Hello.
I understand your point, but I thought that OpenSolaris for Sun is much
more like Fedora for Red Hat. Fedora may be not very stable. And you
know, even release versions of OpenSolaris are sometimes quite
incomplete or buggy (e.g. we faced ioat driver bug which crashed system
several times per day and some gdm bugs)). But Fedora have binary
updates for free... So I thought that commercial support is a feature of
Solaris, not OpenSolaris. Ok, I was wrong, let's close this thread.
P.S. After some discussion with my chief we agreed that OpenSolaris is
not so important for us and doesn't have any incomparable features to
Linux as terminal server. So we are going to investigate other platforms
for terminals... We need to support already working SunRays, so for now
we will migrate terminal server to linux while searching for other
decisions which will allow working with heavy graphical applications
(including Windows applications) from terminals...
TLDSP has one very interesting feature: it may run apps using local
client resources ("thick" clients are quite common nowadays). But what
to do with windows-specific apps which don't work good by RDP is not
obvious.
В вт, 20/10/2009 в 13:37 -0500, Shawn Walker пишет:
> Alexander wrote:
> >> The source code is also available, so Sun is not
> >> denying you the fixes,
> >> they're just not providing free binaries to everyone.
> >>
> >> Updates are a form of support, and support costs.
> >>
> > I know, I know, that everything costs something... And a community of users
> > is also a very expensive thing...
> > Let's see at other open source operating systems:
> > FreeBSD ports and release branch - updated regularly, updates are free
> > Different Linux distros:
> > Debian - updated regularly, updates are free
> > Ubuntu - updated regularly, updates are free
> > CentOS - updated regularly, updates are free
> >
> > And Sun decided (may be quite late) to make Solaris an open source OS
> > world... Isn't it good to stick to the best traditions? :)
>
> It is open source. Even Richard Stallman has made it very clear that
> there is nothing wrong with charging for binaries, and has frequently
> used that as an example for companies that want to produce open source
> software.
>
> And none of the distributions you mentioned are primarily produced by a
> publicly-owned company. They have significant volunteer bases that do
> the majority of the development, etc. Or they have significant
> corporate or private sponsorship that allows them to give everything
> away for free.
>
> You're also implying that comparing OpenSolaris to any of those makes it
> equal in terms of support, etc. However, I think most people would
> agree that OpenSolaris is closer to RedHat Enterprise Linux than Debian,
> Fedora, etc. I will assume that you did not intentionally omit that,
> since RedHat does not provide free updates for RHEL.
>
> If OpenSolaris is superior in value to you (DTrace, ZFS, zones, etc.),
> and you need stability, guaranteed fixes, etc. I don't think that it is
> unreasonable to ask that you pay for support.
>
> Now whether the prices of that support are reasonable is up to you and
> something you should provide feedback about to Sun directly through
> customer service.
--
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
system administrator of Computer Center of South Federal University
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
