Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Nov 2011 20:45 UTC, submitted by Straylight
Oracle and SUN I just emerged, blinking, from the world of Skyrim, only to realise Sun Oracle has released the 11th version of Solaris (well, technically it's the 7th, but okay, we'll roll with it). I'll be honest and upfront about it: Solaris is totally out of my league, and as such, it's very hard for me to properly summarise what this release is all about, so I won't even try.
Order by: Score:
Wow
by Adam S on Thu 10th Nov 2011 20:55 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

Nevada has been Solaris 11 for so long I almost forgot it would one day be an actual release.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow
by libray on Fri 11th Nov 2011 12:04 UTC in reply to "Wow"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Yeah, I've been running on Solaris 11 Express snv_151 since last winter and and updated to 151a this summer. It's all been great as a preview and I can't wait to get some services on this.

Of most interest is crossbow. On older released we had to do funky things with provisioning zones based on the network they live on versus having the global doll out zones and connect them to separate VLANs. The reason this was a problem in older releases was static routes in the global.

With deduplication, there are opportunities for backup solutions too.

Edited 2011-11-11 12:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wow
by d3vi1 on Sat 12th Nov 2011 15:23 UTC in reply to "Wow"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

Not really. Solaris 11 is not based on Nevada. It's based on Indiana! It's a much more radical change from the classic Solaris than you would imagine and much closer to a GNU/Linux distro in some aspects. It still has the Solaris goodies that no Linux distro has.

Reply Score: 1

Article's been up all day
by MacMan on Thu 10th Nov 2011 21:04 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

And this is the first comment?. I guess that shows how much intrest there is in a new version of the now closed source Solaris.

Pity Sun chose an intentionally GPL incompatible license for Solaris, it really could have been something if there was only some more intrest in it from cross pollination with Linux.

I guess Solaris is still free for non comercial use, or something to that extent, though.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Article's been up all day
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Nov 2011 21:09 UTC in reply to "Article's been up all day"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I guess Solaris is still free for non comercial use, or something to that extent, though.


Yeah it is.

I did use Solaris 10 Express for bits and pieces. Before moving most of the servers to Scientific Linux or OpenBSD.

I remember Zones being the big thing Circa 2006.

I think Solaris is too much "proper unix" ... I remember it being harder to use.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Article's been up all day
by JAlexoid on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Article's been up all day"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

With GNU userland it's as hard as Linux or *BSD to use.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Doing specific things on Solaris is very different than Linux and BSD stuff ... It hard to explain IMO Solaris is as different to Linux as Windows is different to BSD ... massively.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Article's been up all day
by Laurence on Fri 11th Nov 2011 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Article's been up all day"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Doing specific things on Solaris is very different than Linux and BSD stuff ... It hard to explain IMO Solaris is as different to Linux as Windows is different to BSD ... massively.

It really isn't.

I administrate a mixture of Linux and Solaris boxes and while there are a few quirks for Solaris I have to remember (eg vfstab instead of fstab, user space commands have slightly different switches, etc), but largely the skill sets are transferable (unlike building a Windows Server and then expecting the configuration of OpenBSD or FreeBSD to be similar).

In fact, you can configure (via shells, aliases or even compiling in your own user space tools) the two environments to behave more alike if you really struggle when switching platforms. Where as it's not really possible to do that with Win/BSD. While you can get a POSIX environment for Windows (cygwin) and slap a GUI on BSD, Windows and BSD are as different as night and day.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I administrate a mixture of Linux and Solaris boxes and while there are a few quirks for Solaris I have to remember (eg vfstab instead of fstab, user space commands have slightly different switches, etc), but largely the skill sets are transferable (unlike building a Windows Server and then expecting the configuration of OpenBSD or FreeBSD to be similar).

In fact, you can configure (via shells, aliases or even compiling in your own user space tools) the two environments to behave more alike if you really struggle when switching platforms. Where as it's not really possible to do that with Win/BSD. While you can get a POSIX environment for Windows (cygwin) and slap a GUI on BSD, Windows and BSD are as different as night and day.


That is the problem that they are so so similar I used to get confused ... especially in the labs when we were running Sun Ray thin clients that had a mixture of Redhat and Solaris.

I personally find Linux to be easier.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Article's been up all day
by Laurence on Fri 11th Nov 2011 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Article's been up all day"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


That is the problem that they are so so similar I used to get confused ... especially in the labs when we were running Sun Ray thin clients that had a mixture of Redhat and Solaris.

I personally find Linux to be easier.

Linux is easier for some things, Solaris is easier for others.

It all depends on what you're trying to achieve and what your skill sets are. ;)

Reply Score: 2

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I fail to see what's so different. To me, Solaris, Linux, MacOS X, FreeBSD,... are quite similar. Solaris is extremely well documented. It should not be a problem to manage for somebody with basic unix skills from some other unixlike environment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Article's been up all day
by JAlexoid on Fri 11th Nov 2011 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Article's been up all day"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Solaris is as different to Linux as Windows is different to BSD

I use Solaris since v8 came out. In general it's not that hard to move between the Linux and Solaris, certainly not as hard as moving from Linux to default AIX. And if you use Nexenta then it's really not that different.

But then there's hardware configuration, firewall, zones and other lower level stuff that is massively different.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Article's been up all day
by 0brad0 on Fri 11th Nov 2011 02:18 UTC in reply to "Article's been up all day"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Pity Sun chose an intentionally GPL incompatible license for Solaris, it really could have been something if there was only some more intrest in it from cross pollination with Linux.


GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3. The GPL license is a joke.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Article's been up all day
by segedunum on Fri 11th Nov 2011 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Article's been up all day"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3. The GPL license is a joke.

I have no idea what that's got to do with Sun creating yet another incompatible license, but, whatever.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Article's been up all day
by Valhalla on Sun 13th Nov 2011 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Article's been up all day"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3.

No it isn't, what's this nonsense?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Article's been up all day
by itanic on Sun 13th Nov 2011 08:52 UTC in reply to "Article's been up all day"
itanic Member since:
2008-08-03

Considering GPL is incompatible with pretty much everything, you shouldn't really hold that against Sun

Reply Score: 1

Cloud
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Nov 2011 21:05 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Thom you obviously don't understand what the "cloud" is.

The internet isn't the cloud, the cloud it is more like the time sharing stuff of the 70s.

It is more "pay to do stuff" on someone else's computer network.

Edited 2011-11-10 21:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Cloud
by ebasconp on Thu 10th Nov 2011 21:40 UTC in reply to "Cloud"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

The internet isn't the cloud


That is arguable. I don't like the "Cloud" word used in this context. "Services available through Internet" sounds more accurate, more buzz free and more "back to the ground".

When someone says "Cloud" I always remember Web 2.0 and AJAX and other artificially created marketing/press terms calling something already existing but with a more sophisticated name.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Cloud
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Cloud"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That is arguable. I don't like the "Cloud" word used in this context. "Services available through Internet" sounds more accurate, more buzz free and more "back to the ground".


It is a bit of a buzzword however what it means is quite well defined IMO.

When someone says "Cloud" I always remember Web 2.0 and AJAX and other artificially created marketing/press terms calling something already existing but with a more sophisticated name.


Web 2.0 maybe (TBH I think everyone accepts that WEB 2.0 means user generated content) ... AJAX no ... While there was other ways of updating the page from another server they were extremely hackish.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cloud
by JAlexoid on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cloud"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You're right - the could is anything but services available over the internet.
Just like Web 2.0 and AJAX, they're just a shorter version of what's changed. there were many buzzwords, but Web 2.0 and AJAX stood the scrutiny of time. The cloud is also over 5 years old now(arguably, starting with Amazon's EC2).

While there was other ways of updating the page from another server they were extremely hackish.

XHR (sometimes known as AJAX) had options for "updating the page from another server" only via a vulnerability type called Cross-Site Scripting. It's still very hackish to get data into one page from one domain from another domain.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Cloud
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cloud"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

There are other ways ... but usually I setup a handler server side (same domain) ... the other method I think you can use an iFrame (I think Twitter and Facebook Widgets do this).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Cloud
by JAlexoid on Fri 11th Nov 2011 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cloud"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I use the iFrame and postMessage. While already am looking at cross domain resources.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cloud
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:30 UTC in reply to "Cloud"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The definition of the cloud is quite murky and ill defined.

From a consumer's perspective ( drop box, google docs, icloud) are " the cloud". How does anyone know that this "cloud" isn't just a single server? How is it different from the internet in this case?

From a service provider's stand point: architecture with high scalability and availability.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Cloud
by JAlexoid on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Cloud"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

How about - omniavailalbe services? (From the consumer side, obviously)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cloud
by ebasconp on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cloud"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

gmail, hotmail and wordpress could fall in such category too; and they are not marketed as cloud things.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Cloud
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cloud"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

LOLWOT?

Wordpress is a CMS. Gmail and Hotmail are free email accounts.

Dropbox is definitely Cloud.

The cloud is not the same as web hosting or a separate server. You app/data sits somewhere and it just works ...

Edited 2011-11-10 23:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Cloud
by Laurence on Fri 11th Nov 2011 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cloud"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

LOLWOT?

Wordpress is a CMS. Gmail and Hotmail are free email accounts.

Dropbox is definitely Cloud.

The cloud is not the same as web hosting or a separate server. You app/data sits somewhere and it just works ...

Actually I think webmail is the perfect example of "cloud computing".

They hold your e-mails and attachments. They hold your contacts, calendar schedule and many are even used as a passport to other services (eg: G+, Android app store, and real time communication tools like MSN and Google Talk). Plus all of this data is held centrally, processed centrally and databased to around individual accounts, again on a centralised set of servers. All of this data is then available on countless devices from fat PCs to thin clients which just displays a user interface to the services provided for individuals by the centralised servers.

It's pretty much the definition of cloud computing in my opinion.

However, the very fact that two professionals in computing can have such vastly different opinions on what cloud computing is just re-enforces why I hate the term so much. I think it's an utterly retarded word invented by marketing managers to promote the same old shit that engineers and programmers have been developing every year and pretty much since the days of TSS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Cloud
by JAlexoid on Fri 11th Nov 2011 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Cloud"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

word invented by marketing managers

The cloud and cloud computing are both a result of engineering lingo. There was not much marketing behind the name. I surely used a symbol of the cloud to denote abstract services available remotely over a third party network at least 10 years ago.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Cloud
by Laurence on Sat 12th Nov 2011 08:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Cloud"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


The cloud and cloud computing are both a result of engineering lingo. There was not much marketing behind the name. I surely used a symbol of the cloud to denote abstract services available remotely over a third party network at least 10 years ago.

I see.

Thank you for the correction ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cloud
by Doc Pain on Fri 11th Nov 2011 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cloud"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

How about - omniavailalbe services? (From the consumer side, obviously)


You mean like... omni-consumer products, erm services? :-)

For a more pictural approach to proper IT terminology, please consult this source of wisdom:

http://xkcd.com/908/

No, really, I'm not trying to give a better explaination what "the cloud" is, I just like to poke fun at it now. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cloud
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Cloud"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

Cloud computing provides computation, software, data access, and storage services that do not require end-user knowledge of the physical location and configuration of the system that delivers the services. Parallel to this concept can be drawn with the electricity grid, wherein end-users consume power without needing to understand the component devices or infrastructure required to provide the service.


I think that is the important difference.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Cloud
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 11th Nov 2011 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cloud"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Ok, so my co-located server == cloud? End users don't have to care where my website (er, I mean "service") is coming from.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cloud
by Vanders on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:31 UTC in reply to "Cloud"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

From my point of view, "Cloud" is as simple as "Someone else worries about your infrastructure". Then again I may be biased, as I work for HP Cloud Services, and I'm one of the someone's who has to worry about it for you...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Cloud
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Cloud"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well some people on here think Wordpress is part of the cloud.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Cloud
by David on Fri 11th Nov 2011 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cloud"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

There's the Wordpress hosted service, which you could think of as "cloud" and there's the Wordpress software, which is software. So everybody's right!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cloud
by OSGuy on Fri 11th Nov 2011 05:31 UTC in reply to "Cloud"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

You don't necessarily need to pay (will not with money at least) -- you are paying with your personal data being exposed.

Reply Score: 2

Nice!
by SReilly on Thu 10th Nov 2011 21:26 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

...but ultimately doomed I think, no matter what buzz word du jour it uses. I've so many customers jumping ship due astronomical license fee hikes, uncertain future and having bought expensive Sparc hardware three years ago, being expressly (see what I did there?) told it would run Solaris 11 when it came out only then for Oracle to turn around and tell them the hardware can be no older than two years for it to be supported.

I like Solaris, though it has a whole tone of baggage left over from 10 years ago (like root's default home directory being / and sh still being the default shell even though it's no longer a statically linked binary). I just wish Oracle hadn't gotten their grubby mits on it or that Sun had used a BSD license or something.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Nice!
by abcxyz on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:06 UTC in reply to "Nice!"
abcxyz Member since:
2009-07-30

Now there are many issues about this S11 thing, but this comment calls for a quick fact check.

Root's home in S11 is /root/ (not that I'd get how does that define modernity of an OS) and while there still is /bin/sh (/bin and /sbin being links to /usr/{s,}bin/), it actually runs /usr/bin/ksh93 (and again not sure why would that necessarily be better) esp. it's not a big deal to choose shell of one's liking.

One of my complains about this release would be that development had a lot of the F/OSS vibe and was happening/focusing on engineers desktops. So in fact running it on SPARC for the first time in Solaris' history might see some shortcomings here and there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice!
by SReilly on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Just installed it and yes, roots default directory is in /root and the new default shell is bash. Quite a departure I must say.

The reason why / is a bad idea these days for root's home directory is because it mixes root's user files and directories with those of the system. This wasn't an issue way back when you had one shell, one profile for that shell and no ssh (to name the first things I can think of off of the top of my head). Mow that you do, those config files and directories end up directly on the / filesystem making it harder to administer and even though you really should keep root usage to a minimum it's just not always the case. Hence why most admins create a /root directory first thing after an install of Sol8-9-10 and change root's home directory.

Are you seriously trying to say to me that sh is just as good as ksh or bash? Please. As for it running /usr/bin/ksh93 in sh mode, all the more reason not to bother with it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Nice!
by abcxyz on Fri 11th Nov 2011 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice!"
abcxyz Member since:
2009-07-30

The reason why / is a bad idea these days for root's home directory is because it mixes root's user files and directories with those of the system....


Question was, how would this be a sign of modernity (or not towing old baggage). But speaking of bad ideas, generally logging (and even more so directly ssh'ing) in as root does not seem to be the best one of them all (as you've correctly pointed out). Esp. true on Solaris (10+) which tends to utilize RBAC/sudo, clinging to root's usage might by some be considered a bit archaic. ;)

Are you seriously trying to say to me that sh is just as good as ksh or bash? Please. As for it running /usr/bin/ksh93 in sh mode, all the more reason not to bother with it.


I am seriously unaware of making any comparison or qualifying statement.

EDIT: The word "better" could have been misunderstood. The question was why should it be better for /bin/sh to be symlink to /usr/bin/ksh93, presuming that having /bin/sh as SH binary does not effect /usr/bin/ksh93 or /usr/bin/bash or /usr/bin/zsh for anyone who wants to use either of the Bourne shell family.

Merely, as long as you can choose your favorite shell to log in and to run your scripts, I do not really understand why presence of another one should be any bothersome. I personally do not care for (t)csh too much, but see no reason to make a point of any system shipping it (it sure lives on my machine) or even making it default when changing is just one command operation.

Edited 2011-11-11 00:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice!
by SReilly on Fri 11th Nov 2011 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Question was, how would this be a sign of modernity (or not towing old baggage). But speaking of bad ideas, generally logging (and even more so directly ssh'ing) in as root does not seem to be the best one of them all (as you've correctly pointed out). Esp. true on Solaris (10+) which tends to utilize RBAC/sudo, clinging to root's usage might by some be considered a bit archaic. ;)


RBAC/sudo are great but don't cover all situations. For instance, I'm currently working a one month contract in which they're running all their production DBs on Solaris zones. Now, I'm the only UNIX guy here so for them to be using Solaris in the first place is a tad daft if you ask me. Anyway, the systems I'm talking about are two M4000's in two separat DCs with one Global zone a piece. I've spent a week writting a KSH script that allows us to failover one or all zones residing on one system to the other. Due to them not using Sun Clustering, it's got to be done via ssh and as these people don't have a clue about UNIX, I've got to make it as simple as possible for them. Passwordless ssh login for root is the only way to achive that. You seem like a knowlegable person therefore I'm sure you understand the situation with the .ssh directory. Now, call me a fickle person but I'd rather that directory did not reside on /.

Anyway, I spend the first week here cleaning up root's files on / and putting them in /root, among other things, and while checking out /etc/profile, I found some nice little additions by the dude from Sun that installed the servers, like set -o vi. Problem was, the guy didn't remember to change root's default shell to KSH so that option was as usefull as a bicycle to a fish.

In a large environment I'd agree with you but when you've three servers (one production, one testing and one development) using root is no biggy and much easier to deal with then implementing RBAC/sudo.

I am seriously unaware of making any comparison or qualifying statement. EDIT: The word "better" could have been misunderstood. The question was why should it be better for /bin/sh to be symlink to /usr/bin/ksh93, presuming that having /bin/sh as SH binary does not effect /usr/bin/ksh93 or /usr/bin/bash or /usr/bin/zsh for anyone who wants to use either of the Bourne shell family. Merely, as long as you can choose your favorite shell to log in and to run your scripts, I do not really understand why presence of another one should be any bothersome. I personally do not care for (t)csh too much, but see no reason to make a point of any system shipping it (it sure lives on my machine) or even making it default when changing is just one command operation.

My bad and fair ennough :-)

My point though was that the only reason why sh was the default shell was for historical reasons. Systems used to run /usr on either a separat partition or even an NFS share. If you needed to reboot in single user mode, you wouldn't have access to this directory and therefore no access to anything but statically linked binaries. As HDs are a tad larger these days, /usr usually resides on the same slice as /. As you so rightly pointed out, today sh points to /usr/bin/ksh so for Solaris to still us sh as the default shell can only be for historical reasons. Surely you can see that, no? I'm not saying that sh residing on the system (even though in this case it's only as KSH in sh mode) is a bad thing, far from it. There are still a mirade of scripts written in sh so I would expect there to be support for the shell.

Furthermore, the changing of the default shell to BASH and root's default directory to /root in Solaris 11 tend to lend quite a bit of weight to my arguments, don't you think?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice!
by d3vi1 on Sat 12th Nov 2011 15:37 UTC in reply to "Nice!"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

Not even close to the truth. Solaris 11 is based on OpenSolaris. It has no more baggage. The root directory and the default shell have finally been updated as have many others. If you need to run Solaris 8, 9 or 10 software, you need a Solaris 8,9 or 10 zone, as you usually can't have the software running in the global zone due to the huge amount of changes.

The license fees are high for an OS alone, but considering the whole stack, they are quite reasonable. If you need an iPlanet, Oracle DB and a few other things, their license cost is 25% on Sun Hardware Solaris compared to others. The whole package is much cheaper on Solaris and Sun Hardware, even if the OS isn't.
If, on the other hand, you don't need the Oracle software stack, it's going to be cheaper to stay away from Oracle hardware and Solaris.
Most enterprises I worked with actually can't live without Oracle Virtual Directory, iPlanet, Weblogic, Oracle DB, and other Oracle components so it makes sense for them.
Right now only Oracle, IBM and Microsoft offer complete software stacks (LDAP, Messaging, SSO, IdM, DB, Web, etc.). Assuming you go the Java way it's Oracle and IBM. Oracle software at least implements industry standard protocols, unlike IBM. Try migrating from any Lotus or Tivoli product to something else. That's the reason for which businesses stay with Oracle. Their software implements the newest technologies, and is generally standards based or standards setting.
Businesses unfortunately only talk .NET and Java and don't care about Python and other stacks. I actually see Ruby and Python as real alternatives to .NET and Java, but the rest of the components of the stack are missing or inconsistent.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th Nov 2011 21:56 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

I wonder if they now would hold to their promise and release the source, so illumos and OpenIndiana could benefit from the latest improvements.

Edited 2011-11-10 21:56 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by libray on Fri 11th Nov 2011 11:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Finally a comment worth replying to. Yes, we will see and I'm hopeful Oracle will stand by its claim. This release also has implications on further zfs releases too. At least get zpool version 31 released so it can be imported to illumos.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 11th Nov 2011 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Yes, potential ZFS release will also affect FreeBSD and etc.

Reply Score: 2

Cloudwashing
by tony on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:02 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

A lot of it is "cloudwashing":

Verb: "Taking your product and contriving some kind of relevance to the blah blah cloud".

Solaris used to be the shit, but it became a basket case after the dotcom crash of 2000, especially with respect to x86.

Now, few people care. Even when it was hastily (and GPL-incompatibly) released as open source, it wasn't really embraced.

The greatest thing that came out of Solaris was ZFS, but its usefulness is limited by the fact that it was never GPL compatible, and now it's owned by Oracle (which a lot of IT shops avoid like the plague).

It's got an interesting future in FreeBSD, but again hampered by the lack of some awesome ZFS features (like encryption) that aren't in the FreeBSD release yet.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cloudwashing
by vermaden on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:36 UTC in reply to "Cloudwashing"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

The greatest thing that came out of Solaris was ZFS, but its usefulness is limited by the fact that it was never GPL compatible, and now it's owned by Oracle (which a lot of IT shops avoid like the plague).


Other very nice Solaris features:
- RBAC (only IBM AIX can compete here)
- ZONES (FreeBSD Jails still lag here a lot)
- SMF – systemd can only dream about it
- CROSSBOW - network stack virtualization
- BOOT ENVIRONMENTS - create one, delete everything (rm -rf /*) and You still have fully working system

These are features not seen in any other OS, not only UNIX ...

It's got an interesting future in FreeBSD, but again hampered by the lack of some awesome ZFS features (like encryption) that aren't in the FreeBSD release yet.


FreeBSD provides encryption since quite long time, its just not ZFS feature on FreeBSD, its GEOM feature, encrypt the devices (with key or passward) using GELI and then create ZFS pool from encrypted devices, voila!

Edited 2011-11-10 23:37 UTC

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Cloudwashing
by tony on Fri 11th Nov 2011 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Cloudwashing"
RE[3]: Cloudwashing
by Kebabbert on Fri 11th Nov 2011 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cloudwashing"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Eh, most of those aren't really that interesting. Zoning/Containers have been around for a while, haven't seen that great of a use case. Virtualization on a Type 1 hypervisor has proven much more useful in a general sense. Boot environments are neat, but it's only in Solaris, so not of any use to me. Not a feature that's going to get me to drop Linux.

It is not interesting because you dont know about this stuff. Other people are excited.


For instance, DTrace is unique and there has not been any tech like that before earlier. Linux devs have even switched to Solaris just to get DTrace. That is why IBM is copying DTrace and calling it ProbeVue. FreeBSD and Mac OS X has ported DTrace. Linux is copying it, but Systemtap is a very bad and unstable copy, according to DTrace experts.


ZFS protects your data on disk, against data corruption. No Linux filesystem does this. Your data might be corrupted, and Linux will not even notice it. This is proven by comp sci researchers. You want to read their research on this?


Boot Environments is a killer feature. If you patch your Linux installation, and something breaks, what do you do? Reinstall everything? With ZFS BE I just reboot into GRUB and choose an earlier functioning snapshot. Almost zero downtime. I have often done weird stuff while learning Solaris, and broke something. Instead of reinstalling everything, I just reboot and kill the latest snapshot which broke my install. This takes a couple of seconds, and I am back to a real functioning state. Killer feature.


Containers are really really neat. Lot of sys admins are excited about this. If you use VMware and start up several OS instances, then each guest OS will use 4GB RAM, and CPU, etc. With Containers, each guest will use 40MB and nil CPU. One guy booted 1.000 Containers on a server with 1GB RAM, it was extremely slow but it could be done. Try that with VMware.

This Containers is the building block for virtualizing everything, the Network stack, etc. Everything is virtualized in Solaris 11. Create as many network cards as you want, create as many Containers as you want, etc - thus you can have lot of virtual servers in one Server. This is why Solaris11 is called "First Virtual OS" ever. In Linux, if you create a container, is everything else virtualized? The network stack? etc? No?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Cloudwashing
by kokara4a on Fri 11th Nov 2011 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cloudwashing"
kokara4a Member since:
2005-09-16

Containers are really really neat. Lot of sys admins are excited about this. If you use VMware and start up several OS instances, then each guest OS will use 4GB RAM, and CPU, etc. With Containers, each guest will use 40MB and nil CPU. One guy booted 1.000 Containers on a server with 1GB RAM, it was extremely slow but it could be done. Try that with VMware.


What you say is true but it's not the entire picture. Virtualization is getting better by the day. There are memory ballooning drivers that will report the free memory in the guest so it can be marked free in the host. Same pages merging can also decrease the memory footprint of a VM. Using KVM with the appropriate Linux kernel inside occupies surpisingly little memory.

This Containers is the building block for virtualizing everything, the Network stack, etc. Everything is virtualized in Solaris 11. Create as many network cards as you want, create as many Containers as you want, etc - thus you can have lot of virtual servers in one Server. This is why Solaris11 is called "First Virtual OS" ever. In Linux, if you create a container, is everything else virtualized? The network stack? etc? No?


You have to specify which Linux container flavor you have in mind. Both OpenVZ and LXC have network stack virtualization. In fact, OpenVZ has everything Solaris Zones have (maybe not, I'm not familiar with Zones but OpenVZ is very feature rich). LXC has some shortcomings (e.g. there's no UID/GID virtualization) but is there in all recent kernels so very convenient to experiment with.

In short, I don't think that Solaris can boast big advantages in virtualization of any kind compared to Linux

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Cloudwashing
by Kebabbert on Fri 11th Nov 2011 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cloudwashing"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

In short, I don't think that Solaris can boast big advantages in virtualization of any kind compared to Linux

Solaris has advantages over Linux virtualization.

(Solaris Containers are more mature than Linux. Solaris Containers started development in 1999, under a different name. Linux Containers came sometime early 2000.)

Solaris have more different virtualization techniques, for instance LDOMs, Containers, and probably a bunch of others.

Also, Solaris have virtualized everything, including the network stack. Linux has not. That is why Solaris is "the first Virtual OS" - a gimmick, yes. But still it is true. Thus Linux is copying Solaris Containers, as Linux copied ZFS (Btrfs) and copied DTrace (Systemtap) and probably copied a bunch of other Solarsi stuff as well.



As Sidicas said:

"The new Solaris supposedly lets you set up virtualized "zones" so you get all the benefits of virtualization without any of the drawbacks of losing all the hard drive space to multiple operating systems or getting hit with the redundant OS overhead of running multiple OSs, or having to worry about security updates for multiple OSs, on every server, etc. etc... It's sort of like Virtualization meets Chroot.. Then consider that you can easily take these "zones" and automatically duplicate them over to other hardware to add in redundancy.. Now imagine tens of thousands of servers where every server has their "zones" synchronized onto at least a few other servers which might not even be in the same country, let alone the same room... Where you can just walk around and power off random servers or even an entire data center and it won't matter and the customers won't even notice because of all the "enterprise class" redundancy... This is a "cloud" solution.. A whole ton of money poured into massively redundant self-managing server infrastructure and Oracle wants to be in on it..."

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Cloudwashing
by tony on Fri 11th Nov 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cloudwashing"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

"Eh, most of those aren't really that interesting. Zoning/Containers have been around for a while, haven't seen that great of a use case. Virtualization on a Type 1 hypervisor has proven much more useful in a general sense. Boot environments are neat, but it's only in Solaris, so not of any use to me. Not a feature that's going to get me to drop Linux.

It is not interesting because you dont know about this stuff. Other people are excited.
"

Oh, I know about that stuff. I just don't care.



For instance, DTrace is unique and there has not been any tech like that before earlier. Linux devs have even switched to Solaris just to get DTrace. That is why IBM is copying DTrace and calling it ProbeVue. FreeBSD and Mac OS X has ported DTrace. Linux is copying it, but Systemtap is a very bad and unstable copy, according to DTrace experts.


It's a nice feature, don't get me wrong. But the worse part about DTrace has always been Sun, and now it's Oracle. Solaris isn't widely deployed, is getting less widely deployed, and it's been off the widely deployed radar for about 10 years now. DTrace isn't enough (for me, and for most people) to switch.


ZFS protects your data on disk, against data corruption. No Linux filesystem does this. Your data might be corrupted, and Linux will not even notice it. This is proven by comp sci researchers. You want to read their research on this?


Again, I know all about ZFS. I love it, but like DTrace, the worst part about ZFS was Sun and now Oracle. Sun was terribly run, and Oracle is just... has left a very bad taste in my mouth.



Boot Environments is a killer feature. If you patch your Linux installation, and something breaks, what do you do? Reinstall everything? With ZFS BE I just reboot into GRUB and choose an earlier functioning snapshot. Almost zero downtime. I have often done weird stuff while learning Solaris, and broke something. Instead of reinstalling everything, I just reboot and kill the latest snapshot which broke my install. This takes a couple of seconds, and I am back to a real functioning state. Killer feature.


A real effort has been made in the last few years to move away from being OS dependent. To keep the apps and data separated from the OS, or to use virtualization technology (like snapshots) to obviate issues like that. Nice feature, but eh, not enough to switch.


Containers are really really neat. Lot of sys admins are excited about this. If you use VMware and start up several OS instances, then each guest OS will use 4GB RAM, and CPU, etc. With Containers, each guest will use 40MB and nil CPU. One guy booted 1.000 Containers on a server with 1GB RAM, it was extremely slow but it could be done. Try that with VMware.


Containers I've found to be the least useful. It's all one OS.


This Containers is the building block for virtualizing everything, the Network stack, etc. Everything is virtualized in Solaris 11. Create as many network cards as you want, create as many Containers as you want, etc - thus you can have lot of virtual servers in one Server. This is why Solaris11 is called "First Virtual OS" ever. In Linux, if you create a container, is everything else virtualized? The network stack? etc? No?

[/q]

With ESXi, KVM, Xen, yes, everything is virtualized. And honestly, it's much more flexible and useful than containers. Any OS, not just Solaris. Add as many network cards as you want. I can migrate a VM from one host to another live. Plenty of open source and closed source appliances for storage, firewalls, IPS/IDS, etc.

Sun made Solaris less relevant, and Oracle made it even less so (by closing it back up and abandoning OpenSolaris). It's a shame, but that's why I say 'meh' with Solaris.

Reply Score: 2

visconde_de_sabugosa Member since:
2005-11-14

I heard that KVM is being ported to Solaris. Is it true ?

Does anyone have experience with kvm on Solaris?

Is there another way of full hardware virtualization on Solaris?

Reply Score: 2

tony Member since:
2005-07-06

I heard that KVM is being ported to Solaris. Is it true ?

Does anyone have experience with kvm on Solaris?

Is there another way of full hardware virtualization on Solaris?


It wouldn't surprise me. Oracle actually has a virtualization platform (Oracle VM), but is basically a Xen hypervisor.

Reply Score: 2

ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

Yes, OracleVM is Xen...but it's Oracle Enterprise Linux (RHEL) based, not Solaris.

Reply Score: 2

ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

Joyent has SmartOS which is the Illumos (forked OpenSolaris) kernel + KVM ( http://smartos.org ). Not sure if the KVM work is moving back into Illumos. In which case OpenIndiana, nexenta and other Illumos siblings could have KVM capabilities in the future as well.

Reply Score: 2

libray Member since:
2005-08-27

I
Is there another way of full hardware virtualization on Solaris?


Solaris Logical Domains for the Sparc platform is a fully virtualized environment. This has been renamed under the umbrella of Oracle VM and aligned with the xen effort for x86. Resources are allocated from a VMM or two (service, control domains). The OS that is installed does not require modification and includes both Solaris sparc and Linux for sparc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Cloudwashing
by Kebabbert on Mon 14th Nov 2011 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cloudwashing"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Oh, I know about that stuff. I just don't care.

Ok, it seems that you dislike Solaris because of political reasons. That is fine with me. But on the other hand, Sun did open up most of their sources, I would like to see MS or IBM open up all of their sources. Only Sun of the big companies, did that. No one else. Did you see MS open up Windows? Sun payed 90 million USD to get licenses to open up OpenSolaris (it used proprietary libraries)

But the worse part about DTrace has always been Sun, and now it's Oracle.


the worst part about ZFS was Sun and now Oracle. Sun was terribly run, and Oracle is just... has left a very bad taste in my mouth.




Solaris isn't widely deployed, is getting less widely deployed,[q]
Solaris is widely deployed in the Enterprise. Larry Ellison says that Solaris is the most common OS that the Oracle Database is running on. And Oracle should know which OSes their customers are using.

Solaris has more servers deployed, than IBM and HP combined. Now I am talking about Solaris vs AIX+HPUX, i.e. Unix servers.

Old Sun had 35.000 customers. Oracle have 350.000 Enterprise customers. Earlier there was only technical reasons to switch to Solaris (scalability, etc) now Oracle will also make sure there are business reasons to switch to Solaris. Many Enterprise customers are running Oracle Database.



[q]DTrace isn't enough (for me, and for most people) to switch.

It is because you are not a developer. There are several Linux devs that have switched to Solaris just because of DTrace.



A real effort has been made in the last few years to move away from being OS dependent. To keep the apps and data separated from the OS, or to use virtualization technology (like snapshots) to obviate issues like that. Nice feature, but eh, not enough to switch.

I did not understand this. If you do a patch or get a virus or something bad, then how does it help to be OS independent? You still need to reinstall everything, or do hard work with the CLI to try to repair. Or, you can just reboot into GRUB and you are done.




Containers I've found to be the least useful. It's all one OS.

It is because you are not a sysadmins at a Enterprise company. Solaris is for Enterprise. A desktop user might not find Solaris compelling. Now Illumos (the open sourced community driven Solaris kernel) is working to bring back Linux Container again, into Solaris.



With ESXi, KVM, Xen, yes, everything is virtualized. And honestly, it's much more flexible and useful than containers.

It uses much more cpu and RAM than Containers. IBM has even copied Containers, and IBM would not copy containers if it not was useful. IBM knows virtualization.




Sun made Solaris less relevant, and Oracle made it even less so (by closing it back up and abandoning OpenSolaris). It's a shame, but that's why I say 'meh' with Solaris.

OpenIndiana, Nexenta, SmartOS, etc is out there. OpenIndiana is a direct fork of OpenSolaris. Community driven.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cloudwashing
by swampboy on Fri 11th Nov 2011 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Cloudwashing"
swampboy Member since:
2011-11-11


Other very nice Solaris features:
- RBAC (only IBM AIX can compete here)
- ZONES (FreeBSD Jails still lag here a lot)
- SMF – systemd can only dream about it
- CROSSBOW - network stack virtualization
- BOOT ENVIRONMENTS - create one, delete everything (rm -rf /*) and You still have fully working system

These are features not seen in any other OS, not only UNIX ...


I would add DTrace to your list of nice Solaris features. However, your list of features are not all exclusive to Solaris. Similar to ZONES, AIX has LPAR and WPAR. I think that HP-UX also has something similar for their Superdome systems. I don't know much about SMF, but I don't think its functionality is exclusive to Solaris. The virtualization capabilities with LPARS on POWER5 (and newer) hardware is pretty darn impressive and is perhaps the most sophisticated of all virtualization technologies available.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Cloudwashing
by vermaden on Mon 14th Nov 2011 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cloudwashing"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

However, your list of features are not all exclusive to Solaris. Similar to ZONES, AIX has LPAR and WPAR.


The virtualization capabilities with LPARS on POWER5 (and newer) hardware is pretty darn impressive and is perhaps the most sophisticated of all virtualization technologies available.



Close enough! ;p

Well, ZONES are WPARs and LAPRS are LDOMs in Solaris world, dunno how Oralce calls them now, but they were called LDOMs on T1 and T2 in Sun(ny) times.


I think that HP-UX also has something similar for their Superdome systems.

HP-UX is quite dead after Oracle said 'we do not do Itanium any more', but yes, they have similar features.

Reply Score: 2

Larry Ellison on "The Cloud"
by tony on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:41 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

He's since changed his tune a bit... but check this out, pretty funny stuff where Larry freaks out about "The Cloud".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmXJSeMaoTY

Reply Score: 3

RE: Larry Ellison on "The Cloud"
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Nov 2011 23:53 UTC in reply to "Larry Ellison on "The Cloud""
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually Larry been a big proponent of it for ages

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8g_tcdR_pQ...

He also predicts something like the iPad in 1995 ... these guys aren't stupid ... I wish people would stop pretending they are brighter than likes of Gates, Jobs and Ellison.

In the same clip he is also talking about downloading and installing an OS over the internet ... something we have only just achieved.

Edited 2011-11-10 23:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I wish people would stop pretending they are brighter than likes of Gates, Jobs and Ellison.


A lot of people brighter are but probably not when it comes to business-smarts.

In the same clip he is also talking about downloading and installing an OS over the internet ... something we have only just achieved.


I haven't seen the clip but...say what? That has been possible for a long time. Granted it would take some time due to lack of bandwidth but technically possible.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I haven't seen the clip but...say what? That has been possible for a long time. Granted it would take some time due to lack of bandwidth but technically possible.


Only recently I think the tech has caught up with the ideas.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Larry Ellison on "The Cloud"
by tony on Fri 11th Nov 2011 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Larry Ellison on "The Cloud""
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually Larry been a big proponent of it for ages

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8g_tcd...

He also predicts something like the iPad in 1995 ... these guys aren't stupid ... I wish people would stop pretending they are brighter than likes of Gates, Jobs and Ellison.

In the same clip he is also talking about downloading and installing an OS over the internet ... something we have only just achieved.


Yeah, I remember when he went full on in the late 90s with networking computing, had some crappy product and then gave up. He never was able to productise it though effectively, like Gates with tablet computing. There's another video floating around with Steve Jobs talking about "NFS dialtone" from 1997 just after NeXT got purchased by Apple. Similar concept that Chromebook is doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Larry Ellison on "The Cloud"
by kaiwai on Fri 11th Nov 2011 04:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Larry Ellison on "The Cloud""
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually Larry been a big proponent of it for ages

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8g_tcd...

He also predicts something like the iPad in 1995 ... these guys aren't stupid ... I wish people would stop pretending they are brighter than likes of Gates, Jobs and Ellison.

In the same clip he is also talking about downloading and installing an OS over the internet ... something we have only just achieved.


I too watched the video and my interpretation was that there needs to be a reality check on what is and isn't cloud computing - cloud computing isn't some sort of magical pixie dust that can turn a crap product into something everyone desires just as 5 years ago simply saying you support Linux or going to open source a product didn't automatically resolve all the underlying fundamental issues being faced by the said company and their products.

Oracle, Sun and IBM have been pushing cloud computing before it was called cloud computing - heck, cloud computing is little more than a rebadged idea that existed 30 years ago but instead of a dial up connection to a logical mainframe for a shared computer time we now have semi-smart computers that log onto a computer on the other side of the world via the internet and voila do the same stuff as before.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Fri 11th Nov 2011 04:34 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

What this means to you, Thom, is that you are closer to reporting about the Solaris spinoffs plundering the Solaris 11 source code for the good of the universe

(FreeBSD, ixsystems, Nexenta, Joyent, Illumos, OpenIndiana...)

I was skeptical at first, but there is a healthy (though tiny) ecosystem thriving on the shattered remains of sun microsystems solaris.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by jimmy1971 on Mon 14th Nov 2011 17:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
jimmy1971 Member since:
2009-08-27

What this means to you, Thom, is that you are closer to reporting about the Solaris spinoffs plundering the Solaris 11 source code for the good of the universe

(FreeBSD, ixsystems, Nexenta, Joyent, Illumos, OpenIndiana...)


A quick factual correction: Solaris was initially a BSD spin-off, back when it was called SunOS. While FreeBSD has incorporated some Solaris code, it is an insult - not to mention ignorant - to call it a Solaris spin-off.

Reply Score: 1

v list of apps
by kunal on Fri 11th Nov 2011 06:13 UTC
RE: list of apps
by shmerl on Fri 11th Nov 2011 17:44 UTC in reply to "list of apps"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08
Just a simple question
by tylerdurden on Fri 11th Nov 2011 06:59 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

How is Solaris 11 "technically" the 7th major version exactly?


Solaris 2.0 was released in 1992, if anything this is the 12th major version of the OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just a simple question
by lucas_maximus on Fri 11th Nov 2011 10:23 UTC in reply to "Just a simple question"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18
RE[2]: Just a simple question
by tylerdurden on Fri 11th Nov 2011 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Just a simple question"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Huh? No they did not, read the link you provided.


I used a Solaris 2.6 box for years.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Just a simple question
by lucas_maximus on Mon 14th Nov 2011 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just a simple question"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How about you read it ... there was no version 3 it jumped to 7.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just a simple question
by ctl_alt_del on Fri 11th Nov 2011 18:18 UTC in reply to "Just a simple question"
ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

I actually agree with you, but I count 13 major releases...don't forget 2.5.1, it was the updated release of the 2.5 version with "bug for bug compatibility" for the SPARC, X86 and Power platforms.

The Solaris 2.X moniker was to denote it's System V heritage, while the 1.x was for the BSD based OS. At the release of 2.7 they dropped the "2" prefix (I'm assuming because 1.x was pretty much unsupported by that time and no need to differentiate any longer). I have always counted the "SunOS" disignation as the release, since that is what the OS actually reports on a running system anyway (Solaris 11 = SunOS 5.11).

But to each their own, if you want to count 7, 12 or 13 it doesn't really matter much. It's the changes under the hood that count. (Sorry for the car analogy.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Just a simple question
by tylerdurden on Fri 11th Nov 2011 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Just a simple question"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I was wondering about Thom's counting scheme, I know journalist majors are on the arts and letters side of campus, but I assume basic math was obtained sometime before finishing highschool..

Reply Score: 1

Does it have good GUI Admin tools?
by benali72 on Sat 12th Nov 2011 12:42 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

Does Solaris have comprehensive, easy-to-use GUI tools for administrators? When I supported it years ago, its GUI admin tools were rather skeletal and really not much used by most admins.

In contrast, the GUI admin tools for AIX were excellent, and those for HP/UX pretty decent. In AIX world you really didn't need to do command line administration at all (except in special cases).

Did Solaris admins ever join the GUI world?

Reply Score: 1

d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

So you haven't discovered the Solaris Management Console, have you?
Furthermore, I never administered a system in the GUI since most of my systems were core installations, from which I removed 50 or 60 useless packages (FibreChannel, iSCSI, Infiniband, J2SE, J2RE, and many others if they were unused) and added only the ones that I needed. The GUI wasn't on that list. The footprint of such an installation was 300MB.
I've applied custom hardening profiles using SUNWJass afterwards and a decent firewall configuration on each system independent of the switches, firewalls, routers, load-balancers in front of me and always used IPSec between servers, even adjacent ones.
That's why my servers were never hacked "Sony style". It's much better to be paranoid than to recover from a hack. Having so little software on the systems meant that upgrades always worked like a charm and that I almost never met with bugs in software. Reducing the complexity of the system to the absolute minimal (and slightly beyond, if possible) is the way to go.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Does Solaris have comprehensive, easy-to-use GUI tools for administrators? When I supported it years ago, its GUI admin tools were rather skeletal and really not much used by most admins.

In contrast, the GUI admin tools for AIX were excellent, and those for HP/UX pretty decent. In AIX world you really didn't need to do command line administration at all (except in special cases).

Did Solaris admins ever join the GUI world?


According to the Solaris 11 launch video Oracle has some pretty comprehensive management tools that allow you to manage the whole thing: Middleware, operating system and hardware with the ability to link into Oracle so that if a hardware part is failing you can order a replacement straight from the console etc. The downside is that they've EOL'ed much of their hardware (check the EOL and removed features) which is good for those running the latest machines but bad for those who wish to have the latest features but not upgrade the hardware.

Reply Score: 2

Awesome
by alibadrelsayed on Sat 12th Nov 2011 14:57 UTC
alibadrelsayed
Member since:
2011-06-27

Oracle did a good job,but believe me folks with that licence they will vanish just like skyOS,Linux have the ability to win this competition, future for Linux it just a matter of time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Awesome
by kaiwai on Mon 14th Nov 2011 01:24 UTC in reply to "Awesome"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Oracle did a good job,but believe me folks with that licence they will vanish just like skyOS,Linux have the ability to win this competition, future for Linux it just a matter of time.


Give Solaris 11 a go - it isn't setting the world alight in terms of eye candy but if you have the supported hardware it is light years head of where it was at least a year ago. If you're hankering for a consumer operating system then you'll be sorely disappointed but if you're looking for a enterprise class development platform then Solaris 11 won't leave you disappointed.

Reply Score: 2