ZFS doesn't count until it's released? Why is there a topic about a Linux kernel that hasn't been released..
Solaris not working on HP or IBM "high-end" servers? Please, the HP ML series is "Sun tested/certified" and DL series is getting there. Fancy RAID cards? Well, the ML series include SmartArrays 641s.. those are supported. As for IBMs - don't know.
Eh, I have Solaris 10 Express (NV build) currently running on my Acer Ferrari. Works great, the onboard NIC is supported, and the next few (if not the next) will have hotplug USB and much better laptop ACPI support.
With regards to hardware support, that'll soon change. I've been talking to a few OpenSolaris developers and they are *praying* that people will submit drivers for hardware. The oppurtunity is there, people just have to take it.
Wrong. Sun has very large plans for Solaris. In fact, the OpenSolaris commitee consist of non-Sun employees. In fact, as many of you know, the OpenSolaris project has *already* released - dtrace, one of the more famed technologies that Solaris 10 sports.
The OpenSolaris distribution will include source to all of the Solaris 10 technologies, which includes dtrace (already released), SMF, zones, ZFS, etc. The only things that *won't* be there are stuff that is bundled up in patents - like CDE , for instance. Regardless, the *main* technologies will be present.
If you've read any of the OpenSolaris blogs, you'll see that they're moving from the Sun bootloader to GRUB on the x86 platform. USB hotplug support has been added, etc. OpenSolaris is slowly turning into a desktop operating system.
I know that OpenSolaris exists - I've seen the screenshots of the builds, and I've seen the actual OpenSolaris source.tar.gz file. It's there - it's coming.
How are any of these feature `revolutionary' or any sort of significant milestone? Maybe it is in the Linux world..
SELinux, please. Solaris has had RBAC/MAC/privileges ever since Solaris 8, not to mention profiles, which allow you to place a user into a profile and allocate a certain number of resources towards that user.
Reiser 4!? C'mon! Solaris 10 will have ZFS, a 128bit filesystem that does snapshots, much better quota management than anything you've ever seen. Why are you still talking about a puny little filesystem like Reiser!?
Xen you say? Eh, not to burst your bubbles but Solaris 10 now features a virtual server technology called "Solaris Zones," which are infinitely better than Xen - they *actually* work. Not to mention you all sorts of resource allocation, like FSS, and processor sets. In the next Solaris 10 update or so, there will be a work implementation of memory shares. Setting up a virtual server shouldn't be hard, and it's not in Solaris! Literally, it takes all of 5 minutes. You're thrown into a very nice configuration interface and then you install using zoneadm, which rocks. Next, you just boot the zone using zoneadm and and use zlogin to actually access the zone's *physical* console - not a pty - the actual system console.
Instead of using these half-baked, half-ass implementations, just use Solaris, which already contains these features in a much more usable and robust environment.
1) It's FreeBSD - not FreedBSD. 2) FreeBSD uses FFS, not ext2 3) FreeBSD is licensed under the BSDL, not the GPL. 4) WTF does this have to do with the article?
I've been using Solaris for 4 years, and I've never had any of my systems compromised. Yes, there was that lame telnet vulnerbility a few years ago, but who the hell uses telnet, anyways?
With Linux, I've been hacked 3-4 times. WuFTPD was the culprit several years ago, and now it's a combination of OpenSSH/ptrace vulnerbilities. I don't run Linux anymore.
Linux is more secure than Windows, but it's illogical to say it's the most secure OS. That's plain wrong. I'd use OpenBSD, but I'd still like to have some functionality out of my systems.
Why do you people keep preaching this garbage? I just want to use a product that works. I don't care if I can't take it and call it 'Fsck'ed OS.' I just want a product that can hold it's ground. Solaris does that for me, and I bet half of you Linux fanboys have never handled anything larger than a 4-disc SCSI array strapped to a homemade pizza-box server.
War? Level playing field? This isn't the 60s, get with the times. Linux isn't an industrial grade operating system. It's a fabrication of crap code from first-year computer science students. Are you saying that unless Sun stops hiring qualified programmers and hires first-year computer science students that it `won't be a level playing field?' Get off the crack, man.
Yes, Veritas is available for Linux, as well. I'd prefer to stick with comparing the LVM's that come with each of the OSs. Even still, Disk Solstice is much better than the 'Linux Volume Manager,' or whatever you would like to call it.
I'm aware AIX does have the best LVM around. IBM is going to keep pushing AIX, and the only reason IBM is pushing Linux as much as it is, is because they're trying to dominate a niche market - a market Sun and HP both are in.
As far as this 'Linux on Power5' garbage I keep hearing, it's one server that IBM is pushing it on. Look at the rest of the pSeries line. There's how many systems? Certainly more than one, and IBM is pushing AIX on those.
Do you think IBM is really pushing Linux as much as you'd like to think? Why did they incorporate Linux compatibility into AIX? So, they wouldn't have to switch the hand that feeds them to a under-developed, low-level operating system, called Linux.
Solaris not being polished? Nonsense. Almost every task you can think of in Solaris can be configured through a slick, very slick Java GUI called SMC. SMC also can remotely administrate your whole Solaris network. Show me a Linux tool that can do that. Solaris also supports almost every UNIX standard in existence. You even have a totally seperate directory for XPG4 junk. If you don't like the traditional Solaris/XPG4 userland tools, check out blastwave.org and download the GNU ones. Big deal.
Isn't Linux still using that lame/dev/hd[az] garbage? I'd hate to locate one storage array among a few hundred in a real datacenter. Save your Linux fanboyism for your bedroom, don't bring it into a real IT department.
It seems to me that this whole argument is political. I don't care if the product is from Microsoft/Sun/IBM. As long as it does it's job, which most Microsoft products won't, I'll use the product.
Solaris is a technically superior OS to Linux.
Drop the whole "Sun is an example from a fall from grace" crap. You're reasoning is illuding to me as to why you think that somehow if Sun makes a few business arrangements with Microsoft that makes Solaris a technically "insuperior" operating system.
It's anti-Linux because Solaris is a technically superior operating system. Don't involve your pitiful Linux vs. Microsoft argument with Solaris, and justify that Sun is teh sux.
I agree.
Solaris is a very much more polished than Linux is. There's plenty of documentation for it. A real, real LVM, and Veritas is always an option.
No longer do you have to run Solaris on Sun hardware. Get yourself an x86, and fire it up.
As the parent said, OSS developers should dump Linux for Solaris.
Java has been around for almost 10 years+. Refresh my memory with some of those CS courses you took (that emphasized, in your opinion, "development lifecycles"), how long has C# or.NET been around?
I'm not goint to lower this thread into a Java vs. C# debate.
RAM is cheap. Learn Java and make some cash, so you can afford some more RAM to run Java apps, so you'll stop "bashing."
You sound like an angry MS nut that just realized C# isn't going as Microsoft planned, and you're resorting to those protective instincts that are inherent in any MS programmer - "bash and use lots of buzzwords."
Find me the Sun document that says J2EE isn't for mission critical apps. If it wasn't for mission critical apps, why are they selling a Java application server, why are they incorporating J2EE in Solaris so heavily?
As many have said, your details about your application's future environment are rather vague. I'll attempt to provide some slightly insightful chatter, though.
Many hosptials usually have assorted UNIX systems, AS/400 databases, and a few Windows servers for the end-users. Anything useful can most likely be found on the UNIX systems or AS/400 databases. Likely, if you're being contracted by a hospital, your application will run on those assorted UNIX systems; however, if your application requires a Windows system, they'll gladly give you one.
Typically, hospitals are pretty big on AIX and Solaris, and AIX and Solaris have *very* nice J2EE environments (especially, Solaris). You'll score a few points with IT blokes that have AIX or Solaris certs if you write in J2EE.
I would *highly* recommend against going the.NET route. You'll be locking client in, and that's never a good thing. Whenever they wish to migrate, and they can't, no more contracts for you.
You've asked about portability, and J2EE is the way to go. Want BSD? Fine. Want various Unices? Fine. Windows? Of course. Linux? There as well.
J2EE isn't just a UNIX/Linux thing. Sun cares about the Windows VM as much as it does it's Solaris VM. Ask Microsoft the same, and post the reponse you get.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, where do you people dig up this crap?
ZFS doesn't count until it's released? Why is there a topic about a Linux kernel that hasn't been released..
Solaris not working on HP or IBM "high-end" servers? Please, the HP ML series is "Sun tested/certified" and DL series is getting there. Fancy RAID cards? Well, the ML series include SmartArrays 641s.. those are supported. As for IBMs - don't know.
Eh, I have Solaris 10 Express (NV build) currently running on my Acer Ferrari. Works great, the onboard NIC is supported, and the next few (if not the next) will have hotplug USB and much better laptop ACPI support.
With regards to hardware support, that'll soon change. I've been talking to a few OpenSolaris developers and they are *praying* that people will submit drivers for hardware. The oppurtunity is there, people just have to take it.
Wrong. Sun has very large plans for Solaris. In fact, the OpenSolaris commitee consist of non-Sun employees. In fact, as many of you know, the OpenSolaris project has *already* released - dtrace, one of the more famed technologies that Solaris 10 sports. The OpenSolaris distribution will include source to all of the Solaris 10 technologies, which includes dtrace (already released), SMF, zones, ZFS, etc. The only things that *won't* be there are stuff that is bundled up in patents - like CDE , for instance. Regardless, the *main* technologies will be present. If you've read any of the OpenSolaris blogs, you'll see that they're moving from the Sun bootloader to GRUB on the x86 platform. USB hotplug support has been added, etc. OpenSolaris is slowly turning into a desktop operating system. I know that OpenSolaris exists - I've seen the screenshots of the builds, and I've seen the actual OpenSolaris source .tar.gz file. It's there - it's coming.
How are any of these feature `revolutionary' or any sort of significant milestone? Maybe it is in the Linux world..
SELinux, please. Solaris has had RBAC/MAC/privileges ever since Solaris 8, not to mention profiles, which allow you to place a user into a profile and allocate a certain number of resources towards that user.
Reiser 4!? C'mon! Solaris 10 will have ZFS, a 128bit filesystem that does snapshots, much better quota management than anything you've ever seen. Why are you still talking about a puny little filesystem like Reiser!?
Xen you say? Eh, not to burst your bubbles but Solaris 10 now features a virtual server technology called "Solaris Zones," which are infinitely better than Xen - they *actually* work. Not to mention you all sorts of resource allocation, like FSS, and processor sets. In the next Solaris 10 update or so, there will be a work implementation of memory shares. Setting up a virtual server shouldn't be hard, and it's not in Solaris! Literally, it takes all of 5 minutes. You're thrown into a very nice configuration interface and then you install using zoneadm, which rocks. Next, you just boot the zone using zoneadm and and use zlogin to actually access the zone's *physical* console - not a pty - the actual system console.
Instead of using these half-baked, half-ass implementations, just use Solaris, which already contains these features in a much more usable and robust environment.
What the hell are you smoking?
1) It's FreeBSD - not FreedBSD.
2) FreeBSD uses FFS, not ext2
3) FreeBSD is licensed under the BSDL, not the GPL.
4) WTF does this have to do with the article?
MOD PARENT DOWN!
I've been using Solaris for 4 years, and I've never had any of my systems compromised. Yes, there was that lame telnet vulnerbility a few years ago, but who the hell uses telnet, anyways?
With Linux, I've been hacked 3-4 times. WuFTPD was the culprit several years ago, and now it's a combination of OpenSSH/ptrace vulnerbilities. I don't run Linux anymore.
Linux is more secure than Windows, but it's illogical to say it's the most secure OS. That's plain wrong. I'd use OpenBSD, but I'd still like to have some functionality out of my systems.
Why do you people keep preaching this garbage? I just want to use a product that works. I don't care if I can't take it and call it 'Fsck'ed OS.' I just want a product that can hold it's ground. Solaris does that for me, and I bet half of you Linux fanboys have never handled anything larger than a 4-disc SCSI array strapped to a homemade pizza-box server.
War? Level playing field? This isn't the 60s, get with the times. Linux isn't an industrial grade operating system. It's a fabrication of crap code from first-year computer science students. Are you saying that unless Sun stops hiring qualified programmers and hires first-year computer science students that it `won't be a level playing field?' Get off the crack, man.
Yes, Veritas is available for Linux, as well. I'd prefer to stick with comparing the LVM's that come with each of the OSs. Even still, Disk Solstice is much better than the 'Linux Volume Manager,' or whatever you would like to call it.
/dev/hd[az] garbage? I'd hate to locate one storage array among a few hundred in a real datacenter. Save your Linux fanboyism for your bedroom, don't bring it into a real IT department.
I'm aware AIX does have the best LVM around. IBM is going to keep pushing AIX, and the only reason IBM is pushing Linux as much as it is, is because they're trying to dominate a niche market - a market Sun and HP both are in.
As far as this 'Linux on Power5' garbage I keep hearing, it's one server that IBM is pushing it on. Look at the rest of the pSeries line. There's how many systems? Certainly more than one, and IBM is pushing AIX on those.
Do you think IBM is really pushing Linux as much as you'd like to think? Why did they incorporate Linux compatibility into AIX? So, they wouldn't have to switch the hand that feeds them to a under-developed, low-level operating system, called Linux.
Solaris not being polished? Nonsense. Almost every task you can think of in Solaris can be configured through a slick, very slick Java GUI called SMC. SMC also can remotely administrate your whole Solaris network. Show me a Linux tool that can do that. Solaris also supports almost every UNIX standard in existence. You even have a totally seperate directory for XPG4 junk. If you don't like the traditional Solaris/XPG4 userland tools, check out blastwave.org and download the GNU ones. Big deal.
Isn't Linux still using that lame
It seems to me that this whole argument is political. I don't care if the product is from Microsoft/Sun/IBM. As long as it does it's job, which most Microsoft products won't, I'll use the product. Solaris is a technically superior OS to Linux. Drop the whole "Sun is an example from a fall from grace" crap. You're reasoning is illuding to me as to why you think that somehow if Sun makes a few business arrangements with Microsoft that makes Solaris a technically "insuperior" operating system.
It's anti-Linux because Solaris is a technically superior operating system. Don't involve your pitiful Linux vs. Microsoft argument with Solaris, and justify that Sun is teh sux.
I agree. Solaris is a very much more polished than Linux is. There's plenty of documentation for it. A real, real LVM, and Veritas is always an option. No longer do you have to run Solaris on Sun hardware. Get yourself an x86, and fire it up. As the parent said, OSS developers should dump Linux for Solaris.
Development lifecycles you say?
.NET been around?
Java has been around for almost 10 years+. Refresh my memory with some of those CS courses you took (that emphasized, in your opinion, "development lifecycles"), how long has C# or
I'm not goint to lower this thread into a Java vs. C# debate.
RAM is cheap. Learn Java and make some cash, so you can afford some more RAM to run Java apps, so you'll stop "bashing."
You sound like an angry MS nut that just realized C# isn't going as Microsoft planned, and you're resorting to those protective instincts that are inherent in any MS programmer - "bash and use lots of buzzwords."
What a load!
Find me the Sun document that says J2EE isn't for mission critical apps. If it wasn't for mission critical apps, why are they selling a Java application server, why are they incorporating J2EE in Solaris so heavily?
Think before you speak.
As many have said, your details about your application's future environment are rather vague. I'll attempt to provide some slightly insightful chatter, though.
.NET route. You'll be locking client in, and that's never a good thing. Whenever they wish to migrate, and they can't, no more contracts for you.
Many hosptials usually have assorted UNIX systems, AS/400 databases, and a few Windows servers for the end-users. Anything useful can most likely be found on the UNIX systems or AS/400 databases. Likely, if you're being contracted by a hospital, your application will run on those assorted UNIX systems; however, if your application requires a Windows system, they'll gladly give you one.
Typically, hospitals are pretty big on AIX and Solaris, and AIX and Solaris have *very* nice J2EE environments (especially, Solaris). You'll score a few points with IT blokes that have AIX or Solaris certs if you write in J2EE.
I would *highly* recommend against going the
You've asked about portability, and J2EE is the way to go. Want BSD? Fine. Want various Unices? Fine. Windows? Of course. Linux? There as well.
J2EE isn't just a UNIX/Linux thing. Sun cares about the Windows VM as much as it does it's Solaris VM. Ask Microsoft the same, and post the reponse you get.