Slashdot Mirror
Solaris 9 x86 Review
ValourX writes "Here is a review of Solaris 9 x86, 08/03 edition. Now that the single-CPU edition is free to download for non-commercial use, people will be compelled to write a Solaris CD and try it out. Read this first -- there are a lot of things you should know before you begin. You might want to check out the documentation or explore other resources like the hardware compatibility list as well."
I simply can't resist that urge to try Solaris 9. It's like the forbidden fruit! Right after I'm done with Solaris 9, I'm going to look for a copy of Windows NT 3.5, maybe OS/2 1.3, or possibly Windows 1.0.
After trashing the compatibility ("no hardware made in the last 5 years will run Solaris 9") and usability ("this is purely a server OS, nothing here for the desktop user") and also the installer ("the installer crashed and I had to start over 3 times"), he STILL somehow tries to compare it to Windows 2000?
No surprise really, what else would you expect from someone who uses the term "GNU/Linux"?
Is Solaris 9 as slow as Linux on x86? If not, I may have to give it a try.
Thanks in advance.
It's still nowhere as good as red hat enterprise linux.
Introduction
Solaris, formerly known as SunOS, is a trademarked UNIX operating system derived from 4.4BSD-Lite and System V Release 4. It's a combination of BSD, SVR4, and proprietary Sun code, and it currently powers most of the world's 64-bit workstations. It was originally designed for the SPARC and UltraSPARC platforms, but it has moved into the x86 market as well and there will be an AMD64 port possibly as early as Q1 2004.
So if you have a Sun workstation or if you're thinking about buying one, you're more or less stuck with Solaris. In most instances you could use GNU/Linux or one of the *BSDs, but you might have trouble with some of the proprietary Sun peripherals, especially in the new Blade series. That's a moot point anyway because most people with SPARC-based systems don't have a problem with using Solaris. The real question is, why would you use Solaris x86 -- the edition made for IA32 hardware? After all, if you have an IA32 PC you have a wealth of choices for your operating system, from Microsoft Windows to SCO UnixWare.
Solaris 9 is not very impressive when you put it next to FreeBSD or a good commercial GNU/Linux distribution like Mandrake, RedHat, SuSE, or one of the better community distros like Debian or Fedora. Even Sun is now coming out with their own GNU/Linux distro called Java Desktop System. If you're feeling particularly masochistic you could pay a ton of money for SCO's rinky-dink UnixWare or OpenServer products, and if you like patching your system every day, you could go with Microsoft Windows in either the XP or Server 2003 varieties. Clearly there are a lot of choices. Let's take a look at some of the advantages and disadvantages of Solaris 9 x86.
The License
The Solaris 9 binary license is not all that restrictive when compared with Microsoft's EULA, but the additional supplements end up piling on so many more restrictions that it's more or less on par with the Windows license.
Sun has conveniently put their licensing terms on their website. Click here to read the binary license with the supplemental terms appended. Fortunately Sun does not require any ridiculous product activation procedures in their single-CPU x86 edition (I can't speak for the other editions because I have not tested them). In case you're wondering, virtual CPUs do not count as multiple CPUs, so a Pentium4 system that employs Intel's Hyper-Threading Technology will not require the 2-CPU license.
Features
First and foremost, Solaris is developed, maintained and supported by Sun Microsystems. Since its first release Solaris 9 has had five updates which added hardware support, updated software versions and patched security flaws. For this review I was sent the 08/03 update which was the most recent version until yesterday when a 12/03 update was released. An update to this review will be available in the future with the 12/03 update in mind.
As mentioned above, Solaris is a trademarked UNIX. That means that it's undergone extensive qualification testing by The Open Group to comply with the UNIX98 standard. It also means that the operating system must conform to certain requirements for usability, like using a standard graphical environment, which is CDE (Common Desktop Environment) as the primary GUI. Although it is not required by The Open Group, Sun also includes GNOME 2.0 with Solaris 9.
CDE as it is implemented in Solaris 9 gives it an array of system administration and configuration tools similar to the Administration menu in Microsoft Windows 2000 Server but not quite as comprehensive as SuSE's YaST2. There's a manager or control panel for almost everything you need to configure or monitor, from a Removable Media Manager to the Solaris Management Console where you can change various hardware controls (click here for a complete listing and explanations of the CDE/Solaris managers and services). There's also a handy Watch Errors program that monitors all error messages produced by the system (much like you'd find by pressing ctrl-alt-F1 from a wind
First of all, Solaris has the most out of date software packages of any major mainstream Unix. Even in the 9 version, is CDE 2.2 and Gnome 2.0, with Xfree86 4.1 (A version that really sucks).
/lib/modules, as you are going to need it.
Secondly, its a pain in the goatse to set up, first of all, you are forced to use a monokernel which is horribly hacked with "backports" to get any use on any modern machine (Read, made after 1999). Good luck memorizing all the *.ko files in
Configuring XFree86 is hell! If you don't have a Thick X11 orilley book, and a list of your horizontal sync values from your monitor's intruction manual (if you even have one), BOOM! There goes your monitor.
Even then, good luck getting anything over 640x480@16 colours.
The most common response to help questions on the solaris knowledge bay is "n00b, READ THE FUCKING MANUAL, you idiot, or pay us $10000 for a jucy support contract if you can't learn to use CDE", true too, search the archives if you think I'm lying. Other Unixes give you comprehensive PRINTED MANUALS, PHONE PRINTED MANUALS, PHONE SUPPPORT and/or freindly forums where repling RTFM gets you banned!
Solarises support for any decent hardware, including USB mice, scanners, Sound cards, heck even Serial devices struggle. If you can even get 80x25 text mode with PS/2 input devices you are really lucky.
Solaris package manager has many flaws. First of all it uses a non standard package format (the rest of the world uses RPM, deprecate the slx format!), has broken respetories, and out of date software to install.
And if you think I'm joking about this, find out why THOUSANDS of Debian users are switching to REAL Unixes Solaris is falling to pieces, if it is to survive any market share it will be through its superior forks (Java Desktop, Sun Linux) and unoffical package respetories.
Don't get me wrong, I love Unix and I'm happily using them. But I'm sick to death of zealots that push obsolete Unix on me EVERY FREAKING TIME A Unix is reviewed. I'm speaking from real world experiance here, My Old packard bell monitor caught fire because of Debian!.
P.S (This is not a troll, its insightful flamebait!)
except linux isnt free, is incoherent from distribution to distribution, causes things tobe hard to port, breaks more often, is poorly supported, incorrecly implements NFS, has poor automounter, ive never seen it run right disklessly. Im not saying put the secretary on Solaris. THat is a Job for Windows or OS X (NEVER linux). Engineers and IT infrastructure, thats a job for solaris. Period end. no room for linux.
Just as I thought. You fount a LOCAL ROOT. HAHAHAH. Every FUCKING OS on EARTH has them, you stupid fucking shit. You know how many RedHat updates are related to local root buffer fixes.
You are a know nothing turd to think that local root holes dont exist everywhere. Unlike redhat, that was patched in 30 seconds. it also says its for SPARC and x86, throwing this bogus argument out the door. And you still cant get remote root on it.
So, Shut the fuck up, its hammer time, and you cant touch this, and you couldnt show shell code for shit, asshole.
Yey, Solaris 9 is great. But it's still *closed source*, so please stop wasting /.-er time with proprietary evil. *yawn*.
mods points pwoned by GNAA
show me a free enterprise linux. /usr/include/linux is POSIX?
NONE. FAILED TEST.
SUSE and RedHat have different ways of doing things BROKEN, FAILED TEST.
FAILED TEST, non standard inlcudes.
Linux does break more often. EVer notice how often RedHat patched glibc, the compiler and the kernel. Its amusing.
FAILED TEST.
Suppoort from RedHat does suck, and you know this. It can not possibly hold a candle to something as HUGE as sun.
FAILED TEST, GNU/Commie os being made "commercial" by a company with serious cash problems.
FAILED TEST.
NFS. Id like to see SecureRPC working with Linux. Maybe even Cache NFS. Or Dual mounting the same export working properly. Linux just got ACL support, are you nuts?
FAILED TEST
Automounter on Linux FUCKING SUCKS, is broken and can barely be used
FAILED TEST.
Linux fails. Paying for it is a joke.
Back in the day, around FreeBSD 2.2.8, it was a very nice operating system. However, when RELENG_5 was branched, a lot of wrong decisions were made, most of them by people with zero clue about how to implement proper SMP (e.g. John Baldwin). Matt Dillon tried to fix the situation, but all he got in response was a commit bit suspension, which later lead to his expulsion.
You can thank assholes like: Poul-Henning Kamp (POT, KETTLE, BLACK), Greg Lehey, Dag-Erling Smorgrav, Mark Murray and Bill Fumerola for kicking him out and making sure that, thanks to overengineering, RELENG_5 will never work.
Further proof, FreeBSD recently went 100% dynamic to allow the use of NSS switch system. John Dyson, who did most of the VM work back in the day, pointed out how wrong this decision was. Dillon also jumped in and offered a better solution. What he got as reward was Scott Long telling him to go away. Listen Scott, YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. Not only you don't even know how to quote, but you also managed to fuck the 5.1-R isos twice. I wonder how can you be in re@, that sure has lead to the piss-poor quality of the last 2 or 3 releases.
Joseph Mallett, an ex-committer.
5061Back in the day, around FreeBSD 2.2.8, it was a very nice operating system. However, when RELENG_5 was branched, a lot of wrong decisions were made, most of them by people with zero clue about how to implement proper SMP (e.g. John Baldwin). Matt Dillon tried to fix the situation, but all he got in response was a commit bit suspension, which later lead to his expulsion.
You can thank assholes like: Poul-Henning Kamp (POT, KETTLE, BLACK), Greg Lehey, Dag-Erling Smorgrav, Mark Murray and Bill Fumerola for kicking him out and making sure that, thanks to overengineering, RELENG_5 will never work.
Further proof, FreeBSD recently went 100% dynamic to allow the use of NSS switch system. John Dyson, who did most of the VM work back in the day, pointed out how wrong this decision was. Dillon also jumped in and offered a better solution. What he got as reward was Scott Long telling him to go away. Listen Scott, YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. Not only you don't even know how to quote, but you also managed to fuck the 5.1-R isos twice. I wonder how can you be in re@, that sure has lead to the piss-poor quality of the last 2 or 3 releases.
Joseph Mallett, an ex-committer.
28904Back in the day, around FreeBSD 2.2.8, it was a very nice operating system. However, when RELENG_5 was branched, a lot of wrong decisions were made, most of them by people with zero clue about how to implement proper SMP (e.g. John Baldwin). Matt Dillon tried to fix the situation, but all he got in response was a commit bit suspension, which later lead to his expulsion.
You can thank assholes like: Poul-Henning Kamp (POT, KETTLE, BLACK), Greg Lehey, Dag-Erling Smorgrav, Mark Murray and Bill Fumerola for kicking him out and making sure that, thanks to overengineering, RELENG_5 will never work.
Further proof, FreeBSD recently went 100% dynamic to allow the use of NSS switch system. John Dyson, who did most of the VM work back in the day, pointed out how wrong this decision was. Dillon also jumped in and offered a better solution. What he got as reward was Scott Long telling him to go away. Listen Scott, YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. Not only you don't even know how to quote, but you also managed to fuck the 5.1-R isos twice. I wonder how can you be in re@, that sure has lead to the piss-poor quality of the last 2 or 3 releases.
Joseph Mallett, an ex-committer.
3890"absolute lowest TCO" - dont' be ridiculous.
... and I thought there is nothing worse than gentoo/osx zealotry... (don't take me wrong, I like linux - my roommate uses gentoo - and admire os x, its just that ...)
1) Enterprise servers?? lol. You can only use the 'free' version on 1 cpu configurations.
2) Help/Guides: Handbook.
3)Patches/Updates: Security advisories..
Application availability: 9800+ in the ports tree (FreeBSD) - and its absolutely FREE. Can you say the same of Solaris x86? (KDE 3.1.4, GNOME 2.4.1, the latest and greatest of almost every apps running rock solid on 5.1 - a "technology preview" version of FreeBSD)