| Regardless, I disagree with the assertion. linux-vservers barely had their first 1.0 release about a year (2004) before the release of Solaris Zones as a beta. It's likely that the actual development of Solaris zones started around the same time as linux-vservers. Even if you were to successfully argue that it "predates" Solaris zones -- it doesn't predate them by very much. The fact that Linux requires the kernel to be patched is not just a cultural thing; it's a very large additional maintenance cost and proves that linux-vserver wasn't valuable to go and stay in the mainline kernel. I spent enough years maintaining Linux servers that required mainline kernel patches (such as a workstation at home) that I grow tired of it. You can't blame Sun/Oracle for the failure of Linux to produce a completely equivalent technology. The primary problem is that none of the mainstream Linux distributions have chosen to actually build a fully-architected platform including both the kernel and userland. The OpenStack project is finally forcing some of them to do that, but until they have a filesystem just as capable as ZFS (btrfs someday?), a packaging system that's just as deterministic and capable as IPS (Nix someday?), they'll always be a little bit behind. Integration matters in the operating system; it makes a huge difference in terms of capability, reliability, and user experience. In the end, use the right OS for the right job. I happen to believe Solaris is the right OS for servers, but I develop and distribute software for Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris, and Linux as I think they are either great or generally reasonable desktop OS systems. |
That's what contemporary means.
> linux-vserver wasn't valuable to go and stay in the mainline kernel.
Lots of technology start out-of-tree and is only much later incorporated into mainline. That's part of what the big Linux distributors do for a living, and a healthy side of the Linux ecosystem.
> none of the mainstream Linux distributions have chosen to actually build a fully-architected platform including both the kernel and userland
For compartmentalization, I take it. It is indeed a problem that it has stayed a niche product in Linux land for so long, but there have been plenty of minor Linux distributors focusing on it, mainly for ISP use.
> In the end, use the right OS for the right job. I happen to believe
I have never in my professional life been in a situation where the operating system was not given by the circumstances. What I believe is simply not relevant. YMMV, of course, and good for you if it does.