Why are we wasting our time speculating about questions where nobody knows what 
the actual answer to the question is while there is so much real work that 
still needs to be done and so many essential features that need to be added to 
Indiana so that it can be a production ready open source server operating 
system that competes alongside the likes of RHEL, FreeBSD and Ubuntu Server.

Here's an example: Most companies that sell dedicated servers to people are 
interested in having a feature in the operating system installation process 
where you can enter in a static IP address, a subnet mask and a default gateway 
during the install and then have the server come online after the reboot with 
that specific static IP address, subnet mask, and default router. Simple, 
right? Well, not in Indiana 2008.05 and 2008.11 it isn't.

Hundreds of thousands of people who run servers as a means of generating income 
love things like ZFS, zones, dtrace, SMF, etc. etc. and want to run Indiana as 
their main server OS and want to buy the $300 a year support subscription from 
Sun, but Indiana seems to be rejecting these reliable, money-paying server 
customers in a possible misguided attempt to win over desktop users. Desktop 
users usually aren't as willing to buy expensive Sun server hardware and pay 
the $300 for support from Sun as server users are, so I don't get why we're 
going after this segment of the marketplace. Also- Indiana will never be able 
to defeat the likes of Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows on the desktop because it 
lacks capabilities that leisure desktop users want such as iTunes, America 
Online, (yeah it's stupid but no matter how much I preach about the merits of 
ZFS, I can't install Solaris on my mom's, grandma's or girlfriend's computers 
because they refuse to go on the internet without AOL and 
 that's just the way it is), World of Warcraft, VLC Media player, Adobe 
photoshop, etc. etc..... and whatever other retarded things non-UNIX people are 
using as desktop apps (I run Indiana 2008.11 as my main desktop, so I'm 
obviously a little out of touch with that segment of the population).

However, Indiana could become the dominant server operating system in most data 
centers AND generate lots of revenue for Sun in terms of support subscriptions 
and Sun hardware purchases if we just had a simple text based installer that 
allowed you to add a static IP address during the install and not have to spend 
four hours after the install trying to disable and uninstall the gnome desktop, 
fiddle around disabling NWAM, use vi to edit the /etc/hostname.interface, 
/etc/inet/netmasks,  /etc/defaultrouter, /etc/hosts, /etc/nsswitch.conf, and 
/etc/resolv.conf files etc.

Ubuntu Server and CentOS Server don't make it this difficult to get a server 
with a static IP address going, so why does Indiana Server feel that it's 
necessary to torture the end user like this? It's almost unfathomable that 
Indiana is such an amazing operating system with so many advantages over Linux 
and Windows that can do so many amazing things, yet the one thing it can't do 
well is the most basic kindergarten level task of assigning a static IP address 
during the install (something that even Windows Server 2003 gets right).

At the risk of repeating myself yet again (just to hammer the point home) I 
want to emphasize that IMO Indiana will never become a big generator of revenue 
for Sun until someone with zero prior Solaris experience can enter in a static 
IP, subnetmask and default router during the installation process, reboot, and 
have their server come online on the internet on a static IP address with X 
windows turned off and SSH running.... this seems like something that should be 
so easy to do, yet, Indiana has been around for a year now and this still 
hasn't happened.

.....disappointing.....

So the question is. Will the Cayman installer in 2009.06 allow users to assign 
static IP addresses during the installation process?
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Reply via email to