RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?

From: Ted Mittelstaedt (tedm_at_toybox.placo.com)
Date: 02/24/05

  • Next message: Matthew Seaman: "Re: ipfw and nmap"
    To: <jpeg@thilelli.net>
    Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:01:39 -0800
    
    

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
    > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Julien Gabel
    > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:22 AM
    > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
    > Cc: questions@freebsd.org
    > Subject: RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
    >
    >
    > > That doesen't mean of course that it's impossible to do it -
    > you can for
    > > example use Solaris for a small company server - but the
    > effort required
    > > to go against the grain is much higher. Solaris for example
    > comes with no
    > > compiler and you must compile by hand all the applications
    > you need, and
    > > often you must recompile the complier just before you can even start
    > > doing that. It takes days - whereas the FreeBSD ports
    > system takes a few
    > > hours for the largest and most complex packages.
    >
    >
    > Just as a side notes here:
    >
    > 1/ Solaris does come with 'gcc' on Compagnion CD as can be
    > seen on a fresh
    > Solaris 10 installation:
    > # pkginfo -l SUNWgcc | egrep "PKGINST|NAME|ARCH|VERSION|VENDOR|DESC"
    > PKGINST: SUNWgcc
    > NAME: gcc - The GNU C compiler
    > ARCH: sparc
    > VERSION: 11.10.0,REV=2005.01.08.05.16
    > VENDOR: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
    > DESC: GNU C - The GNU C compiler 3.4.3
    >
    > 2/ You can always use the pkgsrc (the NetBSD Packages
    > Collection) as the
    > FreeBSD ports system replacement for use on Sun Solaris.
    > We do it here
    > already for some software for Solaris 2.6, 8, 9 and soon for 10.
    >

    What possible benefit does that give for Solaris which already has
    it's own package manager? Your certainly not advocating using the
    NetBSD presets for compiling packages on Solaris?

    > I don't say i disagree with your global point of view, just
    > that the last
    > two points may be slightly... moderated :)
    >

    Solaris 2.6, 8, 9, 10 don't run on EISA. They also got rid of the
    alt-F keys for the multiple consoles. I think they were looking
    for ways to be degenerate. ;-) 2.6 also included it's own perl,
    and I think later versions did too. Blech on that if you needed
    a later version of perl on the system. It also didn't help that
    Sun for several years was FUDing the industry claiming they
    wern't going to support the Intel 64 bit chips. And check out the
    lack of /dev/random, /dev/urandom on 2.6 and 8 if I recall -
    problem for OpenSSL even though a Sun patch adds them. Although
    the Sun-supplied random devices blow chunks when running ENT
    or other PRNG testers. I kind of expect crappy entropy from
    a hacked up ripoff of the linux random driver, but I really
    expected a lot better entropy from a driver distributed from
    the maunfacturer. After all, Sun can look at interrupts at the
    network card and all kinds of other icky nonportable but
    highly unpredictable fantastic randomness sources - just what
    the heck are they doing in that driver of theirs? Calculating
    pi? Unless perhaps the NSA got to them and told them they
    better not release a decent random device because they want to
    keep spying on all of us.

    Seriously, the later versions of Solaris after 2.6 were big
    disappointments,
    It took years and years for hardware to catch up. Big, poky and slow.
    I don't know what they did but a 2.51 or 2.6 system on the same
    hardware kicked the crap out of 8 even with full patch sets
    applied. And the Companion CD didn't start supplying gcc for Solaris x86
    until Solaris 8 I believe. These Solaris versions were fine for
    big companies with lots of money to buy brand new Sun boxes (which
    ran them well) They were hideous for not so big companies that
    didn't want to have to throw perfectly good quad Pentium 200 servers
    with EISA hardware raid controllers and big SCSI arrays on them
    in the garbage.

    And try building something like ImageMagik on Solaris 10 I will bet
    that at least 1 of the collection of libraries that this conglomerate
    program requires will not build without tweaks.

    We do use Solaris, it's stable, runs well, nice UNIX os. But what
    a time sucking bitch to setup. At least you get a Motif, that's
    worth something.

    Ted

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"


  • Next message: Matthew Seaman: "Re: ipfw and nmap"

    Relevant Pages

    • s and S run levels
      ... Please find the below run level in solaris. ... Solaris 10 recommended patches (Brent) ... prstat 99% more info ... Sun StorEdge DAT 72 Tape Drive ...
      (SunManagers)
    • Available immdeate Vijay for Unix Admin with sun Solories Expireance.@217-241-2015
      ... 6+ years of professional IT experience in Unix System Administrator ... implementation, connectivity and maintenance on Sun Solaris, Veritas ... User Administration, ...
      (comp.unix.admin)
    • RE: sunmanagers Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23
      ... xtrem command not open terminal with root login ... sun performance measurement shell script ... ODBC driver for Solaris 8. ... host not found) ...
      (SunManagers)
    • Re: OT: Comparison of Unix systems and window managers
      ... I currently run Solaris 9 on a Sun Ultra 2 as my main workstation. ... Both run dual CPUs, but the Ultra-60 uses PCI ... Sun Fire 280R which happens to have dual 900 MHz ...
      (rec.crafts.metalworking)
    • Re: unix price compare
      ... Well, biggest problem with Solaris is HW support on x86, I haven't yet ... and nowhere did I see a mention of a Sun ... IEEE 1394 Ports ...
      (comp.unix.solaris)