On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess I find the "difference" between b90 and opensolaris trivial > given we're supposed to be getting constant updates following the sxce > builds.
But the supported version of OpenSolaris will not be on the same schedule as sxce. Opensolaris 2008.05 is based on snv_86. The supported version will only have bug fixes until 2008.11. That is, it follows much more of fthe same type of schedule that sxde did. Additionally, OpenSolaris has completely redone the installation and packaging bits. When you are running a bunch of servers with aggregate storage capacity of over 100 TB you are probably doing something that is rather important to the company that shelled out well over $100,000 for the hardware. In most (not all) environments that I have worked in this says that you don't want to be relying too heavily on 1.0 software[1] or external web services[2] that the maintainer has not shown a track record[3] of maintaining in a way that meets typical enterprise-level requirements. 1. The non-live CD installer has not even made it into the unstable Mercurial repository. The pkg and beadm commands and associated libraries have less than a month of existence in anything that any vendor is claiming to support. 2. AFAIK, pkg.sun.com does not serve packages yet. pkg.opensolaris.org serves up packages from snv_90 by default even though snv_86 is the variant that is supposedly supported. 3. There were numerous complaints of repeated timeouts when the snv_90 packages were released resulting in having to restart the upgrade from the start. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
