Hello, I decided to write something on this topic not only because I have discovered something revolutionary but related to the feeling that Solaris evolution is not as everyone wants.
Some (6+) years ago I was a big fan of Linux like distros - I was student and working in university in networking/OS admin. Since then I worked (and still do) in large enterprises and I see that Solaris has some advantages over Linux. Or maybe is more fitted (so far) to some market segments (other - compared to Linux). Developing and maintaining critical and large applications some guys are not every time happy about latest fancy developments on the market. Stability, reliability, upgrade-ability, being able to scale are characteristics "sine qua non" for an OS. Because I have to deal with install tools of Solaris - I agree that this apps are not perfect, but doing large software projects made me know that change is not an easy job - and for somebody that is not involved in something like this it may look like "we don't want to do" from Sun guys -- I'm sure that's not the case ! Only one last thing (this discussion could take ages...): --> as home user I don't need LiveUpgrade of Solaris --> as software engineer (based on Solaris) this is one of the most crucial features of this OS (as many other interesting stuff ...right). Things are not as easy as they appear.. :) regards, Adrian --- "Sanjay G. Nadkarni" <Sanjay.Nadkarni at Sun.COM> wrote: > > > To be sure we are NOT running with blinders on. > > We > > are very aware of the issues because it impacts us > > in > > more ways than you can imagine. Any approach we > > take > > has to address a larger scope. > > > > I guess, every reliable OS vendor has to. > > Exactly and that is exactly why "reliable OS > vendors" do not flip their software delivery > structure arbitarily. It takes time to understand > and figure out all the issues. > > >So, not > > really something special and hearing the "backward > > compatibility" excuses again and again starts to > bore > > me. > > > > Well good engineering can be boring but the devil is > aways in the details. Prototyping and one off's > are always more fun. > > > > While a solution that > > > addresses 100% would be nice, having a solution > > that > > > addresses 65% is not acceptable either. My gut > > feel > > > is that it better be close to 100. > > > > Yes, and wrt. packaging with a soft dep flag > perhaps > > one might reach it in time without giving up too > > much. Yes, getting 100% is a honorable aim, but > the > > question is: Has one the power/capacity to reach > it > > _in time_? At least wrt. to know how I think, > there > > are no questions. But on the other part I have my > > doubts... And again, how really needs 100%? I > would > > say, 95% of potential customser can live pretty > good > > with 95% or even 90%, if the distro gives them the > > features and performance they want/expect. > > > > Sure. Right now one might still to tend to say, > the > > remaining 5% is currently our best customer, so we > > keep the 100% strategy/comaptibility and live with > > what the 5% spent for it. But this is IMHO a one > way > > street. But what about software/comunity in this > > case? To the best of my remembrance NextStep was a > > nice/innovative little? thing. But to expensive -> > > "no" software <-> no market <-> to slow -> > > AfterStep. > > Or OS/2: to slow -> no user acceptance -> no > software > > -> and finally even the big companies (like the > > financally strong banks) replaced it with windooze > - > > still listening ? ;-) > > Or linux: cheap, runs on cheap machines, modern > GUI, > > "nothing" carved into stone aka is flexible <-> > > modern software <-> big community. > > At least this tells me, that something has changed > > since the nineties: market penetration starts > today > > at the users desktop (SME) and may thus find its > way > > into the perhaps more profitable server market. > Yes, > > at the moment, Solaris is set in in the server > > market, but wrt. the current state I have the > > feeling, that at most 10 years are left ... > > > > > But then again how do we measure this ? > > > > User acceptance is the first thing, which comes > into > > my mind. > > > > We are talking about pkging here. Can you elborate > what you mean by > user acceptance in terms of determing pkg dependency > ? Or am I missing something. > > > Actually that's the problem, what I see here at > the > > university. Even Blade 1500S stations are very > slow, > > the software is outdated, so no wonder, why the > > students choose to work with much faster/modern > > Linux/Windooze boxes. > > Or faster AMD boxes (from Sun ;-) Again I am not > sure how this > relates to pkg dependency ? Let's for the sake of > argument say that > you can update the pkgs for GNOME. I don't believe > you can guarantee > that it will improve the performance. The > performance issue may be a result > of host of different things. > > On a different note, you do have a choice now with > Sparc. Ubuntu has been ported to sparc. See > Need to check if it supports Blade 1500s. But just > a thought. Here's what the website says > (www.ubuntu.com) > The current Ubuntu release supports PC (Intel x86), > 64-bit PC (AMD64), Sun UltraSPARC and T1 (Sun Fire > T1000 and T2000), PowerPC (Apple iBook, Powerbook, > G4 and G5) and OpenPower (Power5) architectures. > > > Yes, I might update the pools > > to Sol10 and update the unbundled software, but > after > > working about 3 month with Sol10, I think, it > isn't > > really worth. We would still have the awefully > slow > > GNOME 2.6 and acceptance would be still below the > > bottom line. So next year, when I probably get the > > budget to HW update the pools (or better, the > > remaining sparc stations), I'm probably forced to > buy > > cheap linux boxes, since nobody wants Solaris > > anymore. > > > It's a great pity - 8 years ago (when I > > left the university) exactly the opposite was > reality > > :( > > > > > Among the many issues > > > that need to be addressed is backward > > compatibility. > > > > la la la. Sorry! > > > > > For example, let's say we take a radical > approach > > > and go with a completely new packaging scheme, > in > > > Nevada. > > > > > How will this impact people who want to > > > upgrade from Solaris 10 or Solaris 9. > > > > Who really cares? Its a completely new system, so > one > > has to bite once in the sour apple and has to make > a > > fresh install. Windows users do that all the time > > (even when they do not upgrade to a new version > ;-)). > > So I think, it probably has not a big impact - > might > > be unusual, but probably not more. And if they > see, > > that they really get something new, modern, fast > and > > a companion DVD with a lot of "uncommon" software > > they might need (of course in a little bit better > > quality than the current one), small wounds will > heal > > very fast. BTW: Has somebody ever made a survey, > who > > really needs live upgrades and who actually does > it? > > I would guess, this is a big savings potential. > > > > > Until recently we supported upgrades from 3 > > previous > > > releases, which meant we had to support Solaris > 8 > > > too. I am not sure what kind of backward > > > compatibility is required by Linux distros like > > RHAT > > > or Suse. > > > > Not sure, what your defintion of "backward > > comaptibility" is. The common practice I see (some > > small companies + LUG members/students), if there > is > > a new release, a fresh install is made and thus > all > > software runs as it should ... > > > > > The good news is that since there are other > > > OpenSolaris distros, one can now experiment with > > > various options. Nexenta for example uses the > > > Debian format. > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited (http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited)
