But immediately got myself to "what does a server OS do anyway, doesn't it just launch VMs? You don't need Linux, just the ability to launch Linux VMs"
Tell me more? :)
AWS's pricing model works kinda at their OMG eyewatering scale - aka all the custom hardware they design is highly cost optimized, but just doing custom hardware has a notable cost. This is easily covered by their scale, to make for their famous margins. [during their low scale times, they did use a good bit of HP/Dell, etc]
Oxide seems to be no different (super custom hardware) only major difference being the "in your datacenter" part. Since you own the cost of your datacenter, Oxide has to come in a lot cheaper to even compete with AWS, but how do you do that with low volume [and from the look of it not-cost optimized, but instead fairly tank-like] bespoke hardware? Feels like the pricing / customer fundamentals are going to be pretty rough here outside perhaps a few verticals.
I imagine, some of the customers will order 1-2 racks half full and over a few years possibly add a few sleds, these will probably demand great GUI/ manual experience and possibly competitive Oracle/ SAP/ MSSQL benchmarks and I can imagine Veeam integreation. Other customers such as the DoE or some big enterprise customers will order whole rows of racks and demand perfect automation options. That is just a guess.
Which should be pretty easy. I don't know the exact costs but in a previous Oxide discussion the number 1M was thrown around. If that's roughly correct, that is comfortably less than a single year of AWS bills at most startups I've been in (except the very tiny ones < 15 people).
Haven't seen any performance numbers either so admittely estimating here, but from what I know about building racks of 1U servers and knowing that Oxide is more efficient, I can believe an Oxide rack should handily outperform the AWS VMs we (the startups) were paying >>>100K/mo for.
If these numbers are anywhere in the ballpark, an Oxide rack should easily be saving quite a bit of money already by year two.
As to why I'm personally excited: I enjoy the amount of control having such an on-prem rack would afford me, and there surely could be a great amount of cost-savings and energy-savings in many scenarios. Sometimes, you just need a rack to deploy services for your local business. I like the prospect of decentralizing infrastructure, applying all the things we've learned with IaaSes.
Of all of the 6 infrastructures I've seen, only 1 of them is half decent, with 6 dedicated teams around the datacenter working closely together (by dedicated I mean, nothing is required of them concerning the core software product that the company develops). Network, Unix/Virtu, Windows, Storage, PC, and datacenter. That's 30+ people just to run a couple big datacenters and a few more server rooms. The service was actually quite good with VMs/zones delivered under an hour and most tech issues solved in half a day. The other infrastructures were either bigger or smaller, with more or less people, and were all terrible, sometimes needing weeks of email exchanges with excel attached to get a single VM.
AWS was the dream everywhere I went for everybody. Oxide may be coming out with a product that will solve a LOT of issues. SmartOS/IllumOS has all the tech to be self-sufficient (virtualization, storage, SDN...), add support for networking and storage and you get a complete product that a handful of people can run (well, you still need a windows team in most cases but fine).
The products that are on the market for an AWS-like experience on-prem are still fairly horrible. A lot of times the solutions are collaborations between vendors, which makes support a huge pain (finger pointing between companies).
Or, a particular vendor might only have compute and storage, but no offering for SDN and vice-versa. This sucks because then you have two bespoke things to manage and hope they work together correct.
These companies want a full AWS experience in their datacenter, and so far this looks to be the most promising without dedicating huge amounts of resources to something like Openstack.
... Including the bill!
e.g., https://www.scylladb.com/2020/09/15/scylla-cloud-on-aws-outp...
Disclosure: I worked at ScyllaDB.
You buy their product once, but it only has bug and security fixes for 3 years.
Which means every business is going to need to upgrade on a cycle anyway.
Whilst I think we will see a trend back towards more on-premise hardware I don't think SaaS is going away anytime soon. And in fact it's arguably better for everyone because the software is being continually maintained.
Took me from "why would people go with this over Dell?" to "holy shit, I'm expecting Dell to do software and make nvidia/red hat/etc/etc etc/etc etc etc help out. lol!"
* also, how destructive it is. never, ever, ever let ppl talk shit about other ppl. There's a difference between "ugh, honestly, it seems like they're focused on release 11.0 this year" and "ughh they're usless idk what they're thinking??? stupid product anyway" and for whatever reason, B made you normal, A made you a tryhard pedant
IllumOS is the OS/360 to Oxide's System/360. (It won't get that popular but it's a fair enough comparison for illustrative purposes)
As I understand it, re: vertical integration, the term is actually "hyperconverged". Here, that means it's designed at the level of the rack. Like -- there aren't per compute unit redundant power supplies. There is one DC bus bar conversion for the rack. There is an integrated switch designed by Oxide. There is one company to blame when anything inside the box isn't working.
In addition, the pitch is they're using open source Rust-based firmware for many of the core components (the base board management controller/service processor, and root of trust), and the box presents a cloud like API to provision.
If the problem is: I'm running lots of VMs in the cloud. I'm used to the cloud. I like the way the cloud works, but I need an on-prem cloud, this makes that much easier than other DIY ways to achieve (OMG we need a team of people to build us a cloud...).
(That said I think other than saying "hyperconverged" your broad points are correct.)
This is fair, especially as it follows a discussion of how you're building at the rack level, which is more like a mainframe than current "hyperconverged" offerings. Recommend others read the linked post.
I would pay a premium just to not have to deal with HPE, DELL, etc
I really wish I did work for an org big enough to use Oxide's gear. Not having to futz around with bogus IBM PC AT-type compatibility edifice, janky BMCs and iDRACs, hardware RAID controllers, etc, would be so unbelievably nice.
I recently wrote a guide [1] how to use proxmox with ZFS over iSCSI so you can use the snapshot features from a SAN
[1] https://blog.haschek.at/2023/zfs-over-iscsi-in-proxmox.html
At its peak I reached out multiple times to Joyent to fix their EFI support for virtualization. The Danube team had similar experiences with them, working on live migrations for VMs, and a few months back I did a rebase of the platform image to a more recent illumos stack.
Two of the fundamental issues with Illumos is that they don't seem to understand that they need to fix the horrendous platform build to get community support to keep up with the pace of development of other OS's. The platform build is a huge nasty mess of custom shell scripts, file based status snapshots, which includes the entire userspace in the kernel build. Basically if your openssl version is out of wack the entire thing will fail. Not because it has to, but because it was never adapted to modern needs of someone just wanting to hack on a kernel. It's fixable, but I don't see any desire to fix it, and even if that desire eventually shows up it might just be too little, too late.
I remember buying the OpenSolaris Bible in 2008, getting really excited to dig into my second Unix (after FreeBSD). And then, the Sun went down on me... and I stuck with Ubuntu 10 years.
For a while Nexenta had an Ubuntu running on the OpenSolaris kernel.
We've released a new version every two weeks post acquisition, and are continuing to develop and invest.
We also hold office hours events roughly every two weeks on Discord[2], and would love for you to stop by and ask any questions, or just listen along!
[1]: https://www.tritondatacenter.com/blog/a-new-chapter-begins-f... [2]: https://discord.gg/v4NwA3Hqay
I also think you're overestimating the extent to which make(1S) is the reason we're not more popular than Linux. There are any number of more relevant factors that make someone choose one operating system or another. Also, certainly for me personally my goal is not world domination, merely the sustainable maintenance of a body of software that helps me solve the problems that I work on, and which I enjoy using and developing as a result.
I agree we need (as do all projects!) new developers, both now, and over the long term. We work as we can to make improvements to the build process, and the documentation. We are a relatively niche project, but we do attract new developers from time to time, and we're making changes at least as rapidly as we ever have in the past. There are a number of actively maintained illumos distributions (OmniOS, SmartOS, Tribblix, OpenIndiana, and now Helios) and there are a variety of commercial interests that ship more proprietary appliances on top of an illumos base. For our part at Oxide we continue to encourage our staff to get involved with illumos development as it makes sense for them, and we try to offer resources and assistance to the broader community as well.
If you would like to contribute, we have a guide to getting started: https://illumos.org/docs/contributing/
Please, though, it's "illumos", not "IllumOS"!
Even in the early 2000s linux had a make menuconfig or make xconfig setting to build linux. And yes this is different, it's a posix distribution. Yocto was a relatively niche project as well and it also addresses the issue of building a collecting of posix applications into a big project, so does gentoo's stage.
I'm sure that at the time of it's creation OpenSolaris was ahead of its curve, but that's how many years ago? You know as well as I do that sprinkling LD_LIBRARY_PATHs here and there and then removing undocumented dot files here and there isn't really a sane way to handle such a build process for a curious third party. Most will probably drop it before it gets to that point.
There have been many many projects that have reworked their entire build architecture, some of which took years to flesh out fully.
What needs to happen for illumos to get a boost of development in the long term is:
1. first for you to acknowledge on a political level that there is an issue that needs to be addressed here, and
2. to then work with the community, and it doesn't have to be across the board, but you need to be willing to invest in some experts and some people interested in solving this, so they can grind out something that is more sane in this current world.
"Read our getting started guide" isn't really all that useful, when most of the complex issues happen after that and are often met with "this isn't how we do things".
I obviously don't have any context about the issues you were facing at the time, and I can't really figure it out based on the advice you ostensibly received. I'm definitely sorry if we have lead you astray in the past, but those are not workarounds I would encourage people to use today. If there's some aspect of the build process that requires workarounds like you're describing, it's definitely a bug and we'll fix it when we're made aware as best we can.
As for the rest of it, I think you're putting the cart before the horse on some level. An operating system is a large and complex thing to work on, regardless of whether it's built with make or ninja or bazel or whatever other build tool.
The Rust toolchain is another similarly complex body of software, which also has a large and at times inscrutable build process. I know because I have personally contributed to it, and had to figure out how to get it to work. Rust obviously has more active contributors than illumos, but it also has vastly more active _users_ -- it is a body of software that has broad applicability to many people and the work they do.
For illumos to continue to succeed as an actively maintained project, what we need to do is continue to inspire _users_ to want to use it. Nobody wants to work on an operating system they don't personally need to use at all. We draw contributions today from a mixture of community driven distributions making fixes or adding features, and by people employed by companies like Oxide who have a vested economic interest in the deployment of the software.
None of this is to say that we're perfect, or that we're not trying to improve things. Just that we're trying to put build system improvements in the proper context amongst all the other work there is to do with our limited resources. It's probably more important that we have support for new Intel client NICs like you would find in a modern desktop system, for example, than it is that we replace make. It's important that we continue to add system calls and libc facilities that other platforms have adopted in order to ease software porting. It's important that we continue to maintain modern JDKs and Python and Go and Rust and C/C++ compilers. It's important that we keep up with security issues and the endless stream of mitigations imposed by the sieve-like nature of speculative CPUs.
There's actually quite a lot of stuff going on for us all the time, and we do still find time to improve the build system. If you have more specifics in mind, that's fantastic and we'd love to here about them concretely! I would encourage you to channel your enthusiasm into writing an illumos project discussion (IPD) describing the issues you see and the work you'd propose to sort them out! You can see some examples of existing IPDs at https://github.com/illumos/ipd
And as ever, if you hit issues in the build as it stands, please file bugs! We can't fix things we haven't heard about.
Cheers.
Same for me. Oxide is the only company I know that I'd really love to work for. Similar (I think, observing from the outside) to Sun. That's what I dream about.
Unfortunately their pay structure is such that I can't afford it, with a family to support. Maybe when the kid is out of university, if I don't need much income anymore, I can fulfill the dream.
Thought I was the only one :P
I really miss Sun.
There's nothing in the world I miss so much as Sun.
I've done many startups post-Sun and there's been good highs and many lows but, there's nothing like a true hard-core tech company like Sun.
There basically are no tech companies anymore, other than Apple, but they are mass-market consumer oriented which is not interesting.
Kind of. Apple focuses their high end gear on creative professionals. Us Unix geeks have much more modest needs, which are often satisfied by the average uninspired Dell design. Still, Apple has a decent Unix underneath all that glitter. At the same time, there are almost no desktop-friendly Unixes besides the free crowd. HP and IBM have given up on the Unix workstation market eons ago. IBM’s POWER gear can crush the best Xeons and Epycs, but they have nothing to compete with the “good enough” low end.
It’s a shame Oracle doesn’t offer Solaris on their cloud the same way IBM offers AIX (and Z, which, surprisingly, is a certified UNIX as well) on theirs.
Had. That's what pulled me in to Apple laptops after spending the 90s convinced I'd never use a Mac.
With OS X, suddenly it was BSD, but with a Mac GUI! Cool. When OS X (10.0) came out I quickly bought a mac first time ever.
But Apple has spent the last 20+ years making OSX less and less BSD, locking out more and more core functionality into obscure nonstandard behavior.
Still own several Sun CDs they used to give away to developers.
What they can’t do as well as a deskside Ultra Enterprise is to look impressive.