Submitted by The team at Sun behind OpenSolaris has unleashed OpenSolaris 2009.06 upon the world. This new release comes packed with new features, changes, improvements, and fixes, and is the first release of OpenSolaris for SPARC, adding support for UltraSPARC T1, T2 (Sun4v), and UltraSPARC II, III and IV (Sun4u). Read on for some of the improvements that stand out.
Starting with features meant for us home users first, the Time Slider feature in Nautilus has received a number of improvements and new features. Time Slider is, simply put, a front-end to the revision and snapshot features of ZFS, allowing easy access to these otherwise technical aspects of ZFS. New in this release is the ability to create a snapshot of your filesystem at any given moment, and you can now also delete individual snapshots at your leisure. The interface has also been polished up, and when looking under the hood, you’ll notice that they’ve multithreaded the entire thing, meaning that browsing directories with as many as 4000 snapshots (3000 years!) will cause no slowdown.
Codeina is a new utility in this release which allows you to easily install multimedia codecs, drawing them from the Fluendo store. Some of those are available for free, while others require you to pay for them. Also included in OpenSolaris 2009.06 is the Elisa media centre. It’s available in the repositories under SUNWgnome-media-center.
Moving on to the administrator side of things, OpenSolaris 2009.06 comes with improved support for CIFS. “OpenSolaris CIFS service now includes many new features such as host-based access control which allows a CIFS server to restrict access to specific clients by IP address, ACLs (access control lists) on shares, and client-side caching of offline files and synchronization when reconnected.” Better interoperability with Window is always a good thing, so many people will welcome these improvements.
Another feature which I’m sure some of you will be very happy with is Crossbow. “Crossbow network virtualization promotes more effective sharing of network resources and enhances the ability to consolidate server workloads. Using the basic building block of Virtual Network Interface Controllers (VNICs), virtual switches and interconnects, Virtual LANs (VLANs), plus OpenSolaris routing and firewall functionality, it is possible to consolidate an entire distributed computing environment on a single system for prototyping, testing and even deployment scenarios.”
Obviously, hardware and laptop support have been further improved as well. Get it from their download page.
If I understand it correctly, one can only get security updates by either buy A subscription, or shift to the dev channel.
That’s pay, or run unstable, no thanks.
There is a reason why someone marked your post down (I didn’t do it btw) – there is no need to resort to blatant lying as to the support policy of the free version of OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris receives free security updates and on occasions free feature updates (if the security updates also bring features as well).
So you don’t like OpenSolaris – good for you, but lying doesn’t exactly bolster your case given that any credibility you might have had is now shot to pieces.
Edited 2009-06-01 19:44 UTC
Why do you think i don’t like Opensolaris, it’s the missing updates I don’t like, have a look at the last reply :
http://forums.opensolaris.com/thread.jspa?messageID=2872ସ
Why is Firefox not updated ?
Because a large and complex project just can’t spin on a 1 cent piece.
They are meant to receive security updates – so maybe you should do something constructive and ask on the OpenSolaris mailing lists as to why it hasn’t been updated; simply posting on here achieves nothing at all.
Do you think thats good enough when dealing with security ?
Do you think it is good enough posting prattery on this website? ask them – for all you know the issue might have been mitigated and thus does not require an update. I am not ‘in the know’ so I can’t say one way or another, but I don’t jump to a conclusion when there could be a very reasonable explanation as to the decision they made.
He is NOT lying, your information is inaccurate, please have a look at the Opensolaris Subscription Service FAQ, it has just been changed from
Q: If you download OpenSolaris, but do not purchase an OpenSolaris Subscription, what can you receive?
A: You can download OpenSolaris to obtain security and Device Driver fixes, but you are not entitled to any support.
( http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:Hg4LFWbFwXkJ:www.sun.com/servi… )
to now
Q: If you download OpenSolaris, but do not purchase an OpenSolaris Subscription, what can you receive?
A: You can download OpenSolaris and receive package updates via the community but you are not entitled to any support from Sun nor will you have access to the package updates from the Support Repository.
( http://www.sun.com/service/opensolaris/faq.xml#q4 )
Then take a look at http://blogs.sun.com/security/category/alerts , Opensolaris is not magically more stable than Linux. The /release branch of 2008.11 has a lot of serious security vulnerabilities (e.g. in ipfilter, OpenSSL or Firefox) which have been fixed in Solaris 10, /dev and subsequently 2009.06 but NOT in 2008.11 or 2008.05. At http://pkg.opensolaris.org/release/feed , you can easily see for yourself that neither 2008.05 nor 2008.11 have received security fixes.
For me that precludes any serious use without shelling out $300 for a support contract which many developers probably won’t need.
Those are snapshots of the OpenSolaris development. You upgrade to the newest if you need the security fixes or just install the latest versions of the packages that need updating. Those are free. Upgrading an Opensolaris release is painless and with the automatic snapshot image-update does it is relatively easy to fall back.
You don’t need it. You can install latest version of the packages or just upgrade.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Fact is, the original poster was right that you can either follow the /dev repository and get the development version (where security fixes are included) or buy a support contract and get security fixes for /release. You will however NOT receive security fixes for free if you stay with /release (have a look at the links I included).
Note also that you cannot install *single* packages from a newer release in /dev. Of course you can update to /dev but then you run a development version with all consequences attached.
Backports of new software are a different kettle of fish, but people don’t want to install the latest version of OpenSolaris just to get security updates. Every Linux distribution worth its salt is able to do that with its eyes shut.
For a company that seems to want to convince people to use OpenSolaris rather than all those Linux distributions that have ate its lunch, and build a ‘community’ around OpenSolaris in the process, then I find that slightly bizarre. But then, I’m not that surprised really.
OpenSolaris and Sun does back ports. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.
More anti-Sun venom. This is getting tiring.
Edited 2009-06-03 05:57 UTC
There are a few backports, mostly of unbundled products for 2008.11. There was not a single security update.
Here is a complete list of changes to the 2008.11 branch since November 2008:
* xvm was added
* xvm-gui was added
* storage-server updated
* amp-dev was updated twice
* webstackui was updated twice
* opends was added
* sunstudioexpress was updated
(source: http://pkg.opensolaris.org/release/feed )
The 2008.11 branch has accumulated quite a number of serious security vulnerabilities during that time period (see http://blogs.sun.com/security/category/alerts ). The more serious ones include e.g. Firefox, OpenSSL, and ipfilter. If you make claims, please back them up.
segedunum was there to spread more Anti-Sun FUD was claiming Sun lacks the ability to do back ports which apparently any linux distribution can do . The packages you listed are backports so my point stands.
The bottom line is you can run the /dev an be current or wait 6 months to get current if you want free updates. If your business is that critical then you pay to get more frequent security updates in between the 6 month release schedule.
The dev branch is very stable for home users. I have been running it for a few months and have updated bi-weekly whenever the pkg manager notifies me.
If the update to the dev branch fails going back is as simple as typing one beadm command and rebooting.
Running OpenSolaris doesn’t leave you without avenues for free security updates. The original claim is not entirely true.
Upgrading to the latest release is painless. pkg image-update and you are done. It clones the entire root file system so if you go back to the previous boot environment ever single block that was changed by the update is reverted to the pre update state.No linux distribution offers that like ZFS can.
OpenSolaris 2008.05,.11 and 2009.06 are still snv builds so they aren’t fundamentally different from one another. The SunOS version is still 5.11. It is in active development. The development and release model is not like linux distribution. I admit it is confusing.
Edited 2009-06-03 16:15 UTC
Hmmmmmmm, no, sorry.
For starters, this thread was about security updates to an existing installation rather than going through another installation to get them, and we’ve established that OpenSolaris fails on that which I said any Linux distribution worth its salt could do – you totally misread that because of your idiotic red mist. That’s why I specifically said that backports were a ‘different kettle of fish’ which you missed completely.
Besides, even the list of backported new applications that you think proves your non-existent point is still quite pathetic, but I digress. Linux distributors aren’t great at backports but there is more on offer generally than here.
I can get frequent updates from free Linux distributions. Why should I be using OpenSolaris again?
I’m afraid wriggling won’t help you over this. The fact is that there are a ton of critical security updates that should have been made available to OpenSolaris users to upgrade in their existing installations which haven’t been. Calling it ‘stable’ is neither here nor there. Saying that you can get potential free updates from somewhere else is so stupid it isn’t even funny. As I’d said, any Linux distribution worth its salt can do this.
Errrrrrrrrrrrr, the point being that no one should have to upgrade their entire installation to get security updates and no one has to.
Less of the red mist, eh?
———————————————
It was mentioned ….
“Errrrrrrrrrrrr, the point being that no one should have to upgrade their entire installation to get security updates and no one has to.”
Says who ?
A Linux user or an (Open)Solaris user ?
OpenSolaris is not Linux, but a real UNIX.
Linux is not OpenSolaris, but a unix-clone.
The two are different and that is abundantly obvious.
OpenSolaris patching/updates/upgrades/what-ever are confined within a new “boot environment” that can be activated on reboot of system. This way, if the upgrade is erroneous (e.g. from the source) then a rollback can occur and so the system is not comprised. See, if you have not figured it out yet, OpenSolaris gives you a fallback scenario. What’s Linux’s solution after a stuffed up upgrade/patching and no way to uninstall the erroneous software. I have experienced a failed Linux upgrade and it is not a pleasant experience especially when (unlike OpenSolaris) you cannot “flip a switch” and revert the system to a previous state. Also, these boot environments are lightweight/optimised. Even upgrading an entire installation (if need be) is a trivial task with ZFS/BootEnvironment/Rollback/etc framework.
———————————————
Do not forget that Linux’ number of years being in the “wild” are much greater than the relatively new OpenSolaris codebase. As such, some of your concerns related to OpenSolaris’ update-ability may be related this difference. Then again, if needs be, this is something that should be able to get fixed as the OpenSolaris community is a vibrant one.
Also, remember that the OpenSolaris codebase represents the amalgamation of many innovative technologies that have been open sourced and that other operating systems (including Linux) are cloning these innovative technologies.
As such, the OpenSolaris community also devotes it’s time to trend-setting innovation and I am thankful that this sort of innovation still exists. Since this this innovative detail is able to be pumped out by the OpenSolaris community then I would think that the upgrade-related issues you mentioned would eventually be sorted out (if need be).
?
To configure yum to save rollback information, add the line tsflags=repackage to /etc/yum.conf.
To configure command-line rpm to do the same thing, add the line %_repackage_all_erasures 1 to /etc/rpm/macros.
Install, erase, and update packages to your heart’s content, using pup, pirut, yumex, yum, rpm, and the yum automatic update service.
If/when you want to rollback to a previous state, perform an rpm update with the –rollback option followed by a date/time specifier. Some examples: rpm -Uhv –rollback ‘9:00 am’, rpm -Uhv –rollback ‘4 hours ago’, rpm -Uhv –rollback ‘december 25’.
This is old info I am sure it’s more easy or set by default on RedHat Enterprise Linux.
Transactional Rollbacks
Early in 2002, Jeff Johnson, the current maintainer of RPM, began to remedy the rollback problem when he included the transactional rollback feature into the 4.0.3 release of RPM. This feature brought with it the promise of an automated downgrade of a set of RPMs. Like many new features, it was rough around the edges and completely undocumented, except for a few e-mails on the RPM mailing list ([email protected]). Over the past year and a half, transactional rollbacks have matured steadily. In the current RPM 4.2 release, which comes with Red Hat 9, transactional rollbacks are quite usable.
Too complicated! On OpenSolaris it is:
beadm list
List all the Boot environments and pick one. If you already know the BE name just type the commands below.
beadm activate <be name>
reboot
Or use the GUI. Simple.
OpenSolaris does a file system block level rollback. Which is much safer than the package manager doing it. It is also much quicker takes a few seconds to clone (during install) and few seconds to rollback.
It works reliably already because ZFS makes it dead simple and bullet proof.
In fact I am updating my virtual box on my macbook pro install of OpenSolaris to 2009.06 right now. In fact when I was installing mac OS X 10.5.7 update I was really missing the OpenSolaris clone and update system. One can only hope snow leopard uses ZFS as effectively.
Edited 2009-06-04 07:45 UTC
That aspect is simpler, yes. But then again OpenSolaris won’t provide free updates for the 2009.06 release, so you either need to run bleeding edge/unstable, or keep track of all the installed packages and monitor the security lists and update the packages manually. Honestly, that’s really lame. Most operating systems automatically update.
ZFS probably won’t be used in laptops, at least in its current state. It uses too much memory (1 GB recommended just for ZFS) and the checking it does runs the disk a lot, a no-no on laptops. It probably wouldn’t be used on desktops either. But it’ll be interesting to see.
What? I run OpenSolaris in a VM with 1GB of total allocated memory. It runs fine. ZFS is the default filesystem for OpenSolaris. This whole 1GB only for ZFS and that it uses too much memory is bogus FUD spread by the linux trolls. ZFS likes to cache and dynamically resizes its cache on memory pressure. I would love to see evidence for why you think ZFS is not suitable for laptops.
Even the cheapest laptops come with 2GB of RAM minimum. Even netbooks come with 1GB RAM.
What checking does it do that runs the disk a lot?
ZFS doesn’t even do fsck on boot. The checksums are computed in memory and written to disk once with the data. Then read back and compared one a read operation. Reads and Writes initiated by processes not ZFS it self. The overhead here is the checksum computation and comparison. That is a CPU bound problem not I/O.
You can even buy Toshiba notebooks pre-installed with OpenSolaris.
http://www.opensolaris.com/toshibanotebook/
http://www.shopopensolaris.com/suntoshiba/home.htm
Not to put too fine a point on it. Here are some I/O benchmarks with OpenSolaris ZFS on a laptop and linux ext3 on the same laptop.
http://www.osnews.com/story/19823/A_Solaris_Administrator_Looks_at_…
ZFS wipes the floor with ext3 out of the box with no tuning.
Edited 2009-06-04 22:49 UTC
I’ve heard this refrain singing in my head for the past ten years. “Oh, Oh, Solaris is so stable and it’s a real Unix that enterprises use!” Anyone who says that to me clearly has mental issues over what has happened to Sun and Solaris during that time and are unable to accept it.
You totally misunderstand – deliberately – because you want to paint over the fact that there are no security updates available.
Yer, I can create a new installation and yer I can roll back to my old one if the upgrade is erroneous, but if it is then I’m not going to get my security updates am I? Upgrading to a new version of a system has potential far reaching implications when all you want are some minor updates to software that will maintain compatibility. No sane person in their right mind who wants to run a stable system does that, regardless of how many times he can roll back.
Talking about Solaris’s brilliant way of upgrading your system is irrelevant and totally orthoganal to the main point because there are people who clearly have mental issues accepting the current situation. How about providing security updates within a rollback system, eh?
Sorry. I just need to mop up after pissing myself with laughter. Where did you dig this up from? Sun Marketing 101 down the hall?
Yes there are. They are in the support repo.
But they are available. You really have no point just more FUD and trolling.
Squirm, squirm, wriggle.
One of the many OPs has established this because you have to stay with development and ‘upgrade’ if you want ‘updates’. If you stay with release then you won’t get them nuless you pay, which is kind of pointless if you want to stay ‘stable’.
Also, you can’t install newer packages from a single release in development. The only way of getting around this, again, is to completely upgrade your running dev version which, again, isn’t exactly a ‘stable’ thing to be doing. Notice that I threw in the word ‘stable’ a few times there.
Available to whom, you one brain-celled twit? You cannot perform security updates on an existing installation unless you pay. Notice that word there – updates. You’ll notice it has been used throughout the comments.
I’ll let you and your one remaining brain cell wrestle with that.
Awe! Poor thing is back to name calling again. The intelligence and maturity level of the linux troll is non existent these days. So sad that these are the advocates for Linux.
May be it is an insult to trolls to call this “thing” a troll.
No it doesn’t do backports, and certainly not well at all. There’s some selective ad-hoc software backported and little else.
However, I wasn’t even talking about backports in that comment because we were talking specifically about security updates to existing software if you’d bothered to actually use your eyes and read this thread. You’re jumping up and down in your seat about something that I never actually wrote or wanted to talk about in this thread. C’est la vie and par for the course.
Hmmmm. That’s because you’re a brainless twit who jumps up and down in his seat when he perceives something to be ‘anti-Sun’ rather than debating the merits of what has actually been said.
If you have nothing useful to type then refrain from the keyboard. If you want to debate what is actually being written then by all means do so, but make sure that you’ve actually read and comprehended what people have written first rather than getting emotional, eh?
I choose not to feed the trolls.
Are you talking to your self about your self again?
You’ve been gorging yourself then.
Hint: Deliberately misreading something because of your own mental issues over something is trolling.
Heh. I notice you’re not talking about security updates or even backports any more, which is what this thread has about. Is deliberately not talking about the subject at hand trolling? Why, I do believe it is.
You have some major issues.
In that case you made my point that you are a troll. I said I didn’t want to feed you.
Talking to your self again. Sad really sad. I feel sorry for you.
ROTFL
Is that you not talking about backports and security updates again? ROTFL.
You are really off the deep end now! Wow! I have deep sympathy for you.
Your link
It is broken
Sorry, http://tinyurl.com/muh6cl
I can verify that OpenSolaris does receive security updates in the release repository. It isn’t a lot compared to linux, but this could be a combination of 5 reasons:
1) There aren’t as many security wholes in core solaris packages
2) Solaris doesn’t use as many bleeding edge packages like Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.
3) Solaris probably doesn’t have as many packagers as these more popular linux distributions.
4) And every now and then of course, maybe there is some ignorance or slacking going on, as in the (possible) case of Firefox not being updated to the latest stable release.
5) There just aren’t as many packages available for Solaris as there are for linux. This is changing though, but out of all the unix distros linux is still the most friendly for building out of the box stuff – simply because more people use it (devs and end-users alike). Ideally apps would compile without too much difficulty on any UNIX, but there are so many reasons why this may not be the case in reality.
In any case, I would not be too upset over the current state of opensolaris updates.
Edited 2009-06-01 23:49 UTC
Mod down for inaccurate information. Both the release and dev branches receive security fixes.
Please have a look at the information provided by gjoahnn,
and tell me what’s inaccurate.
It was mentioned …
“If I understand it correctly, one can only get security updates by either buy A subscription, or shift to the dev channel.
That’s pay, or run unstable, no thanks.”
I have been using OpenSolaris on my HP xw9300 as a C++ development environment since the 2008.11 release with the “dev” package repository. Believe me, user sessions are stable. The only “issue” I have found was boot-ability (not user session usability) for some “dev” releases and this was solved using the option
-B pci-reprog=off
for the kernel$ line of the grub menu and I am happy for having this option. This is not surprising as Sun did not make my hardware (HP did) but it’s good that GRUB accepts options to try and deal with different hardware.
I deal with a very detailed C++/scripting code base (my own code dealing primarily with object database and 3D engine technologies) and OpenSolaris behaves admirably during library/executable builds (debug as well as release builds using the SunStudio tools). My coding work is my “bread and butter” and my computer environment has to work for me. I first investigated OpenSolaris as a potential development environment back in late November 2008. After a period of testing I realised OpenSolaris was the go !
It appears the “unstable” word has scared you.
Rather than trying to only understand the OpenSolaris technology, how about you try it out. I have OpenSolaris on multiple AMD64 (Opteron, AthlonX2) boxes (GeForce and Radeon video cards) and am fine with it.
Sure, hardware is hardware and support can vary.
But this does not change the fact that OpenSolaris, intrinsically, has alot to offer.
It would be a simpler world if many more hardware companies would release their technical documents for their hardware but we do not live in this world.
So Solaris did the groundwork with ZFS first and put the GUI later. OSX made their GUI and are still stuck doing backups manually.
Granted Solaris’ GUI isn’t that polished but I’m sure its way more functional because of the filesystem it uses.
I hope their GUI will be able to work nice with BTRFS as well as ZFS since BTRFS has “free” snapshots as well. BTRFS actually has writable snapshots which would be cool to implement in a GUI. You’d have to be careful not to accidentally start doing work in a snapshot. I think that the entire browser window could be tinted red when you’re anywhere but the present.
1. zfs isn’t a backup system
2. osx does offer automatic backups
depends on what you call automatic
You can schedule cron jobs to backup your files like you would on linux.
OS-X may not offer them via the GUI but it definitely is capable of automatic backups.
They called “clones” in ZFS, and can be created out of read-only snapshots.
mmmmm… I think we are talking about “production ready” filesystems.
I bought a Toshiba R600 with OpenSolaris preinstalled but the wireless didn’t work without major tweaking. I’ve switched back over to Vista temporarily, but I’ll give the new version a shot.
I’ve been running opensolaris on a dell e1505 quite happily, including wireless working out of the box (as well as nvidia drivers, audio, disk burner).
I have to say, though, that is an epic fail – nothing I hate worse than getting an OS prepackaged on a computer and the basic drivers not working.
EDIT: come to think of it, when I got the Dell e1505 two summers ago (how time flies..) it was packaged with Ubuntu, and wireless didn’t work out of the box on it either… =)
Edited 2009-06-01 23:51 UTC
How disappointed you must have been, to purchase a pre-installed OS that didn’t even work. Wireless support, and laptop support in general has greatly improved since the last release. On 2008.11, my 4965 wireless could scan networks, but couldn’t connect to any of them. I tried Nevada build 112 and everything worked perfectly, sound, suspend/resume, etc, but I decided to wait until 2009.06 came out to actually install. I’ve been sporadically tracking the progress of this release, and what do you know, OSNews beats me to the punch AND puts it on the front page! Now if only there were more people seeding…
That sounds like exactly what I was dealing with with 2008.11. It was an issue with the WPA and was a disappointment. I know lots of people have issues with linux and wireless, but compared to OpenSolaris, linux distros have always been a breeze for me. This laptop has a 5100.
I know that some media codecs were supposed to be prepaid with the installation… I wonder if I can still take advantage of that.
I’ve downloaded the new release. I guess I should start seeding it!
just loaded a live image on an older laptop i’ve got… not sure which wireless card, probably an older intel g. wireless scans, prompts for password, but still won’t connect.
almost exactly the same problem as before…
and get this: when i closed the lid to put it to sleep, i got a feedback loop between the laptop speakers and the built-in microphone.
i might try it on a desktop, but it doesn’t seem ready for prime-time on a laptop. just my $.02 anyways.
Edited 2009-06-02 05:12 UTC
don’t want to slander OSOL. The wireless didn’t work off the live CD, but works on my intel 3945 after installing. don’t know why the discrepancy.
still have the feedback problem.
but I’m excited finally to have this OS working!
Great news.
Not much to say (yet). Downloading as we speak. Keep up the good work.
I am also downloading, in order to try it. For the moment, the only missing thing for me is BlueTooth and Java integration with it. There is a preliminary stack but I think I should participate to make it happen. 2008.05/2008.11 worked fine on my HW.
I had a look and they have bluetooth support for a Microsoft mouse, however, there is no word as to any framework actually being set. There is discussion as to porting the NetBSD Bluetooth framework over but I am unsure as to the status of the project. I remember that they put a freeze on it for a period of time when there were some big cuts and things were uncertain at Sun, however, I am unsure now as to the status.
Now that Solaris has been bought out, will there still be development of opensolaris?
Yeah, I mean, now that Oracle bought Solaris (err… Sun), they will probably trash all of its holdings. They will go out of their way to sack Solaris, since it will be harder than discontinuing a closed source operating system. But, perhaps if we are lucky, the devs working on it will simply move to Linux development, and all of the zealous linux nerds can rest happily at night, knowing that they only have to worry about *BSD infringing on the geek-glamour, and that they can continue to turn their ire towards Microsoft as they have done for the past 8 years or so.
/I use linux and windows some as well
// Don’t use *BSD, not much against it except some minor qualms with the license.
They have a LONG way to go to catch up to Fedora and Ubuntu though.
For one Open Solaris is SLOWWWWW (Solaris has always been called Slow Laris by most admins I know anyway)
It doesn’t support as much hardware on the desktop as Linux and what it does support is not as good as linux yet.
Owned by Sun but does not come with office suite?? Doesn’t Sun own an Office Suite?
A lot of out of date packages.
And the worst text crap for setting the keyboard etc during the live CD boot up.
No option to add NTP by default.
I did like their Gnome layout and the config options.
I agree that Solaris has a ways to go – but not a long way. It has come a very long way since just a few years ago. Solaris on laptops was just a distant dream for most (unless you paid a few grand at Tadpole). Now, it is a reality for some, just not me ;{
I tried the 2008.11 (is that the right number??) on a Compaq NC610 I used to have. It was ALMOST awesome. The video was perfect – 1400×1050. I thought for sure it would stumble on that. The wireless worked out of the box – even with encryption on. But the funny thing was – no mouse! The compaq had a touchpad AND a pointing stick. Neither worked. I tried enabling both in the bios, and also just enabling one or the other – it didn’t matter, no mouse. It’s kind of hard to use a graphical desktop without a mouse, so I gave up.
I currently have an Asus 1000HE netbook (shame on you Asus for your Linux abandonment – it’ll bite you). I tried a beta of 2009.06 on it and everything worked but the wireless (ath9k driver in Linux). I googled myself silly on it, but never got anywhere.
As you can see, they are getting close! One of these days I’ll be able to have that Solaris laptop. If I was rich, I would buy a pre-loaded one – I think Toshiba has one. Good luck, Soloracles!
I started using linux around 2000 in highschool, and can remember when it was much worse off than Solaris was now w.r.t. desktop/laptop support. Solaris is improving just as quickly if not more so in these regards, though certainly it is true that linux development eased some of the stepping stones (such as Nvidia drivers and certain driver models).
But if Solaris doesn’t work or you don’t need it or care about its additional features, why not go linux? That’s fine, too. Same could be said for Linux vs Windows or anything really.
Interestingly: while hardware support is limited compared to Linux, the kernel that supports more devices — with a big variance in the quality of device drivers — than any other operating system kernel, OpenSolaris has shown that hardware support can be greatly improved in very short time when you got the talent, right people and some money. For any observer who has been involved in kernel development, the progress with OpenSolaris has been actually quite amazing in this area. All in all, this is a good example that the “superior” hardware support in Linux is not written in the wall and similar results can be achieved with proper engineering practices.
For the performance-related comment: I can not seriously think what you were after here. Our experiences at work have been exactly the opposite.
Edited 2009-06-03 03:49 UTC
I think his experience might be similar to mine. OpenSolaris is slower right now for some desktop, personal computing tasks but perhaps more robust for some enterprise level features.
You make a good point about hardware support. Every time I’ve interacted with OpenSolaris developers, they seem enthusiastic and responsive, unlike some linux communities with which I’ve interacted. I’m not sure which direction OpenSolaris will go aside from development around Oracle’s assets, but I hope it continues as a desktop platform, if for no other reason than to offer variety and competition.
All my observations were made comparing the current version of Open Solaris to the current version of Ubuntu and the final beta (Since they keep pushing the date up) of Fedora Core 11.
I have all 3 installed on separate hard drives in my Dell 755 and I tested the same things on all three.
1. Boot times
2. Hardware drivers and ability to use the hardware
3. Included software
4. Ability to use the machine for day to day work
5. Machine speed after boot
The conclusions are what I saw from these simple tests.
I mean as you see my screen name is Windows sucks but I am man enough to say that even though I would trust my machines to Fedora or Ubuntu over Windows. Windows 7 runs better then Fedora 11, Ubuntu 9.04 and Open Solaris combined. That is just facts from running the current beta of Windows 7 on the same machine.
——————————————
It was mentioned …
“Owned by Sun but does not come with office suite?? Doesn’t Sun own an Office Suite?”
OpenOffice descends from Sun’s StarOffice.
By using OpenSolaris’ package management system you can download OpenOffice (for free, as with all other packages and system/security updates).
——————————————
It was mentioend …
“It doesn’t support as much hardware on the desktop as Linux and what it does support is not as good as linux yet.”
If it came down to hardware support, we would all be using Microsoft’s operating systems. Hardware support for many free operating systems would be much better if many more hardware manufacturers released relevant technical documentation. For me, I am generally happy with the hardware support.
——————————————
It was mentioned …
“For one Open Solaris is SLOWWWWW.”
When is OpenSolaris slow ?
Or is it that your computer system is not optimal
for running OpenSolaris. My experience is with AMD64 systems (Athlonx2, Opteron) and these direct-connect architecture type systems cause OpenSolaris to rip into the tasks at hand.
It appears the Dell 755 uses front-side-bus CPU/mobo architecture; Intel recently went the way of AMD, cloning AMD’s direct-connect architecture.
Any serious performance comparison should be done using a direct-connect architecture. I have a dual-CPU (single-core per CPU) HP xw9300 box (4GB RAM, NVidia Quadro FX1400) and the system rips on OpenSolaris, as well as all other operating systems I had tried in the past (Windows, Linux, *BSDs). OpenSolaris is my operating system of choice and performance is great. This includes tasks like building detailed C++ software (using SunStudio tools) to serious image editing in Gimp and to OpenOffice document handling.
Due to being my primary development box, the system can be on for many days and OpenSolaris is fine with this. My only gripe is that while suspend-to-ram works, the resume-from-ram does not work (for now ?) for my hardware. Hopefully, this will be addressed in near future as hardware support for OpenSolaris broadens.
You should also remember that Solaris/OpenSolaris is packed with alot of technologies and the operating system has a proven commercial/warranty/real-world track record. While Linux grew from someone’s bedroom, Solaris was being designed and implemented by engineers in a commercial environment with the intent of satisfying real-world criteria.
You need to ask yourself …
“How good would another operating system run if it contained Solaris-type technologies (e.g. DTrace, ZFS, predictive self-healing framework, crossbow virtualised networking, etc.) and a design also focusing on scalability for big iron hardware (as in multi-processor SPARC-based solutions) ?”
You may think specific Solaris technologies may not matter and so compare operating systems using some common simple denominator and that is like when people compare the performance of OpenSolaris (a real UNIX system) with Linux/BSD (UNIX clone) using gcc-compiled software. The fallacy with this is that anybody doing serious development on Solaris/OpenSolaris use the SunStudio (not GNU gcc/g++/etc.) tools. The SunStudio tools are optimized for Solaris. These tools also allow the developer to perform DTrace-related experiments for the executable being developed.
All this and more leading to the developer being made much more proficient during bug/optimisation diagnosis and leading to better quality software development.
——————————————
Ummmmm, almost all versions of Linux include Open Office, I should not have to spend 30 minutes or more downloading it when I can spend 5 min on any Linux version and get the latest patches.
On the hardware I tried it on Linux worked 100% out the box. Open Solaris did not.
Ummmmm, Windows 7 and Linux (Fedora and Ubuntu) both fly on my Dell 755 and my iMac. Open Solaris takes 3 times as long to boot up as both versions of Linux I use.
Ummmmm, yeah that is why Sun is no more and Red Hat is making money hand over fist. Yes I know Solaris has some cool tech. But its convoluted to use, installing software is a pain in the butt. Oh may fault on Open Solaris its not a pain in the butt cause they hired a Linux guy Ian Murdock to make Open Solaris WHAT?? More Linux like.
I am comparing the fact that Open Solaris is being pushed against Linux on the desktop not the server. If you look at it that way on 386/X64 hardware then in reality things like Dtrace, Zfs etc dont really matter.
I mean do you think they brought in Ian Murdock to make Open Solaris more easy to use on servers??
Anyway all this point will be moot if and when Oracle changes the license. The Solaris kernel will be dead and all the fancy stuff will be on Linux.
Linux is the future of computing between Linux and Solaris. Solaris might as well be dead, Sun is.
————————————-
It was mentioned …
“Ummmmm, almost all versions of Linux include Open Office, I should not have to spend 30 minutes or more downloading it when I can spend 5 min on any Linux version and get the latest patches.”
So what if Linux includes OpenOffice by default.
Some people might use Abiword, other’s may use KDE office, others may use OpenOffice. So, should OpenSolaris contain all these by default. The choice is there to download it or not. Personal responsibility, it’s a good thing !
If you cannot be productive while updating/patching your system then that’s your problem or your computer’s problem. I patch OpenSolaris while I code and build my C++ libraries and am still productive. With a cable modem (my broadband plan being slower than ADSL2+) I patch my system leading to a new boot environment in ~15 minutes.
————————————-
It was mentioned:
“On the hardware I tried it on Linux worked 100% out the box. Open Solaris did not. ”
You can either accept “hardware is hardware” and what that entails in the proprietary world of hardware tech or contribute to the free operating system world with hardware-related research or wait until hardware support broadens.
————————————-
It was mentioned ….
“Ummmmm, Windows 7 and Linux (Fedora and Ubuntu) both fly on my Dell 755 and my iMac. Open Solaris takes 3 times as long to boot up as both versions of Linux I use.”
Like I mentioned in a previous post, OpenSolaris has many technologies that other operating systems do not have and it would not be surprising if boot time increases.
However, on my HP xw9300 box OpenSolaris 2009.06 boots in 40 seconds (GRUB –> Gnome login screen) and shuts down in 10 seconds (shutdown dialog –> power OFF). This is fine especially with all the goodies the OpenSolaris kernel is packaged with.
————————————————-
It was mentioned:
“Ummmmm, yeah that is why Sun is no more and Red Hat is making money hand over fist. Yes I know Solaris has some cool tech. But its convoluted to use, installing software is a pain in the butt. Oh may fault on Open Solaris its not a pain in the butt cause they hired a Linux guy Ian Murdock to make Open Solaris WHAT?? More Linux like.”
The issue at hand is OpenSolaris, not Sun.
OpenSolaris is not Linux or linux-like, it is a real UNIX (Re: OpenGroup accreditation).
Linux is a unix-clone.
A UNIX accredited system is a proven system. What is the point of achieving a UNIX accreditation and then throwing it away and becoming a unix-clone ?
See Crimson Consulting whitepaper comparing real-world experiences between Solaris and RHEL. RHEL is basically a “toy”, a “joke” for any serious environment. Read about RHEL’s suspicious licensing model and Linux’ scalability issues. There are quite a few news articles on the net about small/large shops initially using Linux but then replacing it with OpenSolaris due to workflow-scalability issues with Linux. If Linux were so good, why do IBM/HP still support AIX/HP-UX ?
I am a serious C++ developer and I find OpenSolaris admin fine. Software installation using “pkg” command from XTerm or GUI IPS program is simple. What’s the problem here ?
Who care’s who Sun hired to do whatever, the open-sourced OpenSolaris technology is fine and Sun has allowed me to use it for commercial (i.e. “bread and butter”) ventures for free. If I ever need to scale up to SPARC platform then Sun/Oracle will be ready at hand for any serious communication.
You should realise that the good thing Linux did was that it made Sun go back to it’s roots and open source their flagship operating system. I look forward to OpenSolaris getting more enhanced as time goes by.
————————————————-
It was mentioned …
“I am comparing the fact that Open Solaris is being pushed against Linux on the desktop not the server.
If you look at it that way on 386/X64 hardware then in reality things like Dtrace, Zfs etc dont really matter.”
What’s the problem ?
Are you afraid of competition ?
Linux will not disappear.
Your comments on the relevance of Sun’s technologies are a bit puzzling. Are you a coder, an admin, a casual operating system user/sampler ?
If you were the latter, then okay you do not realise the benefit. But if you are a coder/admin person then you probably have not realised what you have stumbled upon with the Solaris technologies (and by the way these technologies are open-sourced). I say this not as someone who “hates” Linux. I am happy that Linux exists since it adds to the existing pool of unix type systems in this world and I have noticed when people use a unix type system they end up knowing more about their computer environment unlike many Windows users. It just happens that I prefer OpenSolaris.
FYI, I used Slackware Linux during my engineering doctoral work in the 1990’s for massive amounts of coding and I was happy for it as Microsoft’s operating systems were not a suitable solution for my software development needs.
Competition is another reason why Linux would get better. To think that Linux is the be-all/end-all and that there it not enough room in the WORLD for unix clones as well as real unixes (e.g. (Open)Solaris, AIX, HP-UX) then you need to re-think your philosophy on this theme.
e.g.
Linux is not a UNIX, it has no accreditation from the OpenGroup. It is a UNIX clone. The lack of standardisation in Linux is not surprisng due to the unbridled way it’s distributions are developed. You would not risk using a non-standardised system for life-support systems, nuclear reactor management systems, multi-million dollar scientific equipment, etc.
My friend is network admin at Alcatel. They use multiple systems as one system does not satisfy all their needs. The use multi-process SPARC system for database infrastructure, HP-UX boxes for engineering work, RHEL for fileserving/etc., and Windows client for desktop duties.
Technologies like {Dtrace, Zfs, etc.} do matter as they are also relevant while developing software on my workstation.
e.g. ZFS allows me to patch my system with rollback support. Keeping a system up-to-date is a good idea. If I do not like the new patched system I then just rollback to the previous system (i.e. boot environment) and patch later with newer patches.
DTrace allows me to diagnose my system but also perform experiments on my newly built software to get an enhanced view of the dynamic nature of the software not readily available from a debugger and other tools, leading to a higher quality software development process. If you believe good quality software is not important then that’s your opinion but as a developer my responsibility/philosophy is to always strive for something good.
————————————————-
It was mentioned …
“I mean do you think they brought in Ian Murdock to make Open Solaris more easy to use on servers??”
Not surprising and this is a good thing for the OpenSolaris community. With Solaris’ server lineage it is obvious that Sun wanted to make Solaris geared also for the workstation/desktop type user. I use the “dev” repository and as I have been regularly patching my system I have seen that this goal is steadily being reached.
e.g. For me, OpenSolaris 2008.11 would cleanly shutdown in about 1 minute. OpenSolaris 2009.06 shutdowns in 10 seconds.
————————————————-
It was mentioned …
“Anyway all this point will be moot if and when Oracle changes the license. The Solaris kernel will be dead and all the fancy stuff will be on Linux.
Linux is the future of computing between Linux and
Solaris. Solaris might as well be dead, Sun is.”
OpenSolaris, not Solaris, is licensed under CDDL.
Oracle is not saying a word about OpenSolaris.
OpenSolaris is a different issue as the formal OpenSolaris community is involved here.
Just because Sun was bought it does not mean it’s technologies have to disappear. If Solaris/OpenSolaris
scares you then do not worry too m
LOL! Why would I be scared of Open Solaris or Solaris in general. Remember it’s Linux that helped kill Solaris not the other way around.
On top of that tell me ONE OS that has large market share that is not made or managed by a corporation? Which means if Sun goes away and Oracle does not become a corporate sponsor of Open Solaris then Open Solaris will be right there like Slackware. Something that coders use and people who have nostalgia for Solaris will use and that will be that!
And you can say that Linux is a joke. But last time I looked Sun was losing money and Red Hat was making it. So the joke is on Sun and Solaris.
I am sorry but Linux is everywhere. And yes its a Unix clone that took the Unix model and made it more flexible. That is why Linux is in phones and devices and on almost every super computer in the world.
That is why companies and orgs like:
Sherwin-Williams (Moved from HP-UX to Red-Hat)
Axiom (Moved from Slow Laris to Red Hat)
Orange County Public School (Moved from AIX to Red Hat)
NYSE (600 servers from HP UX, IBM AIX, and SUN Solaris to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.)
Dartmouth University (Sun ONE Directory Server to Red Hat Directory Server)
And the list goes on and on and on. Scared of Open Solaris. Please don’t make me laugh anymore my sides are hurting. LOL!
Oh and I am a sys admin for the US Government. We moved from Solaris and AIX to Red Hat, Windows and Debian.
And I know a lot of what I am talking about is Linux against Solaris and not Open Solaris. But who uses Open Solaris? Oh yea coders such as yourself. Not real sys admins like me who are actually running systems in the field.
Open Solaris is not even a blip on the radar for real world deployments. I bet even though Open Solaris is backed by Sun there are more real world deployments of Debian (That has no support or company backing) then Open Solaris. Crap might be more real world deployments of Deb then Solaris proper at this point! LOL! (Don’t quote that as fact, I will have to research that)
I am lost on your logic here. First off it would not take any longer for someone to remove Open Office and install Abiword (Open Solaris is Gnome based so not many people gonna use KOffice there) then it would to install Open Office, so since WAY more people use Open Office then Abiword why not just include it. Now maybe its just too big to fit on one CD. That would make sense.
Here again I am confused, If Linux works out the box (Fedora 11 and Ubuntu 9.04) then that would mean that the “Free OS world” has already worked on the drivers etc for this hardware. Oh yeaaaa, that stupid license that Sun put on Open Solaris wont allow you to mix in GPL stuff. So that would mean you have to write it all over again for Open Solaris! Darn.
As I said above, if Oracle does not sponsor Open Solaris then its dead.
Ok you want to talk tech so lets talk tech.
Solaris is better then Linux and so is Open Solaris because Open Solaris has all this tech from Solaris like Dtrace and ZFS right?
Well lets take a peak into the past shall we:
Hummmm, when MS came along making work group servers in the early 90’s who had the better tech?:
Banyan
Novell
Or
Microsoft
Hummmm Banyan and Novell had scalable directory services and high level security, With Banyan being used at almost every government agency in the mid 90’s. MS had crappy NT domains on Windows NT 3.51
Banyan had the Street talk protocol and Novell had IPX/SPX, Microsoft had NetBEUI. Blah. NetBEUI was not even routable at the time.
And here we are in 2009 and where is Banyan? Dead. Where is Novell? Selling Linux and in reality might as well be dead.
My point here is that having so called better tech means nothing. Does not mean at all that your product or whatever is going to become a market leader. What makes a market leader is perception.
This is why even though now General Motors makes cars as good in quality and cheaper then Toyota, people will still buy Toyota and pay $3000 to $5000 more for that car! Why? Because of the perception that GM cars suck.
Which is why you can never loose your job for buying Microsoft. Their products suck but there is the perception that you can do more with MS products and that MS will always be there to fix your problems.
While there is a white paper saying Linux is a toy, Linux is growing, Unix is not. Even Unix companies like IBM and HP are selling what??? Linux! In some cases against their own Unix products. Even Sun was selling Linux, till they realized they were helping kill themselves.
And I don’t have a problem with Open Solaris. I was just pointing out the issues they need to fix if they are going to compete on the desktop front.
Like you said it takes 40 seconds to boot Open Solaris, in that time I could of booted my Fedora machine, logged in, sent an email and started shutting down with the new boot scripting Fedora has added.
Solaris is dead! That is news to me. May be the billions in revenue Sun made last quarter were fantasy.
Redhat makes $652 million a year. Sun makes $642 million in software revenue not including the service sales for software. If you assume they make even a few hundred million in software services/year from the $4 billion they make in service. Sun easily makes more money per year selling software than Redhat.
Sun’s SPARC CMT server line alone makes $1.3 billion+ a year. That line only runs Solaris.
Too many ifs and buts there. Oracle is deployed on Solaris more than any other OS. You are dreaming if you think Oracle is going to kill Solaris.
Redhat made $652 million in revenue last year. Sun made $13 billion. Redhat has very low R&D overhead because they are mainly integrators of software others produce.
Redhat’s net income is $78 million. Oracle claims they can make $1.5 billion profit in the first year from the Sun acquisition. Don’t kid your self redhat is not even in the same league.
Oracle is deployed on Solaris more then Linux at this time but Linux is the fastest growing OS for Oracle deployments, Solaris has stagnated.
Ummmmm, Sun lost about 2 Billion dollars last year. And is steady loosing money this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/technology/companies/31sun.html
Oracle plans on making money on Sun by getting rid of Sun’s overhead and then raking in license fees for patents, hardware designs etc. So don’t kid yourself, Solaris is dead.
Oh and we still have not even gone over the wild card. Does Solaris even have the right to make Open Solaris. If they got the license from SCO and SCO folds then Novell will have to make up it’s mind if that want to keep in place things that SCO did. Hummmmmm.
Oh and if Oracle decides to keep Solaris that has nothing at all to do with Open Solaris. Oracle is no Sun or Redhat. I doubt they will have a free open source version of their flagship OS running loose in the wild.
Sure. I’ll take your word over Larry Ellison’s. Right!
That does not make any sense. Sun already Open Sourced Solaris it is done. There are no licenses issues pending. No more FUD left in your arsenal?
? Dude do you read. Let me enlighten you:
Judge Dale Kimball made a ruling on July 16, 2008 in the legal case SCO v. Novell which included these statements:
“ After entering into the 2003 Sun Agreement, Sun released an opensource version of its UNIX-based Solaris product, called “OpenSolaris.” As its name suggests, OpenSolaris is based on Sun’s Solaris operating system, which is in turn based on Novell’s SVRX intellectual property. Absent the removal of the 1994 Sun Agreement’s confidentiality restrictions, Sun would not have been licensed to publicly release the OpenSolaris source code
…In this case, Sun obtained the rights to opensource Solaris, and SCO received the revenue for granting such rights even though such rights remained with Novell. If the court were to declare that the contract was void and should be set aside, the court could not return the parties to the same position they were in prior to the 2003 Agreement. Sun has already received the benefits of the agreement and developed and marketed a product based on those benefits. There was also evidence at trial that OpenSolaris directly competed with Novell’s interest. The court, therefore, cannot merely void the contract.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Novellruling.pdf
Dude I am done with this cause you have no clue what is going on in the computer world. You are talking in circles at this point, you don’t read and you don’t back up your points with facts.
It is obvious you have no idea what you are reading. The judge threw the SCO case out and awarded Novell the revenue it missed by SCO getting into licensing deals.
Since the SCO Sun contract from 2003 could not be voided OpenSolaris was allowed to be released.
Novell has not appealed or tried to pursue Sun for licensing and it has been close to an year now.
Like I said you have no more FUD left. Stop trying.
Wow still trying! Again you DON’T read! SCO’s case has not been thrown any place.
“The decision, which is appeallable, granted Novell the 2.5 million dollar award specified due to the 2003 Sun Agreement’s modification of the 1994 confidentiality provisions. These modifications permitted the release of OpenSolaris.”
SCO has appealed and Novell has received NO money to date as SCO is in bankruptcy!
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=NovellAppealTL
Still all up in the air dude. The only reason Sun was able to release Open Solaris was because the 2.5 million dollars that was supposed to be paid to Novell was to indemnify Sun. But SCO doesn’t have that money!
Sun can afford to pay that money, but Novell can still sue Sun for more if they choose due to SCO going out of business due to their bankruptcy!
http://opensource.sys-con.com/node/964956
Edited 2009-06-04 09:07 UTC
You are wrong. The outcome of that case has nothing to do with Sun and OpenSolaris not matter how much you wish it to be. SCO is trying to fight Novell. Novell wants money from SCO and is claiming lost revenues because of SCO’s deal with Sun and openSolaris. If SCO wins the appeal it is favorable for Sun and OpenSolaris.
You are arguing my point for me and you don’t even know it. Sigh!
Wow, again not reading. I didn’t say anything about SCO winning. All I said was that SCO appealed!
You said the case was thrown out! But it’s not! Since it is in appeal and SCO can not pay then the back money Novell STILL has the right to get that money and who in the deal has the money??? SUN! Duh.
What is most likely going to happen (And why I put up the link about bankruptcy) is that SCO will go bankrupt before the appeal goes through and before Novell gets the money out of SCO!
As I said in the beginning it was a “Wild Card” But as everyone says:
“Thomas Carey, chairman of the business practice group at the Boston-based Bromberg & Sunstein IP law firm, describes the legal details like this: “As to Sun, SCO released Sun from a confidentiality obligation with respect to SVRX (System V Release X Unix) code when its contract with Novell did not permit it to do so without Novell’s permission. SCO did not seek or obtain that permission. This proceeding does not involve Sun as a party, only SCO and Novell. As between these parties, the court views the genie (the confidential information) to be out of the bottle, and the court can’t put it back in. It can, however, hold SCO liable to Novell for breach of contract (and/or breach of fiduciary duty), and it did so and found the damages for this breach to be $2.5-million.â€
“What does this mean for Sun? Carey says, “In theory, Novell could sue Sun directly, but its chances of success would be slim. Furthermore, Novell is not interested in pursuing/developing SVRX, and is more interested in its reputation in the open source community. Its lawsuit against SCO was political — it got to wear the white hat. If it went after Sun because of OpenSolaris, it would wear the black hat. It is not likely to change hats now.â€
http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/is-opensolaris-in-hot-wa…
“Section 10 of the 2003 Sun Agreement also sets forth SCO’s obligation to indemnify Sun for any claim brought against Sun asserting that the Section 4 licensed technology infringes the rights of any third parties. Section 10 further provides that if the intellectual property rights in the technology become the subject of a claim of infringement, SCO shall ensure that Sun has the right to continue to use the technology or replace the technology to make it non-infringing. The provision has not been implicated or applied.
That tells me that Sun is not in any trouble. If anyone is in trouble, should Novell decide to do anything about this, which I doubt, it’s SCO. The agreement included the indemnification of Sun, so that if anyone sues Sun, SCO has to step in and take the arrow.
Which is why I doubt Novell would do anything about it, since SCO is currently more or less flat broke, but we’ll have to wait and see on that. If someday SCO’s prince does come to save her with his wallet, it might change my analysis of what Novell may choose to do.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080729154916498&query=Op…
Novell probably wont sue BUT they still have the option to!
That is because you have no clue as to what you are saying. You keep saying I am not reading. The problem is that you are not comprehending what you are reading. There in lies the problem. Until you understand what you read there is no point in the useless discussion.
You never has a point about the legality of OpenSolaris. The more you post groklaw articles it is clear you don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
Bollocks. Fedora 10 takes more than a minute to boot.
This article lists it at 69.27 seconds.
http://www.junauza.com/2009/04/boot-speed-war-xubuntu-904-vs-fedora…
This one says 66 seconds:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_boot_perf…
Try to be honest in your comments. The pro linux hyperbole is unnecessary.
Edited 2009-06-04 07:59 UTC
Please READ my posts I said NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT Fedora 10! Please read before you comment!
Thank you.
Oh and come on bro! Again read:
http://www.junauza.com/2009/04/boot-speed-war-xubuntu-904-vs-fedora…
“I did the test by installing the three distributions through Parallels Desktop virtual machine” Virtual machine??? Say what!
And on the other one they are way back on Fedora 9???
“With Fedora 9 Sulphur due out next month, we have done this same boot performance testing on the Fedora side with Core 4, Core 5, Core 6, 7, 8, and 9 Rawhide.”
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_boot_…
Are you still sleep bro? Come on now I know its early in the morning!
I mean I can go dig up some old Open Solaris testing and prob find 1 minute or more boot times also.
So you are an even bigger liar. Fedora 10 is supposed to have a faster boot time. It is one of the advertised features.
I have seen no evidence of a sub 60 second boot for fedora.
So all the distros are booting on the same platform. So the test results are valid. Say what?
Show me some evidence where fedora can boot up… you can login.. fire up an email client send and email and shutdown in less that 40 seconds.
You made the claim now prove it! Otherwise shut up!
You claimed OpenSolaris takes 3x as long to boot. So you will have to show me evidence of a 3 minute normal boot up for OpenSolaris to prove the point you made.
Chop. Chop. Start gathering the proof.
Dude first off I said FEDORA 11 (Go back and look at my posts! Read, read!)
Dude you are not making any sense at this point. You pulled out BOOT TIMES, You can’t compare boot times of an OS in a virtual machine to that of one installed directly on hardware!
You are talking in circles. Have a good night.
Edited 2009-06-04 08:38 UTC
Like I said post evidence of you claim..
From cold boot to sending an email and shutting down in less than 40 seconds. Back up your claim.
I don’t care which version of fedora you run.
As a reminder this is your claim copy pasted verbatim from your earlier post.
Show clear evidence, including hardware specs of your setup. You have to login to the graphical user interface to send the email.
Edited 2009-06-04 09:01 UTC
I’ve tried the livecd on two machines, one desktop and one laptop. Both I am greeted with a console login because the X server cant boot the VESA driver. Man, this is 2009, cant they get right what was done by Linux 5 years ago? How am I able to install it now?
From what I’ve been able to research, it does look like OpenSolaris is “pay or run unstable”, although it’s a little confusing.
Take Ubuntu or Fedora, for example. You install the latest release, such as Fedora Core 10 or Ubuntu 9.04. Through a GUI or command line, or on an automated basis, a package manager downloads and installs the latest updates, security and otherwise. Primarily for security, it’s important to keep up to date.
The update will load up any updates of Firefox, MySQL, the Linux kernel, Apache, OpenSSL, whathaveyou. It won’t update everything, just what needs to be changed due to security/stability/bugfix. While the versions of those applications change, the distro (Ubuntu, Fedora) is still the same version. Even though the kernel version may change, it’s still the same distro version.
I’ve received updates, but I’m not running a development release. I’m running what is considered, and designed as, a “stable” release.
Windows and Mac OS X work in similar ways.
Most distros/operating systems will keep updating packages for past releases. Even though 9.04 is the latest for Ubuntu, they still release updates for 8.10. Mac still releases updates for 10.4, and Windows for XP.
OpenSolaris seems to have a different model, and I think that’s whats so confusing. There are numerous confused posts on the OpenSolaris boards with essentially the same question.
How does one, without paying for support, keep OpenSolaris up to date, without running a development/unstable release? It’s pretty clear how to do that with most Linux distros, but less clear for OpenSolaris.
Edited 2009-06-03 07:52 UTC
I’ve got an issue with the whole “not being able to update without going bleeding edge thing”, which frankly is a huge turn off.
However, the term “Slowlaris” is completely unjustified. It was a term coined during the transition from BSD-based SunOS 4 to Sys V-based Solaris in the late 90’s. Solaris required more memory, and when high-end workstations had 32 MBytes, memory was fairly precious. Use too much, and you’d swap out, hence the term “Slowlaris”.
However, that hasn’t been the case in over a decade. So while the term Slowaris has an agreeable snark to it, it’s wholly unfounded.
Because it takes longer to boot isn’t really a huge concern. If it’s a desktop, it’s annoying, but it’s not going to really affect your on-boot performance.
I ran a Solaris test a couple of years back comparing MySQL performance, and it tested very favorably to Linux, and they both trumped FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD in those MySQL benchmarks. Solaris has long had a very reliable SMP function and threading system.
Still, the update issue is rather a shame.