Talk:Solaris (operating system)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 

Requested move #2[edit]

Resolved: Page moved. CWC 02:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Solaris Operating SystemSolaris (operating system) — Consistency, ease of piping links; usually referred to as simply "Solaris", even by Sun. intgr 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. - Cyrus XIII 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Sun seems to alternatively refer to it as Solaris Operating System and simply Solaris on its website. Solaris, as noted right above me, is a more common form of the name, and I think it would be simpler to just call the article "Solaris (operating system)". – Mipadi 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. AFAICT from poking around sun.com, Sun don't use the "Solaris" name for anything but the OS, so the common name is unambiguous and shorter. (To expand something the nom wrote, [[Solaris (operating system)|]] will be equivalent to [[Solaris (operating system)|Solaris]] — neat, hey?) CWC 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support and moved per WP:SNOW. —Ruud 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

Numbering[edit]

Most recent releases of Solaris, such as 8, 9 or 10, are referred to as SunOS 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 in the operating system using the uname command not 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodendahl (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 September 2007

This turns out not to be the case:
% uname -sr
SunOS 5.10
%
--NapoliRoma 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I can confirm that as well - on Solaris 7, 8 and 10 boxes here they all report 5.7, 5.8 and 5.10 as their version -66.181.254.202 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

file systems in solaris[edit]

what filesystems are supported by solaris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.246.100 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Solaris uses an extended version of the Unix File System for disk storage. (Sun added journaling to UFS in Solaris 7, so it's not the standard UFS that came with SVR4.) Of course, it also supports FAT16, FAT32 and ISO 9660, for portable media rather than main storage. It's not like Linux, where you have several well-supported disk file systems to choose from.
Solaris also supports a variety of non-disk file systems, including tmpfs and procfs.
There are about a dozen virtual filesystems that are normally used in Solaris to provide various facilities. Neither tmpfs nor procfs are the names of any of them (maybe you were thinking of Linux). Triskelios (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Third-party open source projects have added ext2fs support to OpenSolaris (and maybe Solaris itself); I hope to try that out in a month or two. Cheers, CWC 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Read-only NTFS support is also provided through a separate project.
...and ZFS.--NapoliRoma 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Yes, of course. How embarrassing. CWC 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Other filesystems include NFS (of course), CIFS (SMB), Veritas' VxFS, OpenAFS. UDF is also supported for media. Read-only NTFS is available in addition to ext2fs. Nevada is moving towards using ZFS for root filesystems by default (as other distributions already do), which will be backported to S10. Triskelios (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget the Lustre cluster filesystem, which was bought by Sun in 2007. Raysonho (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on Single UNIX Specification[edit]

If Solaris is cirtified against Single UNIX Specification does that mean OpenSolaris is as well??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.138.57 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. (I'd say it depends on what you mean by "OpenSolaris", but the answer is no for any meaning I can think of.)
An OS in general isn't certified; specific releases are. So, Solaris 10, a release, is certified against the SUS. There is no release called "OpenSolaris" anything that has been through the certification process.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's right, "OpenSolaris" is, as far as I'm aware, the name for the open code base for which the Solaris OS releases are created, not a distinct operating system in and of itself. mike4ty4 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
OpenSolaris is now the name of what was formerly known as "Project Indiana". OpenSolaris 2008.05 was released on May 5, 2008. See the DistroWatch announcement for more information. BlueJayofEvil (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph contradicts the artlce itself[edit]

In the intro paragraph, "As of this writing, Hewlett-Packard is unable to support the platform in commercial settings." is stated, however, later in the article Solaris_(operating_system)#Supported_architectures specifically mentions HP as a supported vendor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.254.202 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that HP does not support Solaris; It is also true that Sun supports Solaris on HP systems. Not contradictory, but maybe can be made less confusing. I think that part of the lead should be reworked; "licensed" is probably not the right term and "as of this writing" forces you to study the edit history to find out when "this writing" was.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And here I thought my HP printer wouldn't work if I installed Solaris. ~Jonathan (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems extremely off topic for an opening paragraph. HP's website says: http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/492635-0-0-0-121.html, a page titled "HP ProLiant Server Support. Current HP ProLiant servers that are Sun Test Suite Certified, HP supported, and/or planned for support." I think this statement adds no value and should be removed. Dbprice (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor Article[edit]

This is not encyclopedic. This is written like a tech spec sheet crossed with a news release for industry journalists. There's not much about the pros and cons of the system, snapshots of the system or anything at a more summarized encyclopedia kind of level. This gives you lots of tech info, but actually very little info on the system itself. It's FAR too high level and detailed for an encyclopedia. Wood for the trees people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.20.209 (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh "high level and detailed"? Maybe you mean "low level and detailed"? HughesJohn (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
"Encyclopedic... pros and cons"? Solaris comprises a family of operating systems, much like Legumes comprise a family of edible food. One will not see a list of pros and cons when they look up Legumes in wikipedia. "There's not much about... snapshots of the system"? A snapshot has been included since 2006 and product logo in 2008 - I personally addressed this concern with adding additional images. "...lots of tech info, but actually very little info on the system itself" - Technical information is information on the system itself. I also addressed this concern with adding a new section on installation & usage options. I think this "Poor Article" comment is now irrelevant, can it be purged? DavidHalko (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

screenshot[edit]

We need a screenshot in order to give more detail to the reader. --frogger3140 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a variety of screen shots, can this concern be purged? DavidHalko (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The CDE screenshot is from OpenVMS, though, so we could do with a machine actually running Solaris before purging this concern. Gareth.randall (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic?[edit]

OK, so there are probably many ways this article could be improved, but compared to some other articles on similar subjects, IMHO, this one is reasonably good and fairly NPOV. Anybody have any specific criticisms? Letdorf (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC).

I mostly agree with Letdorf. Similarly, I feel the article contains a lot of good information, especially for the technically minded or those looking to weigh Solaris as a platform option. It mentions a lot of specific technologies that Solaris offers, but provides a good overview of the operating system as a whole.
I disagree with most of the comment from 81.157.20.209's "Poor article" section above. While the article doesn't make a comparison between Solaris and other OSes, that's not its purpose, but rather to explain Solaris. Pros and cons might be a reasonable addition, but pure comparisons are for the comparison page (Comparison of operating systems). As for being "HIGH level and detailed", it provides a historically- and technically-relevant overview of Solaris (save some instances that I could see being up for debate). The only thing I agree with is the addition of a screenshot.
--Placatedmayhem (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
One further point in this matter is that listing "pros" and "cons" is quite non-trivial. Solaris is a general-purpose Unix operating system, and in my opinion listing "pros" and "cons" is fundamentally opinion-based. Often such lists are influenced by the writer's experience on different operating systems. I think such lists don't belong to an encyclopedia, but rather to discussion sites.
89.27.47.68 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The article contains useful information - in particular, the reason I visited the page this morning was to find out when particular versions had been released. Posting a "pro/con" list would be difficult to do objectively and, as the previous poster noted, be appropriate for a discussion group.
--Jim Carson —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
I also disagree with most of the comment from 81.157.20.209's "Poor article" section above. The parts I did agree with, I tried to enhance by adding screen shots, adding installation options, and additional content surrounding the desktop environment. I think this comment from 81.157.20.209's "Poor article" section above no longer applies. Can this concern be purged? DavidHalko (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:DECwindows-openvms-v7.3-1.png[edit]

The image File:DECwindows-openvms-v7.3-1.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been corrected DavidHalko (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted code[edit]

To what degree does Solaris still have old AT&T code in it, to which Novell now owns the copyright? If it doesn't have any, at what point did it purge? How long did it need to have a license, or did it get a perpetual license of some kind? -- Beland (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

According to SCO v. Novell, it looks like Sun still had a Unix license when it released OpenSolaris. -- Beland (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "Unix license" means in your context. Sun bought out its rights to the SVR4 source base from Novell back in the '90s, before Novell entered into its agreement with oldSCO. This is separate from "Unix" branding, which Novell handed over to what is now The Open Group. The question that I don't think there is a documented answer to is whether there are any existing rights issues associated with Sun open sourcing the Solaris source base via the OpenSolaris community.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sol10-software-grps.gif may be deleted[edit]

I have tagged File:Sol10-software-grps.gif, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Multics family[edit]

Moved to Talk:Mac OS X: Subsection is Talk:Mac OS X#Multics Family --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in the one place. It started in Talk:Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First para of lead[edit]

There seems to be some edit-warring going on here recently. If anyone considers the sentence

Solaris is a Unix operating system originally developed by Sun Microsystems, which superseded their earlier SunOS in 1992.

to be incorrect, confusing or misleading, please discuss your objections here. Thank you. Letdorf (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

Solaris 10 Update 9 Available[edit]

I'm not sure what the exact release date was, but Solaris 10 Update 9 (Oracle Solaris 10 9/10) is available for download from Oracle. SDNick484 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Differentiate OpenSolaris and Solaris[edit]

This article mix information from OpenSolaris and Solaris. That was not a serious thing, but with the last announcements from Oracle it's really important to separate both, of course, except when referring historical events. For example, the Licence section need to be restructured, if not, wiped-out. HavokCR (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC -6)

Note that, according to the leaked memo, Solaris source code will continue to be licensed under the CDDL, it's just the OpenSolaris development model has been dropped in favour of in-house development and binary releases, followed by source releases. Letdorf (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Origin of zones[edit]

The page currently says "Solaris 10 11/06 ("U3") added ... Logical Domains.". However, I'm running a 6/06 ("U2") system with two non-global zones. So the page must be in error. Bhami (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Logical Domains (aka Oracle VM for SPARC) is hypervisor-based virtualization for SPARC T-Series processors. Zones (aka Containers) is OS-based virtualization that works on any system running Solaris 10 or later. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Initial Release of Solaris 10 not listed[edit]

Solaris 10's first release was March 2005. This can be verified by googling "solaris 10 release 3/05". I've posted this here (rather than editing the page), as I do not know if this has been brought up before (it does not appear to have been mentioned previously). Xeleema (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Solaris 10's initial release date was January 31st, 2005, as the article says. This is unfortunately a little harder to verify than it used to be, now that most of sun.com is gone.
It's called "Solaris 10 3/05" because the media kits for that release started shipping in early March, and back then that was the milestone for the "official" release date / name. But the actual OS was released, and support started, at the end of January.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
CNET article confirming this: http://news.cnet.com/Sun-releases-Solaris-10-for-free/2100-1016_3-5559021.html --NapoliRoma (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OTN reference in first Para[edit]

OTN is an existing Oracle facility (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/index.html), a portal onto lots of Oracle products, so saying "Oracle will also begin a technology partner program, called Oracle Technology Network" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.25.10 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Solaris 10 8/11 isn't out[edit]

The link it points to is for downloads of Solaris 10 9/10.--70.231.239.39 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)