Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › Plan9 REALLY likes Arch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Plan9 REALLY likes Arch - Page 7  

post #61 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

2. Funny how we made the same comment about Arch and you basically dismissed the "users are doing it wrong" excuse. Now you're using it to defend FreeBSD.
3. Virtualisation was the biggy for me. Linux -in general- had better and more virtualisation solutions available. However it's not always about "ground breaking apps" - the little utilities are just as important as that's where most day to day usage happens. Also please don't redefine the scope of my point just to win an argument - we're not stupid, we can see through such obvious tactics.
It's not a broad statement. I very clearly expressed what I believed Arch to be quicker at.
At the end of the day, they're both excellent platforms. FreeBSD is probably more grown up than Arch - but that's purely because you're comparing a slower release cycle to a bleeding edge OS. That doesn't make Arch a toy, it just makes Arch bleeding edge. If you don't want bleeding edge then you don't install a bleeding edge OS. It's hardly rocket science.

2. There are much more steps in a FreeBSD upgrade then pacman -Syu so my comment is valid.
3. Its amazing how virtualisation has turned people stupid. These days people rather virtualise hardware to run click and go appliance style solutions then run bare metal and actually use an Operating System like its meant to be used. It's so unUnix like to virtualise below the OS layer, let the Kernel do its job and if you need workload separated then you have jails.

FreeBSD 3rd party apps is bleeding edge, the ports system is a scaffold to build the latest available software. Whether an application is at bleeding edge versions is determined by the author of the software ability to write portable code. Software that is well written is always at latest versions in the ports and I can name many packages in ports that gets released at similar times to Arch. Of course these days there is lots of Linuxisms in software development, which takes time to port, and more often then not its pretty bad software. Even then FreeBSD is on par or ahead of Ubuntu on Linux application versions.
post #62 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

2. There are much more steps in a FreeBSD upgrade then pacman -Syu so my comment is valid.
Not really. You're using double standards here and it's just stupid.
I mean I could argue that FreeBSD is worse because it complicates things where as pacman is nice and simple (we are talking about desktop usage here after all). So FreeBSD is worse as it makes it easy for users to make mistakes.

Now I'm not saying I believe that to be true, I'm just making a point that you're being a massive hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

3. Its amazing how virtualisation has turned people stupid. These days people rather virtualise hardware to run click and go appliance style solutions then run bare metal and actually use an Operating System like its meant to be used. It's so unUnix like to virtualise below the OS layer, let the Kernel do its job and if you need workload separated then you have jails.
If you genuinely believe what you've just posted then you really don't know what you're talking about.

Jails are a fantastic tool but Jails cannot do snapshots, VM teleportation, run non-unix OSs nor emulate other CPU architectures.

I've ran Jails and Solaris Zones as well as number of virtualisation solutions. These days decent virtualisation platforms will paravirtualise like Jails / Zones can when needed and emulate whole computing platforms when needed. A decent environment will support the whole stack rather than just one facet.

So there's a great deal more to virtual machines than dumbed down virtual appliances alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

FreeBSD 3rd party apps is bleeding edge, the ports system is a scaffold to build the latest available software. Whether an application is at bleeding edge versions is determined by the author of the software ability to write portable code. Software that is well written is always at latest versions in the ports and I can name many packages in ports that gets released at similar times to Arch. Of course these days there is lots of Linuxisms in software development, which takes time to port, and more often then not its pretty bad software. Even then FreeBSD is on par or ahead of Ubuntu on Linux application versions.
Ubuntu isn't a bleeding edge distro so your comparison is silly; and arguing that any software not available for BSD is automatically "bad software" is pretty silly too.

Also FreeBSD isn't bleeding edge - at least not the STABLE / RELEASE branch. In fact there's plenty of software in STABLE that is well out of date. I think even you know this but will never admit so as it would undermine your "Arch is a toy" propaganda.


Anyway, I'm not going to bother chatting with you any longer. It's pretty clear that when you described "[The] community makes the OS out to be perfect" you were actually talking about yourself. You've done nothing but assert double standards and even demonstrate complete ignorance on a number of topics yet ignored every single thing others have posted. So I'm out of here now.
Edited by Plan9 - 5/3/12 at 8:22am
post #63 of 97
I used Arch for a year and actively read their forums. The amount of zealotry that happens in that community is way more then your average distro. If I had a dollar every time I heard someone say Arch is perfect or implied its flawless on those forums Id be rich. Perhaps you don't believe this but many do, Archlinux users definitely come across as elitest out of the Linux community.

Anyway not to derail the thread about virtualisation, but Jails is not meant to do snapshots, thats what zfs snapshots is for. Jails doesn't need to do teleportation, thats what zfs send/receive is for. These are filesystem tasks.

Yes I believe portable code is good and usually better then non portable. I didn't imply ubuntu is bleeding edge, i mean of the software that's code is heavily linux based you will find versions in ports on par with ubuntu or it hasn't been ported at all, for portable coded projects its often on par with arch. Release packages are point in time packages, its release after all, so yes its not bleeding edge. Stable packages are compiled once a week so its relatively up to date. Ports is bleeding edge.
post #64 of 97
Brb, going to the Ubuntu forums...





























Sorry, back. The Zealotry there is way too much to handle.
post #65 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrak View Post

Brb, going to the Ubuntu forums...
Sorry, back. The Zealotry there is way too much to handle.

you didn't have to go there, you just had to fire off a pm to me, i would've given you all the ubuntu zealotry you wanted :)

Bazinga Punk
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon 3440 AsRock P55 extreme Evga 8800 GT 512 MB Gskill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Western Digital Blue Antec Khuler 620 Ubuntu 11.10 Asus vw264H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
GIGABYTE KM7600 CORSAIR TX 650 Cooler Master 590 GIGABYTE GM-M6800 
  hide details  
Bazinga Punk
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon 3440 AsRock P55 extreme Evga 8800 GT 512 MB Gskill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Western Digital Blue Antec Khuler 620 Ubuntu 11.10 Asus vw264H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
GIGABYTE KM7600 CORSAIR TX 650 Cooler Master 590 GIGABYTE GM-M6800 
  hide details  
post #66 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transhour View Post

you didn't have to go there, you just had to fire off a pm to me, i would've given you all the ubuntu zealotry you wanted smile.gif

But that's no fun! tongue.gif
post #67 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

Anyway not to derail the thread about virtualisation, but Jails is not meant to do snapshots, thats what zfs snapshots is for. Jails doesn't need to do teleportation, thats what zfs send/receive is for. These are filesystem tasks.
I'm sorry to be blunt but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Yes ZFS snapshots can negate some of the needs for VM snapshots, but not entirely. No filesystem solution will be as flexible at manipulating VM snapshots than the virtualisation suite itself. If you had even the slightest bit of experience on this topic you'd know this. And to say that ZFS send/receive is the same as VM teleportation, well that's not even remotely true. They're completely different tools for completely different purposes and VM teleportation is 100% NOT a file system task - not even remotely.

You're not the only one on here with experience in containers and ZFS (in fact myself and others constantly bang on about them on these very forums) and nor are you the only professional on here (assuming you are who you say you are). So if you're going to argue about the strengths and weaknesses of such technology then you better be sure you know what you're talking about.

So I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I've used and been an advocate for these technologies (all of the aforementioned technologies inc containers and ZFS) for a great many years so have little patience for people who preach them to me yet get the facts completely wrong.
Edited by Plan9 - 5/4/12 at 2:44am
post #68 of 97
You clearly not the type of person that can think outside the box. You don't need 100% exact functionality to achieve the same results.

I am an AIX specialist and you won't find snapshots built into PowerVM, Live partition mobility also doesn't work exactly like VM teleportation and this is supposed to be enterprise class systems. Heaven forbid there are alternate ways of doing things to VMWare, sounds like you've been institutionalised.

Install FreeBSD on two servers, configure a jail on the first one and let it have its own zfs filesystem. Now snapshot the filesystem and zfs send/receive it to the second box over SSH. Configure the jail entry on the second server and start up the jail and see if it works. If you a small business you just got a very cheap (free) DR solution by importing incremental snapshots thumb.gif
Edited by CaptainBlame - 5/4/12 at 4:01am
post #69 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

You clearly not the type of person that can think outside the box. You don't need 100% exact functionality to achieve the same results.
Actually I can think outside of the box however there is an adage "using best/right tool for the job". If you can emulate (if you pardon the pun) functionality then it's a good tool. However the examples you gave for Jails and ZFS were not emulating the functions I mentioned. They fell far sort. Hence they were not the best tools for the job.

It's a little like installing Linux on a gamers PC and telling them they can always play Tux Racer when the owner complains about a lack of Steam support. You wouldn't be "thinking outside of the box", you'd just be installing an inappropriate OS for the machines requirements. The same is true for servers, if you need xyz from a product then you install a product that supports xyz rather than one that supports abc and hacking it to crudely approximate xzy.

And this is why zealots make crappy admins. They let their own bias cloud objectivity and make all manor of excuses to back up their narrow mindedness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

I am an AIX specialist and you won't find snapshots built into PowerVM, Live partition mobility also doesn't work exactly like VM teleportation and this is supposed to be enterprise class systems.
But you wouldn't run PowerVM is you needed snapshot features. You'd run one of the other number of enterprise class virtualistation solutions (PowerVM isn't the only one out there). Again it comes down to "best tool for the job". Trying to jam a square object into a round hole does not make that square a circle. And equally shoehorning functionality into a product to do what it wasn't really designed to do isn't "thinking outside of the box"; it's called a kludge. So you wouldn't run PowerVM is you needed snapshots. It's really that simple.

As for Live Partition Mobility, correct me if I'm wrong but switching from an active partition to an active partition is seamless? If so then it's essentially the same thing as VM Teleportation. Yes the implementations are different, but these things are solution specific so are developed and named differently. However the end result is the same and they're designed to solve the same problem (which ZFS send was not). So once again, this isn't "thinking outside of the box", it's just using the correct tool.

Anyhow, this is all besides the point as I was never arguing against AIX nor PowerVM (I'm not stupid, I can tell you've only started this tangent to win an argument nobody was making). I was stating how jails and ZFS (as excellent as they are for their own functions) cannot replace the aforementioned solutions when VM snapshots or seamless switching of VMs to new physical servers are required.

@any mod reading this:
Can this thread be closed or these arguments split to a new thread. I'm all for open discussions but I'd rather not let trolls ruin the one thread in here about ArchLinux.
Edited by Plan9 - 5/4/12 at 4:40am
post #70 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

However the examples you gave for Jails and ZFS were not emulating the functions I mentioned. They fell far sort.
What functionality is missing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

So you wouldn't run PowerVM is you needed snapshots. It's really that simple.

What kind of work loads are based around snapshot requirements?
Edited by CaptainBlame - 5/4/12 at 5:28am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Linux, Unix
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › Plan9 REALLY likes Arch