Re: Future direction of Solaris?



scm23@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 2009-08-09, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
scm23@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
don't see this as a viable model for an enterprise quality OS. If they
pull it off, it will be the 1st time in history it has ever been done.
How do you define "enterprise quality" so that it omits Mac OS X
and any variety of Linux ?

Linux has too many problems to be enterprise quality for a long while yet,
and it may never get there because it's not an enterprise oriented piece of
software. Linux is really a developer's platform, not a production
platform. That's fine with me, I run several Linux machines and like it just
the way it is. I don't have any experience with Mac OS X but I can't imagine
anybody running a business on it. I think there is a lot of confusion
between what may be used in an enterprise and what the enterprise actually
*needs* to run the real work it does. That's why I posted my thread, aside
from Solaris, I don't see any real production-quality OS available for x86.

Just because a product may be used in an enterprise doesn't automatically
make that product "enterprise quality" unfortunately it usually means
there's nothing better or cheaper available. Even though Windows is used a
lot *in* various enterprises, it doesn't run mission critical workloads.

Just because your local garage has a couple of scooters they use to run back
to the parts warehouse doesn't mean scooters are what mechanics use to get
their jobs done. But that's what you seem to be saying.

Part of being enterprise quality also depends on the development and support
organizations backing up a product. When you depend on something for your
business you have to be able to get correct fixes when you come across a
problem. That doesn't happen with Linux or BSD because those people aren't
being paid to do what we want, and that is fine. But that is not an
enterprise development model. Many things factor in to what is suitable in
enterprise computing, not just quality, not just technical merit, but things
like having someone to fix something in the middle of the night. I'm also in
the tech support business so I understand this well.

I'm comparing Solaris on the server and workstation to z/OS on the
server. That's the angle I'm coming from. I don't know how valid a
comparison that is, but I was hoping Solaris would deliver on the small
server and workstation the kind of performance and trustworthiness I have
come to know in 36 years of using IBM mainframe hardware and software.
And, on the other hand, if "enterprises" are surviving
in spite of using only Windows, how can OpenSolaris
be any worse?

There is a difference between mission critical workloads and word
processing, emailing, etc. Windows does ok on clerical stuff but I would not
and do not trust it for anything serious and I don't use it except vary
rarely anymore. I don't think OpenSolaris can be any worse than Windows, but
I don't use Windows. For me the comparison isn't relevant.

Steve

Except, perhaps, when word processing and/or emailing ARE your critical workloads!

Windows does what it does quite well these days. I'm writing about W/2K and W/XP. I haven't heard anything good about Vista and am not inclined to try it just because it's there!
.