Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Jun 2009 17:50 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris The team at Sun behind OpenSolaris has unleashed OpenSolaris 2009.06 upon the world. This new release comes packed with new features, changes, improvements, and fixes, and is the first release of OpenSolaris for SPARC, adding support for UltraSPARC T1, T2 (Sun4v), and UltraSPARC II, III and IV (Sun4u). Read on for some of the improvements that stand out.
Thread beginning with comment 366811
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Open Solaris is not bad
by cade on Wed 3rd Jun 2009 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Solaris is not bad"
cade
Member since:
2009-02-28

------------------------------------------
It was mentioned ...

"Owned by Sun but does not come with office suite?? Doesn't Sun own an Office Suite?"

OpenOffice descends from Sun's StarOffice.
By using OpenSolaris' package management system you can download OpenOffice (for free, as with all other packages and system/security updates).
------------------------------------------
It was mentioend ...

"It doesn't support as much hardware on the desktop as Linux and what it does support is not as good as linux yet."


If it came down to hardware support, we would all be using Microsoft's operating systems. Hardware support for many free operating systems would be much better if many more hardware manufacturers released relevant technical documentation. For me, I am generally happy with the hardware support.
------------------------------------------
It was mentioned ...

"For one Open Solaris is SLOWWWWW."


When is OpenSolaris slow ?
Or is it that your computer system is not optimal
for running OpenSolaris. My experience is with AMD64 systems (Athlonx2, Opteron) and these direct-connect architecture type systems cause OpenSolaris to rip into the tasks at hand.


It appears the Dell 755 uses front-side-bus CPU/mobo architecture; Intel recently went the way of AMD, cloning AMD's direct-connect architecture.

Any serious performance comparison should be done using a direct-connect architecture. I have a dual-CPU (single-core per CPU) HP xw9300 box (4GB RAM, NVidia Quadro FX1400) and the system rips on OpenSolaris, as well as all other operating systems I had tried in the past (Windows, Linux, *BSDs). OpenSolaris is my operating system of choice and performance is great. This includes tasks like building detailed C++ software (using SunStudio tools) to serious image editing in Gimp and to OpenOffice document handling.

Due to being my primary development box, the system can be on for many days and OpenSolaris is fine with this. My only gripe is that while suspend-to-ram works, the resume-from-ram does not work (for now ?) for my hardware. Hopefully, this will be addressed in near future as hardware support for OpenSolaris broadens.

You should also remember that Solaris/OpenSolaris is packed with alot of technologies and the operating system has a proven commercial/warranty/real-world track record. While Linux grew from someone's bedroom, Solaris was being designed and implemented by engineers in a commercial environment with the intent of satisfying real-world criteria.

You need to ask yourself ...

"How good would another operating system run if it contained Solaris-type technologies (e.g. DTrace, ZFS, predictive self-healing framework, crossbow virtualised networking, etc.) and a design also focusing on scalability for big iron hardware (as in multi-processor SPARC-based solutions) ?"

You may think specific Solaris technologies may not matter and so compare operating systems using some common simple denominator and that is like when people compare the performance of OpenSolaris (a real UNIX system) with Linux/BSD (UNIX clone) using gcc-compiled software. The fallacy with this is that anybody doing serious development on Solaris/OpenSolaris use the SunStudio (not GNU gcc/g++/etc.) tools. The SunStudio tools are optimized for Solaris. These tools also allow the developer to perform DTrace-related experiments for the executable being developed.
All this and more leading to the developer being made much more proficient during bug/optimisation diagnosis and leading to better quality software development.
------------------------------------------

Reply Parent Score: 2

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

OpenOffice descends from Sun's StarOffice.
By using OpenSolaris' package management system you can download OpenOffice (for free, as with all other packages and system/security updates).


Ummmmm, almost all versions of Linux include Open Office, I should not have to spend 30 minutes or more downloading it when I can spend 5 min on any Linux version and get the latest patches.

"If it came down to hardware support, we would all be using Microsoft's operating systems. Hardware support for many free operating systems would be much better if many more hardware manufacturers released relevant technical documentation. For me, I am generally happy with the hardware support."


On the hardware I tried it on Linux worked 100% out the box. Open Solaris did not.


When is OpenSolaris slow ?
Or is it that your computer system is not optimal
for running OpenSolaris. My experience is with AMD64 systems (Athlonx2, Opteron) and these direct-connect architecture type systems cause OpenSolaris to rip into the tasks at hand.


Ummmmm, Windows 7 and Linux (Fedora and Ubuntu) both fly on my Dell 755 and my iMac. Open Solaris takes 3 times as long to boot up as both versions of Linux I use.

You should also remember that Solaris/OpenSolaris is packed with alot of technologies and the operating system has a proven commercial/warranty/real-world track record. While Linux grew from someone's bedroom, Solaris was being designed and implemented by engineers in a commercial environment with the intent of satisfying real-world criteria.


Ummmmm, yeah that is why Sun is no more and Red Hat is making money hand over fist. Yes I know Solaris has some cool tech. But its convoluted to use, installing software is a pain in the butt. Oh may fault on Open Solaris its not a pain in the butt cause they hired a Linux guy Ian Murdock to make Open Solaris WHAT?? More Linux like.

You may think specific Solaris technologies may not matter and so compare operating systems using some common simple denominator and that is like when people compare the performance of OpenSolaris (a real UNIX system) with Linux/BSD (UNIX clone) using gcc-compiled software.


I am comparing the fact that Open Solaris is being pushed against Linux on the desktop not the server. If you look at it that way on 386/X64 hardware then in reality things like Dtrace, Zfs etc dont really matter.

I mean do you think they brought in Ian Murdock to make Open Solaris more easy to use on servers??

Anyway all this point will be moot if and when Oracle changes the license. The Solaris kernel will be dead and all the fancy stuff will be on Linux.

Linux is the future of computing between Linux and Solaris. Solaris might as well be dead, Sun is.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Open Solaris is not bad
by cade on Thu 4th Jun 2009 04:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Open Solaris is not bad"
cade Member since:
2009-02-28

-------------------------------------
It was mentioned ...
"Ummmmm, almost all versions of Linux include Open Office, I should not have to spend 30 minutes or more downloading it when I can spend 5 min on any Linux version and get the latest patches."

So what if Linux includes OpenOffice by default.
Some people might use Abiword, other's may use KDE office, others may use OpenOffice. So, should OpenSolaris contain all these by default. The choice is there to download it or not. Personal responsibility, it's a good thing !

If you cannot be productive while updating/patching your system then that's your problem or your computer's problem. I patch OpenSolaris while I code and build my C++ libraries and am still productive. With a cable modem (my broadband plan being slower than ADSL2+) I patch my system leading to a new boot environment in ~15 minutes.
-------------------------------------
It was mentioned:
"On the hardware I tried it on Linux worked 100% out the box. Open Solaris did not. "

You can either accept "hardware is hardware" and what that entails in the proprietary world of hardware tech or contribute to the free operating system world with hardware-related research or wait until hardware support broadens.
-------------------------------------
It was mentioned ....
"Ummmmm, Windows 7 and Linux (Fedora and Ubuntu) both fly on my Dell 755 and my iMac. Open Solaris takes 3 times as long to boot up as both versions of Linux I use."

Like I mentioned in a previous post, OpenSolaris has many technologies that other operating systems do not have and it would not be surprising if boot time increases.

However, on my HP xw9300 box OpenSolaris 2009.06 boots in 40 seconds (GRUB --> Gnome login screen) and shuts down in 10 seconds (shutdown dialog --> power OFF). This is fine especially with all the goodies the OpenSolaris kernel is packaged with.
-------------------------------------------------
It was mentioned:
"Ummmmm, yeah that is why Sun is no more and Red Hat is making money hand over fist. Yes I know Solaris has some cool tech. But its convoluted to use, installing software is a pain in the butt. Oh may fault on Open Solaris its not a pain in the butt cause they hired a Linux guy Ian Murdock to make Open Solaris WHAT?? More Linux like."

The issue at hand is OpenSolaris, not Sun.
OpenSolaris is not Linux or linux-like, it is a real UNIX (Re: OpenGroup accreditation).
Linux is a unix-clone.
A UNIX accredited system is a proven system. What is the point of achieving a UNIX accreditation and then throwing it away and becoming a unix-clone ?

See Crimson Consulting whitepaper comparing real-world experiences between Solaris and RHEL. RHEL is basically a "toy", a "joke" for any serious environment. Read about RHEL's suspicious licensing model and Linux' scalability issues. There are quite a few news articles on the net about small/large shops initially using Linux but then replacing it with OpenSolaris due to workflow-scalability issues with Linux. If Linux were so good, why do IBM/HP still support AIX/HP-UX ?

I am a serious C++ developer and I find OpenSolaris admin fine. Software installation using "pkg" command from XTerm or GUI IPS program is simple. What's the problem here ?
Who care's who Sun hired to do whatever, the open-sourced OpenSolaris technology is fine and Sun has allowed me to use it for commercial (i.e. "bread and butter") ventures for free. If I ever need to scale up to SPARC platform then Sun/Oracle will be ready at hand for any serious communication.

You should realise that the good thing Linux did was that it made Sun go back to it's roots and open source their flagship operating system. I look forward to OpenSolaris getting more enhanced as time goes by.
-------------------------------------------------
It was mentioned ...
"I am comparing the fact that Open Solaris is being pushed against Linux on the desktop not the server.
If you look at it that way on 386/X64 hardware then in reality things like Dtrace, Zfs etc dont really matter."

What's the problem ?
Are you afraid of competition ?
Linux will not disappear.

Your comments on the relevance of Sun's technologies are a bit puzzling. Are you a coder, an admin, a casual operating system user/sampler ?
If you were the latter, then okay you do not realise the benefit. But if you are a coder/admin person then you probably have not realised what you have stumbled upon with the Solaris technologies (and by the way these technologies are open-sourced). I say this not as someone who "hates" Linux. I am happy that Linux exists since it adds to the existing pool of unix type systems in this world and I have noticed when people use a unix type system they end up knowing more about their computer environment unlike many Windows users. It just happens that I prefer OpenSolaris.

FYI, I used Slackware Linux during my engineering doctoral work in the 1990's for massive amounts of coding and I was happy for it as Microsoft's operating systems were not a suitable solution for my software development needs.

Competition is another reason why Linux would get better. To think that Linux is the be-all/end-all and that there it not enough room in the WORLD for unix clones as well as real unixes (e.g. (Open)Solaris, AIX, HP-UX) then you need to re-think your philosophy on this theme.
e.g.
Linux is not a UNIX, it has no accreditation from the OpenGroup. It is a UNIX clone. The lack of standardisation in Linux is not surprisng due to the unbridled way it's distributions are developed. You would not risk using a non-standardised system for life-support systems, nuclear reactor management systems, multi-million dollar scientific equipment, etc.

My friend is network admin at Alcatel. They use multiple systems as one system does not satisfy all their needs. The use multi-process SPARC system for database infrastructure, HP-UX boxes for engineering work, RHEL for fileserving/etc., and Windows client for desktop duties.

Technologies like {Dtrace, Zfs, etc.} do matter as they are also relevant while developing software on my workstation.
e.g. ZFS allows me to patch my system with rollback support. Keeping a system up-to-date is a good idea. If I do not like the new patched system I then just rollback to the previous system (i.e. boot environment) and patch later with newer patches.

DTrace allows me to diagnose my system but also perform experiments on my newly built software to get an enhanced view of the dynamic nature of the software not readily available from a debugger and other tools, leading to a higher quality software development process. If you believe good quality software is not important then that's your opinion but as a developer my responsibility/philosophy is to always strive for something good.
-------------------------------------------------
It was mentioned ...
"I mean do you think they brought in Ian Murdock to make Open Solaris more easy to use on servers??"

Not surprising and this is a good thing for the OpenSolaris community. With Solaris' server lineage it is obvious that Sun wanted to make Solaris geared also for the workstation/desktop type user. I use the "dev" repository and as I have been regularly patching my system I have seen that this goal is steadily being reached.
e.g. For me, OpenSolaris 2008.11 would cleanly shutdown in about 1 minute. OpenSolaris 2009.06 shutdowns in 10 seconds.
-------------------------------------------------
It was mentioned ...
"Anyway all this point will be moot if and when Oracle changes the license. The Solaris kernel will be dead and all the fancy stuff will be on Linux.

Linux is the future of computing between Linux and
Solaris. Solaris might as well be dead, Sun is."

OpenSolaris, not Solaris, is licensed under CDDL.
Oracle is not saying a word about OpenSolaris.
OpenSolaris is a different issue as the formal OpenSolaris community is involved here.

Just because Sun was bought it does not mean it's technologies have to disappear. If Solaris/OpenSolaris
scares you then do not worry too m

Reply Parent Score: 1