OpenSolaris 2008.11 – Year of the Laptop? 223
Ahmed Kamal writes "Is Linux getting too old for you? Are you interested to see what other systems such as OpenSolaris have to offer? OpenSolaris has some great features, such as ZFS and dtrace, which make it a great server OS — but how do you think it will fare on a laptop? Let's take an initial look at the most recent OpenSolaris 2008.11 pre-release on recentish laptop hardware."
Year of the sell out (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with you but for one point: The desktop arena is the general purpose 'swiss army knife' area, while server software has specific issues of speed, security, and robustness. Sure, they have overlap, but there are different generalized criteria for both.
I like what Solaris is becomming, and there are definite advantages to running Solaris in certain environments on certain hardware, especially when speed and robustness are critical factors.
Now I'm not talking about running DukeNukem, I'm talking about when an extra 100 transactions per second makes meaningful differences to your bottom line. This is when server OS software is a critical thing. Typically, desktop software OS is not what you want running a server with such critical issues under the microscope.
Solaris has historically been an OS which can be trusted in the server environment. I look with hope that they will continue and build on such a reputation.
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between a server OS and a desktop OS is not necessarily what they're capable of...most operating systems these days can serve as a halfway decent server or desktop system. The difference is really what each of them are optimized for.
A distribution or release that's designated as a "desktop OS" will tend to include a lot more software for that purpose, such as multiple desktop environments, 3D video drivers, drivers for various sound cards, calendar apps, word processors, and the like. It may also have a kernel optimized for those components.
A server OS, on the other hand, will likely be missing a lot of the eye candy, may not have any 3D or advanced sound drivers, and may be missing a bunch of the applications you would expect on a desktop machine. It may also come pre-installed with various server apps that would be of little use on a desktop machine, like a web or DNS server. Likewise, its kernel may be optimized for these server tasks.
For example, if you're building a desktop system, you might want something that will automatically install several desktop managers, the full suite of KDE and Gnome apps, etc on it. If you're looking for a server OS, such things are just a waste of space, and the installer adding them to your machine automatically is not desirable.
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Desktop OS and Server OS do not overlap. I know that Linux can and is BOTH but it is not really. A server OS is an OS built on stability and security. A desktop OS is one built on user experience and usability. There is sometimes a fine line, and a server can have a Desktop, but it is typically a trimmed version of a Desktop with many services not running that would be on the "desktop" release.
A desktop OS will have services and programs enabled that specifically disqualify it from being a server OS. Programs that listen on network ports, dont provide any kind of authentication to access devices or write to files, dont have a thorough firewall. A webserver should listen only on webserver specific ports and those necessary for remote admin. I can think of less than 10. (do a `netstat -a|grep LISTEN` and count the ports your desktop is listening on and then do the same on a server(http,ftp,ssh,rsync,and some specifics for server type like imaps or smb).
The analog here is a brand new Lincoln truck. Sure it looks like a truck, but its very nature says that it cannot be a worktruck without losing its status as a luxury vehicle. You could dis-acknowledge its luxury status and MAKE it a work truck, but then it is no longer a luxury vehicle because there has been consideration to the nice paint job, the chrome, the soft leather seats, etc.
So the point is:
Ubuntu 8.04 server is a server OS. If you add everything to make it a desktop OS, it is now Ubuntu 8.04 Desktop.
Don't code for anything besides Linux!! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you code on anything besides Linux the evil proprietary companies will steal your code.
Seriously though - if you write something for OpenSolaris - how is the ownership of your code in doubt? Just like an app written for Linux does not have to be GPL'ed, or an app written for Windows is not owned by Microsoft.
Typical Linux zealotry in action.
Re:It's a trap (Score:1, Insightful)
I can't do any better than to point you to a site where this is more completely covered. Go to groklaw [groklaw.net] and review the legal documents if you would become more informed on this issue. If you can't be bothered, well, then I claim superior knowledge of the subject because I did and have followed the conflict since 2003 (and have followed the products since 1980).
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it is cool to try out different OSes from time to time, but is there really any solid technical reason why anyone would choose solaris on a laptop over linux?
If you truly are a Linux fan - isn't your first phrase answer enough? I've asked this sort of question about Linux enough times (e.g. "Do we really need another distro?" or "Do we really need yet another window manager?"), and Linux fanboys all think that "because we can" is a good enough answer in and of itself. That's fine; but if it's true when we talk about Linux, it's also true when we're discussing other operating systems.
Wow. OpenSolaris is a rough ride. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you thought the driver situation was bad for Linux, and worse for *BSD, it's even worser fro OpenSolaris. Yes, I said worser. It's worser enough for me to want to use a fake, worse word to describe it. :(
I mean, great idea guys, but in execution, any OS that locks up solid so you have to ssh in remotely and kill your login session so you can log in, or that makes compilation of something as simple as Quake practically impossible--installed GNU toolchain or not--is it really worth it on commodity hardware?
We have OpenSolaris desktop machines installed at work, and the amount of effort the OpenSolaris users go through.. my god, it's herculean. And I'm making this judgement call sitting atop a farm of NetBSD machines. So you fucking know--you KNOW--that when I say something's a rough ride, you better fucking listen.
Not that it's a complete dearth of utility. There's lots of stuff going for it. I'm just saying. Fair warning.
(P.S. Tinkering with it? Good luck.)
Re:"Server" vs "Desktop" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
A desktop OS will have services and programs enabled that specifically disqualify it from being a server OS. Programs that listen on network ports, dont provide any kind of authentication to access devices or write to files, dont have a thorough firewall. A webserver should listen only on webserver specific ports and those necessary for remote admin. I can think of less than 10. (do a `netstat -a|grep LISTEN` and count the ports your desktop is listening on and then do the same on a server(http,ftp,ssh,rsync,and some specifics for server type like imaps or smb).
Huh? This sounds like a bad idea for both server and desktop alike.
Firstly, it's pretty well-worn knowledge by now that it's a darn good idea to run a firewall in any context, unless you positively, absolutely trust your local network.
Second, any extraneous services should either be disabled by default on a desktop machine, or be able to be disabled quite easily. As you mentioned, it's a trivial task to take a look at what ports are open, and is equally trivial to close those ports and/or kill the underlying processes if necessary.
Microsoft learned this lesson with Windows 2000. By stripping down their "Server" OS, they (possibly inadvertently) produced what was arguably the desktop best operating ever made by the company. Sure, it didn't come bundled with much, although that was a large part of the beauty of it. Most of the "value-added" features that came with XP were crap, and rarely used by anybody. For its time, it was fast, stable, secure, and quite easy to use. The architectural differences between the 'Server' and 'Workstation' versions were virtually nonexistent.
Unfortunately, they forgot whatever lessons they might have learned with Win2k, and came out with XP, which though a step up from 98/Me!, wasn't nearly as fast or secure as 2k, and eventually Vista, which predominantly added bloat, and none of the much touted architectural improvements that were supposed to have been in the pipeline.
Re:Count me (Score:1, Insightful)
A few nitpicks.
Yes, Unix is a trademark. It's a trademark because it was the name of an OS (System V being the last release of it, IIRC).
There's no such thing as an "implementation of UNIX". Standards are implemented, Unix was an OS, not a standard. Unix was licensed out to various companied, first from AT&T, later from Novell, and it was tweaked to those various parties' needs. AIX for example isn't IBM's "implementation" of System V, it started off as System V. AIX is what IBM did to SYS V. Same goes for the other Unices.
Linux isn't an "implementation" of Unix. Linux isn't Unix, it never was, that's why GNU is called GNU (GNU's Not Unix).
FreeBSD is a full-fledged Unix, but not System V based. It forked from 4.4BSD, which, as a result of the settlements for the AT&T vs. Berkeley case, doesn't contain any System V code.
SunOS was a BSD-dervided OS, forked from the original BSD. Solaris is System V based. Worth pointing out, either way, neither is an "implementation" of Unix, both were forks of Unix.
As far as Sun owning the copyright to Solaris, that's not entirely true. Lots of the innards are licensed to them from elsewhere (such as AT&T), that's why they didn't just open up Solaris, and made OpenSolaris instead. They opened up the parts they own, and are building around that, they can open what they don't own.
It's the same reason IBM will never open up AIX, they can't, part of the codebase isn't theirs (though they did release JFS, which is part of AIX), just like they can't open up OS/2 either, since part of the code isn't theirs. Just like SGI opened up parts of IRIX (XFS and OpenGL) but not IRIX itself, since they don't own all the copyrights associated with it.
OS X, however is different, it's forked from BSD (4.3, I think), post AT&T settlement (at which point BSD and its derivatives were no longer bound by AT&T License restrictions, because it was stripped of System V code), which is why all of Darwin is open.
Yes, GP's post is full of FUD, but not for the reasons you think. System V based Unix vendors have to be very careful about which parts they open up, since the code doesn't all belong to them. They have three choices, they can't either open up the parts they own, and rebuild the parts they don't (like Sun is doing), or try to get permission from Novell.
There are two exceptions, companies like IBM who have grandfather clauses or so to speak, since their licenses were acquired from AT&T and which Novell has no jurisdiction over (this was IBM's best defense in the SCO drama, before it came to light that Novell is the actual owner of System V) and people (like Apple and the free BSDs) who ship forks of post-settlement BSD-Unix, which Novell also has no claim to.
So, yes, the x86 drivers may not be included in Solaris anymore, but the point is the core of Solaris is still System V at its heart, and Novell still owns the related copyrights.
Get the story straight, fighting stupid FUD with even more stupid FUD is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline, it just doesn't work, and you're causing more damage by trying.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was thinking the same thing about MacOS. You get a full UNIX plus the benefits (zfs, dtrace) mentioned in the summary on top of an excellent platform with probably the best app support of any UNIX.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The availability of "yet another option" doesn't make any year "a year of that yet other option".
It's nice that Solaris x86 is finally not being treated like
an ugly redheaded stepchild. Although it's about 10 years too
late and that ship has sailed already.
I would imagine any OEM would have this nagging doubt in the
back of their mind about Sun and the future of Solaris and
what Sun might do in the future to screw things up again.
Re:Year of the sell out (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is Linux getting too old for you?
Oh right, if Linux is getting too old for you, then clearly what you need to do is pick up a direct genetic (source code) descendant of AT&T System V.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? they're only of dubious legality in the US and other countries with software patents, but there's plenty of countries that have saner legal systems, and no reason why distros can't cater to them instead.
Re:It's a trap (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to dig down very far. The relevant Judge's ruling is currently on Groklaw's main page as the top article. In red for ease of locating.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
There aren't. It's supposedly patented, but since you cannot patent software in most of the world, no-one cares.
Commerical UNIX Gone Open - Most Missing The Point (Score:2, Insightful)
The significance of this achievement is that we're talking about the first major, major commerical UNIX having gone to an open source model. We're talking about Solaris running on a laptop of all things, with close to x86 desktop parallelism with Linux. I can't think of IBM (AIX), HP (HP-UX), SGI (Irix), or anyone else even thinking about doing this.
We're talking an operating system with decades of history, gigantic commerical leverage, and very robust, enterprise-class features.
One that you can run on a dinky laptop.
Enjoy it. Appreciate it. Learn something new.