Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Jun 2006 16:46 UTC, submitted by erast
Thread beginning with comment 134122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.




Member since:
2006-02-20
Solaris has historically had a pretty good story with binary compatibility and stability of interfaces and underlying libraries etc. Plus Sun has a lot of control and a considerable R&D capability, so they can *in principle* make customer oriented changes that are difficult for Linux (and *BSD) vendors who have to liaise with a community and rely on the community for more changes.
So, if you don't care so much for freedom (not as in beer) but do want an OS that Just Works, then *in principle* Sun should be able to provide a more complete and polished package, just as Apple does.
OTOH Solaris isn't competitive yet from a packaging and hardware support point of view, and a number of well-known packages are AWOL. So we can wait and see, but the extra competition can only benefit us (as consumers) in the long term. Even if the main outcome on the desktop of free systems is to force Microsoft to keep prices low and address reliability and performance issues rather than solely add features, that's a very positive result. Unless you're a wannabe desktop OS vendor, anyway.