4 ms·

Yup, you could say that again. I cut my teeth in Linux while in high school for the most path. First year of college, I go to the engineering labs to get a jo

Yup, you could say that again. I cut my teeth in Linux while in high school for the most path. First year of college, I go to the engineering labs to get a job, it's all SunOS/Solaris. It's like driving a car! There were very few commands that were different! Now, Linux is slowly going rouge and changing everything in the supposedly name of "progress" I'm still salty as hell with the systemd rubbish. The problem is that all the cool toys are supported better on Linux and I don't feel like compiling from source for most things. :-(

rkeene2 8y ago
You do realize Solaris implemented a service management system (which is also superior to systemd; and was also created prior to systemd's conception), right ? They switched away from legacy SysV init scripts BEFORE systemd existed.
- nailer 8y ago
  > superior to systemd SMD was based around XML, which caused a lot of boaking. systemd was based around .desktop, aka .ini syntax.
- dijit 8y ago
  SMF was quite nice. Solaris was incredible in a lot of ways. I always wonder why it never took off.
  - sverige 8y ago
    > I always wonder why it never took off. Because Larry Ellison bought Sun.
  - rsync 8y ago
    "I always wonder why it never took off." It did take off and had a long and productive life. Many, many of the early ISPs and webhosting providers were built on Solaris 2.6 and "7". In the late nineties it was very common to go into a datacenter and see racks full of ultra 2 boxes stacked on one another ... If you went to college between 1992 and 1999 you were almost assured to log into a SunOS or Solaris system to read your email or ftp or whatever. It was only when the dot-com money dried up that people (including myself) made the switch to PC based servers in an effort to save money.
  - digi_owl 8y ago
    Because nobody were interested? Damn it, Apple have a similar thing going in OSX (or whatever their greasy marketing wants to call it this year) but when it was basically offered to the BSDs on a silver platter they didn't want it.
    - dijit 8y ago
      Implying that launchd and SMF are similar shows how little you know about both systems. Launchd is mostly crappy, obtuse plist files, a semi-broken DAG, socket activation that spins your machine to death. SMF was an access point to many things, it was clean, concise and pointed you towards the actual things that the OS provided. (like; log files) It was a pleasure to work with. The only problem was that service definitions were configured with XML, I have never been a fan of XML.
jrnichols 8y ago
A lot of these changes are reminding me, a 40+ year old recovering sysadmin, that I am being left behind by the technology world. I would imagine that there are a few others in the thread that read this article and felt similar.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Not even that old, and i feel it every damned day...

rkeene2 8y ago

You do realize Solaris implemented a service management system (which is also superior to systemd; and was also created prior to systemd's conception), right ? They switched away from legacy SysV init scripts BEFORE systemd existed.

nailer 8y ago
> superior to systemd SMD was based around XML, which caused a lot of boaking. systemd was based around .desktop, aka .ini syntax.
dijit 8y ago
SMF was quite nice. Solaris was incredible in a lot of ways. I always wonder why it never took off.
- sverige 8y ago
  > I always wonder why it never took off. Because Larry Ellison bought Sun.
- rsync 8y ago
  "I always wonder why it never took off." It did take off and had a long and productive life. Many, many of the early ISPs and webhosting providers were built on Solaris 2.6 and "7". In the late nineties it was very common to go into a datacenter and see racks full of ultra 2 boxes stacked on one another ... If you went to college between 1992 and 1999 you were almost assured to log into a SunOS or Solaris system to read your email or ftp or whatever. It was only when the dot-com money dried up that people (including myself) made the switch to PC based servers in an effort to save money.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Because nobody were interested? Damn it, Apple have a similar thing going in OSX (or whatever their greasy marketing wants to call it this year) but when it was basically offered to the BSDs on a silver platter they didn't want it.
  - dijit 8y ago
    Implying that launchd and SMF are similar shows how little you know about both systems. Launchd is mostly crappy, obtuse plist files, a semi-broken DAG, socket activation that spins your machine to death. SMF was an access point to many things, it was clean, concise and pointed you towards the actual things that the OS provided. (like; log files) It was a pleasure to work with. The only problem was that service definitions were configured with XML, I have never been a fan of XML.

jrnichols 8y ago

A lot of these changes are reminding me, a 40+ year old recovering sysadmin, that I am being left behind by the technology world. I would imagine that there are a few others in the thread that read this article and felt similar.

digi_owl 8y ago
Not even that old, and i feel it every damned day...