Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the sunshine-lollipops-and-rainbows dept.
ptolemu writes "The Register has the scoop on Sun's latest iteration of Solaris. The article includes some details of the new and improved features that will be included in the OS. The OS is scheduled to be released in the second half of 2004."
It's actually SunOS 5.10. (SunOS 4.x was Solaris 1.x, SunOS 5.x was Solaris 2.x up until 2.7, then they changed it to just Solaris 7 with the underworkings of SunOS 5.7... got that?)I can't imagine they're going to break into the next major version number. (i.e. SunOS 6) but you never know.
Wasn't the reason they went from v4 to v5 because they swapped the underpinnings of the OS from BSD (Solaris 1.x) to SVR4 (Solaris 2+)? That being said, I can only see them going to v6 when they change over to Linux;)
Sun has also added a new security tool with Solaris Privileges. This lets the root user create sub roots that can have permission, for example, to patch applications but not to touch hardware components.
Considering Debian stable, last I checked, still has the 2.2 kernel as default, I'd say you have at least a ten year wait.
-- When I am king, you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all
Re:sub roots
by
Russ+Steffen
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This feature sounds like the privilege model from Trusted Solaris is being mainlined into the plain ol' Solaris tree. In which case, yes, someone is working to bring that into Linux. That's one of things SELinux is doing.
Re:Sub roots
by
KrispyKringle
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sounds vaguely similar to sudo.
Re:Sub roots
by
Frymaster
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Sounds vaguely similar to sudo
you can easily roll your own one of these with a combo of sudo and acls.
but of course if you let sun do it for you a) you save yourself some work b) management feels more comfortable about it.
Re:sub roots
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In linux you can set up SELinux.
this is Security Enhanced Linux.
It basicly isolates every thing from everything else in linux right down to the kernel level.
For example if you have a Apache webserver and it gets comprimised, a hacker can't use Apache's security level to give him elevated permissions to control another part of the OS. In a regular OS you have to allow the Apache some root control over the computer to have it work properly and a hacker can use this to violate your computer.
In SELinux even if a hacker gained root access their is a limited amount of damage he can do, depending on how you set it up.
You could if you wanted to use this to set up roles for users, like a apache admin or a sendmail admin, or a filesystem admin or a/dev/ file admin.
SeLinux is brought to us by our freinds and future government overloads: the NSA.
Interesting... Everyone has the debate of Linux GPL vs putting Linux out there with a BSD license. Would would be the problem of letting an older linux kernel tree off and call it something else and go with a BSD license? If it dies a horrible death, so be it, the main GPL linux tree will continue... But that way it could give the debate a run for it's money.
Re:Sub roots
by
Imperator
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It would be more than that, at least from what the description suggests. The problem with sudo is that you're often giving suid access to programs that aren't designed to be suid, so someone who was the right entries in the sudoers file can root the machine with ease. Proper privilege separation in the admin tools would mean being able to give someone access to run apt-get dist-upgrade (or whatever it is) without his being able to install his own packages. It would mean letting someone add non-root users but not root users, or resetting passwords but only for users in a certain group. It requires planning when creating admin tools, not a "slap it on" solution like sudo.
Of course, given that it's Solaris, it may end up just being sudo after all.
--
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
It should be interesting to see how the N1 Grid Containers work. It would be great to setup a shared server with this so scripts can't eat all the CPU and crash the entire server.
--
"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
If N1 Grid Containers work well it will be a major improvement on the competition. In HP-UX if you want to set up V-Pars you need to dedicate at least one CPU, physical disks and a network interface to every partition, and resource allocation is at the whole CPU level. With an 8 CPU machine that doesn't give you much leeway if you want to have 3 or 4 test environments.
With N1 Grid Containers OS instances sit on top of a "master" OS, so resources can be divided at a much finer level. You could presumably have a production partition with 80% of the cpu power allocated to it, and a bunch of test partitions sharing the rest, and dynamically increase the CPU power of the test partitions when it was prudent to do so.
Re:so what's better, bsd, linux or solaris?
by
0xfc
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
> i always wondered why nobody ever writes articles that include solaris.
1. not open source 2. costs money 3. runs on overpriced hardware 4. bsd and linux can do everything it can cept maybe scale to extremes 5. solaris is not the only stable OS anymore 6. way too many people were burned by sun back in the day and said enough is enough, they never went back
Is Unix Unix?
by
ObviousGuy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've wondered for a while now, is one Unix like another Unix? I've used Linux in the past and am trying out FreeBSD now. Frankly, I don't notice the difference from an end-user perspective.
Linux has SMP support, so does FreeBSD, and so does Solaris. They all have process management functionality (which is what Solaris is introducing with N1 Containers in this release). What would possess me to use Solaris (which costs) instead of Linux or FreeBSD (which are free)?
Is any one of them more robust than another?
-- I have been pwned because my/. password was too easy to guess.
Re:Is Unix Unix?
by
Frymaster
·
· Score: 5, Informative
What would possess me to use Solaris
one word: support.
i have worked in two shops in the last four years. one is a red hat shop. we use rhel es with paid support. the other was a full-meal-deal sparc/solaris shop.
in the solaris shop we had a dramatic failure of a storedge sena array. i called the sun support line and a guy in tweed jacket was at my door in 40 minutes with a grocery bag full of spare parts (gbic cards, if you care). the problem was solved in a total time of one hour.
in the linux shop i made a web support request for a very simple question (that being: is stronghold bundled with rhel es like the marketing material says? it doesn't seem to be... anyone know?). i logged that request twelve days ago and it's still listed as "awaiting technician". twelve days! and every time i go to check the status the web page throws a NullPointerException. and i got an email for resolution on a support request i didn't even make. i informed red hat that i'd received someone elses support mail and they replied that it would be rerouted, but the erroneous issue still shows up on my incident tracker a week later.
so... sun costs a bundle. but if you need tech support from a team that makes the justice league of america look like a quilting bee, they're your guys.
I've wondered for a while now, is one Unix like another Unix? I've used Linux in the past and am trying out FreeBSD now. Frankly, I don't notice the difference from an end-user perspective.
Well, from a basic end-users perspective, there isn't much different at all. Especially if you install a bash shell on solaris, or whatever unix you're using.
From the administrators perspective, there can be a world of difference. Many admin tasks can be very similar, but many are also pretty different.
As for why you'd want to use Solaris over Linux, nobody does NFS better than Sun. I'm not sure what the current status of NFS is under Linux, but I've heard some stories that don't look favourably on Linux and NFS.
Also, Solaris performs and scales very well on multi-cpu machines, compared to Linux (although with Linux 2.6, this may not be such an advantage anymore).
Then you've got the added advantages of Solaris being a full 64 bit OS (ignoring the Intel version), with large max file sizes and RAM without any special hacks (again, Linux 2.6 has gone some way to fixing this, with 64 bit file support).
Basically, for the enterprise, Linux wasn't really an option until 2.6. With 2.6 only in its infancy, Linux still isn't an option. Solaris is though, 'cause it's got the features, the performance, the reliability, and it has been thoroughly tested on the anvil of time.
> If you care at all about programmer's jobs, you would support closed-source Unix.
This does not seem very logical. It almost seems like you are "scared" of OSS. You, as a programmer can now harness all this free software to create some amazing products. With skill you can add value and sell it. Imagine working from scratch on everything, reinventing the wheel at every step, buggy beta code OR you can build on a well written, free, BSD licensed piece of software AND not share your source while making money. You can be even more revolutionary and picking GPL licensed software and sharing your value added source with everyone while making money (support + modest price of software).
I am more a customer, and I cant imagine not having source to compile from now days. I am way to used to it, it is assumed.
Re:Is Unix Unix?
by
whereiswaldo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
in the solaris shop we had a dramatic failure of a storedge sena array. i called the sun support line and a guy in tweed jacket was at my door in 40 minutes...
in the linux shop i made a web support request for a very simple question... i logged that request twelve days ago and it's still listed as "awaiting technician".
You must admit that these two issues are *very* different in severity. Try logging a failure of a similar magnitude with Red Hat and report your results back for an apples to apples comparison.
Re:Is Unix Unix?
by
Veridium
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I have to agree with you. Sun support kicks butt, second to none. At the one company I worked at as a Solaris admin, the few times I did call Sun, I was never on hold more than a few minutes, and whatever parts were needed were delivered to us within hours.
Though I always saw that as one of the advantages of having the OS & hardware coming from the same vendor. It seems to keep them from playing the "it must be your hardware" game that so many software vendor support people play whenever the answer isn't easy. Though that doesn't explain your experience with RH.
Anyone out there have experience with their X86 support?
-- Think for yourself, destroy your television.
Re:Is Unix Unix?
by
stevens
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Also consider yourself lucky that you have not experienced Sun at their worst yet: yes, they, too, sometimes have less than stellar service even though you pay them a bundle.
Like diagnosing a memory card failure, replacing it to have the OS panic in a few hours? And then they changed out all the RAM again. And did it again three days later.
After a few calls the replaced everything but the chassis. But that was several failures in a week!
Or when our CPUs started blowing, but they wouldn't give a new batch for all the identical severs we bought. They told us to call them as the blew. We ended up getting about 60% replaced, as they blew and caused downtime.
But they're always there in an hour to be unhelpful.
Re:Is Unix Unix?
by
christophersaul
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Sun's actually a lot, lot less expensive now. Check out the V440, which can come in much cheaper than an equivalent 4 way Xeon.
Re:Is Unix Unix?
by
whereiswaldo
·
· Score: 3, Funny
How you do anything is how you do everything
Do you wipe your ass as fervently as you make love to your wife?
Sun has also added a new security tool with Solaris Privileges. This lets the root user create sub roots that can have permission, for example, to patch applications but not to touch hardware components.
This is a very interesting feature. Except for using sudo, does anyone know of any effort going on in linux to provide a similar feature ? Maybe Sun can port it to linux just to prove how OSS friendly they are;)
-- My mom never taught me to sign.
Solaris vs. Linux
by
bazik
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Solaris is great for the big Sun (Ultra)Sparc servers, but for the "smaller" machines with less than 32 CPU, Linux works so much better and faster. Not to mention the bigger choice of more current Software.
But then again, I might be a bit biased in my opinion:)
--
-- One by one the penguins steal my sanity...
Re:so what's better, bsd, linux or solaris?
by
SpaceCadetTrav
·
· Score: 4, Funny
SE Linux is being included in upcoming releases of Fedora Core, and eventually Red Hat. Link
Re:so what's better, bsd, linux or solaris?
by
BiggerIsBetter
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
1. Yup. 2. Yup, but it's cheaper than RedHat/SuSE Linux for a single CPU *professional* version. 3. There's an x86 version (Sun harware fanboys can STFU about how crappy it is on non-SPARC hardware), and low-end Sun hardware starts at around 1000 USD. 4. Yup. 5. Fair enough.
-- Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Just when I finally decided to get certified in 9.....at least the upgrades aren't as prolific as with MS!
I've been running the beta for a while....
by
Desmoden
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Has some cool features. Once apps (oracle etc) get "blessed" it will be nice to have a new core OS to go to since no one will support 5.9.
If for no other reason than getting away from a 101.5MB recommended patch cluster.
There are a lot of cool new commands for kernel info. There is also a performance increase depending on which cpus you are running.
Re:I've been running the beta for a while....
by
Bitmanhome
·
· Score: 4, Funny
What's so scary about 102MB? That's like 3 Windows updates, or half a Debian update.
-- Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
Re:I've been running the beta for a while....
by
lewp
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Making fun of Windows and Debian in the same post should be every man's goal.
-- Game... blouses.
Re:"Solyaris" by Tartovsky
by
jay-be-em
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"Solaris is so far off the radarscope of present computing these days"
You obviously have nothing to do with present computing these days. At least outside of your basement. Oh, by the way, mom called, dinner is ready.
-- "Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
Will they charge for x86 Solaris 10
by
rueben
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
And then change their minds a few months later, like Solaris 9?
So is this version going to
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
So is this version going to include the feature of it not being *fricking painful* to compile nearly anything not specifically targetted at Solaris?
No, I'm not trolling. Anyone who's worked with previous Solaris versions knows what I'm talking about. Anyone who's tried to compile GNOME as a non-root user on Solaris 9 is rolling on the floor crying from the memories right now. It seems like Solaris has everything just *barely* different enough that absolutely everything is a slightly different kind of complete pain to compile.
Yes I realize that at least part of this is that apps are targetted for Linux, so of course it isn't Sun's fault when shit doesn't compile. And yes, I'm exaggerating, the compilation problems only happen occationally, it's just that when they do happen it's really bad. But through the shit-colored glasses of memory, it seems like every time you try to compile some large free software package in solaris you uncover some new and painful oddity about the OS.
Re:So is this version going to
by
Phibz
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I maintain packages for 300 or so programs for Solaris. I've compiled all of them using Sun's compiler, Forte from SunONE Studio 7. Although I agree that some programs are more difficult than others to compile under sSolaris, I've been able compile nearly anything I've attempted using forte 7. I used to use gcc but the speed improvements that forte adds make it very attractive.
I compiled GNOME and KDE and although I wouldn't say they were easy to compile I did get them working. And no I didn't compile any of it as the root user. I even was able to compile libavcodec something that supposedly runs on Solaris but is coded in a very very gcc specific way.
So I'm not really sure what difficulties you're refering to. So long as you have a sane build environment, gnu make, autoconf, automake, m4, a good compiler, gcc or forte, and know your compiler well you shouldn't have any problems.
Phibz
Re:So is this version going to
by
plankers
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Re:So is this version going to
by
javiercero
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Yes I realize that at least part of this is that apps are targetted for Linux, so of course it isn't Sun's fault when shit doesn't compile. "
That is the understatement of the year. Us BSD users have feel the pain of shitty code for years, as well as most other non Linux/GNU userland dependant Nixes out there.
I guess you have to take the good with the bad of OSS, the bad being the amount of shitty coders outthere that do not have a clue. And I have had my love/hate relationship with gcc for over a decade, sometimes I wonder why they still try to pretend to be a C-compiler:) and at least be honest enough and call it "new and improved C" or whatever but not C. And yes even with the strict ansi c flags I have had trouble with gcc. But I do not complain too much because I have gotten good things out of gcc too.
I just wish portability was real sometimes:(.
Re:So is this version going to
by
aanantha
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm still trying to compile GNOME on Solaris *as* a root user. It's been a year now. Not done yet. Seriously. I wasted a lot of time trying to get that OpenJade crap working. I couldn't figure out why OpenJade would crash every time I ran it. It was only months later that I found out that a shared library version of OpenSP doesn't work on Solaris. The Openjade people didn't think it important enough to mention. But even after getting that stuff built and figuring out how to install DTDs by looking at my Linux system, it still wouldn't work. So then there was no choice but to disable all gnome doc building.
And then there's that goddamn gettext/libintl stuff. I don't have the option of overriding the Sun version of libintl across the board by placing the GNU libintl in/usr/local. Our Solaris software that uses Sun's libintl will break. You think the GNU people could have at least made it possible to use a different library name (libgintl maybe) for their incompatible version of libintl and have their configure scripts search for that.
Now all my stuff is out of date so I have to start over from the beginning again. Building GNOME has just become a great way to procrastinate. I wonder if I'll ever get to KDE.
Sun tries to solve this problem by giving you a prepackaged version of GNOME. But 2 problems with their approach: 1) it's never up to date, and 2) it's only good if you have Sun's C compiler. I don't know how, but somehow Sun's GTK+ C library is incompatible with GCC's. Same with their Zlib. So I can't use Sun's GNOME distribution to write software. I though that kind of stuff was only supposed to happen with C++. I'd much rather like Sun to promote a/usr/ports like thing for Solaris. Whatever they did to get GNOME to compile they need to stick those patches in a/usr/ports. The community would help out. Then eventually we can have full "distributions" that we can install onto a Solaris system. Life would be a lot easier if there was something like "fink" in place for Solaris.
And while they're at it, Sun needs to stop ignoring GCC. Make the C and C++ ABI compatible. There are a lot of Solaris software houses that only use GCC because they need to build their code on other unices. They're not going to be able to use Sun's GNOME environment if it's not GCC compatible.
Re:So is this version going to
by
dglo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So is this version going to include the feature of it not being *fricking painful* to compile nearly anything not specifically targetted at Solaris?
I'm old enough to remember back when Sun was the top dog and all non-SunOS users complained about Unix software being written specifically for Suns.
And before that, the problem was people writing Unix software specifically for the VAX.
This says more about the quality of the people writing OSS than it does about the quality of Solaris. Actually quality is the wrong word, because it's likely that many of these programmers only know or have access to Linux.
Making an effort to port your software to non-Linux dialects of Unix is a really good thing, because other OSes will expose bugs in your software which would not otherwise turn up until, for example, a bug in the current glibc is fixed.
Re:hmmm...
by
javiercero
·
· Score: 5, Informative
No, only 64bit kernels are provided now. So that means Ultra 2 and up type of machines are supported, Ultra 1 and the Sun4c/m/et al are now dropped.
Therefore Solaris 9 is the last stop for the sun4m machines.
never do anything with the odd release of solaris.
by
Desmoden
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
think of it like odd linux kernels.
5.6 stable we all used it. 5.7 we played with, tested 5.8 we all upgraded to, used, liked. 5.9 play with and test 5.10 upgrade and enjoy.
most oracle products for example will never be certified on 5.9. It's too much work to requalify and upgrade to a new solaris version. So the odds introduce new features and work out the bugs, and the evens is what we use.
Re:A simple question
by
Brandybuck
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Linux and BSD aren't really UNIX
In all but name, BSD is every bit as much UNIX as Solaris. In fact, Solaris's precessor, SunOS, was directly derived from BSD. If you're hung up on names and trademarks, than BSD is not UNIX. But in every other sense it is.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Solaris vs. Linux - mod parent up
by
javiercero
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Not really, actually I have had the opposite experience with Solaris running much better on desktop sparc machines than linux.
Also most of the software out there that can be compiled in linux can also be ported over Solaris with minimal grief.
And I do not particularly feel like spending 2 days compiling in order to have a stable machine. A solaris install with the extra software CD provides most of the functionality than a linux install. But if you like linux by all means go and use it. Saying that linux is somehow better or makes more sense than solaris just because is just plain dumb.
there's an old saying...
by
SuperBanana
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There's an old legal saying- never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
The company is so confident about Solaris' speed that officials repeatedly offered to challenge Linux on benchmarks in the coming months.
Now, usually companies don't make such bets unless they're well hedged. So, perhaps running some benchmarks against the preview versions of 10(the article mentions most of 10 is available already to update subscribers) might be a nice idea, to see what's got Sun so cocky, instead of just saying "oh. Solaris is crap"(which is at least partially wrong anyway).
We worked hard on efficiency, and we now measure, at a given network workload on identical x86 hardware, we use 30 percent less CPU than Linux.
So I guess that should give them a fair performance advantage under very heavy static loads. Although he doesn't say which linux.
Re:there's an old saying...
by
kshcsuf
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There's a reason why they are piping up the rhetoric... very recent recommended patchkits include a kernel patch (dated around Christmas eve) that have very specific "fixes" which include massive performance improvements in over a dozen system calls. Each fix/report states that those system calls were slower when tested against Linux 2.4/2.6. The fixes have been back-ported to Solaris 9 and are included in Solaris 10. Hope this helps.
Why all the bad comments?
by
KidSock
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Excuse me but this actually sounds pretty good. This "containers" thing permits running hundreds of virtual machines on one host (and not a moment too late as that idea is becoming a very popular -- I have a VPS runing UML and it's very snappy). The DTrace utility sounds nice although I probably shouldn't say that considering I've never tried it. And they're going to run Opteron and claim that they can beat the Linux benchmarks. I don't know about you but I wouldn't mind having an Opteron box running Solaris 10.
[disclaimer: I have 50 shares of SUNW]
Re:You're late to this scene
by
Bastian
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Solaris came out in 1972. There's been plenty of time for 9 sequels in 30-odd years. Actually, the crappy Solaris that just made the theatres in the USA is Solaris 9, but was released in the USA as Solaris 1. (It's kind of a Final Fantasy 3/6 thing) Solaris 11 is already in the process of being shot, just like Darl.
Re:Slow Solaris Upgrades
by
ogre57
·
· Score: 4, Informative
sure, some people are running solaris 8 still, by the cs dept here is running.. SunOS 5.8
Solaris 8 is SunOS 5.8, 9 is 5.9, 7 is 5.7, 2.6 is 5.6, etc. Guessing Solaris 10 will be SunOS 5.10. Part of why, pre-Solaris was 4.x so Solaris became 5.x, for eg version testing by scripts.
Other, have noticed that for whatever reason several companies deployed the even numbered Solaris versions, mostly skipped the odd ones. Meaning they were on 2.6, played with 7 a little, upgraded to 8 soon after it came out, have only played with 9. Seems they are treating it as if it were the Linux even/odd release/devel scheme.
Re:so what's better, bsd, linux or solaris?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
1. not open source 2. costs money 3. runs on overpriced hardware 4. bsd and linux can do everything it can cept maybe scale to extremes 5. solaris is not the only stable OS anymore 6. way too many people were burned by sun back in the day and said enough is enough, they never went back
Lets flesh that out a bit...
1. You can get the source to Solaris. 2. You can download Solaris for free. 3. Solaris runs on good hardware which is a good thing if you are trying to get serious work done. (Not everyone working with *nix is building web servers, internet hosting, or using samba to replace a few Windows PCs.) If you are only trying to recycle crap hardware, any OS will do. FreeDOS or DR DOS will recycle hardware that Linux is too fat to run on. 4. BSD and Linux lack the thousands of mature, commerical applications Solaris has, but they are catching up. 5. Solaris is not only stable, it is one of the best. Linux is still in catch up mode in terms of standards and features. Linux still has a tendency to cheat, or only partially implement a standard. It is getting better. Standards are a good thing if you are trying to get equipment from multiple vendors to work together. 6. Sun's support has been plenty good for the companies I've worked for, and PCs won't be getting the work done that we do anytime soon. Maybe if the Opterons work out well we could use them in a couple of years. 7. A standard Sun keyboard has the control key where it should be. 8. Documentation. Solaris has it. The documentation is good, and correct. Linux, ha. 9. Solaris can have a System V Unix personality, a BSD personality, a GNU personality, or traditional Sun personality, depending upon your path. 10. Linux pretty much provides a subset of what Solaris can do.
I could go on, but you should get the point by now.
Re:Not just Solaris
by
Bastian
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've run into the same problem on Mac OS X. Usually you're fine, but when you aren't, you're in a world of pain. I think this is a lot of why fink just creates a separate file tree rather than trying to merge itself in with the main one.
I've actually been considering dual-booting GNU/Linux on my mac for just this reason.
Re:so what's better, bsd, linux or solaris?
by
fferreres
·
· Score: 4, Informative
512 cpus, single image. It's clustered at 64 cpus per node, but they share memory and the same kernel. I am quoting by memory, so may be wrong.
-- unfinished: (adj.)
Re:so what's better, bsd, linux or solaris?
by
0xfc
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
> 1. You can get the source to Solaris.
google showed this link for seach "solaris source". From this link it reads:
The Solaris 8 Foundation Source Program has concluded. Source code for the Solaris Operating System is available for qualified educational institutions and partners; please contact your Sun sales team for details. Maybe this info is old...
> 2. You can download Solaris for free.
I just tried, it seemed you were right, they made me jump through hoops. I ended up at a page that appeared to allow me to download solaris, but the link was not a link and they wanted me to register. could have told me that at the start... i am too lazy to do it, i will assume you are right.
> 3. Solaris runs on good hardware which is a good thing if you are trying to get serious work done. (Not everyone working with *nix is building web servers, internet hosting, or using samba to replace a few Windows PCs.) If you are only trying to recycle crap hardware, any OS will do. FreeDOS or DR DOS will recycle hardware that Linux is too fat to run on.
You make it sound like ibm,hp,compaq did not make high end x86 servers. Himilaya non stop servers come to mind. Heck even proliants are nice.
> 4. BSD and Linux lack the thousands of mature, commerical applications Solaris has, but they are catching up.
I agree.
> 5. Solaris is not only stable, it is one of the best. Linux is still in catch up mode in terms of standards and features. Linux still has a tendency to cheat, or only partially implement a standard. It is getting better. Standards are a good thing if you are trying to get equipment from multiple vendors to work together.
FreeBSD is amazingly stable. Uptimes of a year are taken for granted. I dont know enough to comment on the rest of your statement.
> 6. Sun's support has been plenty good for the companies I've worked for, and PCs won't be getting the work done that we do anytime soon. Maybe if the Opterons work out well we could use them in a couple of years.
Support? I dont need no stinkin support. You telling me your head admins cannot troubleshoot hardware? You dont have a backup system ready so a hardware failure just is an inconvienence? Software is a whole different issue.
> 7. A standard Sun keyboard has the control key where it should be....
> 8. Documentation. Solaris has it. The documentation is good, and correct. Linux, ha.
I agree. Sun probably employs a crap load of technical writers. Its a good thing. I often find answers to problems from sun docs...
> 9. Solaris can have a System V Unix personality, a BSD personality, a GNU personality, or traditional Sun personality, depending upon your path.
I guess.
> 10. Linux pretty much provides a subset of what Solaris can do.
I wont argue that. Solaris is time tested and powerful.
"It means rock-solid 64-bit UNIX on commodity x86 hardware. Very cool..."
Not really. It means a rock-solid 64-bit unix that you should be running on SPARC. And by the way, it's gonna be discontinued next month. Or wait... no, we're gonna support it. Maybe. Or maybe not. You should be running Solaris on SPARC. But wait, you can run it on x86-64. Or SPARC. But we're going to discontinue Solaris on anything but SPARC next month. Or not. Well, hey, run x86 Solaris! No, it's not supported. Yes it is. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The fact is, until Sun can get their story straight for 6 consecutive months I wont ever consider running Solaris on anything but SPARC. As long as they cant commit for more than the attention span of a stoned gnat with split personality syndrome I have serious doubts about both the stability and the level of support one will recieve for non-SPARC platforms.
Re:2.2 in Debian stable?
by
phrasebook
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But it does have 2.2 by default doesn't it? If I press Enter at the boot prompt of my woody CD, I get the 2.2 idepci kernel. So I would say that is the default.
But you can type 'bf24' to get 2.4 of course.
Re:A simple question
by
ogre57
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Okay, tell me why SunOS is "real UNIX" but BSD isn't...
On the off chance this is a serious inquiry,
SunOS is officially
"branded", *BSD and Linux are not. Said brand is required to be a "real UNIX", costs $$$ to obtain. Vaguely recall reading that some Linux distro was going to try for this. Haven't heard of them in quite a while now (iirc it was with kernel 1.2!).
Linux Business Week says Solaris 10 has..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Informative
SELinux gives you this
by
Oestergaard
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Solaris 10 contains the Trusted Solaris security features (labeled security, mandatory access controls (MAC)) which is what allows such flexible administration without the almighty root user.
I haven't run the prerelease of solaris 10 myself yet - but from what I've read, they have really taken the trusted solaris features and put them in solaris 10 - this is not just the RBAC features from solaris 9 (which would actually allow the described sub-root concepts, but not all the other goodies that come with real MAC).
This is what SELinux brings to Linux. You can run Debian stable with SELinux if you really want to. Otherwise, look for RH AS 3.0, or get to work on testing SELinux in debian unstable so that we can all get this functionality in the next debian stable.
Google around for selinux on debian and you should be able to find out how to do this.
advocatus diaboli
by
Imperator
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Isn't this the sort of thing that we'd be up in arms about if it were MS compiler quirks other compilers were emulating? The GCC compilers should make strict conformance to modern standards the default, and make you turn on the extensions manually.
Why, for example, does GNU C++ include binary <? and >? operators for min and max? I could see the attraction in C, where preprocessor macros and their issues with side effects are a pain in the ass. But in C++, inline templated functions can do it just as well and are much more portable. This is the sort of irresponsible "extend the language by default" approach that the GCC compilers are full of.
Don't get me wrong; I love the GCC suite and for all the supposed performance issues, I wouldn't trade GCC for any other toolchain I've ever used. But free software should set an example by encouraging portable code.
</rant>
--
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Re:so what's better, bsd, linux or solaris?
by
shin0r
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
>Support? I dont need no stinkin support. You telling me your head admins cannot troubleshoot hardware? >You dont have a backup system ready so a hardware failure just is an inconvienence? Software is a whole different issue.
We aren't talking about a few PC's in the basement, or your home ftp server here. For those of us that admin hundreds of machines in production environments, support is absolutely essential - and Sun do it well.
all my replies in one go
by
chegosaurus
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Wow some of the comments on here are uninformed. Especially those modded informative or interesting.
"Hey, Solaris sucks! Linux is way better and it's free as in speech!" +5 interesting
"Hey Linux does everything Solaris does and it's free as in beer" +5 informative
"Hey there was a film called Solaris! OMG LOL!!!" +5 funny
Do you *never* get bored of pointing out that x86 chips have higher clock speeds than SPARCs?
Don't you think we *know* by now that Linux is free?
If you know how to handle Solaris, you will know that: it has some features that linux does not. It's no harder to build software for than linux. Trusted Solaris privileges are not the same as sudo. dtrace is not the same as cat/proc/whatever. Solaris is not so slow it's unusable on 32 CPUs. Version 5.8 is not four versions older than 9. There are smarter ways of patching than downloading the recommended cluster every day. But hey, post uninformed crap and up your karma. That's what matters.
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut up and leave the discussion to people with some interest and background in the subject. And stop complaining that "no one uses Solaris, so who cares there's a new major release", when you've probably been up all night bitching on IRC that the mods here rejected the 2.6.3-rc3 release story you submitted.
pkgsrc may be what you're searching for
by
cquark
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Only a few years ago, SPARC/Solaris was the most standard platform for open source software and IA32/Linux was the nonstandard, difficult one to build on. It's amazing how fast times have changed.
As for libraries compiled with a different C compiler than you're using to link with, that's a common problem between gcc and vendor UNIX C compilers. However, the vendor C compiler suites shouldn't be disregarded as they offer many advantages over gcc (take a look at some of the Solaris bugs in gcc and gdb.)
However, if you want something like/usr/ports on Solaris, check out pkgsrc. It's NetBSD's ports collection, and it has been ported to Solaris 8 and 9.
Re:never do anything with the odd release of solar
by
maitas
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
Will it be called SunOS 2.10 or SunOS 3.0?
When will I see it in Debian stable? =b
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
It should be interesting to see how the N1 Grid Containers work. It would be great to setup a shared server with this so scripts can't eat all the CPU and crash the entire server.
"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
> i always wondered why nobody ever writes articles that include solaris.
1. not open source
2. costs money
3. runs on overpriced hardware
4. bsd and linux can do everything it can cept maybe scale to extremes
5. solaris is not the only stable OS anymore
6. way too many people were burned by sun back in the day and said enough is enough, they never went back
I've wondered for a while now, is one Unix like another Unix? I've used Linux in the past and am trying out FreeBSD now. Frankly, I don't notice the difference from an end-user perspective.
Linux has SMP support, so does FreeBSD, and so does Solaris. They all have process management functionality (which is what Solaris is introducing with N1 Containers in this release). What would possess me to use Solaris (which costs) instead of Linux or FreeBSD (which are free)?
Is any one of them more robust than another?
I have been pwned because my
Sun has also added a new security tool with Solaris Privileges. This lets the root user create sub roots that can have permission, for example, to patch applications but not to touch hardware components.
;)
This is a very interesting feature. Except for using sudo, does anyone know of any effort going on in linux to provide a similar feature ? Maybe Sun can port it to linux just to prove how OSS friendly they are
My mom never taught me to sign.
Solaris is great for the big Sun (Ultra)Sparc servers, but for the "smaller" machines with less than 32 CPU, Linux works so much better and faster. Not to mention the bigger choice of more current Software.
:)
But then again, I might be a bit biased in my opinion
--
One by one the penguins steal my sanity...
7. Uses that funny keyboard.
Life in Orange County
I loved the first movie, I hope they recast George Cloony, but I didn't like the other 8 ....
Uh wait this isn't about the movie Solaris is it?
I just recently saw Solaris. Not even a sequel out yet... how could they be coming out with a 10th version?
It was good I guess, but good enough for 9 sequels in 3 years??
Linux runs a 512 CPU supercomputer at NASA
Are you talking here 512 CPU SMP or more a Beowulf or similar. Two rather different animals....
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
SE Linux is being included in upcoming releases of Fedora Core, and eventually Red Hat.
Link
1. Yup.
2. Yup, but it's cheaper than RedHat/SuSE Linux for a single CPU *professional* version.
3. There's an x86 version (Sun harware fanboys can STFU about how crappy it is on non-SPARC hardware), and low-end Sun hardware starts at around 1000 USD.
4. Yup.
5. Fair enough.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Just when I finally decided to get certified in 9.....at least the upgrades aren't as prolific as with MS!
Has some cool features. Once apps (oracle etc) get "blessed" it will be nice to have a new core OS to go to since no one will support 5.9.
If for no other reason than getting away from a 101.5MB recommended patch cluster.
There are a lot of cool new commands for kernel info. There is also a performance increase depending on which cpus you are running.
"Solaris is so far off the radarscope of present computing these days"
You obviously have nothing to do with present computing these days. At least outside of your basement. Oh, by the way, mom called, dinner is ready.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
And then change their minds a few months later, like Solaris 9?
So is this version going to include the feature of it not being *fricking painful* to compile nearly anything not specifically targetted at Solaris?
No, I'm not trolling. Anyone who's worked with previous Solaris versions knows what I'm talking about. Anyone who's tried to compile GNOME as a non-root user on Solaris 9 is rolling on the floor crying from the memories right now. It seems like Solaris has everything just *barely* different enough that absolutely everything is a slightly different kind of complete pain to compile.
Yes I realize that at least part of this is that apps are targetted for Linux, so of course it isn't Sun's fault when shit doesn't compile. And yes, I'm exaggerating, the compilation problems only happen occationally, it's just that when they do happen it's really bad. But through the shit-colored glasses of memory, it seems like every time you try to compile some large free software package in solaris you uncover some new and painful oddity about the OS.
No, only 64bit kernels are provided now. So that means Ultra 2 and up type of machines are supported, Ultra 1 and the Sun4c/m/et al are now dropped.
Therefore Solaris 9 is the last stop for the sun4m machines.
think of it like odd linux kernels.
5.6 stable we all used it.
5.7 we played with, tested
5.8 we all upgraded to, used, liked.
5.9 play with and test
5.10 upgrade and enjoy.
most oracle products for example will never be certified on 5.9. It's too much work to requalify and upgrade to a new solaris version. So the odds introduce new features and work out the bugs, and the evens is what we use.
Linux and BSD aren't really UNIX
In all but name, BSD is every bit as much UNIX as Solaris. In fact, Solaris's precessor, SunOS, was directly derived from BSD. If you're hung up on names and trademarks, than BSD is not UNIX. But in every other sense it is.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Not really, actually I have had the opposite experience with Solaris running much better on desktop sparc machines than linux.
Also most of the software out there that can be compiled in linux can also be ported over Solaris with minimal grief.
And I do not particularly feel like spending 2 days compiling in order to have a stable machine. A solaris install with the extra software CD provides most of the functionality than a linux install. But if you like linux by all means go and use it. Saying that linux is somehow better or makes more sense than solaris just because is just plain dumb.
There's an old legal saying- never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
The company is so confident about Solaris' speed that officials repeatedly offered to challenge Linux on benchmarks in the coming months.
Now, usually companies don't make such bets unless they're well hedged. So, perhaps running some benchmarks against the preview versions of 10(the article mentions most of 10 is available already to update subscribers) might be a nice idea, to see what's got Sun so cocky, instead of just saying "oh. Solaris is crap"(which is at least partially wrong anyway).
Please help metamoderate.
Excuse me but this actually sounds pretty good. This "containers" thing permits running hundreds of virtual machines on one host (and not a moment too late as that idea is becoming a very popular -- I have a VPS runing UML and it's very snappy). The DTrace utility sounds nice although I probably shouldn't say that considering I've never tried it. And they're going to run Opteron and claim that they can beat the Linux benchmarks. I don't know about you but I wouldn't mind having an Opteron box running Solaris 10.
[disclaimer: I have 50 shares of SUNW]
Solaris came out in 1972. There's been plenty of time for 9 sequels in 30-odd years. Actually, the crappy Solaris that just made the theatres in the USA is Solaris 9, but was released in the USA as Solaris 1. (It's kind of a Final Fantasy 3/6 thing) Solaris 11 is already in the process of being shot, just like Darl.
Solaris 8 is SunOS 5.8, 9 is 5.9, 7 is 5.7, 2.6 is 5.6, etc. Guessing Solaris 10 will be SunOS 5.10. Part of why, pre-Solaris was 4.x so Solaris became 5.x, for eg version testing by scripts.
Other, have noticed that for whatever reason several companies deployed the even numbered Solaris versions, mostly skipped the odd ones. Meaning they were on 2.6, played with 7 a little, upgraded to 8 soon after it came out, have only played with 9. Seems they are treating it as if it were the Linux even/odd release/devel scheme.
Lets flesh that out a bit...
1. You can get the source to Solaris.
2. You can download Solaris for free.
3. Solaris runs on good hardware which is a good thing if you are trying to get serious work done. (Not everyone working with *nix is building web servers, internet hosting, or using samba to replace a few Windows PCs.) If you are only trying to recycle crap hardware, any OS will do. FreeDOS or DR DOS will recycle hardware that Linux is too fat to run on.
4. BSD and Linux lack the thousands of mature, commerical applications Solaris has, but they are catching up.
5. Solaris is not only stable, it is one of the best. Linux is still in catch up mode in terms of standards and features. Linux still has a tendency to cheat, or only partially implement a standard. It is getting better. Standards are a good thing if you are trying to get equipment from multiple vendors to work together.
6. Sun's support has been plenty good for the companies I've worked for, and PCs won't be getting the work done that we do anytime soon. Maybe if the Opterons work out well we could use them in a couple of years.
7. A standard Sun keyboard has the control key where it should be.
8. Documentation. Solaris has it. The documentation is good, and correct. Linux, ha.
9. Solaris can have a System V Unix personality, a BSD personality, a GNU personality, or traditional Sun personality, depending upon your path.
10. Linux pretty much provides a subset of what Solaris can do.
I could go on, but you should get the point by now.
I've run into the same problem on Mac OS X. Usually you're fine, but when you aren't, you're in a world of pain. I think this is a lot of why fink just creates a separate file tree rather than trying to merge itself in with the main one.
I've actually been considering dual-booting GNU/Linux on my mac for just this reason.
512 cpus, single image. It's clustered at 64 cpus per node, but they share memory and the same kernel. I am quoting by memory, so may be wrong.
unfinished: (adj.)
> 1. You can get the source to Solaris.
...
google showed this link for seach "solaris source". From this link it reads:
The Solaris 8 Foundation Source Program has concluded. Source code for the Solaris Operating System is available for qualified educational institutions and partners; please contact your Sun sales team for details. Maybe this info is old...
> 2. You can download Solaris for free.
I just tried, it seemed you were right, they made me jump through hoops. I ended up at a page that appeared to allow me to download solaris, but the link was not a link and they wanted me to register. could have told me that at the start... i am too lazy to do it, i will assume you are right.
> 3. Solaris runs on good hardware which is a good thing if you are trying to get serious work done. (Not everyone working with *nix is building web servers, internet hosting, or using samba to replace a few Windows PCs.) If you are only trying to recycle crap hardware, any OS will do. FreeDOS or DR DOS will recycle hardware that Linux is too fat to run on.
You make it sound like ibm,hp,compaq did not make high end x86 servers. Himilaya non stop servers come to mind. Heck even proliants are nice.
> 4. BSD and Linux lack the thousands of mature, commerical applications Solaris has, but they are catching up.
I agree.
> 5. Solaris is not only stable, it is one of the best. Linux is still in catch up mode in terms of standards and features. Linux still has a tendency to cheat, or only partially implement a standard. It is getting better. Standards are a good thing if you are trying to get equipment from multiple vendors to work together.
FreeBSD is amazingly stable. Uptimes of a year are taken for granted. I dont know enough to comment on the rest of your statement.
> 6. Sun's support has been plenty good for the companies I've worked for, and PCs won't be getting the work done that we do anytime soon. Maybe if the Opterons work out well we could use them in a couple of years.
Support? I dont need no stinkin support. You telling me your head admins cannot troubleshoot hardware?
You dont have a backup system ready so a hardware failure just is an inconvienence? Software is a whole different issue.
> 7. A standard Sun keyboard has the control key where it should be.
> 8. Documentation. Solaris has it. The documentation is good, and correct. Linux, ha.
I agree. Sun probably employs a crap load of technical writers. Its a good thing. I often find answers to problems from sun docs...
> 9. Solaris can have a System V Unix personality, a BSD personality, a GNU personality, or traditional Sun personality, depending upon your path.
I guess.
> 10. Linux pretty much provides a subset of what Solaris can do.
I wont argue that. Solaris is time tested and powerful.
So _that's_ how the free drink holder works. Oohhhhhh...
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Yes, by delivering a mild electrical shock to your face. Difficulties in perfecting this process are why Longhorn's ship date keeps slipping.
Game... blouses.
"It means rock-solid 64-bit UNIX on commodity x86 hardware. Very cool..."
Not really. It means a rock-solid 64-bit unix that you should be running on SPARC. And by the way, it's gonna be discontinued next month. Or wait... no, we're gonna support it. Maybe. Or maybe not. You should be running Solaris on SPARC. But wait, you can run it on x86-64. Or SPARC. But we're going to discontinue Solaris on anything but SPARC next month. Or not. Well, hey, run x86 Solaris! No, it's not supported. Yes it is. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The fact is, until Sun can get their story straight for 6 consecutive months I wont ever consider running Solaris on anything but SPARC. As long as they cant commit for more than the attention span of a stoned gnat with split personality syndrome I have serious doubts about both the stability and the level of support one will recieve for non-SPARC platforms.
But it does have 2.2 by default doesn't it? If I press Enter at the boot prompt of my woody CD, I get the 2.2 idepci kernel. So I would say that is the default.
But you can type 'bf24' to get 2.4 of course.
On the off chance this is a serious inquiry, SunOS is officially "branded", *BSD and Linux are not. Said brand is required to be a "real UNIX", costs $$$ to obtain. Vaguely recall reading that some Linux distro was going to try for this. Haven't heard of them in quite a while now (iirc it was with kernel 1.2!).
...600 new features
Solaris 10 contains the Trusted Solaris security features (labeled security, mandatory access controls (MAC)) which is what allows such flexible administration without the almighty root user.
I haven't run the prerelease of solaris 10 myself yet - but from what I've read, they have really taken the trusted solaris features and put them in solaris 10 - this is not just the RBAC features from solaris 9 (which would actually allow the described sub-root concepts, but not all the other goodies that come with real MAC).
This is what SELinux brings to Linux. You can run Debian stable with SELinux if you really want to. Otherwise, look for RH AS 3.0, or get to work on testing SELinux in debian unstable so that we can all get this functionality in the next debian stable.
Google around for selinux on debian and you should be able to find out how to do this.
Isn't this the sort of thing that we'd be up in arms about if it were MS compiler quirks other compilers were emulating? The GCC compilers should make strict conformance to modern standards the default, and make you turn on the extensions manually.
Why, for example, does GNU C++ include binary <? and >? operators for min and max? I could see the attraction in C, where preprocessor macros and their issues with side effects are a pain in the ass. But in C++, inline templated functions can do it just as well and are much more portable. This is the sort of irresponsible "extend the language by default" approach that the GCC compilers are full of.
Don't get me wrong; I love the GCC suite and for all the supposed performance issues, I wouldn't trade GCC for any other toolchain I've ever used. But free software should set an example by encouraging portable code.
</rant>
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
>Support? I dont need no stinkin support. You telling me your head admins cannot troubleshoot hardware?
>You dont have a backup system ready so a hardware failure just is an inconvienence? Software is a whole different issue.
We aren't talking about a few PC's in the basement, or your home ftp server here. For those of us that admin hundreds of machines in production environments, support is absolutely essential - and Sun do it well.
Super Awesome Broadband
Wow some of the comments on here are uninformed. Especially those modded informative or interesting.
/proc/whatever. Solaris is not so slow it's unusable on 32 CPUs. Version 5.8 is not four versions older than 9. There are smarter ways of patching than downloading the recommended cluster every day. But hey, post uninformed crap and up your karma. That's what matters.
"Hey, Solaris sucks! Linux is way better and it's free as in speech!" +5 interesting
"Hey Linux does everything Solaris does and it's free as in beer" +5 informative
"Hey there was a film called Solaris! OMG LOL!!!" +5 funny
Do you *never* get bored of pointing out that x86 chips have higher clock speeds than SPARCs?
Don't you think we *know* by now that Linux is free?
If you know how to handle Solaris, you will know that: it has some features that linux does not. It's no harder to build software for than linux. Trusted Solaris privileges are not the same as sudo. dtrace is not the same as cat
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut up and leave the discussion to people with some interest and background in the subject. And stop complaining that "no one uses Solaris, so who cares there's a new major release", when you've probably been up all night bitching on IRC that the mods here rejected the 2.6.3-rc3 release story you submitted.
As for libraries compiled with a different C compiler than you're using to link with, that's a common problem between gcc and vendor UNIX C compilers. However, the vendor C compiler suites shouldn't be disregarded as they offer many advantages over gcc (take a look at some of the Solaris bugs in gcc and gdb.)
However, if you want something like /usr/ports on Solaris, check out pkgsrc. It's NetBSD's ports collection, and it has been ported to Solaris 8 and 9.
http://sdc.sun.com/solaris_list/s9supported_pro
List of ORACLE releases supported on Solaris 9....