[SATLUG] Solaris by Sun Micro
Ernest De Leon
edeleonjr at gmail.com
Fri May 16 14:21:47 CDT 2008
If you look at the original post, the article which makes that statement is
comparing OpenSolaris (Indiana) to Ubuntu, not 'not-so-open' Solaris 10. In
my response, I compare OpenSolaris (Indiana) to Ubuntu. I don't think
anyone mentioned Solaris 10 until your first response. Either way, I won't
discredit Solaris (pre-Indiana) from being a rock solid platform (as I
mentioned before.) What is at issue here is whether or not Sun's new
attempt to move toward a more open and robust (application variety/packages)
OS with Open Solaris (Indiana) is even comparable to Ubuntu, much less
'impressionable' to Ubuntu. The answer in that department (as it stands
now) is a flat out no. Whether this will change in the future is dependent
on a lot of factors, most importantly the community recruitment and
involvement factor (which have been tepid at best to date.) It is also
worth noting that Solaris has made the attempt to be more 'Linux-like,' not
the other way around.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org>
> Ernest De Leon wrote:
> I just don't buy (for a second) that
>> Solaris is 'what Ubuntu wants to become when it grows up.' It the exact
> The key thing is that Indiana != Solaris.
> Don't compare Ubuntu and Indiana and think that you've actually learned
> anything about Solaris. Compare Ubuntu and Solaris before you come to those
> kinds of conclusions.
> Ubuntu has done more in the last 4 years than the rest of the
>> distributions could do in over a decade.
> And Solaris has been in development for over twenty years, and has features
> that cannot be found in any other commercial version of Unix, or any other
> freely-available distribution. Features that are only found on the
> highest-end mainframes and supercomputers.
> VMWare, Xen, and other forms of software virtualization cannot begin to
> compare to real, honest-to-goodness, hardware virtualization like LDOMs. But
> of course, Sun also has other virtualization solutions available, too. Some
> isolate the different clients more than others, and you get a wide array of
> options available to you, to see what fits your needs the best. And that's
> just virtualization.
> I think that speaks volumes about
>> Ubuntu and puts it square in a position of leadership rather than one of
> Ubuntu may have done well with respect to other Linux distributions, but
> there's a whole huge swath of features that no Linux distribution can offer,
> but Solaris can.
> And many of these features are the kinds of things that business really
> wants for mission-critical production systems.
> Of course, Solaris has it's share of weaknesses, too. I'm not trying to
> downplay that aspect. I'm just trying to tell you that you've compared
> against the wrong benchmark if you want to make claims about Solaris versus
> Ubuntu has become one of the better/more fit fishes in a relatively small
> pond. Now that pond has grown, and certain whales from the outside world
> want to come in and get a piece of it. And those fishes who've been
> isolated in that pond want to get a piece of the larger ocean.
> Getting a Blue Whale when you wanted a Rainbow Trout is not likely to be
> very satisfying. Getting a Rainbow Trout when you wanted a Blue Whale is
> not likely to be very satisfying, either.
> It all depends on what you want and what you need, as to which solution is
> going to work best for you.
> If you want a light and inexpensive solution that looks pretty and has all
> the latest cool open-source tools, then Solaris probably isn't going to be a
> good fit for you
> If you want a heavy weight platform that will be suitable for
> mission-critical business-critical purposes, and the only thing you care
> about is whether your chosen mission-critical third-party program runs on
> the box and can do so in the face of multiple components failing
> simultaneously, and will keep going regardless of how badly you beat on the
> thing, then Solaris is likely to be a better fit than Linux.
> I won't get into a Mac
>> diatribe, but you know what I mean (especially here in the bay
>> valley where Macs are more cliche than coffee.)
> No, I don't know what you mean. Not at all. Cliché?!?
> Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org>
> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>
Ernest de Leon
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - A common 18th Century sentiment
voiced by Benjamin Franklin
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government." - Edward Abbey
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -
Edmund Burke, English statesman and political philosopher (1729-1797)
More information about the SATLUG