People know about me that I have some things against OpenSolaris, but here I must be on its side.
>From point of security - I'm using OpenBSD. Their base system is most secure >OS available for free. But situation with third party SW from packages or >ports is different. You must count with it. They just don't have enough people >to make same code audit as in base system. I think that this situation is very >similar in OpenSolaris project. But one problem is here. There is some "rule" >that security updates are every 2 weeks in new build in dev repository. This >is now broken with svn_128 skipped. I think that this must be done more stable. >From point of use - OpenSolaris/Solaris is something like Fedora/RedHat. So >OpenSolaris is mainly testing platform for actual or future releases of >Solaris. OpenSolaris is very young project so there is high progress in >development. It means that if you want support for some old or newer HW which >wasn't supported before then you must use dev version. Thanks to ZFS snapshots >and BE I think that best version for users is dev. If company have server or >something like that then they will use release and buy support for it. If you >want release with security updates then you must pay or wait for Solaris 11. >Or you can use Solaris 10. So Oracle want to buy Sun, but we must wait for EU in this case and you must still think about "age" of OpenSolaris. Support for 3rd party apps is very weak, HW support comes mainly from Solaris 10 and this OS was/is mainly for servers so if you buy something which is in HCL then you will be mostly ok. In the end I think that main error is on marketing/PR side. They present it as alternative for Ubuntu or similar OS and it doesn't true of course. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org
