Sun Microsystems announced version 9 of its Solaris operating system on Wednesday along with a Microsoft-reminiscent strategy to integrate higher-level components. Solaris 9 comes bundled with the Sun Open Network Environment (Sun ONE) directory server, used for keeping track of network information. And by the end of 2003, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based server seller also will build into Solaris its application server for e-business tasks and Web server software for hosting Web sites. Solaris 9 is available only for the SPARC platform.
Solaris 9 for SPARC Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Many more intel’s available than Sparc sun……
Sun is just like Apple – their primary means of income is their HW and not SW like OS X or Solaris. How could Sun hope to stay solvent if they were to sell yet another x86 OS that would effectively kill off their own HW? You may not like it from a user standpoint, but it makes sense business-wise.
Exactly. Plus, solaris on sparcs just perfroms better form hat I have heard.
“You may not like it from a user standpoint, but it makes sense business-wise.”
Besides… If you want to run Solaris 9, buy a Sparc. The Sunblade 100 sells for under $1,000. That’s cheaper than the average PC anyway. You can’t claim that price keeps you from owning a Sparc anymore.
> The Sunblade 100 sells for under $1,000
The Sun Blade 100 is a piece of s**t AFAIK. It does not even worth the $1000. Plus, it only comes with 128 MB of memory for a heavy OS like Solaris. Its CPU, the II-e, has nothing to do with the big SPARC CPUs, it is a half-baked version.
SPEC results:
Blade 100: 165
Athlon 1600+: 572
And I got this very Athlon 1600+ for $498, thank you very much. With 256 MB of PC2100 RAM (2.5 times faster memory).
Therefore, I would much prefer Solaris 9 for Intel. Solaris is slower under x86, granted, but the modern x86 hardware are so faster than the *Blade series*, that the user will benefit anyway.
“Therefore, I would much prefer Solaris 9 for Intel. Solaris is slower under x86, granted, but the modern x86 hardware are so faster than the *Blade series*, that the user will benefit anyway.”
Even when we did have Solaris for Intel, we were pretty much screwed unless you were a programmer. Very little software existed for Solaris x86.
I agree with those who say it didn’t make economic sense for Sun to keep supporting x86 with Solaris. Besides, they are already planning an x86 replacement with their version of Linux that has a Solaris compatibility layer.
By the way, I admit I am a Sun fan who is probably on the same level as the typical Apple zealot. So I also admit I am hugely biased in favor of Sun.
The Sunblade 100 may not be the fastest system in the world, but it is plenty fast enough for what I do. And I just like the Sparc archhecture. I think it is superior to the x86 arch. And also, IMHO, you get better quality for your money.
What’s the scoop with sources for Solaris 9 ? Solaris 8 sources were available, then not available, then available again, and no longer are.
Them thing will happen for Solaris 9 ?
It’s a PC with a SPARC IIe. Yes, $995 is more expensive than your equivalent PC. But for $995, you get a 20GB HD and 128MB RAM and a CDROM. Not a lot to cheer about. I added 1GB of RAM for about $200 and another 40GB of HD for a little over $100. Total investment, $1295 for a Sun box with 1.1GB RAM and 60GB of HD. I don’t think that is all that bad.
Is one going to be able to use the IIe for say, Xwindows apps and KDE etc? If it can’t do that as smoothly as an equivalent priced X86 then I do think sun is pocketing a lot of cash for the performance. What Mhz rating does the blade 100 have? Just curious now that the sun-sters have said their piece.
there’s no sense tu support solaris (slowlaris) on x86, there’s GNU/linux, there are *BSDs which are faster, and more tested on this arch. SUN too is trying to port inside linux many of it’s features, in order to port to its linux based future distro, it’s tools (SUNCluster?), as far as they said. Solaris it’s just and old piece of code, it’s history.
>there’s GNU/linux, there are *BSDs which are faster,
Faster in the conventional meaning of the word, yes. But neither of the BSDs or Linux can scale as well as Solaris when the machine needs to have more than 2 CPUs. Therefore, Solaris 9 for x86, could do some good work in high-end servers and specific applications.
we have a sun rise !
IMHO that was true for kernel < 2.4.x, in facts a hudge work has been done on lock finegraining for linux’s SMP. Anyway, AFAIK it’s Solaris who’s got BigKernelLock for the whole kernelpath on SMP (as FreeBSD has, at least without SMPngr).
Anyway it didn’t want to be a flame.
I don’t really wan’t to compare both x86 Linux/BSD vs Sparc/Solaris because I think they are good in different usage. Honestly, I don’t see Linux running 30 Oracle Database with only 3 CPU and 4go of RAM… On the other side, I don’t want to pay 30,000$ for a Sun only to run a web server.
It’s easy to see why Sun discontinued Solaris for x86 — they’re positioning Solaris (and SPARC-based systems, by association) at the high-end/workstation and x86-based systems at the low-end (perhaps with an x86-64 play with AMD for the mid-level market.)
Solaris+Sun hardware is an *EXCELLENT* combination, once the bugs are worked out of an installation. Much like with Macs, it leads to a great OOBE, and tends to be very stable. Also, while Suns are more expensive than x86 boxen by 2x or 3x, they are extremely over-engineered. I’ve had Suns be out in the heat, in the cold, in the rain (OK, not *IN* the rain, but outside when it is raining, getting splashed a bit), and in the snow, and they never quit.
x86-based systems have a *LONG* way to go before they can be that good, especially the < $500 do-it-yourself box.
Ken
P.S. — Yes, I build my own PC’s, and yes, they’re damn tip-top, but mission critical means MISSION CRITICAL so why do you think the de facto x86 server strategy involves fail-over at the *SYSTEM* level?
Isn’t Sparc the CPU with the 3 Stages MMU, wheras the X86 still has only a 2 Stage MMU, so that the OS have to emulate Context Switching on X86 between the running tasks, whereas Sparc can do it by hardware. I thing thats a pretty obvious prove how superieor(technical) Sparc is.
But at the end for the user … only performance counts.
Yep.
Eugenia? Is that really your opinion?
Then tell me, can you buy a cheaper 64-bit computer? No, you can’t. And how much x86 Solaris software is there? Much less than for the Sparc.
And that’s where the value of the Blade 100 kicks in: a huge, HUGE, library of pro software of all kinds. I agree that 128 MB may not be enough for a great number of applications, but for many it is. If it’s not, you can buy a RAM upgrade.
If you want to develop software for the big Sun boxen, get yourself a Blad 100. If you want to run/test applications that exist only on Solaris Sparc, get yourself a Blade 100.
SPEC resluts may not mean much in many contexts, so I question your claim that the Blade 100 is “s**t”. For many applications, the Blade 100s are exactly what the doc has ordered.
Having something integrated into the Operating System is far different from having it included with the Operating System.
I imagine that you would have the choice of wheter or not you wish to use the now included server management software and would also be able to deinstall this from the server.
However, if it is tightly integrated and that by removing it the system ceases to function. Then it is indeed integrated and the MS correlation can be brought down upon Sun.
From what I know, Sun has included its own Web Browser with Solaris for years. However, this browser is not intergrated into the system like IE is integrated into the MS Windows OS. The Sun browser can be easily uninstalled and it will not cause any detrimental effects to the OS. Which is wholly unlike MS Windows and its integrated IE.
The SPARC/IA debate politely being played out here is very interesting. I think it goes to emphasise that Sun’s business model is looking very, very shaky indeed.
On the software side, they have one Unix-based OS which lives in a highly competitive, commoditized world, and for which the consensus appears to be that, at the very least, it is not so compelling that it is a ‘must-have’.
Then they have Java, the whole revenue-generating marketspace for which they seem to have ceded to IBM without much of a fight.
On the hardware side, they are moving towards commodity ‘Blade’ servers – an area in which IA/AMD/WotsthernamesYouKnowTorvaldsChipCompanyHelpMeOutHere are ideally placed to operate.
What’s left for them? Big iron? It is where they excel, but it is not exactly a growth space.
Where’s the shareholder value in Sun? Shouldn’t they look for merger opportunities (IBM? Fujitsu?), and if they’re not, is it just a Scott McNealy’s ego that is stopping them? Or is there a good reason for them to continue to attempt to go it alone?
> IMHO that was true for kernel < 2.4.x, in facts a hudge >work has been done on lock finegraining for linux’s SMP. >Anyway, AFAIK it’s Solaris who’s got BigKernelLock for the >whole kernelpath on SMP (as FreeBSD has, at least without >SMPngr).
Solaris SMP is *far* ahead of linux or any of the BSDs. Linux is certainly improving (reasonable performance up to
four processors AIR) but Solaris scales up to over 100!
Solaris most certainly has not got a global kernel lock.
–Jon
As a person who has owned a Sun Blade 100, I thought I’d set a few things straight….
It’s not that fast, but fast enough for most purposes.
An Athlon will outrun it for general tasks, but if you want to do 64bit math, the Blade will kick it’s arse every time.
Solaris on SPARC is a different world to Solaris on x86, it installs as easily as the MacOS, software installtion is usually very nice too. it’s kind of like OSX, single manufacturer == more pleasant user experience.
If you want a fast machine for running games and drawing pictures of Tux in theGIMP, use x86.
If you want a proper 64bit workstation for not a lot of money, get the Blade.
x86 solaris did not eat sales of SPARC machines, as Sun’s main earner is thier top-end servers, often with over 100 processors, proper redundancy, fantastic SMP, this is a no-go area for x86 ATM.
“IMHO that was true for kernel < 2.4.x, in facts a hudge work has been done on lock finegraining for linux’s SMP.”
It’s still true. Linux still doesn’t scale well past 16 way processing. Solaris on the other hand, can handle 64 way processing easily, and can even go higher than that.
“Solaris it’s just and old piece of code, it’s history.”
Oh really? Is that why Solaris 9 has a dynamically patchable kernel? You can actually patch and upgrade the kernwl with no reboot. Find me a single Linux distribution that can do that.
Solaris is still superior to Linux in many way, especially when it comes to scalability. This is why the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are running their datacenters on Solaris. Linux works fine for small to mid-range servers. But when you get into high end datacenter stuff, Linux simply doesn’t get the job done. This is also why IBM hasn’t gotten rid of AIX even though they are pushing Linux. Linux can’t scale as well as AIX can.
Solaris does NOT have one “BigKernelLock”. Read up on the Solaris kernel architecture.
I absolutely love it when retards try to voice their opinions….
Sun don’t sell speed unless you are counting big E15Ks or such like. Sun sells reliability, they’ve never had terribly fast CPUs, they usually lag the rest of the RISC field quite badly and have done for years.
You are paying for the massive testing which goes into the CPU and system, you simply don’t get that with Intel based systems. Intel will ship a CPU with known bugs, Sun wont.
This is why big iron CPUs usually ship late – by years.
Man, there is no way I’d spend almost a grand on an os, specially since there aren’t even any screenshots.
sarcy
excellent criteria to purchase something, screenshot
/sarcy d a
“What Mhz rating does the blade 100 have? Just curious now that the sun-sters have said their piece.”
I think it is a 500Mhz CPU. But you can’t make a direct comparision because the blade 100 is a 64 bit system and Sparc CPUs significantly outperform Intel CPUs of the same MHz rating.
“Man, there is no way I’d spend almost a grand on an os, specially since there aren’t even any screenshots.”
What do you need a screenshot for? You’ve seen GNOME before right? You’ve seen CDE? That’s what it looks like.
Go to the GNOME home page and look at some screenshots and you will see what the default Solaris GUI looks like.
Not that it’s much of a big deal, but I believe Solarix x86 can’t do more than 4 cpu’s.
This isn’t suprising since solaris isn’t really optimized for x86.
I think one reason Solaris is so successful is that you can actually find people who can admin it and I think a big reason there are so many people who can use solaris (I know there’s not a ton of people) is because people have been able to learn how to use Solaris on their home pc.
I haven’t even seen an AIX system, I saw a novell system once. I’m pretty sure I’m right when I say Solaris has more widespread use than either.
I really hope Sun releases Solaris 9 for x86 and makes it available for free downloaded (like how 8 was), I’ll get it as soon as it comes out.
Maybe solaris isn’t the best OS for x86, but it’s still pretty cool in my opinion.
A grand? Where are you getting your numbers from? Bizzaro World?
http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=82441&parentI…
Letsee, $95 for english version media kit. If you read the licensing page, you’ll see that the $999.00 RTU is for a SERVER with up to FOUR CPUs. Again, refferencing the licensing page,a single CPU machine has a FREE license (plus cost of the media kit if you CHOOSE to buy it.)
“Unix Pro” indeed.
I think that a lot of you just like to hear yourselves argue.
Perhaps many of you aren’t aware that running an operating system isn’t an end in itself. Running applications is the end, and the hardware and OS are the means. In the Solaris realm, the SPARC platform is the standard. People get SPARC boxes for themselves for two main reasons: 1. they’re curious about the platform, and want to see how it compares with a “regular” PC, and 2. they want to be able to develop and/or use the same binaries that they’re using in a production environment at work. The Blade 100 isn’t even being marketed against low-end PCs. That’s not what it’s there for.
What about Solaris 9? Has anybody actually used it? What about the new patch system?
Folks, I think you need to understand that a lot of the SMP ability has less to do with the OS and more to do with the platform. In the PC world, there simply isn’t any such thing as a SMP box that’s more than 4-way. Beyond that (in general, please don’t nitpick), the IA-32 boxes with 8 or more processors are in a whole different class. They are proprietary, very expensive, and typically use more exotic technology like NUMA and crossbar switching. You don’t just go to the store and pick an OS off the shelf for one of these! Even if it’s a familiar brand, the OS is often a custom release made just for that particular machine. And the reason why Sun doesn’t support scaling this high on IA-32 is because that tier of the market competes directly against their own hardware. The IA-32 release of Solaris was made to run on hardware that doesn’t have much chance of taking away hardware sales.
Well, even if you could get more than 4 cpu’s in general for ia-32, I still don’t think Solaris will do more than 4 cpu’s.
But ya, I have yet to see a 32 cpu ia-32 box.
Hiryu, there are 32-way IA-32 boxes. The point is that Sun doesn’t support them with Solaris because they want the customer to buy a 32-way SPARC box instead.