Brian Lavender wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 12:05:06AM -0700, Sean-Paul Rees wrote:
> > Bull. The whole of Solaris (Predecessor) is better than the whole of
> > Linux (GNU) because:
> > a) Solaris has a multithreaded kernel.
>
> How about pthreads? I am not overly familiar with threading, but from what
> I have seen, it appears that glibc2 (libc6) is much better at threading than libc5.
> Are we looking at threading in the kernel or we looking at threading elsewhere?
> Is these two separate issues?
Solaris is fully multithreaded. Its what makes their multiprocessing
work really well.
> > b) Solaris has true multiprocessing, not that lame stuff that Linux
> > passes off as multiprocessing.
> > c) Solaris handles lots of RAM better (2GB and above)
>
> I don't think Linux will move past 2GB of RAM on 32 bit systems. I think
> 64 bit will be the key. Too many hacks required for over 2 GB of RAM
> on 32 bit. That's what I read from Linus' talk at baLUG.
Humbug. wcarchive.cdrom.com (ftp.cdrom.com) is a P3 Xeon 500 (550?) with
4GB of RAM. FreeBSD handles all 4GBs just fine. Solaris will too, since
Internic's systems are like 4 way Ultra's with 4GB of RAM.
> > d) It uses ufs, and only requires one partition for all your mounts,
> > including swap.
>
> Is this like FreeBSD?
FreeBSD uses ufs also, just different partition ids. Solaris uses
partition id 82, and FreeBSD uses 165.
>
> > e) Fully modularized.
>
> How about modules with Linux. I suppose a Micro Kernel would be fully
> modularized, but it seems that Linux works well being a monolithic
> kernel. Maybe I am missing something here. Is there a advantage to the
> increased modularity Solaris has over Linux?
Drivers.
Sean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 11 2000 - 16:20:20 PST