> UNIX admin wrote:
> > I guess I failed to make my point - you can't engineer
> an enterprise piece of software, for example for a bank or
> an insurance agency, or the any Fortune 100 company, then
> come to the sales presentation and tell them that they must
> use OpenSolaris.
Great point. Although, this is an apple to orange case. The OpenSolaris project
is not directly comparable to an enterprise OS software release. The OSOL
2009.06 Live CD is a "core" OS distro release which again is not directly
comparable to any major enterprise software OS release. SXCE is not a
considered as an enterprise OS production release so it would be unwise to
label it as such to do its ALPHA/BETA origin. Any IT manager or system admin
can install these snapshots releases in a data center and have a go at them -
but must do so with extreme caution due to the ALPHA/BETA conditions of the
releases.
There is no TRUE production release of an OpenSolaris distro today. Definitely
not a 'enterprise-grade' OpenSolaris distribution. There was never an
enterprise-grade release of the core "OSOL Live CD" concept. Someone at Sun
marketing or elsewhere correct me on this. A third-party companies are making
appliances and doing migration projects using an OpenSolaris release but these
are special case projects.
You cannot technically consider an OpenSolaris distro on the same level of a
Debian-based distro. We'd just sit here and tell each other what does not work
"yet" on the OpenSolaris distro versus what works or was developed/ported on a
Debian-based distro. Kinda like comparing a Captain in the military to a First
Lieutenant. Field experience counts for something - I hope.
> >
> > Banks for instance will laugh you right out of the
> conference room - they won't touch anything but Solaris 10.
> So if one wants to earn a living, software MUST run on an
> enterprise OS - in this case, that enterprise OS is Solaris
> 10.
I agree with this statement. I'd laugh too since you'd hope system admins will
run enterprise-grade applications on an enterprise-grade OS. Not always the
case in reality, but we can only dream - can't we?
> Alan CooperSmith wrote:
> Banks should continue to use Solaris 10 *for now* for their
> database servers and mission critical systems - OpenSolaris releases, like
> Solaris Express releases before it, are previews of the next enterprise
> release of Solaris - they're works in progress, good enough for many tasks,
> but
> not ready for deployment to scenarios where you want to run the same OS
> for years without upgrading to new releases. There's a reason it doesn't
> say "Solaris 11" on
> the CD labels yet.
>
> You're getting to see the process from the slaughterhouse
> through the kitchen, instead of just getting the steak delivered on a plate
> when
> it's fully cooked like you did before - it's going to be messy, but hopefully
> we'll end up with a better product in the end.
>
Yes, Since the inception of the OpenSolaris project many people understood that
the 'biweekly' releases are "works in progress" as well as "ENGINEERING
RELEASES" which consolidate to the BETA/RC/RTM releases around the near six
month cycle (i.e. the 2008.11, 2009.06, 2010.03 releases). All the questions
about SVR4 packaging and default bash shells are good points to bring up. Yet,
we have SVR4 packaging support and options of various shells. People chose
whether to use hammers versus nail guns - so you pick what suits you.
Hopefully, these questions will only make the final product release much better
due to user comments like the ones provided in this email thread.
Ken Mays
Atlanta, GA
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
