RE: Fazzi Auro

LOL, bet you had to wipe the spittle of your monitor several times during that rant! Lets break this down one comment at a time, so you can pause for breath:

"....these people know shit about anything...." Ah, I detect the old whiff of Sunshiner arrogance here - "only Sun and the Sunshiners know anything, the rest of the World are just muppets, and anyone who doesn't use Solaris is just stoooooopid!" As a technical argument you may find it rather lacking in weight with us in the real world whom actually spend our companies' funds on kit. Don't tell me - if that argument fails, you'll start calling us names and thumbing your nose at us?

"....Linux has grabbed share from Sun, leaving it to the dust and just spewing lies after lies...." Yes, those well-known liars at IDC and Gartner are just soooo nasty to poor old Sun, and if only the stooooooopid buyers that don't know sh*t would wake-up and realise Solaris is the route to IT Nirvana, that only The Great Sun talks THE TRUTH..... (/sarc mode off) <= for the benefit of the Sunshiners lacking in the ability to detect humour.

"....reason Sun has lagged, the reason is Sun itself...." HERESY!!! (/if I need to tag this then you are really in need of help!)

"....Would you say AIX and HP-UX are thriving...." The market figures would seem to show that both are healthier than Solaris. But then HP and IBM can also offer their enterprise server ranges with Linux (and Windows and VMS in HP's case) whereas Sun can only offer rebadged FSC kit with Solaris only, so if the customer decides they need Linux on an enterprise server Sun is already out of contention.

"....Why would HP list Solaris x86 as a supported OS for most of their x86 servers?...." Because HP makes flexible and well-integrated kit that can be used for many different roles, and HP would rather offer their customer's the ability to run even the weirdest OS choice. This flexibility has helped make HP the number one server vendor whilst Sun has gone into decline. You may not have known that HP have also supported servers from the ProLiant range with FreeBSD for longer than Slowaris 10. Compare this to the way Sun is still struggling with the legacy of "Solaris on SPARC and nothing else". Please also note that HP do not pay Sun to support Solaris, so with HP selling eight times more x86 servers than Sun this is again a big chance of more revenue lost by Sun.

"....To say that Linux does not need ZFS or dtrace 'like' functionality basically proves how much away from the truth you are...." To say that Linux does need these is disproved by the market figures - Linux has done very well without whilst Solaris x86 has done very poorly despite having them. Obviously, if either ZFS or dtrace provided some massive advantage then the situation would be reversed, whereas the truth is ZFS and dtrace don't offer enough incentive to overcome the areas where customers value RHEL or SLES more. And the simple fact is these are business users making these choices to give them the best options for their money. You may whine that "these people know shit about anything" but the fact is they are the ones with the money, and they are choosing not to give it to Sun.

Personally, my experience with shifting Solaris SPARC apps onto other platforms is that ZFS is largely irrelevant. Most of the old SPARC apps were using Veritas file systems and clustering software, and with that having been available on RHEL and SLES it was a simpler task to move to Linux than wait for Sun to sort itself out. Admins from other companies tell me a similar story. So whilst ZFS may even make it to RHEL or SLES in one version or another, it is not like the market is waiting for it, they have already moved on. Maybe it's about time you did too.