Slashdot Mirror
OpenSolaris From a Linux Admin and User Perspective
MSa writes "How does OpenSolaris, Sun's effort to free its big-iron OS, fare from a Linux user's point of view? Is it merely a passable curiosity right now, or is it truly worth installing? Linux Format takes OpenSolaris for a test drive, examining the similarities and differences between the OS and a typical Linux distro. If you want to sample the mighty ZFS filesystem, OpenSolaris is definitely the way to go."
Ever since the demise of SGI I haven't looked at anything but Linux / BSD, but this makes me wonder if there is maybe life for Solaris after all.
Would be nice if this was more geared towards the server end of things, which is where I would expect you'd deploy solaris much sooner than on the desktop.
MP3 Search Engine
I'd try Nexenta, except I don't really want to use the Ubuntu repositories for my Linux packages. I'd prefer something with a good KDE desktop.
I'd consider it for a web-server box to test how the kernel handles I/O.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Stay away from Solaris, unless you have to use it.
That being said, I have never seen a large shop without 'some' SUN/Solaris machines.
Solaris isn't bad. There are just 'linux' OS's that do most of the same jobs w/o you getting tied to Solaris.
I love that Sun open sourced it, however I think that the greatest benifit is not that it's open but that the technologies it offers are available to be reproduced on other nix os's. The biggest issue I have with OpenSolaris is that it's still a single vendor OS. If it forks a few times and actually develops a culture and some competition between vendors than I think it will be more appealing.
That's actually what I hate and love about linux. It's a fragmented and ineffecient community, but because it's fragmented I don't have to worry that it's going away any time soon.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
I thought the ZFS on the "free" version was crippled down to 1 TB.
I put up Sun's free VirtualBox VM environment on a MacBook Pro, and both OpenSolaris and Solaris 10 Intel were worthless. Both achieved speeds reminiscent of PearPC.
XP worked OK. Ubuntu was fine.
You'd think if you were going to release a VM, at least you'd make sure your flagship OS would run on it at speeds that would compare favorably to a 20-year-old Amiga.
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
ZFS kicks ass. Sun really raised the bar with it. There are some other FSs in development (Hammer, btrfs, etc), but they don't have the full integration that ZFS does. Maybe eventually, someone will write a patch so ZFS is just a patch and recompile away in Linux (although that approach is what made minix suck back in the day). Heh, minix will probably have ZFS support before Linux does.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Sure, it's Open Source and everything. But the problem is that complex programs like this are often designed with a top-down instead of a bottom-up approach. I mean, this isn't a bazaar, it's a cathedral. Oh, and OpenSolaris is not GPL. *buzz*
There's still one company responsible and only that company will make the changes, because the codebase is so huge that it's a pain in the *** to maintain. Well, eventually many open source projects end up like that, with a huge codebase and with a company. BUT, this wasn't built by the community and it's not likely that it will get enough userbase so that a dev will become interested.
Compare this with the Linux Kernel. Linus message, which was more or less like "Hey guys, I'm making a unix-like kernel, anyone want to join?", was followed by a stampede of developers and testers like you can't imagine.
So, if we want competition, it's very improbable that a cathedral project such as OpenSolaris can compete with Linux, a 100% GPL'ed project built by the whole community.
Maybe it can compete with the bsd clones, but Linux? I don't think so.
Sun is battling hard to break into the open source operating system world with OpenSolaris. Juliet Kemp takes it for a test-drive, sampling its unique features and seeing how it fares against Linux...
OpenSolaris is an open-source project based on (some of) the Solaris operating system code, and sponsored by Sun, but being developed independently. The main aim of the project is to create a downloadable codebase. Currently, though, there's a Live CD/install image available which gives you a full OpenSolaris distro - a project which arose after Ian Murdoch (founder of Debian) was hired by Sun in 2007 to head "Project Indiana". OpenSolaris 2008.05 was released in May 2008. It is, as advertised, a full-featured distro, which includes the GNOME desktop and the ZFS filesystem (which does snapshots and some other interesting things - more on that below).
It's released under the CDDL (an open source copyleft license based on the Mozilla Public License), and can be downloaded from the OpenSolaris website. The majority of the source code is fully accessible, but some components are only available in binary form (under the OpenSolaris Binary License).
The OpenSolaris desktop (click for full size)
Installation
Installing OpenSolaris is pretty straightforward - it's a LiveCD (as is increasingly common in Linux distros these days), with standard click-to-install. You answer a couple of questions about your location, keyboard map, and time/date, and you're also asked about disk partitioning. Solaris uses ZFS rather than ext3, which is important in that Linux support for ZFS is still in the fairly early stages.
The rest of the install is handled for you, and worked fine for me. It picks up the network fine (at least, it does if you plug the cable in...). I didn't test it with wireless, but wireless support is supposed to be available.
In use
The first thing to note is that it's not lightweight. My test box is fairly old and slow, but I found OpenSolaris significantly slower than Ubuntu or OpenSUSE on the same box. So it's not really useful for putting that ageing hardware to work.
It comes with a Gnome 2.20.1 desktop by default, and consequently looks pretty similar to more or less any Linux Gnome desktop. The usual array of applications are in place to start off, including Firefox 2.0.0.14, Thunderbird, Rhythmbox, and so on. OpenOffice isn't installed, but version 2.4.0 is available via the package manager, which uses the Image Packaging System (IFS) software.
Is there really a need to have 'SUNW' before everything?
There is documentation available showing how this package manager compares with apt-get - there's also a graphical option if you prefer that to the command line. Both deal with dependencies for you, as with Debian's apt-get and aptitude. There are fewer packages available than for a mainstream Linux distro, although they do have over a thousand (and certainly enough for a fully-functioning system). The package naming is slightly odd; package names begin with a handful of capital letters (eg SUNW or FSW).
Networking works differently to Linux - ipconfig exists but has a different syntax, and eth0 isn't the standard interface. There's a graphical networking manager, but it gives an error message if started when the network management tool nwamd is configured, which is true by default. This seems wrong: either the graphical tool should play nicely with nwamd, or it shouldn't show up on the default config menu.
Services and the starting/stopping of them works differently from Linux, as well. Instead of /etc/init.d or similar, OpenSolaris uses smf, the Service Management Facility. Services are referred to as svc:/servicetype/servicename (where service types include network, system, and application, among others) and can be started/stopped via the svcadm command. The man page is helpful, as are the online docs, but it's something that you need to get used to, and as ever there's a learning curve before you'll be comfortable with it.
So basically when you do it right in linux (as opposed to the openness of windows filesharing), it's bad? Please.
Maybe try the Coral cache version?
http://www.linuxformat.co.uk.nyud.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=729
Excerpts from the article:
"... I found OpenSolaris significantly slower than Ubuntu or OpenSUSE..."
"There are fewer packages available than for a mainstream Linux distro, although they do have over a thousand (and certainly enough for a fully-functioning system). The package naming is slightly odd; package names begin with a handful of capital letters (eg SUNW or FSW)."
"ZFS is transactional, meaning that the filesystem is always consistent (so fsck or equivalent isn't used or needed), and snapshots are intentionally both easy and cheap in terms of disk space."
"I'm very impressed with the concepts behind ZFS, but I'm also concerned that cross-functionality with Linux is limited."
"I did find it frustrating to have to relearn commands that I've been using without thinking for years now (eg ifconfig), and right now I'm not convinced that for me it's worth the mental effort, especially given the relative scarcity of external software available."
I had a box with a drive with an empty primary partition at the beginning and Linux on a few extended partitions at the end. The OpenSolaris install documentation and the installer itself promised not to touch the existing extended partitions. Which it didn't. It did, however, wipe the partition table so I could not find my extended partitions and had to restore from backups.
I will not be using OpenSolaris anytime soon.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
That's because the Linux folks were worried about the pending USG/CSRG lawsuit so they reimplemented TCP instead of using the BSD TCP stack and utilities like almost everyone else (including Microsoft) did.
Just about any non-Linux UNIX implementation is going to have the BSD TCP.
On the upside the lawsuit did set SCO up the bomb. Oh, it wasn't the only thing by any means (did they actually do ANYTHING right in that lawsuit?), but one of the side effects of the USG/CSRG lawsuit was that a lot of early UNIX code code was open-sourced. Including some of the SCO claimed were examples of "infringing code" in Linux. Come on, folks, wasn't it great to have Dennis Ritchie himself point that out?
I was a Solaris admin back in the early 90s. I preferred SYSV to BSD for a lot of things. But at this point, I'm just not seeing a compelling reason to go back. Sure, ZFS sounds nice, but I don't really want a system that's slower and more RAM-hungry than Linux, and I don't want an OS with a GPL-incompatible license.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
This is a superficial review.
While it might be good for people who want to spend a lot of time in the OS, I can't even get that far. I installed Ubuntu on a Sparc machine to test it out. Didn't work so well since there is no good JDK for Linux on Sparc.
So then I tried to install Solaris back on the machine. It doesn't give you an option to format the disk. Seriously.
The entire user experience around getting the OS installed and an environment setup is so inaccessible to a person who doesn't want to make it their main focus and job. If you're a Sun shop, or if you're a sysadmin, it might be great.
But the majority of web 2.0 style folks need a faster way to get going. If you have been used to Linux where the entire experience makes it very easy to get up and running, Solaris is like going backwards 20 years.
Also, my pet peeve about Linux and Solaris *both* is that they still both fight the GUI vs. CLI war. 99.999% of functions should be accessible from a GUI. Period. End. Of. Story.
If your main concern is whether or not it runs KDE? Then stick with Linux.
Awesome!
Trying to harden Solaris is a nightmare. Mostly because so many packages in the Solaris install are interdependent. It is either install 90% of the packages or install nothing. Why do they even bother breaking the software packages if this is the end result? Getting rid of RPC can create so many problems it isn't even funny. Both BSD and Linux offer the option of only installing the base package and only choose the services you want with little to no other packages to depend on. This however absolutely cannot be the case for solaris because a single needed software package will require you to install nearly all services.
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
I just installed it a couple of weeks ago. Open Solaris starts in a GNOME shell and feels quite like Ubuntu in that way. Main difference is that the booting is much slower, but that's not unreasonable for a server OS that isn't supposed to get rebooted very often. I haven't really used it that much, but mostly it seemed to be okay. (Reference basis is that I'm a heavy Ubuntu user, though my company distro is a custom version of RHEL5, and I've experimented with about half a dozen of the live CD versions.)
However, overall I still have to rate it as rather betaish. The first major upgrade tends to be fatal when it tries to update GRUB, and I wound up reinstalling pending the fixes. It wasn't just the lack of basic testing that bothered me, but also the unhelpful attitude in the newsgroups: "That's a well known problem." Gee, thanks, so how about a hint of how to fix it? (Yes, I eventually found the description of the fixes, but by then had run out of motivation... I prefer to be virtuously lazy in the Perlish sense and just wait for a more mature product.)
Disclaimer or statement of limitations or something: I'm running it with the VMware Player, and it's only my fourth client OS, and I certainly can't claim to be an expert in that environment.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It's KILLER.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
As someone who uses Linux at home and work, and also uses Solaris at work, I'm very pleased to see what Sun are doing. Solaris is a great operating system and I'm a bit bemused by the attitude that some Slashdotters have of "Why bother when I've got Linux?". I thought we were supposed to be geeks here and fascinated by interesting technology!
The biggest grumble I usually hear is that the default Solaris commands are not as feature rich as the GNU equivalents. The easy answer is that the GNU tools are most probably already installed in /usr/sfw and that to use them requires nothing more than a minor tweak to /etc/profile.
The reality is that, while Linux is great, it's not the only decent open source operating system out there and there are plenty of reasons to look at the alternatives (try it and see for yourself).
I find quite interesting that the coool features are finding their way into FreeBSD but not linux. Makes you think which users really have more freedom.
openSUSE is a good KDE, then you are a lost cause :-)
disclaimer: Kubuntu user, for a relatively long time now.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I am with Linus on this one. Our community should shun Solaris
you are a complete and total tool.
... between Solaris and Linux in the Enterprise is how they react to abuse - namely stupid people running ton of stupid memory hog applications.
Where I work we have Solaris 9 and 10 boxes running literally unattended for 600+ days - they are shared boxes, meaning lot many different applications run on the same OS/FS/Memory/CPUs .
When a particular app goes haywire and starts (many of them are 64-bit apps) - that particular app just gets a NULL back when there is no longer any memory available. The app can hopefully then calm itself down or release some of its caches etc. but the main point is that the other apps are unaffected and so is the OS.
I would not even begin to think how Linux could handle this. It has this insane notion of handing out virtually any amount of memory to applications whether or not there is actually that much memory and swap available. So when things get out of control the ugly and stupid OOM killer thinks it knows better which app to kill - depending on your luck you could end up with sshd or some other good behaving app being killed to give memory to this bad app.
That is scary. Arguably this is all fixable within the applications but ground reality is that App developers are incompetent - at least where I work, they are.
Plus the newer Solaris releases are close to Linux when it comes to performance. So the only incentive to run Linux is hardware support - if you are on non SPARC hardware that is.
Linux hopefully some day will have a good memory management subsystem soon - less fragmentation, more predictability, good accounting etc. But till that time Solaris for the stupid "Enterprise" .
dtrace and ZFS make me cream my jeans, but they'll probably just get ported to other unix-likes (or similar things like tux3 and kprobes will "get there") Not that I don't like opensolaris. After writing some D scripts, I'd like to use it in a few applications.
All spoken as if by a really naive person. You seem to think that Linux is not in competition with BSD, as if it were above BSD (and OpenSolaris). That's a strange position to take. Do you think that Linux' progress is a result of competition with itself or with Windows alone?
Both BSD and OpenSolaris are technically equivalent to Linux in many areas and superior in some others. By the way, Linux is also superior to the other two in some areas, too. You would be a fool to discount any of these operating systems, as each has pros and cons associated with different projects and needs.
Furthermore, if your hypothesis is that OpenSolaris won't be able to compete with Linux because of the "community" aspect, then why would you suggest that it may be able to compete with BSD which also is developed by the "community." That reeks of Linux fanboyism and illogical thinking.
I was not talking about the technical aspects, but about Market Share. It doesn't matter whether your product is superior or not, existing market share is a horrible obstacle to overcome.
OpenSolaris vs. Linux = Linux vs. Windows
I find quite interesting that the coool features are finding their way into FreeBSD but not linux. Makes you think which users really have more freedom.
Linux's kernel uses the GPL, and CDDL is GPL-incompatible. (But BSD and Apple's OS X open-source license (whatever it's called) compatible.) As a result, BSD and OS X have DTrace, and ZFS is in BSD and is coming to OS X. However, it's not really the fault of the Linux developers that it doesn't have it in the kernel, Sun made yet another open-source license that's incompatible with GPL. (It's pretty hard to make a license incompatible with BSD, the only conditions are, "here's some code, don't sue us".)
In either case, you're welcome to take the source code and start your own kernel. Try doing that with MS Shared Source 2008 (tm).
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
t's stupid nonsense like this article and comments that makes business line people want to ignore what the real IT people who have some sense know is true.
It's angry, antagonistic comments like yours that make the real IT people who have some sense mod you troll. It's clear you have some serious opinions, why are you being such a dick about them?
Those sound like the same complaints Windows users have of Linux, but which continually get dismissed by the Linux community as irrelevant.
"It's not Linux. I have to learn new commands and doesn't run my programs"
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
> being paid professionals, they're less
> likely to act like an asshole.
That statement is based on what data?
Could you please provide a reference?
If you replace a few choice utils with their GNU counterparts, Solaris is just fine to use. You can have the best of both worlds.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Actually - I'm in the middle of a nightmare because I need to get this system out the door and to a client like... YESTERDAY, and for some reason the pkg.opensolaris.org server is having problems and I can't get this thing updated.
Aside from my grief this morning, my experience with Indiana has been pretty nice. It seems like once things are working, for the most part they stay that way. However, I'd agree with your statement about it being "betaish". The system has some wierd quirks like:
1. Occasionally when rebooted it cant bring up SMB shares. Reboot again and they come up.
2. Network Auto Magic... uhhh.... huh? Why? First thing I disabled.
3. Changing DNS servers in the config and reloading = broken DNS. Reboot and it's fine.
Anyway, I'm glad Sun has done this. It's always nice to have more "free" alternatives.
Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
its supposed to suck.
I have had driver problems with Linux as well. Does it have such a site?
PS. You can also check the forums at http://opensolaris.org/os/
I have been playing around with OpenSolaris since it came out in VirtualBox and it seems cool. But I have had some issues with it so I shall hold out till the next release which isn't too far away.
Nexenta has released an OpenSolaris based storage server platform which we're using as a storage virtualization head. It rocks.
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Cause anything which isn't GPL isn't open source, amirite?
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Since June (OS 2008.05) with nary a complaint.
One of the cooler features that wasn't mentioned in the review is the snapshot ability of the ZFS. With OpenSolaris they have tied it into upgrade process so that a snapshot of old boot environment is created automatically (and placed in the GRUB menu) and you can switch between the two at boot time and manage which one takes priority via beadm pretty seamlessly.
Give it a whirl...you might like it.
OpenSolaris takes quite a bit of time getting used to IMHO coming from FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and many many versions of Linux. I used it because I wanted ZFS, virtulization, and also to try something new.
I did move back to FreeBSD after about a week or so since I thought OpenSolaris brought unnecessary learning curves for someone new. Things like 'ps' being different than every other distro, network interface setup and modification is annoying, the number of programs that you can compile outside of their package manager are slim, and overall not very friendly (I don't want to use the GUI, ever). However, I have 4gb of ram and ZFS really should only be run under 64-bit FreeBSD. Qemu doesn't seem to run, Xen isn't even an option for virtulization and WINE doesn't work under 64-bit (these are the main reasons I bought 4gb of ram in the first place).
ZFS has been running flawlessly on FreeBSD for me thus far, and even the maintainer says he's been using it since her ported it over without a hickup. FreeBSD runs version 6 of ZFS, while OpenSolaris currently runs version 11. It IS true, once you go ZFS you don't go back.
I refuse to run Linux, for personal and limiting reasons, and FreeBSD won't let me virtualize. It seems that in the next few days I'll be biting the bullet and moving back to OpenSolaris. It is very nice that ZFS is seamlessly integrated and snapshots are automatically created when updating the system. This ensures you can easily roll back or boot back into an older install to test different things.
All in all OpenSolaris HAS some potential, but their licensing is very wack and limiting. If Sun wants their OS to evolve and take on more users in the community, the licence will really need to be changed.
Heck, even Itanium beats SPARC these days. Sun needs to get its act together. ROCK is like 2 years late already...
Yes, Linux has HCL as well.
But basically, it isn't required. Almost everything just works.
Someone likely could easily issue ZFS as patch directly for the kernel as opposed to in FUSE. The problem is that it would be illegal to use it a such because of the license.
Says who? Can we get someone with a law degree to opine on this?
If (closed source) NVidia can link into the kernel without issue, I'd like to hear the logic behind why (OSI-approved) ZFS cannot.
What specifically are the conflicts between the two licenses? Also, why cannot a shim layer (like NVidia?) be used if there are actual conflicts?
Anyone?
Trying to harden Solaris is a nightmare.
Use JASS:
http://www.boran.com/security/sp/Solaris_hardening4.html
http://www.sun.com/software/security/jass/
Both BSD and Linux offer the option of only installing the base package
BSD maybe, but the most popular Linux distros install the kitchen sink and interlink everything (especially RPM-based ones). For Solaris, release 10 allows a base install less than 200 MBs using the SUNWCrnet software cluster:
http://www.securitydocs.com/library/2644
only choose the services you want with little to no other packages to depend on.
Being worked on in OpenSolaris:
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/pkg/
As much as I love tru64, I think it really is time to put this myth to bed. AdvFS is a good solid filesystem and cluster aware too, but it's no ZFS. AdvFS doesn't do any form of RAID other than concatenating disks into disk pools (domains) which can then be populated by filesets (AdvFS speak for filesystems) that share the same domain space. Every enterprise implementation of AdvFS always always has AdvFS sitting on top of some form of hardware or software RAID. AdvFS itself doesn't provide any RAID like data protection or redundancy.
AdvFS doesn't come close to the flexibility and power of ZFS. That's just the plain truth.
Now if you're really interested in Linux's answer to ZFS, you should keep an eye on the development of Btrfs. I wouldn't expect it to be production ready for a couple of years yet, but when it is it should kick ZFS ass!
You mean the fact that md is completely broken
Okay you had me worried there for a sec.. I run an md rig of 4 disks (raid1 and raid5). I think it works beautifully. Never had any problems in 1.5 years since I installed it. So in what respect is md "completely broken"?
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
On Linux you get the same functionalty from OpenVZ or its commercial cousin Virtuozzo.
This is what started to kill Solaris in the first place.
Linux? Oh yeah it will support the hard drives you have and the cdrom you have.
Solairs? Sorry, you will need to replace all of your hard drives and your cdrom with
dramatically more expensive equivalents.
If you are really dying to run the x86 version of Solaris I am sure there is
a suitable x86 box that Sun is just dying to sell you. It will also simplify
things when it comes to support.
"You mean you wanted to use 3rd party RAM? I'm sorry but that just won't do."
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
When a particular app goes haywire and starts ... that particular app just gets a NULL back when there is no longer any memory available. ... I would not even begin to think how Linux could handle this
Ummm... forget about the OOM-tuning stuff the other people are preaching, how about the good old ulimit command? It's only been around since... System V Release 4, according to ulimit(3).
http://certcities.com/editorial/columns/story.asp?EditorialsID=214
Maybe Linux's handling of memory limits could be more intelligent (I have no idea), but that's no excuse to ignore basic Unix process accounting.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Ha, just turned up a Slashdot article about this from last year:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2335217&from=rss
Sun has not yet released ZFS an openSolaris under GPLv3, which is the first step.
Next, the Linux kernel would need to be GPLv3.
Linus can relicense all of his contributions to GPLv3, but then the kernel can not include any code currently licensed GPLv2. So actually, every developer who contributed code and maintained copyright on that code would have to be contacted, and all of them would have to agree to relicense the code.
Unlike many other projects where people contributed under "GPLv2 or later", the Linux kernel is basically all "GPLv2 specifically".
It would be a logistic nightmare to relicense the Linux kernel, and many developers have stated they would be opposed to it on principle as well.
Sun could just license ZFS and the openSolaris kernel under GPLv2, but in their eyes it would be effectively giving it away for nothing. The reason they'd consider GPLv3, is to entice the Linux kernel to go the same route, and then both can take from each other.
When Sun discovered that Linux wasn't likely to go GPLv3, they decided not to either.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I gave Solaris 10 more than a fair shake a few months ago (with an eye on its ZFS support) when I had a hard drive fail. I worked pretty hard at getting it to run and really didn't get very far. Note: I've been using Debian for almost 10 years now -- so I'm pretty biased.
.tar.gz package system (excusable for the rare unpackaged Perl module, but unacceptable for the whole damn system). I'm quite admittedly not very knowledgeable about BSD and Unix, but damn those systems seem like a bitch to maintain. And Nexenta simply wasn't there yet.
From what I remember there was an astroturfed Sun-staff-only developer community, little information available online, slow as hell boot time, ZFS boot partition complications, and a broken KDE (the X server didn't work correctly; I have absolutely ZERO problems, even with 3D here in Linux).
And when I looked ahead to maintaining the system (the VAST BULK of where overhead is spent) I didn't see anything that looked as sane or easy as Debian. No incremental updates, just some arcane BSD-esque 'port' or
Solaris 10: pass.
Oh? Try using an Atheros 5007 chipset for wireless.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
when comparing to the linux community.....
then why they think they can drive......
noway......
sun is nothing better than linux......unless they r strong like bsd.....
if not.....supporting the most popular and latest things is the only way to go......
thus.....it's sun-setting already....
yawn~~~~
You've not heard of belenix have you?
www.belenix.org
http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
All OSS licenses are equal, but some are more equal than others ...
As ZaMoose observed; without any clues as to the backstory.
One of my FreeNAS mirror disks broke and switched to an OpenSolaris NAS . Happy with all the additional functionality.
Why would I? I have a ZD1211B, IWL3945, RT61, RT2500. They all work on Linux. Most of them work on FreeBSD and OSX as well. My Areca RAID controller however doesn't work stable on (Open)Solaris. And buying a new RAID controller (while my current one is top notch, and is in use) is quite a task.