Re: [cobalt-developers] (OT) SPARCRaQ

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:36:27 -0800
> From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxx>

> I'm curious as to why those are "more serious" that
> Linux/x86.  Please enlighten me.


STFW or, as Jeff suggested, speak to some Sun gurus.


The Linux codebase is more fragmented than BSD.  True, there are
distributions, but packages are _not_ designed with one another
in mind.  Do a Google search to see what's required to run a
Linux 2.4 kernel.

Linux having /bin and /sbin binaries depend on dynamic linking is
stupid.  Static linking might make the system a couple megabytes
larger, but anyone who's ever screwed up libc can appreciate
system binaries that don't require it.

Various BSD flavors are designed together as a total system.
For upgrades, cvsup and "make world" are your friends.

Think early 80s GM cars where one group designed the engine, one
penned the body, another came up with the trannie, etc.  Things
just didn't go together smoothly.  Thinks Windows and DLL Hell.

Solaris?  I'd say that the crown jewel is fine-grained ACLs.
FreeBSD will have those (POSIX.1e-style) in release 5, but
Solaris has had them for some time.  Beyond that, it's more of
all being designed as a system, as with BSD.


UltraSPARC chips have great FPU performance, nice bus bandwidth,
and (IMHO) the SPARC ISA is much cleaner than the x86 ISA.  If
compilers ever start really using the VIS instructions (better
thought out than MMX from what I've seen), that should really
help improve performance.

Integrated systems with _real_ self checks make Sun gear much
nicer than most off-the-shelf x86 parts.  LOM and ASR are nice.
Up to 2 MB cache on US/IIi should speak for itself.  Having POST
on serial console is handy.  Lots of little things add up.


As someone with eight years Linux experience and a paltry two or
three under BSD, I moved from Linux to BSD.  I'm not just a
newcomer to Linux bashing it.  Similar story for x86 and SPARC.

I can't believe that I'm trying to tell someone with a sun.com
address benefits of Solaris and SME gear over competitors... this
worries me greatly.

Now I'm curious:  What makes x86/Linux any more serious than
SPARC, BSD, Solaris, et cetera?  Low price (could be fixed if SME
had higher volume via Cobalt) and sheep flock to "what I've heard
of"?  Intel sells people high-end chips and MBs because people
are drawn in at a low level.  Why can't Sun do the same?

I'm not saying to ditch x86/Intel, but maybe to offer a RaQ
running on BSD, Solaris, or the UltraSPARC.  Ah well.  That's 2
of 2 Sun Cobalt people indicating no interest in supplanting
x86/Linux.  I'd hoped that some developers would chime in re
interest in something different.  I guess I was wrong.


Quote from Sun employee:  "I'm curious as to why [UltraSPARC and
Solaris] are 'more serious' than Linux/x86?  Please enlighten
me."  There goes the company.  (Honestly.  That's immortalized in
archives across the globe!)

I hate to admit it, but maybe Paul Jacobs is right about Sun's
future.  I'm beginning to see Sun as the next Commodore:  Great
products, no marketing.

I'm not complaining though.  If Sun falters and enterprises start
having fire sales on big SMP UltraSPARC servers, I know what I'll
be buying. :-)


Eddy

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
--

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: blacklist@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.  Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>, or you are likely to be blocked.