Plan9 REALLY likes Arch - Page 7  

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.
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.
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 In fact there's plenty of software in STABLE that is well out of date.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

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

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.
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