Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Oct 2006 17:04 UTC, submitted by erast
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris The sixth development release of the OpenSolaris-based, desktop-oriented Nexenta OS has been released: "Nexenta OS Alpha 6 is now available. Release Highlights: Nexenta Zones - opens the possibility to create custom zones and pre-install with selected software; integrated BrandZ - allows running Linux userland; SVR4 packaging - to install native Solaris packages (missing drivers, etc.); OpenSolaris build 50, with numerous kernel fixes and features."
Thread beginning with comment 172977
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Erast, I have tried Nexenta myself and think it is a very good effort and a very good OS. However, I still don't see the benefit. So far there is really nothing that could e.g. convince me to switch servers to (Open)Solaris. Debian scales well, is going to have OpenVZ support in Etch, has two very good journaling filesystems etc. Suits me just fine. zfs, zones and dtrace are great - but it's not enough to just add some great technical innovations

On the desktop Nexenta/Solaris is a good effort - not more, not less. There are just too many drivers missing. If that's so easy to work around, remains to be discussed. I honestly doubt it.

The community around Nexenta is very, very small - and the community around OpenSolaris is, well, just sufficient. It cannot be compared at all to e.g. Debian's or, on a broader base, Linux'.

"major surgery" is a bit over the top. Certainly, there are many things at the kernel level that are constantly being worked at at the kernel level. But then an enterprise customer normally has a Red Hat or SUSE enterprise edition from the start. And home users probably stick with Ubuntu 6.06 - not a bad choice.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: My take
by Almindor on Thu 19th Oct 2006 08:34 in reply to "RE[2]: My take (warning: long post)"
Almindor Member since:

Well personaly I agree with you.

This just goes to show that technologicly inferior products tend to get used most. I think we could find alot of comparisons in history starting with VCR vs Betamax etc.

Linux is without argument much inferior by design (I'm talking about kernels here ok?) compared to eg: freeBSD or solaris.

The problem is, Linux has "hype" and years of contributions to drivers. Solaris, altho based on old system, is "young" in this open regard, and freeBSD has smaller following mostly (as I hear) because of certain old legal issues.

I'm sure that both would be better, should they ride the same hypewave, than linux by now.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: My take
by deb2006 on Thu 19th Oct 2006 13:12 in reply to "RE[3]: My take"
deb2006 Member since:

That might well be. The end user, however, doesn't care about kernels at all. He wants a stable system with a lot of software, compatibility, speed etc. That's what he gets when installing Linux.

And that, BTW, is what you get when you're installing a server. So you really don't need "a superior kernel" - at least not 95% of the time. The system has to be stable and it needs to able to scale well.

Call it what you want. Linux is backed by the major players - and that's enough. It really is not important whether SUN is behind or not behind Linux as long as IBM, HP, Novell, SGI etc are backing Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: My take
by thebluesgnr on Thu 19th Oct 2006 13:17 in reply to "RE[3]: My take"
thebluesgnr Member since:

"Linux is without argument much inferior by design (I'm talking about kernels here ok?) compared to eg: freeBSD or solaris."

The Linux design is "no design". But I wouldn't say FreeBSD or Solaris are much superior - they still have a lot of the same problems as Linux as far as kernel design goes.

Reply Parent Score: 1