[OpenIndiana-discuss] I figured this deserved a separate thread

[Allan E. Registos]

>In the Solaris books, and other posts I have read I have seen a lot of 
>Sun engineers compare kernels heralding the benefits of sunOS. I just 
>racked it up to a slight bias, after all they were sun employees, kind of 
>like hearing Linus talk about the linux kernel. Then when I seen 
>fishworks and some of the material that it was capable of I was very 
>impressed. I guess what sold me was the fact that they could tell from 
>I/O probes and graphs that a network interface card had malfunctioned. 

>So I appreciate posts from real people doing real things that tell it as 
>it is. 

>Rthoreau 


It is always good for consumers that companies who sell goods will always tell the truth and nothing but the truth out of their products. Now I am sold. The reason why I used Linux because of its wide support for server apps like zimbra, now I have a different roadmap and a new problem. How can I run zimbra on OI box. :) 


Thank you folks, 
Allan 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rthoreau" <r7h0re4 at att.net> 
To: openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org 
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2010 6:44:06 PM 
Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] I figured this deserved a separate thread 

Tom Kranz <tom at siliconbunny.com> writes: 

> Allan E. Registos wrote: 
>>> No, OpenIndiana both targets Desktops and Server 
>> 
>> 
>> That is what most GNU/Linux distributions have done since the dawn of 
> time. 
> This is what Solaris (and IRIX, and other UNIXs) have done since, 
> well, as long as I've been playing with them, almost 20 odd years now. 
> 
<snip> 
> although with the way IPS and the installer handles things, I don't 
> see a pressing need to return to the "Entire Distribution plus OEM 
> support" option that Solaris provides. 
> 
> There's a big chunk of Solaris history that newcomers to OI probably 
> aren't aware of - but the Solaris kernel is hugely performant and is 
> very much self-tuning to load. There is not much that can be tweaked, 
> there's even less that it is advisable to tweak, and features like 
> projects and other resource controls enable most common things like 
> size of shared memory segments and number of semaphore to be tuned on 
> the fly. 
> 
> We haven't needed to recompile the SunOS kernel to change settings 
> since the dark days of SunOS 4 - and the world is much better for it. 
> 
> Focus on drivers and bundled apps, and let the kernel sort itself out 
> for load and hardware - it's pretty good at it (after all, it's been 
> doing it since 1992). 
> 
> Cheers, 
> TOM 

In the Solaris books, and other posts I have read I have seen a lot of 
Sun engineers compare kernels heralding the benefits of sunOS. I just 
racked it up to a slight bias, after all they were sun employees, kind of 
like hearing Linus talk about the linux kernel. Then when I seen 
fishworks and some of the material that it was capable of I was very 
impressed. I guess what sold me was the fact that they could tell from 
I/O probes and graphs that a network interface card had malfunctioned. 

So I appreciate posts from real people doing real things that tell it as 
it is. 

Rthoreau 






_______________________________________________ 
OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list 
OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org 
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss