3 ms·

Does it have access to 17+ kPackages, like Debian does? What about the tools duality? GNU and Solaris concepts are sufficiently different to require two set of

by eleitl 17y ago

Does it have access to 17+ kPackages, like Debian does? What about the tools duality? GNU and Solaris concepts are sufficiently different to require two set of binaries, and $PATH split-personality. Also, Sun (or Oracle) is firmly in control of kernel development. There's no community yet, nor signs of an emerging one, so there's some danger of standing in abandonware land. Apart from that I like OpenSolaris fine. However, its chiefest advantage is zfs, and btrfs should be there in 3-4 years. So the clock is ticking.

bensummers 17y ago
Packages: You're right, that is a weakness. However, the important stuff is there, and compiling other things is rarely a problem. OK for experienced admins, bad for newcomers. Tools: Solaris has a strong history of standards compliance, so you've got the standards based tools, and the GNU tools. Different audiences prefer different tools. GNU tools are now the defaults to cater for people coming from Linux. Sun/Oracle: Yes, this is an issue, and the uncertainty over the future worries me somewhat -- you'll note Oracle only promised to spend more developing Solaris, and OpenSolaris was not mentioned. Linux is also dependent on big corporates for development, but there is more than one, reducing risk. However, the Solaris model does result in a very clear vision of where things should go, and I personally really like the consistent and stable result - no wondering whether the new scheduler causes performance woes. I'd also add Zones as well as ZFS as it's chief advantage, as the combination is absolutely wonderful for development and testing. Also see here http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/5917-The-impact-of-virtualisation.html http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/5917-The-impact-of-virtuali... about the performance benefits of Zones for virtualisation.
- eleitl 17y ago
  > OK for experienced admins, bad for newcomers. How difficult is to create Solaris packages from source? I must admit I never had the problem. > I'd also add Zones Well, Linux has VServer. > as well as ZFS I agree zfs is nice. Particularly, given L2ARC and ZIL on SSDs, with large SATA raidz2 or raidz3 behind them. However, btrfs is making the right noises. Whether they deliver on them or not is not yet known, but if they do Solaris needs quite a few more tricks up its sleeve by then. I hope Oracle doesn't drop the ball.
  - bensummers 17y ago
    Solaris packages are easy to create, but getting things to compile can be tricky as lots of open source code assumes Linux-isms, so you have to port to standards. (BSDs have the same problem.) Zones are integrated into the very core of the OS, not bolted on. btrfs does sound like an improvement on ZFS in a few ways, especially in it's COW b-trees, taking advantage of a few more years of development. Competition will be good for ZFS, but right now, ZFS is probably the best shipping and stable FS.
rm-rf 17y ago
I'm not sure I care about the relative package count, provided that OpenSolaris has sufficient packages to meet my functional requirements. Having a single company in control of the kernel is both good and bad. It's good because you can move the kernel & features in a single, strategic direction. It's bad because that single company can muck it up or kill it (True64 Unix). On the server side, we use dtrace, zfs & zones on all Unix-like servers & have been happy with the result. I'd hate to have to move to Linux & loose those features. That would be a major, major step backwards. For desktops? I don't know & don't care, really. A desktop is a desktop, is a desktop. I freely switch between Vista, XP 7, OSX & OpenSol WinCE & Maemo handful of times per day & don't really think that one is more/less better/worse. (Except WinCE. That OS defines worse.)
- eleitl 17y ago
  > On the server side, we use dtrace, zfs & zones on all Unix-like servers & have been happy with the result. I'd hate to have to move to Linux & loose those features. Well, Linux has dtrace analogs/contenders (no idea how functional, never used them), there's btrfs coming along (meanwhile, you can survive with LVM and md RAID), and there's VServer, even with grsecurity patches if you're freaky that way. > For desktops? I don't know & don't care, really. Well, if I can't get OS X I make do with XP or Linux. Nice UI and multihead support plus hardware acceleration are my requirements here.
  - rm-rf 17y ago
    >meanwhile, you can survive with LVM and md RAID Why would I want to barely survive on beans and rice when caviar is available at the same price?

by eleitl 17y ago

bensummers 17y ago

Packages: You're right, that is a weakness. However, the important stuff is there, and compiling other things is rarely a problem. OK for experienced admins, bad for newcomers. Tools: Solaris has a strong history of standards compliance, so you've got the standards based tools, and the GNU tools. Different audiences prefer different tools. GNU tools are now the defaults to cater for people coming from Linux. Sun/Oracle: Yes, this is an issue, and the uncertainty over the future worries me somewhat -- you'll note Oracle only promised to spend more developing Solaris, and OpenSolaris was not mentioned. Linux is also dependent on big corporates for development, but there is more than one, reducing risk. However, the Solaris model does result in a very clear vision of where things should go, and I personally really like the consistent and stable result - no wondering whether the new scheduler causes performance woes. I'd also add Zones as well as ZFS as it's chief advantage, as the combination is absolutely wonderful for development and testing. Also see here http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/5917-The-impact-of-virtualisation.html http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/5917-The-impact-of-virtuali... about the performance benefits of Zones for virtualisation.

eleitl 17y ago
> OK for experienced admins, bad for newcomers. How difficult is to create Solaris packages from source? I must admit I never had the problem. > I'd also add Zones Well, Linux has VServer. > as well as ZFS I agree zfs is nice. Particularly, given L2ARC and ZIL on SSDs, with large SATA raidz2 or raidz3 behind them. However, btrfs is making the right noises. Whether they deliver on them or not is not yet known, but if they do Solaris needs quite a few more tricks up its sleeve by then. I hope Oracle doesn't drop the ball.
- bensummers 17y ago
  Solaris packages are easy to create, but getting things to compile can be tricky as lots of open source code assumes Linux-isms, so you have to port to standards. (BSDs have the same problem.) Zones are integrated into the very core of the OS, not bolted on. btrfs does sound like an improvement on ZFS in a few ways, especially in it's COW b-trees, taking advantage of a few more years of development. Competition will be good for ZFS, but right now, ZFS is probably the best shipping and stable FS.

rm-rf 17y ago

I'm not sure I care about the relative package count, provided that OpenSolaris has sufficient packages to meet my functional requirements. Having a single company in control of the kernel is both good and bad. It's good because you can move the kernel & features in a single, strategic direction. It's bad because that single company can muck it up or kill it (True64 Unix). On the server side, we use dtrace, zfs & zones on all Unix-like servers & have been happy with the result. I'd hate to have to move to Linux & loose those features. That would be a major, major step backwards. For desktops? I don't know & don't care, really. A desktop is a desktop, is a desktop. I freely switch between Vista, XP 7, OSX & OpenSol WinCE & Maemo handful of times per day & don't really think that one is more/less better/worse. (Except WinCE. That OS defines worse.)

eleitl 17y ago
> On the server side, we use dtrace, zfs & zones on all Unix-like servers & have been happy with the result. I'd hate to have to move to Linux & loose those features. Well, Linux has dtrace analogs/contenders (no idea how functional, never used them), there's btrfs coming along (meanwhile, you can survive with LVM and md RAID), and there's VServer, even with grsecurity patches if you're freaky that way. > For desktops? I don't know & don't care, really. Well, if I can't get OS X I make do with XP or Linux. Nice UI and multihead support plus hardware acceleration are my requirements here.
- rm-rf 17y ago
  >meanwhile, you can survive with LVM and md RAID Why would I want to barely survive on beans and rice when caviar is available at the same price?