OSNews

Because they know, that Solaris has the better technology, and they can't "steal" it.

I have to agree with you there, for years I read comments by Linux fanboys saying "competition is good". I guess it is good as long as Linux doesn't have to compete against it.

Alas, Linux's device drivers can't be 'stolen'. However, it appears that OpenSolaris has finally stolen all of the important userspace software people actually care about. :-)

Edited 2009-09-15 20:48 UTC

One of the reasons might be that Sun, while being very generous with their own Open Source contributions, spoiled their image by backing SCO financially, and did a sort of mini-crusade against Linux before ramping up their OpenSolaris project. Cooking up the CDDL license that is intentionally not GPL compatible didn't help either.

So, for better or worse, event though Sun could be a poster child for open computing (and all of us owe them a lot for contributions like OO.o), is still perceived to be a bit too eager to succumb to the temptation of dark side if it could be in their financial interests. Which makes sense, they are not a charity and can't pay their personnel with goodwill alone.

It's even worse:

Linux on X86 is a threat for the only CPU architecture available under GPL (SPARC).

It shouldn't be a shock that they went after Linux when cheap x86 boxes and Linux destroyed their profit margins.

Of course it was a poor strategy but they were threatened by Linux at the time and McNealy just wanted it to go away.

Anyways those days are over and McNealy/Sun have been thoroughly punished for their actions.

Sorry, but this is completely untrue. At the time, SCO was shaking their legal fist at everyone involved with UNIX or GNU/Linux. Sun was *legally required* to license certain rights from SCO. Remember that Sun is a publicly traded company, so unlike most GNU/Linux distributions has a lot more legal requirements to worry about.

They did not "fund SCO" anymore than customers of SCO that licensed copies of SCO Unix did.

Edited 2009-09-15 20:51 UTC

Maybe because of the fair share of "linsucks" or "Linux is for bitches" posted?
On that site alone I see more solaris users being offensive than anything.

Or maybe you are imagining things? Or maybe you are mistaking the attitude of a few people for that of "Linux Users" in general? Or maybe you are trying to stir up a conflict? Haven't we had enough of that?

Edited 2009-09-15 19:17 UTC

Exactly!! Let's see if we can have a discussion of the pros and cons for a change!

I was not trying to stir up conflict I was asking a legitimate question.

Just look at this thread and answer to the question with a straight face.

I can assure you that no 'Linux user' feels threatened by Solaris, especially considering that all the important software is shared with OpenSolaris. However, when you get articles comparing Linux distributions and 'OpenSolaris' and effectively telling us that it is a comparative alternative at times then you're going to get some comments questioning it and asking why.

When I installed Indiana I was transported back to installing Linux in 2000, together with its hardware support. If Sun had started OpenSolaris then then it might certainly have been relevant to people now, but it just isn't. Sorry.

Then stop posting idiotic BS to every story featuring Sun and/or Solaris.



It is comparative alternative to Linux. A good one too.



For me it like was most operating system installations. But then again, I do not rate operating systems by the pretty pictures shown during the installer. Actually, installing Linux was pretty much exactly the same procedure in 2000 as it is in 2009.

OpenSolaris is Unix, but as been noted, not UNIX(tm). (Like it would matter.) Already this implies that certain knowledge is required; surely the target audience is not the same as Ubuntu's.

As for hardware support, I feel that it is quite adequate. But I find it annoying that this has become a straw-man argument when Linux is compared to anything. Maybe you are so eager to use it as an argument because it is often used as an argument against Linux?

For those with open mind and spare hardware: test it out and see it for yourself. Bizarre gadgets won't work for sure, but "standard" PCs as well as quite a few laptops work without problems from my experience. (If you are doing servers, you already know what you are doing, or at least should know.)

EDIT: grammar.

Edited 2009-09-16 07:25 UTC

I read through a few of the comments and all I saw is that opensolaris has its share of problems and zfs isn't really ready for prime time yet.

Given that linux has a huge install base, that opensolaris isn't some magical perfect os, and the uncertain issue of sun/oracle's control, it's not difficult to understand why it's not that exciting.

That being said, if a company has some issue with running linux or bsd (due to lack of a desirable single corporate backer), I'd prefer them deploying opensolaris over any windows product any day.

Edited 2009-09-15 21:18 UTC

Don't let the Linux fanboys fool you on ZFS, I have been using it in production since the 6/06 Release of Solaris 10 came out on multiple 1 TB disk arrays (StorEdge 3510 and 2540). And while it is not perfect for every task, it works extremely well.

And while I am sure any number of people can point to "horror stories" about ZFS disasters, that can be said about any filesystem. The only problem I have with ZFS is that when you build a system with ZFSroot, you cannot perform a Solaris Flash installation of that machine.