To be fair it is mostly the Gnome stuff that's failing, but I've had a few crashes which I *think* are down to glib/gtk.
Now I've played with the new GTK some more I think I should say I was somewhat harsh earlier. I can't crash the gtk demos, and the gtk-2 based Gimp is pretty solid.
That said, I'm still very disappointed with the flakiness of the GNOME beta, especially compared to say, the first KDE-3 beta. And that's *NOT* flamebait - just my personal observation!
I agree with that entirely. On Solaris GTK-1.3.15 is pretty much unusable, segfaulting all over the place.
I'm on a bit of a downer though, having spent *ages* building GTK-1.3 and the GNOME-2 beta and finding roughly every other operation I try causes a crash.:-(
Like everyone who has bashed Sol x86 on hre, I suspect you don't know an awful lot about Solaris. Seems 90% of the people who downloaded it installed it on some crappy old forgotten PC, looked at it, thought, no, I prefer Linux on my shiny new machine, and wrote it off. The basic installation needs a bit of coaxing to get the best out of it.
The hw support is nowhere near as bad as people are making out. The machine I'm using right now has *no* components from the HCL, and I've never had a panic or erratic behaviour.
Put Solaris on a crappy IDE based single CPU system and I'll concede that it's slow. But give it plenty of RAM, SCSI disks and >1 CPU and it rocks. Noticably better performance than Linux on my dual PIII box.
I would estimate that 95% of open source software will compile on Solaris with nothing more than./configure; make. The only stuff that won't is crap written by people who can't see further than Linux.
I for one will take Solaris over Linux any day. It's my favourite Unix by a mile. So much more reliable, predictable, complete and well-rounded than any of the other x86 contenders.
If you make your living out of Solaris, and spend a lot of time on the road, a Solaris laptop is invaluable. For that reason if no other I'll be sorely disappointed if 9 never sees the light of day.
But hey, nobody can take my stripped down, tuned, optimised Sol 8 away from me can they?
You use your file server as a firewall and you're telling other people how to design networks?
You might be better off listening than talking.
Re:GTK Seems solid, but slow on Solaris
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 1
Have you got some shared memory available to GTK on Solaris? Rebuild it to use mit-shm, and with no debugging code.
Gtk is equally quick on my Solaris/Linux/FreeBSD machines.
Seems quicker to me
on
KDE 2.2.2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For what it's worth, after a couple of hours with 2.2.2 it seems snappier than 2.2.1.
I don't know whether it's down to improvements in the code or because I cranked up the optimizations on this build, but it definitely feels smoother and quicker to me. A pleasure to use on a 450MHz PIII laptop, which isn't really the state of the art nowadays.
While I was building KDE yesterday (took all afternoon!) I switched back to GNOME, and I have to say that I think GNOME really has a lot of catching up to do. Galeon is cool, but it and Nautilus together can't compete with Konqueror for flexibility and ease of use.
I'm also yet to find a GNOME mail client as simple and stable as KMail.
Looking forward to GNOME 2.0 though. If they can jump back ahead of KDE then it will be a mighty cool desktop.
Don't believe all the "sys-admin is such a hard job"/masochistic streak stuff.
Any admin who finds there job too hard and too stressful probably isn't very good at it. I've had lots and lots of sys-admin jobs and never been stressed out or too busy. I know what I'm doing, and I'm not afraid to tell my boss to shove it when he asks me to do something unreasonable. And I don't take jobs that come with a pager.
Secondly, putting Linux on a machine at home will teach you very little of value, and any prospective employer with a significant amount of Unix won't care at all that you've managed to install Redhat and ping an NT box. They'll be more interested that you're keen, willing to learn, and not scared of a bit of hard work.
I got a job in a University as assistant to the sys-admin. I never even applied for the job. (Missed the deadline for a different one and they kept my details.) Two weeks after I started I suddenly *was* the sys-admin, and I had to learn by doing real things on real systems, In my opinion it's the only way to learn.
Look for something like that, where you will learn by doing. You'll get nowhere by playing with linux in your bedroom.
the Freeserve portal uses Apache webservers on Sun E220Rs with Oracle running on Sun E4500s at the back. No Linux RDBMS that I'm aware of. I know, cos I built 'em.;-)
The mail system used to be on Linux (presumably still is), DNS on Solaris and a heap of NT boxes for customers' websites. Things might have changed since I last worked there, but I don't remember a large Linux database anywhere.
When I sit down to watch TV I'd rather see some way-out aliens, exploding spaceships and time travel than a bloke making a sandwich. But perhaps I'm just a loser.
Star Wars movies are never going to be dark. Blue Velvet is dark. Man Bites Dog is dark. Empire Strikes Back is a kids film with a cliffhanger instead of a happy ending.
I find Linux to be full of crap I don't want! Solaris by default gives you a bare-bones, very unsecure Unix, and I guess that doesn't suit everyone.
> Hardware support is very poor
I've found that Solaris tends to support good quality hardware. No, you can't run a crap $5 no-name network card but you can run a nice Intel or 3com. Consequently if you build up a system to run Solaris, you are pretty much forced into building a good one. No bad thing IMHO.
> Furthermore: Solaris on x86 is slow
I've got a dual CPU PIII Solaris box which used to dual boot Linux, and Solaris felt considerably snappier for most tasks. It loves multiple processors, and it loves fast disks. It's just not suited to low-end hardware in the way Linux is, and it blows on IDE disks.
I think the old (2.5.1, 2.6) versions of Solaris IA have tainted many peoples view of it. Yes, it used to be slow and buggy, but nowadays it's a pretty cool OS.
> I don't see how solaris 8 has anything to offer over the many linux distributions currently available,
Good documentation. Better stability (in my experience) Good quality LVM and JFS. It's just a nicer, more complete whole than Linux with fewer rough edges. Much as the BSDs are. To me Linux often feels hacky, and almost like a toy compared to Solaris.
> most of which already offer superior desktop environments.
I've built KDE 1 and 2, GNOME, WindowMaker and Enlightenment with no real problems on Solaris IA. What else does Linux have that I'm missing?
Who wants to run their business on *cheap* hardware? Cheap hardware is great for Linux weenies to play with in their bedrooms but I don't want my insurance details stored on it.
in all those pay sites with the 100% genuine Britney Spears lesbian action movies. I'll try maybe a couple more but I'm starting to have nagging doubts about their authenticity.
Slashdot Mirror
> well in my uni there is such a room, since the sysadmin
> installed only Solaris on these i386 no one uses them.
> nor will i
Grown-ups operating systems are too hard for you eh? Never mind, there's always Red Hat to practice your 1337 5ki11Z on.
And what's with all the e.e. cummins lower case shit?
To be fair it is mostly the Gnome stuff that's failing, but I've had a few crashes which I *think* are down to glib/gtk.
Now I've played with the new GTK some more I think I should say I was somewhat harsh earlier. I can't crash the gtk demos, and the gtk-2 based Gimp is pretty solid.
That said, I'm still very disappointed with the flakiness of the GNOME beta, especially compared to say, the first KDE-3 beta. And that's *NOT* flamebait - just my personal observation!
I agree with that entirely. On Solaris GTK-1.3.15 is pretty much unusable, segfaulting all over the place.
:-(
I'm on a bit of a downer though, having spent *ages* building GTK-1.3 and the GNOME-2 beta and finding roughly every other operation I try causes a crash.
but when is ThinkGeek getting artificial vaginas?
Like everyone who has bashed Sol x86 on hre, I suspect you don't know an awful lot about Solaris. Seems 90% of the people who downloaded it installed it on some crappy old forgotten PC, looked at it, thought, no, I prefer Linux on my shiny new machine, and wrote it off. The basic installation needs a bit of coaxing to get the best out of it.
./configure; make. The only stuff that won't is crap written by people who can't see further than Linux.
The hw support is nowhere near as bad as people are making out. The machine I'm using right now has *no* components from the HCL, and I've never had a panic or erratic behaviour.
Put Solaris on a crappy IDE based single CPU system and I'll concede that it's slow. But give it plenty of RAM, SCSI disks and >1 CPU and it rocks. Noticably better performance than Linux on my dual PIII box.
I would estimate that 95% of open source software will compile on Solaris with nothing more than
I for one will take Solaris over Linux any day. It's my favourite Unix by a mile. So much more reliable, predictable, complete and well-rounded than any of the other x86 contenders.
If you make your living out of Solaris, and spend a lot of time on the road, a Solaris laptop is invaluable. For that reason if no other I'll be sorely disappointed if 9 never sees the light of day.
But hey, nobody can take my stripped down, tuned, optimised Sol 8 away from me can they?
You use your file server as a firewall and you're telling other people how to design networks?
You might be better off listening than talking.
Have you got some shared memory available to GTK on Solaris? Rebuild it to use mit-shm, and with no debugging code.
Gtk is equally quick on my Solaris/Linux/FreeBSD machines.
For what it's worth, after a couple of hours with 2.2.2 it seems snappier than 2.2.1.
I don't know whether it's down to improvements in the code or because I cranked up the optimizations on this build, but it definitely feels smoother and quicker to me. A pleasure to use on a 450MHz PIII laptop, which isn't really the state of the art nowadays.
While I was building KDE yesterday (took all afternoon!) I switched back to GNOME, and I have to say that I think GNOME really has a lot of catching up to do. Galeon is cool, but it and Nautilus together can't compete with Konqueror for flexibility and ease of use.
I'm also yet to find a GNOME mail client as simple and stable as KMail.
Looking forward to GNOME 2.0 though. If they can jump back ahead of KDE then it will be a mighty cool desktop.
Don't believe all the "sys-admin is such a hard job"/masochistic streak stuff.
Any admin who finds there job too hard and too stressful probably isn't very good at it. I've had lots and lots of sys-admin jobs and never been stressed out or too busy. I know what I'm doing, and I'm not afraid to tell my boss to shove it when he asks me to do something unreasonable. And I don't take jobs that come with a pager.
Secondly, putting Linux on a machine at home will teach you very little of value, and any prospective employer with a significant amount of Unix won't care at all that you've managed to install Redhat and ping an NT box. They'll be more interested that you're keen, willing to learn, and not scared of a bit of hard work.
I got a job in a University as assistant to the sys-admin. I never even applied for the job. (Missed the deadline for a different one and they kept my details.) Two weeks after I started I suddenly *was* the sys-admin, and I had to learn by doing real things on real systems, In my opinion it's the only way to learn.
Look for something like that, where you will learn by doing. You'll get nowhere by playing with linux in your bedroom.
the Freeserve portal uses Apache webservers on Sun E220Rs with Oracle running on Sun E4500s at the back. No Linux RDBMS that I'm aware of. I know, cos I built 'em. ;-)
The mail system used to be on Linux (presumably still is), DNS on Solaris and a heap of NT boxes for customers' websites. Things might have changed since I last worked there, but I don't remember a large Linux database anywhere.
I just looked at a few strips on the website. They sapped my will to live. Compared to this, Monty Python is funny.
> Nearly a 1TB /home partition, damn that's a lot of pr0n!!
;-)
Not really.
And I've read some pretty clueless uninformed crap on /.
Didn't Sky show a very short trailer for it at the end of the last episode of Voyager? It said "starts soon" or something. Or perhaps I imagined it.
When I sit down to watch TV I'd rather see some way-out aliens, exploding spaceships and time travel than a bloke making a sandwich. But perhaps I'm just a loser.
Four more sides to every mindless licensing argument.
Star Wars movies are never going to be dark. Blue Velvet is dark. Man Bites Dog is dark. Empire Strikes Back is a kids film with a cliffhanger instead of a happy ending.
Yet another good reason to go back to the moon.
Some will only have web access? Then I've got a *lot* of users on my systems!
100 users is nothing. It's no big deal. The only worry is that you've got enough CPU cycles and disk space.
Just keep an eye of what they're doing. Look out for disk/CPU/bandwidth hogs.
I used to have a mail hub for about 3000 users running on a SPARC 1+. The hardware was about 8 years old and it worked beautifully.
> I found Solaris to be very spartan
I find Linux to be full of crap I don't want! Solaris by default gives you a bare-bones, very unsecure Unix, and I guess that doesn't suit everyone.
> Hardware support is very poor
I've found that Solaris tends to support good quality hardware. No, you can't run a crap $5 no-name network card but you can run a nice Intel or 3com. Consequently if you build up a system to run Solaris, you are pretty much forced into building a good one. No bad thing IMHO.
> Furthermore: Solaris on x86 is slow
I've got a dual CPU PIII Solaris box which used to dual boot Linux, and Solaris felt considerably snappier for most tasks. It loves multiple processors, and it loves fast disks. It's just not suited to low-end hardware in the way Linux is, and it blows on IDE disks.
I think the old (2.5.1, 2.6) versions of Solaris IA have tainted many peoples view of it. Yes, it used to be slow and buggy, but nowadays it's a pretty cool OS.
> I don't see how solaris 8 has anything to offer over the many linux distributions currently available,
Good documentation. Better stability (in my experience) Good quality LVM and JFS. It's just a nicer, more complete whole than Linux with fewer rough edges. Much as the BSDs are. To me Linux often feels hacky, and almost like a toy compared to Solaris.
> most of which already offer superior desktop environments.
I've built KDE 1 and 2, GNOME, WindowMaker and Enlightenment with no real problems on Solaris IA. What else does Linux have that I'm missing?
> Linus is an MS employee who's being paied to drive Linux into the ground
I knew it!
> Facing cheap hardware from Intel and AMD
Who wants to run their business on *cheap* hardware? Cheap hardware is great for Linux weenies to play with in their bedrooms but I don't want my insurance details stored on it.
in all those pay sites with the 100% genuine Britney Spears lesbian action movies. I'll try maybe a couple more but I'm starting to have nagging doubts about their authenticity.