It's been a long road to recovery, but after years of mediocre releases, and months of delays in the development process, FreeBSD is finally back on its feet with 6.2-RELEASE. Though it is an excellent operating system, even this latest version offers few or no competitive advantages over Solaris or the other BSDs in a server role, and can never hope to compete with commercial GNU/Linux distributions for desktop computers. FreeBSD 6.2 is what FreeBSD 5.0 needed to be, and for those who have already switched to other operating systems, there are few or no compelling reasons to go back. More here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-08
Nice to see someone else uses Solaris. :-)
Reegarding Zones, DTrace, Self Healing, ZFS, SMP, BACKWARDS COMPATABILITY and support, there's nothing to add by myself.
For DOCS: FreeBSD has excellent documentation in several languages available. NB these documentation is about the OS. It does not cover X11, KDE or single applications. The documentation is available in well formatted XHTML and also present on the installed system itself. One point I could make is the following. The documentation installed on the system (manpages and doc/ contents) is available in english only. Maybe it's not important to mention because the capability of using the english language still is a "must have" in (applied and practical) computer science.
"I compare the complexity of using Solaris like using a early version of Linux (linux has gotten more user friendly over time). But Sun is working on making it more user friendly, and that will be the big trend for Solaris 11 I think, make it less complex."
Maybe it's valid for me to say: Solaris will be complex, too. But it will not look that complex to the user due to abstraction tools.
"But personally I used Linux upto around Redhat 7 and moving to Solaris was not that tough for me."
There's some basic knowledge one should gain using Linux and / or FreeBSD and / or Solaris. With this knowledge, one should have no problem getting started with HP-UX or IRIX. Most Linux distributions do not require this knowledge anymore due to abstraction tools, GUI and preconfiguration. FreeBSD still does. But if one comes from the "Linux world" and wants to use FreeBSD, there should be no problem as long as these knowledge is present. Distributions like Debian and Arch still depend on these fundamental abilities.
"[Solaris] Does not support a lot of hardware. I will tell you one of the single main reasons for a system NOT being stable is lack of SOLID drivers."
Here the hardware vendors are responsible for making their hardware compatible to a certain OS. Before buying hardware, one should ask: "Is this hardware supported by the OS I want to use it with?" In reality, it's the other way round. Hardware is bought, then complains follow about the OS not supporting it.
"What happens with Windows and Linux is they make so many drivers, where some are less stable then others. It is hard to track down which ones are stable and which are not."
In Linux and BSD, there's still the option to monitor a driver and to do diagnostics to see why a driver does not work properly.
"I would rather pick an OS with less device drivers that are SOLID, then a OS with million of drivers that are mixed between SOLID, BETA, ALPHA, etc.."
The conclusion is to buy the hardware supported, which may be complicated (because the hardware is a bit older) or more expelsive (because it's expensive hardware).
"Solaris 10 is not a good desktop OS."
Don't forget: Solaris is not a good gaming OS for the newest games. :-)
As many other OSes, Solaris has a certain intention what it should be used for: For workstations and servers. Linux and BSD have other intentions: For home users, entertainment, gaming, and, maybe, servers, too.
"I would consider FreeBSD or Linux a better desktop OS. Me personally, I use MAC OS X, which I find a better Desktop OS then either Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux, and even Windows. But that is a whole other topic I am not about to get into."
I completely agree.
This thread is not about (or should not be about) BSD vs. Linux. There's space for everything. For every task the right tool. Maybe the zealots (and they exist on every side!) get this idea some day...
Member since:2007-02-25
Nice to know FreeBSD has excellent documentation (and in multiple languages). More of my past experience was with Linux and docs were all over the place (docs depended on how well you used google or yahoo). The vender docs (like Redhat) never impressed me.
I agree about how you said Linux is much easier now in days due to the abstraction tools. I used Linux when it was young, and upto around Solaris 10 came out (couple years ago) so I was forced to learn the hard way rather then using abstration tools. I guess it would be harder for a admin that depends on those abstration tools to do a lot of things. But when I used Linux in the past it seemed like every distribution had its own abstration tools. So if you learned one set of abstraction tools, that knowledge will be tied into that distribution (like Redhat or Susue). The Linux I always considered to be most BSD like was Slackware. Like I said I think with Solaris 11 they are working on these abstraction tools to make the whole experience easier for the Linux folk. But your right, the reason why Linux people say Solaris or FreeBSD is so complex is because they are so used to the abstraction tools that does all the low level stuff you had to due in earlier Linux versions. It is best to know what these tools do at a low level so when these abstraction tools break something, you know how to go fix it (it is like using Dreamweaver to make web pages, and not knowing HTML). Also it does not tie you into a certain distribution as much. Need to learn the UNIX basics.
I agree with you when you said "Is this hardware supported by the OS I want to use it with?" and "Hardware is bought, then complains follow about the OS not supporting it.". If someone is serious about running a solid server setup, they are going to buy good hardware that is supported by the OS they plan on running. If they want to use some old hardware slapped together and try to make it as stable of a server as possible, then Linux and FreeBSD is great. If you got some crazy old cpu/hardware mix (like an old Amiga), think about NetBSD. I used these slapped together servers in the past, and they created more headaches then I wanted. So I got smart and bought Sun Sparc hardware from Ebay for cheap, and ran Solaris 10 
Don't miss Linux and those slapped together servers for a bit, and the Ebay Sparc systems were as cheap if I bought the X86 hardware used and put it together myself.
It is hard to monitor a driver when you don't know which driver is crashing the system (my linux logs were showing nothing). Basically I could ping the system, but when I went to login, I entered a username and then it got stuck. I couldn't get logged in console. I rebooted and it worked again, and I checked all the logs and nothing. I didn't even know which driver to even monitor, or even if it was a driver issue. I had various issues like this with Linux in the past I have never had on Solaris. That is why I left Linux, and never looked back. The issues I had with Linux are gone, and never have been repeated with Solaris. Maybe Linux is better now in days (with 2.6 kernel, etc), but why would I evern go back to Linux (at its current version) when Solaris 10 does such a wonderful job for me.
Ha-ha yes your in for a world of hurt if you try playing games on Solaris. Heck game support is bad enough on Linux and even MAC OS X. Windows has the lock in here. Personally I feel its better to just buy a console now in days then even use a computer for games. Don't get better then a nice HDTV and surround sound system playing from your couch on a console system. Who knows maybe some people have their computer hooked to a large display, have large surround sound speakers, and type from their couch.
It was nice to see another user on here on the same page as me. Every OS has its niche, just need to figure out where it fits in best. Choice is always good
Member since:
2007-02-25
I have been reading this thread and a lot of it is about FreeBSD vs Linux. I will admit up front I have not used FreeBSD, but don't see a reason why I should use FreeBSD when I moved all my Linux systems to Solaris 10 (and I say 10, since version 10 was a huge leap). As soon as Solaris 10 came out I moved all my Linux systems to that and couldn't have been more happy. Here is why I am so happy with Solaris 10:
Zones: FreeBSD has this with Jails, but I have read that jails lacks a few features Zones has like Single Point of Maintenance of kernel and software changes. But like I said since I don't use FreeBSD does Jails have something Zones doesn't?
DTrace: You can probe anything. DTrace is the most stable and complete probing system around. Linux has less complete and not as stable versions, and FreeBSD is working to port DTrace over (but not production ready yet).
Self Healing: Does linux or FreeBSD have the ability to analyze hardware trends and offline a memory module if it sees it being an issue? Does the OS restart a failed service (and its dependences) that might of crashed due to this failed memory module?
ZFS: ZFS is production ready on Solaris, everyone else is working to port it to their OS (is not production ready yet). Linux is trying to make a filesystem as good as ZFS (ext4 maybe?). ZFS is the easiest, and best filesystem/volume manager combo I have seen. In the past I used Veritas volume manager and Suns own UFS volume manager (which is not bad, but complex).
SMP: Solaris has always been built for SMP. FreeBSD lacks in the SMP area (maybe FreeBSD 7 will fix this?), and Linux has been working for a long time to improve SMP. But I doubt either of these are better then Solaris SMP support (and 64 bit support).
BACKWARDS COMPATABILITY: Solaris has always kept backwards compatability to past versions. In the past when I ran Linux when I moved from 2.2 to 2.3 to 2.4 things ALWAYS broke. That was not acceptable for a production server enviroment I was running. Why did I move from 2.2 to 2.4 etc. Becuase things were broke and was told they were fixed in the next major kernel version. Once I updated the kernel it broke applications also, which then required upgrading them also. In Solaris I can install a Solaris 8 application, and it works in Solaris 10 no problem. This is one reason why Solaris SEEMS behind Linux etc by using old shells or not the latest GNU tools. They have to make sure not to break this backwards compatability.
DOCS: Sun has VERY nice complete PDF's documents for all their hardware and software. For Linux and FreeBSD you have to look for things cattered around the Internet to find docs, or the Linux Distrbution Vender (ex: Redhat) for docs. But I always found Sun (like Sun Solve) very complete and in one nice place. Their PDF documents are well written and very complete.
SUPPORT: Solaris 10 support is as cheap or cheaper then Redhat. So Solaris support can be bought for a good price compared to a distribution Linux. I have used Sun support many times, and it is not too bad (gotten worst lately since all their layoffs they have done).
All the above features are production ready (I use all of them) and stable. Linux and FreeBSD users always come back by saying they have this and that, but most of it is in BETA state (meaning not production ready, or being ported).
That is why I use Solaris over Linux or FreeBSD in my personal SERVER and Enterprise "SERVER" enviroments.
The only valid complaints I have seen about Solaris are:
1) It is complex. This is true, but I think if you can figure out Linux or FreeBSD, then Solaris is not that much harder. I compare the complexity of using Solaris like using a early version of Linux (linux has gotten more user friendly over time). But Sun is working on making it more user friendly, and that will be the big trend for Solaris 11 I think, make it less complex. But personally I used Linux upto around Redhat 7 and moving to Solaris was not that tough for me.
2)Does not support a lot of hardware. I will tell you one of the single main reasons for a system NOT being stable is lack of SOLID drivers. What happens with Windows and Linux is they make so many drivers, where some are less stable then others. It is hard to track down which ones are stable and which are not. I would rather pick an OS with less device drivers that are SOLID, then a OS with million of drivers that are mixed between SOLID, BETA, ALPHA, etc.. That is why I actually moved away from Linux, it would crash on me, and the comeback from users was it probably is a driver. Which driver? The logs didn't tell me anything? What hardware do I buy to make sure it is using stable drivers?
3) Solaris 10 is not a good desktop OS. This I agree COMPLETELY, to me Solaris is targeted towards servers, and can be used as a desktop if you really wanted. I would consider FreeBSD or Linux a better desktop OS. Me personally, I use MAC OS X, which I find a better Desktop OS then either Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux, and even Windows. But that is a whole other topic I am not about to get into.
So all the above states why I personally used Solaris over Linux or FreeBSD. Being a Solaris 10 user I don't see why I would even consider using Linux or FreeBSD on my servers unless my hardware didn't support Solaris 10.