Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Dave Miner wrote: >> >>> It means that it will almost certainly be the case that >>> >>> a) upgrades will be much harder, due to lack of sufficient swap >>> space for miniroot (or are you planning to provide a "live DVD" or some >>> such for install? Of course, that's harder with a CDROM.) >>> >> Yes, we are planning that it will be a live DVD, for all the reasons >> those are good. That's why I established the Live Media project on >> OpenSolaris. >> >>> b) systems with smaller memories are going to be unable to use the >>> graphical installer >>> >> Maybe, maybe not. That remains to be seen based on what we choose to >> do architecturally, but I believe that the current Live DVD will run >> in less memory than our current miniroot does. Fundamentally, though, >> if you've got less than 512 MB of memory, you're probably out of luck >> with a graphical install of most any mainstream OS in a year or two. > > Thats disheartening. As recently as a year or two ago Sun was offering > systems with less than 512MB as part of their base package. My Ultra 20 > was shipped with just 256MB RAM. (Granted, I bought some more RAM for > it right away.) > > There is a large class of users with still reasonable memories, and what > you're basically saying is, Sun is not interested in them. >
No, that's what you're saying, not me. What I'm saying is that we're not necessarily interested in expending effort on a graphical installer for them. I don't see too many other vendors doing it, either. However, it seems many of those hobbyists prefer text installers, anyway, so do we lose anything by not doing it? > That's too bad, because, as I've said before, there is a large class of > applications which don't inherently require large memories. But the > default graphics environment will force the issue for everyone. > > If I were sitting on PSARC, I would, as a result, be insistent about not > not abandoning such users until 5 years had passed from the last time > Sun had shipped a 256MB workstation. (Basically, until they were > declared not supported anymore.) > I think it's a veritable chasm between "not having a graphical installer" to "abandon". We're already at 512 MB as the minimum memory for graphical installs in Nevada anyway, though 256 MB should install using text mode. Guess you haven't been trying it yourself ;-) >>> c) Solaris is abandoning the non-desktop/workstation use cases. >>> (One great thing about Solaris is that it is good for such a large >>> variety of classes of machines -- $1M servers, $1K 1U rack mount >>> servers, $1K workstations, and $30K workstations. Please don't forget >>> that.) >>> >> Absolutely untrue. We're trying to make it more attractive there, >> too. But most of those turn out to be either text installs or >> automated Jumpstart installs and so we will make improvements in those >> areas as well. The segment of systems which can't run Gnome for the >> installation (what you do after that is your business ;-) and won't >> happily use the text or Jumpstart options just doesn't appear to be >> large enough to justify our attention. > > Hmm.... I'm thinking there are a lot of users and junior admins, and > such, that are likely to be put off by the text install when installing > to their Ultra 20s and such. I have always felt that Solaris was > increasing the minimum memory sizes faster than I'd like, and now I'm > even more convinced. > As I said above, our research at this point says that many of them don't seem all that bothered. Nexenta, for example, is getting rave reviews despite an install interface that's a primitive text mode. They get away with it because you don't spend much time there, and you get a snazzy package update mechanism as part of the (Gnome) desktop. > I think Sun hardware should have a lifetime longer than the typical 3 > year PC cycle. It costs more, and admins expect to be able to keep > using said hardware for at least 5 years. But the approach you are > saying tells me that Sun is abandoning that approach. > No, we're not. > I'm not saying Sun should try to be NetBSD and run on sun2's, but I do > think that it should be reasonable to run Solaris 10 on 5 year old > hardware. In fact, I think Sun's obliged to provide such support > contractually. > There's a difference between "run" and "install with graphics". I doubt our support contracts say anything about running a current release on some hardware that stopped shipping 5 years ago. But even so, this discussion is not about the Solaris 10 installer, as we're not proposing to change it at this point. > What this approach _may_ do is prevent folks from upgrading to Solaris > 10 or Solaris 11 who might otherwise be willing to do so. This > increases the support burden for folks who have to support Solaris 8 and > 9. This should be something to think about. > Unlikely to be an issue, in that we're already at the level of memory requirements for graphical installs that you seem to be objecting to. >>> I wouldn't mind having a "live dvd" or somesuch installation available >>> as an option, but I would really, really like to keep the current fairly >>> minimalist graphics install (or something akin to it) as an option. >>> >> Well, we just can't please everyone with what we have available >> resource-wise. On the other hand, the architecture we'll be >> publishing soon is going to be open, of course, and we'll gladly >> consider how we can make it flexible enough for those who want to >> implement other choices, even if we choose not to produce them as >> options in Sun's distribution. I'd rather that the various >> OpenSolaris distro's cooperate here if possible. > > I agree that the community can and should help. But please don't blow > it off. We already have a suninstall that works pretty well -- and has > done so for years. I don't feel a compelling need to throw it all away. > Spend a month (or even a week) in my shoes and I guarantee you'd feel differently about how well it works. >>> Of course, I guess there is always the text based install, if that isn't >>> going away too. >>> >> Of course it's not going away. We have to install on systems without >> graphical consoles, and nobody would even remotely seriously suggest >> otherwise. > > Glad to hear _that_ is still true. >>> Gnome/JDS is a pig, and I don't see anyone trying to make it less so. >>> As a result, I'm unlikely to ever want to run it -- it doesn't offer so >>> much over the alternative desktop options to justify the bad impact on >>> system resources and performance that it incurs. But then again that's >>> just my opinion. >>> >> Yeah, everyone's got an opinion on that one. I'd wholeheartedly >> support effort to make Gnome more efficient, even though I don't find >> that it negatively impacts my productivity. But that might say as >> much about my productivity as it does about Gnome's efficiency ;^) > > Try running a Sun Ray server. I "heartily" recommend Sun engineering > talk to its own IT support staff. You might be surprised what you find > out. (In my own experience at Sun, the disconnect between IT and > engineering was quite large -- a lot of "engineers" had no experience > with sysadmin -- even those developing tools whose primary users were > system admins. This disconnect has really hurt Sun in the past. I > _hope_ that Sun is learning, but from the tone of the above message, I'm > not sure. I think Sun engineering is still talking to CIOs and not to > the folks in the trenches who ultimately will have to pay the price for > poor decisions.) > My comments are *strictly* about installer requirements, not what a Sun Ray desktop server environment might need. That's a different set of problems entirely. If they want a minimal desktop, by all means, they're just bits that we install. The Solaris installer just isn't likely to use it. Dave
