Anyone who registers with Sun will be able to use Solaris for free on servers with x86 processors, said John Loiacono, executive vice president of Sun’s software business. It’s not a totally free lunch, though: Sun will provide security updates in the free version but will charge an annual subscription fee for bug fixes and support.
Free Solaris available soon
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
hmmm… what good is it realy if they wont fix the bugs?
no thanks
Well, fixing bugs, takes engineering time. Sun is a company and it has thousands of employees that needs to feed (Solaris is a new open source project, it doesn’t have the hundrends of Linux kernel devs yet). So, if you think that the Sun employees will work for free, well, what can I say. Sun open sourced Solaris, they will give it for free, give free security patches, don’t expect them to have a death wish over it too. Be a bit more objective please.
Did they open source it yet? My understanding was that it is currently free as in beer, but they intend to open source it. Of course Sun intends to do a lot of things, mainly in conflict with one another.
Does this encourage devels to submit bugfixes to Sun if Sun isn’t going to give them back? Outside OSS devels don’t work for ‘free’ either.
It will be interesting to see the License model that Sun come up with. I’m waiting to see if (say) IBM or RedHat can add Solaris to the list of products they support. If not, then it’s not really Open Source Software for mine.
Still it’s all pretty exciting at this stage and time will tell…
Speaking as one who is not sure of the details, I would be very surprised to see Sun stop the public patches that we currently do. My reading of that announcement is that you’ll still be able to do the patches and the like that we publicly release (actually most of them) but you won’t be in a position to make a support call and push for a bug to be fixed.
This is a subtle difference to how folks are reading things.
Of course, this is only how I interpret the announcement and not a commitment to anything by my employer.
Alan.
Hmm, while you might be right about it, Eugenia, I think Sun not providing bugfixes has a lot of unintended side-effects. For example, what’s the purpose of Solaris being free? I think their main reason for providing it for free, was that everyone could learn Solaris, which will be positive for Sun in the long run. But now, nobody wants to run Solaris on his/her server after some very annoying have popped up and you know they are not going to be fixed.
They ARE going to be fixed. You just need to buy the service. Don’t expect the service to be free as well!
If Sun ever releases the source, I think they’ll be forced to release bugfixes unless they write a license that prevents forking. If the community only gets code for releases, I predict they will fork 10 if possible, then backport the worthwhile stuff from all following releases.
Anyone know when the final version/next beta version of solaris 10 will be release, and if zsh will be ported to x86 ?
absolutly correct Egunia. afterall people have to eat
duffman, there were a live chat yesterday with sun officials. here are the lines.. (check out http://www.sun.com for whole transcript)
Q: When should we expect Solaris 10 to ship officially?
Andy Ingram (A): January 31.
Q: I’m really glad you’re taking Solaris 10 Open Source. Does that mean just for x86 or all platforms? And when will it happen. We’re getting tired of hearing about it.
Tom Goguen (A): Great! We’re excited too. We be doing this for both the SPARC and x86 platforms. We will have more to say within the next 60 to 90 days.
thanks a lot
My guess is that you’ll find that bugfixes will be accepted
by Sun, but we – the community – won’t be allowed to get
them committed to the source tree. (Well, maybe some time
down the track). After all, if Sun is in this for real, why
would they remove an incentive to us using Solaris and seeing
the code?
…and if zsh will be ported to x86 ?
Dude, check out http://www.blastwave.com and http://www.sunfreeware.com.
Zsh has been available for Solaris for years.
Hi,
I have a four way x86 rack box that I would like to install Solaris 10 x86 on, main purpose is to see how it deals with Oracle 10g.
Question is, can I test my box or will I have to buy licenses?
Regards,
jay
OOops, i Mean ZFS
is it faster than the average linux distro running on teh average 2.6 kernel?
I think that Sun will have a winning strategy here if they open source solaris in a way which allows community participation and supports redistribution of this modified code. However, making this GPL incompatible may be advantageous to SUN from a business perspective ( wasnt the XFree86 4.4’s license somewhere along this lines?) . This will prevent “feature drain” from solaris. I believe that unless they open source it in a way which allows the community to participate,contribute and reap the benifits immediately, this will not be effective. I guess we will have to wait and see how free open-source solaris really is, before pondering if it can get the same response as linux from the community.
Solaris 10 will be 100% free of charge, the only costs will be the value added services they’re going to charge for.
“is it faster than the average linux distro running on teh average 2.6 kernel?”
Why care about, if it is enough speed for your task?
There is not only speed test, there is also the quality of filesystem, the ease of administration…
What you can download is a free – as in no charge – x86 version of Solaris 10. The IF and HOW of free/open sourcing Solaris is still undecided and while they promise a clearer statement in 60 to 90 days i don’t hold my breath.
Even for SMP machines??
(Sorry last time I tried to install on a x86 machine was SunOS 5.8 uniprocessor only)
Yes. Without qualification. Check the Solaris 10
release pages if you want more specifics.
Is it just me drooling in my corner or what? this IS a big deal! A real Unix, for free!!!! Not a port, not inspired by, the real one. I can’t wait to get my dirty hands on that!
Of course I don’t really care about the advanced feature Solaris have, I just love OS, and the more option in my grub menu, the happier I am
Yanik
I have friends who are running zfs on their x86 and
amd64 boxen right now. If you have a look at
the articles and blog entries on zfs you’ll see that
it is designed to be endian-neutral — and has been
from day one.
Sun finally seems to have gotten the idea that there
is only one Solaris – about time too!
I think this is great. I have always wanted to try Solaris on x86 (we have it on Sun servers at work). I haven’t been motivated enought to pay for it though. This will be good.
For the sake of arguement, lets just say solaris beats linux/freebsd on the way high-end. Okay?
But, on a standard x86 system, what’s the point? Is it easier to install? Easier to use? Does it support more hardware? More software? Is it more open?
I think the answer to all of those questions is: no. And I doubt solaris is any more stable on an x86 platform.
So what good is it? Free or otherwise? Please keep in mind, I discusing solaris on an x86.
Jay_of_today please read the article which is the focus
of this discussion, and then have a look at the announcements
on sun.com — you can grab Solaris10 and run it on your
4way box. The “license” (as such) is free.
People tend to install Solaris on x86 boxen because they want
to have the same environment to work in on x86 as they do on
their sparcs.
All your queries are to some extent irrelevant because they
are not addressing the “why do people want solaris on x86?”
question.
What good is it? Apart from the above, threading, scalability
(yes I know about the hardware limitations on x86) and
security….
And apart from anything else, remember the “good consultant” answer: it depends what you want to achieve. Don’t look at
the OS and then decide on what apps you are going to run.
Please read and don’t take Suns word for what they CLAIM they are going to do as far as Open Source.
“That, said analysts, could take longer than expected with 54 different open-source license architectures to consider, not counting the possibility that Sun could be developing its own license.
“Even if Sun goes through the exercise [of OSI approval], you could expect an immediate challenge from the SCO Group that will tie this whole process up in another venue, which is litigation,” Kusnetzky said.
That brings up a thorny issue: intellectual property rights. The SCO Group, which has gained a reputation for being a litigious organization, owns Unix . Solaris is a derivative work of Unix, and Sun paid the former owner royalties for many years before the code ownership was transferred to SCO.
“It’s rather difficult to understand how Sun is going to persuade the SCO Group to give up its rights to Unix,” Kusnetzky said. “Sun is making the presumption that the intellectual property was given into Linux. That hasn’t yet been proven in court.”
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Sun-Stalls-on-Open-Source-Solari…
Expanded Rights
The Sun-SCO licensing deal expands the rights Sun acquired in 1994 to use Unix in its flagship Solaris operating system. Sun is the leading vendor of Unix systems.
Under the terms of the recent agreement, Sun is permitted to use software from SCO’s Unix System V Release 4. This allows Sun to use the Unix driver components that the company needs for its version of Solaris developed for Intel servers.
As an additional part of the deal, SCO will permit Sun to purchase up to 210,000 shares of SCO stock at $1.83 per share. “That’s what the stock price was for the company at the time [Sun] did the licensing bill, so that’s why they’re able to get it at such a great price,” Stowell said.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:OyaDvSqEXBwJ:www.newsfactor.co…
So as I was saying before, is SUN open sources Solaris exspect sun to face as big if not a bigger law suit then IBM (Because Sun has already said by buying licenses from SCO that SCO must own UNIX.)
Sun is just trying to get the attention of Linux developers, and get people talking about 10. I think they are going to do the same thing as they do with Java. The code will be open but Sun will control everything and people will not be able to create their own versions of Solaris like you can with Linux.
People tend to install Solaris on x86 boxen because they want
to have the same environment to work in on x86 as they do on
their sparcs.
or you can have an ultrasparc workstation at home like me
shine sparcv9 shine…
I’ve heard that both the x86 and SPARC version will be open source, but will the SPARC version be a free download also? I have a Netra T1 running OpenBSD currently that I’d love to toss Solaris 10 on when it’s released.
will the SPARC version be a free download also?
Yes both will be free for non business use.
McBofh: Where’d you get zfs? You’re better than the rest of us, if you have it. =)
With respect to the article, most Sun patches have always been free, patch clusters are released twice a month and individual patches are downloadable, all without requiring a Sun Online account:
http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/show.pl?target=patches/patch-access
I would assume this model will remain, but I could be wrong.
I have always wanted to try Solaris on x86 (we have it on Sun servers at work). I haven’t been motivated enought to pay for it though.
Sol 9 (x86) is free for academics and developers. There’s also a trial period for other users. And the Express program gives a 60 day (?) right-to-use. So almost anyone could try Sol for free, for 30 to 60 days if nothing else.
i agree with the earlier poster that things other than speed can matter. but once we’ve settled on an FS that is good enough, and we understand unix enough to administer it well enough, the remaining question over a server’s lifetimes is its performce (by then sys admin should be minimal, or you’re doing it wrong).
so from this perspective an operating system is trying to maximise the utility of your purchased hardware. so my queztion was really: does linux 2.6 make better utility of my hardware investyment than solaris 10 x86?
how quickly does it respond to web requests to apache2? what are the operating characteristics for mmap? something like http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ for solaris x86 would be useful.
Yes but fefe is a linux users, and know how to configure Linux, but not other OSs. It is why the benchmark was corrected after the first test that claim linux 2.6 was the fastest and now it is netBSD.
I think each OS hackers must do their own benchmarks and put it on a single website to centralise benchmark of all OS.
It will be more fairplay for each OSs
actually fefe made a decision to do very minimal kernel/OS post-install optimisation or configuration .. none that was considered too difficult or intrusive.
and there is a valid logic to this. if you are running production services, you don’t want to take a tried and tested OS … and then recompile/reconfigure it outisde the zone of its warranty or away from the well trodden path.
and that is a very widely applicable decision. maybe you can tweark xyzOS to work faster than abcOS .. but if yo have to apply patches k1, k2, k3 and increase limits in file A B amd C and also recompile … yuou have much less confidence in your system.
For all those people that are complaining about Sun’s model for doing this, how is it different from the top tier Linux vendors (RedHat, etc)? Last time I checked, I had to pay for RedHat Enterprise Linux. Am I buying Linux? No, I can get that for free, what I am paying for is the SUPPORT that RedHat is providing and their specific ‘fixes’ to the free software. I could, given the time, assemble a close of RedHat EL based and do with it as I please. However, for corporations, that support is a critical factor.
Sun, in my opinion, is going the right direction. I manage a large Sun shop, and I see this as a good thing. As for the patches, to my knowledge, the recommended patch cluster (Major bugs, Security, etc) was available without a contract. You PAY to be able to call Sun up, tell them something is broke, and have an engineer work with you to resolve the problem. The same thing I’m paying RedHat for. My only concern with the open source is we may seem more security issues (virus, worms, etc). Hopefully Sun will keep a good handle on security fixes.
So, I don’t see a big difference between what Sun is doing and what Top tier Linux vendors are doing (though, they do get the advantage of more developers on the Kernel). That my thoughts, for what it’s worth.
i was wondering if solaris was using the linux kernel or is it a custom kernel I’m asking myself the same question about HP-UX and AIX?
i was wondering if solaris was using the linux kernel or is it a custom kernel I’m asking myself the same question about HP-UX and AIX?
Erm… Solaris uses the Solaris kernel, HP-UX uses the HP-UX kernel and AIX uses the AIX kernel? They have nothing to do with Linux, they’re different.
I’ve wanted to learn how to use and admin Solaris, but it seems that in order to do that you need to pony up the cash and buy a SUN box of some sort. I know they have had Solaris for x86 for ages (well, there was that one time that they pulled x86 support) and I have given it a try only to give up on it.
One of the reasons I’ve given up was that I didn’t have an easy to follow handbook. Something that cover setup, administration, and day to day use. I’d like to learn how to configure networking, network services, printers, and add/remove software.
Any pointers to easy to use (i.e. Solaris For Dummies) documentation? It would rock of there was something as good as say the FreeBSD Handbook or FreeBSD FAQ for Solaris.
Thanks.
http://docs.sun.com/
Extensive, well organized documentation. I can’t possibly quantify how helpful it’s been for me.
Erm… Solaris uses the Solaris kernel, HP-UX uses the HP-UX kernel and AIX uses the AIX kernel? They have nothing to do with Linux, they’re different.
there are radical differences IIRC. some use microkernel, others monolithic (i forget which uses which).
I believe this will make Sun the cheapest to use. Either free Sol 10 on x86, or running a cheap Ultra. Tru64 requires an Alpha ($100 plus) and $100 hobbyist license. AIX and IRIX can be had for the price of a used machine (license generally transfers). To truly replicate an enterprise machine plus software at home would still be prohibitively expensive.
Any pointers to easy to use (i.e. Solaris For Dummies) documentation?
The Sun manuals are pretty good. i got three of them bundled with my Sparc for a very cheap price. they are outdated but cover the basics. For x86, there is a very good Solaris on x86 FAQ.
For all those people that are complaining about Sun’s model for doing this, how is it different from the top tier Linux vendors (RedHat, etc)?
i’d have to agree. EL is like $800, and AS around $3000. Sure you can use clones or trials, but you lose the support. The real question is whether Sun will really open-source, and if the license will prevent free forks (i trust it will prevent the latter).
The link that Spitfire put up is about the best. Also, there is a slew of information online for the admin of Solaris. True, there is more information for Linux admin, but there is still plenty on Sun/Solaris. Go to Google and do some searches, there are plenty of sites dedicated to Solaris admin.
As for X86 Solaris, I’ve got Solaris 10 build 69 installed on a Laptop (Dell Latitude C810) and a clone PC. The PC works like a champ, the laptop has some issues I haven’t had a chance to resolve ( JDS crashes when logging in, no network, etc). Download it and give it a shot.
redhat provides everything for free. you can get every kind of update including security fixes, bug fixes and additional features from their ftp directory or from centos.org.
sun only provides security fixes.
redhat charges for actual support only. not software fixes
You are somewhat incorrect. The recommended cluster includes security patches, plus additional patches. True, it isn’t EVERY patch for EVERY package, but a majority of the major patches are there. Go examine the latest patch cluster at sunsolve.sun.com and see how many are security and how many are not.
I also disagree that you are not paying for software fixes. By paying for support, you are providing the company with funds to pay engineers to make patches. It is that companies decision whether or not to release those patches or charge for them.
I think you would be surprised with the amount and coverage of the recommended patch cluster. They also provide, free, patch clusters for staroffice, Linux, and their other software packages. Sun also has tons of additional software at no cost to you available from their download site. Again, I’m not seeing a large difference in the models used here.
Again, the cost is the same as RedHat, SuSE, etc, you are paying to call someone for help.
My opinion, and I’m sure some don’t agree, is that Sun was/is a proprietary UNIX vendor. Thus, Sun is an ‘evil’ in the Linux world. So, anything they do, or attempt to do, to provide something to their customers will be viewed in a negative way. They are taking, quite possibly, one of the best versions of UNIX, and providing it free, to the world. Will you be able to fork it? Will you be able to submit patches to it? I’ve no clue, I somewhat doubt it. But look on the bright side, a lot can be learned by examining the source code to Solaris (my opinion, again). I think this is a good thing, no matter your feelings about Sun or their product lines.
Sun is actively embracing PC-level hardware for cheaper systems and providing a world-class UNIX OS, for SPARC and X86, for free. They are looking at the OSS community and realize that MANY of the methods, practices, and packages used there are a better choice for their system (given the number of OSS tools/utilities/packages that are now part of Solaris).
Oh well, enough ranting.
Very well put, SMF. The main thing to gather from this is that if I pay for support from Sun, I can enact change when a bug is found. That is to say, the software that Sun sells me (or now, gives me for free), I can then hold them directly responsible for. A bug in the kernel causes Solaris to crash? I go to Sun and say “there’s a bug here and it needs fixed immediately.” Sun’s engineers work directly on the kernel and fix the bug. Having worked with Sun’s support channels in the past, if I can provide the exact cause of the bug (for example, if I had the source), they will take the data I provide and give it directly to the engineers, who confirm it and implement the fix.
Conversely, with Redhat, the support channel does not lead to the end product. I can’t call Redhat and say “please fix the Linux kernel.”
”
Conversely, with Redhat, the support channel does not lead to the end product. I can’t call Redhat and say “please fix the Linux kernel.””
you can. been there. done that
the operating system loaded with proprietary software is free – Solaris.
the operating system loaded with open source software costs $$$ – sun java desktop system.
HUH?
The Java Desktop is simply a set of packages (Gnome, etc) that is now included as part of Solaris with the addition of some Solaris-specific tools/interfaces. As for the Linux-based version, I somewhat expect to see that disappear with Solaris going Open Source.
As for the cost differences, again, it is a matter of support. For the Linux-based JDS, you are not paying for the software. You can build a JDS clone your self, for free. You pay the money to have support on that software.
I have a theory that with Solaris going free/oss, that this product line is going to change a little bit. In the end, you pick an underlying OS (Solaris or Linux) and the tools/interface will all look the same, easing administrative costs. Again, just my theory. It seems to me that Sun’s adoption of OSS tools and practices in Solaris 10 is going to facilitate this change. Again, my theory backed by insubstantial evidence and hearsay.
I think there is a little difference in what is happening. You can go to RedHat and request patches to the Kernel (assuming you have a support contract). Assuming the patch is needed, they can make it part of their RedHat patch set for the kernel, or request that patch rolled back into the real Linux kernel.
Solaris, a patch to the kernel is a patch to all Solaris systems (running that kernel) since they get rolled into the kernel jumbo patches. All in all a similar thing, and not a point of contention in my opinion. The fact is, you are going to PAY RedHat, Sun, SuSE (Novell), etc. for the RIGHT to request a patch (kernel jumbo patches are in the recommended [and free] patch cluster). And, pay-for-support makes MOST businesses comfortable, good or bad.
*sigh* Don’t you people look into this stuff at all before you post it? It is not accurate that you don’t get bug fixes with the free version. You can still download bug fixes as long as you have registered, even if you aren’t paying a subscription. You just don’t get any support without buying a license.
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3435621
And as far as the subscription costs if you do want support, if you don’t like it, I would remind you that Red Hat’s subscription is nearly three times that of a Solaris subscription.
“The fact is, you are going to PAY RedHat, Sun, SuSE (Novell), etc. for the RIGHT to request a patch (kernel jumbo patches are in the recommended [and free] patch cluster). And, pay-for-support makes MOST businesses comfortable, good or bad.”
not necessarily. lkml is open for all kind of requests. have done that too. case in point – htree ext3 patches
“And as far as the subscription costs if you do want support, if you don’t like it, I would remind you that Red Hat’s subscription is nearly three times that of a Solaris subscription.
”
comparing apples and oranges is sometimes a hobby but not necessarily a solid business case
McBofh: Where’d you get zfs? You’re better than the rest of us, if you have it. =)
Um, I said that I had friends who
are running zfs, not that I have zfs.
Yes, it’s true, I do have friends. Some
of them even respond in a verbal manner when I
talk to them!
Ok, I think this is a different issue. You got a patch submitted to a free, non-commercial, unsupported [technically] piece of software. By unsupported, I mean that the owner of that software has no contractual obligation to do anything with your request. That patch MAY have shown up in RedHat as a side effect of their use of the linux kernel.
Getting a patch submitted to a commercial, albeit free, piece of software is a different process. Linux kernel, and most free, non-commercial pieces of software are more free-form in development. This, at times, causes stability problems or incompatibilities. Commercial software has to keep a tighter reign on the software, since most ARE contractually obligated to maintain some semblance of stability, otherwise, no one is going to pay to use their product.
I don’t understand your comment about apples and oranges. RedHat and Sun are using almost the exact same business model for their particular OS. Yes, RedHat is drawing from the Linux Kernel, however, I’m willing to bet they keep a REAL close eye on patches/fixes to that kernel. This is one reason that most top tier commerical [that’s the important word] Linux vendors are typically behind on the kernel versions. Maturity, in a lot of instances, equates to stability. So, the idea that RedHat’s subscription model is currently more expensive than Sun’s is a valid point in the comparision of their products. I expect RedHat’s model to become cheaper, once Solaris’s open source existance is confirmed.
In the end, I think both Linux and Solaris can work off each other to make a better product for everyone, whether you use Linux or Solaris. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
That brings up a thorny issue: intellectual property rights. The SCO Group, which has gained a reputation for being a litigious organization, owns Unix . Solaris is a derivative work of Unix, and Sun paid the former owner royalties for many years before the code ownership was transferred to SCO.
Tyrone, Alan Hargreaves and myself have both pointed out on numerous occassions that this simply isn’t true, and that Sun has lots of ways around the intellectual property questions. Your statement that Sun will face a lawsuit if they Open Source Solaris is specious and dishonest. For the second time, I know people working on the OpenSolaris project and they’re triple-checking with lawyers to make sure that everything they do is legally iron-clad. Unless you work for the Sun Legal department, please stop making such untruthful and outrageous statements.
As far as the free Solaris with no bugfixes issue goes, I think the concerns have been confused. In particular, Sun is going to offer OpenSolaris and Solaris ™. I would expect that all of the bugfixes that make it into Solaris ™ will also make it into OpenSolaris in source form. I would also expect that it would be up to the stewards of OpenSolaris to pick a preferred patch mechanism. This is speculation on my part, but it should be clear that there are two different entities here. When Sun states that they’re not going to make patches available for users of the free version of Solaris ™ they are not referring to OpenSolaris. Rather, the expectation is that customers who are using a free version of Solaris and want binary patches that are compatible with their installed version should have to pay, as the release engineering work (not to mention the regular engineering work) needs to be paid for. This; however, does not apply to OpenSolaris, as I would expect the Solaris and OpenSolaris source bases to be kept in sync. Bugfixes in source form would obviously be pushed to OpenSolaris and could then be acquired by concerned users. (Or fixed in OpenSolaris and pushed to Solaris, depends who fixes it first).
The above is based upon my understanding of OpenSolaris’ goals and Sun’s goals for Solaris. This is my opinion, and doesn’t necessarily represent the opinion or position of my employer.
However, I hope this clarifies some confusion.
not necessarily. lkml is open for all kind of requests. have done that too. case in point – htree ext3 patches
The folks on the LKML will respond to a bug in a Redhat custom Kernel unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is also in the mainstream kernel realeased by Linus and his commrades. They will tell you to go to RedHat for a fix.
Also a lot of Sun engineers read comp.unix.solaris and myrad of newsgroups and also help log and fix bugs for Solaris fans. There are now blogs that are actively maintained by Sun kernel engineers.
A bug serious enough exposed to any Sun engineer through these channels would most likely be dealt with similar to the response you would get on the LKML.
comparing apples and oranges is sometimes a hobby but not necessarily a solid business case
Hunh?? what does this mean? Customers are going to look at how much Redhat linux solution and Sun Soalris solution costs and a 3x price diferential will most certainly a solid business case for any CIO.
The folks on the LKML will respond
This should read will not respond.
“comparing apples and oranges is sometimes a hobby but not necessarily a solid business case”
LOL Oh that’s good
Before you were complaining that I was comparing Solaris to Fedora, which was unfair and you said I should have been comparing it to Red Hat Enterprise… Now I compare it to Red Hat Enterprise and you say I am comparing apples and oranges. LOL
Nice to see how your statements change so quickly as soon as they no longer work in your favor. This is why I love Linux zealots. They change their story faster than the weather changes as soon as it no longer benefits them.. lol
”
Before you were complaining that I was comparing Solaris to Fedora, which was unfair and you said I should have been comparing it to Red Hat Enterprise… Now I compare it to Red Hat Enterprise and you say I am comparing apples and oranges. LOL
”
buddy. you were comparing solaris and fedora and saying it was solaris was better than RHEL which was a completely different product. so you clearly lost the argument
again here i meant the support services are not comparable. learn to read SLA’s
“buddy. you were comparing solaris and fedora and saying it was solaris was better than RHEL which was a completely different product. so you clearly lost the argument”
Once again, show me the kernel extensions that exist in RHEL that I cannot compile into Fedora. Until you do that, you are the one that has lost the argument.
“again here i meant the support services are not comparable. learn to read SLA’s”
You are right. The Solaris support services are much better. There are tons of value added features that Red Hat does not give you.
“Once again, show me the kernel extensions that exist in RHEL that I cannot compile into Fedora. Until you do that, you are the one that has lost the argument.
”
i repeat. a kernel is not a product. i cannot compare a future product like REDHAL EL 4.0 to a already release fedora version. maybe you have a crystal ball. i dont
“You are right. The Solaris support services are much better. There are tons of value added features that Red Hat does not give you.
”
thats of coure your opinion. I disagree
1) which version of fedora did you use.
2) did you realise the gcc options are different in fedora and redhat el. hint: 02 /O3
3) did you know about the cpu scheduler differences. hint: cfq/deadline
4) what features did you compare
5) do you have ANY kind of stats related to the informaton
when you give this information and realise that fedora and redhat el are different products and not just kernel stuff we can talk. basically you compared fedora and solaris and concluded that solaris better than redhat el 4.0 which hasnt even been released yet and wont be for yet another 4 months or so. if you want to argue that you did the right thing go ahead
<blockquote>As for X86 Solaris, I’ve got Solaris 10 build 69 installed on a Laptop (Dell Latitude C810) and a clone PC. The PC works like a champ, the laptop has some issues I haven’t had a chance to resolve ( JDS crashes when logging in, no network, etc). Download it and give it a shot.</blockquote><P>I had the same problem; only gui I could get working was the CDE. Does the sparc version of Solaris 10 have JDS as well as the x96 version?
I believe, though haven’t verified, that JDS is part of both SPARC and x86. The point they (Sun) try to stress is that there are very minimal differences between the two OSes. This makes me think that JDS is part of SPARC as well.