Slashdot Mirror
Sun's Linux Killer Examined
gnaremooz is one of several users to mention Thomas Greene's look at Sun's supposed 'Linux Killer'. From the article: "If Sun gets very serious about Solaris 10 on x86 and the Open Solaris project that it hopes will nourish it, Linux vendors had better get very worried. That's because, in the many areas where Linux is miles ahead of Solaris, Sun stands a good chance of catching up quickly if it has the will, whereas in the many areas where Solaris is miles ahead, the Linux community will be hard pressed to narrow the gap." However, he goes on to describe many more difficulties with an install of Solaris than I seem to remember having with just about any recent Linux install.
You can't kill something that's non-commercial
Unix has been around since Linus Torvalds was in short pants.
Yeah, and Solaris x86 has been around since 1992. Hasn't killed Linux yet.
from TFA: Solaris containers (aka 'zones') are also noteworthy. They're virtual environments a bit like BSD jails, only slicker.
Though not part of the mainline kernel yet, there exists Linux Vservers project. I don't know much about Solaris zones not having any hands-on experience (though I did attend a talk on it), but I can say that Linux VServers beats the hell out of FreeBSD jails, which is sad IMO because in all other respects I prefer FreeBSD to Linux.
So I think it's the other way around - the Linux community will catch up much faster with Solaris, if only to show that they can.
Also this article looks like it could be Sun-sponsored PR - Sun seems to do very well comparing itself to Linux all the time.
Open Solaris is Free Software, yes? So if it becomes a "Linux killer", then the Linux vendors will simply become Open Solaris vendors. It doesn't matter if Linux dies if what is replacing it is just as free. Hell, the user-space applications are 90% the same anyway.
If Linux isn't successful because something else is better at doing the job and just as free, then that's a cause for celebration, not worry. The only people who need worry about this are the zealots and PHBs who have latched onto Linux for its buzzword value and not its merits.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I already posted this on TechNudge.com:
I'm not a big reader of The Register, and having just finished the article, I remember why. The article's premise: Solaris didn't crash *as much* as Linux, so Linux had better look out.
Oh, but he couldn't even detect a NIC without the manual editing of conf files, and wasn't really unique or remarkable in any discernable way.
How tone-deaf is the writer to the PC world, anyway? It doesn't take a Bill O'Brien to see that the OS market is supersaturated, and anything short of the second coming of MacOS X will be greeted with a great big yawn from the collective computing community. (Well, a very small band of users will love it and sing its praises. I mean people are still clinging to Amiga OS, for crying out loud.)
This is aside from Sun's remarkable in its ability to ruin every good technology it creates through corporate nonsense and heavy-handed tactics (read: Java), and really, Solaris wasn't really all that thrilling on Sparc. (I spent my entire undergrad shackled to it.)
Neither the article, nor Sun, answer the most critical question in the OS world today: Why should x86 users switch? Why should I leave my comfortable XP or Debian or Red Hat or SuSE for Solaris?
Wait, let me guess: because Sun is including (insert Java widget here).
Note to Scott McNealy: the magic Java dust has lost its power.
Pomme de Terre!
I've heard many good things about Solaris, and I can well believe Sun could quickly improve any problem areas. But one thing about Linux is it is free (no, I'm not talking about price). That's one of the key areas where Linux has been "miles head" of several competitor OSes. It's going to be hard for Solaris (or anyone else) to "narrow the gap" in that area unless Sun is also willing to free Solaris, and I don't think that is likely.
Ummmm.....will Solaris be free?
like, apparently, so many of these reviewers do,
I would care a lot more about how hard is to install.
Silly me, I USE computers.
If Sun would remove such questionable (presumably licensed from SCO) components and release under the GPL, I'd happily start supporting it. As it stands, it looks like little more than a trojan for intellectual property legal games.
I guess this just seems like a non-issue. Linux Killer? No way. Linux's Friendly Competitor? Welcome to the club!
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I was taking the article seriously until I got to this line:
KDE is certainly more popular than Gnome among Linux users, and most would agree that it's by far the better of the two desktops.
We've experienced a number of application crashes since we began playing with Solaris 10, but none capable of pulling the kernel down with it. On the other hand, we've had sloppy JavaScripts immobilize totally, and at times actually re-boot, our Linux box (especially with 2.4.x series kernels); we've seen X oddities do the same, and have experienced several wacky incidents using Microsoft bugware with Wine that required a hard reset. While we haven't taken a systematic approach to blowing up our Solaris 10 installations, one gets the impression of a pretty bulletproof kernel and shell.
That's basically it. The article goes on to basically say driver support sucks and it was kind of a pain to configure, make sure to use the Xorg server and app support is ok. But that kernel, rock solid! Without really mentioning what is happening in 2.6 kernel development or how that argument extends outward toward a better development platform overall.
It's a lost cause, there can only be one. Read all four pages of the article, and ask yourself... would I be interested in creating a disk partition or two and running Open Solaris just to see? I did... and the answer was no... I'd rather spend my time working on my Debian system.
Solaris is the first *ix OS I ever used, and I love it. (What I'm trying to say is, "Please hire me, Sun.") But it's never going to replace Linux; It's just a nice alternative.
Not all the keys on the keyboard worked after (or during an install). For what you pay, all the keys should work from the get-go! Linux does! ANd I'm talking basis keys - home, end, I think backspace/delet to some degree and the like.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
If Linux isn't successful because something else is better at doing the job and just as free, then that's a cause for celebration, not worry.
You're making the mistake by assuming that everything to do with linux is free, open source, and can be ported by a simple recompile.
Do you expect hardware vendors to ever write drivers if the community switches a few times over a few years? What if a commercial vendor says sorry, we don't support that OS, either stick with Linux or lose our product (contrary to some of the opinions here you don't just switch products at the drop of a hat in the real world, a product doesn't just have to be better, it has to be better enough to warrant the pain of migration)
There's a fine balance of amount of choice that's good, and an amount that's counter-productive.
"However, he goes on to describe many more difficulties with an install of Solaris than I seem to remember having with just about any recent Linux install." :)
This is the usual non-sequitur logic from a slashdot story... What does the ease of the install have to do with the overall feature set of the OS? You only have to install once. If you want an easy gui installer just use Windows or Mac.
you insensitive clod
Yeah, and Solaris x86 has been around since 1992. Hasn't killed Linux yet.
Meanwhile, Linux has been around since 1991, and it still isn't ready for the desktop.
If upstarts like Firefox and OS X can increase their market share so much faster than Linux, why not a revamped/free-as-in-beer Solaris x86?
Or does Linux have a similar entrenched status to Windows, which gives it an inbuilt advantage in competition against upstarts?
Open Solaris is Free Software, yes? So if it becomes a "Linux killer", then the Linux vendors will simply become Open Solaris vendors.
Indeed. Speaking as a Debian user: it isn't about the kernel, it's about the environment. As long as the environment suits me as a user, it doesn't matter that much which kernel is providing the hardware abstractions needed for the system to run. Ten years from now, if Debian is still going, I might conceivably be using Debian GNU/Solaris.
-Stephen
Sun will need to ensure that they understand their target audience - is it:
1) Loyal Sun-based organisations that will follow them to the ends of the earth?
2) People who are fed up paying for M$ stuff and want something 'free' that will do the job?
3) People who want a *nix solution and will pay for it/support.
4) People who need the 'technical excellence' or a special feature that can only be had in Sun's product(s) compared to 'vanilla' Linux?
Number 1s will be a 'small' market sector
Number 2s - hmm, that's a non-starter then.
Number 3s - Sun joins the likes of Red Hat etc fighting for market share.
Number 4s - well, if you want a 'LAMP server' or file/print server you're pretty safe with Linux so why throw money at a solution unless you fall into category 1 or 2. This implies that sales in this categofy will be 'niche'.
I don't think Linux has much to worry about.
AT&ROFLMAO
Linux is to Solaris/sparc what the Mac platform is to the Intel platform. (At least before the whole Intel/Apple deal)
You have Solaris/sparc which is rock-solid on its Sparc platform, with integration using the OpenBoot PROM to 100% compatibility with its Sun arrays, Sun NICs, Sun hard drives, Sun video cards (rebadged, but still labeled as Sun)
Then you have Linux doesn't have a specific hardware platform so it is made to be as compatible as possible, and while a lot of hardware is known to work great with Linux, the QA team at Sun who is able to directly interact with Brocade, QLogic, and other vendors to address one-off issues provides a value-add that CIOs like which Linux does not offer, yet.
Well, it hasn't been open for very long either, but I completely agree with you. Linux, like it or not, is here to stay, and hopefully will only get better.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Yeah, and Solaris x86 has been around since 1992. Hasn't killed Linux yet.
That, and if you read the article it sounded like installing Linux on a computer in 1994. The bios needed upgrading which needed a windows machine to do the update. The sound card did not work or it was a pain to convince it to work. The nic was not supported out of the box. Then they talk about running Gnome or KDE as the "desktop environment" which is better now than it was in 1994, but neither are that great.
I can almost hear the fun in the stockholder boardroom now. "We are going to make more money by providing a free operating system to work on computers we do not sell. Linux will die!"
I hope Sun wouldn't say anything like that, but after providing a _Linux_ computer that was sold at Walmart, anything is possible.
It wasn't until quite recently that Sun really started pushing Solaris x86 as an option. Before then it was mostly considered the feeble bastard brother of SPARC Solaris. Sure, you could run it somewhat on certain systems, but overall it was quite useless (mainly due to a complete lack of hardware support).
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Only if you value your time at zero. Which is probably the case.
To be honest if an OS saves me an hour at install time, that's worth sixty bucks to me. If an OS is stable and doesn't need re-installing every year, that's sixty bucks every time.
That's why I stick with NT 4. It just works, on my system. OS weenies will tell me that it can't do this and it won't do that. True.
However. It will run my applications (bye bye *n*x). It doesn't fall over (bye bye W98). It doesn't need re-installing.
It seems to me that Sun has never gotten very serious about putting out Free Software for x86, not only because they can't make any money off it, but also because it cuts into the profits from their products that they can make money off of. Can somebody please explain to me exactly what Sun's incentive is to engage in a price war with Linux? Other than pure spite, there seems to be no rational reason for them to do this.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
> ...in the many areas where Solaris is miles
> ahead, the Linux community will be hard
> pressed to narrow the gap...
After all, it's not as if Linux had the backing of a major computer company with a three letter name.
Oh. Wait...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
My feelings exactly.
Think of it this way:
Linux is free. That means if you dont like the direction, just fork it and improve it. You can still call it Linux. The better fork will win in the community.
Now Solaris is free (kinda, I have reservations about the license). That means people have Solaris code available to them. If Linux is generally good, except for some solaris features, they'll just port those features to Linux. If Solaris is awesome except for some Linux features, the same will happen. In the end we'll have code that is good, does cool things and is free. Whether you call it Solaris because you think it was 'descended' from Solaris or Linux, is a political matter. Linux wasnt threaded or ran ELF in the beginning. It wasnt SMP. Now its all those. Can we say it is a Solaris with the Linux name?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
You don't seem to understand the basic point: we use Linux/Solaris/HP-UX/AIX because we don't develop for Windows.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I've had considerable experience with Sun products. If I'm setting up a load-balanced web application or Oracle DB, I want Sun on SPARC. I've tried the x86 port in several versions and it made a nice little webserver, but did not scale well.
If I want an open OS that I have to support myself, I'll go Linux - thanks. More driver support.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
So lets just say that perhaps linux users switch to "free" solaris.
then sun runs out of money yet again, and goes back to microsoft for more money. and then again. then the buyout.
eventually all those "converts" are running MS Solaris.
let the stampede begin?
Lets see.. A full PAGE of the article is devoted to getting very basic hardware to function (the NIC and sound card). I mean come on, I can run knoppix linux on my LAPTOP and I get a usable system with no configuration required (even wireless works). Windows is the same thing, you get a completely usable system once it's installed. OS X is the same (although it shouldn't count since apple has much less variation between models compared to the PC world). For hardcore UNIX needs, I don't see why anyone would use SOLARIS over their favorite BSD variation.
Plus KDE is the standard desktop environment used now, not GNOME. GNOME is pretty but barely functional, KDE comes close to the ease of use of the windows GUI.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
Just you wait... 2005 will be the year of Solaris on the desktop! :-)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
It is the end of all file systems afterall, right?
Join Tor today!
solaris 10 isn't ready for the desktop either. Could you imagine using CDE for the desktop? Your other choice is that Linux-distro desktop GNOME, I mean the Sun Java Desktop, which doesn't have much Java in it. Solaris x86 supports much less x86 hardware than Linux. It's definitely in worse shape for world domination than GNU/Linux.
I'm thrilled (rolleyes) that Sun wants to "embrace" the Open Source community again with a "free" technology.
It's true that Solaris 10 has a few handy features Linux may be currently missing.
But Linux has *far* more developers, and will continue to until Solaris 10 becomes portable to over 20 architectures and begins to include tons of hardware support.
And while they're working on closing that gap, Linux will tie up any loose ends. When Sun surfaces from their driver-writing festival to get their bearings, they're going to be eating Linux's dust.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not a Solaris hater per se - in fact, I think it's the closest thing Linux has to UNIX competition at this point. Calling it a "Linux Killer", though, is damn foolish.
Besides -- how are they going to manage to get a thriving community of brilliant open source developers to work on Solaris when it's looud and clear just what Sun thinks of real open source?
This is almost silly, but what about all of the applications? It took 5 years roughly to start seeing a major number of commercial applications appear on Linux X86. Does that imply that these folks are going to have to support SUNx86 TOO...
Granted that most all of them CAME from SUN on SPARC, but it is at least a recompile and ANOTHER OS to support...something that vendors don't take on lightly (one reason it has taken so long to get a critical mass of applications for Linux)
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I used Solaris 2 for years and loved it.
However, in the wake of the SCO lawsuit, why would anyone in their right mind touch anything tainted with System V code?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
My Honeywell/GCOS system can run rings around your NT 4 system.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Meanwhile, Linux has been around since 1991, and it still isn't ready for the desktop. If upstarts like Firefox and OS X can increase their market share so much faster than Linux, why not a revamped/free-as-in-beer Solaris x86?
Probably because almost all of the desktop software available in Solaris x86 is exactly what is used on Linux: Xorg for X11, GNOME (or possibly KDE if you so desire) for a desktop environment. StarOffice (which is to say OpenOffice.org) for office applications, Firefox as a web browser, Evolution as an email client... the list goes on. What does Solaris 10 offer that Linux doesn't? DTrace and excellent developer and server performance tuning tool. Zones, and excellent server security and partitioning system. Really crappy hardware detection and configuration. A severe lack of drivers for standard consumer hardware. A packaging system that's great for updating servers but even worse than what Linux offers for desktop use.
Solaris 10 will be ready for the desktop a sometime after Linux is ready for the desktop and not before. The desktop software stack is the same, and Solaris offers nothing new for desktops at the lower level. It does have nice features for servers, but then so does Linux. I would expect Solaris to gain back some ground in the server space slowly, but I don't forsee how it could manage to somehow shoot up in market share any faster than Linux already is.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
It can diagnose hard to find application issues, bugs and performance problems.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Right. That's what they said about Microsoft versus Linux.
Snottiness aside, believe it or not, there are some who will not switch away from Linux. Just as there are those who have worked with Solaris for too long and "trust" Sun, there are those who have worked with Linux for too long and trust it. Not only that, but there is always the last important deciding factor for me: is it Free as in Freedom? Linux is. Solaris ain't.
Nathan's blog
I'm sorry, I didn't see any reason why someone would switch to Solaris in that editorial. It was mainly minor bitching about the details of installation and Sun's GUI choices.
We're about to see a major war between three very large computing firms: Microsoft with Windows and .NET, Sun with Solaris and Java, and Apple with Mac OS X and Cocoa.
.NET and the marketshare of Windows.
Frankly, I think this desktop/workstation market conflict will make the UNIX Wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s look petty in comparison. In one corner there's Apple, offering extreme multimedia and usability via Mac OS X and Cocoa. Then there's Sun, with the extreme stability of Solaris and Java. And finally Microsoft, with
It isn't just a battle over which operating system is better. It also involves three competing development environments involving three separate (yet similar in many ways) languages. I'd like to consider it more of a Systems Stack war. The vendors are competing on their ability to provide a coherent operating system/programming platform composition.
I believe we will really see things heating up in the near future as each system attempts to draw the best features from the other. Windows will obtain the stability and security of Solaris; Mac OS X will obtain the enterprise connectivity of Solaris; Solaris will obtain the multimedia mastery of Mac OS X. We're living in very interesting times, folks!
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Because Windows is "not quite ready for the desktop"... or server.
IBM discovered the hard way in the nineties that a hardware manufacturer trying to get competing hardware manufacturers to support their OS is a dead end. Discussions between IBM and the other PC vendors sounded a lot like similar conversations will if Sun tries to get PC manufacturers onboard the Solaris wagon:
Sun: Hi, HP, what do you think about preloading Solaris on your workstations?
HP: Yeah, right! Why would we want to license or support our competitor's operating system for our hardware?
Sure, Sun might be able to get a few PC peripheral vendors on board. But, honestly, what kind of target market can Sun tempt them with? Solaris x86 has a smaller presence than Linux and you've already said that these same vendors aren't getting on the Linux bandwagon.
PHP, Perl, Apache, mySQL, C, C++, CF, Ruby, Python, and many others all run under Windows as well. The point is not whether or not you're developing FOR Windows, but whether or not you're using a good tool for a specific job.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Open Solaris is Free Software, yes? So if it becomes a "Linux killer", then the Linux vendors will simply become Open Solaris vendors. It doesn't matter if Linux dies if what is replacing it is just as free.
My feeling are that linux will copy the sucessful aspects that it can and Linus, being more engineer than anything else, can recognize the sucessful aspects.
This crossbreeding of ideas goes both ways with Solaris.
Because of this, I think it will come less down to features on paper, but the success of the implementation.
This is also what irks me about these "Linux-killer" stories - everything looks great on paper until deployed enmasse - when reality hits.
You're a closet-furry, aren't you?
Icy-Hot-Geekstas comes to mind. Take a look at the webpage for a good laugh.
Nice logo. Tool.
The first line of the article is a big caveat - "If Sun gets very serious about...". Sun recently seems to be having an identity crisis. They can't really figure out what their niche is, and they keep changing directions. That's a big burden for them. Even if they did come up with something great, how many people are going to jump on their bandwagon without waiting to see if it will last more than 3 years.
And then reading the rest of the article, I'd summarize it as: Solaris 10 is nowhere near ready for routine production use today. You have to fight to make it work on even very common configurations. But if it ever does get to be a good product, then it might be a good product, because it has a few nice features. Sorry, but I don't find that very convincing.
Note, by the way, the lack of any mention of significant numbers of people that actually *ARE* jumping on this particular bandwagon. Nothing but one user's abstract thoughts about some features.
The system that I see that noticeable numbers of actual Linux users *ARE* moving to is OS X. I have, and I know of many others who have. I've done Sun (and many others) in the past, and I've done Linux. Still do Linux. But I'm currently moving on. I now do both Linux and OS X. I'm not alone. In my case, note the "moving on" rather than "moving back". I see nothing here to tempt me back to Sun. I don't think I'm alone.
And as others have said, so what anyway? If Sun does really come through with a better product, then that's great. I like better products, and I'll use them. I'm far more interested in seeing better products that do my job better than I am in defending any particular religion... I mean OS.
In the early '70s, I thought that CDC systems were great.... and I still think that I was right.... for the times. I've been though quite a few different favorite systems since then. Silly to think that I might never see a new favorite someday. Or maybe it would be sad instead of silly. Whatever.
OPENSTEP the open standard Steve Jobs was coaxed into releasing to the free-market by Sun was a virtual death blow to NeXTSTEP (aka MacOS X).
It both distracted and divided Sun's competition while they put all the wood behind Solaris. Sun bought LightHouse software suite of apps pledging to release an Office Suite for OPENSTEP. At the end of the day, Sun turned out the lights at LightHouse. Irreplacable gems of software had been deep sixed.
FastForward 13yrs., its Linux in the NeXTSTEP role with its Solaris product pledged to the OPENSTEP specification, essentially.
Get a clue...
You need to install Solaris Express to build it (or do it from linux, or use SE as a binary.
You need to register to get Solaris Express
If I'm going to try it out, I don't want to build it ala Gentoo. I want to put it on, try out its' xyz functionalaity, and evaluate if I want to use it. Not jump through hoops (SUSE update).
Better yet, if Solaris is free, why can't the linux community just take whatever cool ideas it finds in Solaris and put them into Linux?
Play Command HQ online
"Sun offers full support of Solarisx86 for a price"
When RedHat changed its support policy we migrated to Debian.
Since Sun is the only vendor for "open" Solaris, finding another Solaris distribution or support will not be easy if Sun later changes its support terms, goes to closed-source Solaris, etc.
This perhaps explains why many people have little interest in Solaris at this time.
Does Solaris come with an MP3 Decoder that is maintained? If so it could stand a chance at unseating linux.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
They claim this to be a Linux-killer, yet they go on to list almost a whole page of installation woes, including trying two different third-party drivers just to get the NIC (an unpopular but "hardly exotic" Linksys piece) to work! Fucking hell, give this guy a Knoppix or Ubuntu disc and he'll shit himself. Linux users haven't often had to struggle like this in years.
/etc that you will have to edit, and even create, to get your NIC to work, once you've got it installed and recognized. If you're comfortable with ifconfig, you'll want to use it. Personally, I find ifconfig to be clunky, and prefer to do the setup manually." I can tell you one thing--it ain't fucking ready!!!!!
Note to the author: if you write a review that says "There are a number of configuration files in
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Slashdotters, do yourself a favor. Read this article. If this guy can go through all the SHIT he describes and still put "Linux-killer" in the title with a straight face, *anything* is possible. Un, fucking, real.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I agree, Solaris is clearly the desktop operating system of tomorrow!
And it always will be.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Meanwhile, Linux has been around since 1991, and it still isn't ready for the desktop.
It's close enough, and I'm formerly a member of the "not ready for the desktop" camp.
I installed Ubuntu on a laptop last weekend. It configured everything automatically except the sound, which I had to tweak some config files for (no worse than when I've had sound problems in Windows).
The only reason I had to do cliched Linux stuff like recompiling the kernel was to get my Orinoco card working in monitor mode. Desktop users don't care about that, only people who want to run WiFi hacking utilities.
Keeping the system up to date is actually easier than Windows, since I can run a single apt-get and upgrade everything (OS components + apps) to the current version.
There are definitely some gaps in terms of things like no Photoshop on Linux, but the OS itself is fine for desktop use now IMO.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
The lack of DVD playback has always frustrated me with linux. It's one of the only reasons I still keep a widows partition on my laptop and desktop machines.
Now if mp3, DVD and other media playback options came with Solaris I would run it on more than just my Sun boxen.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
If that were true we wouldn't have MS Windows on 90%+ of the desktops. Windows XP/2003 is vastly improved over the original Windows product line but other products such as OS/2 were technologically superior at the time but didn't make it. A few products and companies with great technology and poor execution come to mind.
BeOS
Cray
Silicon Graphics
Next DEC Alpha Chip (DEC)
Bell Labs (in more recent years)
Xerox PARC
Borland (Delphi, C++ Builder, OWL)
Just because SUN has great technology doesn't mean they will be successful with it. Unfortunately, the market place not purely driven by technology. And, a market place moves slowly and builds up momentum. Linux fought and clawed its way into the UNIX data centers. People forget the "Linux is only good enough to run a print server" comments we heard just a few years ago. Oracle is the next open source target IMHO. High prices, arrogant licensing, huge savings going Open source. Just like UNIX. Once comments like "mySQL is only good enough for a reporting application" are gone and the perception changes Oracle will be just like SUN. A company with great technology and no market.
I know there has been a lot of cross breeding lately... but isn't Linux much closer to BSD than Solaris, (which I always thought was a SV4 implementation)? I think Sun made a mistake with Solaris from its beginning, and having to keep Sun OS going should have been a clue... the progressives prefer BSD to SV4.
The Admin and the Engineer
because code that goes into the Linux Kernel has to be GPL-able and OpenSolaris is not.
That won't of course stop someone from putting in things that ahve similar functionality but even this will be a sticky ground to walk on because there are alot of lazy developers out there that will copy the code from OpenSolaris and claim it for there own.
Only if you value your time at zero. Which is probably the case. To be honest if an OS saves me an hour at install time, that's worth sixty bucks to me. If an OS is stable and doesn't need re-installing every year, that's sixty bucks every time.
;-)
This argument comes up regularly here, but I have 2 comments. You've just saved 60 bucks initial install and 60 bucks per year. The install fee and the 60 bucks per year per PC, unfortunately don't even hit the radar in terms of money saving on most IT budgets. 60 bucks per user is less than the electricity they use - it won't draw attention.
And to be honest, and probably far more significant, so many applications your users will want will be unsupported by the vendor or the FOSS developers (try getting current versions of most FOSS linux apps running on 8 year old distros....) on your legacy OS that you'll burn far more than 60 bucks having to support your apps yourself. You're more than welcome to run NT4 if you prefer, but if you're doing it for these reasons, I think you have the wrong reasons. Of course on one PC for grandma using apps Grandma knows and knowing she'll never want more recent apps, it works. Anywhere else it's just unrealistic, IMNSHO
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
I believe that death can be welcomed, expecially to the sheer quanity of linux distros.
:)
Of the 409 nearly identical Linux distributions cataloged at http://www.linux.org/dist/list.html ,
I believe 400 should probably be killed murdered folded spindled and mutilated with permanent life time breathing bans for any one caught seeking a new distro out.
Many point out, you have to try the distro before you can evaluate if you like it. My favorites are slackware, ubuntu, solaris, and suse.
Microsoft has 11 distinctly different distros, and look at the hell they go through with all their code.
The average Linux interested person has not 9 distributions to choose from but 409.
Is it any wonder why average user can't seem to put one of the 409 on the home desktop?
I believe adoption and acceptance if Linux on the home desktop would be quantum leaps ahead of where it is now if a little butchering were to some how happen.
The First and a very formidable roadblock to Linux adoption is the quantities of Distros to pick from, I guess the average home Linux user feels beguiled when tasked with picking the correct distro not to help, the Linux community just nods and smiles as if to them, it's just not important to the meaning of life to bring order the chaos.
Imagine this; 400 slightly different windows versions with nearly the same names. XP pro -1 XP lite, Xp light, XP, lxp, Exppepro, Xp-Peppy-pro, XP-Porn master, XP shockwave edition, windows 2000, windowsXp2, windows200Xp, Windows system 5 xp single user SMP, windows 2003xp.311, trs80-xp-pro, amiga-xp, Xp-Java, windows 3.11 enterprise server pro, windows 2000 millennium, windows-cpm86 edition, and last but not least windows xp pro fro the Cray with porn storage module.
Thankfully Microsoft makes enough bugs with the 11 os'es they have their name.
MS DOS 6.xx, Windows 95, Windows NT Workstation 4.xx, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2003 Server
The tangible affects of so many distros is hard to see, but I believe it affects focus or lack of focus on packages which bears results as better or worse code, features, security, compatibility, emulations, interfaces, code reviews etc..
Is their really a need for so many, or is it something else?
I recently asked most of my friends which Linux was favored by them amongst Linux distros, the answer was a resounding unanimous OS-X.
I hope many of these unkempt, un-washed spam of un-maintained and pointless distros evaporate and their sites go dark so that others may be embraced and shine over the mediocrity we have today.
--
Please remember to have your non domesticated Linux distro's Spayed or Neutered today!
Sun doesn't seem to understand that "less is more" when it comes to kernels and features, in particular kernels for mainstream use: complicated features require documentation, support, and additional user space programs. If anything, Linux has become too complex and should shed some features; Solaris is the wrong direction to head into.
No, but if you say "Oh darn, this install is hard. I need to use more time to do a Solaris install than a Linux install!" then it matters big time. If we are talking a server or four, it isn't a big deal, but if we are talking workstations (as the article hints Solaris is aiming for), then all the ekstra time suddenly adds up to a large amount. Especially as the number of workstations grow, as the install hazzle will only grow and grow with larger installations...
From this guy's experience I think Linux was easier to install 10 years ago. Its such a shame because if Sun ever did get it we would all benefit from having a new player.
Maybe the idea of Sun "getting it" has quietly become an oxymoron. Its so sad to see a once great and innovative company dying of chronic ineptitude. Maybe someone will eventually take pity on them and show one of their marketing people OS X or Linux.
With all of Sun's resources its hard to imagine that they haven't seen what's possible with a UNIX desktop but then you read this article and you realize that they must live in a time warp / space bubble.
Before I do that update it gets tested on a development server, my workstation, and several other non-critical machines kicking around the office (I've yet to encounter a single problem on any machine). Linux has been 100% bulletproof so far. Why in the world would I risk switching to Solaris? The article's authors haven't a clue.
I think Solaris is closer to BSD than to Linux (if license details are ommited). A variation of UNIX, developed in a more cathedral-style when everything is included in the box. Solaris is still unpolished as a desktop (at least Solaris 10) but is quite good as a server, just like BSD. Linux's system-related utils are developed separately from the kernel while BSD/Solaris/UNIX supply the system as a whole.
Personally, I like the Linux approach more.
But Linux has one point others haven't got: it's dominating the desktop *NIX "market".
It would be interesting to see how desktop BSD versions (PC-BSD etc.) compete with desktop Solaris.
I tried Solaris 10 (on Sun Harware). Didn't Like it much. I'mm installing Gentoo for Sparc (2.4.31)as we speak...
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
This supposed "battle" is a tempest in a teapot as far as technology is concerned. None of the vendors really has any big advantage in terms of usability, performance, quality, or features. OS X may be slightly more usable, Solaris may be slightly more stable, and .NET may have a little more market share, but those differences are miniscule compared to the commonalities between the systems: multiuser environments, process-based architectures, client/server window systems, a mix of C and HLLs for programming, an emphasis on OOP, and WIMP interfaces. None of these companies is really innovating.
The only battle here is a battle of marketing/PR departments, lawyers, and salespeople. Technically, the whole thing is downright depressing.
obviously has never used Jumpstart. It's remarkably trivial to install one or one hundred Solaris servers using Jumpstart, which is included with Solaris.
http://www.amorin.org/professional/jumpstart.php
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Solaris hardware support compared to Linux is a joke. And coming from a BSD guy this is rather tasty huh ;)
Sun will end like DEC did.
Too late to the game, they have beliefs that cloud their vision of reality.
Why oh why don't they make connections to one of the many OSS groupware client alternatives out there!?
I would think they have their hands full just writing an Office Suite they would wisely decide to connect to what's out there instead of starting from scratch.
Any wisdom on the matter would be great because I just don't see it.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I think there are some patent issues that will be problematic for put Solaris code into Linux even if the code is free and open.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You insensitive clods - I just installed Linux on a Sun box! Did I just help Sun kill itself? Not that it needs any assistance!
...
Oh wait, Sun'll kill em with storage!
Oh wait, Sun'll kill em with Java!
Oh wait, Sun'll kill em with professional services!
Oh wait, Sun'll kill em with cheap Opteron hardware!
Oh wait, Sun'll kill em with
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Too bad they continue to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on a dead-end CPU architecture (i.e. SPARC).
The application stack's all written in Java, right? So who the heck needs expensive SPARC when Opteron does the job faster at a fraction of the price?
Who needs Solaris when Linux is catching up so fast?
Who needs Sun, again?
Stick Men
- Solaris 10 and Open Solaris (which you build and install on Solaris Express) are both very nice, Linux-like operating systems.
Linux is no longer "Unix-like", people. It's Unix that is "Linux-like".Our experience with a Linksys TX-100 NIC was not encouraging. Admittedly, this isn't the most popular NIC in use, but it's hardly exotic. The system had no clue that it was installed. The recommended driver at Masayuki Murayama's Web site built funny, and never would attach. Fortunately, we had better luck with Garrett D'Amore's drivers. There are a number of configuration files in /etc that you will have to edit, and even create, to get your NIC to work, once you've got it installed and recognized. If you're comfortable with ifconfig, you'll want to use it. Personally, I find ifconfig to be clunky, and prefer to do the setup manually. It takes me less time. Here's what you need to do:
So he had to find drivers for a unsuppoerted piece of hardware. This is not new and unless the drivers are in the OS the above is something you will have to do with alot of third party devices for Linux and Windows also.
1. Find the name of your network interface by running ifconfig -a.
Very easy once you have found and installed the correct drivers to find the name of the interface
2. Create a file, /etc/hostname.NICname and put in it one word: the name of your host.
yes this maps the nic to the hostname that you want to give it.
3. Add the host's IP address, the NICname, and host name to the /etc/hosts file. It should already exist, as Solaris ought to have set up a loopback (localhost) device, but if not, create it.
Editing your host file just like you do in Linux (or should).
4. Create a file, /etc/defaultrouter, and put in it the LAN-side IP address of your router or default gateway.
Easy way to look up your gateway in solaris instead of going to /etc/sysconfig/network/ifcfg.eth0 and trying to see it from there.
5. Create or edit the file /etc/netmasks and enter your host's IP address and netmask. If you have only a few hosts on your LAN, it really is easier to use fixed IP addys. If you have a multitude, you'll need to use your router as a DHCP server instead (and in that case you're on your own).
Once again this makes it real easy especially when you have 3 or more network cards to configure the netmask.
6. Create or edit the file /etc/resolv.conf and enter your preferred DNS servers in the form, nameserver xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.
One file to look up all of your name servers how easy is that.
7. Edit the file /etc/nsswitch.conf and change the line that reads hosts: files to hosts: files dns. If you miss this one, you won't be able to use DNS.
Easyer is to copy to nsswitch.conf one of the following preconfigured files and then edit it from there for your enviroment.
nsswitch.nis
nsswitch.dns
nsswitch.nisplus
nsswitch.files
8. Re-boot, and confirm that your internet connection comes up automatically. If it doesn't, try the command ifconfig NICname up. If that fails, boot your trusty Linux box and start Googling.
You will always want to do that when installing any OS that you are not familure with but even better you could cd rc2.d and then stop and start the S*inetsvc (where *=a number i.e. S27inetsvc)
One thing that I do agree with the story is that untill Solaris x86 has better driver support it iwill remain a redheaded step child.
Many/most Linux devices are not x86-based servers and desktops. They're embedded devices like Wifi routers, phones and set top boxes. These are very seldom x86-based, so unless we see Solaris for ARM, MIPS, PowerPC etc then Linux is far from dead.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Its closing the gap argument missed some really important issues; for example, developers. There are some things that Linux doesn't do, and will never do because the benevolent dictator doesn't believe in them.
For one, POSIX compliance. OpenSolaris IS compliant, so as a real-time junkie who loves his shared-memory mapped files, I'm bouncing up and down. Linux shared memory stubs some calls, doesn't implement the POSIX suite, while barely implementing older shm. How many MAN pages can you find that tell you "This isn't implemented." in OpenSolaris?
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Sun has been pushing x86 pretty hard for about a year now. At USENIX last year Sun said that if the Linux version of an application ran faster on similar hardware than the Solaris version of said application then it's a bug.
Sun's very serious about x86 but the Sparc builds are being released at the same time. What a lot of people forget is that Linux on x86 cannot compete with Sun's high-end servers.Dtrace seems kind of like a joke too, that's a killer app? First off, Linux has tools available that may be more powerful, it's a matter of taste but systemtap and the kprobes let's you do just as much if not more. Second, in spite of having these killer tools around it has been my experience that more system guys like to talk about them than actually use them. Very cool tools though, I'm still not aware of anything dtrace can do that can't be done on linux though. I will give that it seems to be harder to wedge the system with dtrace while I've cratered a few live systems just screwing around with systemtap.
My solaris hacker friends were telling me how solaris was "years ahead in terms of VM" how exactly they measured that or what exactly solaris did better they never could say. They've really kind of shut up in the last year about all that too. Then all the ZFS is going to be the second coming, because XFS, ext3, GFS, Rieserfs and JFS don't cut it; then it turns out that they aren't so hot at making filesystems and it missed the cut. Again, what it does over XFS is a mystery other than it's 128bit and what that actually buys us is also a mystery but bigger is sexier and I'll give it that. At the end of the day you've got a pair of unix like kernels that are both full featured and full service and an industry and a smaller and smaller group of people are actually writing software that talks directly to the kernel. You can knit and pick and say solaris this and linux that and come up with lists the benefit either but in this century, I don't see any of that being a huge selling feature of the whole platform; not that the geeks won't care and get excited about it but let's be real, you're going to scuttle your current AIX or Linux deployment because of dtrace?
Taking a server OS to wider range of desktop hardware is always going to hit the driver problem. Even if you are as big as Microsoft.
Try getting drivers for Windows 2003 - that is MS's _only_ current supported server OS (2000 is out of support now). There is nowhere near the range of drivers as for XP. Some hardware you can find unofficial drivers or hacks, some just plain will not work. In fact, Linux probably has same or better driver support than Windows 2003.
Ummm ... I fork out $160 a year (2x$80) to Novell for the SuSE Pro DVDs. Last time I checked, Novell was an American company providing American jobs. Linux is for people who need an operating system they can tune for highly specific tasks. Show me the full source code for OS X including drivers and Cocoa, not just the bare bones Darwin kernel, and we'll talk.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
The computer needing windows to do the bios update has absolutely freaking ZERO to do with Solaris. It means the hardware manufacturer was not non-MS OS friendly.
Really? I guess it depends on what you mean by compete. SGI's Altix runs quite nicely at 512 CPU's per node. Significantly more than any Sun system from the point of performance and scalability. Solaris certainly has other advantages, etc, but my point is to qualify your statement of "can't compete", because in some cases you're right, the competition is over and Sun never showed up. Each architecture has it's advantages.
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
I can imagine a lot worse than CDE as a desktop. Sure it was kinda klunky... but it grew on me after a while.
Oddly enough, while I like Linux and can do "mundane" stereotypical things like recompile my kernal and what not, I still can't get linux to work on my desktop OOTB. My Orinoco? Not a single distro or live CD I've tried has figured out its there and needs to be configured. Ubuntu, Knoppix, FreeSBIE (I know, not Linux), you name it. I don't know what the problem is (Windows 2000/XP sees it just fine and configures it on install), but I have to do some serious finangling to get it to work. Nor does any Linux distro/live CD handle dual monitors well at all. In fact, I'd say one of the most frustrating things about X is the braindead configuration. Having to edit a file to enable dual monitors, resolutions, etc is a pain in the ass.
:P
Now, having said that, everything else is pretty nice.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
I am more concerned with seeing an end to the duopoly of Windows and Mac for the consumer desktop. While some may not apply the term I think it fits. We really need a third major player for the desktop to get things moving again. Right now Apple and Microsoft are not moving forward, we are still bound to single processor solutions that are mouse and keyboard driven. We have been there for nearly 20 years now!
Compare the situation to Cable. Since the 80s we have been stuck with a monopoly for delivery of video service. Along came satellite, which while it has made inroads to the tune of nearly 25% of viewers it still hasn't changed the way we use the medium. Now the Bells are coming and with plans of interactive TV. Yes the cable companies are also looking towards this but it took a third major competitor to get the other two out of their comfortable duopoly.
It is going to take a third and major competitor to Microsoft and Apple to get the medium to move forward. Linux has been the poster boy for many years and yet nothing really truly has occured with it. Bluntly put, the Linux front is too disorganized to compete with the two entrenched systems and worse isn't changing the paradigm of what desktop computer is.
I don't see Solaris doing much either but I figure that with enough prodding perhaps Ms or Apple will do something other than make prettier desktops. Hell its like the space program, resting on its laurels until people become bored by it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
What're you gonna do then?
Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
I expect hardware vendors to tell me how the device works so I can write and maintain my own free software drivers or hire someone to write them for me. I'm not against hiring the hardware manufacturer to do the job, but I don't want to be pushed into a monopoly for support. I think the OpenBSD hackers are of the same mindset, given their requests to Adaptec and other vendors for technical specifications, not code. Having others write proprietary software for you just puts you in the position of begging the proprietor for updates and leaves you vulnerable to being left behind (precisely what you spelled out).
Software freedom is not an argument for more "choice", although if one has free software one certainly has choices on how to improve a program. Choice is actually a poor surrogate for software freedom because it's so easy to railroad someone out of their freedom and supply choices at the same time. Consider web browsers; at one time, the most popular web browsers were Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Opera. There are three choices right there (one more than one needs to have a choice), and yet all are proprietary. Thus, with these browsers, software freedom is unavailable and one is relegated to choosing their master.
Digital Citizen
Solaris' ability to scale Linux off the map is something that ought to worry Linux vendors.
Take a look at Schillix 0.1 (the first Open Solaris distro). It's still early days yet, but if it ever gains traction, Open Solaris may well give commercial linux a run for it's money.
Linus should be thinking about forking the kernel to 2.7 and attempting to implement some of the features that the Solaris kernel has, but the Linux kernel does not yet have.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Why would the installer run in Real Mode (where it can access at most 1MB), and why does the Solaris kernel not enter protected mode like Linux kernels do?
If Sun can't get even this right, they have no chance of making Open Solaris into a Linux 'killer'.
Sorry its gonna take awhile to convence me that Solaris x86 is more solid than Linux. After the box has been up for 2+ years we can talk, but until then I'll take the claims of stability with some salt, lime, and tequila.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
BTW, the codebases are far apart enough that "just copy the code" is unlikely to take much less effort than rewriting it from scratch....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Linux is free. That means if you dont like the direction, just fork it and improve it. You can still call it Linux.
Only if Linus says you can call it Linux... Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds, after all....
Same with Solaris and Sun.
Now you can have a lot of cross polination of ideas. But that is about where it ends. And I think that Linux esp. with IBM's involvement will end up surpassing OpenSolaris on every level.
FWIW I have never had any of those kernel instability problems mentioned re: Linux except in two cases and both were related to failing hardware....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It's taken Linux many years and a lot of hard work to get it to the point where the big-box vendors will install it for you, and where the major applications have been ported to it. Those are really the benchmarks by which we can assess the maturity of a product as a commercial OS.
The large commercial/enterprise applications do of course run on Solaris/SPARC but have they all been ported to Solaris/x86 ? Are Dell going to start offering boxen with Solaris pre-installed ? Have stable and robust device drivers been written for all the popular x86 server devices that people will want Solaris to properly support ? I'm afraid Sun are in for a shock if they think they can suddenly take on Linux just because they've open-sourced their stuff.
Solaris on the latest SPARC hardware is still the most stable and scalable environment you can buy, where money is no object. Unfortunately money is an object for 99% of the folks out there. Sun can still get to win-win on this; the way forward would be for them to realize that they are simply no longer going to win by simply producing boxes and operating systems for money, and re-invent them as a services organization in the same vein as IBM. The first important step into this business would be to properly GPL Solaris and allow it to cross-pollenate with Linux and the other GPL OSs there - short-circuiting IBM who still won't GPL AIX. This would enable speedier porting of essential device drivers into Solaris and allow Linux to cherry pick some of the nicest Solaris features.
If anyone sees this as threat to linux they are sadly mistaken. Lots maybe most? of linux development is corporate sponsored today. Those corporations like to support it because they use it. They use it in the embeded devices and highly custom solutions. They can only do that because its FREE and not just as in beer. So the development will continue if that happens its gonna keep getting better and probably out pace Solaris as only Sun and some individuals will support it.
Now if sun GPL'd or BSD'd Solaris then there could be a real threat. Otherwise Solaris dies on the vine like many have predicted for a long time.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Thomas C Greene's article highlights his lack of understanding regarding a number of key strategic issues.
For example, the OSDL Carrier Grade Linux group is already well along the way towards Linux running with 6 9s (99.9999%) uptime. This strikes to the very heart of Sun's core business and is perhaps one of the key reasons Sun has gone into panic mode about Linux.
OSDL is itself another example of the reason Sun will not succeed against Linux. Sun is incapable of replicating OSDL because its CDDL license does not leverage the community in the way the GPL does.
And clearly Thomas C Greene needs to recover from his Linux Desktop time warp - modern desktop Linux distros have already arrived. Any recent distro such as Ubuntu, Xandros, Linspire, Fedora Core 4 and SUSE LINUX 9.3 has excellent hardware detection out of the box.
They're not certified to work with 2003 Server. Only XP. Unless you're an Enterprise customer, if you have those in place, MS won't help you because their use isn't supported with THAT OS.
In this light, there's probably more driver support in most Linux distributions than 2003 Server provides in an officially supported manner.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Oh dear.
Well that'll serve me right for thinking that Sun users have a sense of humour.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
One thing that I didn't notice in the article, and that I didn't notice in people's posts (Yes I am slightly wandering off topic here, I understand but bear with me) is the possibility of people turning to Solaris for a common environment between server and desktop based on one thing. Other proprietry apps.
IF Sun do get the backing of others on this, such as Veritas for Volume Manager (Apparently only available through NCR), and they DO get all the management tools, all the backup agents and everything else that is already running on Solaris for SPARC now, THEN they might stand a chance too from coming in on another angle of running the same platform on multiple hardwares. This is one of the reasons that IBM came after Linux in the first place if memory serves me correctly.
The other thing to consider, is that while this is going on, it's completely possible for the developers who are currently concentrating on Linux (And *BSD, and AIX and Solaris for SPARC and SCO OpenServer etc and all different hardware platforms that go with these other versions) to turn around and just stonewall Solaris x86 and not make changes for it simply as they are already having too many considerations because of too many platforms. The GCC group had this problem recently. This would kill it too, as the desktop applications won't be tested and running on this platform. Now, it's entirely possible for Sun to pay for the development cost of making sure that these apps work on Solaris x86 but then they are going to be continually behind the 8 ball playing catch up, and having to sort through code they didn't write. The only alternative is to hire these developers themselves, but I just don't think they would have the money to do so.
Your thoughts?
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
...it was a song on Iron Maiden's second album.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Quality drivers for diverse hardware - this is the reason why Linux distros are "almost ready for the desktop" (there's a good driver for most of the hardware out there now... most of the hardware).
Can anybody tell me if Solaris supports a reasonable set of hardware? Or does it have a linux device driver wrapper?
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Solaris might stand a chance if Sun can get it sold pre-installed out-of-the-box. In such a situation, it has a big of a driver problem as OS X, in that it only needs to support hardware that it's sold with, and not Joe's Bargain Basement NIC.
No, I will not work for your startup
Everyone,
I have a thought?
Why can't we band together and just by Sun? Everyone buys a few stocks over time, at the end of the day we have the company by the balls, we can do whatever we want with them...
Then we don't have to worry about all this as we can change the corporate governance to ensure that Sun behave themselves in the market... We also have the ability to use this as a position to start out in the market and use for cover when things get rough. It's not monopolistic as there is a heap of competition, and then this arguement of Solaris x86 vs Linux becomes mute as we can have the best of both worlds. Another possibility would be patent protection (depending on the wording of the contracts) from MS and anyone else Sun has signed agreements with..
I understand that the chances of this happening are a snowflake's chance in hell given that we can't even keep ourselves together on the choice between a few distros (Please don't flame me on this one, it's just a random point to ensure you catch my drift) but is there any reason as a whole we couldn't do this?
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Sure, it's kinda ugly, but it's fast and functional. Unfortunately, many people who install Solaris/x86 are linux tinkerers, and they tend to make value judgements based on appearance. "What, no transparent windows? This sucks! And what the heck are these .pm files?"
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Let's hope not. My solaris box at work has really good fun with the context menus on LabVIEW 7.1... brings the window server to a grinding halt....
That doesn't happen on the Windows/Mac/Linux version.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Although it's been delayed a couple of times already, the Opteron servers built around the Kealia technologies are supposed to be coming out sometime in the next few weeks. Rumor is that they'll be pretty good--at least, Sun got Andreas von Bechtolsheim (as part of the package) to design them.
From the link here:
/kernel/misc/sysinit, whose only function, it appears, is to provide the serial number. If serialization information is tampered or sysinit fails to load, the host ID will be 0. If you reinstall Solaris, sysinit will be regenerated and your host ID will change. So be careful about reinstalling Solaris if you have licensed software that depends on your host ID. Backup your sysinit file.
Solaris on Intel - X86 FAQ
(4.2) What hardware is supported by Solaris for Intel?
Solaris x86 is the version that runs on Intel-based PCs and servers. Requirements vary to release, but generally a Pentium-class processor or better from Intel or AMD, a PCI bus, 256 MB of memory, and 20 GB Disk. Solaris base and Java Desktop System takes about 5GB. Add Java Enterprise System (not needed except for servers), for a full install takes about 11GB. Add in swap and free space, so you should have, say, a 10 or 20 GB disk or larger. Many multi-processor boards and multi-processor cores are supported. You must have a CD-ROM drive or access to NFS or a boot server over the network to install. A DVD drive is better, as it's fewer disks to swap.
I can scale Linux from my 64Meg Pentuim 150 to my 512Meg Pentium4 with a sprinkling of AMDs mixed in.
(7.5) My licensed software fails because the host ID is 0. What's wrong?
Intel processor machines don't have an IDPROM, so Sun generates a serial number, hostid command or sysinfo()'s SI_HW_SERIAL, pseudo-randomly during installation. The number is stored in
As of now, I need no licenses on Linux to tell me how to run my software. I buy it, install it, and forget about it (Yes I've purchased Linux software (games) from companies).
Food for thought,
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
Worms, viruses, spyware etc. Nor do MSss opressive EULAs carry any weight. Give my regards to Bill & Steve, Mr/Ms. AC.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Now Solaris is free (kinda, I have reservations about the license).
/that/ hard to get, lots of people outside Sun have had it available to them for /long/ time. Now, additionally, they're free to hack on it, extend and do almost whatever they like (The CDDL doesn't try to reach into other non-CDDL or CDDL-derived files, as the GPL tries to. Indeed, if you were a BSD person you might say the CDDL is more free than the GPL ;) ).
It's free full stop. Even RMS says it's now a "free" OS (but a "peculiar" licence in his words, see RMS' article in ZDNet on Sun). RMS isn't exactly noted for using the word "free" in a loose way. If he says the licence is "free" (albeit peculiar to him because it isn't GPL), exactly what is it in the CDDL which causes you to have reservations about it?
That means people have Solaris code available to them.
No, it means they're free to do what they want with it. Solaris source has not been
Can we say it is a Solaris with the Linux name?
Or vice versa.
More competition in the "Free-nix" world is never a bad thing. BSD, Linux, OpenSolaris. Sounds good to me.
--paulj
NB: I work for Sun, but I don't claim to speak for Sun.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Redhat can just distribute and support Red-hat Solaris as well as Linux, if Solaris looks like being better to some segment of their customers.
I can say one of the biggest hurdles Solaris is going to have is the user community and developer community support and I don't see that happening.
The difference between trying to get non-vendor application support on Linux and Solaris is like night and day, the sure volume of Linux users (not to mention Linux native developers) is astounding.
Stability, as they mention in TFA, at least on Sun hardware is the reason we are still using it but the application support is the reason behind each new Linux box we add to the network.
Linux killer? Hardly, but they're certainly still a option for a lot of businesses.
For my money if I was going that "killer" route I'd have said BSD, but there's more then enough room in this pool for everybody (and Linux is doing just fine).
Quack, quack.
So, which _server hardware_ are you trying to run Windows 2003 on that doesn't have drivers ?
I get the impression that people are complaining because Windows 2003 doesn't have "certified drivers" for their built-from-cheapest-parts $300 "server". To which my only response is: clearly decent hardware and reliability are not a major concern, so why are "certified" drivers ?
If you can't find Windows 2003 drivers for your system, "certified drivers" are probably the least of your problems.
1500 bucks gets you a graphics card that can't
do 32 bit color.
250 bucks will get you a 36 gig seagate scsi hard drive - oh but it has a spud bracket.
for a couple grand, you can get a 900mhz processor and motherboard. Oh that's right, it's a risc based processor so it's really a lot faster than a cisc based one. I guess this is why Cray is using them....*not*.
Oh let's not forget that card reader and sony dvd drive. I'm sure that cost a few hundred bucks for that too, but hey it's a CARD READER. You will need it while you can't get usb 2.0 working.
Hey but look on the bright side, that is one SEXY case it all comes in. The sooner I can get Suns fat fucking hand out of my IT budget, the better off I will be.
Everyone ensure they remember that Sun is a hardware company, first and foremost. Solaris is a mechanism for Sun to sell more hardware and service contracts.
It also means that the installer was rather fragile. It's been ages since I've needed to do anything even remotely similar with a Linux installer.
Throw the bums out!
Excellent point... dual monitor support under Linux has seriously lagged so far. It works, but I've seen very few tools to make it easy.
Throw the bums out!
Sure I agree, but none of that is screaing "massive consumer uptake!" like the original poster was trying to imply. Don't get me wrong, Solaris is great, but a lot of it's stand out features are things that look great on a server are useful on workstation and aren't especially relevant at all on a desktop. I expect Solaris to gain some ground in the server department. I don't expect it to make stunning market share gains that significantly outstrip Linux's growth - it may well grow at rouhgly the same rate, but i don't see how it will be faster.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
No, I mean exactly what I said: Linux and Solaris use (effectively) the same office suite. It doesn't "belong" to either kernel or OS.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Sun X86 runs on Intel/AMD stuff only Linux runs on PPC, x86, ARM, SPARC, IBM Big-iron, VAX, Alpha, MIPS, m68K etc. Sure, some of them are pretty much irrelevant but there is a certain attraction to be able to develop for many architectures and choose the one which best suits the business needs. Solaris cannot do that (Solaris SPARC is a different beast internbally to Solaris X86 and only one of them is open anyway...)
I use Solaris and Linux on opposite ends of a data collection system. The Solaris end (on Ultra 5s with Solaris 7 and a desktop Solaris 9 system) is full of funny little bugs (like, Solaris 9 has lousy floppy disk handling and flaky CD-ROM handling, and a few other minor idiosyncracies.) The Linux end (and the desktop Linux systems I use have their own issues, but by and large they have fewer nits to pick and are easier to manage. I vote Linux here on the merits.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Photoshop actually runs pretty well in WINE, other than recent versions. And of course theres the GIMP, which is NOT really so bad. Desktop users aren't running legal copies of photoshop anyways, so they might as well run something they don't need to pirate. The things they are missing from photoshop are mostly things only professional graphics people(i am one myself) care about.
once you go slack, you never go back
Meanwhile, Linux has been around since 1991, and it still isn't ready for the desktop.
I hardly think the rantings of some guy who thinks he knows everything about the desktop because he wrote firefox is proof that Linux is not ready for the desktop. Linux is ready for the desktop, its not perfect but it is workable, but it hasn't 'taken off' simply because hardware and software is not targeted at/written for it and because literally the entire desktop computing world is used to Windows. People just don't see the point in making the effort to switch.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
So instead of having integrated TeX/LaTeX support, integrated emacs, integrated gcc (does Windows Update update these?), I'm supposed to download the Windows version. This so that I have the privilege of paying for software?
Firefox has to support a hell of a lot less than any OS and Apple has enough of a userbase to require hardware and software vendors to support their newest OS. OS X would have precious little support if it was Apple's first offering.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
From TFA:
Unix has been around since Linus Torvalds was in short pants.
Yeah, and Solaris x86 has been around since 1992. Hasn't killed Linux yet.
Indeed. What's more: Linus still wears short pants.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
because there are alot of lazy developers out there that will copy the code from OpenSolaris and claim it for there own.
That's a load of bull. The kernel community is made up of some of the most
conscientious and hard working people alive today. If some lazy coder were to
try a slip in OpenSolaris code into the Linux kernel (assuming such a thing
was even plausible (I don't know how similar the kernel structures are)), it
would never make it past peer review.
*sigh* back to work...
We here this kind of thing from time to time, but last I checked, hardly anyone takes Solaris x86 seriously. It has always been the bastard child of Sun.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I don't think a lot of folks around here realize that the original article from the Register is actually a disservice for Sun. Think about it -- the fact that they are making more and more of their core software not only available on Linux, but also available for free (as in beer) to me looks like they have finally started to take it seriously and they are trying to deversify. Just recently they've announced the Technology Preview programm for their compilers on Linux which will let Linux developers get an access to something that really blows gcc and even commercial compiler vendors out of the water. In short, I don't really think Sun wants to kill Linux with Solaris, but rather try to cash-in on both. Which, if executed correctly, might have a good chance for success.
How much denial is there here?
How much bullshit are you about to spout here?
It configured everything automatically except the sound, which I had to tweak some config files for (no worse than when I've had sound problems in Windows).
I don't know what former soviet bloc you got your sound hardware from, but just about every sound card / sound device works just fine out of the box on windows.
Bzzt! If your sound hardware was produced AFTER the release date of Windows XP (meaning Soundcard XYZ didn't even exist when MS was accepting drivers for Windows XP from OEMs), chances are you'll be loading the driver from the CD that came with your sound card... A minor technicality, but one I felt I needed to express.
The only reason I had to do cliched Linux stuff like recompiling the kernel was to get my Orinoco card working in monitor mode. Desktop users don't care about that, only people who want to run WiFi hacking utilities.
Right - desktop users don't care bout Wi-Fi. Gimme a freakin break...
No, give me a freaking break... You didn't even correctly read what he wrote! If you don't care about using Wi-Fi hacking utilities, then you don't need to recompile the kernel. Good grief - pay attention!
Keeping the system up to date is actually easier than Windows, since I can run a single apt-get and upgrade everything (OS components + apps) to the current version.
As opposed to automatic download and installs for windows updates which happen without any user interaction at all?
Oh, I'll give you that Automatic Updates on Windows is extremely easy... unfortunately it's that same service that I got burned on when the lastest rollup package for SP4 borked my 2000 Server... and no I don't have another identical server to test stuff on (It's a hobby site, after all). One very NICE thing about linux is that I can stick in, say Knoppix, and repair my system when it's not bootable. For free. Wanna do that with an NT/2K/XP/2K3 box? Go buy a commercial app so you can access those NTFS disks from something other than Windows.
There are definitely some gaps in terms of things like no Photoshop on Linux, but the OS itself is fine for desktop use now IMO.
And Excel, and Outlook/Exchange and games and well supported drivers and about 1000 other apps that you can't get on Linux.
While not an easy solution, there is WINE, which allows quite a few apps to work acceptably. No well supported drivers? Only if you pick generic/crappy hardware with companies that are barely on the map. Matter of fact, build a system using an Nforce based motherboard and an Nvidia graphics card, and you'll have a completely working system. I've thrown various flavors of Linux on off the wall hardware combinations and almost always come up with a working solution. And while commercial games may be limited, I've got Neverwinter Nights and UT 2004 on my Linux box right now. Hmm, some older games I have for linux: Sim City 3000 Unlimited, Quake 3 Arena, and Terminus (had a linux version on the CDs).
On the flipside - just about everything userland app on Linux is available on windows - Cygwin anyone? Emacs... VNC... etc... You're telling me that the KERNEL is enough to get people to switch and give up all of that software? Uh-huh... What color is the sky in your universe?
Cygwin is good, I'll give you that. However, there are several OSS apps on Windows that I have never had work properly. Keep in mind here, I'm talking about OSS apps outside of Cygwin here. For example, WAMP (Windows + Apache + MySQL + PHP) has been a pain for me, because PHP has never worked for me on Windows. MySQL and Apache are great, but PHP on Windows has always eluded me and I gave up. I can get it to work on Linux with no problems. I got Perl working on Windows, but it was kinda wierd.
SCO most likely did sell them stuff that they did not own the rights to. So, when Novell wins this lawsuit in the next year, SCO will almost certainly chapter 7. So after that, can Novell go after SUN about all that? And for that matter, can they go after MS since supposedly, SCO sold them the same huey? I suspect that Sun may be in trouble over all this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Am I the only one who finds it sort of bizarre to call Solaris a "Linux-like operating system?"
."
Linus' first usenet release announcement called linux "a free version of a minix-lookalike for AT-386 computers." On Tannenbaum's web site documenting the history of minix (in a response to Ken Brown's SCO nonsense), he says "I decided to write a UNIX-like system. .
Which, I suppose, makes Solaris-10 a UNIX-like-lookalike-like operating system.
I'll say it again.
In five years, Sun will be the new SCO suing Linus for destroying their market. And Linus will be saying as he has before, "That was just an unintended side effect."
Solaris has absolutely no hope of producing a development community to top Linux. It MAY produce one that allows it to maintain a niche market like the BSD's or for companies who continue to run Sun hardware or are used to Solaris. In other words, it MAY extend Solaris' lifespan.
Kill Linux? No fucking chance.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Does Ubuntu work with 5-button mice? I've been having a devil of a time with XandrOS 3, there are about a million files to edit and a script and other crap, and it still won't work properly.
As soon as Linux figures out that mice have 5 buttons, it'll be ready for the desktop. I've yet to see a single one work right without a ton of work.
$
The strange thing is that Gnome IS technically better for the average user - it is simpler, a bit leaner and faster.
KDE, on the other hand, is a perfect complement to X11 - it is big, louzy and generally inconherent. think of mac vs. windows marketshare flaming.
(and to totally confuse things up, KDE is the one build on a better foundation - Qt is way more better and cleaner than that Gnome thingie...)
Did anyone else read this an instantly think of the Varmint Killer from Destiny's Road?
*Bushes rustle*
*Wah-KSSSH*
There goes another Linux!
Maybe I'm just a nerd... (unlike you all, right?)
Im a big fan of solaris 2.6, one of the Best OS's ever. Solaris 10 is the closest thing Sun has made to come back to that level, but since it lacks so much, the plus's are so heavily overshadowed. Its not a Linux killer, and I'm sick of it being compared to Linux. Its more-so a cousin to linux, than a stranger. Sun has made some strides recently, while it isnt enough to get the "geeks" to convert(as mentioned a numerous times,) its the stepping stone they need. The alliance with AMD is also going to help both companies do things that they both have been underdogs in. I don't see Solaris dying, or anyone killing Linux. But I do see Solaris 10 as night and day compared to Solaris 9. Now once it does have the mass hardware support and a better 3rd party open source support group, it would definately be a tough OS to woe away.
But if your a BSD person, you wouldn't be looking at adding any CDDL code to your BSD kernel. You couldn't, without adopting the CDDL. In that regard, the CDDL is *exactly* as viral as the GPL. In the case of the GPL I know what is being innoculated against. In the case of the CDDL, no level of trust has been established as of yet.
Any great application written for Solaris is bound to end up on Linux. Talking about commercial applications. If an inherent flaw in the OS degrades the application .. they might not want to port it to that OS.
FOSS applications are abundant and many of them have very good basic functionality. What I find is that the majority of them often lack the "extra mile" or so that you find commercial applicatons -- and i'm not talking about eye candy and useless features either.
But if you got a lot of different hardware (I'd say that this is a common in medium or large companies), it suddenly becomes much more complicated to do network installs, if the hardware support isn't good. Even with current state Linux, you do need to take different hardware into consideration and taylor your network install to it, but in my experience, fortunally, it's only neccesary with few pieces of hardware. I'd say that it would be a hell, if you have to do something special for the NIC, the soundcard, the ... you name it...
Regarding thin clients: Yes, in some enviroments a thin client is a good choice, but not in other... My personal preference is a fat client, since they are relative independent of each others and generally allows for tayloring to the users need (eg. an extra DVD writer)...
Methinks you've confused reinstalling (which takes time) to upgrading (which is quick and painless.) You can easily be running your distro's current version without ever having done a reinstall. Or rebooting ;-)
Yes , X supports any number of mice buttons , you just have to configure them which is a bit of a pain in the arse but you only ever need to do it once
http://dotnet.org.za/matt/articles/39097.aspx for example
there are plenty more examples you can find on google if you want to have a look.
Its not really linux's job too do that , though i am amazed that all Desktop distros (I have tried , which is most of them for evaluation purposes ) are lacking a quick easy GUI config tool for the purpose as it would not be that hard to make.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Linux today is doing quite a good job when it comes to hardware support. Driver developers are trying hard to get even esoteric hardware working. A problem that Apple for instance never had to face, since their OS runs on their dedicated hardware only.
If Sun wants a wide adoption of Solaris they will have to catch up on device drivers. I seriously doubt they will get more vendor support than Linux. That means they will have to do the dirty work themselves (not the vendors). Just taking Linux drivers and porting them to Solaris does not work too well, as the two ABIs are probably (no idea really) totally different. If you need special hardware to run Solaris it can not be success.
well, I googled a few resources. :)
here's one...
here's another
It seems that I need to download extra programs, which is insane.
Thx for the encouragement anyways
$
Don't you mean GNU/Solaris is free.
I run Linux at home on my desktop, where I'm prepared to trade the odd boneheaded kernel bug/freeze/crash for a constant stream of updated software packages. I run Solaris (on SPARC) at work on e-commerce servers, where proven stability and support are priority no.1 (and fully-integrated enterprise features like Zones are no.2).
I wouldn't EVER seek to swap these scenarios.
Ade_
/
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
You shouldn't need to download extra programs (though not all software will work with the extra buttons , some do natively ) all you need to do is edit your X config file, firefox i know works with extra buttons without tweaking and a few more apps .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
There's a lot of Solaris code that won't be released due to licences or patents.
I think the best scenario is one where applications can be run on both OSes. While Linus and others won't want to borrow Solaris code, they could do a lot worse than have a look at it and make the two platforms closer in terms of compatibility.
No way. Ubuntu still not ready. I tried to install on an old computer. screen resolution set to 600x480 (i am not an old man), need to manually re-configure the x11 config files; can't play video with totem, then uninstall and re-install with totem using another engine, now can play video, but no sound. still troubleshooting... and the overall feeling is that it's seems slow.
I couldn't agree more. I also installed it without any problems - on non-Sun hardware. Maybe I was lucky with my hardware - or maybe the reviewer was unlucky.
;) )
I also agree with your comment about servers. Low to mid size servers has been a huge growth area for Linux. I think Sun wants some of that pie not the desktop. Microsoft has got the desktop sewn up for the forseeable future anyway (until Jobs sees the light and releases x86 OS X
CDE is practically dead in Solaris now. (might still stay around to make old-timers happy for a while...)
Sun's now uses GNOME in Solaris 10 (and had it available for 9). They call it the "Java Desktop System", but it is just a customized build of GNOME.
Of course, I personally run KDE on my Sun machine in Solaris 10, which also works quite nicely.
The CDDL is less "viral" than the GPL, as the CDDL specifically restricts itself to files which are CDDL licenced and derivatives of those files.
You are hence, without question, allowed to take a CDDL licenced file implementing something you're interested in for your own code, modify it to suit your needs, and then link to the resulting (CDDL derived) code from your own code. Your own code can be whatever licence you want.
So CDDL is like GPL, but less viral (by the licence authors design anyway. There are open questions as to how far GPL's viral nature can actually legally go. FSF think linking code always becomes affected by the GPL of code it links to, others think not).
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Do you expect hardware vendors to write drivers against a kernel API that changes every few months? Linux users do (or they write them themselves). If Sun can provide a stable device driver interface (quite likely, since they are well known for supporting backwards compatibility) then they might have the edge over Linux, in terms of closed-source drivers.
Whether this is good for the Free Software community is a completely different matter.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why would an average Joe Sixpack care whether his computer runs Solaris or Linux, if they BOTH run pretty much the same software? If both run GNOME/KDE and X11, and have pretty much same command line interface via same Unix applications, what's the difference to a normal user? Do you REALLY think a normal user cares about operating systems? No, he cares about getting his stuff done.
Just to show that you shouldn't believe everything that a company tells you in their sales pitch:
[quote from Win4Lin FAQ]
Does Win4Lin Pro use QEMU?
The Win4Lin Pro(TM) architecture is a combination of our 20 years of product development experience with Win4Lin(TM) and Merge(TM), combined with our embrace of the QEMU project.
[end quote]
Watch that comma! So, the people at Win4Lin are trying to tell us that they were busy developing virtualization software for Linux 6 years before Linus even released his first kernel??
Think again. If true, I'm much more interested in their time travel / information-gathering-from-the-future technology than their virtualization stuff.
1. Profit!!
2. ???
3. Virtualization technology on x86 hardware becomes mainstream.
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
Any LIDIL based printer (about 1/3 of HP's current offerings) will not work with Windows 2003. This doesn't seem like a big deal at first, because why would anyone forking out for Windows Server licensing be concerned about having to avoid the lowest cost printers in favor of more expensive kit? But aside from developers trying to get it running on their workstation, the inability of LIDIL printers to communicate with PS and PCL drivers means that all Windows Terminal Services users are also unable to print from the WTS client to LIDIL printers.
If conversations could only be similar in a single fashion, your criticism would be valid. But as conversations have multiple senses in which they can be similar, your criticism comes of as being rather ignorant. Any two conversations regarding the same topic can be said to be similar, even if they have different outcomes. Consequently, it is quite possible that the discussions between IBM and other PC vendors may sound unlike similar conversation between Sun and other PC vendors.
Aside from the prodigous work that went into their OMNI print driver, they did their best to support a tremendous amount of hardware with OS/2 versions 2 through 4. In some cases (Mitsumi CD roms with the proprietary ISA card interface as one example), it was easier to get popular but non-standard hardware working with OS/2 v. 3 than with Windows 95.
You may be right that Sun is more committed to driver support than IBM was. But it seems to me that most hardware OEMs will be even more reticent to support a new OS than back in the hayday of OS/2. Solaris x86 is an even smaller market segment than OS/2 was in the mid-nineties.
That said, there is one thing that does help swing things in Sun's favor. Hardware has become increasingly standardized. Rather than needing to support twenty different proprietary CDROM interfaces, Sun only needs to support ATAPI. Likewise, many other devices are much more standardized than they were ten years ago.
Not including hype, and support for primarily obsolete hardware, can someone tell me in what ares Linux is "miles ahead" of Solaris?
I would argue that Eclipse and Visual Studio are on par, and that Evolution almost, ALMOST trumps Outlook (but not Outlook + Exchange).
As for OpenGL, both HL2 and Doom3 support OpenGL, so I'm not sure exactly which "features" it's missing.
Non-commercial things tend to kill themselves instead.
I'll use a perfect example: IBM T40 series laptops.
:-)
NOTHING on this machine is supported by XP, Sound, Video, Network.
Yet Knoppix 3.7 and 3.9 both boot without issue. So at least I can image the damn machines.
WAMP sucks. If you want to use anything out of the box, like ODBC support, good luck. I'm converting a number of OSS projects from mysql to odbc (simply because I hate running MySQL *AND* Postgres, and I *MUST* run postgres). No packaged versions of PHP4 come with functional ODBC support (at least for me). And building from source with cygwin has proven to be a most difficult endeavour.
So how'd I solve it? I installed VMWare 4.5 workstation, and installed Fedora Core 2 and went back to LAMP. Problem solved, I can use the Windows Postgres/Mysql servers as testbeds for performance sake, and all the web/source control on Linux.
All on my PIII-600 laptop running Windows 2000.
All praise the mighty VMware gods.
OpenLook was better, I only HAD to use CDE on HP/UX and Solaris 2.51 for awhile, I hated it. NeXTStep and IRIS were the best Unix desktops in my opinion.
GNU/OpenSolaris to be quite accurate.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
to over come the free price tag on Linux. Sun will now start offering $100 per work station for every instalation of the free solaris operating system. You can get an extra $50 by installing Java too.
In more recent news, the offer was overwhelmingly rejected. Admins found that due to the arduous installation process, that they would be making less than half of minimum wage.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
The big difference in Solaris, when compared to Linux is that Linux was designed for hackers on old hardware and is being constantly improved for better systems. Solaris was designed to be infinitely scalable and completely redundant for systems running 24/7/365 driving Fortune 500 companies. What this means is better multi-threading (hybrid user-kernel space instead of kernel or user space), better SMP, and resources specifically designed to work with Enterprise level hardware / systems. Though Linux may one day implement these things over time, there is really little reason to if Solaris has these things completed and updates in Solaris track the big SPARC Solaris updates demanded by industry. It seems a no brainer to embrace this offer from Sun. The reason we didn't take Solaris as our primary system was that the early x86 deployments had crappy driver support. It is really a chicken and the egg problem. Drivers don't get written until a lot of people use the OS and the OS is used if the driver supprt sucks. If all the drivers and tools were available on Solaris like they are in Linux, there is no question in this developers mind that Solaris is better, hands down.
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
Are you sure that TeX and emacs are included with Cygwin?
Also, what happens if I need to update gcc? Some Linux distros will allow me to update gcc (even automatically).
So how does Windows save me time?
And it's in service. If it's not modern, it's likely to NOT have driver support in Windows 2003- that doesn't make it any less usable in a server.
Better yet, Windows 2003 only works on x86 or x86_64 (in 32-bit mode...)- I can take this hardware and put it on PPC, Sparc, MIPS, etc. and expect it to work. Nice try, but it's a swing and a miss on your part.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
In fact, I'd say one of the most frustrating things about X is the braindead configuration. Having to edit a file to enable dual monitors, resolutions, etc is a pain in the ass.
I agree with you there, X is a pain to use. But SuSE's YAST tools go a long way to help, providing GUI system administration similar to MS Windows.
I have a nvidia card and installed SUSE with the binary nvidia drivers. I was able to configure everything through the YAST wizards, and had no problems getting my dual monitor setup working. I'm sure the vendor support helps a lot too.
The jModule
May I suggest that you don;t lnow enough about Solaris if thst is all your expertise with it?
I work with Solaris in Sparc, day in, day out.
200 simultaneous NFS connections? No problem.
A couple of heavy databases in one medium powered machine? No problem.
The Linux crowd does not know what is to forget about kernel rebuilding, tuning and patching.
And NIS+ is a thing ob beauty. It is stupidily complicated but once it works it is secure, fast and extensible.
And Solaris 10 has even more goodies (virtual machines any one? industrial scale virtual volume management? (not the lame Linux way, which maybe only Red Hat may e close to get right).
And good hardware diagnostics: in a Solaris machine you get error messages that actually help you to troubleshoot the problem, with Linux the machine may be dying and something you get squat.
Linux is wonderful, It is the OS I use at home, but frankly it is laughable at this moment in time to compare it with Solaris from a purely technical point of view.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh believe me I do recognize that fact. I never said it would get into the kernel just that people would try. Are you trying to say that there are no unethical kernel developers out there? I would find that hard to believe.
There are kernel patches out there that are not in the kernel source tree that people can donwload and apply.
sorry... should have been clearer (it's all in my head honest): I agree that the simple out of the box install works well and is bleedingly obvious. I was also setting up a full JES suite of identity based services. (you know: login via ldap, directory servers etc etc). I just found this doco to be very poor and riddled with small but annoying errors. Coming from an edirectory project it just seemed very very hard to get more advanced admin stuff going. A good example would be setting up mySQL4.1x properly on Solaris versus Windows... to me I got both working but it was much harder.
I haven't recompiled the kernel, and I have also found that configuring Linux is easier than configuring Windows. I also checked the cygwin home page, and it does not list TeX or emacs as components. Nor python, perl, php, apache, . . More choices of what? Proprietary software? cygwin
I wasn't lazy, I was just in error (I have previous versions of Cygwin, and they didn't include those packages.). And what if I want it on a CD? Hey, I have broadband, but not everyone does.
Also, can I update Cygwin automatically like Yast Online Update in SuSE?
And what proprietary software would I want? And what about paying for nonproprietary software?
I don't do Microsoft Office, or Visio, or Photoshop, or Visual Studio. And what is "almost infinitely"?
I'm not thick. I realized that you were using hyperbole. But what does "almost infinitely" mean?
I have more choices of distros on Linux.
Methinks you've confused reinstalling (which takes time) to upgrading (which is quick and painless.)
Is it? Not always in my experience. Major distro updates are often quicker and easier with a reinstall, YMMV of course, but I've tried upgrading tens of PCs from SuSE 7.3 to 8.1 and I gave up and reinstalled after the third of fourth, just keeping the partition layout from the old install (homedirs were on the network). I'd need a lot of convincing that upgrading distros is easier and faster than reinstalling from a fresh MS Windows master install. Don't get me wrong - I think Windows is fairly braindead, but I just think the arguments in the post I replied to aren't the most important ones (and possibly aren't true) There are plenty of real reasons to question MS Windows utilisation without starting to save 60$ p.a. on resinstalls, because to be frank, as I said before, if that's why you're doing it, no-one will care enought to give you the resources to do it...
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
You speak mathematical nonsense, I call you on it, and somehow I'm lowering your IQ? I have a low tolerance for "artistic" abuses of mathematics. I still remember the Cantor diagonalization proof as well.
And why would I need such software?
I have a PhD in Math. And what you allege as art is no more "art" than the drippings of Jackson Pollock.
:-)
I write teaching material in TeX/LaTeX using GNU emacs, some programs (gcc and python, with some web apps in PHP), some Apache (to view web pages/web apps). And, of course, I annoy people on Slashdot.
Well not all distributions are the same, of course. I run Debian, so I use apt-get, so it is easy: type "apt-get update", then type "apt-get upgrade". The first brings your database of available packages up to date. The second upgrades all of your packages.
I've run Windows since 1.0, and have WinXP as a dualboot option now. Installing and uninstalling and upgrading software is much easier under Debian than windows, no doubt. Especially troubling, under windows, is if you try to install the 2005 beta series of development tools. Be aware that not only is the order of installation important, so is the order you uninstall. In Debian I'd just "apt-get remove" with a list of things to get rid of. In windows, if you uninstall with the wrong order, there is a utility to try to fix your registry (but the disclaimer suggests it isn't expected to work in every permutation of uninstalling.)
Here's a link, not sure if it's what you want
Academic Genealogy
I couldn't find the actual dissertation.
Useful for scheduling meetings? Isn't that a contradiction?
Kudos to you, good sir!
Shame on Google.
Hah, thanks.. my .sig does drive the typical Slashdot leftist absolutely batshit.
:D
Check out this thread for a good example.. I know I shouldn't tease them, but it's just so much fun..
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Your English was fine; I just don't like meetings. :-)