"Sun and Red Hat have both submitted new versions of their trusted operating systems for Common Criteria certification evaluation. While these systems are being evaluated against the same CC protection profiles and at the same evaluation assurance level, these systems differ in significant ways that affect how a customer might choose to use such systems."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
Obviously you haven't heard about Ben Rockwood of Joyent Systems using OpenSolaris for production systems:
http://joyent.com/accelerator
I don't know how many servers you manage, but I manage a bunch of them just fine without a GUI. Try pulling KDE over a serial link sometime and tell me how that works out for you. When you start playing with real servers (and tha tincludes x86 machines like HP's DL and BL series), you have the ability to manage the machine through an iLO port (something similar to Sun's LOM port).
And if you were actually on topic (which you're not) one of the things discussed in the article is how Sun provides MLS graphical desktops, which RedHat Enterprise Linux doesn't.
Your comment about a server OS having to have a graphical desktop in order to be successful is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here! Thanks for the laugh! Send that to IBM and HP, I'm sure their engineers for AIX and HP-UX will get a nice chuckle out of that statement too.
And what is so pitiful about Solaris?
Edited 2007-03-25 02:30
RE[4]: Interesting tidbit
Member since:2005-08-07
Your comment about a server OS having to have a graphical desktop in order to be successful is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here! Thanks for the laugh! Send that to IBM and HP, I'm sure their engineers for AIX and HP-UX will get a nice chuckle out of that statement too.
And what is so pitiful about Solaris?
I think you're missing the real point of the original poster here. The point, which is rather valid, is that in order to become successful in terms of number of users (specifically technology enthusiasts like myself) to test Solaris instead of Linux, they have to work harder to provide a more up-to-date graphical environment. I think there is a closer correlation between the success on the desktop (with regular users and developers like myself) and the server (with corporations and organizations as the main users) than many people would like to think.
By attracting the technology enthusiasts and early adopters, you pave the way for the really important customers from a corporate point of view. By the way, I think Sun is getting this already. Otherwise they wouldn't spend so much effort on making OpenSolaris Express and hiring Ian Murdock. I think it will not be long until I try OpenSolaris out myself.
If you think people posting are clueless because you don't agree with them, try applying a nicer attitude towards them and help them by explaining things the way you see it instead of accusing them of being off-topic and thanking them for good laughs. It's not friendly.
Edited 2007-03-25 09:42
Member since:2005-07-07
Your comment about a server OS having to have a graphical desktop in order to be successful is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here! Thanks for the laugh! Send that to IBM and HP, I'm sure their engineers for AIX and HP-UX will get a nice chuckle out of that statement too.
Your reading comprehension skills are very poor. I never said that a server should have a GUI. NEVER. In fact I hate when a server has a GUI. All mine are command line only. What I'm saying is that the desktop is becoming more important everyday and the big players in the desktop market are also in the server market slowly chipping away at big iron share. If the big iron wants to keep customers they are going to have to offer integrated desktop solutions to go along with their server offerings.
What I'm saying isn't outrageous at all. It's common sense. Microsoft can sell you an end to end solution because they own the desktop market and do very well in the server market. Novell, Apple, and soon Redhat will also offer you an end to end solution. SUN doens't have en end to end solution and they are going to have a hard time unless they start focusing on it. Personally I don't think OpenSolaris is the answer. That's not an integrated solution.
Member since:2006-03-17
When you start playing with real servers (and tha tincludes x86 machines like HP's DL and BL series), you have the ability to manage the machine through an iLO port (something similar to Sun's LOM port).
HaHaHa, give me a break, ILO has to be the worst pile of steaming crap i have ever had the displeasure to use when remotley managing a server, with the issues i have had with it i would have been as well shouting my commands at the box ... "Computer .. reboot" .. No offence man, but ILO and that godforsaken web interface should not be mentioned in the same breath as LOM and the Sparc Serial console, system controllers, etc .. they actually work 99% of the time ... In my exp ILO works 50% of the time and im being generous with that number .... god i hate ILO .... not that it shows too much i hope, i was trying to remain objective 
Member since:2005-11-15
Fedora isn't going to be used in a production environment anytime soon either.
Well, you're wrong:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Servers
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://kernel.org
Member since:2005-07-07
Fedora isn't going to be used in a production environment anytime soon either.
Well, you're wrong:
You're right. I didn't phrase my statement quite right. Fedora and other free distros are used for web servers and things like that but when a fortune 500 company like the one I work for wants to roll out new clients and/or servers Fedora isn't an option. OpenSolaris isn't an option either.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:
2005-07-07
There is nothing stopping you from downloading OpenSolaris Express Community Edition or OpenSolaris Express Developer Edition; both B60 and 02/2007 have GNOME 2.16.1 with their respective distributions.
That's not exactly something anyone with any amount of IT knowhow is going to suggest using in a production environment.
its no more 'bleeding edge' to use OpenSolaris as it is to use Fedora - infact, my limited experience so far with B60 has shown that it is more reliable and stable than Linux.
Fedora isn't going to be used in a production environment anytime soon either.
Oh, and why won't they update GNOME? because their customers don't want it to be done - also, if you look through the changes, the massive changes they would have to make to Solaris 10 would be so large, it would be the worlds largest jumbo patch - there is a tonne of technology which the new GNOME desktop relies on which isn't provided with Solaris 10; HAL support for instance, which relies on changes further down.
Really? Customer's don't want updates and new features? You know this for a fact? As far as HAL and other Linux specific technologies, that matters little to customers. As we in the Linux camp have heard for years, customer's don't care what reasons you give them they don't want excuses they want solutions.
If Sun makes a decision not to do something with their product, 9/10 there is normally a damn good reason, and *shock* *horror* they might have consulted with customers whether the justification for a massive disruption was worth it - customers obviously said no.
Solaris has very little in the way of desktop share anywhere. My point, which seems to have been missed, is that in today's world if you want the server you're going to have to offer an adequate desktop solution also. Windows has both, with good marketshare in both areas. Apple has entered the server market recently and Linux has been working on the Desktop for years. SUN doesn't seem to be doing much with their pitiful offering.