On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:27:41 -0600 "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2008 12:14 PM, Ken Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:01:18 PST > > "Dr. Robert Pasken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I thought it was a mistake to bring any sort of linux flavoring into > > > Solaris and I won't deal with anything that has to do with Indiana or any > > > other attempt to make Solaris look/act like linux. I use Solaris because > > > it is Unix, is stable and meets some minimum standards for useability. > > > Linux is a train wreck that hasn't come to a complete stop yet. Compared > > > to windows, linux is a paragon of stability, compared to Solaris it makes > > > me think of windows > > > > > > > +1 > > Except, as was later discovered, this isn't about making things "like > Linux"; it's about making the OS more accessible to users and > developers. > > It just so happens that GNU/Linux is one of those platforms from which > certain evaluations are drawn. > > If you'll note past discussions, FreeBSD has been in those evaluations too. > > The user base of other operating systems is significantly larger; good > products adapt to market expectations where possible and reasonable to > do so. You're comparing apples and oranges here: FreeBSD => BSD license, BSD historic code base, integrated kernel and unix userland. The cohesiveness thereby gained resulted in significant advantages in stability. FBSD also out preformed Linux in many scenarios up until major re-architecting decisions and 5.x resulted in slow and buggy, 6.x got mostly stable but still slow, and 7.x promises return to speed. But.. the "linuxization" of FBSD and loss of key core members have taken their toll so lot's of FBSD'ers are checking their options. Linux => GPL license. Linux kernel bundled into assorted "distros" with various GNU tools (Gnu's Not Unix, proclaimed loud and proud on their homepage) and disparate userlands, etc., the components of which are far from standardized. Dependency nightmares during installs and upgrades. When several _hundred_ RH boxes are borked because of sloppy merges, etc., who cares that it's commercially "supported", you still have one hell of a lot of unhappy customers yelling at you. Granted, Linux has improved over the years, but still not without it's warts. Which brings us to Solaris. Can Solaris provide integrated, cohesive kernel and true unix userland in a stable and well performing package that is freely available, and hence able to compete on it's own technical merits with the freely available *BSD's and Linuxes? I hope so. That's why I'm looking at it in the first place. As a professional unix sysadmin I'm not too interested in yet another "Linux distro of the month" to play with nights and weekends because I have no other life. So what's the Solaris target market going to be, professionals or hobbyists? There's lots more of the latter if you're objective is mindshare with the pc hobbyist rags, etc., wh/may do quite well at raising visibility. But I don't think these folks buy support contracts, nor are they likely to upgrade to Sun "big iron" sparc machines. My $0.02. -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon? _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
