Hi everybody, bad images have the tendency to keep hanging around long after they have become invalid. Solaris once was really slow in many areas, but has dramatically improved in the past years. But its image of being slow is still present in the head of many people. Most of these people might be willing to revalidate their opinion if one tells them that their image has become obsolete. But these revalidation efforts will be stopped immediately, if the old impression seems to come up again.
Concerning Solaris I have been thinking about what the major issues might be that keep up Solaris' image of being slow. If one evaluates Solaris in general (not for a very specific purpose), one won't start with top features like live-upgrade, dtrace, and so on. Additionally, one won't setup a system with many processors and demanding applications. So IMO the very first steps someone makes are very important, because the first impressions must be very _convincing_, to assure people that a further investigation is worth the effort. So I thought about in what parts of Solaris the Slowaris image is still valid. Especially, where does the system give a bad impression that might be valid, but is not applicable to Solaris in general. I have come up with the following points: - default DVD based install process (slow) - default patch process (very slow, see my comment in the performance discussion) - USB performance (very slow, I raised an RFE some time ago) - SMC (slow and very limited), webmin disabled by default - default setup (PATH, shell, missing alternative security profiles) - missing option to setup a sample user during install Don't get me wrong: ZFS, DTrace, and the like are really great, but in my experience many people won't give Solaris a try long enough to get to these sweet spots, and that's sad. Any comments or thoughts? Cheers, Tom This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
