Slashdot Mirror
OpenSolaris 2008.11 – Year of the Laptop?
Ahmed Kamal writes "Is Linux getting too old for you? Are you interested to see what other systems such as OpenSolaris have to offer? OpenSolaris has some great features, such as ZFS and dtrace, which make it a great server OS — but how do you think it will fare on a laptop? Let's take an initial look at the most recent OpenSolaris 2008.11 pre-release on recentish laptop hardware."
I am interested to see more stories that are not advertising or shout outs develop on laptops reading slashdot. Down with the "Check out my favorite thing" posts.
I would agree with you but for one point: The desktop arena is the general purpose 'swiss army knife' area, while server software has specific issues of speed, security, and robustness. Sure, they have overlap, but there are different generalized criteria for both.
I like what Solaris is becomming, and there are definite advantages to running Solaris in certain environments on certain hardware, especially when speed and robustness are critical factors.
Now I'm not talking about running DukeNukem, I'm talking about when an extra 100 transactions per second makes meaningful differences to your bottom line. This is when server OS software is a critical thing. Typically, desktop software OS is not what you want running a server with such critical issues under the microscope.
Solaris has historically been an OS which can be trusted in the server environment. I look with hope that they will continue and build on such a reputation.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The difference between a server OS and a desktop OS is not necessarily what they're capable of...most operating systems these days can serve as a halfway decent server or desktop system. The difference is really what each of them are optimized for.
A distribution or release that's designated as a "desktop OS" will tend to include a lot more software for that purpose, such as multiple desktop environments, 3D video drivers, drivers for various sound cards, calendar apps, word processors, and the like. It may also have a kernel optimized for those components.
A server OS, on the other hand, will likely be missing a lot of the eye candy, may not have any 3D or advanced sound drivers, and may be missing a bunch of the applications you would expect on a desktop machine. It may also come pre-installed with various server apps that would be of little use on a desktop machine, like a web or DNS server. Likewise, its kernel may be optimized for these server tasks.
For example, if you're building a desktop system, you might want something that will automatically install several desktop managers, the full suite of KDE and Gnome apps, etc on it. If you're looking for a server OS, such things are just a waste of space, and the installer adding them to your machine automatically is not desirable.
I disagree. Desktop OS and Server OS do not overlap. I know that Linux can and is BOTH but it is not really. A server OS is an OS built on stability and security. A desktop OS is one built on user experience and usability. There is sometimes a fine line, and a server can have a Desktop, but it is typically a trimmed version of a Desktop with many services not running that would be on the "desktop" release.
A desktop OS will have services and programs enabled that specifically disqualify it from being a server OS. Programs that listen on network ports, dont provide any kind of authentication to access devices or write to files, dont have a thorough firewall. A webserver should listen only on webserver specific ports and those necessary for remote admin. I can think of less than 10. (do a `netstat -a|grep LISTEN` and count the ports your desktop is listening on and then do the same on a server(http,ftp,ssh,rsync,and some specifics for server type like imaps or smb).
The analog here is a brand new Lincoln truck. Sure it looks like a truck, but its very nature says that it cannot be a worktruck without losing its status as a luxury vehicle. You could dis-acknowledge its luxury status and MAKE it a work truck, but then it is no longer a luxury vehicle because there has been consideration to the nice paint job, the chrome, the soft leather seats, etc.
So the point is:
Ubuntu 8.04 server is a server OS. If you add everything to make it a desktop OS, it is now Ubuntu 8.04 Desktop.
A desktop OS will have services and programs enabled that specifically disqualify it from being a server OS. Programs that listen on network ports, dont provide any kind of authentication to access devices or write to files, dont have a thorough firewall. A webserver should listen only on webserver specific ports and those necessary for remote admin. I can think of less than 10. (do a `netstat -a|grep LISTEN` and count the ports your desktop is listening on and then do the same on a server(http,ftp,ssh,rsync,and some specifics for server type like imaps or smb).
Huh? This sounds like a bad idea for both server and desktop alike.
Firstly, it's pretty well-worn knowledge by now that it's a darn good idea to run a firewall in any context, unless you positively, absolutely trust your local network.
Second, any extraneous services should either be disabled by default on a desktop machine, or be able to be disabled quite easily. As you mentioned, it's a trivial task to take a look at what ports are open, and is equally trivial to close those ports and/or kill the underlying processes if necessary.
Microsoft learned this lesson with Windows 2000. By stripping down their "Server" OS, they (possibly inadvertently) produced what was arguably the desktop best operating ever made by the company. Sure, it didn't come bundled with much, although that was a large part of the beauty of it. Most of the "value-added" features that came with XP were crap, and rarely used by anybody. For its time, it was fast, stable, secure, and quite easy to use. The architectural differences between the 'Server' and 'Workstation' versions were virtually nonexistent.
Unfortunately, they forgot whatever lessons they might have learned with Win2k, and came out with XP, which though a step up from 98/Me!, wasn't nearly as fast or secure as 2k, and eventually Vista, which predominantly added bloat, and none of the much touted architectural improvements that were supposed to have been in the pipeline.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose