNIX within the reach of the average person. Good for UNIX no matter how you look at it!
Sorry for the historical rant but... (Score:1)
As for the first part of your posting - no arguments there. People can make up their own minds.
Fat servers and thin clients. This is where I disagree with McNeally. I'll admit that I'm biased ( since I work in the corporate sector ), but this is a cycle that I've seen before.
Time sharing was a big hit when it came out, simply because the hardware was expensive. As hardware prices dropped, the equilibrium shifted away from centralised multi-user to distributed networks of ( essentially ) independent machines ( "No one will survive the attack of the screaming micros!" ).
With the internet, we are seeing another stage of the same cycle. For the average home user who just wants to send/receive e-mail and other relatively simple tasks, the current cost of a PC does favour a situation where you have a simple ( and cheap ) device that connects to a central device with most of the actual brains.
So once again, the ecenomic advantage lies with a centralised system.
However, my own experience with home users ( including several relatives ) is that they would like to be able to a lot more than just send and receive e-mail. They just can't afford the price of hardware/software/connect time.
Presumably, as time goes by, the cost of these things will continue to decline as more people connect to the net and as the technology matures.
So while thin client/fat server may be appealing ( and cost effective ) in the short term, I personally feel that it's unlikely to become entrenched as the norm for very long.
Just my $0.02 worth gang.
Moderate the above article up... (Score:1)
Re:worthless... (Score:1)
Yes, Linux isn't big iron, Solaris is definitely better for that. Ultra-thin clients I think Linux might pull off better, but only time will tell.
And yeah, of course UNIX is better than NT.
Re:worthless... (Score:1)
However, with the thin-client model, this UltraSPARC we use for a campus computer would be obselete. Cool.
Re:worthless... (Score:1)
Generally, it has been my experience that Linux performs faster and better on x86 than x86 Solaris can dream of. I would love to see objections. *Solaris on SPARC* works great for huge servers, with many processors, but that's not the question.
And Linux works for very large networks, like the Internet. Many ISP's use it. It also works well for clusters, like Beowulf clusters. The only thing that needs some work is support for multiple processors, and that's supposed to be better in 2.2 (I'm sure it's better than NT).
Linux on x86 has *massively* more driver support than x86 Solaris, and it's generally on par with WIndows NT, and probably better than Windows 2000. And sound isn't really necessary for a server, but it's a nice thing to have as an OS feature. I'm going to get a TV card for Linux...
worthless... (Score:4)
Assuming that the right answer is Sun's Slowlaris? Maybe for multiprocessor boxes, but definitely not for the price...
Anyone have any more info on this?
Re:Creator3D anyone? (Score:1)
Eye's Bleeding indeed.
Reason for the MS digs (Score:1)
Here's a somewhat amusing 'top 10' dig Scott did a while ago:
(taken from a VAR Business article [varbusiness.com])
Sure it's sophomoric, but Bones can't help but get a good chuckle every time Sun CEO Scott McNealy comes out with a top 10 list about Microsoft. He had the 800 or so attendees howling at Sun's annual reseller shindig last week at the Marriott Palm Desert near Palm Springs, Calif. É Drum roll É The Top 10 signs your pacemaker is running Windows:
10. When you wake up in post-op, Intel Inside is stamped on your chest.
9. Every year, you need an upgrade operation.
8. Every few minutes, without warning, your heart reboots.
7. Your heart works, but you can't get that loving feeling anymore.
6. Your wife starts calling you Micro Soft.
5. You discover that Pacemaker 98 doesn't scale past sleepwalking or four holes of golf.
4. Your head nurse looks suspiciously like Janet Reno.
3. Y2K scares you to death.
2. You realize it isn't only the hospital gown that leaves your rear exposed.
1. You're dead.
Re:Explanation of "Right way to do the wrong Answe (Score:1)
I agree that it'll happen first, and fastest, on the enterprise. As for your server, it'll be your 'ISP', though that isn't really the right term for it. It'll be a service provider in general - yesterday Sun were making a big deal about this with their 'serviceprovider.com' thing... The reason why some things will take longer at home is simply due to bandwidth, or lack thereof (though this will be solved over time). If you're mostly downloading stuff, current cable modems might do. If you're editing 'big' files, then you'll start having trouble, at the moment - but when people often have 2Mbit each way, things'll be more interesting...
Since when did I say that it was for everybody? In fact, I clearly stated at least twice that it wouldn't 'do' for geeks. As for Quake3, how about all the new games machines - Q3 on Playstation-2, yum yum. The more recent (and upcoming) game machines make much ado about internet connectivity as standard. Some guys from Sony were saying that it could end up being a 'centre' for home networks - enter Jini, HAVi et all.
Btw, 'thin client' does NOT mean there is no hard disc (or equivilant). It does not mean 33Mhz 386. Remember the recent Intel stuff about the StrongARM 2? Cheap little embedded processor that goes up to 600Mhz. Guess what it will targeted at...? It's kinda hard to define 'thin client' - think of something around an old Atari or Amiga, but with at least 200Mhz processor, 16MB RAM, 'internet connectivity' as standard, etc. OS would probably (mostly) come in ROM, or similar...
'thin client' != 'no hard disc'. It might have a notebook size one, it might even have one of those IBM micro ones, it might have flash ram, or other type of NV (non-volatile) RAM, it might have an Orb drive or Zip drive or re-writable CDROM...
Software licensing will be interesting... lots of possibilities. Here's a little piece by Scott 'I polish by teeth everyday' McNealy titled Stop buying software [sun.com]
- Their is a future for Scott's vision I'm sure... but there will ALWAYS be a market for REAL home computers with REAL OSs, IMHO
Obviously.Some people (in the press, and from some corporations) have been banding around the 'death of the PC'. Perhaps they should have said 'death of the PC culture', though I guess that's harder to fit into a headline. They don't mean the PC'll disappear, but that it will be 'sidelined' - it won't have the crown anymore.
dynamic reconfiguration (Score:1)
Unless I'm mistaken, you can do DR on all the Ex5000 now, so long as you have Solaris 7. The E10000's have had it for 2 years, but then Sun merged the special stuff for this into standard Solaris, for Solaris 7.
Explanation of "Right way to do the wrong Answer" (Score:5)
There's also a more recent article at SunWorld about Linux on SPARC [sunworld.com].
Here's the bit about Linux from the article at The Register:
"Don't send any money to Microsoft for something that's fatter, slower, buggier, doesn't scale as well, and has fewer people working on it.
"There was an interesting little experiment our CTO [Bill Joy] did. He took the Sony Vaio notebook ... He downloaded Linux, then he went over to Netscape and downloaded the latest version, and then he went over to Star Office, and all of a sudden he had a better, faster, smaller, lower-powered, bug-free, legally free environment ... with more people working on it than the entire state of Washington.
"Now why in the world would anybody ever write another cheque to Microsoft? I don't know. But why would you do Linux either? That's the wrong answer. Go thin clients, go appliances: that's the right way to go long term. So that's why I call [Linux] the right way to do the wrong answer. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so I love Linux."
Okay, some comments on this. If you include all the GNU/XFree86 as being part of Linux then it becomes pretty damn big. XFree86 is something like 45 million lines of code, last I heard. So 'all' of GNU/Linux is about 60 million, perhaps. Solaris is about 10 million. However, Scott's take on the future is basically the network computer concept. However, the markets he's thinking of are a) corporate, b) embedded consumer systems (TVs, set-top-boxes, intelligent phones etc) and not geeks. So, you have 'big iron' servers in the background giving you extreeme reliability - as reliable as phones, and incidentaly about 20% of Sun's revenue comes from telcos. These manage the 'master records' of your files, data etc. You then have 'simple' local clients that can do their own processing and have access to your 'big iron' servers.
As an example, just recently, Sun announced their 'i-Planet' software, which is very cute - all you need is 'client' computers with Java running on it, and some servers in the background, with both connected to the internet. Now, what you do is from anywhere on these client computers you 'login' to the server, which then sends you some Java programs so that you can securely manage/access your email and other things. Basically, you don't need a 'personal' computer anymore.
Scott's "right way to do wrong answer" is kinda misleading. But you can look at it like this, a) he thinks Linux is 'good' for what it is supposed to do, b) he thinks that (currently) Linux is not a general solution to the various problems that need to be solved in computing - ie it solves a sub-set. Scott's general 'solution' is for big (Sun) servers in the background with 'thin clients' being used the the public/workforce running Java - the hardware/OS doesn't even have to be from Sun.
Is he right? Well, I think that for many situations I think 'thin client' 'network computing' is a good way to do many things, but it's not really for hacker types. How well the implimentation works will depend on the software, which is why NCs didn't take off - the software wasn't ready.
Sorry this isn't very well written...
Re:Because your machine sucks (Score:1)
I installed Linux on my SPARCs because Solaris was too slow, and because Linux is a nicer environment in which to work. Yes, Solaris has a place in the world (increasingly only on high-end hardware). For my machines, however, I'll stick with Linux.
Re:not (Score:1)
I've used Linux since 1996 and it has been my exclusive desktop OS since then but not until recently with the arrival of KDE and GNOME are we going to see it hit the mainstream. People need something easy to use and KDE or GNOME gives it to them, a few more of the major applications (and the completion of the mozilla porject - we need a fast web browser that is standards compliant - although I admit the KDE one is quite good) and Linux will be a major step at making computers really affordable.
On the server side Linux has been ready much longer. UNIX in general has been better suited as a server than NT and the freeness of Linux (cost and liberty) makes it the ideal platform. Bugs are fixed quicker, you can extend the Operating System to your needs. The servers are stable, etc.
Don't tell me NT is easier to set up. I don't think it is. I hate setting up serices with a GUI utility and I'm so used to UNIX anyway. But UNIX is hands down the better server platform and administrators are paid to use what is best not what gives them an easier time (which is a false economy - with NT you get more stress later when you have to keep going to boot the system, while the UNIX admin just relaxes as the uptime goes up and up)
--
Re:Linux and Sun (Score:1)
Bruce
Why are we wasting our time on this? (Score:2)
Here's a more important news story. Read this press release [w3.org] and see if you can help the W3C by finding prior art to overturn a patent.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:"poor college students and hobbyists" (Score:1)
Re:Creator3D anyone? (Score:1)
BTW: Perhaps linux drivers for the TNT2 will handle this? The TNT2 is supposed to come with 32MB RAM which should dblbuffer 1920x1200x24 IIRC.. (Though Solaris doesn't offer a 24bit root depth, it's 1, 8, or 32-bit)
Re:Creator3D anyone? (Score:1)
The thing is, though, that 1920x1200x32 won't double-buffer in 16MB according to Sun folks, though it should in 32MB.. (which is why I drool over 32MB cards: I shan't go back from 24" or greater.. Wider is Better!
Thin Client... corp. only! (Score:1)
Thin clients harken back to the days of multics. (For those who don't know mutics was esentially a time sharing system meant to be usable as a utility, where you paid for compute cycles.) Timesharing didn't make it (out side of the corpate enviroment!) All of the companies/people that toute thin clients have yet to describe anything other then the raw technology going in to the clients and maybe the server. Well I want to know about the billing structure. Why do I want to pay every time I use a word processor and then pay for the storage of my documents... They would be rediculous! Plus do you own the thin client or do you rent it. Before att was split you were not allowed to hook your own phone up to the bell network so that a ill behaved phone didn't kill the phone system. I for one like be Linux desktop system and don't mind setting up computers for other people. I DON'T WANT A SMART TERMINAL ON MY DESK!
Who cares... (Score:1)
What else do you expect him to say?
"Well, y'know Solaris is kind of over-priced and who needs 16 cpu's in one computer anyway? Journalling filesystems are for cowards... everyone should just forget about Solaris and use Linux."
heheh
I don't know what he means by "a great way to get to the wrong answer"... perhaps he means the general crappiness of the i386 platform.
C'mon Scott... us poor college students and hobbyists can't afford SPARCs, and Solaris x86 is WAY too slow compared to Linux or BSD...
Re:Explanation of "Right way to do the wrong Answe (Score:1)
Thin clints are probably the right way to go for the enterprise... much more stable, easy to maintain... it would save loads of support costs. But for the home user? Who's gonna be my server?
Maybe an "internet appliance" is fine for most things but what about us programmers? What about Photoshop and 3D Studio? Are there really viable alternatives that can handle thousands of users compiling and running filters and rendering 3D? Can a "thin client" run Quake3?
There are lots of "computer enthusiasts" (not even counting us hardcore geeks) that would be appalled by the idea of not having a local drive or their own software. And how would software licensing work? Subscriptions? Blehh...
Their is a future for Scott's vision I'm sure... but there will ALWAYS be a market for REAL home computers with REAL OSs, IMHO
Re:Explanation of "Right way to do the wrong Answe (Score:1)
"Since when did I say that it was for everybody? In fact, I clearly stated at least twice that it wouldn't 'do' for geeks."
hehehe
I wasn't trying to argue but rather expand on that point...
Re:Sun Microsystems: A friend, but not an ally? (Score:1)
A year or two ago, the Linux Journal magazine ran a feature on non-Intel Linux distributions, and they wanted to put a picture of a SparcStation on the cover. Sun refused because they said "Linux is a competitor".
Sun aren't interested in attacking linux ... (Score:1)
And for those who've interpreted his comments as negative: I didn't see anything he said in the article as trashing linux. Of course, he thinks Solaris is better than linux. In some ways, it is. His remarks amount to this. He acknowledges that it's OK, but presents his own product as "the right answer". I would too if I was in his shoes
Re:If SMP is the criteria... Solaris wins. (Score:1)
We just had an NDA meeting with some Sun reps, and they told of us of a large manufacturing company that uses a cluster of 6 fully loaded E10Ks for supply chain simulations (using I2 Rhythm software).
Sun's future clustering solutions include Beowulf type clusters, as they are going for the HPC market as well.
Sun gets a big win by being able to design the OS to the hardware. It's nice to be able to power down a CPU board via software, be able to remove it while the OS is still up, replace a bad part and put it back in again. You can do that now on a E5500 and E6500. On an E10K you can divide the 12 system boards into electrically isolated domains running individual copies of Solaris. Electrically isolated means that if you get a hardware failure that crashes one domain, the other ones stay up.
There was no "driving rainstorm" (Score:1)
. . . his speech, . . . took place in a tent during a driving rainstorm.
I work a mile up the road from the new Sun thing in Burlington, and there was no "driving rainstorm" yesterday. It did rain, but lightly and intermittently.
I resent cheap shots like that.
:)
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
Re:worthless... (Score:1)
Re:worthless... (Score:1)
Linux doesn't have to be "complicated" it just has the ability to serve in complex systems. For example, you don't have to and probably don't want to install news servers, mail servers, etc on "client" boxes. You can "scale down" Linux to a very small size.
Windows is inherently complicated because you generally can't take "out" pieces of the OS as you can with Linux.
Re:They why did they start charging for the compil (Score:1)
If they only come with the compiler, don't you have to use alternate libraries, like glibc, if you want to use gcc and have debug, static, and profile versions of the libraries around for testing?
Why would I pay for an international standard? (Score:1)
Re:Creator3D anyone? (Score:1)
We XFree86 people are working on it. We've already got multihead working.
The GGI/KGI people are working on better 3-D hardware support; note that one problem is refusal of manufacturers to release specifications. That said, a Sun running Solaris is still better for your application than GNU/Linux at the moment, but when we get XFree86 4.0 out and KGI/GGI stabilises GNU/Linux will be just a bit better {grin}.
Ever say "No thanks, I have enough RAM"?
Yes--I've used the IBM Enhanced 80386 Memory Expansion Adapter (I had it before the ECA came out for it). {scream}
Cheers,
Joshua.
Re:If SMP is the criteria... Solaris wins. (Score:1)
OK, maybe I'm stupid, but how is this better than running 12 completely separate machines?
Re:Because your machine sucks - maybe not (Score:1)
was running Solaris 2.5.1, then 2.6. I switched to Redhat 5.1, then 5.2, 5.9, 5.9.7, and now 6.0.
On low end hardware, Linux smokes Solaris.
It is possible to create a great Solaris environment. Download/compile perl/gcc/apache/python/tcl/tk/gnu tools/KDE, etc. (Which I have done). Or take the direct route and load a recent Linux distribution and save yourself a pile of time.
We'll be loading an old Sparc5-70 with Linux.
Sun would be smart to embrace some of he open source. I.E. include perl/apache/gnu tools/vim in the standard O/S. (sure, you can download them from http://www.sunfreeware.com/ but that's not as convenient as KNOWING
Bundling tools with the O/S would help Sun by:
1) saving time of all the Sun folks doing it on their own.
2) save customers time of rolling their own
3) high value add/low cost
Re:Because your machine sucks - maybe not (Score:1)
Have you ever done a very short gig at a Sun site and the previous sysadmin's never installed perl? Or they have 4.036? Or your on a "test" network and can't download it from the web? Maybe you haven't. I've been around a while and I have.
I like Solaris 7 at work. I prefer Linux at home. My hardware isn't too bad. It'll hold out for another year if I want. It's enough (128 megs Pentium 150) to run Solaris 7.
Linux is what's beautiful about Unix. Solaris is a commercial product. It has it's good points, and it's annoyances. (X11R6 not 6.3 - so no LBX) The X drivers for X11R6.[34] don't work on the newer graphics cards. That sucks. CDE 2.1 was released before Solaris 2.6 came out. What version of CDE is in Solaris 7? (1.3). Fortunately, I can run KDE on Solaris 7.
Sun is IMHO the best commercial Unix vendor. However, they can learn a thing or three from Linux. (and I wish they would!) Sure, Linux isn't going to be on the E10000 anytime soon. We have to run Solaris. I'd like to enjoy the ride as much as possible.
One of these threads said Sun would like to be MS. MS is smarter than Sun at some things other than marketing. MS takes a piece of crap and incrementally improves it by any means possible. (Usually they steal). Sun should openly borrow from the open source community. (and give back too). Borrow the great free languages and utilities, samba, etc. Give back WebNFS, nis, nisplus, creator graphics drivers, etc.
But what is the question? (Score:1)
I think you are wrong. (Score:1)
Linux is a new player, which the big players (yes, that includes Sun
Re:worthless... (Score:2)
Big Iron (Sun) servers, and ultra-thin clients.
I was there during the speech and the Q/A session.
And, Yes, most everything *was* taken out of context.
Sun cares very much about its customers' OS (Score:1)
Kaa
I'm afraid you misread the text a bit (Score:1)
As to world domination plans, you got mixed up a little. Think again: who (and what) has world domination plans? Publicly announced? As the goal of the whole thing? I'll give you a hint: it was not Scott McNealy. Once you've straightened this out, re-read the original paragraph again.
Regarding Java, all I said was IMHO and all you said was IYHO, so we can disagree. I still think you are a bit naive if you think that all Sun cares about is Java not being "co-opted and corrupted.
And my law doesn't need proof. It's self-evident.
Kaa
I think you are fighting straw men (Score:1)
The point of the post was that Linux is rapidly spreading in the small-server market (this happens to be a fact). Sun happens to currently be a competitor in the same market. Given this I would not expect an unbiased view from Sun on the merits of Linux. Maybe you would, I don't know.
The other point was that Sun exhibits a fair amount of large-corporation behaviour that I tend to view with suspicion. Again, I'm not saying that that's evil of them, or even unexpected or unusual. It's just that Sun is a large corporation the primary goal of which is to make money. It's wise to keep this in mind when evaluating Sun's actions.
And I still don't see where all that "True Believer" stuff comes in.
Kaa
Can we detect a bit of a bias here? (Score:2)
Again, just because Sun is not MS does not mean it wears a white hat. Sun would be quite happy to squash Linux and have Solaris running on all Unix boxes out there. It is less successful at this than Microsoft with PCs, but it surely wants this to happen.
I would be quite suspicious of Sun. Given their recent Java moves ("this language belongs to US!"), the famous McNealy privacy remark ("Get over it"), and other signs, I'm detecting a certain darkening of their headware.
Kaa
Linux on Sparc (Score:3)
Untrue. Sun has decided not to ship linux with it's hardware,
but is supporting linux on Sparc and UltraSparc. Check out:
http://www.sun.com/software/linux [sun.com]
Re:worthless... (Score:1)
It still is. But only for non-commercial use. Not a bad idea, really. Linux's greatest strength is in the accademic world. Partly because it is a great thing for CS students to play with and learn from, but also becuase it is cheap. And when a student becomes familiar with he is likely to take it with him. I think that Sun realizes this and wants a piece of the action.
Though they should make more of the OS available if they want to appeal to CS geeks. I mean, Solaris isn't nearly the educational tool that Linux is because the implementation isn't freely available to look at and tinker with. And don't even get me started on Solaris x86's hardware compatability.
Sounds like he is worried. (Score:1)
It really threatens Sun's core business to have every other vendor on the market adopt an open source, open standard os like Linux because it undermines the Java movement. Write once, Run anywhere means a lot less when every vendor is offering Linux. Heck, even if every vendor offered a *nix solution, it would wound them.
just my $.02
Re:Creator3D anyone? (Score:1)
% version
Machine hardware: sun4u
OS version: 5.6
Processor type: sparc
Hardware: SUNW,Ultra-60
% xwininfo
xwininfo: Window id: 0x3a (the root window) (has no name)
Width: 1280
Height: 1024
Depth: 24
Visual Class: TrueColor
-geometry 1280x1024+0+0
BTW, I agree 100% about the 1920x1200. The aspect ratio screwed up OGL (for me). I traded my wide 24" for the standard big monitor and am happy at 1280x1024 and the higher refresh and standard aspect.
Though crazy me I also traded the silly "Elite3D" for the regular creator3D cause it doesnt waste four UPA slots like the older turbo ZX (two for fans, believe it or not).
Anyway- once Xfree86 solves the BIG PROBLEM of no overlay graphics I will rethink the whole issue. As far as I know (with linux, BSD, x86 solaris, etc. etc. youre-favorite-distro-here) you cant have a 24 bit root and pop up a pseudo on top. How shitty is that? The limitiations are mostly in the hardware I guess (some cards like high end matroxs might be able to overlay, as I hear from the xfree86 techs).
XFree Overlay (Score:1)
One of my biggest gripes about x86 (whatever distro) is that you can't get overlay visuals as far as I know. What I mean is 24 bit root and simultaneously open up a pseudocolor window. Why is because I use 24 bit root but some of the software we use requires psuedocolor display (LandMark -- Ugh!).
I emailed xfree86 a while ago and was told that the problem is the cards, and that maybe the high-end cards (eg matrox) might soon be capable.
Any news on this?
Creator3D anyone? (Score:2)
Re:They why did they start charging for the compil (Score:1)
hm (Score:1)
youre killing me! (Score:1)
>come from? Of course he wants Sun to be >successful as a CEO that is his job, but "world >domination"?
come ON!
Re:Sun Microsystems: A friend, but not an ally? (Score:2)
What about the help given to do the JDK 1.2 port to Linux ?
What about the hardware lent to the linux sparc port ?
The reason why HP (don't know about SGI) offer Linux courses is because they want to sell their Intel boxes, certainly not for their PA-RISC, MIPS processors. In that context, Sun sells no Intel-based hardware. That is my explanation why linux instruction is not offered by Sun.
My conclusion: yes a friend and an ally.
--
I work for Sun. But my opinions are mine.
Microsoft Weather and stuff (Score:1)
Now, I know there's no love lost between the two. Personally, I _tend_ to side with Sun after seeing what MS tried to do in "embracing and extending" Java.
This business of slamming MS in EVERY interview, however, is starting to sound childish. I know that's what reporters are looking for. Give them an interview that 90% content and 10% MS-bashing and they'll print the 10% MS-bashing every time. It's more sensational.
Understanding that, maybe the Sun execs should consider taking a PR course and learn to "not comment" on matters regarding Microsoft. It might help the average reader see Sun as a company with its own ideas, rather than "Microsoft Hater #1".
Just my humble open yun.
Re:Can we detect a bit of a bias here? (Score:1)
Linux is a direct competitor to Solaris.
Sun makes its money on hardware. They don't care whether the customer is running Linux or Solaris, as long as they are doing it on Sun hardware.
Re:My Beautiful SPARCstation (Score:1)
I think he meant that Sun would not be selling support contracts for Linux - unlike SGI and HP. Just as a point of interest, if you look at the Unix vendors who are selling support for Linux, I think you'll see that all of them also started selling support for NT a few years back. Make of that what you will.
Hmmm. They should, it would show off the machines far better than Solaris.
Not to put too fine a point on it: you have no idea what you're talking about.
Linux will run on small-scale SMP boxes. Currently, Sun's biggest machine has 64 CPUs. Even if Linux can boot on an E10000, trying to compare Linux and Solaris performance would be hugely embarrassing to Linux. Sun has a ton of engineers optimizing Solaris for these huge SMP boxes. How many Linux kernel hackers even have access to an SMP 1/8th this size?
Sun storage is now mainly fiber channel based. Their 14-disk A5000 array can deliver 140 MB/s (using two fiber loops), using Veritas Volume Manager to manage the individual disks. Does Linux support fiber channel at all? Does Veritas run on Linux?
Linux is great, but it's not the answer to everything. Again, to be blunt, it's Linux "advocates" like you who make the rest of us look bad.
Re:worthless... (Score:1)
Though they should make more of the OS available if they want to appeal to CS geeks. I mean, Solaris isn't nearly the educational tool that Linux is because the implementation isn't freely available to look at and tinker with.
Really? I thought the source was available to people at .edu sites. I remember a bunch of hullaballoo when they made that anouncement for Solaris 2.6. I'll bet it's still available.
Re:worthless... (Score:1)
For the thousand people in the insurance company who don't need full powered pc's, just give them a
machine with a p200, a NIC and a 4 gig HD. How much would that cost 200-300?
Hardware is cheap. What's expensive is training the users, maintaining the machine, and downtime when the machine is unavailable due to crashes or upgrades. For what they are doing, there is no reason to have something as complicated as Windows or Linux running.
Re:They why did they start charging for the compil (Score:1)
My understanding is that the powers that be decided that the compiler group was not delivering a competitive product. So, they decided to force them to compete with the Portland Group, and others. In essence, they had to start paying their own way - by delivering a product that people would pay for. Maybe it's a coincidence, but since they unbundled the compiler, it has been improving by leaps and bounds. For people who don't want to pay for a compiler, gcc and gdb both work fine with Solaris.
As for the libraries, I'm not sure what you're talking about. They ship with the OS - otherwise even 'cp' wouldn't work.
Re:If SMP is the criteria... Solaris wins. (Score:1)
Sure. Just rack up a couple dozen 4-way P2s. The problem is that 'raw calculating power' is rarely enough. Unless you have an embarrassingly parallel application, communication costs will kill you. Remember that the interprocess communication on a SMP is orders of magnitude faster than between nodes.
Also, if you have an autoparallelizing compiler, you can turn a single-processor sequential code into a multi-processor multithreaded code with a simple command-line option. This can be a huge win for some codes - probably more 'real world' codes than are embarrassingly parallel. This way, you don't need to learn a new programming model - just recompile your old codes.
Re:They why did they start charging for the compil (Score:1)
I think the only libraries that don't come with the machine are optimized math libraries (libsunperf.so, for example). Those have a whole separate API and everything, so it's not something you're likely to miss.
Re:If SMP is the criteria... Solaris wins. (Score:1)
Calling this a Beowulf-type cluster is a little silly. People were putting these things together for years before the Beowuld project started. That's like calling all browsers "Internet Explorer type applications".
Re:If SMP is the criteria... Solaris wins. (Score:1)
Performance and ease-of-use. By having them all in the same box, you get to use shared memory instead of network connections for inter-process communication. In many cases, you can avoid inter-process communication altogether - just spawn multiple threads in the same process.
The cool thing about the multiple domains, is that you can repartition them more-or-less on the fly. So, if you have a board that is acting flaky, you can remove it from the main domain for testing. While you're testing, you can reboot just that board, you can run a different version of the OS, you can add and remove devices from it, etc. When you have isolated and fixed the problem, you can add it back into the main domain.
Re:Linux *MUST* do dynamic reconfiguration! (Score:1)
I wouldn't be surpised if the hardware wouldn't support this.
In any case, I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. If the hardware does support it, and if people actually want to do it, don't you think it's likely that Sun could get it done first? They've already got all the infrastructure in place, from the E10k work. Linux would be starting from scratch.
Re:worthless... (Score:4)
Actually, he said that Linux was "the right way to get the wrong answer". He meant that supporting open interfaces was absolutely the Right Thing to do. He was less convinced about open implementation, but he was at least warm to the idea.
By the "wrong answer" he meant that the Linux mindset is to have fat, powerful clients. He believes that the right model is to have fat, powerful servers, and thin clients.
Several times he made analogies to the phone system. Your phone is a thin client, connecting to fat servers. You don't buy software for your phone, the phone company supplies features. Etcetera.
Most of it wouldn't apply to the way your average /. reader uses computers, but it does make sense when you start thinking about the throngs of less sophisticated users out there.
How do you make the internet accessible to those people who can't program their VCRs? Asking them to install and configure Windows or Linux isn't going to cut it. For those people, a WebTV-like solution probably makes sense.
If you have a thousand people in an insurance company doing little but data entry and retrieval, does it really make sense to put a full powered PC or workstation on each desk? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more manageable to have some thin, stupid clients communicating with the fat servers in the back room.
Assuming that the right answer is Sun's Slowlaris? Maybe for multiprocessor boxes, but definitely not for the price.
The price? Solaris 7 was available for just the cost of the media. I don't know if that's still true or not.