4 ms·
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 com
by 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?