I'm glad Linux (and not Oracle) killed it, for all its faults, it's a much better foundation for the future.
I never liked dtrace either, and much prefer the direction eBPF is going. ZFS I'm ambivalent about, but I find that on average it's more trouble than it's worth.
ZFS provides features that other file systems have yet to provide, eg full COW, snapshots etc.
Linux is great, I use it every day and its solid in a cloud environment. But to say its clean inside the kernel is a mistake. It reflects its development model, messy, with management by consensus and a benevolent dictator in Linus.
But don't call something a "pile of crap" without evidence or condemn engineering in the 90s with 20/20 (or 2019) hindsight.
2.6 was good.
Zones, ZFS were technically fantastic but customers didn't care much.
Everything else was bad or not competitive.
Huh, that wasn't my impression at all - for a long while wasn't it much safer to have unprivileged untrusted users on Solaris than on Linux? (that is, Linux quite frequently had local privilege escalations, I thought Solaris didn't?)
I guess "security" is a broad term, what sort of security?
"Indy: an Indigo without the 'go'". -- Mark Hughes (?)
The code execution vulnerabilities from 2013 seem to be from third-parry products (pip, squid, etc.) What part of these links should I be looking at?