Live data from Hacker News

The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

dtrace.org

101–110 of 279 posts

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#101
> And, it turns out, illumos was born at exactly the right moment: shortly after illumos was announced, Oracle — in what remains to me a singularly loathsome and cowardly act — silently re-proprietarized Solaris on August 13, 2010.

I was very curious about this, and stumbled on further details in https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/lisa11/tech/slides/cant... on page 15. But read the entire PDF anyway, it's interesting.

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#102
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, doesn't everything you do with a database reduce to CRUD? I understand that sometimes you do the composition of many CRUD operations, but this is still CRUD.

Literally everything you do with memory and disks can also be reduced to CRUD, but that is an extreme example to show my point: a DB does a lot more. A well written DB, in this case a good RDBMS, gives you stronger guarantees that data is saved and accessed in certain ways. That by itself is worth using a better one that gives you better guarantees. But they also provide stronger typing and checking of the data. They…

Do people really not mean types, referential integrity, indexes, transactions, queries, etc. when they say CRUD?

If table stakes for a database are more sophisticated than CRUD, what the hell is trivial enough to be CRUD then? Seems like a straw man.

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#103
Very sad. Solaris was my first commercial Unix. Technically it was SunOS 4.x, on a SparcStation 10. This was probably around the time they renamed SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1?

I still have an old Ultra 10 downstairs. It hasn't been turned on since 2004 or so. I think it had Solaris 8?

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#104

I wouldn't call illumos "thriving". Commit activity[1] is low for a project of this size (compared to e.g. BSDs) and its hardware support is poor. Probably the biggest problem is the fact that all existing distributions are undermaintained and unpolished. SmartOS is the only exception, but it's not a replacement for Solaris which was a general-purpose server OS. SmartOS is merely a bare-metal hypervisor. I really hop…

I believe most effort moved to OpenIndiana.

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#105

> ..employees who had given their careers to the company were told of their termination via a pre-recorded call — “robo-RIF’d” Every single first person or second hand account I've heard about Oracle makes like a terrible place to work... is this just people being hyperbolic, or is is truly that terrible?

Probably depends on where you work. The new cloud team (Bare Metal Cloud) is a great place to work. It has been some of the most fun I've had working for a while now. A lot of the department is ex-AWS and are determined not to bring the toxic work culture across, while bringing across the good parts. So: lots of bright, smart, highly technical people, a careful focus on avoiding hiring "assholes" (for want of a better term). Management who pay attention to deadlines being realistic, pushing back on unrealistic ones and discouraging the "working all hours" behaviour.

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#106
post #4
post #2

I always thought Solaris was a beautiful and memorable name for an operating system. Any connection with the Stanislaw Lem novel (or Tarkovsky movie) was always a bit unclear to me... But I guess a book about futile interactions with a planet-sized alien brain that doesn't care about you other than mysteriously experimenting with your memories is a reasonable metaphor for the Unix user experience.

Soderberghs version is much more reflective of what happened with the emergence of OpenSolaris and Illumos (not to give away any spoilers but apparently forking is a real thing and it lives on). Tarkovskys movie was such a philosophical drivel that I feel asleep. How is the book - is it worth reading? As I understood it neither of films follow the novel very closely.

The book is superb.

But to appreciate the book have to understand that Lem, in his serious mode (he also wrote comedies and light-hearted adventures, which are quite different), is not very concerned about plot, nor about most things American sci-fi has always been about: There are no heroics, no politics, no space wars, no McGuffins, and there's only minimal world-building.

Lem is an engaging writer, but also a somewhat dry one, and Solaris is a sort of essay on science, camouflaged as a novel: Like his other masterpiece, His Master's Voice, it is a critique of science. Whereas HMV attacks the scientific field pretty broadly, Solaris is more of an investigation into the limitations of the human mind: A scientist visits a far-away research station and comes to realize that all previous research (by decades of so-called "Solarisists") isn't even wrong, it's irrelevant. About a third of the book is spent on a wry summary of all the scholarly research that Solarisists have been performing and collecting in journals. Even after many decades, Solaris has funded many scientists, and yielded endless observations, but also zero insight. (At the time the book is set, most scientists have simply given up, and the station is largely abandoned.) Solaris is an inscrutable alien organism that the human mind can simply not understand. Ironically, even the main character comes to think, towards the end, that he has understood Solaris, when it's obvious to the reader that his conclusions are just more of the same, a reflection of our human-ness.

Of course, both movie adaptations got this wrong, or chose to ignore that aspect of the book. They think it's about people reincarnated from memories, and that it's about love. In the book, the "ghosts" are actually dealt with rather simply and matter-of-factly; the scientists find themselves being tormented by them, and quickly move to destroy them. Lem, however, doesn't bother with the emotional melodrama you find in both movies.

I don't remember what Soderbergh's version aimed for exactly (other than being a sort of Last Tango in Paris in space), but Tarkovsky's is very much inward-looking and concerned with the nature of artifice and truth (the "ghosts" are not real, and neither is Solaris, in a way). Tarkovsky didn't really want to create a sci-fi movie, and so you get something which is not entirely convincing.

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#107

I wouldn't call illumos "thriving". Commit activity[1] is low for a project of this size (compared to e.g. BSDs) and its hardware support is poor. Probably the biggest problem is the fact that all existing distributions are undermaintained and unpolished. SmartOS is the only exception, but it's not a replacement for Solaris which was a general-purpose server OS. SmartOS is merely a bare-metal hypervisor. I really hop…

Hardware support is by far the stupidest complaint that prevails when people talk about operating systems. Choose your hardware for your software, not the other way around. There are so many better things operating system authors have to do than to implement thousands of competing proprietary hardware interfaces. Mature support for even 50% of consumer hardware would take a massive team of full time engineers years t…

Illumos has a lot of nice features I'd like to use. But my product is a small low power ARM device and I'd run out of money long before I'd finish adding minimal ARM support to illumos.

Things are not as simple as you suggest.

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#108
post #58

Twenty years ago, if you'd said that the surviving commercial *ixen would be AIX and HP/UX, you'd have been drummed out of the Unix Beard club.

HP/UX is dead too because HP despite apparently having an x86 port won't be porting it off itanium. Random link about it (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/08/hp_ux_on_x86_project...). Whether they do a 180 and port it to x86, the fact remains its probably to late, the damage has been done.

That leaves AIX, which at least has decent hardware to run on. But its got the OS/2 problem too, you can write your app for linux, and use the AIX toolbox for linux apps, and port your app. Although with power8 the move to LE linux, makes moving applications/data between linux on POWER and AIX on POWER more difficult.

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#109

I wouldn't call illumos "thriving". Commit activity[1] is low for a project of this size (compared to e.g. BSDs) and its hardware support is poor. Probably the biggest problem is the fact that all existing distributions are undermaintained and unpolished. SmartOS is the only exception, but it's not a replacement for Solaris which was a general-purpose server OS. SmartOS is merely a bare-metal hypervisor. I really hop…

Hardware support is by far the stupidest complaint that prevails when people talk about operating systems. Choose your hardware for your software, not the other way around. There are so many better things operating system authors have to do than to implement thousands of competing proprietary hardware interfaces. Mature support for even 50% of consumer hardware would take a massive team of full time engineers years t…

> . Choose your hardware for your software, not the other way around.

Oh, look at Mr "I don't need to use what's laying around" over here.

Re: The sudden death and eternal life of Solaris

#110

I wouldn't call illumos "thriving". Commit activity[1] is low for a project of this size (compared to e.g. BSDs) and its hardware support is poor. Probably the biggest problem is the fact that all existing distributions are undermaintained and unpolished. SmartOS is the only exception, but it's not a replacement for Solaris which was a general-purpose server OS. SmartOS is merely a bare-metal hypervisor. I really hop…

Hardware support is by far the stupidest complaint that prevails when people talk about operating systems. Choose your hardware for your software, not the other way around. There are so many better things operating system authors have to do than to implement thousands of competing proprietary hardware interfaces. Mature support for even 50% of consumer hardware would take a massive team of full time engineers years t…

When you say "choose your hardware for your software", you are assuming the software has already been chosen by the time the hardware is selected. That's not necessarily the case. I already have the hardware, it's been bought years ago, and it works with the software I use. Now if for instance I wanted to evaluate OpenSolaris, but it didn't run on the hardware I have, I would probably pass it up. I wouldn't invest hours and hours coding support for it to run on my hardware, before I were sure I would have a use for it. And that's assuming I could; I do happen to know how to write a low-level driver, but many people who would otherwise be interested on the software might not have that knowledge and/or ability.

Of course, once you already use the software, the situation inverts itself. I do choose only hardware which is known to work well with Linux, since that's the operating system I use, and I have even ported a device driver when that wasn't the case. But that can only happen because, many years ago when I first tried Linux, it worked perfectly with the hardware I had.

Post reply on HN